Cash-First Programme: final evaluation report

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

Key findings

Governance and collaborative working:

• Around 33% of available funding was provided as direct cash support, with the majority allocated to staffing and delivery infrastructure, reflecting the resource-intensive nature of providing crisis support.
• Community Planning Partnerships improved alignment within local areas through service integration and a focus on sustainability.
• Building and maintaining relationships required substantial time and resource.

Engagement:

• Engagement with local partners, stakeholders and people with lived experience improved over time.
• Attitudes shifted from initial scepticism among some local core partners, referral partners and stakeholders to greater acceptance of Cash-First approaches. However, some concerns remained around safeguarding and sustaining engagement, particularly with those facing complex needs.

Targeting of initiatives and reach:

• The Delivery Partners increasingly used local data, intelligence and learning to refine targeting and expand reach to previously underserved groups.
• While new approaches improved reach in Stage 2, challenges remained in engaging those with multiple barriers or in very remote locations, and awareness of support was uneven.

Use of data:

• 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.

This chapter sets out how Cash-First approaches were planned and implemented over the duration of the Programme and assesses whether this was in line with the Scottish Government’s original intention. It considers the various governance mechanisms employed, partner, stakeholder and service user engagement, project target groups and how data and knowledge was used to shape planning and delivery. It also informed how local projects adjusted their approaches as the Programme progressed.

Approach and interventions

A total funding allocation of up to £200,000 was made available to each Delivery Partner throughout the Programme. Activity was driven by, and shaped according to, local context. The funding supported 10,611 interactions in Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the evaluation and distributed £526,533 directly to people facing food crisis over the duration of the Programme.

In Year 1 of delivery, there was a total of 7,292 interactions. Through these interactions, the Programme distributed £300,962 in Year 1. In Year 2, there were 3,319 interactions reported for the evaluation.

Some of these were repeat users who may have had multiple payments, or people sharing a household. Therefore, these figures do not reflect unique service users, but show the scale of delivery of the Programme. In addition to this, the Glasgow Delivery Partner’s test of change which took place in the final two quarters of Programme delivery supported 77 unique beneficiaries. It should be noted that the Glasgow Delivery Partner recorded individuals or families supported and not interactions and this activity took place over a different time period. Further detail on this can be found in the methodology in Appendix B.

In Year 2, £225,571 of Cash-First payments was distributed.

It should be noted that some of the Delivery Partners stopped delivery at the end of quarter 2 or very early in quarter 3 of Year 2. This resulted in a natural tapering in interventions and spend as projects were winding down.

The balance of funding between emergency cash payments and shopping vouchers (33%) and other activities illustrates the significant proportion of the Programme’s funding (67%) that was required to develop local Cash-First approaches, increase staff and service capacity to deliver, raise awareness, build referral pathways and networks, and engage individuals. As is further discussed in this chapter, implementing the Programme was resource intensive for most of the Delivery Partners.

The Programme was designed to be implemented and delivered in each area through a Delivery Partner and local core partners that reflected local infrastructure, characteristics and need. It was intended to test different planning, management and delivery models. Each of the eight Delivery Partners tailored their delivery approach to their local area, with different ways of understanding and assessing local need and priorities. For example, rurality was highlighted as creating a particular range of issues. There is often a “rural premium” on the price of food due to higher distribution costs. This is compounded by limited competition and a lack of larger supermarkets that can offer lower prices through economies of scale. Demonstrating this, the Aberdeenshire Delivery Partner reported that the rural premium can add up to 40% to food prices. In rural areas, a lack of public transport, and the cost of this, can also be a barrier to accessing food.

Some of the Delivery Partners focussed on delivering direct advice and support, and others focussed on mapping local pathways and undertaking smaller tests of change.

A range of models were delivered across the Delivery Partners, which included:

• In Aberdeenshire, a trusted partner approach was designed to ensure all areas of Aberdeenshire could receive the same level of support, using a trauma informed “Tell Us Once” approach to delivering services for people facing food insecurity. Delivery included the dispersal of cash and vouchers for local shops, as well as developing both residents’ and partners’ understanding of services available to residents.
• In Aberdeen City, cash was disbursed through a network of trusted partners who reported to the Delivery Partner. This meant there was a wide range of recipients, pathways, and processes in place.
• A ‘No Wrong Door’ approach in Edinburgh sought to map service provision, educate and engage all relevant service providers as a means to strengthen local pathways. This was then broadened with a series of tests of change across defined areas and with specific groups. Activity was proposed, scoped and agreed with key partners to prevent duplication and maximise learning.
• In Fife, individuals in target areas accessed a sustained, 6-month Programme of wraparound support and payments. This took place in specific localities and with defined target groups, and a series of 6-month Programmes were delivered across the area. Recipients were targeted, identified and supported by frontline workers.
• In Glasgow, a systems change approach was taken that focussed on the system infrastructure and how this could be strengthened to achieve sustainable change. This also led to a test of change in Year 2 that focussed on specific groups identified in Year 1 of the Programme.
• A welfare rights approach in North Lanarkshire sought to provide people with the wider support they needed and move them away from food bank dependency.
• The Orkney Delivery Partner aligned food and fuel support and worked with a wide range of local core partners and referral partners in a network across the isles.
• The West Dunbartonshire model offered access to cash in a crisis with the opportunity to apply up to three times over an 18-month period to a maximum value, with referrals to additional services.

In some cases, local delivery approaches underwent significant changes in Year 2, driven by local characteristics and learning from Year 1, for example:

• The Edinburgh Delivery Partner initially intended to focus on strengthening systems and pathways. However, in the first year of the Programme, an opportunity to deliver a small test of change was identified. This was a result of the engagement with services that the Delivery Partner had undertaken, and their growing understanding of gaps in meeting the needs of local people. The Edinburgh test of change was piloted in one locality and subsequently rolled out across the city, as the Programme progressed into Year 2.
• Fife acknowledged the high levels of economic variation across the area, and mixed demographics across urban and rural areas. As a result, the Delivery Partner planned a series of seven tests of change reflecting the seven decentralised Fife localities. Ultimately, the Delivery Partner implemented five local area projects providing direct financial and wraparound support. These were delivered alongside a further two Cash-First projects, to enhance learning and services Fife-wide. These two projects were an evaluation of one area’s existing support offerings aligned to a Cash-First approach, and an additional Fife-wide workstream working alongside the Scottish Welfare Fund team, which was introduced in September 2025. This gave shopping vouchers and benefit checks to people who were food insecure awaiting a decision for their Scottish Welfare Fund crisis grant application.
• The Orkney Delivery Partner reported in Year 1 that bringing people together to share expertise and experiences was not appropriate for Orkney given the dispersed population. However, as delivery of the Programme progressed, the Delivery Partner identified that service users were keen to come together. Consequently, in Year 2, the Delivery Partner explored setting up Lived Experience Panels to inform a Cash-First approach and wider strategies. This work is ongoing.
• The Orkney Delivery Partner reported a particular challenge in providing consistent and sustained support as there was a recurring need to build new relationships with organisations and other service providers due to staff changes. This is particularly acute in Orkney where there is a reportedly high turnover of staff, coupled with a smaller population. It created specific barriers both for individuals, who had to build new trust relationships with new workers and potentially repeat their story; and for service providers, who had to raise awareness and understanding of a Cash-First approach and the Orkney project amongst new staff.
• The approach taken in Glasgow was driven by the City’s large population and the high levels of food insecurity. This led to the Delivery Partner initially taking a systems change approach to strengthening the support network to tackle food insecurity, rather than directly distributing cash to individuals. Using data about groups who were not currently well served by existing services, due to eligibility or low engagement, in Year 1 of the Programme, informed the development a test of change in Year 2. This focussed primarily on refugees and asylum seekers and people living in localities where high levels of need had been identified.

A detailed overview of each Delivery Partner’s local project approaches is included at Appendix C.

Governance and collaborative working

There was no standard governance model in place across the eight Delivery Partners, although in many cases, local Community Planning structures were used to manage the Programme. This also promoted and facilitated partnership working.

In seven of the eight Delivery Partners, governance arrangements remained consistent throughout the Programme duration. These were:

• Aberdeen City, where the Delivery Partner was Aberdeen Council of Voluntary Organisations (ACVO), the Third Sector Interface (TSI). The Delivery Partner reported on Cash-First in relation to the Cash-First Charter, within the Local Outcome Improvement Plan, which is delivered by Aberdeen City Council Community Planning.
• Aberdeenshire, where the Delivery Partner was Aberdeenshire Council. The Delivery Partner reported to Aberdeenshire Council.
• Edinburgh, where the Delivery Partner was Edinburgh Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP). The Delivery Partner reported to The Edinburgh Partnership (the Community Planning Partnership).
• Fife, where the Delivery Partner was Fife Council. The Delivery Partner reported to the Community Planning Partnership -Tackling Poverty and Preventing Crisis Board. Each area also had their own steering/working group comprising of a number of council and third sector partners.
• Glasgow, where the Delivery Partner was Glasgow Centre for Population Health (GCPH). The Delivery Partner reported to the project management team, comprising GCPH, Glasgow City Council, Glasgow HSCP Health Improvement Team and Trussell.
• North Lanarkshire, where North Lanarkshire Council took the Delivery Partner role. The Delivery Partner reported to the Community Planning Partnership- Tackling Poverty group.
• And West Dunbartonshire, where the Delivery Partner was also the local Council. The Delivery Partner reported to West Dunbartonshire Cost of Living Group.

Only the Orkney Delivery Partner made significant changes to their governance arrangements. The Delivery Partner in Orkney, Voluntary Action Orkney (the TSI), reported to the Community Planning Partnership - Cost of Living Task Force. However, Cash-First was not a formal or planned aspect of the Community Planning Partnership (CPP) activities, or the Cost of Living Task Force workstream. As the Programme progressed, the Orkney Delivery Partner recognised there would be value in embedding their local project more fully and formally within the CPP through the Cost-of-Living Task Force, in order to align with other initiatives in this workstream. This also positioned a Cash-First approach within the wider scope of the CPP with the aim of improving its longer-term sustainability.

The interim evaluation report recognised the benefits to aligning with existing structures, such as CPPs. These provided established mechanisms and a framework into which a Programme could be integrated and helped ensure alignment with relevant local poverty reduction strategies. The governance changes made by the Orkney Delivery Partner demonstrate how they proactively took steps to modify their Cash-First approach to integrate more closely with local structures as the project evolved.

Engagement

This section details the range of partnership models and approaches undertaken by the Delivery Partners to implement the Programme, and the strengths and limitations of these. It demonstrates how the understanding of Cash-First approaches among local core partners and referral partners evolved over the Programme, and how the Delivery Partners’ approaches to engaging people with lived experience developed in this time. It outlines the key engagement challenges the Delivery Partners faced and how these were addressed.

Partnership models

The evaluation has identified two principal models of partnership working employed by the Delivery Partners:

1. Community Planning, where the local Programme Delivery Partner formed part of the wider Community Planning ecosystem and operated within this. This enabled multiple public and third sector organisations to be brought together under the same umbrella to facilitate joint working. The Community Planning approach also provided a formal governance framework, as noted above.

2. The Trusted Partner model, where organisations with similar or shared values and aims worked together to achieve the Programme’s objectives.

One Delivery Partner, Aberdeen City, employed a combination of both approaches. It engaged with Community Planning partners to share findings of Cash-First approaches and allow for conversations about future development of sustainable Cash-First approaches beyond the Programme. The Delivery Partner also worked with a Trusted Partners network to build deeper and new relationships with wider partners in the third sector.

The eight Delivery Partners and local core partners comprised a number of organisations and partners, who usually had a history of working together, for example, in developing or implementing a local poverty-related strategy.

The approach taken by the Delivery Partners to maximise pre-existing relationships was in part driven by the very complex support landscapes that exist around poverty and food insecurity. Choosing to work with a known organisation with shared values and experience meant that the Programme could be mobilised more quickly than if new relationships had to be brokered and built. In the second stage of the evaluation, the Orkney and Glasgow Delivery Partners reported that they expanded their referral partner network (in Orkney) and stakeholder network (in Glasgow), as their understanding of the landscape continued to grow, and in response to the needs of individuals.

One Delivery Partner stated that, for them, there were benefits to not being part of a local authority service. They believed that sitting outside of a local authority gave them greater agility and flexibility in delivery, and made it easier to collaborate and build relationships with Third Sector and community partners, who could be reluctant to engage with the local authority. Contrasting with this, and so emphasising the range of approaches and local characteristics in the delivery areas, another discussed the challenges with setting up new relationships from a position outside of the local authority, saying:

It seemed like […] areas that had […] the delivery agency as the Council or as third sector working with the Council, seemed to work better because they had [partner] links already and didn't have to start off working on [these] (Delivery Partner)

The Programme required significant time investment to develop the new processes and engagement mechanisms and build and strengthen the relationships required to support effective delivery. Achieving balance between the development of the Programme and actual frontline delivery was a persistent issue for the Delivery Partners and local core partners throughout the life of the Programme. While particularly time intensive in the early stages of the Programme, maintaining and nurturing relationships and continuing to build new relationships was a significant resource requirement that extended over the Programme duration. One Delivery Partner commented:

How much time do we spend trying to work with other organisations and to bring a network together versus how much time do we actually get cash in people's hands when they need it? (Local core partner)

Another Delivery Partner reported that their main challenge with engaging partners, stakeholders and people with lived experience was limited resources, saying:

It's been really challenging to engage […] in a way that allows us to demonstrate some level of impact [..] Bear in mind the funding versus the scale of the issue that we've got. (Delivery Partner)

Partner understanding of, and support for, Cash-First approaches

There is evidence of a change in understanding of Cash-First approaches among the Delivery Partners and local core partners from the early stages and as the Programme progressed. These changes were due to ongoing experiences of implementing Cash-First approaches and delivering wraparound and holistic support.

Delivery Partners and local core partners

The interim evaluation, based on Stage 1 research, reported that, despite a generally good understanding of the principles of a Cash-First approach among the Delivery Partners and local core partners, the Learning Partner had identified some inconsistency in understanding of what was meant by a Cash-First approach in this group. Along with this, the Learning Partner reported different interpretations of ‘prevention’ across the Delivery Partners and local core partners. This was supported by the interviews with the Delivery Partners and also service users, which highlighted Cash-First funding being used for the provision of items other than emergency food, for example in one case the funds contributed to the purchase of a new washing machine; and in another, the funding supported wider employability needs. While these interventions aimed to be preventative, they suggested a lack of clarity as to the purpose of the Programme to provide emergency payments for food and then support prevention of future financial crisis through welfare rights and income maximisation advice. These circumstances also highlight the complexity of people’s needs beyond immediate food insecurity.

It is clear from the research in Stage 2 of the evaluation that the Delivery Partners’ and local core partners’ understanding of the Scottish Government’s Cash-First approach developed over the Programme duration and from Stage 1 to Stage 2 of the evaluation. There is evidence that, in the second stage of the evaluation, the Delivery Partners and local core partners were more consistent in their interpretation of what a Cash-First approach meant in the context of the Programme; and that their understanding of the overall approach, its complexity, and its implications improved. This is detailed below.

The Delivery Partners recognised that there can be specific challenges for individuals when a Cash-First approach is adopted. One example given was that, even when cash is provided, some people may not have access to food in their area that met their individual needs. They may also not have access to transport; or the ability to use transport to access food, for example due to health-related barriers. For these people, food may be preferable to cash and be the most appropriate solution. It was also clear from the research with the Delivery Partners, local core partners and Cash-First service users that food and fuel insecurity are closely aligned, and that giving people cash for food does not take account of whether they have money for fuel or the facilities to cook.

There was increased recognition in the second stage of the evaluation among the Delivery Partners that choice and dignity are key aspects of a Cash-First approach. One Delivery Partner stated:

Nobody should rely on others to tell them what to eat. (Delivery Partner)

Other Delivery Partners were clear that choice and dignity are not always attained simply by offering cash alone. For example, one described it follows:

In an ideal world […] it would be about being able to provide people that choice. There's the choice element of Cash-First, if you like, but then another choice of, well, what's going to work for you - actual cash or [a supermarket] voucher? (Delivery Partner)

This also highlights that the Delivery Partners were clear on the importance of person-centred approaches that took account of a range of needs and circumstances.

However, one local core partner identified a risk of dependency on the cash provided, and an inability for Cash-First approaches to address long-term challenges saying:

Initially, I saw [the] Cash-First [payment] as a helpful emergency measure, but over time I realised that it raised expectations and became something people relied on in their budgeting. I now see Cash-First as more of a temporary sticking plaster rather than a long-term solution. (Local core partner)

This local core partner recognised how the Programme integrated with other services and approaches to addressing poverty, but they reported that uptake of wraparound and holistic services “fluctuated.” They also expressed a view that the Programme had not created lasting impacts because some service users had:

…factored Cash-First into their budgets without making any changes to their spending habits. (Local core partner)

For services to be fully person-centred they must also be responsive and evolving, which can mean building new relationships, creating new pathways or bringing new trusted partners on board. Due to the time and resources required, the Delivery Partners and local core partners sometimes had to choose between building capacity or delivering services. They tended to prioritise service delivery over building networks.

It was also reported by the Delivery Partners that referral partners could sometimes lack staff capacity to make referrals to the local Programme, and instead, understandably, prioritised their own delivery. This was variously reported by the Delivery Partners as being due to the additional time, resource and paperwork required to make Cash-First referrals.

Wider stakeholders

The interim evaluation identified a mixed understanding of the Programme and the term “Cash-First” across wider stakeholders. Some wider stakeholders demonstrated a good appreciation of the vision and aims of the Programme as an approach to tackling poverty and food insecurity. In particular, the Aberdeen City Delivery Partner reported that they had encountered a very positive and open view of a Cash-First approach from the outset and that this facilitated open discussions with all their trusted partners at an early stage.

As the Programme progressed to Year 2, the Delivery Partners developed a greater clarity of the reasons for inconsistent understanding of Cash-First approaches among wider stakeholders. The Delivery Partners reported that part of the issue was the language used, in particular the use of the word ‘cash’. One described it as follows:

The name of ‘Cash-First’ is quite misleading […] they expect it to be cash only, not considering the wraparound. [This is] something we’ve had to work on – more so in the beginning. (Delivery Partner)

This was also an experience reported by some stakeholders, one of whom said:

The name ‘Cash-First’ didn’t do any favours – for those that didn’t get it, they thought we’d be chucking fivers out the window. (Local stakeholder)

Despite this, the Delivery Partners reported positive change and culture shift in attitudes to a Cash-First approach among many wider stakeholders, and this was also reflected in the interviews with stakeholders. The Delivery Partners and local core partners reported that:

Staff attitudes shifted from reluctance to seeing Cash-First as an integral part of our work. (Local core partner)

When we first started some people were quite resistant to Cash-First. Now I think most people understand what it is meant to be. But not everybody thinks it is possible. (Delivery Partner)

All of the different food insecurity providers thought Cash-First was a bad idea at the beginning but there has been a huge change in opinion. (Delivery Partner)

One Delivery Partner reported that a stakeholder had described their change of attitude to a Cash-First approach as follows:

It’s not unsafe - it’s risky - but [it’s] not my job to have parental role to decide how people access food. (Delivery Partner reporting local stakeholder feedback)

The Delivery Partners and local core partners attributed this shift in understanding of a Cash-First approach to them investing time to build trust and relationships with stakeholders.

The research identified that many local stakeholders developed an understanding that a Cash-First approach was a holistic approach. For example, it was reported that:

[My] perception has improved - Cash-First is seen as positive because it enables holistic support and sustained engagement.

Over time […] my perception shifted to seeing Cash-First as a broader approach that moves the conversation from food insecurity to tackling poverty more holistically.

I initially thought Cash-First was about food poverty, but meetings revealed a focus on reducing debt - rent arrears, council tax, loans.

It's widened my view. It's about more than monetary payments - also […] other kinds of support for example for the wider family. […] It needs to be accompanied by a holistic package of support.

(Local stakeholders)

However, there was evidence of some entrenched and persistent negative views about a Cash-First approach, and this was also reported by the Learning Partner. This was particularly true in the case of food pantries and other services providing emergency food aid. Stakeholders from this group recognised the valuable wider role that food banks can play in communities, noting that some food banks operate as hubs for a range of services including counselling and debt advice. Some stakeholders expressed a belief that ending the need for food banks would therefore be to the community’s detriment. For example, they reported:

For many, the food bank is their only social contact (Local stakeholder)

The Delivery Partners had a perception that these stakeholders viewed the Programme as a potential threat to the services they provided, and one Delivery Partner reported that:

They now feel that they have employed staff, and […] that they have a place in the community (Delivery Partner)

Stakeholders representing emergency food providers expressed concerns about how people may use vouchers as well as cash, and had a belief that cash is an inappropriate form of support, for example:

We would not be involved with Cash-First if it was just cash. Bad enough giving vouchers – anything worth monetary value is risky. People would sell […] vouchers for half the price just to have cash in hand.

We need to have checks and balances in place. Is it going to cause detriment or feed addictions? […] there are some concerns. For me to feel confident, I’d need to be certain we’re doing everything we could to minimise risks.

(Local stakeholders)

Addiction issues were of particular concern for some partners and stakeholders when delivering a Cash-First support. For example, one stakeholder reported:

Addiction complicates things. Giving vouchers that could be misused isn’t always ethical. We need a different approach for this cohort, but it’s unclear what that should be. (Local stakeholder)

Some stakeholders also identified the risk of financial abuse for vulnerable service users:

Any time a person receives cash they are put at risk of being taken advantage of, particularly in terms of those most vulnerable. (Local stakeholder)

Two Delivery Partners reported they had identified situations where people experiencing domestic abuse were sent by a partner to collect vouchers, and in at least one of these cases there was also someone in the household with an addiction.

While rare, there have been cases where we withheld payment, such as when domestic abuse or coercion risks were identified. (Local stakeholder)

It is clear from these stakeholder interviews that concerns about the suitability of Cash-First approaches extend beyond a moral judgment of the “right” and “wrong” ways to spend cash and reflect safeguarding and ethical issues. The Delivery Partner approaches to dealing with these concerns are discussed in the Managing Risk section below.

Some stakeholders’ perceptions of a Cash-First approach became more negative over the duration of the Programme. Some found the criteria and requirements associated with providing support, such as data collection, were barriers to helping people, and reported:

Cash-First seems to have more problems than solutions. The idea sounds great, but when you get down to the restrictions on it and the criteria, that’s when we started to lose people.

[Some people] get spooked about [providing] personal information and third parties contacting them

(Local stakeholders)

These perceptions may in part explain why the Learning Partner reported that:

It remains difficult to build understanding of the Cash-First approach with some partners. (Learning Partner report, September 2025)

The Learning Partner report also highlighted the levels of support needed by some partners to encourage them to make referrals for cash grants, and a reluctance by some food banks in some areas to engage with the Programme.

Wraparound and holistic support

Wraparound support describes the income maximisation and welfare rights advice and support element of the Programme, while holistic support refers to a more joined-up approach to delivering services across sectors that is centred around wellbeing, through meeting the whole needs of an individual or household. This includes services that meet financial, health, social, and cultural needs.

The accompanying case study on Cash-First Wraparound and Holistic support explores in detail how these supports were delivered by three Delivery Partners, in Edinburgh, Orkney, and West Dunbartonshire, and the key facilitators of successful approaches. The discussion below focuses on understanding of wraparound and holistic support among the Delivery Partners, local core partners, and stakeholders.

Consistent with the interim evaluation, the Delivery Partners viewed both wraparound and holistic support as an essential element of Cash-First approaches. The Delivery Partners understood that food insecurity occurred in a wider context of associated challenges, and wraparound and holistic support was needed to help deliver long-term change for individuals. One Delivery Partner described this as follows:

To tackle the root causes of why people are struggling to be able to buy the essentials, we can’t and don’t look at food insecurity in isolation (Delivery Partner)

Wider stakeholders also recognised the value of wraparound support with one reporting:

Wraparound support is essential - food banks alone are a sticking plaster and won’t fix systemic issues. (Local stakeholder)

There was an increased understanding among the Delivery Partners and local core partners that the context in which wraparound and holistic support was provided was as important as the intervention itself. They recognised that as well as providing different types of support, different ways of accessing this support were needed for different people. One local core partner described this as follows:

We came into it thinking, we need the information to make sure that we could improve what support we provided [….] but we actually also needed that information to make sure that the support we provided was right for the situation as well. (Local core partner)

The Delivery Partners emphasised the importance of the relationships between service users and staff, and the trust that exists in these relationships, to facilitate effective holistic support. The strong levels of trust achieved between service users and staff were often attributed to the skills of the staff within partner organisations. For example, the Delivery Partners reported:

It's about the people that are involved and what they know locally and what sort of work they're involved in already.

[service users have] appreciated more relationship building 1-2-1 support as opposed to just transactional

(Delivery Partners)

It was also reported by the Delivery Partners that, while the holistic support offered should be accessible and tailored to the individual, it was also shaped by the local service landscape. This could sometimes work against the approach being person-centred when, for example, some services that were needed were not available or accessible locally. However, there is good evidence that new support pathways and partnerships were developed in response to these issues as the Programme progressed. Details in Chapter 4.

Managing risk

As previously discussed, there was a perceived risk that offering cash to individuals could enable harmful behaviours. This was a risk recognised by all partners and stakeholders, including the Delivery Partners, and varying methods were used to address this, some of which evolved over the duration of the Programme.

The Edinburgh and Aberdeen City Delivery Partners used risk matrices to determine the extent, nature and detail of the support they facilitated for individuals. As an example, the process adopted in Aberdeen City is outlined below.

Trusted partners completed a standardised Cash-First support referral form with potentially eligible recipients and issued these to the Delivery Partner. The risk matrix was used as a conversation tool by trusted partners alongside the individual being referred, to enable the individual to disclose any risks, and identify which level of risk they felt best applied to them. In this way the risk matrix operated as safeguarding tool, as well as a decision making one. The responses in the referral form were then analysed against the risk matrix at a panel meeting. This enabled identification of areas of high risk, including:

• The extent to which individuals were engaging with statutory or third sector support services;
• The stability of their financial situation and ability to manage cash payments;
• The extent to which the support received could impact on recovery or current addictions; and
• The extent to which the recipient could receive payments with or without the support of an allocated worker.

The risk matrices helped ensure robust assessment processes were in place and shaped the support offer for each individual. They were, by necessity, detailed, and often required input from a wide range of partners and services. This enabled person-centred service delivery but required a lot of staff time.

To identify and manage risk, other Delivery Partners were guided by referring partners, who highlighted any identified risks associated with referrals. Illustrating this, one Delivery Partner reported:

If a referrer had put in that this person cannot have cash for one reason or another, then we could we take that into account, particularly if it was from social work or someone from NHS, or when they were actually working with them to reduce issues. (Delivery Partner)

This communication of risk relied on appropriate data sharing protocols and open dialogue. This is discussed in more detail in section on Data and Knowledge below and in Chapter 4.

Involvement of people with lived experience in development and delivery

The interim evaluation reported that engaging people with lived experience in service design was a key component of the Programme delivery and that approaches to this varied across the delivery areas. The Year 1 Case study “Engaging people with lived experience” explores the approaches taken by two Delivery Partners in the early stages of the Programme. This case study explored the approaches taken by Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire to engage people with lived experience of food insecurity in the design and development of Cash-First approaches, in the early stages of the Programme. The Aberdeenshire Delivery Partner had an established approach in place, working through the Council’s lived experience network, and a dedicated Engagement Officer for People With Lived Experience. In Aberdeen City, emphasis was on face-to-face engagement as a means to develop trust, especially with seldom heard or hard to reach groups and individuals. This usually involved working with local partners who already engaged with these groups.

These approaches evolved and were further embedded by the Delivery Partners as the Programme progressed, and the Programme provided an opportunity to test new ways of working and engaging people with lived experience where this had not previously been possible. The Delivery Partners made positive progress and achieved good outcomes in engaging people with lived experience, as detailed below.

The Aberdeen City Delivery Partner continued to engage people with lived experience proactively, and invited people to share their experiences at local events and events organised by the Programme’s Learning Partner. Local learning also shaped how people with lived experience would continue to be engaged beyond the end of the Programme and influence next steps. The Delivery Partner also explored engaging MSPs and local Elected Members to join all of these voices up and demonstrate local need. At the time of writing, this work was ongoing.

The Aberdeenshire Delivery Partner established a lived experience panel for their Programme. The nature of and approach to the panel was informed by the Aberdeenshire Lived Experience Framework to Support Participation and Co-production (October 2024). This panel met for two hours each month, to discuss the potential impacts that various aspects of the design and implementation of the local Programme could have on the people it was intended to support. The panel decided what it wanted to discuss ahead of each meeting. The lived experience panel was supported by the Lived Experience Engagement Officer within Aberdeenshire Council, demonstrating the strategic commitment to this approach to engaging communities in Aberdeenshire. The panel were involved in all aspects of funding decisions, from agreeing the format of the applications to the interviewing of potential service users to ensure that money was maximised to benefit communities, reduce inequality and ensure that communities were heard. People with lived experience were also in attendance at the Aberdeenshire Delivery Partner events throughout the project. All engagement was underpinned by, and adhered to, the principles set out in the Lived Experience Charter, which was developed by people with lived experience and is illustrated in Figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1: Aberdeenshire Lived Experience Charter

Diagram sets out the seven key principles for valuing lived experience, these are:

• Don’t ask for a view if you don’t want to hear what is being said.
• Everyone has a right to have a voice and view.
• Value the experience, not challenge or interrogate it.
• Engage when and how it’s suitable.
• Use trusted partners to support those with untraditional voices.
• Use simple language and be clear what you want.
• Let people know what change has been made.

The Edinburgh Delivery Partner engaged people with lived experience through frontline interactions via food banks and food pantries. Due to reduced staffing, the Delivery Partner had more limited capacity in the second year of the Programme to do this and were unable to carry out the same levels of engagement. However, they continued to engage with people via the End Poverty Edinburgh Citizens’ Group, a group that was established in the City prior to the Programme in 2020. This approach enabled them to obtain views on designing services and experiences of asking for help and talking about money, as well as experiences of accessing a Cash-First approach. This group continues to grow and develop and is a key asset and channel for engaging people with lived experience in the City.

The Fife Delivery Partner worked with the Poverty Alliance in Fife to develop a Dignity Charter, which is described in more detail in Chapter 4. The Poverty Alliance facilitated focus groups to develop the Charter, which included people with lived experience, set up a parent forum and a youth group forum, and engaged people who were supported by the Programme’s tests of change. The Delivery Partner reported that engaging young people was a particular strength of the approach and that it was important to include these voices as they are also affected by food insecurity within the family, but often overlooked. At the time of writing, the Charter remains in development.

The Glasgow Delivery Partner intended to set up a Lived Experience panel, recognising that there was no specific Cash-First approach mechanism in place to facilitate lived experience inputs. The Delivery Partner gave careful consideration to the resourcing and management of this, being aware that participants would need support throughout the process. In November 2024, Glasgow Community Food Network established a Lived Experience panel specifically for people with experience of refugee or asylum seeker status, which provided the Glasgow Delivery Partner a mechanism to engage people, maximising an existing resource and preventing duplication. This panel was operational until March 2025, and was subsequently reconvened for the purposes of providing feedback and input to the online training resources produced as result of the Programme in Glasgow. These resources are detailed in Chapter 4.

The North Lanarkshire Delivery Partner reported they had no structured approach to engaging people with lived experience. The Delivery Partner circulated a survey to service users but this had a very low response rate.

The Orkney Delivery Partner reported in the interim evaluation that the dispersed population made it difficult to bring people together, and that this was exacerbated by a perceived lack of privacy and fear of stigma amongst service users. However, in the second stage of the evaluation, the Delivery Partner reported they were trying to set up lived experience panels and had carried out some focus groups with the support of education providers. The Delivery Partner said that this was due to trust between service users and service providers being built up by the Cash-First support pathway. This is discussed in Chapter 4.

As reported in the interim evaluation, the West Dunbartonshire Delivery Partner had been engaging with service users on a one-to-one basis to develop case studies to help understand the impact of Cash-First support on recipients. Towards the end of the project, the Delivery Partner gained feedback from service users through a local survey, service user evaluations and follow up one-to-one interviews, held between May and August 2025. While this engagement with people with lived experience did not shape service design, it allowed the Delivery Partner to more fully assess their project in terms of access and the impact that the funding had on individuals. Findings will inform future activity and decision-making.

Service users reported a positive experience through being involved in planning and decision-making as a result of these lived experience engagement mechanisms. One described it as follows:

The most important thing is a boost of confidence and having people listen to you. (Service user)

Supporting the Delivery Partners to engage people with lived experience was a key area of focus for the Programme’s Learning Partner. The Delivery Partners were keen to improve their practice in engaging people with lived experience and the Learning Partner reported:

While we had anticipated bringing in experience and resources from Nourish Scotland to support Delivery Partners with [engaging people with lived experience], in practice these have not been needed. (Learning Partner Final Report December 2025)

The Delivery Partners welcomed the opportunities created by the Learning Partner to explore engaging people with lived experience. For example, in September 2024 the Learning Partner hosted an in-person learning event in Edinburgh, with a session aimed at increasing and developing the Delivery Partners’ understanding of engaging people with lived experience. Representatives from Trussell, and the Poverty Alliance, took part in a conversation around engaging people with lived experience at this event and answered questions from participants. Key points that emerged from this were:

• Including the voices of people with lived experience is important as a way of bringing in voices of people who are marginalised
• Input should be a dialogue that generates two-way understanding
• Relationship building with people with lived experience takes time but it is essential
• ‘Representation’ is never perfect but better than nothing
• People with lived experience need to be compensated for their efforts
• Facilitators need to be trained and specifically trauma-informed
• Participants should be informed of what is planned with their input, and there should be honesty about what realistically can be changed

The Delivery Partners’ experiences of involving people with lived experience reflected this guidance and it was an area that the Delivery Partners sought to sustain and develop beyond the end of the Programme.

In April 2025, the Aberdeen City Delivery Partner shared their experiences of engaging people with lived experience at an online learning event. The Delivery Partner described how they had contacted 70 young men through their trusted partner networks, to learn about their experience of food bank use and their perspectives on what would help. All 70 who were contacted engaged with the Delivery Partner. This research informed the design of the Programme in Aberdeen City. The Delivery Partner reported that, despite this group being considered “hard to reach”, there was positive engagement and individuals were very willing to talk and share their experiences. The trusted partner network was a key asset in engaging this group.

Engaging people with lived experience in service planning required extensive preparation and development time, including working with partners, establishing protocols, and identifying individuals able to participate, as well as the direct engagement time and resource required. Capacity was a key challenge for the Delivery Partners and local core partners. In one area where these approaches were more established, a dedicated Engagement Officer was available to support activity. Where approaches were less well established and new mechanisms required, capacity was added through working in partnership with, or commissioning, other organisations.

Learning Partner's contribution to the development and delivery of activities

The Programme’s Learning Partner delivered a series of events over the duration of the Programme. A breakdown of these is included at Appendix C. They included a series of in-person and online learning events themed around key topics. Speakers at these events included representatives from relevant organisations and the Delivery Partners or local core partners.

The Learning Partner also facilitated structured Action Learning Sets for the Delivery Partners. Action Learning describes a format where one partner takes the lead by introducing the discussion of a specific topic. A number of Action Learning Sets took place around skills and approaches to support system change initiatives. The Learning Partner also supported informal peer conversations, facilitated strategic leads sessions between local Programme strategic leads, and delivered bespoke workshops for individual Delivery Partners.

A number of resources provided by the Learning Partner were made available on an internal resource “padlet”, accessible to all of the Delivery Partners.

The majority of the Delivery Partners reported that they found the support offered by the Learning Partner valuable and beneficial to them. The Delivery Partners particularly valued the peer network, relationships and learning that the Learning Partner facilitated. For example, the Aberdeen City Delivery Partner was able to share their experiences with the Edinburgh Delivery Partner when the Edinburgh Delivery Partner was considering targeting young men for support. Also, as reported in the interim evaluation, action learning was seen to be a positive opportunity.

Targeting

Over the duration of the Programme, the Delivery Partners identified additional cohorts for support. This section also highlights that there are specific challenges when reaching people in rural areas and demonstrates how these challenges were addressed. It also demonstrates that service user awareness of Cash-First approaches as a means of support remains mixed.

Identifying and reaching Cash-First service users

The Delivery Partners identified service user groups initially by using published data, locally identified need, gaps in service provision, and local intelligence. Local core partners often relied on effective relationships with wider stakeholders to identify, reach and refer potential service users for support. The evidence shows that the Delivery Partners successfully extended and expanded the reach of local Cash-First approaches and improved their knowledge and understanding of specific groups to target for support.

As Programme delivery progressed, the Delivery Partners deepened their knowledge of local services, and further developed relationships with service providers (many of these relationships were also established prior to the Programme), which supported identification of and engagement with service users. In some cases, targeted relationship building took place with services that worked with specific groups, such as organisations providing support to men leaving prison, housing support services, and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Individuals were also identified through local frontline knowledge. For example, the Aberdeen City Delivery Partner encouraged third sector organisations to refer individuals to a trusted partner for a Cash-First support. This helped to foster a “No Wrong Door” approach and mindset.

The Orkney Delivery Partner, Voluntary Action Orkney (VAO), had a significant focus on outreach to reach Cash-First target service users. Local groups were the key trusted link to services and support for people who might otherwise not engage with any service. These comprised a range of organisations, which were:

• Local core partners of the Orkney Cash-First project (THAW, CAB and Orkney Food bank);
• Formal Orkney Money Matters partners such as the Blide Trust, NHS Orkney, Orkney Housing association and others;
• The Community Planning Partnership’s “Cost of Living Task Force” which included all of the formal partners plus additional Third Sector and statutory organisations (including schools, Public Health and others);
• Informal partners, who were key conduits for outreach, and included Community Wellbeing Coordinators, Community Development Officers, GP Practices’ Community Link Practitioners and housing and homelessness services.

The Fife Delivery Partner, and a local core partner in Orkney, reported that they sought to reach people, where appropriate, in their homes. This was an approach adopted in rural settings with lower population numbers, where local knowledge identified potential need. This may not be an effective or appropriate approach to replicate in large urban areas with large and/or dense populations. The model adopted in Fife provided intensive, sustained support with a key worker over a six-month period, and while this has been effective in supporting individuals, it is a significant draw on resources.

The Edinburgh Delivery Partner and local core partners proactively attended libraries, food banks, a community café, a clothing bank, and schools to reach people. Anyone identified as being in financial crisis was able to access the Programme in the same way as they would in a local office. A payment was offered immediately with a follow-up appointment in the local office.

During early stages of the Programme’s delivery, some local core partners identified groups that had not previously been targeted for a Cash-First approach, but who sought support from local projects. Based on this, they extended their target groups to include these cohorts. These included non-custodial parents not in receipt of extra support for dependents; and groups who traditionally found it harder to access support, such as single men. The North Lanarkshire Delivery Partner reported that the identification of young single men as a group in need of support was counter to their assumption that families in need were the main demographic in the area.

The key group is single men aged 18-45 and this is a complex group to work with. The impression is that they are less likely to take up wraparound services. (Delivery Partner)

The Fife Delivery Partner reported that when they targeted non-custodial parents, they found the situation was more complex than they had anticipated, and in many cases they identified wider family members who also needed support.

In reality it was […] whole families that were needing the support. It wasn't necessarily just the parents who were just getting the child part time. (Delivery Partner)

It is not clear from the research whether the support needs of non-custodial parents were also identified through engagement with other family members such as children or the parents they lived with. This suggests a risk that non-custodial parents could remain hidden, with their needs unmet, without a targeted approach to reaching them.

One local core partner in Orkney reported that they did not set out to target people with problem substance use, but their Programme highlighted the extent of this in the area, and gaps in support. As a result, the Delivery Partner started to work more closely with the local Alcohol and Drugs Partnership and developed a new support pathway for this group.

A key group facing food insecurity identified by several Delivery Partners, was people with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF). People who are classified as having NRPF can often include those with asylum seeker or refugee status, and several Delivery Partners reported this cohort was difficult to support effectively due to partners’ understanding of the limitations of financial support available to them. To support the Delivery Partners who were working with this group, in January 2025, the Learning Partner ran a focussed session on working with people with NRPF.

The Delivery Partners particularly recognised the need to be flexible in how they engaged individuals, saying:

There's some people who have just preferred that minimal contact, 1-2-1 help when they're reaching out for it, and then there's others who have been really involved.

It's just been about keeping that relationship open, that person-centred aspect of it - not forcing people to do things that they're not comfortable doing.

(Delivery Partners)

Service user understanding of Cash-First approaches

The interim evaluation reported a perceived lack of knowledge about the support available through the Programme among people who could benefit from it. Interviews with service users and local core partners in the second stage of the evaluation indicated that this perception persisted. A lack of awareness of a Cash-First approach and the support it offered was identified by both local core partners and service users as a main barrier to accessing support. This was compounded by an initial lack of understanding of Cash-First support eligibility among some service users, who expressed surprise that they had been able to access the support. As one service user said:

[I thought] there’s no way I could be eligible for it. Fear it’s not for people “like me” […] Emphasise it’s not just for [the] “abject poverty” that you see on TV (Service user)

In some cases, referral processes into the Programme did not provide service users with the information they needed. One local core partner reported:

A key issue was the responsibility of referral agencies as first points of contact. For example [a service] referred 20 people without informing them, resulting in no warm handovers. There’s still work to do to ensure people are treated as individuals, not numbers. (Local core partner)

There were also some understandable reasons why people may not be aware of a Cash-First approach or understand the eligibility criteria, related to the overall Programme design and local approaches, which are discussed next.

There was also a continuing concern of stigma among service users. Many interviewees spoke about ‘pride’ as a barrier to support. Service users commented that:

Asking for help in the first place is […] the worst thing ever.

The older generation see it as charity and wouldn’t want to reach out.

[there is a] fear of being judged

(Service users)

Challenges with identifying and reaching target groups

The interim evaluation reported three key challenges with identifying and reaching target groups. These were:

• The fact that food insecurity is often hidden
• Complex service landscapes
• GDPR regulations which make it difficult to share personal data and can slow down engagement and intervention

In the second stage of the evaluation, the Delivery Partners and stakeholders generally reported fewer challenges in identifying and reaching people who could benefit from the Programme. However, some challenges persisted.

Some potential service users did not participate in any community groups or access any community provision, and this meant that face-to-face engagement at their home was the only way to reach them. One Delivery Partner described this, saying:

… there is a balance we have to find between trying to work with the anchor organisations to be able to reach people that are hard to reach, but also […] just sticking with helping the households directly (Delivery Partner)

As highlighted above, a general lack of awareness of Cash-First services among potential service users was cited as a challenge to engaging target groups. The Delivery Partners were cautious about advertising services too openly, due to the time and funding limitations of the Programme. The interim evaluation reported that, at that point of the Programme there was no evidence that demand exceeded capacity to deliver. However, in the Stage 2 of the evaluation, the Aberdeen City Delivery Partner in particular reported that there were periods of significant demand. A radio and social media campaign carried out by the Delivery Partner was very successful in raising awareness of the Programme in Aberdeen City. However, this led to enquiries and support requests from people who were ineligible for support due to the eligibility criteria, for example women, and people outside of the age criteria. When a person who was not eligible presented in need, the Delivery Partner or local core partners signposted them elsewhere for appropriate support. The Delivery Partner subsequently reviewed their promotional activity, scaling this back and targeting it more closely. Another example of this was given by the Edinburgh Delivery Partner who reported increases in demand as more people heard about the service through informal friends and family networks.

A challenge in reaching potential service users reported by the Delivery Partners was a perceived reluctance among some wider stakeholders to promote a Cash-First approach, aligned with a local core partners’ concern that if it was promoted too widely, they would not have the capacity to meet the demand generated. One stated:

We haven’t worked out how to promote to the right people without too many. [There is] not enough resource or capacity to advertise and manage this. (Delivery Partner)

Other barriers to engagement were also identified. For example, people who are in work and face food insecurity can find it difficult to engage with services during normal working hours. One Delivery Partner stated that many wraparound support services were only available during these hours which made it very hard for some individuals to access them.

Some of the Delivery Partners also reported that, as well as reaching people, sustaining engagement over time beyond the initial emergency income could be difficult, particularly in harder-to-reach cohorts such as young men. This meant it was more difficult to facilitate the wider wraparound support element of the Programme and other holistic support, which could inhibit someone moving permanently out of food insecurity. As one Delivery Partner reported:

The cohort of young men do not engage with services beyond access to the money. (Delivery Partner)

This Delivery Partner reported that the lack of engagement with wraparound support was often a result of the complex needs of young men. It was reported by the Delivery Partner that, while many young men were open to the offer of wraparound support, this was not usually taken up, even when a referral had been made. More widely, other Delivery Partners acknowledged that people with complex needs (including but not limited to young men) were likely to disengage and then re-engage with support at a later date. Facilitating this re-engagement through an open-door and non-judgemental approach was a core element of the Delivery Partners’ approaches, and some reported that much more resource was needed than was available to sustain engagement.

Use of data and knowledge

The Delivery Partners used a range of data sources and local intelligence to inform decision making on target groups and local delivery. The Programme also enabled key data gaps to be identified. For example, the Glasgow Delivery Partner learned that, due to refugees and asylum seekers having No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) and therefore unable to access benefits and many other sources of public financial support, there was very little data available about them. The legislation relating to this group is very complex and the Scottish Welfare Fund Statutory Guidance (April 2025) states:

An individual with NRPF will not be able to access most social security benefits, local authority housing or homelessness assistance, but in some cases may be able to receive accommodation and financial support from social services. (SWF Statutory Guidance 2025)

This added to the lack of understanding and clarity the Delivery Partners had about this group. In response to the limited data available on this cohort, the Glasgow Delivery Partner developed a test of change to better engage with people with NRPF and learn how they can be supported.

Challenges with data availability and sharing

The Delivery Partners faced challenges obtaining data on food bank use and it was also reported that it was often difficult to share data about service user needs between core partners and wider service providers. Positive progress was made in overcoming this as the Programme progressed, but it remained an overarching challenge for the Delivery Partners.

Availability of data

In the second stage of the evaluation, some of the Delivery Partners continued to report challenges with inconsistent data collection across food banks, including some food banks that did not collect any data from service users; having no way of identifying repeat users; and no way of isolating the impact of the Programme on food bank use. This was within a context of rising demand for support with food insecurity, which several of the Delivery Partners reported.

One Delivery Partner reported that frontline staff, in both food banks and providers of holistic services, were not always motivated to collect data from or about service users. The Delivery Partner recognised the importance of clearly and consistently communicating the reasons why the data was required. The Delivery Partner said:

When you start something new, people are enthusiastic about recording, but [they] become less interested and invested. It’s really important to highlight things quickly and work with teams to ensure they record what’s needed. (Delivery Partner)

There were also challenges with data analysis associated with the bespoke nature of the support offered. When an individual received a range of different support, both attribution and identifying impacts and outcomes as a result of the Programme became more challenging for the Delivery Partners. One described this as follows:

We can provide a very specific set of interventions for individuals but that makes it harder to drill down to say, ‘these are the main outcomes for people’. (Delivery Partner)

Data sharing

The lack of data sharing protocols was identified in the interim evaluation as the main barrier to data sharing between local core partners and wider service providers. As the Programme progressed, steps were taken to overcome this, and the importance of having appropriate data sharing processes in place was a clear learning point for some local service providers. However, some challenges with data sharing persisted and this impacted on the ability to plan, deliver and monitor local projects.

Local service providers reported that data sharing protocols between organisations and partners should be established at an early stage, and that clarity on how these should be implemented was important. For example, one said:

Systems need to be in place before delivery starts. Data sharing is a priority.

We had [the information sharing form] in draft but were advised not to use it yet […]- it got in the way. We went back to using our own referral forms and paperwork.

(Local stakeholders)

The Delivery Partners also identified that, where food banks collected data from users, they could be reluctant to share it with the Delivery Partners. One Delivery Partner reported:

We have not been able to get the data from some food banks, as they […] have chosen to not engage in the Cash-First wraparound model. (Delivery Partner)

This lack of engagement reflects the negative perceptions of Cash-First approaches among emergency food provision services, described in the Engagement section above.

Another Delivery Partner described other data sharing challenges as follows:

Some people didn't really want to share their data for one reason or another. […] Some people just weren't collecting much. Some people didn't know what they were collecting. Some people didn't have access to what was being collected. (Delivery Partner)

One Delivery Partner, in Fife, reported no issues with data sharing, and they attributed this to their delivery model, which was a key worker model. The Delivery Partner was the Council, and key workers were Council employees. This meant that some of the organisational barriers that existed for other Delivery Partners did not exist in Fife, which was a key benefit of their model. Service users were identified by key workers in the target communities, and there was no reliance on data from food banks in Fife. The Delivery Partner was also able to easily obtain advice from Fife Council’s Data Protection team in the event any questions arose.

Other Delivery Partners also recognised the potential benefits of data availability and sharing of a council-led approach, commenting:

We could possibly have done something that was much more aligned to existing programmes if we'd been in the Council and had access to [their] data. (Delivery Partner)

The Orkney Delivery Partner focussed on data sharing as a means to empower individuals and facilitate smooth pathways through services. More details in Chapter 4.

Developing and implementing data sharing protocols and systems between organisations, where these were needed, was a very time-consuming aspect of the early stages of implementation for all of the Delivery Partners. This was an unanticipated draw on resources that meant progress was slower than expected in the early stages in some areas.

Monitoring and evaluation

From the outset, the Delivery Partners considered how data obtained from the Programme could inform and shape the legacy of their Cash-First projects, and they developed local monitoring and evaluation processes accordingly. For example, Aberdeen City developed monthly reporting forms to capture individual journeys and outcomes. The Fife Delivery Partner, where a number of tests of change were in operation, each with their own localised objectives shaped by data and local knowledge, developed a project tracker to monitor overall progress alongside local monitoring. Some of the Delivery Partners implemented their own local evaluations of the Programme using surveys and/or interviews to obtain feedback from service users.

The difficulties with collecting comprehensive and accurate data about food bank use and service user needs, detailed above, created challenges for the Delivery Partners in monitoring local Cash-First activity. Some of the Delivery Partners did not report any changes to how they approached this and accepted that data would be limited. For example:

Monitoring what happens once a referral is made is difficult, so we don't know for sure if people are taking it [wraparound services] up. (Delivery Partner)

This was also a reflection of the resource and time required to develop bespoke monitoring and evaluation systems and processes, which was balanced against the finite funding cycle for the Programme. The Delivery Partners acknowledged that there were limitations in what could be developed and implemented within the Programme timescale.

Resource use

As detailed above, 33% of the Programme’s funding was distributed as direct payments to service users through the Delivery Partners.

This total was calculated by taking the total value distributed as direct payments for all quarters in Year 1 and Year 2 of the project and dividing this by total value available to the Delivery Partners. Overall, a total of £ 526,533 was distributed in direct payments to service users over the years of the Programme (as reported by the Delivery Partners in quarterly data reports). Funding available to the Delivery Partners was up to £1.6 million (total project cost of £1.8 million minus the cost of the Learning Partner and evaluator).

The remainder of the funding distributed to the Delivery Partners helped support a range of items, including staff costs, the establishment of data sharing protocols, and local Programme monitoring tools. Funding also supported network development, relationship building and management, the production of Cash-First specific materials, and other activities related to the implementation and management of local Cash-First approaches.