Cash-First Programme: final evaluation report

6. 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 individuals facing food crisis. However, the Programme was small scale and take-up of the full package of support was uneven, limiting its preventative potential.

Service users consistently reported being treated with dignity and that the support offered allowed them greater choice as well as reducing stigma associated with receiving a food parcel. The greatest and most sustained impacts of the Programme were where service users took up the offer of wraparound and holistic supports as it reduced long term risk.

The Cash-First approach allowed Delivery Partners to respond flexibly to individual needs. In some cases providing a food parcel was more appropriate to address immediate needs, for example, for people living in very remote places or isolated situations with limited transport and access to shops and services; or for some people with addiction issues.

Genuinely understanding need and developing new processes and engagement mechanisms takes time and is resource-intensive. This meant that it took time to get Cash-First initiatives up and running and that there was a longer lead in time before positive impacts were seen for service users.

The role of data in supporting a Cash-First approach

The use of data can act as a facilitator but also a barrier to providing Cash-First support.

Data can be a facilitator in allowing support to be targeted to local needs. The Delivery Partners found that effective use of both published data and local intelligence was crucial in the early stages to understand local needs, challenges and existing services, to enable the development of their Cash-First response. As the Programme progressed the development of stronger partnerships, performance monitoring, and the use of more granular data improved planning and helped to maximise the impact of interventions.

At the individual service user level, data sharing was critical to a “No Wrong Door” approach, this enabled more efficient, coordinated and impactful service delivery. It improved service user experiences by reducing repetition and delays as well as supporting staff to respond effectively and helped to build sustainable skills, systems and partnerships that are expected to last beyond the life of the Programme.

However, the availability and use of data could also present a barrier to delivery. The Delivery Partners found that obtaining accurate and comprehensive data on food insecurity and food bank use was challenging and meant that it was hard to assess the extent to which the use of food banks had changed as a result of the Programme. In addition, the type of data sharing needed to support a “tell us once” or “No Wrong Door” approach is complex and resource intensive, requiring data sharing across public and third sector bodies.

Engaging people with lived experience

Engagement with people with lived experience added value to the Programme by improving service design, helping to shape interventions and aligning them with service user need. Where lived experience was embedded meaningfully, service users reported feeling listened to, respected, and more confident, and that their input influenced decisions about targeting of delivery models.

Developing staff skills for a Cash-First approach

Throughout the Programme dedicated staff time was essential to:

• build and sustain partnerships across complex local support landscapes;
• deliver person‑centred, relational support rather than transactional interventions;
• manage safeguarding and risk (e.g. through assessment tools and panels);
• engage people with lived experience in meaningful ways; and
• coordinate referrals and wraparound support.

The Learning Partner provided peer network opportunities, learning events, and knowledge sharing. The Delivery Partners reported that these learning opportunities helped to foster valuable support networks and the intention is to sustain these beyond the Programme.

Systems change

A significant proportion of Programme resource was directed towards developing and strengthening local systems, developing partnership working and implementing new referral pathways, to ensure that support met the needs of identified target groups.

The evaluation shows that the Programme contributed to meaningful early‑stage systems change. Across delivery areas, it strengthened collaboration between public and third sector partners, improved referral processes in line with a “No Wrong Door” approach, and supported more joined‑up, person‑centred responses to food insecurity.

However, progress on systems change was uneven and resource intensive. Outcomes varied depending on local context, existing infrastructure, and delivery models, with stronger and more sustained change in areas where partnerships and governance arrangements were already established. Building and maintaining these systems required significant time and staff, and in practice, the Delivery Partners faced ongoing trade‑offs between investing in system development and responding to immediate crisis need.

The Programme led to some changes in the system that helped in addressing short-term food insecurity. However, food insecurity is an indicator of poverty, and tackling poverty, and the structural causes of poverty, requires wider systemic and structural change.

The evaluation demonstrated that for some service users, income maximisation could not improve their situations as they were already receiving the maximum support they were entitled to. This suggests some limitations of the existing welfare rights and financial support system.