Cash-First Programme: final evaluation report

Appendix B: Methodology

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.

Specifically, it aimed to answer the following key questions:

1. Has the Programme been implemented and delivered as intended? (Process evaluation)

2. What has been produced as a result of the Programme? (Outputs)

3. What difference has the Programme made and for whom? (Impact evaluation)

The research questions can be split in different sub-themes as follows:

Process evaluation – Has the Programme been implemented and delivered as intended?

This research question was split into four main subthemes. Specifically:

1. Governance and collaborative working

• In what ways has partnership working between different organisations been facilitated?
• How were interventions decided on?
• How were resources and responsibilities allocated/divided?
• Do Partnerships have the resources and information they need to deliver Cash-First solutions? How has this changed over the life of the project?
• What are the differences in delivery approach between different areas?
• To what extent does local context affect delivery?

Data collection methods included interviews, desk research and document reviews amongst the Delivery Partners, the Learning Partner, local core partners and wider stakeholders.

2. Engagement

• To what extent, and how, have people with direct experience of food insecurity been involved in the development and delivery of activities?
• How has the Learning Partner contributed to the development and delivery of activities?
• Do all partners understand and agree with the aims of the Programme?
• Do wider stakeholders support the activities delivered? (this might include people and organisations who are not core Partnership members, but have an interest – for example, professionals who refer people to food banks or other third sector food aid providers)

Data collection methods included interviews and document reviews amongst the Delivery Partners, service users, local core partners and wider stakeholders.

3. Targeting

• What groups, or people, have activities been designed to target, and how was this decided?
• What measures have been taken to reach groups of people for whom there may be barriers to accessing support?
• Did the activities succeed in reaching those targeted? What were the barriers/enablers encountered?

Data collection methods included review quarterly returns, interviews, focus groups and surveys amongst the Delivery Partners, service users, non-service users, local core partners and wider stakeholders.

4. Use of data and knowledge

• To what extent do Partnerships use data and evidence to inform their Cash-First activities?
• Are there appropriate monitoring and evaluation processes in place, and how have data sources and measurement methods been determined?

Data collection methods included interviews and document reviews amongst the Delivery Partners and the Learning Partner.

Outputs. What has been produced as a result of the Programme?

• What Cash-First initiatives are being developed or improved as part of the Programme?
• What are the strengths and limitations of different Cash-First initiatives?
• What new or improved processes have been implemented? For example – processes for involving those with direct experience, or processes that enable partnership working?
• What resources have been produced to enable learning across the Programme?

Data collection methods included interviews, survey and document review amongst the Delivery Partners, the Learning Partner, service users, local core partners and wider stakeholders.

Impact. What difference has the Programme made and for whom?

This research question was split into four sub-themes as follows.

1. Collaborative working

• What effect has the Programme had on ways of working between partners?
• To what extent has the work of the Learning Partner informed approaches to partnership working?
• What are the long-term prospects for relationships between partners?

Data collection methods included interviews, document review and quarterly returns amongst the Delivery Partners, the Learning Partner, local core partners and wider stakeholders.

2. Accessing support

• To what extent has the Programme improved access to Cash-First responses?
• To what extent have people taken up Cash-First responses? (Are there factors that inhibit take-up?)
• To what extent have people taken up wider support (e.g. money advice or employment services)?
• To what extent have these activities impacted on food bank referrals?
• To what extent have outcomes varied for different groups of people and why?

Data collection methods included interviews, document review, survey and quarterly returns amongst the Delivery Partners, local core partners, wider stakeholders and service users.

3. Wellbeing

• To what extent are people satisfied with the support they have received? (greater dignity, increased choice etc.)
• Are there other wellbeing benefits that can be attributed to the provision of Cash-First support?

Data collection methods included interviews and focus groups amongst service users.

4. Sustainability

• To what extent were the activities appropriately designed?
• Is there evidence that the activities increased the food security of those supported?
• Can the actions undertaken as part of the Programme be sustained beyond the timeframe of the Programme?
• Can the outcomes be sustained in the longer-term?
• Were there any unintended consequences (positive or negative)?

Data collection methods included interviews, and document review amongst the Delivery Partners, the Learning Partner, local core partners, wider stakeholders and service users.

Detail of the interviews and survey undertaken is provided in the table below.

*10 interviews in Stage 2 represent seven Delivery Partners; the eighth Delivery Partner contributed a written submission.

Desk based research

Desk-based research was undertaken by reviewing monitoring reports from:

• The Delivery Partners’ quarterly data submissions;
• Relevant extracts of Delivery Partner quarterly grant monitoring reports to Scottish Government; and
• Learning Partner reports and outputs from the Learning Partner’s learning events.

A total of 34 of the Delivery Partner data submissions were analysed, with one submission provided each quarter of activity, per Delivery Partner, where possible. Data obtained reflects the varying start and end dates of local Cash-First programme delivery.

The evaluation is based on data returned up to and including Year 2 Quarter 3, though it should be noted that some delivery activity continued into Year 2 Quarter 4 in a minority of the Delivery Partner areas.

There were no regular data submissions of interactions or spend requested from the Glasgow Delivery Partner. The Glasgow Delivery Partner implemented a test of change in quarters 3 and 4 of Year 2, which was not originally planned, in response to findings that identified a gap in service provision. Data supplied by the Glasgow Delivery Partner on completion of the test of change reported that, as at the end of March 2026, 24 single adult households and 53 families or households with more than one adult had received a voucher, totalling 77 recipients. This figure is reported separately as it reflects unique beneficiaries rather than interactions and covers a different time period from the evaluation data supplied by the other Delivery Partners.

Interim evaluation methodological challenges

A number of methodological challenges were encountered during engagement for the interim evaluation. These were discussed in detail in the interim report and included:

• Consistency and detail of data provided by the Delivery Partners. This remains a challenge, but the quality and consistency of data returns in the second phase of the evaluation has improved.
• Wide variation in service user survey responses across the Delivery Partners. Responses were mostly representative of two of the Delivery Partners. In the second phase of the evaluation, one area returned 49% of all responses.
• Uneven engagement with the survey also meant there was a smaller cohort than anticipated to draw on for qualitative interviews with service users.

Taking into account the feedback and learning from the interim evaluation, we amended the approach and methods for the final evaluation as follows:

Non-service user engagement

We agreed with the Scottish Government that there was no need to carry out interviews with potential service users who did not have access to the Programme. The interim evaluation report gathered views for this cohort and therefore it was not felt to be necessary to repeat this.

Survey redesign

We received feedback from the Delivery Partners that some service users found the survey inaccessible. Consequently, we undertook an extensive redesign of the survey for the second phase of the evaluation (from January 2025). The updated survey was designed in consultation with the Delivery Partners who volunteered to be part of a survey working group that also included the Scottish Government and the Learning Partner.

The survey update process was as follows:

• January 2025: Invitation to the Delivery Partners to provide written feedback on the original survey; and Scottish Government call for Working Group volunteers.
• February2025 : Written feedback on survey received and reviewed
• March 2025: One survey workshop with Working Group.
• April 2025: Survey redevelopment – draft and review process with Evaluator and Scottish Government
• May 2025: Draft survey shared with the Delivery Partners for comment
• June 2025: Redrafted survey circulated for testing
• July 2025: Second phase survey goes live
• August 2025: Two drop-in sessions were offered to the Delivery Partners as an opportunity to raise questions/queries to support uptake of the second phase survey. Two sessions were offered to accommodate different working patterns.

Qualitative research with service users

We also reviewed the qualitative research methods used to engage service users. This review was based on feedback from the Delivery Partners that many service users would not be comfortable in a focus group setting for reasons of privacy and confidentiality, and fear of stigma. We therefore focused engagement in the second phase of the evaluation on completing 1 to 1 interviews. We continued to offer focus groups as an engagement method and successfully completed these with one Delivery Partner.

Given the challenges with the survey responses for the interim evaluation, noted above, there was some discussion with the Scottish Government and the Delivery Partners as we progressed to phase 2 of the evaluation on how the Delivery Partners may be able support recruitment of service users for 1 to 1 interviews. However, for data protection reasons, the survey was used as the principal recruitment tool for interviews.

Engagement with the Delivery Partners

In order to better streamline the range of asks and engagement with the Delivery Partners and stakeholders, we developed a shared project timeline, which the Learning Partner could also access and update, and into which Scottish Government could input. This helped increase awareness of the potential for overlapping requests, where some activity could be adjusted to align more closely, or where the timing of asks could be modified.

Quantitative research with service users – demographic profile

This section summarises the demographics of respondents to the Stage 2 Programme survey, which was open between August and October 2025. It should be noted that the demographic profile differed from that of Stage 1. As demographic data for all Programme service users is not available, it is not possible to assess how representative the survey respondents are of the wider Programme population. Differences in demographic profile between respondents in the interim evaluation and the final evaluation are highlighted throughout.

Location, Sex and Age

Stage 2 responses were concentrated in North Lanarkshire (30 respondents), with smaller numbers from Orkney (13), Aberdeen City (8), Aberdeenshire (3), Edinburgh City (3), Fife (3) and West Dunbartonshire (1). This distribution differed substantially from Stage 1, when most respondents were from West Dunbartonshire (43) and Fife (19). There was an almost equal split between male (31) and female (30) respondents in Stage 2 whereas in Stage 1 the split was more female (55) than male (17). In Stage 2 most respondents were aged 35–44 (34), followed by 45–54 (19). Smaller numbers were aged 55–64 (5), 25–34 (2) and 16–24 (1). This compares with Stage 1, where 30 were aged 45-64, 27 were aged 35-44, 15 were aged under 35 and 1 person was aged over 65.

Ethnicity of Respondents

Most Stage 2 respondents identified as White Scottish (48), followed by White British (8). Other ethnicities represented included White Irish, White Polish, Other White, Pakistani and Arab (one respondent each). The ethnic profile was broadly similar to Stage 1.

Physical and Mental Health

A total of 43 respondents reported having a physical or mental health condition expected to last 12 months or more, similar to Stage 1, when 47 respondents reported a long-term condition.

Household Composition

Most respondents (48) lived in single-adult households, while eight lived with one other adult and three lived in households with three adults. The number of single-adult households in Stage 1 was slightly lower, at 41 respondents, there was a greater number of two-adult households (23) and seven said that there were three adults in their household.

Over half of respondents (33) had no dependent children. Eleven had two children and nine had one child. This pattern was broadly similar to Stage 1, as 29 respondents had no dependent children in their household, 20 had one dependent child, and 11 had two dependent children.

Employment Status

42 respondents to the Stage 2 survey were unemployed. Of those who worked, seven worked part-time and three worked full-time and one person stated that they were self-employed. This is broadly similar to the respondents in Stage 1, where 48 were unemployed, 14 worked part time, 6 worked full-time and one was self-employed.

Temporary Accommodation

41 survey respondents in Stage 2 stated that they were not currently living in or had not recently lived in temporary accommodation, 11 stated that they had lived in temporary accommodation within the last two years, while six respondents stated that they are currently living in temporary accommodation. In Stage 1, 4 respondents stated that they had lived in temporary accommodation within the last two years, and one respondent was currently living in temporary accommodation.