Summary of findings
Here we present our key findings from the Fair Food Futures UK research study. We aim to help local authorities in England and community food organisations better support families and prevent household food insecurity.
Summary of findings contributors:
Dr Giorgia Previdoli, Dr Rachel Benchekroun, Dr Ariadne Kapetanaki, Dr Philip Hadley, Dr Wendy Burton, Dr Maddy Power, Professor Claire Cameron, Shahid Islam, Professor Bob Doherty, Rose Dunlop, Sairah Mirza, Laurie McGeoghegan, Professor Kate Pickett, the Fair Food Futures UK Public Involvement Panel, Professor Maria Bryant and Dr Laura Sheard.
A special thank you to Sabine Goodwin.
NewBackground
Fair Food Futures UK was funded by the National Institute for Health Research to find out which community food models are most effective at reducing families’ need for support with food aid when they experience food insecurity. The research was based in Bradford and Tower Hamlets, London and carried out between 2023 and 2025.
In order to build a detailed picture of the community food support system across the localities, we carried out a survey, workshops and interviews with national and local stakeholders from 36 different organisations. Three researchers from our team then conducted ethnographic research, volunteering in nine community food organisations for one year to explore how they work. We also interviewed 40 families with children to understand their experiences, meeting each family several times during the year. In this document, we use the term ‘community food organisations’ (CFOs) to mean both informal community projects and more established charitable food aid providers.
At the time that research was conducted, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) provided short-term grants to local authorities in England via the Household Support Fund (HSF) to help residents on low incomes. An evaluation conducted by DWP (HSF4 evaluation) found that local authorities spent the majority of the HSF on free school meals support in the school holidays, followed by food aid (comprising vouchers for food and funding for food banks and pantries). In April 2026, the DWP launched the three-year Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF) in English local authorities. Its focus on community involvement and prevention means that it has the capacity to reshape local support systems and influence how CFOs operate.
Here we share the key findings from our research and show how they relate to the new CRF guidelines.
Key findings
Complexity and diversity of landscape of food support
Since 2010, the UK has seen a substantial increase in the number of community food organisations (CFOs). Food charity has become an embedded, yet precarious, component of the social security infrastructure. Our research identified considerable diversity in CFOs’ objectives, approaches and services provided
Interdependencies
Some CFOs are dependent on local authorities, either directly (for funding) or indirectly (e.g. relying on publicly-funded centralised food hubs). Local authorities rely on CFOs as a primary delivery mechanism for food aid, as well as for distributing essential support like fuel grants, creating a precarious interdependency. Interdependencies also exist among CFOs and other kinds of support organisations, which collaborate in the provision of co-located services, cross-referrals or signposting to ensure families access the support they need.
A wide range of models
The sector is highly diverse: it includes not only food banks but also food pantries (where members pay a small amount to shop), community kitchens (where people can cook their own food) and community cafes, for example. In England, food banks tend to provide free food but tend not to provide choice, and are often seen as distributors of ‘emergency’ food parcels. On the other hand, pantries tend to be based on a membership model (involving an annual fee and a small payment per visit), can be accessed weekly and provide a choice of food. However, the distinction between models, in many cases, is blurred. For example, we found food banks where people could choose their food, and pantries where there was little or no choice. We also saw that food banks were often used on a regular basis and not only for emergencies. We observed variation in terms of access (e.g. open to all/use of criteria/via referral only) and rules (e.g. on frequency of visits) across all models.
Beyond CFO categories such as ‘food bank’, ‘food pantry’ or ‘social supermarket’, it is important to understand the political and economic contexts in which CFOs develop and operate. For example, the extent to which CFOs are embedded in wider networks, as well as the nature of those networks and their relationships with members, plays a key role in determining the services they provide, the activities they undertake and their overall focus. Understanding how CFO characteristics interact with economic factors (e.g. the funding landscape and food supply), political factors (e.g. local authority and government policy), and lived experiences (e.g. of accessing, volunteering with, or working in CFOs) is critical to understanding CFOs and the wider sector.
Support beyond food
Different organisations and networks in the food aid sector have very different views about how best to tackle household food insecurity. Regardless of the ‘model’ of food support, some organisations focus only on providing food, while others try to address root causes by offering welfare advice, legal aid, training or employment support, whether directly or in partnership with external agencies. Some CFOs and networks call for changes to policies at local and national levels, but the solutions they suggest vary widely (e.g. using funding for cash payments and welfare/financial advice, rather than for purchasing food for redistribution; promoting low-cost trading models such as pantries and social supermarkets; expanding access to surplus food, or combinations of the above).
Operational dilemmas
In response to rising demand and constraints in funding, time and volunteer capacity, some CFOs and CFO networks have expanded and diversified their services. However, this has created new challenges, including dilemmas around the role they should play within the wider welfare and food systems. In particular, many organisations are concerned that temporary emergency aid may become an institutionalised substitute for adequate government support.
From highly organised to informal approaches
Some CFOs use efficient ‘business-like’ systems, such as online ordering and timed collection slots. While this makes provision predictable and reliable, it can sometimes feel transactional and dehumanising, providing little time for staff to listen to families’ wider needs or offer emotional support. Other settings are less business-like in their approach. Some can be unpredictable: families may have to wait for a long time without knowing what food will be available, which can be stressful for parents managing paid work and/or caring for children. CFOs which allocate different spaces and adequate resources for different activities (e.g. food, advice, informal conversation) tend to feel more sociable.
Possible impact of CRF on the current landscape of food support
We expect that the relationships between local authorities and CFOs will remain strong in the shift from the HSF to the CRF, but a few aspects are likely to change.
First, the CRF guidance requires local authorities to take a cash-first approach to awarding crisis payments, prioritising cash payments over other types of support. This may reduce funding available for food aid (e.g. via centralised food hubs). Second, the CRF aims to build financial resilience at individual level, through the provision of support to maximise income, including advice on benefits, debt and savings. Third, if local authorities choose to use the CRF to support community food aid, they are encouraged to prioritise support which is integrated or co-located with financial ‘resilience services’. In addition, local authorities are encouraged to ‘think creatively about new approaches to building sustainable food landscapes’, which is defined as supporting people to ‘transition away from crisis support to building financial resilience’ (section 110). These changes in direction mean that CFOs will either need to reconfigure their services in accordance with the new guidance, or focus on alternative funding sources should they wish to continue providing food aid without incorporating additional support services.
The CRF has an in-built flexibility for local authorities to design CRF schemes to ‘best suit the needs of their local communities’, provided they meet the stipulated resilience outcomes (sections 97 and 102). How local authorities interpret CRF guidance and design and develop CRF schemes may therefore differ significantly with regard to the role of CFOs. Finally, the landscape of food support is also likely to be impacted by other policy measures, such as the government’s announcement of a new National Programme to Redistribute Surplus Food, which aims to triple the volume of surplus food available for redistribution. Other policy initiatives, such as the government’s Pride in Place programme, may be used to fund CFOs if they are part of ‘community-led responses to child poverty’, although community food support is not a major focus of this strategy.
Operational tensions impacting on people’s experiences
Our research showed that CFOs often have to bid for competitive grant funding locally or nationally, which means they have to show how they meet agreed outputs and outcomes. This may require adapting organisational objectives or ways of working, and may lead to operational tensions. The drive to scale up food aid provision in some CFOs, including relying on surplus food, can negatively affect individuals’ experiences. These issues are also related to the way in which CFOs and CFO networks have addressed key challenges in food and related support, and how these are represented in differing and contested approaches to addressing food insecurity.
The negative impact of receiving low quality food
Redistribution of surplus food can be helpful if it is fresh or within date, culturally appropriate and useful. However, being given out-of-date or low-quality food can make families feel undervalued and overlooked, and undermine their dignity.
Impersonal and unsupportive interactions - the need to slow down and develop new skills
In services that are run in a strict, efficiency-focused way, with very quick turnaround times, people are moved rapidly through the building and given little chance to stop and chat. This approach can mean families feel less able to open up about other problems they may have. The pace at which services are delivered affects opportunities for staff and volunteers to listen and talk with people.
Possible impact of CRF on the tensions observed in CFOs
With a new focus on partnership building across the local welfare system, described as ‘local support network’, CRF guidance might help reduce competition for grants between community food organisations operating within the same local authority (CRF section 108). It remains to be seen how local authorities will balance supporting network building and providing services to meet the outcomes outlined in the CRF (section 102) and whether the priority will be given to volume (e.g. number of people engaging with services) or quality (smooth and effective referral to different agencies to address the intersecting root causes of poverty).
The CRF aims to work both on the crisis front, helping people to access cash-first crisis payments (prioritising cash but not only - see, for example, CRF section 37), and on prevention, through provision of personalised support to improve households’ financial resilience. Cash payments may enable people to buy the food they need, rather than rely on donations and surplus, including in emergencies, while personalised timely support may reduce the occurrence of financial emergencies. In this new scenario the role and the relevance of surplus food in relation to food insecurity could change significantly, potentially transforming the sector from the inside, though mediated by other policy measures, such as the government’s new National Programme to Redistribute Surplus Food.
The CRF could help CFOs to recognise the different set-up, pace, skillset and knowledge required to provide advice and personalised support compared with efficiency in food distribution. Despite the strategic priorities of the CRF, local authorities are also confronted with a CFO sector and food support landscape marked by differing approaches to addressing food insecurity, which will likely play a role in the focus of particular CRF schemes.
Complexity and diversity of landscape of food support
Since 2010, the UK has seen a substantial increase in the number of community food organisations (CFOs). Food charity has become an embedded, yet precarious, component of the social security infrastructure. Our research identified considerable diversity in CFOs’ objectives, approaches and services provided
Interdependencies
Some CFOs are dependent on local authorities, either directly (for funding) or indirectly (e.g. relying on publicly-funded centralised food hubs). Local authorities rely on CFOs as a primary delivery mechanism for food aid, as well as for distributing essential support like fuel grants, creating a precarious interdependency. Interdependencies also exist among CFOs and other kinds of support organisations, which collaborate in the provision of co-located services, cross-referrals or signposting to ensure families access the support they need.
A wide range of models
The sector is highly diverse: it includes not only food banks but also food pantries (where members pay a small amount to shop), community kitchens (where people can cook their own food) and community cafes, for example. In England, food banks tend to provide free food but tend not to provide choice, and are often seen as distributors of ‘emergency’ food parcels. On the other hand, pantries tend to be based on a membership model (involving an annual fee and a small payment per visit), can be accessed weekly and provide a choice of food. However, the distinction between models, in many cases, is blurred. For example, we found food banks where people could choose their food, and pantries where there was little or no choice. We also saw that food banks were often used on a regular basis and not only for emergencies. We observed variation in terms of access (e.g. open to all/use of criteria/via referral only) and rules (e.g. on frequency of visits) across all models.
Beyond CFO categories such as ‘food bank’, ‘food pantry’ or ‘social supermarket’, it is important to understand the political and economic contexts in which CFOs develop and operate. For example, the extent to which CFOs are embedded in wider networks, as well as the nature of those networks and their relationships with members, plays a key role in determining the services they provide, the activities they undertake and their overall focus. Understanding how CFO characteristics interact with economic factors (e.g. the funding landscape and food supply), political factors (e.g. local authority and government policy), and lived experiences (e.g. of accessing, volunteering with, or working in CFOs) is critical to understanding CFOs and the wider sector.
Support beyond food
Different organisations and networks in the food aid sector have very different views about how best to tackle household food insecurity. Regardless of the ‘model’ of food support, some organisations focus only on providing food, while others try to address root causes by offering welfare advice, legal aid, training or employment support, whether directly or in partnership with external agencies. Some CFOs and networks call for changes to policies at local and national levels, but the solutions they suggest vary widely (e.g. using funding for cash payments and welfare/financial advice, rather than for purchasing food for redistribution; promoting low-cost trading models such as pantries and social supermarkets; expanding access to surplus food, or combinations of the above).
Operational dilemmas
In response to rising demand and constraints in funding, time and volunteer capacity, some CFOs and CFO networks have expanded and diversified their services. However, this has created new challenges, including dilemmas around the role they should play within the wider welfare and food systems. In particular, many organisations are concerned that temporary emergency aid may become an institutionalised substitute for adequate government support.
From highly organised to informal approaches
Some CFOs use efficient ‘business-like’ systems, such as online ordering and timed collection slots. While this makes provision predictable and reliable, it can sometimes feel transactional and dehumanising, providing little time for staff to listen to families’ wider needs or offer emotional support. Other settings are less business-like in their approach. Some can be unpredictable: families may have to wait for a long time without knowing what food will be available, which can be stressful for parents managing paid work and/or caring for children. CFOs which allocate different spaces and adequate resources for different activities (e.g. food, advice, informal conversation) tend to feel more sociable.
Possible impact of CRF on the current landscape of food support
We expect that the relationships between local authorities and CFOs will remain strong in the shift from the HSF to the CRF, but a few aspects are likely to change.
First, the CRF guidance requires local authorities to take a cash-first approach to awarding crisis payments, prioritising cash payments over other types of support. This may reduce funding available for food aid (e.g. via centralised food hubs). Second, the CRF aims to build financial resilience at individual level, through the provision of support to maximise income, including advice on benefits, debt and savings. Third, if local authorities choose to use the CRF to support community food aid, they are encouraged to prioritise support which is integrated or co-located with financial ‘resilience services’. In addition, local authorities are encouraged to ‘think creatively about new approaches to building sustainable food landscapes’, which is defined as supporting people to ‘transition away from crisis support to building financial resilience’ (section 110). These changes in direction mean that CFOs will either need to reconfigure their services in accordance with the new guidance, or focus on alternative funding sources should they wish to continue providing food aid without incorporating additional support services.
The CRF has an in-built flexibility for local authorities to design CRF schemes to ‘best suit the needs of their local communities’, provided they meet the stipulated resilience outcomes (sections 97 and 102). How local authorities interpret CRF guidance and design and develop CRF schemes may therefore differ significantly with regard to the role of CFOs. Finally, the landscape of food support is also likely to be impacted by other policy measures, such as the government’s announcement of a new National Programme to Redistribute Surplus Food, which aims to triple the volume of surplus food available for redistribution. Other policy initiatives, such as the government’s Pride in Place programme, may be used to fund CFOs if they are part of ‘community-led responses to child poverty’, although community food support is not a major focus of this strategy.
Community food organisations as social infrastructure
In the context of the erosion of public services and community spaces in recent years, social spaces are very important as a means of bringing people together. We found that, while some community food organisations can feel transactional and focused on efficiency, many have become social infrastructure - i.e. safe and sociable spaces which facilitate interaction, connection and mutual support among people who may be isolated. The role of CFOs as social spaces is also part of the way in which CFO networks developed and articulated differing approaches to addressing food insecurity and related dilemmas.
Reducing social isolation
Community food organisations can play a vital role in reducing social isolation by creating safe and welcoming spaces where people can connect with others, build relationships and engage in meaningful social interactions with volunteers and other people accessing services and support.
Improving wellbeing
Beyond providing food, community food organisations often act as informal hubs where individuals can access advice, signposting and other kinds of support, generating wider wellbeing beyond immediate material assistance.
What aspects of CFOs make a difference?
Regardless of the ‘model’ of food support, we found that delivery approaches influence interactions and create positive impact for individuals and the community. Key factors include the set-up of the space, the time available for interpersonal interactions, staff approachability, staff skillset and knowledge, non-judgemental attitudes, and being flexible and responsive.
Download our findings
Find out more in our resources
We developed a range of resources to support policymakers, community food organisations, leaders and stakeholders involved in food support.