Food Roots evaluation

This report presents findings from an independent evaluation of the third round of the Food Roots programme, commissioned by the Greater London Authority (GLA). Building on the success of the Food Roots Incubator Programme, this round of Food Roots aimed to strengthen and expand local food partnerships to support more sustainable, resilient responses to food insecurity.

The programme had four key objectives:

1. Develop and strengthen relationships across the voluntary and community sector (VCS) and with local authorities to embed more strategic, collaborative approaches.
2. Increase the number of food aid providers offering support beyond food, including cash-first and wraparound approaches.
3. Improve the ability of food partnerships to access sustainable external funding.
4. Raise awareness and uptake of Healthy Start through better signposting and stronger links between statutory and voluntary sectors.

This round of the Food Roots programme provided a total of £1.26 million in grant funding to 21 food partnerships. Of this, £821,000 was awarded during the first year and £442,000 during the extension period.

The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach to assess delivery, outcomes and potential legacy of the programme. This included 117 semi-structured interviews, ‘deep dives’ in 12 partnerships (comprising interviews, observations and desk review), observation of workshops and events, a survey of partnership members (84 responses) and a workshop with delivery partners.

Grant funding to partnerships

This round of Food Roots funding paid for coordinators (£25k part-time / £45k full-time) to develop and strengthen local food partnerships. Coordinators used their time and capacity to support a wide range of activities shaped around local priorities and emerging opportunities. However, because there were no clearly defined targets or deliverables, it was harder to measure and track the impact of this work consistently.

Programme grants were managed by a single host organisation, which ensured clear responsibility for managing funds and delivering the programme. However, this sometimes reduced involvement of wider partners in Food Roots activities.

• In some areas, delays in recruitment, staff turnover and short contracts limited progress. Coordinators who started late or lacked support from their host organisation often struggled to advance longer-term planning or partnership development.

Learning and support offers

Delivery partners provided a structured programme of training, peer learning, mentoring, and specialist advice to support capacity-building.

• Learning curriculum: Led by TSIC, Sustain, Food Matters and the First Love Foundation, this included workshops, site visits, online and in-person learning, and one-to-one support. The curriculum was co-designed with partnerships to address immediate priorities such as governance, partnership development, fundraising, and wraparound support. Later, content was adapted for ‘beginner’ partnerships needing foundational skills and ‘mature’ partnerships ready for strategic development, making the training relevant to participants at different stages.
• Tailored mentoring: First Love Foundation helped some partnerships move towards adopting wraparound approaches, linking food provision with advice. Civil Society Consulting also provided mentoring to organisations to support long-term fundraising. Many organisations, however, lacked staffing, structures, or leadership support, to benefit from either mentoring offers. In these cases, mentors instead supported more basic organisational development activities, such as building robust governance models.
• Healthy Start training: Delivered by Citizens Advice to improve frontline staff knowledge of the scheme. Uptake was highest where sessions were centrally promoted (e.g., by GLA/OHID), but where promotion relied only on local coordinators or where boroughs already had some Healthy Start activity, engagement was patchier, and training was sometimes seen as duplicative. Some ‘Train the Trainer’ sessions were also delivered to enable staff to pass on knowledge within their organisations. However, without dedicated funding to maintain or update these sessions, long-term impact is uncertain.

Evaluation and reflective learning

• The built-in evaluation acted not only as accountability but as a reflective tool, giving coordinators valuable space to review progress and priorities.
• Practical morning and evaluation support and advice was accessed by partnerships to help evidence impact and strengthen their ability to pursue future funding.

Developing and strengthening relationships

In many areas, Food Roots funding helped develop and re-establish food partnerships, with coordinators playing a key role in building trust among partners, fostering inclusive membership, and strengthening governance. Progress was gradual, but evidence suggests that coordinators helped partnerships move towards more strategic impact.

• The programme created a platform for councils and community organisations to work together, overcoming historic mistrust and siloed working. Coordinators facilitated dialogue through meetings, one-to-one outreach, and clearer governance, helping councils understand local needs and offer resources such as data tools and funding.
• Partners worked on joint projects, sharing tools, co-designing strategies, and pursuing joint funding bids. In some areas, seed funding allowed local organisations to lead initiatives like community growing or support projects. Coordinators also created smaller working groups and networks to encourage collaboration.

Funding gave partners space to plan long-term strategy beyond crisis food provision with the support of the Food Roots coordinator, including exploring shared infrastructure projects (surplus food hubs). In most areas, much of this work was still at an early stage by the programme’s end with sustainability plans being explored.

Offering holistic support beyond food aid

• Partnerships were encouraged to develop “wraparound” support, linking food aid with advice and wellbeing programmes. Progress varied, as organisations faced capacity pressures, differing readiness, and inconsistent interpretations of wraparound support.
• Some partnerships focused on improving referral pathways and signposting, including training staff, embedding advice in community hubs, and testing digital referral tools. These efforts marked a shift towards preventative, holistic support, but challenges remain around data sharing, resources, and consistent use of digital systems.
• A “cash-first” approach (providing direct financial support) was encouraged but not fully tested due to funding and other barriers.

Accessing sustainable external funding

• Several partnerships were supported to build their ability and capacity to secure long-term funding. This included making governance improvements as well as strengthening internal leadership, decision-making and grant management processes.
• Some explored social enterprises or income-generating initiatives, like community cafés and social supermarkets, to reduce reliance on grants.
• Partnerships faced challenges in capturing and evidencing their collective work due to limited evaluation capacity, inconsistent reporting, technological barriers, and data privacy concerns.

Increasing awareness and visibility of Healthy Start

• Feedback surveys suggest training for frontline staff and volunteers help increase understanding of Healthy Start eligibility and voucher use.
• Many partners integrated Healthy Start promotion into their work, translating training into outreach campaigns and targeted support. Partnerships tested diverse methods to improve uptake and overcome language or cultural barriers, including leaflets, posters, social media, bilingual advocates, and collaboration with local businesses and services.
• Despite local promotion efforts, the main barriers to uptake were perceived to be wider issues with the scheme (such as low voucher value, limited coverage, and a complex application process) which local efforts alone could not overcome.

Learning from Food Roots shows that food partnerships can be an effective way to tackle food insecurity. The programme’s experience highlights practical approaches for success at different stages of partnership development:

Recommendations for new partnerships

• Establish a clear purpose and shared vision with simple governance arrangements.
• Secure dedicated coordination capacity from the start, ideally shared across roles.
• Build credibility early with quick wins (e.g., surplus food redistribution) and map existing services to avoid duplication.

Recommendations for emerging partnerships

• Show tangible added value, such as pooled resources and reduced duplication, to encourage engagement.
• Align with council strategies while keeping community-led approaches.
• Invest in visibility and trust-building through meetings, visits, and regular communications.

Recommendations for established partnerships

• Review membership regularly to maintain relevance and effectiveness.
• Diversify funding and hosting models to reduce dependence on short-term grants.
• Support staff and volunteer wellbeing, providing time for reflection and peer support.
• Adapt the model continuously to fit local context, needs, and opportunities.

Food Roots demonstrates how well-supported local partnerships can deliver tangible community impact and provide a basis for sustainable, preventative approaches to food insecurity. While full systemic change was not possible in the timeframe, the programme has helped reframe food insecurity and demonstrated the value of moving beyond short-term emergency food provision by integrating advice services, testing cash-first approaches, and linking food aid to wider support networks.

At the end of the programme, many localised impacts were beginning to emerge. In several areas, partnerships engaged with local councils and gained authority to influence policy and planning. Local projects led by coordinators or partner organisations were shown to be helping to increase awareness of healthy and sustainable eating, improve access to affordable and culturally appropriate food, and strengthen social cohesion and overall wellbeing. There were also lasting impacts for coordinators themselves, who developed transferable skills in governance, systems thinking, monitoring, and partnership facilitation.

However, sustaining and scaling these impacts will require ongoing investment and strategic support, as local innovation (while powerful) is not sufficient on its own to tackle the deeper, structural causes of food insecurity.

Recommendations for funders

• Establish a clear purpose and shared vision, codified in simple governance arrangements.
• Invest in long-term coordination capacity (ideally five years+) to sustain partnerships and institutional memory.
• Support cross-borough collaboration through modest, strategic investment in networks like the London Sustainable Food Places (SFP) Network.
• Fund organisational development for smaller community organisations to strengthen governance, systems, and workforce capacity.
• Resource evaluation and monitoring to capture impact, guide investment, and support evidence-based approaches.
• Fund for strategy as well as delivery, enabling reflection, planning, and innovation beyond immediate crisis response.

Recommendations for local, regional and national actors

• Embed food insecurity into broader policy agendas (health, poverty, housing, climate) to address structural causes.
• Enable cross-borough coordination and shared guidance and promote cash-first and preventative approaches as standard practice.
• At the national level, address root causes of food insecurity, provide permanent crisis support funding, and issue clear frameworks to guide local action.

Recommendations for future programme design

• Plan for longer timescales to allow systemic and cultural change.
• Design flexible delivery models to accommodate local differences in capacity, infrastructure, and political context.
• Prioritise cultural change through training, facilitation, and leadership development.
• Build in succession planning to sustain progress despite staff turnover, using legacy toolkits, peer mentoring, and shared documentation.