Ending the need for food banks - draft plan: consultation analysis

Introduction

Background and context for the consultation

Scottish Government published its Draft plan on ending the need for food banks in October 2021. This sets out a commitment to end the need for food banks as a primary response to food insecurity. The approach set out in the Draft plan is weighted toward prevention: using existing powers to strengthen incomes from fair work, social security and reduced cost of living to make sure everyone has enough income to afford food that meets their needs and preferences. Cash-first and dignified support measures will respond to emergencies when needed. These measures will include promotion of emergency financial assistance and money advice alongside holistic support services. Where help to access food is required, it will be provided in ways that maximise dignity and reduce future need. The Draft plan sets out actions that are currently underway, as well as further action planned, to deliver on commitments on ending the need for food banks.

Consultation approach

The consultation questionnaire was developed by the Scottish Government and hosted online on Citizen Space.

The consultation was live from 20 October 2021 until 25 January 2022. In total 406 responses were received to the consultation: 292 standard responses using Citizen Space, 77 campaign responses and 37 via email sent directly to Scottish Government^[1]. These were manually entered into Citizen Space where possible.

In addition, Scottish Government officials ran a series of ten workshops, which included participants with lived experience of food insecurity and people with direct experience of delivering services. In total, 35 people participated in the workshops, of whom five were people with lived experience of food insecurity. Templates were used to guide notetaking, and a summary report collating the output from all ten workshops was produced.

Analysis

Consultations are open to anyone who wishes to take part. The information collected reflects the views of those respondents but cannot be extrapolated to the wider population. The analysis and interpretation of the consultation responses is therefore descriptive and qualitative.

The consultation responses and the workshop report were downloaded by Progressive into an Excel database. Responses that could not be pasted into excel were manually input. This raw data file was used for creating data tables and for analysis of the open questions.

Coding of open questions

Coding of the open question was done by Progressive's in-house team of experienced coding specialists. Prior to coding beginning, an analytical framework was developed for each open question in the consultation. The framework sets out the range of key issues and themes for consideration. It is derived from the key topics within the draft Plan and from a review of a cross-section of responses for each question.

All the responses were examined thoroughly and coded against the analytical framework. Small teams of experienced coders worked on each question, to minimise bias in the analysis. It is noted, given the nature of this consultation, that several of the responses were complex/lengthy, and not amenable to coding. The coders therefore highlighted these and they were reviewed separately by the executive team.

Classification of respondents

The consultation questionnaire includes a standard respondent information form (RIF). This collects information on type of respondent (individual or organisation), name, and willingness to have the response published. No further detail on the type of organisation was collected. To further inform the analysis, broad categories were created based on the organisation name. It is appreciated that these are indicative; not all those who responded as an organisation provided full details of who they worked for (in most cases a reasonable guess could be made from the email address). It is also noted that many of those responding as individuals mentioned within their response that they were board members of/employed by relevant organisations (typically food banks, but also other welfare providers) – however this was not recorded on the classification sheet – there was no further categorisation of individuals.

Description

The report ensures that the full range of views are reported, not just the majority views. To give an indication of the weight/prevalence of views for each question, the report uses the following.

• All: 100%
• Most: more than 60%
• Many: 30% - 60%
• Some: 10% - 30%
• A few: less than 10%

The consultation

The consultation comprised six questions – two closed, three open, and one a combination of both. As can be seen below, the questions were broad and discursive, inviting respondents to respond on the content of the Draft plan and consider suggestions for developing the proposed approach and suggest actions that could be taken to improve the Draft plan.

1. Do you think that the approach outlined is consistent with the vision to end poverty and the need for food banks? Is there anything else you think should be included? [Y/N/Don't Know] [Open]

2. Do you think that the actions underway will help to reduce the need for food banks as a primary response to food insecurity? [Y/N/Don't Know]

3. Do you think that the suggestions for what more we plan to do will help to reduce the need for food banks as a primary response to food insecurity? [Y/N/Don't Know]

4. Is there anything else that you think should be done with the powers we have at a national or local level to reduce the need for food banks as a primary response to food insecurity? [Open]

5. Do you have any views on how we intend to measure impact, and what would give you confidence that we are moving in the right direction? [Open]

6. Is there anything else that you think should be considered in the development of this plan? [Open]

Overview of the response

Four hundred and six individual responses were received to the consultation. The table below below summarises the response to the consultation.

A total of 77 campaign responses were received. These were reviewed and managed as follows: 52 of the responses were identical, while a further 25 respondents submitted the campaign response but included additional comments. All these responses have been analysed along with the general responses, to ensure all their comments are reflected in the analysis.

The respondent information form did not ask organisations to specify the sector they worked in or their area of interest. A broad set of categories has, however, been developed, based on the name/description of the organisation provided.

Overall, individuals were the most common type of respondent. As might be expected given the consultation topic, food aid organisations – food banks and pantries – were the most common type of organisations to respond. Two thirds of these were the campaign responses. It is possible that some of the organisations classed under other headings were also engaged in providing food aid.

Seven of the responses were clearly identified as from organisations that provide money advice. Again, others, including many of the food providers and others (for example housing providers) are likely to also provide such support.

* Includes 25 responses that are campaign + and the core campaign response (which combines all 52 identical responses). All were from food aid providers.

In addition to these responses, a report from the workshop was added to the dataset. This is treated as a single document, but it is appreciated it collates and summarises the views from 35 people. Five of these people had direct experience of food insecurity, the others were involved in food aid activities (22 with direct experience delivering services).

Summary of the response to each question

Table 3 below summarises the response to each question. In line with consultation practice, respondents were free to determine which questions they answered; unlike a survey, there was no requirement to answer all of the questions. The following points should be taken into account:

• The number of responses to each of the open questions (Q1b, Q4, Q5, Q6) is indicative. The consultation questions were very broad, and respondents tended to comment thematically, rather than strictly in line with the question heading.
• The Citizen Space questionnaire did not include an option to comment on Q2 or Q3. However, many respondents chose to comment on these questions elsewhere on their form – typically under Q1b. Those replying by email did not use the question, some though not all, noted which question their comments referred to.
  While the comments (open responses) to Q2 and Q3 have not been specifically collated/quantified, it can be assumed the approximate total responses for these open questions are similar to Q1b.
• Most respondents answered the closed questions (Q1, Q2 and Q3). The campaign response, which accounts for 77 responses (received from organisations) did not answer the closed questions; these account for the bulk of the non-response.
• The campaign response has been entered into the database under question 6. This accounts for 77 responses under this question. However, it is appreciated that the campaign response address other questions within the consultation, and has been taken into account as appropriate.