Fair Food Transformation Fund: independent review

Appendix 2: Profile of Fair Food Transformation Fund Projects

This appendix outlines the profile of the 33 projects^[25] that were awarded funding in the first two rounds of Fair Food Transformation Fund (first round September 2016 and second round January 2017). It also analyses the impacts achieved by the 13 case study projects that were the subject of our field research.

Figure 1: Map of the 33 project locations split by food justice and transition projects [Source: Created from Scottish Government data using Google Fusion Tables]

There were 33 projects that received funding from the FFTF to deliver services – 18 were ‘Food Justice’ projects funded in September 2016 and 15 were ‘Transition’ projects funded in January 2017. These 33 projects covered 14 out of the 32 Scottish local authorities, though some spanned multiple authorities. Projects were not evenly distributed across these authorities, with clustering around Edinburgh, Glasgow, Midlothian and Dumfries and Galloway. West Dunbartonshire and South Lanarkshire had two projects each.

Figure 1 above shows the geographical spread of projects across Scotland. There is an obvious correlation with population, with most clustered across the central belt of Scotland, with particularly high densities in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Figure 2, shows that around half of all projects were in large urban areas (125,000 or more people). This was followed closely by other urban areas (10,000 to 124,999 people).

Two out of 33 projects were in rural areas. Five projects were located in accessible small towns or smaller. Accessible small towns are classified as “settlements of 3,000 and 9,999 people and within 30 minutes’ drive of a settlement of 10,000 or more”.^[26] While this is not remote, for people with mobility issues or without access to a car, location could still present an issue.

Figure 2: Distribution of projects by settlement type [Source: Analysis of Scottish Government data using the 6-fold Rural/Urban classification]

Figure 3 shows the majority of both food justice and transition projects to be in large or other urban areas. However, a greater proportion of food justice projects were situated in large urban areas than transition projects, and a greater proportion of transition projects were in accessible small towns or more rural than food justice projects.

Figure 3: Distribution of food justice and transition projects by settlement type [Source: Analysis of Scottish Government data using the 6-fold Rural/Urban classification]

Project staff and volunteers

Staff numbers were fairly consistent -36% of projects employed two staff members (either full or part-time) and 24% employed one. This is likely to have implications for the capacity of projects to change governance arrangements and implement changes.

Figure 4: Breakdown of number of staff per project [Source: Analysis of project data]

Food justice and transition projects had similar distributions in terms of numbers of staff, with projects most commonly having 2 staff or fewer.

Figure 5: Breakdown of number of staff per project split by food justice and transition projects [Source: Analysis of project data]

While staff numbers were generally similar, projects varied considerably in the number of volunteers they had. More than half of the projects had between 1 and 30 volunteers, with 42% having 20 or fewer, but others had far more, with one project stating that they had 250 volunteers, and another, more than 1000.

This variation is likely to depend upon how projects classified volunteers, and the intensity of volunteering in different projects. As staff numbers at most projects were low, some relied heavily on a core group of volunteers who had a high level of involvement in the running and organisation of the project. Other projects, particularly those running community meals, had a great number of volunteers as any participant who helped out was seen as fulfilling this role.

Figure 6: Number of volunteers per project [Source: Analysis of project data]

There was a wide range of volunteer numbers at both food justice and transition projects.

Figure 7: Comparison of the number of volunteers at food justice and transition projects [Source: Analysis of project data]

Project analysis by activity type

Projects sought to provide dignified approaches to food through a range of activities. These have been categorised into nine distinct groups:

1. Food distribution

2. Food parcels

3. Cooking classes

4. Education on healthy food/nutrition

5. Budgeting

6. Community meals

7. Growing project

8. Accredited food related training

9. Community café

Figure 8: Breakdown of activities each project undertakes [Source: Analysis of project data]

All food justice and transition projects distributed food, and most distributed food parcels. A greater proportion of transition projects provided food parcels and delivered education on healthy food/nutrition. Across all other categories a greater proportion of food justice projects provided each type of activity.

Figure 9: Breakdown of activities each project undertakes, split by food justice and transition projects [Source: Analysis of project data]