The Trussell Trust Foodbank Network

The Trussell Trust Foodbank Network is a network of community-run (Foodbank) franchises managed by the Trussell Trust, a Christian social action charity. The Foodbank model is designed to be an emergency intervention, providing food for people in the short-term while they await support from other services. It is described in the Trussell Trust Operating Manual (Trussell Trust, 2004) as:

The first Foodbank was set up by the Trussell Trust in 2000 in Salisbury where they are based. In 2004, the decision was taken by the Trust to develop a way of sharing the model more widely and Foodbank was developed into a not-for-profit ‘social’ franchise.

Individual Foodbanks are set up by collaborations of local churches who obtain the franchise through a one-off donation and commitment to nominal annual donations. Franchisees agree to subscribe to the aims and visions of the Trussell Trust; among other things they are also required to use the Foodbank logo appropriately, collect data and allow an annual audit to be taken. Included within the list of things the Trussell Trust provide franchisees is an operating manual, training, on-going help and support, co-ordination of the Foodbank Network and provision of branding.

Foodbanks are designed to be community-based projects, where food is donated by local people, stored locally and distributed to local people in need. Food is routinely collected from people in the community, most commonly through churches, schools and special collections at local supermarkets. All food parcels contain a prescribed combination of key (long-life) food items, enough for ten meals; whilst the basic composition of each parcel is the same, the amount of food provided is increased according to the number of people in the household.Footnote ² The provision of food for ten meals (three days) was decided on by the Trust because they saw this as the ‘minimum time it takes for the appropriate agencies to be in a position to assist’ (Trussell Trust, 2004: 1).

In order to obtain a food parcel from a Foodbank, individuals have to be referred. Foodbanks run a voucher referral system through front-line service providers in the local community. Foodbanks build relationships with a range of local services, agencies and other community-based programmes (for example doctors’ surgeries, advice centres, social workers). After these agencies are introduced to the Foodbank concept and ways of working, they are provided with vouchers to distribute to people they deem to be in need of emergency food parcels. Recipients then receive food by either going to a Foodbank distribution centre with their voucher or being given an ‘emergency food box’ held by the professional themselves.

Food recipients can be given up to three food parcels over the duration of their ‘crisis’ situation, from their local Foodbank. Where they might need a fourth, or more, the care professional (voucher holder) is required to make special arrangements with the Foodbank. The Foodbank−voucher holder relationship is key to the franchise model. It is seen as an important way of maintaining the sustainability of projects as ‘emergency’ interventions, as it provides a mechanism for holding the agencies – who are supposed to be helping the potential recipients in the longer term – to account.

The three-day provision, the in-built role of voucher distributors and the three voucher ‘rule’ are all designed to ensure that Foodbank fits within a wider system of support. The initiative is designed as an emergency – or last resort – service which fills in a gap whilst state or other voluntary providers are able to get appropriate assistance for an individual in place.

Emergency food provision (in the form of ad hoc, localised provision by churches and community groups) is not new to the UK. What the Foodbank appears to do, however, is to formalise and standardise this provision, and on a national scale. What further distinguishes the Trussell Trust Foodbank approach is their franchising of emergency food banking, bringing with it corresponding approaches to branding and intellectual property.

Despite the fact that emergency food provision in various guises, including other types of food banks and soup kitchens, has long existed in the UK, there is relatively little published research on these initiatives (see Hawkes and Webster, Reference Hawkes and Webster2000, for an important exception). In contrast, in the USA and Canada, there are both longer histories of charitable emergency food provision and a range of research literature around its origins, development and effectiveness (Poppendieck, Reference Poppendieck1998; Riches, Reference Riches2011; Tarasuk, Reference Tarasuk2001). As in the UK, where Foodbank represents one particular model of emergency food banking, in the USA and Canada food bank initiatives vary in their organisation and approach. Similarities do lie, however, in the co-ordinating approach of the Foodbank Network and organisations such as Feeding America in the USA, Food Banks Canada and Daily Bread Food Bank, Toronto. Fundamental differences between the Foodbank Network and these latter three organisations are important to note, however, and centre around the Trussell Trust's distinctive franchise approach. Furthermore, while the Network is comprised of Foodbanks which are localised collection and distribution projects, Feeding America, Food Banks Canada and Daily Bread Food Bank work to re-distribute food and funds to local projects ‘on the ground’. Despite these differences in emergency food projects’ ways of working and the countries’ approaches to welfare, insights from the literature from US and Canadian contexts can be drawn on in order to provide a wider developed-world context.

Foodbank and social policy: historical and contemporary contexts

The rise in the number of Trussell Trust Foodbanks within the last eight years invites questions about the influencing role that domestic social policy may have played. The timeframe of the growth of the Foodbank Network can be contextualised both by historical welfare reforms instigated by successive Labour governments between 1997 and 2010 and the on-going work of the current Conservative−Liberal Democrat coalition government. The exact pattern of growth suggests that the latter may be of particular importance. At the end of March 2010, just over a month before the coalition government was elected, fifty-four Foodbanks had been launched; in April 2012, almost exactly two years after their election and in the context of significant spending cuts and restructuring of welfare provision, this number had increased to 201.

The current coalition government was elected during the worst recession the UK had seen for sixty years (Smith, Reference Smith2010). Their election signalled an important moment for welfare policy, bringing with it as it did the start of significant cuts to public spending (in pursuit of a lower public sector deficit), widespread restructuring of welfare services and the policy platform of ‘the Big Society’. Whilst the latter two of these policy initiatives – particularly the ‘Big Society’ idea – are presented by the government as novel, it has been observed that this is not necessarily the reality; it can also be cast as a further pursuit of policies instigated by New Labour (Kisby, Reference Kisby2010; Smith, Reference Smith2010). Whilst thirteen years of successive Labour governments saw a ‘considerable expansion in the size and functions of the state’ (Smith, Reference Smith2010: 820), it also brought moves towards increasing diversification in terms of welfare service delivery and an emphasis on user ‘choice’ (Smith, Reference Smith2010: 829). The role of the voluntary sector – as in the Big Society rhetoric – also became of increasing importance during these years. An emphasis on individual responsibility, the importance of voluntarism and promoting the role of voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations within the welfare system were all features of the New Labour policy programme (see Kisby, Reference Kisby2010 among others).

Reforms pursued by previous Labour governments may well have paved the way for some of the coalition's approach to social policy, particularly around the Big Society and the role of the voluntary sector. However, the coalition government's programme of spending cuts and welfare restructuring can be seen as distinct from this historical policy context. The wider economic situation plays an important role in framing this distinction (seen either as prescribing particular policy approaches or as a way of legitimising them). Beyond the Big Society idea, the coalition government's social policy agenda is arguably dominated by the pursuit of widespread spending cuts and welfare restructuring. The government spending cuts planned are significant not only in relation to the amount but also the timescales in which they are to be implemented: the government plans to cut public spending by £110.3 billion by 2014–15 (Taylor-Gooby and Stoker, Reference Taylor-Gooby and Stoker2011: 5). As well as cutting the budgets of government departments, savings are being pursued through changes to welfare benefits. Those affected include housing benefits, child benefits, tax credits, disability living allowance and council tax benefit; a cap on benefit-levels according to family size has also been introduced as well as a 10 per cent cut in benefits for people unemployed for over a year (Taylor-Gooby and Stoker, Reference Taylor-Gooby and Stoker2011: 7).

Alongside these cuts in spending, the government is also pursuing a programme of public service restructuring, described as incorporating three key elements: ‘an emphasis on local decision making and budgeting; a shift in responsibility for outcomes from state to citizens; and the consistent promotion of the expansion of private and, in some areas third sector provision’ (Taylor-Gooby and Stoker, Reference Taylor-Gooby and Stoker2011: 9). The ‘Big Society’ discourse is important here, particularly in relation to the emphasis it places upon increased service provision by voluntary sector groups and the importance of communities ‘coming together to address local issues’ (Conservative Party, n.d.: 1). Whether or not the Big Society rhetoric will develop a substantive core, it seems likely that in the current political context the emphasis on ‘big society not big government’ will remain (emphasis added; see Conservative Party, n.d.).

It would be difficult to ascertain from the data that were collected the exact impact of the recent policy shifts on the growth of Foodbanks when compared to internal drivers. For example, key findings from the original research report (Lambie, Reference Lambie2011) highlighted the importance of the faith-basis of Foodbank and the social franchise model as drivers of growth. The Foodbank social franchise model was found to provide a ready-made, reputable tool for local churches to take up as part of the social action work their Christian faith calls them to do. At the same time, the strategic approach that was taken towards the roll-out of the model amongst churches enables the Trust to work towards its mission ‘that every town should have a Foodbank’ in light of the geographical reach and presence of churches throughout the country (Lambie, Reference Lambie2011). The exact pattern of growth (small numbers set up at first with a gain in momentum later on) was also related by some strategic-level interviewees to normal, reasonable growth patterns for a franchise initiative:

While factors relating to the Foodbank model and ways of working undoubtedly propelled Network growth, data collected around the impact of public sector spending cuts and discussions around the role of the state suggest that those involved in Foodbanks do engage with the wider social policy context and the tensions which result from it. Evidence of the effects of public spending cuts was clear within the data collected in this research. Participants from one case study Foodbank in particular talked about the consequences of the limited funding available to statutory service providers on the uptake of Foodbank. In an interview with a worker from a Drug Intervention Programme working with prolific offenders addicted to Class A drugs, the participant described the rationale behind their organisation, and the local probation service, signing up to the Foodbank project:

Similarly, a social worker who works within a family support team and distributes Foodbank vouchers talked about the effect of local government budget cuts on the services that they were able to provide:

These quotes were further compounded by the local Foodbank manager who described the fast take-up of the Foodbank by local agencies:

This latter quote illustrates how the Foodbank has come to fill a gap which has arisen from funding cuts and suggests that, moreover, this also means that service providers may rush to take up a service that they may have reservations about, because they have no other choice.

The data collected also indicated, however, that changes to state provision were not necessarily seen as a cause for concern for some of those involved in Foodbanks. There was a sense, from some of those who ran individual Foodbanks, that government had gotten ‘too big’, and that current restructuring presented an opportunity for the Church in particular to play a role. These quotes are from managers of two different Foodbanks:

It is important to note, however, that the Foodbank model is premised on the existence and work of wider state and other statutory support. Foodbanks provide three days’ worth of food in order to plug a gap while these other services work to overcome the cause of the ‘crisis’.

The relationship between the Foodbank Network and the Big Society platform is also interesting to explore. There are two key features of the Trussell Trust Foodbank model in particular that have the potential to be attractive in the current policy context, particularly in relation to the Big Society idea. Firstly, the Foodbank model is designed to fill a ‘gap’ in current statutory and voluntary sector provision and to provide a tool for front-line agencies. This feature fits well with the policy emphasis currently being placed on welfare diversification and bottom-up approaches to the identification and meeting of needs (see Smith, Reference Smith2010; Cabinet Office, 2010). Secondly, in line with current social policy priorities, the model places particular emphasis on community action and participation, aiming to bring the community together around the Foodbank cause. Local communities are engaged through food donations and volunteering opportunities in particular. The 2011–12 end-of-year figures detailed that there were 4,360 volunteers working with Foodbanks across the Network, 2,023 Churches supporting Foodbanks and 1,423 schools supporting Foodbanks. Whilst these characteristics might be seen to locate Foodbank within the contemporary political rhetoric of ‘Big Society’, data collected from participants conveyed a sense that ‘Big Society’ might more appropriately be seen as a new label for what has been going on for years:

The data presented here highlight a consciousness amongst those involved in the Foodbanks studied of the impact of on-going cuts in public spending and a more general emphasis on a reduced role for government and state-provided welfare. Literature from the USA and Canada supports suggestions of the importance of contextualising the growth and entrenchment of emergency food provision within wider social policy in this way. In the North American context previous research has shown how the proliferation of emergency food provision took place in the 1980s in the context of a ‘deep’ recession, increases in unemployment and inadequate social security provisions (Riches, Reference Riches2002; Poppendieck, Reference Poppendieck1998). This inadequate public provision has been cited as a key factor in the institutionalisation of these initiatives in both countries (Daponte and Bade, Reference Daponte and Bade2006; Tarasuk, Reference Tarasuk2001). In Canada, Riches (Reference Riches2002: 648) argued that the retrenchment of the welfare state led to food banks becoming ‘secondary extensions of weakened social safety nets’.

Whilst some of the research findings, supported by evidence from these other developed nations, may frame the rise of emergency food provision as a response to a retracting welfare state, there may also be a question of how far initiatives like Foodbank may themselves, however inadvertently, shape such shifts. In rising to fill emerging ‘gaps’ in public provision, there is a question as to how far, as Riches (Reference Riches2002: 648) argues, the opportunity is provided for policy makers to ‘look the other way’. Tarasuk (Reference Tarasuk2001) argues that they can unwittingly redefine the ‘solution’ to food insecurity as a case of food provision and/or education. In pursuing such ambitions as ‘every town should have a Foodbank’ or working to ensure that ‘no one goes hungry’ through the provision of emergency food, it becomes possible to see how it could be that national-scale, high profile initiatives like Foodbank could potentially be playing their own role in shaping some of the wider shifts that they are perceived as being a response to.

Symptoms and root causes

The Trussell Trust Foodbank model is designed as an emergency response, providing relief to people in crisis. This part of the article explores the tension which is present between approaches such as this, which emphasise relief and alleviation compared to more structural responses seeking to solve or overcome the poverty and inequality that underpins experiences of hunger (see Riches, Reference Riches1997, Reference Riches2002; Poppendieck, Reference Poppendieck1998). In a large-scale study of emergency food provision in the USA, Poppendieck (Reference Poppendieck1998: 38) frames this as ‘one of the persistent dilemmas of the emergency food project, the tension between pursuing more fundamental solutions to poverty and meeting immediate need’. This tension was displayed clearly in the data collected from conversations with interviewees around underlying experiences of poverty and food:

Interviewees also talked in more detail about how Foodbanks navigated tensions around particular underpinning experiences of wider needs and social injustice. They talked about how Foodbanks were not only meeting an immediate need of hunger in the recipients, but that they were trying to do more in terms of support and signposting to further help. The Foodbank Operating Manual requires the provision of ‘a listening ear and signposting to other agencies’ at Foodbank distribution centres (Trussell Trust, 2004). As one strategic-level interviewee described:

Furthermore, the Foodbank model's emphasis on front-line agencies and on plugging a gap until ‘appropriate agencies are in a position to assist’ highlights how the Foodbank idea is ultimately underpinned by the notion that the solution to recipients’ problems lies elsewhere within the wider welfare system.

It was also clear from the empirical data that the social injustice of food insecurity and of having to go to a charitable food project is keenly felt by Foodbank recipients. A number of voucher holders talked about how people they have referred have been reluctant to go to the Foodbank because it feels like ‘charity’, and one recipient that was interviewed described how the experience had felt like ‘begging’. Some participants also talked about how hard it was when people are not used to receiving support, or have never sought any kind of ‘help’ before. Many of the distributors talked about how visiting a Foodbank was ultimately a humiliating and degrading experience for those people that they referred:

The Foodbank model endeavours to overcome some of the negative emotions associated with visiting a Foodbank – in the first instance, through the voucher referral system. One Foodbank volunteer talked about how this meant that when they arrived at the Foodbank recipients didn't feel that they had to ‘justify’ themselves at the Foodbank itself, and that in turn the distribution centre could be ‘more relaxed, more informal’. The policy of giving food out in supermarket branded carrier bags was seen as another important practice, as one Foodbank voucher holder described, allowing recipients ‘the dignity when they walk around the street’. The Foodbank model also requires that the distribution centre itself is an inclusive, non-judgemental space, and this was highlighted by a number of interviewees. The importance of offering a listening ear was clearly crucial, and taking the time to sit with recipients to ‘chat’.

Whilst these data indicate an appreciation of the tensions involved between approaches addressing the symptoms and root causes of poverty, ultimately, by their very nature, Foodbanks are emergency responses and focus on providing parcels of food to people in ‘need’. In the first instance therefore, Foodbanks and other charitable food assistance projects like them have a limited impact beyond this provision and the signposting they can do to other forms of help. In light of the necessary constraints of emergency food provision, it has been argued that in order to promote wider societal changes and the cause of those vulnerable people that they serve, these programmes need to play a prominent advocacy role, promoting longer-term and more fundamental solutions to poverty and food insecurity (Hawkes and Webster, Reference Hawkes and Webster2000; Riches, Reference Riches2002; Tarasuk, Reference Tarasuk2001).

The Foodbank Network, through the Trussell Trust, is arguably well-placed to undertake this campaign and advocacy work. In the first instance, through the voucher distribution process and administration, individual Foodbanks and the wider Network have the potential to hold agencies to account; ‘if they're meeting the need, great, if not we'll say so’ [strategic interviewee]. In addition, the administration of Foodbanks and the annual auditing process provides the Foodbank Network with considerable amounts of data regarding, in particular, the reasons behind visits to Foodbanks. This collection of evidence provides a powerful tool which the Trust can deploy in order to raise awareness and campaign for policy change:

The importance of campaigning and advocacy as part of the work of the Foodbank Network was articulated by interviewees both from case study Foodbanks and at a strategic level. There was a sense that the success and proliferation of Foodbanks meant that it was now a ‘credible body’ which can ‘fight for disenfranchised people’ [case study Foodbank manager]. A stakeholder of a local Foodbank gave a keynote speech at the launch of their project and argued:

At a strategic level, interviewees talked about how in recent years the Trussell Trust has developed an approach to campaigning which aims to raise awareness of the issues faced by clients visiting Foodbanks and to advocate policy change. Since approximately 2007, the Trust has been developing their campaign work, driven by the imperative to ‘speak out about justice’ [Strategic interviewee]. The campaign work revolves around raising awareness of ‘Hidden Hunger’ and is designed to both raise public consciousness and to influence government policy.

Whilst campaigning and advocacy is therefore a priority currently, as the Foodbank Network grows and requires more and more capacity for its support, there will necessarily be a tension between ensuring capacity for Network provision and ensuring a sustained emphasis on the campaign and advocacy side of the Trust's work. Furthermore, the social action emphasis of the Trussell Trust more generally means that campaign work will always remain a peripheral consideration:

This quote highlights a clear tension between project delivery and campaigning. For the Trust, the notion of ‘social action’ retains primacy; this could mean that when pressed, the Trust could withdraw or pull back from campaign and advocacy work. Should this occur, the voice of food parcel recipients and the experience of the social injustice of food insecurity, which is currently highlighted through their work, could be lost and with it any political impetus for change. A further tension could arise between the desire for further expansion of the Network and to ‘speak out about justice’. If Foodbank growth depends upon gaps in welfare provision, how will the Trust reconcile this with their advocacy goals?