Supporting the transition to affordable food clubs
by Ronald Ranta
Across the UK, a clear paradigm shift in food support is underway. More and more food banks are moving towards food clubs (often called pantries and or social/community supermarkets) or adopting hybrid models that combine the emergency support element of a food bank with a payment or subscription-based offer. Already, more people use food clubs than food banks, and this shift is likely to accelerate when the new Crisis and Resilience Fund replaces the Household Support Fund next year.
The reasons for the shift are complex and varied, but several themes recur. It is no secret that many food banks are struggling to maintain their levels of support. Rising prices have resulted in less donated and surplus food being available or that could be relied upon, meaning that many food banks are forced to purchase more food - often relying on Household Support Funds for that. At the same time, food banks are trying to provide greater choice and offer more holistic support, further straining their capacity and finances.
In recent months we have been approached by several food banks, who were thinking of changing their model, asking us to give them some guidance on the challenges and implications of changing models. So what are these from a dignity perspective?
There is emerging evidence to suggest that food clubs provide a more dignified experience (see, for example, the work done by Ranta et al. 2024). The reasons for this include the food club’s emphasis on choice, the fact that referral systems are less common, and the experienced is more akin to shopping than receiving a pre-packed food parcel. However, we need to stress that there is no such thing as a dignified food support experience. Living in poverty and struggling with food insecurity is undignified, the best we can hope to do is work to mitigate that experience. While there is evidence to suggest that food clubs might be better at supporting those in poverty (see, for example, the recent report on food clubs by Feeding Britian), changing food support models cannot in itself deliver the systemic changes required to end food insecurity.
It is important to spell this out clearly: model change does not automatically mean a more dignified experience. We know of many food banks across the country that work hard at embedding dignity as a central element of their work. Simply charging for food provision that was once free does not guarantee dignity. In fact, if done poorly, changing models could cause confusion and even mean less dignified encounters and experiences. For example, when volunteers and members of the new food club are unclear about the reasons for the model change/s, why payments are required, or when hybrid models create inequalities between paying and non-paying members.
From our conversations with staff, volunteers, and members of food banks that have either changed or are in the process of changing models, one lesson is very clear, process matters. Model changes require proper consultation, clear communication, and member and volunteers’ involvement is essential. The reasons for the model change/s need to be made clear as should be the benefits for volunteers and members. Many volunteers and members are often unaware of how much of the food provided, including surplus, is purchased. Clarifying where the food comes from and how much is purchased also helps mitigate the inevitable confusion for some members of why they are now being asked to pay.
Equally important is clarity on how rules and roles have changed with the new model. This is particularly the case for organisations that employ hybrid models and where some members might be paying and others not. For example, organisations that provide emergency support for several weeks and then move members to a subscription model or ones that provide different pricing depending on members financial abilities. Hybrid models might then create two-tier and/or unequal access and be seen as exclusionary for those with less or irregular income.
Changing models should not simply be seen as a solution for funding challenges or a way for providing a subsidised shopping experience. They should be seen as an opportunity to provide greater choice, more sustainable provision, more holistic wrap-around support, and strengthen communities. These, however, can only be achieved if they are designed with dignity at their core. That means involving members and volunteers in decision-making, ensuring equity of access, and being transparent about why changes are happening. Ultimately, we don’t think that food clubs and hybrid models should not be seen as an end in themselves, but as part of a wider movement to that aims to make emergency and charitable food support unnecessary in the first place.
