‘Would you like a food parcel or supermarket gift card?’

Results from a randomised controlled trial testing what happens when you give people a choice of support in a food bank setting.

Read the Full Findings

At Sufra, we meet people in crisis every day. Through over 13 years of experience, we know that food parcels, while providing vital emergency support, are no solution to poverty. Being involved in this research gave us the opportunity to measure with rigour the real difference that supermarket vouchers can make compared with food parcels, moving beyond our anecdotal experience to understand the impact on financial resilience, dignity, diet and wellbeing.

The Trial

In collaboration with SALIENT Research and the University of Liverpool, Sufra hosted the research over a period of 10 months, where our guests were randomly placed into one of two groups:

• The Food Parcel Group: they went on to receive food parcels as they had expected
• The Choice Group: were given the choice to either continue to receive food parcels or instead, to receive supermarket vouchers

Data was collected across multiple areas, including how many people chose to receive supermarket vouchers instead of food parcels, how food insecurity changed over the six weeks between both groups, whether fruit and vegetable consumption differed between groups over time and if there were changes in how often people were able to meet their food preferences. The types of food and non-food items acquired by the Choice and Food Parcel Groups during the study were also examined, via photos sent in on WhatsApp throughout the trial.

The research team also conducted interviews with guests to ask about what it was like to receive food parcels or supermarket vouchers, collecting a wealth of qualitative data. SALIENT’s process evaluation team also did another set of interviews, this time with food bank staff and a group of participants from the trial, enquiring about the reality of implementing voucher distribution, and perceptions of receiving vouchers vs food parcels.

What did we find out?

What did we conclude?

For us, the findings confirm something we see every day in our work: our guests know their own needs best. Supermarket vouchers gave people greater control over how they managed limited resources and gave them a sense of dignity and choice that food parcels could not. At the same time, this study is a reminder that emergency food aid, in any form, cannot solve the root causes of food insecurity. Low incomes, insecure work, unaffordable and inappropriate housing, debt and barriers to accessing our social security system all continue to drive people to seek help from food banks.

Short-term emergency support must be dignified, flexible and rooted in choice, but the real longer-term impact is made when support helps to change guests’ circumstances and address the wider pressures that have brought them to crisis. This is why wraparound support is so important. Food or vouchers can provide immediate relief, but guests also need access to advice, advocacy, signposting and practical support that can help them stabilise their lives, increase income, reduce debt, improve housing situations and access the services and entitlements they are eligible for.

How we build on what we’ve learnt

We hope this report helps food aid providers, local authorities, funders and policy makers think differently about how support is designed and delivered. It shows that trust, flexibility and choice can make a meaningful difference, particularly when they are connected to wider support. For Sufra, the next step is to take the learning from this research and integrate it into our service design. As an organisation, we will continue to explore how choice-based emergency support can sit alongside stronger wraparound pathways, so that our services respond to immediate need while also creating more opportunities to improve guests’ longer-term circumstances. We are grateful to everyone who took part in the trial and shared their experiences so openly. Their voices should guide what comes next: a shift towards emergency support that is more dignified all while continuing the work to end the need for food banks altogether.