People are on board, a network has been formed, and an organisational structure with a central group of leaders to keep things going has been established. You have a vision and a plan for taking it forward. So now it is time to build. But, this is often the stage where things fall down. Some lessons we have learned from working with and watching this space.

For an academic reflection on the process in Sheffield, see Yap, C., & Treuherz, S. (2025). Emerging territorial food systems governance processes: lessons from a local food action plan in Sheffield, UK. Local Environment, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2025.2467865

There are 8 sections in this part of the toolkit:

1. Over-ambition, under-achievement
2. Perceived lack of progress
3. Loss of the vision
4. Uncertainty about how to proceed
5. Lack of reflection on the process
6. How do we know if we are transforming? It is all so complex
7. What to measure to demonstrate impact
8. Feeling you are doing this on your own

Over-ambition, under-achievement

It is also easy to get excited by big and bold ideas, but starting with a set of clear wins will keep people onboard for longer. It also takes time to learn to work together. Pursuing easy wins at the start will facilitate this learning. Successes and achievements will also foster trust. Once some wins are secured, ways of working together are negotiated, and trust is gained, return to the plan and agree on the next steps with something more ambitious that may take a bit longer.

Perceived lack of progress

People come together and agree on where the work is going, and then things go quiet. Too often, people feel that plans are developed and not followed by action, even if this is untrue. Community consultations get labelled as ‘talking shops’, and the next time stakeholders are asked to participate, they opt out, making it harder to get them involved.

It is essential to report to everyone in the network what has been achieved, what is ongoing, and what is happening next. There is a sense of movement to this communication. Stakeholders will then understand the progress made and how the vision is pursued. This communication should also happen regularly. Once a year is not enough. Quarterly is probably a better frequency.

Loss of the vision

Building Food Ladders takes a network of people, but people come and go. Often with surprising frequency. Memories also fade, and immediate pressures can take priority. Once a vision is agreed, and as new people join the network, they need to be clear on what they are working toward. Clearly indicating the vision to everyone at the start of each meeting will help keep people on board. Each action and decision should be evaluated against how it helps achieve the vision and keep it in central focus. To embed this process as a regular way of working, it can be helpful to have a designated ‘vision steward’ who asks how all ideas and proposals help move toward the goals of the vision.

Uncertainty about how to proceed

While ideally, those who provide services also have been part of the process so far, this is frequently not the case. Charities and interest groups come and go with alarming frequency. It may be useful to provide some written guidance on how to build food resilience that has specific elements that support those in your locality. An excellent example is this one produced by Food Wise in Leeds.

Tool: Building Food Resilience Toolkit

Lack of reflection on the process

Sometimes, over time, people and groups can begin to feel alienated or left out of the process as alliances form and relationships deepen. Taking a step back periodically to honestly and realistically evaluate your progress and ways of work is affirming and can help refocus effort and direct engagement.

Birmingham Council and the Food Foundation have created a self-assessment tool for evaluating how you can build a local food system that meets everyone’s needs.

Tool: Birmingham Global Food Security Self-Assessment Tool

How do we know if we are transforming? It is all so complex

This article by Buckton et al. focuses on how to evaluate the success of efforts to transform society toward a more sustainable and regenerative future. The authors conducted a review of existing literature on evaluation and identified twelve key principles for transformation-focused evaluation.  

The principles are grouped into three main themes:  

• Complexity Principles: These principles emphasize the need for evaluators to understand the complex nature of the systems they are evaluating. This includes recognizing that each system is unique, influenced by its context, and constantly changing.   

1. Systems: Evaluators should recognize that the systems they are evaluating are unique, complex, and constantly changing.  
2. Context: Evaluations should be adapted to the specific context in which they are being conducted, rather than applying standardized methods.  
3. Detective: Evaluators should use a variety of methods to gather information and understand change, acknowledging that there are many valid ways of knowing.  
4. Developmental: Evaluation should be an ongoing process that adapts and evolves as the transformation unfolds.  
5. Foresight: Evaluators should consider the potential long-term impacts of transformations and help stakeholders envision desired futures.

• Power Principles: These principles address the power dynamics inherent in the evaluation process. They advocate for promoting justice, including diverse perspectives (especially those of marginalized groups), and redistributing power among those involved in the evaluation.  

6. Justice: Evaluators should promote justice by addressing power imbalances and valuing diverse perspectives.  
7. Power Shift: Evaluators should redistribute power in the evaluation process, giving more voice and influence to those affected by the transformation.  
8. Autonomous Evaluation: Evaluators should maintain their independence and be willing to challenge those in power to support transformative change.  
9. Partnerships: Evaluators should foster collaborative relationships with various stakeholders to encourage learning and system-wide change.  

• Purpose Principles: These principles argue for centring values, reflexivity (self-awareness), and learning as central to evaluation. They stress that the main goal of evaluation should be to support systemic change towards a more regenerative future.  

10. Values: Evaluators should openly address the values that shape the transformation process and ensure that transformative values are prioritized.  
11. Learning: Evaluation should prioritize learning and adaptation, encouraging critical reflection and new ways of thinking.  
12. Transformation: The central purpose of evaluation should be to support systemic change towards regenerative futures.  

Source: Buckden et al. (2025) Twelve principles for transformation-focused evaluation

What to measure to demonstrate impact

Impact is the change that happens as a result of something. Typically, we look for positive impact- the positive change that has happened as a result of action. There are two dimensions of impact: Reach and Significance. Reach is often reported in terms of the number of people for whom the change has happened. But people often fail to ask themselves–Is this number I am reporting a big number. Reaching 30K people feels bigger than reaching just 500, but we need to ask what the size of the population is. If you are talking about a group of 1 million and you reach 30K, then you reach 3 percent. Compare this to the village with just 5K people with a project reaching 500. The reach is actually 10% of the population. This is the project with the biggest reach. On the other hand, significance is the intervention’s importance or the magnitude of the change for each person. Drawing on our village example, if the project involves helping people to make friends, feel less alone, eat better food and be healthy, the significance is important for them (and it is likely to have additional secondary implications as well). This is a more significant change than handing out a tin of beans to 30K people. Both are important, but the impact is arguably more significant for the smaller project than the larger one.

Often, food-related projects focus only on how much money people save on their groceries or how many “meals” have been distributed. For most, this is money they do not have to begin with, so for them, it is not a savings. Instead, users tell us that some food projects provide more food with less money or better food for less than they can purchase at the shops. This relational calculation allows them to demonstrate thrift (a shared value), care for one’s family, and an ability to participate in environmental concerns (where surplus is used). Where capabilities are expanded, people also report increased well-being, better health, stronger social networks, an ability to see a future for themselves, and a more positive outlook about their places. We also see greater involvement and pride in their communities. Some of these values are expressed in the film below, and measuring these benefits is perhaps more important than money saved or meals served.

Surveys can be a useful way to measure this impact. Ideally, you will have large numbers of participants in your sample, which is not always possible with small projects or for voluntary organisations to collect. Stories of change can be as powerful. Ideally, these stories should be combined with the statistical information. Stories add complexity and communicate meaning and impact, while numbers can illustrate the extent or reach of activities.

In addition, there are tools to measure wider societal benefits that derive from these changes experienced at the individual or household scale. These wider benefits can be reduced rates of crime, lower rates of absenteeism in workplace or school settings, fewer doctor visits, lower levels of particular health issues, and so forth.

Many local authorities do these types of calculations using various external providers. The Social Value Engine has tools that enable the measurement and conversion (into financial terms) of different interventions’ benefits or value for money. See also the Social Value Portal, which has further resources, including this video explaining social value and a downloadable guide.

Feeling you are doing this on your own

Many local places are still in the early phases of their journey with food ladders. We have shared in this toolkit examples of what others are doing and how they are progressing. Becoming involved in national networks is an excellent way to share experiences and find solutions. Food Ladders Toolkit-Integrating tools have several networks that you can engage with if you have not already.

While there is evidence that it makes a difference, we would also like to see more examples in action and to be able to include more solutions in this toolkit. If you have been working with the food ladders and want to share stories of success, issues you have faced, or any other comments about your process, please use this form to register them.