Perspectives on Evaluation of Food Banks

Abstract

Food banks have played an important role in reducing food loss and waste and improving the food insecurity of vulnerable people. This study aimed to carry out a systematic review of food bank evaluation studies and bring new perspectives for future research and decision-making. Ninety-three articles were selected and analyzed from a search on the Web of Science and ScienceDirect platforms. Bibliometric analyses and analyses of the evaluation methodologies were performed. The bibliometric results present the evolution of the studies over the period considered (1994–2024) and indicate how peaks of growth in the number of studies may be related to external events. Both the authors and studied organizations are located mainly in high-income countries. The main aspects considered in the evaluation methodologies are related to the dimensions of short-term impacts and results, indicating less interest in the dimension related to internal processes and activities. This study provides important support for researchers and decision-makers: in addition to presenting, in each dimension of the evaluation, the main indicators used, it raises the questions of the extent to which evaluation studies reflect the reality and context of a given country or region and the extent to which they reflect the management processes of food banks.

1. Introduction

The implications of food loss and waste [1] across the food system include negative environmental impacts [2] resulting from pressure on natural resources, waste generation, and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as negative impacts on food and nutritional security [3,4,5]. The global food system is considered a major driver of biodiversity loss and a major driver of climate change, responsible for around 30% of the total human-caused emissions [6]. It is resource-intensive, involving 20% of global land, 70% of global water withdrawals, and 32% of the global energy consumption, among other inputs, while also generating waste and other pollutants [7].

The commitment presented in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Goal 12—Sustainable Consumption and Production, target 12.3, to halve the global per capita food waste at retail and final consumption and food losses along production and supply chains by 2030 [8] has emerged as an important strategy to achieve sustainable food systems [9]. Although there are divergences regarding the concept of food loss and waste [9], the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) [7] defines food loss [7] as a decrease, at all stages of the food system before final consumption, in food that was originally produced for human consumption and waste [7] as food fit for human consumption that is discarded or has reached the point of spoilage at the final stage of the food system (retail, food service, and household consumption).

According to estimates by the FAO [10], the Food Loss Index indicates that, globally, 13.8% of the world’s food production is lost between harvest and retail, and about 17% of the total food production is wasted between retail, food service, and the home environment (11% in the home environment, 5% in food service, and 2% in retail) [11].

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report titled From Field to Bin [12], a new classification to reduce the environmental impacts of food loss and waste called the Waste Food Scale (Figure 1), replacing the Food Recovery Hierarchy [13,14] developed in the 1990s by the agency, emphasizes the importance of prevention, donation, and disposal for other uses, such as animal feed, composting, and anaerobic digestion, and the importance of avoiding sending food waste down the drain or to landfills and incineration.

Prevention, donation, and reuse are the most environmentally friendly approaches [12,15], as they can replace additional food production. Donation and reuse, however, require additional energy input (for transportation, cold storage, or processing), reducing the net environmental benefits [12]. The further away the strategies are from prevention, donation, and reuse, the smaller the benefits will be in relation to the environmental impacts generated by food production [12].

Food donation and reuse strategies are linked to food assistance systems that seek two main outcomes, reducing food surpluses and alleviating food poverty [16], seeking to increase access to food for vulnerable social groups [7]. To this end, they rely on public and private resources and represent a gateway to social services, in an interaction between public, private, and third-sector actors [16].

The initiative of volunteers to meet the food needs of vulnerable people gave rise to the current food bank model. The work of John van Hengel and Robert McCarty (a Catholic deacon) gave rise, in 1967, to the St Mary’s Food Bank in Phoenix, Arizona [17]. The bank grew as donations increased and eventually formed the America’s Second Harvest network of banks [18]. This bank inaugurated the typical form of obtaining food that continues to this day: the collection of food that has lost its sale value from businesses and its subsequent distribution [19]. Food banks expanded in the USA and Canada in the 1980s [20]. In Europe, the first food bank appeared in Paris in 1984 [21], and, 2 years later, the European Federation of Food Banks was founded [17]. In New Zealand, the first food bank dates back to 1985; in Mexico, it began in 1987 [17]; in Brazil, in 1994 [22]; in South Korea, in 1998; and in Japan, in 2000 [17]. Currently, the Global Food Bank Network connects food banks in more than 40 countries [22].

The growth of this form of food assistance is closely linked to new means of interpreting social policies and relationships with food charities [23], with the practice of food donation increasingly integrated into social protection systems [23]. Food banks are spaces of intersection between food systems, social protection systems, and third-sector systems (Figure 2) [16].

Food banks organize, manage, and operate the logistics system for food collection and redistribution, connecting companies, social organizations, and end beneficiaries [22]. They play a central role, connecting food donors from the food system, such as agricultural producers, wholesalers, retailers, industries, and the service sector, with social organizations and the beneficiary public. Schematically, the flow of food collection and redistribution can be represented as shown in Figure 3. Maintaining this system requires a complex structure for the management and execution of activities, which include administrative, financial, institutional, and technical aspects.

When collecting food, banks sort, weigh, and record the quantities and types of food selected. The food is then transported in appropriate packaging to partner social institutions. There are banks that operate with a central warehouse for storage and sorting, and there are banks that operate using the urban harvesting model. In this model, the sorting stage is carried out directly at the collection site (such as supermarkets and wholesalers) and the food is donated directly, without the need for central storage. It is quite common that, in parallel with the collection and donation of food, educational and awareness-raising activities on food, nutrition, and strategies to reduce food loss and waste are developed [22,24].

The main beneficiaries of food banks are social welfare organizations, which are responsible for directly serving the target audience. They are the ones who, through the provision of services, offer meals and/or basic food baskets. However, direct donations from food banks to end beneficiaries may also occur. This form of food assistance has grown and expanded over the last 50 years, raising new questions and new research opportunities [25]. However, although they play an important role in society, research aimed at improving food bank operations is limited [26] or even scarce [22,27].

In a context in which private non-profit organizations are growing and playing a significant role in meeting public demands, and considering that most non-profit organizations need to respond to increasing pressure from funders and observers to report their programmatic impacts [28], understanding and analyzing the studies carried out to monitor and evaluate their programs is a vital step towards improving the sector’s performance. In the case of organizations such as food banks, it is necessary to identify successful models and indicate how to improve the effectiveness of the intervention so that an environment of progress and overcoming problems is created, and not just the maintenance and dissemination of existing models [29].

Although the potential for learning, planning, and service improvements in organizations is a motivating factor for the development and implementation of internal evaluation processes in organizations, some aspects limit the potential for quality evaluations. Budgetary constraints, a lack of information systems, high staff turnover, a lack of reliable data, and the disconnect between the data collected and their potential use for service improvement are some of these factors [30,31].

Aware of the demand for improvements in the management of these organizations, and with the aim of providing support to food bank managers and actors involved in the food assistance system, the general objective of the work is to survey, systematize, and analyze food bank evaluation methodologies.

This article is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the relevant aspects of the evaluation methodologies for social programs and projects. Section 3 presents the research materials and methods. Section 4 presents the results obtained from the analysis of the selected articles, with a bibliometric description and detailed analysis of different aspects of the evaluation methodologies. Section 5 presents the conclusions, and Section 6 presents future challenges.

2. Relevant Aspects

Theoretical Framework of Evaluation Studies

Organizations, such as food banks, can be evaluated according to several dimensions. Mintzberg (1992) [32] describes organizations in terms of five dimensions: the operational core, middle line, strategic apex, technostructure, and support team. The operational core is the foundation of all organizations, assuming an important role in food banks, as it comprises the functions of securing inputs, transforming them into products, distributing the products, and supporting these three previous functions. Performance evaluations related to efficiency, effectiveness, and efficacy are derived from this dimension. These factors motivate the choice of an evaluation approach focused on operational dimensions, such as the one proposed by Jannuzzi (2020) [33].

For Jannuzzi (2020) [33], an evaluation proposal seeks, based on the production of information, to contribute to the improvement of social programs and projects. Evaluations are different depending on the stage of the program or project. In the planning phase, evaluations aim to characterize the context, namely the environment in which the project or program will operate; to size and characterize the target audience of the intervention; and to define the operational arrangements of the intervention. From the moment that the project or program begins to be implemented, its activities are monitored and followed up on through management indicators, in addition to implementation evaluation surveys to identify problems in the supply, regularity, and quality of services. In this type of evaluation, the aim is to analyze the “knots” that hinder the full functioning of the program. This type of evaluation is often called formative evaluation [33].

After the implementation phase of the social project or program, or after a certain period in the case of continuous interventions, the need for information turns to the evaluation of the results and the impacts of the social program or project. This is the time to investigate not only the fulfillment of the objectives but also its design, operational arrangements, broader social impacts—in terms of time and territory—and the capacity for innovation and redesign in the face of the dynamic context in which such programs and projects operate. This is the time to assess whether the intervention has caused changes in the social reality from which it originated, naturally considering the complexity of its design and operational arrangements, in addition to the criticality of the social issue addressed. This type of evaluation is also known as summative evaluation [33].

Monitoring and evaluation are processes that follow one another and aim to provide managers with information about the pace and form of implementation of programs (monitoring indicators) and the desired results and effects (evaluation indicators) [33].

Program or project evaluations are based on the construction of indicators, which allow the aspects to be evaluated to be measured. Indicators can be constructed considering the operational dimensions of a project or program, i.e., distinguishing between the input, process or flow, product or result, and impact.

Input indicators refer to the human, physical, or financial resources required to execute a given program or project. Process or flow indicators (throughout indicators) are intermediate indicators that refer to the operational effort of allocating human, physical, or financial resources to obtain results and impacts. Input indicators and process indicators can also be used to assess the efficiency of the program in the use of the resources employed. Output indicators allow the assessment of the achievement of specified goals, portray the actual results of the programs, and allow the assessment of the effectiveness of the achievement of the goals [34,35]. Impact indicators refer to the more general effects and developments, anticipated or not and positive or not, that result from the implementation of a program and that allow the measurement of the social effectiveness of the program.

Input indicators and process indicators can be called effort indicators, as they indicate the operational effort to obtain effective improvements in well-being (outcome indicators and impact indicators) [35].

In addition, by incorporating the costs of operationalizing activities and producing results and impacts in the cost-effectiveness analysis or assessment, it is possible to obtain parameters to compare different programs and interventions and provide support for decisions on the maintenance, interruption, or expansion of programs and projects [33].

The World Bank Monitoring and Evaluation Manual [36] and the Results Chain [37] provide a framework for the definition of the components of a project, in which, in addition to the input, activity, and output components, the impact is differentiated into short-term impacts (outcomes) and long-term impacts (impacts). A short-term impact is the immediate effect of the outputs or services and a long-term impact is a higher-level goal to which the project can contribute.

Based on the evaluation methodologies presented, the following dimensions of food bank evaluation will be considered for the analysis and categorization [38] of evaluation studies.

• Input indicator/inputs: resources that ensure the functioning of food banks, such as food, financial resources, human resources, physical resources, and technical resources;
• Process indicator/activities: actions designed to meet the objectives of a program, such as food collection and redistribution activities, educational activities, and also administrative and financial activities;
• Result indicator/outputs: tangible and intangible products resulting from program activities, such as donated food and services provided;
• Short-term impact: immediate effects of the organization’s products and services, such as improving the health of the benefited population, increasing the consumption of healthy foods, increasing the supply of fruits and vegetables in social institutions, and reducing the generation of organic waste;
• Long-term impact: higher-level objectives to which the project can contribute, such as changes in the political environment—creating policies to encourage food donations, changes in the corporate environment—and new practices to reduce food waste in the food system, improving the food security of a population.

Identifying a correlation between the evaluation dimensions and the operational structure of a food bank, we consider the Figure 4 below as a reference for the analysis of the selected articles.

Based on the classification of the evaluation systems presented, this work seeks to identify and classify the evaluation methods described in the relevant studies, as well as the indicators used, in order to identify the main areas of study and point out possible paths or gaps for new evaluation proposals.

3. Materials and Methods

This systematic review used the PRISMA 2020 guidelines [39] as a reference, with the following verification items: selection criteria, information sources, research strategy, selection process, data collection process, data items, synthesis method. The research used the exploratory sequential mixed review [40] with the following development steps.

3.1. Selection Criteria

This systematic review included articles that addressed the evaluation of food rescue initiatives, written in English, up to the year 2024.

3.2. Sources of Information

Two bibliographic databases were used for consultation and the collection of material: Web of Science and ScienceDirect. The consultation was carried out during the month of September 2024.

The Web of Science platform provides access to multiple databases, maintained by Clarivate Analytics. The ScienceDirect platform, operated by the publisher Elsevier, provides access to scientific, technical, and medical research.

3.3. Research Strategy

For the bibliographic survey of peer-reviewed articles published worldwide in English up to September 2024, the following terms in English were used to refer to food banks: “food bank” and “foodbank”.

To limit the studies to the area of evaluation, the following terms in English were used: “evaluation”, “study”, and “analysis”.

Once the terminological mapping was defined, the Boolean operators AND and OR were then defined to build search strategies [40]. Thus, the following strategy was used:

Search 1: ((“food bank” OR “foodbank”) AND (“evaluation” OR “study” OR “analysis”)).

The same search procedure was performed for each database consulted: Web of Science and ScienceDirect. The bibliographic references searched in the Web of Science database were obtained considering the “Core Collection” and “Topics”. The search in the ScienceDirect database was achieved by “Title, abstract, keywords”.

The search resulted in 384 documents in the Web of Science database and 182 documents in the ScienceDirect database. The two databases, combined, resulted in 566 documents. After combining the results and excluding 66 duplicate articles, 500 documents were obtained.

3.4. Codification Process

Coding was performed by reading the abstracts, extracting the main information, and coding the qualitative data. The data were collected manually and later checked. The qualitative material from the references was coded following the inductive formation of categories within the qualitative content analysis [38].

3.5. Selection Process

The coding process allowed the separation of articles that specifically dealt with food banks. These articles were coded again, following the inductive formation of categories, to identify references that addressed the topic of food bank evaluation.

3.6. Data Items

Articles that specifically addressed the topic “evaluation of food banks” were analyzed according to bibliometric attributes, with the support of the Bibliometrix package [41].

3.7. Synthesis Method

Based on the abstracts of the selected references, and following the dimensions of food bank evaluation defined in the theoretical framework, the evaluation methodologies were coded according to the deductive formation of categories [38]. The respective indicators under each methodology were also coded (following the inductive formation of categories [38]) and systematized, which allowed a detailed analysis of the subject.

The selection process is explained in the form of a flowchart, following the guidelines of the PRISMA flow diagram [39], as shown in Figure 5 below.

4. Results

4.1. Coding Process

The coding process of the abstracts of 500 documents gave rise to the following categories with their respective frequencies: food banks—256 documents (51.2%); food insecurity—59 documents (11.8%); food assistance programs—34 documents (6.8%); food pantries—22 documents (4.4%); the COVID-19 pandemic—13 (2.6%); health—11 (2.2%); food systems—11 documents (2.2%); public policy—11 documents (2.2%); in the abstract—11 documents (2.2%); nutritional education—6 (1.2%); diet—5 (1%); healthy eating—4 (0.8%); food deserts—2 (0.4%); miscellaneous—55 (11.0%). Thus, 256 articles were selected in the “food banks” category.

These 256 articles underwent a new coding process, and references that addressed the evaluation of food banks were identified and separated. In this coding step, the following themes were identified: the evaluation of food banks—93 (36.3%); the characterization of food bank users—56 (21.9%); mathematical models for food bank management—43 (16.8%); literature reviews—8 (3.1%); food donors—7 (2.7); images in the media—6 (2.3%); partnerships—6 (2.3%); the values and identities of managers and employees—6 (2.3%); the supply chain—5 (1.9%); the food bank system—5 (2.0%); the implementation of food banks—4 (1.5%); food safety—3 (1.2%); pet banks—2 (0.8%); public policies—2 (0.8%); banks for mothers and babies—1 (0.4%); miscellaneous—9 (3.5%).

Although the focus of this study was the evaluation of food banks, this categorization allowed us to identify the theme “characterization of food bank users”, which was the second most frequent. It groups together research aimed not only at studying the socioeconomic and demographic profiles of food bank users, but also includes research on specific health interventions for this population, such as clinical exams for diabetes, cancer prevention, and chronic diseases, as well as studies on mental health. This is evidence that food banks have become gateways to other social services, especially in the health area.

The third most cited group, “mathematical models for food bank management”, presents modeling proposals for the optimization of food bank management, such as a dynamic programming model for resource allocation, a risk analysis model for decision-making, stochastic programming for management optimization, mixed linear programming for strategic decisions, and a model for the optimization of logistics configurations, among others.

At the end of this process, 93 articles that met the study’s inclusion criteria were selected for the analysis of food bank evaluations. The selected articles were analyzed regarding bibliometric aspects, with the support of the Bibliometrix package [41], and regarding the evaluation methods adopted in the studies, identifying the indicators used.

4.2. Bibliometric Analysis

Considering the period in which the 93 articles were published (1994 to 2024), it is noted that, between 2014 and 2017, there was the first increase in the number of publications on the subject (Figure 6). This was the period in which the 17 Sustainable Development Goals were established by the UN, including SDG 2, which includes reducing food loss and waste among its targets [7]. Another important increase in the number of articles published occurred in the pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic period, when the publications increased from five in 2017 to nine in 2018, 2019, and 2020. In 2022, the highest number of annual publications was recorded, at 15, possibly a reflection of the relevance of the topic in the face of the climate crisis, energy crisis, and economic instability [42].

When analyzing the scientific production of the countries responsible for the selected articles (

Table 1. Countries’ scientific production.

Country	Frequency	Percentage
USA	113	34.9%
Canada	62	19.1%
Australia	31	9.6%
UK	31	9.6%
Netherlands	21	6.5%
Germany	15	4.6%
Spain	11	3.4%
Italy	9	2.8%
Israel	6	1.9%
Japan	5	1.5%
Argentina	3	0.9%
China	3	0.9%
France	3	0.9%
Ireland	2	0.6%
New Zealand	2	0.6%
Singapore	2	0.6%
Belgium	1	0.3%
Iran	1	0.3%
Madagascar	1	0.3%
Malaysia	1	0.3%
Russia	1	0.3%

Source: elaborated by the authors.

), it was observed that 34.9% were from the USA, 19.1% from Canada, and 9.6% from Australia and the United Kingdom. These four countries alone account for more than 73% of the total. The data also reveal how the scientific production of countries that are considered low-income is irrelevant when compared to the group of high-income countries.

Likewise, the countries most cited in the selected articles include the same group of countries that are most representative in scientific production: Canada, the USA, the UK, the Netherlands, and Australia (

Table 2. Most cited countries.

Country	Total Citations
Canada	592
USA	320
United Kingdom	292
Netherlands	247
Australia	54
Spain	51
Germany	49
France	38
Israel	27
Italy	21
Ireland	12
China	9
Argentina	1
Japan	1

Source: elaborated by the authors.

). These data strongly indicate that scientific production is carried out in high-income countries on food banks in high-income countries. Studies on food banks in low-income countries are not represented.

Regarding the journals in which the articles were published, some were referenced more frequently. This was the case for the Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, which published 10 of the 93 articles (about 11% of the total); the British Food Journal, with the second highest frequency, at seven (7.5% of the total); BMC Public Health, with five documents; and the Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, with four. A total of 57 different journals were identified for the set of 93 selected articles. It can be seen, then, that there is a large number of articles in different journals.

The main publishers were Taylor & Francis (responsible for the publication of 13 of the 93 articles—almost 14% of the total) and Emerald Publishing (seven publications), followed by BMC (seven), Wiley (six), and MDPI (six). In total, 32 different publishers were responsible for the publication of the 93 selected documents.

Considering the analysis of the most used terms in the 93 documents, taking as a reference the authors’ keywords, Figure 7 presents the top 14 most relevant keywords. The most frequent words in the documents were food bank(s) (49 occurrences), food insecurity (28 occurrences), and nutrition (14 occurrences), ranking as the first, second, and third most frequently occurring keywords. Other keywords, such as food assistance, food security, food waste, poverty, food aid, food pantry, dietary intake, and food poverty, also represent major keywords for food bank evaluation studies. The frequency of the word “Canada” highlights the importance of this country as one of the most cited (as presented in Table 2). The frequency of the word “COVID-19” reflects the influence of the pandemic period on scientific production.

In addition to identifying frequent keywords, a co-occurrence network helps to reveal the connections between them. Figure 8 presents the keyword connections incorporated by the authors. The larger the dots, the higher the frequency of the keywords, and the larger the edges, the stronger the connections. The colors indicate different clusters, defined using the Walktap algorithm in the Bibliometrix package [41]. The clusters show the most relevant connections and allow us to explore the conceptual structure of the research area studied. It is possible to identify two main clusters, in lilac and red. In one of them, the keyword “food insecurity” appears prominently and is strongly connected to food banks. In the other, the keyword “food bank” is highlighted, connected to food pantries and nutrition. It is interesting to note other, more isolated clusters, in which correlations between food waste and sustainability, dietary intake and dietary guidelines, and qualitative content analysis and in-depth interviews are identified.

Figure 9 presents the timeline of the keywords. The size of the dot represents its frequency in that year, while the horizontal line represents its period in years, and this can be used to identify the keyword’s evolution over time (2018–2022). Food security is the most long-standing keyword. It seems to give rise to other keywords: food insecurity, food bank(s), and food waste. This reflects the changes in this topic during this period.

4.3. Evaluation Methods

The analysis of the evaluation methods and indicators of the 93 articles was carried out using the operational dimensions of the studies as a reference, as presented in Section 2: input indicators/inputs, process indicators/activities, result indicators/outputs, short-term impacts, and long-term impacts. The evaluation methods and indicators of each article were obtained through the abstract coding process, following the inductive formation of categories within the qualitative content analysis [38]. As presented in

Table 3. Percentage of cases by operational dimension (1994–2024).

Evaluation Methods	Frequency	Percentage
Indicators of short-term impact dimensions	63	50.4%
Result indicators/outputs	30	24.0%
Process indicator/activities	21	16.8%
Indicators of long-term impact dimensions	7	5.6%
Input indicators/inputs	4	3.2%
Total	125	100.0%

Source: elaborated by the authors.

, it was possible to identify a total of 125 evaluation methods, with an average of 1.3 per article. The most frequent among the studies was the short-term impact, with 50.4% of the cases. Result indicators, with 24% of the cases, and process indicators, with 16.8%, are the second and third most frequent methods. The lowest percentages were found for long-term impact studies (5.6%) and input indicators (3.2%). These results show the predominance of evaluation studies focused on the analysis of short-term impacts and results, as, together, they represent more than 74% of the total.

To further understand which aspects were addressed in each of these dimensions, the indicators are presented below.

1.

Used indicators

• Short-term impacts

For the short-term impact indicator (

Table 4. Indicators of short-term impact dimension.

Indicators of Short-Term Impact Dimension	Frequency	Percentage
Food and nutritional situation	26	41.3%
Diet quality	7	11.1%
Improvement of the food security situation	4	6.3%
Prevalence of food insecurity among users	4	6.3%
Coverage of nutritional needs	3	4.8%
Changes in eating habits	3	4.8%
Strategies to promote healthy eating	2	3.2%
Fruit and vegetable intake	2	3.2%
Availability of food in users’ homes	1	1.6%
Health situation	12	19.1%
Health status of users	10	15.9%
Support in controlling diabetes	1	1.6%
Obesity among food bank users	1	1.6%
Food bank use	11	17.4%
Number of beneficiaries	6	9.5%
Frequency of use of the food bank	5	7.9%
User experience	9	14.4%
User satisfaction	3	4.8%
Experience of food bank users	2	3.2%
Users’ feelings about using the service	2	3.2%
Motivation, commitment, and well-being of users	1	1.6%
Changes in users’ lives	1	1.6%
Awareness	3	4.8%
Improvement in knowledge and food literacy skills	2	3.2%
Awareness of the program	1	1.6%
Users’ financial savings	2	3.2%
Total	63	100.0%

Source: elaborated by the authors.

), the assessment of the health of beneficiaries was the most frequently mentioned item, with 15.9% of the total. Next were the indicators “diet quality” (11.1%) and “number of beneficiaries” (9.5%), with the largest numbers of cases. However, when the correlated items are grouped, the category related to food and the nutritional situation reaches a total percentage of 41.3%. Indicators related to health reach 19.1%. The use of food banks totals 17.4% and the user experience reaches 14.4%. The following are the main aspects of this dimension of analysis: impacts on the food and nutritional security of beneficiaries; impacts on users’ health; the use of food banks by users; and how users feel about the experience of using this service.

Some of these indicators were obtained through in-depth interviews, questionnaires to collect quantitative data, the nutritional calculation of the food provided (and comparisons with the food guides of the corresponding countries), and questionnaires on food intake, among others.

• Result indicators/outputs

Considering this operational dimension, it’s possible to note the predominance of the theme nutritional quality of donations in the evaluation of food bank results, with 53.3% of the total cases, as shown in

Table 5. Result indicators/outputs.

Result Indicator/Output	Frequency	Percentage
Nutritional quality	16	53.3%
Nutritional quality of donated food	14	46.7%
Safety assessment of donated food	1	3.3%
Dietary risk assessment of donated food	1	3.3%
Quantity of donated food	9	30.0%
Variety of food	5	16.6%
Types of donated food	3	10.0%
Inclusion of culturally representative foods	1	3.3%
Variety of donated food	1	3.3%
Total	30	100.0%

Source: elaborated by the authors.

. In addition, the quantity of food donated is also quite frequent, with 30% of the total. The other aspect considered is the type and variety of food donated, which then completes the total number of cases. Regarding this dimension, the focus on the evaluation of the donated food is clear, considering all aspects: the quality, quantity, and type of food donated.

Some indicators were obtained through the nutritional analysis of the donated food and its comparison with nutritional guidelines, quantitative data, qualitative data, and in-depth interviews.

• Process indicators/activities

The process indicators show the diversity of the aspects addressed and a lack of focus on a specific indicator, as presented in

Table 6. Process indicators/activities.

Process Indicator/Activity	Frequency	Percentage
Response and organizational change in response to the pandemic	4	19.0%
Assessment of internal practices to improve nutritional quality of donations	2	9.5%
Regression analysis between operational characteristics and access to food banks	1	4.8%
Analysis of banks based on data envelopment analysis	1	4.8%
Analysis of cognitive bias in food bank management	1	4.8%
External communication activity	1	4.8%
Assessment of logistics and redistribution structure	1	4.8%
Assessment of internal management	1	4.8%
Assessment of organizational change with support of bank network	1	4.8%
Perceptions of food bank employees about food security	1	4.8%
Perceptions of employees about new services for financial education	1	4.8%
Availability of refrigerated transport	1	4.8%
Number of employees	1	4.8%
Multivariate regression to determine association between program characteristics, service volume, and bank capacity	1	4.8%
Relationship between race, gender, and ethnicity of manager and organizational responses to the pandemic	1	4.8%
Food safety and storage (microbiological control)	1	4.8%
Volunteer training	1	4.8%
Total	21	100.0%

Source: elaborated by the authors.

. This may indicate a lack of consensus regarding how to evaluate the management of a food bank, the most important aspects, and the main challenges. However, it is interesting to note that the adversities experienced during the pandemic led to the emergence of research on the ability of food banks to reorganize and adapt to the challenges of this period; this was the indicator with the highest frequency.

Some indicators were obtained through in-depth interviews, semi-structured qualitative interviews, optimization models, and statistical models, among others.

• Long-term impacts

The main long-term impact indicators, as presented in

Table 7. Indicators of long-term impact dimension.

Indicators of Long-Term Impact Dimension	Frequency	Percentage
Environmental impact	3	42.9%
Net environmental effects for reduction of GHG emissions	2	28.6%
Reduction in water footprint associated with food recovery	1	14.3%
Impact on the food system	2	28.6%
Ability to reduce risk factors for diabetes	1	14.3%
Ability to reduce poverty	1	14.3%
Total	7	100.0%

Source: elaborated by the authors.

, refer to the reduction of environmental impacts. The sum of the percentage reduction in GHG emissions and the water footprint reaches 42.9% of the total. In addition to the analysis of environmental impacts, the impact on the food system presents the second highest percentage, at 28.6%.

These indicators were obtained through in-depth interviews, focus groups, and participant observations, among others.

• Input indicators/inputs

In the input indicator dimension, there is no predominant indicator, as shown in

Table 8. Input indicators/inputs.

Input Indicator/Input	Frequency	Percentage
Food donated	2	50.0%
Nutritional assessment of food donated to food banks	1	25.0%
Quantity of food donated to food banks	1	25.0%
Food donors	2	50.0%
Characteristics of food bank donors	1	25.0%
Number of donors	1	25.0%
Total	4	100.0%

Source: elaborated by the authors.

; however, the themes are divided between the evaluation of the food donated to food banks (the quantity and quality of the food) and the evaluation of the food donors (the number and characteristics of the donors). This is the main type of analysis within this operational dimension: the analysis of the food and the donors.

Some indicators were obtained through interviews, the nutritional evaluation of the food, quantitative data, and others.

5. Discussion

This study analyzed food bank evaluation studies between 1994 and 2024, focusing on the evaluation methods and indicators used. In addition to analyzing the methodologies and indicators, this bibliometric research allowed us to examine how the studies varied both temporally and geographically.

In an initial analysis, it was noted that a significant proportion of the scientific production originated from high-income countries and addressed organizations also located in high-income countries. There is a direct connection between the locations where the scientific production is carried out and the locations of the food banks studied.

There is a lack of representation of countries experiencing food crises, whose populations face high levels of food insecurity and require food assistance [43], as well as a lack of representation of countries with food deficits and low incomes [44]. This is not due to a lack of food banks in these countries: 38 of the 49 food bank partners of the Global Food Bank Network listed in its 2023 annual report are located in emerging and developing markets [45]. Not coincidentally, the most recent review on food banks restricts its analysis to food banks in high-income countries—the US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain [25].

Hecht and Neff (2019) [29] also noted 19 papers on the evaluation of food rescue interventions and noted that these interventions were restricted to high-income countries—the US, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Finland, the UK, Italy, and Israel. In other words, very little is known about food banks in low-income countries, which are often those most in need due to their high levels of food insecurity. By way of comparison, in Brazil, 27.6% (or 21.6 million) of its households experienced food insecurity in 2023, with 18.2% (or 14.3 million) having mild food insecurity, 5.3% (or 4.2 million) having moderate food insecurity, and 4.1% (or 3.2 million) having severe food insecurity [46]. In Canada, in 2021, the prevalence of household food insecurity (HFI) was estimated at 11.6%, of which 4.2% of cases were identified as severe (where household members reduced the size of their meals or skipped meals) [13]. The most recent prevalence estimate for HFI in the US (2021) was 10.2%, of which 3.8% had very low food security (equivalent to severe food insecurity in the Canadian context) [11].

This result sheds light on some important questions for researchers, food bank managers, and public administrators: to what extent do the data and analyses reflect the reality and context of a given country or region, and how can we use or reference such data in another economic and social context? The objectives and context of food assistance in more developed countries are different from those in less developed countries. Recognizing this difference should create a starting point for the analysis of food assistance measures in countries with different social and economic contexts [47]. On the other hand, this fact may reveal other aspects of research in this area: a lack of data in countries considered less developed, less interest among researchers in this topic, or even less experience with this type of organization, as the first food banks emerged in the USA, a country that is notably important in the production of scientific articles on this topic.

When analyzing the operational evaluation methodologies of the selected studies, the main aspects considered are related to the dimensions of short-term impacts and results/outputs. The operational dimension most closely related to internal management, represented by the process/activities indicator, accounted for 16% of all cases, even with our research’s focus on evaluation studies. This profile of the studies found indicates less interest in analyzing the internal processes and activities of organizations. Likewise, no indicators were identified that could guide the evaluation of internal management, such as cost–benefits, effectiveness, and efficiency.

These results reveal that evaluation studies are predominantly more interested in outcomes and impacts and less in the processes and activities developed internally, showing a gap and an opportunity for research on food banks. Although more recent reviews have looked at the challenges on both the supply and demand sides of food banks [48] and systematized the application of operations research (OR) in distribution management, facilities planning, volunteer scheduling, and inventory management [49], the evaluation of the internal management of banks still lacks research. When this information is contextualized, and considering the fact that food banks are spaces of intersection between food systems, social protection systems, and third-sector systems [16] and that banks are spaces for interrelationships between companies, social organizations, and final beneficiaries [22], it is possible to understand this finding regarding analyses that are more focused on external outcomes and impacts and less focused on understanding how operations and activities are being carried out. Banks exist in an environment where the activities of civil society organizations, the social responsibility actions of the business sector, and the social actions of the public sector meet. Here, the main analyses focus on measuring how the results and external impacts contribute to alleviating the food insecurity of the beneficiaries, promoting changes in the political environment focused on food security, and the analysis of the food collected and donated, in terms of both quality and quantity, i.e., topics related to the origins and missions of food banks.

The grouping of the main themes studied in each dimension allowed us to identify the main aspects of the food rescue and distribution system that were considered.

Short-term impact indicators most often focus on the nutritional and health statuses of the beneficiary population and also on the number of beneficiaries and the frequency of their use of food banks. In the result/output dimension, the food’s nutritional quality predominates in the evaluation of food banks, rather than the quantity of donations and the type of food donated. Although the quantity of food provided and the number of beneficiaries are the indicators most closely linked to the missions of food banks, the growing importance of obesity, chronic diseases, and diet-related diseases among people in vulnerable situations has required food bank operators to pay attention not only to the quantitative aspects but also to the qualitative aspects of the food offered, corroborating the work of Alkaabneh et al. (2021) [50].

In the grouping by process/activity indicators, the analysis of the organizational change in response to the pandemic is the most frequent item. There is a large range of indicators, which suggests a less consensual approach compared to other dimensions regarding what should be considered to evaluate this dimension of food banks. Considering the dimension of long-term impacts, the most frequently found indicators referred to the impacts of food banks in terms of reducing environmental impacts and impacts on the food system. To a lesser extent, the impacts in terms of reducing poverty and reducing the risk of diabetes were considered. In the input indicator dimension, the topics were divided regarding the analysis of the food that food banks receive (quantity and quality) and the number and characteristics of food donors.

These results show that the impacts on the food and nutritional security of beneficiaries, the impacts on health, the results regarding the quality and quantity of the donated food, the number of beneficiaries, and the frequency of use of food banks guide food bank evaluations. The analyses focus on the internal activities and processes of food banks, and items related to management, as the third most studied dimensions. However, the indicators are so diverse that it is not possible to identify a trend in the approaches or the predominant topic, with the exception of studies focused on the responses of food banks to the pandemic. This crisis situation led to the closer examination of a dimension that is rarely considered in evaluation studies: the management of food banks.

Another point to be analyzed is the input dimension focused on the analysis of donated food and food donors, without any mention of the financial aspect. Here, we refer to the bibliographic review carried out by Hecht and Neff (2019) [29]. According to the survey conducted by the authors, the evaluation proposals presented in the studies was unrelated to the main challenges listed by the representatives of food rescue initiatives, including the issue of bank financing. The studies that presented evaluations of food banks did not engage with the concerns expressed by their representatives, revealing two areas of understanding of the same object. This highlights the need for a critical analysis of these evaluation studies, which would offer opportunities for the development of new research in this area. By considering not only the results themselves but the perspectives from which these studies are conducted and the limitations of the evaluations, taking into account the context in which they are conducted and the evaluation methodology used, new elements of discussion emerge for public policymakers and food bank managers, and an important step towards identifying new research opportunities can be taken.

6. Conclusions

This work sought to provide support for researchers and the managers of food banks, which were introduced in 1960 in the USA and are present throughout the world, with an important role in alleviating the food insecurity of vulnerable populations and also in reducing food loss and waste throughout the food system, as they rescue and allow the reuse of food that would otherwise be discarded, based on a survey and analysis of relevant studies and their methods of evaluating food banks.

Based on the relevant aspects of the methodologies used to evaluate social programs and projects, the selected studies were analyzed both from a bibliometric point of view and in relation to the evaluation methodologies and indicators used. This analysis allowed us to perform an innovative examination of food bank evaluations, considering the context in which the evaluations are carried out, the perspectives considered based on the methodologies and indicators used, and, from this, new opportunities for studies that contribute to the advancement of research on and the management of food banks. An important point to be considered is the fact that these studies are mostly conducted by research institutions located in developed countries and by organizations also located in these countries. There are few studies on organizations in less developed countries and few studies that cover several countries. In addition, even when we consider evaluation studies of food rescue organizations, the main focus is on analyses of the impacts and results, revealing that evaluation studies seek mainly to communicate with the external public, presenting metrics related to food donations, the public beneficiaries, and the impacts on food security policies. Issues related to the management of food banks are not a priority in such evaluation studies. This finding may reveal a lack of data for the development of research and a lack of interest, both internally and externally, among the organizations that constitute the food rescue system and also among research institutes. In addition to not considering issues related to the internal management of organizations, this research perspective promotes the use of methodologies and indicators for the evaluation of food banks that reinforce this external view and lead to the comparison of structures that do not share the same social, economic, and political environments, with contrasting priorities and needs—for example in the fight against food insecurity. Therefore, these gaps offer opportunities for new studies by researchers, which could provide support for organizational advances in this area.