Union Parishads (UPs) launched Emergency Food Assistance Programmes (EFAPs) in Bangladesh to address food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite its importance, EFAP had resource shortages, logistical barriers, and potential gaps in coverage. This study evaluates the critical factors of EFAP's contribution to food insecurity, including governance practices, political dynamics, and operational capabilities. A cross-sectional survey and mixed- method analysis was performed, encompassing beneficiaries and officials, to examine the distribution process, governance frameworks, and the significance of political neutrality. The findings reveal that governance_EFAP (β= 0.080, p < 0.05), distributive__EFAP (β = 0.084, p < 0.05), and crisisMgt_EFAP (β= 0.30, p < 0.05) significantly enhance EFAP effectiveness, while political bias negatively affects impartiality and efficiency. Political neutrality (pol_neu) (R² = 0.88) mediates the relationship between equity in distribution and the effectiveness of EFAPs. The study is innovative in examining how political neutrality mediates the success of EFAPs during the COVID-19 epidemic, notably UPs in Bangladesh. It provides unique insights into governance, equity, political dynamics, and evidence-based disaster relief distribution suggestions for local governments, international development organizations, and humanitarian agencies. The study suggests capacity-building for UP officials, accountability, and political neutrality in aid distribution to improve governance frameworks are crucial for addressing food insecurity in future crisis response. With its cross-sectional approach, this research cannot assess EFAPs' long-term effects. Its application may be limited because it solely examines UP governance. Longitudinal research across various administrative settings among multiple countries could determine the efficacy of the EFAP.

Keywords: COVID-19 Pandemic; Emergency Food Assistance; Food Security; Governance Practices; Political Neutrality; Union Parishads.

Copyright © 2025 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.