What have we learnt about food poverty experienced by under-fives?
We recently published a report on food poverty affecting under-fives, which highlighted the scale and the impact of the problem, as well as providing recommendations to address it.
We found that food poverty in early childhood is detrimental across a range of outcomes, and that children under-five face higher rates of food poverty. Food poverty is caused by income poverty – with a range of exacerbating factors in recent years. They include the increased cost of living, stagnating wages, and lower amounts paid from social security benefits, which affect families with children in particular. We also found that local area factors, such as a lack of access to shops selling affordable healthy food, can compound the problem of food poverty. The child’s immediate environment – both at home and in early years settings, also plays an important role in facilitating or hindering young children’s access to healthy food.
In considering what could be done to address food poverty for under-fives, we looked at the effectiveness of two policies currently in place in England – the Healthy Start Scheme and free early years meals.
The Healthy Start scheme provides weekly payments to low-income pregnant women and families with children under four years, to be spent on certain food items such as fruit, vegetables and dairy. The scheme also provides free vitamins. There is a lot of evidence on the scheme which overall finds there is good potential for it to improve young children’s access to healthy food. But it is likely to be more effective if the payments are increased in-line with inflation. The eligibility criteria also potentially excludes many children experiencing food poverty and the take-up rate is fairly low.
The second policy we looked at, free early years meals (FEYM), is only available to children who:
- attend standalone state-maintained nursery schools and school-based nurseries (herein referred to as ‘maintained nurseries’);
- receive a qualifying benefit, including Universal Credit if their income is below £7,400;
- attend the nursery both before and after lunch
Evidence from universal infant free school meals and universal primary free school meals in London has demonstrated that free meals have the potential to reduce obesity, reduce absences, and improve educational outcomes at age five and seven. Though there is no research evidence on FEYM these related findings indicate that we should expect positive impacts, which could potentially be even greater at this younger age.
However, currently the majority of children in early childhood education and care (ECEC) attend other types of settings where free meals are not available. The before and after lunch criteria can be a barrier to take-up, in addition to lack of awareness of the scheme, and other factors.
Based on evidence reviews and expert interviews we make a number of policy recommendations to improve these two existing policies (see below). We also explored what we can learn from local place-based approaches to addressing food poverty for under-fives, as well as what we can learn from what other countries are doing. As well as demonstrating the feasibility of improvements to both the Healthy Start Scheme and free early years meals, these examples point to the importance of addressing income poverty, of joined up working across organisations, and of informing approaches to reducing food poverty by involving those with experience of food poverty.
Based on the report findings we made the following recommendations:
- To improve the Healthy Start Scheme by increasing the value of the payments, expanding the eligibility and improving uptake;
- To improve free early years meals by increasing its reach to all low-income children in all settings and eventually towards universal provision, promoting awareness of the scheme, removing the before and after lunch criteria, and supporting early years settings to implement FEYM and healthy eating guidelines, whilst addressing the funding and staffing crisis.
- To take the opportunity of the upcoming child poverty strategy to focus on under-fives and address social security issues, including removing the Two Child Limit, and introducing an essentials guarantee.
- As in Scotland, to assemble a food poverty taskforce to focus on the problem of food poverty specifically.
- To support local areas to meet local needs in reducing food poverty, including through regular sustainable funding.
Contributions from a range of experts
Following the publication of the report EPI hosted a roundtable event, in partnership with the KPMG Foundation, who funded the whole project. Participants came from a diverse mix of positions including charities with a focus on poverty or food poverty, early years organisations, charities with a focus on young children’s nutrition and health outcomes, and civil servants from multiple departments including the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Health and Social Care, the Cabinet Office and local government.
The roundtable was conducted under Chatham House Rules, with the aim of providing an opportunity for open dialogue between those seeking to influence policy and those working for government. Participants shared expertise and alternative experiences and collaborated on problem-solving, identifying what ought to be prioritised to address food poverty for under-fives. The starting point of the discussion was a reflection on the policy recommendations from the report.
Reducing income poverty is the only way to reduce food poverty
There was strong agreement across participants that the only way we can address food poverty is to address income poverty and this therefore has to be at the forefront of any policy recommendations. There is a danger of focusing on food-based solutions, when food-based solutions will not prevent the root problem of food poverty.
Participants referred to the evidence on the effectiveness of increasing incomes, which was demonstrated most recently by the Universal Credit uplift which was associated with lower levels of food poverty compared to households on legacy benefits who did not receive the £20 uplift payment.
Additionally, participants spoke about the importance of providing emergency cash support quickly when families need it. The essentials guarantee, included in the report proposals, was also strongly supported as an important change needed to reduce food poverty. This would require social security benefits to be paid at a rate that ensures families have sufficient income to meet all basic needs, including protecting incomes from dropping below this threshold if debt repayments are taken or sanctions applied.
Tensions between priorities and practicalities
There were some clear tensions between what many participants reasoned to be a priority and the practicalities of implementation. For example, many participants called for auto-enrolment on the Healthy Start Scheme. This was highlighted as the most effective change that could be made, and a necessary change to enable asylum seeking families and other families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) to access the scheme, as well as more widely addressing the problem of low take-up. Additionally, auto-enrolment was described as being cost-effective because of the amount of time and resources currently needed to measure uptake and invest in awareness-raising campaigns and activities.
However, in practice it is not straightforward to implement autoenrollment and would require changing the delivery system (currently a payment card) which has only recently been introduced. There are issues with data sharing and legislative rules for prepaid cards which make autoenrollment complicated.
The question was also raised if Healthy Start recipients could be given cash to spend instead of a prepaid card, which is in-line with the cash first approach taken in Scotland’s food poverty strategy, focused on protecting dignity. This would also make sense in terms of the evidence on the effectiveness of cash transfers, including that mentioned above.
Local place-based approaches
The potential of local place-based approaches was identified as being important, and also complementary to the areas of focus in the upcoming child poverty strategy. Local place-based approaches can provide innovative solutions to food poverty and inform strategies for how government can work with local areas and the private sector. Place-based approaches also have the potential to complement a national approach to addressing food poverty, as already demonstrated by examples of activities to increase take up of national schemes, such as Healthy Start, at a local level.
Routes to influence
The roundtable discussion provided useful pointers on how experts and organisations can feed into and influence government policy-making to reduce food poverty. Given fiscal constraints it is important to demonstrate the cost-benefit of proposed or existing policies that are being recommended to introduce, maintain or expand initiatives. Of the many potential policies that could be introduced or modified, identifying what should be prioritised and convening with other stakeholders and interested parties around one issue is helpful to focus government attention and action. another important factor for influencing policy solutions to food poverty is public perception, which can be an important barrier, for example in relation to removing the Two Child Limit, or in relation to extending benefits such as the Healthy Start Scheme to families with no recourse to public funds. Therefore, an important part of influencing policy can also include improving public understanding around such issues. Finally, experts and organisations with an interest in reducing food poverty for under-fives can help government to understand the implications of the policy choices they are making in terms of impacts on children in the short- and long-term.
A pivotal moment
There was agreement amongst roundtable participants that this is a pivotal moment in government and an opportunity to influence policymaking. Food poverty is an important issue that falls across multiple government departments and as such it is important to engage with all relevant departments whilst contributing to the different paths to influence mentioned above. There was much agreement amongst participants about what is important to prioritise to address food poverty for under-fives – namely increasing household incomes, particularly through improvements to the welfare system. The strengths of bringing so many experts and organisations together were clearly demonstrated at the roundtable event and there is the potential for continued collaboration, organising around shared priorities, to help influence policies to reduce food poverty.
