Half a million children ‘face holiday hunger’ if £1bn crisis fund is ditched

More than Half a Million Children at Risk of Going Hungry During School Holidays

More than half a million children will go hungry during school holiday periods from the October half-term if the government fails to renew a £1bn local welfare crisis fund due to end in six weeks’ time, charities have warned.

Local Welfare Crisis Fund and its Impact

English councils last year spent £370m from their household support fund (HSF) allocations on holiday food vouchers for pupils on free school meals (FSM) – but more than a quarter of authorities say this support could disappear if the fund is ditched.

Discontinuing the HSF could also devastate an already threadbare crisis safety net which supports tens of thousands of families at risk of destitution with cash, food parcels, fuel vouchers, clothing, beds, cookers and other essential items.

“If HSF ends, with no long-term strategy to replace it, it will instantly plunge millions into more financial turmoil. The effects of poverty, deprivation and even malnutrition will be exacerbated and the additional costs to public services will be huge,” a report by the charity End Furniture Poverty report concludes.

Impact on Local Authorities and Food Banks

The report, based on near 100% freedom of information returns from councils, shows England’s local crisis support safety net, which has existed in various forms since the 1930s, is fragmented, and in many areas, nonexistent.

Council-run local crisis support would disappear from nearly a third of English local authority areas covering 18 million people, including Birmingham, Bradford, Nottingham, Westminster, Croydon, Hampshire, Slough, and Stoke-on-Trent.

Its removal would also push scores of local food banks to the brink of insolvency, with many having become reliant on HSF cash grants to meet the explosion in demand for charity food as a result of Covid and the cost of living crisis.

Urgent Decision Needed

The government, which last week set out the terms of reference for its long-term plan to “reduce and alleviate child poverty”, is under pressure to urgently decide the future of the HSF. Funding for the scheme runs out on 30 September, a month before the autumn statement.

The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, last month identified the £500m HSF budget for the first six months of this year as one of a number of “unfunded” commitments made by the previous government – part of a £22bn spending shortfall – which would come under Treasury scrutiny.

Sustainable Development Goals

The potential discontinuation of the HSF raises concerns about achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Goal 1 aims to end poverty in all its forms everywhere, while Goal 2 focuses on achieving zero hunger. The report by End Furniture Poverty highlights the exacerbation of poverty, deprivation, and malnutrition if the HSF is not renewed, impacting the progress towards these goals.

Call for Action

Campaigners say they believe ministers will be wary of provoking a public backlash if school holiday food vouchers disappear in many areas of England. A popular campaign led by the footballer Marcus Rashford in 2020 twice forced the then prime minister, Boris Johnson, to reverse plans to scrap holiday free school meals support.

Campaigners are urging the HSF to be maintained for at least six months. Claire Donovan, the head of policy at End Furniture Poverty, said: “We know the HSF is a sticking plaster, but we desperately need one last extension of funding while an urgent review of local authority crisis support is carried out.”

A government spokesperson said: “This government will tackle the scar of poverty by making sure work pays and improving support to help people into good work. More details on the household support fund will be set out in due course.”

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 4: Quality Education

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
• SDG 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round.
• SDG 2.2: By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women, and older persons.
• SDG 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services, and access to safe, effective, quality, and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.
• SDG 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 1.3.1: Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems, by sex, distinguishing children, unemployed persons, older persons, persons with disabilities, pregnant women, newborns, work-injury victims, and the poor and vulnerable.
• Indicator 2.1.1: Prevalence of undernourishment.
• Indicator 2.2.2: Prevalence of malnutrition (weight for height >+2 or <-2 standard deviation from the median of the World Health Organization (WHO) Child Growth Standards).
• Indicator 3.8.1: Coverage of essential health services (defined as the average coverage of essential services based on tracer interventions that include reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health, infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, and service capacity and access, among the general and the most disadvantaged population).
• Indicator 4.1.1: Proportion of children and young people (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theguardian.com