Reducing stigma around holiday food schemes

What is stigma?

It is widely recognised that targeted services have disadvantages as, by definition, they do not reach everyone, and can create stigma from the belief that services are only for ‘failing families’. They are not unique as both targeted and universal approaches have risks and advantages to be considered in terms of achieving reach, outcomes and impacts, all whilst avoiding stigma. No one wants to bring shame upon children, young people, families, or communities associated with a particular circumstance, quality, or characteristic.

Benefiting those that are eligible for HAF

The nature of attempting to benefit eligible children and young people requires careful consideration of how restricting services to ‘the few’ can provide greater benefit to less people, and how targeting can make some people unhappy about not being able to benefit from access to services. Universal strategies aim to benefit more people (everyone), yet they could make people less happy and create ‘general’ benefit because the overall effect of the support could be diluted. It could be possible that families who have low-income employment can feel stigma as much as, or indeed more than, families in non-working households. In all events, access based on stigma cannot be a good thing, even if the eventual outcomes are successful. 

Another example

In their placement and delivery, past targeted services such as Sure Start children’s centres worked hard to minimise stigma as an unintended outcome.  Glass (1999) described these approaches in terms of principles and values, those being:

• No single blueprint for effective (early) interventions

• Two-generational (involving parents as well as children)

• Non-stigmatising (not labelling families as ‘problems’)

• Multifaceted (targeting a number of factors)

• Persistent (lasting long enough to make a real difference)

• Locally driven (based on consultation/involvement of parents and local communities)

• Culturally appropriate and sensitive to the needs of children and parents.

Relevance for HAF

Such ethical values remain highly relevant for the success of HAF. In the delivery of HAF we are charged with the responsibility of doing our utmost to ensure that stigma is not associated with the programme, as stigma represents potential harm. But how?

Why we have the HAF programme

HAF exists because we recognise some children and young people, especially those eligible and claiming benefits related free school meals (FSM), would benefit from engaging and enriching activities with nutritional food during the main school holidays. This is because they are disadvantaged by a range of factors, and as a result have fewer or no opportunities to participate in activities, and they experience a greater risk of food poverty or poor nutrition. 

Reducing the stigma of receiving free school meals

Being in receipt of benefits related FSM unlocks the doors to HAF provision. We have heard stories across the country of how HAF has increased children’s desires to be FSM eligible, with other children and young people feeling envious they are not eligible themselves. 

Imagine the stigma of not attending HAF…

Without access to HAF, eligible children often tell us about their alternative experiences in the main school holidays are highly restricted and very limited. Imagine being that child or young person with nothing or very little to do for 10 weeks of the year. That’s one fifth of the year, and wasted opportunities for social, physical, intellectual, creative and expressive learning opportunities.  Upon returning to school, they have nothing to share with their peers about what they did out of school, whilst their more fortunate peers describe adventures, trips, holidays, and out of school learning or skills development.  That surely runs the risk of being stigmatising. 

Managing HAF as a targeted programme

There are similarities that can be drawn with the Sure Start approach, which show how programmes are structurally tackling the issue of stigma:

• We don’t expect HAF to be delivered in the same ways everywhere

• We encourage parents and families to get involved, especially in the areas of nutritional awareness and healthy eating

• We aim to promote and deliver HAF as a positive, non-stigmatising offer for eligible families, alongside services for non-eligible, fee-paying families

• We look for multifaceted activities and connections with other services to support families, children, and young people

• We aim for HAF to be persistent through its funding and by adding value via other funding and sustainable strategies

• We want and need HAF to be locally driven, based on consultation/involvement of activity providers, parents, local communities, young people and children

• We expect HAF to be culturally appropriate and sensitive to the needs of individual children, young people, parents, and communities.

HAF coordinators and programmes are already well-versed and experienced in many of these approaches, including learning lessons from early delivery. Programmes are diverse, and involve parents. They are connecting with other activities and services, and added value and additional funding or partnerships are being secured. The amount and type of service design and service user consultation is growing (especially with young people) to ensure the offer connects with them, and locally appropriate offers are in place. Sometimes, though, the service user can be made to feel different if activities and especially food offers are segregated awkwardly. 

We also aim to connect HAF with wider strategies that support local priorities.  There are clear benefits to supporting healthy behaviours and outcomes, reducing anti-social behaviour and crime, for example. The risk here is that families attending HAF are all considered to be ‘problem families’.  

What more could be done?

In putting all of this into practice, there are some considerations in the form of a checklist:

1. Remember, remind, and reassert the reasons why we have the HAF programme in all appropriate plans and activities.

2. Carefully construct marketing and communications messaging to focus upon the benefits and outcomes, fun and enjoyment, and support to access HAF.

3. Help HAF coordinators or delivery teams who may struggle with reconciling the concepts surrounding HAF and stigma.

4. Support message givers, including partners and schools, by providing material and ‘lines to take’ or ‘key phrases’ to effect better communications.

5. Consider methods and approaches that reach eligible families discreetly and directly, with respect and dignity.

6. Enable providers to deliver seamless activities and food offers that are inclusive and not divisive. The best services, in our view, are where there is a blend of targeted and universal provision, and you struggle to see the join.

James Hempsall is a director at Hempsall’s & Professional Lead Childcare Works.

References: Glass N (1999) Origins of the Sure Start Local Programmes. Children in Society Vol 13. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.