Guest post by Rys Farthing
New figures published by the Child Poverty Action Group and the British Youth Council reveal that many poor children are going hungry at school, including those entitled to free school meals.
Some 3.6 million children live below the poverty line, and while not all of these will be in school, only 1.27 million children are registered for Free School Meals. This means that many young people living below the poverty line are not entitled to FSM. And for these young people, the price of school meals – at around £9.40/week – is prohibitively expensive.
The research aimed to examine the adequacy of the current Free School Meal scheme. Currently, only young people whose parents are on out-of-work benefits are entitled to receive free school meals (FSM). If FSM are meant to benefit ‘poor kids’, out-of-work entitlement is poor targeting indeed; 62% of children growing up below the poverty line come from households that have at least one adult in employment. Estimates suggest that around a third of schoolchildren living below the poverty line are not entitled to receive free meals, their parents are not on out-of-work benefits, rather they might be in part time or low paid work.
2013 presents an opportune moment to address this inadequacy. The introduction of Universal Credit will mean that all ‘out-of-work’ and ‘in-work’ benefits are combined. The current rules around entitlement have to be redesigned. This presents both opportunities but also real risks. Firstly and importantly, if entitlement remains inadequate children from low income families will miss out on hot, healthy lunches, with all of the knock on effects for their health and education. Children from lower income households often go hungry and have poorer health outcomes and educational attainment than their better off peers. FSM can help realise their right to food, and help close health and education gaps. Secondly, if we don’t get entitlement right, FSM could work against the stated intention of ‘making work pay’ that is driving the Universal Credit. Setting an income threshold for entitlement introduces a big ‘cliff edge’ into family finances and could make families financially worse off for taking a job. Thresholds can mean that getting a small pay rise or taking on an extra shift could cost families dearly; if they move just above a threshold, they will lose £376 worth of FSM per child.
However, the report highlights a second type of inadequacy that affects the children who are entitled to FSM. In most secondary schools (and some primary schools) children receiving FSM get an “allowance” to buy their lunch at the canteen.
However one in seven of the young people surveyed in this research said that their allowance did not allow them to buy a full meal.
Young people from eight schools around England gave their lunch menus as evidence; a full meal could be purchased from their allowance from only 2 of the menus. For example, in one school the allowance given to FSM students was £2.00, but painfully the “meal deal” was £2.05. Most places gave an allowance that was enough to get a slice of pizza and a drink, or a main meal but nothing to drink. This inadequacy means that schools are breaching the regulatory guidelines that have so improved school food since the days of the Turkey Twizzler … but perversely, this breach only affects children who live well below the poverty line.
Many students suggested that this lack of money, and the small size of their school meal left them hungry. One of our youngest respondents, who is under 11, said that “I don’t get a lot to eat, (I’m) always hungry after having dinner… As we don’t get much food that’s why mummy still cooks us a meal at home but soon as we get home we eat lots while dinner is cooking”. Another said “there’s not enough money allocated to us and I go home hungry most days.”
Inadequate amounts left a number of poor children in the difficult position of having to take back food, or pay for what they overspent on attempting to buy a healthy meal. One student detailed their concerns (about getting detention for buying fruit):
“I think that the system honestly is a bit crap because you don’t know how much you have spent and if you overspend you’re given detention and you have to pay back what we spent!”
The best way to make sure that poorer children enjoy a meal is to entitle all families who receive Universal Credit to FSM. While this would almost double current entitlement, such an investment is the only way to make sure the FSM scheme works. The Department for Education will be launching a consultation into entitlement in the coming weeks, and when it does, we should be wary of options that replicate current inadequate entitlement. We also need to make sure that for their part, schools are pricing meals and providing allowances that make sure a Free School Meal is what is says on the tin.
Hidden from sight: refugees and poverty
This week (18 – 24 June) is Refugee Week in the UK and so we thought it would be appropriate to do a short post on poverty amongst refugees and asylum seeking children and their families.
Earlier this year, The Children’s Society released a report into destitution amongst young refugees and asylum seekers called ‘I don’t feel human’. It notes that:
Having fled danger in their country of birth, they have to expose themselves to potential danger and harm in this country because they are excluded from support and adequate accommodation. They remain hidden from view and have to survive with minimal resources. Alarmingly their predicament is not an unintended consequence. Forced destitution has been a deliberate policy, introduced by the previous government to try and reduce what were seen to be ‘incentives’ for those coming to the UK to claim asylum. In its 2007 report, the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted that:
‘We have been pesuaded by the evidence that the government has indeed been practicing a deliberate policy of destitution of this highly vulnerable group [asylum seekers]. We believe that all deliberate use of inhumane treatment is unacceptable. We have seen instances in all cases where the government’s treatment of asylum seekers and refused asylum seekers falls below the requirements of the common law of humanity and international human rights law.’
Despite this criticism, the current government continues to withdraw and withhold support to refused asylum seekers as a way to expedite their return to their country of origin. This leaves many thousands of people, including children and young people, who cannot return to their country of origin, destitute for prolonged periods of time, sometimes several years, and without access to even the most basic welfare support. This particularly affects young children in the crucial early years of their life and damages the life chances of older children as they transition into adulthood. The experiences of destitute children and young people raise serious welfare concerns.
This is shocking and the report also notes that discussion around asylum seeking and refugee children has largely been absent from the child poverty debate. Indeed, children seeking asylum are not mentioned at all in the government strategy and discussion about refugees is limited to the following two sentences:
Language barriers or low/unrecognised qualifications can make finding work difficult for refugees. This, combined with the disruption and likely trauma suffered, can make work seem out of reach for a number of these families.
Much of the focus of the Children’s Society report is on asylum seekers who are either waiting for their claim to be heard or have had it refused and the destitution that they face during this time. There is less focus on how refugees fare once a claim for asylum has been upheld and this is also true more generally, from what I can gather. A report by the Scottish Poverty Information Unit in 2010 noted that:
There is a body of research across the UK that provides evidence of the experiences of poverty amongst asylum seekers (for example, see Mulvey 2009a; Hamilton and Harris, 2009; Doyle, 2008; Malfait, 2008). However, the situation of refugees is much more difficult to glean from existing research, so much so that, in their report on economic inequality in the UK, Hills et al could say little about refugee poverty, except to anticipate on the basis of qualitative studies that some asylum seekers and refugees “may be highly disadvantaged” (2010: 5). The ‘invisibility’ of refugees in administrative data collection systems arises in part because attainment of refugee status brings with it the status of ‘ordinary resident’. This means that individuals are not obliged to declare their refugee status (Aspinall and Watters, 2010: 134).
So, the HBAI figures released last week make no reference to the number of refugees who are living in poverty. They are, to all extents, invisible from current discussions and considerations. JRF do some excellent work around poverty and ethnicity, but this is not the same as looking at issues affecting refugees.
What we do know is that refugees will face similar problems as many other people trying to find work at the current time. There are not many jobs around, there is lots of competition for them, many are low-paid and insecure and many of them are concentrated in certain areas. Added to this, however, refugees face additional barriers including those highlighted above, but also through the discriminatory practices of employers and through potentially having less social and cultural capital to draw on to find work and access resources.
At a time when the government is very keen to help turn around the lives of the ‘most disadvantaged families’, one could argue that many refugees fall into that category. However, one could also argue that there is far more political capital to be made from ‘tackling’ problem families than there is from helping families of refugees…..
Best wishes,
Steve
Many thanks to Georgina Fletcher and the Regional Refugee Forum North East for much of the information above. Their website http://www.refugeevoices.org.uk/ is worth a visit and includes the transcribed testimonies of the impact on children and young people whose parents are not allowed to work
Share this:
1 Comment | tags: asylum seekers, child poverty, destitution, refugees | posted in child poverty, comment, North East, poverty