I've posted on a couple of threads about this and I've found it really dispiriting.
It seemed to get polarised really quickly between two competing versions of reality. And neither has any connection to the reality I see out of my window.
I live in a poor area. We're pretty high on the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. But its also a great place to live in many ways. I've made good friends and I'm happy to be raising my children here.
I also work in a job where I have to help people with benefit problems and write out referrals for food banks.
As some posters have pointed out- its really not usual for kids to go hungry. Even if their families are very poor.
Mums will do almost anything to feed their kids. Even if it means skipping other important bills, going without food themselves, shoplifting etc...Mothers have all sorts of strategies.
As other posters have said- if a kid is regularly going hungry there's likely something else going on. Often addiction or neglect. Less often: some kind of short term emergency. Sometimes immigration issues.
The very worst, heart-breaking situations I've seen are where the family is excluded from public funds because of their immigration status and either they aren't allowed to work or the work they have doesn't cover their basic needs.
I can think of one child who was hospitalised for malnutrition. His situation was along those lines. And it was tragic because his Mum made so many sacrifices. She was barely eating herself. And it still wasn't good enough. She was devastated.
So I agree with lots of what’s been said but the conclusions people were drawing seemed so wrong. Posters seemed to think that because so many Mums sacrifice and feed their kids somehow that’s problem solved. Let her carry on sacrificing and struggling. Any help you provide is unnecessary.
And others who seemed to think that because, yes sadly neglect is a thing, the only answer is punitive. More social workers. Take more kids away (away to where?). Any help you provide to the kids is wasted effort.
The reason this is frustrating to me is that we do have a feeding programme in my area. It’s really well used and it does the job. It works for the majority of families who need a bit of help to make life less of a bloody struggle and for the minority of kids who are being neglected.
It’s a free summer activity scheme with different things going on each day. A packed lunch is provided and kids can pick up a microwave meal to take away at the end of the day.
The activities act as window dressing to make the free food acceptable to families who would otherwise be too proud to take it.
It also provides an incentive to very, very few families who might not prioritise their kids. Almost everyone is happy to have their kids to be taken off their hands for a day. Kids aged 8 and over don’t even need their parents to sign them in. They can just pop down and join in.
It also helps that it’s for everyone...there’s no gatekeeping or having to prove that you really need it. People like me who aren’t in any particular need can always make a discreet donation.
So there you go: disguise the purpose, make it easy to access and don’t gate keep. Not rocket science.
And yet we had such a frustrating debate where even posters that seemed to understand the issues were arguing for the exact opposite solutions. Either making the help very highly targeted on stigmatised groups, tying it to punitive intervention or not bothering at all.