To ask how long you think food banks should support people for?

[tartanbaker]

I help to run an independent food bank, & we currently support over 100 families. We are nearing our capacity (in terms of numbers we can help) due to limited storage etc, but there are new people applying all the time. We give people food every week, and some families have been registered with us for about 2 years now. They are still needy, and we all know that things are going to continue being tough for the foreseeable future, so my question is…if you were to donate to a food bank, how would you want them to use your food/money? Continuing to help everyone for as long as they ask for help, even though it might mean turning others away? Or telling existing families who rely on you that you can’t help them any more because you are going to help new people now? It’s so hard, and an ongoing debate we are having, and I’d be really interested to hear other people’s opinions. Both options seem really tough….

What about those mentally ill? Too sick to get and maintain a job but too healthy to qualify for professional help? What about those with cancer -I know sb who's had cancer for over 10 years!! What about those mothers who have kids with autism -whose DP accidentally moved to the other side of the world and always forgets to pay anything? tThey can't get a job because of the kids but they can't hire a carer either because they have NO JOB!
Even better, about people who don't look the way society bloody thinks they should, so "there MUST be sth wrong with them"?
What about those too young to get another job but too old to get a pension?
What about those with a really bad case of PCOS so "must be super lazy", who will hire them?
We live in a deeply racist, xenophobic society of people who think the way we dress defines us.
What about the many many children who have a sick parent who can't work and nobody to help, so they're the ones cleaning the house, watching the other kids and cooking? What future, what job will those kids have? How many people out there have close to no options because they had a crap childhood with nobody to give them a hand?
How many women spent forever taking care of the house, the kids and the husband only to be left out in the street because the husband's decided to be off with sb younger?
There will always be people who'll need help forever, it doesn't mean they're worthless and should be left to starve under a bridge. Each case is a case. Even the "old" ones, but maybe they should be referred to another type of charity, more specialised.
Still, for people to say dump the old, keep the new, and it's an effing "lifestyle"... shame on you.

Could you initiate a review for all those who have had more than - say - six months of parcels? Then decide to either stop / continue / switch to by weekly parcels based on that?
Maybe a maximum of three parcels when self referred and then beyond that they need to go through a referral agency, covers the initial crisis and gives you time to signpost where necessary.
And maybe less choice, but more people helped as you are able to buy what is on offer or in season.
I’ve been thinking about this thread since last night, and there are certainly no easy answers. Thank you though OP, it sounds like you really care about your service users.

Give less to each. 2 years is a lot of help to give families. Surely there are jobs some family members can do. They will be reluctant to stop applying as they become dependent on it just as people became dependent on the £20 increase in UC and moaned when it was taken away. No gratitude for short term help, just griping that it's ended. The more they get for no effort the less they want to do and the more they feel entitled to live on benefits ad infinitum.
Benefit was never meant to be long term but to some it's a lifestyle funded by the taxpayer.

Tin can cook?
Horrible book.

Teach people that a yin of spaghetti o-s on toast is a valid meal.

The chip pan used to feed families for pennies.

Just watched a BBC series on bricklayers. It's relevant as these are not actors and some have had crap backgrounds and one is homeless but they (and yes, there are young women brickies) who have decided that just because life has dealt them a bad hand, it doesn't mean that the future has to be bleak. They are working hard, some as labourers some as apprentice bricklayers and some are fully fledged bricklayers and their pride in their job shines through. Praise from the boss makes them smile all day.
One girl (think she's 22) has bought a Merc and another, a 26 year old lad has just bought his first house.
These are people prepared to work, not just live off handouts.

There's also a guy on YouTube named Gareth who goes under the moniker The Bald Foodie. Lives in Cumbria, had plenty of knocks since leaving the army but now does food comparison videos comparing cost and taste of several items of the same food from Aldi, Asda, Morrisons, Tesco and Iceland own brands and occasionally M&S on a weekly basis.
He shows the before and after he cooks them, looks at nutritional values and weight and taste tests them all.
There is no way that a family couldn't afford the food he shows...no way at all.

Right @LoisLane66 , because anyone “prepared to work” (especially with bricks) will definitely avoid poverty and being “a family” means you will at least always be able to afford whatever food a bloke called Gareth on YouTube is cooking? Is that how you think it works? 🙄

The four most significant “risk factors” for poverty are being single, having children, being disabled and being old. If you’re unlucky enough to combine two or more of those, your risk shoots up further. We do need people to do “routine” jobs. Not everyone can be high earners. So for anyone in the bottom half of the income range, the risk is there. Your magical thinking won’t help if people hit hard times.

@Sortilege
I take your point but I myself fall into one of those categories. Naturally, there are takers and fakers and some who, through illness or bad luck, need a helping hand. My objection is with people who settle into the take category amongst whom are some single mothers who carry on having more children without having the support of a long term partner. w
Who routinely apply for handouts such as benefits, council tax, food bank vouchers and housing for their ever expanding family, without doing anything to try to better their position.
I know of at least one neighbour whose private rent is paid at the rate of 850pm and who had another child just when the first came of school age. She has a partner living there (not the dad) and the benefits agency don't know about that and her benefits are still being paid as if she was living alone. She gets 4 bags of free food when she goes to the FB and will be one of many tens of thousands milking the system in various ways. I only know these things as she told me herself.
If you're ok with that, well that's up to you but I'm certainly not ok with it.

There's no good or reasonable choice here, the whole fact people need long term help to access food is messed up.

What about a hybrid model, first 3 months get food weekly, then go onto fortnightly long term help. That way you can provide intense crisis type help and for those families that have long term support needs you can help longer term while still supporting other families.

The thing is, @LoisLane66 there will always be a minority who break the rules and take the mickey (and also people who are chaotic, struggle to cope, suffer from addict and so on) but if we keep talking about that minority - or worse cutting services because of the minority- we do a disservice to the millions of people who are struggling through no fault of their own and aren’t making their situations worse.

The whole “deserving versus undeserving poor” issue is a minefield anyway, for several reasons. For one, who is qualified and sufficiently informed to make that judgment? For two, when people are dysfunctional, it’s usually because they experienced dysfunction as children. Thirdly, (connected to 2), if they have children, they children shouldn’t suffer because the parents are being feckless or inappropriate.

Anyway, as I say, cost of living increases, housing costs, wage levels, benefit rates etc now mean that millions of full time employees are really, really struggling. Benefits don’t prevent poverty or top up wages sufficiently any more.

I agree with this

Buying the chosen fruit and vegetables might not be the best use of money if the choice is avocado and tomatoes out of season. Cabbage would give much more to eat for the same value but requires knowing how to cook.

Good morning all,
thank you so much for everyone's views - it really has been such a useful exercise for me to ask you all your opinions.
Just to be clear, our limiting factor is space and time rather than money - we live in a wealthy area so donations are generous and plentiful.
It is more a question of what we is best for our clients, and what we can wholeheartedly justify to our donors as the right and proper use of the money/goods which they have donated. Within the time & space limitations, we could theoretically hand out food forever to those who ask for it, but is that really helping them? On the surface, of course yes, but are we thereby exacerbating their issues at the same time? Is it helpful to them if they then become dependent on our help and, as some say, use the money saved by getting free food from us to spend on unhealthy behaviours?
We can refer people to other agencies, but mental health /drug/ alcohol/ domestic abuse issues are not a quick fix. People turn to alcohol/drugs etc for a reason, much more complex and deep-seated than just fancying a drink, or whatever. Some also get their hair/nails/fake tan done because that's how the man at home demands she looks, and that is the only way to keep him calm, happy and to keep him there. However much he dishes out the abuse, many prefer him to be there than to leave them on their own with young children.
It's all been a complete eye-opener for us, and I don't think anyone really knows the answers, and when faced with someone who is struggling, for whatever reason, to exercise 'tough love' and say that they now have to help themselves, is just beyond difficult.

Firstly, I wish food banks weren't necessary and we had a proper welfare safety net. Having said that, we do need them and thank you so much for the work you do.

Is there any possible solution to the storage problem? We had the same issue here a couple of years ago and, when we publicised the difficulties we were facing, we were incredibly lucky to be offered the use of two additional storage facilities for free. We also received donations of fridges and freezers that were either 'spares' kept in garages, or unwanted due to kitchen refurbishment (kitchen fitters are great contacts to have btw!) and volunteers who couldn't commit to regular help but who spent a whole weekend designing the spaces, painting them and putting up shelving etc.

The need is so great at the moment that we may need to expand again shortly, and hope to receive local support again. The summer holidays are filling me with dread at the moment, there are so many kids whose only meal a day is at school 😔.

Wishing you the best of luck!

I think you have to prioritise the new

< Sophie’s Choice >

Maybe having a tool or procedure to work out who has a real, long-term income shortfall would help?

Not all need is the same. Not everyone is spending the food money on fake tan or cigarettes.

Increasingly, as the cost of living crisis bites, an ever growing proportion of clients will have taken up all their entitlements, and still be faced with a plain lack of funds. Signposting will never help with those people.

Maybe having a tool or procedure to work out who has a real, long-term income shortfall would help?

How would you define that. tbh, I can think of people who have an OK income but it is wholly inadequate to cover addictions. There is currently no support available to assist them in detoxing and recovering from their addiction within a reasonable timescale.

They are high-functioning with their addictions and holding down a job. But, there's no doubt that their families are experiencing severe deprivation because of their diversion of resources to those addictions.

I accept the wider point that, as I mentioned upthread, there is a dire need to overhaul the working conditions, contracts, and rates of pay for many people who are having to rely upon UC to top-up their income. This isn't helped by the lack of flexibility of UC around 5 payday months and the recalculations that take so long to work through with debt accruing in the interim.

The whole idea would be to explicitly exclude a budget for addictions. It’s looking at income not spending choices.

Just work out who doesn’t have enough money to cover rent, bills and a modest life. Lots of those people out there.

You can use something like the Joseph Rowntree calculation (per adult, and per child) of how much a modest but sufficient life costs as a reference amount. Or benefit amounts plus a small percentage, or any number of methodologies, but presumably a foodbank needs something easy and quick to apply.

(The point being that the much- vaunted “signposting” potentially helps with issues like addiction or even a benefits check, but some people have no needs that signposting could assist with. They just don’t have enough money.)

Actually @tartanbaker that could be a guideline, if money is no issue but time is.

After a certain period of time, signposting could be an “off ramp” where it is applicable, but where it isn’t applicable, allow clients to stay on the caseload longer, because their sole need is financial.

After initial help go to fortnightly, then monthly, which would enable you to help twice as many people/families.

That weekly list may be the problem, It makes it seems a regular addition to any other benefits/ wages/ pensions they have coming in. Seems like only one referral per month wouldn't be unreasonable, and allow you to help more people.

It’s a horrible situation, but I don’t think it would be right to just ‘drop’ people in need after a period of time. Do you remember those halcyon days when food banks were not a thing in the UK? My daughter worked in the Middle East for several years. She returned home in about 2016 and asked me in shocked tones “why have we got food banks? What’s happened to the country?” Dominic Raab says it’s because “People have cash flow problems” 🤬

I personally think that limiting the number of times a person/family can use the system and then returning to the bottom of the list/re-referral in order to help others, sounds like the best way to do it.
I'm disabled, on benefits and can't get any help at all, so more often than not, in order to not go into debt with the bills I have to go without food. I tried asking for help but was told my benefits (£740/month that I have to pay £500 mortgage, £150 gas/electric, £15 water, £14 TV licence and other bills from) is meant to be sufficient to cover ALL bills and to feed myself, so I was told I wasn't eligible to use a food bank. Well, by the time I've paid the monthly bills I've got £30 for a month's food.

Lots of talk of expensive phones, costa coffees, false nails and tans. Yes they exist, but certainly not the majority where I went. Most of us were visibly disabled/ old/ parents/ refugees/ visible MH issues. Generally a lack of umbrellas in rain, cheap coats in winter, and majority showing signs of poor health and shabbiness, repaired or otherwise.