Description and assessment of main policies and programmes in place in the member states and recommendations for improvements

• Author: Meyer, Stefan; Fresno, José-Manuel; Bain, Skye
• Pages: 44-67

Target Group Discussion Paper Children living in precarious family situations

44

4 Description and assessment of main policies and

programmes in place in the Member States and

recommendations for improvements

In the following Sections 4.1-4.5, we describe the national policies and programme s that

are in place for the TG of children living in precarious family situations in the Member

States. This is done succinctly for each of the five policy areas i dentified in the FSCG. In

Section 4.6 we discuss integrated and comprehensive approaches. In Section 4.7 we

explore the cost of services. The analysis builds on the 28 Country Repo rts and five Policy

Papers.124

4.1 Description and assessment of main policies to ensure adequate

nutrition and recommendations for improvements

4.1.1 Nutrition policies for ‘Children confronted with economic fragility’

The following policies have been identified in Country Reports as ways to remedy the lack

of access to healthy and nutritious food in Member States.

School meals. Am ongst the main specific measures to ensure access to sufficient and

healthy nutrition are school meals. Swed en is one of the few countries in the world that

offers free school lunches for al l children in primary and secondary education and offers

free lunches and sometimes also breakfast in childcare facilities. According to the Swedish

Educational Act, school meals should not only be free, they should also be nutritious and

must follow nutrition guidelines issued by the National Food Agency. A healthy diet and its

impact on the environment are also part of the curriculum in primary education, where

basic cooking skills are also taught.125

In most of the countries th ere are some support schemes for pre-school, primary or

secondary school canteens, whi ch do not necessarily entail universal provision. These are

either uni versal or targeted toward low-i ncome groups, certain age groups or particular

categories of school; while others are pilot schemes or other partial initiatives . In many

cases, national legislation establ ishes a threshold at which subsidies are paid. In many

countries, ECEC-level school meal support schemes are not guaranteed by either state- or

regional-level legislation. Fees for school meals, together with school fees, ma ke ECEC

unaffordable for those most in need and for whom it might have the best impact. However,

many municipalities have devised programmes for subsidising meal s within ECEC

provision, in either targeted or uni versal schemes. Although school canteens, and

progressive charging rates for them, provide some remedy, this is no solution for the

periods without school, which amount to 22-33 weeks per year according to Member State

– a syndrome which has been dubbed ‘hungry holidays’ i n the UK. The design, adequacy,

and coverage of school meal subsidy programmes vary between countries. In France, 7

out of 10 pupils access some sort of subsidy. In some countries, there are cut-off

thresholds, whilst others have established scales that progressively link incomes with rates

of subsidy. Means-testing is either attached to other social welfare schemes – and therefore

simplified – or a specific mechani sm is in place to request school meal support. The fluid

co-ordination between national, regional, and municipal welfare schemes eases or

obstructs access to subsidies and increases non-take-up. In some countries (e.g. BG, FR),

rural communities (and overseas territories) face challenges in administering access to

food support schemes. In Slovakia, cri ticism of free lunches points to a lack of capacity of

school canteens to meet new demand and to the fact that the amount of financial subsidy

per lunch (€1.25) is too low to provide healthy food.126 In the UK, the means-test for free

school meals for children over the age of 7 is reportedly drawn so tightly that it effectively

124 See in the References annex a comprehensive list of reports generated during the FSCG exercise.

125 SE Country Report.

126 https://newsnow.tasr.sk/economy/remisova-ficos-proposal-of-free-lunches-for-schoolchildren-ill-advised.

Target Group Discussion Paper Children living in precarious family situations

45

excludes most children in low-paid families.127 In the Czech Republic in 2015, the Ministry

of Labour and Social Affairs, in co-operation with regional authorities and schools, launched

the initiative ‘Lunches to Schools’, which provided food to the po orest children aged 3-15.

However, the initiative generated less interest than expected due to administrative burdens

for parents associated with the measure and the resistance of some schools. A new call

was announced at the end of 2018 that simplifies the conditions for applicants.

Table 5: Country cluster on nutrition policies for ‘Children confr onted with

economic fragility’

Countries with

targeted approaches

to free or subsidised

school meals for

low-income groups

e.g. BE, CY, CZ, EL (schools in disadvantaged areas); IE (schools

in disadvantages areas); LV (some localities targeting poor

families); PL (means-tested); PT (free or subsidised depending

on chi ld benefit income band); SK (pri mary children from low-

income households); UK (means-tested after age 7).

Countries with

universal (free or

subsidised) school

meals

e.g. BG, CZ (subsidised); EE (free); FI (free and subsi dised); FR

(subsidised); HR (free128 and subsidised); HU (free at primary

level and sub sidised at secondary level); LU (subsidised); LV

(free only for 1st to 4th grade only); PT (free or subsidised

depending on child benefit income band); RO (free snacks/meals

programmes); SE (free) ; SK (pre-school); UK (free for all up to

age 7).

Countries that have

mainstream policies

aimed at improving

child nutrition habits

e.g. AT, BE, CY, DE, ES, LU, MT, PT, SI.

Source: FSCG Country Reports.

Healthy food and fo od habits. Besides issues of the quantity, affordabili ty, and

accessibility of food, more attention is given to its quality. This is a response to evidence

on inequalities in health showing that less-affluent strata in society have both worse health

outcomes, namely higher rates of obesity, and more unhealthy behaviour. The incidence

of preventable diet-related non-communicable diseases, obesity, and all other forms of

malnutrition is strongly influenced by social factors. Amongst the measures taken are: (1)

support for healthy food in schools; (2) taxes on high-sugar and fatty food and lower taxes

on healthy basic food, as well as regulation of the vending of unhealthy products on public

premises and greater control of their adverti sing; and (3) publi c programmes for family

counselling and nutritional health. Similarly, municipalities work to ensure that permanent

and reliable access is provided to adequate, safe, local, diversified, fair, healthy, and

nutrient-rich food for all.129

Health promotion. Health-promoting interventions related to nutritious and healthy food,

as well as ph ysical activity, are implemented in various countries, within general ‘healthy

living’ strategies. In some Country Reports, while the political will to improve healthy habits

through public action is acknowledged, the implementation sometimes fails. This is

principally due to a lack of specific budgets (such as contracting of nutritionists – e.g. BE),

different levels of responsibility and accountability, or lack of trained human resources that

could convey messages and behavioural patterns to children, in particular amongst

teaching staff (e.g. PL).

127 UK Country Report.

128 According to the HR Country Report all primary schools are obliged by law to offer meals; but not all do so,

and parents whose children take meals usually pay a subsidised fee.

129 Many municipal initiatives in urban areas are subsumed under the umbrella of the Milan Urban Food Policy

Pact (MUFPP), to which municipal governments can adhere (milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org). See Cunto et al.

2017.