Heat or Eat: food and austerity in Rural England

Dr. Hannah Lambie-Mumford (University of Sheffield)

Dr. Carolyn Snell (University of York)

Introducing the project

• Pilot project: £25,000, 6 months • Communities and Culture Network+ funded

project• Given the popularity of the phrase ‘heat or eat’

this project seeks to consider: – the existing evidence base – assess whether this reflects lived experiences– and how and why such decisions are made

• Very early days/tentative findings..

Heat…aka fuel poverty

• Explicit policy concern since the 1990s• In 2012, the number of households in fuel poverty in

England was estimated at around 2.28 million, representing approximately 10.4 per cent of all English households (DECC 2014)

• Support for the fuel poor includes: – Warm Home Discount – Cold Weather Payments– Winter Fuel Payments

• Energy Companies Obligation especially Carbon Saving Communities Obligation

Eat…aka food poverty/food insecurity

• Combination of rising cost of living and falling incomes has made food 20% less affordable for those in the lowest income decile than in 2003

• Rapid rise in charitable food provision – 1 million food parcels distributed by Trussell Trust in 2013-14 representing a 610% increase since 2011-2012

• Food prices typically left to markets, but All Party Parliamentary Inquiry of 2014 signified rising policy concern

Assumed drivers of ‘heat or eat’

• Increasing food and fuel prices and decreasing incomes

• Flexibility of food and fuel costs compared to other outgoings

• However VERY limited evidence base, and claims by NGOs/politicians are usually based on single case studies/small scale surveys

Research aims

• To critically investigate the existing evidence base and identify key research gaps

• To determine whether the characterisation of a ‘heat or eat dilemma’ reflects lived experience

• To understand factors that influence household spending decisions around food and fuel

• To consider the role for policy

Methodology

• Evidence review • Secondary analysis of the Family Resources Survey – Investigate consensual measures of food/fuel poverty

• GIS mapping – As a sample frame for the qualitative work & to

investigate the distribution of fuel poverty policy priority areas and food banks

• Qualitative interviews with stakeholders and households

Evidence review

• Very limited rigorous empirical research– 6 academic studies have explicitly considered the ‘heat or eat’

tradeoff, 4 in the US/Canada, 2 in the UK. – Studies are typically quantitative with a variety of approaches

including: • Relationships between food & fuel expenditure and cold weather • Biggest study considers the relationship between cold weather, food

expenditure and nutritional outcomes (e.g. dietary quality, vitamin deficiencies etc.)

• Self reported questions around food intake, cold weather and energy prices

• Typical focus on households with low incomes, elderly and children

– One qualitative study that considers the importance of warmth to older people

Evidence review: gaps

• Terminology and methodology – No consistency on what the term ‘heat or eat’ refers to– very little of the existing research is actually identifying a trade

off, but rather fluctuations in spending – A reduction in food expenditure does not necessarily translate

into reduced calorific intake– Fuel expenditure remaining constant does not imply a

household is cold (or warm enough)• The UK context

– Energy billing periods will make a very big difference to household expenditure patterns (and whether a household can ‘smooth’ over shocks)

Evidence review: gaps

• Existing research tends to ignore subjective factors– about spending decisions, where food and fuel choices sit

amongst other outgoings, why and how these choices are made

• Existing research does not sufficiently consider the impact of different fuel payment methods: – PPM customers most likely to be on low incomes & least

likely to be able to ‘smooth over’ high bills – thus facing short term budgeting decisions

– Households paying on a quarterly basis may be exposed to greater financial ‘shocks’, but these may be less often

Secondary analysis of consensual measures within the Family Resources Survey (2012-2013)

Households that are (or have recently been) behind with their gas bill are 2.2 times more unlikely to say that they can afford a meat/fish/vegetarian equivalent meal every second day

Households that cannot afford to keep their home adequately warm are 2.8 times are more likely to say that they cannot afford a meat/fish/vegetarian equivalent meal every second day

Methodology: mapping

• Mapping of ECO 1.2/2 deprived rural, rural & deprived areas by Trussell Trust foodbanks

• Mapping of LSOA fuel poverty rates by foodbanks attempted but poor quality results

• Food banks in deprived rural LSOAs (ECO 1.2/2) used as a sample frame for case study selection: – Often off gas network (increased risk of FP), high levels

of poverty– Technically households should be eligible for fuel

poverty support so good to test for this

Launceston

Bodmin

Liskeard

Bude

Regional stakeholder interviews

• Interviews with stakeholders working in relevant organisations (CAB, NEA, Foodbank Managers, Housing association etc.)– Whether they think there is a ‘heat or eat’ issue– Whether policy responses are sufficient – What more could be done

• Interviews with individuals attending the selected food banks – Questions around household finances & budgeting, spending

priority exercise, specific questions about how food and fuel spending choices are made, coping strategies, access to policy support

Emerging themes…• Within policy – recognition that a food voucher may need to be supported with an energy top up

to make it viable • Householders constantly referred to food and fuel without being prompted• Impact of the following exposes or insulates:

– housing arrangements– benefit sanctions & delays in support– support networks - taking children to friends and relatives’ houses to get a hot meal or bath

• Limited discussion of fuel poverty support despite being in an ECO priority area • Impact of billing periods

– PPMs V big bills • Rationing behaviours

– Using less fuel– Self disconnection at end of benefit periods– Eating differently – Eating cold food – Frequent reliance on food bank despite official referral system

• Stealing food • Not paying other bills

Initial findings: impact of big bills

‘Yes, we get given our bill and this one was £690 and then it is broken down over the next three months for what you pay until it is paid off. At the end of the three months whatever is outstanding we will pay a lump sum, which isn’t very good because sometimes it can be £200. That is when we need help and we end up at the food bank’ (Hannah, household with children)

‘I do try and keep my bills up to date so I am not chasing them all the time. Some weeks it is really difficult. When I first moved in there it was six months before I got a gas bill and it was £90-odd and that was my giro gone’ (Jim, single household)

Initial findings: impact of PPMs – not topping up in order to buy food

‘Bill: Yes. My house has got no electric at the moment. Neither of us have any money at the moment.

Interviewer: So you just let it run out?

Bill: Yes, it’s all we can do’ (Bill, 18, lives with parent)

Heat or eat?

‘I would probably say eat because with the heating there are blankets and stuff like that which could be used to keep the kids warm and keep us warm. I would make sure we ate’ (Hannah, household with children)

‘I would rather have food than heat. As long as you have got food inside you then you are heating yourself because you have got fuel’ (Roger, single household)

Next steps

• Full analysis of household data• Full analysis of stakeholder data• Policy roundtable event to discuss findings

Dr. Hannah Lambie-Mumford (University of Sheffield)h.lambie-mumford@sheffield.ac.uk

Dr. Carolyn Snell (University of York)Carolyn.snell@york.ac.uk

Project website: http://www.communitiesandculture.org/projects/heat-or-eat-food-and-austerity-in-rural-england/

Contacts