The future of the Holiday Activities and Food programme

These case studies are just four examples of the wide-ranging benefits of HAF seen across England (further examples are referenced throughout the paper).  

Key themes
 

DfE guidance establishes that HAF is primarily for school aged children who receive benefits related free school meals (FSMs). DfE further advises that local authorities can use up to 15 per cent of their funding for provision for children who are not in receipt of FSMs but would benefit from HAF. For example, over the course of the year in Hammersmith and Fulham, 20,953 HAF attendances were from children eligible for FSM while 4,795 were non FSM.

In partnership with schools and local services, councils are well placed to identify children and families who would benefit from the programme, even if they don’t receive Universal Credit or other welfare assistance. Many children who are eligible for FSM also receive welfare provision from the Household Support Fund while other families who are challenged by the cost of living fall short of receiving any support. We recognise this landscape will continue to shift with the announcement of changes to FSM eligibility from 2026/27.

We support the flexibility in the HAF guidance which allows participation from children who are not eligible for FSM, but see positive outcomes from the activities, meals and childcare provision. Flexible guidance also facilitates provision for working families, to help cover the cost of childcare and keep parents in work.

HAF supports parents by providing essential childcare during the school holidays. Over a third of parents say lack of childcare over the holidays means their ability to work is affected, and 29 per cent say they have to borrow money or go into debt to cover the costs of childcare. We know that more needs to be done to improve school holiday childcare to mirror the significant focus on term time interventions like the wraparound and school breakfast club offer. For HAF, DfE recommends minimum delivery models for each holiday period, but many providers can offer extended provision in response to the needs of local working families. In Kirklees, one parent said: “This opportunity is extremely important to me as a single parent of two children […] it provides the flexibility I need to balance work with my family responsibilities”

Officers noted that the programme is not a perfect method to increase parental employment as the four-hour funded sessions often fall short of a full workday. Some of the local authorities we spoke to have been tackling this by exploring models that allow parents to pay for extended hours using tax-free childcare. Where provision is longer, this can help parents secure childcare for a full workday. However, it can be difficult for parents to understand where this is an option, with one officer noting that “parents don’t always understand they can get other funding streams to pay for longer sessions.” This highlights the need for a more integrated package of support that families can understand and navigate. It also emphasises how DfE guidance (eg. around duration of provision) could be more flexible to align with the employment agenda. 

While HAF plays a vital role in supporting children and families, it is just one small part of a wider support system consisting of mainstream benefits, household support funds, food banks, food pantries, free school meals, breakfast clubs, wraparound childcare, and other support. This complex support landscape can be difficult for families to navigate, particularly those facing multiple vulnerabilities. 

The placement of HAF within different council departments, such as in Youth Services or Early Help teams, affects its strategic alignment and delivery. Some officers reported that their HAF team is well placed and has strong links to family hubs and mental health services, while others described the programme as having “jumped around from department to department” leading to inconsistency and a lack of integration. Councils may also consider how HAF aligns with public health priorities and funding.

Some councils, particularly London boroughs, benefit from partnerships with organisations such as the Felix Project and Feeding Britain, which provide recipe packs and food bank support. One officer described this as “well connected and coordinated with other food-related initiatives” with HAF providers even running food banks on-site. 

HAF programmes can be an effective opportunity for signposting families to other available support. For example, in Leeds, the Community Hub provision was a key part of the programme, linking families to other services including digital support, debt advice, uniform exchange and more. Families could also connect with NHS and third sector partners many of whom operate out of the same hub building. However, this level of integration is not universal. There is a clear need for a more unified approach that brings together HAF, breakfast clubs, wraparound care, and other support under a single strategic framework. As one officer put it, “it just seems very disjointed at the moment… it would be really helpful if [DfE] had a vision and pulled it all together.” 

Effective partnerships between councils and providers are key to the success of HAF. Councils are well placed to be local place leaders, facilitating strong working relationships between providers for mutual benefit. In the roundtable, one officer explained how they had connected activity providers with local restaurants and caterers. This partnership encourages local food places to expand their healthy food offer in line with the School Food Standards and strengthens the local economy by supporting local private enterprises. Previous research has highlighted that HAF makes up a significant proportion of income for many providers and this reliable stream of funding is key to sustaining their operations. 

That said, there remain difficulties in working with smaller local enterprises who cannot afford to provide large-scale catering without being paid upfront. One officer identified the administration and processing time for paying suppliers as a barrier for these small businesses. 

While many councils have built strong relationships with trusted providers, others face challenges in ensuring consistent standards across safeguarding, nutrition, and signposting. One officer explained “our biggest challenge every year is making sure the whole family support is available no matter which provider they go to.” Sports clubs and national providers may lack awareness of available local welfare provision, and seasonal staff are not adequately briefed to share information with parents. This again highlights the continued challenge of ensuring HAF is part of a wider integrated support system.

Some councils are tackling this by developing resource packs to inform providers when signposting parents and carers to the other support they can access. Providers for the Derbyshire HAF programme complete a training needs assessment to identify where training should be targeted, and the council ensures this training reaches all staff including casual or seasonal employees. Training could also include information about communication and use of language to reduce stigma and ensure dignity for participating families.

Facility costs are also a significant barrier. Sourcing suitable and affordable venues for delivery, especially for specialist SEND provision or multi-generational events, is a continued challenge. In the roundtables, one officer reported that schools in their area charge up to £100 per hour for use of facilities. Councils would welcome advice and guidance from DfE that they can share with schools in relation to facility costs for the programme. 

The provision of healthy food that is inclusive of dietary and cultural requirements is a cornerstone of the HAF programme. Councils are committed to providing hot, nutritious meals, although some providers lack access to kitchens or face high catering costs which makes this component difficult. Programmes for older children and young people may offer food vouchers for participants to use at nearby outlets (in the Gateshead HAF plus programme, 61 per cent of young people described this available food as nutritious).

There are many local examples of excellent food provision and evidence that HAF has encouraged children to try new healthy foods and bring these habits home with them. During the LGA roundtables, one officer stated that “we get feedback from parents on how [HAF] has changed their children’s attitudes to food” and another added that parents have told the HAF provider that their children are asking for the food they eat on the programme at home. 

Preparing food can be an activity as part of the programme, broadening children’s skills and encouraging them to try new foods. At a HAF club in Essex, children played a blindfolded fruit tasting game. Half of children reported that they had tried a new food, with one child saying “they were delicious!” Leeds’ Healthy Holidays programme included Healthy Eating Toolkits to accompany the meals. The Hammersmith & Fulham HAF programme included 512 hours of nutritional education over the year.  These examples highlight the HAF programme’s potential to influence healthy eating habits.

Councils are well placed to encourage local businesses to develop their food offer to meet the standards of the HAF funding, which can have lasting positive impact beyond the end of the programme. Providers should be supported to understand nutritional requirements. Councils can develop a toolkit or specific training, which should link to the school food standards and may draw on local healthy weight strategies and public health resources.

Councils and providers should also work to ensure that the food offer is culturally competent. For example, the Sandwell HAF programme received positive feedback about the provision of halal food. Exploring plant based food options and seasonal, locally grown produce also sees benefits across sustainability and health outcomes. Where there are barriers around capacity, councils should look to facilitate a collaborative approach between providers, and with schools and community kitchens.

There is strong qualitative evidence that HAF plays a significant role in alleviating hunger in the school holidays. Participating in the programme guarantees a full, nutritious meal which is a lifeline for children from households experiencing food insecurity. In the roundtables, officers described children arriving at sessions very hungry, with some asking to take leftover food home. In Essex, when asked if they had eaten breakfast that morning, 43 per cent of children participating in the HAF programme said they had not.

In response to these needs, some councils have used additional funding from the Household Support Fund (HSF) to provide breakfast at the start of HAF sessions. Officers observed that children who had not eaten before arriving were less able to engage in physical activities, and providing food earlier in the day has helped improve participation, particularly among children from families experiencing severe financial hardship. 

HAF also tackles holiday hunger by connecting families to other support services with local pantries and food banks. Beyond the meal delivered in the session, the programme can be used as an effective opportunity to signpost families to wider support. This supports parents to mitigate children’s hunger outside of the hours of the programme, maximising the efficiency of the broader local welfare provision.

There would be benefit in DfE investing in data collection and impact assessment to evaluate outcomes related to food insecurity and hunger. While anecdotal evidence indicates that the HAF programme contributes to reducing holiday hunger, robust quantitative research would strengthen this evidence base. This would support more effective targeting of resources and ensure that guidance around programme delivery is proportionate to need. All monitoring and data collection processes must be aligned to reduce duplication of information and burden on parents/carers and providers.

Parents/carers value that fact that HAF is not just ‘free babysitting’. HAF provides children with high-quality, enriching activities during the school holidays, which their families might not otherwise be able to afford. Research shows that children from low income households are less likely to access organised activities, more likely to experience poor nutrition and physical health, and more likely to experience social isolation.

Some programme providers offer places to children who pay privately, alongside those funded through the HAF programme. These programmes typically include activities that are both accessible and appealing to the wider public. The Gateshead HAF Plus programme, which includes travel passes for all young people to independently access travel throughout the holiday period, saved families an approximate £400 per child. Access to activities plays a crucial role in addressing what one officer described as “the holiday experience gap”, enabling children and young people from lower income families to access similar opportunities to their peers. This reduces the risk of children falling behind their peers when they return to school after the holiday, particularly where activities target skills gaps and improve attendance. HAF supports children to cope with change and stakeholders report related positive outcomes for attendance when children return to school. Where programmes integrate both HAF-funded and paid places, there are additional social benefits, as children and young people can interact with peers from across the local area without their funding status influencing participation.

Activities should be culturally competent. For example, the Easter HAF programme in Newham accommodated those observing Ramadan by offering low-intensity activities like yoga, meditation and gentle walking. Councils also noted the importance of offering a diverse range of activities to meet the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) or those who may not engage with traditional sports-based provision. 

Access to the HAF programme for children with SEND is varied across the country. Many councils have made significant progress in developing inclusive provision. In Hammersmith & Fulham, 94 per cent of providers offered places for young people with SEND, while Newham expect all delivery partners to ensure a minimum of 12 per cent of places are available to children with SEND. Effective collaboration is key to achieving better outcomes for SEND provision. Kirklees HAF team work closely with the Short Breaks service to enhance the offer for families. 

Identifying additional needs and understanding the support required by SEND families is a critical step in ensuring HAF providers are adequately prepared and resourced. Outcomes from Southwark’s parent-carer HAF survey recommended investing in an improved booking system where children’s additional needs are identified from the outset. Some councils reported success in increasing SEND participation by offering additional funding to providers for one-to-one or small group support. Families also benefit from providers who are inclusive for siblings with different levels of additional needs.

Other councils continue to face challenges related to cost, staffing, and capacity. Specialist care is often more expensive to deliver, and many mainstream providers lack the resources or training to offer one-to-one support. As one officer noted “we’ve managed to persuade one of our specialist schools to come on board… it’s been game changing.” This partnership enabled children with complex needs to access tailored provision in a familiar and supportive environment, with positive feedback from families highlighting the value of both the childcare and the respite it provided.

Children requiring more specialist environments or support remain under served. SEND families face higher competition for places. There is a clear appetite amongst councils to do more to support children with SEND, but this requires sustained investment, stronger partnerships with specialist schools and national guidance. Officers also asked that the DfE explore how the programme could better align with existing SEND strategies and funding streams.

While councils have made significant improvements to their booking systems and communications around the programme, many eligible children still do not access the HAF programme. Due to barriers around data sharing between local authorities in two-tier areas, schools and central government, councils face difficulty identifying eligible families. Previous LGA research around data sharing to enable auto-enrolment for FSM has demonstrated this an effective approach to reach children who are missing out. For HAF, relevant data sharing on benefit-recipients would allow councils to reach eligible children through direct communication. This requires DfE and DWP working collaboratively with schools and local authorities to share data to reach eligible families who receive benefits but are unaware of the opportunity of the HAF programme.

Councils reported that while demand is high, the most vulnerable families are often the least likely to attend. One officer observed “our most vulnerable families are probably the most underserved because they can’t get there.” Access barriers include transport challenges, digital exclusion, language barriers, a lack of awareness, and sometimes a stigma around accessing support. Local authorities should work with families (including eligible households who didn’t participate in HAF) to identify barriers and to ensure the programme provides the most value possible, rather than letting the programme be designed by providers without consulting families and children.

Councils are well placed to understand the barriers and explore solutions to improve access. For example, Kirklees Council prioritise the delivery of programmes in areas that have high numbers of eligible families in residence. The Derbyshire HAF programme includes remote activities to provide access for those unable to attend in-person holiday clubs. Community transport is another potential solution. To reduce stigma and improve uptake, many councils are reframing how they communicate about HAF to use inclusive language and “take the stigma away.” Proactive efforts to involve families with limited digital access include promoting the programme in physical brochures and information stalls, and using the opportunity of BAU communications to publicise the offer (eg annual Council Tax letters).

Councils described a pattern of 'mass panic bookings' when sessions go live, which often leads to high levels of no-shows, as families overbook or forget about their bookings. One council noted that summer 2025 saw their highest rate of no-shows to date. In response, some areas are exploring changes to booking release times, implementing waiting lists, and focusing on communicating with families through schools and social workers. A central repository of all HAF information can be an effective way for families to access information on the HAF provision across the local area. 

Based on the above themes, we set out the following recommendations for the development of the HAF programme:

For local government

• Strengthen integration with other support and local welfare assistance provided by the council, such as household support funds, food banks, food pantries, free school meals, breakfast clubs and wraparound childcare, to ensure that HAF is part of a coherent local offer for families.
• Provide consistent training and resources to providers, including on safeguarding and signposting to local services, and facilitate collaboration across all programmes.
• Support providers (especially small local enterprises) to deliver a food offer which is nutritious, culturally competent and helps children to improve their eating habits and expand their food knowledge.
• Expand partnerships with SEND schools and specialist providers to improve access for children with complex needs.
• Consider reframing the language used to promote HAF to reduce stigma.
• Maintain a clear central repository for families to access information about the HAF offer across the area, and ensure there are effective feedback routes for families.

For central government 

• Provide clear national guidance on how HAF can be delivered as part of a more integrated support offer for children and families and embedded with other support services and local welfare provision (HSF, wrap around childcare etc).
• Ensure councils are given sufficient flexibility within the guidance (eg around eligibility and duration of provision) so they can tailor the programme to meet the needs of their local community and support parents into work.
• Encourage and facilitate councils to build and maintain effective working relationships with SEND schools and specialist providers to improve access for children with complex needs.
• Invest in robust data collection and evaluation to assess outcomes across food and hunger, physical activity, parental employment, and child poverty.
• Facilitate data sharing between DfE, DWP, schools and local authorities to identify eligible families.