The ‘hub-ification’ of social support: improved access or risk of further normalising emergency food assistance?

The ‘hub-ification’ of social support: improved access or risk of further normalising emergency food assistance?

Research from the SOAS Food Studies Centre reveals how the digitalisation of food assistance in England is reshaping access to welfare, emergency food aid and broader community support. Guest bloggers Yasmin Houamed, Susanne Jaspars and Iris Lim follow up on their introductory blog to argue that the expansion of "hubs" and ‘wrap-around' services may provide food and digital support in the short term, but risks further normalising emergency food aid and failing to address the root causes of food insecurity. They call this effect the ‘hub-ification’ of social support.

The growth of 'hub-ification'

Over the past decade, emergency food aid in the UK has increased dramatically. Trussell recorded a 94% rise in the need for food bank parcels over the last five years.

Food banks and other food support projects - variously called affordable food clubs, social supermarkets or food hubs - are no longer simply places where people receive a parcel in a moment of crisis.

These projects, alongside libraries, family centres, and other community spaces are increasingly becoming multi-service spaces, often referred to as ‘hubs’. They offer ‘wrap-around’ services, including digital access, welfare advice, income maximisation support, social connection and referrals to other services.

Community hubs have become increasingly common across the UK, though they vary widely in structure, resources and the extent of local council involvement.

The ‘hub-ification' of food assistance projects has coincided with the digitalisation of welfare and rising food insecurity. Digital exclusion is driving marginalised populations into needing food assistance, as outlined in our initial blog.

As a result, food banks and charitable projects are now frequently stepping up to provide more than food, including support with Universal Credit applications and other critical services that are now only accessible online.

The benefits of hubs

Support for digital inclusion is needed because the most marginalised cannot afford devices or internet access, and public buildings with free access have closed. In addition, the digital design of welfare can be difficult to navigate, particularly for those with language barriers.

For many people navigating a digital-by-default welfare system, wrap-around services are invaluable. Food support projects have become some of the few remaining places where people can receive this kind of face-to-face help with systems that are increasingly difficult to access alone.

These spaces can play a significant role in reducing isolation. Most hubs offer cafés, communal eating spaces or opportunities to socialise. People return not only for practical support, but because these spaces provide trust, connection and dignity compared to a traditional food bank.

Local authority representatives and managers of food banks described ‘hub-ification’ as increasingly promoted as a preventative response to food insecurity. In some councils, such as Hartlepool, all libraries have been transformed into hubs providing digital access, welfare advice and food support alongside traditional library services.

One justification for this approach is that if welfare, food and digital support can be accessed in one place, people may be able to receive help earlier and more efficiently, while also addressing some of the underlying causes of poverty.

While food support projects now fulfil important social and welfare functions, their growing role in supporting people to navigate digital welfare systems raises broader questions about whether charitable food provision should be expected to compensate for gaps in public services and social security.

The risks of 'hub-ification'

Some of the many types of hubs build on longer histories of welfare provision. Others are closely linked to austerity and the restructuring of local public services, as sustained budget cuts have left local authorities relying on low-cost forms of crisis support.

Our interviews with managers of hubs revealed that digital support is usually an "add-on" or a temporary service when funding becomes available. Many spaces lack the resources and capacity to provide adequate support, including sufficient funding, reliable internet connectivity, access to devices, and staff or volunteers with the necessary expertise.

Programmes such as Digital Champions rely on volunteers, but coordinating, training and supporting these volunteers still requires funding from local authorities. Organisations also expressed concerns about adequate training for volunteers and taking responsibility for handling people’s sensitive personal information within under-resourced community settings.

The most food insecure individuals often do not access food assistance spaces, emphasising the urgent need to address digital exclusions separately and the limits of food assistance spaces addressing root causes of poverty.

The DWP’s family resources survey for 2023-2024 found that ‘for very low food security households, 16% used a food bank within the last 30 days, and 30% within the last 12 months.’

By embedding welfare advice and digital inclusion services within food assistance projects, there is a risk of simultaneously entrenching food aid by reinforcing these hubs as key sites of support, while at the same time leaving many of the marginalised households unserved.

At the same time, food bank managers acknowledged concerns that food aid was becoming normalised but were unsure what alternatives currently exist while need continues to rise.

This reflects what we describe as the “hub-ification paradox”: if people must access emergency food provision to receive broader support, food banks risk becoming a permanent feature of the welfare landscape rather than a temporary response to crisis.

A fragmented system

‘Hub-ification’ is indicative of a landscape of support that is highly uneven. As hubs concentrate multiple services within fewer locations, people may need to travel further to access a particular form of support, especially where the overall number of assistance spaces has been reduced.

This applies to rural areas, where transport infrastructure may be poor. Different hubs also offer very different forms of support, with varying levels of capacity and expertise.

Even though the current government is improving its funding model for local authorities through the Crisis and Resilience Fund, this fund is essentially compensating for the failure to consider the consequences of digitalised welfare which drives many to need this support in the first place.

Welfare levels are inadequate to ensure food security and those entitled to it need support navigating its digital portals.

Beyond emergency food aid

In many places, hubs are filling gaps left by an increasingly inaccessible welfare system, and the closure of public spaces like libraries, and providing forms of care and dignity people struggle to find elsewhere.

But there is a difference between recognising the value of these spaces and accepting that they should become substitutes for social security and a welfare system that those who need it can access.

There is no single solution to these issues. The Food Foundation is calling on the government to track the cost of a healthy diet and ensure benefits and minimum wages are set at an appropriate level for people to be able to afford a healthy diet, along with other essentials.

In the interim, embedding digital inclusion within trusted local spaces may be more effective than relying solely on national programmes that are detached from local realities. If community hubs are expected to provide increasingly complex forms of support, they require sustainable funding, infrastructure and training rather than continued reliance on volunteer labour.

Ultimately, government should establish a universal, standardised digital inclusion service that is accessible to everyone who needs it, replacing the current patchwork of ad hoc provision through hubs and wrap-around support within food support projects.

Such a service should be informed by a review of existing provision and co-designed with people experiencing digital exclusion to ensure it is effective, accessible and responsive to need.