1. Background to the Study
Strand 2 LEAs
1.5 A purposive sample of 12 LEAs was selected for study. To address the diversity of
delegation issues, funding regimes and involvement in school meals provision, the study
identified the following criteria as factors of specific interest for the selection process.
a. Universal or optional delegation: Whether an LEA had delegated school meals budgets to all
schools or had delegated to primary and special schools only as requested, was
obviously important. Data supplied by DfES (S52 Budget 2002-3) provided an initial
guide to the extent to which LEAs had delegated funding to primary schools. Almost
60% (87) of LEAs held no budget for primary school meals services and these were
deemed to have delegated all funding. The remaining 63 LEAs recorded holding some
budget for primary meals but in around half of these the sums held were small.
Telephone enquiries to a random selection of LEAs holding funds indicated that a
substantial proportion had indeed delegated all funds to primary schools. Using the
original data supplied by DfES and results from the telephone enquiry, it was estimated
that less than one fifth of LEAs had not delegated universally to all primary and special
schools.
b. Central or private contracting: It was anticipated that the delegation process might impact
differently in LEAs which had maintained in-house provision via a direct services
organisation (DSO) than in those in which all the supply was privatised or in which a
mix of in-house and private contractor supply operated. Unison had conducted a survey
of LEAs in 2001 that estimated that around a quarter of LEAs all provision was
privatised, with mixed in-house and contractor-provided service in just over 20%. In
others, the LEA provided meals via a central service. This survey data were made
available to the study to permit LEAs to be identified by type of provision.
c. Free school meal eligibility: As the overall take up of meals within each LEA is in part a
reflection of the level of free school meal eligibility within it, it was important that the
LEAs selected should represent both higher and lower levels of eligibility. Data by LEA
from the Annual School Census 2002 for free meal eligibility for all LEA maintained
schools was supplied by DfES.
d. Subsidy: It was initially hoped to take into account the level to which LEAs provided any
additional funding for school meals, beyond that for free school meals, as a sampling
factor. Reliable data on subsidy by LEA proved insufficient for purposes of sampling
and this criterion was not retained in the selection process.
Price of meals: The price of the school meal is known to vary substantially from LEA to LEA, (and indeed,
very likely from school to school within an LEA). The selection aimed to represent the span of pricing.
1.6 LEAs were grouped into 12 categories using criteria a, b and c. The initial selection of
LEAs from the 12 groups was made using criterion e, using additional data on meal
pricing from the Unison survey. Preliminary screening interviews were conducted with
23 LEAs, to confirm data on the delegation policy and the source of meal provision
(central, private or mixed). From these initial interviews 12 LEAs were selected.