1. Background to the Study
Table 2: Case Study Schools selected for Strand 3
School |
Type |
Total |
% free |
Value |
Catering |
Type of Monitoring |
~ |
Rural Primary |
42 |
4% |
£1.80 |
Hot meal supplied by |
No external monitoring |
^^2 |
Rural |
4o4 |
~%0 |
£1.50 |
Hot meal cooked on |
No external monitoring |
3^ |
City |
495 |
34% |
£1.50 |
Hot meal cooked on premises (DSO)_________ |
Central contact |
1 |
London |
^235 |
39% |
£1.20 |
Hot meal cooked on |
LEA client monitoring |
35 |
London |
~280 |
43% |
71 |
Hot meal using |
No external monitoring |
^6 |
Urban Primary |
334 |
48% |
£1.35 |
Sandwich and hot soup |
Central contract |
77 |
Rural Middle |
420 |
^^5% |
£1.38 |
Hot meal cooked on |
LEA SLA2 monitoring |
"8 |
Town |
49o |
^^2% |
£1.38 |
Hot meal — school in- |
Private consultancy |
^^9 |
Town |
^^5θδ |
“6% |
N/A |
No meal provision except |
Central contract |
Ло |
City |
4 |
13% |
£1.35 |
Hot meal cooked on |
PFI contractor entitled to |
41 |
Urban Secondary |
1,910 |
-6% |
£1.40 |
Hot meal, sixth form |
No external monitoring |
~22 |
Urban Secondary |
^770 |
45% |
£1.40 |
Hot meal - private |
LEA SLA monitoring |
43 |
London Secondary |
1,064 |
48% |
£1.60 |
Hot Meal cooked on |
LEA client monitoring |
44 |
City |
1,339 |
15% |
£1.95 |
Hot meal cooked on |
LEA core monitoring + |
45 |
City |
1,4δδ |
25% |
£1.75 |
Hot meal cooked on |
LEA core monitoring + |
Private Finance and Investment
Service Level Agreement