Summary
Main findings
Delegation processes
The study estimated that over 80% of LEAs had delegated funding universally to all secondary
and primary schools. The administrative processes of delegation of school meals budgets had
been relatively straightforward in the majority of the sampled LEAs and schools. Most LEAs
had resolved issues of devising the funding formulae without difficulty, although no standard
formula appears to operate across LEAs. In one LEA, the formula for the budget had changed
each year because of a lack of consensus on the most appropriate to adopt. Some LEAs
delegate funding only to reimburse schools for the number of free school meals supplied whilst
others adopt more generous formulae taking account of the total number of paid meals served.
Funding formulae for kitchen repair and maintenance also vary substantially from LEA to LEA.
In LEAs where the funding formula was based on free school meal entitlement rather than take
up, the sums schools spent on meals did not necessarily match the sums delegated. In schools
that made savings on the budget, unspent sums were often absorbed into the general school
budget. Conversely, some schools were known to be spending more on free school meals than
the sum delegated.
Many LEAs that delegated universally were able to reassure schools that delegation needed only
to be ‘a paper exercise’, and that they would be able to send their budgets straight back to the
central contract. There would be no additional charge to the school and nothing would change.
In the four sampled LEAs which delegated to primary schools by request only, the take up of
funding was relatively rare, suggesting that, on the whole, schools were satisfied with their
current provision.
However for some LEAs and schools, the delegation process had been less straightforward.
One case study school had been unhappy to have the budget delegated, knowing that it would
be unable to sustain its meal service without additional subsidy.
Schools take-up of delegation opportunities
The study found a very diverse response from schools in the extent to which they had seen
delegation as an opportunity to change their meal provision.
Schools may have been discouraged from making changes, not because they were completely
satisfied with the current provision, but through fear of what might happen if they did. For
some head teachers and governing bodies, taking responsibility for the kitchen entailed more
staffing and legislation issues to resolve, and more financial worry. For schools for which the
service was going to become a financial drain, the temptation to close the kitchen permanently
was overwhelming.
Despite the ‘no change’ situation in many schools, other schools were entrepreneurial in their
use of the delegated budgets, renegotiating contracts or seeking out new sources of supply.
Schools with profitable cafeterias were able to make advantageous individual contracts with
suppliers, both central catering services and private catering companies, to gain a share of the
profits or refurbishment of their kitchens and dining areas. These gains for individual schools