Summary
are likely to have been at a cost to schools with less profitable provision, which had been
subsidised previously via a central contract.
Head teachers and governing bodies at schools which successfully embarked on their own in-
house provision or found new sources of supply expressed determination to maintain a meals
service as part of the school day. If necessary, they were committed to subsidising the service
with additional funds beyond that delegated for meals by the LEA.
Kitchens and equipment
Kitchen maintenance and replacement were among the issues that had been least understood in
the delegation process. Kitchen repair and maintenance budgets, previously held by LEAs,
allowed for a rolling programme of maintenance and refurbishment. Divided between all
schools in an authority, the amounts delegated did not stretch to cover any major repairs or
replacement. Many schools and governors were unprepared for their responsibilities in this and
the division of ownership and responsibility between school and contractor was not fully
appreciated prior to delegation. Schools were unsure what equipment was theirs to retain at
delegation, and resolving these thorny issues had been time-consuming and difficult for LEAs
and schools.
Governing bodies expressed concern that, under the previous rolling programmes of
refurbishment, there were substantial inequalities in the standard of kitchens at the time of
delegation. Whilst some kitchens had been recently upgraded, others were nearing the end of
their working lives. These inequalities were being addressed in voluntary-aided schools under a
programme of funding to upgrade kitchens. However, the kitchen repair and maintenance issue
proved decisive for some schools. With only minimal sums delegated specifically to cover those
costs, schools opted to close their kitchens.
Support
Many schools and governors were reluctant to take on the additional responsibility for the meal
service, for fear of becoming embroiled in a quagmire of health and safety and environmental
legislation, along with a raft of staffing issues.
In terms of preparation for delegation, LEAs and schools were generally reactive in providing
and seeking support. Some LEAs had offered guidance documents, others had provided
support on a consultancy basis, and most had legal departments to review contract documents.
Although some LEAs had established a designated support officer, in others support tended to
be ad hoc and not offered as a corporate package.
Monitoring
The study found a lack of uniformity in the monitoring services provided by LEAs, and
specifically in monitoring nutritional standards of meals. LEAs were uncertain about their role
in monitoring schools outside the main contract. Some LEAs believed it to be their statutory
duty, others that they had, with delegation of the responsibility to schools and governors, no
further role.
Some LEAs offered complete service packages to monitor meals provision, including
nutritional standards. Other LEAs who believed this to be an important function were unable
to offer any monitoring service, because no officer other than those employed within the LA’s
direct services had the expertise for the role. Those LEAs offering monitoring services reported
a good take up of their services.