Second annual survey of take-up of school meals in England

Full text

Second annual survey of take-up of
school meals in England
Jo Nicholas, Lesley Wood, and Michael Nelson
September 2007

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 2
Contents
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5
2 Methods.................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Survey design...........................................................................................................6
2.2 Questionnaire testing................................................................................................6
2.3 Sample selection ......................................................................................................7
2.4 Data entry and coding ..............................................................................................7
2.5 Statistical analysis ....................................................................................................7
2.6 Quality assurance.....................................................................................................7
3 Results.................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Sample characteristics .............................................................................................8
3.2 School food catering providers ...............................................................................11
3.3 Take up of school meals.........................................................................................13
3.4 Cost of school meals ..............................................................................................15
3.5 Facilities for food preparation.................................................................................17
3.6 Change in demand .................................................................................................18
3.7 Support for healthier meals ....................................................................................22
3.8 Monitoring compliance with school food standards................................................22
3.9 Improving the take up of free school meals............................................................23
4 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 24
4.1 Data quality and sample representativeness..........................................................24
4.2 Findings..................................................................................................................25
5 Annex.................................................................................................................... 25
6 References ........................................................................................................... 27

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 3
List of tables
Table 1. Total number of primary and secondary schools in the Local Authorities in
England catered for by the providers who responded to the survey, the
number of schools for which they provided catering services, and the
number of pupils attending the schools in which catering services were
provided, by region ........................................................................................8
Table 2. Number of Local Authorities in England for which information on catering
provision was obtained, by region ................................................................. 9
Table 3. Distribution of primary and secondary schools in England by region: Annual
School Census (January 2007) and School Food Trust survey (May 2007)
..................................................................................................................... 10
Table 4. Eligibility for Free Schools Meals in Primary and Secondary Schools by
region: Annual Schools Census January 2007 and School Food Trust
survey (May 2007) ....................................................................................... 10
Table 5. Number and percentage of types of school food providers in primary and
secondary schools in England, by region ....................................................12
Table 6. Take up of school meals (%) in primary and secondary schools in England,
by region, 2006-2007 and 2005-2006.......................................................... 13
Table 7. Mean cost of a two course meal, ingredient cost, and labour cost in 2006. 16
Table 8. Facilities for food preparation in primary and secondary schools in England
(percent of schools), by region..................................................................... 18
Table 9. Percentage of caterers identifying particular reasons believed to have
contributed to a fall in demand for school meals in 2006-2007, primary and
secondary schools in England ..................................................................... 20
Table 10. Percentage of caterers identifying particular reasons believed to have
contributed to a steady or increased demand for school meals in 2006-2007,
primary and secondary schools in England................................................. 21
Table 11. Support for the development of a healthier school meals service ............. 22
Table 12. Planned methods for monitoring compliance with food ............................. 23
Table 13. Planned methods for monitoring compliance with the nutrient ..................23
Table 14. Steps taken to improve take up of FSM among those who are eligible..... 24
List of figures
Figure 1. Change in take-up (percentage points) in primary schools in 75 LAs
between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 by Local Authority in England........... 15
Figure 2. Change in take-up (percentage points) in secondary schools in 53 LAs
between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 by Local Authority in England........... 15

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 4
Summary
• All 150 Local Authorities (LAs) in England were approached for information regarding
school catering services. Of these, 104 responded, providing information on 93 primary
school catering services and 79 secondary school catering services.
• The percentage of responses (62% in relation to primary school meal services and 53% in
relation to secondary school meal services) is sufficiently high, and findings are in
sufficiently good agreement with other nationally collected data, to be confident that the
findings presented in this report are representative of Local Authority school meal
provision in England.
• Eligibility for free school meals was 16.9% in primary schools and 14.5% in secondary
schools, agreeing closely with the data from the annual school census.
• In primary schools, catering provision was divided between group contract/service level
agreements with the LA (47%), direct contract or service level agreement with the school
(25%) or Direct Service Organisation maintained service (16.4%). Only 6% had in-house
services. In secondary schools, only 19% had group contracts, whereas 40% had direct
contracts, 21% provided in-house services and 14% had some other arrangement.
• Take up of school meals in primary schools was 41%, down 1% from 2005-2006 (42%). In
secondary schools, take up was 38%, down 5% from 2005-2006 (43%). The findings
suggest that the downward trend in take up in primary schools may have ceased, whereas
the downward trend in secondary schools is continuing.
• One-half of services in primary schools showed in an increase in take up between 2005-
2006 and 2006-2007. In secondary schools, 12 out of 53 services showed in increase in
take up.
• The cost of a school meal in primary schools rose from £1.56 in 2005-2006 to £1.63 in
2006-2007. The cost of a school meal in secondary schools rose from £1.64 in 2005-2006
to £1.72 in 2006-2007. The average cost of ingredients for a primary school meal was
57p, up from 52p in 2005-2006.
• In primary schools, 69% had a full-production kitchen, but 8% had facilities for
regeneration or a mini-kitchen, 19% had food transported from another school or venue,
and 4% served cold food only. In secondary schools, 99% had full production kitchens.
• Reasons cited for increasing or maintaining take up in primary schools last year included
marketing of meals to pupils and parents; provision of more healthy options; and
introduction or development of a whole school food policy. In secondary schools,
marketing to pupils was cited as the most important factor, as well as improving dining
facilities. Reasons for decline in take up focused on pupils bringing packed lunches in
response to the introduction of healthier options or, in addition in secondary schools,
buying meals elsewhere. Adverse media publicity was also cited as contributing to the
decline.
• The reported level of support to develop a healthier meal service was good or high in over
half of LAs, but low in 10%-11%. In only 17% of primary services and 1% of secondary
services was there felt to be a good to high likelihood of meeting the 4% target increase
by March 2008.
• Steps planned to increase FSM take up included writing to parents, changing
arrangements for payment, and improving administrative support centrally.

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 5
1 Introduction
The School Food Trust (SFT, or “the Trust”) has been established to support the
implementation of changes in school food in England consistent with new standards
for school food published on 19 May 2006 by the Department for Education and
Skills (DfES)1 and revised and updated on 17 August 2007.2 One of the key targets
for the Trust agreed with DfESa in the 2007-2008 business plan is an increase in take
up of school meals of 4 percentage points by March 2008 and 10 percentage points
by autumn 2009 relative to the baseline of take up in the 2005-2006 financial year.
The baseline figures were based on the first annual survey of school meal take up in
England carried out by the Trust in May 2006 (and published in July 2006).3
In March 2007, the Trust commissioned the Association for Public Service
Excellence (APSE)b to carry out the second annual survey of school food providers in
all Local Authorities (LAs) in England.
Because the data were collected by LAs, the findings do not include the
characteristics of schools who arrange catering services from providers who do not
operate within the local authority structure (e.g. private catering companies) or
schools who provide their own services in-house. Further research on secondary
school food provision by these segments of the market will be carried out in the
coming year.
The aims of the present survey were to assess:
• levels of take up of school meals nationally over the 2006-2007 financial year
• levels of take up in the 2005-2006 financial year
• the proportion of children eligible for free school meals (FSM)
• the capacity of schools to prepare food from scratch on the premises, simply
to regenerate food, or neither
• the food and catering costs associated with the provision of school meals in
2005-2006 and 2006-2007
• the main type of provision (Direct Service Organisation (DSO)/Local Authority
Catering Provider (LACP), contractor or other provision)
• factors believed by LA school food providers to be associated with decreases
or increases in take up over the last year
• willingness to develop healthier meals services at school and LA level
• plans for monitoring compliance with new Government standards for school
lunches and other school food
• plans to improve take up of free school meals amongst those who are eligible
The data were collected separately for primary and secondary school services.
The data provide a figure for take up of school meals in primary and secondary
schools for 2006-2007. The first annual survey3 was conducted last year, and the aim
is to conduct further surveys annually at the end of each financial year in order to
a Now the Department for Children, Schools and Family (DCSF)
b APSE were chosen through a competitive tendering exercise. They have experience in collecting
and analysing Local Authority performance data through the Performance Networks benchmarking to
which many Local Authority subscribe. The Trust is grateful to Rob Bailey and Andy Mudd of APSE for
their contribution to the survey design and their supervision of the data collection.

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 6
evaluate changes in take up. The core questions in the survey have and will remain
essentially the same, but additional questions may be added according to the needs
of the Trust, LACA and other interested parties (e.g. DCSF, DH). The timing of the
survey coincides with the annual assessment by LAs of their turnover and take up
over the previous financial year (April-March). This provides a stable assessment of
annual take up which is free from the seasonal variation known to be associated with
take up (highest in the Autumn term, lowest in the Summer term) and avoids the
problems of interpretation associated with findings based on a single census date
chosen at one point in the school year.
This report provides information separately for primary and secondary schools on:
• Take up of school meals in 2006-2007 and in 2005-2006
• Changes in take up between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007
• The percent of children eligible for free school mealsc
• Costs of meals
• Factors perceived to contribute to changes in demand for school meals
The present report makes reference to the findings from the Trust’s first annual
survey of take up (2006);1 a survey on subsidies in school meals carried out by APSE
for the Trust in February 2007;4 and a recent LACA survey on LA catering and take
up.5
2 Methods
2.1 Survey design
The survey was designed jointly by researchers from the School Food Trust and
APSE. There were 21 questions asked on provision and food costs in primary and
secondary schools separately, two further questions asking respondents to highlight
(and rank) the reasons for changes in school meal take up, 10 questions on more
general aspects of provision and monitoring and a final 4 questions on receipt and
spending of Government funding (Grants 5A and 5B)d. The survey questionnaire is
available on the website.
2.2 Questionnaire testing
Prior to administering the survey, detailed consultation took place with APSE and a
number of their Local Authority members to refine the questions and to ensure that
the language and terminology used was specific and appropriate for ensuring
accurate and comprehensive responses from recipients.
c Prior to 2001, the numbers eligible for a free school meal were those pupils who had, or whose
parents had, satisfied the relevant authority that they were receiving Income Support (IS) or income
based Jobseekers Allowance (IBJSA) or support provided under Part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum
Act 1999. From 2001 onwards this definition was modified to include only pupils where parents had
indicated that they wished their child to have a free meal and had confirmed benefit receipt with the
LEA or school.
d The data obtained on the receipt and spending of Grants 5A and 5B was too incomplete to warrant
publishing findings.

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 7
2.3 Sample selection
The questionnaire was sent to caterers or officials in all 150 Local Authorities.
The initial list of recipients was constructed using the contact list from the 2006
annual survey, and APSE’s contact database.
The initial survey was sent out by post and email on 1st May 2007. Reminder emails
were sent from the 11th May and telephone calls made to non-responding authorities
from 15th May onwards.
In May local authorities also received a survey questionnaire from LACA, covering
similar topics. This is likely to have adversely affected responses to this survey.
2.4 Data entry and coding
The data collected on written or electronic versions of the questionnaire were entered
by researchers at APSE. Where information was missing or unavailable, follow up
contact was made with the respondent to complete the information, if possible.
2.5 Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis for the present report was carried out using Microsoft Excel and
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences6 (SPSS). Analyses were undertaken
in three groups according to the weighting that was appropriate. First, estimates of
take up were weighted by the numbers of pupils on roll in the schools covered by the
catering services. Second, estimates of costs of providing meals were weighted by
the number of meals provided. Finally, estimates of catering characteristics (e.g.
facilities for food preparation) were weighted by the number of schools catered for by
the service provider within each LA. The findings therefore reflect the correct balance
of provision across England and do not give undue emphasis to the findings from
smaller schools, LA providers or caterers.
2.6 Quality assurance
The data entered were double checked for accuracy and consistency by the lead
researchers for 100% of the data entry. Where queries or inconsistencies occurred,
information providers from the relevant LA were contacted for clarification and
changes made where appropriate. Similarly respondents were contacted, wherever
possible, to complete missing data on the questionnaires.

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 8
3 Results
3.1 Sample characteristics
Responses to the survey were received from 104 local authorities (69% of 150 LAs).
However, not all LAs provided answers to all of the survey questions, and base
response numbers therefore differ for each question (base numbers have been
specified for each table). The questionnaire was tested prior to its use, but even so
not all respondents were able to provide the required data. A number of reasons may
have contributed to this, including the diverse nature of the school meals service
where even Local Authority providers operate in a number of different ways, making
collection of comparable data problematic. Meal numbers and income data may also
be collected by LAs in a number of different ways.
Data was obtained from private contractors in 2005-2006, but changes to services in
the 2006-2007 financial year increased the difficulty that contractors had in providing
data, partly because of the complexity of delivering services to more than one
authority. In an attempt to gather information from secondary schools who manage
their catering provision in-house, a scaled down version of the questionnaire was
sent out to 30 secondary schools, but the response rate was poor, and the quality of
the data not sufficient to report here.
The total number of schools in the LAs served by the catering providers, the number
(and percentage) actually catered for (or reported on) by the providers, and the
number of pupils on roll in the schools catered for (or reported on) is shown for
primary and secondary schools by region in Table 1. Data are based on responses
from 93 LAs for primary schools and 79 LAs for secondary schools.
Table 1. Total number of primary and secondary schools in the Local Authorities in England catered for by the
providers who responded to the survey, the number of schools for which they provided catering services, and the
number of pupils attending the schools in which catering services were provided, by region
Region Primary Secondary
Schools
in LA Schools in LA
catered for Number of pupils
attending schools
catered for
Schools in LA Schools in LA
catered for Number of pupils
attending schools
catered for
n % n %
North East 644 633 98.3 124048 95 79 83.2 74603
North West 1806 1736 96.1 351079 270 159 58.9 146605
Yorkshire/Humber 1330 1264 95.0 255288 190 145 76.3 138312
East Midlands 17056 1528 89.6 314535 245 200 81.6 146960
West Midlands 893 870 97.4 224948 190 117 61.6 108499
East of England 1889 1811 95.9 366909 264 123 46.6 131695
Inner London 519 478 94.3 134046 83 46 55.4 50438
Outer London 745 663 89.0 201231 145 55 37.9 64301
South East 1808 1675 92.6 364359 232 89 38.4 121220
South West 1302 803 61.7 219252 139 55 36.9 39452
England 12641 11461 90.7 2555695 1853 1068 57.6 1022085
base (unweighted): 93 primary; 79 secondary

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 9
Overall, the survey covered catering provision for 11,461 primary and 1,068
secondary schools with over 3.5 million pupils on roll. This corresponds to
approximately 62% of primary schools and 32% of secondary schools nationally.e
The coverage is similar to that achieved in the 2005-2006 survey. 3
Table 2 shows regional and overall response rates. Overall response rates nationally
were 62% in primary schools and 53% in secondary schools. Response rates varied
regionally from 44% in Southwest to 89% in East Midlands for primary school
catering services, and from 31% in Southwest to 67% in Yorkshire/Humberside and
East Midlands for secondary school services. Generally, the distribution of responses
was similar to the distribution of catering providers in LAs nationally. The distribution
of schools by region in the present sample was also similar to data based on the
DCSF Annual Schools Census7 (Table 3).
Table 2. Number of Local Authorities in England for which information on
catering provision was obtained, by region
Region Number of
Local
Authorities
Responses for
primary Responses for
secondary
n % n %
North East 12 7 58.3 6 50.0
North West 22 15 68.2 13 59.1
Yorkshire/Humber 15 10 66.7 10 66.7
East Midlands 9 8 88.9 6 66.7
West Midlands 14 7 50.0 7 50.0
East of England 10 7 70.0 6 60.0
Inner London 13 9 69.2 8 61.5
Outer London 20 11 55.0 10 50.0
South East 19 11 57.9 8 42.1
South West 16 8 43.8 5 31.3
England 150 93 62.0 79 52.7
base (unweighted): 93 primary; 79 secondary
e These percentages use the DCSF Annual School Census, Jan 2007 (Table 37),7 recording 17,361
primary and special schools and 3,343 secondary schools in England. The lower coverage of
secondary schools is attributable to the higher proportion (compared with primary schools) that make
their own arrangements for catering services that do not directly involve the LA.
Deleted: DfES

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 10
Table 3. Distribution of primary and secondary schools in England by region:
Annual School Census (January 2007) and School Food Trust survey (May 2007)
Region Primary Secondary
Annual School
Census Sample Annual School
Census Sample
% % % %
North East 5.3 5.1 6.1 5.1
North West 14.8 14.3 13.9 14.6
Yorkshire/Humber 10.6 10.5 9.5 10.3
East Midlands 9.7 13.5 8.9 13.2
West Midlands 10.6 7.1 12.2 10.3
East of England 11.7 14.9 12.5 14.2
Inner London 3.8 4.1 3.9 4.5
Outer London 6.9 5.9 8.6 7.8
South East 15.5 14.3 14.9 12.5
South West 11.0 10.3 9.5 7.5
England 100% 100% 100% 100%
base (unweighted): 93 primary; 79 secondary
Table 4 shows free school meal (FSM) eligibility at a regional level (primary and
secondary level separately) compared to centrally held DCSF data (Annual Schools
Census) from January 2007. The Trust values are generally consistent with the
census figures. Differences may be due to the source of the data (census data from
schools, survey data from LA catering providers), and the fact that the LAs
responding within a region may not be wholly representative of all schools in the LA
with regard to FSM provision.
Table 4. Eligibility for Free Schools Meals in Primary and Secondary Schools by region:
Annual Schools Census January 2007 and School Food Trust survey (May 2007)
Region Primary Secondary
FSM (Annual
School Census) SFT sample FSM (Annual School
Census) SFT sample
% % % %
North East 19.9 23.2 15.8 18.4
North West 18.7 16.3 16.5 14.8
Yorkshire/Humber 15.5 15.6 13.9 15.2
East Midlands 12.1 12.6 9.9 10.9
West Midlands 18.4 26.1 15.6 23.7
East of England 11.1 10.8 8.8 7.3
Inner London 36.8 40.3 34.5 34.1
Outer London 19.8 23.1 18.2 25.1
South East 9.7 8.8 7.8 7.0
South West 10.2 11.9 8.0 14.0
England 15.9 16.9 13.1 14.5
base (unweighted): 89 primary; 75 secondary (compared with 149 from census – City of London is missing)
We believe that the findings from the present survey are representative of the
national characteristics of school catering provision, and can be compared with the
2006 survey. We are also confident that the findings are representative of FSM
provision.

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 11
3.2 School food catering providers
Respondents were asked for information on the type of catering providers for all
schools in their LA. Table 5 shows the totals for primary and secondary schools in
England, by region. Nearly half (47%) of primary schools are part of a group contract
with the LA, and a further 16% have a DSO maintained contract.f About 25% have a
private contract, and only 6% cater in-house. In contrast, in secondary schools, only
one in five (19%) are part of a group contract, and 5% have a DSO maintained
contract. A higher proportion of secondary schools than primary schools organise
their own catering service (60% vs 31%), including 40% engaging a private
contractor and 21% operating an in house service.
A few respondents gave answers only in relation to schools for whom they catered
rather than for all schools in their LA. Also, the type of provision may not have exactly
fitted the options given in the question. The numbers given for ’Other’ are high in
some LAs, suggesting that a number of different models of LA catering provision
existed. LA catering provision seems to have become more diverse, which may, in
part, be due to the extra Government funding allocated for school meals, enabling
LAs to offer a more varied range of services to schools, or for schools to purchase
more LA services. In consequence, the sums of number of schools and sums of
percentages for some regions do not add up to exactly 100%.
In last year’s survey, respondents were asked to categorise the type of catering
provision that they provided, but these data were not collected in the present survey
in recognition of the increased complexity of service provision, so the data cannot be
directly compared.
f Schools ‘hand back’ their school meals budget to the LA run Direct Service Organisation

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 12
Table 5. Number and percentage of types of school food providers in primary and secondary schools in England, by region
Region Total
number of
schools
Group contract/SLA
with LA Direct contract/SLA
with school/s DSO maintained
service In house Other
n % n % n % n % n %
Primary
North East 677 93 14.4 475 73.8 57 8.9 15 2.3 4 0.6
North West 2149 517 28.6 929 51.4 309 17.1 48 2.7 1 0.1
Yorkshire/Humber 1330 819 61.6 310 23.3 136 10.2 144 10.8 36 2.7
East Midlands 1705 541 31.7 446 26.2 389 22.8 59 3.5 257 15.1
West Midlands 976 386 43.2 322 36.1 162 18.1 7 0.8 6 0.7
East of England 1932 842 44.6 454 24.0 237 12.5 318 16.8 22 1.2
Inner London 519 411 79.2 14 2.7 79 15.2 14 2.7 0 0.0
Outer London 928 369 49.5 17 2.3 183 24.6 13 1.7 115 15.4
South East 2404 1352 74.8 122 6.7 246 13.6 71 3.9 19 1.1
South West 1368 636 48.8 104 8.0 277 21.3 97 7.5 20 1.5
All primary
13988 5966 47.2 3193 25.3 2075 16.4 786 6.2 480 3.8
Secondary
North East 95 26 27.4 38 40.0 9 9.5 8 8.4 14 14.7
North West 270 42 15.6 125 46.3 28 10.4 75 27.8 11 4.1
Yorkshire/Humber 190 42 22.1 96 50.5 8 4.2 28 14.7 29 15.3
East Midlands 245 49 20.0 61 24.9 11 4.5 100 40.8 24 9.8
West Midlands 190 15 7.9 98 51.6 8 4.2 23 12.1 53 27.9
East of England 264 33 12.5 126 47.7 0 0.0 43 16.3 62 23.5
Inner London 83 44 53.0 20 24.1 3 3.6 9 10.8 3 3.6
Outer London 145 23 15.9 37 25.5 9 6.2 37 25.5 32 22.1
South East 232 59 25.4 100 43.1 1 0.4 53 22.8 19 8.2
South West 139 18 12.9 46 33.1 13 9.4 17 12.2 12 8.6
All secondary 1853 351 18.9 747 40.3 90 4.9 393 21.2 259 14.0
Base (unweighted): 93 primary; 79 secondary

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 13
3.3 Take up of school meals
Table 6 shows percentage take up of school meals in primary and secondary schools
for 2006-2007 (as reported in April-May 2007) and 2005-2006 (as reported in April
2006) and the average difference in take up between the two financial years.g
Table 6. Take up of school meals (%) in primary and secondary schools in England,
by region, 2006-2007 and 2005-2006
Region Financial year Change in provision
2006-2007 2005-2006 % of 2005-2006 Difference
(percentage
points)
% %
Primary
North East 55.3 55.5 -0.4 -0.2
North West 44.9 45.8 -2.0 -0.9
Yorkshire/Humber 43.2 45.5 -5.1 -2.3
East Midlands 34.3 49.9 -31.3 -15.6*
West Midlands 45.5 44.5 2.2 1.0
East of England 39.3 37.2 5.6 2.1
Inner London 56.9 59.3 -4.0 -2.4
Outer London 42.9 42.6 0.7 0.3
South East 28.0 32.0 -12.5 -4.0
South West 35.8 27.6 29.7 8.2
All primary
41.3 42.3 -2.4 -1.0
Secondary
North East 38.8 38.3 1.3 0.5
North West 41.9 50.8 -17.5 -8.9
Yorkshire/Humber 37.1 39.3 -7.1 -2.8
East Midlands 34.9 42.7 -18.3 -7.8
West Midlands 36.0 40.7 -11.5 -4.7
East of England 35.1 48.0 -26.9 -12.9
Inner London 38.5 44.3 -13.1 -5.8
Outer London 39.3 49.4 -20.4 -10.1
South East 39.7 35.5 11.8 4.2
South West 26.8 37.3 -28.2 -10.5
All secondary 37.7 42.7 -11.7 -5.0
base (unweighted):
Primary: 86 (2006-2007); 75 (2005-2006)
Secondary: 64 (2006-2007);53 (2004-2005)
Analysis: weighted by number of pupils attending schools catered for
*The apparent 15% drop in take up in East Midlands is attributable to a difference in the reported value for take up in one LA
from 72% in 2005-2006 to 44% in 2006-2007. In April 2007, the reported value for the same LA for 2005-2006 was 46%,
suggesting that the original value of 72% may have been in error. The revised value for the change in take up in the East
Midlands based on the data collected in April 2007 for both years was in fact an increase of 1.2%. See Annex for details.
In primary schools, the average take up was 41% in 2006-2007, varying from 28% in
South East to 55% in North East. This represents a national average drop in take up
of -1% (one percentage point), compared with the drop of -2.6% (2.6 percentage
points) between 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 reported in April 2006. It is more useful to
g The values for 2005-2006 reported in April 2007 differed in some LAs from those reported in April
2006. For the sake of consistency, we have reported the values for 2005-2006 as published in the first
annual report of school meal take up. See Annex for further details.

School meal take up in England Page 14
gauge change in take up in percentage points rather than as a percentage of the
previous year’s take up.
The revised values reported for primary schools in April 2007 for 2005-2006 (see
Annex) suggest that the decline in take up in primary schools may be even smaller
(-0.3%). This further suggests that the drop in take up in primary schools may have
reached the bottom of its decline, which is consistent with the view expressed by
primary school head teachers in the survey carried out by the Trust in January 20078.
Nevertheless, on the basis of the current values, it will be necessary to increase take
up by 5% (percentage points) to meet the March 2008 target to increase take up by
4% above the 2005-2006 baseline.
In secondary schools, the average take up was 37.7%, varying from 26.8% in South
West to 41.9% in North West. This compares with the value of.42.7% reported in
April 2006, suggesting that take up in secondary schools has declined by 5%
(percentage points) in the last year. This decrease is on top of the 2.2% decline
reported between 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. To achieve the 4% increase in take up
above the April 2006 baseline value, take up would need to increase in secondary
schools by 9% by March 2008. Again, using the estimates of take up in 2005-2006
collected in April 2007 rather than April 2006 (see Annex), the drop in take up
between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 was estimated to be 3.4%. These findings
suggest that the year-on-year decline in take up in secondary schools is continuing,
and considerable efforts are being undertaken by the Trust in collaboration with all
stakeholders, to reverse this trend.
Findings from LACA’s recent survey5 suggested that take up in primary schools had
fallen from 43% in 2003-2004 (when LACA last collected data) to 40% in 2006-2007,
a decrease of 3%. The 2006-2007 LACA figures agree well with our figure of 41%
take up in primary schools. For secondary schools, the LACA survey indicated a
decrease in take up of 7%, from 42% in 2003-2004 to 35% in 2006-2007, compared
to our 2006-2007 figure of 38%. The findings from the two surveys are generally
consistent, although the LACA values for secondary schools are several percentage
points lower than the Trust values. Differences in take up figures for 2006-2007 may
be due in part to variations in the numbers of respondents and responses from
different LAs. In addition, in secondary schools, because not all pupils purchase
meals, the method of calculating take up needs to be based not on number of till
transactions but on number of meal equivalents (computed at the value of a free
school meal).h
Using the values collected in April 2007, Figures 1 and 2 show (for individual LAs)
the change in take up between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. For primary school
services, roughly equal numbers of LAs reported either an increase or a decrease in
take up. For secondary school services, more authorities reported a decrease than
an increase compared with last year, but decreases of the magnitude reported by
LACA of over 30% were not seen, and only a few authorities reported decreases
greater than 15%. Of special interest are the 12 LAs that reported an increase in take
up in secondary school meal services.
h Values in the survey were reported as numbers of meals (for free and paid meals) and percent take
up was then computed by us using numbers of pupils on roll in the schools being catered for.

School meal take up in England Page 15
These findings indicate that there are many LAs in England, especially in primary
school meal services, in which take up is increasing in the face of the changes in
school meal standards and provision.
Figure 1. Change in take-up (percentage points) in primary schools in 75 LAs between 2005-2006 and 2006-
2007 by Local Authority in England
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Change in t ake-up (percent age point s), 2005- 2006 to 2006-
2007
Figure 2. Change in take-up (percentage points) in secondary schools in 53 LAs between 2005-2006 and 2006-
2007 by Local Authority in England
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Change in take- up (percentage poi nts) between 2005-2006
and 2006-2007
3.4 Cost of school meals
Table 7 shows the mean costs of a two-course meal, ingredient costs, labour costs, the
price of a two-course meal in 2005-2006, and the increase in price as a percentage
of the 2005-2006 costs. In primary schools in 2006-2007, average meal costs were
£1.63, a 7p (5%) increase on the 2005-2006 average cost of £1.56. The Trust’s
finding is consistent with LACA, who reported average primary meal costs of £1.64.

School meal take up in England Page 16
The average £1.56 cost of a primary school meal in 2005-2006 reported in April 2007
is very close to the value reported in April 2006 (£1.54).
In secondary schools in 2006-2007, average meal cost was £1.72, 8p (5%) higher
than in 2005-2006 (£1.64). Again, the £1.64 average secondary school meal cost for
2005-2006 reported in April 2007 is consistent with the value reported in April 2006
(£1.62). These findings give credence to the data reported in the current survey for
both years (2005-2006 and 2006-2007).
In primary schools, the costs represent the actual expenditure on meals provided in
schools. Because secondary school pupils do not all have a two-course meal, the
secondary school meal values are based on the costs of a free school meal.
There was relatively little variation regionally in the costs of meals in primary school,
ranging from £1.49 in Yorkshire/Humber to £1.72 in Outer London. Variations in
costs between regions were similar in secondary schools to the regional variations in
cost in primary schools.
Table 7. Mean cost of a two course meal, ingredient cost, and labour cost in 2006
2007, and cost of a two course meal in 2005-2006, in primary and secondary schools in England, by
region
Region Price per meal
2006-2007 Ingredient
cost Labour cost Price per meal
2005-2006 % increase in
price 2005-
2006 to
2006-2007
£ p p £ %
Primary
N=86 N=71 N=63 N=85
North East 1.54 0.54 1.05 1.49 3.9
North West 1.62 0.55 1.06 1.56 4.3
Yorkshire/Humber 1.49 0.54 1.27 1.44 3.6
East Midlands 1.67 0.59 1.08 1.59 4.9
West Midlands 1.63 0.55 1.02 1.58 3.3
East of England 1.70 0.58 1.03 1.62 4.6
Inner London 1.59 0.63 1.37 1.55 2.3
Outer London 1.72 0.57 1.08 1.63 5.5
South East 1.66 0.61 0.95 1.52 9.3
South West 1.67 0.61 1.00 1.55 7.8
All primary
1.63 0.57 1.09 1.56 4.7
Secondary
N=62 N=60
North East 1.57 1.55 1.6
North West 1.67 1.63 2.7
Yorkshire/Humber 1.65 1.54 6.9
East Midlands 1.80 1.72 4.8
West Midlands 1.78 1.73 3.2
East of England 1.80 1.70 5.5
Inner London 1.76 1.73 1.9
Outer London 1.71 1.62 5.4
South East 1.69 1.56 8.2
South West 1.73 1.65 4.6
All secondary 1.72 1.64 4.9
base (unweighted) Primary: 86, 71, 63, 75; secondary: 62,-,-,60 for Price per meal 2006-2007, ingredient cost, labour cost and
price per meal 2005-2006, respectively
Analysis: weighted by number of meals provided by caterers

School meal take up in England Page 17
Ingredient and labour costs were available for primary schools only. Ingredient costs
averaged 57p, representing about one third of the meal price. There was relatively
little variation in average costs between regions. Labour costs in primary schools
were £1.09, or 67% of meal costs. When compared to figures from the Trust’s 2006
survey, the average food cost has increased by nearly 10% from 52p to 57p, and the
average labour cost has increased by 34% from 81.3p to £1.09. The increase in
average labour cost is likely to reflect the catering practices needed to provide school
lunches that meet the new food-based standards for school lunches introduced in
September 2006, involving an increase in training and hours of work for catering
staff. It also reflects increases in hourly wages paid to catering staff. In LACA’s recent
survey, average food and labour costs of 60p and £1.01 respectively were reported
for primary schools.
These figures indicate that meal prices did not increase in the last year in line with
food and labour costs. This makes it more difficult for providers to operate a service
that makes a profit or indeed breaks even. LACA reported that in 56% of LAs,
primary meals are subsidised either by the authority or the schools themselves.5 This
compares with figures from the Trust’s LA finances survey earlier this year, which
suggested that nearly a third of the LA providers were subsidised in the 2005-2006
financial year. Of the 65% that were expected to be self-financing or profit making,
less than one-third expected that to continue in 2006-2007.4
3.5 Facilities for food preparation
Table 8 shows by region the proportion of schools with different types of food
preparation facilities. LA catering providers were asked to describe preparation
facilities in the schools for which they provided catering, although some also gave
information on facilities in other schools within their authority. Over two-thirds of
primary and almost all secondary schools were reported to have kitchens in which all
food could be prepared from scratch. One fifth of primary schools, however, had no
facilities for either preparation or regeneration. There is marked regional variation,
and lack of food preparation facilities affects mainly primary schools.
Providers were also asked if there were plans to introduce hot food provision within
the next 12 months where no facilities or arrangements currently exist. Twenty-two
LAs indicated that plans had been made to do this in primary schools, and 3 in
secondary schools.

School meal take up in England Page 18
Table 8. Facilities for food preparation in primary and secondary schools in England (percent of schools),
by region
Region Full
production
kitchen
Regen or
mini kitchen No facilities –
hot food
transported
from another
school
No Facilities –
hot food
transported
from another
source
No facilities –
sandwich/cold
food only
% % % % %
Primary
North East 75.9 15.4 8.1 0.6 0.0
North West 84.9 6.9 7.9 0.0 0.4
Yorkshire/Humber 70.5 15.8 13.7 0.0 0.0
East Midlands 63.1 3.7 20.4 12.5 0.4
West Midlands 64.0 21.0 4.9 0.0 0.1
East of England 77.0 4.8 16.1 0.0 2.1
Inner London 71.8 10.4 13.1 4.3 0.4
Outer London 72.0 10.4 13.4 0.4 3.8
South East 59.6 5.2 22.2 0 13.0
South West 54.0 2.1 32.3 0.0 11.6
All primary 69.4 8.3 16.7 1.9 3.7
Secondary
North East 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
North West 99.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Yorkshire/Humber 96.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
East Midlands 99.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
West Midlands 96.7 2.5 0.8 0.0 0.0
East of England 99.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Inner London 96.2 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.0
Outer London 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
South East 98.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9
South West 98.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6
All secondary 98.6 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.5
base (unweighted): primary: 93; secondary: 79
analysis: weighted by number of schools catered for
3.6 Change in demand
Catering providers were asked to think about factors thought to be responsible for
either the fall or the sustained or rising demand compared with last year. The findings
are shown in Table 9 and Table 10, respectively.
82 respondents identified factors they thought had contributed to a fall in demand in
primary schools, whilst 75 provided responses in relation to secondary schools. The
most common reason given for the perceived fall in demand in primary schools
(identified by almost 80% of providers) was that the provision of more ‘healthy’
options had resulted in more pupils bringing packed lunches. Media coverage of
school meals, increasing prices, and a knock-on effect of fewer pupils buying school
meals were also seen to be important. The strongest influences were attributed to
media coverage and decreasing numbers. In secondary schools, the main reason
given to explain falling demand was the choice by pupils to buy lunch elsewhere as a
result of more ‘healthy’ meals being provided, followed by an increase in the numbers
bringing packed lunches and the knock-on effect of falling take up. Also important
were shorter lunch hours, the deterrent effect of poor organisation of lunch
arrangements, and increased availability of lunch from other sources outside of

School meal take up in England Page 19
school. The most important reasons were attributed to pupils buying meals
elsewhere and the availability of alternative outlets.
80 respondents identified factors responsible for a steady or increased demand in
primary schools, with 51 responding for secondary schools. In LAs reporting an
increase in demand in primary schools, this was attributed to marketing of meals to
both pupils and parents (cited by three-quarters of respondents), providing more
healthy options, and adoption of whole school food policies. Improving meal quality
while holding prices steady was seen to be of crucial influence. The reasons cited for
increases in demand in secondary schools were similar but, in addition,
improvements in dining facilities were cited as being important. The strongest
influences were attributed to adoption of a whole school food policy and
reorganization of the school meals service. Forty-one percent of LAs mentioned the
adoption of a locked gate policy, the majority of whom saw this as of high
importance.
The reasons perceived by caterers as contributing to changes in take up of meals
were similar to those given last year. In relation to a fall in demand, media coverage
is now seen as less important than provision of more healthy options resulting in
pupils bringing packed lunches or buying elsewhere. A school food policy is again
seen as important in schools where demand has risen or remained steady.

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 20
Table 9. Percentage of caterers identifying particular reasons believed to have contributed to a fall in demand for school meals in 2006-2007, primary and secondary schools in England
Percent of caterers
Reason Primary Secondary
Number (and %
of total)
identifying reason
as contributing to
fall in demand
% of those
LAs
responding
Low
High
Number (and
% of total)
identifying
reason as
contributing to
fall in demand
% of those
LAs
responding
Low
Provision of more ‘healthy’ options in the last year resulting in pupils bringing in packed lunches 65 (9.5) 79.3 10.8 20.0 36.9 32.3 56 (8.4) 74.7 10.7 25.0 19.6
Parents providing packed lunches 52 (7.6) 63.4 7.7 23.1 32.7 36.5 25 (3.8) 33.3 12.0 52.0 24.0
Media coverage of school dinners 52 (7.6) 63.4 5.8 30.8 21.2 42.3 41 (6.2) 54.7 - 31.7 31.7
Increase in prices charged due to inflation (wages etc.) 49 (7.1) 59.8 22.4 34.7 22.4 20.4 33 (5.0) 44.0 21.2 30.3 30.3
Number of pupils buying meals has gone down 48 (7.0) 58.5 6.3 27.1 18.8 47.9 55 (8.3) 73.3 1.8 23.6 25.5
Provision of more ‘healthy’ options in the last year resulting in pupils buying meals elsewhere 40 (5.8) 48.8 7.5 20.0 37.5 35.0 66 (9.9) 88.0 4.5 9.1 19.7
Parents’ perception of poor quality provision 38 (5.5) 46.3 13.2 26.3 31.6 28.9 24 (3.6) 32.0 4.2 62.5 20.8
Increase in prices charged due to use of better quality ingredients 37 (5.4) 45.1 21.6 27 21.6 29.7 31 (4.7) 41.3 16.1 29.0 32.3
A fall in pupil numbers on roll who would pay for meals 32 (4.7) 39.0 9.4 40.6 28.1 21.9 24 (3.6) 32.0 12.5 50.0 8.3
Shorter lunch hours 31 (4.5) 37.8 22.6 38.7 25.8 12.9 48 (7.2) 64.0 4.2 16.7 33.3
A fall in pupil numbers eligible for FSM 30 (4.4) 36.6 26.7 33.3 16.7 23.3 25 (3.8) 33.3 20.0 48.0 16.0
Increase in prices charged due to increase in quantity of labour required for meal provision 29 (4.2) 35.4 31.0 24.1 27.6 17.2 21 (3.2) 28.0 28.6 33.3 23.8
Pupil numbers have stayed about the same, but pupils are purchasing meals less frequently 26 (3.8) 31.7 26.9 30.8 26.9 15.4 21 (3.2) 28.0 14.3 23.8 28.6
Pupils’ perception of poor quality provision 25 (3.6) 30.5 24.0 36.0 24.0 16.0 31 (4.7) 41.3 12.9 32.3 25.8
Organisation of meals acts as a deterrent (e.g. longer queues, change in timetable) 24 (3.5) 29.3 20.8 41.7 25.0 12.5 40 (6.0) 53.3 2.5 17.5 45.0
Increase in prices charged due to increased training provision 19 (2.8) 23.2 68.4 26.3 5.3 _ 12 (1.8) 16.0 58.3 8.3 8.3
Changes in food provision as a result of formal consultation with schools, heads and staff,
governors, LAs 19 (2.8) 23.2 26.3 42.1 15.8 15.8 22 (3.3) 29.3 13.6 54.5 18.2
Lack of skills to prepare meals that meet the new standards 17 (2.5) 20.7 29.4 11.8 47.1 11.8 10 (1.5) 13.3 30.0 20.0 40.0
Disruption in facilities for provision (e.g. kitchen refurbishment) 13 (1.9) 15.9 53.8 7.7 23.1 15.4 7 (1.1) 9.3 42.9 28.6 -
Increase in locally available options for pupils to buy food (e.g. food vans, local shops) 11 (1.6) 13.4 36.4 27.3 9.1 27.3 43 (6.5) 57.3 4.7 23.3 16.3
Changes in food provision as a result of formal consultation with pupils 10 (1.5) 12.2 40.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 10 (1.5) 13.3 30.0 30.0 20.0
Changes in food provision as a result of formal consultation with parents 9 (1.3) 11.0 44.4 33.3 11.1 11.1 9 (1.4) 12.0 44.4 33.3 -
Introduction of locked gate policy 6 (0.9) 7.3 16.7 33.3 16.7 33.3 7 (1.1) 9.3 42.9 14.3 28.6
Meal quality has fallen 5 (0.7) 6.1 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 3 (0.5) 4.0 66.7 33.3 -
base (unweighted):82 primary;75 secondary
Importance Importance

School meal take up in England Page 21
Table 10. Percentage of caterers identifying particular reasons believed to have contributed to a steady or increased demand for school meals in 2006-2007, primary and secondary schools in E
n
Reason Primary Secondary
Percent of caterers
Number (and % of
total) identifying
reason as
contributing to
constant/rising
demand
% of those
LAs
responding
Low
High
Number (and %
of total)
identifying
reason as
contributing to
constant/rising
demand
% of those
LAs
responding
Low
Marketing of school meals to pupils 61 (12.2) 76.3 8.2 31.1 37.7 23.0 38 (11.2) 74.5 7.9 39.5 36.8
Marketing of school meals to parents 60 (12.0) 75.0 6.7 25.0 38.3 30.0 29 (8.6) 56.9 13.8 37.9 37.9
Provision of more healthy options 53 (10.6) 66.3 3.8 34.0 30.2 32.1 30 (8.9) 58.8 13.3 33.3 36.7
School policy (whole school food approach (e.g. locking school
gates, teaching about healthy eating) 44 (8.8) 55.0 11.4 29.5 22.7 36.4 32 (9.5) 62.7 9.4 18.8 21.9
Better trained staff 37 (7.4) 46.3 10.8 35.1 27.0 27.0 19 (5.6) 37.3 5.3 47.4 31.6
Improvement in dining facilities for provision (e.g. new serving area,
furniture) 37 (7.4) 46.3 13.5 40.5 27.0 18.9 30 (8.9) 58.8 16.7 23.3 43.3
Improvement in facilities for provision (e.g. new kitchen/work area) 35 (7.0) 43.8 11.4 37.1 31.4 20.0 20 (5.9) 39.2 20.0 25.0 45.0
Media coverage of school meals 35 (7.0) 43.8 17.1 28.6 31.4 22.9 18 (5.3) 35.3 27.8 38.9 27.8
Improved meal quality offset by prices being held constant 33 (6.6) 41.3 3.0 24.2 30.3 42.4 22 (6.5) 43.1 9.1 27.3 40.9
Provision of healthy options only 22 (4.4) 27.5 18.2 27.3 27.3 27.3 8 (2.4) 15.7 37.5 12.5 37.5
No change in prices 19 (3.8) 23.8 10.5 21.1 36.8 31.6 11 (3.3) 21.6 27.3 18.2 36.4
Reorganisation of arrangements for meals (e.g. shorter queues,
change in timetable) 17 (3.4) 21.3 11.8 47.1 35.3 5.9 21 (6.2) 41.2 14.3 9.5 33.3
Increased eligibility for or take up of FSM 16 (3.2) 20.0 31.3 37.5 25.0 6.3 6 (1.8) 11.8 33.3 66.7 -
More staff 10 (2.0) 12.5 30.0 30.0 30.0 10.0 7 (2.1) 13.7 28.6 42.9 28.6
Increase in pupil numbers on roll who pay for meals 10 (2.0) 12.5 20.0 60.0 20.0 - 9 (2.7) 17.6 22.2 56.6 11.1
Removal of vending machines 6 (1.2) 7.5 16.7 66.7 - 16.7 17 (5.0) 33.3 23.5 11.8 52.9
Introduction of a locked gate policy 4 (0.8) 5.0 50.0 25.0 - 25.0 21 (6.2) 41.2 19.0 19.0 9.5
Base (unweighted): 80 primary; 51 secondary
Importance Importance

School meal take up in England, 2006-2007 Page 22
3.7 Support for healthier meals
Providers were asked to indicate how keen primary and secondary schools were to
develop healthier school meal services and about the level of political support for
such development (Table 11). They were also asked how likely they thought it was to
achieve a 4% increase in take up by March 2008.
The majority of primary schools were seen to be keen to develop healthier school
meals services, (79% seen as keen or very keen), and over half of LAs felt that there
was strong or very strong political support, but only 17% of providers thought it was
likely that a 4% increase in take up could be achieved by March 2008. In relation to
secondary schools, only 30% were thought to be keen to develop healthier school
meals services, and only 1% thought it likely that a 4% increase in take up would be
achieved by March 2008 – indeed, the majority (82%) thought that it was unlikely that
a 4% increase could be achieved. It is of concern that political support from one-
quarter of elected members and one-fifth of council officials was felt to be low or very
low.
Table 11. Support for the development of a healthier school meals service
Level
Number of
LAs
responding Low
High
Level of keenness shown by
• primary schools 98 1.0 2.0 18.4 58.2 20.4
• secondary schools 93 4.3 16.1 49.5 19.4 10.8
Level of political support from
• elected members 96 11.5 14.6 20.8 26.0 27.1
• senior council officials 96 10.4 8.3 18.8 32.3 30.2
Likelihood of achieving change
Likelihood of achieving a 4% increase in take up by March 2008 Low High
• primary schools 98 24.5 30.6 27.6 10.2 7.1
• secondary schools 94 48.9 33.0 17.0 1.1 -
3.8 Monitoring compliance with school food standards
Providers were asked how they planned to monitor compliance with new standards
for food other then lunch (Table 12). Nearly all were planning to evaluate their
provision at Local Authority level using an in-house monitoring service, with more
than half planning to evaluate at school level in collaboration with Healthy Schools
and supported directly by the LA. It is of concern that roughly 10% of the sample (9
LAs) had no plans to monitor provision of food other than lunch.

School meal take up in England Page 23
Table 12. Planned methods for monitoring compliance with food
based standards for food other than lunch
Number of LAs
planning to use
method
Provision evaluated at LA level, using in-house monitoring service 78
Provision evaluated at school level, supported directly by LA in collaboration with Healthy Schools 51
Provision evaluated at school level, supported directly by LA 41
Provision evaluated at school level, with schools making their own arrangements 25
Provision evaluated at LA level, using external monitoring service 13
No plans to monitor compliance with the standards for food other than lunch 9
Other 2
base (unweighted): 96
When asked whether they were currently monitoring compliance with the nutrient-
based standards for school lunches, two-thirds (64 of 93) of respondents reported
that they were. Planned methods of monitoring are shown in Table 13. The majority
of respondents were planning to evaluate their menus at LA level using an in-house
monitoring service, with just over half planning to use local professional resources to
help with monitoring.
Table 13. Planned methods for monitoring compliance with the nutrient
based standards for lunch time provision
Number of LAs
planning to use
method
Menus evaluated at LA level, using in-house monitoring service 70
Use local (LA, HS or PCT-based) dietitian/nutritionist to help with monitoring 50
Menus evaluated at school level, supported by LA in collaboration with Healthy Schools 27
Use consultant dietitian/nutritionist to help with monitoring 20
Menus evaluated at school level, supported directly by LA 16
Menus evaluated at school level, schools make their own arrangements 17
Menus evaluated at LA level, using external monitoring service 14
No plans to monitor compliance of the nutrient-based standards for lunch time provision 3
Have not thought that far ahead 0
Other 11
base (unweighted: 96
3.9 Improving the take up of free school meals
Respondents were asked what steps were being taken within LAs to improve the
take up of free school meals amongst those who are eligible (Table 14). Fifteen out
of 93 LAs reported that no steps were being taken, whilst nearly half said that they
were sending letters to all parents encouraging them to take up their entitlement.
Other methods included a poster and leaflet campaign, information on menus, and
attempts to communicate with parents, for example leaflets in new parent packs,
catering newsletter to parents, parent tasting events.

School meal take up in England Page 24
Table 14. Steps taken to improve take up of FSM among those who are eligible
Number of
LAs
planning to
use method
Sending letters to all parents encouraging take up of FSM entitlement 42
Changing arrangements relating to payment for FSM to reduce identification of FSM children (e.g.
cashless catering, removal of tokens) 38
Supporting schools with suggestions to increase FSM take up in schools (for example, having
dedicated administrative staff in schools) 28
Sending letters to all Head teachers encouraging take up of FSM entitlement 26
Sending letters to selected parents encouraging take up of FSM entitlement 15
No steps being taken 15
Sending letters to selected Head teachers encouraging take up of FSM entitlement 10
Other 22
base (unweighted): 93
4 Discussion
4.1 Data quality and sample representativeness
The complexity of school meal catering provides LAs with challenges when
responding to surveys of this type. For example, some LAs provide no catering
service themselves, but offer a management service to schools. In this case they
may provide data for all schools in the LA, including those who have no meal service,
whereas other LAs may only provide data for those schools for whom they actually
cater. In consequence, the completeness of the returns varied between LAs,
accounting for the small variations in the bases quoted for each table or figure.
Those authorities with an in-house provider were more likely to have access to
detailed management accounts, whilst the availability of this type of information
appears to be reduced where the authority is more remote from the meal provision.
Less historical data also appears to be available in these situations. It may also be
that year end management accounts have not always been finalised by the end of
May, the cut-off date for returns of the questionnaire.
It proved difficult to obtain information from private contractors. The questions asked
may have aroused commercial sensitivities, and where a contractor provides catering
services across a range of schools and authorities, the questionnaire would require
multiple entries, often for a small number of schools, requiring detailed knowledge of
the management accounts of the contractor. The number and quality of the returns
was small. The data have been included in the overall results but not analyzed
separately.
Despite these challenges, the quality of the responses received and the response
rate achieved was comparable to 2006. The data are consistent with centrally held
DCSF data and also with the recent findings collected by LACA.5 We are confident
that the findings presented here are representative of LA school meal provision in
England.

School meal take up in England Page 25
4.2 Findings
There is some evidence that the level of take up in primary schools has stabilised. In
secondary schools, however, the results show a decrease in the take up of school
meals nationally. The decline reported here is slightly less that reported recently by
LACA5 (5% vs. 8%). Both reports confirm, however, that this decrease in secondary
schools represents a continuing trend.
LA catering providers perceive a number of factors as contributing to this decline,
particularly pupils choosing to purchase food elsewhere or take packed lunches as a
result of more healthy options being provided at lunch time in schools (and, by
definition, less of the unhealthy options being provided). When the School Meals
Review Panel recommended to Government that strict new standards were needed
for school food, they recognised that it would take time to change children’s eating
habits. If, as the data here suggest, the decline in school meal take up in primary
schools has stopped, it suggests that younger children’s eating habits are beginning
to change. In secondary schools, however, the continuing decline in take up
suggests that more work is needed to foster the changes in eating habits toward
healthier choices.
In comparison with last year’s findings on facilities for food preparation, there seems
to be little observable change. This is an area which will be closely monitored.
Encouragingly, there is clear evidence that take up in some LAs has increased,
especially in primary schools. Respondents believe that this is due to marketing of
meals to both pupils and parents, the provision of more healthy options, a school
policy and improvement in dining facilities. This suggests that a co-ordinated
approach is vital to increase the numbers of pupils taking school meals. LAs and
schools will need to work with pupils and parents, combined with consistent
messages through the curriculum to promote the benefits of healthy eating.
In the coming academic year, the School Food Trust will focus on activities to
increase take up, in line with our targets of an increase of 4% from the 2005-2006
baseline by March 2008 and 10% by September 2009. The Trust will be working
closely with all stakeholders to achieve this ambitious objective.
5 Annex
Discrepancies between the 2005-2006 take up data reported in April 2007 compared
with those reported in April 2006 may be due to responses from a different set of
providers in 2007 as compared to 2006; more accurate figures being reported in
2007 compared to 2006 following confirmation of final accounts for 2005-2006; to
LAs using a different method to calculate take up than in previous years; and to the
method used in the present survey to derive take up data for 2005-2006 from the
responses given.
In April 2007, respondents were asked for percent take up for paid meals and FSMs
separately. A total take up figure was calculated by relating these figures to roll
numbers and numbers of pupils eligible for FSMs. For the 2005-2006 figures, exact
values for 2005-2006 roll numbers in the schools catered for was not available, so

School meal take up in England Page 26
figures were calculated using 2006-2007 roll and FSM numbers. In April 2006,
respondents were asked to provide a single value for take up.
Table A1 shows percentage take up of school meals in primary and secondary
schools for 2006-2007 and 2005-2006 and the average difference in take up between
the two financial years based on values provided in April 2007. The average take up
in primary schools was 41% in 2006-2007, varying from between 28% in South East
to 55.3% in North East. The change in take up was 0.3% (percentage points), which
is likely to be within the limits of sensitivity of the survey. This compares with the
decline of 2.6% reported between 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. It could reasonably be
concluded that there was no change in take up in primary schools between 2005-
2006 and 2006-2007. In secondary schools, the average take up was 37.7%, varying
from 26.8% in South West to 41.9% in North West. The decline in take up was 3.4%
(percentage points), which compares with a 2.2% decline reported between 2004-
2005 and 2005-2006. These findings suggest that take up in secondary schools is
indeed still falling.
Table A1. Take up of school meals (%) in primary and secondary schools in England,
by region, 2006-2007 and 2005-2006, based on data collected in April 2007
Region Financial year Change in provision
2006-2007 2005-2006 % of 2005-2006 Difference
(percentage
points)
% %
Primary
North East 55.3 55.9 -1.1 -0.6
North West 44.9 44.4 1.1 0.5
Yorkshire/Humber 43.2 44.9 -3.8 -1.7
East Midlands 34.3 33.1 3.6 1.2
West Midlands 45.5 46.4 -1.9 -0.9
East of England 39.3 39.3 0.0 0.0
Inner London 56.9 55.7 2.2 1.2
Outer London 42.9 42.6 0.7 0.3
South East 28.0 26.1 7.3 1.9
South West 35.8 36.3 -1.4 -0.5
All primary 41.3 41.6 -0.7 -0.3
Secondary
North East 38.8 42.8 -9.3 -4.0
North West 41.9 49.8 -15.9 -7.9
Yorkshire/Humber 37.1 35.9 3.3 1.2
East Midlands 34.9 36.7 -4.9 -1.8
West Midlands 36.0 37.3 -3.5 -1.3
East of England 35.1 41.8 -16.0 -6.7
Inner London 38.5 36.9 4.3 1.6
Outer London 39.3 39.6 -0.8 -0.3
South East 39.7 48.7 -18.5 -9.0
South West 26.8 26.6 0.8 0.2
All secondary 37.7 41.1 -8.3 -3.4
base (unweighted):
Primary: 86 (2006-2007); 75 (2005-2006)
Secondary: 64 (2006-2007);53 (2005-2006)
Analysis: weighted by number of pupils attending schools catered for

School meal take up in England Page 27
6 References
1 Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 2381.The Education (Nutritional Standards for School Lunches)
(England) Regulations 2006. London: TSO.
2 Statutory Instrument 2007 No. 2359. The Education (Nutritional Standards and Requirements for
School Food) (England) Regulations 2007. London: TSO.
3 Nelson M and Nicholas J (2006). First annual survey of take up of school meals in England.
4 School Food Trust (2007). Subsidies in schools meals: England. Key findings.
5 Local Authority Caterers Association (2007). National School Meals Survey 2007.
http://www.laca.co.uk/pdfs/LACASurvey2007.pdf
6 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Version 15.0 Chicago, Ill. SPSS Inc. 1989-2007.
7 DfES (2007). Schools and pupils in England: January 2007 (Provisional)
8 Nicholas J and Wood L. Schools Food Panel: First survey of head teachers – February 2007
http://www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/UploadDocs/Library/Documents/sfp_report_feb07.pdf
Deleted: 1
Deleted: .1.
Deleted: 1