Agenda item

To review eligibility and uptake of free school meal entitlements, breakfast club provision and school’s connection to wider food poverty networks.

4.1  From local data it was understood that almost one-half of local children are living in poverty after housing costs have been taken into account.  Also taking the current cost of living crisis into consideration, it is clear that poverty and food insecurity will have a significant impact on local children and families and for the local services that support them, including local schools and education settings.

 

4.2  The aim of this item was to help understand the nature of the childhood food hunger and the role play by schools in response. It was hoped that this scrutiny would help to identify any additional support which could be provided to schools to support them in this work.  In particular, the Commission focused on:

- Free School Meal (FSM) entitlement and uptake;

- The reach and focus of School Breakfast Clubs;

- How schools are connected to wider food poverty programmes and networks.

 

4.3  To further inform members' understanding of this policy area and support the scrutiny process, members of the Commission visited a number of local primary and secondary schools and food projects ahead of this meeting.  These visits were helpful and informative and the Commission thanked all those schools and food projects that accommodated members.

 

Hackney Education

4.4  The Cabinet member and the Director of Education thanked the Commission for supporting this discussion and the opportunity to engage collectively with other stakeholders across the local education system on the issue of childhood food poverty.  It was noted that a task force had recently been commissioned by the Deputy Mayor and Cabinet member for Education, Young People and Children’s Social Care which would support a childhood food poverty summit.  The task force would:

- Review what resources were available to support this policy area;

- Assess what is working locally and how to best share good practice;

- Identify what can be learnt from neighbouring education systems in how they address childhood food poverty.

 

4.5  The Director of Education would be inviting local school leaders and, health and voluntary sector organisations to participate in the childhood food poverty task force and would report its work to the summit in January 2023.  The aim of this work would be to improve support for children not just in local schools, but across all early years and post 16 settings.  The summit will produce a set of recommendations to address childhood food poverty in Hackney.

 

4.6  The submitted paper set out the context for Free School Meal (FSM) provision in Hackney as well as other ways in which schools and other educational settings were addressing childhood food poverty locally (e.g. Breakfast Clubs and wider engagement with food poverty networks). The challenge now was to engage local school leaders to understand how the education system as a whole can work better to improve support to children and families at this really challenging time. 

 

Gainsborough -  Executive Head

4.7  Universal Free School Meals (UFSM) was introduced at this school as a response to falling school rolls.  The introduction of UFSM was part of an overall plan to develop a new way forward for the school which responded to high levels of need among its pupils (e.g. high levels of children with SEND, on a child protection plan or who were looked after by the local authority). It was also noted that with high local levels of disadvantage, families often struggled to fund school meals and other school activities and sometimes got into arrears.  This often created negative relationships between parents and teachers and the wider school.  The school was also aware that there was a significant cohort of families who were just over the eligibility threshold who did not qualify for FSM but who were also struggling to fund meals for their children.

 

4.8  In response to the above conditions the school chose to set up two schemes:

- Universal Free School meals for all children (which equated to a further 120 meals per day);

- Free 30 hour wraparound support in the nursery (targeted at those children and families most in need)

 

4.9  The school indicated that the above developments had a positive impact on pupils and the wider community in respect that these:

- Offered a preventative approach to help children that might need help;

- Helped children to access lessons ready to develop and learn;

- Created more positive interactions between parents and teachers and other school staff which contributed to better relations;

- Acknowledged the wider concerns of the school community.

 

4.10  To support the introduction of UFSM the school also took the following steps:

- School staff were diverted from chasing school meal debts to increasing take up of FSM;

- Increased costs for staff school meals to help offset costs of introduction of UFSM.

- Free Breakfast Club offer to all children through Magic Breakfast;

- Connections to a local charity also provides free monthly meal drops for families which can be picked up from the school.

 

4.11  The annual cost of introducing UFSM across the whole school was much less than expected with totalling approximately £20k. It was expected that this cost would reduce in the future  as the school had recently won a bid to develop a circular food programme.  This would allow the school to grow fruit and vegetables on site which would contribute to reduced running costs for school meals services.

 

Gayhurst, Kingsmead and Mandeville - Executive Head

4.12  UFSM was introduced at one of the schools for many of the reasons set out in 4.4-4.11.  Whilst around 60% of children were entitled to FSM, the schools were acutely aware of the needs of those families who were just above the threshold and did not qualify therefore the introduction of UFSM would help support them.

 

4.13    Schools were also aware that one of the counter arguments for the introduction of UFSM was that this would be providing a free service to some families that could afford them.  In one of the schools, parents of children in years 1 and 2 (where FSM was universally available) could voluntarily contribute to the cost of free school meals if they could afford it, and this funding helped to offset FSM costs or was used for other support activities children (e.g. after school clubs and breakfast club).

 

4.14  All three schools offered a breakfast club, but in only one was this a totally free service.  Take up of the breakfast club where this was freely provided was high with about 80-90 students per day (which is a considerable proportion of pupils in a single form entry school).  Breakfast clubs are supported by Magic Breakfast, but there is now an annual fee for this service and was therefore much harder to provide sustainably given additional staffing and other costs.  All three schools provide after school clubs on 2 days per week for children who qualify for FSM.  This combined ‘wraparound’ offer was common amongst many local primary schools.

 

4.15  It was clear that a number of local schools were providing UFSM where there was already a high levels of FSM entitlement.  Once FSM entitlement was taken into account alongside universal school meal provision (year 1 and year 2) the financial gap to reach school wide coverage of FSM was not that great.

 

4.16  Given the hardships that many local families are facing, FSM provision might also be important to families' decisions over which schools their children attended.  In this context, FSM provision could be a contributory factor to falling school rolls in Hackney, especially where these situated adjacent to borough boundaries with neighbouring boroughs where FSM is universal to all children (e.g. Islington and Tower Hamlets).

 

4.17  The schools also run a weekly food drop with Felix Project (a charity which distributes surplus food to primary schools), holiday projects and other programmes supporting vulnerable children and their families.  To avoid stigmatisation, food distributed in the school is free to all parents regardless of whether their child qualifies for FSM or not.  This was a lesson learnt from the pandemic, when the system for food distribution was perceived to be divisive.

 

4.18   It was emphasised that schools were already seeing many families experiencing extreme hardship, and that a collective and an urgent local response was required to support children and families.

 

Our Lady’s - Head Teacher

4.19  The proposal of the Deputy Mayor to set up a task force to consider childhood food poverty was welcomed as this was a shared challenge amongst many stakeholders.

 

4.20  Whilst providing FSM to all pupils was desirable, it was not possible within current financial constraints of the school.  The school actively encouraged parents to apply for FSM using the local authority portal as well as the paper version.  Costs of school dinners at the school were £2.10 per day, which was probably the lowest daily charge made by schools.

 

4.21 A breakfast Club was provided free of charge to pupils every morning at which between 60-80 attended daily (about 10% of all pupils).  The club was initially funded by a successful bid for £11k from a law firm and £1k donation from Kelloggs, but as this funding was not recurring, costs are now absorbed within the general school budget. The school is part of the national Breakfast Club Programme operated by Family Action and Magic Breakfast. Study spaces are also provided at breakfast time to allow children to complete homework or other studies. 

 

4.22  Food is also provided at an After School Club alongside additional study space and time for children.  All pre and post school clubs are challenged by inflationary costs for foodstuffs and wages of support staff, and additional financial backing is constantly being sought to ensure programmes are sustainable.  A charity provides food and hygiene packs for about 40-60 children in need every term.

 

4.23  In terms of additional support, additional resources would always be welcome.  A commitment from the local authority that the Holiday and Activities Funding (HAF) would continue would also be welcome to ensure that children in need are fed during school holidays.  The Household Support Fund also provided food vouchers for families during the holidays and again, early clarification that this was going to be continued would be welcomed by schools.

 

4.24  Schools also questioned whether the local authority could play a role in bulk buying of foodstuffs which would deliver real cost efficiencies for participating schools.  A local purchasing platform could help schools to access foodstuffs for school kitchens and other food provision areas.

 

Urswick - Head teacher

4.25  A UFSM system has been in operation for 8 years in the school, and is currently the only secondary school locally and nationally to do so. The school has the highest rate of children entitled to FSM at around 70%, therefore the cost of extending free meal provision to the remaining 30% of students is marginal (but not insignificant).  The additional costs are covered by additional income from letting of school buildings and car parking charges.

 

4.26  Aside from reducing the impact of economic inequality, it was noted that there are many benefits to UFSM provision in the school as it reduced stigma felt by children and also reduced the administrative time and resources needed to support paid for school meals systems (collecting money, banking cash, chasing debts).  Staff are also entitled to a free lunch if they commit to eating with the children.  It was acknowledged that compromises had to be made within the system, in that menus could not be extensive if to retain sustainable unit costs.

 

4.27  UFSM was also extended to VIth form students and it was suggested that this may be a factor in children from disadvantaged backgrounds from staying on in education rather than entering the workplace (especially since the loss of the Educational Maintenance Allowance).

 

4.28  Schools, particularly in the secondary sector, might need additional help to enable them to transition to UFSM:

- Increased kitchen capacity;

- Offset and reduce food costs by bulk buying and similar collaborative solutions

- To support those families just above the threshold of FSM entitlement.

 

4.29  It was also emphasised that early notification of HAF was important so that schools could plan and prioritise holiday activities and food provision.  Schools were only notified 2 weeks in advance of half-term that vouchers would be provided so early notice is appreciated.

 

Questions from the Commission

4.30  [To Gainsborough] It was noted that FSM entitlement increased after the provision of UFSM.  What were the reasons behind this?

The resource which was used to administer the school meals systems was transferred to target families who might be eligible for FSM and therefore increase uptake.  This provided time to meet families and help them complete the necessary application forms.  This resulted in about a 10% increase in eligibility and uptake and this support had now been fully integrated into the school administrative system (e.g. support at school entry).

 

4.31  Could Hackney Education confirm the HAF and holiday food vouchers would be provided for the Christmas holiday period for in need children and families?

Hackney Education confirmed that HAF was a central government funded initiative and that assurance had been given that this would continue for Christmas and Easter holidays, though no decision had been reached for the summer holidays for 2023.  HE was aware of the success of the HAF and was keen for this to continue.

 

4.32  There is explicit guidance on the quality and nutritional standards for school meals and School Governors are responsible for these being maintained in their respective schools. How do schools assess the quality of meals that they provide that are balanced and nutritious? Is this independently inspected? Is there any development work undertaken with School Governors to support this food standards role? What role does the Local Authority play in any inspections and maintenance of these standards? Is there further scope for input from the local Public Health department in supporting schools to develop healthy and nutritious meals?

- This was an important area though Hackney Education did not have the information to hand to answer this fully, and suggested that this be provided in writing after the meeting.  It was noted that the task group would probably consider what possible role the local authority might have in facilitating the purchase power of schools and other collaborative initiatives.

- A primary head noted that there was a local charity called Chefs in Schools which aims to improve and develop school meal provision in a cost effective and sustainable way. The charity is based in Hackney and encourages schools to bring their catering in-house as it is more effective to up-skill kitchen staff and can be used for other school wide educational activities (e.g. food tech).  The model of provision varies widely across schools with some schools preferring to contract out, and prices vary from £1.65 to £3.00 per unit.  Chefs in School also supports access to food apps which enable school catering teams to source in season fruit and vegetables in a more cost effective way.  Chefs in Schools is a not for profit organisation and all apps are free for schools to use.  The charity also offers the opportunity to collaborate with other schools.  It was noted that one of the schools in the Kings Park ward shared its kitchen facilities with other schools and community groups to help distribute cooked food to those that might need it.  There is much good practice taking place in relation to food distribution, though it might benefit from greater coordination. Local Authorities do not get involved in assessing the quality of food provided to children as this is a school responsibility, as too is the decision as to whether school meals are provided in-house or contracted out.

- Another primary head noted that by using Chefs in Schools, the nutritional standards of all meals was checked as part of their package of support. The real expertise of Chefs in School was bringing the staff and the community into the kitchen which made a huge difference to what was included on the menu and what children ate and so that staff understood what was important for children to eat and enabled them to make healthier choices.  Education and Health Partnership charity (which is run by a former HE employee) assesses nutritional standards and food and hygiene practices in the kitchen and all schools would have access to this service.  As a federation of 8 schools, the school kitchens would work collaboratively over the holiday period to ensure that hot meals were provided across the family of schools. 

- Schools present noted that quality and standards was a Governing Body responsibility.  Being responsible for re-commissioning contracts  was also a tool for improving standards of delivery for school meals.  Catering companies working for schools could also bulk buy to achieve cost savings for schools.  The local authority does have a role in inspecting and rating all food premises.

- HE emphasised that it would be important to develop a collegiate approach in response to the challenges in this policy area, to share good practice, learn what is working locally and extend and support that where possible.  It was noted that the Local Authority does not have any jurisdiction in respect of nutritional standards in schools and that this is the responsibility of individual schools.

 

Action: Hackney Education to provide further information on school food standards and how food quality and nutrition is monitored and assessed locally.

 

4.33  How do local schools ensure that models of UFSM are sustainable?

A primary head reported that in many instances, schools needed to offset the shortfall in funding for UFSM provision by other sources of income or through charitable donations. In many instances these were ‘one-off’ funding allocation and new funders might have to be sought elsewhere if other in school budgets cannot be used to cross-subsidise provision.  Whilst the local authority cannot provide additional funding for operational costs of UFSM, it was suggested that it might consider be able to assist through capital development projects for maintained schools such as those needed for school kitchen refurbishment.

 

4.34  Although the focus of UFSM provision has been on primary school provision, given that the eligibility for FSM among Hackney secondary schools is higher, could there not also be a case for extending UFSM to secondary pupils also?

- This will be something that the task group will be assessing to help understand why rates of FSM eligibility are higher in secondary schools than primary schools. 

 

4.35  Given that head teachers noted the urgency of this issue, what is the timeline for the proposed task force and summit on childhood food poverty?

- Invitations for a focus group will be sent out the week commencing 31st October 2022 to local system leaders, partners, voluntary sector groups and chefs.  This will create the groundwork and priorities for a summit which will meet which will convene before Christmas.  Recommendations will be developed for the Deputy Mayor for early in the New Year.

 

4.36   Can further information be provided about neighbouring boroughs which provide UFSM to primary age children?  How is this funded?

- As part of the task force and summit, officers will consider other models of provision on other local authorities including neighbouring boroughs like Islington. The local authority also had to be mindful of any unintended consequences of UFSM such as any possible impact on Pupil Premium eligibility and uptake and would need to fully assess that in relation to development proposed for Hackney.

 

4.37  In relation to the Council's target for net zero, have there been any moves towards introducing a plant based diet as part of the school meals service?

- Chefs in Schools operate a policy of 2 no-meat days and 3 meat days (2 meat 1 fish) per week, which all complies with national school meal standards.  Non-meat days were introduced in 2014, and whilst there were some initial concerns raised by parents, vegetarian days are very well integrated into the school menu and there are no problems.

- As raised earlier, a primary school had won a bid for a circular food economy which would enable the schools to become almost self-sufficient in terms of fruit and vegetable provision within the menu, and would include no meat days also.

- HE noted that a school survey undertaken in Hackney in 2021 noted that 64% of schools had their own in-house catering and 37% had two meat free days per week and 23% had 1 meat free day.

 

4.38   Can further information be provided on what the Catering Framework is?  Why do we think that primary schools did not sign up to the Hackney Education Catering Framework? 

- A primary school noted that some schools may be reluctant to go through a catering framework as this may result in additional costs due to support the profit margins required by caterers.  External contracting meant that there was less flexibility in managing catering staff and the opportunity for wider food education and support across the school.  There were also concerns that less scrupulous caterers might take the opportunity to offload lower quality foodstuffs through school meals services.

- A secondary school noted that school meal provision was currently provided in-house, and although an external catering company had been approached, it was felt that the contract would not be sufficiently profitable and therefore not viable.

- A secondary school noted that they pay a management fee to their catering company in addition to the cost of the food and for catering staff.  This supports training, menu development and the provision of cover for staff sickness.

- HE reported that the number of schools which operate their own meals service and those that contract out would be considered by the task group, if this is seen to be related to a wider approach to addressing childhood food poverty.  It was emphasised that school governing bodies are responsible for whether school meals are provided in-house or contracted out.

 

4.39  Notwithstanding local finance in schools, can the local authority be any more ambitious in relation to aims for school meal provision, particularly in relation to quality and standards of meals and what can be done to support schools?  It would be helpful if the task group could also look at the sustainability of school  relationships with voluntary partners and local sourcing of foods.

- HE indicated that local community and voluntary sector groups which have an interest in school meal provision would be invited to participate in the summit.

 

4.40  From the data in the report (at Table 1 page 18/19) it was clear that FSM entitlement among children in alternative provision is high.  Is Council assured that children in alternative provision who are eligible for FSM are receiving their entitlement every day?  What sort of arrangements are in place? Is there any additional support provided to alternative providers to provide FSM given that  AP sites are often small-scale and may not have economies of scale for food provision.

- Any child on site at the Pupil Referral Unit is entitled to a free school meal and the same applies to any commissioned alternative provision (this forms part of a service level agreement with alternative provision providers).  Alternative providers are very different, therefore some will provide on-site and others will contract out to a local food provider.  Schools also commission alternative providers directly, and will commission separate lunch arrangements.

 

4.41  The Commission felt that it would be really helpful if the task force could consider the following issues:

- The role that local authorities can play in relation to food quality and standards when they supported schools to provide meals universally (e.g. Islington)

- The approach taken to school meal debts accrued by parents;

- The uptake of FSM within the Orthodox Jewish Community at maintained schools.

 

4.42  The National Breakfast Club provides free breakfast foods and grants to set up school clubs.  Data from the National Breakfast Club Programme suggests that whilst many Hackney schools were eligible to receive free support, only 9 local schools have actually signed up.  Do we have an understanding of why this might be the case? Are there structural issues inhibiting sign-up? Is there anything that Hackney Education can do to facilitate sign-up?

- A local school noted that many local schools were signed up to Magic Breakfast, a charity that supports schools to provide breakfast clubs. In many cases this association was developed before the establishment of the National Breakfast Club programme and would not have been able to apply under the guidance (i.e. the programme predominantly supports new clubs).

 

4.43  What connections do schools have with local food projects and programmes? Is there anything we can do to support schools to develop these connections to better be able to support children and families?

- School connections to local food projects and programmes varied.  The Felix Project works closely with a number of local schools supplying foodstuffs for use or to distribute on to parents.  With their understanding of children and families in need, it was suggested that schools were ideal hubs to help distribute food and, as was underlined in the pandemic, could reach and deliver food to a wider range of residents beyond those that had children attending the school.

It was noted that the Felix project was no longer taking any further referrals as it was operating at full capacity.  Most local schools would also be subscribed to magic breakfast which would mean that you cannot subscribe to other charitable food organisations.

-Another school indicated that it would be helpful if there was a database of those organisations which supported local schools around addressing food poverty and wider poverty issues.

 

Chair Summary

4.44  It’s apparent that further research is needed by Hackney Education and the Council in general to get a better understanding of how schools are addressing childhood hunger:

- Which schools are providing universal Free School Meals and how they are supporting such initiative

- The provision of breakfast clubs, which children they are targeted at and how many attend

- How schools connect to wider food programmes and networks.

 

4.45  The Commission welcomed the proposal to set up a task group to look at childhood food poverty to help establish what was currently being provided, share good practice and develop a borough wide approach.  The Commission will draw up a number of recommendations which it hopes will positively contribute to the establishment of the task force and summit and  efforts to address food insecurity in schools across Hackney.