Back of a beermat sketch here [caveat - the actual workings may be slightly different, but it's a general overview of commercial businesses and brands going into the social sector because it's an alternative income stream when you can't get anymore money out of your target demographics];
The Government gives local authorities an amount of funding designed to be spread over the period in order to ensure that vulnerable children are fed. Some places plough as much as possible into vouchers so that parents can make their own choices and maximise the amount that is actually spent on food, rather than the cut that JM amongst others were screaming blue murder about the school catering contractors taking. Some have also used a proportion to support public transport so that parents in food deserts can access larger supermarkets that have a wider and more affordable selection. But there is potentially scope for some of this to be spent on cocaine and alcohol, according to some Tory MPs and shitrags (JM also screamed loud and long about this IIRC). And it doesn't necessarily allow for physically checking in on children, seeing if they're fed, uninjured, have social connections, etc.
So whilst councils still have discretion in how to spend it - Bristol put a part into £15 supermarket vouchers for half term, for example, as the system was there, the voucher provider is experienced, it's been working well since just after the initial teething problems in scaling up an employee perk system into a nationwide social benefit supplier, getting the supermarkets in agreement (as they don't get the full £15, the procurement organisation/voucher company take a cut to fund the staff, computer system, that it has to be paid up front, etc) - it is possible for authorities to allocate money to external providers; holiday clubs, where one of the key requirements is that the children receive a full, nutritious meal as part of attending. There are limitations in that it excludes those who can't afford to get buses to providers, the most vulnerable are likely to get be allowed to attend, not everybody can book online due to lack of access to the internet, etc. But in itself, the idea isn't so bad.
The devil is in the detail.
Where an authority has decided that no, we aren't spending a penny on giving parents agency (and money) to feed their children over the Christmas holidays - a time when for at least a week, I'm willing to bet that there won't be holiday hubs/clubs open anyhow and the cost of heating is probably more of a concern than getting a kid onto the bus and back five times at a cost each way for the week they are open - they have then in some cases, turned to private companies. Like the one concerned here, which is linked to a very fancy 'this is how to increase brand engagement' marketing company. Those companies cost a lot.
The marketing/brand company may be tasked with identifying avenues for other income streams. Such as approaching media/film/entertainment companies with 'Look, the brand has all this money from Government and is taking their cut. If you wanted to, we could tie the promotion of your most current product into this, thus increasing the likelihood that deprived children will be aware of your product and demand to see it/their parents take out Netflix/and increase the market for merchandise. It would also, as it targets the most deprived families assist with increasing awareness in a broader range of ethnicities.
Netflix goes 'OK, but how do we make this more interesting than ''Netflix have allowed branding/sponsorship''?'
Company says 'We get a celebrity in to cook with some suitably photogenic and diverse children, thus enhancing your Social Responsibility profile because you're providing food in your contribution, whilst also encouraging further purchasing of Netflix subscriptions and branded goods'.
Netflix: 'Oh, sounds good. We were thinking that as you're representing a sports brand that maybe we could have Marcus Rashford?'
Company: 'Uh, he's tied to another football team, so that won't be possible, unfortunately. But we will have a sleb. Not too expensive - we don't want to distract away from the Netflix brand/film or have you too interested in who it is so you don't insist on due diligence.'
Netflix: 'Oh, OK. We don't really need to be dealing with that side, that's operational and not our problem, anyhow. We just want access. So this payment goes directly to the company you're representing, yes?'
Company: 'Absolutely'.
Sports company therefore has Government money and uses some of it to pay for staff, etc. Sports company takes their cut. Sports company has Netflix money. Might use some of it to pay for allergen filled ingredients so that council can't say 'that's not a healthy meal, we want the money back'. But most of it goes into the sports company accounts. It's an expensive and highly profitable business, this hoovering up grants and sponsorship. But it's all part of sport. It's the Game.
Advertising/marketing company takes large cut in the form of a fee.
The sort of money being talked about is so large that the appearance fee for a minor white, middleclass and middleaged sleb is mere chickenfeed. To them - just not to the people who would far rather have had thirty quid per child in order to feed their children a proper Christmas dinner and other meals over the period.
To give an idea of the sorts of figures we're talking about, the going rate for qualified staff to agree to look after children for a week - which included just being there as a qualified first aider for five days in summer, not the Christmas period and not actually having to run the activities or interact with children beyond dealing with injuries or anaphylaxis due to the ingredients including ground nuts - was a thousand pounds. Then there would be a manager or two, then the admin/finance staff. Add on a sleb performance fee, possibly travel and accommodation, and we're talking yet another five figure sum just on their involvement alone.
Think we ought to start worrying about Mom too. Jack parlance!
