Bill Overview
Title: National Advisory Council on Unpaid Meal Debt Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes the National Advisory Council on Unpaid Meal Debt in Child Nutrition Programs to provide recommendations to the Food and Nutrition Service with respect to addressing unpaid school meal fees by ensuring that students are not stigmatized and school food authorities can maintain fiscal solvency in order to ensure the long-term viability of school meal programs.
Sponsors: Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5]
Target Audience
Population: Children participating in school meal programs impacted by unpaid meal debt issues
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill addresses the issue of unpaid meal debts in Child Nutrition Programs, which are part of many public and some private schools' offerings.
- Children who are part of public schooling systems often participate in meal programs, especially those from low-income backgrounds.
- The National School Lunch Program alone serves about 30 million children nationwide.
- According to global estimates, over 150 million children are enrolled in various forms of public schooling worldwide, where they might be impacted by similar meal debt issues.
- The problem of unpaid meal debt is relevant in most countries where free or subsidized school meal programs exist.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts children from low-income families that participate in school meal programs, which serves around 30 million children nationwide.
- The budgetary constraints mean the policy will likely target areas most affected by unpaid meal debts, focusing on those with the highest no-pay rates or related issues.
- The council established by the policy will offer recommendations instead of direct interventions, suggesting that immediate wellbeing effects may be limited, with longer-term impacts as schools implement new procedures.
- It's crucial to include perspectives from not only directly affected children but also school administrators and parents who experience the indirect effects of stigmatization and fiscal constraints related to meal debt.
Simulated Interviews
student (New York, NY)
Age: 9 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I sometimes feel embarrassed when my friends get a meal and I'm questioned about unpaid fees.
- I hope the policy will make it less stressful and won't treat us differently if our meal debt isn't paid.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
school cafeteria manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's hard to see kids embarrassed at the lunch line due to unpaid bills.
- I'm hopeful the policy will give us guidance to handle these situations better and maintain our program's finances.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
parent (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It crosses my mind whether my kids face stigma about meal debt.
- If the policy helps manage meal debt without adding stress to parents, it would be beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 10 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's uncomfortable to be pointed out for having a meal debt in front of friends.
- I wish the policy helps us focus more on learning and playing than who owes what.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
student (Denver, CO)
Age: 15 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Students should not worry about meal debts affecting how they are treated.
- I support policies that aim to eliminate meal debt stigma; still, it requires effective execution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
school principal (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Balancing budget with student welfare regarding meal debt is challenging.
- An advisory council could be constructive if their recommendations are actionable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
dietitian (Miami, FL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring all students get proper nutrition without stigma is important.
- Hope this policy provides more clarity and support in this mission.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
retired teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Teachers see firsthand the impacts of meal debts on children.
- Addressing these debts thoughtfully could improve children's school experience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
parent (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's troublesome when my child is aware of debt-related issues.
- I expect the policy to improve these situations if effectively implemented.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
social worker (Denver, CO)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is vital to reduce stigmatization tied to school meal debts.
- A council to guide schools is a good start, but needs active follow-through.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $16000000)
Year 3: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $16000000)
Year 5: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $16000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Coordination with numerous school districts for data collection and policy implementation.
- Balancing administrative costs with achieved savings in school meal programs.
- Addressing variability in unpaid meal debt across different regions and demographics.