Committee on Children
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: SB-36
Title: AN ACT CONCERNING SCHOOL LUNCH DEBT.
Vote Date: 2/25/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 2/4/2021
File No.:
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Committee on Children
Rep. Michael A. Winkler, 56th Dist.
Rep. Eleni Kavros DeGraw, 17th Dist.
Rep. Gary A. Turco, 27th Dist.
Rep. Raghib Allie-Brennan, 2nd Dist.
Rep. Mary Welander, 114th Dist.
Rep. Jaime S. Foster, 57th Dist.
Sen. Saud Anwar, 3rd Dist.
Sen. Catherine A. Osten, 19th Dist.
Sen. Marilyn V. Moore, 22nd Dist.
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill would allow for children who are not able to afford school meals to still receive food
from their public school. When a person is hungry it is very difficult to focus on anything, and
this effect can be seen more strongly in children, therefore no child enrolled in the public
education system should have any disciplinary action against them because of unpaid school
lunch.
On line 23 language is added in order to determine that after July 1st, 2021 a local or regional
board of education will have to include in their policy or procedure three requirements
described by this subsection.
On line 42 language is added in order to determine that any gifts, donations or grants given to
schools with the purpose to pay for unpaid school lunch debt are allowed.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
No Response from Administration/Agency to this bill offered
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Robin Lamott Sparks, Executive Director End Hunger Connecticut: He is in favor of this
bill. He explains what food shaming is and how we rank in the top 10 in the country for the
number of children who participate in the free summer meals program. Due to the pandemic,
even though many families can receive meals through the SNAP Program and other local
food distributions, many still rely on school meals. Robin Lamott also states that school lunch
debt is merely a symptom of the larger problem of childhood food insecurity, he proposes
that future state budgets should reserve funds to ensure every child has access to no-cost
school meals even after this school year concludes. Currently, due to USDA waiver
extensions, school meals are offered at no cost until the end of the 20-21 school year, after
the deadline, families who find themselves on the cusp of the qualifications, will most likely
have to reapply for reduced-price school meals, and many CT families still may not be able to
afford reduced lunch rates. In addition, children of color experience food insecurity at higher
rates in our state, therefore by addressing one issue, two problems may be solved.
Cindy Dubuque-Gallo, LMSW: She is in favor of this bill. Cindy shares her personal
experience as a church volunteer where she was in contact with youth who were being
shamed by the cafeteria staff for not being able to afford food, in addition, the school she
volunteered at did not allow children to get foods considered a la carte due to the
enforcement of nutritional guidelines. However, she points out, food is not a privilege; food is
a human right.. Cindy suggests that some schools where children are experiencing lunch
debt are eligible for Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) through the Healthy Hunger Free
Kids Act of 2010 - A program where if 40% of the school or district are eligible for SNAP or
TANF, then the whole school or district can receive free lunch, subsidized by the federal
government. She also states that The child I spoke of earlier goes to a CEP eligible school,
but the school district chooses to not participate in the program. Therefore, this child, who
otherwise could have access to free lunch is in debt, experiences shame and goes hungry.
Cindy asks the committee to consider adding the following language: schools can and are
encouraged to reach out to families experiencing debt to find out the circumstances and offer
linkages to social service supports (including applying for free lunch, SNAP, and other
entitlements). She points out that the federal law only protects the privacy of students who
already receive free and reduced lunch, therefore reaching out to the children who are
experiencing debt would not be illegal. Further, while some school districts already reach out
to families to provide assistance, without a formal policy the implementation is uneven, and
children will suffer.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Theresa Lumas, Director of Finance and Administration at Amity Regional School
District No. 5: She is not in favor of this bill. She states that in the Amity Regional School
District, of the students who chose to remain remote for the entirety of the semester, less
Page 2 of 4 SB-36
than 10 families pickup meals daily. In October, when the high school turned into a fully
hybrid schedule, the challenge was to find spaces where meals could be served to students,
and there was virtually, no participation. Even when the bags are by the exit of the school and
reminders are sent, participation is extremely low, and the loss of ala carte sales is
devastating to the program. Theresa brings some data showing that the amount of meals
served in November 2020 was 10 000 shorter than what was served in November 2019. The
district also reduced staff to a minimum because the costs of individual packaging of meals
are greater. Lastly, she states that None of the ESSER funds, CRF or FEMA grants allow for
food service losses. The burden is falling to the general operating budgets of school districts
and it is unsustainable.
Connecticut Association of School Board Officials: The association is not in agreement
with this bill. Even though the organization does believe that immediate action must be taken,
it also points out how the real issue is the continuing growth of unpaid balances due to non-
payment by some who can afford it. The National School Lunch Program does not allow
these programs to carry or cover negative student balances. Therefore, at the end of the
year, the food service program must bill the school district for the unpaid balance remaining.
In addition, the association also points out how it is visible how covid affected the community,
though it is also pointed out how revenues dropped, and expenses increased and how these
losses must be borne by BOE and such losses are unsustainable. Further, the board also
gives a suggestion: School districts need additional state and federal funding to support
these food service deficits. In addition to funding, the federal and state officials need to adopt
more flexible spending guidelines and timelines to allow schools districts to deal with all the
Covid-19 impacts on their students, staff and the community. We, also encourage key
stakeholders to explore together other long-term solutions (i.e., expanding National School
lunch program) to help address these problems.
Erica Biagetti, President of School Nutrition Association of Connecticut: She is not in
favor of the bill. She states how important it is to provide food to children and how much the
pandemic has impacted the associations goals. She also states that since many school
districts in Connecticut have students who owe money for all different reasons [...] We [the
association] anticipate this bill could increase the number and amount of unpaid balances.
And that for many schools, having a growing amount of unpaid balances could represent a
significant problem. Erica also brings data from other states saying that in other states that
have placed restrictions on debt collection have shown that, anecdotally, unpaid meal debts
have significantly risen after such legislation has been introduced. And Restricting the ability
to collect unpaid meal charges will place an additional financial burden on an already
stressed system.
The association also requests clarification on the wording used starting on Line 30 stating (2)
a declaration of the right for any child to purchase a meal, which meal may exclude any a la
cart items or be limited to one meal daily. The association recommends that a fiscal analysis
be completed prior to moving forward so that the extent of the effect of this bill on already
strained Board of Education and municipal budgets can be determined.
Erica also brings up examples from 13 other states around CT where the state government
began to fund these meals instead of charging the parents for them.
Page 3 of 4 SB-36
Reported by: Gabriela Dos Santos Date: March 6th 2021
Page 4 of 4 SB-36


Statutes affected:
Committee Bill: 10-215
KID Joint Favorable Substitute: 10-215
File No. 32: 10-215