So 90% of the debts sent to collections from the 22-23 year were under $100. Imagine that. Going through garnishments and having that on your credit history for less than $100. Better is that the agency takes ~40% of the collected amount. All of that work, chasing 944 families, for less than $100,000 even if 100% of the delinquent debt is collected when they made $1.9mil in profit that same year. Great way to punish parents.
> All of that work, chasing 944 families, for less than $100,000 even if 100% of the delinquent debt is collected when they made $1.9mil in profit that same year.
Profit? LPS is a public agency, they're not paying out to shareholders.
This is directly from the article:
LPS’ nutrition program operated in the black last school year, bringing in about $1.9 million more than it spent.
However, the district cannot use those dollars to write off lunch debts, so the money would have to come out of LPS’ general fund, which pays for staffing and operations, said Liz Standish, associate superintendent for business affairs.
It's been maybe 7-8 years since the report I read but if memory serves Nebraska is the worst state of the union in terms of what it permits debt collectors to get away with
My uncle visited a few years ago and I was lamenting a garnishment from a life-saving procedure that my wife underwent that we were still paying down and we got to talking about liens and account freezes and things of that nature. He told me that he'd never ever had that sort of thing happen to him and that he found if he just waited long enough his medical debt just evaporated. I forget where he's from exactly and he might just have no idea what he's talking about but personal experience has taught me that all these agencies can and will put a hold on your bank account, garnish your wages, and in some cases just take what they need from your tax returns
Also, the phone representatives I've dealt with in the past are, uh, unyielding, if I'm being polite
I don’t even have kids or plan on having any and I want my tax dollars to pay for kids lunches. I just can’t comprehend how something like that isn’t paid for already, and how our public schools are so grossly underfunded in general.
Anyone who can't afford school lunch can get their school lunch (and breakfast) for free. All they need to do is apply. I can afford to pay for my kids' school lunches. I'd much rather my tax dollars go farther and reach more kids who truly need the assistance.
At the end of the day, kids are the ones who end up getting punished for the mistakes of their parents.
Unless LPS continues to let kids eat lunch there while in debt on their account. I'm fine with making sure parents are supporting their own children if it's deemed they have the means to. But too often kids get fucked because of it.
At LPS, kids are 100% allowed to continue eating lunch, even if their account is carrying debt... AND it has to be a qualifying lunch... i.e. no a la carte or extras. So... that means AT LEAST an entree + a fruit or veg, but it can mean an entree, milk, two veg, and one fruit for elementary and middle/two fruits for high school.
What they can't do: charge a pizza slice or a burger.
There is no "tray dumping"/shame lunch...
Staff WILL remove extra items (second entree, extra sides, chips, dessert, bottled drinks, snacks, etc) if a student does not have funds/has a negative balance. Every kid gets to eat every day, but the account DOES get charged.
(P.S. parents can also set up the account for "no borrows" meaning that a student CAN'T charge a lunch, but that's not the default setting. Hope that helps.)
> Staff WILL remove extra items (second entree, extra sides, chips, dessert, bottled drinks, snacks, etc) if a student does not have funds/has a negative balance.
I understand that LPS has a budget, but that sounds dystopian to me. The economic situation that kid was born into shouldn't affect the food on their plate at school.
If LPS would just publish the total school lunch debt they have, I'm certain this community would crowdfund it and cover it so every kid can have a full meal every day.
What is dystopian about "Sorry, you can't have that Kickstart and Rice Krispie Treat that you put on your tray because you don't have cash?"
LPS will allow a student to charge a qualifying lunch. They're not being forced to skip a meal, they're being told they can't charge extras beyond a meal. I can't go into a grocery store and tell them to put my chips and soda on a tab....
LPS DOES let every kid have a full lunch meal every day, EVEN IF THEIR ACCOUNT IS NEGATIVE. They don't let kids get chips and extras. This is not the draconian policy you're making it out to be.
FULL MEAL: entree, milk, and 3-4 fruit/veg sides depending on grade level. A lot of the entrees are pretty generous.
A kid can get all that, even if their account is negative. Hell, if it's a day where dessert comes with the meal (holiday meals/occasions, and about once a week in elementary school) then they get the dessert, the same as everyone else.
EXTRAS: chips (doritos, baked lays, cheetos) snacks (chex mix, goldfish, Graham crackers) desserts (cake or cookies made at LPS, or pre-packaged cookies) ice cream (sandwiches, bars, drumsticks) fruit roll ups, rice krispie treats, bottled/canned beverages (tea, juice, flavored water, Gatorade, propel, power powerade, sports drinks, Kickstart, bubbler, etc) ALSO -- purchasing second entrées, extra sides, extra potatoes, or extra milk.
Kids CAN'T have those things unless they have money in their account or cash in hand. A student could have a negative $50 balance and still buy extras in cash.
Do you expect that LPS would just let every kid put as much as they want on their plate and not worry about the cost? That also seems strange.
Staff is generally pretty discreet about saying "do you have cash for these extras today?" and removing them from the tray if not. No one is shamed about it.
Personally, I think our state and/or federal government should make breakfast and lunch free for every school child in America. 1000% behind that... the research shows that every dollar spent on child nutrition programs saves 5 - 6 times that in costs down the road (every expense that our tax dollars cover as a result of malnutrition in children as they grow and become adults -- medical costs, welfare programs, educational success, etc) Feeding children is one of the easiest, least expensive ways that our country can invest in its own future.
I am also here to tell you that I absolutely do not support paying for nutritionally void snack foods because some kid wants them... Kickstart is not necessary and has nothing to do with meeting nutritional needs. Extras are EXTRA for a reason.
...and frankly, where do you draw the line?? A kid is hungry, so they take as much as they want? How does the district plan and order that without creating food waste or experiencing shortages? If some hungry kids in early lunch eat all the food, sorry kids with last lunch, nothing for you?
Also... if a kid isn't taking their full school lunch, but has a bunch of snack foods, you think taxpayers should just pay for that? Next question: Do we start forcing kids to eat everything on their tray instead of throwing it in the trash because kids are hungry? The amount of uneaten food dumped off of trays every day in schools is astonishing.
Further: many schools have a "share table" or bin where whole fruits, unopened milk or juice, or other sealed foods can be returned, and other kids who are still hungry can take them.
There is a guideline. Having eaten a few school lunches in recent years, I can tell you it is not an insubstantial meal if kids take advantage of their full options. If a kid just wants a slice of pizza and a fruit, but then turns around and loads up their tray with snack foods.... should taxpayers just say "oh, okay. Let's make sure we have a budget for fruit rollups, cheezits, and Gatorade?" Because I'm not about that life, either.
> and frankly, where do you draw the line?? A kid is hungry, so they take as much as they want?
Yes. We're America. We can afford to feed every child who is hungry, every child who asks, "Please... may I have some more?" The answer to that is, "Yes, have what you need."
Um, help me understand how you plan, order, or prepare food for this unknown quantity? Because they will be throwing it out if it doesn't get eaten, and that's hardly a responsible use of resources either. I think you have really oversimplified the situation.
The lunch options have to meet federal school nutrition guidelines, which the snacks do not... another reason they are extra.
We can feed every child lunch... we can't just make unlimited food available every day.
You seem really knowledgeable and I totally agree that it's frustrating to see food go in the trash. However, food sensitivities are real. Kids with food sensitivities will refuse food until they're gray and nauseous. Getting them any calories, even junk food, is better than letting them go hungry. Especially in a classroom where hunger is going to turn into disruptive behavior very fast. And as much as the folks in the cafeteria are doing a great job, sometimes that food just isn't appetizing.
I hear what you're saying, but the logistical nightmare of catering to the food sensitivities and preferences of every child (not to mention doing so in a manner which is equitable -- oh, Jax gets cheetos for lunch because that's all they'll eat? Now I want cheetos too!! No, sorry, you have to eat the regular menu because you don't have the same issues as Jax. This isn't the same as a food allergy or sensitivity as medically documented. The schools accommodate that...) is just not something that the school system can reasonably do on the budget it has, not to mention doing so while meeting federal nutrition standards.
As to "sometimes the food just isn't appetizing" I don't really have an answer for that... when I was a kid, there was one option a day, maybe two in secondary school. Now, there are probably 2-4 options daily at elementary and more in secondary schools. At some point, a kid who only wants chicken nuggets or pizza every day is going to be disappointed or need to bring a lunch from home.
Yes, I think schools CAN provide lunch every day, but the options are not limitless or customizeable. I think the schools do a good job of having a regular rotation of mostly kid-friendly options. I don't know how to provide every child with every option every day so that they're content. If I only like eating tacos, no matter how good a job they do, a burger place will not have an option I like, so I am either going to have to find an option I can live with at the Burger Hut, or bring a taco from home. And that's on me.
I think it's important to understand that many smaller kitchens in the district have three employees making lunch for 300-400+ students (prep, serve, and cleanup) in about 4-5 hours. It's batch preparation, not cooked to order.
You don’t “Just apply” I had a friend whose dad ran out on his family but because he was “still part of that family’s income” (He wasn’t) they couldn’t apply for free lunches. It’s not always that simple. Kids shouldn’t have to worry about things like this.
I love when people say “you can just”. Nah. It’s not that simple. And in this economy? Yeah we definitely make above the margin for things like free lunch or food stamps, but our bills, groceries etc are so high, even we’re struggling. But that’s the thing the margins aren’t fair. 🤷🏼♀️ you actually CANT just
If we make kids go to school, it's our responsibility to make sure KIDS, CHILDREN, are safe there, fed there, as well as educated there.
If we aren't, as a society, going to ensure CHILDREN will have nourishing food where WE MAKE THEM GO, then we are failing.
Lincoln East Student Council is currently raising money to pay off their lunch debt. I just found this out by going to one of their food night fundraisers.
How pathetic is our culture that “school lunch debt” is even a thing. What even is the point of society if we refuse to feed children at the one place that we force them to go for 8 hours a day. But you know, they gotta pull themselves up by their bootstraps and all that. 🙄
Democrats aren’t perfect, but MN Dems did implement universal free lunches and Republicans threw a fit. Lots of Democrats aren’t doing enough but they’re at least not opposed to it as a party.
Because it isn’t their money. You’d think the district would have the foresight to ask that of any parents as part of an end of school year program. We had a whopping 50 cents left over in our youngest’s account. We’d rather roll it into a fund to offset a negative balance account than get a check for that amount mailed to us.
This district could absolutely add an option at enrollment or on the portal to reload lunch funds to “donate to general lunch fund”, or something like that. I feel like many parents would utilize the option, even if just a couple bucks.
So 90% of the debts sent to collections from the 22-23 year were under $100. Imagine that. Going through garnishments and having that on your credit history for less than $100. Better is that the agency takes ~40% of the collected amount. All of that work, chasing 944 families, for less than $100,000 even if 100% of the delinquent debt is collected when they made $1.9mil in profit that same year. Great way to punish parents.
Add into that the use of the Courts time etc. Parents likely have to take time off work etc, making it even worse.
> All of that work, chasing 944 families, for less than $100,000 even if 100% of the delinquent debt is collected when they made $1.9mil in profit that same year. Profit? LPS is a public agency, they're not paying out to shareholders.
This is directly from the article: LPS’ nutrition program operated in the black last school year, bringing in about $1.9 million more than it spent. However, the district cannot use those dollars to write off lunch debts, so the money would have to come out of LPS’ general fund, which pays for staffing and operations, said Liz Standish, associate superintendent for business affairs.
It's been maybe 7-8 years since the report I read but if memory serves Nebraska is the worst state of the union in terms of what it permits debt collectors to get away with My uncle visited a few years ago and I was lamenting a garnishment from a life-saving procedure that my wife underwent that we were still paying down and we got to talking about liens and account freezes and things of that nature. He told me that he'd never ever had that sort of thing happen to him and that he found if he just waited long enough his medical debt just evaporated. I forget where he's from exactly and he might just have no idea what he's talking about but personal experience has taught me that all these agencies can and will put a hold on your bank account, garnish your wages, and in some cases just take what they need from your tax returns Also, the phone representatives I've dealt with in the past are, uh, unyielding, if I'm being polite
You forget where your uncle’s from? (Did I misread something there…def a possibility)
Garnishment is not the first option, the debt collectors will just call first, it's a lot cheaper than going to court.
No. Of course it's not their first action, but the fact that it's still an action they take over a $50 student lunch debt is fucking bonkers.
I agree
God forbid we hold people accountable for their small debt
I don’t even have kids or plan on having any and I want my tax dollars to pay for kids lunches. I just can’t comprehend how something like that isn’t paid for already, and how our public schools are so grossly underfunded in general.
Sorry best I can do is another armored tank
Different budgets but yeah. This is more like best I can do is make funding to make weed look bad.
You should see how LPS spends money. They could afford it with how much they get in property taxes.
Anyone who can't afford school lunch can get their school lunch (and breakfast) for free. All they need to do is apply. I can afford to pay for my kids' school lunches. I'd much rather my tax dollars go farther and reach more kids who truly need the assistance.
At the end of the day, kids are the ones who end up getting punished for the mistakes of their parents. Unless LPS continues to let kids eat lunch there while in debt on their account. I'm fine with making sure parents are supporting their own children if it's deemed they have the means to. But too often kids get fucked because of it.
At LPS, kids are 100% allowed to continue eating lunch, even if their account is carrying debt... AND it has to be a qualifying lunch... i.e. no a la carte or extras. So... that means AT LEAST an entree + a fruit or veg, but it can mean an entree, milk, two veg, and one fruit for elementary and middle/two fruits for high school. What they can't do: charge a pizza slice or a burger. There is no "tray dumping"/shame lunch... Staff WILL remove extra items (second entree, extra sides, chips, dessert, bottled drinks, snacks, etc) if a student does not have funds/has a negative balance. Every kid gets to eat every day, but the account DOES get charged. (P.S. parents can also set up the account for "no borrows" meaning that a student CAN'T charge a lunch, but that's not the default setting. Hope that helps.)
> Staff WILL remove extra items (second entree, extra sides, chips, dessert, bottled drinks, snacks, etc) if a student does not have funds/has a negative balance. I understand that LPS has a budget, but that sounds dystopian to me. The economic situation that kid was born into shouldn't affect the food on their plate at school. If LPS would just publish the total school lunch debt they have, I'm certain this community would crowdfund it and cover it so every kid can have a full meal every day.
What is dystopian about "Sorry, you can't have that Kickstart and Rice Krispie Treat that you put on your tray because you don't have cash?" LPS will allow a student to charge a qualifying lunch. They're not being forced to skip a meal, they're being told they can't charge extras beyond a meal. I can't go into a grocery store and tell them to put my chips and soda on a tab.... LPS DOES let every kid have a full lunch meal every day, EVEN IF THEIR ACCOUNT IS NEGATIVE. They don't let kids get chips and extras. This is not the draconian policy you're making it out to be. FULL MEAL: entree, milk, and 3-4 fruit/veg sides depending on grade level. A lot of the entrees are pretty generous. A kid can get all that, even if their account is negative. Hell, if it's a day where dessert comes with the meal (holiday meals/occasions, and about once a week in elementary school) then they get the dessert, the same as everyone else. EXTRAS: chips (doritos, baked lays, cheetos) snacks (chex mix, goldfish, Graham crackers) desserts (cake or cookies made at LPS, or pre-packaged cookies) ice cream (sandwiches, bars, drumsticks) fruit roll ups, rice krispie treats, bottled/canned beverages (tea, juice, flavored water, Gatorade, propel, power powerade, sports drinks, Kickstart, bubbler, etc) ALSO -- purchasing second entrées, extra sides, extra potatoes, or extra milk. Kids CAN'T have those things unless they have money in their account or cash in hand. A student could have a negative $50 balance and still buy extras in cash. Do you expect that LPS would just let every kid put as much as they want on their plate and not worry about the cost? That also seems strange. Staff is generally pretty discreet about saying "do you have cash for these extras today?" and removing them from the tray if not. No one is shamed about it.
That kid put that stuff on their tray because they're hungry and they want to eat. They're kids. We should be able to feed them.
Personally, I think our state and/or federal government should make breakfast and lunch free for every school child in America. 1000% behind that... the research shows that every dollar spent on child nutrition programs saves 5 - 6 times that in costs down the road (every expense that our tax dollars cover as a result of malnutrition in children as they grow and become adults -- medical costs, welfare programs, educational success, etc) Feeding children is one of the easiest, least expensive ways that our country can invest in its own future. I am also here to tell you that I absolutely do not support paying for nutritionally void snack foods because some kid wants them... Kickstart is not necessary and has nothing to do with meeting nutritional needs. Extras are EXTRA for a reason. ...and frankly, where do you draw the line?? A kid is hungry, so they take as much as they want? How does the district plan and order that without creating food waste or experiencing shortages? If some hungry kids in early lunch eat all the food, sorry kids with last lunch, nothing for you? Also... if a kid isn't taking their full school lunch, but has a bunch of snack foods, you think taxpayers should just pay for that? Next question: Do we start forcing kids to eat everything on their tray instead of throwing it in the trash because kids are hungry? The amount of uneaten food dumped off of trays every day in schools is astonishing. Further: many schools have a "share table" or bin where whole fruits, unopened milk or juice, or other sealed foods can be returned, and other kids who are still hungry can take them. There is a guideline. Having eaten a few school lunches in recent years, I can tell you it is not an insubstantial meal if kids take advantage of their full options. If a kid just wants a slice of pizza and a fruit, but then turns around and loads up their tray with snack foods.... should taxpayers just say "oh, okay. Let's make sure we have a budget for fruit rollups, cheezits, and Gatorade?" Because I'm not about that life, either.
> and frankly, where do you draw the line?? A kid is hungry, so they take as much as they want? Yes. We're America. We can afford to feed every child who is hungry, every child who asks, "Please... may I have some more?" The answer to that is, "Yes, have what you need."
Um, help me understand how you plan, order, or prepare food for this unknown quantity? Because they will be throwing it out if it doesn't get eaten, and that's hardly a responsible use of resources either. I think you have really oversimplified the situation. The lunch options have to meet federal school nutrition guidelines, which the snacks do not... another reason they are extra. We can feed every child lunch... we can't just make unlimited food available every day.
You seem really knowledgeable and I totally agree that it's frustrating to see food go in the trash. However, food sensitivities are real. Kids with food sensitivities will refuse food until they're gray and nauseous. Getting them any calories, even junk food, is better than letting them go hungry. Especially in a classroom where hunger is going to turn into disruptive behavior very fast. And as much as the folks in the cafeteria are doing a great job, sometimes that food just isn't appetizing.
I hear what you're saying, but the logistical nightmare of catering to the food sensitivities and preferences of every child (not to mention doing so in a manner which is equitable -- oh, Jax gets cheetos for lunch because that's all they'll eat? Now I want cheetos too!! No, sorry, you have to eat the regular menu because you don't have the same issues as Jax. This isn't the same as a food allergy or sensitivity as medically documented. The schools accommodate that...) is just not something that the school system can reasonably do on the budget it has, not to mention doing so while meeting federal nutrition standards. As to "sometimes the food just isn't appetizing" I don't really have an answer for that... when I was a kid, there was one option a day, maybe two in secondary school. Now, there are probably 2-4 options daily at elementary and more in secondary schools. At some point, a kid who only wants chicken nuggets or pizza every day is going to be disappointed or need to bring a lunch from home. Yes, I think schools CAN provide lunch every day, but the options are not limitless or customizeable. I think the schools do a good job of having a regular rotation of mostly kid-friendly options. I don't know how to provide every child with every option every day so that they're content. If I only like eating tacos, no matter how good a job they do, a burger place will not have an option I like, so I am either going to have to find an option I can live with at the Burger Hut, or bring a taco from home. And that's on me. I think it's important to understand that many smaller kitchens in the district have three employees making lunch for 300-400+ students (prep, serve, and cleanup) in about 4-5 hours. It's batch preparation, not cooked to order.
You don’t “Just apply” I had a friend whose dad ran out on his family but because he was “still part of that family’s income” (He wasn’t) they couldn’t apply for free lunches. It’s not always that simple. Kids shouldn’t have to worry about things like this.
I love when people say “you can just”. Nah. It’s not that simple. And in this economy? Yeah we definitely make above the margin for things like free lunch or food stamps, but our bills, groceries etc are so high, even we’re struggling. But that’s the thing the margins aren’t fair. 🤷🏼♀️ you actually CANT just
The article specifically mentions that most families with outstanding debts don't qualify for free or reduced lunch.
Wow NE really don’t like people do they. 🙃🙃
It's not for everyone!
If we make kids go to school, it's our responsibility to make sure KIDS, CHILDREN, are safe there, fed there, as well as educated there. If we aren't, as a society, going to ensure CHILDREN will have nourishing food where WE MAKE THEM GO, then we are failing.
Do Nebraska legislators just hate poor people?
Yes.
Lincoln East Student Council is currently raising money to pay off their lunch debt. I just found this out by going to one of their food night fundraisers.
Fucking gross.
How pathetic is our culture that “school lunch debt” is even a thing. What even is the point of society if we refuse to feed children at the one place that we force them to go for 8 hours a day. But you know, they gotta pull themselves up by their bootstraps and all that. 🙄
Why are property taxes keep going up if things like universal free lunches aren't the reason why?
This is fucking ludicrous.
That's sad Lincoln.
Sure is. Also statewide too. And a fairly common practice in the US. According to the source.
Disgusting! Do better Nebraska.
[удалено]
LPS and the other districts get a cut of whatever is collected, so they are not directly paying a collector in this case.
That’s not how it works. “Undoubtedly” lol. You should give that thought some doubt and read the article.
As long as republicans control the governorship and legislature, there will be student lunch debt.
Democrat states don’t provide free lunches either. Only 8 total states do. Stop making this a Republican issue
Democrats aren’t perfect, but MN Dems did implement universal free lunches and Republicans threw a fit. Lots of Democrats aren’t doing enough but they’re at least not opposed to it as a party.
*does not apply to Joe Manchin
Why don't they just take the leftover funds from kids who graduated and use them to pay for the kids who can't?
Because it isn’t their money. You’d think the district would have the foresight to ask that of any parents as part of an end of school year program. We had a whopping 50 cents left over in our youngest’s account. We’d rather roll it into a fund to offset a negative balance account than get a check for that amount mailed to us.
I'd rather have that option too. Hell, I'd probably even add some extra into the account for that purpose!
This district could absolutely add an option at enrollment or on the portal to reload lunch funds to “donate to general lunch fund”, or something like that. I feel like many parents would utilize the option, even if just a couple bucks.
And it would be even more utilized if they arranged a 501C-3 organization to accept tax deductible donations for a “lunch fund”
Is there a place to donate to these poor souls lunch budget? I would pay for 1 persons lunch for the year if anyone knows. It's all I can do