Written for The Argo by Victoria Corless and Christian Alvarez

Chartwells, Stockton University’s exclusive food distributor, has a new mission statement: “Creating Joy Through Food.” However, students have accused Chartwells of overcharging, underfeeding, and generating a profit for the college at their expense. 

Upon an investigation into the Meal Plan system offered by Stockton, looking at one of the most popular options offered by Chartwells—the “Fab 14” Meal Plan—on the Stockton Bursar website, it shows that the plan costs $2,254.00 per semester. However, students at Stockton are not receiving in meal swipes the money that they are paying the University for their meal plans. Students only receive $1,819.90 worth of food and dining dollars, which indicates that Chartwells is significantly underfeeding and overcharging its participants.

Meal equivalencies for students with or without meal plans show that the cost of eating at the bare minimum for one semester based on “The Nest” pricing for entry is $2,779.35 (with a .80 differential between Food Hall pricing using meal swipes and paying the door entry fee). This indicates that students who are on the Fab 14 Meal Plan would potentially need to spend an additional $959.45 per semester on Dining Dollars if they would like to eat enough to survive. More realistic numbers for the standard cost of eating on campus would normally equate to approximately $3,010.35 per semester (cited below), assuming a student is not relying on “The Nest” for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Unsurprisingly, this estimation is steeper than previous projections and highlights the disparity between these insufficient costs of living numbers, compared to the reality of Chartwells dining prices on campus.

This number analysis serves as potential evidence that Stockton is intentionally, grossly overcharging its students for their meal plans, at about $434.10 per student per semester for the Fab 14 meal plan—with the stipulation to do so written into its contract. This could pose a serious problem, as Stockton’s undergraduate enrollment is approximately 8138 students, and each student is theoretically overpaying by approximately $434.10 per semester for their mandatory meal plan, then Chartwells would be earning, approximately, a net $3.5 million per year from student meal plans in pure profit. With that, on top of the original meal plan cost—plus the needed out-of-pocket Dining Dollars which are necessary not to go hungry—the implications for mandatory meal plans forced on the majority of Stockton residential students become all the more concerning. 

According to the dining services contract, Chartwells is contractually obligated to “increase the net monetary contribution to SASI and the College from food service operations.” This stipulation was found to be similar to clauses found in contracts between other universities and food service vendors, directing Chartwells to maximize revenue. As the Hechinger Report notes, “part of what the [food] companies earn goes back to the universities in the form of commissions, signing bonuses, and other payments.” This means that universities could potentially have a substantial financial stake in the success of their food service vendors, which could lead to conflicts of interest. “Invitations for proposals made by colleges and universities to food-service contractors, not usually noticed by the public, show that most expect to make money from their students’ meal plans,” the report continues.

Students who are concerned about the cost of their meal plans must be made aware of the implications of these terms and conditions, despite these proposals operating underneath the public’s radar. 

A Student employee at Stockton’s Campus Center Dunkin’ Donuts spoke to The Argo about how Chartwells overcharges students for meal plans by making them pay two meal swipes for items over $8.16. Students often don’t realize how much they’re spending until their IDs start getting rejected at the register.

Chartwells’ confusing meal plan pricing can mislead students into spending more than they realize. For instance, students using a basic meal plan without ‘Dining Dollars’ (credits that can be added to your account out of pocket, which may or may not be the only way to purchase from certain locations off campus) are required to pay with their meal plan swipes—$17 for any food items exceeding $8.40 at subsidiary restaurants on Main Campus, OR with the addition of purchased Dining Dollars to cover the difference. The University’s policy states that “when you visit a retail location and your total comes out to $9.40 – you would use one meal swipe ($8.40) and pay the remaining $1 using Dining Dollars, cash, or credit.” This essentially means that students are paying close to double for their food if they choose to purchase items priced above $8.40 unless they’re willing to shell out the $50 minimum out-of-pocket for Dining Dollars to keep their meal swipes from disappearing. 

“Why do I have to use a meal swipe and ‘flex,’ or even my own money to buy one Teriyaki bowl?” Troy Edwards, who serves as a TALON, said to The Argo.

Taking a look at this history of Chartwells and their public controversies, Compass Group (the parent company of Chartwells) has been accused of overcharging students at other universities. In 2020, NYU ended its partnership with Chartwells due to moldy and substandard student meals, while in 2021, Chartwells faced criticism from the Suffolk Journal for various reasons, with the main concern being the high cost of their food and the perception of the meal plan as a deceptive arrangement. Furthermore, in 2015, the Washington D.C. Attorney General alleged that Chartwells caused the D.C. Public Schools to pay millions more for school meal programs, and there were multiple issues under Chartwells’ management, including late deliveries, insufficient quantity, and poor quality or spoiled food (PHILLIPS & COHEN LLP, 2015).

There is a contract between the school and Chartwells that includes a “no-compete clause,” which is demonstrated (Stockton as the referred to Client) as a clause for an “Independent Contractor Relationship.” This clause states that Chartwells is granted “the exclusive rights to provide and manage the client’s food service program, exclusive rights to sell to students, guests, faculty, and employees food products, non-alcoholic beverages, and such articles” (Chartwells Contract, Section 1.1). This clause effectively prevents the University from contracting with any other food vendors, giving Chartwells a monopoly on on-campus dining. 

A New York Times article titled “Meal Plan Costs Tick Upward as Students Pay for More Than Food,” detailed how a vast number of colleges are increasingly relying on mandatory meal plans, which can be an extreme financial burden for the students. The Times described Chartwells as one of the largest food service companies in the country and noted that the company has been criticized for its “aggressive” marketing tactics.

Non-rollover meal plans are a major concern for students, as they can result in the loss of a considerable amount of money if students are unable to use all of their meal swipes. Stockton is a major offender in this department, as meal plans roll over from week to week according to Stockton’s policy. In addition to the financial burden, students approaching the end of the semester may be more likely to eat unsustainable foods in order to “use up” their remaining meal swipes.

On Reddit, students have expressed their frustration with non-rollover meal plans. One student wrote, “I dropped my plan after my first semester. I can literally save money by eating out every day.”

A stark contrast exists between the prices charged at the dining subsidiaries and The Nest, a one-swipe (varying prices based on time of day, but equivalent to only 1 meal swipe) all-you-can-eat food hall-style location on campus. While The Nest offers a more economical approach, it has failed to be adequately advertised to students in favor of the brand concept locations in the Campus Center.

Students are often unaware of The Nest’s existence, as it is not typically shown on campus tours. If the university and food distributor intentionally withhold information about the location or existence of the Food Hall from new students, it can be seen as a lack of transparency. This practice may lead to confusion, frustration, and a sense of being misled among students who are unaware of the cheaper alternative. As a result, many students are drawn to the dining facilities that are close by and already familiar with in the Campus Center, such as Chick-fil-A and Dunkin’ Donuts. These branded concepts are also owned by Chartwells, albeit being more expensive than The Nest, despite not offering the same variety of food options.

The lack of transparency surrounding The Nest is concerning, as it appears to be a deliberate attempt to steer students towards the more expensive branded concepts. This is supported by a clause in Chartwells’ contract with Stockton University, which states that the company must “generate maximum revenue” and the implication of “new and innovative and attractive food concepts” from its dining services.

By failing to adequately promote The Nest, and possibly due to the significant dip in food quality concerning the location, Chartwells is able to generate more revenue from students. This is because students who are unaware of The Nest are more likely to eat at the locations on the Campus Center, which are significantly more expensive. The need for advertisement is non-existent when these familiar and welcome pseudo-flagships exist in the center of student life. The university and food distributor may have financial incentives to drive students toward the co-branded restaurants. This could, if true, be in the form of revenue-sharing agreements or other simple financial arrangements that benefit both parties. However, this practice may prioritize profit over the best interests of students, potentially compromising their access to affordable and diverse food options. It can be seen as a strategy to promote the co-branded restaurants while potentially disadvantageous to the Food Hall by intentionally limiting its visibility and accessibility to new students. 

In light of these concerns, there is a need for the university administration to take steps to ensure that students are aware of all of their dining options. The university should also consider reviewing its contract with Chartwells and making student survey review a priority, to ensure that it is not incentivizing the company to prioritize profit over student welfare. As things stand now, Stockton students do not regard the quality of food highly.

“A stray dog would have a hard time eating what they serve at the food hall,” Luke Hamlon, an Alpha Sigma Alumni, told The Argo.

In a country where inflation is driving up the cost of products, college students are finding themselves completely pickpocketed by organizations that try to appear like they’re helping. In reality, companies like Chartwells go out of their way to create a system that is solely profit-driven and takes so much more than it gives. Students are preyed upon for their ignorance and indoctrinated into a system that barely makes sense. The meal swipe system with absolutely no kind of rollover creates a scenario where students waste their money and put it into the pockets of corporate higher-ups. Universities like Stockton must take a closer look at how they are treating their students and how they can create a more ethical and clear-cut system that leaves students the ability to dine on campus without spending inordinate amounts of out-of-pocket cash in addition to meal plans.

Currently, almost every residential student, (Students who live in Housing 2, 3, 5, and Chris Gaupp) is losing thousands of dollars a year and tens of thousands of dollars over the course of their college career, even if they use the meal swipe system as efficiently as possible. This is because the system itself seems designed to underfeed and overcharge. If used “inefficiently”—say, because you want to get water with your meal—you become a victim of very real and very strategic foul play. If passed, the New Jersey Assembly Bill No. 2804 would make it illegal for public institutions of higher ed to require students of the university to purchase meal plans in The State of New Jersey. This recently proposed Bill is a direct result of the criticisms the public education sector has faced regarding high-cost meal plans and its lack of choice for students. Stockton students who live in Housing 2, 3 5, and Chris Guapp are required to purchase a meal plan, which raises even more concerns in light of Chartwell’s exorbitant prices and revenue-driven practices. This proposed resolution would theoretically offer a small reprieve from a financial burden for the majority of its residential community, or at least those who want more control over their dining choices, as well as others who simply wish to prepare their own meals to save money ($434.10, to be precise.)  

Students are beginning to understand the fundamental problems with the system that we occupy. This is our chance to acknowledge the shortcomings of Chartwells and start, as a collective, to find a healthier and more financially prudent system to bring food to the people trying to become the educated leaders of the future. Stockton can mitigate its mandatory meal plan requirements and be more transparent in its meal pricing system. Students also should be shown that The Nest is the most reliable and cost-effective way to eat on campus.

Sources:

Compass Group USA website: https://www.compass-usa.com/

Chartwells Higher Ed website: https://chartwellshighered.com/

Chartwells Higher Ed article on innovations in campus dining: https://chartwellshighered.com/2018/01/15/innovations-in-campus-dining/

Stockton University and Chartwells Dining Services Contract, Section 3(B)(3), 3(C), C(1), C(2), N, 12, 9, and 8.

Hechinger Report: https://hechingerreport.org/tough-swallow-reason-college-keeps-costing-price-meal-plans

New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us/meal-plan-costs-tick-upward-as-students-pay-for-more-than-food.html

Lamplight: https://www.lamplightdb.co.uk/

Stockton University dining services website: https://dineoncampus.com/SU

PHILLIPS & COHEN LLP, 2015

Suffolk Journal: “Why Chartwells Leaves a Bad Taste in My Mouth.”

Stockton University Meal Plan Rates: https://stockton.edu/bursars/meal-plans/meal-plans-rates.html

Pricing calculations:


Meal Plan Worth: $1,819.90 (210 Swipes a year on Fab 14 at *$8.19 a swipe = $1,719.90 + $100.00 Dining Dollars) 

Meal plan Pricing:
(2254.00)

Calculation of Stockton’s Profit from Meal Plans
If each of Stockton’s approximately 8,138 students is overpaying by $434.10 per semester, then Stockton is profiting approximately $3.5 billion per year from meal plans.
$434.10 per student per semester * 8,138 students * 2 semesters per year = $3.5 billion

Calculation of the Amount of Money Students Need to Spend on Food to Eat Normally

To calculate the amount of money students need to spend on food to eat normally, use the following formula:
Cost of eating normally = (Cost of breakfast + cost of lunch + cost of dinner) * 7 days per week * 15 weeks per semester (Based on rates for The Nest Entry/ Meal Equivalency)
Assuming that students eat three meals per day at an average cost of $8.99-$10.99 per meal, the cost of eating normally would be: ($8.99 + $8.99 + $10.99) * 7 days per week * 15 weeks per semester = $3,010.35