U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–177 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–149 

A REVIEW OF CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 7, 2015 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JOEL T. LEFTWICH, MAJORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

ANNE C. HAZLETT, MAJORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, CHIEF CLERK

CHRISTOPHER J. ADAMO, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

JONATHAN J. CORDONE, MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

A Review of Child Nutrition Programs .................................................................. 1 

Thursday, May 7, 2015 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ................................................. 1 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ..................... 4 

Panel I 

Lord, Stephen M., Managing Director, Forensic Audits and Investigative 

Service, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC ................. 6 

Neuberger, Zoe, Senior Policy Analyst, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, DC .......................................................................................... 8 

Panel II 

Riendeau, Brian, Executive Director, Dare to Care Food Bank, Louisville, 

KY .......................................................................................................................... 27

Goff, Richard, Executive Director, Office of Child Nutrition, West Virginia 

Department of Education, Charleston, WV ....................................................... 29 

Jones, Cindy, Business Management Coordinator, Food Production Facility, 

Olathe Unified School District 233, Olathe, KS ................................................ 31 

Hassink, Dr. Sandra G., President, American Academy of Pediatrics, Wilmington, DE ......................................................................................................... 33 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Casey, Hon. Robert, Jr. .................................................................................... 48 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J. ..................................................................................... 50 

Goff, Richard ..................................................................................................... 52 

Hassink, Sandra G. .......................................................................................... 58 

Jones, Cindy ...................................................................................................... 66 

Lord, Stephen M. .............................................................................................. 69 

Neuberger, Zoe .................................................................................................. 84 

Riendeau, Brian ................................................................................................ 101 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Goff, Richard: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 112 

Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet ........................... 114 

Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown ............................ 117 

Written response to questions from Hon. Robert Casey, Jr. ......................... 119 

Written response to questions from Hon. Heidi Heitkamp ........................... 124 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 124 

Written response to questions from Hon. Thom Tillis .................................. 128 

Hassink, Sandra G.: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 132 

Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet ........................... 135 

Page

IV 

Hassink, Sandra G.—Continued 

Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown ............................ 139 

Written response to questions from Hon. Robert Casey, Jr. ......................... 140 

Written response to questions from Hon. Heidi Heitkamp ........................... 142 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 142 

Jones, Cindy: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 145 

Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet ........................... 145 

Written response to questions from Hon. Robert Casey, Jr. ......................... 147 

Written response to questions from Hon. Heidi Heitkamp ........................... 148 

Lord, Stephen M.: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 150 

Written response to questions from Hon. Robert Casey, Jr. ......................... 151 

Neuberger, Zoe: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 153 

Riendeau, Brian: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 155 

Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet ........................... 158 

Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown ............................ 162 

Written response to questions from Hon. Robert Casey, Jr. ......................... 163 

(1) 

A REVIEW OF CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS 

Thursday, May 7, 2015 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman of 

the Committee, presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Roberts, Boozman, 

Hoeven, Perdue, Ernst, Tillis, Grassley, Thune, Stabenow, Brown, 

Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Heitkamp, and Casey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF KANSAS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Chairman ROBERTS. Good morning. I call this meeting of the 

Senate Committee on Agriculture to order. 

Welcome to our first hearing on child nutrition reauthorization 

in this Congress. I commend my colleague, Senator Stabenow, for 

her leadership on this issue, and more especially, the hearings she 

held last year. 

The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child 

Nutrition Act of 1966 authorize critical programs of great importance for Kansas, our nation, our farmers, our ranchers, our growers, and our vulnerable populations, including, of course, hungry 

children. 

The School Lunch Program was originally created as a measure 

of national security, ‘‘to safeguard the health and well-being of the 

nation’s children and to encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities.’’ 

Coming out of World War II, Congress saw the need to establish 

the School Lunch Program, in no small part to ensure our military 

had a sufficient supply of eligible individuals to defend our nation 

from global threats. 

Additionally, the current research regarding the need for adequate nutrition during a person’s developmental stages provides 

further support for what Congress knew even back then. Hungry 

children do not learn. 

With threats to our national security and increasing economic 

competition, it is imperative that our nation’s youth are physically 

fit for military service and are not malnourished at key times in 

brain development. 

Furthermore, the original two-fold intent of the program still 

holds true today. First, the programs provide a safety net for our 

2 

most vulnerable populations, mainly children, that are at times 

without sufficient food. 

Second, the law requires a portion of the assistance for the school 

meal programs to be in the form of agriculture commodities produced here in America by our nation’s farmers, ranchers, and growers. 

As we begin the reauthorization process, it is important to remember the purpose of these programs. These programs are not 

about anyone’s legacy. They are about ensuring our nation’s security, ensuring that our children are well educated and productive 

contributors to a competitive economy, and about helping the vulnerable among us who cannot help themselves. 

I plan to conduct this reauthorization, with full cooperation with 

our distinguished Ranking Member, in the same way in which I am 

seeking to conduct all of our business here at the Agriculture Committee. First, with the perspective of our constituents in mind. We 

are here for farmers, ranchers small businesses, rural communities, 

and program participants and stakeholders. We are here to write 

their interests and their will into law, not to impose the government’s will and interest on them. 

Second, this reauthorization will include rigorous and thorough 

oversight of these programs. Periodic expiration and reauthorization of legislation provides Congress with the opportunity to review 

and evaluate programs, and this opportunity should not be taken 

for granted. It is our responsibility to closely examine each program. Not every program needs a major overhaul, but every Federal program can benefit from increased efficiency, improved integrity, and reduction of waste. 

Our committee will conduct this reauthorization in an open and 

transparent manner that gives members an opportunity to pass 

good legislation for their constituents. I would like for this to be a 

bipartisan bill, and I am pleased that Senator Stabenow feels the 

same way. With the entire committee working together, we can develop a well-rounded bill that will improve the operation of these 

important programs. 

It is also my intention to complete this reauthorization on time, 

before the programs expire at the end of September. I understand 

there are some that may prefer that we not succeed in this endeavor. I caution those individuals that these programs are too important not to reauthorize. Gambling, fortune telling, or using a crystal ball to predict a better reauthorization in the future is foolish 

and short-sighted. It is time for folks to come together and be part 

of crafting legislation, not to stand outside the process hoping it 

fails. 

We have been in a listening mode in preparation for this reauthorization and that culminates in today’s hearing. I have traveled 

throughout Kansas, visiting school food directors, talking with parents, students, school administrators, and others involved in these 

programs. We have had hearings last year and we have our experts 

here today. As we seek to put what we have learned into legislative 

form, several priorities have become clear. 

First, reauthorization provides an opportunity to review programs and improve their efficiency and effectiveness. In the school 

meal programs, there are significant error rates and improper payVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 May 03, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\96177.TXT MICAH
3 

ment levels. These have recently been highlighted in reports from 

the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General and the 

Government Accountability Office. We will need to improve the administration of these programs to reduce errors, but do so in a way 

that does not layer additional Federal bureaucracy and overreach 

on those who are seeking to feed hungry schoolchildren. 

Second, it is evident that evolving programs encounter different 

challenges as they try to adapt to changing times. Each new challenge is met with additional modifications, guidance, or regulation, 

and these can unintentionally evolve into very complicated systems 

that are often outdated or needlessly cumbersome. We need to 

identify areas in which we can simplify, make things easier for 

those implementing and participating in the programs. 

Third, my travels in Kansas, and I am sure that this opinion is 

shared by many on this committee, have also indicated that we 

need some flexibility. Many folks are worried about what flexibility 

means. But to me, flexibility means we will still protect the tremendous gains already achieved by many and provide assistance to 

others so they, too, may achieve success. These programs cannot 

help anyone if they are not workable. 

The Department of Agriculture and others have worked very 

hard to help those who are not meeting the current standards and 

have promoted statistics citing high rates of compliance. Yet, we 

have schools that are currently struggling. I understand that at 

least 46 States applied for the recent whole grain waiver, and we 

have additional sodium restrictions that are still on the way. Lines 

in the sand and uncompromising positions will benefit nobody, and 

especially not the hungry children that these programs serve. 

Working together, I am confident we can find a way to preserve the 

nutritional quality of school meals without a one-size-fits-all approach that prevents some local flexibility. 

These programs have historically had strong bipartisan support. 

In 2004 and 2010, child nutrition reauthorizations passed the Senate by unanimous consent. But, debate leading up to those bills 

also included significant controversy similar to the issues we face 

today. Yet, Republicans and Democrats worked through the process 

together and came up with legislation that everybody could support. 

Finally, it is vital that this legislation does not contain additional 

spending without an offset. That is just where we are. We have received many bipartisan suggestions for ways to improve these programs, but many of those have considerable price tags. Our budgetary constraints are real. Our responsibility to our constituents includes not spending money that we do not have. 

I look forward to working with Senator Stabenow and each member of the committee throughout this reauthorization process. 

I am also appreciative of the witnesses here today. A special 

thanks to Ms. Cindy Jones, who has been our shotgun rider, if that 

is the proper term, and who has traveled from Olathe, Kansas, to 

be on our second panel. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses regarding their experiences with these programs and I 

thank them so much for their testimony before the committee and 

taking their valuable time to come here. 

4 

I now turn to my colleague, the Chairperson Emeritus of the 

committee, Senator Stabenow, for any opening remarks she may 

have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and I look forward to working with you on this important issue. 

We have been talking and looking for ways that we can move forward together and I look forward to working with you on this, as 

well as the entire committee, as we continue the work we began 

last year to strengthen child nutrition programs. 

I want to thank the witnesses, as well, for testifying today. You 

bring very important perspectives from all sides of the issue. There 

are a lot of important pieces to this legislation and it is important 

we hear from you and work together to move forward. 

As we all know, our children’s health and well-being really are 

at a crossroads. Obesity rates in children have tripled in the last 

30 years. Today, one in three American children and teens are 

overweight or obese. We are now seeing health problems typically 

unseen until adulthood—high blood pressure to type 2 diabetes— 

that are in young people who should be focused on Little League 

or going to the prom. This obesity epidemic requires a serious commitment on our part to continue moving forward with the nutrition 

policies we put in place five years ago in order to give our children 

a fair shot to be healthy and successful. 

Last year, this committee heard from retired military leaders 

desperate to help improve the health conditions of our soldiers and 

young recruits, and as the Chairman said, the School Lunch Program actually started as a result of our military leaders and the 

Department of Defense. In his testimony, retired four-star Air 

Force General Richard Hawley said that obesity is one of three 

main reasons why an estimated 70 percent of all young people who 

walk through the recruiters’ door at the age of 17 through 24, one 

of three reasons why they do not qualify for military service, and 

they indicated that was the largest reason. 

Their concerns are echoed by more than 450 retired generals and 

admirals who are trying to raise awareness about the impact that 

poor childhood nutrition has on our national security and its cost 

to taxpayers. This recruitment crisis also requires us to continue 

moving forward with the nutrition policies we have put in place 

five years ago. 

In addition to childhood obesity issues, we also have the second 

challenge of childhood hunger. As we approach the end of the 

school year, more than 20 million young people—20 million students who eat at school because they qualify for free and reduced 

price meals—will struggle to eat any meal, let alone a healthy 

meal, in the summer. This hunger crisis for our children requires 

us, as well, to continue moving forward to strengthen our Summer 

Meals Programs and other supports for children. 

We also have millions of pregnant moms and children in our 

communities who are nutritionally at risk, which can lead to low 

birth weights, increased childhood disease, and impaired brain 

5 

damage. That is why continuing to protect and strengthen the WIC 

program is so important. 

It is for all of these reasons and many, many more that we meet 

today, and it is the reason we must take this process of reauthorizing our child nutrition programs seriously, and I appreciate that 

the Chairman does. 

The good news is, for the first time in years, it looks as though 

we are beginning to make some progress on these issues. Obesity 

rates have begun to stabilize in some areas. More children are eating healthy breakfasts and lunches than ever before. Children are 

eating 16 percent more vegetables, 23 percent more fruits, according to the Harvard School of Public Health. 

I have said many, many times, it seems to me that our children 

are worth continuing the requirement of school meals for a half-acup—that is not very big, there is not a whole lot that goes in this, 

actually—a half-a-cup of fruit or vegetable as part of our commitment—it is not the whole commitment, but a very important part 

of our commitment—to our children’s health and success. 

But, we know there is much more to do. Nutrition at its core is 

preventative medicine, and child nutrition is about leveling the 

playing field so that any baby, any child, any teen, whether they 

are in Detroit or rural Kansas or a suburb of Atlanta or a farm in 

Iowa, has every opportunity to be healthy and successful. 

That is why it is crucial that this committee work together in a 

bipartisan way to ensure these nutrition programs continue to operate efficiently and effectively and that we continue to move forward for our children. Our children and our families are counting 

on us to do just that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator Stabenow, for an excellent statement. 

All members should be advised we have a vote at 10:30. Well, let 

us just change that. The vote has been postponed until 2:00 this 

afternoon. 

Senator STABENOW. Oh, there you go. 

Chairman ROBERTS. So we can finish. 

Senator STABENOW. Magic. You have such power, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. It is just amazing what you can do with a 

new Congress, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Sorry about that. 

Senator STABENOW. I object. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Let the record show an objection was heard. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Let me introduce our first panel. Stephen M. 

Lord, Managing Director, Government Accountability Office, Forensic Audits and Investigative Service. Mr. Lord currently serves as 

the Managing Director of the Forensic Audits and Investigative 

Service at the GAO. He oversees a highly trained staff charged 

with conducting special audits and investigations on major Federal 

programs prone to fraud, waste, and abuse. Mr. Lord has received 

6 

many awards over his 30-year career, including awards for Meritorious and Distinguished GAO Service. 

Mr. Lord, welcome, and I look forward to your testimony. Please 

go ahead, and then I will introduce Ms. Neuberger for her statement. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN M. LORD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, FORENSIC AUDITS AND INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. LORD. Thank you, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, members of the committee. Thanks for inviting me here 

today to discuss the findings and recommendations of our 2014 report on the School Meals Program. 

As you know and as you mentioned in your opening remarks, the 

School Lunch and Breakfast Programs play a very important role 

in providing for the nutritional needs of schoolchildren across the 

nation. At the same time, the National School Lunch Program is 

on OMB’s list of high error prone programs due to its large estimated improper payments rate, and this underscores the need to 

me to ensure sound controls are in place to ensure that $15 billion 

in Federal funds are spent wisely. 

Today, I would like to discuss two things, first, some positive actions USDA has taken to strengthen oversight of the program, as 

well as additional opportunities that GAO has identified to enhance 

controls. 

First, in terms of USDA actions, the Department has worked 

closely with Congress to develop legislation that requires school 

districts to directly certify students in the SNAP Program, and according to USDA officials, direct certification of these students reduces the administrative burden on school districts. It also reduces 

certification errors and helps without adversely impacting access to 

the program. 

Another positive development is State agencies now conduct administrative reviews of school districts every three years as opposed to every five years, as it was done formerly. We think that 

is a really important part of the oversight process and the effort 

to help ensure correct eligibility determinations. 

Despite these positive actions, we did identify some additional 

areas where they could enhance verification without compromising 

legitimate access to the program. 

First, we believe the school district reviews of questionable applications could be strengthened. Of the 25 school districts we examined, 11 did conduct these so-called ‘‘for cause’’ verifications, but 

unfortunately, nine school districts did not conduct any ‘‘for cause’’ 

verifications of questionable applications, and the remaining five 

districts said they would do it on an occasional basis when prompted to do so by outside stakeholders. That is why we recommended 

that USDA study this ‘‘for cause’’ verification process, figure out 

why the school districts were reluctant to do it, and consider 

issuing additional guidance, if needed. 

We also recommended that USDA consider using computer 

matching to help identify households whose income exceeded eligibility thresholds. Under the current standard verification process, 

it is difficult to detect all households that misreport income because 

7 

the so-called standard verification process is focused on a small 

slice of beneficiaries, those with annual income within $1,200 of the 

eligibility threshold. 

For example, in our work, we found that nine of 19 household applications were not eligible for free or reduced benefits, yet only 

two of these households would have been subject to the standard 

verification process because of the way they defined error prone applications. Thus, we think verifying a broader window of applications as well as using computer matching techniques, could potentially significantly strengthen the verification process, and again, 

without adversely impacting access to the program by those truly 

in need. 

Finally, our report also recommended that USDA explore expanding the verification process to include those who are deemed 

categorically eligible for the program by virtue of their participation in other public assistance programs, such as SNAP, TANF, et 

cetera. We found that those applications are generally not subject 

to verification as highlighted by a few examples in our report. 

We found one household that was certified through this process 

because they stipulated they had a foster child. Yet, when we interviewed the household occupants, we found they did not have any 

foster children. Another applicant reported they were enrolled in 

SNAP, therefore, they were automatically eligible. Yet, when we 

contacted the State officials, they said this individual was not enrolled in the SNAP program. So, we found some examples—again, 

these examples are not generalizable to the entire population, but 

we found enough examples to suggest that USDA needed to take 

another look at that. 

So, the good news is, USDA agreed with all our report recommendations and we think the collective impact of all the recommendations, when implemented, will help strengthen the 

verification and oversight process to, again, to ensure only those 

truly deserving of the benefits receive them. 

Chairman Roberts, other members of the committee, this concludes my prepared remarks and I look forward to any questions 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lord can be found on page 69 in 

the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Lord, thank you very kindly. 

Our second witness is Ms. Zoe Neuberger. Ms. Neuberger joins 

us today from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, where 

she is a Senior Policy Analyst. She works on the school meal programs and WIC and has been with the Center since 2001. Obviously, she is a veteran and knows what she is talking about. I did 

not mean to insinuate you did not, prior to 2001. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Previously, she was a Budget Analyst for 

these programs at the Office of Management and Budget. 

Welcome, madam, and I look forward to your testimony and your 

insight. 

8 

STATEMENT OF ZOE NEUBERGER, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, 

CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Thank you very much for the invitation to testify today on improving accuracy in the school meal programs. As 

you said, I am a Senior Policy Analyst at the Center on Budget and 

Policy Priorities, a nonprofit policy institute that conducts research 

and analysis on budget and tax policy as well as poverty and social 

programs. 

Out of our roughly 50 million schoolchildren, about 30 million eat 

a school lunch on a typical school day. That is extraordinary reach, 

and that figure includes more than 21 million low-income children 

for whom school meals may be the healthiest and most reliable 

meals they get. 

There are also nearly 100,000 schools that operate the meal programs and they do a remarkable job. They process applications, 

provide healthy meals, and keep track of the eligibility of each student so they can claim the appropriate Federal reimbursement. 

Their work means that we have fewer hungry children and that 

our students are better prepared to learn. 

As you can see, the school meal programs play a vital role in 

children’s health and well being. They must continue to play this 

role while also administering the programs accurately. The Department of Agriculture just estimated that the net annual cost of 

lunches that did not meet the nutrition standards was $444 million. That is not acceptable. The programs must make sure that 

Federal funds are used for meals that meet Federal criteria. 

Fortunately, we have some powerful tools to address the issues. 

There is a verification process already in place. There is a new rigorous review process. USDA has instituted new oversight measures. USDA just completed a detailed nationally representative 

study that not only measures errors and their costs, but also identifies a great deal of information about the causes of errors, which 

allows for specific and effective policy solutions. 

But, there are also challenges to improving accuracy in a vast 

and complex system whose main focus is to educate children, not 

administer the meal programs. As I mentioned, the school meal 

programs operate in nearly 100,000 schools nationwide and there 

is wide variation among them. Their staffing, resources, and technological capacity vary widely. There is also a lot of variation in 

the way children get meals in the lunchroom or the classroom and 

how the school checks who is in which category and counts the 

meals. 

Small rural schools have very different operational and administrative capacity than large districts that serve hundreds of thousands of students. Meal tracking and accounting systems can range 

from paper systems to state-of-the-art software. 

Schools are not currently set up to do the kind of eligibility determinations that other public benefit programs do. The SNAP Program or Medicaid, for example, have teams of professional eligibility workers who spend all day, every day, sorting out the details 

of applicants’ income and household circumstances. In schools, 

there might be a cafeteria worker or secretary who handles meal 

applications for a few weeks at the start of the year. 

9 

So, the question is, given the tools at the program’s disposal and 

the system we are dealing with, how can Congress improve accuracy in the meal programs? 

An example can help show the way. Beginning with the 2004 reauthorization and building on that in 2010, Congress set a clear expectation for school districts and States to improve their use of the 

rigorous eligibility determinations made by other programs, primarily SNAP, to approve children for free meals automatically. 

That is the direct certification process. Because the school meal 

programs are relying on a more rigorous income assessment, this 

approach saves time and reduces errors. 

In the past decade, there have been striking improvements. 

Nearly half of all children approved for free or reduced-price meals 

are now approved without having to complete an application. That 

is an enormous simplification and Congress played an important 

role by setting an expectation and then providing tools and support 

to meet it. 

My written testimony describes many other tailored steps Congress and USDA have taken to strengthen the meal programs, but 

there is certainly room to do more. It is important to strengthen 

management and oversight across the board, provide more extensive help to districts that persistently struggle with errors, and 

pursue innovations that could open up new ways to improve accuracy. 

For example, GAO recommended exploring the use of data 

matching to identify applications that might have incorrect information. That is worth trying. USDA plans to develop a model electronic application for the first time. That is another promising innovation. 

As you consider ways to improve accuracy in the school meal programs, I urge you to consider these four questions. First, does the 

proposal have a proven record of reducing errors? Some ideas that 

sound promising, like requiring households to submit pay stubs 

with their application, have not actually been effective when tested. 

Second, will it maintain program access for the most vulnerable 

children? Nearly 16 million children live in a household experiencing food insecurity. We certainly do not want to worsen that 

problem. 

Third, is it administratively feasible? Adopting a more time consuming documentation or verification system might prevent some 

errors, but it could cause others by adding a step to the process 

and would force school staff to spend much more time determining 

school meal eligibility at the expense of other educational priorities. 

Fourth, is it cost effective? High-quality information management 

systems can be very effective, but might cost too much for a small 

school district. 

As I noted, it is critical that error reduction strategies not reduce 

access to school meals for children who need them. The best way 

to improve integrity in the school meal programs is not through punitive policies, but instead to continue sending a clear message to 

school nutrition officials that program accuracy is important, that 

it will be measured, and that Federal officials will support them in 

implementing needed improvements. 

Thank you very much. 

10 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Neuberger can be found on page 

84 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lord, do you think that a shift from the current verification 

process that emphasizes ‘‘for cause’’ verification would enhance the 

program integrity, and secondly, would it have a negative effect on 

access for eligible participants? 

Mr. LORD. No. I think, again, Senator, there is a way to do it 

without adversely impacting people who truly deserve it, and what 

we found in our work is the ‘‘for cause’’—again, that is the review 

of questionable applications—some school districts were not doing 

any ‘‘for cause’’ verifications of questionable applications. So, there 

is definitely potential there to do that more consistently across 

school districts. 

I should add, that is a USDA requirement. School districts are 

required to conduct these type of reviews, so any time we see that 

type of inconsistency, that gives us some concern. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Ms. Neuberger, I would like to know more 

about the point of service, when the child and the cafeteria worker 

interact and determine how the meal will be paid. You have cited 

this in your statement as a step at which many errors occur. Can 

you walk us through what happens exactly at the point of service? 

I am not an expert, but Cindy Jones is, and there seem to be a 

number of points of error. If you could clarify that point of contact 

for me, please, it would be helpful. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Absolutely, and it sounds like you have had a 

chance to visit school meal programs, which is great. I hope that 

if the rest of you have not had an opportunity, that you will find 

one soon, because there is nothing like seeing it firsthand. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, you can lose a little weight there, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. NEUBERGER. But, let me describe a typical scenario. There 

is a lot of variation, but you might have a cafeteria with a 30- 

minute lunch period, dozens if not hundreds of students coming 

through a line. Sometimes there is choice about what they take, 

not always. When they have their meal on their tray, they go to 

a cashier at the end of the line. That cashier needs to check the 

meal to make sure it is meeting nutrition standards and figure out 

who the child is to make sure that meal is marked down in the 

right meal category, free, reduced-price, or paid. 

Now, that is a process that has to happen very, very quickly 

when you have lots of students waiting in line and it is only when 

they get through that process that they finally get to eat. So, this 

is not a sophisticated interaction. We are talking about, maybe a 

seven-or eight-year-old and a cashier and it has to happen really 

fast, and that does create opportunities for errors. 

There are also more innovative models that are being tried now 

that can make it easier for kids to get meals. So, for example, for 

older students, there might be a cart in the hallway where you can 

pick up a breakfast and take it with you to class. That makes it 

much easier for students to eat. It also reduces errors related to 

what is in the meal because they are taking a prepackaged meal. 

But, that is a very fast transaction where you have to have a process for knowing who is taking the meal and keeping track of that. 

11 

Meals are sometimes served in the classroom. Again, the process 

is decentralized and that means there are sometimes opportunities 

for error and you need to react accordingly. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, thank you for that explanation. 

A question for you both. Is electronic data matching the method 

of additional verification that would be least burdensome to school 

food service providers. Which of the other methods of improving 

program integrity that you recommend will cause the least additional burden? 

Mr. LORD. Do you want to go first? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Sure. I will go ahead. So, data matching is used 

now at two different steps in the process, first, at the certification, 

which is the approval point, where you can use data from SNAP 

anywhere in the country and certain States are allowed to use 

Medicaid data to automatically enroll kids. The application process 

has been a source of error, and so the fewer families have to go 

through that process, the more that can be automatically enrolled, 

the more you reduce opportunities for error. 

The program has been moving in that direction. Over the last 

five years or so, many more students are directly certified. As a result, even though there are more children in the free or reduced 

price category now than there were because of the recession, 

schools have to process applications for two-and-a-half million 

fewer children. So, that is much less paperwork for schools. That 

is a great step forward. 

The other place where data can be used is at the verification 

stage. That is checking applications. That is where I think there 

is room to look at more data sources, as GAO recommended. 

I would caution against just expanding the number of kids that 

get verified because many families do not respond to that request, 

and if they do not, they lose benefits whether or not they are eligible. But, data could be a very good way of pinpointing applications—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. I am a little worried about the privacy issue. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Yes. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, I am more than a little worried, but 

at any rate, let me just say that I have a concern about holding 

States accountable to a different standard. We received a report 

from the Inspector General of the Food and Nutrition Service indicating, and I think my figures are accurate here errors of $1.9 billion in school lunch, errors of $770 million in school breakfast. We 

are not the Pentagon, or, for that matter, any other agency, but 

that is a considerable amount of money. I do not know if either one 

of you have had access to that information or if you would like to 

make a comment on that, but it is a concern of the committee. 

Mr. LORD. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. The improper payments rate overall for the programs is about 15.25 percent. The 

good news is it has declined slightly from last year, assuming, the 

data is reliable. At the same time, close to a billion dollars of the 

improper payments were in the certification area—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. Let me just—— 

Mr. LORD. —errors, so—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. I apologize for interrupting—— 

Mr. LORD. Sure. 

12 

Chairman ROBERTS. —but I am already over time and we have 

gone on a considerable amount of time. We have a lot of people 

waiting. But, basically, we have very large errors—$1.9 billion in 

school lunch, $770 million in school breakfast. It is my understanding that States are asked to audit every three years, but this 

last report, or the last report that we could come up with, was 

based on data from clear back in 2005. That has been ten years. 

So, I think we are holding the FNS and the Federal component of 

this, which, of course, is now playing a much stronger role, to a different standard than that of the States, and that is of concern to 

me. Why ten years? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. So, the reviews of districts do happen now every 

three years. The kind of report that you are talking about—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. Right. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. —is the nationally representative study that 

USDA does. It is a very in-depth report where they go out and 

interview households, they stand in cafeterias and watch what is 

on the tray to make sure there is accuracy. That kind of report is 

very important. It also is relatively costly and takes a long time to 

do. But, it provides the kind of information that can be very helpful 

to developing proposals for how to improve errors because you really get to the bottom of what is causing errors and what kind of errors are most prevalent and that allows you to design tailored solutions. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

In this area, we juggle, of course, the desire and the need to 

make sure that we are accurate, that children who need and qualify for lunches and breakfasts are getting it as opposed to those 

who should not be. On the other hand, we have situations where 

we do not want to add additional costs to the local schools who are 

juggling between administrative costs and actually providing quality meals, and so we have a number of issues to juggle. 

I know in the last bill that we did, having community eligibility 

put into place has made a huge difference in Michigan in schools 

being able to be more efficient and have more dollars going actually 

to feeding hungry children. 

But, Mr. Lord, first, it sounds like you were saying that the 

USDA has accepted your recommendations and are moving forward 

to make changes, is that my understanding? 

Mr. LORD. Yes, absolutely. They agreed with all of our report recommendations and recently provided an update of steps they are 

taking to implement them, which is, frankly, good news for the program. 

Senator STABENOW. That is great. That is wonderful. 

When we talk about program integrity measures, which are very 

important, they can have unintended consequences of removing 

children who actually should be getting food. Could you give us 

some examples when this happens and what approaches we can 

take to actually improve improper payments at the same time protecting access for children? What is the best way to do that? 

Mr. LORD. Well, as we highlighted in our report, we think you 

can attack this from various angles. Obviously, the verification 

process, we think, could be strengthened. Again, you can do it in 

13 

a way it is not going to adversely impact children truly in need. 

I get the sense the school districts are reluctant to do this, though, 

because of the lack of training, expertise, fear—— 

Senator STABENOW. Is it extra cost for them and the kinds of 

things that you are talking about? 

Mr. LORD. I believe it would impose some additional cost, but in 

the end, the net result would be, though, you are potentially freeing up some additional funds you could devote to the program, to 

those who are truly deserving. So, from a cost-benefit standpoint, 

I think it would be effective, but that is USDA’s call. They would 

have to do more additional studies on that. 

Senator STABENOW. I think that is always the juggling. 

Ms. Neuberger, talking about the verification steps and the additional administrative costs and how we balance that, obviously, we 

want integrity in these programs and we want every penny to go 

to children who need it, but even automated tools can be cost prohibitive for some schools that are on tight budgets. Do you believe 

additional investments in error reduction could come at the expense of improving meals, and when you look at the per meal reimbursement, what funding do they get to cover administrative costs 

associated with meal programs versus investments in technology, 

because I think we really need to understand this so that we can 

do this right. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. That is a really important question. At the 

school district level, schools get a per meal reimbursement. That is 

for free meals, just about $3 right now, and that has to cover all 

the costs associated with running the program. So, it is buying the 

food, it is the staff to serve it and prepare the food, and it is all 

of the administrative processes. There is not a separate funding 

stream to cover buying a software system or putting more staff in 

place to do these kinds of checks. So, it is really important to balance the goals here, because if too much of those funds have to go 

toward administrative processes, they are not available for food. 

At the Federal level, there have been grants to States to improve 

their technology systems and those seem to have been contributing 

to a reduction in that kind of error. So, that has been a great investment that is paying off. 

Senator STABENOW. The Chairman and I have been talking about 

the fact that particularly for very small schools—I went to school 

in one of those in Northern Michigan—it can become particularly 

difficult, and so we are interested in working with you on recommendations as it relates to very small schools, as well. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Yes. Would the Senator yield on that point? 

Senator STABENOW. Yes, I would be happy to. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I have not visited enough schools yet, but 

we are getting there, and there is a tremendous difference in the 

school that Cindy represents and other schools that are doing this. 

They are doing a pretty darn good job. Then you go to rural and 

small town America, and, I mean, real rural and small town America. They simply cannot keep pace with the regulations, the paperwork, et cetera, et cetera. Training, as Mr. Lord says, obviously 

would certainly help out. They are doing the best they can. So, this 

is not a one-size-fits-all. I know that is obvious to everybody here, 

14 

but I wanted to underscore what Senator Stabenow has said. I 

mean, we have got some real challenges out there. Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. I am going to reclaim my time and take one 

more question—ask one more question, and, Ms. Neuberger, for 

you, as well. We know that simple errors on applications—and this 

goes to how we—the bureaucracy and how we do all of this for families. It is not only the school, but we need to care from the families’ end of things in terms of what we are adding in bureaucracy. 

Simple errors on applications are often the cause of improper payments. So, it is not just intentional lack of reporting. If somebody 

makes a mistake—— 

Ms. NEUBERGER. That is right. 

Senator STABENOW. —they do not fill in a box, they do something 

that is simple but it creates that error that Mr. Lord is talking 

about. In some cases, errors result in children ending up having to 

pay for meals or they may not be paying for meals because of some 

simple error. 

So, to help make the system more efficient and ensure all children receive meals, what are, again, some of the ways applications 

can be improved, the actual application? I know that direct certification has been very successful. How can we better utilize the data 

matching to reduce errors so that we, again, from the families’ end, 

are not penalizing a child because somebody did not check a box? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. That is a great question. So, the first step is to 

make sure you are relying on data from other programs as often 

as possible, so as few children as possible go through the application process. That improves accuracy right there. 

But, then, there will always be children who are going through 

the application process and so you need to have it be a simple, understandable form. The process cannot be like other programs 

where you are sitting in an office with a professional eligibility 

worker who can provide a lot of information and ask a lot of followup questions. Typically, the application goes home, families fill it 

out on their own without assistance, and they may not know that 

you need to multiply weekly income by 4.3 to get your monthly income. They may not know who they are supposed to list in the 

household. 

It is very clear that people have trouble understanding the application, and one indicator of that is that in USDA’s study, they 

found that out of the children who did not get meals that they actually legitimately were eligible for, three-quarters of the time, that 

was because the family had understated their income on the application. So, these are families that bothered to apply, they qualified 

for the meals, but they did not get them because they misunderstood what was expected. 

USDA has just issued a brand new revamped application that is 

much simpler than the old version and should be helpful in terms 

of eliciting correct information, and they are just embarking on developing an electronic application, which is, again, very promising 

for making it easier for families and schools to get the right information. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Boozman. 

15 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess the question I would have would be, do we have districts 

that—Mr. Lord, do we have districts that you have knowledge of 

that are doing a much better job than the average in regard to the 

problem? Are there districts that we can learn from that we can 

then take their knowledge and push to other districts? 

Mr. LORD. Sure. I am sure there are, Senator, but unfortunately, 

our scope was confined to the 25 school districts we examined in 

detail. There are thousands of school districts across the nation. We 

did not have the time or resources to visit all of those, but we did 

get some important insights just from visiting the few we did examine in great detail. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. If I can add to that, with regard to direct certification, the use of data from other programs, USDA does rank 

State performance. There are States that are doing a fabulous job. 

West Virginia and Kansas are example of those, and you will have 

people on the next panel who can speak to that. Michigan is another great example where they have taken advantage of resources 

and made continuous improvements and got a performance bonus 

and are now directly certifying one hundred percent of the kids 

who they should be. So, there are great examples at the State and 

district level and USDA is working on sharing those best practices 

so that others can learn. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. I would like to just also acknowledge 

the importance of simplifying the application processes. I was on 

the school board for seven years, and the paperwork on these type 

of things, our poor special ed teachers that work so hard, the paperwork that they endure, and the list goes on and on. Again, I 

would just like to throw my two cents in that is something that, 

that does not cost any money. That ultimately saves a lot of money. 

There is just something about government—and I am part of government—that we just add to that burden, whether it is the IRS 

or this or anything else. So, again, I think that is very, very important, and hopefully, we can work to remedy that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, 

Ranking Member Stabenow, for holding this hearing. This is an 

issue that I care deeply about. I brought apples today, so this is 

the half-cup of apples that I am really hoping we can get in every 

school lunch program across New York. Lots of States have lots of 

great produce, but this is a half-cup, so for parents in the room, 

we know this is not a lot of—you brought your half-cup. I am going 

to put these in the anteroom. Staff can have them. I had a pack. 

They are really good. 

So, since we are talking about this issue of school meals, the one 

issue that I want this committee to remember, because I think it 

is so important, that we should not cut the standards. The Chairman said that 40—what did he say, 46 States applied for whole 

grain waivers. Those are just individual schools within 46 States, 

but 90 percent of schools are complying. So, we are actually doing 

16 

quite well in meeting the nutrition standards that we set aside in 

the last bipartisan bill on this topic. 

So, I really want to make sure we do not cut the requirements, 

specifically for the half-cup of fruits and vegetables, because as 

Senator Stabenow mentioned about obesity, if one in three kids are 

obese in this country, what are we doing? I mean, we need to make 

sure these kids understand they should be eating fruits and vegetables daily, that they are a really important part of how they grow, 

how they learn, how they are healthy. The rate of obese adults in 

this country is, again—and your statement about our military and 

having access to the men and women they need to be fit is a real 

concern. 

So, I think it is important for us to look at the dynamics of the 

fruits and vegetables requirement. If we are cutting the standards 

for school meals, I think the kids get the biggest hit. Who suffers 

most financially? Who loses the most business? It is actually farmers, and I want to talk about the farmers in my State and the 

farmers in other States on this committee. 

So, in Kansas, they produce honeydew melons, which I know my 

kids love, and that is a great school snack, to have access to real 

melons. In Mississippi, blueberries—kids love blueberries. Kentucky, blackberries. Arkansas, edamame, one of the most easy, fun 

vegetables for kids to eat. They love edamame. Sweet potatoes—we 

prefer them fried, but, yes, they are very good, too. Cherry farmers 

in Nebraska, fields greens in North Dakota, watermelon in South 

Dakota, peach growers in Georgia, and apple growers in New York. 

All of those farmers across the States represented by this committee would really be harmed if we reduced the standards for that 

half-cup. 

If we cut fruits and vegetables from our school meals, not only 

do the farmers suffer, but I really believe the kids suffer. My children benefit so much from having access to fresh fruits and vegetables every day, in every meal, and they love them as a consequence. They know how good it is to eat fresh fruits and vegetables during their meals. 

So, I am hoping that as we debate these issues going forward, 

we can focus specifically on how we keep these standards. 

Now, I know both of you are testifying specifically about how we 

can affect and change errors, so I want to talk specifically about 

that for a question. Ms. Neuberger, in your testimony, you mentioned that counting and claiming errors often result from busy 

lunchrooms where students have little time to select, pay for, and 

eat their meals. Many of these operational errors occur at point of 

sale. Should we consider making more resources available for point 

of sale systems to reduce errors and improve program integrity? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Thank you. Certainly, automated systems can 

make the process much easier. They do take an up-front investment and so you need to balance the costs involved with the simplifications and the error reduction. But, places that are using 

them generally report that they do simplify the process tremendously for students and for the school nutrition staff, who clearly 

have a lot of things that they are juggling in the lunchroom. And 

making that process simpler and more accurate is a great way to 

go. 

17 

Senator GILLIBRAND. You mentioned a bit about the community 

eligibility and that we need to eliminate the need for meal applications completely and eliminate much of the potential error. What 

can we do to lower the barriers to CEP participation by eligible districts and schools? What are your top recommendations to do that? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. So, it is actually a new option that is working 

very, very well right now. This is the first year that it is available 

nationwide. It builds on options that have been available for a long 

time, which are available to high poverty schools so that they do 

not have to go through the standard application process, where, essentially, they would be finding the few children who do not qualify 

for free or reduced price meals. In essence, the whole school qualifies to serve meals at no charge. 

With community eligibility, they do not take applications. They 

rely exclusively on data from other programs, so that reduces errors and opportunities for error. In USDA’s report, they found, as 

expected, that there were fewer errors in those schools. So, the 

school districts are realizing what an advantage that can be, and 

what they see is, because they do not have to spend time on paperwork, the savings that they get on the administrative side can be 

reinvested in meal quality and in serving all students at no charge. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I want 

to thank Ranking Member Stabenow for having this hearing, as 

well. You are both good to have us gather on these issues. We are 

grateful. 

I wanted to say, first, that we have two major concerns when we 

talk about these programs and about food insecurity. One, of 

course, we should start with the children. In Pennsylvania, we 

have not only a lot of children participating in both school lunch 

and school breakfast—in fiscal year 2014, over a million children 

in the School Lunch Program and a little more than 346,000 in the 

School Breakfast Program—but at the same time, we have almost 

a half-a-million children in poverty in our State. So, this is of great 

urgency and concern that we get this right. 

I have always been a believer that these programs, just like a 

number of other programs or strategies, can help us not only ensure that more children have a measure of food security and get 

the nutrition they need, but it can also help them learn, of course, 

and I have always believed that kids, if they learn more now, they 

are going to earn more later, and it is not just a rhyme, it is backed 

up by all the evidence. 

The second major concern we have, of course, is not only making 

sure these programs work for kids, but making sure they are administered in a way that is consistent with the expectations of taxpayers and use taxpayer dollars efficiently. So, I appreciate the fact 

that you are bringing to us not only kind of a diagnosis of where 

the problems are, but also remedies for improving both programs. 

Ms. Neuberger, I will get to you in a moment on kind of a broader question, but I want to ask you a specific question about the 

WIC Program, the Women, Infants, and Children Program. Your 

firm, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, just released a report with regard to new research linking prenatal and early childVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 May 03, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\96177.TXT MICAH
18 

hood participation in WIC with improved cognitive development as 

well as academic achievement. So, kids whose moms are participating in the WIC Program while pregnant scored higher on assessment of medical development at age two than similar children 

whose mothers did not participate. 

So, in light of this link between a program like that, the WIC 

Program, and the cognitive development of the child, and my learn 

means earn connection, can you walk through some of the benefits 

of WIC and why we should focus on that, as well? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Absolutely. WIC provides nutrition assistance 

for pregnant women and very young children and those are critical 

times for brain development, as we heard earlier. There is a large 

body of research that shows that WIC is successful in bringing participants very important improvements—improvements in health, 

improvements in their nutrition, eating healthier foods, improvements in breastfeeding rates, better connections to preventive care, 

higher immunization rates, and new findings on the link to cognitive development. So, that is a panoply of ways in which participating in the program can help low-income families and at this 

critical time, so that they get off to a better start. 

Senator CASEY. I appreciate that, and I think it bears repeating. 

Speaking of things we should repeat, could you walk through the 

four questions again that you had in your testimony, in other 

words, questions we should consider when we are analyzing these 

programs. I think it is very important to have that guidance. I just 

want to have you repeat it, because around here, it helps to repeat 

things. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Okay. Absolutely. So, does the proposal have a 

proven track record of reducing errors, and that is where all the 

research on this subject can be very helpful. 

Will it maintain program access for the most vulnerable children? So, of course, when you are reducing error rates, you do not 

want to have the unintended consequence of making it harder for 

kids who qualify for the meals and need them to get them. 

Then, is it administratively feasible? So, that goes to, there is not 

a one-size-fits-all solution. You need to think about what works. 

Fourth, is it cost effective? So, will the error reduction be worth 

the cost involved in setting up the system and not make it such a 

cumbersome process that it is more difficult for schools to administer. 

Senator CASEY. We may put those on a chart so we can have 

them in front of us. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CASEY. In the very limited time I have, Mr. Lord, I just 

want to ask you one question, and I may submit more to both of 

you for—written questions. 

On this question of direct certification, do you think that increasing participation in community eligibility and direct certification 

would help reduce improper payments? 

Mr. LORD. I believe it could, if applied properly. We looked at the 

direct certification for 23 households. We found errors in a couple, 

but in our discussions with USDA officials and as Ms. Neuberger 

pointed out, that would greatly relieve the administrative burden 

19 

at the school district level and has potential for streamlining the 

entire process. 

You just want to make sure the initial certifications at the SNAP 

level and other program levels are being done correctly. But, it is— 

I should point out, the improper payment rate in the SNAP Program is much smaller than the improper payment rate in the 

School Lunch Program, so that suggests that is a good way to go, 

based on just that comparison alone. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the 45 extra seconds. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Any time the gentleman requests additional—well, not maybe any time. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CASEY. I am ready. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator Casey. 

I want to thank the first panel. Thank you so much. The first 

panel is now concluded. I am sorry. 

Senator STABENOW. Is that because he is so far away? 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Thune, I apologize to you, sir. 

Senator THUNE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that I 

am down here a long ways—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. —at the children’s end of the table, so—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, a man has got to do what he has got 

to do. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. That is right. 

I appreciate you and Ranking Member Stabenow holding this 

hearing today, and as we do prepare to reauthorize the child nutrition legislation this coming year, we need to, I think, take an objective and bipartisan critical assessment of the programs and make 

sure that they are working in an efficient, effective, and accountable manner for the people that they are intended to help. 

I have serious concerns about the error rates in the National 

School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, which for the 2013 and 

2014 school year were 15.8 percent and 23.1 percent, respectively. 

Improper payments for these programs total almost $2.7 billion for 

the 2013–2014 school year, which is a staggering amount. Obviously, no one in this room wants any child to go hungry. We all 

know there are legitimate needs for food assistance. But, when we 

have programs with error rates that are $2.7 billion just for one 

school year, we simply have got to figure out how to put this money 

to better use. 

There is another area that I think needs attention of this committee and that is eligibility standards for these programs. Do the 

current standards result in child nutrition assistance being distributed wisely to the people who really need it the most? 

Just a couple of questions, if I might, for this panel. I would love 

to hear from the second panel, too, about the rigidity in the programs and the people who are actually out there on the front lines. 

I would love to get a sense for the standards and just the lack of 

flexibility that exists today and doing a better job of balancing nutritional offerings. So, anyway, I would love to hear from the second panel about that subject. 

20 

But, I guess the question I have for you is what would you 

change about the eligibility requirements of the current child nutrition assistance cadre of programs as they exist today? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. I think the important thing when you are talking about reducing errors and improper payments, which I think 

we all agree is a very important endeavor, is to create a culture 

of compliance with the rules. We want the rules to be followed. I 

do not think the rules themselves are the problem. I think it is 

helping people understand them, and there are lots of different 

people involved in the system. It is families when they are filling 

out applications. It is schools when they are running programs. It 

is States when they are administering them. So, I think that kind 

of day in and day out work is what is most important to reduce 

errors and reduce improper payments in the program. 

Senator THUNE. Okay. 

Mr. LORD. I would second that and also add it is important to, 

as a former President once famously stated, it is important to not 

only trust, but verify. I would add to that and say it is important 

to trust and verify in a meaningful manner. We found through our 

work that the verification process could be strengthened in several 

important ways, and I think that will serve the reduced improper 

payments rate and help drive that number down. 

Although, I should add, in response to what Ms. Neuberger noted 

on the counting side of the equation, over $700 million of the improper payments estimate is due to simple counting errors at the 

school district level. So, I think that is an area that could be addressed, as well, through technology, better training. So, there are 

some important ways they could drive that number down and enhance the operations of the program. 

Senator THUNE. So, do you believe that more State and/or local 

input on establishing eligibility requirements could be helpful in 

cutting down on some of the incorrect reimbursement rates? 

Mr. LORD. Well, personally, I think there are two ways to go at 

it. You have to, first, explore the potential of data analytics and 

computer matching to help simplify the process, make it more efficient, and you can do that at the State agency level without getting 

down to the school district level. 

But, at the school district level, again, I think there needs to be 

greater awareness about how to fill out applications completely, the 

need to periodically do spot checks of what people are reporting. 

So, I think you have to approach it in a multi-faceted manner, 

centrally at the State agency level as well as the school districts. 

As Ms. Neuberger pointed out, though, they are not as well 

equipped to do real vigorous verification. 

Senator THUNE. Right. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. One of the things that makes the school meal 

programs easier to understand and administer now is that they do 

have one set of rules that applies across the country, and that is 

an important simplification and source of fairness. I think it is important to consult with districts and States about what will work 

to help the programs run more smoothly and more accurately in 

their areas. But, that is not the same as considering changing the 

eligibility rules or other program rules. 

21 

Senator THUNE. Right. Do you think that categorical eligibility 

for school meals ought to be eliminated? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. No. That is basically the source of tremendous 

simplification. I mean, that is what allows families who are already 

getting SNAP benefits, where there is a very rigorous eligibility determination, to get free school meals. Their income levels are going 

to be at or below the levels that are already set within the school 

meal programs. So, basically, that is a tremendous simplification 

right now and I think it—— 

Senator THUNE. So, if that is true, then which ones should be 

utilized the most? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Right now, anyplace in the country is allowed 

to use data from the SNAP Program or TANF cash assistance. 

There are certain other categories, like children who are homeless 

or in foster care, that can also be automatically eligible. Medicaid 

is only available for use in seven States right now, and so that is 

a potential—there is untapped potential there where additional 

States could benefit from utilizing that data. 

Senator THUNE. Good. All right. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I thank this panel and will look forward to the testimony 

from the next one. Thanks. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to do a quick follow-up, Mr. Lord. You were talking 

about how, as we look to simplification but also making sure we 

are rigorous in our oversight standards and so on, you indicated 

the SNAP Program has a smaller error rate, which it does, one of 

the smallest in the Federal Government in terms of overall errors, 

and that there is a larger error rate in the food program. So, if we 

were going more in the direction of tying it to SNAP, community 

eligibility, which has saved a lot of money in Michigan and been 

very effective, is that what you were suggesting, looking at SNAP, 

which actually has more rigorous oversight, lower error rate, and 

tying it to that might actually accomplish both goals of simplification and also tightening things up? 

Mr. LORD. That was—yes, that is what I was suggesting, and I 

was citing the OMB figures on their estimated improper payments 

rate. 

Senator STABENOW. Right. 

Mr. LORD. You know, there is some degree of imprecision with 

it, but that alone suggests SNAP, even though there are some errors in the program—— 

Senator STABENOW. Right. 

Mr. LORD. —when you rely on that method to enroll people in 

the school meals, it is—— 

Senator STABENOW. It is actually less—— 

Mr. LORD. Yes—— 

Senator STABENOW. —because I think it is below three percent, 

if I remember right—— 

Mr. LORD. Yes, it is—— 

Senator STABENOW. —right now, which is a very—it is actually 

the lowest error rate of anything that we have in—— 

Mr. LORD. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW. —agriculture programs, so—— 

22 

Mr. LORD. It is around three percent, and again, the National 

School Lunch Program is 15.25 percent. 

Senator STABENOW. Right. 

Mr. LORD. So, it is much higher. 

Senator STABENOW. So, that is an interesting—I just think that 

is an interesting thing for us to highlight. 

Mr. LORD. Although—— 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LORD. Okay. One last point. In our report, even though we 

did note that if you are deemed categorically eligible for a program 

through programs such as SNAP, though, under the current 

verification process, you are excluded completely from verification. 

So, our point was you may want to subject some of those categorically eligible applications to scrutiny. 

Senator STABENOW. Thanks very much. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I am sorry. We had a hearing on patent reform, which was quite exciting, or I would have been here earlier. 

Thank you, Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow 

for holding this important hearing to review the child nutrition 

programs in advance of our work to reauthorize the program. 

I worked hard in the last reauthorization to strengthen local 

wellness policies, to update the nutrition standards for child care 

centers and after-school programs, and also to ensure that vending 

machines and a la carte choices would not undercut good nutrition 

in the sale of junk foods. I think we all know how important 

schools are to our kids’ nutrition. I am proud of the work that we 

have done in the bill and I think we know that we have seen some 

improvements, but I think we also know that there are problems 

ahead if we do not continue this work to make sure the kids get 

the most nutritious meals possible when they are at school. 

The 2010 reauthorization of child nutrition programs specified 

that USDA conduct a review of food items provided under the WIC 

Program at least every ten years based on the Institute of Medicine 

recommendations. Some have argued that the review process 

should be expedited in certain circumstances. 

Ms. Neuberger, does the current review timeline keep pace with 

scientific advances on the nutritional quality of fruits and vegetables, and what can be done to improve the process? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. There is a review underway right now, so I just 

want to make sure everybody is aware of that, so that is working 

as planned. The rule is actually that the review has to happen at 

least every ten years, but it can happen more often than that if 

there is reason. So, if there were important changes in dietary recommendations, that might warrant a more frequent review. But, I 

think the rule that is in place makes sense. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Very good. 

It has been estimated by the Journal of Health Economics that 

nearly 20 percent of annual medical spending in the U.S. is obesity 

related. How does this factor into the decision about how we reauthorize this bill? Either of you can answer that. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. I think we have talked early on—— 

23 

Mr. LORD. Yes. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Both programs, school meals and WIC have tremendous benefits in terms of helping children achieve the health 

and development outcomes you would like to see as well as better 

preparing them for learning. So, they are critical investments, particularly for low-income children who may not have access to adequate nutrition elsewhere, to help them develop properly, stay 

healthy, and be ready to learn at school. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Thank you. 

Could you comment, also, on the potential cuts to the child nutrition programs under the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution that we 

have just been talking about on the floor, Ms. Neuberger? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. I mean, broadly speaking, we would be very 

concerned about the consequences for low-income families in that 

agreement. That is not specific to these programs, but across the 

programs that families rely on when they are struggling to feed 

kids or make ends meet. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. Just one last thing, back to the WIC 

Program that we just talked about. As it plays a critically important role in promoting the health of pregnant and postpartum 

mothers as well as young children. The continued success of the 

program is contingent on sound cost control, and I understand that 

States that are given flexibility to develop their own food list based 

on USDA’s minimum standards, and yet some of the States leave 

lower-cost products off the list of approved foods. Without dictating 

to States their WIC food list, how can we incentivize States to consider cost controls when determining approved food items? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Just to be clear, WIC is a Federal program. 

Most of the rules are Federal. There are certain areas where there 

is State flexibility. States have a built-in incentive to contain costs 

in WIC—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Because they have limited—— 

Ms. NEUBERGER. —because they get a limited amount of federal 

funds. So, the more efficiently they can use that money, the more 

people they can serve, and that has been very motivating. WIC is 

a very cost effective program. WIC costs have increased at about 

half the rate of inflation over time. It is a very sound investment 

and States have played an important part in that. So, the way the 

program is structured really contributes to that incentive structure. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lord, did you want to add anything for any of these questions? 

Mr. LORD. Not on the WIC, no, Senator. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Very good. Thank you very much, 

and I am glad you are here. It is a very important topic, and as 

I said, the last bill that Senator Stabenow was involved in, and I 

know Senator Roberts on the committee and now leading the committee, I think was very important and we have made some great 

strides and we need to continue improvement in the nutrition 

standards. Thank you to both of you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Tillis. 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Ms. Neuberger or Mr. Lord, I want to look back at the program. 

I am from North Carolina. I was Speaker of the House and I 

24 

worked a lot with the various school systems. We have 115 school 

systems in North Carolina. They seem to be both supportive and 

against certain components of the food nutrition programs in terms 

that they like the potential benefits, but they do not like the overhead, or they do not necessarily like how the regulations required 

them to implement the nutrition programs. 

Has there been any work done to try and figure out how we can 

measure outcomes, and that is a question I had for you, Mr. Lord. 

I know that you and the GAO are evaluating the verification process, making sure the people who are entitled to it get it and those 

who do not do not, but what about the more fundamental question 

of the baseline when this program started, the year over year improvement in outcomes, which at the end of the day is the children’s health and making sure that they are fed. Are we measuring 

those outcomes in a scientific way and identifying best practices 

and intervening when they are compliant with the program but not 

producing positive outcomes? 

Mr. LORD. Well, I know Ms. Neuberger is probably more well 

versed on that. But, in terms of the outcome measures for the 

verification process, that was one of our suggestions to USDA. They 

are collecting—they have recently started collecting a lot of good information on the so-called ‘‘for cause’’ verification process, but they 

mix it together with other reporting, so it is unclear to us what the 

outcomes of all their efforts to conduct ‘‘for cause’’ verifications, and 

those are reviews of questionable applications. So, at least in that 

one area I am very familiar with, there is broad agreement they 

need to do a better job in looking at outcome measures in that 

area. That is verification related, and perhaps Ms. Neuberger can 

comment on the broader nutritional outcomes. 

Senator TILLIS. Ms. Neuberger. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Sure. There is generally quite a lot of research 

on the positive benefits of these programs. In particular, for example, children who eat breakfast at school have been shown to have 

fewer behavior issues, less absence and tardiness, and better performance at school. So, that is a clear area where there is a strong 

tie between participating in the meal programs and the kind of 

educational outcomes we would like to see in schools. 

Senator TILLIS. One question I have, I do not know if it is anecdotal or something that we need to look at more, but you hear the 

stories of putting—I am not going to pick a vegetable, because I always make a segment of agriculture mad when I do—but let us 

just say a vegetable that, for whatever reason, kids do not like yet, 

and administrators are concerned that they are satisfying the letter 

of the regulations, but a lot of that goes into the trash. Do we have 

any data to get beyond anecdotal to where there may be something 

else you could put on that plate to make sure the young person’s 

belly is full and more efficient with what we are putting on their 

plate? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. I hope that you will ask that question in the 

second panel, because we have some program operators who—— 

Senator TILLIS. I am going to. I just do not know if I am going 

to be here, so I thought I would at least get it out. 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Right. There is research on the extent to which 

children are eating the meals. This is not an area that I focus on, 

25 

so it is not my expertise, but it has shown that there is less waste 

under the new rules than there was previously, and there is certainly always room for improvement. But, it is important to know 

that things seem to be moving in the right direction in terms of figuring out how to get kids to eat healthy foods. 

Senator TILLIS. I think that is one of the concerns expressed by 

a lot of the people. I met with some members of the School Boards 

Association and Superintendents Association. That seems to be a 

concern that they have expressed and I think it is an area we need 

to investigate. In the next panel, I hope I am here so that I can 

brag a little bit on our farm-to-school initiatives in North Carolina, 

because we have been very aggressive in that area and I think it 

is very beneficial. We need to do more of it, convince those kids 

that Brussels sprouts are actually really good, particularly when 

they know where they came from. 

But, I am going to hold and allow us to move to the next panel 

and reserve my questions for that panel. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, Senator Tillis, I have been known to 

eat a Brussels sprout or two, but always with cheese on it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator TILLIS. Mine is with bacon. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, with bacon and cheese, it might work 

out, but I have problems with the cheese, too, but then that is another whole nut. We do not want to go there at this particular 

time. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Heitkamp. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

this important hearing. Making sure our children have every opportunity to succeed is something I think the entire committee believes in, and this is a good place to start, when we are talking 

about child nutrition and basically giving them the opportunity to 

grow up healthy and learn throughout the day. 

Nutrition standards set in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, I 

think, are an important first step to help create a healthier and 

more prepared next generation. But, we should also make sure that 

the schools have the tools they need to provide healthy meals. 

In North Dakota, 100 percent of our schools, I am proud to say, 

are meeting the standards, and a couple months ago, only one 

school had asked for a waiver on the whole grain pasta requirement. So, that is pretty incredible in a State that has a fairly high 

rate of problems as it relates to obesity. 

However, the Pew study found that 74 percent of North Dakota’s 

schools still need at least one piece of school equipment, kitchen 

equipment, in order to meet the standards, and Senator Collins 

and I have introduced a bill to help schools purchase new equipment and provide them with technical assistance on food preparation and meeting the standards. I just want to put a plug in for 

the School Food Modernization Act, which I think will give the 

tools to many of our people who serve our children every day, and 

by that I mean literally and figuratively, the equipment and the 

tools that they need. This is especially important in rural schools, 

where the school districts are already strapped, where you have a 

small population but a huge need for upgrading. 

26 

I have said it many times. My mom was a lunch lady, so I am 

especially partial to the School Lunch Program. I know what that 

had meant. I know what she did every day to try and put nutritious and good food on the table. I also knew that there were kids 

that I went to school with where that may have been the only meal 

that they got all day. She took that responsibility seriously. 

We have been talking a lot, Mr. Lord, about program integrity 

and making sure people who should not be participating in the program are not. Obviously, the surfer dude hit the news last year in 

a big way. But, Ms. Neuberger noted that one in four applications 

were denied despite actual household circumstance. We are wondering, as we close the loophole and make sure that we do not have 

fraud in this program, how can we make sure more kids get into 

this program who actually need these nutritious meals, who actually need that backpack going home on the weekend? 

Mr. LORD. Well, I think you need to raise awareness and perhaps 

do additional outreach at the school district level. I think there is 

good awareness of the program, but in some pockets, perhaps there 

is not. So, that is part of your outreach campaign for the program. 

You always want to be sure those who are deserving are in the program, but—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. So, we have done outreach. I am looking for 

a new solution. 

Mr. LORD. Well, that is probably, in my humble opinion, Senator, 

that is something that the next panel could probably better address. They are obviously working at the local level and they probably have really good perspective on that. I have the global view. 

Senator HEITKAMP. But, I think you take my point seriously, 

which is we have fraud, but we also have a lot of kids who go home 

hungry and that has got to be part of this discussion. 

Ms. Neuberger, can you suggest any ideas on how we can expand 

awareness or how we can expand participation for children who go 

hungry? 

Ms. NEUBERGER. Sure. Awareness is certainly an important part 

of it, making the programs accessible and making sure they stay 

that way. So, we have focused quite a lot on the ways that you can 

improve accuracy and make sure the programs are working as they 

should. It is important at every step of the way to make sure that 

you are not putting barriers in the way for families who qualify for 

the programs and need the benefits. That balance is an important 

way of making sure that the programs remain available to students. 

Some of the approaches we talked about earlier, of relying on 

data from other programs, the community eligibility provision, 

where very high-poverty schools can serve meals at no charge to all 

students, are ways to make it easier for low-income families to get 

those benefits. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you. I yield the rest of my time. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Brown and Senator Bennet have questions for the next 

panel, so I think, unless I am mistaken, this concludes the contributions from the first panel. Thank you so much for coming and 

thank you for your very valuable testimony. 

If we could now have the second panel please come forward. 

27 

[Pause.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I think, in the interest of time, we are going 

to introduce all of the witnesses. Each one, of course, deserves their 

timely moment of fleeting fame before the committee. 

We would like to welcome Mr. Brian Riendeau. He joins us today 

from Louisville, Kentucky, where he is the Executive Director at 

Dare to Care Food Bank. Earlier in his career, Mr. Riendeau also 

led Government and Community Affairs for the KFC Corporation— 

I think everybody understands who that is—and served as a Legislative Assistant for Senate Majority Leader—let me see, that would 

be Mitch McConnell, would it not? 

Senator STABENOW. Oh, I cannot remember. 

Chairman ROBERTS. You cannot remember? All right. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you for being here today. We look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Richard Goff of the Office of Child Nutrition from West Virginia and their Department of Education is next. Mr. Goff joins us 

today on behalf of the West Virginia Department of Education, 

where he has served as Executive Director of the Office of Child 

Nutrition since 2005. He has 26 years of experience with the West 

Virginia Department of Education, including work with the Child 

and Adult Care Food Program. In his current role, he oversees development of policies and program administration related to all 

child nutrition programs. Welcome. I look forward to your testimony, sir, and your insight. 

Ms. Cindy Jones of the Olathe Unified School District 233. I am 

especially happy to introduce to the committee Ms. Jones, who 

serves as the Business Management Coordinator for Food Service 

at the Olathe Public Schools in Kansas. She has worked for the 

Olathe Public Schools Food Service for over 20 years. She started 

at 17, as I recall. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. She currently serves as the Public Policy 

and Legislation Committee Chair in the School Nutrition Association of Kansas and has also served as Vice President and President. I certainly look forward to Cindy’s testimony and her insight. 

Dr. Sandra Hassink, who is President of the American Academy 

of Pediatrics. She currently serves as President, and hails from 

Wilmington, Delaware. The doctor has focused her career on preventing and treating obesity in children. She is a pediatrician at 

Nemours Alfred I. DuPont Hospital for Children, where she founded the weight management program in 1988, serves as the Director 

of the Nemours Pediatric Obesity Initiative. The doctor began her 

medical career at the Vanderbilt School of Medicine as one of only 

12 women in her graduating class. Thank you for being here today. 

I look forward to all of your testimony. We will start with you, 

sir, Mr. Riendeau. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN RIENDEAU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

DARE TO CARE FOOD BANK, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 

Mr. RIENDEAU. Thank you, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member 

Stabenow, and the members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today. I am honored to represent Feeding America’s 

28 

network of 200 food banks that serve more than 46 million people 

in need, including 12 million children. 

Dare to Care Food Bank works with more than 300 agencies 

across 13 counties in Kentucky and Indiana. Our service area 

spans nearly 4,000 square miles and includes urban, suburban, and 

rural areas. 

I am here today to tell you that child hunger is real, real in the 

communities we serve and it is real across this great country, and 

it is a particularly stark reality when children are not in school. 

But, I am also here to tell you today that we can solve child hunger. Through innovative public-private partnerships and strong 

Federal nutrition programs, we can ensure all children have access 

to enough food for an active and healthy life. I am here to ask you 

to help us make good programs even better. 

Food banks like mine cannot do our work without the Federal 

Summer Food Service Program and the Child and Adult Care Food 

Program. If certain changes were made to these programs, we 

could reach even more kids in need. 

My food bank provides more than 1,000 hot meals a day to kids 

throughout the year. Children who visit our partner sites will not 

only receive a nutritious meal, but they will have a safe alternative 

to being on the streets. They get tutoring, mentoring, and sports. 

But, far too many children cannot reach summer and after-school 

meal programs, particularly in the summer. In fact, the Summer 

Food Service Program in my State reaches less than ten percent of 

the low-income kids and only 18 percent nationally. 

Why is that? Well, at Dare to Care, our programs are concentrated in Jefferson County, an urban county where summer programming and services are available and where many of our children can get to sites. The current summer feeding model, which requires children to consume meals at a designated site, works great 

in these instances where children have already congregated for tutoring and mentoring. 

However, we face two challenges in reaching kids in our more 

rural communities, lack of sites and transportation. Those communities simply lack facilities where kids can congregate and consume 

a meal, which makes the on-site feeding requirement difficult or 

impossible to comply with. Even schools in those counties that try 

to provide summer feeding report low participation rates because 

kids are not able to travel to the site each day. 

There are several policy changes that you can make that would 

help Dare to Care Food Bank reach more kids during the summer 

and after school, and we believe it will require a two-part strategy. 

First, we need to strengthen the site-based model by streamlining 

Federal programs and making it easier for community providers to 

expand the number of sites available to children. Currently, we 

have to operate two different Federal programs, one during the 

school year and another in the summer, even if we are serving the 

same kids the same meals at the same sites year round. Moving 

to one program will allow us to focus on feeding kids and not pushing paperwork. Additionally, lowering the area eligibility threshold 

from 50 percent to 40 percent will expand the number of sites 

available and align SFSP eligibility with other federally funded 

youth programs. 

29 

Second, no two communities are the same. We need to continue 

to maintain strong national standards and accountability while 

providing new program models that local communities can tailor to 

best meet their circumstances to really make progress in closing 

the summer gap. Dare to Care currently runs privately funded programs to fill this gap. Our backpack program in rural communities 

provides children with nutritious foods on the weekends and in the 

summer, but limited resources mean that we cannot provide a 

backpack to every kid who needs one. 

We have also looked into mobile summer feeding programs, but 

our rural communities are so small and far apart that the time requirement of having kids eat a full meal before we can go to the 

next location, as required, would limit the number of children we 

serve and, therefore, be cost prohibitive. Waiving the congregate requirement to allow innovative program models in hard-to-reach 

areas will address these barriers and significantly expand the number of children we reach. 

Finally, the summer EBT demonstration projects provide another 

model that has been effective at both reducing food insecurity and 

increasing nutrition. In this model, families of children receiving 

free or reduced price school meals are given an EBT card to purchase food at retail stores during the summer. We would like to see 

this program significantly expanded in communities that have high 

need and are particularly difficult to reach. 

I would like to close by saying that I am convinced that child 

hunger is a solvable problem. It is going to require collaboration between government, business, and nonprofit stakeholders, and we 

are counting on you to make closing the summer hunger gap a top 

priority in the child nutrition reauthorization and to give food 

banks like mine the tools we need to serve every hungry child. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify and I am happy to take 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Riendeau can be found on page 

101 in the appendix.] 

Senator BOOZMAN. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

Mr. Goff. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD GOFF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CHILD NUTRITION, WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT 

OF EDUCATION, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. GOFF. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am 

the State Director in West Virginia and I would like to give you 

my perspective of the last two reauthorizations and how we implemented them at the State agency level. 

In April of 2007, the IOM released the report, ‘‘Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools.’’ Nine months later, West Virginia adopted those standards in our Standards for School Nutrition Policy. 

The progressive standards were implemented in the cafeteria and 

outside the cafeteria. We required schools to have more fresh fruits 

and vegetables. We also implemented the skim and one-percent 

milk provision. Our sodium standard was 1,100 milligrams of sodium, which is a little bit more stringent than the tier one requirement. We also adopted the whole grain rich standard, and this was 

all back in 2008. 

30 

We do not permit a la carte sales in West Virginia. When children enter the cafeteria, they get a unitized meal that meets the 

meal pattern for USDA. We just felt that it was the right thing nutritionally for the student and financially for the school district. 

Also, outside the cafeteria, we implemented the competitive sales 

rules that the IOM recommended for all foods sold, served, and distributed to students during the school day. We removed soft drink 

machines and sugary sweetened beverages. Junk food machines, 

vending machines, and school stores had to meet the nutrition 

standards set forth by the IOM. 

We also addressed healthy fundraising and required that if inschool fundraising was to occur during the school day on school 

property, that it had to meet the nutrition standards, as well. 

We also instituted the professional standards at the time and 

had a staffing requirement whereby we required continuing education hours and a certain level of a degree for the food service director at the district level. 

Additionally, we did something different, as well. We addressed 

the food coming in from outside sources. We had done everything 

that we could to ensure that the school environment was a safe and 

healthy learning environment in the cafeteria and throughout the 

school environment, yet we were turning a blind eye to what was 

coming in the back door in the form of parties and things of that 

nature. So, we instituted a provision to address that, as well. 

In 2010, in anticipation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, 

we redirected our focus on the technology and we developed a 

State-wide automated electronic system whereby every public 

school in West Virginia uses the same point of sale software. Students that come through the public school system in West Virginia 

a lot of times will just put their finger, their index finger, on a biometric scanning pad and it logs and categorizes the meal. That has 

increased efficiency and accountability in the program and has dispensed with a lot of the over-claiming problems that other school 

districts were seeing. 

The direct certification match when you have a Statewide system 

like this, it is done at the State agency level. We do the direct certification match as well as the determination for community eligibility at the State agency and we push the data down to the 

schools. Once schools figure their claim for reimbursement, that 

data is loaded up to the district level and then pushed to the State 

agency level. So, the interface goes both ways, from the State agency to the school, from the school to the State agency. 

By doing that, we were able to have Statewide eligibility. So, as 

needy families typically move around throughout the State, what 

we were able to do is focus on ensuring that their meal eligibility 

benefits were not interrupted. No longer were they required to submit an application at the new school district. Eligibility followed 

them, just like their name or their student ID did. 

This also made it easy for us to monitor the system and improve 

efficiency and the integrity of the system. The three-year monitoring cycle, when we went from a five-year to a three-year, was 

not a burden for us. Fifty percent of our monitoring is completed 

in our office, at the central office at the State agency level in 

Charleston before we even enter the field. We have a great relaVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 May 03, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\96177.TXT MICAH
31 

tionship with the SNAP and TANF and foster child folks to get 

that data electronically. Direct certification is then uploaded on a 

weekly basis. 

We also piloted the second year community eligibility. The first 

year, West Virginia was not selected, but we did it anyway. We piloted it at a State agency level on something called the West Virginia Universal Free Meals Pilot Project. CEP is very alive and 

thriving in West Virginia. Fifty-four percent of all of our public 

schools are community eligible in West Virginia, and I am very 

proud of that. 

The key to that working was an Act that we brought about called 

the Feed to Achieve Act that was enacted, our State legislature 

passed, that realigned school breakfasts with the instructional day. 

I am about to run out of time. The Act passed without a fiscal note 

and actually built upon the programs that we already had in place 

and ensured that all children would receive at least two reimbursable meals per day. 

Thank you, and I will take questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goff can be found on page 52 in 

the appendix.] 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Jones. 

STATEMENT OF CINDY JONES, BUSINESS MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR, FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY, OLATHE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 233, OLATHE, KANSAS 

Ms. JONES. First, I want to thank you for inviting me here today 

to testify. School nutrition professionals across Kansas are working 

hard to ensure children receive the nutrition required for their 

health and academic success. Hungry children simply cannot learn 

and thrive. 

Olathe Public Schools is the second largest school district in Kansas. I am responsible for all financial aspects of our nutrition programs. Our department has 275 employees serving 24,000 meals 

per day on a $12.5 million budget. Twenty-seven percent of our students receive free or reduced price meals. 

At Olathe, we are committed to delivering nutritious meals. 

Thanks to our universal free breakfast in the classroom program 

in five elementary schools, we are serving 850 more healthy breakfasts each day, resulting in fewer tardies and absentees and better 

behavior as students are no longer complaining about being hungry. We also participate in summer feeding, serving 1,900 meals 

per day. Expanding access to these critical services has helped our 

program remain financially sound while providing the nutrition 

that is vital to our students. 

Even before the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, school nutrition 

professionals had been working hard to improve school menus. In 

our district, we have offered unlimited fruits and vegetables, served 

whole grains, and meet limits on calories and unhealthy fats by reducing sodium. 

However, we faced many challenges. Under the new rules, many 

students are now bringing meals from home. Our elementary 

school participation has dropped more than nine percent, and at 

32 

the secondary schools, revenue has dropped as many students have 

stopped purchasing a la carte choices. 

Almost all the students leaving the lunch program are paid students. If this trend continues, the school cafeteria will no longer be 

a place where all students go to eat, but rather a place where poor 

students go to get their free meals. We have worked for years to 

fight this stigma, so it is heartbreaking to see our progress decline. 

Kansas students are leaving the program for a variety of reasons. 

Paid lunch equity mandates forced many schools to raise lunch 

prices. Many families do not qualify for meal assistance, but are 

struggling financially. As we continue to raise prices, some will no 

longer be able to afford to eat with us and the financial losses may 

force our program to cut staff, so they are impacting the community 

Smart Snacks rules have led to huge declines in a la carte sales, 

too, with an estimated loss of $700,000 in revenue. Items such as 

our fresh to go salads had to be taken off the menu because the 

small amounts of meat, cheese, and salad dressings do not meet 

the sodium and fat requirements. Our sub sandwich was a very 

popular a la carte item, but to meet the rules, we had to shrink 

their size, remove the cheese, and switch to whole grain bread. 

Now, we sell very few. 

We also have opportunities to serve diet soda, sugar-free gum, 

and coffee. We have chosen not to serve these items, but it just 

shows you how these regulations do not always make sense. 

Despite our best efforts to make meals more appealing, we are 

struggling with student acceptance. We are particularly challenged 

to find whole grain-rich tortillas, pizza crust, and other specialty 

items that appeal to our students. 

Every student must now take a fruit or vegetable with their 

meals, whether they intend to eat it or not. As a result, we have 

seen an increase in good food going to waste in our schools. We promote fruit and vegetable choices with free samples and ‘‘I Tried It’’ 

stickers to encourage consumption, but forcing students to take 

fruits and vegetables turns a healthy choice into a negative experience. Encourage and educate instead of require is always the best 

option. 

Olathe Schools’ meal program is self-supporting and operates on 

a tight budget. After labor and supply costs, insurance, utilities, 

and equipment and other expenses, we are left with just over a dollar to spend on food for each lunch tray. Imagine going to the grocery store with just five dollars to spend for a family of four, including milk, fruit, vegetable, and a healthy entree. Could you do that 

every day of the week? 

My involvement in the School Nutrition Association of Kansas 

has allowed me to witness the accomplishments and the challenges 

of colleagues all across Kansas and Missouri. Some districts have 

overcome challenges under the new rules, particularly those with 

high free and reduced price eligibility, which provides higher reimbursements and participation and access to Federal grants and programs. However, many districts like Olathe are struggling with reduced revenue, declining participation, and the higher cost of preparing meals. We do not have access to many Federal grants. 

33 

That is why it is vital to allow flexibility, so all programs can be 

successful for the students and families we serve. There is a lot of 

negative press about school nutrition programs asking for flexibility. To me, this is very hurtful. We are only asking for flexibility 

to ensure all school nutrition programs are successful. Have faith 

in the knowledge that all school nutrition professionals want the 

very best for America’s children. After all, they are our children 

and grandchildren, too. 

Thank you for the opportunity. I will take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones can be found on page 66 

in the appendix.] 

Senator STABENOW. [Presiding.] Yes. 

Dr. Hassink. 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA G. HASSINK, M.D., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 

Dr. HASSINK. Thank you and good morning, and I would like to 

thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow and the 

members of the committee for inviting me here today. 

As I was introduced, I am Dr. Sandra Hassink and I am President of the American Academy of Pediatrics, a nonprofit professional organization of 62,000 primary care pediatricians and pediatric medical and surgical sub-specialists whose mission it is to attain the optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being 

for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. It is an 

honor to be here today speaking about a subject to which I have 

dedicated my life’s work, childhood obesity and the connection between nutrition and health. 

The foundations of child health are built upon ensuring the three 

basic needs of every child: Sound and appropriate nutrition; stable, 

responsive, and nurturing relationships; and safe and healthy environments and communities. Meeting these needs for each child is 

fundamental to achieving and sustaining optimal health and wellbeing into adulthood for every child. 

Early investments in child health and nutrition are crucial. The 

time period from pregnancy through early childhood is one of rapid 

physical, cognitive, emotional, and social development, and because 

of this, this time period in a child’s life can set the stage for a lifetime of good health and success in learning and relationships, or 

it can be a time of toxic stress when physical, mental, and social 

health and learning are compromised. 

Micro-nutrients, such as iron and folate, have demonstrated effects on brain development, but are commonly deficient in pregnant 

women and young children in the United States. These deficiencies 

can lead to delays in attention, motor development, poor short-term 

memory, and lower IQ scores. 

One of the most effective investments Congress can make during 

the prenatal to school-age period is to support the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or 

WIC, and I thank the committee for its strong bipartisan support 

for WIC over the past four decades. WIC helps give children a 

healthy start at life by providing nutritious foods, nutrition education, and breastfeeding support. Children who receive WIC have 

improved birth outcomes, increased rates of immunization, better 

34 

access to health care through a medical home, and participation 

may help reduce childhood obesity. 

WIC has also played an important role in promoting 

breastfeeding and improving breastfeeding initiation. We recommend that the committee seek to find ways to promote 

breastfeeding initiation and continuation even further in the WIC 

program, including by an increase in the authorization for the 

Breastfeeding Peer Counseling Program for $180 million. 

WIC is a targeted intervention for mothers and young children 

with impacts that can be long-term in nature, including improved 

health outcomes, educational prospects, and the prosperity of our 

communities. As a pediatrician, I have seen firsthand the importance of nutrition in child health. 

When I started my practice in childhood weight management 27 

years ago, I was seeing adolescents. When I retired last October, 

I had a special clinic for children under five with obesity, and we 

were seeing infants. These children were already showing the effects of their increased body mass index on blood pressure and 

measures of blood sugar control. We saw obesity-related liver disease in four-year-olds and in children with pre-diabetes at age six. 

Today, our children are experiencing an unprecedented nutritional crisis resulting in the double burden of food insecurity and 

obesity. The connecting factor for both is poverty. The highest rates 

of obesity are found in people with the lowest incomes, and increasingly, the picture of food insecurity in children is that of a child 

with overweight or obesity consuming a poor quality diet. Good nutrition is not only an essential component of chronic disease prevention and treatment, it also helps treat the effects of chronic 

hunger. 

WIC is just one intervention to address the double burden. Families, our schools, child care communities, and certainly pediatricians play an important role in shaping healthy habits. When you 

are in the middle of an epidemic, you cannot keep doing what you 

have always been doing. As pediatricians, parents, community 

leaders, and policy makers, we have an obligation to ensure that 

the food we provide our children is healthy and nutritious and that 

we model healthy eating as adults. 

Good nutrition in childhood sets the stage for lifelong health, and 

just like we vaccinate to protect against illness, we can also vaccinate against chronic disease by providing pregnant women and 

children with nutritional assistance and breastfeeding support. 

As we celebrate our mothers this weekend, I urge the committee 

to put mothers’ and children’s nutritional needs first. Our children’s health simply cannot wait. 

Thank you, and I will be happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hassink can be found on page 58 

in the appendix.] 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. We will proceed with 

questions. I know the Chairman will be returning in just a moment. 

So, thank you to each of you for your comments. We very much 

appreciate them, and Dr. Hassink, thank you very much for reminding us all what this is really about in terms of children and 

35 

health and the stake we have in children being healthy and having 

a chance to succeed. 

Mr. Goff, I wanted to start with you, because when I think of 

West Virginia, you have all kinds of schools, you have rural, you 

have urban, and yet your State is 100 percent compliant with the 

new meal standards, including Smart Snacks. It looks like you 

were ahead of the game, anticipating things. I want to congratulate 

you and the State for that, and I am wondering how you were able 

to help your schools in the State to be able to achieve the goals. 

Secondly, when many schools rely on the a la carte sales to supplement their budgets, and we understand tight budgets for schools, 

but the change to healthier items does not seem to have impacted 

your schools. So, how did you help schools be able to achieve and 

how is it you were able to do that, including a la carte sales, in 

a way that did not hurt your schools? 

Mr. GOFF. Okay. Thank you for the kind comments. When we 

adopted the IOM standards in 2008, right after they were released, 

and we put together a very comprehensive implementation plan, as 

far as bringing the schools on board, we went through the black 

eyes like everyone else is going through with the Healthy, HungerFree Kids Act, but we used quarterly workshops. We created a 

Listserv where we could communicate with each food service director through the Internet with the push of a ‘‘send’’ button. We 

issued guidance memos. We met with principals’ groups. We met 

with superintendent groups. We did presentations before boards to 

get the word out and let them know just why the standards were 

changing, why we were doing what we were doing, and the science 

behind it. We created a website called Smartfoods for parents, to 

educate parents of all the changes. 

So, we have had a very comprehensive implementation plan, and 

we staffed at the State agency level in preparation for all the 

changes, as well, as far as grant writers and registered dieticians 

and things of that nature. Our automated system, where we have 

an electronic technology system, point of sale system, that is integrated throughout the entire State. They just need to know one 

system. Our reviewers go into the schools. They just have to monitor one system. 

Many of the concerns that Mr. Lord spoke of, we do not experience in West Virginia because of the direct certification and community eligibility determination is done at the State agency level 

and we notify the schools of that information. Our free and reduced 

application is online, so we have had a lot of the problems that we 

experienced with the paper application, which has basically become 

obsolete in West Virginia. 

As far as a la carte, we in West Virginia—when children come 

into our cafeterias, they either get a unitized meal that meets the 

meal pattern that is fully reimbursed by the Federal Government 

regardless of whether it is free, reduced price, or paid, and we just 

felt that that is in the child’s best interest. We also worked to have 

salad bars put in place. 

Now, by not offering a la carte sales, that makes the point of sale 

a lot cleaner. There is not a lot of activity at the point of sale. So, 

that lends itself to increased accountability as far as logging and 

claiming the meals. 

36 

But, we have never had an issue with—as far as the revenue 

goes on a la carte sales. You get a unitized meal, which you get 

the full price of the paid meal, and then you get the full Federal 

reimbursement, so you get both revenue streams in West Virginia. 

With a la carte, that was never an issue for us. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, it is very impressive, what you have 

done, and when you look at the automated point of sale and the 

Statewide eligibility so that the schools do not have to be focused 

on that and it moves with the child, I just think that is really 

something that we need to look at and how we can save the costs 

and the paperwork for schools and families and still achieve things. 

So, congratulations. 

Mr. Riendeau, we have had a lot of bipartisan support over the 

years for our summer meals programs and we want to continue 

that. We know we need to strengthen both the congregate and noncongregate models. I am concerned that we create more flexibility. 

In Michigan, we have submitted a request for a waiver for the congregate requirements, and, in fact, unfortunately, it was denied because of the current restrictions when a waiver can be issued. 

So, I wonder if you might speak a little bit more about the need 

for flexibility in terms of the summer and what is happening in 

terms of communities, whether it is on where children meet or 

what has been called grab and go or other kinds of models, why 

this is important. 

Mr. RIENDEAU. Sure. Thank you for that question. In our case, 

at Dare to Care, we serve both urban and rural counties, and I 

think that is where the difference between the two models is most 

stark. The vast majority of the meals that we serve through SFSP 

are served in Jefferson County, the home of Louisville. It is an 

urban county. It is a place where kids—there are plenty of sites for 

kids to gather in the summer, sites with programming and activities that the kids want to be a part of. The kids are there, and it 

is easy for us to get those meals to those kids, have the kids consume them on site, and allow us to comply with the requirement 

of that program. 

In fact, we have—our model is based on a 6,000-square foot 

kitchen that we invested in to build two years ago that provides 

over 1,000 hot meals a day now and takes those meals to those 

sites, and the program works very well there. 

Where the need for flexibility comes in is in our rural counties. 

Our other 11 counties are rather rural. Many of them are very 

rural. Frankly, they just do not have the community centers, the 

facilities for kids to gather. Even if they did have those, there is 

a transportation issue. These kids are spread out. Many of them 

are living in small communities. They are dispersed across those 

counties. In the summer, they do not congregate. 

What we would like to see is the ability to work on the ground 

in those communities with government and business leaders in 

those communities to come up with unique partnerships and innovative programs that are tailored to meet the specific needs of 

those individual counties, and I think if we could have the flexibility that we are talking about here, I am very confident that we 

could reach many, many more of the kids in need. 

37 

As I mentioned in my testimony, 90 percent of the kids in the 

State of Kentucky who are eligible for SFSP do not get it because 

there is either no site for them to go to or they cannot get there. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. Thanks. 

Chairman ROBERTS. [Presiding.] Ms. Jones, Cindy, thank you for 

your help in our traversing Kansas and enjoying school breakfasts 

and school lunches. If you were provided with some—that word 

again—flexibility, what changes would you make? 

Ms. JONES. I would go back to serving 50% whole grain rich 

products. This would give us the flexibility to add back some of the 

student’s favorite items. Two items that we are struggling with are 

whole grain biscuits because they have no flavor and crackers that 

taste like sawdust. Just some simple changes would make a big difference. Also all children love chicken nuggets, however the children do not like the new chicken nuggets because of the taste of 

the breading. 

I would go back to encouraging kids to take fruits and vegetables, which is what we have always done in our district. We keep 

hearing about, it is just half-a-cup, but we have 29,000 students in 

our district. That is a lot of half-a-cups, and if two-thirds of those 

kids eat the fruits and vegetables, that is still 10,000 half-a-cups 

that we throw away, and over a year, that is 1.7 million half-acups. 

In our district, we want the kids to eat their fruits and vegetables. We love our unlimited fruits and vegetables. We encourage 

our students by giving them ‘‘I tried it’’ stickers, because we want 

them to eat their fruits and vegetables. But, because of all the tight 

budgets we are having right now, we may have to discontinue the 

unlimited fruits and vegetables. I would hate for the students that 

want to eat their fruits and vegetables to lose that opportunity because other students are forced to take them and just throw them 

in the trash. 

Also, I would like to be able to make the decision on whether to 

raise the prices for our meals. I think a lot of our students are leaving the program because they can no longer afford to pay the meals 

prices. I was visiting with a little girl the other day and she shared 

with me that her mother now makes her choose two days a week 

to eat with us because they can no longer afford to pay the costs. 

So, I would like for district to be able to determine their own meal 

pricing. 

Chairman ROBERTS. We have just been joined by the whole 

grains champion of the Senate, who has a bill to exempt that 

standard, and I will give you every opportunity to discuss that, 

Senator Hoeven. 

But, at any rate, let me also ask you, in my travels throughout 

Kansas, there were some schools doing well in implementing the 

standards and they seemed to be the schools, obviously, with a lot 

of resources. In your testimony, you mentioned that some high free 

and reduced-price districts in Kansas have also overcome challenges. Is there a way to characterize the districts that are having 

a hard time, or does it vary based on the individual community? 

The reason I am bringing this up is that I think the distinguished Senator from Michigan and I tend to pay special attention 

to rural and small town schools. 

38 

Ms. JONES. Right. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Goodness knows, they have problems with a 

lot of things. But, I am not sure I am getting this exactly right. Is 

there a way to characterize the districts that are having a hard 

time, or does it vary based on the individual community and what 

they are doing, how they accept a program, et cetera, et cetera? 

I know there has been a lot of talk about training. I am trying 

to get at something here. I do not want to call it the attitude of 

the community or the attitude of the district or whatever—not 

much choice in this regard. But, help me out here. 

Ms. JONES. What I am seeing, districts like my own are struggling the most. We have a lower amount of free and reduced, so 

a lot of our students are choosing to bring their own lunch if you 

are at a district where there is a high amount of free and reduced, 

those children will continue to eat what they are being offered. 

I was actually speaking to a director from a larger district and 

he shared with me that because of the revenue that he is losing, 

he will end up in the red for the first time. This is his tenth year 

working in his district. I believe that a lot of the problem is the 

schools that do not have the high free and reduced student, are unable to qualify for grants that are available to the schools with a 

high amount of free and reduced students. 

In my district, we have a centralized building and two registered 

dieticians on staff. We have to pay for all of our costs. We even pay 

indirect costs to our districts to help pay for the utilities and the 

custodial staff at the schools. Small school districts nutrition programs are housed within one of the schools, so they do not have 

all the extra costs that large districts have. Plus, many of them 

have high free and reduced percentages. So, they not only have less 

expenses, they also have more funding available to them. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, you have given me the exact reverse 

of what perhaps some of us may have as a bias and I truly appreciate it. That is exactly what I was asking about. 

I have so many different questions here, but I do want to get to 

Senator Donnelly, who I think is next, and then we have Senator 

Hoeven. 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

all of you for being here. 

Mr. Riendeau, I know you are based in Louisville, but I want to 

let everybody know that you also—Dare to Care serves Washington, Crawford, Harrison, Floyd, and Clark Counties in my home 

State of Indiana. We are grateful to you for that. I wanted to talk 

to you for a second about something that I know you have heard 

about, as well, and that is the area that you serve, just outside of 

it is Scott County, which is just to the north of where you serve, 

and we have had a devastating HIV outbreak there and drug epidemic there. The county also has one of the highest food insecurity 

rates for children in our State. I was wondering, in your mind, 

what is the best way to reach those kids, to make sure they have 

had enough to eat, to make sure they stay in school and, hopefully, 

stay away from drugs, as well. 

Mr. RIENDEAU. Thank you, Senator. Yes, I live just down the 

road from Scott County, and I just want you to know, personally, 

I share your pain with what is happening there. It is horrific. 

39 

You know, I guess I think in my mind, what is happening there 

sort of points to the larger issue that is before the committee with 

this whole reauthorization, that is, investing in our kids today can 

prevent so many issues down the road. We heard that kids who 

grow up in a food insecure environment are going to have all kinds 

of issues, and as they age up, they are going to find themselves 

with less options for becoming productive, self-sufficient members 

of our community. I am certainly not an expert on drug addiction 

or HIV, but I would have to guess that there is a very close correlation between the levels of food insecurity that you see in that county and some of the problems that folks are facing with no alternatives to turn to. 

I think the best way that—one of the great ways that we could 

better serve counties like Scott would be going back to the Ranking 

Member’s question about flexibility, giving us the ability to tailor 

programs to be able to provide summer food to kids in those rural 

counties where the current model and the current regulations may 

not fit so well. 

Senator DONNELLY. Which ties in a little bit to my next question, 

which is that in some of our rural areas that you serve, and obviously throughout the rest of the State and in the country, there are 

Pack a Backpack programs for kids on the weekend and such. I 

know you help to work with that, also. Do you think that as you 

look at that, we would be able to reach more food insecure children 

if those meals in that program were eligible for reimbursement, as 

I know the funds come from the private sector for that? 

Mr. RIENDEAU. Absolutely. That program is—in our case with 

Dare to Care and serving our rural counties, that is one of the programs that we do use to reach kids in the rural counties, because 

when kids are congregated at school, it is the one place we can get 

nutritious food to them to take home for the weekends. 

Currently, we fund that program entirely with private donations, 

so it is an entirely privately funded program. But, in my mind, it 

is a great public-private partnership because we are leveraging 

those private dollars to help address an issue that we currently 

cannot address with Federal dollars. 

So, the answer is yes. I think if we could find a way to involve— 

find a new revenue source that would allow us to provide more 

backpacks, that would certainly have a positive impact on our ability to reach those kids. 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you. 

Dr. Hassink, one of the areas of concern for me with food insecurity is also the general obesity that has occurred in children and 

the increase in diabetes type 2. As you look at that and as we look 

at that going forward, what more can be done to teach about 

healthy eating, lifestyles, and how to prevent things like diabetes 

type 2, because they can be so debilitating. 

Dr. HASSINK. Well, thank you, and certainly we, as pediatricians, 

are seeing the rise in type 2 diabetes in younger and younger children, something we never thought we would have to deal with as 

pediatricians. 

I think starting very early with early healthy infant nutrition 

and transition to solid foods and good feeding practices are important. Healthy habits for families at home to start out right is essenVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 May 03, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\96177.TXT MICAH
40 

tial. Many of the children who have severe problems in adolescence 

with their health, with type 2 diabetes, have already by age five 

have had obesity. So, early intervention. That means family education, stronger links with the health care system and food and 

providing information about food programs, providing education, 

understanding what is available for those families in the community, I think, would help get them off to a good start. 

In 2007, when we wrote the expert guidelines for obesity, we considered all children at risk for obesity in this country and we have 

trained physicians to do preventive counseling for everyone because 

of this problem. 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you very much to the panel. Thank 

you for all your work to try to help our children and our families. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator Donnelly. 

Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

holding this hearing today and thanks to all of the witnesses. 

Ms. Jones, you mentioned in your testimony some of the difficulties in complying with the lower sodium standards and also the 100 

percent whole grains requirement. What can we do to help in that 

regard? What do you think the solution is? 

Ms. JONES. We just want to make sure that we do not go forward 

with target two for the sodium, right now we are able to get by. 

We are struggling, but we are able to meet those requirements. 

But, if we go on to target two, that would mean we are serving a 

therapeutic low sodium diet. There will be no flavor to the kids’ 

food. I just received an e-mail from my director letting me know 

that our parent surveys are back and many of them say that their 

children are no longer eating with us because there is no taste to 

their food. That is a big concern, and if we continue on, I think that 

will be even a larger concern. 

Senator HOEVEN. So, last year, I included a provision that actually kept the whole grains at 50 percent rather than having 100 

percent of the grain products having to be whole grain enriched, 

and now I have introduced legislation with Senator King—this was 

bipartisan legislation, Senator King from Maine—that would both 

keep us at the lower sodium level, but not go to the next target 

level, and would continue the provision that 50 percent of the grain 

products have to be whole grain enriched. Is that something that 

you think is workable and that your State would find workable and 

that you feel other States would find workable? 

Ms. JONES. Absolutely. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. Then, touch on for just a minute issues 

as far as the competitive requirements for the a la carte menu. So, 

we want to make sure that the school lunches are healthy and the 

kids are eating them—— 

Ms. JONES. Right. 

Senator HOEVEN. —and then we also want you to be able to continue with the a la carte, and I understand there are some issues 

in terms of what you can provide a la carte. 

Ms. JONES. Correct. We would like to be able to serve items on 

a la carte that are also on the reimbursable meal, because right 

now, you have to look at each a la carte item. If it is a part of a 

41 

meal, you can compare that throughout the week and fit it into the 

requirements. So, it is much more difficult to be able to get an item 

to serve on a la carte menu. If we can serve it on a reimbursable 

meal, it should be healthy enough to serve a la carte. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. So, again, just some flexibility there—— 

Ms. JONES. Some flexibility, absolutely. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Goff, I am glad to hear of your successes in terms of implementing the program in West Virginia, and certainly flexibility 

does not mean a rollback of good nutrition standards, but, again, 

making sure that we have healthy meals and meals that the kids 

will eat and that our schools are able to make their budgets. Could 

you tell me how many of your schools have applied for an exemption from the 100 percent whole grain requirement? 

Mr. GOFF. Well, we did the 100 percent, the whole grain rich requirement back in 2008. The only thing that has affected our 

schools—and that was implemented across the board in all schools 

and schools are not having a problem with it. The only thing that 

has really touched in West Virginia is the—as it relates to pasta, 

and that is only because we have some schools that are having 

trouble getting the product. 

Senator HOEVEN. Right. That is the point. In some cases, whether it is pizza or tortillas or pasta, I mean, when we talk about 

whole grain enriched, it is not just the bread and so forth. It is all 

these other products. Hence, some flexibility is helpful, and that is 

why I have advanced the 50 percent whole grain enriched. 

You have had a number—I actually have the number. You have 

got quite a few schools that actually have applied for exceptions. 

Would not some flexibility be helpful to them here? 

Mr. GOFF. Well, I cannot speak for the schools. I think that when 

you are looking at granting waivers, my fear of that would be that 

it would give industry a pause to come on board and make the 

products more available at a sooner time. We had lots of waiver requests when we were implementing some of our standards as it relates to professional standards or even competitive sales, and I 

think if you have a good standard that is in the child’s best interest, then you hold that standard. 

I certainly cannot speak for a State like Kentucky, but our participation in West Virginia in our school meals is the highest it has 

ever been. Our breakfast participation is starting to exceed that of 

lunch. So, I think in West Virginia—and we have cooperative purchasing groups that pool their efforts to get the product. I think we 

are on the right track there. 

Senator HOEVEN. But, you—so, you do not feel there needs to be 

any flexibility, even though you have schools that have applied for 

exemptions? 

Mr. GOFF. Well, I do not have—know the number of those 

schools—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Twenty-two. 

Mr. GOFF. Twenty-two schools out of—and we have about 700. 

So, certainly, that is cause for an exemption, or a waiver until the 

product can become available. But, it was my understanding that 

it was more related to pasta. 

42 

Senator HOEVEN. I understand in some cases it relates to pasta 

or tortillas or some of these other products, and that makes sense, 

if they are healthy and the kids will eat them. 

I will wrap up here, Mr. Chairman, but the current dietary 

guideline recommendations allow for some refined grains, as well. 

So, if we allow it in the dietary guidelines, which is for all Americans, why would not some flexibility in that regard make sense for 

school kids, too? 

Mr. GOFF. I understand. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Stabenow, you had an additional 

question? 

Senator STABENOW. I do. Thank you. I do have some, and thank 

you again to all of you. 

I guess I am trying to put in perspective—I realize we are making changes in the last five years, and the behaviors are always 

hard to change where it is sort of in the process of moving in the 

direction, all of us, of wanting to be more focused on health and 

wellness, and we all know the benefits of that, and we know sometimes change is hard. 

I do have to say, I have seen—I have visited a lot of school districts, some very creative, where you take the vegetable and you 

put green peppers and onion in the tacos and the kids do not even 

know they are getting it, which is great, and others where someone 

says, no, the government says you have to eat broccoli. So, there 

is a very different reaction depending on how things are presented, 

and we want to be in the creative process of that where we are 

sneaking it in and kids do not even know beans are a vegetable, 

right? 

But, Mr. Goff, I wanted to ask you about specifically the exemptions for whole grains. My dear friend, and I really mean that, from 

North Dakota has been very passionate about this. But, yet, out of 

thousands of schools across the country, we have had only 350 requests for waivers on whole grains. To put that in perspective, 350 

requests across the country, there are 900 school districts in Michigan alone. One request in North Dakota, four requests in Kansas. 

I am wondering, have you received very many requests at this 

point, and again, why would you believe your schools would not be 

asking for the flexibility of the waiver that we put in place at this 

point? 

Mr. GOFF. Well, I could not give you the number. We have received some requests. But, it is my understanding in talking with 

the cooperative purchasing groups that comprise our State that the 

request is for pastas and it is because the product is not readily 

available for them to purchase, and it has something to do with 

that particular product has trouble maintaining its consistency. So, 

until more of that type product hits the market, some of our 

schools were struggling with it. 

But, as far as the whole grain rich requirement, we have had 

that in place since 2008. Students are very accepting now of what 

they call the brown bread. So, I think it is a good standard and I 

think we just need to wait for industry to come up to speed. 

Senator STABENOW. I am wondering, also, there are differences 

between larger and smaller districts and some that have the comVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 May 03, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\96177.TXT MICAH
43 

munity eligibility, and as Ms. Jones was saying, just in larger districts with their smaller number of students that are qualified for 

free and reduced lunches and so on. 

Again, in West Virginia, how do you handle that with a larger 

district where there is a smaller number of children and sort of the 

economics of that for schools, because I am sure that is different. 

So, have you—how have you handled that in terms of districts 

where virtually all of the children are qualifying for free and reduced lunch versus a district where it may be less than 50 percent? 

Mr. GOFF. As far as—— 

Senator STABENOW. As far as sort of the economics of funding 

and so on, because that seems to be one of the concerns, is that—— 

Mr. GOFF. With community eligibility—— 

Senator STABENOW. —large districts are losing money because 

there are fewer children being reimbursed on free and reduced 

lunch and other children are not buying lunch. 

Mr. GOFF. That is a great question, and we anticipated those 

types of things before we implemented community eligibility. Like 

I said, the first year that they piloted that, we were not selected, 

so we did our own version called West Virginia Universal Free 

Meals. We knew that if we just selected nine districts, or however 

many we did select, and said that you now can have breakfast and 

lunch at no charge, if we did not fundamentally change something, 

it was going to create a problem with their budget. 

So, we worked in conjunction with our State legislature and we 

passed Senate Bill 663, called the West Virginia Feed to Achieve 

Act, and what that did, one of the provisions of that act, is it realigned breakfast with the instructional day. See, we were offering 

breakfast at the worst possible time, as most schools do, at the 

start-up of school, when the bell is ringing, the buses are arriving 

late, kids want to talk to their friends. So, we have a State law 

that mandates that school breakfast can no longer compete with 

the start-up of school. It has to be offered either breakfast in the 

classroom, breakfast after first period, or breakfast after the bell, 

or some combination of that, in every school, at every grade level. 

What it has done, that in conjunction with community eligibility, 

our breakfast participation is starting to exceed that of lunch. Now, 

financially speaking, that is very good for the programs because the 

margin of profit, if you look at the Federal reimbursement versus 

the cost to produce a breakfast, the margin of profit is higher on 

a breakfast than that of a lunch. Plus, it is the most important 

meal of the day. 

Now we have the naysayers in the beginning, for example, the 

teachers that did not want the food in the classrooms, will now go 

to bat for the program and are actually promoting the program because they can see such a huge difference in test scores, student 

attentiveness, reduced tardies, fewer trips to the school nurse, 

fewer behavioral problems. It has really changed the way we are 

educating kids in West Virginia. 

We have one school district that, district wide, Mason County, 

their breakfast participation last year averaged almost 90 percent. 

Ninety percent of the children in that school had a breakfast on a 

daily basis. That is how we have done it. Through the economies 

of scale, the cost to produce one more breakfast or one additional 

44 

breakfast, the cost is not that significant, but the Federal revenue 

coming in on that one more breakfast is substantial. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman, so thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize to 

you and the Ranking Member for running back and forth today. 

This is such an important hearing and such an important topic for 

Arkansas and the rest of the country. I am on another subcommittee, though, that also is very important and it has to do 

with violent crime, gangs and things like that, which, again, all of 

these things go together. So, like I say, I apologize for running back 

and forth. 

Mr. Riendeau, and again, I know that these things have been 

discussed already and things, but it is such an important thing for 

Arkansas. Our summer meal participation has increased in recent 

years and is very, very important. However, we struggle to reach 

children in rural areas. Can you talk a little bit about the challenge 

that you have experienced with the meals program, and then, also, 

based on your experience, can you give us some concrete recommendations as to what we can do to overcome some of those 

challenges. 

Mr. RIENDEAU. Sure. You know, as I said before, we have—Dare 

to Care serves both urban and rural counties, and probably much 

like your rural counties, particularly in Indiana, the distance between the communities is so great and the communities are so 

small that it is just very, very difficult to find locations where kids 

can go and congregate. Unlike our urban counties, there are not robust Boys and Girls Clubs with all-day programming and lots of 

things that these kids want to get to. 

So, the challenge is how do we find a way to get these kids access 

to summer food based on the realities of the county in which they 

live. So, we have looked at several different options. One of the 

thoughts we have is we have looked at—we actually have a bus. 

We have a school bus now, and we are actually looking at the possibility of preparing meals in our community kitchen, loading those 

in Cambros, and putting them on the bus and taking them out to 

the rural counties and simply driving to the hollas [phonetic], 

where you will have a community of 20 families, and dropping the 

meals off and letting the kids consume them as the bus goes away 

and goes to the next community. 

The challenge with that model under the current rules is unless 

the kids—unless we stop and the kids eat the meal on the bus and 

we count the number of children, we cannot be reimbursed. So, the 

sustainability of that model is doubtful and that is kind of the challenge that we are facing, which is why, one of the things we would 

like the committee to consider is allowing us to look at more flexible models in those counties, like I am sure in Arkansas would 

probably benefit deeply from that. Let us look at those and make 

those eligible for reimbursement, as well. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right. Mr. Goff, you mentioned that you started your program in 2009, and I think that is correct, okay, and I 

think that our States need to do as they feel like is best. Can you 

tell us, based on 2009 to now, what are your obesity levels? Have 

45 

they gone down, or have they flattened out, or do they continue to 

go up, or do you have any knowledge about that? 

Mr. GOFF. In West Virginia? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOFF. We adopted those standards in 2008, and our, I 

think—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. What has happened as a result? 

Mr. GOFF. I think our obesity rate has leveled off. I do not have 

the data, but I do know that our school environments are healthier. 

In West Virginia, hunger and obesity live side by side. In trying to 

put the finger on the culprit, we have done everything in our power 

to provide safe and healthy learning environments for our kids. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No, and I agree with that, totally. The only 

reason I mentioned that is that this really does go together with 

a whole host of other things—— 

Mr. GOFF. Mm-hmm. 

Senator BOOZMAN. —and, so, we need to address this. Like I say, 

I do not disagree that you all are doing a great job in the sense 

of doing what you feel like is best for your kids, but it is—I think 

one of the problems we run into is that we feel like if we just do 

this or that in this particular area, we are going to solve our problem, and the reality is, with P.E. and lots of other things, afterschool activities, all of that goes together, and if we do not do it 

all, then we are going to be in trouble. 

Ms. Jones, you mentioned in your testimony the importance of 

flexibility. Can you talk to us a little bit about specifically the kind 

of flexibility that you would like, or maybe in some areas or two. 

Ms. JONES. Sure. In a la carte menu the fact that we had to take 

a healthy choice off like a sub sandwich with turkey and cheese, 

does not make sense to me. That is a healthy item. We would like 

to have that flexibility to put those type of items back on our a la 

carte items. 

Having the decision to be able to raise the price of a meal or not, 

that should be determined by each district by what they feel their 

enrollment would be able to pay for. We want to be able to keep 

children coming into the cafeteria, because we cannot serve them 

nutritious meals if we do not have them eating with us. 

These are examples of the type of struggles that we are asking 

for flexibility. With the fruit and vegetable requirements, we really 

want to encourage our kids. That is something we have always 

thought was very important. But, we do not want to lose our unlimited fruits and vegetables because we cannot afford to offer 

them. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Dr. Hassink, I apologize that we have not 

paid more attention to you, especially with all of the work that you 

have done. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I would have if I had more time. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. HASSINK. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. But, and this is the typical situation where 

the Chairman of a committee is answering the question that I 

would have asked you. You made some excellent points with regard 

to a lack of specific nutrients at a specific time and the detrimental 

46 

effect that that has had on attention and development, short-term 

memory, IQ scores—— 

Dr. HASSINK. Yes. 

Chairman ROBERTS. —everything that everybody strives for. But, 

if they miss the boat, they miss the boat. I am not asking you to 

expound upon that research. I think it is self-evident. But, I want 

to let you know how much we appreciate your coming and your 

statement. 

I am now moving to the conclusion of our hearing this afternoon. 

Yes, it is this afternoon. 

Thank you to each of our witnesses and to the first panel, as 

well, for taking your time, your very valuable time, to share your 

views related to the child nutrition programs. These testimonies 

that have been provided today are very valuable for the committee 

to hear firsthand and to keep on record. Your thoughts and insights will be especially helpful as we undergo the reauthorization 

process. 

To my fellow members, I would ask that any additional questions 

that they may have for the record be submitted to the committee 

clerk five business days from today or by 5:00 p.m. next Thursday, 

May 14. 

The committee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(47) 

A P P E N D I X 

MAY 7, 2015 

48 


96177.001
49 


96177.002
50 


96177.003
51 


96177.004
52 


96177.005
53 


96177.006
54 


96177.007
55 


96177.008
56 


96177.009
57 


96177.010
58 


96177.011
59 


96177.012
60 


96177.013
61 


96177.014
62 


96177.015
63 


96177.016
64 


96177.017
65 


96177.018
66 


96177.019
67 


96177.020
68 


96177.021
69 


96177.022
70 


96177.023
71 


96177.024
72 


96177.025
73 


96177.026
74 


96177.027
75 


96177.028
76 


96177.029
77 


96177.030
78 


96177.031
79 


96177.032
80 


96177.033
81 


96177.034
82 


96177.035
83 


96177.036
84 


96177.037
85 


96177.038
86 


96177.039
87 


96177.040
88 


96177.041
89 


96177.042
90 


96177.043
91 


96177.044
92 


96177.045
93 


96177.046
94 


96177.047
95 


96177.048
96 


96177.049
97 


96177.050
98 


96177.051
99 


96177.052
100 


96177.053
101 


96177.054
102 


96177.055
103 


96177.056
104 


96177.057
105 


96177.058
106 


96177.059
107 


96177.060
108 


96177.061
109 


96177.062
(111) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

MAY 7, 2015 

112 


96177.063
113 


96177.064
114 


96177.065
115 


96177.066
116 


96177.067
117 


96177.068
118 


96177.069
119 


96177.070
120 


96177.071
121 


96177.072
122 


96177.073
123 


96177.074
124 


96177.075
125 


96177.076
126 


96177.077
127 


96177.078
128 


96177.079
129 


96177.080
130 


96177.081
131 


96177.082
132 


96177.083
133 


96177.084
134 


96177.085
135 


96177.086
136 


96177.087
137 


96177.088
138 


96177.089
139 


96177.090
140 


96177.091
141 


96177.092
142 


96177.093
143 


96177.094
144 


96177.095
145 


96177.096
146 


96177.097
147 


96177.098
148 


96177.099
149 


96177.100
150 


96177.101
151 


96177.102
152 


96177.103
153 


96177.104
154 


96177.105
155 


96177.106
156 


96177.107
157 


96177.108
158 


96177.109
159 


96177.110
160 


96177.111
161 


96177.112
162 


96177.113
163 


96177.114
164 


96177.115
165 


96177.116
166 


96177.117