The Agricultural Act of 2014 required the establishment of a Multi-Agency Task Force to provide coordination and direction for USDA Foods administered by FNS. FNS submits this report to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture.

The Agricultural Act of 2014 required the establishment of a Multi-Agency Task Force to provide coordination and direction for USDA Foods administered by FNS. FNS submits this report covering the period of January 2021 through July 2022 to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture.

Authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill, the USDA Pilot Project for Procurement of Unprocessed Fruits and Vegetables was designed to provide states with additional flexibility in the procurement of unprocessed fruits and vegetables. Participating states and school food authorities can purchase approved items with existing USDA Foods National School Lunch Program entitlement funds from any USDA Pilot-authorized vendor in support of the school meal standards.

This study — mandated by Section 4022 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 — reviews research on employment and training program components and practices that: (1) assist members of households participating in SNAP to obtain regular employment; and (2) are best integrated with state workforce development systems. 

Section 4031 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 required a study to determine the feasibility of operating SNAP, or an alternative model of benefit delivery, in the CNMI. This report assesses the CNMI's capacity to administer SNAP in six key SNAP program areas; describes potential barriers to implementing SNAP and modifications that might be needed; and explores which elements of SNAP could be implemented under the existing block grant structure.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; PL 111-296) required the USDA Food and Nutrition Service to conduct a demonstration that adds Medicaid to the list of programs used to directly certify students for free school meals. Although students receiving Medicaid are not categorically eligible for free meals, the DC-M demonstration authorizes selected States and districts to use income information from Medicaid files to directly certify those students found to be eligible for free meals.

The purpose of this study is to describe current methods of direct certification used by state and local agencies and challenges facing states and local education agencies in attaining high matching rates. 

Student eligibility for free meals is determined by application or by direct certification. Although direct certification systems vary by State and LEA, all such systems are designed to eliminate the need for paper applications. Effective in SY 2011-12, LEAs must conduct direct certification three times per year: once at or around the start of the school year, and again three and six months after that initial effort. All direct certification systems now match student enrollment lists against SNAP agency records and the records of other assistance agencies whose participants are categorically eligible for free meals. The matching process, whether automated or manual, requires no action by the children’s parents or guardians.

This is the first of a series of annual reports which will assess the administrative error associated with school food authorities’ approval of applications for free and reduced-price school meals. More than 95 percent of students who were approved for benefits on the basis of an application were receiving correct benefits, based on the information in the application files. In school year 2004/05, 3.5 percent of all students who submitted an application for free/reduced-price meal benefits had an administrative error in the processing of their applications.

This study examines the implementation of provisions to improve our understanding of the variation in state and local approaches, the challenges encountered in restoring eligibility, the degree to which the eligibility restorations brought new immigrant households into the program; and the potential impacts of sponsor deeming and liability policies.