To ensure program integrity, school districts must sample household applications certified for free or reduced-price meals, contact the households, and verify eligibility. This process (known as household verification) can be burdensome for both school officials and households. Direct verification uses information from certain other means-tested programs to verify eligibility without contacting applicants. Potential benefits include: less burden for households, less work for school officials, and fewer students with school meal benefits terminated because of nonresponse to verification requests.

This report responds to the charge in the explanatory statement of Chairman Obey, entered into the Congressional Record Feb. 23, 2009, regarding the request from Congress in the conference report for the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (PL 111–8). The conference report included the following directive:

The Child and Adult Care Food Program subsidizes nutritious meals and snacks served to participants in child care nationwide, providing different levels or “tiers” of meal reimbursement based on the income level of participating children, providers, and nearby geographic areas. Policymakers have long been concerned that programs such as CACFP are not as accessible to eligible children in rural areas as in urban areas.

The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 authorized a pilot to operate in rural Pennsylvania during the summers of 2005 and 2006. The purpose was to test whether lowering the site eligibility threshold from 50 percent to 40 percent would increase the number of children participating in the program. 

Program errors and the risk of erroneous payments in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) continue to be a concern. Slightly more than one in five students were certified inaccurately or erroneously denied benefits in school year (SY) 2005-06. New data estimates the gross cost of school meals erroneous payments due to certification error at about $935 million while other operational errors represent about $860 million. 

To assist nutrition educators in their use of relevant research, FNS conducted a review of studies on: Message framing, Use of interactive technology to tailor messages, and Intervention intensity. The review was intended to document how these specific features of nutrition messages and interventions influence the likelihood of promoting more healthful food choices.

FNS is frequently asked, by a variety of nutrition education partners, how it defines a sound impact evaluation. The principles introduced here describe the characteristics of strong impact assessments of nutrition education. They are also consistent with the Government and Performance Results Act and the Office of Management and Budget’s guidance for clear demonstration of program effects.

The national nutrition safety net consists of 15 programs that provide millions of low-income Americans access to a healthy and nutritious diet. It has been observed that many low-income individuals are both overweight and participants in one or more nutrition assistance programs. This has led some to question whether participation in the nutrition assistance programs contributes to the growing problem of overweight and obesity. This report presents the conclusions of an expert panel convened by the Food and Nutrition Service to determine if there is scientific evidence of a relationship between program participation and excess weight.

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.

Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress. By Jean C. Buzby, Joanne F. Guthrie, and Linda S. Kantor. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program, Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA.