Kansas House studies free-lunch enrollment audit, implications of at-risk overpayment to schools

Rep. Wanda Brownlee Paige, D-Kansas City, left, and Rep. Dale Helwig, R-Columbus, gather insights Tuesday during a House committee discussion about an audit of student enrollment in the free-lunch program at public schools and implications for how much the state allocates to districts to serve needs of at-risk students. (Photo by Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)

TOPEKA — Members of the Kansas House Welfare Reform Committee debated Tuesday implications of a jarring state audit that estimated 54% to 72% of Kansas students who qualified for the free-lunch program through a national application process were likely ineligible during the 2023-2024 academic year.

If that assessment was accurate, the Legislature’s auditors said, the U.S. Department of Agriculture overpaid Kansas school districts $10 million to $14 million during that year for meals that shouldn’t have been subsidized. The report held implications beyond the cost of school meals, because enrollment in Kansas’ free-lunch program determined how much the state paid school districts to deliver services to at-risk students. Auditors said $38 million to $53 million in extra at-risk funding was apparently distributed to school districts due to enrollment problems with the free-lunch program.

Rep. Francis Awerkamp, a St. Marys Republican and chairman of the committee, said the audit would be useful to the committee as it sorted out questions about oversight and fraud in state or federal programs.

“One of the discussions we often have is, you know, should there be more oversight on welfare programs or less oversight? If there is fraud or is there not fraud?” he said.

The state auditors issued one recommendation for the Legislature: Consider an alternate method of calculating how much at-risk student aid should be paid annually to K-12 districts. Auditors concluded that figures of the children taking part in the free-lunch program “may no longer be an accurate measure for determining the number of students at risk of academic failure in a district.”

Rep. Charlotte Esau, R-Olathe, said that as a child her family probably would have qualified for a school lunch program, but her father refused to apply. She said she wasn’t an at-risk student, despite being part of a lower-income family. She told House colleagues it made sense to find a new method of calculating state appropriations for students struggling academically.

“I’m seeing your conclusion makes logical sense to me,” Esau told auditors.

Under existing Kansas law, no mechanism exists to claw back from school districts any overpayment of at-risk dollars. In most cases, individual school districts didn’t have access to information that would confirmed which students qualified for the free-lunch program. The state’s ability to evaluate applicants was constrained by accuracy of information gathered by several state agencies and rules enforced by the USDA limiting annual auditing to 3% of a district’s student applications or a maximum of 3,000 students in a district.

Rep. Alexis Simmons, D-Topeka, warned House colleagues eager to reform the at-risk funding formula for schools by relying on a different metric of poverty and need. She said there was a strong connection between feeding students during the school day and the ability to learn in the classroom.

Simmons said it would be a mistake to assume fraud when state auditors said it was challenging to verify whether students were eligible for free lunches at school.

State auditor Heidi Zimmerman said the report published in July outlined federal overpayments to school districts for the free lunch program. The audit also linked that idea to state overpayments to school districts for at-risk education, she said.

“We cannot claim there was fraud,” Zimmerman said. “We can tell you there are students who are ineligible. Ineligibility is not the same as fraud. Fraud requires a specific intent. You might have just made a mistake. That’s not fraud. So, this report does not claim that we found fraud anywhere.”

“Very much appreciate that clarification,” Simmons said.

Rep. Wanda Brownlee Paige, D-Kansas City, said the audit didn’t take into account the lower literacy rate among some parents expected to fill out school lunch program applications. She said the Kansas minimum wage of $7.25 per hour — less than half the $15 per hour minimum wage in Missouri — exacerbated financial hardships faced by families desperate for government assistance in providing nutritional meals to their school-age children.

“I can see a whole lot of people struggling,” she said. “The kids are hungry.”

Rep. Brian Bergkamp, R-Wichita, asked Frank Harwood, deputy commissioner of the Kansas Department of Education, to provide the committee with statistics on the quantity of food thrown away in Kansas public school cafeterias. He said the amount was more than most people might realize.

Harwood said USDA reimbursed school districts only for meals served to an eligible student. Under federal law, he said, children automatically qualified for free meals if they were in a household receiving benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid or food distribution programs on an Indian reservation.

In addition, he said, a child was eligible for free meals at public schools if determined to be homeless, a runaway or migrant child, in foster care or enrolled in Head Start.