What did the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor find about MDE oversight of Feeding Our Future in 2024?
Executive summary
The Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) concluded in a June 2024 special review that the Minnesota Department of Education’s (MDE) oversight of the Feeding Our Future sponsor “was inadequate” and “created opportunities for fraud,” documenting missed follow‑ups, weak verification of sponsor claims, and limited monitoring that coincided with a massive fraud scheme prosecutors say totaled roughly $250 million and led to dozens of charges [1] [2]. MDE disputes the characterization, noting it referred matters to law enforcement and has since adopted reforms — an institutional rebuttal the OLA records and news coverage also recount [1] [3] [4].
1. OLA’s central finding: oversight gaps created opportunity
The OLA’s special review states plainly that MDE’s inadequate oversight “created opportunities for fraud,” pointing to specific operational failures: approving Feeding Our Future’s program applications without verifying key statements, not following up on an earlier 2018 review that had questioned meal operations, and relying too heavily on offsite monitoring when in‑person or risk‑based checks were warranted [1] [3] [5]. The report ties those gaps to the wider fraud investigation: between September 2022 and February 2024 federal prosecutors charged some 70 people in what authorities described as a roughly $250 million fraud scheme tied to pandemic‑era meal programs [1].
2. Concrete examples OLA documented: approvals, investigations, monitoring
OLA reviewers catalogued instances where MDE approved Feeding Our Future applications despite red flags — such as unexplained projected income growth, absence of dedicated financial staff, and missing federal audits — and did not pursue verification that the report says MDE should have sought before approval [6] [2]. The auditors also criticized MDE’s complaint handling, noting the agency at times deferred to sponsors or asked sponsors to investigate complaints about themselves, and that the agency did not always conduct follow‑up reviews after initial concerns [5] [7].
3. Recommendations and statutory/authority issues the OLA raised
To close the gaps, the OLA recommended that MDE emphasize program integrity and risk‑based monitoring if oversight waivers recur, that the Legislature establish statutory criteria or grant MDE rulemaking authority to set approval criteria for sponsors, and that MDE evaluate and propose changes to its investigative authority where needed [2] [1]. The report frames many recommendations as structural changes intended to give MDE clearer authority, tools, and processes to detect and act on fraud promptly [1].
4. MDE’s response and the counterarguments the OLA recorded
MDE Commissioner Willie Jett disputed the OLA’s characterization, asserting the department “met applicable standards” and made “effective referrals to law enforcement,” and noted the department had already taken steps to strengthen oversight — creating an Office of Inspector General, adding general counsel resources, training staff on fraud reporting, and contracting for financial reviews of certain sponsors [3] [1] [4]. The agency also said it believed it lacked the investigatory tools to prove falsified documentation and cited legal constraints and precedent (including a past case, Partners in Nutrition) as limiting its ability to refuse applications or take administrative action without clearer statutory authority [4] [6].
5. Limits of the audit, broader context, and competing narratives
Observers and some commentators note the OLA’s scope was narrow — focused on MDE’s oversight of one sponsor and the Summer Food Service/CACFP programs — and argue the larger Feeding Our Future fraud involved many actors and complexities beyond state agency control; critics caution this nuance against using the report to assign sole blame to MDE [8]. The OLA made minor textual edits after release (July 3, 2024), and the public record includes vigorous disagreement between the nonpartisan auditor and the agency it reviewed, which underlines that the policy fixes the OLA recommends intersect with legal authority, resource capacity, and prosecutorial actions already underway [9] [1] [4].