How have state audits described the Minnesota Department of Education and DHS oversight failures in Feeding Our Future?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Office of the Legislative Auditor’s special review concludes that the Minnesota Department of Education’s (MDE) oversight of Feeding Our Future was “inadequate” and “created opportunities for fraud,” finding the agency repeatedly failed to act on warning signs, had weak complaint‑investigation practices, and was ill‑prepared to use its enforcement tools — conclusions that the department disputes while noting it referred concerns to federal investigators [1] [2] [3]. The review examined only MDE’s oversight of that single sponsor and did not adjudicate criminal guilt, even as federal prosecutors have charged roughly 70 people in the scheme [4] [5] [1].
1. Audit’s core finding: missed warnings and systemic weakness
The legislative audit states plainly that MDE “failed to act on warning signs” and “was ill‑prepared to respond” to problems with Feeding Our Future, documenting multiple occasions where the agency either missed or did not sufficiently follow up on information that should have prompted stronger monitoring or action [2] [6]. The Office of the Legislative Auditor framed these failures as systemic — not one‑off lapses — concluding that MDE’s oversight practices and response processes “created opportunities for fraud” in federally funded child‑nutrition programs [1] [3].
2. Procedural gaps: weak complaint investigations and limited monitoring
The report details that many of MDE’s written complaint‑investigation procedures were “inappropriate or of limited usefulness,” pointing to narrow scopes, missing steps, and investigative practices that undermined the agency’s ability to detect or escalate suspicious activity — particularly against a sponsor that ballooned from modest operations to unusually large scale in 2021 [1] [4]. Auditors also highlighted that Feeding Our Future sponsored far more program sites in 2021 than typical multisite sponsors, a red flag that did not trigger proportionate scrutiny [4].
3. Enforcement authority not exercised and legal risk cited as factor
The audit says MDE did not consistently exercise its available authorities, including training, financial review, and termination powers, and that officials were “ill‑prepared” to hold the nonprofit accountable [7] [1]. The report also notes MDE officials were affected by fears of legal consequences and negative media attention after the nonprofit threatened litigation, which the auditors say influenced regulatory decisions — an implicit explanation for restraint in enforcement [8].
4. The federal context and scale of alleged fraud
Auditors pointed to the broader public‑safety stakes: between September 2022 and February 2024 federal prosecutors charged about 70 people related to an alleged roughly $250 million fraud tied to Feeding Our Future, underscoring why auditors judged the state oversight failures significant [1] [5]. The audit also observes that existing federal rules at the time did not require some SFSP (Summer Food Service Program) documentation that later rule changes would address, complicating Idaho‑style comparisons of what MDE could have done under then‑applicable standards [4].
5. MDE’s rebuttal and post‑audit reforms
MDE disputes the OLA’s characterization, maintaining that its oversight “met applicable standards” and that it made referrals to law enforcement that led to prosecutions; the department pointed to steps taken after the case — creating an Office of Inspector General, increasing legal resources, staff training, and contracting financial reviewers — as corrective actions [3] [1]. The audit itself is careful to limit its scope to one sponsor and explicitly does not opine on criminal guilt, a restraint that MDE and supporters emphasize when disputing the report’s public framing [4] [1].
6. Political context and competing narratives
Legislators from both parties called the findings “shocking” and urged reforms, while conservative and advocacy outlets seized the report as vindication of long‑standing concerns about state grant oversight; other commentators and MDE defenders emphasize pandemic-era confusion and changing federal guidance as mitigation for some choices [6] [3] [9]. The audit flags both practice failures and institutional constraints — but it also sits inside a charged political debate about who bears responsibility for safeguarding federal pandemic aid.