Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SB 387 Community Eligibility Provision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas committee hears debate over bill that would restrict schools' use of federal Community Eligibility meals
Summary
The Committee on Government Efficiency heard competing testimony on SB 387, which would require written income verification for free-meal applicants and require legislative approval before districts could adopt the federal Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). Supporters said the bill would protect at-risk funding from overpayments; opponents warned it conflicts with federal law and would impose large unfunded costs and reduce access to meals.
The Senate Committee on Government Efficiency heard hours of testimony on SB 387, a bill that would require school districts to verify written proof of household income for students who apply for free school meals and would bar schools from using the federal Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) without express legislative approval.
Senator Doug Shane (the bill sponsor) and proponents said the measure restores program integrity and protects state "at-risk" education dollars from alleged overpayments. "We know that there is a meaningful amount of overpayment," said State Senator Doug Shane during his proponent testimony, citing a 2023 legislative post audit that he said showed problems with at‑risk fund deployment.
Supporters framed CEP as a vehicle that can allow students from higher‑income households to receive free meals and argued the state should verify eligibility for applicants who are not directly certified. Paige Terryberry, a visiting fellow with FGA Action, told the committee a recent audit found the federal government and the state "overpaid Kansas school districts by up to $67,000,000" in one year and described SB 387 as a program‑integrity measure.
Opponents — including school administrators, child‑nutrition professionals and public‑health advocates — urged the committee to reject the bill. Dr. Frank Harwood, deputy commissioner at the Kansas State Department of Education (neutral witness), said federal law and USDA guidance govern verification and CEP participation and that the bill appears to conflict with federal statutory and regulatory requirements. "Our guidance from USDA ... is that it sets a ceiling on what it can be," Harwood said, referring to the commonly cited 3% or 3,000 application verification sample.
School district officials and associations warned SB 387 would create substantial, unfunded administrative costs and could reduce participation in school meal programs. Jim Carlskin (United School Administrators) and Vicky Schumacher (Wichita Public Schools) said verification is already confidential, audited and time‑intensive; Schumacher estimated about 2–2.5 hours per verification and said verifying every application would multiply existing workload and error risk. "This bill exceeds federal requirements and would be extremely expensive," she said.
Advocates for CEP emphasized access and equity benefits. Hailey Cotter (Kansas Appleseed) and Carrie Rinker (American Heart Association) said CEP reduces stigma, can eliminate meal debt, and ensures meals reach students in high‑need buildings without creating new state costs. Rabbi Moti Reber (Kansas Interfaith Action) told the committee that adding obstacles to school meals "would take food out of the mouths of hungry children."
Committee members pressed witnesses on several technical issues: whether verification mandates would create a "benefits cliff" for families whose income changes; how verification would interact with FERPA and other privacy rules; whether state dollars could be used to pay for verification that federal rules do not authorize; and whether alternative proxies for at‑risk weighting might better align funding with need.
No formal action was taken during the hearing. The chair said members may submit amendments to the reviser, Tamara Lawrence, and the committee planned to meet again Tuesday to consider working bills.
The hearing included multiple written testimonies; conferees and agency staff said USDA legal counsel would need to advise if the bill were enacted to resolve potential conflict with federal law.
