Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Change to Item 6 in the FNS-742, School Food Authority Verification Summary Report

EO Guidance Document #
FNS-GD-2006-0047
FNS Document #
SP34-2006
Resource type
Policy Memos
Guidance Documents
Resource Materials
PDF Icon Policy Memo (97.75 KB)
DATE: September 21, 2006
MEMO CODE: SP-34-2006
SUBJECT: Change to Item 6 in the FNS-742, School Food Authority Verification Summary Report
TO: Regional Directors
Special Nutrition Programs
All Regions
State Directors
Child Nutrition Programs
All States

As we indicated in our July 25, 2006, memorandum, Verification Sample Size (SP-27-2006), the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) now establishes an exact sample size for routine annual verification activities. Local educational agencies (LEAs) must verify applications in accordance with the procedures set forth in the above-cited memorandum.

The above change will affect the reporting for Item 6 (Type of Verification Used) on the FNS-742, School Food Authority Verification Summary Report. The current responses for this item are Random (coded 1), Focused (coded 2) and All Applications (coded as 3). In addition to the need to delete the All Applications option, we have noted that the current options are causing some difficulties in reporting because they do not correlate directly with the verification requirements in the NSLA, as amended by PL 108-265, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004. Therefore, effective with the SY 2007-08 reporting, we are changing the options for Item 6 of the Verification Summary Report as follows:

Basic
  • LEA must verify three percent or 3,000, whichever is less, of all approved applications on file as of October 1
  • Once the sample size is determined, error prone applications are the first selected; error prone applications are those with income within $100 monthly or $1200 annually of the appropriate income eligibility guideline
  • If there are not enough error prone applications to complete the sample, the remainder of applications to be verified are selected from all applications subject to verification
  • This response should be coded 1

Qualifying LEAs also may use one of two alternate sample sizes. These are:

Alternate-Random
  • LEA must verify three percent or 3,000, whichever is less, of all approved applications on file as of October 1
  • Once the sample size is determined, applications are selected at random
  • This response should be coded 2
Alternate-Focused
  • LEA must verify:
    • the lesser of 1000 or one percent of all applications approved as of October 1 PLUS
    • the lesser of 500 or one-half of one percent of all applications approved as of October 1 that provided a case number in lieu of income.
  • This response should be coded 3
No Verifications Performed
  • LEA is not exempt from Verification Reporting, but no verifications were performed for the current school year. For example:
    • LEA has all Provision 2/3 non base year schools, so no verification was performed
    • LEA has only free eligibles who are not subject to verification (directly certified or other)
    • LEA had free/reduced price students eligible by application, but failed to perform verification
  • This response should be coded 4

We are enclosing a prototype of the revised Verification Summary Report with the new responses for Item 6.

For SY 2006-07, LEAs should report Verification Type as Random or Focused, using the guidance supplied regarding the reporting for item number 6 in our memo of Sept. 6, 2005, which is attached for your reference. As noted above, the All Applications option is not available as of SY 2006-07.

Verification Reporting Software

Because of the above change and other technical delays, we will not deploy the web-based verification reporting software for the SY 2006-07 reporting, which is due to FNS on April 15, 2007. You should report data for SY 2006-07 in a consolidated electronic file in the same format you have used for the previous two years.

Accuracy of Verification Reporting

We would also like to stress the importance of accurate reporting in completing the Verification Summary Report. We have kept the edits in the verification reporting software to a minimum in order to avoid reporting problems which could crop up due to unusual circumstances in individual LEA verification situations. However, the absence of an edit check does not eliminate the requirement for the state agency to insure that reporting for individual LEAs is accurate and internally consistent. In particular, we have noticed that for a significant number of LEAs, the number of applications reported verified is greater than the number on file. While some discrepancy might be possible for very small LEAs due to reporting timeframe differences, there are over 300 LEAs which reported a number of applications verified greater than 150% of number of applications on file. Please stress to your LEA’s the importance of accurate reporting for ALL data elements of the required verification reporting.

STANLEY C. GARNETT
Director
Child Nutrition Division

Updated: 09/21/2006

The contents of this guidance document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.