This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-708T 
entitled 'School Lunch: Modifications Needed to New Nutrition 
Standards' which was released on June 27, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary 
Education, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT: 
Thursday, June 27, 2013: 

School Lunch: 

Modifications Needed to Some of the New Nutrition Standards: 

Statement of Kay E. Brown, Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security: 

GAO-13-708T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-708T, a report to Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, Committee on Education 
and the Workforce, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The National School Lunch Program served 31.6 million children in 
fiscal year 2012, in part through $11.6 billion in federal supports. 
The most recent reauthorization of the program, the Healthy, Hunger-
Free Kids Act of 2010 required that nutrition standards for school 
lunches be updated. As a result, USDA issued final regulations aimed 
at providing lunches high in nutrients and low in calories that better 
meet the dietary needs of school children and required that many be 
implemented in school year 2012-2013. The new rules provide detailed 
requirements for meal components—fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, 
and milk; update requirements for calories, sodium, and fats; and 
require that each student’s lunch contain a fruit or vegetable. 

To provide information on challenges that school districts have faced, 
this testimony draws on work GAO conducted as part of its ongoing 
study of implementation of the changes. Specifically, GAO reviewed 
relevant federal laws, as well as USDA regulations, guidance, and 
studies; interviewed USDA officials and groups of food service 
officials and relevant industry representatives; and visited eight 
school districts. The districts varied by geographic location, size, 
and certain student and food services characteristics. 

What GAO Found: 

School districts across the country faced several challenges 
implementing the new lunch requirements in school year 2012-2013, and 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) response to some of these 
challenges has been limited. For example, because USDA regulations 
restrict the amounts of meats and grains that can be served in school 
lunches each week, all eight districts GAO visited needed to modify or 
eliminate popular menu items. These changes sometimes led to negative 
student reactions, including a 3-week student-led boycott of school 
lunch in one district. The meat and grain restrictions also led to 
smaller lunch entrees, making it difficult for some schools to meet 
minimum calorie requirements for lunches without adding items, such as 
gelatin, that generally do not improve the nutritional quality of 
lunches. In response to feedback from states and districts regarding 
operational challenges caused by the meat and grain restrictions, USDA 
lifted the limits temporarily, first for the remainder of school year 
2012-2013 and then for school year 2013-2014. USDA officials said they 
did not see a problem making the temporary changes to help with 
implementation because the limits on meats and grains and the limits 
on the calories in lunches are somewhat redundant, as both address 
portion size. However, because the change was seen as temporary, the 
eight districts GAO visited made only marginal changes to their menus. 
Rather, several district food services officials, as well as relevant 
industry representatives, indicated the need for a permanent federal 
decision on these restrictions, which USDA has also acknowledged. 

The calorie range requirements for lunches also challenged some 
districts, particularly those with schools that include students from 
both grades 6-8 and 9-12. Because the required lunch calorie ranges 
for these two grade groups do not overlap, districts with such schools 
face difficulties planning menus and serving lunches that comply with 
both requirements. For example, one food services official, whose 
district includes schools serving 7th through 12th graders, developed 
menus with calorie counts between the grades 6-8 maximum and the 
grades 9-12 minimum, leaving the lunches out of compliance with both 
sets of restrictions. Although USDA has acknowledged that menu 
planning in such schools can be challenging, USDA’s current guidance 
does not provide these districts flexibility to assist their efforts 
to comply. Rather, guidance suggests that students from different 
grades be provided with different lunches, a solution that may be 
impractical in schools in which students of different grades share 
lunch periods and serving lines. 

Although the eight districts GAO visited expressed support for the 
improvements to the nutritional quality of school lunch, they reported 
additional challenges meeting the new requirements, such as student 
acceptance, food waste, costs, and participation. For example, USDA 
requires that meals include whole grain-rich products and certain 
vegetables, but most districts noted that obtaining student acceptance 
of foods like whole grain pasta and beans has been challenging. If 
students do not accept these items, the result may be increased food 
waste or decreased participation in the lunch program, which were 
concerns in most districts GAO visited. However, student acceptance of 
the changes will likely improve over time, as indicated by their 
positive comments about healthy food and consumption of fruits and 
vegetables in most districts GAO visited. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that USDA permanently remove the meat and grain maximum 
requirements and allow flexibility to help districts comply with the 
lack of overlap in the calorie ranges for grades 6-8 and 9-12 lunches. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-708T]. For more 
information, contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Chairman Rokita and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I am pleased to participate in today's discussion of school districts' 
experiences implementing the new requirements for the National School 
Lunch Program. This program served 31.6 million children in fiscal 
year 2012, supported in part through federal subsidies and commodities 
totaling $11.6 billion. Although federal requirements for the content 
of school lunches have existed since the program's creation, the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010--the law that most recently 
reauthorized school meal programs--required that they be updated by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers the 
National School Lunch Program. In response, USDA updated requirements 
for the content of lunches based on the recommendations of the 
Institute of Medicine.[Footnote 1] USDA issued final regulations 
defining these new requirements in January 2012, and required the 
implementation of many of these requirements beginning in school year 
2012-2013. USDA's updated regulations aim to provide lunches high in 
nutrients and low in calories that better meet the dietary needs of 
school children and protect their health. To that end, the regulations 
make several changes and additions to the previous requirements for 
the content of school lunches, such as the new requirement that each 
student's lunch contain at least one fruit or vegetable. Under 
agreements with state agencies, local school food authorities (SFAs), 
which are generally aligned with school districts, serve meals to 
children in schools and are the entities responsible for implementing 
these requirements. 

As school year 2012-2013 has progressed, both USDA and the media have 
reported that states, SFAs, school officials, parents, and students 
have expressed some concerns about the school lunch changes. While the 
changes to school lunch are the primary school food changes required 
to be implemented in school year 2012-2013, the Healthy, Hunger-Free 
Kids Act of 2010 also required similar updates to nutrition standards 
for the School Breakfast Program and other foods sold in schools--or 
competitive foods--which will be implemented in future school years. 
As a result, issues that have arisen because of implementation of the 
school lunch changes may have implications for future changes. 

My remarks today will generally address challenges that school 
districts faced implementing the new school lunch requirements in 
school year 2012-2013. This information was gathered using several 
methods, including reviews of relevant federal laws, regulations, and 
guidance; interviews of USDA officials, a group of eight SFA directors 
representing both their own districts and their regions of the 
country, and a group of eleven relevant industry representatives; 
[Footnote 2] and site visits conducted to eight school districts 
across the country. This work was conducted as part of our current 
study of implementation of the school lunch changes, in which we are 
assessing the extent to which school lunch participation changed 
during school year 2012-2013, implementation challenges, and USDA's 
assistance with implementation of the new requirements.[Footnote 3] 
Our site visits were conducted between March and May 2013, and my 
remarks represent some of our findings from these visits. The school 
districts selected for these visits provide variation across 
geographic location, district size, and certain characteristics of the 
student population and district food services.[Footnote 4] For 
example, we visited districts that generally prepare school lunches in 
one central kitchen before delivering them to schools, districts that 
prepare lunches in kitchens on-site in each school, and others that 
use alternative approaches for lunch preparation. Seven of the school 
districts we visited manage their own food service operations, while 
one district contracts with food service management companies. In each 
district, we met with SFA staff at the district and school levels, 
school administrators, and students, and we observed lunch in at least 
two schools of different grade levels. We also interviewed the eight 
state child nutrition program directors overseeing these districts. 
Although both public and non-profit private elementary and secondary 
schools, as well as residential child care institutions, participate 
in the National School Lunch Program, all of the districts we visited 
were public. We cannot generalize our findings from the site visits 
beyond the school districts we visited. 

My remarks also reflect our reviews of relevant USDA data and studies. 
For example, we reviewed USDA's School Nutrition Dietary Assessment 
Study IV (2012), which provides information on school lunches and 
other foods sold in schools nationwide in school year 2009-
2010.[Footnote 5] Further, because it is the basis for USDA's revised 
regulations on the content of school lunches, we reviewed the 
Institute of Medicine's report, School Meals: Building Blocks for 
Healthy Children (2010).[Footnote 6] We assessed the methodologies and 
findings of the studies we reviewed and determined that they were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this testimony. 

We conducted this work as part of our ongoing performance audit on 
implementation of the new school lunch requirements from February 2013 
through June 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. 

Background: 

The National School Lunch Program, established in 1946, is intended to 
safeguard the health and well-being of the nation's children. The 
program provides nutritionally balanced low-cost or free lunches in 
participating schools to about 31 million children each month. At the 
federal level, USDA's Food and Nutrition Service oversees the program, 
which is administered by states and local SFAs. In fiscal year 2012, 
the federal government spent over $11 billion on the National School 
Lunch Program. Specifically, USDA provides reimbursement in the form 
of cash subsidies and donated commodities based on the number of 
lunches served that meet certain federal requirements. Although 
federal requirements for the content of school lunches have existed 
since the program's inception, as research has documented changes in 
the diets of Americans and the increasing incidence of overweight and 
obesity in the U.S., federal lunch requirements have become 
increasingly focused on improving the nutritional content of lunches. 

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which most recently 
reauthorized the National School Lunch Program, required changes to 
the federal lunch requirements with the intention of reducing 
childhood obesity and improving children's diets. Since 1994, federal 
law has required SFAs to serve school lunches that are consistent with 
the Dietary Guidelines for Americans,[Footnote 7] and in 2004, federal 
law required USDA to issue federal rules providing SFAs with specific 
recommendations for lunches consistent with the most recently 
published version of the Guidelines. As a result of that requirement, 
USDA asked the Institute of Medicine to review the food and 
nutritional needs of school-aged children in the United States using 
the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and provide recommended 
revisions to meal requirements for the National School Lunch Program. 
The Institute published its final report in 2010, and also in that 
year, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 required USDA to 
update the lunch requirements based on these recommendations. The 
Institute's report recommended changes to the lunch component and 
nutrition requirements in place at the time. Regarding the lunch 
components--fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, and milk--the Institute 
recommended offering both fruits and vegetables daily, increasing 
whole grain-rich foods, offering only fat-free and low-fat milk, and 
limiting the amount of grains and meats/meat alternates served each 
week. Regarding the nutrition requirements, the Institute recommended 
including both minimum and maximum calorie levels for lunches, 
increasing the emphasis on limiting saturated fat and minimizing trans 
fat, and reducing sodium content. USDA issued a proposed rule on the 
new lunch requirements in January 2011[Footnote 8] and a final rule in 
January 2012.[Footnote 9] The final rule required implementation of 
many of the new lunch requirements beginning in school year 2012-2013. 
Since the final rule was issued, USDA has provided extensive guidance, 
as well as technical assistanceand training, to states and SFAs to 
assist with implementation of the new requirements

The Eight SFAs We Visited Faced Several Challenges Implementing the 
New Lunch Requirements: 

All Were Challenged by Meat and Grain Limits: 

Because regulations issued in January 2012 by USDA placed limits on 
the amounts of meats/meat alternates and grains that can be included 
in a school lunch, all eight SFAs we visited modified or eliminated 
some popular menu items, leading to negative student reactions in some 
districts. USDA's new regulations specify the minimum and maximum 
weekly number of ounces of meats, cheese, or other meat alternates and 
the minimum and maximum weekly number of ounces of grains to be served 
with lunch, which differ by grade level.[Footnote 10] In comparison, 
the previous regulations only specified the minimum number of ounces 
of meats and grains required to be served with lunch each week. (See 
table 1.) Officials in one of the districts we visited told us that, 
in response to the new limits, cheeseburgers were removed from the 
elementary and middle school lunch menus because adding cheese to the 
district's burger patties would have made it difficult to stay within 
the weekly meat maximums. In another district, the SFA reported that 
it switched from using shredded cheese on the chili dog to processed 
cheese sauce because it does not count as a meat alternate. A similar 
type of switch occurred in one of the districts we visited because of 
the grain maximums. That SFA reported that it changed from serving a 
whole grain chip to a potato chip because the potato chip did not 
count as a grain. The grain maximums also affected popular lunch 
items, such as sandwiches. For example, four districts we visited 
reduced certain grain options used for sandwiches, such as the sub 
roll and the tortilla wrap, and two districts stopped serving peanut 
butter and jelly sandwiches as a daily option in elementary schools 
because the weekly grain maximum did not allow for a sandwich to be 
served every day. SFAs in four of the districts we visited noted that 
student reactions to these menu item changes were generally negative, 
and some said the changes had impacts on participation, that is, the 
number of students purchasing school lunches. For example, the 
tortilla wrap size change in one district was followed by a 
significant decrease in the number of students selecting their lunches 
from the previously popular deli sandwich line in the high schools, as 
well as a decrease in the overall percentage of students purchasing 
school lunches in those schools. Another district's change to its sub 
roll contributed to a middle and high school student boycott of school 
lunch that lasted for 3 weeks. 

Table 1: The Previous Federal Requirements for Weekly Meat and Grain 
Portions in School Lunches Compared to School Year 2012-2013 
Requirements: 

Previous Federal Requirements - Minimums: 

Grade Level: K-3; 
Meat (in ounces): 7.5; 
Grain (in ounces): 8 or 10[B]; 

Grade Level: 4-12; 
Meat (in ounces): 10; 
Grain (in ounces): 8 or 12[B]; 

Grade Level: 7-12[A]; 
Meat (in ounces): 10 or 15[B]; 
Grain (in ounces): 8 or 15[B]; 

School Year 2012-2013 Requirements - Minimums and Maximums: 

Grade Level: K-5; 
Meat (in ounces): 8-10; 
Grain (in ounces): 8-9; 

Grade Level: 6-8; 
Meat (in ounces): 9-10; 
Grain (in ounces): 8-10; 

Grade Level: 9-12; 
Meat (in ounces): 10-12; 
Grain (in ounces): 10-12. 

Source: USDA Analysis of Previous and Current Requirements, 77 Fed. 
Reg. 4088, 4113. 

[A] This was an optional grade configuration allowed under the 
previous federal requirements. 

[B] Under the previous federal requirements for school lunch, SFAs 
could choose to use one of five approved approaches to plan their 
menus. Three of these approaches focused on nutrient requirements and 
did not specify portion size requirements. The two approaches that 
included portion sizes requirements differed in the minimum 
requirements for certain grade levels, as shown in the table. 

[End of table] 

To comply with both the meat and grain maximums and the required 
calorie minimums for lunches, some districts added foods that 
generally did not improve the nutritional value of lunches. In the new 
requirements, USDA specified daily minimum and maximum calorie levels 
for school lunches by grade group (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12), which lunch 
menus must meet on average over the school week. However, because the 
entrée, typically consisting of meat and grain, generally provides the 
majority of the calories in the meal, the weekly meat and grain 
maximums that limit the size of entrées in effect also limited the 
calories of the lunches. As a result, five SFAs we visited reported 
that the meat and grain maximums made it difficult to plan menus that 
met the minimum calorie requirement for grade 9-12 lunches--750 
calories. To comply, some SFAs added foods to the menus that, while 
allowable, generally do not improve the nutritional value of lunches. 
For example, in three of the districts we visited, the SFAs reported 
adding pudding to certain high school menus to bring the menus into 
compliance with the calorie minimum. Some SFAs also added gelatin, ice 
cream, or condiments such as butter, jelly, ranch dressing, or cheese 
sauce to become compliant, according to the districts we visited and 
the SFA and industry groups we spoke with. While these additional menu 
items provided needed calories to lunches, they also likely increased 
the amount of sugar, sodium, or fat in the meal, potentially 
undercutting the federal law's goal of improving the nutritional 
quality of lunches.[Footnote 11] 

Some SFAs noted that obtaining meat and grain products from food 
vendors that complied with the new requirements was a continual and 
evolving process during school year 2012-2013 because vendors were 
continually modifying products throughout the year. For example, four 
SFAs we visited said they met regularly with vendors during school 
year 2012-2013 as vendors worked to bring their products into 
compliance. One of those SFAs reported working closely with food 
manufacturers and vendors throughout the summer of 2012 to find 
appropriate products, including a 1.5 ounce burger patty--which is 
less than half the size of a ¼ pound burger--that allowed the district 
to continue to serve cheeseburgers to all students. Representatives 
from a group of food manufacturers and other relevant industries we 
spoke with indicated that the meat and grain maximums were challenging 
to respond to in part because the grain maximums had unexpectedly 
changed between the proposed and final rules, and the time between 
issuance of the final regulations and required implementation was 
short.[Footnote 12] Some noted that while they were eventually able to 
reformulate their products to comply with the new requirements, the 
process took longer than the 6 months available between issuance of 
the final rule and the required implementation date.[Footnote 13] 

In response to feedback from states and SFAs regarding operational 
challenges caused by the meat and grain maximums, USDA lifted the 
maximums temporarily. First, in December 2012, USDA issued guidance 
allowing states to consider SFAs to be in compliance with the 
requirements for school year 2012-2013 if their menus exceeded the 
weekly meat and grain maximums. A few months later, in February 2013, 
USDA provided the same flexibility for school year 2013-2014, 
acknowledging that SFAs needed guidance to help with meal planning and 
food procurement for the coming school year, as SFAs often plan menus 
and order or contract for food beginning in the winter of the previous 
school year. The February guidance also stated that USDA understands 
the need for longer term guidance on this issue and is considering 
options for addressing the meat and grain maximums beyond school year 
2013-2014. In May 2013, USDA officials told us that the Department 
wanted to be responsive to the challenges they had heard about, and 
they did not see a problem making the temporary change to help with 
implementation because the meat and grain maximums and the calorie 
maximums both accomplish the goal of addressing portion size, making 
them somewhat redundant.[Footnote 14] Although this implies that USDA 
may permanently remove the meat and grain maximums, USDA officials 
told us that the Department is still considering options for a long-
term solution to the meat and grain maximums and has not yet made a 
permanent decision. 

None of the eight SFAs we visited made substantial changes to their 
menus in response to USDA's temporary removal of the weekly meat and 
grain maximums. Reasons that SFAs cited for this decision included: 
the flexibility was temporary, districts had already modified their 
menus to comply with the new requirements, products were already 
ordered for those menus, staff were already trained, and students had 
been educated about the new requirements. Instead, those SFAs that 
made some modifications after the flexibility was allowed focused on 
marginal changes that would ease menu planning and improve student 
acceptance of lunches. For example, in the district in which students 
reacted strongly to the decreased size of the tortilla wrap for 
sandwiches, the SFA brought in a larger wrap, though it was still 
smaller than the wrap used previously. Further, in the district that 
experienced a student boycott of lunch in part because of the change 
to the sub roll, the sub roll used in prior school years returned to 
the high school lunch menus. In another district that had decreased 
the amount of mini corn dogs they provided to each elementary school 
student because of the maximums, additional mini corn dogs were added 
to each student's portion. 

SFA directors, food manufacturers, and other relevant industry 
representatives indicated the need for a timely and permanent federal 
decision on these maximums. Specifically, some SFA directors we 
visited told us that it is difficult to know how to proceed with menu 
planning under the new requirements when the flexibility provided over 
the maximums continues to be temporary. The School Nutrition 
Association, which represents SFAs across the country, has indicated 
that it supports the permanent elimination of the meat and grain 
maximums, because their removal will give cafeterias more flexibility 
to design healthy menus that meet nutrition standards and student 
tastes. Although the flexibility exists for school year 2013-2014, 
because USDA has given SFAs mixed messages regarding the Department's 
future plans for the meat and grain maximums, SFAs are currently left 
guessing about the future outcome, making planning future budgets and 
food ordering difficult. Several industry representatives said that 
because some SFAs are planning menus that comply with the maximums, 
while others are planning menus that include larger meat and grain 
portion sizes, industry is experiencing difficulties forecasting 
demand, which leads to food production, inventory, and storage 
challenges. This situation will soon become more complicated because 
of the impending federal changes to the content of meals served 
through the School Breakfast Program and other foods sold in schools. 

Calorie Requirements for Middle and High Schools Also Challenged Some 
SFAs: 

Because the required calorie ranges for grades 6-8 and 9-12 do not 
overlap, schools with students in both these grade groups faced 
challenges complying with the calorie requirements. While the grades K-
5 and 6-8 average daily calorie ranges for school lunches overlap at 
550-650 and 600-700, the grades 6-8 and 9-12 ranges, which are 600-700 
and 750-850, do not.[Footnote 15] This creates a challenge for schools 
that include students from both grade groups, including schools in two 
of the districts we visited. One SFA director, whose district includes 
schools serving 7th through 12th graders, noted that complying with 
both of the calorie range requirements is particularly difficult when 
students in different grades use the same serving lines and share a 
lunch period. The director noted that cashiers at the point-of-sale 
may not know each student's grade level, which complicates the 
accurate identification of a meal that complies with the requirements. 
In addition, if certain food items are offered to some students and 
not to others depending on their grade, students may react negatively 
to the differential treatment. Because of these implementation issues, 
this district planned its menus to generally provide 725 calorie 
lunches for all students in these schools, which are not in compliance 
with either of the required ranges, and could potentially result in 
fiscal action against the SFA in the future.[Footnote 16] 

USDA's response to this issue, provided in part through the 
Department's guidance on menu planning under the new lunch 
requirements, has been limited. In the proposed rule on the new lunch 
requirements, USDA indicated that the new requirements are expected to 
bring about positive outcomes, including simplification of school 
lunch administration and operations. However, in comments on the 
proposed rule, some school districts expressed concerns that the lack 
of overlap in the calorie ranges may lead to increased costs and 
administrative burden. Although USDA did not change the ranges in the 
final rule, in its guidance on the new requirements, the Department 
acknowledges that the lack of overlap in the calorie ranges for these 
grade groups can be challenging. Because of this, USDA's guidance 
suggests that districts serve a menu appropriate for the lower grade 
level and add a few additional foods for students in the upper grade 
level. This differs from the previous requirements, which allowed 
schools to comply with meal requirements for the predominant grade 
group in schools that included students from two different groups. 
USDA's guidance also differs to some extent from the approach 
recommended by the Institute of Medicine in its report on which the 
federal requirements are based. The report's authors suggested that, 
for schools serving students from multiple grade groups on the same 
serving line, the SFA should work with the state agency to find a 
solution that ensures the basic elements of the standards for menu 
planning will be maintained, including moderate calorie values. 

Student Acceptance Has Been a Challenge to Some Extent: 

While all eight SFAs we visited expressed support for the goal of 
improving the nutritional quality of lunches and felt the new 
requirements were moving in that direction, all eight experienced 
various challenges related to student acceptance of some of the foods 
served to comply with the requirements. Under the new requirements, 
lunches must include whole grain-rich products and vegetables from 5 
sub-groups each week,[Footnote 17] and districts we visited noted that 
obtaining student acceptance of some whole grain-rich products and 
vegetables in the beans and peas (legumes) and red-orange sub-groups 
have been challenging. For example, six districts mentioned student 
acceptance of whole grain breads or pasta as being a challenge. 
Regarding vegetable sub-groups, five districts we visited said that 
they have had difficulty obtaining student acceptance of the beans and 
peas (legumes) sub-group, and two districts expressed difficulty with 
sweet potatoes, in the red-orange sub-group. Some noted that they have 
continued to try new recipes throughout the year to address these 
challenges, but acceptance has been limited. Challenges with student 
acceptance of these foods were foreseen by the Institute of Medicine 
in its report recommending they be required components of school 
lunch, as national data showed that few students reported eating these 
types of foods. The researchers noted that implementation of effective 
educational, marketing, and food preparation strategies, as well as 
the increased availability of suitable and appetizing products, may 
improve student acceptance of these foods. 

Some districts reported that, if the past is an indicator, student 
acceptance of these foods may improve over time, and student comments 
regarding other healthy foods they like suggest this as well. In four 
of the districts we visited, SFA directors noted that they had begun 
adding whole grains into their menus before the current school year, 
and they have seen student acceptance of whole grain products improve 
over time. In addition, one district's SFA director also noted that 
acceptance of foods in the beans and peas (legumes) sub-group has 
improved over time. When we talked to students in the schools we 
visited and asked them about lunch foods they do not like, these 
specific foods were mentioned by some students in four of the eight 
districts, but most students focused their comments on other 
vegetables or specific entrees. Further, most of the students we 
talked to indicated that they like to eat healthy and nutritious 
foods, and they think that school lunches generally provide such 
foods. Although school year 2012-2013 is the first year that students 
were required to take a fruit or a vegetable with school lunch 
nationwide, when we asked students what they like about school lunch 
this year, students in 13 of the 17 schools we visited to observe 
lunch reported liking certain fruit and vegetable options. 

Food waste is also an indicator of lack of student acceptance of the 
new lunch requirements. Students may take the food components they are 
required to as part of the school lunch, but they may then choose not 
to consume them. Although none of the districts we visited had fully 
analyzed food waste over the past few years to determine if it changed 
during school year 2012-2013,[Footnote 18] six of the SFAs we visited 
told us they believe food waste has increased because of the new lunch 
requirements. In particular, SFAs said that the fruits and vegetables 
students are now required to take sometimes end up thrown away, and in 
our lunch period observations in 7 of 17 schools, we saw many students 
throw some or all of their fruits and vegetables away. However, at the 
same time, we observed other students take and consume sizable 
quantities of fruits and vegetables and the other lunch components in 
the remaining 10 schools in which we observed lunch, resulting in 
minimal food waste. Four of the SFAs we visited talked about food 
waste being more of an issue with the youngest elementary school 
students, possibly because of the amount of food served with the lunch 
and the amount of time they have to consume it. The Institute of 
Medicine report acknowledged differences in food intake among 
elementary students, noting that the amounts of food offered under the 
new recommendations may be too large for some of the younger 
elementary school children because they are more likely to have lower 
energy needs than the older children in the same grade group. In 
USDA's final rule, the Department discussed the offer versus serve 
policy, which has been required for senior high schools and optional 
for all other schools since 1975, as a way to minimize food waste. 
Under the current regulations, this policy allows students to decline 
two of the five meal components offered with the lunch, rather than 
requiring students to be served all five components.[Footnote 19] 
However, the SFA director in one of the districts we visited noted 
that the district has chosen not to implement the offer versus serve 
policy for the youngest students because they have difficulty making 
choices, which extends the time spent in the serving line and 
decreases the time students have to consume their lunch. 

Student participation in lunch has decreased to some extent in school 
year 2012-2013, which is another indicator that student acceptance of 
school lunches may have declined since the changes. Most of the SFAs 
we visited reported that they experienced decreases in lunch 
participation in school year 2012-2013 in part because of the new 
lunch requirements and other factors.[Footnote 20] USDA's national 
data, which do not account for adjustments related to changes in 
monthly serving days or student enrollment across years, also 
generally show that student lunch participation was lower in school 
year 2012-2013 than it was the year before. Later this year, when we 
complete our study of the school lunch changes, we plan to provide 
additional information on lunch participation trends. 

SFAs Faced Other Challenges, Including Hunger Concerns and Increased 
Costs: 

SFAs also faced concerns in school year 2012-2013 that the new lunch 
requirements were leaving some students hungry--an issue raised in 
five of the districts we visited. For example, in one district, a high 
school principal told us that during school year 2012-2013, athletic 
coaches expressed concerns that student athletes were hungrier after 
school than they were in previous years, and staff reported that more 
students were distracted during the final period of the school day 
than in previous years. In the district we visited in which middle and 
high school students boycotted school lunch at the beginning of the 
year, the boycott was led by two student athletes in part because they 
indicated that the lunches were leaving them hungry. These concerns 
were likely related to decreased entrée sizes. During our visits to 
schools, students in six schools mentioned that they have been hungry 
this year after eating school lunch because of various reasons. For 
example, students in three schools attributed this to the smaller 
entrees, and students in one of those schools also noted that it may 
be related to the timing of their lunch periods, as their school's 
first lunch period began around 10: 30 a.m. and the school day ended 
at about 2: 30 p.m. In another school, students acknowledged that they 
had not taken or eaten all of the items offered with the lunch, which 
we observed resulted in a smaller sized lunch. (See figure 1.) In 
contrast, when students served themselves all of the lunch components 
in the districts that we visited, their lunches were substantially 
larger in size, primarily because of the large amounts of fruits and 
vegetables they selected. (See figure 2.) 

Figure 1: Three Food Component Lunches: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Food components included in the lunches shown are: grain, fruit, 
and milk in the lunch on the left; and grain, fruit, and meat 
alternate (yogurt) in the lunch on the right. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 2: Five Food Component Lunches: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Food components included in both the lunches shown are grain, 
meat/meat alternate, fruit, vegetable, and milk. 

[End of figure] 

School lunches generally provide fewer calories under the new 
requirements than in past years, likely because of smaller entrée 
sizes. Specifically, the new required lunch calorie maximums for each 
grade group are either lower or comparable to the calorie minimums 
previously required. As a result, school lunches generally provided 
more calories in the past, according to national data, than they are 
allowed to in school year 2012-2013, particularly for younger 
students.[Footnote 21] Although the previous nutrition standards were 
developed to align school lunches with the Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans, they were developed in the mid 1990s. Since then, the 
percentage of children who are overweight and obese has increased, and 
research has shown that excess food consumption, poor food choices, 
and decreased physical activity contribute to these trends. The 
Institute of Medicine's 2010 recommendations for the lunch pattern 
were developed using a data-based approach, which assessed data on 
healthy weights and heights, physical activity, and the distribution 
of calories among meals, and the authors indicate that the recommended 
lunches are appropriate for the level of physical activity of most 
children. 

SFAs also expressed concerns about the impact of compliance with the 
new lunch requirements on food costs and their budgets. All eight SFAs 
we visited reported that they have incurred increases in fruit and 
vegetable costs this year because of the requirement that students 
take at least one fruit or vegetable with lunch. Further, most 
indicated that overall costs for school lunch were greater in school 
year 2012-2013 than in the past, and three expressed concerns about 
the impact of these changes on their overall financial stability. 
Because we conducted our visits before the end of the school year, we 
have not yet obtained data from these SFAs on how they ended the year 
financially, though we plan to provide information on those results in 
our final report. 

All eight SFAs we visited also discussed other challenges implementing 
the lunch changes during school year 2012-2013, such as additional 
menu planning issues, food procurement, new requirements related to 
the price of lunches, the pace of implementation, and USDA's 
assistance with the changes. When we complete our study of the lunch 
changes later this year, we will provide additional information about 
implementation challenges and USDA's assistance to states and SFAs 
with implementation. 

SFAs Noted Concerns about the Proposed Competitive Foods Changes: 

In addition to the school lunch changes, the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids 
Act of 2010 required that USDA specify and require nutrition standards 
for all foods and beverages sold outside the school meals programs on 
the school campus during the school day, which are commonly referred 
to as competitive foods because they compete with school meal 
programs. Competitive foods are often sold through vending machines, 
school stores, and fundraisers, and also include SFA sales of a la 
carte items in the cafeteria. In school year 2009-2010, competitive 
foods were sold in an estimated 93 percent of schools nationwide, 
according to a recent USDA study.[Footnote 22] The proposed rule 
containing these standards was published by USDA in February 
2013,[Footnote 23] and during our visits to SFAs, many expressed 
concerns that certain aspects of the proposed rule would be 
challenging to implement, if finalized.[Footnote 24] 

Specifically, seven of the eight SFAs we visited expressed concerns 
about what they viewed as a lack of clarity in the proposed rule 
regarding how the nutrition standards for competitive food sales 
administered by entities other than the SFA will be enforced. In our 
2005 report on competitive foods,[Footnote 25] we found that many 
different people made decisions about competitive food sales, but no 
one person commonly had responsibility for all sales in a school. At 
that time, in a majority of schools nationwide, district officials 
made competitive food policies, while SFA directors and principals 
made decisions about specific sales. Other groups, such as student 
clubs and booster groups, also made competitive food decisions through 
their direct involvement in sales. The number and variety of groups 
involved in these sales typically increased as the school level 
increased. For example, an estimated 48 percent of middle schools 
nationwide had three or more groups involved in these sales compared 
to an estimated 83 percent of high schools. Although a 2004 law 
required districts to implement wellness policies in school year 2006-
2007 that addressed nutritional guidelines for all foods available in 
schools during the school day, some of the SFAs we recently visited 
told us that these policies have generally not been enforced, in part 
because no one person was granted enforcement responsibility over all 
such sales.[Footnote 26] 

SFAs we visited also expressed concern that the proposed rule's 
inclusion of differing nutrition standards based on the type of 
competitive foods sale will put the SFA at a competitive disadvantage 
relative to other food sales within a school. For example, five SFA 
directors expressed concerns about the proposed rule's provision 
allowing states discretion to make decisions about fundraisers that 
are exempt from the federal nutrition standards for competitive foods. 
Some SFA directors expressed concerns that this would potentially 
result in inconsistent treatment, whereby SFAs' competitive food sales 
would be required to follow the nutrition standards and fundraisers 
would not. Similarly, some SFAs expressed concerns about the proposed 
rule's inclusion of different standards for beverages sold in food 
service areas during meal periods--which are typically sold through 
SFA a la carte sales--and beverages sold outside of meal service 
areas--such as those through vending machines. Specifically, although 
the proposed rule allows the sale of milk, water, and juice through 
any competitive food venue at any time, the rule also allows the sale 
of other beverages, except for in food service areas during meal 
periods. However, this restriction is somewhat similar to the current 
federal requirements on competitive food sales.[Footnote 27] 

Conclusions: 

Across the country, more nutritious school lunches likely were 
provided to students during school year 2012-2013. All eight SFAs we 
visited expressed support for the goal of improving the nutritional 
quality of lunches and felt the new federal requirements were moving 
in that direction. Many students' positive comments on healthy foods, 
their views that school lunches generally provide such foods, and 
their consumption of sizable quantities of fruits and vegetables in 
the majority of schools we visited indicate that acceptance of the new 
lunch requirements will improve over time. However, as the first year 
of implementation of the new requirements for the content of school 
lunches has unfolded, the SFAs we visited also faced a variety of 
challenges. 

While some of the challenges SFAs faced this year have been addressed 
and others may become less difficult as time elapses, those caused by 
the required weekly maximum amounts of meats and grains permitted in 
lunches and the lack of overlap in the allowable calorie ranges for 
grades 6-8 and 9-12 likely will not. Because of the meat and grain 
maximums, some districts made menu decisions that are inconsistent 
with the goal of improving children's diets, as they added desserts 
and condiments that increased the amount of sugar, salt, or fat in 
lunches in order to comply with the required calorie minimums. 
Acknowledging that the meat and grain maximums created challenges for 
SFAs, USDA lifted them through school year 2013-2014 and indicated 
that the maximums may not be needed to accomplish the nutrition goals 
of the new requirements. However, although USDA has acknowledged the 
need for a permanent decision on the maximums, they have yet to 
provide one, hindering the ability of school districts to plan menus, 
food purchases, budgets, staff training, and student education because 
they do not know whether the meat and grain restrictions will be 
reinstated in the future or not. In addition, the requirements that 
lunches served to students in grades 6-8 provide different amounts of 
calories than lunches served to students in grades 9-12--even in 
schools that serve students in both grade groups--is inconsistent with 
past practices, expert recommendations, and USDA's intent of 
simplifying the administration and operations of the school lunch 
program. Most significantly, the inflexibility of these calorie 
requirements substantially hinders certain SFAs' ability to comply, 
which may potentially result in fiscal action against SFAs in future 
years. Absent a permanent USDA decision to remove the meat and grain 
maximums and increase flexibility for schools that serve meals to 
students in both the 6-8 and 9-12 grade groupings, SFAs will continue 
to face challenges implementing the regulations, potentially impeding 
their efforts to meet their key goals--healthier foods in school for 
healthier students. 

Recommendations: 

To improve SFAs' ability to design menus that comply with the new 
lunch requirements, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture: 

* permanently remove the weekly meat/meat alternate and grain maximums 
for school lunch defined in federal regulations, and: 

* modify federal regulations or guidance to allow school districts 
flexibility in complying with the defined calorie ranges for schools 
with students in both the grades 6-8 and 9-12 groups. 

We provided a draft of this testimony to USDA for review and comment. 
In oral comments, USDA officials indicated that they generallya greed 
with our recommendation regarding meats and grains, and they are 
currently developing an approach for permanently lifting the meat 
and grain maximums. Officials added that while they recognize the need 
to address the challenges posed by lack of overlap in the calorie ranges
for grades 6-8 and 9-12, it is important to identify a solution to this 
issue that ensures calorie ranges remain appropriately targeted to students 
based on their ages—-a point emphasized by the Institute of Medicine. USDA 
officials also said that they have been collecting information on 
implementation of the new lunch requirements throughout the year from many 
school districts and have heard about implementation challenges. However, 
according to USDA officials, official reporting by states indicates that a 
majority of districts have been able to comply with the new requirements. 
USDA also expressed concern that the findings in the testimony did not reflect 
a nationally representative sample of school districts. We continue to believe 
that our site visits to eight school districts and our interviews with eight 
SFA directors from across the country, state officials, and industry 
representatives enabled us to identify some of the challenges school districts 
are facing in implementing the new nutrition standards. Our final report will 
provide additional information and data to inform these issues. 

Chairman Rokita and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. 
I would be pleased to respond to questions you may have. 

Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

For further questions on this testimony, please contact me at (202) 
512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this statement. Individuals who made key contributions to this 
statement include Jessica Botsford, Robert Campbell, Rachel Frisk, 
Kathy Larin, Jean McSween, Dan Meyer, and Zachary Sivo. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 111-296 § 201, 124 Stat. 3183, 3214. As required by 
the law, USDA updated the nutrition standards based on recommendations 
issued by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research 
Council of the National Academies of Science, part of the Institute of 
Medicine. Throughout this report, we refer to these as the Institute 
of Medicine's recommendations. 

[2] The School Nutrition Association (SNA), a national non-profit 
organization representing 55,000 members involved in serving meals to 
children in schools, assisted our efforts to speak with these groups. 
The eight SFA directors we spoke with were representatives on SNA's 
public policy and legislation committee, which includes representatives 
from each region of the country, as well as SNA's board of directors. 
None of these SFA directors were responsible for administering the 
National School Lunch Program in districts that we selected for site 
visits, and only one of the SFA directors was from a state in which 
we conducted a site visit. The 11 industry representatives we spoke 
with were members of SNA, and some serve on the Association's industry 
advisory board. 

[3] We anticipate issuing a final report on this study in late 2013. 

[4] We conducted site visits to Caddo Parish Public Schools (LA), 
Carlisle Area School District (PA), Chicago Public Schools (IL), Coeur 
d'Alene School District (ID), Fairfax County Public Schools (VA), 
Irving Independent School District (TX), Mukwonago Area School 
District (WI), and Spokane Public Schools (WA). 

[5] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office 
of Research and Analysis, School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study IV 
(Alexandria, VA: November 2012). 

[6] Institute of Medicine, School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy 
Children (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2010). 

[7] The Dietary Guidelines for Americans were first issued in 1980, 
and most recently issued in 2010. The Secretaries of Agriculture and 
Health and Human Services are required, at least every 5 years, to 
publish a report entitled "Dietary Guidelines for Americans" based on 
current scientific and medical knowledge. 

[8] Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School 
Breakfast Programs, 76 Fed. Reg. 2494 (proposed Jan.13, 2011) (to be 
codified at 7 C.F.R. pts. 210 and 220). 

[9] Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School 
Breakfast Programs, 77 Fed. Reg. 4088 (Jan. 26, 2012) (codified at 7 
C.F.R. pts. 210 and 220). 

[10] The new regulations also specify the minimum number of ounces of 
meats and grains that must be served each day but do not specify the 
maximum number of ounces of meats and grains that must be served each 
day. 

[11] However, lunches in which these menu items are added must still 
comply with the new nutrition requirements, which currently include 
limits on the amount of fat in school lunches. Beginning in school 
year 2014-2015, the new nutrition requirements also limit the amount 
of sodium in lunches. 

[12] The weekly grain maximums for grades K-5 and 9-12 were higher in 
the proposed rule than in the final rule, as they changed from 10 to 9 
ounces and 13 to 12 ounces, respectively. USDA officials explained 
that they made the change because they could not implement the 
proposed rule's limit on starchy vegetables due to a provision in the 
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012, Pub. 
L. No. 112-55, which prevented USDA from implementing any maximum 
limits on vegetables. USDA officials said that they lowered the 
maximum weekly ounces of grains to limit the overall starchy items 
served with lunch. Concerning timing, the final rule was issued 
January 26, 2012 with implementation required by July 1, 2012, which 
was the beginning of school year 2012-2013. 

[13] Some industry representatives noted that because of the need to 
focus on product reformulation throughout the school year, they have 
been unable to direct efforts to new product development to provide 
districts with additional food options that comply with the new 
requirements. 

[14] The Institute of Medicine report on which USDA based the new 
lunch requirements states that both the food component and calorie 
requirements are needed to achieve alignment with the Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans, which is why they recommended including both 
the calorie ranges and the weekly amounts for each food component, 
including meats and grains. However, although the Institute attempted 
to analyze the recommendations with respect to likely benefits and 
negative consequences, its report noted that the evidence on which to 
base such predictions is limited. As a result, the Institute may not 
have foreseen the operational challenges associated with the meat and 
grain maximums. 

[15] The Institute of Medicine report used data-based methods to 
provide a basis for the calculation of appropriate values for mean 
total daily calorie requirements for students in the three grade 
groups. Specifically, the report indicates that calorie range 
recommendations are based on reference growth chart data for healthy 
weights and heights, objective data on physical activity, and data on 
how calories are distributed among meals and snacks consumed by 
schoolchildren. 

[16] Under USDA regulations, an SFA found to have served meals not in 
compliance with requirements is potentially subject to fiscal action, 
such as the recovery of federal reimbursements for those meals. 

[17] Regarding the grains component of the lunch, federal regulations 
require that all grain products must be made with enriched and whole 
grain meal or flour, and whole grain-rich products must contain at 
least 51 percent whole grains. Beginning July 1, 2012, half of the 
grain products offered during the school week must meet the whole 
grain-rich criteria, and beginning July 1, 2014, all grain products 
must meet these criteria. Regarding the vegetables component of the 
lunch, federal regulations define the minimum weekly serving sizes for 
each of the vegetable sub-groups--dark green vegetables, red-orange 
vegetables, beans and peas (legumes), starchy vegetables, and other 
vegetables. 

[18] One of the districts we visited has been working with a 
university researcher on a plate waste study, but a final report has 
yet to be issued. 

[19] However, under the current regulations, students must select at 
least ½ cup of the fruit or vegetable component with their lunches. 

[20] While we obtained some lunch participation data from the 
districts we visited, we have not yet fully analyzed the changes they 
experienced. 

[21] National data from school year 2009-2010 show that the average 
calorie content of school lunch offered was 726 in elementary schools, 
785 in middle schools, and 843 in high schools; see School Nutrition 
Dietary Assessment Study IV, 2012. The average daily maximum calorie 
content for lunches under the new federal requirements is: 650 for 
grades K-5, 700 for grades 6-8 and 850 for grades 9-12. 

[22] School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study IV (2012). 

[23] National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: 
Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold In School as Required by the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, 78 Fed. Reg. 9530 (proposed 
Feb. 8, 2013) (to be codified at 7 C.F.R. pts. 210 and 220). 

[24] USDA sought public comments on the proposed rule and will 
consider these comments in finalizing the rule. For purposes of this 
testimony, we did not review or analyze the comments submitted in 
response to the proposed rulemaking. To view the comments that were 
submitted in response to the proposed rule, visit [hyperlink, 
http://www.regulations.gov]. The comments described in this testimony 
were shared with us by SFAs during our site visits and may or may not 
echo themes that were raised by those officially commenting on the 
proposed rule. 

[25] GAO, School Meal Programs: Competitive Foods are Widely Available 
and Generate Substantial Revenues for Schools, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-563] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 
2005). 

[26] Recognizing this, as part of a broader city campaign on health 
and wellness, one of the districts we visited recently created a 
separate department responsible for health and wellness initiatives, 
including enforcement of the district's wellness policy and 
nutritional guidelines for all foods sold in schools. 

[27] Currently, federal regulations prohibit the sale of certain 
competitive foods, known as foods of minimal nutritional value (FMNV), 
during meal periods in school cafeterias and other food service areas. 
FMNV, as defined by USDA, include soda, chewing gum, and hard candy, 
for example. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]