Report 26-08 Audit of the Department of Education’s Efforts to Meet Its Mandate to Incorporate Local Foods in School Meals

In 2021, the Legislature transferred the Farm to School Program from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Education (DOE), created a Farm to School Coordinator position, and set a clear target: By January 1, 2025, 10 percent of the total cost of school meals was to come from locally sourced products. By 2030, that number is required to reach 30 percent.

DOE had three school years to meet the 10 percent benchmark.

It did not.

For School Year 2023–2024 — the year tied to the January 1, 2025 deadline — DOE reported that just 5.4 percent of its $82 million in food spending was on locally sourced products 

We initiated this audit to determine why DOE did not meet the 10 percent mandate and how the department intends to meet the 30 percent requirement by 2030.  We found that neither the Farm to School Program nor the mandate to increase the use of local products was treated as a department priority.  The program lacked a strategic plan, written policies and procedures, and reliable data systems to track and verify local food purchases. Cafeteria Managers — who are responsible for ordering food — were not consistently informed of specific targets, and most product lists did not distinguish between local and imported items, limiting their ability to purchase local products intentionally.

We also found that DOE’s data on locally sourced purchases was unverified and, at times, inconsistent. The department relied on distributor-reported data and lacked a centralized system capable of accurately tracking local purchases across schools.

In Summer 2025, DOE released a plan centered on building regional kitchens as a pathway to reaching 30 percent locally sourced food by 2030. While centralized kitchens may create opportunities to incorporate more local ingredients, the plan lacks key baseline data, cost analyses, and concrete projections demonstrating how those facilities will result in increased local procurement 

Without a deliberate strategy, reliable data, and coordinated execution, DOE’s spending on local food has remained largely static — reflecting business as usual rather than a sustained effort to meet the Legislature’s mandate.

Learn how:

• DOE lacked a structured plan and reliable systems to track and increase locally sourced food purchases.
• Cafeteria purchasing practices and procurement processes limited the department’s ability to prioritize local products.
• DOE’s proposed regional kitchen strategy may not, on its own, ensure that the 30 percent mandate is met by 2030.
• Without sufficient baseline data on what local products are available, in what quantities, during which seasons, and at what cost, the 30 percent mandate risks becoming not only another unmet benchmark, but a costly one.

Read the full report here:
https://files.hawaii.gov/auditor/Reports/2026/26-08.pdf

Report summary:
https://files.hawaii.gov/auditor/Overviews/2026/26-08AuditorSummary.pdf

Thanks for listening.  You can find this and other reports at: auditor.hawaii.gov

Transcript

Speaker 0:00

Welcome to the Audible Audit, an AI-generated podcast summarizing the Hawaii Office of the Auditor's Report, audit of the Department of Education's Efforts to Meet its Mandate to Incorporate Local Foods in School Meals. While AI may slightly mispronounce some words, the content has been reviewed by the Office of the Auditor and is consistent with the information in the report. The podcast offers another means to learn about the audit and is intended for public informational and educational purposes only. Listeners are encouraged to consult the full report for detailed and authoritative information about the audit.

Host 0:38

Welcome and thanks for listening. Today we're talking about our recent audit of the Department of Education's efforts to incorporate more locally sourced food into public school meals. In 2021, the legislature set a target. By January 1st, 2025, 10% of the total cost of school meals was supposed to come from local foods. And by 2030, that number rises to 30%. So did the department meet that first benchmark? I'm joined by an AI-generated guest familiar with the report. Thanks for being here.

Guest 1:08

Thanks for having me. Happy to be here.

Host 1:10

Let's start with the bottom line. Did the Department of Education meet the 10% requirement?

Guest 1:15

No, it did not. For the school year covering the January 1st, 2025 deadline, the department reported that only 5.4% of its total food spending was on locally sourced products.

Host 1:27

So not only did the department miss the mark, it wasn't particularly close.

Guest 1:31

That's right. And what we found was that the shortfall wasn't caused by one single obstacle. Instead, the department's efforts lacked structure, direction, and follow-through.

Host 1:41

What do you mean by that?

Guest 1:42

The Farm to School program didn't have a strategic plan guiding how it would reach the 10% goal. There were no clear policies directing staff to prioritize local purchasing. And cafeteria managers, the people actually buying the food, often didn't have the information they needed to know which products were local and which were imported. For example, most of the department's approved food price lists did not identify whether produce was locally grown. So even if cafeteria managers wanted to buy local, they couldn't easily tell what was local.

Host 2:11

So the responsibility for meeting a statewide mandate was essentially resting on cafeteria managers without giving them the tools to do it?

Guest 2:18

That's a fair way to put it. In addition, the department didn't have a reliable system to track local purchases. It relied largely on data provided by distributors, and there were discrepancies between what was reported to the legislature and what appeared in the Department of Education's own financial system. At one point, the department purchased a menu and inventory tracking system that could have helped, but its implementation wasn't fully thought out, which led to poor participation, and the system was later discontinued. In the end, cafeteria managers reverted to handwritten tracking.

Host 2:50

So this is as much about management systems as it is about food.

Guest 2:54

Exactly. This is a performance and accountability issue. If you're going to measure success as a percentage of total food cost, you need accurate data on both total food costs and local food costs. The department didn't put that foundation in place. The bottom line is that reaching the 10% goal just wasn't priority for the department.

Host 3:12

The audit also notes something interesting about student preferences.

Guest 3:16

Yes, many of the most popular school menu items are processed foods, like cheese bites, pizza, and chicken tenders. These items currently make up a significant share of food spending. Increasing local sourcing likely requires more scratch cooking, but that brings operational challenges, staffing considerations, and student acceptance into the equation.

Host 3:36

So this isn't just about buying local, it's about menu design, procurement, training, infrastructure, and costs.

Guest 3:42

That's right. The legislature established ambitious goals to support local agriculture and improve student health. But for those goals to translate into results, the department needs clear leadership, documented policies, accurate data systems, and a strategic plan grounded in real-world supply and cost conditions.

Host 4:00

Let's turn to the second major issue. The legislature didn't just set a 10% target, it set a 30% goal by 2030. How does the department plan to get there?

Guest 4:10

The department's primary strategy is to build a network of regional kitchens. These centralized facilities would receive raw ingredients, process and cook meals, and distribute them to schools. The department believes that by preparing more meals from scratch, it can incorporate more locally sourced ingredients.

Host 4:27

On its face, that sounds promising. What did the audit find?

Guest 4:30

We found that while regional kitchens may create opportunities for local producers, the current plan lacks essential details. For instance, there isn't sufficient baseline data about what local products are available, in what quantities, at what cost, and during which seasons. Instead, the department expects that given enough lead time, farmers, ranchers, and distributors can scale up operations to meet the increased demands, even though it doesn't specifically identify what those demands will be. There's also no detailed analysis showing how the regional kitchens will increase local spending from roughly 6% today to 30% by 2030.

Host 5:07

So the plan is aspirational, but not yet operational?

Guest 5:10

That's correct. The timelines in the plan project steady annual increases in local spending, but those projections don't appear to be tied to concrete data, supply assessments, or cost analysis. For example, some locally sourced items like local pork can cost significantly more than imported alternatives. The department has not fully analyzed what it would cost to shift 30% of its total food spending to local products.

Host 5:35

And that's important because lawmakers need to understand what the mandate will require financially.

Guest 5:40

Exactly. Without a clear estimate of the cost difference, neither the Department of Education nor the legislature can fully assess whether the 30% goal is achievable within existing budgets or how much additional funding would be required.

Host 5:54

If you had to sum up the audit's overall message, what would it be?

Guest 5:58

The department's current local food spending reflects business as usual, not a deliberate coordinated effort to meet legislative mandates. Moving from 6% to 30% will require more than hope and infrastructure plans. It will require data-driven decision making, stronger internal controls, and consistent management oversight. And then there are the questions of how much will it cost to get to 30% And can the state afford it?

Host 6:23

Important findings with real implications for students, farmers, and taxpayers alike. Thanks for breaking this down and walking us through the findings.

Guest 6:31

Thank you.

Host 6:31

And thanks to you for listening. You can read the full audit, report number 26 - 08, Audit of the Department of Education's Efforts to Meet its Mandate to Incorporate Local Foods in School Meals, and other reports from the State of Hawaii Office of the Auditor at auditor.hawaii.gov.