This summer, lower-income families with children eligible for school meals face a mixed landscape of support across the United States, contingent on their state’s decision to participate in a federal initiative aimed at mitigating child hunger during the school break.
Program Potential
Despite the program’s potential to provide significant relief, 14 states, all under Republican leadership, have declined to join, citing a range of reasons from philosophical stances against welfare to logistical issues linked to outdated technology and a preference for existing, albeit less comprehensive, nutrition initiatives.
Missed Opportunity
The absence of this program spells a missed opportunity for many families, especially across the south of the country. The decision not to participate in the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) program, which was made permanent by Congress in December 2022 following its initial pilot in 2011 and expansion during the pandemic, leaves an additional 10 million children in a precarious position regarding summer nutrition.
Scope of Program
The program, designed to distribute $40 per child per month for groceries, aims to bridge the nutritional gap that widens when schools close for the summer. Yet, with a federal budget of $2.5 billion set to support 21 million children this year, the non-participating states highlight a broader trend of declining federal assistance, including previous rejections of enhanced unemployment benefits and Medicaid expansion by many of the same states.
Deadline
States had until the end of 2023 to opt into the program for the upcoming summer, with the option to join in future years remaining open. Some, like Vermont, have deferred their participation pending technological updates. Others, such as Texas, cite the timing of federal rule finalization and legislative scheduling conflicts as barriers to immediate participation, though openness to future involvement remains.
Enduring Nutrition Challenges
The choices made by states not only reflect varied political and administrative strategies but also underscore the enduring challenges of ensuring adequate nutrition for all children, particularly during the summer months. Wyoming’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder, for instance, prefers direct meal services over EBT funds, despite acknowledging the limitations of current summer meal sites in her state.
Critics of the Debate
Amidst the debate, the program’s rejections have not gone without criticism, especially in states with high child food insecurity rates like Mississippi. Governor Tate Reeves’ administration has faced backlash for prioritizing ideological concerns over practical needs, a sentiment echoed by Allen’s critique of misplaced governmental priorities. Similarly, in Nebraska, initial resistance by Governor Jim Pillen met with public outcry, leading to a reversal of his decision influenced by personal testimonies of hunger from students.
No Kid Hungry
As discussions continue and some states reconsider their stance, the issue of child hunger during summer remains a focal point for both policymakers and advocates. The No Kid Hungry Campaign’s Lisa Davis expresses optimism that the universal concern for child welfare may eventually lead to nationwide participation in the program. Meanwhile, in Iowa, local officials are seeking alternative ways to access the rejected federal funds, highlighting the ongoing search for solutions to a pressing issue that transcends political divisions.
