On the Friday before Christmas, Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds announced that her state would opt out of a federal program that gives $40 per month to children who receive free and reduced-cost lunch to help with food costs while school is out.
The 2024 Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children — or Summer EBT — program is, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, based on USDA's Summer EBT for Children demonstration projects and Pandemic EBT. Despite Congress making the pandemic-era benefit, which was shown to reduce hunger and increase diet quality, permanent, Reynolds is skeptical.
"Federal COVID-era cash benefit programs are not sustainable and don't provide long-term solutions for the issues impacting children and families. An EBT card does nothing to promote nutrition at a time when childhood obesity has become an epidemic," Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds said in the news release.
She continued: "If the Biden Administration and Congress want to make a real commitment to family well-being, they should invest in already existing programs and infrastructure at the state level and give us the flexibility to tailor them to our state's needs."
However, Iowa isn’t the only state declining to participate in the program. In fact, according to the Alliance to End Hunger, less than half the eligible states and U.S. territories have signed up for Summer EBT as a Jan. 1 federal application deadline looms. But why, as food insecurity continues to skyrocket across the country, are some states refusing to participate?
What are the details of the program?
Back in 2010, the Summer EBT program got its start with funding from the Agriculture Appropriations Act. This act, also known as Public Law 111-80, gave the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) the green light to try out new ways to tackle food insecurity during summer break.
In 2011, the USDA kicked off Summer EBT as a test run. They wanted to see how providing summer nutrition benefits through an EBT card would impact low-income families with school-age kids. In the first year, around 12,500 families in need received a debit card with a set amount to buy groceries during the summer months.Because the pilot project was a hit, Congress decided to invest more resources in Summer EBT through their annual appropriations process. This extra funding allowed the USDA to expand the program to more states and serve more children.
In a 2016 assessment of the program, several positive results were observed, chiefly reduced food insecurity and improved nutrition.
“By providing low-income households with a $30 or $60 per month per child benefit, the most severe type of food insecurity (very low food security) was reduced by one-third, and food insecurity was reduced by one-fifth,” reports the Food Research & Action Center. “Both the $30 and $60 monthly
benefit levels led to an improvement in children’s summertime nutritional intake, but children in households that received the $60 benefit ate slightly more nutritious foods (fruits, vegetables, and whole grains) than those in the $30 group.”
In 2023, the program was permanently authorized as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, meaning that states willing to cover half the administrative costs have the option to implement it this summer.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Summer EBT will provide families with kids who are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals with $40 per child per month over the summer while school is out. Families will receive physical EBT cards — like those used for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which they can then use to purchase food. States that choose to implement Summer EBT are required to serve all children who qualify for the program.
Why are some states opting out?
Some states, including Iowa, have cited cost as at least a partial reason for opting out of the program. As the Associated Press reported, participating in the program would cost Iowa about $2.2 million. According to the Lincoln Journal Star, Nebraska is also declining to participate in the program, which would cost the state about $300,000 annually in administrative costs.
However, there also seems to be a partisan tinge to some of the dissent, specifically around the concept of whether or not a program like this qualifies as “welfare,” something against which many conservatives have historically rallied. Such is the case for Nebraska Republican Gov. Jim Pillen, who told the Journal Star on Friday: “In the end, I fundamentally believe that we solve the problem, and I don't believe in welfare.”
In Iowa, Gov. Reynolds brought up childhood obesity as part of her reasoning for opting out (though it’s worth noting that equating laziness — or obesity — and the need for government assistance is a common line of rhetoric out of the Republican playbook that’s as old as Reagan.)
What do food security advocates think?
Some politicians have already criticized their respective state’s choice to not participate in Summer EBT.
"It's extremely disappointing that the Reynolds administration is planning to reject federal money that could put food on the table for hungry Iowa kids," Democratic Sen. Izaah Knox of Des Moines said in a statement. "This cruel and short-sighted decision will have real impacts on children and families in my district and communities all across Iowa."
In a Wednesday statement to Salon Food, Eric Mitchell, the president of the Alliance to End Hunger, said that for millions of children, the end of school meals during the summer months means losing out on their main and most consistent source of nutrition.
“For these children, access to Summer EBT can be the difference between getting the meals they need to stay healthy and thrive, or going hungry,” Mitchell said. “That’s why Congress recently made the program permanent, and why every state should participate.”
He continued: “It is deeply concerning that, with the January 1 deadline approaching for summer 2024, more than half of states have yet to commit for this summer. In a time when food insecurity in the United States is increasing, we need to do everything in our power to ensure that no child goes hungry. The Alliance to End Hunger hopes that states will do the right thing and make the proper investments in this critically important program.”
