DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa has chosen not to partake in the 2024 Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (Summer EBT) program, a federal initiative providing $40 per month to each child in low-income families during the summer break. The decision was announced by the state’s Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Education in a news release on Friday.
Iowa’s Republican Governor, Kim Reynolds, justified the move by stating that federal COVID-era cash benefit programs are not sustainable and fail to offer long-term solutions to challenges faced by children and families. Governor Reynolds argued that the use of Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards does not contribute to promoting nutrition, particularly at a time when childhood obesity is a growing concern.
“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,” Governor Reynolds stated in the release.
Participation in the federal program requires states to cover half of the administrative costs, estimated at $2.2 million for Iowa, according to the news release.
The decision has drawn criticism from various quarters, including Democratic Senator Izaah Knox of Des Moines, who expressed disappointment, calling the move “cruel and short-sighted.” Knox emphasized the potential real-life impact on children and families in Iowa.
Meanwhile, neighboring Nebraska has also decided not to participate in the Summer EBT program, incurring an estimated annual administrative cost of about $300,000. Nebraska’s Republican Governor, Jim Pillen, expressed his belief in solving problems without relying on welfare, stating, “In the end, I fundamentally believe that we solve the problem.”
The rejection of federal assistance by both Iowa and Nebraska has sparked a debate on the prioritization of financial considerations over potential benefits to vulnerable children and families, with critics arguing that such decisions may exacerbate food insecurity issues among low-income households.
