A report last week that South Dakota turned down $7.5 million in federal money to help feed low-income children this summer — at a time when, according to Feeding South Dakota, an estimated 25,000 South Dakota children are battling hunger — is one of those stories that, in part, appears to fall into a familiar pattern of state self-promotion at the expense of its residents.

South Dakota News Watch reported that the state refused to apply for the funds issued through Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer (P-EBT) program. The funding would have helped feed approximately 63,000 South Dakota children this summer.

P-EBT was started during the COVD-19 pandemic, with the funding coming from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Congress recently made the program permanent.

This program would be especially helpful during the summer months because many kids may struggle to get adequate meals when schools aren’t in session and school lunch programs aren’t offered.

However, South Dakota was one of seven states to pass on even applying for this funding. According to the office of Gov. Kristi Noem, this state didn’t pursue the money because there are already summer meal programs around the state, and it’s also too challenging to administer the program.

However, this would seem like a contradiction. Yes, there ARE summer meal programs in areas — Yankton is one such place — but they don’t cover everything or serve everyone, and they don’t necessarily run the entire summer. Nevertheless, there is experience in implementing those existing programs and others like it, so the know-how in administering it may well be in place already.

Noem spokesman Ian Fury added another explanation for not seeking the funding.

“Federal money often comes with strings attached, and more of it is often not a good thing,” he told News Watch in an email. “Because of South Dakota’s record low unemployment rate, our robust existing food programs and the administrative burden associated with running this program, we declined these particular federal dollars.”

Economic factors are fine things to tout, which the state frequently does, but the statistic regarding hungry children at the top of this piece suggests there are some real gaps, comprised of real people, in that logic.

Sioux Falls anti-hunger advocate Cathy Brechtelsbauer was stunned by the state’s explanations for not applying for funding.

“That just blows my mind,” she said. “How can we think like that when we’re talking about kids needing food? Why can’t we handle things as well as 43 other states?

“Our kids in South Dakota are missing out on $7.5 million worth of food, and it’s not like they’re necessarily getting it someplace else. This is like taking food away from kids, and I hope we don’t want to be that kind of state.”

Using the excuses of a strong economy and administrative headaches to turn down an opportunity to help feed children in need this summer would seem to suggest we are that kind of state. And that specter is tough to swallow.

— Yankton Press & Dakotan, Aug. 28