It's been two months since Pandemic-EBT, an emergency food program for children to replace school meals, was passed by Congress and signed into law. But out of 30 million children intended to get the help, only about 4.4 million have, leaving many of the rest hungry or food insecure. Because in all its wisdom, instead of sending families $2,000 for every person every month, Congress decided to use a bureaucratic system routed through the states, which are already overburdened, under-funded and in many cases using antiquated systems that can't immediately respond to the loads put on them.
It was supposed to be fast; electronic benefit cards sent to every family with children receiving meals through the school lunch program. According to an analysis by The New York Times, just 12 states have started sending money out and only two—Michigan and Rhode Island—had provided the cards to all eligible families. Sixteen states don't even have approval from the Trump administration to begin the payments, something that should not have been required under the legislation. One state, Utah, has decided not to participate. The convoluted system involves the federal government, state human services departments, school districts, and private companies that produce the cards—a system that can't respond as quickly as the need demands. "We get it—this is dire," said Lisa Watson, with the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. "We want these benefits out." Her state is starting to send them out this week.
Campaign Action
The problems in the rollout have led to a patchwork of assistance and hunger across the country. Blue states, the Times has found, have done better. "Two-thirds of states that sent money by May 15 have Democratic governors," the Times found, and, out of "16 states without [federal] waivers, 11 are led by Republicans." Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi haven't received the federal waivers yet. South Carolina hasn't even applied for the waiver yet. In a mess of blue states, the money went out to families in April.
In many school districts, grab-and-go lunches have been available throughout the crisis to meet the need, but as Melynda Baker shows, that doesn't work for everyone. The Walgreens cashier in Tyler, Texas, has teenage boys. She works full time and her disabled husband doesn't drive, so the lunches are out of reach for her kids because they can't get there to pick them up. "I'm sorry, but they're boys—they're six feet tall and need a lot of nutrients," she told the Times, explaining that the boys always eat first. "We'll say, 'Oh, there's plenty left,' and then eat a bologna sandwich later," she said. Her older son has figured it out. "He's like, 'No, Mom, I'm full,' when I know he's not." She found out about the money on Facebook, and got her boys' $570 last week. She's going to use the money to buy meat on sale and keep it in her freezer for the lean times ahead.
An Ohio mother, Rebecca Payton, hasn't received it yet for her children, 11 and 6. Her husband, a mechanic, lost his job at the beginning of the lockdowns. For the first month they didn't have food stamps or unemployment insurance. "I was really worried I wouldn't be able to feed my children," she told the Times. She didn't know her family could have this boost, $600 for her children, but Ohio hasn't sent it yet, though the hope is to start sending them out this week. "It doesn't seem like an emergency to them."
It doesn't seem like an emergency to Congress, either. This was a one-time payment, and it's not clear if it will be extended through the summer—a time for food-insecurity for families in regular times, when school meals often aren't available. The House has included an extension of the payments in the HEROES Act, which Mitch McConnell has summarily rejected. Hungry children is apparently part of his "pro-life" philosophy.