Louisiana should pass on joining a pandemic-inspired cash payment program to lower-income families intended to provide a souped-up add-on for school-served meals when schools are out in the summer, because there’s a better way to do it.

This week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced which states would participate in its Summer EBT program. Qualifying families – essentially those who already are eligible for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, which can supply free meals for children of families starting at 130 percent of the federal poverty level and subsidized all the way up to 185 percent of FPL (for example, a single parent and school child earning before taxes no more than $36,482 annually) – receive $40 per child for three months.

Louisiana actually goes well beyond school meal program rules, which is run by the Department of Children and Family Services. A law passed last year has state taxpayers chipping in to waive the amount due from the families that qualify only for subsidization. Additionally, a number of schools serving high proportions of qualifying families can apply for the Community Eligibility Provision that considers all attendees eligible regardless of family income.

Plus, Summer EBT is an add-on to an existing program that extends the school meal program into the months when most schools don’t regularly meet. The Summer Food Service Program, which in Louisiana is run by the Department of Education, basically replicates the school meal program during the summer months by having contracted locations – nearly 1,000 across the state last year, including some mobile – serve meals to the same covered population (schools also may participate using the Seamless Summer Option, and some sites in high-poverty areas are empowered to serve all children regardless of income level).

This effectively can cover all eligible children already. By contrast, Summer EBT is a good-as-cash new benefit on top of all of this.

And an expensive one. If all states and Indian tribes participated, it would cost about $3.5 billion in federal dollars from benefits, plus about ten percent of that in administrative costs where these are split between it and participating states. These benefits, if all states and tribes accepted, would constitute about seven times what is spent on the SFSP.

The majority of states opted in for Summer EBT by the end of 2023 deadline, but Louisiana was one of 15 that didn’t. This made Democrat former Gov. John Bel Edwards the only Democrat governor not to take the federal aid, although it made little sense to commit to it with his term ending eight days into the next year and the intentions of the Republican Gov. Jeff Landry Administration unknown. A statement from DCFS hints that it feels it still could apply for program participation this summer, although the federal government has indicated 2025 would be the next summer non-participants from this year could enter.

Rejecting states cited a couple of reasons for their passing on the program. Some said they didn’t appreciate the duplicative nature of it, not only because of the presence of SFSP but also the high overlap with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits which provide generous food cash allowances (in Louisiana for this year, $535 a month for a family of two). Others pointed to the administrative costs involved; Louisiana’s prorated cost would be close to $3 million.

Add to these a third reason: the wasteful nature of EBT mechanisms. Summer EBT would operate the same as SNAP, which has plenty of avenues for improper, if not outright fraudulent, payments to occur. Nearly 12 percent of such payments fall into this category. By contrast, meal provision rather than cash provision cuts out almost all waste.

Louisiana does plenty, if not taxpayers going above and beyond, to ensure children in lower-income families have access to meals year-round. There’s no need to spend more taxpayer dollars – on top of what residents will have to pay extra now or later to fund more cash benefits through the federal government – to implement more leaky bureaucracy. If extra needs to be done, spending to expand SFSP outlets and provision is more appropriate and cost effective. Now and in the future, DCFS should reject participation in Summer EBT.