Oklahoma kids in need can get $120 for groceries this summer — but only on tribal lands
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's SUN Bucks program, also known as Summer EBT, doles out funds to state and tribal programs, that in turn give residents preloaded cards to buy food while children are on summer break.
Most states have accepted the federal funds and will be providing EBT cards that are worth $120 for the entire summer. Children who qualify for free and reduced school lunches are automatically eligible to receive the funds.
While Oklahoma will not take part in the program, a handful of tribal nations in the state will, meaning some Oklahoma families may still be eligible for the funds.
Gov. Kevin Stitt said in 2024 that he turned down the funds because Oklahoma was 'fully capable of serving children and students without a federal program that has floundered in other states.' He also cited the elimination of Oklahoma's grocery tax as another reason why the state wouldn't be accepting those federal funds.
Oklahoma recently eliminated the collection of a 4.5% sales tax on most groceries. Only 10 states still require sales tax to be collected on groceries, but most U.S. states that have eliminated their grocery tax also participate in Summer EBT.
'Oklahomans don't look to the government for answers, we look to our communities,' a statement from the governor's office said last year ahead of the 2025 participation deadline.
Stitt named several programs that provide food year-round, including the Oklahoma State Department of Education's Summer Food Program, Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma's Summer Feeding Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Be A Neighbor Initiative, which is a list of community resources.
The state Education Department's Summer Food Program provides bagged lunches that can be picked up at sites like parks, schools, playgrounds, gymnasiums, community centers, churches, apartment complexes or day camps.
Despite the efforts made by the state, nonprofits and tribes, and despite agriculture being one of the pillars of the state's economic output, Oklahoma remains one of the worst states when it comes to food security.
According to Feed the Children, Oklahoma ranks fifth when it comes to the percentage of households that do not have access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life.
"The state of childhood hunger in Oklahoma has not gotten any better," said Chris Bernard, president and CEO of the nonprofit Hunger Free Oklahoma. "It's still between one-in-four and one-in-five kids, and what we're actually seeing now is pressures on families are growing. Things cost more and wages haven't kept up with those costs."
And with the Trump administration again in power, there is likely to be significant changes to the federal government's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which has historically been known as "food stamps." A Fox News report this week quoted officials saying they have a "massive plan" to reform SNAP in light of Trump's quest to slash government spending.
"There are fears of everything getting cut right now," Bernard said with a nervous chuckle.
The administration has yet to provide details about how it plans to reform SNAP, but reformers have pushed for increasing work requirements and forcing states to cover a percentage of the benefit cost. Oklahoma residents currently receive over $1 billion each year to buy food, so even a 10% matching requirement would mean the state government would have to find $100 million annually.
"States that tend to need these benefits the most also tend to be the states that spend the least on social services and cut budgets rather than increase them," Bernard said.
Only 12 states will not participate this year, including Oklahoma. However, five Oklahoma tribes have signed up for the program:
Cherokee Nation
Chickasaw Nation
Choctaw Nation
Muscogee Creek Nation
Otoe-Missouria Tribe
The tribes can only provide Summer EBT to children living inside their respective reservations or jurisdictional areas, which mostly includes eastern and southern Oklahoma.
Tribal membership is not required to access the program, however, so any student who is eligible for free and reduced lunches at schools within tribal boundaries can receive funds.
"If people want to make sure every kid in Oklahoma has access, not just kids who live on tribal lands, they need to be calling their state legislators and telling them it's something they want to see," Bernard said.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Oklahoma tribes offer summer EBT after state declines funds again
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
I didn't want to need free groceries
So I share Kidder's lament that feeding the hungry is on track to be a growth industry in Donald Trump's America. The Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Experience first. Before 2009, as the son of a judge and the privileged middle class, I'd never been unemployed and in need of charity in three decades of working. I loved what I did, even though freelance writing is a constant scramble for income. I've always read a book before bed; as a freelancer, I chose only books for which I was earning a reviewer's paycheck. Advertisement When the recession and its double-digit unemployment hit, the 'subprime mortgages,' 'mortgage-backed securities,' and unregulated 'shadow banks' that underlay them — and that many Americans had never heard of — unleashed work-killing forces too devastating for individual initiative to counter. Even wealthy Harvard scrapped a lucrative project (by my bank account's standards) that I'd done for four straight summers. My then-wife's part-time job invaluably backstopped the family income. But after a year of little work and with no idea how long I'd be idle, I despaired of ever being employed again. Free groceries to stretch our household resources seemed the only responsible path, especially with a child to feed. Advertisement The other folks in St. Paul's basement made for an interesting cross-section of people. Some were fellow baby boomers. The age and dress of others suggested they were students, presumably not destitute but nevertheless on a budget as they contended with Greater Boston's formidable living costs. No one dressed in rags. (Neither did the recipients Kidder observed, which he attributes to their efforts 'to ward off disgrace' from having to seek charity.) My anxious heart beat fast during my first time at the pantry. Normally a chatterbox, I made little small talk with others. It took a number of weeks before the habitual visits and the saintly volunteers' freedom from judgment thawed some of my embarrassment. I also found psychic balm in the relief of free food for my household's budget. Not everyone adjusted as easily. At least one person at the pantry teared up at having to seek aid in public. I never saw her return. Advertisement The volunteers who set out and distributed food never questioned who we were or why we were there. Hard hearts will call that poor quality control. Those who know better, who relied on the kindness of these strangers, recognize it as mindfulness of recipients' dignity. Today, those who do such work can't fully backfill the Beautiful Bill's shrinkage of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps). Kidder notes that the national food bank network Feeding America says SNAP supplied nine times as much food as its own agency's food banks do. That the bill's backers had not just food support but the broader safety net in their sights is clear from the legislation's attaching work requirements to Medicaid. Two years ago, perhaps anticipating this dark American moment, Republican Representative Steve Scalise Yet do work. Work requirements Perhaps if our leaders saw who goes to food pantries and why — perhaps if they spent a week or two living as pantry patrons — the mythic myopia would lift from their eyes. But there are none so blind as those who will not see. Advertisement
Axios
13 hours ago
- Axios
How SNAP cuts will hit the Bay Area
With millions of food-insecure people expected to lose benefits, food banks and pantries in the Bay Area are bracing for the worst and rallying community support to continue serving those in need. Why it matters: Roughly 175,000 residents in Bay Area congressional districts are at risk of losing benefits from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — the nation's largest food aid program — including children and seniors, according to the California Budget & Policy Center. What they're saying: If you add up all of the SNAP recipients at risk of losing some benefits, they'd fill up every major stadium in the Bay Area, San Francisco-Marin Food Bank spokesperson Lisa Gulezian told Axios. "Locally, we are asking the city and county to strengthen their response to food insecurity by protecting CalFresh and SNAP," said the food bank's associate director of policy and advocacy, Marchon Tatmon, who pointed to potential initiatives like pop-up pantries and community funds focused on food insecurity. State of play: Pre-COVID, the food bank served around 34,000 households, according to Tatmon. At the peak of the pandemic, that number hit 56,000. It remains at roughly 53,000 households today. "The need is still there," Tatmon said, noting that over 6,500 people are on their waitlist. "Lines are still long." Volunteers, donations and calls to elected officials will be critical for ensuring the food bank can adequately provide for people in need, Tatmon added. Context: Trump's signature policy bill tightens SNAP work requirements, a move Republicans say will reduce waste, fraud and abuse. It's on track to cut 20% of spending on food stamps, which could result in more than 2 million people losing benefits, per an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. States could also shoulder more benefit costs, the rate of which would be set by a state's percent of erroneous payments. Benefits are currently 100% federally funded, though states share administrative costs.
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
Rhode Island is in for a ‘world of hurt' as federal cuts rescind long federal-state safety-net partnership
Medicaid and other safety-net programs have always functioned as true partnerships between the federal government and the states — anchored in shared responsibility for administration, oversight, and most critically, cost sharing. However, H.R. 1 undermines this foundational principle. It upends the federal-state partnership by significantly reducing federal financing across the board. This law shifts program and administrative costs onto states without proposing any realistic alternatives. Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up This shifting of financial responsibility onto our state will have profound and immediate adverse implications for our annual budget. With limited options for raising new revenue, any substantial increase in Medicaid or SNAP costs would force Rhode Island to make large scale adjustments across not just health care and nutrition for children, but also other essential services like education, transportation, and public safety. Consider the scale: Roughly one in three Rhode Islanders — about 313,000 people — depends on Medicaid, while one in eight — approximately 114,000 residents — relies on SNAP benefits. We are talking about our working families, children, seniors, and vulnerable neighbors. Related : Advertisement H.R. 1 carries other adverse impacts: It imposes new local administrative burdens with their own price tag. Chief among these are more frequent eligibility redeterminations for Medicaid and SNAP, as well as expanded verification of work requirements. These provisions may sound minor, but in practice they require the hiring of additional staff, upgrading of IT systems, intensified coordination with employers, and frequent data matching — all at the state's expense, and without additional federal support. Georgia offers a timely and sobering example. In 2023, The takeaway is clear: These policies not only fail to deliver on coverage goals, they also saddle states with unnecessary bureaucracy and mounting costs. The ripple effects of HR 1 will not only affect Rhode Island's state budget, they will also have a devastating effect on our Advertisement Inevitably, with federal funding diminished, locally, costs for everyone will increase. Fortunately, Rhode Island is not standing still. The This critical planning effort must be paired with accelerated action. Rhode Island must also begin sophisticated contingency planning now — exploring state-based revenue stabilization measures, establishing rapid-response public-private partnerships, and advocating forcefully at the federal level for implementation delays, waivers, and increased flexibility. While the EOHHS efforts are integral to developing a deep understanding of the extent and parameters of these problems, a joint effort from the highest levels of state government, our hospitals, our congressional delegation, our charitable leaders and others is necessary. Without leadership and swift, coordinated action, the state risks being overwhelmed by both the scale of the financial burden, and the bureaucratic complexity H.R. 1 imposes. In the face of this federally driven disruption, and for the good of all of us, we must use every available tool to ensure that safety-net services remain strong, efficient, effective and accessible to all who need them. Advertisement An engineer and part-time legislator, state Senator Louis DiPalma chairs the state Senate Committee on Finance and represents Middletown, Little Compton, Newport and Tiverton.
