S.D. legislator: Ensuring kids are fed isn’t just the moral thing to do — it makes financial sense as well
I want to clarify a few points on South Dakota’s school meal program and offer additional context from the legislative record. I respect multi-party engagement on this issue and believe it’s important that the public has accurate information as we debate this policy.
Recent conversations about school meals have raised important questions about data, accountability, and how we best support children. I want to clarify a few points so this discussion stays grounded in facts and focused on outcomes for students.
First, a non-returned school meal application is not evidence that a child does not need assistance. Schools and state agencies consistently report that non-response is driven by barriers such as language access, housing instability, transportation, work schedules, stigma, and distrust of paperwork-heavy systems. Silence reflects system friction, not the absence of hunger.
Second, it is true that schools continue serving meals regardless of application status. That is by design, because children should never be denied food due to paperwork. However, under means-tested systems, this often results in unpaid meal debt, administrative burden on school staff, and costs quietly absorbed by local districts.
Universal meal programs were developed specifically to reduce those inefficiencies while ensuring all students can learn without hunger or stigma.
Third, claims that school meal policy exists to benefit nonprofits misunderstand how these programs are funded and administered. The primary beneficiaries of school meal funding are local school districts and students. Nutrition programs operate under strict federal and state guidelines, audits, and reporting requirements, and the goal is always improved access and better outcomes, not perpetuating crisis narratives.
Finally, accountability matters but it must be designed in a way that does not punish children for barriers faced by adults. Policies that rely on perfect participation in paperwork systems will always miss families who need help the most. Universal approaches are not about ignoring data; they are about acknowledging known gaps in data and designing systems that work in the real world.
We should absolutely continue improving data quality, parent communication, and administrative efficiency. But our starting point must remain clear: children should not bear the consequences of system complexity. Ensuring students are fed at school is both compassionate and fiscally responsible and it strengthens, rather than weakens, our communities.
Good policy accounts for real-world barriers, not just ideal participation, especially when children are the ones affected.
State Rep. Kadyn Wittman represents District 15 in the South Dakota House of Representatives. Wittman, a Democrat, is an advocate for marginalized communities, championing legislation to remove barriers and assist low-income families.
Photo: public domain, wikimedia commons
The South Dakota Standard is offered freely and is supported by our readers. We have no political or commercial sponsorship. If you'd like to help us continue our mission to advance independent political and social commentary, you can do so by clicking on the "Donate" button that's on the sidebar to your right.
