Report on Food Assistance Challenges and Policy Implications in Eastern Kentucky

Introduction

Over the past two decades, food banks in southeastern Kentucky have witnessed unprecedented demand for food assistance. This report focuses on the Hand in Hand Ministries food bank in Auxier, Floyd County, and the broader Appalachian region, highlighting the critical role of food assistance programs in addressing hunger and poverty. The analysis emphasizes the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

Current Food Assistance Landscape in Eastern Kentucky

Rising Demand for Food Assistance

Gail Goble, who has managed the Hand in Hand Ministries food bank for 20 years, reports record-high demand. The food bank serves approximately 150 individuals monthly, providing essential items such as canned goods, bread, meat, and toiletries. Many clients rely on this support regularly, often arriving completely out of food.

Regional Dependency on Food Assistance Programs

• At least 25% of the population in multiple counties in the Appalachian region participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
• Food insecurity has been exacerbated by inflation, rising grocery costs, and repeated natural disasters, including devastating floods in 2022 and 2025.
• Many families enrolled in SNAP still require supplemental support from food banks, while others fall outside eligibility criteria.

Impact of Natural Disasters

Flooding has destroyed homes, food supplies, and medical necessities, increasing the need for emergency food assistance. This aligns with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 13 (Climate Action), emphasizing resilience to climate-related disasters.

Policy Developments Affecting Food Assistance

Proposed Federal SNAP Funding Changes

1. The U.S. House passed a reconciliation bill requiring states to cover a larger share of SNAP benefits and administrative costs.
2. Kentucky faces a potential $239 million budget shortfall to maintain current SNAP benefits for approximately 576,000 residents (13% of the population).
3. An early Senate bill proposes a reduced cost shift but introduces stricter work reporting requirements, potentially reducing enrollment.

State-Level Challenges

• Kentucky’s Republican supermajority prioritizes spending cuts and tax reductions, complicating efforts to fill the SNAP funding gap.
• Previous legislative attempts to tighten SNAP eligibility criteria have been met with mixed success.
• Projected declines in state tax revenue further constrain budget flexibility.

Stakeholder Perspectives

• Food bank operators express concern over the inability to meet increased demand if SNAP benefits are cut.
• Some lawmakers advocate for increased state involvement to prevent fraud and abuse, though critics argue cost-shifting unfairly penalizes states with higher error rates rather than addressing actual fraud.
• Local food coordinators highlight the interconnectedness of SNAP benefits with the local agricultural economy, emphasizing SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Role of Food Banks and Community Organizations

God’s Pantry Food Bank

Michael Halligan, CEO of God’s Pantry Food Bank, reports a 30% increase in service demand over two years, now serving nearly 280,000 food-insecure individuals in central and southeastern Kentucky. The organization supplements SNAP benefits but cannot replace them, underscoring the importance of federal assistance programs.

Community Farm Alliance

Programs encouraging SNAP recipients to purchase fresh produce at farmers’ markets have supported local economies and improved nutrition. Cuts to SNAP threaten these gains, impacting SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

Economic and Social Implications of SNAP Cuts

Economic Impact

• SNAP benefits stimulate local economies, with every $1 spent generating an estimated $1.54 in gross domestic product.
• Rural grocery stores and farmers rely on SNAP-related revenue, which supports community sustainability.

Health and Well-being

Reductions in SNAP and Medicaid benefits threaten to worsen health outcomes, particularly in vulnerable Appalachian communities, aligning with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

Legislative Outlook and Challenges

Senate Committee Considerations

• The Senate version of the reconciliation bill proposes less severe cost shifts but expands work requirements and limits waivers for high-unemployment areas.
• A recent parliamentary ruling requires a supermajority vote for cost-shifting provisions, complicating legislative passage.

Potential Outcomes

1. States may need to allocate significant funds to maintain SNAP benefits or reduce benefits and eligibility.
2. Food banks and community organizations may face overwhelming demand without adequate federal and state support.
3. Broader social and economic consequences include increased poverty, food insecurity, and health disparities.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Ensuring the sustainability of food assistance programs in eastern Kentucky is critical to achieving multiple Sustainable Development Goals, including ending poverty and hunger, promoting health, and supporting economic growth. Policymakers are urged to consider the following:

• Maintain or increase federal SNAP funding to prevent exacerbating food insecurity.
• Support state budgets to fill potential funding gaps without compromising other essential services.
• Enhance collaboration between government agencies, food banks, and community organizations to build resilient food systems.
• Address underlying causes of poverty and food insecurity through integrated social and economic policies aligned with the SDGs.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • The article discusses food insecurity and poverty in eastern Kentucky, highlighting the reliance on SNAP and food banks.
2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The core issue is hunger and food assistance through SNAP and food banks in the Appalachian region.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Loss of medicines and health impacts due to poverty and food insecurity are mentioned, along with Medicaid cuts affecting health coverage.
4. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The article touches on economic challenges, inflation, and the impact of SNAP on local economies and employment.
5. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Focus on vulnerable populations slipping through the cracks of assistance programs and the disproportionate impact on Appalachian communities.
6. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Discussion of disaster impacts (flooding, tornadoes) affecting communities and their resilience.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children living in poverty in all its dimensions.
   • Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all.
2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Target 2.1: End hunger and ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
   • Target 2.2: End all forms of malnutrition.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection and access to quality essential health-care services.
4. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Target 8.3: Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities and decent job creation.
   • Target 8.5: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all.
5. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all.
6. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Target 11.5: Reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected by disasters.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Food Security and Assistance Indicators
   • Number and percentage of population enrolled in SNAP (e.g., 13% of Kentucky residents, 22% in some districts).
   • Number of people served monthly by food banks (e.g., 150 people in Auxier, 280,000 food insecure in central and southeastern Kentucky).
   • Amount of food distributed (e.g., nearly 100,000 pounds of food after tornadoes).
2. Economic Indicators
   • State budget shortfalls related to SNAP cost shifts (e.g., $239 million hole in Kentucky’s budget).
   • Unemployment rates affecting SNAP work requirements and waivers (e.g., 7.27% error rate, counties with unemployment rates above 10%).
   • Gross Domestic Product (GDP) impact of SNAP spending (USDA estimate: $1 spent on SNAP increases GDP by $1.54).
3. Health Coverage Indicators
   • Number of people potentially dropped from Medicaid due to cuts (close to 300,000 Kentuckians).
4. Program Integrity Indicators
   • State SNAP error rates measuring unintentional under or overpayments (e.g., Kentucky’s 7.27%).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: lpm.org