Hungry in Uniform: the untold struggle of military food insecurity – We Are The Mighty

Report on Food Insecurity Among Military Families and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Executive Summary: The Challenge to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

A significant crisis of food insecurity exists within the United States military community, presenting a direct challenge to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 2 (Zero Hunger). Data indicates that military and veteran families experience food insecurity at disproportionately high rates compared to the civilian population. This report analyzes the scope of the problem, its underlying causes, existing support mechanisms, and recommendations for future action, all framed within the context of the SDGs.

• According to the Military Family Advisory Network, 1 in 5 military and veteran families face food insecurity.
• The rate increases to 1 in 4 among active-duty families.
• This contrasts sharply with the rate of approximately 1 in 8 for civilian households, highlighting a critical inequality that contravenes SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• Further data from Military Times indicates that nearly 26% of active-duty service members are food insecure, with approximately 15% relying on food stamps or food banks.

Causal Factors Impacting SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

Several interconnected factors contribute to food insecurity among military families, undermining progress toward SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

1. Frequent Relocation: Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves are a primary driver of instability. Over 51% of surveyed families reported experiencing food insecurity within 24 months of a PCS.
2. Spouse Underemployment and Unemployment: The inability of military spouses to secure stable, adequate employment is a major contributor. This directly impacts SDG 8.
   • Approximately 45% of food-insecure military families report having at least one spouse who is unemployed or underemployed.
   • Barriers to employment include fluctuating local job markets, hiring biases, and a lack of available and affordable childcare.
3. Insufficient Income and Pay Gaps: Inadequate compensation for junior enlisted personnel and systemic pay gaps contribute to financial precarity, hindering the goal of SDG 1. The calculation of allowances as income can also disqualify families from federal assistance programs.

Current Interventions and Partnerships for the Goals (SDG 17)

A network of governmental and non-governmental programs exists to combat this issue, demonstrating the importance of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). However, awareness and utilization remain key challenges.

• Basic Needs Allowance (BNA): A Department of Defense (DoD) program providing supplemental monthly pay to service members whose household income falls below 200% of the federal poverty line. Despite its intent to support SDG 1, enrollment is critically low, with only about 10% of qualifying members participating.
• Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA): Runs programs such as Healthy Savings and provides coupons for SNAP and WIC users. DeCA also partners with organizations like Feeding America and Fisher House for holiday meal drives.
• Non-Profit Networks: Feeding America’s Military Support Network facilitates partnerships between local food banks and military bases to distribute food.
• Community-Based Initiatives: Organizations like the Stronghold Food Pantry provide dignified, no-questions-asked assistance to all ranks, addressing the stigma that often prevents families from seeking help. This model directly supports SDG 2 and SDG 10.

Recommendations for Strengthening Institutional Support (SDG 16)

To create a future where no service member’s family faces hunger, systemic changes and strengthened institutional support are required, in line with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

1. Policy Reform: Advocate for changes to how military pay and benefits are calculated so that essential allowances do not count as income for federal aid eligibility.
2. Increase Program Awareness: Launch targeted campaigns to increase awareness and enrollment in underutilized resources like the Basic Needs Allowance (BNA).
3. Eliminate Stigma: Implement programs and communication strategies to reduce the stigma associated with seeking financial and food assistance.
4. Promote Data Transparency: The DoD must improve data collection and public reporting on food insecurity within the ranks to ensure accountability and inform effective policy, a core tenet of SDG 16.
5. Foster Peer-to-Peer Initiatives: Support and scale community-led, peer-to-peer initiatives that build trust and provide accessible support, creating a stronger and more resilient military community.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on food insecurity among military families touches upon several interconnected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis identifies the following relevant SDGs:

• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article highlights that financial instability is a key driver of food insecurity. It mentions that the Basic Needs Allowance (BNA) program is for service members whose “gross household income is below 200% of the federal poverty line,” directly linking the issue to poverty thresholds.
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: This is the central theme of the article. The entire text revolves around the “hidden crisis” of “military families facing food insecurity at alarming rates.” It provides statistics, discusses causes, and highlights resources like food pantries aimed at combating hunger within this community.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article explicitly connects food insecurity to employment issues, stating, “underemployment also drives food insecurity.” It points out that “Many military spouses have trouble obtaining employment suitable to financially support their families,” referencing a lack of decent work opportunities.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article highlights a significant disparity between military and civilian families. It states that “1 in 4 among active-duty families” face food insecurity, “compared to about 1 in 8 civilian households.” This points to an inequality affecting a specific population group (military families). It also mentions “hidden bias and discrimination” against military spouses in the job market, which is a driver of inequality.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article calls for institutional accountability and transparency. It questions why “public reporting on these areas missing in action from the DoD” and advocates for “data transparency and accountability from the DoD,” which relates to the development of effective and transparent institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all… and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
   • The article discusses the Basic Needs Allowance (BNA), a “DoD program [that] provides monthly supplemental pay” to low-income service members. This is a direct example of a social protection system. However, the article notes its limited reach, as “only about 10% of qualifying members are enrolled,” indicating a gap in achieving substantial coverage.
2. Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
   • This target is the core focus. The article’s discussion of “1 in 4 among active-duty families” experiencing food insecurity demonstrates the challenge in ensuring access to sufficient food for this vulnerable group. Initiatives like the “Stronghold Food Pantry” and “Feeding America’s Military Support Network” are direct actions aimed at achieving this target.
3. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men… and equal pay for work of equal value.
   • The article links food insecurity to the employment status of military spouses. The statistic that “About 45% of families who are food-insecure report at least one spouse is unemployed or underemployed” directly relates to the goal of achieving full and productive employment.
4. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.
   • The mention of military spouses facing “hidden bias and discrimination” in job markets directly addresses the need to eliminate discriminatory practices that lead to unequal outcomes (underemployment and financial instability).
5. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The call for “data transparency and accountability from the DoD” and the question “why is public reporting on these areas missing in action from the DoD?” reflect a demand for a more accountable and transparent institution to address the problem effectively.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article provides several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Prevalence of food insecurity: The article provides multiple statistics that serve as direct indicators for Target 2.1. These include:
  • The percentage of military and veteran families experiencing food insecurity (“1 in 5”).
  • The percentage of active-duty families experiencing food insecurity (“1 in 4,” “nearly 26%,” and “27.7%”).
  • A comparative rate for civilian households (“about 1 in 8” or “13.5%”), which provides a benchmark for measuring inequality (Target 10.3).
• Reliance on food assistance: The statistic that “about 15% rely on food stamps or food banks for help” is an indicator of the severity of food insecurity and the need for support systems.
• Spouse unemployment/underemployment rate: The figure that “About 45% of families who are food-insecure report at least one spouse is unemployed or underemployed” is a clear indicator for measuring progress on Target 8.5 within this specific demographic.
• Coverage of social protection systems: The enrollment rate in the Basic Needs Allowance (“only about 10% of qualifying members are enrolled”) is a specific indicator for Target 1.3, measuring the effectiveness and reach of a key social safety net.
• Institutional Transparency: The lack of “public reporting on these areas… from the DoD” is a qualitative indicator for Target 16.6. Progress could be measured by the future availability and quality of such public data.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wearethemighty.com