Mar. 16—Local advocates against hunger took to Frankfort to rally against House Bill 367, staunchly arguing that the bill would negatively impact Kentucky’s “working poor” by creating barriers to the SNAP food program.

According to Feeding Kentucky — a nonprofit supporting seven member food banks that supply all 120 Kentucky counties — there are an estimated 570,000 food-insecure Kentuckians “at this very moment,” and 1 in 8 people across our commonwealth facing hunger every day.

The organization further reports that one in six children in Kentucky do not know where their next meal is coming from.

Tony Crachiolo, executive director at the Berea Food Bank, came to Frankfort to speak on behalf of food banks across Kentucky. He loudly criticized the bill as a boots-on-the-ground volunteer at the food bank.

In an interview with the Register, Crachiolo asserted that the bill was borne illogical “backward thinking,” where supporters think that getting people off of SNAP benefits will lead to more working people in Kentucky.

However, the director believes this will not be the case, saying that the message of the bill is clear.

“Move. Move away from your cherished home place, go where the jobs are. Basically, that’s the callousness of it, as I see it,” he said.

In his speech, he argued that House Bill 367 would disenfranchise SNAP recipients and greatly increase the demand for assistance from food banks all across the state.

“Even strong organizations like ours will struggle to meet the needs that the bill creates,” he remarked.

Who should be on SNAP?

According to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Wade Williams (R), the bill is not intended to eliminate SNAP but to “make sure that everyone that’s on SNAP should be on SNAP.”

If passed, the bill would decrease the gross income limit to receive SNAP benefits from 200% of the Federal Poverty Level to 130%. This would deviate from Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), a standard awarding option that Kentucky has utilized alongside 42 other states and the District of Columbia in determining eligibility for SNAP.

The use of BBCE allows the state to give higher benchmarks for SNAP recipients by giving them acceptance for SNAP based on their eligibility for other need-based programs.

While some bill adversaries, like Crachiolo, have called this new benchmark “arbitrary,” Rep. Williams also commented that Kentucky’s current 200% benchmark is “the highest in the nation.”

Williams also said in chambers that he didn’t feel as if those opposed to the bill were taking into account the numerous deductions that the bill would allow, such as those for medical expenses, child support, and dependent care, among others.

In addition, the Kentucky Center for Public Policy raised the additional concern that the bill’s proposed asset checks will create an unnecessary barrier to SNAP and unfairly impact those in poverty, as House Bill 357 states that SNAP participants may not have more than $2,750 on hand or in their bank accounts, including savings.

Rep. Williams argued that when there is a disabled or elderly person involved, the number increases “substantially.”

The amount of savings allowed for seniors and people with disabilities is $4,250.

According to Dustin Pugel, policy director at the Kentucky Center for Public Policy, these new policies will disincentivize SNAP participants from seeking higher wages and saving money, as this will disqualify them from essential SNAP benefits without receiving assistance while they transition to life without benefits.

House Bill 367 would also prevent the state from waiving the work reporting requirement for some adults in areas of the state with high joblessness. Instead, this power would rest with the Republican-dominated general assembly.

Opponents of the bill argue that this disproportionately affects rural areas of Kentucky that have experienced economic downturns, as there are fewer jobs and opportunities for work available there.

As a matter of fact, Rep. Lisa Willner argued that much of the bill affects all SNAP recipients, not just those “able-bodied adults without dependents” and will cause 24,500 Kentucky households to lose their food assistance benefits.

She argued, “Very close to 100% of able-bodied adults are working already. Some of them in multiple jobs, and they still are eligible for SNAP because what they’re earning doesn’t keep up with the nutritional needs of themselves and their families.”

She, along with other Democratic critics of the bill, criticized the economic implications in House Chambers as well, alleging that it will harm farmers and the overall food economy due to the abrupt lack of cash flow that SNAP benefits provide.

Basically, they argue that if there is no money going into stores and farmers markets to purchase food, then the economy will lose out. Farmers will be unable to provide for themselves or their families, and grocery stores will board up.

Crachiolo even pointed out in his speech that this could leave communities struggling with newly formed food deserts.

In House Chambers, Willner stated, “We have an estimated annual cost of $2.3 million dollars in additional state funding to administer this bill, and for our investment of $2.3 million, we are losing $110.3 million in federal funding.”

Williams retorted of the lack of federal funds, “It’s not our money.”

He commented that he believes that the federal government “has no money” and that this legislation would prove to be good stewardship of taxpayer money, which is what federal money really is.

“Other states have implemented these restrictions back to the federal level at no cost. We’ve actually seen some increased savings from that. Taxpayers in Arkansas saw $28 million in savings. Taxpayers in Mississippi saw $93 million in savings,” he reported.

The representative added, “In addition to that, what some States saw in case studies is that people who got off to SNAP benefits actually doubled and tripled their income. That they were held back by restrictions on SNAP. So we actually saw more retail flow into the local economies from doing that.”

Will it leave schools hungry?

Rep. Chad Aull (D) voiced concerns in the House about how this bill will affect children in school who receive free lunch due to the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), which provides non-pricing meal services, both breakfast and lunch, for schools and school districts in low-income areas.

While Williams said that this program would not be affected; however, Aull remained unconvinced as he argued that lowering the number of households on SNAP would render less schools able to participate in the program.

Currently, there are no applications for students to participate as long as a certain percentage of students are categorically eligible for free meals, plus schools are reimbursed. This percentage is based on a formula that determines how many schoolchildren are eligible to participate in SNAP and TANF.

Aull said, “I’m not saying that all 612,000 of those kids will lose the Community Eligibility Program if this bill passes, but a bunch will, and then our school districts will be left with a decision to continue…at their own cost or to pull out…It’s going to affect our educational attainment. Hungry kids at schools are not good learners.”

Rep. Lindsey Burke (D) further argued that other programs, like Backpack Programs, would need increased funding to partially compensate.

The bill passed through the House of Representatives in a 61-33 vote, with only Republican lawmakers voting for the bill and the votes against being split with 19 Democrat and 14 Republican votes.

Madison County representatives’ votes were mixed as well, with Rep. Josh Bray voting in favor of the bill and Rep. Timothy Truett and Rep. Bill Wesley voting against it. Rep. Deana Frazier Gordon was absent from the vote.