Tag: poverty

Posted on

The Blessings and Challenges of Food Banks

I’ve been on the giving end and I’ve been on the receiving end. And in a dark time, a food bank can be a beacon of hope. I’m grateful for these community bright spots. They’re usually staffed with friendly volunteers who want you to be fed and feel good. They happily hand out boxes and bags, trying to make the world a better place one meal at a time. They are supportive and they are expert organizers. And they want to help you.

But it can be a bit… complicated for both the givers and the receivers.

Food banks gather food from a variety of sources. They collect and organize individual donations, and they pick up items from grocery stores that are expiring, not selling, discontinued, or can’t be sold for some other reason. It’s a lot of work.

It’s wonderful to get food when you’re hungry. But it can also be hard to feed a family with food bank food because you never know what you might expect.

Sometimes what you receive just isn’t easily usable. You might get a dozen sausages that didn’t sell because they were so hot and spicy that store shoppers didn’t want them. Now you’re looking at multiple meals of something you might not even be able to eat, much less feed to small children.

Maybe you get a box of Hamburger Helper, but one box isn’t enough for your family and you can’t afford the hamburger anyway, so it sits in your pantry waiting for a better month.

The store’s bananas weren’t kept at the right temperature, so legally, they couldn’t sell them. Now you have an entire box of just-starting-to-rot bananas sitting in your trunk, and the smell is so bad you can’t stomach them.

And sometimes there are treats—orange juice, limeade, even a blueberry pie once, though the top was smashed. You take what you get, because you need food. And you absolutely don’t want to be ungrateful, even though it hurts a little bit knowing the only treat you can afford to give your kids is a smooshed pie.

I’m not complaining, just trying to share a realistic picture of how food banks operate and how they need more funding and help to get people healthy, usable food.

Some months, you’ll get plenty of organic chicken breasts to stock your freezer, with creamy mustard sauce, and bags and bags of frozen green beans that your kids love. You get lots of dried beans, which are both healthy and shelf stable. Rice and pasta are a win, too, because they are easy to use and pretty universal.

But let’s be honest, it can be a challenge to create meals from the assortments you receive. It can also be fun to try something new and different that you might not have thought of otherwise.

Food banks really do the best they can with what they have. They distribute food as fairly, and to as many people, as possible. But they can only give out what shows up. That supply is unstable, and it isn’t always allergy-friendly or culturally appropriate. Much of it is what grocery stores couldn’t sell, or what people found in their own pantries that they didn’t want to eat either.

At the same time, the demand for food banks is increasing while the supply chain has become more volatile. Food insecurity is high, and prices for food, rent, and utilities have risen. That means more people need more help, more often. Donations are unpredictable, transportation costs have increased, and some USDA programs that supplied food banks have been paused or cut.

A lot of pantry food is ultra-processed and shelf-stable. Fresh food is harder to store and distribute because it requires refrigeration and time. Even when workers try to offer healthier options, the logistics are tough.

And getting food from a pantry isn’t always easy. It can mean hours waiting in line (sometimes missing work to so, which is a trade-off), limited pickup hours, complicated paperwork, and the embarrassment of needing help in public.

Food banks are essential emergency infrastructure, and many are innovating. But they can’t substitute for income supports and anti-poverty policy. The sharp edges you see—nutrition gaps, inconsistency, stigma, rationing—come from trying to solve a systemic problem with a voluntary, surplus-driven system.

Everyone wants to feel good about “sharing their food” by donating what’s been sitting in the back of the cabinet. I’m not saying that’s wrong. But if you really want to help your local food bank, consider giving cash. Your dollars go further because food banks have better purchasing power, and they can buy what people actually need—fresh staples, culturally familiar foods, allergy-safe options—rather than hoping those things show up by chance.

Food banks are a lifeline. They bridge the gap for people whose SNAP benefits aren’t enough, and for people who don’t qualify but still need help. We should support them—while also pushing for the structural changes that would make them less necessary in the first place.

Posted on

When Being Poor Becomes a Show

Poor people aren’t zoo animals. Stop inspecting their carts, filming their food bank lines, and acting like unpaid auditors of their survival.

As a foster mom, my caseworker insisted that we take advantage of WIC benefits for our kids in care. She said they were eligible and that it was our job to use it on their behalf.

So I dutifully took my WIC checks to Walmart and spent hours—with small active kids in tow—trying to make the best decisions for them. Fast forward to checkout, where the cashiers clearly hated dealing with WIC checks.

“I’ve got another WIC here,” they’d yell with a big sigh to the manager.

“Fine, I’ll come check out the WIC person,” they’d snort back.

People behind me would huff and groan and stare at the purchases in my cart. I could feel their glares, see them examining the items I chose, all while my littles squirmed and wiggled.

It wasn’t the kids’ fault. Yet here we were, being made a spectacle of, pointed out for the entire checkout area to watch.

The Pumpkin Scandal

I was reminded of this recently when a disabled creator online talked about how she got flack for buying a pumpkin with her SNAP benefits. A pumpkin, for goodness’ sake. It sparked immediate controversy and judgment. How dare she buy something as much fun as a pumpkin! (Personally, I thought it was a great idea – edible decorations? That’s getting more for your money).

The problem isn’t the government providing help.

The problem is the public’s self-appointed role as auditor and judge.

The judgment strips recipients of their autonomy and humanity. The message is clear: if you need assistance, you don’t deserve dignity. You certainly don’t deserve to experience joy.

If you shop with SNAP or WIC and have certain items in your cart, you are going to be judged. Don’t you dare buy soda, cookies, processed food, or, by golly, something seasonal that could be mistaken for a decoration. You’ll get judged if you do.

Because if you’re poor, people act like you’re only “allowed” the bare essentials, and they must be perfectly healthy choices. Never mind that less nutritious, highly processed foods are often cheaper per calorie than “healthy” foods, and that many low-income neighborhoods (often referred to as food deserts), have little or no convenient access to stores with fresh food at all.

Why do onlookers feel entitled to judge other people’s food choices? Is it because you’re using “my tax dollars” to buy that? Does contributing to taxes give me the right to dictate what you consume with YOUR body?

Who gets to decide what someone else eats?

You wouldn’t walk up to a stranger in a coffee shop and tell them they shouldn’t be eating that pastry. So why are we blowing up the internet with judgment over another adult’s decision on what to eat?

There’s also this unspoken rule that recipients of aid need to “look” or “act” poor to be deserving of help. You’re not supposed to look happy. You’re not supposed to have pleasure or joy. Your food choices are reduced to survival only—you must live on rice and beans and be thankful.

So when a SNAP beneficiary purchases a non-essential, the reaction is anger. Anger that “their” money, their hard-earned tax dollars, are being spent on something as “wasteful” as joy.

Why is it okay for the wealthy to make frivolous choices – yachts, multiple vacation homes, fancy cars – while every dollar the poor spend is scrutinized and picked apart? Why does this double standard exist?

This kind of judgment ignores the reality that food access is restricted, and that in many areas, especially urban ones, high-calorie, processed foods are the cheapest way to stave off hunger.

We aren’t arguing over “issues.”

We are arguing over human beings.

Snap Qualifications

Our government has already decided that if you meet specific criteria—mainly having a low enough income for your household size—then you qualify for help. That process is done. No need to judge. No need to defame. No need to put people down.

The government already decided these folks need and deserve assistance. There’s no need to re-vet them in the checkout line. There’s no need for you, a passerby, to inspect their cart or silently decide if they deserve it. No point in shaming them on social media. It’s already been done.

And then there’s poverty as spectacle.

The local news channel recently showed up at a mobile food bank, filming people without consent and even asking for interviews. I find this reprehensible.

Spotlight the food bank? Yes, please. They are good people doing good work, and it’s important to show where people can find resources.

But betraying the privacy of folks who need help—during a time when people needing assistance are already subject to scrutiny, judgment, and scorn? That’s a big no for me. We can do much better than news crews filming vulnerable people in line at food banks without truly informed consent.

A person waiting in line at the food bank can’t just walk away to stay off camera—they need that assistance. And if it’s a car line, there is no room to drive away before being recorded anyway. It’s unfair to force media on them just to show the world, “Hey, look, this person needs help!” especially when people needing assistance are so harshly criticized.

Exposing recipients of aid isn’t good journalism. It’s poverty voyeurism, feel-good charity content that brings in views but doesn’t actually help anyone. It’s a massive invasion of privacy that can put them in harm’s way.

Stop the Judgement

I know you don’t like other people questioning your choices, so please don’t do it to someone else. Don’t analyze the shopping carts of someone who holds an Access card. Don’t huff and puff at people pulling out their WIC folder. Aren’t we all just trying to make it through the day?

If you have more than someone else, you have the power and the responsibility to help them, not the right to analyze and judge their choices.

I’ve said it before and I will keep saying it: your anger is misdirected.

The problem isn’t the poor.

The problem is corporate greed and policies that keep wages low, rents high, and healthy food out of reach.

If you’re angry, aim that anger at the systems that make it so millions of working people need SNAP and medical assistance just to survive.If you don’t like that so many people need help, do something that makes it possible for working people to earn a living wage.

The measure of our society isn’t how well we police the poor, but how hard we work to make poverty unnecessary. How are you going to help?

Posted on

Why Does America Hate Snap?

Scroll through any social feed and you’ll see the same fight: who ‘deserves’ help eating?

America. The wealthiest country in the world. The country whose capital is getting a golden ballroom. And the country that still debates whether hungry people deserve to eat. SNAP is under fire; it helps millions, yet it’s highly stigmatized to the point that everywhere you look, people are arguing about this much-needed safety net.

How is this evening happening? I guarantee that someone you know – and probably someone you like – is in a position to need them. They just don’t talk about it because of the stigma, vitriol, and misinformation from people who argue without doing their research.

Hopefully, by now, we all know that SNAP is federal nutrition assistance for low-income individuals and families. Its scope is quite large, considering that over 40 million Americans rely on it. That’s about 1 in 8 people. I’m sure you know more than 8 people, so there are probably a number of people that you know who quietly rely on SNAP. Maybe if you knew who they were, you’d have more compassion.

SNAP mostly benefits children, seniors, people with disabilities, and working families who struggle to bring in enough money. SNAP is just a supplement, though; it doesn’t fully cover food costs.

Myths That Won’t Die

I’ve heard so many tired arguments over why people should not be on SNAP. Misconceptions like:

• Most people on SNAP don’t work.

• It’s full of fraud and abuse.

• It’s a handout for people who won’t help themselves.

• It’s easy to qualify and live off the system.

• People are buying steak and lobster.

• They don’t want to pay for someone else to get free stuff.

But the truth is:

• Many recipients are employed, but their low-wage jobs don’t cover necessities. Corporations depend on SNAP to cover the difference so they can pay their employees less and get a tax break for doing so.

• Fraud rates are actually very low, as low as 1-2%. Most fraud comes from people skimming SNAP benefits. And once benefits are stolen, they’re not reimbursed.

• Most benefits go to children, people with disabilities, or older adults who cannot work.

• SNAP benefits average around $6 per person per day. That’s not enough to feed a person; it just helps.

So Why Are People So Angry?

So why all the resentment? It’s not really about the food.

• In America, poverty is framed as a personal or moral failure. If you’re poor, it’s your own fault for not working hard enough. You should suffer because you didn’t do the right things or you made bad choices. But that’s not actually true; poverty is a systemic issue because wages don’t keep up with the cost of living.

• I see a lot of hidden resentment. Some people feel left out for not getting the ‘free handouts’, so they have a deep-rooted “what about me attitude” that just fuels their hostility. Why should someone else get a handout when I work so hard?

• SNAP has gotten stuck in partisan identity. It’s becoming a political symbol, divided along party lines, rather than a practical tool to fight hunger.

• Racial and Class bias is fueled by stereotypes about who uses assistance, which just amplifies the stigma and the anger surrounding it.

• Media distortion portrays high rates of fraud that aren’t actually there. But people get angry thinking their tax dollars are being wasted on criminals.

The Application Gauntlet

The application process is not easy. You can file online, but the website is not very intuitive at all. The questions are complicated. You need to provide your income, your expenses, citizenship, criminal history, bank statements, assets, utility bills, W-2s, child support, and proof of all of it.

Different supervisors have different interpretations of what counts as evidence, so if you are self-employed or have adopted children, things can get very complicated. Then you have to do an interview, which can be done over the phone. But if you miss the call, you usually can’t call them back directly. You have to leave a message with the call center and wait for them to contact you again.

If your situation is complex, you may need to talk to the supervisor a few times. But you can never directly call a caseworker or supervisor. It takes about an hour to get through on the main number; they take a message for you and present it to the caseworker, who will call you back within 3 days. If you miss the call because you are working, it can take a long time to actually speak to a real person.

A lot of people never apply because the process is so overwhelming, and they may not even realize they are eligible. It usually takes a month for benefits to begin.

If you see figures flying around online, they usually use the ‘max amount’ as evidence that people get ‘too much’ SNAP. But almost no one gets the max amount. It’s usually around $6 per person per day, which is very little compared to today’s cost of groceries. But SNAP is awarded on a sliding scale: higher income means fewer SNAP benefits, and lower income means more SNAP benefits. So someone just below the threshold may only get a few dollars in assistance each month, yet people get upset about that.

The Real Numbers

• About 41 million Americans use SNAP (roughly 1 in 😎.

• Around 65% of recipients are children, seniors, or people with disabilities.

• Fraud rates are under 2%.

• Economic benefit: Every $1 in SNAP generates about $1.50–$1.80 in economic activity through grocers and local economies.

• Lifting power: SNAP kept nearly 3 million people out of poverty in 2022.

• Undocumented immigrants do not get SNAP.

Why It All Matters

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs states that kids need to be fed before they can learn. Adults need to be fed before they can work. But SNAP offers more than that. It offers stability. It helps people recover from poverty. It improves morale. It even keeps people alive.

Food insecurity and poverty are public health issues. It affects health, education, productivity, and family stability. You simply won’t have the energy to work hard or even concentrate if you are hungry. If you want people to work, they need to be fed enough to be able to do it.

I once knew a single mom who did everything she could to make it on her own. She made so many sacrifices, including barely heating her apartment, doing things in the dark because she didn’t want to use the lights, and ‘holding it’ so she could save pennies by not flushing the toilet. Imagine trying to make dinner for your toddler in the dark, risking bladder infections to save pennies so you have enough money to feed your child. That isn’t living, and that shouldn’t be happening in America when we have the means to stop it. The only thing we are actually lacking is compassion.

If you’re angry about SNAP, that reflects more on your personal beliefs about poverty than on the SNAP program. We have got to stop judging every minute detail of someone’s life just because they receive assistance. Let the experts handle that, trust me, they go through a complicated process to get those benefits.

We need to stop arguing and start looking for ways to make real change so people can thrive without assistance. We need to raise the minimum wage to a livable level, ensure affordable health care for all, and work together as a society.

If you’re angry about SNAP, channel it into curiosity. Look up how it actually works. Talk to someone who uses it.

Compassion and facts do more good than outrage ever will.

Posted on

Churches and the Baby Formula Scam

I saw a content creator call a whole bunch of churches pretending she’d run out of formula and her baby was hungry. Very few churches were willing to help. Now, I’m not thrilled with tricking churches like that. That’s a pretty dirty tactic, and it’s possible some of those churches saw through it and just declined politely. But it still exposed something: there are a lot of churches that are either unable or unwilling to help someone in immediate need.

Then I saw another creator completely lose it. She was crying, yelling, and cursing because the church does not and has not done enough. Her argument was, “If the church was doing its job, we wouldn’t have people on SNAP.” It was hard to watch her raw emotion and her pain for the church at large, but there was definitely some truth in what she said.

I grew up in a family that believed in small government, more freedom, and that it was the church’s job to care for the poor and the sick. The church I grew up in, along with several I worked in, had a discretionary fund the pastor could use to quietly help anyone in need, whether they were part of the church or from the community.

But here’s the part people don’t want to say out loud: if you want small government, you have to fund the alternative. If you want churches and charities to handle poverty relief, then churches and charities have to be resourced at the level of the need. If the alternative isn’t actually funded, society won’t just magically be okay.

I was taught by my church that government assistance was a concession. Because the church at large wasn’t doing enough. And while I have seen churches make herculean efforts to help their communities, they simply can’t do it all. At the same time, there are just as many churches that think having a few dollars a month in a discretionary fund is enough to say they “help the poor.”

There’s also a structural problem we never name: even if every church were generous, churches in poor areas have fewer donors and more need. The places that need the most help tend to have the least church money. That’s not a compassion problem; that’s a math problem. That’s why public programs exist, because they can pool resources across regions and income levels in a way a single congregation can’t.

What makes this even stranger is watching some evangelicals vote for “Christian identity” issues like putting the Ten Commandments in schools, prayer, abortion, whatever, while Jesus’ most concrete commands about money and poverty don’t show up in their policy priorities. They aren’t willing to vote for the things Jesus actually did: feed the hungry, heal the sick, help the poor. He literally told the rich young ruler to sell everything and give it to the poor. If we want the public sphere to reflect Christian values, why don’t we start with the ones about the poor and the ones Jesus actually repeated?

Meanwhile politicians keep saying the U.S. is the richest country in the world. If that’s true, why do we have people who can’t afford to eat? Why are we criticizing single moms, disabled people, and the elderly because they can’t make enough money?

I can’t believe that in 2025 this is still a polarizing issue—that so many people are genuinely angry about other people having basic necessities. That so many people think most folks on SNAP are freeloaders. I’ve seen the comments:

• “Most SNAP recipients are scammers.”

• “People don’t want to work.”

• “It’s all single moms making bad choices.”

And those are just a few.

But that’s simply not who most benefits go to. They go to kids, to the elderly, to disabled people, and to the working poor. The people we claim to care about. The part that disturbs me most is that these stereotypes exist mostly because of misinformation and people only looking to confirm what they already believe instead of finding out what’s actually true. Some of these people are so angry about the government helping people.

But the fix doesn’t have to be government or church. It can be both.

The local church can and should be out there meeting the community’s needs—because churches can do things the government can’t: build relationships, know names, offer encouragement, pray, walk with a family. And the government can do the things churches can’t: provide consistency, scale, and a floor that isn’t dependent on whether donations came in this month.

The truth is, the church has the calling but not always the capacity. Charity is beautiful but patchy. Government is impersonal but scalable. When we insist the church should do it all, while refusing to fund it anywhere near the level of national need, we create a gap and then we blame the people who fall into it.

So now what?

If you love the church, support policies that make sure people eat even when the church can’t. Do both. Get out there and love your neighbor, even the poor ones.