The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) serves as a critical lifeline for millions of Americans, including 1 in 8 Kentuckians, who rely on it to combat food insecurity. However, in recent years, Kentucky has faced scrutiny for its aggressive approach to disqualifying SNAP recipients based on alleged fraud, often relying solely on transactional data. This practice, which has led to a surge in disqualifications, raises significant concerns about fairness, due process, and the impact on vulnerable populations. By examining the case of a single mother in Salyersville, Kentucky, alongside broader trends, this essay argues that the state’s overreliance on transactional data to prove SNAP fraud is flawed, disproportionately harms low-income individuals, and fails to meet the burden of proof required for such severe penalties.
The Case of the Salyersville Single Mother
In 2020, a single mother from Salyersville, a rural town in Appalachian Kentucky, lost her SNAP benefits after the state accused her of fraud. The Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services alleged that her shopping patterns—multiple same-day purchases, attempts to overdraw her account, incorrect PIN entries, and whole-dollar transactions—indicated she was "trafficking" or selling her benefits. However, the woman provided a reasonable explanation: she worked at the store where she made purchases, often buying lunch during her shift and groceries afterward, and her child occasionally used her card. Despite this, an administrative hearing officer disqualified her from SNAP, relying solely on her transactional data.
This decision was overturned in 2023 by Franklin County Judge Thomas Wingate, who called the disqualification "draconian" and emphasized the lack of "clear and convincing evidence" of intentional trafficking. The judge’s ruling highlighted a critical issue: transactional data alone cannot prove intent to commit fraud, especially during a time of widespread food insecurity. The single mother’s case is emblematic of a broader pattern in Kentucky, where hundreds of SNAP recipients have faced similar accusations based on questionable evidence.
Kentucky’s Aggressive Disqualification Practices
Over the past decade, Kentucky has significantly increased its SNAP disqualifications, rising from fewer than 100 in 2015 to over 1,800 in 2023, making it second in the nation for per-capita administrative disqualifications. The state’s reliance on transactional data—such as back-to-back purchases, whole-dollar amounts, or frequent balance checks—has driven this surge. Kentucky Public Radio’s review of dozens of administrative hearing decisions and court documents from 2020 to 2023 revealed that these cases often lack additional evidence, such as witness testimony, video footage, or interviews, to substantiate claims of fraud.
In many instances, recipients are pressured to waive their right to a hearing through mailed notices, accepting a one-year SNAP ban and repayment of the alleged misused amount, which can be as low as 14 cents. Since 2015, nearly a quarter of disqualifications have occurred via such waivers, with some lawsuits alleging that recipients were misled about the consequences of signing. This practice raises serious questions about informed consent and due process, particularly for low-income individuals who may lack access to legal representation.
The Limitations of Transactional Data
Legal experts, including University of Kentucky law professor Cory Dodds and Georgetown law professor David Super, argue that transactional data is an inadequate tool for proving SNAP fraud. Originally intended to flag potential issues for further investigation, such data has been misused as direct evidence of wrongdoing. For example, back-to-back transactions or whole-dollar purchases are not prohibited under SNAP rules, yet Kentucky’s training materials for investigators focus heavily on these patterns as indicators of fraud. In a 2023 case, cabinet officials admitted during cross-examination that these behaviors are not inherently suspicious, yet they continue to serve as the sole basis for disqualifications.
The case of a woman in McKee, Kentucky, illustrates this problem. She was disqualified for a year after making eight back-to-back transactions over a year, checking her balance frequently, and entering her PIN incorrectly a few times. In her appeal, she explained that these transactions were normal, as she often forgot items and returned to the store. Despite her defense and the lack of additional evidence, her disqualification was upheld. This reliance on transactional data ignores the realities of everyday life, particularly for low-income families who may shop frequently or in small amounts due to limited resources or transportation.
The Broader Impact on Vulnerable Communities
Kentucky’s approach to SNAP fraud allegations disproportionately affects its most vulnerable residents. Approximately 16% of Kentuckians face food insecurity, a rate comparable to the national average, with rural areas like Appalachia experiencing even higher levels of need. For these communities, SNAP is a vital safety net, and its loss can have devastating consequences. The single mother in Salyersville, for instance, relied on SNAP to feed her family, and her disqualification—based on flimsy evidence—jeopardized their well-being.
Moreover, the state’s practices exacerbate existing inequities. Rural residents often lack access to legal aid, making it difficult to challenge disqualifications. As Kristie Goff, an AppalRed legal aid lawyer, noted, many clients have reasonable explanations for their transactional patterns, yet the state rarely provides receipts, video evidence, or other corroborating materials. This lack of transparency places an unfair burden on recipients to prove their innocence, a task made harder by the complexity of administrative hearings and the pressure to sign waivers.
A Call for Reform
The misuse of transactional data in SNAP fraud cases is not unique to Kentucky but reflects a broader trend in some states. In 2020, Michigan appellate judges ruled that transactional data alone is insufficient to prove fraud, a standard that experts like Dodds argue should apply nationwide. Kentucky’s own judiciary has begun to push back, with a 2023 Franklin County judge ordering the cabinet to stop relying solely on transactional data. However, lawsuits filed since then indicate that the practice persists, suggesting a need for stronger oversight and reform.
To address this issue, Kentucky should adopt clearer standards for proving SNAP fraud, requiring concrete evidence such as witness statements, video footage, or documented admissions of guilt. Training for investigators should shift away from an overemphasis on transactional patterns and toward a more holistic approach that considers recipients’ circumstances. Additionally, the state must ensure that recipients fully understand the implications of waiving their hearing rights and have access to legal support to navigate the process.
The case of the Salyersville single mother underscores the human cost of Kentucky’s reliance on transactional data to disqualify SNAP recipients. By prioritizing administrative efficiency over fairness, the state risks punishing innocent individuals and exacerbating food insecurity among its most vulnerable residents. As food assistance programs face increasing scrutiny and federal funding cuts, it is critical to protect the integrity of SNAP while ensuring that allegations of fraud are substantiated with robust evidence. Kentucky must reform its practices to balance accountability with compassion, ensuring that no one goes hungry due to baseless accusations.