Food security is defined as “having access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life” by the USDA (USDA, 2023). In 2022, 12.8%, or 17 million households, were food insecure (Rabbit et al., 2023). In many communities, a disparate, semi-unstructured, disconnected charitable food system exists to address this need.  However, the autonomous nature of this food system may inhibit accessibility.  Further, a collection of independent food resources that have diverse goals and rules, that are unknown by households who need help (Duffy et al., 2006). Many food resources in the rural county examined here were in churches and set their own parameters of eligibility and access. Riediger’s et al. (2022) study of almost 4K pantries found that over 63% were religious. Kapp (2012) noted that church pantries are “loosely organized, run by a small group of volunteers…few are extensive, ongoing relief programs that serve the broader community” (p. 201). As a result, small religious food pantries often have limited hours and services (Riediger et al., 2022), where volunteers must improvise (Kapp, 2012). As a result, often these pantries do not meet the food needs of food insecure households. Pritt et al., (2018) found that many customers remain food insecure after visiting the pantry due to a mismatch between the actual needs of food pantry participants and types of food and support offered.  Our sample included 16 respondents, which included 10 interviews and 6 surveys. Surveys were collected via Qualtrics. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed with OtterAI. Data were organized and analyzed via Dedoose. Data were coded by multiple coders with codes collapsed into second level codes and three overarching themes. What emerged were two essential conflicts for pantries to address. We defined “connectedness” as a partnership with our regional food bank or a listing in our regional 211 system. Our hypothesis that these small, mostly religious organizations would be “disconnected” was not supported. However, a pervasive sense of insularity among our sample remained. We identified instead as failure of our definition to capture the true meaning of disconnection. The programs that we studied gave the impression of independent autonomy and that connectedness with other organizations had an unspoken threshold. After grouping and collapsing our initial codes, we found three overarching themes in our data: Paternalism, Vision, and Practices. Exploring these three themes further, we deduced that these represented two major conflicts that small independent feeding programs face.  Each critical question represented the continua of an issue which had the propensity to become a client barrier if left unchecked. These were:  Connection vs. Paternalism Ideology vs. PracticalityThe extent to which pantries answered these questions related to the accessibility of the pantry and the ability of that pantry to adequately create an environment where needs could be met.  Eventually the researchers began to question whose ultimate needs are met within these programs, the giver or receiver (Stern, 1984), given the confusing logistics and challenging barriers.  Implications for policy and practice will be discussed.