Food Insecurity on Campus: How SNAP is a ‘Lifeline’ For Many Students – KQED

Report on the Impact of Social Protection Disruptions on Student Welfare and Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Food Insecurity as a Barrier to Quality Education (SDG 2, SDG 4)

Recent delays in the CalFresh social protection program have exacerbated food insecurity among college students, presenting a significant challenge to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education). The inability to meet basic needs directly impacts students’ capacity to engage in their studies, highlighting the critical link between nutritional access (SDG 2: Zero Hunger) and educational outcomes.

• Students reported an inability to focus on academic responsibilities, including midterm exams, due to the financial and nutritional stress caused by delayed benefits.
• The situation forces students into precarious financial decisions, often choosing between essential needs such as food, housing, and transportation, which undermines their overall well-being and educational progress.

Institutional and Community Responses to Uphold SDG Commitments

Campus-Based Interventions for Poverty and Hunger Alleviation (SDG 1, SDG 2)

In response to the crisis, higher education institutions have initiated immediate support measures aligned with SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). These actions aim to provide a safety net for vulnerable student populations.

1. Expansion of Food Resources: Campuses have reinforced their commitment to student welfare by expanding on-campus food pantries and distributing grocery gift cards and fresh food.
2. Emergency Financial Aid: To combat acute poverty, colleges have provided emergency grants. Evergreen Valley College, for instance, allocated $100,000 in emergency funding to 250 students, directly addressing the financial hardships that threaten their continued education.
3. Basic Needs Programs: California Community Colleges maintain mandated basic needs programs, providing essential resources for food, housing, and transportation, which serve as a critical infrastructure for student support and contribute to reducing inequalities (SDG 10).

Multi-Sectoral Partnerships for Community Resilience (SDG 11, SDG 17)

The response has extended beyond campus boundaries, demonstrating the importance of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) in creating resilient support systems.

• Community Organizations: Food banks, such as the Berkeley Food Network, have prepared for increased demand, serving as a vital lifeline for students and the wider community.
• Student-Led Initiatives: The Berkeley Student Food Collective, a student-governed non-profit, exemplifies grassroots action to provide healthy, low-cost food options, though it faces systemic challenges.
• Philanthropic Efforts: The Foundation for California Community Colleges launched a fundraising campaign to provide direct, independent support to students, acknowledging that traditional financial aid is often insufficient to cover living expenses in California.

Systemic Challenges and Implications for Health and Equality

Impact on Student Health and Well-being (SDG 3)

The disruption in food access has had a measurable negative impact on student mental and physical health, a key concern of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

• Reports from college staff indicate a significant “increase of stress and anxiety” among affected students.
• The personal testimony of students highlights the emotional toll and health challenges exacerbated by the uncertainty of meeting basic nutritional needs.

Regulatory Barriers and Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10)

Efforts to mitigate the crisis have encountered systemic barriers that underscore the challenges in achieving SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

• A U.S. Department of Agriculture directive prohibiting retailers from offering discounts to EBT cardholders has tied the hands of community-focused grocers, limiting their ability to support vulnerable populations.
• The crisis has illuminated pre-existing issues of widespread food insecurity and inadequate benefits for students, revealing how systemic vulnerabilities disproportionately affect low-income students and create barriers to equitable access to education.

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

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   The article discusses students facing significant financial hardship, forcing them to choose between “rent or gas or food.” This highlights a struggle with poverty, as their financial aid is “not enough to cover all of their living expenses.” The reliance on social safety nets like CalFresh directly connects to poverty alleviation efforts.

2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   This is the central theme of the article. It focuses on “widespread food insecurity” among college students due to delays in CalFresh benefits. The response from colleges and community organizations, such as expanding food pantries, distributing grocery gift cards, and the work of the Berkeley Food Network, are all direct actions to combat hunger.

3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   The article explicitly links food insecurity to mental health, noting an “increase of stress and anxiety” among students affected by the benefit delays. One student mentioned suffering from “different health problems,” which were exacerbated by the uncertainty, demonstrating the connection between food access and overall well-being.

4. SDG 4: Quality Education

   The lack of basic needs is shown to be a direct barrier to education. A college staff member observed that students were “unable to focus and engage fully in their studies” while worrying about their next meal. This illustrates that meeting basic needs like food is essential for students to achieve a quality education.

5. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   The article highlights the vulnerability of a specific group—students relying on government assistance. The problem is described as a “hollowing out of benefits for students and young people,” pointing to an inequality where this demographic is struggling to meet basic needs within an expensive environment, thus hindering their social and economic inclusion.

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

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’s focus on the delay and shutdown of CalFresh (SNAP) benefits is a direct commentary on the failure and importance of a social protection system designed to support vulnerable populations like low-income students.

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.

   • The entire article revolves around the disruption of access to sufficient food for students, a vulnerable group. The efforts by food pantries, food banks, and student collectives to provide food are attempts to fulfill this target when the primary system fails.

3. Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.

   • The article connects the lack of food security directly to poor mental health outcomes, citing the “increase of stress and anxiety” among students. This aligns with the goal of promoting mental health and well-being.

4. Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.

   • Food and housing insecurity are significant barriers to accessing and succeeding in tertiary education. The article shows that students are “unable to focus and engage fully in their studies,” which undermines the principle of equal access to a quality education.

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

1. Proportion of population covered by social protection systems.

   • The article implies this indicator by discussing the large number of students who rely on CalFresh. It mentions that “around 276,000 students attend a California Community College,” with many of them being part of the CalFresh system, highlighting the scale of coverage needed.

2. Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population.

   • This is strongly implied through descriptions of “widespread food insecurity” and students having to choose between “rent or gas or food.” The increased use of food pantries and the “significant downturn in utilization of EBT at the storefront” due to lack of funds are direct measures of this insecurity.

3. Amount of emergency financial assistance provided.

   • The article provides a specific data point that can serve as an indicator: “Evergreen Valley College in San Jose secured $100,000 worth of emergency funding for 250 students.” This quantifies the response to the immediate financial and food crisis.

4. Student self-reported well-being and ability to participate in education.

   • The article provides qualitative indicators through direct accounts. A staff member reports students are “unable to focus and engage fully in their studies,” and students report an “increase of stress and anxiety.” These can be used to measure the impact of food insecurity on education and mental health.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: kqed.org