Report on Rising Food Insecurity in Massachusetts: A Sustainable Development Goals Analysis

A recent study conducted by the Greater Boston Food Bank and Mass General Brigham reveals a significant rise in food insecurity across Massachusetts, with the most severe rates concentrated in Western and Central Massachusetts and Bristol County. This trend poses a direct challenge to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG 2: Zero Hunger) and intersects with several other SDGs, including SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Key Findings: The State of Hunger in Massachusetts

Statewide Food Insecurity Statistics

The 2024 study, “Massachusetts Food and Access: The Cost of Hunger,” surveyed 3,000 adults and identified critical trends impacting the state’s progress toward SDG 2.

• Over one-third of Massachusetts adults, equivalent to two million residents, experienced food insecurity in 2024.
• The rate of “very low” food insecurity has quadrupled, rising from 6% in 2019 to 24% in 2024, indicating a deepening crisis.
• An estimated annual investment of up to $2 billion is required to eliminate food insecurity within the state.

Regional Disparities and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The data highlights significant geographic inequalities, with Western Massachusetts experiencing the most dramatic increases in food insecurity.

• Hampden County: Household food insecurity increased to 54% in 2024, a rise from 48% in 2023.
• Hampshire and Franklin Counties: The rate of food insecurity saw a stark jump from 37% in 2023 to 50% in 2024.

These disparities underscore the challenges in achieving SDG 10, as rural and economically diverse regions face greater barriers to food access.

Progress Towards SDG Targets

Despite the overall increase, targeted interventions have yielded positive results in specific areas, demonstrating the potential for effective policy.

• Child Food Insecurity (SDG 2.2): Rates have decreased over the past three years, a success attributed to the state’s Universal Free School Meals program.
• WIC Enrollment: Enrollment among food-insecure households has risen to 71%, a significant improvement from an estimated 27% in 2019, enhancing access to nutrition for women and children.

Analysis of Contributing Factors

Socioeconomic and Systemic Barriers (SDG 1 & SDG 10)

The persistence of food insecurity is linked to a combination of socioeconomic and systemic factors that hinder progress on SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

• Poverty and insufficient wages
• Inflation and the rising cost of living
• Chronic health conditions
• Systemic barriers limiting economic opportunities
• Expiration of temporary COVID-19 relief funding
• Anticipated reductions in federal funding for SNAP and USDA programs

Rural and Infrastructure Challenges (SDG 11)

In rural areas like the Hilltowns, geographic and infrastructure issues exacerbate food insecurity, impacting the goal of creating sustainable communities (SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities).

• Limited public transportation options
• Lack of accessible, affordable grocery stores
• Higher costs at smaller, local convenience-style stores
• Increased vulnerability for elderly populations on fixed incomes

Strategic Responses and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

The Role of Hunger Relief Organizations

Local and regional organizations are central to the response, demonstrating a commitment to SDG 2 through direct action and collaboration.

1. The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts: Currently provides 1.25 million meals per month to an average of 124,000 individuals, the highest level in its history. The organization is actively working to ensure equitable food access across all communities it serves.
2. Northampton Survival Center: Operates two pantries serving 18 towns and distributes over 800,000 pounds of food annually. The center highlights a recent rise in new clients due to economic pressures and changes in benefit funding.

Multi-Sector Collaboration (SDG 17)

The effort to combat food insecurity exemplifies SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), relying on a network of collaboration.

• Public-Private-Non-Profit Partnerships: State funding for programs, research collaborations like the one between the Greater Boston Food Bank and Mass General Brigham, and operational partnerships between food banks and local businesses are critical.
• Community Engagement: The Northampton Survival Center relies on 300 active volunteers and community financial donations, which are leveraged through partnerships to turn a $275,000 food budget into over a million dollars’ worth of food.

Recommendations for Advancing Sustainable Development Goals

To address the rising food insecurity and make substantive progress on related SDGs, the following actions are recommended:

1. Sustain and Enhance Policy Support: Maintain and increase state and federal funding for crucial programs like Universal Free School Meals, SNAP, and WIC to directly support the achievement of SDG 2.
2. Strengthen Localized Support Systems: Increase financial and volunteer support for regional food banks and pantries, particularly in high-need areas, to address the inequalities highlighted under SDG 10.
3. Invest in Rural Infrastructure: Develop targeted solutions for transportation and food access in rural communities to build resilience and sustainability in line with SDG 11.
4. Foster Cross-Sector Partnerships: Continue to build and leverage partnerships between government, non-profits, businesses, and community members as a core strategy for achieving the SDGs, as outlined in SDG 17.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: This is the primary goal addressed. The entire article revolves around the issue of food insecurity, the rising rates of hunger in Massachusetts, and the efforts of organizations to provide food to those in need.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article connects food insecurity directly to financial hardship. It mentions vulnerable populations such as the elderly living on a “fixed income” and how inflation and the loss of funding for SNAP benefits exacerbate the problem, indicating a clear link to poverty.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article emphasizes the importance of providing “nutritious food” and notes that food insecurity is linked to “chronic health conditions.” It states that programs to reduce hunger also “improve dietary quality and we know support health.”
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article highlights significant disparities. It points out that food insecurity rates are “worst in Western and Central Massachusetts,” that rural communities feel the effects “more severely,” and that there is a need to ensure “equitable access to food” for all, addressing inequality based on geography and socioeconomic status.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article extensively details the collaborative efforts required to combat food insecurity. It describes partnerships between food banks (Greater Boston Food Bank, Food Bank of Western Massachusetts), healthcare systems (Mass General Brigham), government programs (WIC, SNAP, Universal Free School Meals), non-profits (Northampton Survival Center), private businesses, and community volunteers.

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

• 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 article’s focus on rising household food insecurity and the work of food banks to distribute “nutritious food” and “1.25 million meals every month” directly aligns with this target.
• Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions. The article’s discussion of people on “fixed income,” the impact of inflation, and the reliance on social safety nets like SNAP benefits connects the issue of hunger to the broader challenge of poverty reduction.
• 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 emphasis on providing “nutritious food” and the mention of links between food insecurity and “chronic health conditions” supports the prevention aspect of this target.
• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. The article identifies specific vulnerable groups (elderly, rural populations) and geographic areas (Western Massachusetts) that are disproportionately affected, highlighting the need for equitable access and inclusion.
• Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships. The article is a case study of this target in action, detailing how food banks, healthcare organizations, government funding, non-profits, and volunteers collaborate to address hunger. The quote, “there’s absolutely no way we would be able to do that without all of these great partners and financial donations,” perfectly illustrates this.

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

• Prevalence of food insecurity: The article provides precise statistics that serve as direct indicators. Examples include: “household food insecurity increased by 6% to 54% in Hampden County,” “50% of households now experiencing food insecurity” in Hampshire and Franklin counties, and “over one in three residents… faced food insecurity in 2024.”
• Enrollment in social protection programs: The article mentions specific program data, such as “WIC enrollment among food-inferior households is up to 71%,” and discusses the importance of funding for “SNAP benefits,” which can be used as indicators of access to support systems.
• Volume of food assistance provided: The article quantifies the response efforts, providing clear metrics like “providing food to 124,000 individuals every month,” distributing “1.25 million meals every month,” and distributing “over 800,000 pounds of food each year.”
• Financial resources allocated: The article mentions the financial scale of the problem and the response, such as the estimate that solving food insecurity would require “$2 billion annually” and a food budget of “$275,000” being leveraged into “well over a million dollars’ worth of food.”
• Number of active partners and volunteers: The scale of collaboration is measured through indicators like “partnership of nearly 200 food pantries” and the involvement of “10 paid staff folks and 300 active volunteers” at one center.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thereminder.com