Federal Policy Changes Threaten Progress on Sustainable Development Goals in Washington State

Recent federal legislative changes, specifically the budget reconciliation bill, have enacted significant reductions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These measures present a direct challenge to the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), by increasing food insecurity for vulnerable populations across Washington state.

Impact on SDG 2: Zero Hunger

The core mission of SDG 2 is to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The new federal policy directly undermines these targets by reducing access to essential food assistance for nearly one million state residents.

Reduction in Food Assistance and Increased Food Insecurity

• Federal spending on SNAP is projected to be cut by nearly $187 billion over the next decade.
• In Washington, 941,000 people rely on SNAP to meet their nutritional needs.
• An estimated 170,000 people in the state are at risk of losing their benefits entirely.
• For those who remain eligible, monthly benefits, which average $324 per person, could be reduced by an average of $56.

Stricter Eligibility and Exclusion of Vulnerable Groups

The new law narrows the eligibility criteria, directly impeding the goal of ensuring all people have access to safe and nutritious food.

1. Work Requirements: Able-bodied adults aged 18 to 64 are now required to work at least 80 hours per month to qualify, an expansion from the previous age limit of 54.
2. Exclusion of Non-Citizens: Refugees, individuals granted asylum, and survivors of trafficking are now excluded from eligibility, despite their high risk of poverty and food insecurity upon arrival in the U.S.

Compounding Effects on Associated SDGs

The repercussions of the SNAP cuts extend beyond hunger, affecting poverty, health, and inequality, which are central to other key SDGs.

SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

SNAP serves as a critical anti-poverty measure. For individuals on fixed or low incomes, such as those reliant on Social Security, the reduction of food assistance exacerbates financial hardship, pushing them further into poverty (SDG 1). The cuts, combined with high food prices and reductions in other programs like Medicaid, compromise the ability of individuals and families to afford nutritious food, which is fundamental to maintaining good health and well-being (SDG 3).

SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The policy changes disproportionately affect marginalized communities, thereby widening inequalities (SDG 10). Data from regional food banks indicates that immigrants and refugees constitute a significant portion of service users, with one center reporting that 45-50% of its visitors are from these communities. Excluding these groups from federal food assistance systematically increases their vulnerability.

Response from Civil Society and Implications for SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

Local non-profit organizations and food banks are mobilizing to address the service gap, highlighting the critical importance of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) in mitigating the crisis.

Overburdened Food Banks and Hunger-Relief Agencies

Local food banks, which were already experiencing high demand due to inflation and the cessation of pandemic-era benefits, are now bracing for a further influx of clients. This surge places immense strain on their operational and financial resources.

• The Rainier Valley Food Bank anticipates increasing its food budget from $650,000 to over $1 million to meet projected demand.
• El Centro de la Raza has seen weekly visitors increase from 150 to 225.
• The Byrd Barr Place food bank reports that its average number of clients has more than doubled since 2023.

This increased reliance on charitable organizations is compounded by the termination of state-level funding programs like We Feed WA, creating significant budget gaps for relief agencies.

Call for Strengthened Partnerships

In response to federal and state funding cuts, hunger-relief leaders are emphasizing the need to strengthen partnerships. They are calling for increased philanthropic revenue, community-led food drives, and volunteer support to build resilience and alleviate the anticipated demand on the emergency food system.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • The article directly addresses poverty by focusing on the cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a key social safety net for low-income individuals. It highlights the story of Janelle Smith-Dozier, who relies on Social Security and food assistance after a brain condition forced her to retire, stating her financial situation “was beyond tight.” The cuts to SNAP threaten to push her and many others deeper into poverty.

2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • This is the central theme of the article. The entire piece discusses the impact of reduced food assistance on hunger. It describes how SNAP helps over 941,000 people in Washington “stock their fridges and pantries.” The cuts are expected to cause a surge in demand at local food banks, which are already “overwhelmed with long lines.” The article quotes a food bank CEO saying, “these cuts are going to directly harm people in our community” by making it harder for them to access nutritious food.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • The article highlights how the policy changes disproportionately affect vulnerable and marginalized groups. It explicitly mentions that “Refugees, people granted asylum and trafficking survivors — who have historically been eligible for SNAP benefits — are now excluded.” This creates a new inequality in access to essential support. It also notes the impact on people with disabilities, like Janelle Smith-Dozier, and the elderly, by raising the work requirement age from 54 to 64.

Specific Targets Identified

1. Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.

   • The article discusses the reduction of a major national social protection system (SNAP). The federal spending cuts of “$187 billion over the next decade” and the new eligibility rules that put “about 170,000 people in Washington are at risk of losing access to food stamps” represent a significant step away from achieving substantial coverage for the poor and vulnerable.

2. Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.

   • This target is directly relevant as the article details the struggle for food access. The cuts to SNAP benefits, which “average about $324 per person per month,” directly impede the ability of vulnerable people to secure sufficient food. The reliance on food banks, which are bracing for an “influx” of new visitors, underscores the growing challenge of ending hunger in the community.

3. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.

   • The article points to a new policy that creates inequality of outcome. The law that now excludes “Refugees, people granted asylum and trafficking survivors” from SNAP benefits is a clear example of a policy that reduces equal opportunity for specific, vulnerable groups. The article notes this is “particularly devastating” for these populations.

Indicators Mentioned or Implied

1. Indicator 1.3.1: Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems.

   • The article provides data points that can be used to measure this indicator. It states that SNAP is a “safety net program more than 941,000 people rely on in Washington.” It also quantifies the potential reduction in coverage, noting that “about 170,000 people in Washington are at risk of losing access to food stamps.” This data directly relates to the proportion of the vulnerable population covered by this social protection system.

2. Indicator 2.1.2: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population.

   • The article provides a direct statistic for this indicator: “In King County, about 11% of residents — about 254,500 people — struggle to access nutritious foods, according to data from Feeding America.” Furthermore, the increased demand at food banks, such as El Centro de la Raza’s food bank seeing an increase “from about 150 visitors a week to about 225 a week,” serves as an implied measure of rising food insecurity.

3. Indicator 10.3.1: Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed…on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law.

   • While the article doesn’t quote individuals reporting discrimination, it identifies a policy that is discriminatory by nature. The new law’s exclusion of refugees and asylum seekers from SNAP benefits is a systemic action that creates inequality based on origin and status. The article notes that a food bank director estimates “about 45% to 50% of visitors are immigrants and refugees,” highlighting the large number of people impacted by this specific exclusion.

Source: spokesman.com