Proposed SSI Rule Change: An Analysis of Impacts on Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A proposed regulatory change to the U.S. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program threatens to undermine progress on several key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By altering how in-kind support is calculated, the rule could reduce or eliminate benefits for hundreds of thousands of low-income older adults and people with disabilities. This action directly conflicts with the objectives of SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Policy Analysis and Contradiction with SDG 1 (No Poverty)

The proposed rule targets the “public assistance household” exemption, which currently prevents SSI benefit reduction for recipients living in households enrolled in programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Removing SNAP as a qualifying program would weaken a critical social protection system, directly opposing the aims of SDG Target 1.3 (implement nationally appropriate social protection systems).

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimates that this change would push vulnerable populations further into poverty, a direct setback to SDG Target 1.2 (reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty). Projected impacts include:

• Approximately 275,000 individuals facing benefit reductions of up to one-third.
• Over 100,000 individuals potentially losing their SSI eligibility entirely.

Implications for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

By targeting households already reliant on SNAP, the rule change would increase financial strain and food insecurity, undermining efforts to achieve SDG Target 2.1 (end hunger and ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food). The policy disproportionately affects low-income, multigenerational households, thereby penalizing familial support systems and exacerbating inequality. This runs contrary to SDG Target 10.2, which aims to empower and promote the social and economic inclusion of all, irrespective of age, disability, or economic status. The rule effectively treats essential family care as a financial liability that reduces eligibility.

Geographic Impact and Setbacks for SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

The reduction or elimination of SSI benefits threatens to increase housing instability among the nation’s most vulnerable, hindering progress toward SDG Target 11.1 (ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing). The impact is concentrated in several key states, with the largest number of at-risk recipients in:

1. California (57,600)
2. New York (35,900)
3. Florida (30,800)
4. Texas (23,600)

These four states alone account for nearly 39 percent of the total estimated affected population, indicating a significant regional challenge to community stability and well-being.

Procedural Status

To reinstate the stricter standards, the administration must issue a formal rule proposal and open it to a public comment period before any changes can be finalized.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

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

The article discusses issues that are directly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary focus on a social safety net program for vulnerable populations links directly to goals concerning poverty, inequality, and hunger.

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  This is the most relevant SDG, as the article focuses on the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which is a social protection system designed to provide a minimum income for “low-income older adults and people with disabilities.” The proposed rule change threatens to reduce or eliminate this income, pushing hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries further into poverty.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The proposed policy change specifically targets vulnerable and marginalized groups, including older adults, people with disabilities, and low-income households. By reducing benefits for those who rely on family support, the rule would increase economic inequality and penalize “low-income, multigenerational households the hardest,” as stated in the article.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  The article explicitly links the SSI program to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The proposed change would remove the exemption for beneficiaries living in SNAP households, which are households with limited means struggling with food security. Reducing the income of these individuals would directly impact their ability to afford food, thereby undermining efforts to end hunger.

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

Based on the specific issues discussed, several targets under the identified SDGs are relevant.

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 is centered on a key national social protection system (SSI) in the United States. The proposed rule change would weaken this system by reducing its coverage and the value of its benefits for “nearly 400,000 SSI beneficiaries,” directly contradicting the goal of achieving substantial coverage for the vulnerable.

2. 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 policy change would have the opposite effect of this target. By cutting or eliminating income support, it would further the economic exclusion of people based on their age, disability, and economic status. The article notes the rule “penalizes families by reducing SSI payments when they provide shelter or basic support to loved ones,” hindering the social and economic inclusion of these individuals.

3. 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 proposed change directly impacts households enrolled in SNAP, a program designed to combat hunger. The article states that the current exemption is based on the fact that “SNAP households have limited means.” Reducing the SSI income of individuals in these households would decrease their financial resources available for food, thereby increasing their risk of hunger and food insecurity.

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

The article provides specific quantitative and qualitative data that can serve as indicators to measure the potential negative impact on the identified targets.

• Indicator for Target 1.3 (Social Protection): Number and proportion of the population covered by social protection systems.

  The article provides precise figures that can be used as indicators of declining coverage. It states that the change would put “nearly 400,000 SSI beneficiaries” at risk. It further breaks this down, estimating that “over 275,000 people could face benefit reductions and over 100,000 could lose eligibility entirely.” These numbers directly measure a reduction in the effectiveness and coverage of the social protection system.

• Indicator for Target 10.2 (Inclusion): Number of people from vulnerable groups (older adults, persons with disabilities) facing income reduction or loss of social benefits.

  The article provides data disaggregated by state, which serves as a powerful indicator of where inequality would be most exacerbated. For example, it identifies the number of affected SSI recipients in specific states: “California… 57,600 people at risk,” “New York (35,900),” “Florida (30,800),” and “Texas (23,600).” This data highlights the disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations in different regions.

• Indicator for Target 2.1 (Hunger): The financial impact on households receiving food assistance.

  An implied indicator is the magnitude of the income loss for households already identified as needing food assistance (SNAP recipients). The article states that benefits can be “reduced by up to one-third—about $300 for someone receiving the maximum $967 per month.” This specific financial figure indicates a significant reduction in the resources available for food and other necessities in households already struggling with poverty and food security.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: newsweek.com