Maryland’s SNAP-Ed program defunded at the expense of low-income families – AFRO American Newspapers

Report on the Termination of Maryland’s SNAP-Ed Program and its Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction

Effective October 1, Maryland’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) has been defunded. This report analyzes the termination of the program and its direct negative impact on the state’s progress toward achieving several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning poverty, hunger, health, education, and inequality.

2.0 Program Termination and Immediate Consequences

The SNAP-Ed program provided essential nutrition education and facilitated access to healthy food for low-income individuals and families. The cessation of this program has resulted in significant socio-economic repercussions that undermine key development objectives.

• Economic Disruption (SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth): The immediate termination of the program has led to the loss of 70 jobs across Maryland.
• Erosion of Community Partnerships (SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals): 700 community partnerships, including food pantries, farmers’ markets, Judy Centers, and Head Start Centers, have been negatively affected, weakening the collaborative infrastructure for social support.

3.0 Setbacks to Core Sustainable Development Goals

The defunding of SNAP-Ed represents a significant regression in addressing interconnected development challenges, directly contravening the principles of the SDGs.

3.1 Impact on SDG 2: Zero Hunger

The program was a critical tool in the effort to end hunger, achieve food security, and improve nutrition. Its closure directly obstructs progress on this goal.

• Over 640,000 residents were reached by the program in its final year of implementation.
• It connected 133 farmers and food pantries with families in need, supporting local food systems and providing access to fresh produce.
• The program’s absence creates a void in nutritional support for Maryland’s most vulnerable populations, increasing the risk of food insecurity.

3.2 Impact on SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being & SDG 4: Quality Education

SNAP-Ed provided vital education on healthy eating, contributing to long-term well-being and preventative health, especially for children.

• In 2024, the program partnered with 541 youth education sites to promote healthy habits.
• The loss of cooking demonstrations and nutrition lessons in early-learning hubs like Judy Centers removes a key component of early childhood health education.
• As noted by Antonio Silas, Director of the Baltimore City Extension program, SNAP-Ed filled a “large gap in knowledge with respect to making good food choices,” particularly in areas with limited access to healthy food.

3.3 Impact on SDG 1: No Poverty & SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The program was instrumental in supporting households living below or just above the federal poverty line, thereby working to reduce poverty and inequality.

• It provided crucial resources for ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) families who do not qualify for SNAP benefits but struggle to afford basic necessities.
• By offering free nutrition resources and facilitating access to fresh food, the program helped families stretch limited budgets, mitigating financial strain.
• The termination disproportionately affects low-income communities, exacerbating existing inequalities in health and economic stability.

4.0 Case Study: Frederick County

The impact of the funding cut is acutely felt in Frederick County, where a significant percentage of the population lives in or near poverty. In 2023, over 30% of households in the county were classified as living in poverty or as ALICE households. The loss of SNAP-Ed has dismantled a critical support system.

1. Early Childhood Education: Six Judy Centers, which serve children from birth to age 5 in Title I school zones, have lost weekly fresh food deliveries and nutrition lessons.
2. School Programs: Ninety pre-kindergarten classrooms and six community schools have lost access to food resource programs that provided monthly fruit and vegetable deliveries to over 1,500 children.
3. Community Support: Ancillary programs such as Blessings in a Backpack, which rely on the same support network, will experience compounding negative effects.

5.0 Conclusion

The defunding of Maryland’s SNAP-Ed program is a significant policy failure that directly conflicts with the state’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals. It dismantles critical infrastructure supporting SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The long-term consequences include increased food insecurity, poorer health outcomes for vulnerable children and families, and heightened economic instability, representing a substantial setback for sustainable and equitable development in Maryland.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

The article on the defunding of Maryland’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by highlighting the program’s role in addressing poverty, hunger, health, education, and employment.

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article directly addresses poverty by focusing on the program’s support for “low-income individuals,” “low-income families,” and “ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, and Employed) families.” It notes that these households “earn above the federal poverty line but are unable to afford basic necessities like housing, childcare and food.” The closure of SNAP-Ed removes a critical support system for these vulnerable populations, exacerbating their financial instability.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. SNAP-Ed’s mission was to provide “nutrition education classes” and partner with “food pantries and farmers’ markets” to improve food access. The article details how the program provided “weekly fresh food deliveries” and “monthly deliveries of fruits and vegetables to more than 1,500 children,” directly contributing to the goal of ending hunger and ensuring access to nutritious food, especially for children and families in need.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article connects nutrition to overall health. It quotes Antonio Silas, who states that SNAP-Ed helps people “understand what it is to be healthy, eat healthy and how it improves quality of life.” By promoting healthy eating habits and providing access to nutritious food, the program served as a preventative health measure, which is a core component of SDG 3.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  SNAP-Ed provided a specific type of education focused on life skills. The article highlights its “nutrition education classes” for SNAP participants and its partnerships with “541 youth education sites,” including “Judy Centers and Head Start Centers.” This educational component, aimed at promoting “healthy choices among children and families,” aligns with the goal of providing inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The economic impact of the program’s closure is explicitly mentioned. The article states that “70 SNAP-Ed employees across Maryland will lose their jobs,” which directly relates to the goal of achieving full and productive employment and decent work for all.

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

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets are relevant:

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • 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 identifies vulnerable groups like ALICE families and those in poverty who relied on SNAP-Ed to afford basic necessities like food, making this target highly relevant.

2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • 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. The article’s focus on SNAP-Ed providing fresh food deliveries, connecting families to food pantries, and ensuring children receive fruits and vegetables directly addresses this target.
   • Target 2.2: By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition. The program’s emphasis on “nutrition lessons,” “healthy cooking,” and encouraging children to try “healthier and more nutritious foods” is a direct effort to combat malnutrition.

3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • 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 nutrition education provided by SNAP-Ed serves as a key prevention strategy against diet-related non-communicable diseases.

4. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.7: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including… sustainable lifestyles. The “nutrition education classes” that teach people to “make good food choices” are a form of education for sustainable and healthy lifestyles.

5. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men. The loss of “70 SNAP-Ed employees” is a direct setback to achieving full employment at the local level.

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

Yes, the article provides several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure the program’s impact and, conversely, the negative effects of its closure.

1. Indicators for SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

   • Percentage of households in poverty: The article explicitly states, “The total percent of households in poverty and ALICE households in Frederick County was over 30 percent in 2023.” This is a direct indicator of economic vulnerability.
   • Percentage of students qualifying for meal assistance: The article notes that in some schools, “as many as 85 percent of students qualified” for free and reduced meals, indicating high levels of food insecurity among children.

2. Indicators for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) & SDG 4 (Quality Education)

   • Number of people reached by nutrition programs: The article provides precise figures: “Maryland SNAP-Ed reached over 640,000 residents” and “Over 55,000 individuals participated in education programs.”
   • Number of children receiving food support: The program provided “monthly deliveries of fruits and vegetables to more than 1,500 children aged 3 and 4 years old.”
   • Number of community partnerships: The article mentions the program worked with “700 community partners,” including “541 youth education sites” and “133 farmers and food pantries.”

3. Indicator for SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

   • Number of jobs lost: The article clearly states that “70 SNAP-Ed employees across Maryland will lose their jobs” as a direct result of the defunding.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: afro.com