Private Oregon donors pitch in after SNAP crisis highlighted food insecurity – Oregon Public Broadcasting – OPB

Oregon’s Multi-Stakeholder Response to Food Insecurity: A Report on Progress Towards Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary: Addressing Food Insecurity in Alignment with SDG 2

The State of Oregon, under the leadership of Governor Tina Kotek, has initiated significant measures to combat food insecurity, a critical step towards achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2 (Zero Hunger). A recent federal government shutdown, which temporarily suspended Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, underscored the fragility of the state’s food safety net. This event prompted the Governor to declare a 60-day food security emergency, mobilizing state, non-profit, and local government resources to ensure residents have access to food.

A Public-Private Partnership for Zero Hunger (SDG 17 & SDG 2)

In a direct application of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), a collaborative effort was mobilized to address the food crisis. This partnership is fundamental to making progress on SDG 2.

• The state government committed an initial $6 million to address food insecurity during the federal shutdown.
• This state funding was fully matched by philanthropic donors, organized through the Oregon Disaster Funders Network, creating a total fund of $12 million.
• An initial emergency disbursement included $5 million to food banks and $1 million to the state’s tribes.
• Of the philanthropic funds raised, $4 million has already been distributed to food banks, local pantries, and community organizations across the state.
• Kara Inae Carlisle, President and CEO of The Ford Family Foundation, highlighted the effectiveness of this coordinated approach in responding to crises and supporting communities.

Systemic Challenges to SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

The reliance on food assistance highlights ongoing challenges related to SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). The shutdown exposed vulnerabilities in social protection systems crucial for achieving these goals.

• Over 740,000 Oregonians depend on food assistance programs.
• The average monthly SNAP benefit is $313 per household and $183 per individual.
• Governor Kotek noted that the “fight to keep food on the table exposed critical gaps in food security across the state.”

Addressing Inequalities in Food Access (SDG 10)

The issue of food insecurity disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, a key concern of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Data indicates that specific demographic and geographic groups face greater risks.

• A majority of Oregon’s SNAP recipients reside in rural counties.
• Over 54% of participating households include children, according to the state’s Department of Human Services.
• Forthcoming changes to the SNAP program will introduce new work requirements for beneficiaries in rural counties, which previously only applied to areas with stronger job markets. This policy change could potentially exacerbate existing inequalities.

Informational Resources

1. For English language information on food resources, visit needfood.oregon.gov.
2. For Spanish language information on food resources, visit alimentos.oregon.gov.
3. Information can also be accessed by dialing 211.

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: The article’s central theme is food insecurity in Oregon, directly aligning with the goal of ending hunger, achieving food security, and improving nutrition. It discusses the state’s efforts to provide food to its residents, especially after a federal government shutdown disrupted food assistance programs.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article connects food insecurity to poverty by focusing on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a social safety net designed to help low-income individuals and families. The disruption of these benefits and the large number of people relying on them highlight the link between poverty and the need for food assistance.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article explicitly details a collaboration to address the food security crisis. It describes a partnership between the Oregon state government (public sector), philanthropic donors like The Ford Family Foundation (private/civil society), and nonprofits to raise funds and distribute food.

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, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.” The article addresses this target by describing the emergency measures taken by Oregon’s governor, including sending millions of dollars to food banks and tribes to ensure people had access to food when their federal benefits were cut off. The focus on the “fragility of the state’s safety net” and the “fight to keep food on the table” directly relates to ensuring year-round access to food for vulnerable populations.
• 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’s discussion revolves around the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is a key social protection system in the United States. The temporary shutdown and subsequent policy changes to work requirements highlight the challenges and importance of implementing and maintaining these systems to protect the vulnerable.
• Target 17.17: “Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.” This target is demonstrated by the coordinated effort between the Oregon state government and the Oregon Disaster Funders Network. The state’s $6 million contribution was matched by another $6 million from philanthropic donors, showcasing an effective public-private partnership to mobilize resources for a specific cause (food security).

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

• Indicators for Target 2.1: The article provides a key metric that can serve as an indicator for the prevalence of food insecurity: “more than 740,000 Oregonians who rely on food assistance.” This number quantifies the scale of the population in need and can be tracked over time to measure progress towards ending hunger.
• Indicators for Target 1.3: The article offers several data points that measure the scope and reach of the social protection system (SNAP). These include:
  1. The average monthly benefit amount: “$313 per month” for households and “$183 per month” for individuals.
  2. The demographic composition of beneficiaries: “More than 54% of Oregonians participating in SNAP are in households with children.”

  These figures help assess the level of support provided by the social protection system.

• Indicators for Target 17.17: The article provides a clear financial indicator of the partnership’s success in resource mobilization. The total funds raised through the partnership are explicitly stated: “the state’s $6 million” was matched by “another $6 million” from philanthropic donors, for a total of $12 million. This quantifies the financial contribution of the public-private partnership.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: opb.org