Ripping Up SNAP and America’s Social Contract – The American Prospect

Report on the Impact of U.S. Government Shutdown on Social Welfare and Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

A 43-day legislative impasse in the U.S. Congress resulted in a temporary government funding agreement that failed to resolve key appropriations issues. This political dysfunction led to a severe disruption of the social contract, directly undermining progress on several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The suspension of federal benefits, particularly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), exacerbated food insecurity and poverty, placing immense strain on local communities and charitable organizations. This report analyzes the shutdown’s consequences through the lens of the SDGs, focusing on the immediate impacts on vulnerable populations and the responsive actions of local governance.

2.0 Legislative Impasse and Setbacks to SDG 1 and SDG 2

The failure of the federal government to maintain consistent funding directly contravenes the principles of SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). The interruption of SNAP benefits left tens of millions of Americans without the necessary funds for food, creating a humanitarian crisis that disproportionately affected the nation’s most vulnerable populations.

• Impact on SNAP Recipients: The delay in benefit disbursement created profound stress and uncertainty for families living in poverty. In the Mississippi River corridor alone, six of the ten states have over 10% of their populations dependent on SNAP.
• Food Insecurity: The shutdown forced individuals to seek aid from local food banks, which lack the capacity to replace federal assistance. As noted by public health experts, for every one meal provided by a food bank, SNAP provides nine, illustrating the critical role of federal programs in achieving SDG 2.
• Inefficient Benefit Restoration: The restoration of funds post-shutdown was not immediate, with disbursements occurring on a state-by-state basis. This procedural delay compounded the hardship for those awaiting aid.

3.0 Local Governance Response and the Role of SDG 11

In the face of federal inaction, local municipal leaders demonstrated a commitment to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by mobilizing resources to support their constituents. Unlike federal legislators, mayors and city administrators were directly accountable to citizens facing immediate survival challenges.

1. Memphis, Tennessee: The city, where the poverty rate is approximately 23%, initiated a challenge grant that raised $1.5 million for food assistance and established a $2.5 million loan fund.
2. St. Charles City, Missouri: The city administration placed a moratorium on water and sewer disconnections for November and December and launched an employee fundraising campaign matched by the city council to provide utility relief and holiday assistance.
3. Greenville, Mississippi: The city paused water disconnections to alleviate financial pressure on residents who had lost federal benefits.

These local efforts, while commendable, highlight the strain placed on municipal and charitable systems when federal support structures fail, underscoring the need for resilient and reliable national institutions.

4.0 Institutional Weakness and Long-Term Threats to SDG 10 and SDG 16

The government shutdown exemplifies a critical failure of national institutions, undermining SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The legislative brinkmanship not only caused immediate harm but also signals long-term instability that threatens to widen societal gaps, working against SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

4.1 Future Risks and Systemic Challenges

• Temporary Funding: The agreement only funds several federal departments until January 30, 2026, creating the potential for another disruptive shutdown.
• Structural Cuts to Social Safety Nets: The crisis is compounded by a preceding legislative bill that enacted the largest funding cut to SNAP in the program’s history, reducing its budget by nearly $190 billion over the next decade.
• Increased Burden on States: The same legislation increases the administrative cost burden for states from 50% to 75%, further weakening the social safety net and pushing more responsibility onto local and state governments already under strain.

These long-term policy decisions are poised to permanently weaken America’s social contract, making the achievement of key Sustainable Development Goals increasingly difficult.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • The article directly addresses poverty by discussing the “phenomenal stress of being poor in one of the richest countries in the world” and highlighting communities with high poverty rates, such as Memphis with a “poverty rate of about 23 percent.” The disruption of SNAP benefits is presented as a direct threat to the financial stability of the poorest populations.

2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • The central theme of the article is the threat of hunger due to the interruption of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It describes “tens of millions of desperate Americans off searching for food” and notes that for many, “survival and hunger are at stake.” The increased reliance on and strain faced by food banks further underscores the connection to this goal.

3. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • The article connects to this goal by mentioning the local responses to the economic hardship caused by the government shutdown. Specifically, it notes that several communities, including St. Charles City, Missouri, and Greenville, Mississippi, “had placed moratoria on utility shutoffs” and would not perform “water and sewer disconnections,” directly addressing the need to ensure continued access to essential services like water.

4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • The article highlights how the government shutdown disproportionately affects the most vulnerable populations, thereby exacerbating inequality. The failure of fiscal policy and the shredding of the “social contract” impact low-income individuals and families who rely on social protection systems like SNAP, while others are not as affected. The article contrasts the struggles of ordinary people with the “callous legislative politicking” in Washington.

5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • This goal is addressed through the article’s critique of government dysfunction. Phrases like “Washington’s dysfunction,” the failure of Congress to agree on funding, and the description of a government shutdown as something that “should never happen” point to a failure of effective and accountable institutions at the national level. The article shows how this institutional failure has severe consequences for citizens.

Specific Targets and Indicators

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

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • 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 entire focus on the disruption of the SNAP program, a key social protection system in the United States, directly relates to this target. The shutdown represents a failure to reliably implement this system.

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… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round. The article details how the interruption of SNAP benefits directly prevents vulnerable people from accessing sufficient food, forcing them to turn to charitable systems that are also under strain.

3. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • Target 6.1: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all. The mention of cities placing “moratoria on utility shutoffs” and pausing “water and sewer disconnections” is a direct action aimed at ensuring that economically stressed residents do not lose access to water, which is a core component of this target.

4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality. The article critiques the failure of fiscal policy (the government shutdown) and its negative impact on a key social protection policy (SNAP), demonstrating how such actions can increase, rather than reduce, inequality.

5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article’s description of Congress talking “past each other for 43 days” and failing to “address key health care and appropriations issues” is a clear example of an institution failing to be effective and accountable to the citizens it serves.

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

1. For SDG 1 (Target 1.3) & SDG 10 (Target 10.4)

   • Indicator: The number and percentage of the population covered by social protection programs. The article provides specific data points, such as “147,000 individuals in our community [Memphis] receiving SNAP benefits” and “Six out of the ten Mississippi River states have more than 10 percent of their populations who currently depend on…SNAP benefits.” The disruption itself is an indicator, with the article noting that 18 states issued only “partial benefits” and 13 “did not issue any funds.”

2. For SDG 2 (Target 2.1)

   • Indicator: The level of reliance on emergency food assistance. The article implies this indicator by stating that “lines for food banks are getting incredibly long as demand goes up” and that food banks “have been too busy working to feed people who’ve lost benefits.” It also provides a powerful comparative metric: “For every meal that food banks provide, SNAP provides nine,” which indicates the scale of the food security gap when SNAP fails.

3. For SDG 6 (Target 6.1)

   • Indicator: The number of households facing utility or water disconnections due to inability to pay. While not providing a direct number, the article implies this is a key metric by highlighting the proactive measures taken by cities like St. Charles and Greenville to place “moratoria on utility shutoffs” and pause “water disconnections,” showing that preventing this outcome is a measure of success.

4. For SDG 16 (Target 16.6)

   • Indicator: The duration and frequency of government shutdowns. The article explicitly mentions the “43 days” of political stalemate, which serves as a direct quantitative indicator of institutional inefficiency and failure to perform basic governance functions like passing a budget.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: prospect.org