SNAP suspension threatens Alabama grocery stores, $2.5B economic impact – AL.com

Report on the Suspension of SNAP Benefits in Alabama and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Challenge to Sustainable Development

A government shutdown has led to the suspension of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in Alabama, effective November 1. This action poses a significant threat to the state’s progress toward several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning poverty, hunger, health, economic stability, and inequality.

SDG 2: Zero Hunger – Direct Impact on Food Security

The suspension of SNAP benefits directly undermines the core objective of SDG 2, which is to end hunger and ensure access to safe, nutritious food for all.

• Over 750,000 Alabamians, representing nearly 15% of the state’s population, are enrolled in SNAP and face an immediate loss of food assistance.
• Ellie Taylor, President of the Alabama Grocers Association, stated the shutdown “threatens food security for hundreds of thousands of Alabamians,” describing SNAP as a “lifeline for working families, seniors, children, and people with disabilities.”
• While the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) will continue, the primary food assistance program for a significant portion of the population will cease.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – Economic Repercussions

The cessation of SNAP funding threatens local economies and jobs, directly conflicting with the aims of SDG 8 to promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth and decent work for all.

1. Job and Wage Support: The Alabama Grocers Association reports that SNAP supports over 7,800 jobs and $350 million in wages for grocery employees statewide.
2. Economic Loss: An interruption to the program could cost Alabama up to $1.7 billion in annual federal funds, leading to an estimated total economic loss of $2.55 billion.
3. Business Viability: Local business owners, such as Jimmy Wright of Wright’s Market, report that SNAP users constitute a significant portion of their customer base (35%). A substantial drop in business could force payroll cuts, threatening livelihoods.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities & SDG 11: Sustainable Communities

The impact of the SNAP suspension is not evenly distributed, exacerbating existing inequalities and threatening the viability of vulnerable communities, in opposition to SDG 10 and SDG 11.

• Rural and Vulnerable Communities: An analysis by the Center for American Progress identified 18 counties in Alabama at high risk of losing food retailers due to SNAP cuts.
• Disproportionate Impact: Over half of these at-risk counties are in the historically underserved Black Belt region. Retailers in Wilcox and Perry counties face the most significant risk, as over 40% of their populations rely on SNAP.
• Threat to Food Access: The potential closure of rural grocery stores, which are often the only food source for many communities, jeopardizes the basic infrastructure required for sustainable and resilient communities.

SDG 1: No Poverty & SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The suspension of SNAP, a key anti-poverty measure, combined with concurrent threats to healthcare, creates a severe challenge to SDG 1 and SDG 3.

• Poverty Alleviation: The program is a critical tool for preventing hunger among low-income populations. Its removal pushes vulnerable families deeper into poverty.
• Health and Food Trade-off: The government shutdown also threatens healthcare tax credits, which could cause 130,000 Alabamians to lose health insurance. Carol Gundlach of Alabama Arise noted that residents are “being forced to choose between health care and food.”

Governmental Response and Funding Status

State and Federal Positions

1. The Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR) confirmed the suspension of benefits effective November 1, following direction from the federal Department of Agriculture.
2. The office of Governor Kay Ivey has stated that the state does not possess the financial resources to cover the monthly benefit cost, which was $142 million in July.
3. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a contingency fund of approximately $5-6 billion but has indicated it will not use it to cover the estimated $8 billion monthly cost of the program nationwide, a departure from actions taken during previous shutdowns.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article discusses the suspension of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a social protection system designed to assist low-income individuals and families. The text states that programs like SNAP are “lifelines for working families, seniors, children, and people with disabilities,” directly linking the program to poverty alleviation and support for vulnerable populations.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  This is a central theme of the article. The suspension of SNAP benefits directly “threatens food security for hundreds of thousands of Alabamians.” The purpose of the program is to “prevent hunger,” and its interruption jeopardizes access to sufficient food for a significant portion of the state’s population.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article connects food security to health by highlighting that the government shutdown also threatens health care tax credits. A policy analyst is quoted saying Alabamians “are being forced to choose between health care and food.” The potential for “130,000 Alabamians” to lose health insurance is mentioned, linking financial hardship to health outcomes. The WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program is also mentioned, which is a key public health nutrition program.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The economic impact of the SNAP program is a major focus. The article states that the program “supports more than 7,800 jobs and $350 million in wages for grocery employees statewide.” The potential economic loss is estimated at “$2.55 billion,” and business owners express concern that a drop in business will force them to cut payroll, threatening jobs.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article highlights the disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and specific regions. It notes that rural communities and “18 counties in Alabama are at high risk of losing their food retailers,” with over half of these counties located in the historically impoverished Black Belt. This shows how the suspension of benefits exacerbates existing geographic and economic inequalities.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The potential closure of “rural grocery stores — often the only food source for many communities” is a key concern raised in the article. This directly relates to ensuring communities, particularly rural ones, have access to basic services like food retailers, which is essential for their sustainability and resilience.

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

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 the suspension of SNAP, which is a key “social protection system” in the United States. The discussion about the 750,000 Alabamians enrolled in the program and the impact on “working families, seniors, children, and people with disabilities” directly relates to the implementation and coverage of social protection 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.

   The article’s main point is that the SNAP suspension “threatens food security” and that the program is a “lifeline” for vulnerable people to access food. The potential closure of rural grocery stores, described as “the only food source for many communities,” further jeopardizes year-round access to food for these populations.

3. Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.

   The article mentions that due to the same government shutdown, “130,000 Alabamians could lose health insurance and see their premiums go up by an average of 93%.” This directly addresses the issue of financial risk protection and access to health care, which are core components of this target.

4. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.

   The article explicitly states that SNAP supports “more than 7,800 jobs and $350 million in wages for grocery employees.” The threat of business decline and potential payroll cuts, as mentioned by a grocery store owner, directly relates to maintaining employment and decent work.

5. 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 article points to a disproportionate impact on specific regions, noting that counties in the “Black Belt” and “south Alabama” are at high risk. It specifies that in Wilcox and Perry counties, “over 40% of their populations use SNAP,” highlighting how the economic shock affects communities with higher concentrations of poverty and vulnerability, thus relating to economic inclusion and inequality.

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 impact of the issues discussed:

• Indicators for Poverty and Hunger (SDGs 1 & 2)

  • Number of beneficiaries of social protection programs: “over 750,000 Alabamians enrolled in SNAP.”
  • Proportion of the population covered by social protection programs: “almost 15% of the state’s population.”
  • Value of social protection benefits: “$142 million” as the “monthly cost of SNAP benefits.”
  • Proportion of population dependent on food assistance in high-risk areas: “over 40% of their populations use SNAP” in Wilcox and Perry counties.

• Indicators for Health (SDG 3)

  • Number of people at risk of losing health coverage: “130,000 Alabamians could lose health insurance.”
  • Measure of financial burden for healthcare: Premiums could “go up by an average of 93%.”

• Indicators for Economic Growth and Employment (SDG 8)

  • Number of jobs supported by a specific program: “more than 7,800 jobs.”
  • Total wages supported by a program: “$350 million in wages for grocery employees.”
  • Total economic impact of a program: A potential “$2.55 billion economic loss” from a “$1.7 billion” cut in federal funds.
  • Impact on small businesses: A grocery store owner notes “about 35% of his customers use SNAP” and fears a “huge impact on our business.”

• Indicators for Inequality and Community Access (SDGs 10 & 11)

  • Number of communities at risk of losing basic services: “18 counties in Alabama are at high risk of losing their food retailers.”
  • Geographic concentration of vulnerability: “Over half of those counties are in the Black Belt.”

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: al.com