‘The damage is done already’: What 2 weeks without SNAP meant for NYC – Gothamist

Report on the Disruption of Federal Food Assistance and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals in New York City

A two-week disruption in the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in New York City created significant social and economic repercussions, directly undermining progress toward several key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report details the consequences of the benefits interruption on recipients, community organizations, and the local economy, framed within the context of the SDGs.

SDG 2: Zero Hunger & SDG 1: No Poverty

The suspension of SNAP benefits directly threatened food security for approximately 1.8 million residents, a majority of whom are children and older adults. This action is in direct opposition to the objectives of SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).

• Increased Food Insecurity: Many recipients were forced to skip meals or ration food, while others turned to emergency food providers for the first time.
• Overwhelmed Support Systems: Food pantries across the city experienced an unprecedented surge in demand. Food Bank New York City reported that some of its 800 partner pantries saw a 300% increase in visitors, with 20% having to turn people away due to depleted supplies.
• Heightened Financial Hardship: To afford groceries, individuals diverted funds from other essential payments, such as rent and utilities, or incurred credit card debt. This exacerbates financial instability and pushes vulnerable households further into poverty, directly conflicting with SDG 1 (No Poverty).

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being & SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The crisis extended beyond hunger, creating significant health challenges and deepening existing social inequalities, thereby impacting SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

1. Adverse Health Outcomes: The lack of food security forced individuals, particularly older adults, to make critical decisions regarding medication that must be taken with food.
2. Mental Health Impact: The uncertainty and administrative confusion surrounding the benefits caused palpable anxiety and a loss of trust within the community, negatively affecting mental well-being. Fountain House, an organization supporting people with serious mental illness, provided over 9,000 additional meals to mitigate the impact on its vulnerable members.
3. Disproportionate Effect on Vulnerable Groups: The disruption disproportionately impacted the most vulnerable populations, including the elderly, children, and individuals with disabilities or mental illness, thereby widening the gap of inequality.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth & SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The interruption of SNAP payments had a tangible negative effect on the local economy and the resilience of the urban community, which are central to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

• Economic Contraction: Local grocery stores reported a significant drop in sales, with some managers noting a 20-25% decrease. This demonstrates how social safety nets support local economies by ensuring consistent consumer spending.
• Community Resilience Under Strain: The event exposed the fragility of urban support systems. The inability of emergency food providers to meet the sudden increase in demand highlights the critical role of stable, institutional support in building resilient and sustainable communities.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The benefits disruption stemmed from a government shutdown and subsequent administrative decisions, highlighting institutional fragility. The resulting confusion and hardship have eroded public trust in the very programs designed to provide stability, a challenge to the core principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• Erosion of Trust: Recipients expressed a lasting fear that such a disruption could happen again, shattering their confidence in the reliability of the social safety net.
• Future Concerns: Lingering concerns over potential new work requirements that could remove individuals from the program further underscore the need for strong, reliable, and just institutions to achieve sustainable development.

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 financial strain on low-income individuals who rely on SNAP benefits. The disruption forces them to make difficult choices between food and other essential bills like rent and utilities, pushing them further into economic instability.
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger – This is the most central SDG. The article details how the halt in SNAP payments led to widespread food insecurity, causing recipients to skip meals and overwhelming food pantries and soup kitchens.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being – The article links food access directly to health, noting that older adults struggled with decisions about taking medication that requires food. It also highlights the significant anxiety and mental stress the crisis caused within the community.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – The economic impact on local businesses is addressed. The article states that local grocery stores, which are often small enterprises, suffered a significant drop in sales (20-25%), affecting their financial viability and the local economy.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The article points out that the most vulnerable populations, including children, older adults, and individuals with mental illness, were disproportionately affected by the disruption in benefits, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities.

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. The article directly discusses the failure of a key social protection system (SNAP), showing how its disruption undermines the goal of providing a safety net for the poor and vulnerable. Recipients like Alvin Copeland had to use money saved for rent and utilities to buy food, demonstrating the system’s failure to protect them from financial shocks.
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’s core theme is the breakdown of food access for 1.8 million New Yorkers. Descriptions of people skipping meals (“I did do a bit of fasting to help pass the time”) and the surge in demand at food pantries directly relate to the failure to ensure year-round access to sufficient food.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.4: Promote mental health and well-being. The article explicitly mentions the psychological impact of the benefits disruption, quoting a program director who says the anxiety in the community was “palpable.” This directly connects the instability of food access to a decline in mental well-being.
4. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Target 8.3: Promote development-oriented policies that support… the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises. The article highlights the negative impact on small businesses, stating that some grocers saw sales drop by “20%-25%.” This demonstrates how the disruption of social programs can harm the local enterprises that are crucial for community economic health.
5. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age… or other status. The article specifies that “Most recipients are children and older adults,” and also discusses the impact on people with serious mental illness. This shows how the policy failure disproportionately harmed already vulnerable and marginalized groups, undermining their social and economic inclusion.

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

1. SDG 1 & 2 (No Poverty & Zero Hunger)
   • Number of people dependent on food assistance: The article states that “about 1.8 million people rely on the monthly assistance” in New York City. This serves as a baseline indicator of the population vulnerable to food insecurity.
   • Demand on emergency food services: The article provides several metrics, such as pantries seeing “300% more people” and “20% of their pantries reported having to turn people away.” These figures are direct indicators of acute food insecurity.
   • Prevalence of food insecurity (implied): Reports of individuals like Ashely Miles “fasting to help pass the time” so she wouldn’t run out of food is a qualitative indicator of food insecurity and insufficient access.
2. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)
   • Provision of supplementary support: The fact that Fountain House “provided more than 9,000 meals in the first two weeks of November” is an indicator of the scale of the health and food crisis, as well as the community response to it.
   • Mental health status (qualitative): The description of “palpable” anxiety and shattered trust in the program serves as a qualitative indicator of the negative impact on the community’s mental well-being.
3. SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)
   • Impact on local business revenue: The specific figure that “some grocers said sales in the beginning of the month dropped 20%-25%” is a direct quantitative indicator of the negative economic impact on small and medium-sized enterprises.
4. SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)
   • Demographics of affected populations: The statement that “Most recipients are children and older adults” is an indicator used to measure the disproportionate impact on specific vulnerable groups.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: gothamist.com