Report on the Impact of Proposed SNAP Benefit Cuts in the United States

Introduction

Jade Johnson, a 25-year-old mother from Germantown, Maryland, describes her experience of food insecurity as “humbling.” Despite working two jobs and studying part-time, she struggled to feed herself and her daughter before receiving assistance from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This report examines the potential consequences of proposed legislative cuts to SNAP benefits, emphasizing their alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

Background: SNAP and Its Role in Combating Hunger

• SNAP, established in 1964, is America’s primary program to combat hunger, currently supporting over 40 million people, nearly half of whom are children.
• The program provides monthly benefits to low-income families to purchase nutritious food, improving health outcomes and economic stability.
• Jade Johnson’s monthly benefit of $520 enables her to provide adequate meals for her family, illustrating SNAP’s critical role in achieving SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).

Proposed Legislative Changes and Their Implications

The “big, beautiful bill” proposed under President Donald Trump’s administration aims to reduce SNAP funding by up to $300 billion to finance tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Key provisions include:

1. Expanded Work Requirements:
   • Parents of children aged 7 and above would be required to work at least 20 hours per week to maintain benefits, affecting approximately 8 million people.
   • Older adults aged 55 to 64 would also face stringent work requirements, risking loss of benefits.
2. Cost-Sharing with States:
   • States would be responsible for up to 15% of SNAP benefit costs and an increased share of administrative expenses, potentially forcing states to reduce participation or withdraw from the program.
3. Benefit Value Freeze:
   • The value of SNAP benefits would be frozen, causing a decline in real terms over the next decade, undermining food security.
4. Exclusion of Vulnerable Groups:
   • Up to 250,000 refugees and individuals with humanitarian protections could lose eligibility.
   • Additional groups such as military veterans, homeless individuals, and foster youth would face new work requirements.

Impact on Individuals and Communities

• Jade Johnson and her family exemplify the real-life impact of these cuts, as she may lose benefits due to her daughter reaching the proposed age threshold for work requirements.
• Her mother, aged 55, also risks losing $52 monthly in benefits, which are vital for purchasing fresh, nutritious food.
• States like Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and West Virginia—many of which are rural and have high SNAP participation—face significant financial burdens that may lead to reduced access for vulnerable populations.
• Local economies could suffer due to decreased SNAP spending, affecting the entire food supply chain from farmers to retailers.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The proposed SNAP cuts threaten progress toward several SDGs:

• SDG 1: No Poverty – Reducing assistance undermines efforts to lift millions out of poverty by limiting access to essential food resources.
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger – Cuts increase food insecurity, particularly among children, jeopardizing nutritional needs and healthy development.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being – Food insecurity is linked to poor health outcomes, developmental delays in children, and increased hospitalizations.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The redistribution of resources from low-income families to the wealthiest exacerbates economic disparities.

Expert Opinions and Research Findings

• Stephanie Ettinger de Cuba, Executive Director of Children’s HealthWatch, warns of catastrophic impacts on health and local economies.
• Salaam Bhatti, SNAP Director at the Food Research & Action Center, highlights the moral failure of increasing hunger in a wealthy nation.
• Research from the Georgetown Center for Poverty and Inequality reveals that over $1 trillion in cuts would disproportionately affect families earning approximately $30,000 annually, while benefiting the top 2% of earners.
• Studies confirm that early childhood food insecurity causes long-term developmental harm, emphasizing the importance of sustained nutrition support.

Conclusion

The proposed reductions to SNAP benefits represent a significant threat to food security, health, and economic equality in the United States. These changes risk reversing progress toward achieving multiple Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those focused on eradicating poverty and hunger. The case of Jade Johnson underscores the human cost of policy decisions, highlighting the urgent need for legislative measures that support vulnerable populations rather than undermine their well-being.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • The article discusses food insecurity among low-income families in the US, highlighting poverty as a root cause.
2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Central issue of the article is hunger and food insecurity, with focus on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap).
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Food insecurity’s impact on children’s health and development is emphasized, linking to health outcomes.
4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article highlights inequality in resource distribution, with tax cuts favoring the wealthy while cutting benefits for low-income families.
5. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Work requirements for Snap benefits and the struggle to balance employment and benefits are discussed.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • Target 1.2: Reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children living in poverty in all its dimensions.
2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Target 2.1: End hunger and ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
   • Target 2.2: End all forms of malnutrition, including achieving targets on stunted and wasted children.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.2: End preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age.
   • Target 3.4: Promote mental health and well-being.
4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all.
5. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Target 8.5: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Prevalence of Food Insecurity
   • Implied by the number of people reliant on Snap benefits and the increase in food insecurity across states.
2. Number of People Receiving Social Protection Benefits
   • Number of Snap beneficiaries, including children and older adults, as a measure of social safety net coverage.
3. Work Participation Rates Among Benefit Recipients
   • Work hours required to maintain benefits (e.g., 20 hours/week) imply monitoring employment status of recipients.
4. Child Health and Development Indicators
   • Indicators related to child malnutrition, developmental delays, hospitalizations due to food insecurity.
5. Income Inequality Metrics
   • Disparities in income distribution, such as the share of tax cuts to the top 2% versus cuts to low-income families.
6. State-Level Funding and Program Participation Rates
   • State budget contributions to Snap and potential withdrawal rates as indicators of program sustainability and access.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: theguardian.com