This story has been updated.
Food insecurity is rising in Connecticut, and the problem is likely to keep getting worse amid major cuts to federal food programs, according to a report released Friday by the Commission on Women, Children, Seniors, Equity & Opportunity.
The report noted that Connecticut has the highest rate of food insecurity in New England (14.3%, according to the most recent data from Feeding America) and trails many of its neighbors in spending to combat the problem. Although the state is projected to spend roughly $27.6 million more on food insecurity through fiscal year 2027, those increases are dwarfed by the loss of over $180 million in federal spending over that same period.
Specific losses include:
- The termination of the SNAP-ED program, which educates SNAP recipients on how to cook healthy meals and achieve physically active lifestyles;
- An increased administrative cost share for SNAP, which begins in fiscal year 2027
- Significant restrictions on SNAP-LIHEAP, which provides food and heating assistance to low-income households
- The cancellation of certain bonus loads from TFAP (federal Emergency Food Assistance Program)
- The termination of the LFPA (federal Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program), which purchased food for food banks from local farmers
- The termination of the LFS (federal Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program), which purchased food for schools from local farmers
An additional $133 million loss is projected for 2028, which is when cost sharing for SNAP benefits themselves will begin. That’s how much the state will have to pay if its SNAP error rate — that is, how accurately the state calculates eligibility and benefits — remains unchanged. Based on that number, the report puts the total decrease in federal food spending for Connecticut in fiscal year 2028 at over $243 million.
Although inflation is not included in those calculations, the report notes grocery store inflation remained at 3% in 2025, likely putting further pressure on families’ food budgets.
The dramatic loss of funding is one reason the report’s primary recommendation this year is to establish a special fund to support food and nutrition programs statewide. The report envisions the fund working like others already in existence for tourism, insurance and transportation.
The report suggests a handful of potential funding sources. One involves removing sales tax exemptions from certain extremely unhealthy foods and beverages and dedicating the revenue from items already taxed to the fund. Others include dedicating revenue from the 1% prepared meals surcharge; expanding the luxury tax to include high-value food and drink; and an excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage distributors.
Creating a fund might help Connecticut catch back up to its New England peers, some of which are significantly out-spending the state already. According to the report, Connecticut spends a total of $14.81 per capita on food across 51 programs. By comparison, Vermont spends $28.53 per capita across just its three top programs, while Massachusetts spends $35.03 per capita, also across three programs.
Rep. Gary Turco, D-Newington, said he was “ashamed” by those numbers and expressed support for the idea of a special fund to combat food insecurity.
“We have a special transportation fund. We believe transportation’s really important, right? People need to be able to get to work and school and things like that, so we have a dedicated revenue stream that goes into that that is not part of our spending cap. Why isn’t food as important?” he said during the presentation of the report.
The report also includes three new recommendations to specifically improve food and nutrition knowledge, the lack of which contributes significantly to food insecurity.
“These are things that we think would cost little or no money but would help promote access to information for these families who currently have barriers to that,” said CWCSEO’s Christian Duborg.
One of these includes establishing an official methodology for collecting food insecurity data at the state level. The data in the report comes from a mix of sources including Feeding America, DataHaven and the USDA, not from the state government.
“There’s a lot of data at the federal level that is either not measured at all, has been stopped — they’re stopping measuring, or is rarely updated,” Duborg said. An official state data collection process could help fix that, he said.
The other two recommendations are to develop new labeling requirements for food content to establish a holistic food education roadmap for the state. This would involve creating model policies and curricula for K-12 schools and reconstituting SNAP-ED at the state level.
While strong food and nutrition education is “necessary” to combat food insecurity, Duborg said, it must be paired with food benefits to actually address the problem.
Rep. Jaime Foster, D-East Windsor, was one of a handful of state legislators at the presentation who suggested tapping into a $500 million pool the state set aside to offset federal cuts.
That money could be used to “reinstate programs like SNAP education … or address SNAP cuts or groups that are disproportionately impacted by changes in SNAP,” Foster said. “And then during session, we can renew our efforts on expanding programs that we know are meeting critical gaps in our system.”
Jason Jakubowski of Connecticut Foodshare said he’s glad elected officials in Connecticut are actively looking for solutions and told presentation attendees the situation is grave.
“We can’t forget what just happened a couple of months ago [during the government shutdown],” Jakubowski said. “The SNAP crisis was the biggest threat to people facing food insecurity at least in my lifetime here in this country.”
Jakubowski said last year’s pause in SNAP benefits has caused “permanent damage” to the food security system.
“There’s people we’re finding right now, they don’t want to sign up for SNAP because they think SNAP is going away,” Jakubowski said.
Jakubowski also called attention to changes in TFAP, a federal program that provides food to food banks and pantries. In the first quarter of 2025, his organization got 84 truckloads of food from TFAP; in the first quarter of 2026, the projection is 26 loads. That means less food for food banks and pantries at a time when SNAP benefits are also likely to shrink.
Sen. Matthew Lesser, D-Cromwell, said pressures on food providers and constituents have been growing since the loss of COVID-era funding and said the passage of HR-1, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, has exacerbated those challenges.
Lesser also pointed out that “as recently as 2017, the state operated our own food security program … that we have now walked away from.”
“I think it really makes sense for us to sort of think creatively about what our role is in ensuring food security to our neighbors at a time when the federal government just is not a reliable partner,” Lesser said.
Duborg was frank about the scale of the challenge facing Connecticut.
“I wish I could say that if you adopt this, the problem will go away. I am not nearly arrogant enough to believe that I’ve figured out the answer. But the one thing that we do know is that doing nothing is causing a lot of harm, and while every option has drawbacks, very few options will have as many drawbacks as allowing food insecurity and nutrition insecurity to continue impacting our residents unabated,” Duborg said.
He continued, “Residents will get sicker, students will have a harder time learning, families will struggle at work, and all of these impacts come with major financial costs to the state. So, by investing in food security through these recommendations, we believe that Connecticut can not only support its residents and improve quality of life for years to come but also make good investments that will also make the state fiscally stronger going into the future.”
Correction:
An earlier version of this story misspelled Jason Jakubowski’s name.
This story was originally published by the Connecticut Mirror.
