By Granite State Report
Introduction
The state of New Hampshire has announced that, in response to the federal shutdown threatening the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), it will deploy $2 million to expand mobile food pantries and partner with the New Hampshire Food Bank. On the surface, this looks like a responsible contingency move. In practice, however, it will not come close to replacing the benefits of SNAP for the tens of thousands of Granite Staters who rely on it.
The Reality of the Numbers
New Hampshire has over 75,000 residents enrolled in SNAP. The state receives more than $12 million per month in federal SNAP benefits. The approved contingency fund is just $2 million — roughly 1/6 of a single month’s SNAP benefit flow for the state.
Put plainly: $2 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the monthly benefit demand.
Why the Stopgap Doesn’t Measure Up
Loss of purchasing flexibility: SNAP gives recipients the ability to purchase groceries from a broad range of retailers, choosing brands, sizes, dietary preferences. The new plan shifts them into mobile/pantry‐style distribution. According to a SNAP-advocacy group: “Mobile food pantries are really a far cry from the kind of food benefits and food choices that SNAP recipients normally have.” That matters — dignity, convenience, and nutritional needs all take a hit. Distribution infrastructure vs. benefit value: The mobile pantry model is reactive, location‐bound, and typically limited in hours. Snap benefits are proactive and predictable each month. When an entire program is at risk of interruption, shifting to pantries is an inferior fallback. Not enough scope or duration: The contingency plan is described as covering perhaps a month, “if the shutdown continues.” If the federal halt lasts longer — and many signals point to that possibility — the contingency is neither large nor long‐term. Operational complexity and timing risks: Coordinating hundreds of food pantries, mobile units, volunteers, logistics — especially during a crisis — slows everything. Meanwhile, recipients may face immediate gaps. State officials warn that EBT (electronic benefit) cards may become inactive. Shifts burden to the state and non-profits: SNAP is federally funded, predictable and scalable. The contingency plan moves the burden to state funding (derived from the Medicaid Enhancement Tax) and local food banks. That creates an unstable patchwork solution rather than a programmatic one.
Policy Implications & Political Realities
Governor Ayotte and the Executive Council deserve credit for moving quickly; but this is a triage solution, not a fix. The deeper reality: the food-security safety net in NH is being compromised by federal dysfunction. Unless Congress reopens and fully funds SNAP, even this stopgap will collapse. The state’s plan is essentially insurance but with minimal coverage.
From a campaign vantage (and you know I’m thinking ahead), this kind of moment is a policy opportunity. An independent gubernatorial platform could propose a permanent state‐level foodsecurity buffer — for instance a “Food Resilience Fund” that activates in federal shutdowns and covers more than just mobile pantries: direct grocery vouchers, expanded retailer acceptance, logistics hubs in rural counties. The Congressional failure here opens space for state leadership.
What Should Happen Next
The state should publicly commit to what happens after the $2 million is exhausted. If the shutdown extends into December, what then? Clear contingencies are lacking. Data transparency: track how many SNAP recipients shift to mobile pantries, the number of meals delivered, geographic gaps, and dietary adequacy. State budget planning: If federal funding remains unstable, the state should pre-budget for a larger buffer — perhaps $10-15 million — to approximate a full monthly benefit flow for at least one month. Legislative architecture: Consider creating statutory authority for emergency benefits (via EBT or voucher) to kick in when federal programs fail. Political messaging: This isn’t about charity; it’s about rights. Access to nutritious food is a social good and a public−health imperative. Framing it as such changes the tone.
Conclusion
The announcement by Governor Ayotte that New Hampshire will “come together to help neighbors in need” is sincere and commendable. But sincerity doesn’t equal sufficiency. The $2 million mobile pantry plan will help, but it will not fill the void if the federal SNAP program stops flowing. For tens of thousands of Granite Staters, the difference between “some help” and “full benefit” is real: fewer choices, more food insecurity, additional stress.
If the federal government doesn’t resume SNAP funding promptly, the state plan will shift many families into a lower tier of assistance — one that is reactive, less dignified, and less adequate. Given that reality, what’s needed is a broader, smarter, more robust state-level strategy. New Hampshire deserves nothing less.
