WORCESTER, Mass. - Anti-hunger groups throughout New England looked to raise awareness about possible cuts to the SNAP program on Wednesday with a ‘day of action,’ urging people to consider the impact of those cuts for low-income families.

House Republicans’ budget resolution calls for $230 billion in cuts to the SNAP program over the next decade.

Maydee Morales, Director of the Worcester Community Action Council’s Resiliency Center, said for many, the program is a lifeline.

“The fact that people in Worcester have SNAP benefits is the difference of whether or not people and children eat or do not eat.”

The Resiliency Center works to close the gap between the amount of people eligible for SNAP benefits and those who have completed an application, and it’s a resource many families might not be aware they could qualify for.

But, with possible cuts on the way, uncertainty impacts everything.

“I believe that we’re going to go back to those times where families had to choose between paying their rent and having food,” Morales said. “Mothers and guardians are going to go without food in order to be able to meet their other basic needs in the home.”

Rep. James McGovern and several other lawmakers have filed a bill attempting to block cuts to the SNAP program, which would see a 20 percent reduction if House Republicans’ budget resolution succeeds.

Morales and others working to fight hunger in Worcester hope people can continue counting on SNAP, and she said the community will always work together to help those in need.

“We work very closely with the Regional Environmental Council and their farmers market to assist in a pilot to deliver healthy food for folks once a month,” Morales said. “Individuals are scared about what they’re going to be able to have or not have soon, but I think the main thing is that we as a community in Worcester are very collaborative.”

Earlier this month in a statement, a USDA spokesperson said the department is committed to ensuring SNAP operates as a ‘responsible, temporary safety net, not a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy.’