food hardship in america 2012

7/29/2019 Food Hardship in America 2012

1/32

Food Hardship in America 2012Data for the Nation, States, 100 MSAs, and Every Congressional District

February 2013

was the fifth year during which the Galluporganization, as part of the Gallup-

Healthways Well-Being Index, asked hundreds of thousandsof households the food hardship question Have there beentimes in the past twelve months when you did not haveenough money to buy food that you or your family needed? In 2012, 18.2 percent of households answered Yes to thisquestion.

That continuingly high rate of food hardship in 2012 isevidence of both the lingering effects of the terrible recession(e.g., high unemployment and underemployment; stagnantand falling wages), and the failure of Congress to respondrobustly with initiatives to boost jobs, wages and publicincome and nutrition support programs. These economic andpolitical shortfalls continue to take a harsh toll on the nationsfood security.

While, as will be shown, the number of households affirmingfood hardship in every quarter in 2012 was somewhat lowerthan in late 2011, the numbers were basically the same as inmost of 2009, 2010 and the first half of 2011. For four and ahalf years, the share of households telling Gallup that theydidnt have enough money for food at times over the pastyear has never gone below 17.5 percent in any quarter andstill is only a bit below the peak of 19.5 percent.

More than one in six households told Gallup they weresuffering food hardship not just nationally, but:

in four out of seven regions (the Midwest, Southeast,Southwest and West)

in 30 states in 56 out of 100 large Metropolitan Statistical Areas

(MSAs) in 207 Congressional Districts. 1

1 Regional and State data described here are for 2012. MSA andCongressional District data are for 2011-2012 combined, in order toproduce adequate sample sizes and thereby reduce margins of error.

The ratio was even higher at least one in five: in the Southeast and Southwest regions in 20 states in 16 out of 100 large MSAs in 107 Congressional Districts.

While unemployment and underemployment rates haveremained high and millions of households experienced foodhardship: Congress in 2012 and early 2013 failed to enactmost of the job creation initiatives the President requested;the Senate voted in 2012 to cut the Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps)by several billion dollars; Congress has harmed low-incomeprograms, including WIC and other nutrition programs, whilefailing to resolve self-imposed fiscal crises; and Congress hasnot taken up the Presidents proposal to forestall thescheduled November 2013 cut in SNAP benefits.

This is just unacceptable. Food hardship, a marker forhousehold struggles with hunger, is a national scourge thatharms children, working-age adults and seniors, harmshealth, learning and productivity, and drives up health andother costs for families, employers and government. This is anational problem that requires a serious national response.The President and Congress and state and local officials mustdo better. Mississippi may have the worst rate among states,with one in four households reporting food hardship, but the

best state, booming North Dakota, has one in tenhouseholds struggling with food hardship just asunacceptable a problem given its prosperity. The worst MSAsmay be Bakersfield, California and New Orleans, but 92 of

2012 National Food Hardship Rates, 2008-2012 Year Food Hardship Rate2008 17.82009 18.32010 18.02011 18.62012 18.2


2/32

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 2

100 MSAs have at least one in eight (12.5 percent or more)households reporting food hardship. The worst congressionaldistrict may be in New York City, but 354 congressionaldistricts including rural, suburban and urban districts haverates of 12.5 percent or more.

What this report shows is that the need for efforts to reducehunger is essential to every state, every MSA, and every

congressional district. Americans do not always recognizehow pervasive hunger is, or that it is a problem where theylive. In our communities it is often hidden by families that donot want to share their economic struggles. Sometimes ithides behind doors of nice houses with mortgages in defaultor the heat turned off. Sometimes it hides behind the stoicfaces of parents who skip meals to protect their children fromhunger. It goes unseen by those not looking for it. In a pollconducted in 2011 for Tyson Foods and FRAC, two-thirds of

Americans rated hunger as a worse problem at the nationallevel than at their community level. But what these Gallupdata show is that Americans in every community are hungry.

Fortunately, polls also demonstrate that Americans in everycommunity want the federal government to attack hungeraggressively, not reduce anti-hunger efforts. In pollsconducted for FRAC in 2012, about seven in 10 (69 percent)voters said the federal government should have a major roleto ensure that low-income families and children have the foodand nutrition they need. Seventy-two percent of voters saidthe federal government should be spending more money onsolving hunger or should continue to spend the same amount.When voters were told that Congress is considering cuttingbillions of dollars to reduce government spending, 75 percentof them told pollsters that cutting food assistance programslike the food stamp program is the wrong way to reducegovernment spending. And these attitudes cross party lines.

About This ReportThis report is one of a series in which the FRAC has beenanalyzing survey data that are being collected by Gallupthrough the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index (Gallup-Healthways) and provided to FRAC.

The Gallup Healthways survey has several key, unusualcharacteristics: 1) annual estimates with quick turnaround fornational (by month), state, MSA, and congressional level foodhardship rates; 2) large sample sizes that allow estimation of food hardship at the MSA and congressional district levels;and 3) weighted data that are representative of the nation,states, MSAs, and congressional districts.

Because Gallups partnership with Healthways is interviewingapproximately 1,000 households per day almost every day,year-round, that makes possible the depth and breadth of

analysis in this report. (Further technical notes on the samplesize and methodology appear at the end of the text.)

Gallup measures food hardship with the following question: Have there been times in the past twelve monthswhen you did not have enough money to buy foodthat you or your family needed? In this report we definean answer of yes as reflecting food hardship. FRAC uses

this phrase to avoid confusion with the Census Bureau/USDA study that produces annual food insecurity numbers, butthe concepts are comparable.

This report looks at new Gallup data for 2012 and examines2012 food hardship rates (or, for smaller geographic areas,2011-2012 rates). The appendix contains charts providing thedata:

for the nation, by month and by quarter; for all states in 2012, by rank; for all states in 2012, listed alphabetically; for the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas

(MSAs) in 2011-2012, by rank; for the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas

(MSAs) in 2011-2012, alphabetically; for all congressional districts, in rank order by food

hardship rate, for 2011-2012 combined; and for all congressional districts, organized

alphabetically by state, for 2011-2012 combined.

Food Hardship in the NationFRACs analysis for the nation as a whole in 2012 shows that18.2 percent of respondents reported food hardship that year

down modestly from the late 2011 levels, but as discussedearlier, otherwise basically unchanged from late 2008 to2011.

In 2008, the nations huge recession hit and the rate of households affirming food hardship rose from 16.1 percent inMarch to 20.3 percent in November and 19.4 percent inDecember. Since then, the national rate in any given monthhas never fallen below 17.1 percent. In other words, thenations food hardship rate much too high before therecession was made worse by the recession and the nationhas yet even to retrace that path, much less start tackling thelong-term problem. Families simply do not have adequateresources from wages, income supports and SNAP topurchase enough food.

The official government U-6 unemployment rate reflectinga combination of unemployment and underemployment wasslightly below 15 percent throughout most of 2012, down fromthe worst of the recession but still far above the 7 to10 percentrate that prevailed throughout most of the decade before therecession. At the same time, while the SNAP program is hugely


3/32


important to provide nutrition resources to both working andnon-working households supplementing wages or SocialSecurity or other sources of income the benefits just are notenough for most families to make it through the month. Noless an authority than an expert committee of the prestigiousInstitute of Medicine issued a report in January 2013 explainingthat the SNAP allotment is not enough for most families. Thiswill get worse in November 2013: unless the President and

Congress act, SNAP participants will see their benefits drop thiscoming fall most likely by $20-$25 for a family of three ascuts made by a 2010 law take effect.

A separate FRAC analysis of USDA-generated data from 2000-2011 (2012 data are not yet available) showed that medianfood spending for all households has plummeted in the last 10years, especially in the recession and since. Racial and ethnicdisparities exist as well. Median spending on food among allBlack households and Hispanic households fell to the pointwhere it was actually below the amount needed to purchasethe Thrifty Food Plan, the inadequate government definition of

what is needed that is used for determining SNAP benefits.

Bringing down 2012s food hardship rate will require higheremployment, better wages, and better nutrition supports.

Food Hardship by RegionLooking at the rates of food hardship in the USDA Food andNutrition Services seven geographic regions, the hardest hitregions in 2012, as in previous years, were the Southeast andSouthwest (each 21.1 percent), while the regions with lowerrates were the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Mountain Plains.This largely tracked the state and local rates, as will be seenin later sections. (To see which states are in each Food andNutrition Service region, go to http://1.usa.gov/V9PkPd .)

Food Hardship in the StatesRates in the states varied from a low of 10.9 percent in NorthDakota to a high of 24.6 percent in Mississippi nearly twoand a half times higher. Still, food hardship is a significantproblem in every state even one in ten is hardlyacceptable. And 20 states had at least one in fiverespondents (20 percent or more) answer that they did not

have enough money to buy food at some point in the past 12months. Forty-two states overall, including the Districtof Columbia, had 15 percent or more of respondentsaffirming food hardship. In only one state did fewer than onein eight respondents answer the question affirmatively.

Of the 16 states with the worst rates, seven were in theSoutheast, four were in the Southwest, three were in the

West, and two in the Mid-Atlantic region. Data for all 50states and the District of Columbia are in the Appendix.

Food Hardship in MetropolitanAreasMetropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) are Census Bureau-defined areas that include central cities plus the surroundingcounties with strong economic and social ties to the centralcities. In looking at MSA food hardship rates, FRAC

aggregated 2011 and 2012 data to produce more accurateestimates.

Of the 100 MSAs with the largest number of respondents tothe Gallup-Healthways survey in 2011-2012, 16 MSAs hadat least one in five respondents answering that they didnot have enough money to buy needed food at times in thepast 12 months, and 74 of the 100 largest MSAs had 15percent or more of households affirmatively answering thisquestion. Again, while there was variation around the

Food Hardship by Region, 2012Region Food Hardship Rate

Mid-Atlantic 15.9Midwest 17.0

Mountain Plains 15.7Northeast 15.9Southeast 21.1Southwest 21.1Western 18.7

Top 20 States for Food Hardship, 2012

State Food Hardship Rate Rank

Mississippi 24.6 1Louisiana 24.5 2

West Virginia 24.2 3 Alabama 23.6 4 Arkansas 22.8 5Tennessee 22.2 6

Georgia 22.0 7Nevada 22.0 7Texas 21.8 9

North Carolina 21.6 10South Carolina 21.5 11

Florida 21.3 12Delaware 21.2 13 Arizona 20.9 14California 20.6 15Oklahoma 20.6 15

Ohio 20.5 17Indiana 20.4 18

Kentucky 20.3 19Michigan 20.2 20


4/32


country, the inability to purchase adequate food was aserious problem in every MSA. In only eight MSAs was itbelow 12.5 percent (one in eight respondents).

Despite the common impression that urban poverty andeconomic hardship are clustered in the Northeast and Midwest,most of the MSAs with the highest rates of food hardship were inthe Southeast and Southwest, plus California. Of the 25 MSAswith the worst rates, six were in Florida, four were in California,and two each were in Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma andTexas.

Food Hardship in CongressionalDistrictsThe Gallup-Healthways survey also provides an adequatesample to measure food hardship in every one of Americas436 congressional districts (including one in the District of Columbia). FRAC aggregated 2011-2012 data to producemore accurate estimates at the congressional district level.

The results show widespread food hardship. Twenty-sixcongressional districts had a rate of 25 percent ormore at least one in four respondents answered theGallup-Healthways question yes. One-hundred and sevencongressional districts had a rate of at least 20

percent rate, and 269 had rates of 15 percent orhigher . Only 28 districts in the country reported a rate lowerthan 10 percent. In other words, the vast majority of congressional districts in the country had more than one inten respondents reporting food hardship. The mediancongressional district had a rate of 16.5 percent. Of the 30districts with the worst rates, six were in California, six werein Texas, four were in Florida, and two were in Illlinois. 2

The appendix includes two separate lists with the foodhardship rate for every congressional district in 2011-2012.The first is designed to make it easy for readers to find ratesin specific districts of interest to them: it is organizedalphabetically by state and, within the state, by thecongressional district number. That list gives the rate for each

2 Important note on interpreting Congressional District food hardship rates:except in a relatively small number of Congressional districts, theredistricting that occurred for the 2012 election, based on the 2010 census,means that the districts represented by members of the 113 th Congress in2013-2014 are physically different from the districts in 2011-2012 whenGallup polled respondents. Eighteen states lost or gained one or moreHouse seats. And the remaining states (except, obviously, for those with

just one House member) also redistricted to varying degrees. In otherwords, it would be inaccurate to say that the current representative of aparticular Congressional District represents exactly the district of the samenumber in which a certain percent of households reported food hardship in2011-2012; the geographic make-up of the district has changed. Therefore,unlike prior years, FRAC has not put the names of members of Congressnext to the district numbers.

Top 25 MSAs for Food Hardship, 2011-2012

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)Food Hardship 2011-2012

Rate Rank

Bakersfield, CA 26.7 1New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 23.0 2

Greensboro-High Point, NC 23.0 2Dayton, OH 22.5 4Fresno, CA 22.4 5

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 22.3 6Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 22.2 7Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 22.0 8

Asheville, NC 21.8 9Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 21.5 10Birmingham-Hoover, AL 20.8 11

Baton Rouge, LA 20.7 12Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 20.7 12

Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN 20.5 14San Antonio, TX 20.5 14

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 20.0 16Oklahoma City, OK 19.9 17

Little Rock-N Little Rock-Conway, AR 19.8 18

Albuquerque, NM 19.7 19Jacksonville, FL 19.6 20Memphis, TN-MS-AR 19.6 20

Tulsa, OK 19.1 22Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 19.0 23

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 19.0 23Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 18.8 25


5/32


district and also shows where each district ranks nationally,with 1 being the highest (worst) food hardship rate and 436being the lowest. The second list is organized by rank amongthe 436 districts, with 1 being the highest rate and 436 beingthe lowest.

Ranking 300th or even 400th on this list, however, should notbe a point of pride. After all, the best district in the country

has one in 16 households suffering food hardship. What thislist shows is that food hardship is a problem in every cornerof America, and should be a concern for every member of Congress. In the end, the nations food hardship problemdoes not boil down to the more than two dozen districts withrates over 25 percent or even to the half of all districts abovethe median of 16.5 percent. It boils down to the fact that in436 congressional districts in this extraordinarily wealthynation, somewhere between 6.2 percent and 36.3 percent of respondents and in 408 districts, 10 percent or more of respondents affirmed to Gallup that there were times in thepast twelve months when [they] did not have enough money

to buy food that [they or their family] needed. That is anational problem demanding aggressive steps toward asolution.

RecommendationsFood hardship rates are too high in every corner of the nation.It is crucial that the nation move toward full employment,

strengthen wages, and develop public supports that willdramatically decrease these food hardship numbers and do soquickly.

For FRACs seven-point strategy specifically aimed at reachingthe Presidents goal of ending childhood hunger by 2015, seehttp://bit.ly/YXVDSo . As a nation, even in difficult times, wehave the resources to eliminate hunger for everyone,regardless of age or family configuration. The cost of not doingso in terms of damage to health, education, early childhooddevelopment and productivity is just too high. The moral costof not doing so is even higher

Top 30 Congressional Districts for Food Hardship, 2011-2012

State DistrictFood Hardship 2011-2012

Rate Rank

New York 16th 36.3 1California 34th 32.8 2California 20th 31.9 3

Florida 3rd 30.9 4California 47th 30.2 5 Arizona 4th 30.1 6

Texas 30th 29.8 7Florida 17th 28.5 8Texas 29th 28.5 8

Michigan 13th 27.9 10California 35th 27.6 11

Texas 28th 27.2 12Texas 9th 27.2 12Illinois 4th 27.1 14

Alabama 7th 27.1 14Texas 20th 26.8 16Florida 23rd 26.7 17

Mississippi 2nd 26.7 17Nevada 1st 26.6 19

Pennsylvania 1st 26.3 20California 43rd 26.1 21

North Carolina 1st 25.9 22Kentucky 5th 25.6 23

Illinois 2nd 25.2 24California 37th 25.1 25Georgia 2nd 25.0 26

West Virginia 3rd 24.9 27South Carolina 6th 24.8 28

Louisiana 2nd 24.8 28Texas 15th 24.7 30Florida 25th 24.7 30


6/32


The policy path for the nation to reduce the suffering andunnecessary costs caused by hunger, poverty and reducedopportunity is clear: higher employment rates, more full-time

jobs, and better wages and benefits; stronger income supportsthrough unemployment insurance, TANF, refundable taxcredits, and other means; and stronger nutrition programs.That last point means broadened eligibility; improved accessamong those who are eligible (fewer than three in four who

are eligible for SNAP receive benefits; barely half of eligiblechildren receive school breakfast); and improved benefits,especially in SNAP.

As noted earlier, a committee of the Institute of Medicine(IOM) issued an important report earlier this year that foundSNAP benefits to be too low for most families. The reportsdetailing of the shortcomings underscores why recentproposals in Congress to cut SNAP benefits by billions of dollarswould worsen health and hunger for struggling children,seniors and working families. Some of the flaws the IOMcommittee point to (e.g., the lag in SNAP benefits keeping up

with inflation; and the failure in computing families ability topurchase food to fully account for shelter costs) are due toprevious cuts made by Congress. Congress needs to fix theproblems rather than doubling down on harming the mostvulnerable Americans. Protecting and strengthening SNAP mustbe a top priority as Congress starts fresh on a Farm Bill thisyear. And Congress must restore the cut that will reducemonthly benefits beginning in November 2013.

MethodologyResults are based on telephone (landline or cellular)

interviews in 2012 for national and state estimates, and in2011 through 2012 for MSA and congressional districtestimates, with randomly sampled adults, age 18 or older inall 50 states and the District of Columbia. Total sample sizesfor 2011 and 2012 were 352,789 and 352,817 respectively.Margins of error were calculated using 90 percent confidenceintervals.

Data are weighted to be representative at the national, state,MSA, and congressional district levels based on known censusfigures for age, race, sex, education, population density (fornational estimates), number of adults in the household andphone status (i.e., landline vs. cellular). In addition tosampling error, question wording and practical difficulties inconducting surveys can introduce error or bias into thefindings of public opinion polls.

Because differences within MSAs and congressional districtsfrom year to year are often small and sample sizes for eachyear can be limiting, there is potential for overlap across theyears. Therefore, readers are cautioned against comparing a

2011-2012 rate for a particular MSA or congressional districtto our prior report data for 2010-2011.

At the national level for 2012 (n=352,817) the margin of error was less than or equal to 1 percentage point. At theregional level for 2012 (n=352,817; range: 34,521-71,754),the margin of error was less than or equal to 1 percentagepoint. At the state level for 2012 (n=352,817; range: 824-32,131), the margin of error was less than or equal to 2.2percentage points.

At the MSA level for 2011-2012 (n=415,474; range: 907-30,151), the margin of error was less than or equal to 2.1percentage points. At the congressional district level for 2011-2012 (n=689,763; range: 619-4,633), the margin of errorwas less than or equal to 3.1 percentage points.

At the national level for 2008-2012 by month (n=1,593,548;range: 13,242-31,375), the margin of error was less than orequal to 1 percentage point. At the national level for 2008-

2012 by quarter (n=1,593,548; range: 43,794-91,634), themargin of error was less than or equal to 1 percentagepoint.

AcknowledgmentsThis report was prepared by Michael Burke, Heather Hartline-Grafton and Jim Weill.


7/32

Month Food Hardship Rate Month Food Hardship Rate

J anuary 2008 16.5 J anuary 2011 18.4

February 2008 16.2 February 2011 17.6March 2008 16.1 March 2011 17.6April 2008 16.7 April 2011 17.4May 2008 17.4 May 2011 18.4

J une 2008 17.4 J une 2011 18.3 J uly 2008 17.0 J uly 2011 19.1August 2008 19.1 August 2011 18.8September 2008 18.5 September 2011 19.8October 2008 18.8 October 2011 20.1November 2008 20.3 November 2011 19.0December 2008 19.4 December 2011 19.0

J anuary 2009 18.8 J anuary 2012 18.3

February 2009 19.0 February 2012 18.1March 2009 18.6 March 2012 18.6April 2009 18.2 April 2012 17.5May 2009 18.4 May 2012 18.3

J une 2009 17.3 J une 2012 18.7 J uly 2009 17.7 J uly 2012 18.8August 2009 17.9 August 2012 18.4September 2009 18.1 September 2012 17.9October 2009 18.9 October 2012 18.1November 2009 18.3 November 2012 17.9December 2009 18.2 December 2012 17.8

J anuary 2010 18.1February 2010 17.9March 2010 18.0April 2010 17.1May 2010 17.9

J une 2010 17.5 J uly 2010 17.6August 2010 18.2September 2010 18.0October 2010 19.3November 2010 18.2December 2010 18.6

National Food Hardship Rate, by Month 2008-2012

2010

2009

2008 2011

2012



8/32

Quarter Food Hardship Rate1st 2008 16.3

2nd 2008 17.13rd 2008 18.24th 2008 19.51st 2009 18.82nd 2009 18.03rd 2009 17.94th 2009 18.51st 2010 18.02nd 2010 17.53rd 2010 17.94th 2010 18.71st 2011 17.92nd 2011 18.03rd 2011 19.24th 2011 19.41st 2012 18.42nd 2012 18.23rd 2012 18.44th 2012 17.9

National Food Hardship Rate by Quarter, 2008-2012



9/32


Mississippi 24.6 1Louisiana 24.5 2West Virginia 24.2 3Alabama 23.6 4Arkansas 22.8 5

Tennessee 22.2 6Georgia 22.0 7Nevada 22.0 7

Texas 21.8 9North Carolina 21.6 10South Carolina 21.5 11Florida 21.3 12Delaware 21.2 13Arizona 20.9 14California 20.6 15Oklahoma 20.6 15Ohio 20.5 17Indiana 20.4 18Kentucky 20.3 19Michigan 20.2 20New Mexico 19.3 21Rhode Island 19.3 21Alaska 19.2 23Oregon 18.5 24Missouri 18.2 25New York 17.7 26Illinois 17.6 27Utah 17.3 28New J ersey 17.1 29

Wyoming 16.8 30Maine 16.6 31Hawaii 16.5 32Pennsylvania 16.5 32Colorado 16.2 34Maryland 16.2 34Kansas 16.1 36Virginia 16.1 36Washington 16.0 38Idaho 15.4 39Montana 15.1 40District of Columbia 15.0 41Massachusetts 15.0 41

Iowa 14.9 43South Dakota 14.9 43Connecticut 14.6 45New Hampshire 14.4 46Wisconsin 14.0 47Nebraska 13.8 48Minnesota 13.7 49Vermont 12.8 50North Dakota 10.9 51

Food Hardship in 2012 by State, by Rank



10/32


Alabama 23.6 4Alaska 19.2 23Arizona 20.9 14Arkansas 22.8 5California 20.6 15Colorado 16.2 34Connecticut 14.6 45Delaware 21.2 13District of Columbia 15.0 41Florida 21.3 12Georgia 22.0 7Hawaii 16.5 32Idaho 15.4 39Illinois 17.6 27Indiana 20.4 18Iowa 14.9 43Kansas 16.1 36Kentucky 20.3 19Louisiana 24.5 2Maine 16.6 31Maryland 16.2 34Massachusetts 15.0 41Michigan 20.2 20Minnesota 13.7 49Mississippi 24.6 1Missouri 18.2 25Montana 15.1 40Nebraska 13.8 48Nevada 22.0 7New Hampshire 14.4 46New J ersey 17.1 29New Mexico 19.3 21New York 17.7 26North Carolina 21.6 10North Dakota 10.9 51Ohio 20.5 17Oklahoma 20.6 15Oregon 18.5 24Pennsylvania 16.5 32Rhode Island 19.3 21South Carolina 21.5 11South Dakota 14.9 43

Tennessee 22.2 6 Texas 21.8 9Utah 17.3 28Vermont 12.8 50Virginia 16.1 36Washington 16.0 38West Virginia 24.2 3Wisconsin 14.0 47Wyoming 16.8 30

Food Hardship in 2012 by State, Alphabetically



11/32

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Food Hardship Rate Rank

Bakersfield, CA 26.7 1New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 23.0 2Greensboro-High Point, NC 23.0 2Dayton, OH 22.5 4Fresno, CA 22.4 5Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 22.3 6Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 22.2 7Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 22.0 8Asheville, NC 21.8 9Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 21.5 10Birmingham-Hoover, AL 20.8 11Baton Rouge, LA 20.7 12Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 20.7 12Louisville-J efferson County, KY-IN 20.5 14San Antonio, TX 20.5 14

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 20.0 16Oklahoma City, OK 19.9 17Little Rock-N Little Rock-Conway, AR 19.8 18Albuquerque, NM 19.7 19

J acksonville, FL 19.6 20Memphis, TN-MS-AR 19.6 20

Tulsa, OK 19.1 22Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 19.0 23Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 19.0 23Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 18.8 25Knoxville, TN 18.7 26Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 18.7 26

Toledo, OH 18.7 26Columbia, SC 18.4 29

Tucson, AZ 18.3 30Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 18.3 30Springfield, MA 18.3 30Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA 18.2 33Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 18.2 33Charleston-N Charleston-Summerville, SC 18.0 35Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 18.0 35Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 18.0 35Akron, OH 17.9 38Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA 17.9 38Anchorage, AK 17.8 40Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 17.8 40Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 17.8 40

Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 17.7 43Spokane, WA 17.5 44Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 17.3 45Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 17.2 46Richmond, VA 17.2 46

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 17.1 48Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC 17.1 48Ogden-Clearfield, UT 17.0 50Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 17.0 50

Food Hardship Rate in 2011-2012 for 100 Large Metropolitan Statistical Areas, by Rank



12/32


Food Hardship Rate in 2011-2012 for 100 Large Metropolitan Statistical Areas, by Rank

Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA 17.0 50Boise City-Nampa, ID 16.9 53Austin-Round Rock, TX 16.9 53Columbus, OH 16.8 55Wichita, KS 16.8 55Chicago-Naperville-J oliet, IL-IN-WI 16.6 57Worcester, MA 16.6 57Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 16.6 57Salt Lake City, UT 16.5 60New York-North New J ersey-Long Island, NY-NJ -PA 16.3 61Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 16.2 62Winston-Salem, NC 16.0 63Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 16.0 63Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL 16.0 63Baltimore-Towson, MD 15.9 66Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ -DE-MD 15.9 66New Haven-Milford, CT 15.7 68Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 15.7 68San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 15.4 70Denver-Aurora, CO 15.4 70St. Louis, MO-IL 15.3 72Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 15.2 73Kansas City, MO-KS 15.0 74Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 14.8 75Raleigh-Cary, NC 14.8 75Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 14.1 77Durham, NC 14.1 77Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 14.0 79Colorado Springs, CO 14.0 79Rochester, NY 13.8 81Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 13.7 82Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 13.5 83Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 13.5 83Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY 13.3 85Syracuse, NY 13.2 86Pittsburgh, PA 13.1 87San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 13.0 88Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 12.9 89

York-Hanover, PA 12.8 90Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 12.7 91Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME 12.6 92Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 12.3 93

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 12.2 94Honolulu, HI 12.2 94San J ose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 12.1 96Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 11.7 97Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 11.5 98Lancaster, PA 9.8 99Madison, WI 8.7 100



13/32


Akron, OH 17.9 38Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 14.8 75

Albuquerque, NM 19.7 19Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 16.0 64Anchorage, AK 17.8 40Asheville, NC 21.8 9Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 18.0 37Austin-Round Rock, TX 16.9 54Bakersfield, CA 26.7 1Baltimore-Towson, MD 15.9 66Baton Rouge, LA 20.7 12Birmingham-Hoover, AL 20.8 11Boise City-Nampa, ID 16.9 53Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 12.7 91Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL 16.0 65

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 12.3 93Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 13.5 83Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 19.0 23Charleston-N Charleston-Summerville, SC 18.0 35Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 16.6 59Chicago-Naperville-J oliet, IL-IN-WI 16.6 57Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 17.3 45Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 17.2 46Colorado Springs, CO 14.0 80Columbia, SC 18.4 29Columbus, OH 16.8 55Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 18.3 31Dayton, OH 22.5 4

Denver-Aurora, CO 15.4 71Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 12.9 89Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 18.0 36Durham, NC 14.1 78Fresno, CA 22.4 5Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 17.0 51Greensboro-High Point, NC 23.0 3Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC 17.1 49Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 11.7 97Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 13.7 82Honolulu, HI 12.2 95Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 18.8 25Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 17.7 43

J acksonville, FL 19.6 20Kansas City, MO-KS 15.0 74Knoxville, TN 18.7 26Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 22.0 8Lancaster, PA 9.8 99Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 22.2 7Little Rock-N Little Rock-Conway, AR 19.8 18Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 19.0 24Louisville-J efferson County, KY-IN 20.5 14Madison, WI 8.7 100

Food Hardship Rate in 2011-2012 for 100 Large Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Alphabetically



14/32


Food Hardship Rate in 2011-2012 for 100 Large Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Alphabetically

Memphis, TN-MS-AR 19.6 21Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 20.7 13

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 13.5 84Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 12.2 94Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 18.2 34New Haven-Milford, CT 15.7 68New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 23.0 2New York-North New J ersey-Long Island, NY-NJ -PA 16.3 61Ogden-Clearfield, UT 17.0 50Oklahoma City, OK 19.9 17Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 14.1 77Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 21.5 10Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 16.2 62Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 18.7 27Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ -DE-MD 15.9 67

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 17.8 41Pittsburgh, PA 13.1 87Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME 12.6 92Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 15.2 73Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY 13.3 85Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 17.8 42Raleigh-Cary, NC 14.8 76Richmond, VA 17.2 47Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 22.3 6Rochester, NY 13.8 81Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA 17.9 39Salt Lake City, UT 16.5 60San Antonio, TX 20.5 15

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 15.4 70San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 13.0 88San J ose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 12.1 96Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA 17.0 52Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA 18.2 33Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 14.0 79Spokane, WA 17.5 44Springfield, MA 18.3 32St. Louis, MO-IL 15.3 72Syracuse, NY 13.2 86

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 20.0 16 Toledo, OH 18.7 28 Tucson, AZ 18.3 30 Tulsa, OK 19.1 22Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 15.7 69Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 11.5 98Wichita, KS 16.8 56Winston-Salem, NC 16.0 63Worcester, MA 16.6 58

York-Hanover, PA 12.8 90 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 17.1 48



15/32

State District Food Hardship Rate National Rank

New York 16th 36.3 1California 34th 32.8 2California 20th 31.9 3Florida 3rd 30.9 4California 47th 30.2 5Arizona 4th 30.1 6

Texas 30th 29.8 7Florida 17th 28.5 8

Texas 29th 28.5 8Michigan 13th 27.9 10California 35th 27.6 11

Texas 28th 27.2 12 Texas 9th 27.2 12Illinois 4th 27.1 14Alabama 7th 27.1 14

Texas 20th 26.8 16Florida 23rd 26.7 17Mississippi 2nd 26.7 17Nevada 1st 26.6 19Pennsylvania 1st 26.3 20California 43rd 26.1 21North Carolina 1st 25.9 22Kentucky 5th 25.6 23Illinois 2nd 25.2 24California 37th 25.1 25Georgia 2nd 25.0 26West Virginia 3rd 24.9 27South Carolina 6th 24.8 28Louisiana 2nd 24.8 28

Texas 15th 24.7 30Florida 25th 24.7 30Florida 11th 24.6 32

Texas 18th 24.5 33Alabama 1st 24.2 34Indiana 7th 24.2 34California 18th 24.2 34California 31st 24.1 37Michigan 14th 24.0 38California 38th 23.8 39North Carolina 12th 23.8 39New J ersey 13th 23.8 39California 33rd 23.7 42Illinois 1st 23.6 43New York 10th 23.4 44New J ersey 10th 23.3 45Louisiana 5th 23.1 46New York 11th 23.0 47

Texas 27th 22.9 48 Texas 16th 22.8 49 Tennessee 3rd 22.8 49Arkansas 1st 22.7 51

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, by National Rank



16/32



Mississippi 4th 22.7 51New York 15th 22.6 53Arkansas 4th 22.5 54

Texas 1st 22.5 54California 21st 22.4 56

Texas 5th 22.3 57Illinois 3rd 22.3 57Oklahoma 5th 22.3 57Louisiana 7th 22.1 60Georgia 1st 22.1 60Alabama 4th 21.9 62Alabama 3rd 21.9 62New J ersey 1st 21.9 62California 25th 21.9 62Wisconsin 4th 21.8 66Virginia 3rd 21.8 66West Virginia 2nd 21.7 68Florida 8th 21.7 68Georgia 13th 21.7 68California 5th 21.7 68New York 7th 21.7 68

Tennessee 9th 21.6 73Oklahoma 2nd 21.5 74California 41st 21.3 75Arizona 7th 21.2 76Indiana 2nd 21.2 76Florida 12th 21.1 78Mississippi 1st 21.1 78Georgia 12th 21.0 80Ohio 1st 21.0 80California 19th 21.0 80New York 12th 21.0 80Alabama 2nd 20.8 84California 32nd 20.8 84Missouri 8th 20.8 84

Tennessee 8th 20.7 87Florida 18th 20.6 88New York 6th 20.6 88Ohio 8th 20.6 88North Carolina 10th 20.5 91North Carolina 11th 20.5 91California 51st 20.4 93Ohio 3rd 20.4 93Georgia 9th 20.3 95North Carolina 8th 20.3 95Mississippi 3rd 20.3 95Virginia 9th 20.2 98

Tennessee 4th 20.2 98Michigan 12th 20.2 98New J ersey 2nd 20.1 101Arizona 1st 20.1 101



17/32



Ohio 11th 20.1 101Ohio 7th 20.1 101

Texas 25th 20.0 105Louisiana 4th 20.0 105

Tennessee 1st 20.0 105Georgia 8th 19.8 108

Texas 4th 19.8 108 Texas 19th 19.8 108South Carolina 5th 19.8 108

Tennessee 6th 19.8 108Indiana 6th 19.8 108Louisiana 1st 19.7 114Maryland 7th 19.7 114

Texas 23rd 19.6 116North Carolina 7th 19.5 117Louisiana 3rd 19.5 117Georgia 3rd 19.5 117North Carolina 13th 19.5 117California 28th 19.4 121Oklahoma 3rd 19.4 121Michigan 5th 19.3 123New York 17th 19.2 124California 44th 19.2 124Georgia 5th 19.2 124Missouri 7th 19.2 124Florida 2nd 19.1 128Georgia 4th 19.1 128California 45th 19.0 130South Carolina 4th 19.0 130

Texas 17th 19.0 130Oregon 2nd 18.9 133

Tennessee 2nd 18.9 133California 22nd 18.9 133South Carolina 3rd 18.9 133North Carolina 2nd 18.9 133Florida 21st 18.9 133California 49th 18.9 133California 7th 18.9 133California 39th 18.9 133Michigan 7th 18.8 142Nevada 2nd 18.7 143

Texas 2nd 18.7 143Ohio 17th 18.7 143Kentucky 6th 18.7 143Pennsylvania 2nd 18.7 143Missouri 1st 18.6 148Florida 1st 18.6 148Florida 4th 18.6 148California 2nd 18.5 151Ohio 15th 18.5 151Florida 6th 18.5 151



18/32



Louisiana 6th 18.5 151California 1st 18.4 155Georgia 10th 18.4 155Florida 24th 18.4 155Ohio 6th 18.4 155Kentucky 2nd 18.3 159California 17th 18.3 159Arkansas 3rd 18.3 159New Mexico 2nd 18.3 159Kentucky 3rd 18.2 163

Texas 32nd 18.2 163Florida 7th 18.2 163Missouri 4th 18.2 163

Texas 12th 18.0 167North Carolina 6th 18.0 167Alaska At-Large 17.9 169Indiana 8th 17.8 170North Carolina 5th 17.8 170Maine 2nd 17.7 172Arizona 3rd 17.7 172Kentucky 1st 17.7 172Massachusetts 2nd 17.7 172

Texas 8th 17.7 172Florida 15th 17.6 177Michigan 6th 17.6 177Florida 9th 17.6 177Michigan 4th 17.6 177

Texas 13th 17.6 177West Virginia 1st 17.5 182California 27th 17.5 182Arkansas 2nd 17.5 182Oregon 4th 17.5 182Florida 10th 17.5 182Maryland 2nd 17.4 187Washington 5th 17.4 187Alabama 5th 17.4 187Washington 6th 17.4 187Missouri 6th 17.3 191New Mexico 3rd 17.3 191Pennsylvania 11th 17.3 191Oklahoma 4th 17.3 191Illinois 15th 17.2 195Florida 20th 17.2 195Oklahoma 1st 17.2 195Ohio 18th 17.2 195

Tennessee 5th 17.1 199Utah 3rd 17.0 200California 23rd 16.9 201New Mexico 1st 16.9 201South Carolina 1st 16.9 201Delaware At-Large 16.8 204



19/32



Illinois 5th 16.8 204California 3rd 16.8 204Ohio 4th 16.7 207Ohio 10th 16.6 208Georgia 7th 16.6 208Kansas 4th 16.6 208Indiana 9th 16.6 208Colorado 1st 16.5 212Pennsylvania 3rd 16.5 212Washington 2nd 16.5 212Washington 9th 16.5 212Kentucky 4th 16.5 212

Texas 6th 16.5 212New J ersey 8th 16.5 212New York 2nd 16.4 219Michigan 1st 16.4 219Georgia 11th 16.4 219Nevada 3rd 16.4 219Rhode Island 2nd 16.4 219Colorado 3rd 16.4 219Indiana 1st 16.4 219Indiana 3rd 16.3 226Oregon 3rd 16.3 226Indiana 4th 16.3 226

Texas 24th 16.3 226Ohio 9th 16.2 230Alabama 6th 16.2 230North Carolina 3rd 16.2 230Florida 22nd 16.2 230Virginia 5th 16.1 234Florida 16th 16.0 235Missouri 3rd 16.0 235

Texas 14th 15.9 237Ohio 5th 15.9 237New York 28th 15.9 237Pennsylvania 12th 15.8 240Rhode Island 1st 15.7 241Michigan 15th 15.7 241Ohio 13th 15.7 241New York 13th 15.7 241Colorado 7th 15.7 241Washington 4th 15.7 241

Texas 11th 15.6 247New J ersey 4th 15.6 247Florida 5th 15.6 247Pennsylvania 14th 15.5 250New York 24th 15.5 250California 9th 15.5 250Illinois 7th 15.5 250Illinois 18th 15.4 254New York 22nd 15.4 254



20/32



New York 9th 15.4 254Illinois 12th 15.4 254Virginia 6th 15.4 254Pennsylvania 10th 15.3 259New York 21st 15.3 259Virginia 4th 15.2 261Illinois 11th 15.2 261California 53rd 15.2 261Minnesota 5th 15.2 261California 52nd 15.2 261Florida 13th 15.1 266Idaho 2nd 15.1 266Utah 1st 15.1 266Pennsylvania 15th 15.0 269Florida 19th 14.9 270Michigan 3rd 14.9 270Missouri 5th 14.9 270Michigan 2nd 14.9 270New York 23rd 14.9 270Maryland 1st 14.9 270New J ersey 6th 14.8 276Florida 14th 14.8 276Virginia 2nd 14.8 276Colorado 5th 14.6 279Arizona 2nd 14.6 279Massachusetts 1st 14.6 279Idaho 1st 14.6 279Iowa 5th 14.5 283Illinois 16th 14.5 283Illinois 17th 14.5 283California 6th 14.4 286Oregon 5th 14.4 286Ohio 14th 14.4 286Nebraska 2nd 14.4 286Missouri 9th 14.4 286

Texas 31st 14.3 291 Texas 3rd 14.3 291Montana At-Large 14.2 293Ohio 2nd 14.2 293Minnesota 8th 14.2 293Hawaii 2nd 14.2 293Utah 2nd 14.1 297

Texas 26th 14.1 297Pennsylvania 9th 14.1 297Illinois 8th 14.0 300Illinois 14th 14.0 300New Hampshire 1st 13.9 302Virginia 1st 13.9 302California 40th 13.9 302Oregon 1st 13.9 302California 10th 13.8 306



21/32



Maryland 4th 13.8 306Massachusetts 8th 13.8 306Pennsylvania 17th 13.8 306Wisconsin 1st 13.7 310

Tennessee 7th 13.7 310Arizona 8th 13.7 310Wyoming At-Large 13.6 313Connecticut 3rd 13.6 313North Carolina 9th 13.6 313Kansas 2nd 13.6 313Colorado 2nd 13.6 313South Carolina 2nd 13.6 313Washington 3rd 13.6 313South Dakota At-Large 13.5 320Wisconsin 7th 13.5 320New York 4th 13.5 320California 26th 13.5 320California 8th 13.4 324Maryland 5th 13.4 324Pennsylvania 7th 13.3 326Connecticut 1st 13.3 326New York 27th 13.3 326California 11th 13.3 326Pennsylvania 5th 13.3 326Massachusetts 3rd 13.3 326Michigan 10th 13.3 326Illinois 19th 13.3 326New York 29th 13.2 334Wisconsin 6th 13.1 335Kansas 1st 13.1 335

Texas 7th 13.1 335Ohio 12th 13.1 335Kansas 3rd 13.1 335Arizona 6th 13.0 340New York 20th 13.0 340Nebraska 3rd 13.0 340Massachusetts 5th 13.0 340California 29th 12.9 344Vermont At-Large 12.7 345New York 5th 12.7 345Pennsylvania 13th 12.7 345Iowa 1st 12.7 345Colorado 4th 12.7 345California 46th 12.6 350Michigan 11th 12.6 350Iowa 2nd 12.6 350California 4th 12.5 353Ohio 16th 12.5 353Iowa 3rd 12.4 355California 13th 12.4 355Connecticut 2nd 12.4 355



22/32



Minnesota 4th 12.4 355California 24th 12.4 355New Hampshire 2nd 12.4 355

Texas 21st 12.3 361Maryland 3rd 12.3 361Pennsylvania 19th 12.3 361Maine 1st 12.3 361

Texas 10th 12.3 361Maryland 6th 12.3 361Indiana 5th 12.2 367Virginia 7th 12.2 367New J ersey 9th 12.2 367California 16th 12.1 370Michigan 8th 12.1 370New York 3rd 12.1 370Massachusetts 4th 12.0 373

Texas 22nd 12.0 373Wisconsin 8th 12.0 373District of Columbia At-Large 12.0 373Connecticut 5th 12.0 373California 15th 11.9 378California 36th 11.9 378New York 1st 11.9 378Massachusetts 9th 11.9 378New J ersey 3rd 11.8 382Iowa 4th 11.7 383Pennsylvania 6th 11.6 384Massachusetts 6th 11.5 385California 50th 11.5 385Arizona 5th 11.4 387New York 26th 11.3 388New York 25th 11.3 388Massachusetts 10th 11.3 388New York 19th 11.2 391California 42nd 11.1 392Connecticut 4th 11.1 392Illinois 6th 10.8 394Pennsylvania 8th 10.8 394Nebraska 1st 10.6 396Illinois 9th 10.6 396Minnesota 6th 10.6 396North Carolina 4th 10.5 399Washington 8th 10.5 399Wisconsin 3rd 10.5 399Michigan 9th 10.3 402Wisconsin 2nd 10.3 402Minnesota 7th 10.2 404Minnesota 3rd 10.2 404New York 18th 10.1 406Washington 1st 10.0 407Illinois 13th 10.0 407



23/32



New J ersey 12th 9.8 409Minnesota 1st 9.8 409Illinois 10th 9.7 411Pennsylvania 4th 9.5 412North Dakota At-Large 9.5 412Missouri 2nd 9.4 414Pennsylvania 18th 9.4 414Virginia 10th 9.3 416Georgia 6th 9.3 416New J ersey 5th 9.3 416Minnesota 2nd 9.2 419Colorado 6th 9.2 419Hawaii 1st 9.1 421Virginia 11th 9.1 421Washington 7th 8.9 423California 12th 8.7 424Massachusetts 7th 8.7 424Pennsylvania 16th 8.6 426New J ersey 11th 8.5 427California 30th 8.3 428Maryland 8th 8.1 429California 48th 8.0 430New York 14th 7.7 431Wisconsin 5th 7.7 431New York 8th 7.7 431New J ersey 7th 7.5 434California 14th 7.1 435Virginia 8th 6.2 436



24/32

District Food Hardship Rate 2011-2012 National Rank

1st 24.2 342nd 20.8 843rd 21.9 634th 21.9 625th 17.4 1896th 16.2 2317th 27.1 15

At-Large 17.9 169

1st 20.1 1022nd 14.6 2803rd 17.7 1734th 30.1 65th 11.4 387

6th 13.0 3407th 21.2 768th 13.7 312

1st 22.7 512nd 17.5 1843rd 18.3 1614th 22.5 54

1st 18.4 1552nd 18.5 1513rd 16.8 2064th 12.5 353

5th 21.7 716th 14.4 2867th 18.9 1408th 13.4 3249th 15.5 252

10th 13.8 30611th 13.3 32912th 8.7 42413th 12.4 35614th 7.1 43515th 11.9 37816th 12.1 37017th 18.3 160

18th 24.2 3619th 21.0 8220th 31.9 321st 22.4 5622nd 18.9 13523rd 16.9 20124th 12.4 35925th 21.9 6526th 13.5 32327th 17.5 18328th 19.4 12129th 12.9 34430th 8.3 428

California

Arkansas

Arizona

Alaska

Alabama

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, Organized by State and District



25/32



31st 24.1 3732nd 20.8 8533rd 23.7 4234th 32.8 235th 27.6 1136th 11.9 37937th 25.1 2538th 23.8 3939th 18.9 14140th 13.9 30441st 21.3 7542nd 11.1 39243rd 26.1 2144th 19.2 12545th 19.0 13046th 12.6 350

47th 30.2 548th 8.0 43049th 18.9 13950th 11.5 38651st 20.4 9352nd 15.2 26553rd 15.2 263

1st 16.5 2122nd 13.6 3173rd 16.4 2244th 12.7 3495th 14.6 279

6th 9.2 4207th 15.7 245

1st 13.3 3272nd 12.4 3573rd 13.6 3144th 11.1 3935th 12.0 377

At-Large 16.8 204

At-Large 12.0 376

1st 18.6 1492nd 19.1 1283rd 30.9 44th 18.6 1505th 15.6 2496th 18.5 1537th 18.2 1658th 21.7 699th 17.6 179

10th 17.5 18611th 24.6 3212th 21.1 7813th 15.1 266

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida



26/32



14th 14.8 27715th 17.6 17716th 16.0 23517th 28.5 818th 20.6 8819th 14.9 27020th 17.2 19621st 18.9 13822nd 16.2 23323rd 26.7 1724th 18.4 15725th 24.7 31

1st 22.1 612nd 25.0 263rd 19.5 119

4th 19.1 1295th 19.2 1266th 9.3 4177th 16.6 2098th 19.8 1089th 20.3 95

10th 18.4 15611th 16.4 22112th 21.0 8013th 21.7 70

1st 9.1 4212nd 14.2 296

1st 14.6 2822nd 15.1 267


10th 9.7 41111th 15.2 26212th 15.4 25713th 10.0 40814th 14.0 30115th 17.2 19516th 14.5 28417th 14.5 28518th 15.4 25419th 13.3 333

1st 16.4 2252nd 21.2 77

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana



27/32



3rd 16.3 2264th 16.3 2285th 12.2 3676th 19.8 1137th 24.2 358th 17.8 1709th 16.6 211

1st 12.7 3482nd 12.6 3523rd 12.4 3554th 11.7 3835th 14.5 283

1st 13.1 3362nd 13.6 316

3rd 13.1 3394th 16.6 210

1st 17.7 1742nd 18.3 1593rd 18.2 1634th 16.5 2165th 25.6 236th 18.7 146

1st 19.7 1142nd 24.8 293rd 19.5 118

4th 20.0 1065th 23.1 466th 18.5 1547th 22.1 60

1st 12.3 3642nd 17.7 172

1st 14.9 2752nd 17.4 1873rd 12.3 3624th 13.8 3075th 13.4 325

6th 12.3 3667th 19.7 1158th 8.1 429


Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts



28/32



10th 11.3 390


10th 13.3 33211th 12.6 35112th 20.2 10013th 27.9 1014th 24.0 38

15th 15.7 242

1st 9.8 4102nd 9.2 4193rd 10.2 4054th 12.4 3585th 15.2 2646th 10.6 3987th 10.2 4048th 14.2 295

1st 21.1 792nd 26.7 18

3rd 20.3 974th 22.7 52


At-Large 14.2 293

1st 10.6 3962nd 14.4 2893rd 13.0 342

1st 26.6 192nd 18.7 1433rd 16.4 222

1st 13.9 3022nd 12.4 360

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire



29/32




10th 23.3 4511th 8.5 42712th 9.8 40913th 23.8 41

1st 16.9 202

2nd 18.3 1623rd 17.3 192


10th 23.4 44

11th 23.0 4712th 21.0 8313th 15.7 24414th 7.7 43115th 22.6 5316th 36.3 117th 19.2 12418th 10.1 40619th 11.2 39120th 13.0 34121st 15.3 26022nd 15.4 25523rd 14.9 274

24th 15.5 25125th 11.3 38926th 11.3 38827th 13.3 32828th 15.9 23929th 13.2 334

1st 25.9 222nd 18.9 1373rd 16.2 2324th 10.5 3995th 17.8 1716th 18.0 168

New York

North Carolina

New Jersey

New Mexico



30/32



7th 19.5 1178th 20.3 969th 13.6 315

10th 20.5 9111th 20.5 9212th 23.8 4013th 19.5 120

At-Large 9.5 413

1st 21.0 812nd 14.2 2943rd 20.4 944th 16.7 2075th 15.9 2386th 18.4 158

7th 20.1 1048th 20.6 909th 16.2 230

10th 16.6 20811th 20.1 10312th 13.1 33813th 15.7 24314th 14.4 28815th 18.5 15216th 12.5 35417th 18.7 14518th 17.2 198

1st 17.2 1972nd 21.5 743rd 19.4 1224th 17.3 1945th 22.3 59

1st 13.9 3052nd 18.9 1333rd 16.3 2274th 17.5 1855th 14.4 287

1st 26.3 20

2nd 18.7 1473rd 16.5 2134th 9.5 4125th 13.3 3306th 11.6 3847th 13.3 3268th 10.8 3959th 14.1 299

10th 15.3 25911th 17.3 19312th 15.8 24013th 12.7 34714th 15.5 250

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania



31/32



15th 15.0 26916th 8.6 42617th 13.8 30918th 9.4 41519th 12.3 363

1st 15.7 2412nd 16.4 223

1st 16.9 2032nd 13.6 3183rd 18.9 1364th 19.0 1315th 19.8 1116th 24.8 28

At-Large 13.5 320


1st 22.5 55

2nd 18.7 1443rd 14.3 2924th 19.8 1095th 22.3 576th 16.5 2177th 13.1 3378th 17.7 1769th 27.2 13

10th 12.3 36511th 15.6 24712th 18.0 16713th 17.6 18114th 15.9 237

15th 24.7 3016th 22.8 4917th 19.0 13218th 24.5 3319th 19.8 11020th 26.8 1621st 12.3 36122nd 12.0 37423rd 19.6 11624th 16.3 22925th 20.0 10526th 14.1 29827th 22.9 48

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Rhode Island



32/32



28th 27.2 1229th 28.5 930th 29.8 731st 14.3 29132nd 18.2 164

1st 15.1 2682nd 14.1 2973rd 17.0 200

At-Large 12.7 345

1st 13.9 3032nd 14.8 2783rd 21.8 674th 15.2 261

5th 16.1 2346th 15.4 2587th 12.2 3688th 6.2 4369th 20.2 98

10th 9.3 41611th 9.1 422

1st 10.0 4072nd 16.5 2143rd 13.6 3194th 15.7 2465th 17.4 188

6th 17.4 1907th 8.9 4238th 10.5 4009th 16.5 214

1st 17.5 1822nd 21.7 683rd 24.9 27

1st 13.7 3102nd 10.3 4033rd 10.5 4014th 21.8 66

5th 7.7 4326th 13.1 3357th 13.5 3218th 12.0 375

At-Large 13.6 313

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Utah

Vermont

West Virginia

Virginia

Washington

food hardship in america 2012

Documents