Food Hardship in America 2012

Data for the Nation, States, 100 MSAs, and Every Congressional District
February 2013

2012

was the fifth year during which the Gallup organization, as part of the GallupHealthways Well-Being Index, asked hundreds of thousands of households the food hardship question “Have there been times in the past twelve months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?” In 2012, 18.2 percent of households answered “Yes” to this question. That continuingly high rate of food hardship in 2012 is evidence of both the lingering effects of the terrible recession (e.g., high unemployment and underemployment; stagnant and falling wages), and the failure of Congress to respond robustly with initiatives to boost jobs, wages and public income and nutrition support programs. These economic and political shortfalls continue to take a harsh toll on the nation’s food security. While, as will be shown, the number of households affirming food hardship in every quarter in 2012 was somewhat lower than in late 2011, the numbers were basically the same as in most of 2009, 2010 and the first half of 2011. For four and a half years, the share of households telling Gallup that they didn’t have enough money for food at times over the past year has never gone below 17.5 percent in any quarter and still is only a bit below the peak of 19.5 percent. More than one in six households told Gallup they were suffering 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

National Food Hardship Rates, 2008-2012 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Food Hardship Rate 17.8 18.3 18.0 18.6 18.2

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 have remained high and millions of households experienced food hardship: Congress in 2012 and early 2013 failed to enact most 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-income programs, including WIC and other nutrition programs, while failing to resolve self-imposed fiscal crises; and Congress has not taken up the President’s proposal to forestall the scheduled November 2013 cut in SNAP benefits. This is just unacceptable. Food hardship, a marker for household struggles with hunger, is a national scourge that harms children, working-age adults and seniors, harms health, learning and productivity, and drives up health and other costs for families, employers and government. This is a national problem that requires a serious national response. The President and Congress and state and local officials must do 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 ten households struggling with food hardship – just as unacceptable a problem given its prosperity. The worst MSAs may be Bakersfield, California and New Orleans, but 92 of

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

1

100 MSAs have at least one in eight (12.5 percent or more) households reporting food hardship. The worst congressional district may be in New York City, but 354 congressional districts – including rural, suburban and urban districts – have rates of 12.5 percent or more. What this report shows is that the need for efforts to reduce hunger is essential to every state, every MSA, and every congressional district. Americans do not always recognize how pervasive hunger is, or that it is a problem where they live. In our communities it is often hidden by families that do not want to share their economic struggles. Sometimes it hides behind doors of nice houses with mortgages in default or the heat turned off. Sometimes it hides behind the stoic faces of parents who skip meals to protect their children from hunger. It goes unseen by those not looking for it. In a poll conducted in 2011 for Tyson Foods and FRAC, two-thirds of Americans rated hunger as a worse problem at the national level than at their community level. But what these Gallup data show is that Americans in every community are hungry. Fortunately, polls also demonstrate that Americans in every community want the federal government to attack hunger aggressively, not reduce anti-hunger efforts. In polls conducted for FRAC in 2012, about seven in 10 (69 percent) voters said the federal government should have a major role to ensure that low-income families and children have the food and nutrition they need. Seventy-two percent of voters said the federal government should be spending more money on solving hunger or should continue to spend the same amount. When voters were told that Congress is considering cutting billions of dollars to reduce government spending, 75 percent of them told pollsters that cutting food assistance programs like the food stamp program is the wrong way to reduce government spending. And these attitudes cross party lines.

analysis in this report. (Further technical notes on the sample size 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 months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?” In this report we define an 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, but the concepts are comparable. This report looks at new Gallup data for 2012 and examines 2012 food hardship rates (or, for smaller geographic areas, 2011-2012 rates). The appendix contains charts providing the data: • 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 Nation
FRAC’s analysis for the nation as a whole in 2012 shows that 18.2 percent of respondents reported food hardship that year – down modestly from the late 2011 levels, but as discussed earlier, otherwise basically unchanged from late 2008 to 2011. In 2008, the nation’s huge recession hit and the rate of households affirming food hardship rose from 16.1 percent in March to 20.3 percent in November and 19.4 percent in December. Since then, the national rate in any given month has never fallen below 17.1 percent. In other words, the nation’s food hardship rate – much too high before the recession – was made worse by the recession and the nation has yet even to retrace that path, much less start tackling the long-term problem. Families simply do not have adequate resources – from wages, income supports and SNAP – to purchase enough food. The official government “U-6” unemployment rate – reflecting a combination of unemployment and underemployment – was slightly below 15 percent throughout most of 2012, down from the worst of the recession but still far above the 7 to10 percent rate that prevailed throughout most of the decade before the recession. At the same time, while the SNAP program is hugely
FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 2

About This Report
This report is one of a series in which the FRAC has been analyzing survey data that are being collected by Gallup through the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index (“GallupHealthways”) and provided to FRAC. The Gallup Healthways survey has several key, unusual characteristics: 1) annual estimates with quick turnaround for national (by month), state, MSA, and congressional level food hardship 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 Gallup’s partnership with Healthways is interviewing approximately 1,000 households per day almost every day, year-round, that makes possible the depth and breadth of

important to provide nutrition resources to both working and non-working households – supplementing wages or Social Security or other sources of income – the benefits just are not enough for most families to make it through the month. No less an authority than an expert committee of the prestigious Institute of Medicine issued a report in January 2013 explaining that the SNAP allotment is not enough for most families. This will get worse in November 2013: unless the President and Congress act, SNAP participants will see their benefits drop this coming fall – most likely by $20-$25 for a family of three – as cuts made by a 2010 law take effect. A separate FRAC analysis of USDA-generated data from 20002011 (2012 data are not yet available) showed that median food spending for all households has plummeted in the last 10 years, especially in the recession and since. Racial and ethnic disparities exist as well. Median spending on food among all Black households and Hispanic households fell to the point where it was actually below the amount needed to purchase the Thrifty Food Plan, the inadequate government definition of what is needed that is used for determining SNAP benefits. Bringing down 2012’s food hardship rate will require higher employment, better wages, and better nutrition supports.

have enough money to buy food at some point in the past 12 months. Forty-two states overall, including the District of Columbia, had 15 percent or more of respondents affirming food hardship. In only one state did fewer than one in eight respondents answer the question affirmatively. Of the 16 states with the worst rates, seven were in the Southeast, four were in the Southwest, three were in the West, and two in the Mid-Atlantic region. Data for all 50 states and the District of Columbia are in the Appendix.
Top 20 States for Food Hardship, 2012 State Mississippi Louisiana West Virginia Alabama Arkansas Tennessee Georgia Nevada Texas North Carolina South Carolina Florida Delaware Arizona California Oklahoma Ohio Indiana Kentucky Michigan Food Hardship Rate 24.6 24.5 24.2 23.6 22.8 22.2 22.0 22.0 21.8 21.6 21.5 21.3 21.2 20.9 20.6 20.6 20.5 20.4 20.3 20.2 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20

Food Hardship by Region
Looking at the rates of food hardship in the USDA Food and Nutrition Service’s seven geographic regions, the hardest hit regions in 2012, as in previous years, were the Southeast and Southwest (each 21.1 percent), while the regions with lower rates were the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Mountain Plains. This largely tracked the state and local rates, as will be seen in later sections. (To see which states are in each Food and Nutrition Service region, go to http://1.usa.gov/V9PkPd.)
Food Hardship by Region, 2012 Region Food Hardship Rate Mid-Atlantic Midwest Mountain Plains Northeast Southeast Southwest Western 15.9 17.0 15.7 15.9 21.1 21.1 18.7

Food Hardship in Metropolitan Areas
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) are Census Bureaudefined areas that include central cities plus the surrounding counties with strong economic and social ties to the central cities. In looking at MSA food hardship rates, FRAC aggregated 2011 and 2012 data to produce more accurate estimates. Of the 100 MSAs with the largest number of respondents to the Gallup-Healthways survey in 2011-2012, 16 MSAs had at least one in five respondents answering that they did not have enough money to buy needed food at times in the past 12 months, and 74 of the 100 largest MSAs had 15 percent or more of households affirmatively answering this question. Again, while there was variation around the
FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 3

Food Hardship in the States
Rates in the states varied from a low of 10.9 percent in North Dakota to a high of 24.6 percent in Mississippi – nearly two and a half times higher. Still, food hardship is a significant problem in every state – even one in ten is hardly acceptable. And 20 states had at least one in five respondents (20 percent or more) answer that they did not

Top 25 MSAs for Food Hardship, 2011-2012 Food Hardship 2011-2012 Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Bakersfield, CA New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Greensboro-High Point, NC Dayton, OH Fresno, CA Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Asheville, NC Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Birmingham-Hoover, AL Baton Rouge, LA Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN San Antonio, TX Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Oklahoma City, OK Little Rock-N Little Rock-Conway, AR Albuquerque, NM Jacksonville, FL Memphis, TN-MS-AR Tulsa, OK Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Rate 26.7 23.0 23.0 22.5 22.4 22.3 22.2 22.0 21.8 21.5 20.8 20.7 20.7 20.5 20.5 20.0 19.9 19.8 19.7 19.6 19.6 19.1 19.0 19.0 18.8 Rank 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 14 14 16 17 18 19 20 20 22 23 23 25

country, the inability to purchase adequate food was a serious problem in every MSA. In only eight MSAs was it below 12.5 percent (one in eight respondents). Despite the common impression that urban poverty and economic hardship are clustered in the Northeast and Midwest, most of the MSAs with the highest rates of food hardship were in the Southeast and Southwest, plus California. Of the 25 MSAs with the worst rates, six were in Florida, four were in California, and two each were in Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Texas.

percent rate, and 269 had rates of 15 percent or higher. Only 28 districts in the country reported a rate lower than 10 percent. In other words, the vast majority of congressional districts in the country had more than one in ten respondents reporting food hardship. The median congressional district had a rate of 16.5 percent. Of the 30 districts with the worst rates, six were in California, six were in Texas, four were in Florida, and two were in Illlinois.2 The appendix includes two separate lists with the food hardship rate for every congressional district in 2011-2012. The first is designed to make it easy for readers to find rates in specific districts of interest to them: it is organized alphabetically by state and, within the state, by the congressional district number. That list gives the rate for each
2

Food Hardship in Congressional Districts
The Gallup-Healthways survey also provides an adequate sample to measure food hardship in every one of America’s 436 congressional districts (including one in the District of Columbia). FRAC aggregated 2011-2012 data to produce more accurate estimates at the congressional district level. The results show widespread food hardship. Twenty-six congressional districts had a rate of 25 percent or more – at least one in four respondents answered the Gallup-Healthways question “yes.” One-hundred and seven congressional districts had a rate of at least 20

Important note on interpreting Congressional District food hardship rates: except in a relatively small number of Congressional districts, the redistricting that occurred for the 2012 election, based on the 2010 census, means that the districts represented by members of the 113th Congress in 2013-2014 are physically different from the districts in 2011-2012 when Gallup polled respondents. Eighteen states lost or gained one or more House seats. And the remaining states (except, obviously, for those with just one House member) also redistricted to varying degrees. In other words, it would be inaccurate to say that the current representative of a particular Congressional District represents exactly the district of the same number in which a certain percent of households reported food hardship in 2011-2012; the geographic make-up of the district has changed. Therefore, unlike prior years, FRAC has not put the names of members of Congress next to the district numbers. FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 4

district and also shows where each district ranks nationally, with 1 being the highest (worst) food hardship rate and 436 being the lowest. The second list is organized by rank among the 436 districts, with 1 being the highest rate and 436 being the lowest. Ranking 300th or even 400th on this list, however, should not be a point of pride. After all, the “best” district in the country has one in 16 households suffering food hardship. What this list shows is that food hardship is a problem in every corner of America, and should be a concern for every member of Congress. In the end, the nation’s food hardship problem does not boil down to the more than two dozen districts with rates over 25 percent or even to the half of all districts above the median of 16.5 percent. It boils down to the fact that in 436 congressional districts in this extraordinarily wealthy nation, 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 the past twelve months when [they] did not have enough money

to buy food that [they or their family] needed.” That is a national problem demanding aggressive steps toward a solution.

Recommendations
Food 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 will dramatically decrease these food hardship numbers and do so quickly. For FRAC’s seven-point strategy specifically aimed at reaching the President’s goal of ending childhood hunger by 2015, see http://bit.ly/YXVDSo. As a nation, even in difficult times, we have the resources to eliminate hunger for everyone, regardless of age or family configuration. The cost of not doing so – in terms of damage to health, education, early childhood development and productivity – is just too high. The moral cost of not doing so is even higher

Top 30 Congressional Districts for Food Hardship, 2011-2012 Food Hardship 2011-2012 State New York California California Florida California Arizona Texas Florida Texas Michigan California Texas Texas Illinois Alabama Texas Florida Mississippi Nevada Pennsylvania California North Carolina Kentucky Illinois California Georgia West Virginia South Carolina Louisiana Texas Florida District Rate 16th 34th 20th 3rd 47th 4th 30th 17th 29th 13th 35th 28th 9th 4th 7th 20th 23rd 2nd 1st 1st 43rd 1st 5th 2nd 37th 2nd 3rd 6th 2nd 15th 25th 36.3 32.8 31.9 30.9 30.2 30.1 29.8 28.5 28.5 27.9 27.6 27.2 27.2 27.1 27.1 26.8 26.7 26.7 26.6 26.3 26.1 25.9 25.6 25.2 25.1 25.0 24.9 24.8 24.8 24.7 24.7 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 12 14 14 16 17 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 30 30

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 5

The policy path for the nation to reduce the suffering and unnecessary costs caused by hunger, poverty and reduced opportunity is clear: higher employment rates, more full-time jobs, and better wages and benefits; stronger income supports through unemployment insurance, TANF, refundable tax credits, and other means; and stronger nutrition programs. That last point means broadened eligibility; improved access among those who are eligible (fewer than three in four who are eligible for SNAP receive benefits; barely half of eligible children 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 found SNAP benefits to be too low for most families. The report’s detailing of the shortcomings underscores why recent proposals in Congress to cut SNAP benefits by billions of dollars would worsen health and hunger for struggling children, seniors and working families. Some of the flaws the IOM committee point to (e.g., the lag in SNAP benefits keeping up with inflation; and the failure in computing families’ ability to purchase food to fully account for shelter costs) are due to previous cuts made by Congress. Congress needs to fix the problems rather than doubling down on harming the most vulnerable Americans. Protecting and strengthening SNAP must be a top priority as Congress starts fresh on a Farm Bill this year. And Congress must restore the cut that will reduce monthly benefits beginning in November 2013.

2011-2012 rate for a particular MSA or congressional district to 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 the regional level for 2012 (n=352,817; range: 34,521-71,754), the margin of error was less than or equal to ± 1 percentage point. At the state level for 2012 (n=352,817; range: 82432,131), the margin of error was less than or equal to ± 2.2 percentage points. At the MSA level for 2011-2012 (n=415,474; range: 90730,151), the margin of error was less than or equal to ± 2.1 percentage points. At the congressional district level for 20112012 (n=689,763; range: 619-4,633), the margin of error was 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 or equal to ± 1 percentage point. At the national level for 20082012 by quarter (n=1,593,548; range: 43,794-91,634), the margin of error was less than or equal to ± 1 percentage point.

Acknowledgments
This report was prepared by Michael Burke, Heather HartlineGrafton and Jim Weill.

Methodology
Results are based on telephone (landline or cellular) interviews in 2012 for national and state estimates, and in 2011 through 2012 for MSA and congressional district estimates, with randomly sampled adults, age 18 or older in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Total sample sizes for 2011 and 2012 were 352,789 and 352,817 respectively. Margins of error were calculated using 90 percent confidence intervals. Data are weighted to be representative at the national, state, MSA, and congressional district levels based on known census figures for age, race, sex, education, population density (for national estimates), number of adults in the household and phone status (i.e., landline vs. cellular). In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. Because differences within MSAs and congressional districts from year to year are often small and sample sizes for each year can be limiting, there is potential for overlap across the years. Therefore, readers are cautioned against comparing a
FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 6

National Food Hardship Rate, by Month 2008-2012 Month 2008 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 2009 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 2010 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 18.1 17.9 18.0 17.1 17.9 17.5 17.6 18.2 18.0 19.3 18.2 18.6 18.8 19.0 18.6 18.2 18.4 17.3 17.7 17.9 18.1 18.9 18.3 18.2 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 16.5 16.2 16.1 16.7 17.4 17.4 17.0 19.1 18.5 18.8 20.3 19.4 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 2012 18.3 18.1 18.6 17.5 18.3 18.7 18.8 18.4 17.9 18.1 17.9 17.8 Food Hardship Rate Month 2011 18.4 17.6 17.6 17.4 18.4 18.3 19.1 18.8 19.8 20.1 19.0 19.0 Food Hardship Rate

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 7

National Food Hardship Rate by Quarter, 20082012 Quarter 1st 2008 2nd 2008 3rd 2008 4th 2008 1st 2009 2nd 2009 3rd 2009 4th 2009 1st 2010 2nd 2010 3rd 2010 4th 2010 1st 2011 2nd 2011 3rd 2011 4th 2011 1st 2012 2nd 2012 3rd 2012 4th 2012 Food Hardship Rate 16.3 17.1 18.2 19.5 18.8 18.0 17.9 18.5 18.0 17.5 17.9 18.7 17.9 18.0 19.2 19.4 18.4 18.2 18.4 17.9

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 8

Food Hardship in 2012 by State, by Rank State Mississippi Louisiana West Virginia Alabama Arkansas Tennessee Georgia Nevada Texas North Carolina South Carolina Florida Delaware Arizona California Oklahoma Ohio Indiana Kentucky Michigan New Mexico Rhode Island Alaska Oregon Missouri New York Illinois Utah New Jersey Wyoming Maine Hawaii Pennsylvania Colorado Maryland Kansas Virginia Washington Idaho Montana District of Columbia Massachusetts Iowa South Dakota Connecticut New Hampshire Wisconsin Nebraska Minnesota Vermont North Dakota Food Hardship Rate 24.6 24.5 24.2 23.6 22.8 22.2 22.0 22.0 21.8 21.6 21.5 21.3 21.2 20.9 20.6 20.6 20.5 20.4 20.3 20.2 19.3 19.3 19.2 18.5 18.2 17.7 17.6 17.3 17.1 16.8 16.6 16.5 16.5 16.2 16.2 16.1 16.1 16.0 15.4 15.1 15.0 15.0 14.9 14.9 14.6 14.4 14.0 13.8 13.7 12.8 10.9 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 34 34 36 36 38 39 40 41 41 43 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 9

Food Hardship in 2012 by State, Alphabetically State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Food Hardship Rate 23.6 19.2 20.9 22.8 20.6 16.2 14.6 21.2 15.0 21.3 22.0 16.5 15.4 17.6 20.4 14.9 16.1 20.3 24.5 16.6 16.2 15.0 20.2 13.7 24.6 18.2 15.1 13.8 22.0 14.4 17.1 19.3 17.7 21.6 10.9 20.5 20.6 18.5 16.5 19.3 21.5 14.9 22.2 21.8 17.3 12.8 16.1 16.0 24.2 14.0 16.8 Rank 4 23 14 5 15 34 45 13 41 12 7 32 39 27 18 43 36 19 2 31 34 41 20 49 1 25 40 48 7 46 29 21 26 10 51 17 15 24 32 21 11 43 6 9 28 50 36 38 3 47 30

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 10

Food Hardship Rate in 2011-2012 for 100 Large Metropolitan Statistical Areas, by Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Bakersfield, CA New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Greensboro-High Point, NC Dayton, OH Fresno, CA Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Asheville, NC Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Birmingham-Hoover, AL Baton Rouge, LA Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN San Antonio, TX Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Oklahoma City, OK Little Rock-N Little Rock-Conway, AR Albuquerque, NM Jacksonville, FL Memphis, TN-MS-AR Tulsa, OK Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Knoxville, TN Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Toledo, OH Columbia, SC Tucson, AZ Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Springfield, MA Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN Charleston-N Charleston-Summerville, SC Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Akron, OH Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Anchorage, AK Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Indianapolis-Carmel, IN Spokane, WA Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Richmond, VA Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC Ogden-Clearfield, UT Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Food Hardship Rate 26.7 23.0 23.0 22.5 22.4 22.3 22.2 22.0 21.8 21.5 20.8 20.7 20.7 20.5 20.5 20.0 19.9 19.8 19.7 19.6 19.6 19.1 19.0 19.0 18.8 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.4 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.2 18.2 18.0 18.0 18.0 17.9 17.9 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.7 17.5 17.3 17.2 17.2 17.1 17.1 17.0 17.0 Rank 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 14 14 16 17 18 19 20 20 22 23 23 25 26 26 26 29 30 30 30 33 33 35 35 35 38 38 40 40 40 43 44 45 46 46 48 48 50 50

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 11

Food Hardship Rate in 2011-2012 for 100 Large Metropolitan Statistical Areas, by Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Boise City-Nampa, ID Austin-Round Rock, TX Columbus, OH Wichita, KS Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Worcester, MA Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Salt Lake City, UT New York-North New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Winston-Salem, NC Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL Baltimore-Towson, MD Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD New Haven-Milford, CT Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Denver-Aurora, CO St. Louis, MO-IL Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Kansas City, MO-KS Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Raleigh-Cary, NC Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Durham, NC Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Colorado Springs, CO Rochester, NY Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Syracuse, NY Pittsburgh, PA San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA York-Hanover, PA Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Honolulu, HI San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Lancaster, PA Madison, WI Food Hardship Rate 17.0 16.9 16.9 16.8 16.8 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.5 16.3 16.2 16.0 16.0 16.0 15.9 15.9 15.7 15.7 15.4 15.4 15.3 15.2 15.0 14.8 14.8 14.1 14.1 14.0 14.0 13.8 13.7 13.5 13.5 13.3 13.2 13.1 13.0 12.9 12.8 12.7 12.6 12.3 12.2 12.2 12.1 11.7 11.5 9.8 8.7 Rank 50 53 53 55 55 57 57 57 60 61 62 63 63 63 66 66 68 68 70 70 72 73 74 75 75 77 77 79 79 81 82 83 83 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 94 96 97 98 99 100

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 12

Food Hardship Rate in 2011-2012 for 100 Large Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Alphabetically Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Akron, OH Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Albuquerque, NM Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Anchorage, AK Asheville, NC Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Austin-Round Rock, TX Bakersfield, CA Baltimore-Towson, MD Baton Rouge, LA Birmingham-Hoover, AL Boise City-Nampa, ID Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Charleston-N Charleston-Summerville, SC Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Colorado Springs, CO Columbia, SC Columbus, OH Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Dayton, OH Denver-Aurora, CO Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Durham, NC Fresno, CA Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Greensboro-High Point, NC Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Honolulu, HI Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Indianapolis-Carmel, IN Jacksonville, FL Kansas City, MO-KS Knoxville, TN Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Lancaster, PA Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Little Rock-N Little Rock-Conway, AR Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Madison, WI Food Hardship Rate 17.9 14.8 19.7 16.0 17.8 21.8 18.0 16.9 26.7 15.9 20.7 20.8 16.9 12.7 16.0 12.3 13.5 19.0 18.0 16.6 16.6 17.3 17.2 14.0 18.4 16.8 18.3 22.5 15.4 12.9 18.0 14.1 22.4 17.0 23.0 17.1 11.7 13.7 12.2 18.8 17.7 19.6 15.0 18.7 22.0 9.8 22.2 19.8 19.0 20.5 8.7 Rank 38 75 19 64 40 9 37 54 1 66 12 11 53 91 65 93 83 23 35 59 57 45 46 80 29 55 31 4 71 89 36 78 5 51 3 49 97 82 95 25 43 20 74 26 8 99 7 18 24 14 100

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 13

Food Hardship Rate in 2011-2012 for 100 Large Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Alphabetically Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Memphis, TN-MS-AR Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN New Haven-Milford, CT New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA New York-North New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Ogden-Clearfield, UT Oklahoma City, OK Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Pittsburgh, PA Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Raleigh-Cary, NC Richmond, VA Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Rochester, NY Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Salt Lake City, UT San Antonio, TX San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Spokane, WA Springfield, MA St. Louis, MO-IL Syracuse, NY Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Toledo, OH Tucson, AZ Tulsa, OK Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Wichita, KS Winston-Salem, NC Worcester, MA York-Hanover, PA Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Food Hardship Rate 19.6 20.7 13.5 12.2 18.2 15.7 23.0 16.3 17.0 19.9 14.1 21.5 16.2 18.7 15.9 17.8 13.1 12.6 15.2 13.3 17.8 14.8 17.2 22.3 13.8 17.9 16.5 20.5 15.4 13.0 12.1 17.0 18.2 14.0 17.5 18.3 15.3 13.2 20.0 18.7 18.3 19.1 15.7 11.5 16.8 16.0 16.6 12.8 17.1 Rank 21 13 84 94 34 68 2 61 50 17 77 10 62 27 67 41 87 92 73 85 42 76 47 6 81 39 60 15 70 88 96 52 33 79 44 32 72 86 16 28 30 22 69 98 56 63 58 90 48

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 14

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, by National Rank State New York California California Florida California Arizona Texas Florida Texas Michigan California Texas Texas Illinois Alabama Texas Florida Mississippi Nevada Pennsylvania California North Carolina Kentucky Illinois California Georgia West Virginia South Carolina Louisiana Texas Florida Florida Texas Alabama Indiana California California Michigan California North Carolina New Jersey California Illinois New York New Jersey Louisiana New York Texas Texas Tennessee Arkansas District 16th 34th 20th 3rd 47th 4th 30th 17th 29th 13th 35th 28th 9th 4th 7th 20th 23rd 2nd 1st 1st 43rd 1st 5th 2nd 37th 2nd 3rd 6th 2nd 15th 25th 11th 18th 1st 7th 18th 31st 14th 38th 12th 13th 33rd 1st 10th 10th 5th 11th 27th 16th 3rd 1st Food Hardship Rate 36.3 32.8 31.9 30.9 30.2 30.1 29.8 28.5 28.5 27.9 27.6 27.2 27.2 27.1 27.1 26.8 26.7 26.7 26.6 26.3 26.1 25.9 25.6 25.2 25.1 25.0 24.9 24.8 24.8 24.7 24.7 24.6 24.5 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.1 24.0 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.7 23.6 23.4 23.3 23.1 23.0 22.9 22.8 22.8 22.7 National Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 12 14 14 16 17 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 30 30 32 33 34 34 34 37 38 39 39 39 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 49 51

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 15

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, by National Rank State Mississippi New York Arkansas Texas California Texas Illinois Oklahoma Louisiana Georgia Alabama Alabama New Jersey California Wisconsin Virginia West Virginia Florida Georgia California New York Tennessee Oklahoma California Arizona Indiana Florida Mississippi Georgia Ohio California New York Alabama California Missouri Tennessee Florida New York Ohio North Carolina North Carolina California Ohio Georgia North Carolina Mississippi Virginia Tennessee Michigan New Jersey Arizona District 4th 15th 4th 1st 21st 5th 3rd 5th 7th 1st 4th 3rd 1st 25th 4th 3rd 2nd 8th 13th 5th 7th 9th 2nd 41st 7th 2nd 12th 1st 12th 1st 19th 12th 2nd 32nd 8th 8th 18th 6th 8th 10th 11th 51st 3rd 9th 8th 3rd 9th 4th 12th 2nd 1st Food Hardship Rate 22.7 22.6 22.5 22.5 22.4 22.3 22.3 22.3 22.1 22.1 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.8 21.8 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.6 21.5 21.3 21.2 21.2 21.1 21.1 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.7 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.5 20.5 20.4 20.4 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.2 20.2 20.2 20.1 20.1 National Rank 51 53 54 54 56 57 57 57 60 60 62 62 62 62 66 66 68 68 68 68 68 73 74 75 76 76 78 78 80 80 80 80 84 84 84 87 88 88 88 91 91 93 93 95 95 95 98 98 98 101 101

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 16

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, by National Rank State Ohio Ohio Texas Louisiana Tennessee Georgia Texas Texas South Carolina Tennessee Indiana Louisiana Maryland Texas North Carolina Louisiana Georgia North Carolina California Oklahoma Michigan New York California Georgia Missouri Florida Georgia California South Carolina Texas Oregon Tennessee California South Carolina North Carolina Florida California California California Michigan Nevada Texas Ohio Kentucky Pennsylvania Missouri Florida Florida California Ohio Florida District 11th 7th 25th 4th 1st 8th 4th 19th 5th 6th 6th 1st 7th 23rd 7th 3rd 3rd 13th 28th 3rd 5th 17th 44th 5th 7th 2nd 4th 45th 4th 17th 2nd 2nd 22nd 3rd 2nd 21st 49th 7th 39th 7th 2nd 2nd 17th 6th 2nd 1st 1st 4th 2nd 15th 6th Food Hardship Rate 20.1 20.1 20.0 20.0 20.0 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.7 19.7 19.6 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.4 19.4 19.3 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.1 19.1 19.0 19.0 19.0 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.8 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.5 18.5 18.5 National Rank 101 101 105 105 105 108 108 108 108 108 108 114 114 116 117 117 117 117 121 121 123 124 124 124 124 128 128 130 130 130 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 142 143 143 143 143 143 148 148 148 151 151 151

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 17

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, by National Rank State Louisiana California Georgia Florida Ohio Kentucky California Arkansas New Mexico Kentucky Texas Florida Missouri Texas North Carolina Alaska Indiana North Carolina Maine Arizona Kentucky Massachusetts Texas Florida Michigan Florida Michigan Texas West Virginia California Arkansas Oregon Florida Maryland Washington Alabama Washington Missouri New Mexico Pennsylvania Oklahoma Illinois Florida Oklahoma Ohio Tennessee Utah California New Mexico South Carolina Delaware District 6th 1st 10th 24th 6th 2nd 17th 3rd 2nd 3rd 32nd 7th 4th 12th 6th At-Large 8th 5th 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 8th 15th 6th 9th 4th 13th 1st 27th 2nd 4th 10th 2nd 5th 5th 6th 6th 3rd 11th 4th 15th 20th 1st 18th 5th 3rd 23rd 1st 1st At-Large Food Hardship Rate 18.5 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.0 18.0 17.9 17.8 17.8 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.1 17.0 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.8 National Rank 151 155 155 155 155 159 159 159 159 163 163 163 163 167 167 169 170 170 172 172 172 172 172 177 177 177 177 177 182 182 182 182 182 187 187 187 187 191 191 191 191 195 195 195 195 199 200 201 201 201 204

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 18

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, by National Rank State Illinois California Ohio Ohio Georgia Kansas Indiana Colorado Pennsylvania Washington Washington Kentucky Texas New Jersey New York Michigan Georgia Nevada Rhode Island Colorado Indiana Indiana Oregon Indiana Texas Ohio Alabama North Carolina Florida Virginia Florida Missouri Texas Ohio New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Michigan Ohio New York Colorado Washington Texas New Jersey Florida Pennsylvania New York California Illinois Illinois New York District 5th 3rd 4th 10th 7th 4th 9th 1st 3rd 2nd 9th 4th 6th 8th 2nd 1st 11th 3rd 2nd 3rd 1st 3rd 3rd 4th 24th 9th 6th 3rd 22nd 5th 16th 3rd 14th 5th 28th 12th 1st 15th 13th 13th 7th 4th 11th 4th 5th 14th 24th 9th 7th 18th 22nd Food Hardship Rate 16.8 16.8 16.7 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.1 16.0 16.0 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.8 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.4 15.4 National Rank 204 204 207 208 208 208 208 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 226 226 226 226 230 230 230 230 234 235 235 237 237 237 240 241 241 241 241 241 241 247 247 247 250 250 250 250 254 254

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 19

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, by National Rank State New York Illinois Virginia Pennsylvania New York Virginia Illinois California Minnesota California Florida Idaho Utah Pennsylvania Florida Michigan Missouri Michigan New York Maryland New Jersey Florida Virginia Colorado Arizona Massachusetts Idaho Iowa Illinois Illinois California Oregon Ohio Nebraska Missouri Texas Texas Montana Ohio Minnesota Hawaii Utah Texas Pennsylvania Illinois Illinois New Hampshire Virginia California Oregon California District 9th 12th 6th 10th 21st 4th 11th 53rd 5th 52nd 13th 2nd 1st 15th 19th 3rd 5th 2nd 23rd 1st 6th 14th 2nd 5th 2nd 1st 1st 5th 16th 17th 6th 5th 14th 2nd 9th 31st 3rd At-Large 2nd 8th 2nd 2nd 26th 9th 8th 14th 1st 1st 40th 1st 10th Food Hardship Rate 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.3 15.3 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.0 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.3 14.3 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.0 14.0 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.8 National Rank 254 254 254 259 259 261 261 261 261 261 266 266 266 269 270 270 270 270 270 270 276 276 276 279 279 279 279 283 283 283 286 286 286 286 286 291 291 293 293 293 293 297 297 297 300 300 302 302 302 302 306

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 20

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, by National Rank State Maryland Massachusetts Pennsylvania Wisconsin Tennessee Arizona Wyoming Connecticut North Carolina Kansas Colorado South Carolina Washington South Dakota Wisconsin New York California California Maryland Pennsylvania Connecticut New York California Pennsylvania Massachusetts Michigan Illinois New York Wisconsin Kansas Texas Ohio Kansas Arizona New York Nebraska Massachusetts California Vermont New York Pennsylvania Iowa Colorado California Michigan Iowa California Ohio Iowa California Connecticut District 4th 8th 17th 1st 7th 8th At-Large 3rd 9th 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd At-Large 7th 4th 26th 8th 5th 7th 1st 27th 11th 5th 3rd 10th 19th 29th 6th 1st 7th 12th 3rd 6th 20th 3rd 5th 29th At-Large 5th 13th 1st 4th 46th 11th 2nd 4th 16th 3rd 13th 2nd Food Hardship Rate 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.4 13.4 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.2 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 12.9 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.5 12.5 12.4 12.4 12.4 National Rank 306 306 306 310 310 310 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 320 320 320 320 324 324 326 326 326 326 326 326 326 326 334 335 335 335 335 335 340 340 340 340 344 345 345 345 345 345 350 350 350 353 353 355 355 355

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 21

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, by National Rank State Minnesota California New Hampshire Texas Maryland Pennsylvania Maine Texas Maryland Indiana Virginia New Jersey California Michigan New York Massachusetts Texas Wisconsin District of Columbia Connecticut California California New York Massachusetts New Jersey Iowa Pennsylvania Massachusetts California Arizona New York New York Massachusetts New York California Connecticut Illinois Pennsylvania Nebraska Illinois Minnesota North Carolina Washington Wisconsin Michigan Wisconsin Minnesota Minnesota New York Washington Illinois District 4th 24th 2nd 21st 3rd 19th 1st 10th 6th 5th 7th 9th 16th 8th 3rd 4th 22nd 8th At-Large 5th 15th 36th 1st 9th 3rd 4th 6th 6th 50th 5th 26th 25th 10th 19th 42nd 4th 6th 8th 1st 9th 6th 4th 8th 3rd 9th 2nd 7th 3rd 18th 1st 13th Food Hardship Rate 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.5 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.2 11.1 11.1 10.8 10.8 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.3 10.3 10.2 10.2 10.1 10.0 10.0 National Rank 355 355 355 361 361 361 361 361 361 367 367 367 370 370 370 373 373 373 373 373 378 378 378 378 382 383 384 385 385 387 388 388 388 391 392 392 394 394 396 396 396 399 399 399 402 402 404 404 406 407 407

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 22

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, by National Rank State New Jersey Minnesota Illinois Pennsylvania North Dakota Missouri Pennsylvania Virginia Georgia New Jersey Minnesota Colorado Hawaii Virginia Washington California Massachusetts Pennsylvania New Jersey California Maryland California New York Wisconsin New York New Jersey California Virginia District 12th 1st 10th 4th At-Large 2nd 18th 10th 6th 5th 2nd 6th 1st 11th 7th 12th 7th 16th 11th 30th 8th 48th 14th 5th 8th 7th 14th 8th Food Hardship Rate 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.2 9.1 9.1 8.9 8.7 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.3 8.1 8.0 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.5 7.1 6.2 National Rank 409 409 411 412 412 414 414 416 416 416 419 419 421 421 423 424 424 426 427 428 429 430 431 431 431 434 435 436

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 23

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, Organized by State and District District 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th At-Large 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th 25th 26th 27th 28th 29th 30th Food Hardship Rate 2011-2012 Alabama 24.2 20.8 21.9 21.9 17.4 16.2 27.1 Alaska 17.9 Arizona 20.1 14.6 17.7 30.1 11.4 13.0 21.2 13.7 Arkansas 22.7 17.5 18.3 22.5 California 18.4 18.5 16.8 12.5 21.7 14.4 18.9 13.4 15.5 13.8 13.3 8.7 12.4 7.1 11.9 12.1 18.3 24.2 21.0 31.9 22.4 18.9 16.9 12.4 21.9 13.5 17.5 19.4 12.9 8.3 National Rank 34 84 63 62 189 231 15 169 102 280 173 6 387 340 76 312 51 184 161 54 155 151 206 353 71 286 140 324 252 306 329 424 356 435 378 370 160 36 82 3 56 135 201 359 65 323 183 121 344 428 FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 24

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, Organized by State and District District 31st 32nd 33rd 34th 35th 36th 37th 38th 39th 40th 41st 42nd 43rd 44th 45th 46th 47th 48th 49th 50th 51st 52nd 53rd 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th At-Large At-Large 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th Food Hardship Rate 2011-2012 24.1 20.8 23.7 32.8 27.6 11.9 25.1 23.8 18.9 13.9 21.3 11.1 26.1 19.2 19.0 12.6 30.2 8.0 18.9 11.5 20.4 15.2 15.2 Colorado 16.5 13.6 16.4 12.7 14.6 9.2 15.7 Connecticut 13.3 12.4 13.6 11.1 12.0 Delaware 16.8 District of Columbia 12.0 Florida 18.6 19.1 30.9 18.6 15.6 18.5 18.2 21.7 17.6 17.5 24.6 21.1 15.1 National Rank 37 85 42 2 11 379 25 39 141 304 75 392 21 125 130 350 5 430 139 386 93 265 263 212 317 224 349 279 420 245 327 357 314 393 377 204 376 149 128 4 150 249 153 165 69 179 186 32 78 266 FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 25

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, Organized by State and District District 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th 25th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 1st 2nd Food Hardship Rate 2011-2012 14.8 17.6 16.0 28.5 20.6 14.9 17.2 18.9 16.2 26.7 18.4 24.7 Georgia 22.1 25.0 19.5 19.1 19.2 9.3 16.6 19.8 20.3 18.4 16.4 21.0 21.7 Hawaii 9.1 14.2 Idaho 14.6 15.1 Illinois 23.6 25.2 22.3 27.1 16.8 10.8 15.5 14.0 10.6 9.7 15.2 15.4 10.0 14.0 17.2 14.5 14.5 15.4 13.3 Indiana 16.4 21.2 National Rank 277 177 235 8 88 270 196 138 233 17 157 31 61 26 119 129 126 417 209 108 95 156 221 80 70 421 296 282 267 43 24 58 14 205 394 253 300 397 411 262 257 408 301 195 284 285 254 333 225 77 FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 26

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, Organized by State and District District 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th Food Hardship Rate 2011-2012 16.3 16.3 12.2 19.8 24.2 17.8 16.6 Iowa 12.7 12.6 12.4 11.7 14.5 Kansas 13.1 13.6 13.1 16.6 Kentucky 17.7 18.3 18.2 16.5 25.6 18.7 Louisiana 19.7 24.8 19.5 20.0 23.1 18.5 22.1 Maine 12.3 17.7 Maryland 14.9 17.4 12.3 13.8 13.4 12.3 19.7 8.1 Massachusetts 14.6 17.7 13.3 12.0 13.0 11.5 8.7 13.8 11.9 National Rank 226 228 367 113 35 170 211 348 352 355 383 283 336 316 339 210 174 159 163 216 23 146 114 29 118 106 46 154 60 364 172 275 187 362 307 325 366 115 429 281 175 331 373 343 385 425 308 381 FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 27

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, Organized by State and District District 10th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th At-Large 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd Food Hardship Rate 2011-2012 11.3 Michigan 16.4 14.9 14.9 17.6 19.3 17.6 18.8 12.1 10.3 13.3 12.6 20.2 27.9 24.0 15.7 Minnesota 9.8 9.2 10.2 12.4 15.2 10.6 10.2 14.2 Mississippi 21.1 26.7 20.3 22.7 Missouri 18.6 9.4 16.0 18.2 14.9 17.3 19.2 20.8 14.4 Montana 14.2 Nebraska 10.6 14.4 13.0 Nevada 26.6 18.7 16.4 New Hampshire 13.9 12.4 National Rank 390 220 273 271 180 123 178 142 371 402 332 351 100 10 38 242 410 419 405 358 264 398 404 295 79 18 97 52 148 414 236 166 272 191 127 86 290 293 396 289 342 19 143 222 302 360 FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 28

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, Organized by State and District District 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th 25th 26th 27th 28th 29th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Food Hardship Rate 2011-2012 New Jersey 21.9 20.1 11.8 15.6 9.3 14.8 7.5 16.5 12.2 23.3 8.5 9.8 23.8 New Mexico 16.9 18.3 17.3 New York 11.9 16.4 12.1 13.5 12.7 20.6 21.7 7.7 15.4 23.4 23.0 21.0 15.7 7.7 22.6 36.3 19.2 10.1 11.2 13.0 15.3 15.4 14.9 15.5 11.3 11.3 13.3 15.9 13.2 North Carolina 25.9 18.9 16.2 10.5 17.8 18.0 National Rank 64 101 382 248 418 276 434 218 369 45 427 409 41 202 162 192 380 219 372 322 346 89 72 433 256 44 47 83 244 431 53 1 124 406 391 341 260 255 274 251 389 388 328 239 334 22 137 232 399 171 168 FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 29

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, Organized by State and District District 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th At-Large 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th Food Hardship Rate 2011-2012 19.5 20.3 13.6 20.5 20.5 23.8 19.5 North Dakota 9.5 Ohio 21.0 14.2 20.4 16.7 15.9 18.4 20.1 20.6 16.2 16.6 20.1 13.1 15.7 14.4 18.5 12.5 18.7 17.2 Oklahoma 17.2 21.5 19.4 17.3 22.3 Oregon 13.9 18.9 16.3 17.5 14.4 Pennsylvania 26.3 18.7 16.5 9.5 13.3 11.6 13.3 10.8 14.1 15.3 17.3 15.8 12.7 15.5 National Rank 117 96 315 91 92 40 120 413 81 294 94 207 238 158 104 90 230 208 103 338 243 288 152 354 145 198 197 74 122 194 59 305 133 227 185 287 20 147 213 412 330 384 326 395 299 259 193 240 347 250 FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 30

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, Organized by State and District District 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th At-Large 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th 25th 26th 27th Food Hardship Rate 2011-2012 15.0 8.6 13.8 9.4 12.3 Rhode Island 15.7 16.4 South Carolina 16.9 13.6 18.9 19.0 19.8 24.8 South Dakota 13.5 Tennessee 20.0 18.9 22.8 20.2 17.1 19.8 13.7 20.7 21.6 Texas 22.5 18.7 14.3 19.8 22.3 16.5 13.1 17.7 27.2 12.3 15.6 18.0 17.6 15.9 24.7 22.8 19.0 24.5 19.8 26.8 12.3 12.0 19.6 16.3 20.0 14.1 22.9 National Rank 269 426 309 415 363 241 223 203 318 136 131 111 28 320 107 134 50 99 199 112 311 87 73 55 144 292 109 57 217 337 176 13 365 247 167 181 237 30 49 132 33 110 16 361 374 116 229 105 298 48 FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 31

Food Hardship 2011-2012 by Congressional District, Organized by State and District District 28th 29th 30th 31st 32nd 1st 2nd 3rd At-Large 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th At-Large Food Hardship Rate 2011-2012 27.2 28.5 29.8 14.3 18.2 Utah 15.1 14.1 17.0 Vermont 12.7 Virginia 13.9 14.8 21.8 15.2 16.1 15.4 12.2 6.2 20.2 9.3 9.1 Washington 10.0 16.5 13.6 15.7 17.4 17.4 8.9 10.5 16.5 West Virginia 17.5 21.7 24.9 Wisconsin 13.7 10.3 10.5 21.8 7.7 13.1 13.5 12.0 Wyoming 13.6 National Rank 12 9 7 291 164 268 297 200 345 303 278 67 261 234 258 368 436 98 416 422 407 214 319 246 188 190 423 400 214 182 68 27 310 403 401 66 432 335 321 375 313

FRAC | Food Hardship in America 2012 | Page 32

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful