Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger

Data for the Nation, States, 100 MSAs, and Every Congressional District
Food Research and Action Center | January 2010

Executive Summary
The data in this report show that food hardship – the lack of money to buy food that families need – is truly a national problem. It is a national problem in the sense that the rate for the nation is so high. And it is a national problem in the sense that rates are high in virtually every state, Metropolitan Statistical Area, and congressional district. • National. When asked in the last quarter of 2009 (October through December) “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?” 18.5 percent of households in the U.S. answered “yes.” This percentage had shot up from 16.3 percent in the first quarter of 2008 to 19.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 – a period during which the economic crisis was starting, unemployment was rising, and food prices were rapidly rising. In quarters during 2009, the number hovered between 17.9 and 18.8 percent. The number has moderated somewhat since 2008, in all likelihood because food prices have fallen and national nutrition programs and other supports for struggling families have increased their coverage and benefit amounts. Households with Children. The food hardship rate is even worse for households with children – nearly one in four such households suffered food hardship in 2009. Respondents in such households reported food hardship at a rate 1.62 times that of other households – 24.1 percent for households with children versus 14.9 percent for households without children. States. In 20 states in 2009, more than one in five respondents answered the food hardship question in the affirmative; in 45 states, more than 15 percent answered the question “yes.” For households with children in the states, the situation is even worse. Rates for such households were higher in every state than for households without children; and in 22 states one quarter of respondents in households with children reported food hardship. • Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Of the 100 largest MSAs, 82 saw 15 percent or more of respondents answer the question in the affirmative. For the 50 largest MSAs, 15 had more than one in four households with children reporting food hardship. • Congressional Districts. Of the 436 congressional districts (including the District of Columbia), only 23 had a food hardship rate below ten percent. 311 had a rate 15 percent or higher. In 139 food hardship was reported by one fifth or more of all respondent households.

This report gives more detail on food hardship at the national, state, MSA, and congressional district level and describes the survey that produced these data. The report’s appendix contains charts providing food hardship data: • • • • for the nation, by calendar quarter, throughout 2008 and 2009; for the nation, month by month, throughout 2008 and 2009; for the states in 2009 and in 2008; for the states in 2008-2009 combined, broken out by households with children and those without children; for the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas in 2008-2009 combined; for the 50 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas in 2008-2009 combined, broken out by households with children and households without children; for all Congressional Districts, alphabetically by state, for 2008-2009 combined; and for all Congressional Districts, in rank order by food hardship rate, for 2008-2009 combined.

• •

• •

The full report is available at www.frac.org.

Introduction
This report contains the Food Research and Action Center’s (FRAC) analysis of survey data collected by Gallup as part of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index (GHWBI) and provided to FRAC. The report provides a unique up-to-date and comprehensive examination of the struggle that very large numbers of American households, in every part of the country, are having with affording enough food. It reports on food hardship data and trends through December 2009 for the nation, states, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), and congressional districts. No report before this has ever been based on a sample size adequate to analyze food hardship data at the MSA and congressional district level. No report before this has been able to look at food hardship data in the states on a yearly basis. And no report before this has been able to look at food hardship data for a period so close to publication. The ability to provide such localized data and up-to-date data comes from Gallup’s partnership with Healthways that is interviewing 1,000 households per day almost every day, year-round, and that has done so since January 2, 2008. Through December 2009, more than 650,000 people have been asked a series of questions on a range of topics including emotional health, physical health, healthy behavior, work environment and access to basic services. Specific to this report, over 530,000 people were asked whether there were times over the preceding year that they did not have enough money to buy food they or their family needed. (Further technical notes on the sample size and methodology appear at the end of this report.) The specific food hardship question that Gallup has been posing is very similar to one of the questions asked by the federal government in its annual survey of food security. Gallup has been asking: “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 the annual Census Bureau survey for the federal government (analyzed each year by the U.S. Department of Agriculture), households are asked to say whether “The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more,” and then “Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?”* This is one of a series of food security questions asked of households by the Census Bureau to develop the food insecurity measure. The similarity between the Gallup question and the Census Bureau/USDA question provides a basis for concluding that the two questions are measuring food insecurity in quite similar ways. And while the Census Bureau/USDA series of questions allows for a more nuanced view of the depth of food insecurity and the particularity of families’ struggles, the very large Gallup sample allows a closer, more localized, and more recent look at food hardship. Throughout this report we will refer to FRAC’s results from the GHWBI as “food hardship” to avoid confusion with the Census Bureau/USDA study that produces “food insecurity” numbers, but the concepts are comparable.
*

See Nord, Andrews, and Carlson, Household Food Security in the United States, 2008.

I. Food Hardship in the Nation
FRAC’s analysis of the GHWBI survey results for the nation as a whole shows that food hardship rose dramatically from 16.3 percent of respondents in the first quarter of 2008 to 19.5 percent in the last quarter of 2008 and then, in 2009, dropped somewhat, with the rate in the four quarters of 2009 hovering between 17.9 and 18.8 percent (it was 18.5 percent in the fourth calendar quarter of 2009). In other words, 2009 did not see as dramatic an increase in food hardship as 2008 did. The dramatic rise in food hardship in 2008 tracked key developments in the economy, unemployment and food prices: • • including rising

The national unemployment rate was 5.0 percent in January 2008 and 6.9 percent by November 2008; Food prices (measured by the Consumer Price Index for food at home) rose by a shocking 7.5 percent from October 2007 to October 2008.

After late 2008, the food hardship rate flattened out and declined modestly in 2009. While the nation’s economic crisis continued and in some ways accelerated (e.g.,
FRAC | Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger | Page 2

National Food Hardship Rate by Quarter, 2008-2009
20.0 19.5

19.0

18.8 18.5 18.2 18.0

18.0

17.9

Food Hardship Rate

17.1 17.0

16.3 16.0

15.0

14.0
1st Quarter 2008 2nd Quarter 2008 3rd Quarter 2008 4th Quarter 2008 1st Quarter 2009 2nd Quarter 2009 3rd Quarter 2009 4th Quarter 2009

unemployment rates), several factors likely were responsible for keeping the food hardship rate from continuing to climb: • Food prices stopped skyrocketing and began falling – from November 2008 to November 2009, the Consumer Price Index for food at home fell by 2.9 percent. In October 2008, SNAP/Food Stamp beneficiaries received an 8.5 percent increase in maximum benefits, to reflect the annual food price inflation through June 2008. Other changes in national SNAP/Food Stamp policy – including 2008 Farm Bill changes that took effect in October 2008 and a growing wave of changes in state policy (using options available under federal law) also led to increased benefit amounts and broader eligibility in late 2008 and 2009. Beginning in April 2009, SNAP/Food Stamp beneficiaries received on average an 18-19 percent increase in monthly benefits as part of the economic recovery legislation—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The recovery act also made other SNAP/Food Stamp improvements, as well as improvements in access to and benefit amounts in unemployment insurance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), jobs programs, health insurance and other supports. From the first quarter to

the third quarter in 2009, the food hardship rate dropped nearly a full point. • Beginning in December 2008, the number of people receiving SNAP/Food Stamp assistance to purchase food began growing even more rapidly than earlier in the recession. From January 2008 to November 2008 the number rose by 3.3 million. From November 2008 to October 2009 the number of participants rose by 6.8 million. These increases were driven by the policy changes mentioned above but also by the growing number of families that were eligible. As a countercyclical entitlement program, SNAP/Food Stamps largely did what it should do – grow to meet the need. Participation rose as well in other nutrition programs as well, especially school meals and Women, Infants and Children (WIC).

While it is an encouraging sign that the dramatic growth in the food hardship rate in 2008 was followed by a modest decline in 2009, the bottom line should not be comforting to anyone. The most recent food hardship number, at 18.5 percent for the fourth quarter of 2009, means that nearly one in five U.S. households has been struggling with hunger and inability to purchase needed food sometime over the prior year. This should be of tremendous concern to the nation, and one that demands a robust policy response.
FRAC | Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger | Page 3

II. Food Hardship in the Nation: Households with Children Under Age 18
Food hardship rates were even worse for households with children, as is also true in the Census Bureau/USDA food insecurity study. Households with children were 1.62 times more likely to experience food hardship in 2009 than households with no children: 24.1 percent vs. 14.9 percent. (These data are for the year as a whole, not quarterly.) In other words, one in four respondents in households with children reported that there had been times in the past 12 months they didn’t have enough money to buy food that he/she or the family needed. The ratio between households with children and households without children changed somewhat over the course of the two years of the survey. In early 2008 the ratio (with children to without children) was 1.59:1, but by the fourth quarter 2008 it was 1.68:1. In other words, as the dramatic overall food hardship increase occurred in 2008, the greatest increase was among families with children. In 2009 the ratio fell somewhat; by the fourth quarter it was 1.62:1. There has been much research on the negative impact of food insecurity on both adults and children: the most prolific and compelling research shows that the effects on children—on their health, development, learning and mental health—are particularly harsh, even at modest levels of food insecurity. ** That one in four households with children told Gallup they had suffered food hardship is a source of deep concern about the future of the nation’s children.
**

See, e.g., “Reading, Writing and Hungry” from the Partnership for

America’s Economic Success, the Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (now renamed Children’s HealthWatch), and the Food Research and Action Center, www.frac.org/pdf/reading_writing_hungry_report.pdf

III. Food Hardship in the States
The large Gallup-Healthways sample size allows a look at state data on an annual basis. (The Census Bureau/USDA data yield only three year food insecurity averages, most recently for 2006-2008, for states.) In the Gallup data, there was considerable variation from state to state around the country, but the problem of not having money to purchase needed food was a problem of significant dimension in every state. In 2009, 20 states (including the District of Columbia) had more than one in five respondents (20 percent or more) answer that they did not have enough money to buy food at some point in the last 12 months. Forty-five states overall had more than 15 percent of respondents affirmatively answering this question. In no state did fewer than one in ten respondents answer the question affirmatively.
Food Hardship Rate 20% or higher 15-19.9% 10-14.9% Number of States (2009) 20 25 6

States With the Highest Rates of Food Hardship in 2009 State Mississippi Arkansas Alabama Tennessee Kentucky Louisiana South Carolina Oklahoma North Carolina Nevada Georgia Florida Texas West Virginia District of Columbia Rate 2009 26.2 24.0 23.9 23.1 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.2 22.1 21.6 21.4 21.0 20.9 20.9 20.8 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 15

Both in 2008 and 2009, Mississippi was the state where people were most likely to say that there were times when they did not have enough money to buy food. In 2009 the other states with the highest rates were

Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and South Carolina. Of the top 15 states, the large majority were in the South.

FRAC | Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger | Page 4

As to households with children, in 22 states, including such very populous states as California, Florida, Ohio, and Texas, at least one in four such households reported food hardship over the 2008-2009 period. In no state was the rate for households with children below 15.8 percent. In every state the rate of food hardship for households with children was considerably higher than for other households – in the District of Columbia three times as high, in Delaware twice as high, and in Arizona, Hawaii,

Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming almost twice as high (1.8 or more times the rate for households without children). Data for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, separately for 2008 and for 2009, are in the Appendix. Because differences within states across years are often small, and sample sizes in each state for each year can be limiting, readers are cautioned against comparing single state rates between 2008 and 2009.

IV. Food Hardship in Metropolitan Areas
The Gallup-Healthways Index surveys also give an in-depth look at food hardship in the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). MSAs are Census Bureau-defined areas that include central cities plus the surrounding counties with strong economic and social ties to the central cities. FRAC looked at food hardship in 2008 and 2009 data together for the 100 largest MSAs in order to have a large enough sample size for each. In 2008-2009, of the 100 largest MSAs, 23 had at least one in five respondents answering that they did not have enough money to buy needed food at times in the last 12 months, and 82 MSAs had 15 percent or more of households affirmatively answering this question. Again, while there was variation around the country, the inability to purchase adequate food was a serious problem in virtually every MSA. In only one MSA was it below 12.1 percent.

Metropolitan Statistical Areas With the Highest Rates of Food Hardship in 2008-2009 Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Memphis, TN-MS-AR Bakersfield, CA* Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Fresno, CA Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Birmingham-Hoover, AL New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Greensboro-High Point, NC Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Oklahoma City, OK Toledo, OH Winston-Salem, NC* Charleston-N Charleston-Summerville, SC* Columbia, SC Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Little Rock-N Little Rock-Conway, AR Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Jacksonville, FL Baton Rouge, LA Knoxville, TN Tulsa, OK Columbus, OH Indianapolis-Carmel, IN Rate 2008-2009 26.0 25.2 24.2 24.1 22.9 22.8 22.1 22.0 21.9 21.4 21.2 21.1 20.8 20.8 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.5 20.4 20.4 20.1 20.1 20.1 19.9 19.9 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 15 15 15 18 19 19 21 21 21 24 24

FRAC | Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger | Page 5

Food Hardship Rate 20% or higher 15-19.9% 10-14.9% Lower than 10%

Number of MSAs 23 59 18 0

each in Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee, and one each in four other states. Sample sizes for households with children and without children were adequate to look at the 50 largest MSAs. Again, the rate for households with children was higher than for households without children everywhere, and in six MSAs was double (Las Vegas-Paradise, NV; and Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV) or nearly double (Austin-Round-Rock, TX; OrlandoKissimmee, FL; Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ; and Salt Lake City, UT) the rate for households without children.

Despite the impression that urban poverty and economic hardship are clustered in the Northeast and Midwest, most of the MSAs with the highest rates of food insecurity were in the South and Southwest, plus California. Of the 25 MSAs with the worst rates, four were in California, three were in Florida, three in Ohio, three in North Carolina, two

V. Food Hardship in Congressional Districts
The GHWBI also provides, for the first time, a look at food hardship in every one of America’s 436 congressional districts (including the District of Columbia). FRAC aggregated 2008-2009 data to yield adequate sample sizes at the congressional district level. 139 districts had at least one in five households that were food insecure, and 311 had rates of 15 percent or higher. Only 23 districts in the country reported a rate lower than 10 percent. In other words, remarkably, virtually every congressional district in the country had more than a tenth of respondents reporting food hardship. The median congressional district had a rate of 18 percent. Of the 30 districts with the worst rates, three were in California, three were in Florida, two were in Georgia, two were in Illinois, two were in Michigan, two were in Mississippi, two were in New York, two were in Tennessee, and two were in Texas. No other state had more than one in the worst 30. The appendix includes two separate lists with the food hardship rate for every congressional district in the nation. The first is designed to make it easy for readers to find rates in districts of interest to them. It is organized alphabetically by state and, within the state, by the district number. That list gives the rate for each district and also shows where each district ranks nationally, with 1 being the highest food hardship rate and 436 being the lowest. The second list is organized by rank among the 436 districts, highest to lowest. Number of Congressional Districts 37
102 172 102 23

Food Hardship Rate

25% or higher 20-24.9% 15-19.9% 10-14.9% Lower than 10%

Ranking 300th or even 400th on this list, however, should not be a point of pride. 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 insecurity problem doesn’t boil down to the 37 districts with rates over 25 percent or even to the half of all districts above the median of 18 percent. It boils down to the fact that in 436 congressional districts in this extraordinarily wealthy nation, somewhere between 6.6 percent and 36.9 percent of respondents – and in 413 districts, 10 percent or more of respondents – told 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 a solution.

FRAC | Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger | Page 6

Conclusion
Food hardship is far too common in every corner of the nation. It is crucial that the nation build an economy and develop public supports that will dramatically decrease these food hardship numbers and do so quickly. Essential steps include: a growing economy that provides jobs at decent wages, shares prosperity and pulls households out of hunger and poverty; improved income supports (e.g., unemployment insurance, refundable tax credits) that help struggling workers and families; and strengthened federal nutrition programs (SNAP/food stamps; school meals; WIC; summer, afterschool and child care food) that reach more people in need and do so with more robust benefits. For FRAC’s seven-point strategy specifically aimed at reaching the President’s goal of ending childhood hunger by 2015, see www.frac.org/pdf/endingchildhunger _2015paper.pdf.

Notes and Methodology
Results are based on telephone interviews with approximately 535,715 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted January 2, 2008 to December 30, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 90% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is less than ±1 percentage point. Sample sizes for many specific subgroups are lower than for the total sample size, and margins of error thus increase accordingly. At the state level for the two year time period, margins of error are within ±2 percentage points, and for each year and for breakouts by households with and without children are within ±3 percentage points. At the MSA level, margins of error are generally within ±2.5 percentage points and are within ±3 percentage points when broken out by households with and without children. At the congressional district level, margins of error are generally within ±3.5 percentage points. Sample sizes for states for the combined 2008-2009 period range from a low of 983 respondents in the District of Columbia to a high of 56,035 respondents in California. Sample sizes for the 100 large MSAs for the combined 2008-2009 period range from a low of 972 respondents in Ogden-Clearfield, UT to a high of 25,496 respondents in New York-North New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA. Sample sizes for congressional districts for the combined 2008-2009 period range from a low of 461 respondents in New York’s 12th district to a high of 2,778 respondents in Montana (which has only one congressional district). Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only). Data are weighted to minimize nonresponse bias, based on known census figures for age, race, sex, and education. The average design effect is 1.6. 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.

Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by FRAC policy analysts Rachel Cooper and Katie Vinopal, with assistance from Jennifer Adach. FRAC appreciates grants to support this project from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and anonymous donors.

FRAC | Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger | Page 7

National Food Hardship by Month
Month January 2008 Feburary 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 Food Hardship Rate 16.5 16.2 16.1 16.7 17.4 17.4 17.0 19.1 18.5 18.8 20.3 19.4 18.8 19.0 18.6 18.2 18.4 17.3 17.7 17.9 18.1 18.9 18.3 18.2

National Food Hardship by Quarter
Quarter 1st Quarter 2008 2nd Quarter 2008 3rd Quarter 2008 4th Quarter 2008 1st Quarter 2009 2nd Quarter 2009 3rd Quarter 2009 4th Quarter 2009 Food Hardship Rate 16.3 17.1 18.2 19.5 18.8 18.0 17.9 18.5

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 8

Food Hardship in 2009 by State
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 Rate 2009 23.9 15.4 20.5 24.0 19.9 17.1 14.6 17.3 20.8 21.0 21.4 15.8 16.6 17.2 20.7 12.8 17.1 22.4 22.4 17.1 15.3 16.3 19.3 13.8 26.2 20.0 14.8 15.9 21.6 15.7 15.5 20.3 17.4 22.1 10.6 20.0 22.2 19.3 15.9 18.7 22.4 12.4 23.1 20.9 19.9 15.5 16.0 17.9 20.9 15.0 15.9 Rank 3 43 17 2 21 30 47 28 15 12 11 39 33 29 16 49 30 5 5 30 44 34 23 48 1 19 46 36 10 40 41 18 27 9 51 19 8 23 36 25 5 50 4 13 21 41 35 26 13 45 36

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 9

Food Hardship in 2008 by State
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 Rate 2008 23.0 15.7 18.8 21.6 19.0 18.1 16.0 18.2 17.6 18.3 22.1 13.7 16.3 16.3 21.1 14.3 16.3 19.4 21.5 19.7 14.5 15.1 18.7 15.1 28.4 20.9 17.1 15.9 20.2 15.7 14.1 19.2 18.1 20.5 10.0 22.0 21.4 18.9 17.9 18.3 20.6 13.7 21.3 20.3 15.0 19.0 15.8 15.8 22.3 16.0 13.1 Rank 2 40 22 6 19 27 35 26 30 24 4 48 32 32 10 46 32 17 7 16 45 42 23 42 1 11 31 37 15 40 47 18 27 13 51 5 8 21 29 24 12 48 9 14 44 19 38 38 3 35 50

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 10

Food Hardship in 2008-2009 by State, by Presence or Absence of Children Under 18 Years of Age Rate 2008-2009 State Households Households With Total Without Children Children Alabama 23.6 19.2 31.4 Alaska 15.5 12.7 19.3 Arizona 19.9 14.9 28.1 Arkansas 23.2 19.7 29.7 California 19.6 15.3 25.9 Colorado 17.4 14.5 22.1 Connecticut 15.1 13.3 18.7 Delaware 17.6 12.8 26.1 District of Columbia 19.6 12.5 40.6 Florida 20.0 16.1 28.3 Georgia 21.6 17.9 26.9 Hawaii 15.1 11.7 21.1 Idaho 16.5 13.2 21.3 Illinois 16.9 13.2 23.2 Indiana 20.9 17.1 27.1 Iowa 13.3 11.3 17.5 Kansas 16.8 13.9 21.9 Kentucky 21.4 18.6 26.3 Louisiana 22.1 16.9 30.1 Maine 18.0 15.6 22.9 Maryland 15.0 12.2 19.7 Massachusetts 15.9 14.3 18.9 Michigan 19.1 16.1 24.7 Minnesota 14.2 11.5 19.3 Mississippi 27.0 22.5 33.8 Missouri 20.3 17.6 25.1 Montana 15.6 13.2 20.9 Nebraska 15.9 12.5 21.7 Nevada 21.1 15.5 30.7 New Hampshire 15.7 13.0 20.6 New Jersey 15.0 12.7 19.1 New Mexico 19.9 18.1 22.9 New York 17.7 14.6 23.3 North Carolina 21.6 17.8 27.8 North Dakota 10.4 8.0 15.8 Ohio 20.7 17.2 27.2 Oklahoma 21.9 18.0 28.6 Oregon 19.1 15.0 26.7 Pennsylvania 16.6 13.6 22.4 Rhode Island 18.5 16.0 23.2 South Carolina 21.8 19.4 25.8 South Dakota 12.9 9.7 18.9 Tennessee 22.5 19.5 28.2 Texas 20.7 16.2 27.2 Utah 18.2 13.6 23.1 Vermont 16.7 15.0 20.2 Virginia 15.9 12.8 21.4 Washington 17.1 13.6 23.1 West Virginia 21.4 19.0 26.0 Wisconsin 15.3 12.3 20.9 Wyoming 14.9 11.1 21.9
The difference in food hardship rates between households with children and households without children is statistically significantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level for all states.

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 11

Food Hardship in 2008-2009 for 100 Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas
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-Joilet, 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 Eugene-Springfield, OR 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 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 Memphis, TN-MS-AR Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Rate 2008-2009 17.9 16.5 17.9 16.7 15.0 17.3 19.8 16.3 25.2 15.3 20.1 22.1 15.3 14.4 14.5 14.1 14.6 18.3 20.7 20.4 17.4 19.1 19.8 15.1 20.7 19.9 18.6 18.8 17.1 13.2 18.8 16.5 24.1 19.4 21.4 17.4 14.8 14.5 10.2 19.8 19.9 20.4 19.8 20.1 12.1 21.9 20.5 20.7 18.6 13.8 26.0 21.2 16.1 13.9 Rank 50 67 50 64 82 58 27 70 2 79 21 7 79 88 86 90 85 47 15 19 56 35 27 81 15 24 43 37 61 96 37 67 4 34 10 56 83 86 100 27 24 19 27 21 99 9 18 15 43 93 1 11 75 91

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 12

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 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 Reading, PA 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

Rate 2008-2009 17.8 16.1 22.0 16.5 18.8 21.1 17.2 22.9 16.2 19.1 16.7 19.8 15.6 13.9 17.8 17.0 18.7 16.7 15.4 18.4 22.8 16.3 17.7 18.2 19.9 17.6 13.4 12.5 14.7 18.6 14.4 19.7 19.6 16.3 18.7 18.3 20.8 18.8 20.1 16.2 12.2 17.3 20.8 16.9 13.3 24.2

Rank 52 75 8 67 37 12 60 5 73 35 64 27 77 91 52 62 41 64 78 46 6 70 54 49 24 55 94 97 84 43 88 32 33 70 41 47 13 37 21 73 98 58 13 63 95 3

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 13

Food Hardship in 2008-2009 by Presence or Absence of Children Under 18 Years of Age in the 50 Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Albany-Schenectady-Troy,NY Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Austin-Round Rock, TX Baltimore-Towson, MD Birmingham-Hoover, AL Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Chicago-Naperville-Joilet, IL-IN-WI Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Columbus, OH Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Denver-Aurora, CO Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Indianapolis-Carmel, IN Jacksonville, FL Kansas City, MO-KS Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN New York-North New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Oklahoma City, OK Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Pittsburgh, PA Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 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 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA St. Louis, MO-IL Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Rate 2008-2009 Households Households With Without Children Children 13.9 21.6 15.4 25.8 11.8 22.9 13.1 19.0 17.4 30.9 12.8 17.4 12.1 20.2 16.1 26.4 13.5 23.5 16.0 24.5 16.8 25.6 16.3 25.5 14.7 24.1 14.4 21.3 16.2 23.8 12.7 18.1 14.9 26.1 16.6 25.1 18.0 24.5 17.7 23.1 15.6 32.2 16.1 27.3 15.1 24.8 17.0 29.3 12.5 22.1 11.0 18.6 15.4 22.2 13.6 21.6 18.5 25.2 17.4 31.8 13.9 21.3 14.8 27.4 13.1 21.3 13.7 24.5 17.1 21.6 15.6 18.1 15.1 23.8 16.7 29.5 13.8 20.8 14.2 23.3 13.0 23.7 17.6 23.3 13.6 23.7 12.1 16.0 9.9 16.3 12.0 18.4 13.1 22.2 15.0 25.4 13.1 20.9 8.7 17.7

The difference in food hardship rates between households with children and households without children is statistically significantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level for all MSAs except Raleigh-Cary,NC.
FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 14

Food Hardship in 2008-2009 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 Representative Alabama Jo Bonner Bobby Bright Mike Rogers Robert Aderholt Parker Griffith Spencer Bachus Artur Davis Alaska Don Young Arizona Ann Kirkpatrick Trent Franks John Shadegg Ed Pastor Harry E. Mitchell Jeff Flake Raul Grijalva Gabrielle Giffords Arkansas Marion Berry Vic Snyder John Boozman Mike Ross California Mike Thompson Wally Herger Daniel E. Lungren Tom McClintock Doris O. Matsui Lynn Woolsey George Miller Nancy Pelosi Barbara Lee John Garamendi Jerry McNerney Jackie Speier Fortney Pete Stark Anna G. Eshoo Mike Honda Zoe Lofgren Sam Farr Dennis Cardoza George P. Radanovich Jim Costa Devin Nunes Kevin McCarthy Lois Capps Elton Gallegly Buck McKeon David Dreier Brad Sherman 22.5 20.5 21.3 27.9 19.7 20.6 17.3 13.9 23.7 11.9 17.6 12.6 16.4 13.1 12.5 8.7 16.4 6.6 11.5 12.2 15.3 22.1 19.7 22.8 21.0 18.9 16.3 11.4 23.2 11.5 15.2 75 125 104 19 142 121 243 331 58 386 231 364 268 350 367 424 268 436 393 379 298 88 142 72 114 184 275 397 65 393 304 22.4 18.3 17.1 25.5 11.4 15.5 21.9 14.0 80 206 248 31 397 293 93 328 15.5 293 23.8 25.4 23.9 23.2 19.4 18.0 30.6 54 32 52 65 162 215 9 Rate 2008-2009 National Rank

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 15

District 28th 29th 30th 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

Representative Howard Berman Adam Schiff Henry Waxman Xavier Becerra Judy Chu Diane E. Watson Lucille Roybal-Allard Maxine Waters Jane Harman Laura Richardson Grace Napolitano Linda Sanchez Ed Royce Jerry Lewis Gary Miller Joe Baca Ken Calvert Mary Bono Dana Rohrabacher Loretta Sanchez John Campbell Darrell Issa Brian P. Bilbray Bob Filner Duncan D. Hunter Susan Davis Colorado Diana DeGette Jared Polis John T. Salazar Betsy Markey Doug Lamborn Mike Coffman Ed Perlmutter

Rate 2008-2009 21.3 10.9 8.3 28.3 17.8 22.2 19.4 22.9 9.8 31.6 19.7 22.1 12.7 19.0 10.3 30.8 17.6 20.0 11.7 14.3 10.1 19.4 10.4 21.6 16.6 16.2 22.5 12.7 15.7 15.5 15.0 10.9 18.6 15.2 12.8 15.1 12.1 16.0 17.6 19.6 22.2 20.2 26.0 19.6 17.0 20.7 19.5 22.0 17.8 15.6

National Rank 104 399 427 16 223 85 162 70 414 5 142 88 361 178 404 6 231 136 391 320 410 162 402 97 264 277 75 361 286 293 310 399 194 304 358 309 380 280 231 150 85 133 24 150 252 119 157 92 223 287

Connecticut John B. Larson Joe Courtney Rosa L. DeLauro Jim Himes Christopher S. Murphy Delaware Michael N. Castle District of Columbia Eleanor Holmes Norton Florida Jeff Miller Allen Boyd Corrine Brown Ander Crenshaw Virginia Brown-Waite Cliff Stearns John Mica Alan Grayson Gus M. Bilirakis C.W. Bill Young

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 16

District 11th 12th 13th 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

Representative Kathy Castor Adam Putnam Vern Buchanan Connie Mack Bill Posey Tom Rooney Kendrick Meek Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Vacant Debbie Wasserman Schultz Lincoln Diaz-Balart Ron Klein Alcee L. Hastings Suzanne M. Kosmas Mario Diaz-Balart Georgia Jack Kingston Sanford D. Bishop Jr. Lynn A. Westmoreland Henry C. "Hank" Johnson Jr. John Lewis Tom Price John Linder Jim Marshall Nathan Deal Paul C. Broun Phil Gingrey John Barrow David Scott Hawaii Neil Abercrombie Mazie K. Hirono Idaho Walt Minnick Mike Simpson Illinois Bobby L. Rush Jesse L. Jackson Jr. Daniel Lipinski Luis V. Gutierrez Mike Quigley Peter J. Roskam Danny K. Davis Melissa L. Bean Jan Schakowsky Mark Kirk Deborah "Debbie" Halvorson Jerry F. Costello Judy Biggert Bill Foster Timothy V. Johnson Donald Manzullo Phil Hare Aaron Schock John Shimkus

Rate 2008-2009 25.1 17.3 14.7 16.9 18.5 16.9 29.6 11.9 12.0 14.0 18.7 14.4 27.1 19.3 23.8 24.4 22.2 16.9 28.2 24.0 8.4 18.1 26.0 19.7 18.2 19.2 24.8 24.9 9.5 18.6 15.3 18.0 23.1 26.5 18.8 28.0 11.8 12.1 20.1 12.6 12.4 7.0 16.4 20.5 10.3 12.3 13.3 14.1 15.6 15.0 16.4

National Rank 36 243 315 255 198 255 13 386 384 328 191 318 20 165 54 45 85 255 17 50 426 213 24 142 210 172 40 38 417 194 298 215 67 21 186 18 388 380 134 364 373 434 268 125 404 376 345 327 287 310 268

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 17

District

Representative Indiana

Rate 2008-2009

National Rank 62 109 125 198 343 82 15 130 215 304 361 352 406 349 358 220 287 210 45 106 150 136 29 248 96 35 24 119 38 184 157 320 121 331 268 406 178 367 392 58 433 278 157 315 284 351

1st 2nd 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

Peter Visclosky Joe Donnelly Mark E. Souder Steve Buyer Dan Burton Mike Pence André Carson Brad Ellsworth Baron Hill Iowa Bruce L. Braley David Loebsack Leonard Boswell Tom Latham Steve King Kansas Jerry Moran Lynn Jenkins Dennis Moore Todd Tiahrt Kentucky Ed Whitfield S. Brett Guthrie John A. Yarmuth Geoff Davis Harold "Hal" Rogers Ben Chandler Louisiana Steve Scalise Anh "Joseph" Cao Charlie Melancon John Fleming Rodney Alexander William "Bill" Cassidy Charles W. Boustany Jr. Maine Chellie Pingree Michael Michaud Maryland Frank M. Kratovil Jr. Dutch Ruppersberger John P. Sarbanes Donna F. Edwards Steny H. Hoyer Roscoe Bartlett Elijah E. Cummings Chris Van Hollen Massachusetts John Olver Richard E. Neal James McGovern Barney Frank Niki Tsongas

23.5 21.1 20.5 18.5 13.5 22.3 28.7 20.3 18.0 15.2 12.7 12.9 10.2 13.2 12.8 17.9 15.6 18.2 24.4 21.2 19.6 20.0 25.6 17.1 21.7 25.2 26.0 20.7 24.9 18.9 19.5 14.3 20.6 13.9 16.4 10.2 19.0 12.5 11.6 23.7 7.2 16.1 19.5 14.7 15.8 13.0

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 18

District 6th 7th 8th 9th 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

Representative John Tierney Ed Markey Michael E. Capuano Stephen F. Lynch William Delahunt Michigan Bart Stupak Pete Hoekstra Vernon J. Ehlers Dave Camp Dale E. Kildee Fred Upton Mark Schauer Mike Rogers Gary Peters Candice Miller Thaddeus McCotter Sander Levin Carolyn Kilpatrick John Conyers Jr. John D. Dingell Minnesota Timothy J. Walz John Kline Erik Paulsen Betty McCollum Keith Ellison Michele Bachmann Collin C. Peterson James L. Oberstar Mississippi Travis Childers Bennie G. Thompson Gregg Harper Gene Taylor Missouri William "Lacy" Clay Jr. Todd Akin Russ Carnahan Ike Skelton Emanuel Cleaver, II Sam Graves Roy Blunt Jo Ann Emerson Blaine Luetkemeyer Montana Dennis Rehberg Nebraska Jeff Fortenberry Lee Terry Adrian Smith Nevada Shelley Berkley Dean Heller Dina Titus

Rate 2008-2009 11.5 12.4 20.3 13.9 13.3 16.1 16.8 18.7 19.6 21.2 21.1 20.6 15.3 10.1 20.3 15.3 19.2 25.9 30.2 18.5 11.8 11.5 9.3 15.3 17.7 12.9 13.5 17.4 22.9 33.6 24.3 26.1 23.6 10.2 16.6 20.1 25.4 17.9 21.5 22.4 19.3 15.6 13.9 17.8 13.3 21.5 17.8 19.3

National Rank 393 373 130 331 345 278 259 191 150 106 109 121 298 410 130 298 172 27 11 198 388 393 420 298 229 352 343 237 70 3 47 22 61 406 264 134 32 220 98 80 165 287 331 223 345 98 223 165

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 19

District

Representative New Hampshire Carol Shea-Porter Paul W. Hodes New Jersey Robert E. Andrews Frank A. LoBiondo John Adler Chris Smith Scott Garrett Frank Pallone Jr. Leonard Lance Bill Pascrell Jr. Steven Rothman Donald M. Payne Rodney Frelinghuysen Rush Holt Albio Sires New Mexico Martin T. Heinrich Harry Teague Ben R. Lujan New York Timothy Bishop Steve Israel Pete King Carolyn McCarthy Gary Ackerman Gregory W. Meeks Joseph Crowley Jerrold Nadler Anthony D. Weiner Edolphus Towns Yvette D. Clarke Nydia M. Velázquez Michael E. McMahon Carolyn Maloney Charles B. Rangel José E. Serrano Eliot Engel Nita Lowey John J. Hall Scott Murphy Paul D. Tonko Maurice Hinchey Bill Owens Michael A. Arcuri Daniel B. Maffei Christopher J. Lee Brian Higgins Louise Slaughter Eric J.J. Massa North Carolina G.K. Butterfield Bob Etheridge

Rate 2008-2009

National Rank 304 284 194 178 342 352 417 165 422 312 380 9 430 420 237 282 205 198 384 339 410 419 324 114 75 406 430 6 157 50 140 428 49 1 114 434 358 260 268 260 237 280 260 337 331 94 231 8 106

1st 2nd 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

15.2 15.8 18.6 19.0 13.6 12.9 9.5 19.3 9.1 14.9 12.1 30.6 7.8 9.3 17.4 15.9 18.4 18.5 12.0 13.7 10.1 9.4 14.2 21.0 22.5 10.2 7.8 30.8 19.5 24.0 19.8 7.9 24.1 36.9 21.0 7.0 12.8 16.7 16.4 16.7 17.4 16.0 16.7 13.8 13.9 21.8 17.6 30.7 21.2

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 20

District 3rd 4th 5th 6th 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

Representative Walter B. Jones David Price Virginia Foxx Howard Coble Mike McIntyre Larry Kissell Sue Myrick Patrick T. McHenry Heath Shuler Mel Watt Brad Miller North Dakota Earl Pomeroy Ohio Steve Driehaus Jean Schmidt Michael Turner Jim Jordan Robert E. Latta Charles A. Wilson Steve Austria John A. Boehner Marcy Kaptur Dennis J. Kucinich Marcia L. Fudge Pat Tiberi Betty Sutton Steven C. LaTourette Mary Jo Kilroy John A. Boccieri Tim Ryan Zachary T. Space Oklahoma John Sullivan Dan Boren Frank Lucas Tom Cole Mary Fallin Oregon David Wu Greg Walden Earl Blumenauer Peter DeFazio Kurt Schrader Pennsylvania Robert Brady Chaka Fattah Kathy Dahlkemper Jason Altmire Glenn W. Thompson Jim Gerlach Joe Sestak Patrick J. Murphy Bill Shuster Christopher P. Carney

Rate 2008-2009 18.5 14.0 22.7 20.6 21.5 23.8 15.6 22.3 19.7 23.8 20.4 10.4 24.2 17.3 21.0 20.0 19.0 22.5 20.9 18.3 22.7 19.6 26.1 18.8 19.1 12.9 19.3 21.1 24.6 21.8 18.3 25.4 22.1 19.5 22.3 17.1 18.8 19.8 19.0 17.0 36.1 22.5 19.2 13.7 17.7 12.6 12.3 10.6 16.9 16.5

National Rank 198 328 73 121 98 54 287 82 142 54 129 402 48 243 114 136 178 75 118 206 73 150 22 186 175 352 165 109 43 94 206 32 88 157 82 248 186 140 178 252 2 75 172 339 229 364 376 401 255 266

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 21

District 11th 12th 13th 14th 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

Representative Paul E. Kanjorski John Murtha Allyson Y. Schwartz Mike Doyle Charles W. Dent Joseph R. Pitts Tim Holden Tim Murphy Todd Platts Rhode Island Patrick Kennedy Jim Langevin South Carolina Henry Brown Joe Wilson J.Gresham Barrett Bob Inglis John Spratt James E. Clyburn South Dakota Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Tennessee Phil Roe John J. Duncan Jr. Zach Wamp Lincoln Davis Jim Cooper Bart Gordon Marsha Blackburn John Tanner Steve Cohen Texas Louie Gohmert Ted Poe Sam Johnson Ralph M. Hall Jeb Hensarling Joe Barton John Culberson Kevin Brady Al Green Michael T. McCaul K. Michael Conaway Kay Granger Mac Thornberry Ron Paul Rubén Hinojosa Silvestre Reyes Chet Edwards Sheila Jackson Lee Randy Neugebauer Charlie A. Gonzalez Lamar Smith Pete Olson Ciro Rodriguez

Rate 2008-2009 19.7 17.8 11.8 17.8 15.4 12.3 15.2 14.5 12.5 16.3 18.5 18.0 17.5 21.4 19.6 23.7 30.0 12.9 23.1 21.1 24.8 23.9 15.9 21.1 12.9 29.2 31.8 19.7 17.4 10.1 18.2 25.8 17.4 9.7 18.7 22.1 13.8 17.9 19.1 18.6 18.8 23.0 18.0 21.5 24.8 20.5 14.8 18.3 12.5 17.0

National Rank 142 223 388 223 297 376 304 317 367 275 198 215 235 103 150 58 12 352 67 109 40 52 282 109 352 14 4 142 237 410 210 28 237 416 191 88 337 220 175 194 186 69 215 98 40 125 314 206 367 252

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 22

District 24th 25th 26th 27th 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

Representative Kenny Marchant Lloyd Doggett Michael Burgess Solomon P. Ortiz Henry Cuellar Gene Green Eddie Bernice Johnson John Carter Pete Sessions Utah Rob Bishop Jim Matheson Jason Chaffetz Vermont Peter Welch Virginia Robert J. Wittman Glenn C. Nye III Robert C. "Bobby" Scott J. Randy Forbes Tom Perriello Bob Goodlatte Eric Cantor Jim Moran Rick Boucher Frank Wolf Gerald E. "Gerry" Connolly Washington Jay Inslee Rick Larsen Brian Baird Doc Hastings Cathy McMorris Rodgers Norman D. Dicks Jim McDermott David G. Reichert Adam Smith West Virginia Alan B. Mollohan Shelley Moore Capito Nick Rahall Wisconsin Paul Ryan Tammy Baldwin Ron Kind Gwen Moore F. James Sensenbrenner Thomas Petri David R. Obey Steve Kagen Wyoming Cynthia M. Lummis

Rate 2008-2009 12.4 16.5 13.9 19.7 19.3 21.5 25.6 17.5 18.5 17.3 15.6 16.4 16.7 13.3 14.2 23.4 17.3 19.0 17.4 12.5 7.9 23.4 8.9 7.4 12.5 15.5 19.1 17.1 19.6 18.8 12.1 9.8 18.1 19.3 20.0 24.5 14.2 14.3 13.7 25.1 8.5 14.4 14.3 15.3 14.9

National Rank 373 266 331 142 165 98 29 235 198 243 287 268 260 345 324 63 243 178 237 367 428 63 423 432 367 293 175 248 150 186 380 414 213 165 136 44 324 320 339 36 425 318 320 298 312

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 23

Food Hardship in 2008-2009 by Congressional District
State New York Pennsylvania Mississippi Tennessee California California New York North Carolina Alabama New Jersey Michigan South Carolina Florida Tennessee Indiana California Georgia Illinois Arkansas Florida Illinois Mississippi Ohio Florida Georgia Louisiana Michigan Texas Kentucky Texas Arizona Alabama Missouri Oklahoma Louisiana Florida Wisconsin Georgia Louisiana Georgia Tennessee Texas Ohio West Virginia Georgia Kentucky Mississippi Ohio New York Georgia New York Alabama Tennessee Alabama Florida District 16th 1st 2nd 9th 37th 43rd 10th 1st 7th 10th 14th 6th 17th 8th 7th 31st 4th 4th 4th 23rd 2nd 4th 11th 3rd 8th 3rd 13th 5th 5th 30th 4th 2nd 5th 2nd 2nd 11th 4th 13th 5th 12th 3rd 18th 17th 3rd 1st 1st 3rd 1st 15th 5th 12th 3rd 4th 1st 25th Rate 2008-2009 National Rank 36.9 36.1 33.6 31.8 31.6 30.8 30.8 30.7 30.6 30.6 30.2 30.0 29.6 29.2 28.7 28.3 28.2 28.0 27.9 27.1 26.5 26.1 26.1 26.0 26.0 26.0 25.9 25.8 25.6 25.6 25.5 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.2 25.1 25.1 24.9 24.9 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.6 24.5 24.4 24.4 24.3 24.2 24.1 24.0 24.0 23.9 23.9 23.8 23.8 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 8 9 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 24 24 24 27 28 29 29 31 32 32 32 35 36 36 38 38 40 40 40 43 44 45 45 47 48 49 50 50 52 52 54 54

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 24

State North Carolina North Carolina California Maryland South Carolina Missouri Indiana Virginia Virginia Alabama California Illinois Tennessee Texas California Mississippi California North Carolina Ohio Arkansas Colorado New York Ohio Pennsylvania Arizona Missouri Indiana North Carolina Oklahoma California Florida Georgia California California Oklahoma Texas Florida Arizona New York Ohio Louisiana California Missouri Nevada North Carolina Texas Texas South Carolina Arkansas California Kentucky Michigan North Carolina Indiana Michigan Ohio

District 12th 8th 5th 7th 5th 1st 1st 3rd 9th 4th 25th 1st 1st 15th 35th 1st 20th 5th 9th 1st 1st 7th 6th 2nd 1st 8th 6th 10th 5th 33rd 1st 2nd 18th 39th 3rd 9th 8th 7th 28th 18th 1st 51st 7th 1st 7th 17th 29th 3rd 3rd 28th 2nd 5th 2nd 2nd 6th 16th

Rate 2008-2009 National Rank 23.8 23.8 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.6 23.5 23.4 23.4 23.2 23.2 23.1 23.1 23.0 22.9 22.9 22.8 22.7 22.7 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.4 22.4 22.3 22.3 22.3 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.1 22.1 22.1 22.1 22.0 21.9 21.8 21.8 21.7 21.6 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.4 21.3 21.3 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.1 21.1 21.1 54 54 58 58 58 61 62 63 63 65 65 67 67 69 70 70 72 73 73 75 75 75 75 75 80 80 82 82 82 85 85 85 88 88 88 88 92 93 94 94 96 97 98 98 98 98 98 103 104 104 106 106 106 109 109 109

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 25

State Tennessee Tennessee California New York New York Ohio Ohio Florida Louisiana California Maine Michigan North Carolina Arkansas Illinois Indiana Texas North Carolina Indiana Massachusetts Michigan Florida Illinois Missouri California Kentucky Ohio West Virginia New York Oregon California California California Georgia North Carolina Pennsylvania Texas Texas District of Columbia Florida Kentucky Michigan Ohio South Carolina Washington Florida Louisiana Massachusetts New York Oklahoma Alabama California California Florida Missouri Nevada

District 2nd 6th 21st 17th 6th 3rd 7th 6th 4th 2nd 2nd 7th 6th 2nd 12th 3rd 19th 13th 8th 8th 10th 2nd 7th 4th 45th 4th 4th 2nd 13th 3rd 1st 19th 38th 9th 11th 11th 1st 27th At-Large 4th 3rd 4th 10th 4th 5th 7th 7th 2nd 11th 4th 5th 34th 49th 24th 9th 3rd

Rate 2008-2009 National Rank 21.1 21.1 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 20.9 20.7 20.7 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.4 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.2 20.1 20.1 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 19.8 19.8 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.3 19.3 19.3 109 109 114 114 114 114 118 119 119 121 121 121 121 125 125 125 125 129 130 130 130 133 134 134 136 136 136 136 140 140 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 157 157 157 157 157 162 162 162 165 165 165

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 26

State New Jersey Ohio Texas West Virginia Georgia Michigan Pennsylvania Ohio Texas Washington California Maryland New Jersey Ohio Oregon Virginia California Louisiana Illinois Ohio Oregon Texas Washington Florida Michigan Texas Colorado Hawaii New Jersey Texas Florida Indiana Michigan New Mexico North Carolina Rhode Island Texas New Mexico Arizona Ohio Oklahoma Texas Georgia Kansas Texas Georgia Washington Alabama Idaho Indiana South Carolina Texas Kansas Missouri Texas California

District 6th 15th 28th 1st 11th 12th 3rd 13th 12th 3rd 41st 4th 2nd 5th 4th 5th 22nd 6th 3rd 12th 2nd 14th 6th 21st 3rd 8th 7th 2nd 1st 13th 15th 4th 15th 3rd 3rd 2nd 32nd 2nd 2nd 8th 1st 21st 10th 4th 4th 7th 9th 6th 2nd 9th 1st 16th 2nd 6th 11th 32nd

Rate 2008-2009 National Rank 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 18.9 18.9 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.4 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.1 18.1 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.8 165 165 165 165 172 172 172 175 175 175 178 178 178 178 178 178 184 184 186 186 186 186 186 191 191 191 194 194 194 194 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 205 206 206 206 206 210 210 210 213 213 215 215 215 215 215 220 220 220 223

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 27

State Florida Nebraska Nevada Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Minnesota Pennsylvania California California Delaware New York South Carolina Texas Minnesota New Jersey New York Texas Texas Virginia California Florida Ohio Utah Virginia Arizona Kentucky Oregon Washington Florida Oregon Texas Florida Florida Georgia Pennsylvania Michigan New York New York New York Vermont California Missouri Pennsylvania Texas California California Illinois Illinois Maryland New York Utah California Rhode Island California Massachusetts Michigan

District 9th 2nd 2nd 12th 14th 5th 5th 44th 7th At-Large 29th 2nd 31st 8th 13th 23rd 2nd 6th 6th 3rd 12th 2nd 1st 4th 3rd 6th 1st 4th 5th 5th 23rd 14th 16th 3rd 9th 2nd 20th 22nd 25th At-Large 52nd 3rd 10th 25th 13th 9th 11th 19th 2nd 21st 3rd 23rd 1st 53rd 1st 1st

Rate 2008-2009 National Rank 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.7 17.7 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.5 17.5 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.0 17.0 17.0 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.8 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.6 16.6 16.5 16.5 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.3 16.3 16.2 16.1 16.1 223 223 223 223 223 229 229 231 231 231 231 235 235 237 237 237 237 237 237 243 243 243 243 243 248 248 248 248 252 252 252 255 255 255 255 259 260 260 260 260 264 264 266 266 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 275 275 277 278 278

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 28

State Connecticut New York New Mexico Tennessee Massachusetts New Hampshire Colorado Florida Illinois Kansas Montana North Carolina Utah Alaska Arizona Colorado Washington Pennsylvania California Idaho Michigan Michigan Minnesota Wisconsin California Connecticut Iowa New Hampshire Pennsylvania Connecticut Colorado Illinois New Jersey Wyoming Texas Florida Massachusetts Pennsylvania Florida Wisconsin California Maine Wisconsin Wisconsin New York Virginia Wisconsin Illinois Arizona Florida North Carolina California Maryland Massachusetts Nebraska New York

District 5th 24th 1st 5th 4th 2nd 3rd 10th 17th 3rd At-Large 9th 2nd At-Large 6th 4th 2nd 15th 17th 1st 11th 8th 4th 8th 27th 1st 1st 1st 17th 3rd 5th 18th 8th At-Large 20th 13th 3rd 18th 22nd 6th 47th 1st 2nd 7th 5th 2nd 1st 16th 8th 20th 4th 4th 1st 9th 1st 27th

Rate 2008-2009 National Rank 16.0 16.0 15.9 15.9 15.8 15.8 15.7 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.4 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.1 15.0 15.0 14.9 14.9 14.8 14.7 14.7 14.5 14.4 14.4 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.1 14.0 14.0 14.0 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 280 280 282 282 284 284 286 287 287 287 287 287 287 293 293 293 293 297 298 298 298 298 298 298 304 304 304 304 304 309 310 310 312 312 314 315 315 317 318 318 320 320 320 320 324 324 324 327 328 328 328 331 331 331 331 331

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 29

State Texas New York Texas New York Pennsylvania Wisconsin New Jersey Indiana Minnesota Illinois Massachusetts Nebraska Virginia Iowa California Massachusetts Iowa Minnesota New Jersey Ohio South Dakota Tennessee Connecticut Kansas New York California Colorado Iowa California Illinois Pennsylvania California Maryland Pennsylvania Texas Virginia Washington Illinois Massachusetts Texas Illinois Pennsylvania Pennsylvania California Connecticut Illinois New Jersey Washington Florida New York California Florida Illinois Minnesota Pennsylvania California

District 26th 26th 10th 2nd 4th 3rd 3rd 5th 7th 15th 10th 3rd 1st 5th 10th 5th 3rd 6th 4th 14th At-Large 7th 2nd 1st 19th 40th 2nd 2nd 8th 8th 6th 11th 5th 19th 22nd 7th 1st 9th 7th 24th 14th 16th 7th 16th 4th 6th 9th 7th 19th 1st 6th 18th 5th 1st 13th 46th

Rate 2008-2009 National Rank 13.9 13.8 13.8 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.6 13.5 13.5 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.2 13.1 13.0 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.2 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.9 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.7 331 337 337 339 339 339 342 343 343 345 345 345 345 349 350 351 352 352 352 352 352 352 358 358 358 361 361 361 364 364 364 367 367 367 367 367 367 373 373 373 376 376 376 379 380 380 380 380 384 384 386 386 388 388 388 391

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 30

State Maryland California California Massachusetts Minnesota Arizona California California Colorado Pennsylvania California North Dakota California Illinois Iowa Maryland Missouri New York California Michigan New York Texas California Washington Texas Hawaii New Jersey New York Minnesota New Jersey New Jersey Virginia California Wisconsin Georgia California New York Virginia New Jersey New York Virginia Maryland Illinois New York California

District 6th 15th 26th 6th 2nd 5th 24th 29th 6th 8th 50th At-Large 42nd 13th 4th 3rd 2nd 8th 48th 9th 3rd 3rd 36th 8th 7th 1st 5th 4th 3rd 12th 7th 10th 12th 5th 6th 30th 14th 8th 11th 9th 11th 8th 10th 18th 14th

Rate 2008-2009 National Rank 11.6 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.4 11.4 10.9 10.9 10.6 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.3 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.7 8.5 8.4 8.3 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.4 7.2 7.0 7.0 6.6 392 393 393 393 393 397 397 399 399 401 402 402 404 404 406 406 406 406 410 410 410 410 414 414 416 417 417 419 420 420 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 428 430 430 432 433 434 434 436

FRAC| Food Hardship: A Closer Look at Hunger| Page 31

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful