Map the Meal Gap 2018: Overall Food Insecurity in Texas by County in

Transcription

1 Map the Meal Gap 2018: Overall Insecurity in Texas by in and 185% Anderson 57, % 11,160 58% 4% 38% Andrews 17, % 1,470 61% 8% 31% Angelina 87, % 17,480 67% 4% 29% Aransas 24, % 3,860 72% 3% 26% Archer 8, % 1,290 50% 3% 46% Armstrong 1, % % 5% 60% Atascosa 47, % 4,060 85% 6% 10% Austin 29, % 4,610 56% 4% 40% Bailey 7, % % 0% 0% Bandera 21, % 3,180 52% 4% 45% Bastrop 78, % 9,830 70% 5% 25% Baylor 3, % % 1% 36% Bee 32, % 4,620 61% 7% 32% Bell 330, % 63,930 60% 4% 35% Bexar 1,858, % 205,500 82% 3% 16% Blanco 10, % 1,450 59% 5% 36% Borden % % 0% 80% Bosque 17, % 2,840 66% 6% 28% Bowie 93, % 21,460 64% 4% 32% Brazoria 338, % 48,970 47% 5% 48% Brazos 209, % 44,640 70% 0% 30% Brewster 9, % 1,070 90% 9% 1% Briscoe 1, % % 10% 6% Brooks 7, % % 4% 0% Brown 37, % 6,370 66% 5% 29% Burleson 17, % 2,810 55% 7% 39% Burnet 44, % 6,500 61% 7% 33% Caldwell 39, % 5,060 81% 6% 14% Calhoun 21, % 2,770 67% 3% 30% Callahan 13, % 2,420 62% 5% 33% Cameron 418, % 43, % 0% 0% Camp 12, % 2,480 73% 4% 22% Carson 6, % % 5% 52% Cass 30, % 6,890 63% 6% 31% Castro 7, % % 0% 0% Chambers 38, % 5,800 54% 6% 41% Cherokee 51, % 9,850 73% 5% 22% Childress 7, % 1,360 58% 3% 38% Clay 10, % 1,790 55% 5% 40% Cochran 2, % % 1% 3% Coke 3, % % 8% 31% Coleman 8, % 1,530 69% 5% 26% Collin 886, % 132,720 35% 4% 61% Collingsworth 3, % % 9% 3% Colorado 20, % 3,100 65% 5% 30% Comal 124, % 15,050 50% 4% 46% Comanche 13, % 2,120 72% 6% 22% Concho 4, % % 7% 29% Cooke 38, % 6,350 55% 5% 41% Coryell 75, % 14,510 53% 6% 41% Cottle 1, % % 4% 25% Crane 4, % % 14% 28% Crockett 3, % % 3% 39% Crosby 5, % % 4% 8% Culberson 2, % % 0% 0% Dallam 7, % % 7% 10% Dallas 2,513, % 442,920 76% 3% 21%

2 and 185% Dawson 13, % 1,460 76% 6% 18% Deaf Smith 19, % 1, % 0% 0% Delta 5, % 1,070 68% 6% 26% Denton 754, % 113,260 43% 3% 54% DeWitt 20, % 3,070 64% 4% 32% Dickens 2, % % 5% 25% Dimmit 10, % % 0% 0% Donley 3, % % 6% 38% Duval 11, % 1,170 99% 2% 0% Eastland 18, % 3,280 72% 9% 19% Ector 153, % 15,780 70% 6% 25% Edwards 2, % % 1% 0% Ellis 160, % 22,830 55% 6% 40% El Paso 833, % 71, % 0% 0% Erath 40, % 7,770 69% 4% 27% Falls 17, % 3,590 68% 1% 31% Fannin 33, % 6,050 61% 5% 34% Fayette 24, % 3,570 56% 4% 40% Fisher 3, % % 7% 29% Floyd 6, % % 3% 0% Foard 1, % % 13% 24% Fort Bend 683, % 100,920 41% 4% 56% Franklin 10, % 1,900 67% 6% 27% Freestone 19, % 3,890 58% 4% 38% Frio 18, % 1,530 99% 1% 0% Gaines 19, % 2,040 77% 8% 15% Galveston 314, % 53,350 53% 3% 45% Garza 6, % % 6% 35% Gillespie 25, % 3,300 61% 5% 35% Glasscock 1, % % 10% 18% Goliad 7, % 1,030 58% 2% 40% Gonzales 20, % 2,480 78% 2% 20% Gray 23, % 3,780 62% 2% 36% Grayson 124, % 22,220 61% 4% 35% Gregg 123, % 26,270 69% 5% 27% Grimes 27, % 5,210 62% 3% 35% Guadalupe 147, % 16,890 58% 5% 38% Hale 35, % 4,440 81% 2% 17% Hall 3, % % 4% 0% Hamilton 8, % 1,420 60% 6% 34% Hansford 5, % % 5% 11% Hardeman 3, % % 4% 17% Hardin 55, % 10,040 47% 4% 49% Harris 4,434, % 738,140 71% 3% 27% Harrison 66, % 13,980 61% 5% 34% Hartley 5, % % 6% 62% Haskell 5, % % 6% 36% Hays 185, % 24,940 62% 2% 36% Hemphill 4, % % 3% 34% Henderson 79, % 14,880 67% 4% 29% Hidalgo 828, % 83, % 0% 0% Hill 34, % 6,140 67% 4% 29% Hockley 23, % 2,850 74% 7% 20% Hood 54, % 8,620 52% 8% 41% Hopkins 35, % 6,540 69% 4% 28% Houston 22, % 5,310 64% 2% 34% Howard 36, % 5,030 62% 4% 35% Hudspeth 3, % % 3% 19% Hunt 89, % 16,700 66% 4% 31% Hutchinson 21, % 3,500 63% 6% 31% Irion 1, % % 9% 40% Jack 8, % 1,500 56% 3% 42% Jackson 14, % 2,060 61% 6% 33%

3 and 185% Jasper 35, % 7,760 59% 4% 37% Jeff Davis 2, % % 4% 1% Jefferson 252, % 59,370 62% 3% 35% Jim Hogg 5, % % 0% 0% Jim Wells 41, % 4,200 87% 2% 11% Johnson 157, % 23,310 57% 6% 37% Jones 19, % 3,450 41% 3% 57% Karnes 14, % 2,020 61% 0% 39% Kaufman 111, % 17,660 56% 6% 38% Kendall 39, % 4,610 42% 4% 55% Kenedy % % 0% 0% Kent % % 7% 45% Kerr 50, % 7,630 68% 5% 27% Kimble 4, % % 9% 25% King % 40 62% 38% 0% Kinney 3, % % 4% 0% Kleberg 31, % 3,900 83% 1% 16% Knox 3, % % 3% 25% Lamar 49, % 10,730 68% 3% 29% Lamb 13, % 1,790 95% 0% 5% Lampasas 20, % 3,190 58% 3% 39% La Salle 7, % % 0% 0% Lavaca 19, % 2,990 57% 5% 38% Lee 16, % 2,630 58% 7% 35% Leon 16, % 3,080 67% 4% 29% Liberty 78, % 14,670 62% 4% 35% Limestone 23, % 4,740 71% 3% 27% Lipscomb 3, % % 4% 42% Live Oak 11, % 1,580 56% 4% 40% Llano 19, % 3,260 65% 4% 32% Loving % % 0% 0% Lubbock 294, % 47,680 70% 3% 27% Lynn 5, % % 4% 9% McCulloch 8, % 1,220 79% 1% 20% McLennan 243, % 45,960 71% 4% 26% McMullen % 50 98% 2% 0% Madison 13, % 2,600 44% 2% 54% Marion 10, % 2,440 64% 4% 32% Martin 5, % % 11% 2% Mason 4, % % 5% 33% Matagorda 36, % 6,330 74% 2% 24% Maverick 56, % 5, % 0% 0% Medina 47, % 4,430 66% 3% 31% Menard 2, % % 9% 21% Midland 155, % 16,710 51% 5% 44% Milam 24, % 4,150 74% 5% 21% Mills 4, % % 3% 36% Mitchell 8, % 1,200 37% 2% 61% Montague 19, % 3,480 63% 5% 33% Montgomery 518, % 75,610 51% 4% 45% Moore 22, % 2,390 89% 1% 10% Morris 12, % 3,140 58% 3% 38% Motley 1, % % 5% 24% Nacogdoches 65, % 14,540 70% 2% 29% Navarro 48, % 8,640 75% 6% 20% Newton 14, % 3,240 65% 6% 29% Nolan 15, % 2,240 72% 4% 24% Nueces 355, % 39,170 78% 3% 19% Ochiltree 10, % 1,050 81% 5% 14% Oldham 2, % % 4% 44% Orange 83, % 16,610 56% 3% 41% Palo Pinto 27, % 4,940 72% 5% 23% Panola 23, % 4,870 59% 6% 35%

4 and 185% Parker 123, % 18,300 45% 5% 50% Parmer 9, % % 2% 0% Pecos 15, % 1,110 73% 8% 19% Polk 46, % 9,050 63% 4% 34% Potter 121, % 20,250 79% 3% 19% Presidio 7, % % 0% 0% Rains 11, % 1,770 58% 8% 35% Randall 128, % 18,260 47% 4% 49% Reagan 3, % % 16% 0% Real 3, % % 8% 22% Red River 12, % 2,630 72% 8% 20% Reeves 14, % 1,050 83% 5% 12% Refugio 7, % % 4% 28% Roberts % % 67% 0% Robertson 16, % 3,030 61% 5% 35% Rockwall 88, % 11,200 41% 4% 55% Runnels 10, % 1,440 70% 4% 26% Rusk 53, % 10,290 59% 5% 36% Sabine 10, % 2,400 69% 3% 27% San Augustine 8, % 2,190 80% 3% 17% San Jacinto 27, % 5,070 70% 5% 25% San Patricio 66, % 7,490 75% 7% 18% San Saba 5, % % 6% 19% Schleicher 3, % % 4% 44% Scurry 17, % 2,010 66% 5% 29% Shackelford 3, % % 0% 44% Shelby 25, % 5,480 81% 4% 15% Sherman 3, % % 16% 15% Smith 219, % 42,160 65% 4% 31% Somervell 8, % 1,440 62% 2% 36% Starr 63, % 7, % 0% 0% Stephens 9, % 1,670 69% 4% 27% Sterling 1, % % 1% 14% Stonewall 1, % % 0% 36% Sutton 3, % % 12% 28% Swisher 7, % 1,160 75% 6% 19% Tarrant 1,947, % 323,840 61% 4% 36% Taylor 135, % 23,710 67% 3% 30% Terrell % 80 87% 1% 12% Terry 12, % 1,340 97% 3% 0% Throckmorton 1, % % 7% 37% Titus 32, % 5,180 81% 6% 13% Tom Green 116, % 15,900 66% 6% 29% Travis 1,148, % 174,100 60% 2% 37% Trinity 14, % 2,760 77% 3% 20% Tyler 21, % 4,230 49% 4% 46% Upshur 40, % 7,620 56% 5% 39% Upton 3, % % 3% 25% Uvalde 27, % 2, % 0% 0% Val Verde 48, % 4, % 0% 0% Van Zandt 53, % 9,190 60% 5% 35% Victoria 90, % 11,740 69% 5% 25% Walker 69, % 16,320 48% 2% 50% Waller 47, % 9,020 65% 3% 32% Ward 11, % 1,340 67% 0% 32% Washington 34, % 6,310 57% 6% 37% Webb 266, % 21, % 0% 0% Wharton 41, % 6,340 78% 2% 20% Wheeler 5, % % 7% 28% Wichita 132, % 25,430 59% 3% 38% Wilbarger 13, % 2,200 72% 6% 22% Willacy 21, % 2,950 88% 12% 0% Williamson 490, % 63,690 41% 4% 55%

5 and 185% Wilson 46, % 4,480 56% 5% 40% Winkler 7, % % 4% 22% Wise 62, % 9,310 60% 8% 32% Wood 43, % 7,480 60% 7% 33% Yoakum 8, % % 4% 4% Young 18, % 2,850 66% 5% 29% Zapata 14, % 1,550 94% 7% 0% Zavala 12, % 1, % 0% 0% State Total 6 27,862, % 4,277, % 3.2% 33.0% For additional data and maps by county, state, and congressional district, please visit map.feedingamerica.org. Gundersen, C., A. Dewey, A. Crumbaugh, M. Kato & E. Engelhard. Map the Meal Gap 2018: A Report on and Congressional District Insecurity and Cost in the United States in Feeding America, This research is generously supported by The Howard G. Buffett Foundation and Nielsen. 1 Map the Meal Gap's food s are determined using data from the Current Survey on individuals in households; data from the 2016 American Community Survey on median household incomes, s, homeownership, and race and ethnic demographics; and 2016 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on unemployment s. 2 Numbers reflect percentage of individuals living in households with incomes within the income bands indicated. Eligibility for federal nutrition programs is determined in part by these income thresholds which can vary by state. 6 and food data in the state totals row do not reflect the sum of all counties in that state. The state totals are aggregated from the congressional districts data in that state. All data in the state totals row pertaining to the cost of food or the "Meal Gap" reflect state-level data and are not aggregations of either counties or congressional districts.

6 Map the Meal Gap 2018: Overall Insecurity in Texas by Congressional District in Congressional District food insecure individuals (rounded) 1 717, % 152,180 66% 5% 29% 2 779, % 116,270 50% 4% 46% 3 842, % 128,450 34% 3% 63% 4 735, % 134,020 53% 5% 43% 5 764, % 131,070 68% 6% 26% 6 770, % 132,430 50% 4% 46% 7 770, % 122,710 54% 2% 45% 8 813, % 127,160 52% 4% 44% 9 793, % 175,830 78% 2% 21% , % 124,650 46% 3% 51% , % 104,980 63% 6% 31% , % 125,190 52% 5% 43% , % 113,750 63% 5% 32% , % 141,440 55% 2% 42% , % 76, % 0% 0% , % 68, % 0% 0% , % 141,550 63% 3% 33% , % 179,170 79% 3% 18% , % 112,370 69% 2% 28% , % 87,670 87% 2% 11% , % 110,840 50% 2% 47% , % 131,930 40% 4% 57% , % 74,580 86% 4% 9% , % 125,200 45% 5% 51% , % 117,470 46% 5% 50% , % 120,720 40% 3% 57% , % 85,210 72% 4% 24% , % 78,450 95% 2% 3% , % 92, % 0% 0% , % 166,510 77% 2% 21% , % 133,310 44% 4% 52% , % 124,050 54% 4% 42% , % 114, % 0% 0% , % 72,650 99% 1% 0% , % 110,000 84% 4% 13% , % 124,240 57% 4% 40% For additional data and maps by county, state, and congressional district, please visit map.feedingamerica.org. and 185% school meals Gundersen, C., A. Dewey, A. Crumbaugh, M. Kato & E. Engelhard. Map the Meal Gap 2018: A Report on and Congressional District Insecurity and Cost in the United States in Feeding America, This research is generously supported by The Howard G. Buffett Foundation and Nielsen. 1 Map the Meal Gap's food s are determined using data from the Current Survey on individuals in households; and data from the 2016 American Community Survey on median household incomes, unemployment s, s, homeownership, and race and ethnic demographics. 2 Numbers reflect percentage of individuals living in households with incomes within the income bands indicated. Eligibility for federal nutrition programs is determined in part by these income thresholds which can vary by state.