Missouri Hunger Atlas 2013 - MOspace

Missouri Hunger Atlas 2013

Missouri Hunger Atlas 2013 Anne Cafer, Jordan Dawdy, Matt Foulkes, Colleen Heflin, Joan Hermsen, Michelle Kaiser, Jill Lucht, Nikki Raedeke, Sandy Rikoon, Jessica Scott

Address correspondence concerning this atlas to Dr. Sandy Rikoon; Director, Interdisciplinary Center for Food Security; Gentry Hall 120; University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211-7040; 573-882-0861; [email protected] (email) © Interdisciplinary Center for Food Security, University of Missouri, 2013. Rev ed., first printing, February, 2008. Image courtesy of Bill McKelvey

Table of Contents

Background

1

Reading the Atlas

3

Final Notes

5

County Profile Indicators

7

Need Indicators Food Uncertainty SNAP (Food Stamp Program) National School Lunch Program Women, Infants and Children Program Overall Need Rank

10 12 13 14 15

Performance Indicators SNAP (Food Stamp Program) Participation National School Lunch Program Participation Women, Infants and Children Program Participation Child & Adult Care Food Program & Summer Food Service Program Food Bank Distributions Overall Performance Rank

17 18 19 20 20 21

Comparing Need and Performance

23

Concluding remarks

26

County Pages (arranged alphabetically by county)

29

Acknowledgements

The Missouri Hunger Atlas is an outcome of a cooperative endeavor of faculty and students at the University of Missouri (MU). Our efforts would not have been possible, however, without the support of individuals in public agencies who shared data on agency programs with us. Specifically, in Missouri, we received wonderful assistance in the retrieval of information from Karen Young and Christine Combs (Missouri Department of Social Services), Karen Wooton and Joanie Romero (Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education), Robert Hargis, Teresa Johnson, Stacey Kemper, Lyn C. Konstant, Melanie Madore, Ann McCormack and Takako Tagami (Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services), the directors of the six regional food banks in the state, and John Blodgett (OSEDA).

Background This atlas assesses the extent of food insecurity in the state of Missouri. It also begins to gauge how well public programs are doing in meeting the needs of those of our fellow citizens who have difficulty acquiring sufficient amounts and qualities of food. The concept of food security, as the Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program within the United States Department of Agriculture defines it, refers to “access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life.” Food insecurity in this country is normally due to insufficient resources for food purchases, and the majority of food insecure households avoid hunger by relying on a more narrow range of foods or acquiring food through private and public assistance programs. In 2011, 50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 16.7 million were children. The USDA reported that 14.7 percent of households in the US experienced “low food security” in 2011. Households experiencing “very low food security” accounted for 5.6% of households, meaning the food intake of some household members was reduced and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the lack of money and other resources.1

The costs of food insecurity are economic, social, physical and psychological. For example, the economic costs of food insecurity among adults include income loss, work absenteeism, higher demand for public benefits and social services and increased health care expenditures. Food insecurity and poverty are clearly connected—poverty is the best single predictor of food insecurity, and hunger strongly correlates with lower educational achievement, unemployment and impaired work performance. Recent studies of children show food insecurity and hunger are significant predictors of chronic illness, low birth weight, lower school performance and developmental problems.

Food Insecurity Rates Among Missouri Households 20% Food Insecure

Very Low Food Security

15% 10% 5%

Missouri Hunger Atlas 2013, Page 1

Source: USDA ERS

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

0% 2000

Prior to 2005, the USDA described households with “very low food security” as “food insecure with hunger” and those with “low food security” as “food insecure”. The labels changed at the recommendation of the Committee on National Statistics (National Research Council, 2006). The criteria by which the USDA classified households remained unchanged, however, and in this atlas we use the older phrases of “food insecure” and “food insecure with hunger”.

1997

1

use to measure hunger “need” and “performance” for each of Missouri’s 114 counties and St. Louis City.

Rising Hunger in Missouri: 







Current estimates of food insecurity and very low food security rates among Missouri households in 2010 were 16% and 6.7% respectively. 380,097 households experience food insecurity and roughly 159,165 households experience very low food security in Missouri; with an average household size of 2.45 these figures suggest approximately 1.3 million Missourians experienced some level of food insecurity Missouri ranks among the top ten states with the highest percentage of households classified as food insecure or having very low food security Missouri has had the single largest increase from 2000 to 2010 in the percent of its population who is food insecure (7.4% increase) or experiences very low food security (4.4% increase)

To help Missourians gain a greater understanding of the extent and depth of food insecurity and hunger in the state, researchers at the University of Missouri’s Interdisciplinary Center for Food Security compiled county-level data to provide (1) a snapshot of the extent and depth of food insecurity and hunger (which we refer to as “need” in this atlas) and (2) an assessment of participation in programs intended to mediate food insecurity and hunger (labeled as “performance” in this atlas). With the cooperation of many public and private sector agencies and organizations, we identified appropriate variables or indicators that we could

GOALS 

Raise Missourians’ awareness of the extent and depth of food insecurity and hunger needs in their own locations and in other regions of the state;



Increase Missourians’ knowledge of the extent of the work of public programs and food banks in their regions and the success of these programs in reaching food insecure populations;



Reveal geographic patterns, including regional and county-level differences, in hunger need and performance in our state;



Provide measures of need and performance that can be updated on a periodic basis and compared to assess trends in need and performance variables; and,



Help public and private decision-makers assess food insecurity need and program performance as a means for improving the delivery of human, technical, and fiscal resources to residents and regions requiring assistance.

This publication is consistently a “work in progress” in two senses. First, it is our plan to update the atlas every two or three years with the latest available information and increasingly validated measures of need and performance.


Second, we welcome comments and suggestions from readers and users of this atlas. Readers might identify different sets of indicators than those described here, for example, or might have creative ideas for more effective presentations of the findings. As our goal is to have this atlas used by diverse groups in Missouri and outside our state, we sincerely hope that dialogue about both our methods and results become part of wider discussions among all citizens, from those professionally involved in hunger programs to concerned residents of our state.

Reading the Atlas

County Profile Indicators At the bottom of each county page are three types of indicators: demographic, health, and economic. These give readers a general profile of the county context. We present health variables due to the close correlations between food security, diet, and health status. Within the economic indicators are included three poverty measures as poverty is the best predictor of food insecurity in the United States. Median household income, unemployment rate, percent of female headed households, and food affordability are additional measures of economic well-being included among profile indicators.

County Tables, and State Maps

Need and Performance Indicators

This atlas presents information on indicators that measure both food insecurity and hunger need, and program success in meeting citizen needs. We have identified seven indicators related to “need” and sixteen measures of “performance.” Depending on the variable, our measures focus on the 2010 or 2011 calendar year, or the state fiscal year 2012 (July 1, 2011 - June 30, 2012). In the county pages which make up the bulk of this report, readers will find county-level information on (A) demographic, health, and economic indicators, (B) need indicators, and (C) performance indicators.

The purpose of the “Need Indicators” is to provide measures of the extent of food insecurity and hunger in each Missouri County. The “Performance Indicators” provide county-level measures of the extent to which residents are participating in public and private programs intended to help residents cope with food insecurity. Knowing county needs, we can examine the success of programs established to addresses those needs.

The next few pages of this atlas provide an overview of these three categories, as well as important information on how to read the county tables. This section also includes information on how to read the state maps included in this atlas. Missouri Hunger Atlas 2013, Page 3

 The third column, “State,” shows the average across

How to read the Need and Performance Indicator Tables

all counties and St. Louis City for the indicator, in this case 13.88 percent.

The left side of each table provides information on seven indicators of food insecurity and hunger need. Four columns of information are presented for each variable. To demonstrate how to read this information, here is the first need indicator, percent of households food uncertain, for Adair County (see Page 30):

NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

TREND STATE

RANK

Food Uncertainty % Households Food Uncertain

15.92

--

13.88

VERY HIGH

 The first column, “County,” reports the result for the county on this indicator; in this case, 15.92 percent of Adair County’s total population is food uncertain.  The second column, “Trend,” shows whether the county’s level has increased (↑) decreased (↓) or stayed the same (-). The trend period, usually three or five years, is defined for each variable in the next section. If an increase or decrease is shown, this means a growth or decline of 5 percent or more over the trend period. In our example, the Adair County rate has neither increased nor decreased at least 5 percent over the past three years.

 The fourth column is labeled “Rank.” This last column indicates the county’s rank in comparison with all other Missouri counties and St. Louis City. Individual county results are normally divided into five quintiles to reveal if a county’s need or performance is in the top 20%, second highest 20%, and so on. The labels under “county rank” indicate the following groups: o Very High:

80th to 100th percentile

o High:


o Average:


o Low:


o Very Low:

1st-19th percentile

The example on page 30 shows the level in Adair County, in comparison to other counties, is in the highest quintile of percent of households that are food uncertain. The reader will find the designation “NA” where data is not available or appropriate to report.


State Maps For some indicators of hunger need and performance we provide maps to visually show patterns among Missouri’s 114 counties and St. Louis City. The maps allow the reader to quickly note the rankings of all counties in the state. Each map divides the state into five equal fifths, or quintiles, according to the complete results for the measure. A quintile includes one-fifth, or 23, of the counties in the state. The quintiles on each need and performance indicator map are arranged from very low (the 23 counties with lowest need or performance on that measure) to very high (the 23 counties with highest need or performance). For example the percent of households food uncertain in the county ranges from a state low of 8.19 percent (Ralls County) to a high of 23. 83 percent (Pemiscot County). To make the state map of Food Uncertainty for the total population for example, the 23 counties with the lowest levels of food uncertainty (8.19 – 11.56 percent) are in the first, or lowest need, quintile. The second quintile includes the 23 counties next lowest in levels of food uncertainty, with rates from 11.58 to 12.75 percent. This pattern continues to the fifth quintile or highest need group, which includes 23 counties with food uncertainty rates from 15.5 to 23.83 percent.

Final Notes This atlas emphasizes percentages rather than absolute numbers. In other words, most of our indicators reveal the percentage of a county’s population that is, for example, food uncertain, or eligible for a particular program. With this

approach, we are able to compare need and performance measures between counties with different population numbers. However, we should remind readers that emphasizing percentages and comparatively assessing need and performance percentages between counties could cloak important differences in the absolute numbers of people affected by any single variables. The large proportion of people in Missouri’s highest populated counties, for example St. Louis City, St. Louis County and Jackson County, means that the number, rather than level, of people who are food insecure, eligible for a program or participating in a program are almost always highest in these regions. St. Louis City, for example, appears to be doing well in participation rates for specific programs and has a higher participation rate than many other counties with lower numbers of eligible participants. However, a participation rate of 80% in a highly-populated county may mean that more people remain nonparticipants than in a county with a lower population and 70% participation rate. Similarly, a rate of eligibility for a program may be lower in a highly populated county than a less populated area, but there may well be more individuals eligible in the former county due to the high number of residents. The next three sections of the report present the indicators readers will find on the county pages. These are the county profile, need, and performance indicators. We present the name of each indicator, how it is measured, and the source of our data. We also provide state maps of selected indicators as well as information on some of the key programs in Missouri to address food insecurity and hunger.


County Profile Indicators Demographic Total Population Number of people of all ages living in the county in 2011. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Under 18 Years Percent of population in county under 18 years of age in 2011. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Over 64 Years Percent of population in county 65 years of age and older in 2011. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Health Obesity (MAP) Percent of the population 18 years of age and older in 2011 that is obese (Body Mass Index equal to or greater than 30. Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services.


Diabetes (MAP) Percent of the population 18 years of age and older in 2011 that has had their blood glucose levels checked by a health professional and been told that they have diabetes. Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. Hypertension Percent of the population 18 years of age and older in 2011 that has been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that they have high blood pressure. Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services.


Economic Indicators Population Below Poverty (MAP) Percent of the county’s total population living at or below 100 percent of the poverty rate in 2010. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Under 18 years below poverty Percent of the county’s population under 18 years of age living at or below 100 percent of the poverty rate in 2010. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Over 64 years below poverty Percent of the county’s population 65 years of age or older living at or below 100 percent of the poverty rate in 2010. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Median Household Income Average household income in county in 2010. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Unemployment Rate A county’s average unemployment rate over 2010. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Female Headed Households The percent of households in a county headed by a female not currently married or living with her spouse in 2010. Source: American Community Survey data modeled by Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (MU)


Food Affordability (NEW) (MAP) An estimate of the percent of income required each week by households in 2010 to meet average expenditures on food for that county. This indicator was calculated using the average weekly median household income and the average cost of meals as calculated by Feeding America. Sources: 2006-2010 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Quick Facts, Feeding America’s Map the Meal Gap In order to better understand the context of rising food insecurity in Missouri a new economic indicator, food affordability, has been introduced in this edition of the Missouri Hunger Atlas. The percent of income needed to meet basic household food needs is an important determining factor in the quantity, quality, and types of food families purchase because low-income households often have to make tough choices about how to spend their money, which may ultimately lead to smaller amounts of household funds available for food expenditures. Higher food costs significantly limit household food choices. The food affordability indicator is a county-level estimate of the percent of income required for food each week. It was calculated using the median household income divided by the average household size and then divided by 52 to obtain the average weekly median household income. The average costs of meals, obtained from Feeding America, were multiplied by 21 meals each week, assuming three meals each day. This number was then divided by the average weekly median household income and multiplied by 100 to obtain a percent of weekly income used to purchase food.


Need Indicators Food Uncertainty Households Food Uncertain (MAP) Estimated percent of the total households food uncertain in 2010 in a county, based on modeling of variables related to citizenship, age, mobility, race, female headed households, poverty, median household income, and unemployment. For more information on the modeling, please contact atlas authors. Sources: American Community Survey, US Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDA, and Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. NOTE: Our use of food “uncertain” is not coterminous with the USDA’s use of food “insecure.” Because there is no empirical count of county-level food insecurity by the government, we model a roughly equivalent, but not identical measure, of “uncertainty.”

Households with Children Food Uncertain (MAP) Estimated percent of the total households with children under the age of 18 food uncertain in 2010 in county, based on methods, variables and sources described above. Sources: American Community Survey, US Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDA, and Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. Households Food Uncertain with Hunger (MAP) Estimated percent of the total households food uncertain with hunger in 2010 in county, based on methods, variables and sources described above for “Households food uncertain.” Sources: American Community Survey, US Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDA, and Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. Missouri Hunger Atlas 2013, Page 10


SNAP (Food Stamp) Program Percent Total Population Income Eligible (MAP) Estimated percent of total population income eligible for participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamps Program) in 2011. Income is the primary eligibility requirement; the formula begins by considering all households earning less than 130% of the poverty threshold2. Source: American Community Survey, for some counties modeled by Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (MU).

SNAP (FOOD STAMP) PROGRAM MISSION

To improve the diets of low-income households by increasing food access and food purchasing ability

CONSTITUENCIES

All ages

ELIGIBILITY

Primarily household-level income ≤ 130 percent of poverty levels plus restrictions based on immigrant status in U.S. and household asset levels

RESOURCES PROVIDED

Direct food payments using an Electronic Benefit Transfer card

STATE LEAD

Missouri Department of Social Services, Family Support Division

2

The program has other eligibility requirements that modify the number of households eligible. Although there are various ways to estimate these additional restrictions, the data needed to approximate these adjustments are not currently available at the county level.


Percent Under 18 Years Income Eligible (SNAP) Estimated percent of total population less than 18 years of age income eligible for participation in the Food Stamps Program in 2011. Income eligibility is the primary eligibility requirement of the Food Stamp Program, a formula which starts by considering all households earning less than 130% of the poverty threshold. Source: American Community Survey, for some counties modeled by Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (MU). SNAP variable trends based on comparison of 2008 and 2011. National School Lunch Program Percent of K-12 Students Eligible Percent of students enrolled in the county’s public and private schools eligible for free or reduced price lunches in the National School Lunch Program in October of the 2010-2011 school year. Trend is based on comparison of eligibility in the 2008-2009 and 2011-2012 school years. Only schools participating in the program are included in the data. Source: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.


Women, Infants and Children Program Percent of Children Under 5 Income Eligible Percent of total infants and children under 5 years of age in the county eligible to receive WIC benefits in 2011. Trend is based on comparison of percent eligible in 2008 and 2011. Source: American Community Survey, for some counties modeled by Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (MU).

WOMEN INFANTS AND CHILDREN PROGRAM

MISSION

CONSTITUENCIES

ELIGIBILITY

To safeguard the health of low-income women, and infants and children younger than 5 years who are at nutritional risk Pregnant women, nonbreastfeeding women up to 6 months postpartum, breastfeeding women up to one year postpartum, infants, and children up to fifth birthday Categorical, residential, income and nutrition risk eligibility requirements. < 185 percent of federal poverty level

RESOURCES PROVIDED

Food, nutrition education, and referrals to health care and social service providers

STATE LEAD

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services


Overall Need Rank The overall need rank is a single composite measure of food insecurity needs for each county. While seven need indicators are listed in each county table, we chose four of these to establish a composite measure of need. The four variables, which include overall measures of food uncertainty as well as county-level eligibility for participation in the primary public food assistance programs, are: Percent of Population Food Uncertain – percent of total population that is food uncertain in 2010 Percent of Total Population Eligible for SNAP/Food Stamps – percent of county residents eligible for SNAP/food stamps in 2011 Percent of K-12 School Enrollment Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunches (NSLP) – percent of K-12 students enrolled in schools (public and private) eligible for free and reduced lunches in the National School Lunch Program during the 2011-2012 school year Percent of Population Under 5 WIC Eligible – percent of infants and children under 5 years of age in the county eligible to receive WIC benefits in 2011


Beginning with the individual county rankings for food uncertainty, SNAP eligibility, NSLP eligibility, and WIC under 5 eligibility, we use two steps to establish a county’s overall need rank. First, we combined the four variable ranks to establish a composite score. Rather than use a simple average of the four variable ranks, we assigned a weight to each rank in the construction of the composite score.

ranks as the 28th highest in the state, which places the county in the second highest quintile (labeled “high”) for Missouri.

In brief, the weighting model we use assigns 



30 percent of the composite score to each of the measures of o Percent of households food uncertain and o Percent of total population eligible for Food Stamps; 20 percent of the composite score to both o Percent of K-12 school enrollment eligible for NSLP and o Under 5 years eligible for WIC.

For example, Adair County had ranks of 17, 19, 91, and 22 for these four variables. The county’s composite score, based on the weighted model and rounded off to the nearest whole number, is 33. The second step of the process is an overall state ranking of the composite scores in which the composite scores of the 115 locations are compared to each other. In keeping with our ranking scale, in which 1=highest need and 115=lowest need, the county with the lowest numerical composite score is assigned 1 in the overall need ranking, which suggest the highest overall need in that county. Similarly, the county with the highest composite score is assigned number 115, which signifies the lowest average need. In the case of Adair County, the composite score of 33 Missouri Hunger Atlas 2013, Page 16

Performance Indicators SNAP (Food Stamp Program) Participation Average Number of Monthly Participants Average number of total county residents who used food stamps each month in Missouri FY2012 (July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012). Source: Missouri Department of Social Services Percent of Total Population Using SNAP Average percent of total county population that used food stamps each month in FY2012. Source: Missouri Department of Social Services and U.S. Census Bureau Percent of Eligible Population Participating (MAP) Percent of county residents eligible for food stamps in FY2012 who participated in the program. Sources: Missouri Department of Social Services and American Community Survey, for some counties modeled by Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (MU). Number of Monthly Participants Under 18 Years Average number of county residents < 18 years of age who used food stamps each month in FY2012. Source: Missouri Department of Social Services and Missouri Census Data Center Percent of Under 18 Population Participating Average percent of county population under 18 years of age that used food stamps each month in FY2012. Sources: Missouri Department of Social Services and U.S. Census Bureau Missouri Hunger Atlas 2013, Page 17

Average Monthly Benefits Average value of food stamp benefits each month for FY2012. Sources: Missouri Department of Social Services and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis All SNAP participation trends based on comparison of figures for FY2009 and FY2012.

National School Lunch Program Participation Percent Eligible and Participating (MAP) Percent of students eligible for free or reduced lunches who participated in the program in October, 2011. Trend is based on comparison of participation rates in 2008-2009 and 2011-2012. Source: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education


Women, Infants and Children Program Number of Monthly Participants Average monthly number of women, infants and children enrolled in program during FY2012. Source: Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Number Monthly Infants and Children Average monthly number of infants and children enrolled in program during FY2012. Source: Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Percent of Eligible Population Under 5 Participating (MAP) Percent of infants and children under 5 years of age in the county receiving WIC benefits per month in FY2012. Source: Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services and American Community Survey, for some counties modeled by Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis (MU) Trends for all WIC variables based on comparison of figures for FY2009 and FY2012 Summer Food Service Program Number of Sites Number of locations in county participating in 2011. Trend is based on comparison of reimbursements in 2009 and 2011. Source: Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Total Reimbursements Total reimbursements to county for 2011 programs. Trend is based on comparison of reimbursements in 2009 and 2011. Source: Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Missouri Hunger Atlas 2013, Page 19

Child & Adult Care Food Program Total Reimbursements Total amount of funds reimbursed in 2011 to child and adult care facilities in county. Trend is based on comparison of reimbursements in 2009 and 2011. Source: Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Food Bank Distributions Total Pounds in County Total amount of pounds of food (including USDA commodity foods) distributed from regional food banks to food pantries in the county during 2012. Source: Central Missouri Food Bank, Harvesters: The Community Food Network, Ozarks Food Harvest, Saint Louis Area Food Bank, Second Harvest Community Food Bank, Southeast Missouri Food Bank Pounds of Food Distributed per Capita Below Poverty Level (MAP) Number of pounds of food distributed per capita of individuals with income below 100 percent of the poverty level to food pantries in the county by regional food banks in 2012. Trend based on comparison of 2009 and 2011. Source: Central Missouri Food Bank, Harvesters: The Community Food Network, Ozarks Food Harvest, Saint Louis Area Food Bank, Second Harvest Community Food Bank, Southeast Missouri Food Bank and U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Missouri Hunger Atlas 2013, Page 20

Overall Performance Rank We constructed an overall performance rank for each county. We selected four indicators (from the 15 performance measures included for each county) to establish a composite measure of performance. The four variables include participation rates for three primary public programs and one measure of private program activity:  Percent of eligible residents who received food stamps – estimated percent of total population with incomes at 130% or less than federal poverty thresholds who participated in this program in FY2012 Percent of eligible students who received free or reduced lunches – percent of students eligible for free or reduced lunches who participated in the program in October 2010 Percent of income eligible infants and children receiving WIC benefits – percent of income eligible infants and children under 5 years of age in 2012 who were enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children Pounds of food distributed per capita < 100% poverty – Number of pounds of food per capita under 100 percent poverty level in the county distributed by the regional food banks in 2012


We use the individual county rankings for SNAP participation, NSLP participation, WIC participation, and pounds of food distributed per capita below 100% poverty level to establish a composite rank score. As with the overall need ranks, rather than use a simple average of the four variable ranks, we assigned a weight to each rank in constructing the composite rank score. In brief, the weighting model we used assigns  



35 percent of the composite rank to the measure of o SNAP (Food Stamp) participation as percent of total population eligible; 25 percent each to the variables of o NSLP participation as a percent of total school population eligible and o WIC participation as percent of the eligible under 5 years old population; and, 15 percent to o regional food bank distributions to the county in terms of pounds per capita of food insecure individuals.

score, based on the weighted model and rounded off to the nearest whole number, is 77. The second step of the process is an overall state ranking of the composite performance scores in which the composite scores of the 115 locations are compared to each other. In keeping with our performance rank scale, where 1=highest performance and 115=lowest performance, the county with the best, or lowest, numerical composite score is assigned 1 in the overall performance rank, which suggest the highest overall performance in that county. Similarly, the county with the highest average composite score is assigned 115, which signifies the lowest overall performance. In the case of Adair County, the composite score of 77 ranks as the 98th highest in the state, and so it is ranked in the lowest, or ―very low, quintile. The individual ranks for the four indicators, composite score and overall performance ranks for each county are in Appendix 2 of this atlas.

We place the most weight on the Food Stamps variable as this program is by far the most extensive in the state and addresses all age groups. We place lower emphasis on the food bank distributions because the food banks are only one source of supply for local food pantries and on-site meal providers and we have no comprehensive measure of total private assistance in the state. Again using Adair County for an example, the county had ranks of 106, 64, 64, and 48 respectively for these four variables. The county’s composite Missouri Hunger Atlas 2013, Page 22

Comparing Need and Performance Having compiled county-level composite ranks in the areas of food insecurity and hunger need and program performance, a final and useful step is to compare how each county ranks in terms of the combination of their ranks on need and performance. In essence, we can ask whether counties that have high need are doing comparatively well or comparatively poorly in addressing those needs. Counties with high needs that have high performance rankings, for example, are likely more successful in serving the needs of their food insecure populations while counties with high needs but low performance are potential target locations for increased public and private sector attention. We used several steps to perform this analysis. First, we labeled counties as high need if their composite need rank fell in the upper two quintiles (very high or high) of need. We designated counties as low need if their composite need rank fell in the lowest two quintiles (low or very low) of need. Similarly, we labeled counties as high performance if their composite performance ranks fell in the upper two quintiles (very high or high) of performance. We designated counties as low performance if their composite performance ranks fell in the lowest two quintiles (low or very low) of performance. We did not include counties that scored in the average, or middle, quintile in either of these composite ranks in this analysis but they are included in the map. The designation of counties as either high need or low need, and as either high performance or low performance offers the possibility of counties falling into one of four categories:

(1) high need/high performance (2) high need/low performance (3) low need/high performance (4) low need/low performance As shown in the map and table on the following pages, this analysis yielded some interesting results. Eighteen counties and St. Louis City have both high need and high performance. However, 23 counties were labeled high need and low performance. A significant change from the 2010 edition of this atlas was the transition from a majority of high need counties also being high performing to a majority being low performing. The fact that more than half of the counties with high need also rate low in performance suggests that services are not well provided or used in places that have the highest need for them. We have no way of knowing whether public and private agencies are having difficulty targeting resources to these high need counties, but trends reveal that recent economic conditions have taken their toll on Missouri counties. Most of these counties are located south of the Missouri River and a cluster is dispersed throughout the southwest quarter of the state. We note that many of the high need, high performing counties are concentrated adjacent to these high need, low performing counties, in the southeast quarter of the state. This could suggest focusing more individual attention on service delivery in these particular counties. We found eighteen counties qualifying as low need and high performance. In these areas, the results suggest that service


providers are adequately handling food insecurity and hunger needs in their regions. High Need/High Performance

High Need/Low Performance

Barry Bollinger Butler Dent Douglas Dunklin Howell Iron Jasper Laclede

Adair Cedar Dade Dallas Jackson Knox Lawrence Livingston Mercer Mississippi Morgan New Madrid

Madison Montgomery Pemiscot Reynolds Ripley Shannon Vernon Washington St. Louis City

Oregon Polk Randolph Schuyler Scotland Stoddard Sullivan Texas Vernon Wayne Webster

Low Need/High Performance

Low Need/Low Performance

Buchanan Callaway Carroll Cass Clay DeKalb Gasconade Gentry Howard

Atchison Boone Chariton Clinton Cooper Greene Holt Johnson

Jefferson Lafayette Lewis Lincoln Moniteau Monroe Ray St. Genevieve Warren

Maries Nodaway Platte Ralls Shelby St. Charles St. Francois St. Louis

At the other end of the spectrum are sixteen counties that have comparatively low percents of populations with hunger needs but are also doing comparatively worse in meeting the requirements of these populations. Many of these counties are in relatively affluent regions near all of Missouri’s major

cities. Although the percent in need is relatively low in these areas, in many cases the low percents denote relatively large numbers of people because the base populations are often quite high. In fact, four of the ten most populated counties in the state (St. Louis, St. Charles, Greene, and Boone) fall into this category. While the Missouri Hunger Atlas cannot scientifically prove why these counties are subject to low performance, we can offer a couple of explanations that could be tested with more research. First, residents living in regions with high levels of need and visible public programs might experience less social shame or stigma as participants in public programs. If one lives in a region in which sizeable proportions of a population regularly participate in public programs, an individual or family’s choice to similarly participate would be in line with others’ decisions and be subject to less social angst or difference. On the other hand, residents of regions with high levels of social and economic inequality and smaller percentages of program participation might face social discomfort or ostracism related to participation. A student who is one of a limited number of persons qualifying for free lunches or a shopper who is one of a small group that separates items at a supermarket for WIC participation would be required to demonstrate a lower economic status in a public context in which such status contrasts with that of the majority. A second possible explanation is that public and private agencies have made logical decisions to focus scarce human, technical and financial resources in high-need areas. As a consequence, programs in low-need areas have a more difficult time conducting the type of outreach and education to attract high participation rates among eligible residents in their counties.


This Page is Under Revision


Concluding Remarks Food insecurity and hunger are facts of life for far too many Missourians. The USDA’s assessment that 16 percent of Missouri households were food insecure in 2011 applied to the mid-year estimated number of households (2,436,000) suggests that 389,760 households faced uncertainty in acquiring sufficient food for their household. Further, the USDA estimated that 6.7 percent of households in Missouri experienced very low food security (prior to 2007 labeled as ―food insecure with hunger), or roughly 163,212 households. This translates into roughly 400,000 Missourians experiencing hunger. Regretfully, trends in food insecurity and hunger are not positive ones for our state, as current averages for both reflect a trend that has continuously increased over the first decade of this century. The best predictor of food insecurity and hunger in Missouri, and throughout the United States, is poverty. Further, income level is typically the primary eligibility criteria for participation in all public food assistance programs. Thus economic, labor and income trends are most significant in the spatial distribution of need and program entitlement. The deterioration of the state (and national) economic picture over the past several years parallels our findings and suggests that residual economic fallout has had a negative impact on households’ abilities to access food or resources. Reports for food banks and pantries reveal continued increases in numbers of clients (at a time when USDA contributions through commodity and other programs are flat or decreasing). Participation in WIC, Food Stamps and other programs also continues to grow. For example, trends in

Food Stamp Program numbers almost always rise and fall following changes in unemployment rates, and US and Missouri levels of participation are both the highest in the history of the program. It follows from this that the most direct first step to alleviating hunger is to develop successful strategies for raising the income of the poor. Reversing poverty is more difficult, however, if not impossible, for individuals and households in which adult members are elderly or disabled or who, for various reasons, are unable to seek salaries and wages for food purchases. The establishment of public and private programs and activities is a necessary safety net response to meeting the short-term needs of the food insecure and hungry citizens who inhabit every county and corner of our state. These programs do not provide a long-term solution to the factors that lead to hunger, but they are critical to ameliorating the day-to-day struggles of hundreds of thousands of Missourians. Well over 1.4 billion dollars was spent in this state in 2012 to help people have enough to eat, and hopefully enough nutritious food to lead healthy and active lives. It is not our goal to editorialize on whether or not public and private support for food assistance programs is too high or too low. Certainly we know that the 1.4 billion dollar figure underestimates the costs of this social problem in at least three important ways. 

The programs included in this atlas are not comprehensive of the financial and human resources being brought to bear on hunger and food insecurity. It is especially difficult to comprehensively document contributions from the private sector. While food


banks, for example, contribute over 90 million pounds a year to food pantries and other facilities, many of these locations rely on food banks for only a portion of the food they provide to clients. And certainly there are hundreds, if not thousands, of faith-based organizations, civic groups, and other organizations that provide food for residents who need help without using food banks at all. 



The financial numbers presented here do not include the administrative and organizational costs of operating these programs. We document the amount of benefits provided through SNAP ( Food Stamp Program) and the reimbursements given to schools for NSLP (free and reduced lunches); however, we do not include the hundreds of positions at state agencies and in county governments that are necessary to operate these efforts, monitor participation, solicit and evaluate perspective participants, and to conduct the dozens of other tasks necessary for their operation. Most significantly, the costs of food insecurity and hunger are critically underestimated if these are understood solely as the costs of providing assistance directly related to the acquisition of sufficient amounts of food. The cost of hunger extends far beyond the cost of having food. The costs of hunger should properly include the health care costs incurred because children and adults are more susceptible to, and recover more slowly from, disease and illness. It should include the healthcare costs for the management of chronic diseases, such as diabetes and hypertension, which are brought on in part by the

reliance on high calorie, high fat and low nutrientdense foods. The costs of hunger extend to the costs of lower work productivity and missed days of work. And the costs of hunger include the social and psychological angst of not having sufficient and nutritious foods and the mental stress and discord that results for individuals and households. As much as poverty is a leading cause of food insecurity, so too are food insecurity and hunger leading causes of continued poverty. Importantly, the figures on food insecurity and hunger in Missouri remain high, and are not declining in spite of the myriad of mostly federally-originated public programs and locally-initiated private programs. Food insecurity and hunger continue to affect all regions of the state. Generally, one can point to larger proportions of counties with high need in the southern half of the state, but needs are also high in counties near the Iowa border in north central and northeast regions, and in St. Louis City. In general, the clustering of high need quintiles is similar to the grouping of counties with high and persistent poverty levels. County-level performance is more variable and high and low performance counties are more dispersed throughout the state. On a somber note, a majority of counties characterized as ―high need are also ―low performance in contrast to a much lower number of high need/high performance counties. This result suggests programs are could be more effective in targeting high need areas. Generally there is ―low performance in all metro and suburban areas, with the notable exception of St. Louis City, which means a larger number of people are at risk of hunger, even if their need is relatively low.


The data reported in this atlas suggests the following future needs: 

Targeted assessments of program implementation in counties characterized by high need and low performance, with particular attention to the north/central region and southwest corner of Missouri.



Increased recognition of the importance of the public and private programs that provide food assistance – they are the barrier between hunger and non-hunger for probably hundreds of thousands of Missourians.





Focus on improving understanding of patterns of low performance in all metro areas (except St. Louis City) and most suburban counties. Greater knowledge of reasons for lower program participation rates in these regions should result in the implementation of new program and outreach strategies. Greater emphasis on the nutritional and health impacts of food choices among staff and clients of all public and private programs. Research has demonstrated that poverty is positively correlated both with food insecurity and with chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity and hypertension. Foods that tend to be cheaper and more widely available are also typically high in calories and low in nutrition and this contributes to levels of health vulnerabilities. Many of the counties that have the highest food insecurity and hunger in Missouri also have the highest levels of residents with these poor health conditions. While

educational activities exist as part of most public and private programs, these need to be strengthened and invigorated with innovative designs and implementation. Recent changes in school meal programs in some districts towards more nutritious menus is an example of a positive trend that needs to be broadened both in this program and throughout the public sector. For the same reasons, we highly encourage state participation in the WIC and Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition program. 

Strengthened linkages between private sector temporary food assistance programs (e.g., food pantries) and local food systems. The demand for the goods and services provided by private programs continues to grow. Creative efforts can link local food systems (e.g., community gardens) with these programs



Assessments of community food security as a core local need, alongside such social concerns as education and health. In addition, technical support should be given to communities committed to developing action plans to address the results of community food security assessments.


Missouri Hunger Atlas 2013 , Page 29

NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY STATE TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

15.92

13.9

—

Very High

% Household w/ Children Food Uncertain

28.9

23.0

—

Very High

% Households Food Uncertain w/ Hunger

6.1

5.7

—

High

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/Food Stamps)

Number of Monthly Participants

28.7

23.0

—

Very High

% < 18 Years Income Eligible

31.1

30.6

—

Average

42.2

↑

NA

% Total Population

13.2

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

46.0

73.9

↑

Very Low

1,367

404,217

↑

NA

29.1

28.6

↑

Average

400,542

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Average

% Population < 18 Years Average Total County Monthly Benefits ($)

National School Lunch Program Participation

52.1

—

Low

% Eligible and Participating

61.8

50.9

82.5

—

Very High

ADAIR COUNTY


701

143,027

—

NA

Number of Monthly Infants/Children

531

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

13.8

11.8

—

Median Household Income ($)

31,176

47,202

↓

Health Indicators

Population Below Poverty Level

Obesity Prevalence

31

30.2

—

Unemployment Rate (%)

7.3

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

10.1

10.7

—

Female-Headed Households (%)

5.1

6.0

—

Hypertension Prevalence

23.3

34.3

—

Food Affordability

18.3

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


9.2

13.9

—

Very Low


21.1

23.0

↑

Low


3.9

5.7

—

Very Low



11.5

23.0

—

Very Low


14.2

30.6

↓

Very Low

↑—↓

NA

% Total Population

8.5

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

73.8

73.9

↑

Average

632

404,217

↑

NA

15.7

28.6

—

Very Low

175,814

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Average



52.1

↑

Average


50.9

83.1

↑

Very Low

ANDREW COUNTY


392

143,027

↑

NA


303

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

114

11.8

—


57,720

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

37.2

30.2

—


7.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

7.3

10.7

—


4.6

6.0

—


32.1

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

14.8

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


10.0

13.9

—

Very Low


20.8

23.0

↑

Very Low


4.3

5.7

—

Very Low



16.3

23.0

—

Very Low


26.0

30.6

↑

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

9.4

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

57.5

73.9

↑

Very Low

194

404,217

↑

NA

16.8

28.6

—

Very Low

59,203

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Average



52.1

—

Low


50.9

↑

Low

ATCHISON COUNTY PERFORMANCE

Very Low

Very High

82.5


153

143,027

↓

NA


117

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

19.3

11.8

↑


42,375

47,202

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

32.8

30.2

—


8.3

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

13.3

10.7

—


3.2

6.0

—


37.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

14.7

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.7

13.9

—

Average


23.9

23.0

—

High


5.5

5.7

—

Average



21.9

23.0

—

Average


33.3

30.6

—

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

14.6

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

66.7

73.9

↑

Low

1,693

404,217

↑

NA

26.7

28.6

—

Average

465,697

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Average



52.1

—

Low


50.9

83.1

—

High


637

143,027

↑

NA


480

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

11

11.8

—


40,935

47,202

↑

9

6.7

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

37.5

30.2

—


Diabetes Prevalence

11.7

10.7

—


5.6

6.0

—


45.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

13.7

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.9

13.9

—

High


23.5

23.0

—

High


6.0

5.7

—

High



22.8

23.0

—

Average


33.6

30.6

—

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

19.7

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

86.6

73.9

↑

High

3,005

404,217

↑

NA

35.6

28.6

↑

High

851,955

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Average



52.1

↑

High


50.9

82.9

↑

High

BARRY COUNTY


1,575

143,027

—

NA


1,195

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

9.9

11.8

—


36,143

47,202

↓

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

31.4

30.2

↑


8.7

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

14.7

10.7

↑


6.9

6.0

—


34.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.5

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.6

13.9

—

Low


23.9

23.0

—

High


5.3

5.7

—

Low



26.4

23.0

—

High


29.2

30.6

—

Average

58.5

↑

NA

% Total Population

20.9

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

79.2

73.9

↑

High

1,100

404,217

↑

NA

34.9

28.6

—

High

306,276

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

High



52.1

↑

High


60.5

50.9

84.1

—

High


403

143,027

↓

NA


316

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

14.8

11.8

—


39,573

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

32

30.2

—


11.3

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

14.9

10.7

—


3.2

6.0

—


43.2

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

16.7

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.0

13.9

—

High


23.1

23.0

—

Average


6.3

5.7

—

High



24.7

23.0

—

Average


35.4

30.6

↑

High

52.1

↑

NA

% Total Population

15.6

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

63.2

73.9

↑

Low

1,098

404,217

↑

NA

26.1

28.6

—

Average

308,289

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

High



52.1

↑

Average


52.2

50.9

83.6

↑

Average

BATES COUNTY


562

143,027

↓

NA


434

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

8.6

11.8

—


38,882

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

29.8

30.2

—


11.7

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11.7

10.7

—


5.6

6.0

—

44

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.5

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.3

13.9

—

Low


20.6

23.0

—

Very Low


5.4

5.7

—

Average



25.5

23.0

—

High


36.0

30.6

—

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

18.7

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

73.4

73.9

—

Average

1,289

404,217

—

NA

38.8

28.6

—

Very High

436,865

121,727,822

↑

NA

↓

Very High



52.1

↑

Average


50.9

86.8

↑

Low

BENTON COUNTY


429

143,027

—

NA


312

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

9

11.8

—


33,305

47,202

—

10.6

6.7

—

4

6.0

—

17.5

14.3

NA

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

31.6

30.2

—


Diabetes Prevalence

13.2

10.7

—



37.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.0

13.9

—

Average


25.5

23.0

↑

Very High


5.7

5.7

—

Average



24.8

23.0

—

Average


39.0

30.6

↑

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

20.9

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

84.4

73.9

↑

High

1,007

404,217

↑

NA

35.1

28.6

—

Very High

304,839

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Very High



52.1

↑

High


87.6

82.5

Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC) Participation

Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC) 59.1

RANK

950,345

National School Lunch Program


TREND

2,587

Number of Monthly Participants < 18 Years

% Total Population Income Eligible

58.9

STATE

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/Food Stamps) Participation

% Households Food Uncertain

% Students Eligible

COUNTY

50.9

—

High

BOLLINGER COUNTY


494

143,027

↑

NA


375

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

20.9

11.8

↓


33,938

47,202

↓

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

38.6

30.2

↑


9.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

17.9

10.7

—


3.7

6.0

—


39.6

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

23.7

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY STATE TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.7

13.9

—

Average


27.3

23.0

↑

Very High


5.1

5.7

—

Low



21.6

23.0

—

Low


20.6

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

11.8

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

54.7

73.9

—

Very Low

8,338

404,217

↑

NA

24.3

28.6

—

Low

2,605,088

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

—

Very Low


50.9

76.7

—

Very Low

BOONE COUNTY


2,338

143,027

—

NA


1,684

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

5.2

11.8

—


45,786

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

27.1

30.2

—


6.4

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.7

10.7

—


6.6

6.0

—


27.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

13.3

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.8

13.9

—

High


22.6

23.0

—

Average


5.9

5.7

—

High



19.9

23.0

—

Low


29.1

30.6

—

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

19.3

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

97.2

73.9

↑

Very High

7,700

404,217

↑

NA

36.5

28.6

↑

High

2,229,263

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Very Low



52.1

↑

Very Low


50.9

77.1

82.5



RANK

950,345



TREND

17,347



31.3

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

↑

Low

BUCHANAN COUNTY


2,241

143,027

↑

NA


1,605

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

8.4

11.8

—


42,393

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

31.7

30.2

—


8.7

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

12.6

10.7

—


8.3

6.0

—


35.7

34.3

↓

Food Affordability

15.4

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.0

13.9

—

Very High Number of Monthly Participants


23.0

23.0

—

Average


5.8

5.7

—

Very High

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/Food Stamps) 21.1

23.0

↑

High


29.0

30.6

↓

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

25.1

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

93.2

73.9

↑

Very High

4,216

404,217

↑

NA

42.2

28.6

—

Very High

1,280,563

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

High



52.1

↑

Average % Eligible and Participating

50.9

83.7

↑

High


1,888

143,027

—

NA


1,416

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

14.1

11.8

↑


33,525

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

34.7

30.2

—


8.3

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

18.4

10.7

↑


9.1

6.0

—


44.3

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

17.1

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.0

13.9

—

Average


23.0

23.0

—

Average


5.8

5.7

—

Average



21.1

23.0

—

Low


29.0

30.6

—

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

13.9

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

66.1

73.9

↑

Low

563

404,217

↑

NA

24.5

28.6

—

Low

152,877

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Very High



52.1

↑

Average


50.9

86.5

↑

High

CALDWELL COUNTY


201

143,027

↓

NA


151

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

8.2

11.8

↓


39,439

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

27.5

30.2

—


10

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

13.3

10.7

—


5.6

6.0

—


33.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.3

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK



12.2

13.9

—

Low


22.7

23.0

↑

Average


4.9

5.7

—

Very Low



14.2

23.0

—

Very Low


21.9

30.6

—

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

13.4

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

8

73.9

↑

Very High

2,521

404,217

↑

NA

25.7

28.6

—

Low

768,519

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

High



52.1

—

Low



50.9

85.0

—

Low


621

143,027

↓

NA


465

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

8.7

11.8

—


49,544

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33.8

30.2

—


8.1

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

12.6

10.7

—


7.1

6.0

—


27.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

13.5

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.6

13.9

—

Very Low


19.7

23.0

—

Very Low


5.1

5.7

—

Low



20.2

23.0

—

Low


35.7

30.6

↑

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

14.6

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

72.3

73.9

—

Average

2,674

404,217

↑

NA

32.6

28.6

↑

High

806,918

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Low



52.1

↑

Very High


50.9

80.8

—

High


892

143,027

↓

NA


657

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

5

11.8

—


44,617

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

28.1

30.2

—


10.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

10.9

10.7

—


5.2

6.0

—


41.1

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

15.3

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.4

13.9

—

Average


22.5

23.0

↑

Average


5.3

5.7

—

Low



17.7

23.0

—

Low


24.7

30.6

—

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

14.0

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

78.8

73.9

↑

High

4,574

404,217

↑

NA

27.5

28.6

—

Average

1,354,966

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Average



52.1

↑

Very Low


50.9

82.5

—

Average

CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY


1,607

143,027

↑

NA


1,157

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

7.6

11.8

↑


44,479

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

25.7

30.2

—


7.6

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

10.4

10.7

—


7.6

6.0

—


37.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

13.9

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.1

13.9

—

Low


21.0

23.0

—

Very Low


5.2

5.7

—

Low



17.8

23.0

—

Low


21.0

30.6

↑

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

15.2

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

85.7

73.9

↑

High

589

404,217

↑

NA

26.9

28.6

—

Average

162,611

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

High



52.1

↑

Average


50.9

83.3

↑

Very Low

CARROLL COUNTY


243

143,027

—

NA


184

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

12.5

11.8

—


41,619

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

41.2

30.2

↑


11.1

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

12.5

10.7

—


4.9

6.0

—


39.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

17.6

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.5

13.9

—

High


24.7

23.0

—

High


6.2

5.7

—

High



31.0

23.0

—

Very High


42.7

30.6

—

Very High

68.2

↑

NA

% Total Population

26.0

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

83.7

73.9

↑

High

617

404,217

↓

NA

40.2

28.6

↑

Very High

183,136

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Very Low



52.1

—

Very High


77.1

50.9

78.7

↑

Very High


296

143,027

—

NA


230

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

17.4

11.8

—


28,408

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

48.7

30.2

↑


9.3

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

20

10.7

↑


5.6

6.0

—

37.2

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

30.3

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.9

13.9

—

Low


20.7

23.0

↑

Very Low


4.9

5.7

—

Very Low



10.9

23.0

—

Very Low


13.3

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

11.7

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

100

73.9

↑

Very High

5,353

404,217

↑

NA

20.5

28.6

—

Very Low

1,497,618

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

High



52.1

↑

Very Low


50.9

79.3

82.5



RANK

950,345



TREND

11,721



40.9

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

—

Very Low


1,488

143,027

↓

NA


1,126

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10.4

11.8

↓


32,800

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33.5

30.2

—


8.6

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

13.1

10.7

↑


8.1

6.0

—


31.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.1

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.5

13.9

—

High


19.9

23.0

—

Very Low


6.5

5.7

—

Very High



30.0

23.0

—

Very High


41.7

30.6

—

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

22.1

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

73.6

73.9

↑

Average

1,189

404,217

↑

NA

37.1

28.6

—

High

361,606

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Low



52.1

↓

High


50.9

81.4

↑

Very High


485

143,027

—

NA


379

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10.4

11.8

—


32,800

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

34.4

30.2

—


8.6

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11.4

10.7

—


8.1

6.0

—


38.5

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.1

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.4

13.9

—

Low


20.0

23.0

—

Very Low


5.3

5.7

—

Low



19.5

23.0

—

Low


20.0

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

12.1

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

62.2

73.9

↑

Low

396

404,217

↑

NA

23.0

28.6

—

Low

108,953

121,727,822

↑

NA

↓

Average



52.1

↑

Low


50.9

↑

Very Low

121

143,027

↓

NA


95

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10.4

11.8

—


32,800

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

37.3

30.2

↑


8.6

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11.9

10.7

—


8.1

6.0

—


48.1

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.1

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.3

13.9

—

Very Low


23.2

23.0

↑

Average


4.6

5.7

—

Very Low



14.2

23.0

—

Very Low


17.0

30.6

—

Very Low

48.1

↑

NA

% Total Population

12.4

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

87.8

73.9

↑

Very High

4,482

404,217

↑

NA

21.2

28.6

—

Very Low

1,198,053

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

↑

Low


38.6

50.9

78.3

—

Low

CHRISTIAN COUNTY


1,468

143,027

—

NA


1097

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

20.5

11.8

↑


41,558

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

27.4

30.2

—


8.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

7

10.7

—


5.7

6.0

—

30.5

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

17.4

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.8

13.9

—

Low


22.0

23.0

—

Low


5.4

5.7

—

Average



19.6

23.0

—

Low


26.5

30.6

—

Low

63.8

↑

NA

% Total Population

13.2

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

67.4

73.9

↑

Low

379

404,217

↑

NA

23.1

28.6

—

Low

106,194

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Very High



52.1

↑

High


42.3

50.9

90.1

↑

Low

CLARK COUNTY


196

143,027

↓

NA


149

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

7.5

11.8

—


51,135

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33.6

30.2

—


8.4

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

16

10.7

↑


5.3

6.0

—

31.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

14.2

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.5

13.9

—

Very Low


22.7

23.0

↑

Average


4.6

5.7

—

Very Low



TREND

RANK

22,126

950,345

↑

NA

% Total Population

9.8

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

87.5

73.9

↑

Very High

10,361

404,217

↑

NA

18.0

28.6

—

Very Low

2,801,995

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Average



11.2

23.0

—

Very Low


14.2

30.6

—

Very Low


National School Lunch Program 30.3


52.1

—

Very Low


29.5

50.9

80.9

82.5


Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC) % < 5 Years Income Eligible

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

—

Very Low


2,348

143,027

↓

NA


1,740

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

5.8

11.8

—


58,559

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33.2

30.2

—


8.8

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.8

10.7

—


6.5

6.0

—


31.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

10.3

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.0

13.9

—

Very Low


21.0

23.0

↑

Very Low


4.7

5.7

—

Very Low



13.0

23.0

—

Very Low


14.7

30.6

—

Very Low

43.3

↑

NA

% Total Population

10.5

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

80.8

73.9

↑

High

1,005

404,217

↑

NA

19.9

28.6

—

Very Low

268,904

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

↑

Low


42.3

50.9

76.6

—

Low

CLINTON COUNTY


555

143,027

↑

NA


415

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

9.2

11.8

—


51,915

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

29

30.2

—


10.8

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

10.7

10.7

—


5.1

6.0

—


29.3

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

14.0

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.1

13.9

—

Very Low


22.2

23.0

↑

Low


4.3

5.7

—

Very Low



14.8

23.0

—

Very Low


19.3

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

11.8

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

79.8

73.9

↑

High

4,182

404,217

↑

NA

23.5

28.6

—

Low

1,179,535

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Very High



52.1

↓

Very Low


50.9

90.4

82.5



RANK

950,345



TREND

9,021



15.5

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

—

Very Low


1,691

143,027

—

NA


1,274

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

8.2

11.8

—


53,877

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

25.8

30.2

—


6.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

8.2

10.7

—


7.2

6.0

—


29.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

11.8

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.9

13.9

—

Low


23.2

23.0

↑

Average


4.9

5.7

—

Very Low



18.4

23.0

—

Low


26.4

30.6

—

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

13.9

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

75.7

73.9

—

Average

1,011

404,217

↑

NA

25.9

28.6

—

Average

294,014

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Average



52.1

—

Low


50.9

82.0

—

Low

COOPER COUNTY


290

143,027

↓

NA


210

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10.1

11.8

—


42,586

47,202

—

9.2

6.7

—

5

6.0

—

16.6

14.3

NA

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

23.8

30.2

↓


Diabetes Prevalence

10.6

10.7

—



32.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.4

13.9

—

High


22.3

23.0

—

Average


6.4

5.7

—

Very High



24.6

23.0

↑

Average


30.9

30.6

↑

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

22.2

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

90.4

73.9

—

Very High

2,278

404,217

↑

NA

37.8

28.6

—

Very High

683,015

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Low



52.1

—

Average


50.9

82.2

—

Low

CRAWFORD COUNTY


688

143,027

↓

NA


513

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10.9

11.8

—


34,506

47,202

—

11.2

6.7

—

7

6.0

—

21.0

14.3

NA

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

32.1

30.2

—


Diabetes Prevalence

17.3

10.7

↑



42.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.8

13.9

—

High


22.2

23.0

—

Low


6.1

5.7

—

High



TREND

RANK

1,196

950,345

↑

NA

% Total Population

15.3

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

55.4

73.9

↓

Very Low

478

404,217

—

NA

27.7

28.6

—

Average

130,207

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

High



27.7

23.0

↑

High


41.2

30.6

↑

Very High




52.1

—

Average


62.5

50.9

83.7

82.5



STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

—

Very High


188

143,027

—

NA


148

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

13.9

11.8

—


32,714

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

32.3

30.2

—


8.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.5

10.7

—


6.1

6.0

—


37.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

22.4

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


16.8

13.9

—

Very High


21.9

23.0

—

Low


7.0

5.7

—

Very High



25.1

23.0

—

High


32.1

30.6

↑

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

20.9

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

83.2

73.9

↑

High

1,361

404,217

↓

NA

33.3

28.6

—

High

426,014

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

↑

High


50.9

74.3

—

High

DALLAS COUNTY


376

143,027

↓

NA


292

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10.9

11.8

—


38,101

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

39.1

30.2

↑


11.7

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

14.9

10.7

—


8.1

6.0

—


45.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

21.7

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.9

13.9

—

Average


21.8

23.0

—

Low


5.8

5.7

—

Average



22.4

23.0

—

Average


29.0

30.6

—

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

13.3

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

59.4

73.9

↑

Very Low

492

404,217

↑

NA

22.8

28.6

—

Low

129,492

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Average



52.1

↑

High


50.9

83.1

↑

High


207

143,027

↓

NA


156

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

11.6

11.8

—


39,925

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

35.8

30.2

↑


9.8

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

7.4

10.7

—


6.2

6.0

—


38.1

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

17.5

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


8.5

13.9

—

Very Low


22.3

23.0

—

Average


3.6

5.7

—

Very Low



10.9

23.0

—

Very Low


13.6

30.6

↓

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

9.2

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

84.7

73.9

↑

High

505

404,217

↑

NA

22.6

28.6

—

Low

134,886

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Average



52.1

↑

Low


50.9

82.8

↑

Very Low


125

143,027

—

NA


95

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

14.1

11.8

—


43,267

47,202

—

9.7

6.7

—

4

6.0

—

15.6

14.3

NA

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

27.9

30.2

—


Diabetes Prevalence

7.6

10.7

—



38.1

34.3

↑

Food Affordability


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.1

13.9

—

Average


22.9

23.0

—

Average


5.8

5.7

—

Average



TREND

RANK

3,502

950,345

↑

NA

% Total Population

22.3

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

82.7

73.9

—

High

1,340

404,217

↑

NA

37.2

28.6

—

High

423,376

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Low



27.0

23.0

—

High


35.8

30.6

—

High




52.1

↑

High


61.9

50.9

80.4

82.5



STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

—

Very High


491

143,027

↓

NA


374

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

14.6

11.8

—


36,118

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

34

30.2

↑


9.5

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

13.5

10.7

↑


5.2

6.0

—


40.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

19.1

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.1

13.9

—

High


24.9

23.0

—

Very High


6.2

5.7

—

High



33.9

23.0

↑

Very High


51.7

30.6

↑

Very High

72.0

↑

NA

% Total Population

25.5

15.8

↑

Very High

% Income Eligible

75.4

73.9

—

Average

1,330

404,217

↑

NA

44.4

28.6

↑

Very High

406,245

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

High



52.1

↑

Very High


74.2

50.9

85.0

↑

Very High


482

143,027

↓

NA


360

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

16.9

11.8

—


30,968

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

32.7

30.2

—


10.3

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

13

10.7

↑


4.2

6.0

—

31.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

24.0

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


20.3

13.9

—

Very High


24.1

23.0

—

High


8.0

5.7

—

Very High



31.4

23.0

—

Very High


42.0

30.6

—

Very High

68.7

↑

NA

% Total Population

31.9

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

100

73.9

—

Very High

4,181

404,217

↑

NA

51.5

28.6

—

Very High

1,237,394

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Very High



52.1

—

Very High


70.9

50.9

86.5

↑

Very High


1,593

143,027

↑

NA


1,185

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

16.8

11.8

—


29,375

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

35.8

30.2

—


10.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

17.9

10.7

↑


10.4

6.0

—

48

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.6

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.7

13.9

—

Low


22.3

23.0

—

Average


5.3

5.7

—

Low



15.7

23.0

—

Very Low


23.8

30.6

↑

Low

26.8

↑

NA

% Total Population

12.9

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

82.0

73.9

↑

High

5,669

404,217

↑

NA

22.9

28.6

↑

Low

1,655,674

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

↑

Very Low


37.9

50.9

78.2

—

Very Low


1,709

143,027

—

NA


1,232

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

7.2

11.8

—


49,120

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

31

30.2

—


11

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

7.1

10.7

—


6

6.0

—


37.6

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

13.1

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.4

13.9

—

Very Low


19.5

23.0

—

Very Low


5.0

5.7

—

Very Low



19.2

23.0

—

Low


20.1

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

12.8

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

66.9

73.9

—

Low

820

404,217

↑

NA

25.6

28.6

—

Low

228,863

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very High



52.1

—

Very Low


50.9

83.1

82.5



RANK

950,345



TREND

1,945



32.6

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

↑

Very Low

GASCONADE COUNTY


347

143,027

↓

NA


259

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

9.4

11.8

—


40,837

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33.6

30.2

↑


10.5

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

8.6

10.7

—


5.5

6.0

—


33.8

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

15.6

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.7

13.9

—

Low


20.3

23.0

↑

Very Low


5.3

5.7

—

Low



24.0

23.0

—

Average


30.9

30.6

—

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

10.8

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

45.1

73.9

—

Very Low

314

404,217

↑

NA

18.8

28.6

—

Very Low

79,409

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very High



52.1

↑

Average


50.9

87.1

↑

Low

GENTRY COUNTY


176

143,027

↓

NA


135

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

15

11.8

—


35,556

47,202

—

7.1

6.7

—

6

6.0

—

14.9

14.3

NA

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33.8

30.2

—


Diabetes Prevalence

9.7

10.7

—



35.1

34.3

↑

Food Affordability


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.7

13.9

—

Average


24.0

23.0

↑

High


5.5

5.7

—

Average



21.9

23.0

—

Low


28.7

30.6

—

Low

32.9

↑

NA

% Total Population

15.6

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

71.1

73.9

↑

Average

17,848

404,217

↑

NA

30.7

28.6

↑

Average

5,526,208

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

↑

Very Low


48.0

50.9

72.3

—

Average

GREENE COUNTY


7,199

143,027

↑

NA


5,284

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Years

39,364

854,701

↑

Health Indicators


43,725

828,615

% 64 Below Poverty

8.3

11.8

—


41,059

47,202

↓

Obesity Prevalence

26.1

30.2

—


8.4

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.9

10.7

—


6.4

6.0

—


32.5

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

14.2

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.0

13.9

—

Very Low


20.8

23.0

—

Very Low


4.7

5.7

—

Very Low



23.0

23.0

—

Average


28.5

30.6

↑

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

15.3

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

66.4

73.9

↑

Low

683

404,217

↑

NA

27.6

28.6

—

Average

178,286

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

High



52.1

↑

Average


50.9

83.7

—

Average

GRUNDY COUNTY


381

143,027

—

NA


294

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

16.7

11.8

—


35,239

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

29.9

30.2

—


7.8

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.8

10.7

—


4.4

6.0

—


40.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

16.3

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.2

13.9

—

Low


21.7

23.0

↑

Low


5.1

5.7

—

Low



23.1

23.0

—

Average


27.4

30.6

—

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

16.6

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

71.7

73.9

↑

Average

615

404,217

↑

NA

28.3

28.6

—

Average

165,356

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

↑

High


50.9

77.7

—

Average

HARRISON COUNTY


374

143,027

—

NA


286

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

13.8

11.8

—


35,000

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

35.7

30.2

—


8.7

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

14.2

10.7

—


4.0

6.0

—


41.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.7

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.0

13.9

—

Average


21.3

23.0

—

Low


5.9

5.7

—

Average



23.6

23.0

—

Average


28.6

30.6

—

Low

48.5

↑

NA

% Total Population

18.8

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

79.3

73.9

↑

High

1,589

404,217

↑

NA

32.4

28.6

—

High

502,672

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Very High



52.1

—

Low


45.1

50.9

87.9

↓

Low

HENRY COUNTY


626

143,027

—

NA


463

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

11.8

11.8

—


35,706

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

40

30.2

↑


10.1

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

12.5

10.7

—


6.1

6.0

—


37.8

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

14.1

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.5

13.9

—

Very Low


17.7

23.0

—

Very Low


5.4

5.7

—

Average



28.5

23.0

—

Very High


31.1

30.6

↑

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

16.2

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

56.9

73.9

↑

Very Low

524

404,217

—

NA

31.5

28.6

—

Average

186,989

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Low



52.1

↑

Very High


50.9

81.7

↓

Very Low


235

143,027

↑

NA


180

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

7.9

11.8

—


28,097

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

30.8

30.2

—


12.5

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

12.9

10.7

—


3.4

6.0

—


41.1

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

23.0

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.0

13.9

—

Very Low


20.6

23.0

—

Very Low


4.7

5.7

—

Very Low



19.8

23.0

—

Low


33.4

30.6

—

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

9.8

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

49.6

73.9

↑

Very Low

189

404,217

↑

NA

19.7

28.6

—

Very Low

51,598

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Average



52.1

↑

Average


50.9

82.6

82.5



RANK

950,345



TREND

473



52.4

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

↑

High


95

143,027

↓

NA


71

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10.8

11.8

—


40,261

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

36.9

30.2

↑


7.6

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

8.6

10.7

—


4.5

6.0

—


36.6

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

16.8

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.6

13.9

—

Average


22.1

23.0

—

Low


5.5

5.7

—

Average



18.2

23.0

—

Low


30.3

30.6

—

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

13.4

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

73.6

73.9

↑

Average

572

404,217

↑

NA

25.8

28.6

—

Low

158,867

121,727,822

↑

NA

↓

Very High



52.1

—

Low


50.9

87.6

—

Low

HOWARD COUNTY


196

143,027

↑

NA


142

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

11.5

11.8

—


42,067

47,202

—

8

6.7

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33.9

30.2

—


Diabetes Prevalence

6.3

10.7

—


7.2

6.0

—


32.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.7

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.7

13.9

—

Very High


24.1

23.0

↑

High


6.4

5.7

—

Very High



28.3

23.0

↑

Very High


39.8

30.6

↑

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

23.2

15.8

↑

Very High

% Income Eligible

82.0

73.9

↑

High

3,928

404,217

↑

NA

39.3

28.6

↑

Very High

1,121,667

121,727,822

↑

NA

↓

Very Low



52.1

↑

Average


50.9

78.8

↑

High


1,702

143,027

—

NA


1,259

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

17

11.8

—


35,282

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

26.2

30.2

↓


9.2

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

12.9

10.7

↑


6.3

6.0

—


38.2

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

19.0

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

STATE

COUNTY

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.7

13.9

—

Very High


24.9

23.0

—

Very High


6.5

5.7

—

Very High



29.3

23.0

—

Very High


34.8

30.6

↓

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

25.6

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

87.5

73.9

↑

Very High

1,000

404,217

↑

NA

42.3

28.6

↑

Very High

313,719

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

High



52.1

↑

Very High


50.9

81.9

82.5



RANK

950,345



TREND

2,727



66.3

COUNTY



% Students Eligible

STATE

↓

Average


414

143,027

↑

NA


324

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

13.3

11.8

—


29,803

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

32.5

30.2

↑


11.6

6.7

↑

Diabetes Prevalence

15.2

10.7

—


4.9

6.0

—


39.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

24.0

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.9

13.9

—

Very High


24.0

23.0

—

High


6.1

5.7

—

High



21.9

23.0

—

Low


30.2

30.6

—

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

18.4

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

83.9

73.9

↑

High

56,358

404,217

↑

NA

34.1

28.6

↑

High

16,818,093

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

↑

Very High


50.9

79.6

—

Average

JACKSON COUNTY


23,406

143,027

—

NA


17,955

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

9.1

11.8

—


46,252

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

27.7

30.2

—


11

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

10.3

10.7

—


9.3

6.0

—


34.2

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

13.2

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


17.7

13.9

—

Very High


24.7

23.0

—

Very High


6.9

5.7

—

Very High



24.7

23.0

—

Average


32.7

30.6

—

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

17.9

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

72.4

73.9

↑

Average

9,358

404,217

↑

NA

30.9

28.6

—

Average

2,600,520

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Low



52.1

—

Low


50.9

80.8

—

Average

JASPER COUNTY


3,675

143,027

—

NA


2,759

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10

11.8

—


37,894

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

36.1

30.2

↑


8.4

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11.5

10.7

—


9.2

6.0

—


39.2

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

17.2

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.7

13.9

—

Low


22.8

23.0

↑

Average


5.2

5.7

—

Low



13.9

23.0

—

Very Low


17.6

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

12.4

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

88.8

73.9

↑

Very High

11,545

404,217

↑

NA

21.0

28.6

—

Very Low

3,484,191

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

—

Very Low


50.9

78.4

—

Very Low

JEFFERSON COUNTY


3,422

143,027

—

NA


2,506

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

7.6

11.8

—


56,756

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

34.9

30.2

—


10.3

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.8

10.7

—


6.6

6.0

—


34.2

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

12.8

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.6

13.9

—

Average


26.1

23.0

↑

Very High


5.3

5.7

—

Average



19.7

23.0

—

Low


24.8

30.6

—

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

11.3

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

57.5

73.9

↑

Very Low

2,564

404,217

↑

NA

21.5

28.6

—

Low

761,389

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Average



52.1

↑

Low


50.9

82.2

↑

Low

JOHNSON COUNTY


1,828

143,027

—

NA


1,385

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

6.4

11.8

—


44,985

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

29.2

30.2

—


9.1

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

13.2

10.7

—


5.6

6.0

—


31.3

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

14.2

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.6

13.9

—

Low


23.8

23.0

↑

High


5.2

5.7

—

Low



33.5

23.0

↑

Very High


49.4

30.6

↑

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

11.3

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

33.6

73.9

—

Very Low

182

404,217

—

NA

18.0

28.6

—

Very Low

53,382

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

High



52.1

↑

High


50.9

85.0

82.5



RANK

950,345



TREND

465



64.4

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

—

High


165

143,027

↓

NA


136

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

7.1

11.8

↓


33,029

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

32.7

30.2

—


6.7

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

10.2

10.7

—


3.7

6.0

—


38.2

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

19.5

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.7

13.9

—

Very High


23.1

23.0

—

Average


6.5

5.7

—

Very High



24.1

23.0

—

Average


33.4

30.6

—

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

21.5

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

89.2

73.9

↑

Very High

3,290

404,217

↑

NA

37.2

28.6

↑

High

924,791

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

↑

High


50.9

79.4

—

High


1,218

143,027

—

NA


910

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10.8

11.8

—


37,294

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

28.1

30.2

—


11.8

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

13

10.7

—


6.8

6.0

—

36.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

16.1

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.4

13.9

—

Low


21.0

23.0

—

Very Low


5.3

5.7

—

Low



15.4

23.0

—

Very Low


19.5

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

15.3

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

99.3

73.9

↑

Very High

2,160

404,217

↑

NA

27.1

28.6

—

Average

625,493

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Low



52.1

—

Very Low


50.9

80.4

—

Very Low

LAFAYETTE COUNTY


687

143,027

↑

NA


535

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

7.5

11.8

—


48,257

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

38.5

30.2

↑


10.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.7

10.7

—


6.2

6.0

—


41.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

13.8

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.2

13.9

—

High


23.7

23.0

↑

High


6.1

5.7

—

High



25.0

23.0

—

High


36.6

30.6

—

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

17.0

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

68.0

73.9

↑

Low

2,904

404,217

↑

NA

28.9

28.6

—

Average

792,423

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Low



52.1

—

Average


50.9

79.8

↓

High


1,110

143,027

↓

NA


856

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

11.5

11.8

—


38,350

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

35.2

30.2

↑


8.4

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.4

10.7

—


7.2

6.0

—


32.8

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.5

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.5

13.9

—

Low


23.8

23.0

↑

High


5.1

5.7

—

Low



21.7

23.0

—

Low


33.7

30.6

—

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

11.3

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

51.9

73.9

↑

Very Low

482

404,217

↑

NA

20.7

28.6

—

Very Low

128,826

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very High



52.1

↑

Low


50.9

87.7

↓

Low


277

143,027

↓

NA


208

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10.5

11.8

—


40,399

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

34.5

30.2

—


8.5

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.2

10.7

—


4.7

6.0

—


34.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.5

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.2

13.9

—

Average


23.4

23.0

—

Average


5.8

5.7

—

Average



16.0

23.0

—

Very Low


20.6

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

15.9

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

99.3

73.9

↑

Very High

3,762

404,217

↑

NA

25.7

28.6

—

Low

1,089,044

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Low



52.1

—

Very Low


50.9

81.2

—

Very Low

LINCOLN COUNTY


1,013

143,027

—

NA


749

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

4.1

11.8

—


52,897

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

32.6

30.2

—


11.5

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

7.8

10.7

—


6.9

6.0

—


32.3

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

14.5

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.4

13.9

—

Low


22.0

23.0

—

Low


5.3

5.7

—

Low



22.9

23.0

—

Average


22.3

30.6

↓

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

16.0

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

69.8

73.9

↑

Low

797

404,217

↑

NA

26.3

28.6

—

Average

225,883

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

High



52.1

—

Low


50.9

84.7

82.5



RANK

950,345



TREND

2,009



40.9

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

↓

Average


366

143,027

—

NA


285

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

15.6

11.8

—


37,706

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

39.1

30.2

—


11.1

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

12.9

10.7

—


4.1

6.0

—


36.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

17.4

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


16.6

13.9

—

Very High


22.4

23.0

↑

Average


6.7

5.7

—

Very High



22.4

23.0

—

Average


40.4

30.6

↑

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

12.8

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

57.1

73.9

—

Very Low

816

404,217

—

NA

25.0

28.6

—

Low

226,598

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Average



52.1

—

Low


50.9

85.2

↑

High

LIVINGSTON COUNTY


395

143,027

↓

NA


297

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

18.4

11.8

—


39,683

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

34.7

30.2

↑


8.1

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

14.4

10.7

—


8.2

6.0

—


33.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

15.4

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.6

13.9

—

Low


21.4

23.0

—

Low


5.2

5.7

—

Low



22.0

23.0

—

Average


33.2

30.6

↑

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

14.7

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

66.5

73.9

↑

Low

990

404,217

↑

NA

26.8

28.6

—

Average

263,386

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very High



52.1

—

Average


50.9

87.5

↓

Average


301

143,027

↓

NA


227

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

12.9

11.8

—


36,429

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

30.7

30.2

—


8.4

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11

10.7

—


5.3

6.0

—

40.5

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

17.7

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.4

13.9

—

High


23.7

23.0

—

High


6.3

5.7

—

High



28.8

23.0

—

Very High


35.4

30.6

—

High

65.5

↑

NA

% Total Population

23.9

15.8

↑

Very High

% Income Eligible

83.2

73.9

↑

High

1,151

404,217

↑

NA

39.6

28.6

↑

Very High

337,861

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

High



52.1

↑

High


57.5

50.9

83.7

—

High


557

143,027

—

NA


437

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

16.3

11.8

—


33,456

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

29.7

30.2

—


10.4

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

17

10.7

↑


5.7

6.0

—

41.2

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

20.7

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.2

13.9

—

Very Low


22.7

23.0

—

Average


4.6

5.7

—

Very Low



20.7

23.0

—

Low


26.7

30.6

—

Low

36.2

↑

NA

% Total Population

12.8

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

61.8

73.9

—

Low

458

404,217

↓

NA

21.8

28.6

—

Low

140,659

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Very High



52.1

↓

Very Low


29.4

50.9

91.3

↓

Very Low


22

143,027

↓

NA


17

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

11

11.8

—


40,185

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

36

30.2

—


7.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11.4

10.7

—


4.1

6.0

—


37.3

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

19.6

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.3

13.9

—

High


22.0

23.0

—

Low


6.2

5.7

—

High



20.2

23.0

—

Low


28.5

30.6

—

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

18.9

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

93.3

73.9

↑

Very High

2,356

404,217

↑

NA

34.6

28.6

—

High

659,670

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Average



52.1

↓

Very Low


50.9

82.6

↑

High


849

143,027

↓

NA


617

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

11.2

11.8

—


40,859

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

40.5

30.2

↑


8.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

13.4

10.7

↑


8.1

6.0

—


33.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

14.4

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.6

13.9

—

High


26.0

23.0

—

Very High


5.7

5.7

—

Average



25.9

23.0

—

High


32.4

30.6

—

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

20.3

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

78.5

73.9

↑

Average

2,319

404,217

↑

NA

36.6

28.6

—

High

567,637

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Low



52.1

↑

Very High


50.9

79.8

↑

Very High


992

143,027

↓

NA


755

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

13.6

11.8

—


36,619

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

28.2

30.2

—


9.2

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

10

10.7

—


6.4

6.0

—

29.5

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

21.1

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.2

13.9

—

Average


20.7

23.0

↑

Very Low


5.9

5.7

—

Average



23.6

23.0

—

Average


26.5

30.6

—

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

12.3

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

52.0

73.9

↑

Very Low

184

404,217

↑

NA

19.5

28.6

—

Very Low

48,935

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very High



52.1

↑

Average


50.9

↑

Very High

MERCER COUNTY PERFORMANCE

High

Low

82.5


102

143,027

↓

NA


77

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

17.4

11.8

—


34,008

47,202

↓

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

39

30.2

↑


7.8

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11.6

10.7

—


7.3

6.0

—


36.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

20.0

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.1

13.9

—

High


23.6

23.0

—

High


6.3

5.7

—

High



25.5

23.0

—

High


30.8

30.6

↑

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

20.7

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

81.2

73.9

↑

High

2,118

404,217

↑

NA

34.9

28.6

—

High

620,359

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Average



52.1

—

Low


50.9

83.3

—

Average


742

143,027

↓

NA


565

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

16.5

11.8

—


35,838

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33.5

30.2

—


12.4

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

13.2

10.7

—


5.7

6.0

—


41.3

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.9

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


18.4

13.9

—

Very High


27.4

23.0

—

Very High


7.0

5.7

—

Very High



37.2

23.0

—

Very High


48.6

30.6

↑

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

28.8

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

77.4

73.9

—

Average

1,671

404,217

↑

NA

52.9

28.6

—

Very High

493,135

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Low



52.1

↑

Very High



50.9

81.9

↑

Very High


755

143,027

↓

NA


592

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

16.9

11.8

—


29,586

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

35.1

30.2

—


9.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11.7

10.7

—


7.6

6.0

—

43

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

25.6

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.6

13.9

—

Very Low


22.9

23.0

↑

Average


4.7

5.7

—

Very Low



15.1

23.0

—

Very Low


20.4

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

11.3

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

74.8

73.9

↑

Average

809

404,217

↑

NA

20.8

28.6

—

Very Low

211,354

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Very High



52.1

—

Low


50.9

87.6

↓

Very Low


373

143,027

—

NA


286

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

11.2

11.8

—


47,162

47,202

↓

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

32.9

30.2

—


8.2

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.1

10.7

—


5.7

6.0

—


28.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

15.5

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.9

13.9

—

Average


20.6

23.0

—

Very Low


6.0

5.7

—

High



21.0

23.0

—

Low


32.4

30.6

—

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

12.2

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

58.2

73.9

↑

Very Low

471

404,217

↑

NA

23.9

28.6

—

Low

121,200

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

High



52.1

↑

Average


50.9

84.5

↑

Low

MONROE COUNTY


271

143,027

—

NA


211

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10.3

11.8

—


38,750

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

31.8

30.2

—


13

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

13.1

10.7

↑


6.3

6.0

—


34.5

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

17.1

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.6

13.9

—

High


21.3

23.0

—

Low


6.1

5.7

—

High



23.0

23.0

—

Average


32.6

30.6

—

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

17.0

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

73.6

73.9

—

Average

900

404,217

↑

NA

31.5

28.6

—

High

251,357

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Average



52.1

↑

High


50.9

82.5

82.5



RANK

950,345



TREND

2,082



58.5

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

↑

Very High

MONTGOMERY COUNTY


293

143,027

—

NA


208

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

7.6

11.8

—


39,369

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

37.2

30.2

↑


10.8

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11.1

10.7

—


6.8

6.0

—


39.8

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

19.0

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.8

13.9

—

Average


21.9

23.0

—

Low


6.0

5.7

—

High



25.2

23.0

—

High


30.0

30.6

↑

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

18.4

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

73.3

73.9

—

Average

1,441

404,217

—

NA

32.5

28.6

—

High

455,440

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Low



52.1

—

Very High


50.9

80.9

↑

Very High

MORGAN COUNTY


533

143,027

↓

NA


400

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10.3

11.8

—


36,696

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

31.1

30.2

—


12.7

6.7

↑

Diabetes Prevalence

11.6

10.7

—


4.1

6.0

—

42

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.7

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


16.3

13.9

—

Very High


24.1

23.0

—

High


6.4

5.7

—

Very High



28.3

23.0

—

Very High


39.1

30.6

—

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

27.0

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

95.3

73.9

↑

Very High

1,937

404,217

—

NA

43.7

28.6

—

Very High

598,513

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

↑

Very High


50.9

75.6

↓

Average

NEW MADRID COUNTY


748

143,027

↓

NA


575

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

17.9

11.8

—


32,895

47,202

—

8.9

6.7

—

8

6.0

—

16.1

14.3

NA

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

50.4

30.2

↑


Diabetes Prevalence

15.9

10.7

—



46.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.3

13.9

—

High


24.0

23.0

↑

High


5.8

5.7

—

Average



23.7

23.0

—

Average


35.5

30.6

—

High

61.4

↑

NA

% Total Population

15.2

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

64.2

73.9

↑

Low

4,113

404,217

↑

NA

27.9

28.6

↑

Average

1,077,788

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Average



52.1

—

High


52.9

50.9

82.0

—

Average

NEWTON COUNTY


1,631

143,027

—

NA


1,225

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

7.4

11.8

—


41,163

47,202

—

9

6.7

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

34.9

30.2

↑


Diabetes Prevalence

12.8

10.7

—


6.4

6.0

—

35

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

16.0

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.5

13.9

—

Average


27.5

23.0

↑

Very High


5.3

5.7

—

Low



26.0

23.0

—

High


20.2

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

6.5

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

25.0

73.9

—

Very Low

623

404,217

↑

NA

14.7

28.6

—

Very Low

178,797

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Average



52.1

↑

Very Low


50.9

82.2

↑

Very Low

NODAWAY COUNTY


397

143,027

—

NA


293

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

11.5

11.8

—


38,621

47,202

↓

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

20.5

30.2

↑


6.6

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

7.3

10.7

—


4.4

6.0

—


29.8

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

17.0

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.0

13.9

—

High


25.4

23.0

↑

Very High


6.1

5.7

—

High



36.2

23.0

—

Very High


45.8

30.6

—

Very High

66.9

↑

NA

% Total Population

25.1

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

69.4

73.9

↑

Low

1,012

404,217

↑

NA

41.2

28.6

—

Very High

320,311

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very High



52.1

—

Very High


54.3

50.9

80.9

↓

Average

OREGON COUNTY


525

143,027

↓

NA


391

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

23.6

11.8

—


26,144

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33

30.2

↑


9.4

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

12

10.7

—


3.8

6.0

—

40.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

26.6

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


10.7

13.9

—

Very Low


21.9

23.0

↑

Low


4.4

5.7

—

Very Low



14.2

23.0

—

Very Low


20.0

30.6

↑

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

8.2

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

57.8

73.9

—

Very Low

487

404,217

↑

NA

14.4

28.6

—

Very Low

138,472

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Very High



52.1

—

Very Low


50.9

↑

Low

OSAGE COUNTY PERFORMANCE

Very Low

Average

82.5


153

143,027

↑

NA


113

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10.8

11.8

—


45,746

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

27.2

30.2

↑


6.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

7.5

10.7

—


5.3

6.0

—


27.2

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.4

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.2

13.9

—

Low


20.5

23.0

—

Very Low


5.2

5.7

—

Low



28.2

23.0

—

Very High


36.4

30.6

↓

High

↓

NA

% Total Population

18.7

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

66.2

73.9

—

Low

650

404,217

↓

NA

34.6

28.6

—

High

207,513

121,727,822

↑

NA

↓

Low



52.1

—

Very High


50.9

80.0

—

High

OZARK COUNTY


239

143,027

↓

NA


184

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

12.7

11.8

—


31,960

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

34.1

30.2

—


9.2

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

15.6

10.7

↑


4.7

6.0

—


39.8

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

22.7

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


23.8

13.9

—

Very High


27.2

23.0

—

Very High


9.1

5.7

—

Very High



39.3

23.0

—

Very High


57.9

30.6

↑

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

35.9

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

91.2

73.9

↑

Very High

2,776

404,217

—

NA

55.5

28.6

—

Very High

782,896

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

—

High


50.9

78.7

↑

Very High


891

143,027

↓

NA


672

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

21.4

11.8

—


30,120

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

37.6

30.2

↓


10.5

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

18.3

10.7

—


11.8

6.0

—


54.8

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

23.5

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


9.8

13.9

—

Very Low


22.2

23.0

↑

Low


4.0

5.7

—

Very Low



19.1

23.0

—

Low


22.7

30.6

—

Low

30.8

↑

NA

% Total Population

13.2

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

69.2

73.9

↓

Low

1,070

404,217

—

NA

22.8

28.6

—

Low

303,525

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Very High



52.1

↓

Very Low


43.4

50.9

92.1

↓

Low

PERRY COUNTY


457

143,027

↓

NA


344

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

9.1

11.8

—


45,713

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

27.1

30.2

—


6.6

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9

10.7

—


4.4

6.0

—

36.1

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

14.7

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.1

13.9

—

Average


24.9

23.0

↑

Very High


5.6

5.7

—

Average



25.1

23.0

—

High


31.8

30.6

—

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

16.4

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

65.3

73.9

—

Low

3,268

404,217

↑

NA

30.6

28.6

—

Average

864,744

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very High



52.1

—

Average


50.9

83.8

—

Average


1,746

143,027

↓

NA


1,326

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

11.4

11.8

—


37,658

47,202

↓

8.9

6.7

—

6

6.0

—

16.6

14.3

NA

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

30.3

30.2

—


Diabetes Prevalence

11.3

10.7

—



35.3

34.3

↑

Food Affordability


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.6

13.9

—

Average


25.2

23.0

—

Very High


5.4

5.7

—

Average



22.3

23.0

—

Average


25.0

30.6

—

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

15.0

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

67.3

73.9

↑

Low

2,743

404,217

↑

NA

28.2

28.6

—

Average

836,663

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Average



52.1

↑

Very High


50.9

82.7

—

Low


1,366

143,027

—

NA


1,024

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Years

6,232

854,701

—

Health Indicators


7,393

828,615

% 64 Below Poverty

9.5

11.8

—


40,260

47,202

↑

Obesity Prevalence

33.5

30.2

—


7.7

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

10.5

10.7

—


5.7

6.0

—


36.5

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

14.7

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.8

13.9

—

Low


22.2

23.0

—

Average


5.2

5.7

—

Low



20.5

23.0

—

Low


29.6

30.6

—

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

13.6

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

66.4

73.9

↑

Low

1,037

404,217

↑

NA

25.3

28.6

—

Low

299,017

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

High



52.1

—

Low


50.9

85.8

82.5



RANK

950,345



TREND

2,532



46.3

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

↓

Low

PIKE COUNTY


526

143,027

↑

NA


395

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

9

11.8

—


42,082

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33.5

30.2

—


9.4

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

14.1

10.7

↑


6.6

6.0

—


41.6

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

15.4

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


10.8

13.9

—

Very Low


21.9

23.0

↑

Low


4.3

5.7

—

Very Low



9.8

23.0

—

Very Low


13.1

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

6.8

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

69.1

73.9

↑

Low

2,979

404,217

↑

NA

13.5

28.6

—

Very Low

803,894

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

—

Very Low


50.9

76.5

—

Very Low

PLATTE COUNTY


1,766

143,027

—

NA


1,350

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

6.4

11.8

—


65,948

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

26

30.2

—


8.1

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.8

10.7

—


7.1

6.0

—


30

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

11.0

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.9

13.9

—

Very High


25.4

23.0

↑

Very High


6.4

5.7

—

Very High



25.6

23.0

—

High


36.2

30.6

↑

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

20.1

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

78.2

73.9

↑

Average

2,533

404,217

↑

NA

33.4

28.6

—

High

762,837

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

↑

High


50.9

78.4

82.5



RANK

950,345



TREND

6,250



64.0

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

—

Average

POLK COUNTY


866

143,027

↓

NA


644

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

13.9

11.8

—


35,831

47,202

↓

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33.6

30.2

↑


9.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

16.1

10.7

↑


5.5

6.0

—


38.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

15.4

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.4

13.9

—

Average


26.5

23.0

↑

Very High


5.0

5.7

—

Very Low



15.8

23.0

—

Very Low


22.4

30.6

—

Low

55.4

↑

NA

% Total Population

10.4

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

65.7

73.9

↑

Low

2,325

404,217

↑

NA

18.3

28.6

—

Very Low

700,539

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Average



52.1

↑

Average


45.6

50.9

82.5

↑

Low

PULASKI COUNTY


1,695

143,027

—

NA


1,270

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

14.1

11.8

—


43,155

47,202

—

7.9

6.7

—

7

6.0

—

15.1

14.3

NA

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

28.3

30.2

—


Diabetes Prevalence

8

10.7

—



32

34.3

↑

Food Affordability


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.0

13.9

—

High


21.8

23.0

—

Low


6.1

5.7

—

High



24.1

23.0

—

High


25.5

30.6

↓

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

12.2

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

50.8

73.9

↑

Very Low

237

404,217

↑

NA

21.0

28.6

—

Very Low

66,738

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very High



52.1

↑

Low


50.9

87.5

↓

Average


140

143,027

↓

NA


106

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

12.5

11.8

—


34,545

47,202

↑

7.6

6.7

—

8

6.0

—

15.2

14.3

NA

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33.2

30.2

—


Diabetes Prevalence

11.5

10.7

—



38.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


8.2

13.9

—

Very Low


21.8

23.0

↑

Low


3.5

5.7

—

Very Low



14.0

23.0

—

Very Low


16.1

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

10.8

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

77.1

73.9

↑

Average

481

404,217

↑

NA

20.4

28.6

—

Very Low

128,355

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Low



52.1

↑

Low


50.9

80.5

↓

Very Low

RALLS COUNTY


154

143,027

↓

NA


121

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

7

11.8

—


45,194

47,202

↓

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

38.5

30.2

—


8.3

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11.9

10.7

—


2.7

6.0

—


41.5

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

17.3

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


16.5

13.9

—

Very High


23.6

23.0

—

High


6.6

5.7

—

Very High



26.2

23.0

—

High


39.3

30.6

—

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

19.9

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

76.0

73.9

—

Average

2,081

404,217

↑

NA

35.8

28.6

—

High

606,491

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Low



52.1

—

Average


50.9

80.3

↑

Very High

RANDOLPH COUNTY


982

143,027

↓

NA


757

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

10.5

11.8

—


36,458

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

30.8

30.2

—


10

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

12.2

10.7

—


8.3

6.0

—


35.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

16.1

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.3

13.9

—

Low


21.3

23.0

↑

Low


5.2

5.7

—

Low



13.3

23.0

—

Very Low


16.0

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

12.7

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

95.3

73.9

↑

Very High

1,280

404,217

↑

NA

22.4

28.6

—

Low

357,298

121,727,822

↑

NA



52.1

↑

Very Low


50.9

82.8

82.5

Average



RANK

950,345



TREND

2,954



38.8

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

↑

Very Low

RAY COUNTY


600

143,027

—

NA


483

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

7.9

11.8

—


53,343

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

38.2

30.2

—


11.3

6.7

↑

Diabetes Prevalence

10.3

10.7

—


6.1

6.0

—


39.3

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

13.1

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


16.2

13.9

—

Very High


23.7

23.0

—

High


6.9

5.7

—

Very High



29.8

23.0

—

Very High


36.1

30.6

—

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

24.9

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

83.6

73.9

↑

High

582

404,217

↑

NA

39.2

28.6

—

Very High

192,192

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

High



52.1

—

Very High


50.9

85.8

↓

Average


141

143,027

↓

NA


101

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

5.7

11.8

—


32,059

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

36.1

30.2

—


13.5

6.7

↑

Diabetes Prevalence

14.8

10.7

—


5.1

6.0

—


45.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

20.3

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


17.9

13.9

—

Very High


24.1

23.0

—

High


7.3

5.7

—

Very High



34.7

23.0

—

Very High


50.3

30.6

↑

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

30.3

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

87.4

73.9

↑

High

1,610

404,217

↑

NA

48.2

28.6

—

Very High

507,447

121,727,822

↑

NA

↓

Very High



52.1

—

Very High


50.9

86.5

↑

Very High


603

143,027

↑

NA


446

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

11.6

11.8

—


29,369

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

41.4

30.2

—


9.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

15.4

10.7

—


7.4

6.0

—


48.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

24.9

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.4

13.9

—

High


24.3

23.0

—

High


6.1

5.7

—

High



25.4

23.0

—

High


38.3

30.6

↑

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

19.7

15.8

↑

High

% Income Eligible

77.5

73.9

↑

Average

1,936

404,217

↑

NA

36.8

28.6

↑

High

530,939

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

High



52.1

—

Average


50.9

84.4

↑

High


706

143,027

↓

NA


517

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

12.5

11.8

—


38,818

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

40.1

30.2

—


8.3

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11.7

10.7

—


7.6

6.0

—


37.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

13.6

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.5

13.9

—

High


20.6

23.0

—

Very Low


6.5

5.7

—

Very High



31.6

23.0

↑

Very High


39.8

30.6

↑

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

13.1

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

41.6

73.9

↓

Very Low

231

404,217

—

NA

21.2

28.6

—

Very Low

65,252

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

High



52.1

—

Average


50.9

83.7

—

Average

SCHUYLER COUNTY


105

143,027

↓

NA


79

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

17.2

11.8

—


31,358

47,202

↑

8.8

6.7

—

7

6.0

—

17.9

14.3

NA

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

30.4

30.2

—


Diabetes Prevalence

14

10.7

↑


34.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.7

13.9

—

Average


26.0

23.0

↑

Very High


5.4

5.7

—

Average



28.0

23.0

—

High


39.6

30.6

—

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

11.0

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

39.2

73.9

↑

Very Low

229

404,217

↑

NA

16.8

28.6

—

Very Low

57,479

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very High



52.1

↑

Very High


50.9

88.0

↑

Very High

SCOTLAND COUNTY


102

143,027

—

NA


76

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

21.4

11.8

↑


39,722

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

23.3

30.2

↓


7.7

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.1

10.7

—


2.4

6.0

—


32.3

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

16.6

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.9

13.9

—

Very High


23.5

23.0

—

High


6.3

5.7

—

High



24.3

23.0

—

Average


29.1

30.6

↑

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

24.5

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

100

73.9

↑

Very High

4,025

404,217

↑

NA

41.6

28.6

↑

Very High

1,162,344

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

High



52.1

↓

Very Low


50.9

84.4

↑

Average


1,512

143,027

↓

NA


1,127

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

17.2

11.8

—


37,716

47,202

—

9.3

6.7

—

8

6.0

—

20.6

14.3

NA

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

27.5

30.2

↓


Diabetes Prevalence

15.3

10.7

—



38.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


16.9

13.9

—

Very High


26.1

23.0

—

Very High


7.0

5.7

—

Very High



31.4

23.0

↓

Very High


39.1

30.6

↓

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

25.3

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

80.3

73.9

↑

High

804

404,217

↑

NA

41.6

28.6

—

Very High

249,001

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

High



52.1

↓

Very High


50.9

↓

High

SHANNON COUNTY PERFORMANCE

Very High

High

82.5


343

143,027

↓

NA


260

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

13.5

11.8

↓


30,766

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

27.7

30.2

—


14

6.7

↑

Diabetes Prevalence

12.7

10.7

—


4.5

6.0

—


38.1

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

25.3

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.8

13.9

—

Very Low


20.2

23.0

—

Very Low


5.0

5.7

—

Low



25.5

23.0

—

High


30.9

30.6

—

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

13.7

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

53.9

73.9

↑

Very Low

380

404,217

↑

NA

24.3

28.6

—

Low

94,272

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Low



52.1

↑

Average


50.9

81.0

↑

Average

SHELBY COUNTY


177

143,027

↓

NA


137

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

12.7

11.8

—


35,012

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

43

30.2

↑


8.7

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11.6

10.7

—


5.6

6.0

—


48.1

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

20.1

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


9.4

13.9

—

Very Low


21.9

23.0

↑

Low


3.9

5.7

—

Very Low



7.1

23.0

—

Very Low


8.9

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

5.9

15.8

—

Very Low

% Income Eligible

82.8

73.9

↓

High

10,116

404,217

↑

NA

11.0

28.6

—

Very Low

2,840,606

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Very Low



52.1

↓

Very Low


50.9

70.9

—

Very Low


2,622

143,027

↑

NA


1,898

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

3.9

11.8

—


70,331

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

25.9

30.2

↓


8.7

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

6.6

10.7

—


5.5

6.0

—


28.5

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

10.0

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.9

13.9

—

Very Low


20.9

23.0

—

Very Low


5.2

5.7

—

Low



24.8

23.0

—

High


24.8

30.6

↓

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

21.1

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

84.9

73.9

↑

High

707

404,217

—

NA

37.6

28.6

—

Very High

250,462

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very High



52.1

↑

High


50.9

—

Average

ST CLAIR COUNTY PERFORMANCE

Average

High

82.5


304

143,027

↓

NA


234

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

16.5

11.8

—


32,217

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

26.1

30.2

↓


10.9

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

16.1

10.7

—


3.5

6.0

—


39.5

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

19.9

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.1

13.9

—

Average


23.6

23.0

—

High


5.8

5.7

—

Average



21.7

23.0

—

Low


27.8

30.6

—

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

21.4

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

98.6

73.9

↑

Very High

5,461

404,217

↑

NA

38.0

28.6

↑

Very High

1,737,002

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

—

Low


50.9

78.2

—

Low

ST FRANCOIS COUNTY


426

143,027

↓

NA


1,378

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

9.5

11.8

—


46,911

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

35.1

30.2

↑


9.6

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

14

10.7

—


4.4

6.0

—

44.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

16.1

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK



10.3

13.9

—

Very Low


21.6

23.0

↑

Low


4.4

5.7

—

Very Low



2,243

950,345

↑

NA

% Total Population

12.4

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

74.1

73.9

—

Average

907

404,217

—

NA



16.7

23.0

—

Very Low

% Population < 18 Years

22.0

28.6

—

Low


17.9

30.6

—

Very Low Average Total County Monthly Benefits ($)

275,262

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low

National School Lunch Program % Students Eligible

23.1


52.1

↓

Very Low


38.5

50.9

↓

Very Low

STE GENEVIEVE COUNTY


1,849

143,027

↑

NA


327

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

9.2

11.8

—


38,589

47,202

↓

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

27

30.2

—


11.3

6.7

↑

Diabetes Prevalence

12

10.7

—


5.9

6.0

—

36.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

15.8

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


11.2

13.9

—

Very Low


20.8

23.0

↑

Very Low


4.5

5.7

—

Very Low



13.7

23.0

—

Very Low


19.8

30.6

—

Very Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

12.2

15.8

—

Low

% Income Eligible

89.4

73.9

↑

Very High

54,266

404,217

↑

NA

23.6

28.6

—

Low

16,147,360

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very High



52.1

↑

Low


50.9

74.5

—

Very Low

ST LOUIS COUNTY


9,417

143,027

↑

NA


6,927

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

6.3

11.8

—


57,561

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

28.8

30.2

—


9.4

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11.1

10.7

—


7.8

6.0

—


34.5

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

11.4

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.7

13.9

—

Average


23.2

23.0

—

Very High


5.6

5.7

—

Very High



26.5

23.0

—

High


35.9

30.6

—

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

19.4

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

73.2

73.9

↑

Average

2,137

404,217

↑

NA

32.0

28.6

—

High

661,344

121,727,822

↑

NA

↓

High



52.1

↑

High


50.9

82.6

—

High

STODDARD COUNTY


904

143,027

—

NA


660

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

14.3

11.8

—


35,932

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

28.7

30.2

—


9.1

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

14

10.7

—


5.2

6.0

—

44.1

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

19.0

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.0

13.9

—

Low


20.2

23.0

—

Average


5.8

5.7

—

Average



25.2

23.0

—

High


41.5

30.6

—

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

14.9

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

58.9

73.9

↑

Very Low

1,926

404,217

↑

NA

33.0

28.6

↑

High

585,443

121,727,822

↑

NA



52.1

↑

High


50.9

79.9

—

Average

690

143,027

↓

NA


520

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

6.6

11.8

—


41,351

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

28.7

30.2

—


12.4

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.3

10.7

—


4.8

6.0

—


46.8

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

16.8

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.5

13.9

—

High


25.7

23.0

↑

Very Low


6.0

5.7

—

High



27.2

23.0

—

High


38.9

30.6

↑

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

15.2

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

55.9

73.9

↑

Very Low

446

404,217

↑

NA

27.9

28.6

↑

Average

120,383

121,727,822

↑

NA

↓

Average



52.1

—

High


50.9

59.6

↑

Very High

SULLIVAN COUNTY


235

143,027

↓

NA


172

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

15.7

11.8

—


30,459

47,202

↓

7.1

6.7

—

7

6.0

—

25.1

14.3

NA

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

35.6

30.2

—


Diabetes Prevalence

21.1

10.7

↑



44.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.6

13.9

—

High


22.2

23.0

—

Very High


6.1

5.7

—

High



23.1

23.0

—

Average


29.4

30.6

—

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

18.8

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

81.3

73.9

—

High

4,085

404,217

↑

NA

35.1

28.6

↑

High

1,232,440

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Low



52.1

↑

Very High


50.9

81.5

—

Average

TANEY COUNTY


1,990

143,027

↑

NA


1,533

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

7.5

11.8

—


39,026

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

28.8

30.2

—


12.6

6.7

↑

Diabetes Prevalence

13.5

10.7

—


6.2

6.0

—


30.9

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

15.3

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


15.3

13.9

—

High


24.7

23.0

—

Low


6.2

5.7

—

High



27.8

23.0

—

High


40.4

30.6

—

Average

↑

NA

% Total Population

19.1

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

69.0

73.9

↑

Low

1,975

404,217

↑

NA

34.9

28.6

—

High

584,124

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Low



52.1

↑

High


50.9

80.2


—

783

143,027

—

NA


603

107,288

—

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

14.7

11.8

—


31,552

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33.8

30.2

↑


9.5

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

13.8

10.7

—


5.3

6.0

—


38.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

21.5

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


17.9

13.9

—


23.6

23.0

—

High


7.1

5.7

—

High



26.2

23.0

—


43.3

30.6

—

↑

NA

% Total Population

18.1

15.8

—

High

% Income Eligible

69.1

73.9

↑

Low

1,596

404,217

↑

NA

% Population < 18 Years

30.8

28.6

—

Average

Very High Average Total County Monthly Benefits ($)

438,515

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Low

Number of Monthly Participants < 18 Years High


52.1

↑

High


50.9

87.4


—

554

143,027

↓

NA


413

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

12.7

11.8

—


34,387

47,202

—

7.9

6.7

—

9

6.0

—

19.6

14.3

NA

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

33.5

30.2

—


Diabetes Prevalence

13.6

10.7

—



38.6

34.3

↑

Food Affordability


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.8

13.9

—

Low


23.0

23.0

—

High


5.3

5.7

—

Very High



16.7

23.0

—

Very Low


23.7

30.6

—

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

NA

15.8

NA

High

% Income Eligible

92.3

73.9

↑

Very High

2,244

404,217

↑

NA

28.2

28.6

—

Average

642,582

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Low



52.1

↓

Very Low


50.9

86.5

—

Low


727

143,027

↓

NA


545

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

7

11.8

—


50,231

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

34.4

30.2

↑


11

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

11.9

10.7

↑


5.2

6.0

—


36.7

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

13.7

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


18.1

13.9

—

Very High


25.7

23.0

—

Average


7.4

5.7

—

Low



30.1

23.0

↑

Very High


40.9

30.6

↑

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

15.4

15.8

↓

Average

% Income Eligible

100

73.9

—

Very High

2,920

404,217

↑

NA

49.1

28.6

↑

Very High

935,092

121,727,822

↑

NA



52.1

↑

Very High


50.9

78.4

82.5

Very High



RANK

950,345



TREND

7,641



70.3

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

—

Very High

WASHINGTON COUNTY


1,049

143,027

↓

NA


784

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

16.2

11.8

—


35,901

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

42.9

6,021,988

↑


14.1

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

22.6

1,412,110

↑


6.8

6.0

—


45.3

854,701

↑

Food Affordability

20.7

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


13.1

13.9

—

Average


22.9

23.0

—

Very High


5.5

5.7

—

Very High



32.1

23.0

—

Very High


33.0

30.6

↑

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

30.5

15.8

↑

Very High

% Income Eligible

76.4

73.9

—

Average

1,178

404,217

↑

NA

41.8

28.6

—

Very High

370,649

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very High



52.1

—

Very High


50.9

85.3

↑

Very High

WAYNE COUNTY


484

143,027

↓

NA


372

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

15.6

11.8

—


30,621

47,202

↑

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

36.3

30.2

↑


9.4

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

16.7

10.7

—


3.8

6.0

—


48.5

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

21.8

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


14.7

13.9

—

High


25.3

23.0

—

Average


5.9

5.7

—

Average



23.3

23.0

—

Average


30.4

30.6

—

High

↑

NA

% Total Population

24.5

15.8

↑

Very High

% Income Eligible

63.0

73.9

↑

Low

2,326

404,217

↑

NA

23.5

28.6

—

Low

636,877

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very Low



52.1

↑

High


50.9

80.0

—

High


915

143,027

↓

NA


704

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

12.3

11.8

—


40,889

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

27

30.2

—


10

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

9.2

10.7

—


5.4

6.0

—


30.4

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

19.6

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


12.0

13.9

—

Low


19.3

23.0

↑

Very High


5.1

5.7

—

High



21.8

23.0

—

Low


27.3

30.6

↓

Average

—

NA

% Total Population

14.7

15.8

—

Average

% Income Eligible

44.1

73.9

—

Very Low

77

404,217

↓

NA

17.3

28.6

↓

Very Low

22,117

121,727,822

↑

NA

—

Very High



52.1

—

Average


50.9

84.0

↑

Very High

WORTH COUNTY


25

143,027

↓

NA


19

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

16.7

11.8

—


38,220

47,202

↓

7

6.7

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

46.8

30.2

↑


Diabetes Prevalence

11.5

10.7

—


6.4

6.0

—

40

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

13.6

14.3

NA



NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


18.7

13.9

—

Very High


25.8

23.0

—

Very Low


7.5

5.7

—

Low



37.1

23.0

↑

Very High


47.6

30.6

↑

Low

↑

NA

% Total Population

9.6

15.8

↓

Very Low

% Income Eligible

73.5

73.9

—

Average

2,020

404,217

↑

NA

42.3

28.6

—

Very High

610,783

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

Low



52.1

↑

Very High


50.9

88.2

—

Very High


849

143,027

↓

NA


649

107,288

↓

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

12.9

11.8

—


29,636

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

28.8

30.2

↑


10.6

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

12.2

10.7

—


6.8

6.0

—


33.1

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

23.9

14.3

NA


NEED INDICATORS

COUNTY

STATE

TREND

RANK

Food Uncertainty


20.1

13.9

—

Very High


27.0

23.0

—

Very High


7.4

5.7

—

Very High



32.7

23.0

—

Very High


52.4

30.6

↑

Very High

↑

NA

% Total Population

27.3

15.8

—

Very High

% Income Eligible

100

73.9

↑

Very High

42,162

404,217

—

NA

62.5

28.6

↑

Very High

15,431,572

121,727,822

↑

NA

↑

High



52.1

—

Very High


50.9

81.3

82.5



RANK

950,345



TREND

110.283



73..6

STATE



% Students Eligible

COUNTY

—

High


15,365

143,027

—

NA


11,416

107,288

↑

NA

% 64 Below Poverty

18.1

11.8

—


33,652

47,202

—

Health Indicators


Obesity Prevalence

31

30.2

—


12.3

6.7

—

Diabetes Prevalence

12.1

10.7

—


11.6

6.0

—


35.1

34.3

↑

Food Affordability

18.7

14.3

NA
