State of The States 2008 Report Re: Nutrition Assistance Programs

State of the States: 2008
FRAC’s Proﬁle of Food & Nutrition Programs Across the Nation
November 2008
Food Research and Action Center

1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 540, Washington, DC 20009
phone: 202.986.2200 fax: 202.986.2525 web: www.frac.org
About FRAC
The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) is the leading national organization working for more
effective public and private policies to eradicate domestic hunger and undernutrition.
For more information about the programs reviewed in this report, or to sign up for FRAC’s Weekly News
Digest, visit www.frac.org.
Acknowledgements
T
his report was prepared by Rachel Cooper General Mills Foundation
and Jim Weill with assistance from Jennifer Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Adach. Kaiser Permanente
Kraft Foods
The Food Research and Action Center gratefully Land O’Lakes Foundation
acknowledges the following funders whose MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger
major support in 2007-2008 has helped to make The Moriah Fund
possible our work on expanding and improving Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
nutrition programs: National Dairy Council
New Directions Foundation
A.M. Fund David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Anonymous Donors Presbyterian Hunger Program
The Atlantic Philanthropies Pritzker Early Childhood Foundation
The California Endowment Public Welfare Foundation
Annie E. Casey Foundation Sara Lee Foundation
Claneil Foundation Share Our Strength
Entertainment Industry Foundation Taste of the NFL
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America UPS Foundation
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org
About This Report
T
his annual report from FRAC is designed to For additional information on any of the nutrition
provide basic data as one tool for helping programs described in this report, FRAC has a
government officials and agencies at all range of brochures, guides and publications
levels, advocates, schools, emergency food available, as well as extensive additional
providers, afterschool and summer programs, information posted on our website (www.frac.org).
religious congregations, other service providers and
FRAC also has a weekly e-mail digest of news on
non-profits measure how they are doing in the
hunger, nutrition and poverty issues, summarizing
effort to get key public nutrition programs to more
reports, events and resources on the web from
people in need and to provide more adequate
FRAC, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, other
benefits. The data in this report describe the extent
government agencies, the network of anti-hunger
of hunger and food insecurity and the use of
and anti-poverty organizations, and the media. To
nutrition programs for the United States as a whole
subscribe go to http://frac.org/digest/index.htm.
and for each of the 50 states and the District of
Columbia, giving a snapshot of how well or badly
each state is doing in using available tools to meet
the needs of hungry people and improve the health
and economic security low-income families.
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org 1
Introduction
The nation is suffering through deep economic troubles that are exacerbating greatly a broad and persistent
hunger problem. At the same time, 2008 also has brought events that create hope that the nation will finally
address that same hunger problem seriously in the years to come.
• Worsening Hunger. Even before the current recession, the decade’s economic growth was not
trickling down. New Census Bureau/USDA data show that, from 2000 to 2007, the percentage of
American households that were “food insecure” rose from 10.5 to 11.1 percent. (The number of
people in such households rose from 33.2 to 36.2 million.) “Food insecurity” is the somewhat wan
phrase used to describe a very real situation: households which, because of a shortage of resources,
are struggling with hunger and can’t purchase an adequate, healthy diet. In other words, the nation
had years of economic growth concentrated on the affluent, at the end of which period several million
more people lived in households struggling with hunger. For the worst-off households, the picture was
even bleaker: the number of people living in households suffering from “very low food security” (until
two years ago USDA called this “food insecurity with hunger”) rose from 8.5 million in 2000 to 11.9
million in 2007 – a 40 percent increase in the number living in the hungriest households.
• Even Worse Times Ahead. The 2007 data, grim as they are, predate the damage of the current
recession. That recession is making the nation’s hunger problem much worse. The official 2008 hunger
numbers from the Census Bureau and USDA won’t be released until late 2009, but every report from
food stamp offices, WIC programs, school meals programs, social service agencies, religious
congregations and emergency food providers portrays a rising tide of increasingly desperate need. If
the recession is as long and deep as many experts predict, we are likely to see an epidemic of hunger,
among children and adults alike, unlike any we have seen for decades.
• Strong Programs to Help Combat Hunger. On the positive side, SNAP/Food Stamps (SNAP is the
acronym for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the new federal name for the Food
Stamp Program), school lunch and breakfast, child care food, and summer and afterschool food are
entitlements, are sound programs, and 100 percent of benefits in them (and in WIC) are paid for with
federal funds. This means that the programs are able to expand to meet growing need when
conditions worsen, and states and local governments should assertively push that expansion along.
Efforts by conservatives in Congress and the White House to eliminate or dilute this entitlement status
in 1981-1982, in 1995-1996, and in recent years have been beaten back, and now the states and the
nation as a whole can see how fundamentally important it was to defeat those efforts and preserve
the ability of these programs to adequately respond in times of rising need. In many ways, the
nutrition programs are the strongest part of the national safety net that is still intact and has positive
“countercyclical” effect when the economy turns down. For example, from March 2006 to July 2007, a
16-month period of economic growth (even if little “trickled down” to the poor), the number of people
on SNAP/Food Stamps grew by about 300,000. But in the 13 months from July 2007 to August 2008,
as the economy unraveled, SNAP/Food Stamp participation rose by nearly 3 million people. Seven
states saw their SNAP/Food Stamp caseloads grow by 15 percent or more just from August 2007 to
August 2008. The nutrition programs certainly have weak spots in both eligibility and payment levels,
and benefit amounts in SNAP/Food Stamps in particular fall short of what is truly needed for an
adequate, healthy diet, but the programs present a very strong foundation on which to build.
• A Pledge from President-elect Obama. In October 2008, the Obama campaign released an
excellent platform, Obama and Biden: Tackling Domestic Hunger, which committed to ending
childhood hunger in the U.S. by 2015. That document also highlighted the need for an immediate
SNAP/Food Stamp increase to help struggling families and serve as an economic stimulus in the
recession, and noted that reducing poverty (e.g., by raising the minimum wage and expanding the
Earned Income Tax Credit) is an essential component of an anti-hunger strategy. The plan called as
well for further improvements in school meals access, summer food, and other child nutrition
programs, SNAP/Food Stamps, and nutrition supports for seniors. Strengthening the federal nutrition
programs is essential not only to President-elect Obama’s proposed anti-hunger effort, but also to
many of his other domestic priorities. The nutrition programs improve the quality of early childhood
education; improve school achievement scores; support local nonprofits (e.g., child care centers,
afterschool and summer programs), including faith-based groups; and reduce obesity. And given
President-elect Obama’s anti-poverty goals, investments in SNAP/Food Stamps may be among the
quickest and most cost-effective ways to make measurable progress toward reducing poverty as well.
SNAP/Food Stamp benefits are as effective as the Earned Income Tax Credit in lifting children above
the poverty line.
In brief, then, we have a major hunger problem in this country, and it is getting worse; but we have the tools
with which we can address it, and we have a President taking office who is committed to doing so.
There are four steps that Congress, President Bush while he remains in office, President-elect Obama after he
is sworn in, and state and local officials must take if the nation is to mitigate some of the impact of the
recession right now and then begin to reach President-elect Obama’s goal.
1) Include a SNAP/Food Stamp benefit boost in stimulus/economic recovery legislation. The

Democratic Congressional leadership has consistently talked about putting a boost in SNAP/Food Stamp
allotments into the next stimulus/recovery bill, and President-elect Obama has endorsed that idea. Economists
from all points on the political spectrum call a SNAP/Food Stamp boost the single best form of stimulus, when
measured by each dollar’s impact. Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, who also was an advisor to Senator
McCain’s campaign, calculates that each dollar of added SNAP/Food Stamp benefits adds $1.73 to the
economy; extending unemployment insurance benefits adds $1.64; a dollar of infrastructure spending
produces $1.59; aid to the states adds $1.36; a refundable tax rebate boosts the economy $1.26; and a
corporate tax cut produces $.0.30 for each dollar invested. Of course, the SNAP/Food Stamp boost is more
than a stimulus; in this terrible economy beneficiaries desperately need a boost to begin to be able to afford an
adequate diet. SNAP/Food Stamp benefits are based on the Thrifty Food Plan – a government market basket of
minimally adequate foods that research shows low-income households – whether seniors, families with
children, or working age adults – can seldom afford with the amounts of SNAP/Food Stamp benefits the
government provides. Rapid food price inflation, especially in food items lower-income families purchase,
means that SNAP/Food Stamp allotments have fallen further and further behind reality. From September 2007
to September 2008, the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan rose 10.3 percent while general food inflation rose 7.6
percent. The gap between benefit allotments and what families actually spend is rising every month. A
SNAP/Food Stamp benefits boost is desperately needed by beneficiaries, and by the economy.
2) Pass a good child nutrition reauthorization bill in 2009. The child nutrition programs (WIC, school
lunch and school breakfast, summer and afterschool food, and the child care food program that provides
nutrition in Head Start, child care centers, family child care homes, and homeless and domestic violence
shelters) are up for reauthorization in 2009. For all their flaws, these programs, like SNAP/Food Stamps, are
miracles of good public policy. They not only reduce hunger, but they have a range of positive outcomes that
advance key national priorities. They improve birth outcomes, boost child development, improve health,
improve school achievement and student behavior, reduce obesity, boost family incomes, stimulate local
economic growth, and improve the quality of child care and afterschool programs. Congress and the Obama
Administration must invest significant additional funds in these proven effective programs in 2009 so that the
reauthorization can both increase the number of children who participate in them, and improve the
healthfulness of the food offered to children. The goals of reducing hunger and reducing and preventing
obesity are intertwined and both can be achieved with stronger child nutrition programs.
3) Cities, counties and states need to use their existing options under federal rules to greatly
increase participation in the nutrition programs. Particularly in the midst of the recession, state and local
officials must recognize that:
• the programs are important sources of economic development – for example, as discussed above,
every added $1 in federal SNAP/Food Stamp funding that a state draws down produces nearly $2 in
economic activity;
• the nutrition programs are job creation (and job salvation) programs – the money for schools, child
care, afterschool and summer programs, and grocery stores generates jobs; and
• the entitlement nature of the programs means that there is much more available federal money that
the states and localities can draw down if they improve access to the programs, and more than ever
this is the time to do that aggressively and urgently.
Put differently, governors, state legislators, state cabinet officers and local officials, staring down the barrel of
this very ugly recession with growing human needs and declining revenues, should figure out how to quickly
draw down more federal nutrition dollars – in SNAP/Food Stamps, in school meals and afterschool food, in
child care food and in summer food.
4) Determine the strategy to achieve the President-elect’s goal to eliminate hunger. The transition
team, the new Administration and Congress need to address this goal seriously and purposefully. They need to
determine the mixture of improved jobs and wages, improved income supports like refundable tax credits and
more reasonably available unemployment insurance, and improved nutrition programs that will actually have
the effect of eliminating childhood hunger. They need to figure out how to get these private and public
supports in place so the nation can reach the 2015 goal. These are not plans that can be written in 2014 or
2012. The nation needs to start now to reach this incredibly important goal.
Going down this path is also what the public very much wants. A substantial proportion of American adults say
that they are worried about being able to put enough food on the table. Large majorities of Americans: classify
hunger as a very important social issue; believe the U.S. government must make solving hunger a higher
priority; say that a candidate’s position on reducing hunger is important when deciding their vote; support
SNAP/Food Stamps and child nutrition programs; and want the federal government to invest more in anti-
hunger programs.
The nation faces a daunting economic situation, but at the same time remains a place of almost unimaginable
abundance by the standards of much of the rest of the world, and the standards of our parents and
grandparents. The pieces are in place to transform America’s anti-hunger policy, and the resources are
available. A Presidential commitment, strong public support, and strong programs on which to build make it
possible to rid our nation of this lingering disease of domestic hunger – a disease that is eminently curable.
Jim Weill
President
Food Research and Action Center
November 2008
Overview of the Federal Nutrition
Programs
SNAP/Food Stamps
T
he Food Stamp Program is the first line of amount often inadequate for a family to obtain an
defense against hunger and undernutrition adequate, healthy diet.
in the United States. Delivered through
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, which are SNAP/Food Stamps not only help individual
used like debit cards at authorized food retailers recipients but also give a boost to local retailers and
nationwide, food stamp benefits enhance the the local economy, helping to sustain and
purchasing power of low-income households. In strengthen struggling communities. According to a
2007, in an average month 26.5 million Americans USDA estimate, each dollar of SNAP/Food Stamp
relied on the Food Stamp Program to help them benefits generates approximately $1.80 in economic
put food on the table. Because of the recession, activity. Increasing participation enhances local
as of August 2008 that number had risen to 29.5 businesses and tax revenues to local governments.
million.
Despite its critical role in alleviating hunger and
As of October 1, 2008, the Food Stamp Program strengthening communities, the SNAP/Food Stamp
has a new national name – the Supplemental Program is seriously underutilized. Only two-thirds
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The change of eligible people receive the benefits they need.
was included in the Farm Bill that was enacted this
year, and is among many improvements to the National Facts
program. Other changes include the first-ever • In fiscal year 2007, 26.5 million people in an
increase in the minimum monthly benefit (from $10 average month relied on the SNAP/Food Stamp
to $14), an increase in the standard deduction for Program to help put food on the table.
households of three or fewer, and removal of the
cap on how much of its dependent care costs a • The average monthly income for food stamp
household can deduct from income to determine its households in 2007 was only $691, and 39
benefit amount. Retirement and education savings percent of all beneficiary households lived in
accounts will no longer be counted against a extreme poverty (income less than half of the
household’s eligibility. poverty level.)
The SNAP/Food Stamp Program is a lifeline for a • SNAP/Food Stamps reach those most in need -
broad array of low-income people. Forty-one 88 percent of benefits go to households that
percent of SNAP/Food Stamp recipients live in contain children, the elderly or the disabled.
households where someone is working. SNAP/Food
Stamps serve people of all ages – 49 percent of • USDA estimates that only 67 percent of eligible
recipients are children while 9 percent are elderly. people are enrolled in the SNAP/Food Stamp
SNAP/Food Stamp benefits lifted nine percent of Program. The participation rate of the eligible
participating households above the poverty line. working poor is even lower, at only 57 percent.
SNAP/Food Stamp benefits are fully federally-

funded. The program is largely administered by Who is Eligible for SNAP/Food Stamps?
the states, with federal and state governments
sharing the administrative costs nearly equally. • Income: Household “gross income” below 130
Benefit levels are based on the "Thrifty Food Plan," percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and
USDA's theoretical estimate of what it would cost net income (after deductions) below 100
to purchase a minimally adequate diet. The percent of the poverty level;
SNAP/Food Stamp Program assumes that • Resources: Savings or resources of less than
households will be able to purchase the Thrifty $2,000 ($3,000 for households with elderly or
Food Plan using their benefits in addition to 30 disabled applicants);
percent of any income they receive (after certain • Citizenship: US citizen or an eligible non-
allowable deductions). In fiscal year 2007, the citizen. Eligible non-citizens include, for
average monthly SNAP/Food Stamp benefit per example, asylees, refugees, documented
person was $97, an important boost to a children, some disabled immigrants and those
household struggling to make ends meet, but an who have been Lawful Permanent Residents
for at least five years.
School Breakfast
E
xperts agree that breakfast is the most lunch in school year 2006-2007, compared to a
important meal of the day. Study after ratio of 44.6 to 100 in the prior year.
study has shown that for school children
breakfast in school is the key to better nutrition • If every state had met the achievable goal of 60
and child health and improved school attendance low-income children receiving breakfast for
and performance. Yet, many children skip every 100 receiving lunch in the 2006-2007
breakfast altogether because their families school year, 2.6 million more children would
struggle to put a meal on the table or because have been eating a healthy school breakfast
they do not have the time to eat during the every day, and states would have collected an
morning rush, and then their schools do not have additional $555 million in federal child nutrition
a school breakfast program, or a program that funding.
works well enough to be accessible.
• The percentage of schools with lunch programs
Breakfast has been shown to improve math which also offer breakfast grew to 84.8 percent
grades, vocabulary skills, memory, school in 2006-2007. Last year alone, 2,100 more
attendance and discipline. Children who eat schools across the country instituted a breakfast
breakfast at school – closer to class and test- program.
taking time – perform better on standardized tests
than those who skip breakfast or eat breakfast at
home.
For More on School Breakfast
School breakfast also helps to build lifelong healthy
For more information on the School Breakfast
eating habits. The meals served are required to
Program see FRAC’s School Breakfast
be nutritionally balanced and USDA research
Scorecard 2007 .
shows that children who participate in school
breakfast eat more fruits, drink more milk, and
consume a wider variety of foods than those who
do not eat school breakfast or who have breakfast
at home. Overall, children and adolescents who
eat breakfast are significantly less likely to be
overweight, while skipping breakfast is associated
with a higher risk of obesity.
National Facts
• In school year 2006-2007 there were a record
8.1 million low-income children eating free and
reduced-price breakfast on an average day, an
increase of 391,000 children from 2005-2006.
• A record 10.1 million children (including free,

reduced-price and paid) participated in the
School Breakfast Program on an average
morning in the 2006-2007 school year, a 5.9
percent increase from 2005-2006.
• Nationally, comparing free and reduced-price

school breakfast participation to free and
reduced-price lunch participation, 45.3 children
ate breakfast for every 100 children who ate
School Lunch
A
larmed by the number of undernourished
military recruits during World War II, Who is Eligible for School Meals?
Congress created the National School
Lunch Program in 1946 as a way to improve • Any public school, nonprofit private school or
residential child care institution (RCCI) can
national security by protecting the health and
choose to participate in the National School
well-being of America’s children. Since then the Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, which
National School Lunch Program has grown to are funded through and administered by the
serve an estimated 95 percent of public schools United States Department of Agriculture
(private schools and residential child care (USDA).
institutions also are eligible to participate). On • Any student attending a school that offers
an average school day, 30.6 million children, 55 either program can eat. The amount the school
percent of America’s schoolchildren, participate. is reimbursed by the federal government
Of them, 18 million are low-income and receive depends on the student’s family income.
free or reduced-price lunches. • Families must complete an application, or be
directly certified, to determine eligibility for
free or reduced-price meals through the School
The School Lunch Program has been so
Lunch and School Breakfast Program. There
successful because it offers nutritious lunches to are three reimbursement levels based on
every child in a participating school and makes family income:
them affordable. While the majority of lunches o Free: Children from families with incomes
served are to low-income students (free or at or below 130 percent of the federal
reduced-price meals), 41 percent of lunches are poverty level eat at no cost, and federal
to paying students. reimbursement is at the maximum.
o Reduced-Price: Children from families
School lunches must be nutritionally balanced with incomes between 130 and 185
percent of poverty can be charged no
and provide no more than 30 percent of calories
more than 30 cents per meal for
from fat. USDA research indicates that children breakfast and 40 cents for lunch, and
who participate in the School Lunch Program federal reimbursement is the maximum
have superior nutritional intakes compared to minus these amounts.
those who bring lunch from home or otherwise o Paid: Children from family with incomes
do not participate. above 185 percent of poverty pay for
their meals, but schools are reimbursed
by USDA 24 cents per meal for breakfast
National Facts and 23 cents for lunch.
• In school year 2006-2007 18 million students
qualified for free or reduced-price lunches, an
increase of more than 600,000 students from
2005-2006.
• A record 30.6 million children (free, reduced-

price and paid) participated in the National
School Lunch Program on an average day in
2006-2007, an increase of almost one million
compared to the prior year.
• In 2006-2007 99,839 schools offered the

school lunch program, compared to 99,510
the year before.
Summer Nutrition
W
hen the school bell rings to signal the • If every state had served in summer 2007 just
start of summer vacation, millions of two-fifths of the children who eat free or
children who receive free or reduced reduced price school lunch during the regular
price breakfast and lunch at school during the school year, an additional 3.7 million children
regular school year no longer have access to those would have been fed through the Summer
meals. Two federal programs—the Summer Food Nutrition programs, bringing states an additional
Service Program (SFSP) and the National School $222 million in federal funds.
Lunch Program (NSLP)—offer children from low-
income families and neighborhoods the kind of • Congress created a “Simplified Summer Food
nutritious meals and snacks in the summer that Program” that reduces paperwork and
they would receive during the school year. maximizes reimbursement for summer food.
Together they are referred to as the Summer Through summer 2007, Summer Nutrition
Nutrition programs. participation generally grew at a much faster
rate in states with the Simplified Program than
Recent studies show that not only does food in the 24 states and the District of Columbia that
insecurity increase for households with children were never included in the Simplified program.
during the summer, but that summer also is the For example, from 2000 to 2007, participation in
time of the year when young school-children are the 13 original pilot states grew 54.1 compared
most likely to gain weight. Unfortunately, too few to a 14.4 percent drop in non-Simplified states.
children have access to the Summer Nutrition The data in this report provide the last snapshot
programs. of progress in “Simplified” versus “Non-
Simplified” states, because Congress expanded
Providing good nutritious meals goes hand in hand the Simplified Summer Food Program to all
with ensuring that children have constructive states and the District of Columbia beginning in
activities to keep them safe, engaged, and learning the summer of 2008.
during the summer months. The Summer Nutrition
programs support meals served at local summer
education and enrichment programs, recreation
centers, and other locations at which children Summer Food Standards
congregate during the summer. These meals draw of Excellence
children into programs that are critical for their
development, health, and well-being, and provide When summer food sites serve quality, child-
care while their parents are working. friendly food, it attracts children to the programs
and makes them more likely to consistently
National Facts participate. To identify and promote quality
• Participation in the federal Summer Nutrition summer food sites, FRAC created its Summer
programs lags far behind participation in the Food Standards of Excellence.
school breakfast and lunch programs during the
regular school year. Only 17.5 children The Summer Food Standards of Excellence can be
participate in Summer Nutrition programs for used to evaluate what works and what does not in
Summer Nutrition, identify areas of improvement,
every 100 who receive free or reduced-price
and encourage sites to reach the next level of
school lunches during the school year.
program excellence.
• Overall participation in the Summer Nutrition
programs (SFSP and NSLP combined) grew by By evaluating summer food sites and holding
0.1 percent from July 2006 to July 2007. While them to high standards, FRAC’s goal is to increase
the increase in 2007 is a positive step, the the quality of food served and the site
Summer Nutrition programs are still serving environment so that participation increases and
more hungry children receive healthier and more
significantly fewer children (2.85 million) than
nutritious meals when school is out. For more
the 3.2 million that were served five years ago,
information, visit www.frac.org/afterschool/.
during the summer of 2002.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
S
ince the early 1970’s the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants and Children (WIC) has provided
nutritious foods, nutrition education and access to
health care to low-income pregnant women, new
mothers, and infants and children deemed to be at
nutritional risk. The WIC program provides a huge
boost to nutrition and health. Estimates are that
every dollar spent on WIC results in savings of
between $1.77 and $3.13 in Medicaid costs for
newborns and their mothers. WIC is an important
safety net for America’s children – 45 percent of all
infants born in the United States rely on the WIC
program.
WIC provides participants with supplemental foods

through a monthly package tailored to enhance
their health and meet their special dietary needs.
The foods are chosen to provide nutrients likely to
be missing from the diets of low-income women,
infants and children. In late 2007, the USDA issued Who is Eligible for WIC?
the first update to the WIC food package in
decades based on current nutritional science and 1. Categorical requirement: a participant
cultural preferences. It added fruits and must be either a pregnant, postpartum, or
vegetables, whole grain bread, corn tortillas, whole breast-feeding woman, an infant, or a child
grains, and the option of soymilk and tofu, and under the age of five;
moved to low-fat milk and whole grain cereals. 2. Income requirement: a participant’s
These items join the current list of approved WIC household income must be below 185
foods, including iron-fortified infant formula, infant percent of the federal poverty line (an
cereal, milk, eggs, cheese, iron fortified breakfast individual who receives Food Stamps, TANF
cereal, vitamin C-rich juice, beans, tuna fish, or Medicaid, or is a member of a family in
carrots and peanut butter. which a pregnant woman or infant receives
Medicaid benefits, is deemed to meet this
States have until October 2009 to implement the requirement);
changes to the WIC food package, which will 3. Nutritional Risk requirement: a
empower mothers to chose healthier foods and participant must be certified by a health
strengthen WIC’s role in reducing obesity and professional (often one at a WIC clinic) to be
improving nutrition. at nutritional risk, which can include
problems such as: inadequate diet; a history
National Facts of high-risk pregnancy; child growth
• In fiscal year 2007, nearly 8.3 million women, problems such as stunting, underweight, or
infants and children relied on the WIC program anemia; or homelessness or migrancy.
every month.
• WIC provided nutritious food to 6.2 million

children every month in fiscal year 2007 – 2.2
million infants and 4 million children under age
five.
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
M
any low-income working parents rely on National Facts
child care and afterschool programs to • Nearly 2.2 million children enrolled in nearly
provide a safe and healthy place for their 48,000 child care centers benefited daily from
children while they commute and work. By paying CACFP in fiscal year 2007.
for nutritious meals and snacks for eligible children
who are enrolled at participating child care • In fiscal year 2007, more than 142,000 family
centers, day care homes and Head Start programs, child care homes relied on CACFP to provide
the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) healthy meals to more than 850,000 low-income
plays an important role in improving the quality of children daily.
those programs and in making them more
affordable for low-income parents. Research The Impact of the CACFP Means Test
shows that 87 percent of the family child care
homes considered to provide good quality care As part of the reform of welfare undertaken in
participate in CACFP. CACFP also provides meals to 1996, major changes in the way family child
children residing in emergency shelters and snacks care homes are reimbursed in the Child and
to youths participating in afterschool care Adult Care Food Program were mandated. A
programs, as well as meals to seniors attending means test was instituted which effectively cut
adult day care centers. in half the federal reimbursement for meals
and snacks for providers serving moderate-
While the Child and Adult Care Food Program has income children.
several segments, the major categories are:
These changes have had negative consequences
Centers & Family Child Care Homes that continue to affect the program. Between
Young children attending participating family child 1996 and 2007 the number of family child care
homes, child care centers or Head Start programs homes participating in CACFP dropped by 27.1
can receive up to two meals and a snack that meet percent, while the number of children served
USDA nutritional standards. Depending on the type fell by 126,000. This is in contrast to the
of program, eligibility is based either on the growth of child care centers (and Head Start
poverty status of the area or on the income of the programs) using CACFP over that time. During
enrolled children. The majority of CACFP the same 11 year period, the participation of
participants are preschool-aged children. centers in CACFP grew by 41.8 percent and the
number of children served by those centers
Afterschool grew by almost 800,000.
School-based programs providing enrichment
activities for children and teenagers after school
can provide free snacks through CACFP in areas
where at least 50 percent of children are eligible
for free or reduced-price meals. CACFP funds also
can pay for suppers for children attending
afterschool programs.
Homeless Shelters
CACFP provides up to three meals a day for
children age 18 and younger living in homeless
shelters.
Adult Day Care

Seniors who attend nonresidential day care centers
may receive meals and snacks through CACFP.
The Emergency Food Commodity
Assistance Program Supplemental Food
(TEFAP) Program (CSFP)
A T
critical but little publicized program in the he Commodity Supplemental Food Program
battle against hunger is The Emergency (CSFP) provides nutritious USDA
Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). TEFAP commodities to low-income pregnant and
provides USDA commodities to states, which postpartum women, infants, and children up to six
distribute the food through local food banks and years old, as well as seniors over age 60. The large
pantries directly to households that meet their majority of participants in CSFP are elderly
state’s eligibility criteria. Along with food donated (enrollees in CSFP cannot be receiving WIC at the
by the public and businesses, TEFAP foods are same time), and they receive supplemental food
relied upon by the millions of Americans who turn packages that help to ensure that they have access
to food pantries every year. to the nutrients they need.
TEFAP is also a crucial source of food for groups The Commodity Supplemental Food Program
that serve meals to those in need, like soup currently serves nearly half a million people in 32
kitchens and emergency shelters. states, the District of Columbia and two Indian
Reservations. Seniors with incomes of less than
National Facts 130 percent of the federal poverty level and
• The Emergency Food Assistance Program women, infants and children living below 185
provided more than $191 million in percent of the poverty line are eligible in these
commodities in fiscal year 2007, which included jurisdictions.
$132 million in base funding and $58 million in
bonus commodities. National Facts
• The Commodity Supplemental Food Program
served 433,000 elderly people and more than
33,000 women, infants and children in fiscal
year 2007.
National and State Profiles
United States
Demographics, Poverty and Food Insecurity
Population (2007)
Total People 301,621,159
Children (Under Age 18) 73,907,975
Income and Poverty (2007)

Median Household Income (2007) $50,740
Rank Among States --
Total People Living In Poverty 38,052,247
Poverty Rate 13.0%
Rank Among States (Highest to Lowest) --
Children (Under Age 18) Living In Poverty 13,097,100
Child Poverty Rate 18.0%
Rank Among States (Highest to Lowest) --
Total People Living Below 185% of Federal Poverty Level 81,815,413
Food Insecurity Among Households (2007)

Number of Households that are Food Insecure 13,011,000
Percent of Households that are Food Insecure 11.1%
Number of Households that are Very Low Food Secure 4,749,000
Percent of Households that are Very Low Food Secure 4.1%
Federal Nutrition Programs

School Breakfast Program (School Year 2006-2007)
Average Daily Student Participation 10,118,793
Free and Reduced-Price Students 8,130,457
Paid Students 1,988,336
Change in Free and Reduced-Price Participation in Last 10 Years 59.2%
Free and Reduced-Price Student Participation Rate (Compared to School Lunch Participation) 45.3
Additional Free and Reduced-Price Students Served if Participation Rate Reached 60% 2,586,083
Additional Federal Dollars States Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 60% $555,249,388
Number of Schools Participating 84,627
School Participation Rate (Compared to Number of Schools Serving Lunch) 84.8%
Federal Funding for School Breakfast $2,163,309,165
School Breakfast Mandate in Law (Yes/No) No
National School Lunch Program (School Year 2006-2007)

Paid Students 12,597,668
Federal Funding for School Lunch $7,704,270,028
Summer Nutrition Participation (July 2007)

Average Daily Summer Nutrition Participation in July 2,852,877
July Summer Food Service Participation 1,548,688
July National School Lunch Participation in Free and Reduced-Price Lunch 1,304,189
Change in Average Daily Summer Nutrition Participation in Last 10 Years -11.8%
Low-Income Participation Rate (Compared to Regular Year Free and Reduced-Price School Lunch) 17.5
Additional Low-Income Children Served if Participation Rate Reached 40% 3,685,016
Additional Federal Dollars States Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 40% $222,095,904
Number of Summer Food Service Sponsors 3,654
Number of Summer Food Service Sites 30,895
Federal Funding for Summer Food Service Program $249,559,234
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org United States p.1
United States Continued
SNAP/Food Stamp Program (FY 2007)
Average Monthly Participation (Individuals) 26,465,816
Change in Participation in Last 5 Years 38.6%
Average Monthly Benefit per Person $95.64
Participation Rate of Eligible Persons (FY 2005) 65%
Participation Rate of Eligible Working Poor (FY 2005) 57%
Federal Funding for SNAP/Food Stamps $30,373,271,213
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) (FY 2007)
Average Monthly Participation 8,285,249
Women 2,093,271
Infants 2,165,567
Children 4,026,411
Federal Funding for WIC $5,367,608,143
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)

Number of Participating Family Child Care Homes 141,985
Family Child Care Home Average Daily Participation of Children 850,354
Change in Family Child Care Daily Participation in Last 10 Years -14.7%
Number of Participating Child Care Centers (Includes Head Start) 47,673
Child Care Center Average Daily Participation of Children (Includes Head Start) 2,181,087
Change in Center Daily Participation in Last 10 Years 51.2%
Federal Funding for CACFP $2,023,804,070
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (FY 2007)

Federal Entitlement Funding $132,194,294
Federal Bonus Commodity Funding $58,552,145
Administrative Funding $58,115,254
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) (FY 2007)

Average Monthly Participation 466,180
Federal Funding for CSFP $107,828,081
Economic Security Policies

Minimum Wage (2007)
Minimum Wage $5.85 (July, 2007)
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (2007)

EITC (Yes/No) Yes
Refundable (Yes/No) Yes
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) (FY 2006)

Average Monthly Participation (FY 2006) 4,230,192
Adults 983,716
Children 3,235,694
Maximum Monthly Benefit per 3-Person Family (FY 2005) N/A
Federal and State Funding for Cash Assistance $9,906,038,682
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org United States p.2
Alabama
Population (2007)

Rank Among States 47
Total People Living In Poverty 759,835
Poverty Rate 16.9%
Rank Among States (Highest to Lowest) 7
Children (Under Age 18) Living In Poverty 269,086
Food Insecurity Among Households (2005-2007, 3-Year Averages)

Number of Households that are Food Insecure 219,000
Number of Households that are Very Low Food Secure 79,000

Average Daily Student Participation 195,326
Free and Reduced-Price Students 161,443
Paid Students 33,883
Additional Free and Reduced-Price Students Served if Participation Rate Reached 60% 48,390
Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 60% $10,426,445
Federal Funding for School Breakfast $43,056,103
School Breakfast Mandate in State Law (Yes/No) No

Federal Funding for School Lunch $149,904,664

Average Daily Summer Nutrition Participation in July 30,719
July Summer Food Service Participation 20,187
July National School Lunch Participation in Free and Reduced-Price Lunch 10,532
Additional Low-Income Children Served if Participation Rate Reached 40% 98,958
Number of Summer Food Service Sponsors 37
Number of Summer Food Service Sites 536
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Alabama p.1
Alabama Continued
Average Monthly Participation (Individuals) 545,955
Federal Funding for SNAP/Food Stamps $601,413,135
Women 31,446
Infants 36,287
Children 58,547
Federal Funding for WIC $96,344,828

Number of Participating Child Care Centers (Includes Head Start) 725
Child Care Center Average Daily Participation of Children (Includes Head Start) 35,666
Federal Funding for CACFP $33,004,276

Federal Bonus Commodity Funding $950,489
Administrative Funding $779,768

Average Monthly Participation Not Available
Federal Funding for CSFP in This State
State Economic Security Policies

Minimum Wage (2007)
State Minimum Wage $5.85 (July, 2007 -
Federal)

State EITC (Yes/No) No
Refundable (Yes/No) No

Average Monthly Participation (FY 2006) 44,693
Adults 9,869
Children 34,824
Maximum Monthly Benefit per 3-Person Family (FY 2005) $215
Federal and State Funding for Cash Assistance $34,578,824
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Alabama p.2
Alaska
Population (2007)
Total People 683,478
Children (Under Age 18) 181,119

Rank Among States 4
Poverty Rate 8.9%
Total People Living Below 185% of Federal Poverty Level 142,587


Paid Students 2,404
Number of Schools Participating 295


July Summer Food Service Participation 846
Change in Average Daily Summer Nutrition Participation in Last 10 Years 154.4%
Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 40% $659,608
Federal Funding for Summer Food Service Program $367,008
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Alaska p.1
Alaska Continued
Women 6,179
Infants 6,176
Children 12,850

Number of Participating Family Child Care Homes 438

Federal Entitlement Funding $294,915

Federal Funding for CSFP $439,838

Minimum Wage (2007)
State Minimum Wage $7.15


Adults 3,061
Children 6,762
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Alaska p.2
Arizona
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 14.2%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Arizona p.1
Arizona Continued
Women 47,891
Infants 52,670
Children 85,908

Change in Family Child Care Daily Participation in Last 10 Years 2.5%



Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 21,710
Children 65,664
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Arizona p.2
Arkansas
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 17.9%


School Breakfast Mandate in State Law (Yes/No) Yes


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Arkansas p.1
Arkansas Continued
Rank Among States 7
Women 23,959
Infants 24,945
Children 35,553
Change in Participation in Last 10 Years -3.3%




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 4,205
Children 13,720
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Arkansas p.2
California
Population (2007)

Rank Among States 8
Poverty Rate 12.4%



Federal Funding for School Lunch $1,025,810,968

Rank Among States 4
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org California p.1
California Continued
Average Monthly Participation 1,378,794
Women 347,372
Infants 317,808
Children 713,614




Minimum Wage (2007)


Average Monthly Participation (FY 2006) 1,049,315
Adults 182,250
Children 867,065
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org California p.2
Colorado
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 12.0%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Colorado p.1
Colorado Continued
Women 23,025
Infants 24,758
Children 43,278




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 10,346
Children 27,045
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Colorado p.2
Connecticut
Population (2007)

Rank Among States 3
Poverty Rate 7.9%


Paid Students 9,856


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Connecticut p.1
Connecticut Continued
Women 12,188
Infants 14,909
Children 26,108




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 10,308
Children 26,533
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Connecticut p.2
Delaware
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 10.5%


Paid Students 8,998


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Delaware p.1
Delaware Continued
Women 4,587
Infants 5,884
Children 9,955




Minimum Wage (2007)

State EITC (Yes/No) Yes

Adults 2,936
Children 9,274
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Delaware p.2
District of Columbia
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 16.4%


Paid Students 3,553

Paid Students 8,934

Rank Among States 1
Additional Low-Income Children Served if Participation Rate Reached 40% --
Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 40% --
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org District of Columbia p.1
District of Columbia Continued
Women 4,347
Infants 4,777
Children 6,066

Family Child Care Home Average Daily Participation of Children 285



Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 9,054
Children 29,651
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org District of Columbia p.2
Florida
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 12.1%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Florida p.1
Florida Continued
Women 113,084
Infants 115,684
Children 191,745




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 13,034
Children 73,413
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Florida p.2
Georgia
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 14.3%


Rank Among States 9


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Georgia p.1
Georgia Continued
Women 74,362
Infants 78,627
Children 130,122




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 7,872
Children 54,712
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Georgia p.2
Hawaii
Population (2007)

Rank Among States 5
Poverty Rate 8.0%


Change in Free and Reduced-Price Participation in Last 10 Years -3.7%


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Hawaii p.1
Hawaii Continued
Women 8,116
Infants 8,147
Children 16,350

Family Child Care Home Average Daily Participation of Children 715



Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 4,858
Children 12,524
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Hawaii p.2
Idaho
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 12.1%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Idaho p.1
Idaho Continued
Women 9,312
Infants 9,624
Children 19,151




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 420
Children 2,634
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Idaho p.2
Illinois
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 11.9%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Illinois p.1
Illinois Continued
Women 71,879
Infants 83,547
Children 124,556




Minimum Wage (2007)
State Minimum Wage $7.50 (July1,2007)


Adults 17,633
Children 72,468
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Illinois p.2
Indiana
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 12.3%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Indiana p.1
Indiana Continued
Women 36,571
Infants 41,809
Children 62,511




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 26,623
Children 92,688
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Indiana p.2
Iowa
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 11.0%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Iowa p.1
Iowa Continued
Women 17,130
Infants 17,024
Children 35,314




Minimum Wage (2007)
State Minimum Wage $6.20 (April 1,2007)


Adults 11,730
Children 28,455
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Iowa p.2
Kansas
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 11.2%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Kansas p.1
Kansas Continued
Women 16,760
Infants 18,189
Children 34,118




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 14,268
Children 30,698
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Kansas p.2
Kentucky
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 17.3%


Rank Among States 5


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Kentucky p.1
Kentucky Continued
Rank Among States 7
Women 30,963
Infants 33,499
Children 65,222




Minimum Wage (2007)
State Minimum Wage $5.85 (June, 2007)


Adults 16,819
Children 53,109
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Kentucky p.2
Louisiana
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 18.6%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Louisiana p.1
Louisiana Continued
Rank Among States 7
Women 35,260
Infants 37,810
Children 55,843




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 3,697
Children 23,052
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Louisiana p.2
Maine
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 12.0%


Paid Students 9,422


July National School Lunch Participation in Free and Reduced-Price Lunch 661
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Maine p.1
Maine Continued
Rank Among States 4
Women 5,848
Infants 5,794
Children 13,051




Minimum Wage (2007)
State Minimum Wage $7.00 (Oct, 2007)


Adults 7,830
Children 16,984
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Maine p.2
Maryland
Population (2007)

Rank Among States 1
Poverty Rate 8.3%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Maryland p.1
Maryland Continued
Women 33,588
Infants 34,633
Children 55,647




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 11,630
Children 35,250
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Maryland p.2
Massachusetts
Population (2007)

Rank Among States 7
Poverty Rate 9.9%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Massachusetts p.1
Massachusetts Continued
Women 30,049
Infants 28,607
Children 59,416




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 28,380
Children 64,999
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Massachusetts p.2
Michigan
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 14.0%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Michigan p.1
Michigan Continued
Women 54,999
Infants 56,084
Children 121,124




Minimum Wage (2007)
State Minimum Wage $7.15 (July, 2007)


Adults 59,989
Children 159,824
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Michigan p.2
Minnesota
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 9.5%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Minnesota p.1
Minnesota Continued
Women 32,959
Infants 32,366
Children 69,347




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 17,506
Children 49,337
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Minnesota p.2
Mississippi
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 20.6%


Rank Among States 8


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Mississippi p.1
Mississippi Continued
Women 25,121
Infants 34,419
Children 43,129




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 6,520
Children 21,313
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Mississippi p.2
Missouri
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 13.0%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Missouri p.1
Missouri Continued
Rank Among States 1
Women 37,001
Infants 38,954
Children 58,687




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 28,027
Children 65,670
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Missouri p.2
Montana
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 14.1%


Paid Students 5,767


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Montana p.1
Montana Continued
Women 4,470
Infants 4,291
Children 10,517




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 3,070
Children 6,838
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Montana p.2
Nebraska
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 11.2%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Nebraska p.1
Nebraska Continued
Women 10,257
Infants 10,652
Children 21,177




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 6,555
Children 17,711
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Nebraska p.2
Nevada
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 10.7%




Rank Among States 3
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Nevada p.1
Nevada Continued
Women 14,242
Infants 14,763
Children 22,744




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 2,161
Children 10,077
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Nevada p.2
New Hampshire
Population (2007)

Rank Among States 6
Poverty Rate 7.1%


Paid Students 9,158


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org New Hampshire p.1
New Hampshire Continued
Women 4,330
Infants 4,535
Children 8,546




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 4,229
Children 9,513
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org New Hampshire p.2
New Jersey
Population (2007)

Rank Among States 2
Poverty Rate 8.6%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org New Jersey p.1
New Jersey Continued
Women 37,978
Infants 40,261
Children 72,263




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 28,680
Children 72,385
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org New Jersey p.2
New Mexico
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 18.1%


Rank Among States 1
Additional Free and Reduced-Price Students Served if Participation Rate Reached 60% --
Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 60% --


Rank Among States 2
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org New Mexico p.1
New Mexico Continued
Women 15,286
Infants 16,846
Children 32,285




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 11,986
Children 31,053
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org New Mexico p.2
New York
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 13.7%




Rank Among States 5
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org New York p.1
New York Continued
Women 124,945
Infants 124,331
Children 233,511




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 82,842
Children 225,068
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org New York p.2
North Carolina
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 14.3%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org North Carolina p.1
North Carolina Continued
Women 61,380
Infants 65,604
Children 115,150




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 11,333
Children 47,468
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org North Carolina p.2
North Dakota
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 12.1%


Paid Students 7,441


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org North Dakota p.1
North Dakota Continued
Women 3,453
Infants 3,502
Children 7,589




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 1,992
Children 4,848
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org North Dakota p.2
Ohio
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 13.1%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Ohio p.1
Ohio Continued
Women 68,275
Infants 87,748
Children 125,614




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 40,198
Children 129,997
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Ohio p.2
Oklahoma
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 15.9%


Rank Among States 4


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Oklahoma p.1
Oklahoma Continued
Rank Among States 6
Women 30,117
Infants 31,764
Children 57,878




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 4,036
Children 18,510
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Oklahoma p.2
Oregon
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 12.9%


Rank Among States 6


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Oregon p.1
Oregon Continued
Rank Among States 3
Women 26,405
Infants 24,247
Children 53,102




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 10,655
Children 31,180
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Oregon p.2
Pennsylvania
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 11.6%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Pennsylvania p.1
Pennsylvania Continued
Women 57,334
Infants 64,112
Children 122,710




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 71,718
Children 173,353
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Pennsylvania p.2
Rhode Island
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 12.0%


Paid Students 4,451


Rank Among States 6
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Rhode Island p.1
Rhode Island Continued
Women 5,681
Infants 5,912
Children 12,627




Minimum Wage (2007)

Refundable (Yes/No) Partially

Adults 7,201
Children 16,776
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Rhode Island p.2
South Carolina
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 15.0%


Rank Among States 2


Rank Among States 9
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org South Carolina p.1
South Carolina Continued
Women 32,851
Infants 35,584
Children 46,303




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 8,343
Children 27,205
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org South Carolina p.2
South Dakota
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 13.1%


Paid Students 6,255


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org South Dakota p.1
South Dakota Continued
Women 5,150
Infants 5,808
Children 10,837




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 989
Children 5,104
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org South Dakota p.2
Tennessee
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 15.9%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Tennessee p.1
Tennessee Continued
Rank Among States 2
Women 43,110
Infants 46,010
Children 70,938




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 50,719
Children 129,266
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Tennessee p.2
Texas
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 16.3%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Texas p.1
Texas Continued
Women 225,180
Infants 230,327
Children 444,890




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 26,287
Children 134,519
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Texas p.2
Utah
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 9.7%




Rank Among States 7
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Utah p.1
Utah Continued
Women 17,351
Infants 14,204
Children 32,627

Change in Center Daily Participation in Last 10 Years -18.2%



Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 4,694
Children 13,535
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Utah p.2
Vermont
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 10.1%


Paid Students 6,854
Rank Among States 7


Rank Among States 8
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Vermont p.1
Vermont Continued
Women 3,480
Infants 3,227
Children 9,602




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 3,845
Children 7,101
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Vermont p.2
Virginia
Population (2007)

Rank Among States 9
Poverty Rate 9.9%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Virginia p.1
Virginia Continued
Women 39,697
Infants 38,674
Children 64,900




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Adults 9,388
Children 16,658
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Virginia p.2
Washington
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 11.4%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Washington p.1
Washington Continued
Women 40,375
Infants 39,023
Children 85,770




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 37,826
Children 90,497
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Washington p.2
West Virginia
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 16.9%


Rank Among States 3


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org West Virginia p.1
West Virginia Continued
Rank Among States 5
Women 12,123
Infants 12,228
Children 25,237




Minimum Wage (2007)
State Minimum Wage $6.55 (June, 2007)


Adults 6,042
Children 17,684
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org West Virginia p.2
Wisconsin
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 10.8%




Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Wisconsin p.1
Wisconsin Continued
Women 28,762
Infants 29,443
Children 58,556




Minimum Wage (2007)


Adults 6,623
Children 32,898
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Wisconsin p.2
Wyoming
Population (2007)

Poverty Rate 8.7%


Paid Students 4,184


Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Wyoming p.1
Wyoming Continued
Women 3,306
Infants 3,264
Children 5,765




Minimum Wage (2007)
Federal)


Average Monthly Participation (FY 2006) 508
Adults 54
Children 455
Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 www.frac.org Wyoming p.2
SNAP/Food Stamps: SNAP/Food Stamp Program Participation and Rankings by State FY 2005
SNAP Participation Rate SNAP Participation Rate Working Poor

State Eligible Rank
of Eligible People of Eligible Working Poor* Rank
Alabama 65% 25 63% 16

Alaska 67% 22 62% 19
Arizona 66% 23 54% 29
Arkansas 76% 7 76% 6
California 50% 49 34% 50
Colorado 54% 47 34% 50
Connecticut 62% 28 45% 43
Delaware 65% 25 58% 21
District of Columbia 71% 13 36% 48
Florida 59% 38 49% 37
Georgia 74% 12 69% 13
Hawaii 70% 16 57% 22
Idaho 62% 28 56% 24
Illinois 75% 10 64% 15
Indiana 71% 13 71% 11
Iowa 66% 23 57% 22
Kansas 61% 32 52% 34
Kentucky 76% 7 75% 7
Louisiana 76% 7 78% 5
Maine 85% 4 79% 4
Maryland 55% 45 41% 46
Massachusetts 54% 47 36% 48
Michigan 75% 10 75% 7
Minnesota 62% 28 47% 40
Mississippi 60% 36 61% 20
Missouri 95% 1 89% 1
Montana 61% 32 51% 35
Nebraska 65% 25 53% 32
Nevada 49% 50 42% 44
New Hampshire 55% 45 46% 42
New Jersey 58% 40 41% 46
New Mexico 69% 17 65% 14
New York 61% 32 48% 39
North Carolina 58% 40 56% 24
North Dakota 57% 42 53% 32
Ohio 68% 18 63% 16
Oklahoma 77% 6 74% 10
Oregon 86% 3 75% 7
Pennsylvania 68% 18 63% 16
Rhode Island 56% 44 42% 44
South Carolina 71% 13 70% 12
South Dakota 57% 42 54% 29
Tennessee 88% 2 83% 2
Texas 60% 36 56% 24
Utah 61% 32 50% 36
Vermont 68% 18 54% 29
Virginia 62% 28 49% 37
Washington 68% 18 55% 28
West Virginia 80% 5 81% 3
Wisconsin 59% 38 56% 24
Wyoming 49% 50 47% 40
United States 65% 57%
*Working poor are defined as people who are eligible for the SNAP/Food Stamp Program and live in a household in which a member earns money
from a job.
SNAP/Food Stamps: Number of People Participating in SNAP/Food Stamps by State and Percentage
Change in Participation August 2007 to August 2008
SNAP/Food Stamp SNAP/Food Stamp Percent Change
State Participation August Participation August August 2008 vs Change Rank
2007 2008 August 2007
Alabama 551,802 593,827 7.6% 26
Alaska 56,856 59,669 4.9% 38
Arizona 565,872 675,664 19.4% 4
Arkansas 376,025 381,255 1.4% 46
California 2,073,792 2,325,856 12.2% 11
Colorado 247,523 259,006 4.6% 41
Connecticut 216,669 231,056 6.6% 32
Delaware 70,103 76,728 9.5% 20
District of Columbia 89,598 93,130 3.9% 43
Florida 1,288,658 1,576,981 22.4% 1
Georgia 955,498 1,086,410 13.7% 9
Hawaii 91,129 101,656 11.6% 13
Idaho 87,771 105,822 20.6% 3
Illinois 1,273,268 1,335,447 4.9% 38
Indiana 596,507 652,769 9.4% 21
Iowa 242,343 270,829 11.8% 12
Kansas 184,248 191,580 4.0% 42
Kentucky 614,128 648,602 5.6% 34
Louisiana 662,968 668,572 0.8% 49
Maine 164,403 177,638 8.1% 24
Maryland 332,353 382,063 15.0% 7
Massachusetts 468,422 537,675 14.8% 8
Michigan 1,219,200 1,278,720 4.9% 38
Minnesota 286,167 301,380 5.3% 37
Mississippi 438,005 462,074 5.5% 35
Missouri 841,492 925,446 10.0% 17
Montana 80,205 81,240 1.3% 47
Nebraska 120,951 121,105 0.1% 51
Nevada 128,708 155,547 20.9% 2
New Hampshire 60,032 65,388 8.9% 22
New Jersey 426,556 455,068 6.7% 31
New Mexico 233,778 251,523 7.6% 26
New York 1,816,805 2,051,611 12.9% 10
North Carolina 905,103 993,081 9.7% 19
North Dakota 46,904 48,714 3.9% 43
Ohio 1,098,232 1,178,935 7.3% 29
Oklahoma 422,824 425,679 0.7% 50
Oregon 442,574 491,022 10.9% 15
Pennsylvania 1,149,049 1,214,802 5.7% 33
Rhode Island 79,405 88,423 11.4% 14
South Carolina 556,961 614,975 10.4% 16
South Dakota 60,848 64,133 5.4% 36
Tennessee 880,939 940,414 6.8% 30
Texas 2,444,566 2,683,648 9.8% 18
Utah 123,438 143,382 16.2% 5
Vermont 53,338 57,672 8.1% 24
Virginia 523,325 562,781 7.5% 28
Washington 530,136 573,891 8.3% 23
West Virginia 271,237 281,727 3.9% 43
Wisconsin 390,430 450,632 15.4% 6
Wyoming 22,045 22,297 1.1% 48
TOTAL 26,903,523 29,459,946 9.5%
Source: USDA SNAP/Food Stamp Program participation data. August 2008 was the latest available data at press time and may be revised. See
www.frac.org for updates.
SNAP/Food Stamps: Number of People Participating in SNAP/Food Stamps by State and
Percentage Change in Participation August 2003 to August 2008
SNAP/Food Stamps SNAP/Food Stamps Percent Change
State Participation August Participation August August 2008 vs. Change Rank
2003 2008 August 2003
Alabama 485,556 593,827 22.3% 36
Alaska 51,142 59,669 16.7% 40
Arizona 513,928 675,664 31.5% 23
Arkansas 319,082 381,255 19.5% 39
California 1,766,677 2,325,856 31.7% 21
Colorado 222,420 259,006 16.4% 41
Connecticut 186,410 231,056 24.0% 31
Delaware 48,614 76,728 57.8% 3
District of Columbia 86,156 93,130 8.1% 46
Florida 1,063,264 1,576,981 48.3% 4
Georgia 813,080 1,086,410 33.6% 18
Hawaii 100,467 101,656 1.2% 49
Idaho 84,189 105,822 25.7% 28
Illinois 997,680 1,335,447 33.9% 17
Indiana 496,333 652,769 31.5% 22
Iowa 158,742 270,829 70.6% 2
Kansas 168,241 191,580 13.9% 44
Kentucky 528,090 648,602 22.8% 33
Louisiana 674,659 668,572 -0.9% 50
Maine 129,456 177,638 37.2% 15
Maryland 262,907 382,063 45.3% 8
Massachusetts 313,183 537,675 71.7% 1
Michigan 879,820 1,278,720 45.3% 7
Minnesota 241,895 301,380 24.6% 29
Mississippi 373,498 462,074 23.7% 32
Missouri 649,362 925,446 42.5% 10
Montana 75,359 81,240 7.8% 47
Nebraska 104,364 121,105 16.0% 43
Nevada 117,852 155,547 32.0% 20
New Hampshire 45,302 65,388 44.3% 9
New Jersey 350,748 455,068 29.7% 25
New Mexico 202,592 251,523 24.2% 30
New York 1,480,636 2,051,611 38.6% 13
North Carolina 678,722 993,081 46.3% 5
North Dakota 39,725 48,714 22.6% 34
Ohio 886,654 1,178,935 33.0% 19
Oklahoma 399,369 425,679 6.6% 48
Oregon 406,099 491,022 20.9% 37
Pennsylvania 876,037 1,214,802 38.7% 12
Rhode Island 76,094 88,423 16.2% 42
South Carolina 471,821 614,975 30.3% 24
South Dakota 53,115 64,133 20.7% 38
Tennessee 768,476 940,414 22.4% 35
Texas 2,094,830 2,683,648 28.1% 27
Utah 111,815 143,382 28.2% 26
Vermont 41,161 57,672 40.1% 11
Virginia 409,095 562,781 37.6% 14
Washington 420,194 573,891 36.6% 16
West Virginia 248,994 281,727 13.1% 45
Wisconsin 308,801 450,632 45.9% 6
Wyoming 25,073 22,297 -11.1% 51
TOTAL 22,345,466 29,459,946 31.8%
Source: USDA SNAP/Food Stamp Program participation data. August 2008 was the latest available data at press time and may be revised.
See www.frac.org for updates.
SNAP/Food Stamps: SNAP/Food Stamp Participation and Unclaimed Benefits in Major Cities 2006
Estimated
Estimated
Enrollment Number of Local Average Estimated
Data Number of
City (County), State May 2006 Eligible Non- Access Benefit, Unclaimed
Level Eligible
(persons) participants, Indicator May 2006 Benefits, 2006
Persons, 2006
2006
Atlanta (Fulton), GA County 102,380 141,583 39,203 72% $101.78 $20,588,820
Baltimore, MD City 106,511 123,369 16,858 86% $98.01 $8,525,623
Boston (Suffolk), MA City 70,068 104,743 34,675 67% $81.72 $14,621,588
Chicago (Cook), IL County 650,253 850,317 200,064 76% $104.67 $108,054,006
Columbus (Franklin), OH County 121,756 175,994 54,238 69% $106.10 $29,694,003
Denver (Denver), CO City-Co. 48,210 114,457 66,247 42% $112.53 $38,466,639
Detroit (Wayne), MI City 262,607 267,851 5,244 98% $94.26 $2,550,585
Houston (Harris), TX County 342,362 675,032 332,670 51% $95.28 $163,555,476
Indianapolis (Marion), IN County 115,898 139,258 23,360 83% $99.67 $12,013,983
Jacksonville (Duval), FL County 67,861 119,047 51,186 57% $91.33 $24,122,058
Las Vegas (Clark), NV County 87,155 197,340 110,185 44% $88.85 $50,516,076
Los Angeles (Los Angeles), CA County 620,489 1,248,913 628,424 50% $108.83 $352,899,541
Louisville (Jefferson), KY County 84,185 104,344 20,159 81% $97.25 $10,115,988
Miami (Miami-Dade), FL County 296,138 397,082 100,944 75% $91.42 $47,618,030
Milwaukee (Milwaukee), WI County 143,185 160,725 17,540 89% $83.42 $7,550,044
New York, NY City 1,098,225 1,521,404 423,179 72% $110.52 $241,331,874
Oakland (Alameda), CA County 66,459 121,342 54,883 55% $100.78 $28,540,521
Philadelphia (Philadelphia), PA City-Co. 297,196 348,474 51,278 85% $96.46 $25,522,784
Phoenix (Maricopa), AZ County 262,521 472,853 210,332 56% $97.35 $105,655,232
San Antonio (Bexar), TX County 190,460 263,549 73,089 72% $91.46 $34,493,155
San Diego (San Diego), CA County 83,262 285,130 201,868 29% $96.92 $100,955,640
Seattle (King), WA County 98,161 172,174 74,013 57% $94.93 $36,254,439
Washington, D.C. City 84,787 101,791 17,004 83% $97.01 $8,511,719
Wichita (Sedgwick), KS City 42,607 55,664 13,057 77% $91.60 $6,171,469
Total 5,342,736 8,162,436 2,819,700 67.8% $97.17 $1,478,329,293
Source: FRAC calculations based on data from city and state SNAP/Food Stamp Program human services agencies. For complete methodology see
FRAC report, http://www.frac.org/pdf/urbanfoodstamps08.pdf
The number of people estimated to be eligible for the SNAP/Food Stamp Program in each city was obtained by calculating the number of people living
below 130 percent of the federal poverty level, minus non-eligible immigrants and those ineligible because they exceed the resource limit. Additional
adjustments were made to remove California residents receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) who would otherwise be eligible. By comparing
the actual number of SNAP/food stamp recipients to the estimated eligible, the Local Access Indicator was calculated. The dollars unclaimed were
derived by multiplying the number of eligible people not participating by the average SNAP/food stamp benefit for each city, adjusted to reflect that
on average non-participants would receive a smaller benefit.
Chart 1
CONTRIBUTIONS OF SNAP/FOOD STAMPS AND EITC TO FAMILY ECONOMIC SECURITY AT DIFFERENT LEVELS
OF MINIMUM WAGE WORK IN 2007
$25,000
2007 HHS Poverty Guideline for 3-Person Family = $17,170 $20,798

121%
$20,000 $19,26
112% $4,408
$17,397
101%
$17,170
$4,935 95%
$15,000 $5,112
$13,312
Total Income
83%
$4,690
78% of
poverty line $4,090
68%
$5,112 $3,510
$10,000 60%
51%
48%
$2,350
34% 72% $11,700
$5,000 $10,238
$8,775
$5,850
$0
20 hours 30 hours 35 hours 40 hours
Hours Worked Per Week (3-Person Family, 1 Worker, 2 Children)
Wages EITC Food Stamps
School Breakfast: Additional Participation and Federal Funding by State if 60 Low-Income Students
Received School Breakfast (SBP) per 100 Served School Lunch (NSLP), School Year 2006-2007
Ratio of Low- Additional Low- Additional Annual

Number of Low-
Income Students Income Students if Funding if 60 SBP per
State Income SBP
in SBP per 100 in 60 SBP per 100 100 NSLP Low-Income
Students
NSLP NSLP Students*
Alabama 46.2 161,443 48,390 $10,426,445
Alaska 34.0 11,921 9,127 $1,952,789
Arizona 40.9 167,112 78,022 $16,722,505
Arkansas 53.6 121,008 14,468 $3,111,609
California 40.7 893,491 422,297 $90,291,486
Colorado 35.7 69,493 47,237 $10,126,920
Connecticut 34.6 49,255 36,167 $7,806,378
Delaware 47.8 19,758 5,028 $1,082,503
District of Columbia 46.8 15,274 4,313 $935,951
Florida 46.9 468,420 131,398 $28,148,275
Georgia 54.2 412,616 44,320 $9,517,635
Hawaii 43.5 20,760 7,884 $1,654,237
Idaho 53.7 46,468 5,439 $1,155,872
Illinois 32.9 232,064 190,902 $41,424,192
Indiana 40.8 140,118 65,903 $14,139,527
Iowa 37.2 53,484 32,737 $6,986,156
Kansas 42.3 67,473 28,311 $6,006,202
Kentucky 56.3 175,693 11,599 $2,491,442
Louisiana 51.4 193,518 32,394 $7,009,671
Maine 43.1 23,008 9,010 $1,928,515
Maryland 43.0 94,962 37,546 $7,971,456
Massachusetts 43.8 106,564 39,379 $8,525,156
Michigan 39.9 197,635 99,895 $21,577,421
Minnesota 40.8 92,276 43,309 $9,161,814
Mississippi 55.5 167,377 13,607 $2,946,328
Missouri 50.2 163,133 31,674 $6,775,418
Montana 42.4 17,199 7,134 $1,521,694
Nebraska 36.7 36,660 23,339 $4,967,008
Nevada 38.1 45,904 26,461 $5,649,158
New Hampshire 33.8 11,109 8,610 $1,836,964
New Jersey 36.1 118,673 78,823 $16,941,101
New Mexico 61.1 95,873 -- --
New York 37.8 430,013 252,241 $54,184,219
North Carolina 50.0 290,185 58,340 $12,550,943
North Dakota 41.7 11,452 5,022 $1,068,369
Ohio 43.9 241,669 89,000 $19,194,791
Oklahoma 56.9 155,221 8,388 $1,798,262
Oregon 55.9 104,156 7,656 $1,639,237
Pennsylvania 37.3 193,979 118,267 $25,431,942
Rhode Island 40.0 18,403 9,217 $1,985,092
South Carolina 59.2 188,940 2,424 $522,731
South Dakota 41.5 18,524 8,229 $1,762,552
Tennessee 49.9 207,440 42,189 $9,075,572
Texas 53.0 1,146,477 151,191 $32,579,249
Utah 33.8 44,995 34,847 $7,372,034
Vermont 55.5 12,832 1,030 $218,683
Virginia 46.4 154,049 45,125 $9,635,610
Washington 42.6 126,397 51,814 $10,975,567
West Virginia 57.0 66,439 3,455 $735,096
Wisconsin 35.7 85,326 58,111 $12,403,314
Wyoming 38.4 8,527 4,811 $1,012,230
United States 45.3 8,130,457 2,586,083 $555,249,388
*This estimate assumes that the current mix of free and reduced-price students in each state would be maintained if the state reached 60
students receiving breakfast for every 100 eating lunch for 169 school days at the lowest reimbursement rate.
School Breakfast: School Districts’ Additional Funding and Participation if 70 Low-Income Students Were
Served School Breakfast (SBP) Per 100 Served School Lunch (NSLP) School Year 2005-2006
Additional Annual
Ratio of Low- Additional Low-
Funding if 70 Low-
Income Students Income Students
School District Income Students
in SBP per 100 in Served if 70 SBP
Served SBP per 100
NSLP per 100 NSLP
NSLP*
Baltimore City Public Schools, MD 39.0 13,185 $2,949,100
Boston Public Schools, MA 63.6 2,007 $448,000
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, NC 53.1 7,377 $1,656,000
Chicago Public Schools, IL 28.7 116,080 $25,294,500
Clark County School District, Las Vegas, NV 37.4 26,417 $5,873,500
Columbus Public Schools, OH 56.2 4,490 $957,800
Denver Public Schools, CO 33.9 10,926 $2,434,000
Detroit Public Schools, MI 55.9 7,300 $1,699,500
District of Columbia Public Schools, DC 47.2 5,740 $1,296,100
Houston Independent School District, TX 45.4 24,211 $5,233,800
Indianapolis Public Schools, IN 56.7 3,182 $709,100
Los Angeles Unified School District, CA 55.5 49,067 $10,952,200
Memphis City Schools, TN 39.5 22,579 $5,040,700
Miami-Dade County Public Schools, FL 52.2 26,990 $5,867,800
Minneapolis School District, MN 59.7 1,875 $399,200
New York City Department of Education, NY 29.1 216,673 $49,050,300
Newark Public Schools, NJ 93.7 -- --
Oklahoma City Public Schools, OK 57.2 3,031 $660,700
Omaha Public Schools, NE 52.3 3,861 $812,800
Portland Public Schools, OR 97.9 -- --
School District of Philadelphia, PA 43.8 25,824 $5,752,600
Seattle Public Schools, WA 45.3 3,133 $689,100
Wichita Public Schools, KS 35.6 6,712 $1,616,800
TOTAL 578,785 $129,393,600
Source: FRAC calculations based on data provided by district officials. Numbers reflect free and reduced-price students.
*This estimate assumes that the current mix of free and reduced-price students in each district would be maintained if the district
reached 70 students receiving breakfast for every 100 eating lunch for 169 school days at the lowest reimbursement rate.
Summer Nutrition: Additional Participation and Federal Funding for Summer Lunches by State if 40
Children Were Served Summer Nutrition (SN) per 100 Served in School Year Lunch, July 2007
Additional Children Additional Federal
Ratio of Children Children in SN (School
Reached if 40 SN Funding if 40 SN
State in SN per 100 in Lunch & Summer Food
Children per 100 in Children per 100 in
School-Year NSLP Combined), July 2007
School-Year NSLP School-Year NSLP*
Alabama 9.5 30,719 98,958 $5,964,187
Alaska 6.3 2,064 10,944 $659,608
Arizona 10.0 37,689 113,804 $6,858,949
Arkansas 8.9 18,524 65,200 $3,929,596
California 30.6 622,090 191,067 $11,515,601
Colorado 8.2 14,785 57,355 $3,456,764
Connecticut 26.0 34,304 18,487 $1,114,191
Delaware 21.5 8,244 7,073 $426,304
District of Columbia 95.9 29,036 -- --
Florida 17.0 157,978 212,710 $12,820,032
Georgia 13.6 95,956 186,431 $11,236,187
Hawaii 14.0 6,216 11,486 $692,257
Idaho 22.4 18,002 14,077 $848,404
Illinois 16.6 108,304 153,090 $9,226,727
Indiana 13.6 43,350 83,971 $5,060,925
Iowa 8.4 11,255 42,031 $2,533,179
Kansas 6.6 9,713 49,482 $2,982,277
Kentucky 16.0 46,374 69,372 $4,181,052
Louisiana 8.5 29,593 110,021 $6,630,942
Maine 15.4 7,604 12,183 $734,295
Maryland 20.9 42,843 39,047 $2,353,381
Massachusetts 21.3 48,026 42,167 $2,541,426
Michigan 12.6 58,023 125,850 $7,584,994
Minnesota 13.2 27,629 56,163 $3,384,949
Mississippi 5.0 13,860 97,988 $5,905,728
Missouri 16.4 49,246 71,145 $4,287,900
Montana 12.9 4,839 10,199 $614,704
Nebraska 9.6 8,886 28,194 $1,699,228
Nevada 33.1 37,054 7,667 $462,078
New Hampshire 14.1 4,303 7,884 $475,150
New Jersey 20.4 62,390 59,663 $3,595,892
New Mexico 35.0 50,907 7,269 $438,097
New York 29.8 314,011 107,623 $6,486,414
North Carolina 14.8 79,500 135,888 $8,189,964
North Dakota 8.7 2,204 7,977 $480,773
Ohio 11.4 58,245 146,108 $8,805,913
Oklahoma 4.9 12,498 88,612 $5,340,661
Oregon 19.8 34,254 34,846 $2,100,175
Pennsylvania 25.8 124,611 68,357 $4,119,880
Rhode Island 29.4 12,566 4,504 $271,427
South Carolina 26.7 78,845 39,418 $2,375,712
South Dakota 20.5 8,491 8,042 $484,694
Tennessee 9.9 38,307 115,964 $6,989,135
Texas 8.2 164,085 637,874 $38,444,674
Utah 28.6 35,234 14,109 $850,341
Vermont 26.7 5,724 2,842 $171,305
Virginia 20.2 62,052 61,037 $3,678,697
Washington 12.3 33,969 76,165 $4,590,485
West Virginia 15.5 16,723 26,471 $1,595,426
Wisconsin 12.6 27,960 60,685 $3,657,472
Wyoming (2001) 18.4 3,794 4,449 $268,165
United States 17.5 2,852,877 3,685,016 $222,095,904
Source: USDA data, calculations by FRAC. NSLP numbers reflect free and reduced price lunch attendance.
* This estimate assumes the state's sponsors are reimbursed each day for one lunch only per child and at the lowest rate for a SFSP lunch. We
assume that all participants were served for the full 21 weekdays in July 2007 (excluding the July 4th holiday).
Sources
Data in this report are subject to change as state likely to go hungry at times, or in which children’s
and federal governments update or audit data or intake has been reduced due to a lack of family
modify preliminary numbers. Data from territories financial resources, to the point that children are
are included in U.S. totals but not in the state. likely to go hungry at times.
profile sheets.
Population Data: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Federal Food Program Data:
2007 American Community Survey, FRAC analysis Data obtained from the U.S. Department of
of data downloaded from: Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. The
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ published data can be found at:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd
Poverty Data: U.S. Bureau of the Census,
2007 American Community Survey, FRAC analysis The rest of the data are unpublished data
of data extract downloaded from: obtained by FRAC from USDA.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/
School Breakfast Program and National
Food Insecurity Data: U.S. Department of School Lunch Program. Numbers of
Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service, participating students are reported for the 2006-
Household Food Security in the United States, 2007 school year (September 2006 to May 2007)
2007, by Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and and are estimates generated by the USDA from
Steven Carlson. At the state level, to compensate states’ reports of meals served. Because these
for smaller sample sizes and higher standard numbers are estimates, they may not total due to
errors, we use USDA’s three-year averages from rounding. Numbers of participating schools were
2005 to 2007 for the state estimates. The USDA reported by states to USDA in October 2006 for
report can be found at: the 2006-2007 school year. Federal funding levels
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR66/ are preliminary data for the 2006-2007 school
year. Federal funding amounts for the breakfast
and lunch programs consist of reimbursements to
Definitions of Food Insecurity: USDA
states for meals. These numbers do not include
measures food insecurity only as related to
commodities given to states for use in school
financial constraints. Food secure households
meals or any state funding provided for these
have access at all times to enough food for an
programs. The estimates for participation rates
active, healthy life. Food insecure households do
are based on the number of children receiving a
not have access to enough food to fully meet
free or reduced-price breakfast on an average day
basic needs at all times. Food insecure households
divided by the number receiving free or reduced-
are further classified based on the severity of their
price lunch on an average day. We then estimated
circumstances into low food security and very low
how many additional children would be served
food security.
free or reduced-price school breakfast if each
state achieved a 60 percent participation rate, and
Adults in food insecure households are so limited
how much additional federal reimbursements the
in resources to buy food that they are running out
state would receive as a result. The information
of food, reducing the quality of food their family
on school breakfast legislative mandates comes
eats, feeding their children unbalanced diets,
from a survey conducted by FRAC in 2007 of state
skipping meals so their children can eat, or taking
school food officials. All of this information can be
other steps that impair the adequacy of the
found in FRAC’s report, School Breakfast
family’s diet.
Scorecard 2007 .
Households with very low food security are those
Summer Food Service Program. Participation
in which adults have decreased the quality and
numbers are reported for July 2007. “Summer
quantity of food they consume because of a lack
Nutrition” participation refers to the combination
of financial resources to the point where they are
of child participation in the Summer Food Service
Program in July and student participation in free programs. Unlike participation data in the National
and reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs,
School Lunch Program in July. This combination average daily attendance is not adjusted for
gives a fuller picture of how effectively children absenteeism.
are being fed in the summer months. FRAC
estimated the participation rate by dividing the The Emergency Food Assistance Program
number of children participating in summer (TEFAP). Preliminary data obtained from USDA
nutrition programs on an average day in July 2007 for FY 2007. Values reported include state TEFAP
by the number of children receiving a free or commodity entitlements (entitlement funding),
reduced-price school lunch during the previous storage and distribution costs (administrative
school year. We then estimated how many funding), and bonus commodity funding.
additional children would be served in the summer
– and how much additional federal Commodity Supplemental Food Program
reimbursements the state would receive – if each (CSFP). Preliminary data obtained from USDA for
state reached a 40 percent participation rate, a FY 2007. The federal funding figure includes the
goal which several states have achieved in recent federal share of administrative funding as well as
years. For additional information on summer the value of entitlement commodities. It excludes
nutrition programs, see FRAC’s report, Hunger the value of bonus commodities and other costs
Doesn't Take a Vacation 2008. such as storage and transportation.
SNAP/Food Stamp Program: SNAP/Food State Economic Security Policies:

stamp numbers are from USDA. Participation State Minimum Wage. The state minimum wage
numbers for SNAP/food stamps are preliminary values are from the U.S. Department of Labor and
average monthly participation numbers for fiscal can be found at:
year 2007. The estimated percentage of eligible http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm
persons and eligible working poor participating is
from USDA’s report, Reaching Those In Need: Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC
State Food Stamp Participation Rates in 2005. information comes from the State EITC Online
Resource Center, and can be found at:
Administrative costs represent only the federal http://www.stateeitc.com/
share, not state funds, and also do not include
federal money for education and training Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).
programs sometimes included in the The data on TANF participation is from the
administrative cost category by USDA. Administration for Children and Families at:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program For reports/caseload/2006/2006_fycy_recipient_tan.ht
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). m.
Participation data are average monthly Federal and state funding levels are available at
participation numbers and total federal funding is http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/2006/t
for FY 2007; both are from USDA. ableF_2006.html
Child and Adult Care Food Program Data on benefits are from the National Center on
(CACFP). Data are from USDA for FY 2007, and Children in Poverty at:
do not include adult participation. The number of http://www.nccp.org/tools/policy/.
child care centers and average daily attendance
for centers include the data for Head Start

State of The States 2008 Report Re: Nutrition Assistance Programs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of The States 2008 Report Re: Nutrition Assistance Programs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of the States: 2008

FRAC’s Proﬁle of Food & Nutrition Programs Across the Nation

Food Research and Action Center

1) Include a SNAP/Food Stamp benefit boost in stimulus/economic recovery legislation. The

SNAP/Food Stamp benefits are fully federally-

• A record 10.1 million children (including free,

• Nationally, comparing free and reduced-price

• A record 30.6 million children (free, reduced-

• In 2006-2007 99,839 schools offered the

WIC provides participants with supplemental foods

• WIC provided nutritious food to 6.2 million

Adult Day Care

Income and Poverty (2007)

Food Insecurity Among Households (2007)

Federal Nutrition Programs

National School Lunch Program (School Year 2006-2007)

Summer Nutrition Participation (July 2007)

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (FY 2007)

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) (FY 2007)

Economic Security Policies

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (2007)

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) (FY 2006)

Income and Poverty (2007)

Food Insecurity Among Households (2005-2007, 3-Year Averages)

Federal Nutrition Programs

National School Lunch Program (School Year 2006-2007)

Summer Nutrition Participation (July 2007)

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (FY 2007)

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) (FY 2007)

State Economic Security Policies

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (2007)

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) (FY 2006)

Income and Poverty (2007)

Food Insecurity Among Households (2005-2007, 3-Year Averages)

Federal Nutrition Programs

National School Lunch Program (School Year 2006-2007)

Summer Nutrition Participation (July 2007)

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (FY 2007)

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) (FY 2007)

State Economic Security Policies

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (2007)

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) (FY 2006)

Income and Poverty (2007)

Food Insecurity Among Households (2005-2007, 3-Year Averages)

Federal Nutrition Programs

National School Lunch Program (School Year 2006-2007)

Summer Nutrition Participation (July 2007)

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (FY 2007)

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) (FY 2007)

State Economic Security Policies

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (2007)

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) (FY 2006)

Income and Poverty (2007)

Food Insecurity Among Households (2005-2007, 3-Year Averages)

Federal Nutrition Programs

National School Lunch Program (School Year 2006-2007)

Summer Nutrition Participation (July 2007)

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (FY 2007)