Counties Going Hungry in Every State
The United States is one of the most affluent nations on earth. Our agricultural resources are substantial, with over 1 billion acres of actively-used farm land. And yet an estimated one in eight American households face difficulties obtaining enough food…
The United States is one of the most affluent nations on earth. Our agricultural resources are substantial, with over 1 billion acres of actively-used farm land. And yet an estimated one in eight American households face difficulties obtaining enough food to adequately feed the whole family over the course of the year.
Part of the reason for this lack of resources is the sheer amount of food wasted in this country. American consumers and retailers waste tens of billions of pounds of food annually. Over 40 million Americans struggle to afford food every day. As much as half of all food produced in the United States is wasted. The vast amount of wasted food in the United States — $162 billion a year — is especially tragic given that there are well over 40 million Americans who lack sufficient access to healthy, quality food. It is one of today’s biggest public health issues.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture measures the share of residents who live on low incomes and also lack access to nearby grocery stores and from that data derives the food insecurity rate. Food insecurity measures the share of households who report inconsistent access to adequate food..This could be caused by the scarcity of nearby stores — low access to food, and it can also be the result of poverty.
In all U.S. states, there is at least one county where over one in 10 residents do not have consistent access to the food they need on a daily basis. In some U.S. counties or county equivalents, more than one in three residents are at risk of going hungry. Across the country, 12.6% of residents receive nutritional assistance in the form of SNAP benefits, also known as food stamps. In the counties going hungry in every state, as many as 18% of residents rely on SNAP.
Food insecurity can be exacerbated by poverty and food deserts — places where there are relatively few if any food options. Many counties on this list are home to or overlap with American Indian reservations, which, due to unique business regulations, poor access to amenities, as well as housing challenges, have historically faced extreme rural poverty.
To determine the county going hungry in every state, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed data from the national food bank network Feeding America to determine the U.S. counties and county equivalents where the largest share of residents don’t get enough to eat.
Click here to see counties going hungry in every state
Alabama: Greene County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 29.7% (2,540 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 16.3% (795,760 people)
> County poverty rate: 38.8% (state: 16.9%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 39.8%
> Households in rural areas: 100.0%
[entry-topics ids=”8017″]
Alaska: Kusilvak Census Area
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 27.4% (2,230 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 13.6% (100,310 people)
> County poverty rate: 39.1% (state: 11.1%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 58.0%
> Households in rural areas: N/A
[entry-topics ids=”176″]
Arizona: Apache County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 24.2% (17,330 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 14.0% (979,170 people)
> County poverty rate: 35.9% (state: 14.9%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 26.3%
> Households in rural areas: 78.2%
[entry-topics ids=”24592″]
Arkansas: Phillips County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 29.5% (5,750 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 17.3% (518,960 people)
> County poverty rate: 33.0% (state: 16.4%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 30.8%
> Households in rural areas: 49.0%
[entry-topics ids=”50255″]
California: Siskiyou County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 16.9% (7,340 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 11.0% (4,354,400 people)
> County poverty rate: 20.7% (state: 13.3%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 12.1%
> Households in rural areas: 68.4%
[entry-topics ids=”1337″]
Colorado: Montezuma County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 13.2% (3,410 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 10.6% (596,150 people)
> County poverty rate: 16.8% (state: 10.3%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 11.0%
> Households in rural areas: 68.7%
[entry-topics ids=”180″]
Connecticut: New Haven County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 12.1% (104,190 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 11.3% (406,810 people)
> County poverty rate: 12.1% (state: 9.6%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 15.1%
> Households in rural areas: 3.3%
[entry-topics ids=”22247″]
Delaware: Kent County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 12.9% (22,400 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 12.2% (117,320 people)
> County poverty rate: 13.0% (state: 13.6%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 11.3%
> Households in rural areas: 27.2%
[entry-topics ids=”3426″]
Florida: Gadsden County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 22.2% (10,260 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 13.4% (2,806,770 people)
> County poverty rate: 24.4% (state: 14.0%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 25.7%
> Households in rural areas: 68.5%
[entry-topics ids=”1657″]
Georgia: Clay County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 27.4% (830 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 14.4% (1,501,680 people)
> County poverty rate: 41.4% (state: 14.9%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 34.3%
> Households in rural areas: 100.0%
[entry-topics ids=”22721″]
Hawaii: Kalawao County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 17.8% (20 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 11.3% (161,270 people)
> County poverty rate: 12.7% (state: 9.5%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 5.7%
> Households in rural areas: 100.0%
[entry-topics ids=”14042″]
Idaho: Madison County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 19.0% (7,260 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 12.3% (210,420 people)
> County poverty rate: 31.8% (state: 12.8%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 22.9%
> Households in rural areas: 29.1%
[entry-topics ids=”59347″]
Illinois: Alexander County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 22.2% (1,500 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 10.9% (1,395,970 people)
> County poverty rate: 33.4% (state: 12.6%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 28.5%
> Households in rural areas: 56.4%
[entry-topics ids=”11106″]
Indiana: Marion County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 17.4% (163,410 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 13.3% (887,070 people)
> County poverty rate: 19.8% (state: 13.5%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 21.1%
> Households in rural areas: 0.5%
[entry-topics ids=”35717″]
Iowa: Story County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 14.9% (14,280 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 10.9% (341,890 people)
> County poverty rate: 22.0% (state: 10.7%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 6.8%
> Households in rural areas: 17.1%
[entry-topics ids=”59348″]
Kansas: Riley County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 17.5% (13,240 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 12.7% (370,860 people)
> County poverty rate: 22.0% (state: 11.9%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 5.5%
> Households in rural areas: 15.8%
[entry-topics ids=”14041″]
Kentucky: Magoffin County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 22.5% (2,880 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 14.9% (662,360 people)
> County poverty rate: 28.6% (state: 17.2%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 35.5%
> Households in rural areas: 100.0%
[entry-topics ids=”59349″]
Louisiana: East Carroll Parish
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 33.1% (2,420 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 16.5% (773,850 people)
> County poverty rate: 48.2% (state: 19.7%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 31.5%
> Households in rural areas: 37.3%
[entry-topics ids=”59350″]
Maine: Aroostook County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 15.4% (10,620 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 12.9% (172,650 people)
> County poverty rate: 17.5% (state: 11.1%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 22.3%
> Households in rural areas: 82.5%
[entry-topics ids=”36448″]
Maryland: Baltimore city
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 21.3% (131,860 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 10.7% (650,200 people)
> County poverty rate: 22.4% (state: 9.3%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 25.3%
> Households in rural areas: 0.0%
[entry-topics ids=”28049″]
Massachusetts: Suffolk County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 13.7% (107,030 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 9.0% (616,090 people)
> County poverty rate: 19.6% (state: 10.5%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 18.7%
> Households in rural areas: 0.0%
[entry-topics ids=”22627″]
Michigan: Wayne County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 19.5% (344,440 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 13.7% (1,369,250 people)
> County poverty rate: 23.7% (state: 14.2%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 21.8%
> Households in rural areas: 0.6%
[entry-topics ids=”11110″]
Minnesota: Mahnomen County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 13.5% (740 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 9.1% (504,760 people)
> County poverty rate: 22.7% (state: 9.5%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 22.2%
> Households in rural areas: 100.0%
[entry-topics ids=”19886″]
Mississippi: Jefferson County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 36.3% (2,710 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 19.2% (573,610 people)
> County poverty rate: 47.0% (state: 19.8%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 33.7%
> Households in rural areas: 100.0%
[entry-topics ids=”59351″]
Missouri: St. Louis city
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 23.3% (73,300 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 14.2% (865,400 people)
> County poverty rate: 25.0% (state: 13.4%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 22.3%
> Households in rural areas: 0.0%
[entry-topics ids=”28577″]
Montana: Big Horn County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 20.2% (2,690 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 11.1% (116,120 people)
> County poverty rate: 26.8% (state: 12.5%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 20.1%
> Households in rural areas: 69.3%
[entry-topics ids=”3837″]
Nebraska: Thurston County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 18.6% (1,310 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 11.6% (223,170 people)
> County poverty rate: 30.5% (state: 10.8%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 21.7%
> Households in rural areas: 100.0%
[entry-topics ids=”11091″]
Nevada: Mineral County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 15.1% (670 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 12.2% (365,160 people)
> County poverty rate: 20.3% (state: 13.0%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 19.2%
> Households in rural areas: 34.2%
[entry-topics ids=”59354″]
New Hampshire: Coos County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 11.3% (3,630 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 9.1% (122,860 people)
> County poverty rate: 13.3% (state: 7.7%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 25.0%
> Households in rural areas: 73.9%
[entry-topics ids=”22615″]
New Jersey: Essex County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 16.3% (130,720 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 9.6% (865,900 people)
> County poverty rate: 16.7% (state: 10.0%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 15.4%
> Households in rural areas: 0.0%
[entry-topics ids=”22720″]
New Mexico: McKinley County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 26.0% (18,920 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 15.5% (324,000 people)
> County poverty rate: 37.5% (state: 19.7%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 25.7%
> Households in rural areas: 59.3%
[entry-topics ids=”59355″]
New York: Kings County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 17.1% (451,740 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 11.4% (2,261,250 people)
> County poverty rate: 21.9% (state: 14.1%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 23.5%
> Households in rural areas: 0.0%
[entry-topics ids=”4614″]
North Carolina: Edgecombe County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 24.1% (13,000 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 14.6% (1,503,050 people)
> County poverty rate: 24.6% (state: 14.7%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 28.3%
> Households in rural areas: 44.2%
[entry-topics ids=”20037″]
North Dakota: Rolette County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 16.8% (2,460 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 7.3% (54,930 people)
> County poverty rate: 32.4% (state: 10.3%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 29.1%
> Households in rural areas: 100.0%
[entry-topics ids=”15103″]
Ohio: Athens County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 19.3% (12,680 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 14.5% (1,691,910 people)
> County poverty rate: 30.2% (state: 14.0%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 19.1%
> Households in rural areas: 49.3%
[entry-topics ids=”4458″]
Oklahoma: Choctaw County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 21.7% (3,240 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 15.8% (621,370 people)
> County poverty rate: 31.0% (state: 15.8%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 27.4%
> Households in rural areas: 67.1%
[entry-topics ids=”6084″]
Oregon: Lake County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 15.8% (1,230 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 12.3% (510,080 people)
> County poverty rate: 20.0% (state: 13.2%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 38.7%
> Households in rural areas: 65.5%
[entry-topics ids=”59358″]
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 20.1% (314,820 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 12.0% (1,534,710 people)
> County poverty rate: 25.8% (state: 12.5%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 24.5%
> Households in rural areas: 0.0%
[entry-topics ids=”11113″]
Rhode Island: Providence County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 12.6% (79,720 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 11.4% (120,590 people)
> County poverty rate: 16.7% (state: 11.6%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 20.5%
> Households in rural areas: 5.1%
[entry-topics ids=”9799″]
South Carolina: Allendale County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 24.1% (2,270 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 13.5% (679,990 people)
> County poverty rate: 30.4% (state: 15.4%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 32.5%
> Households in rural areas: 65.1%
[entry-topics ids=”11112″]
South Dakota: Oglala Lakota County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 27.0% (3,860 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 11.4% (99,190 people)
> County poverty rate: 51.9% (state: 13.0%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 54.9%
> Households in rural areas: N/A
[entry-topics ids=”14040″]
Tennessee: Lake County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 20.8% (1,580 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 13.9% (934,310 people)
> County poverty rate: 29.9% (state: 15.0%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 38.7%
> Households in rural areas: 100.0%
[entry-topics ids=”59360″]
Texas: San Augustine County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 23.5% (1,970 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 14.9% (4,217,470 people)
> County poverty rate: 24.4% (state: 14.7%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 18.6%
> Households in rural areas: 100.0%
[entry-topics ids=”1575″]
Utah: San Juan County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 19.4% (2,950 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 12.1% (373,850 people)
> County poverty rate: 28.4% (state: 9.7%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 17.4%
> Households in rural areas: 81.5%
[entry-topics ids=”59361″]
Vermont: Essex County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 13.1% (820 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 11.9% (74,520 people)
> County poverty rate: 15.5% (state: 11.3%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 15.4%
> Households in rural areas: 100.0%
[entry-topics ids=”1866″]
Virginia: Petersburg city
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 25.9% (8,280 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 10.2% (863,390 people)
> County poverty rate: 27.6% (state: 10.6%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 27.0%
> Households in rural areas: 2.0%
[entry-topics ids=”1834″]
Washington: Whitman County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 18.3% (8,760 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 11.5% (848,990 people)
> County poverty rate: 27.5% (state: 11.0%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 10.8%
> Households in rural areas: 31.2%
[entry-topics ids=”8439″]
West Virginia: McDowell County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 19.9% (3,930 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 14.8% (268,070 people)
> County poverty rate: 34.9% (state: 19.1%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 30.5%
> Households in rural areas: 86.1%
[entry-topics ids=”38858″]
Wisconsin: Menominee County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 17.2% (780 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 10.0% (578,480 people)
> County poverty rate: 35.8% (state: 11.3%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 30.7%
> Households in rural areas: 100.0%
[entry-topics ids=”11108″]
Wyoming: Albany County
> County pop. with inconsistent access to food: 16.3% (6,170 people)
> State pop. with inconsistent access to food: 12.3% (71,060 people)
> County poverty rate: 23.0% (state: 11.3%)
> Households receiving SNAP benefits: 4.3%
> Households in rural areas: 17.4%
[entry-topics ids=”19422″]
Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.
Michael Sauter is Lead Editor at 24/7 Wall St. He has worked here in various capacities since 2010, starting out as a healthcare industry beat writer. He helped develop the site’s data-driven content, which contributed to 24/7 Wall St. becoming a recognized brand in the field of data journalism, covering a wide range of social and economic issues. Today, he rarely writes but enjoys working with authors and data to find the best way to present information clearly and effectively. In his occasional spare time, Michael loves cycling, listening to audiobooks, and (passably) playing the piano.
