Portion of people living in census tracts that are not food deserts (i.e., census tracts not designated low income and low food access)

Indicator Summary Score
0
100
NOT AVAILABLE

Numbers listed on the maps are indicator summary scores, which measure how far a state has to go to meet the HOPE Goal (Distance to Goal) and how much variation there is across racial and ethnic groups within the state on the measure (Racial Inequity). Scores range from 0 to 100 with 100 indicating the state with the best combined performance. Hovering over a state reveals information on Distance to Goal and Racial Inequity separately.

Alaska
Indicator Summary Score:
50
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Alabama
Indicator Summary Score:
17
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Arkansas
Indicator Summary Score:
0
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Arizona
Indicator Summary Score:
0
Inequity
Distance to Goal
California
Indicator Summary Score:
67
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Colorado
Indicator Summary Score:
33
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Connecticut
Indicator Summary Score:
83
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Delaware
Indicator Summary Score:
33
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Florida
Indicator Summary Score:
33
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Georgia
Indicator Summary Score:
0
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Iowa
Indicator Summary Score:
67
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Idaho
Indicator Summary Score:
83
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Kansas
Indicator Summary Score:
33
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Kentucky
Indicator Summary Score:
50
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Louisiana
Indicator Summary Score:
0
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Massachusetts
Indicator Summary Score:
83
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Maryland
Indicator Summary Score:
67
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Maine
Indicator Summary Score:
50
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Indiana
Indicator Summary Score:
0
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Michigan
Indicator Summary Score:
83
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Minnesota
Indicator Summary Score:
17
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Missouri
Indicator Summary Score:
33
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Mississippi
Indicator Summary Score:
0
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Montana
Indicator Summary Score:
33
Inequity
Distance to Goal
North Carolina
Indicator Summary Score:
0
Inequity
Distance to Goal
North Dakota
Indicator Summary Score:
100
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Nebraska
Indicator Summary Score:
33
Inequity
Distance to Goal
New Hampshire
Indicator Summary Score:
83
Inequity
Distance to Goal
New Jersey
Indicator Summary Score:
83
Inequity
Distance to Goal
New Mexico
Indicator Summary Score:
17
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Nevada
Indicator Summary Score:
0
Inequity
Distance to Goal
New York
Indicator Summary Score:
100
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Ohio
Indicator Summary Score:
33
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Oklahoma
Indicator Summary Score:
17
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Oregon
Indicator Summary Score:
67
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Illinois
Indicator Summary Score:
83
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Pennsylvania
Indicator Summary Score:
100
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Rhode Island
Indicator Summary Score:
83
Inequity
Distance to Goal
South Carolina
Indicator Summary Score:
33
Inequity
Distance to Goal
South Dakota
Indicator Summary Score:
17
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Tennessee
Indicator Summary Score:
0
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Texas
Indicator Summary Score:
33
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Utah
Indicator Summary Score:
33
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Virginia
Indicator Summary Score:
50
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Vermont
Indicator Summary Score:
100
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Washington
Indicator Summary Score:
33
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Wisconsin
Indicator Summary Score:
83
Inequity
Distance to Goal
West Virginia
Indicator Summary Score:
83
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Wyoming
Indicator Summary Score:
67
Inequity
Distance to Goal
Hawaii
Indicator Summary Score:
50
Inequity
Distance to Goal
76%
National Rate
of people with food security
97%
Hope Goal
People with food security
75 Million
Distance to Goal:
More people would need to have food security to achieve the HOPE Goal
Why it Matters.

Having food security increases economic productivity, leads to better educational outcomes, and prevents avoidable health care costs from hunger-related health issues.

Indicator Summary
  • Asian/Pacific Islander individuals have the highest rates of food security with 83% living in census tracts that are not food deserts.
  • American Indian/Alaska Native populations have the lowest rates of food security with 66% experiencing food security.
  • Eight Northeastern states (New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts) fare better on this indicator ranking among the top ten states for food security.
  • Seven Southern states (Georgia, Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina) fare poorly on this indicator ranking among the bottom ten states for food security.
State Distance to Goal.
Food Security

This chart is interactive. Explore data by hovering the dots to compare different race and ethnicity groups.

State Distance to Goal.
Food Security

This chart is interactive. Explore data by hovering the dots to compare different race and ethnicity groups.

Select States
Hope Goal
97%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AK
Alaska
AL
Alabama
AR
Arkansas
AZ
Arizona
CA
California
CO
Colorado
CT
Connecticut
DE
Delaware
FL
Florida
GA
Georgia
IA
Iowa
ID
Idaho
KS
Kansas
KY
Kentucky
LA
Louisiana
MA
Massachusetts
MD
Maryland
ME
Maine
IN
Indiana
MI
Michigan
MN
Minnesota
MO
Missouri
MS
Mississippi
MT
Montana
NC
North Carolina
ND
North Dakota
NE
Nebraska
NH
New Hampshire
NJ
New Jersey
NM
New Mexico
NV
Nevada
NY
New York
OH
Ohio
OK
Oklahoma
OR
Oregon
IL
Illinois
PA
Pennsylvania
RI
Rhode Island
SC
South Carolina
SD
South Dakota
TN
Tennessee
TX
Texas
UT
Utah
VA
Virginia
VT
Vermont
WA
Washington
WI
Wisconsin
WV
West Virginia
WY
Wyoming
HI
Hawaii
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.