Compare state education data
Skip to content
U.S. Student Demographics

U.S. Economically Disadvantaged Student Enrollment by State 2026: Statistics & Charts

State comparisons use the latest complete NCES Digest table available for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The underlying school year is 2022–23, while 2026 identifies the publication edition.

The reported measure is the number and share of public school students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch under the National School Lunch Program, including direct certification where reported. It is used here as an education-system proxy for economic disadvantage rather than as a direct measure of child poverty.

Data type: Student demographic proxy Coverage: 50 states + District of Columbia Latest source year: 2022–23 Unit: Students and percent Primary source: NCES CCD

Economically Disadvantaged Enrollment Statistics

National totals and state comparisons reflect schools reporting both enrollment and free or reduced-price lunch eligibility data.

U.S. FRPL-eligible students
25,497,745
Reported for 2022–23.
U.S. reported share
53.3%
Eligible count divided by covered enrollment.
Highest reported share
Mississippi — 99.7%
Reported FRPL eligibility, not a direct child-poverty rate.
Lowest reported share
Montana — 18.7%
Montana reported direct-certification counts only.
Median jurisdiction
49.6%
Median across 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Largest eligible count
Texas — 3,383,904
Count reflects enrollment scale as well as eligibility share.

Highest Reported FRPL Shares by State

The chart displays the 15 highest reported shares. The full 51-jurisdiction ranking remains available in the HTML table.

The U.S. covered-enrollment share was 53.3% in 2022–23. Large cross-state differences may reflect reporting methods and meal-program rules as well as household economic conditions.

Reported rates are concentrated above the national benchmark
  • 19 jurisdictions reported shares at or above the U.S. value of 53.3%.
  • The first 15 positions all exceeded 56%, while the median jurisdiction stood at 49.6%.
  • The highest values should not be read as a direct ranking of child poverty because the underlying eligibility and certification processes differ.

State FRPL Enrollment and Share

Ranks use the unrounded ratio of eligible students to covered enrollment. Displayed percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

Public school enrollment and free or reduced-price lunch eligibility by state, 2022–23
Rank State Region Enrollment FRPL eligible Share U.S. gap Reporting basis
1 Mississippi South 440,285 438,955 99.7% +46.4 pp FRPL including direct certification
2 Nevada West 483,869 394,459 81.5% +28.2 pp FRPL including direct certification
3 New Mexico West 313,917 236,178 75.2% +21.9 pp FRPL including direct certification
4 South Carolina South 789,133 552,560 70.0% +16.7 pp FRPL including direct certification
5 Arkansas South 493,011 315,574 64.0% +10.7 pp FRPL including direct certification
6 Texas South 5,358,381 3,383,904 63.2% +9.9 pp FRPL including direct certification
7 North Carolina South 1,454,368 909,599 62.5% +9.2 pp FRPL including direct certification
8 Louisiana South 718,133 448,086 62.4% +9.1 pp FRPL including direct certification
9 Oklahoma South 700,809 422,416 60.3% +7.0 pp FRPL including direct certification
10 Alabama South 749,637 450,990 60.2% +6.9 pp FRPL including direct certification
11 Georgia South 1,750,825 1,043,080 59.6% +6.3 pp FRPL including direct certification
12 California West 5,405,961 3,148,477 58.2% +4.9 pp FRPL including direct certification
13 Kentucky South 658,873 378,431 57.4% +4.1 pp FRPL including direct certification
14 New York Northeast 2,383,534 1,361,094 57.1% +3.8 pp FRPL including direct certification
15 Pennsylvania Northeast 1,585,821 896,892 56.6% +3.3 pp FRPL including direct certification
16 Oregon West 515,488 285,062 55.3% +2.0 pp FRPL including direct certification
17 Virginia South 1,252,612 683,651 54.6% +1.3 pp FRPL including direct certification
18 Illinois Midwest 1,601,866 860,273 53.7% +0.4 pp FRPL including direct certification
19 Michigan Midwest 1,387,069 738,639 53.3% 0.0 pp FRPL including direct certification
20 Florida South 2,869,830 1,499,128 52.2% -1.1 pp FRPL including direct certification
21 West Virginia South 250,692 129,179 51.5% -1.8 pp Direct certification only
22 Indiana Midwest 1,035,833 527,224 50.9% -2.4 pp FRPL including direct certification
23 Maryland South 889,444 450,906 50.7% -2.6 pp FRPL including direct certification
24 Arizona West 997,550 502,189 50.3% -3.0 pp FRPL including direct certification
25 District of Columbia South 90,837 45,124 49.7% -3.6 pp Direct certification only
26 Washington West 1,085,722 538,336 49.6% -3.7 pp FRPL including direct certification
27 Nebraska Midwest 327,229 157,708 48.2% -5.1 pp FRPL including direct certification
28 Kansas Midwest 484,059 232,779 48.1% -5.2 pp FRPL including direct certification
29 Missouri Midwest 892,163 424,559 47.6% -5.7 pp FRPL including direct certification
30 Hawaii West 170,209 78,447 46.1% -7.2 pp FRPL including direct certification
31 Rhode Island Northeast 135,366 62,354 46.1% -7.2 pp FRPL including direct certification
32 Minnesota Midwest 869,421 377,378 43.4% -9.9 pp FRPL including direct certification
33 Colorado West 796,145 337,302 42.4% -10.9 pp FRPL including direct certification
34 Massachusetts Northeast 905,589 383,252 42.3% -11.0 pp Direct certification only
35 Connecticut Northeast 496,417 208,120 41.9% -11.4 pp FRPL including direct certification
36 Iowa Midwest 504,089 210,258 41.7% -11.6 pp FRPL including direct certification
37 Wisconsin Midwest 820,326 332,197 40.5% -12.8 pp FRPL including direct certification
38 Alaska West 130,658 51,582 39.5% -13.8 pp FRPL including direct certification
39 Maine Northeast 168,909 62,905 37.2% -16.1 pp FRPL including direct certification
40 New Jersey Northeast 1,342,214 484,832 36.1% -17.2 pp FRPL including direct certification
41 Ohio Midwest 1,679,153 606,278 36.1% -17.2 pp FRPL including direct certification
42 Idaho West 290,233 101,785 35.1% -18.2 pp FRPL including direct certification
43 Wyoming West 92,285 31,862 34.5% -18.8 pp FRPL including direct certification
44 South Dakota Midwest 141,299 46,079 32.6% -20.7 pp FRPL including direct certification
45 Vermont Northeast 80,011 24,923 31.1% -22.2 pp FRPL including direct certification
46 North Dakota Midwest 118,329 36,391 30.8% -22.5 pp FRPL including direct certification
47 Tennessee South 1,005,584 302,940 30.1% -23.2 pp Direct certification only
48 Utah West 690,111 200,844 29.1% -24.2 pp FRPL including direct certification
49 Delaware South 141,465 35,671 25.2% -28.1 pp Direct certification only
50 New Hampshire Northeast 167,683 39,201 23.4% -29.9 pp FRPL including direct certification
51 Montana West 148,465 27,692 18.7% -34.6 pp Direct certification only
Count and rate produce different state positions
  • Texas and California account for the two largest eligible-student counts, even though neither holds the highest reported rate.
  • The median jurisdiction reported 49.6%, while the national weighted share was 53.3%; large-enrollment states raise the national value relative to the state median.
  • Six jurisdictions are marked Direct certification only, limiting direct comparison with states reporting broader FRPL eligibility counts.

Enrollment Scale and Regional Distribution

The scatter plot separates the share of students reported as eligible from the number of eligible students served.

Eligible Student Count Versus Reported Share

Each point represents one state or the District of Columbia. The horizontal position shows the reported share; the vertical position shows the eligible-student count.

A high percentage does not always correspond to a large student count. Total enrollment strongly affects the number of students represented.

Large systems carry most of the national student count
  • The five largest eligible-student counts represent 40.9% of the U.S. total covered by the table.
  • The ten largest counts represent 57.0% of the national eligible-student total.
  • Smaller states can rank near the top by share while contributing a much smaller portion of the national count.

Regional FRPL Enrollment Summary

Weighted shares divide the regional eligible count by regional covered enrollment. Median shares give each jurisdiction equal weight.

Regional totals and distributions based on U.S. Census regions
Region Jurisdictions Enrollment FRPL eligible Weighted share Median share State range
South 17 19,613,919 11,490,194 58.6% 59.6% 25.2%–99.7%
West 13 11,120,613 5,934,215 53.4% 42.4% 18.7%–81.5%
Northeast 9 7,265,544 3,523,573 48.5% 41.9% 23.4%–57.1%
Midwest 12 9,860,836 4,549,763 46.1% 42.6% 30.8%–53.7%
The South combines the largest count with the highest regional share
  • The South reported 11,490,194 eligible students, more than any other Census region.
  • Its weighted share was 58.6%, compared with 53.4% in the West, 48.5% in the Northeast, and 46.1% in the Midwest.
  • Regional ranges remain wide, so a regional average does not describe every state within that region.

What the State Distribution Shows

The reported metric supports enrollment planning and cross-state description, but it does not create a uniform household-income measure.

Rate and count answer different questions

The reported share describes how broadly eligibility is distributed within a state system. The student count describes the scale of meal-program and related service demand.

Certification rules affect comparability

Direct certification identifies students through participation in means-tested assistance programs without a household application. States reporting only this count can appear lower than states reporting a wider FRPL measure.

FRPL is not the child-poverty rate

FRPL eligibility uses National School Lunch Program rules and administrative records. Census child-poverty estimates use household income surveys and a different population and measurement process.

Rank describes one reported indicator

The ranking does not measure school quality, student outcomes, state policy performance, or the level of resources available to individual schools.

Data Sources and Measurement

Primary state table

NCES Digest of Education Statistics, Table 204.10: number and percentage of public school students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch by state.

Underlying collection

Common Core of Data, Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey.

Source period

School year 2022–23. The NCES table was prepared in January 2024. The page edition year does not convert these values into 2026 estimates.

Coverage

All 50 states and the District of Columbia. NCES includes students enrolled in schools for which both enrollment and FRPL eligibility data were reported.

Eligibility measure

Free-lunch eligibility generally applies at or below 130% of the federal poverty threshold. Reduced-price eligibility generally applies above 130% and at or below 185%.

Direct certification

For 2019–20 through 2022–23, FRPL counts also include students identified through direct certification. Delaware, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Montana, Tennessee, and West Virginia reported only direct-certification counts in the latest column.

Meal-program context

The Community Eligibility Provision allows qualifying schools and districts to serve meals without collecting household applications, which affects how FRPL-based measures are interpreted.

Calculations

State shares equal eligible students divided by covered enrollment. State ranks use unrounded calculated shares. Regional totals use U.S. Census region groupings.

Rounding

Displayed shares and percentage-point gaps are rounded to one decimal place. Counts are shown as reported by NCES.

The national covered enrollment was 47,860,912 students, of whom 25,497,745 were reported as eligible. NCES notes that recent shifts may reflect the Seamless Summer Option, remote instruction, application behavior, direct certification, and state reporting practices.

Comparability of the Economic-Disadvantage Proxy

FRPL eligibility is widely used in education data as a low-income proxy, but the state values are not fully uniform. Universal meal programs, Community Eligibility Provision participation, direct-certification systems, and household application rates can alter the reported count without an equivalent change in household economic conditions. State rank should therefore be interpreted as a ranking of the reported 2022–23 FRPL indicator only.