Overview

As coronavirus cases have exploded across the country, states have struggled to obtain sufficient personal protective equipment such as masks, face shields, gloves and ventilators to meet the needs of healthcare workers. FEMA began distributing PPE from the national stockpile as well as PPE obtained from private manufacturers to states in March.

Initially, FEMA distributed materials based primarily on population. By late March, Its methods changed to send more PPE to hotspot locations, and FEMA claimed these decisions were data-driven and need-based. By late spring, the agency was considering requests from states as well.

Although all U.S. states and territories have received some amount of PPE from FEMA, the amounts of PPE states have per capita and per positive COVID-19 case vary widely.

The AP used this data in a story that ran July 7.

Findings

• Overall, low population, rural states have the most PPE per positive case as of mid-June. This generally held true across types of equipment.
• The states that had the highest number of total PPE items per coronavirus case as of mid-May were, in descending order: Alaska, Montana, Vermont, Hawaii, Wyoming, and North Dakota. The highest was Alaska with 1,579 PPE items per coronavirus case.
• The states that had the highest number of total items per case as of mid-June were largely the same states — Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia. The highest was Montana with 1,125 PPE items per coronavirus case.
• Conversely, the states that had the lowest amounts of PPE per positive case in mid-May included hotspot states — Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, California, Nebraska, and Iowa. New Jersey was just a couple spots further down. The lowest was Massachusetts with 36 PPE items per coronavirus case.
• The states that had the lowest amounts of PPE per case as of mid-June were largely the same as well — Massachusetts, New York, Iowa, California, and Nebraska. The lowest was Massachusetts with 32 PPE items per coronavirus case.
• When evaluated on a per-capita basis rather than per positive coronavirus case, the picture is different. The District of Columbia received the most PPE per capita in both May and June, although the vast majority of the PPE it received was distributed as of mid-May. Vermont, Kansas, New Jersey, and North Dakota had the next highest numbers of PPE per capita as of both mid-May and mid-June.
• There is no clear pattern of FEMA distribution by party control of states.

About the data

These numbers include material distributed by FEMA and also those sold by private distributors under direction from FEMA. They include materials both delivered to and en route to states.

States have purchased PPE directly in addition to receiving PPE from FEMA or directed there by the agency, and this data only includes the latter categories.

FEMA also distributed and directed the distribution of gear to U.S. territories in addition to states, which are included in FEMA’s release linked below, but not are not included in this data.

FEMA has publicly distributed its breakdown of PPE delivery by state for May and June. FEMA did not provide comprehensive numbers for each state before May.

These numbers are cumulative, meaning that the numbers for May include items of PPE distributed prior to May 14, dating to when the agency began allocations on March 1. The June numbers include the May numbers and any new PPE distributions since then.

The population column, which was used to calculate the numbers of PPE items per state, came from data from the U.S Census Bureau. Since the Census releases annual population data, population data from 2019 was used for each state.

The numbers of coronavirus cases were pulled from the data released daily by Johns Hopkins University as of the dates that FEMA released its distribution numbers — May 14 and June 10.

Caveats

The data includes amounts of gear that had been delivered to the states or were en route as of the reporting dates.

All PPE item numbers above 1 million were rounded to the nearest hundred thousand by FEMA, but numbers lower than that were not rounded.

In some cases, gear headed to a state was rerouted because it was needed more somewhere else or a state decided it did not need it. In some instances, that resulted in states having higher numbers for certain supplies in May than in June.

BackgroundSocioeconomic factors play a critical role in influencing mental health outcomes, particularly during periods of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In Hawaiʻi, working adults face unique challenges related to employment, food security, and trust in community safety measures, which may exacerbate risks for depression, low self-esteem, and suicidal ideation. Understanding the interplay of these factors is crucial to addressing mental health disparities and informing targeted policy interventions.MethodsThis study analyzed data from 2,270 adults aged 18 to 65 residing in Hawaiʻi, collected in 2022. Using probit regression models and conditional inference decision trees, the study assessed the impact of 15 socioeconomic and demographic factors on mental health outcomes, specifically symptoms of depression, low self-esteem, and suicidal ideation. Key variables of interest included food security status, employment, marital status, pre-existing health conditions, and perceptions of COVID-19-related community safety.ResultsThe findings revealed significant mental health challenges among the participants, with 39.6% reporting symptoms of depression, 14.7% experiencing low self-esteem, and 4.2% expressing suicidal ideation. Food insecurity emerged as the most significant predictor of poor mental health, particularly for depression and suicidal ideation. Within the food-insecure group, individuals with pre-existing health conditions faced worsened mental health outcomes, while marital status served as a protective factor. Employment reduced the likelihood of depression by 2.8%, and perceptions of community safety during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a 9.9% reduction in depression risk.ConclusionFood insecurity, particularly when coupled with pre-existing health vulnerabilities, is a critical risk factor for adverse mental health outcomes among working adults in Hawaiʻi. Employment and positive perceptions of community safety were identified as key protective factors. These findings highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to improve food security and foster community trust and safety.