Signature · 1 LILA tracts (33.3% of tracts)
Barton County, MO
Barton County's signature pressure is desert tracts: 1 LILA tracts (33.3% of the book) alongside 56.5% low-access.
- 56.5%
- low-access pop.
- 1
- food-desert tracts
- 18.5%
- on SNAP
- 12K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Barton County, MO
LA-SEVERE · ABOVE-NATIONAL · LILA-SINGLE · SNAP-HEAVY · VEH-TYPICAL · DENSITY-DENSE
- LA-SEVERE 56.5% low-access
- ABOVE-NATIONAL +34.4 pts vs US
- LILA-SINGLE 1 food-desert tract
- SNAP-HEAVY 18.5% SNAP
- VEH-TYPICAL 8.8% no vehicle
- DENSITY-DENSE 33% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Nodaway County ( -2.2 pts)
Upper-band low-access
Barton County sits in the upper national band (56.5%, #139 of 3,079) with 1 LILA tracts.
- #139
- national by low-access %
- #4
- in MO
- 3
- low-access tracts
- 3K
- food-desert residents
Upper-band counties often pair elevated low-access with clustered LILA tracts. Low access = >1 mile urban / >10 miles rural.
Signature read: 1 LILA tracts (33.3% of tracts) .
How Barton County compares nationally
Barton County sits among the nation's most food-access-constrained counties: its 56.5% low-access share outpaces 96% of the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA data, ranking #139 most-affected nationwide.
Barton County's elevated USDA tier split
3 census tracts grouped by USDA classification · 1 LILA.
Barton County is mostly rural by USDA tract type (2 rural, 1 urban), so most tracts are held to the 10-mile test and only the 1 urban tract faces the 1-mile one.
Barton County vs nearby high low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in Missouri, not a full county-board reprint
- Mercer
Mercer 99.8%
99.8 % low-access
- Pulaski
Pulaski 63.3%
63.3 % low-access
- Barton
Barton 56.5%
56.5 % low-access
- Nodaway
Nodaway 54.3%
54.3 % low-access
- Carter
Carter 51%
51 % low-access
- Reynolds
Reynolds 45.5%
45.5 % low-access
- Mississippi 3
Mississippi 3%
3 % low-access
FARA 2019 · elevated low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 3 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 12,402 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 3 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 1 |
| Low-Access Population | 7,001 |
| Low-Access Share | 56.5%well above the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 3,384 |
ACS 2024 · elevated SNAP band
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 11,690 |
| Median Household Income | $51,635 |
| Poverty Rate | 20.2%above the national average |
| SNAP Households | 823 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 18.5%well above the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 8.8%near the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 0.8% |
SNAP retailers in Barton County
Barton County has 15 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 4 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 7 locations (47% of the total), followed by combination grocery/other.
Where the store book sits, by town
6 towns share the 15 authorized stores; Lamar holds 53% of them. 5 of the 6 towns have no grocery-grade outlet, only convenience or dollar/combination stores: Golden City, Liberal, Asbury, Jasper, Lockwood.
| Town | SNAP stores | Grocery-grade |
|---|---|---|
| Lamar | 8 | 1 |
| Golden City | 2 | none |
| Liberal | 2 | none |
| Asbury | 1 | none |
| Jasper | 1 | none |
| Lockwood | 1 | none |
Convenience Store · 7
- asbury quick stop, asbury
- casey's 4390, lamar
- casey's 1334, golden city
- casey's 1384, liberal
- casey's 1631, lamar
- pete's 58, lamar
- petes 37, lamar
Combination Grocery/Other · 6
- dollar general 23161, liberal
- dollar general 24872, jasper
- dollar general 2866, lamar
- dollar general store 17669, golden city
- dollar tree 6688, lamar
- wordens meat, lamar
Meat/Poultry Specialty · 1
- lockwood packing, lockwood
Super Store · 1
- walmart sc 338, lamar
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in Missouri
One of 114 counties in Missouri, 6 are shown here.
Compare Barton County vs Adair County → · All Missouri counties →
Counties near Barton County's elevated low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Barton County, both outside Missouri so the neighborhoods are not the same-state county list above.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside MO (56.5% here).
- Glades County, FL · 56.2% low-access
- Bristol County, RI · 56.0% low-access
- Forsyth County, GA · 55.9% low-access
- Mono County, CA · 57.1% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside MO (18.5% here).
- Winston County, MS · 18.5% SNAP
- Orleans Parish, LA · 18.5% SNAP
- Grant Parish, LA · 18.5% SNAP
- Jackson County, IL · 18.5% SNAP
Source: USDA Food Access Research Atlas (2019) + Census ACS 2024 SNAP. Peers floor at 10,000 residents so stub counties cannot own the match.
Missouri among West North Central states
Missouri ranks 5th of 7 West North Central states by population-weighted low-access (24.9%). Barton County, at 56.5%, runs 31.6 pts above the Missouri rate.
- South Dakota 29.1%
- North Dakota 28.9%
- Minnesota 27.4%
- Kansas 26.4%
- Missouri 24.9%
- Nebraska 21.9%
- Iowa 20.0%
Source: USDA Economic Research Service, Food Access Research Atlas (2019), population-weighted by state; divisions per the U.S. Census Bureau. National state map
Read with this county
Sources: USDA Economic Research Service, Food Access Research Atlas (2019) · U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2024 5-Year Estimates · methodology · compiled .
PlainFoodAccess renders this county profile directly from the USDA Food Access Research Atlas (2019) and U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (2024 5-year estimates), no number is typed in by an editor. Figures for Barton County, MO are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 29011. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of 2026-06-23. Primary sources: USDA Food Access Research Atlas and Census ACS 5-year estimates.
Note: This page presents public USDA and Census data for informational purposes and is not professional advice. Figures reflect the cited dataset vintages and may differ from the most recent local conditions. How this data is sourced & verified.