Signature · 1.0% low-access (4th pct)
Calhoun County, SC
Calhoun County lands in the lower national band on low-access (1.0%); supermarket distance is less binding than in the upper band, though local tracts can still diverge.
- 1.0%
- low-access pop.
- 0
- food-desert tracts
- 13.2%
- on SNAP
- 14K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Calhoun County, SC
LA-ADEQUATE · BELOW-NATIONAL · LILA-NONE · SNAP-TYPICAL · VEH-OK · DENSITY-CLEAR
- LA-ADEQUATE 1.0% low-access
- BELOW-NATIONAL -21.1 pts vs US
- LILA-NONE 0 food-desert tracts
- SNAP-TYPICAL 13.2% SNAP
- VEH-OK 5.5% no vehicle
- DENSITY-CLEAR 0% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Marion County ( -0.8 pts)
Lower-band low-access
Calhoun County lands in the lower national band (1.0%, #3,009 of 3,079); local tracts can still diverge from the county mean.
- #3,009
- national by low-access %
- #44
- in SC
- 0
- low-access tracts
- 41
- food-desert residents
Lower-band county means still leave tract outliers on the table below.
Signature read: 1.0% low-access (4th pct) (-21.1 pts vs U.S. low-access).
How Calhoun County compares nationally
Food access in Calhoun County compares favorably nationally: its 1.0% low-access share is lower than the vast majority of the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA data, higher than only 4% of them (rank #3,009).
Calhoun County's lower-band USDA tier split
3 census tracts grouped by USDA classification .
All 3 of Calhoun County's tracts are rural in the USDA classification, so every one is judged on the 10-mile test: a resident counts as low-access only when the nearest supermarket is more than 10 miles away.
Calhoun County vs nearby low low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in South Carolina, not a full county-board reprint
- Beaufort
Beaufort 49%
49 % low-access
- Saluda 2.9
Saluda 2.9%
2.9 % low-access
- Allendale 2.3
Allendale 2.3%
2.3 % low-access
- Calhoun 1
Calhoun 1%
1 % low-access
- Marion 0.2
Marion 0.2%
0.2 % low-access
- Barnwell 0
Barnwell 0%
0 % low-access
FARA 2019 · lower low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 3 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 15,175 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 0 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 0 |
| Low-Access Population | 149 |
| Low-Access Share | 1.0%well below the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 41 |
Demographics & Assistance (Census ACS 2024)
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 14,182 |
| Median Household Income | $58,682 |
| Poverty Rate | 12.9%near the national average |
| SNAP Households | 817 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 13.2%near the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 5.5%below the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 1.4% |
SNAP retailers in Calhoun County
Calhoun County has 10 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 3 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 5 locations (50% of the total), followed by combination grocery/other.
Where the store book sits, by town
2 towns share the 10 authorized stores; Saint Matthews holds 80% of them. 1 of the 2 towns has no grocery-grade outlet, only convenience or dollar/combination stores: Gaston.
| Town | SNAP stores | Grocery-grade |
|---|---|---|
| Saint Matthews | 8 | 1 |
| Gaston | 2 | none |
Convenience Store · 5
- corner pantry 158, saint matthews
- nouria 6009 columbia road 887, saint matthews
- pilot travel center 4579, saint matthews
- pramukhaashish l l c, gaston
- quickpantry, saint matthews
Combination Grocery/Other · 4
- dollar general 23218, saint matthews
- dollar general 22593, saint matthews
- dollar general store 17834, gaston
- family dollar store 790, saint matthews
Super Store · 1
- piggly wiggly 165, saint matthews
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in South Carolina
One of 45 counties in South Carolina, 6 are shown here.
Compare Calhoun County vs Abbeville County → · All South Carolina counties →
Counties near Calhoun County's lower low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Calhoun County, both outside South Carolina so the neighborhoods are not the same-state county list above.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside SC (1.0% here).
- Union County, SD · 1.0% low-access
- Giles County, VA · 1.0% low-access
- Richmond County, NY · 1.0% low-access
- Suffolk County, MA · 1.0% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside SC (13.2% here).
- DeKalb County, TN · 13.2% SNAP
- Falls County, TX · 13.2% SNAP
- Uintah County, UT · 13.2% SNAP
- Wythe County, VA · 13.2% 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.
South Carolina among South Atlantic states
South Carolina ranks 2nd of 9 South Atlantic states by population-weighted low-access (28.7%). Calhoun County, at 1.0%, runs 27.7 pts below the South Carolina rate.
- Georgia 30.9%
- South Carolina 28.7%
- Delaware 27.3%
- Florida 25.1%
- North Carolina 22.9%
- Maryland 22.7%
- West Virginia 21.3%
- Virginia 20.4%
- District of Columbia 4.6%
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 Calhoun County, SC are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 45017. 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.