Signature · 19.3% SNAP (93rd pct in TN)
Hardeman County, TN
Hardeman County stands out on SNAP (19.3%, +7.2 pts vs U.S.) with 12.5% low-access from USDA FARA 2019.
- 12.5%
- low-access pop.
- 1
- food-desert tracts
- 19.3%
- on SNAP
- 25K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Hardeman County, TN
LA-MODERATE · BELOW-NATIONAL · LILA-SINGLE · SNAP-HEAVY · VEH-TYPICAL · DENSITY-MIXED
- LA-MODERATE 12.5% low-access
- BELOW-NATIONAL -9.6 pts vs US
- LILA-SINGLE 1 food-desert tract
- SNAP-HEAVY 19.3% SNAP
- VEH-TYPICAL 7.6% no vehicle
- DENSITY-MIXED 17% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Benton County (+ 0.1 pts)
Lower-band low-access
Hardeman County lands in the lower national band (12.5%, #2,302 of 3,079); local tracts can still diverge from the county mean.
- #2,302
- national by low-access %
- #56
- in TN
- 2
- low-access tracts
- 2K
- food-desert residents
Lower-band county means still leave tract outliers on the table below.
Signature read: 19.3% SNAP (93rd pct in TN) (+7.2 pts vs U.S. SNAP) .
How Hardeman County compares nationally
Hardeman County lands in the middle of the national distribution: a 12.5% low-access share that beats 26% of the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA data (rank #2,305).
Hardeman County's lower-band USDA tier split
6 census tracts grouped by USDA classification · 1 LILA.
By USDA urbanicity classification, Hardeman County has 0 urban and 6 rural census tracts. The 1-mile (urban) vs 10-mile (rural) distance threshold above applies per tract, so a county's access rate reflects this mix.
Hardeman County vs nearby low low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in Tennessee, not a full county-board reprint
- Montgomery
Montgomery 47%
47 % low-access
- Morgan 12.8
Morgan 12.8%
12.8 % low-access
- Benton 12.6
Benton 12.6%
12.6 % low-access
- Hardeman 12.5
Hardeman 12.5%
12.5 % low-access
- Dickson 12.2
Dickson 12.2%
12.2 % low-access
- Giles 12
Giles 12%
12 % low-access
- Grainger 0
Grainger 0%
0 % low-access
FARA 2019 · lower low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 6 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 27,253 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 2 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 1 |
| Low-Access Population | 3,395 |
| Low-Access Share | 12.5%well below the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 1,895 |
ACS 2024 · elevated SNAP band
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 25,433 |
| Median Household Income | $46,069 |
| Poverty Rate | 19.0%above the national average |
| SNAP Households | 1,759 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 19.3%well above the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 7.6%near the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 14.4% |
Thick SNAP store book in Hardeman County
Hardeman County has 29 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 5 store categories. Combination Grocery/Other lead with 13 locations (45% of the total), followed by convenience store.
Combination Grocery/Other · 13
- dollar general 0016, bolivar
- dollar general 18777, bolivar
- dollar general 4488, whiteville
- dollar general 716, middleton
- dollar general 11778, grand junction
- dollar general 17534, toone
- dollar general 17896, hornsby
- dollar general 23256, hickory valley
- dollar general 30435, bolivar
- dollar tree 4639, bolivar
- family dollar 12821, middleton
- family dollar 13882, whiteville
- family dollar 2850, bolivar
Convenience Store · 12
- bolivar bp, bolivar
- hickory valley express, hickory valley
- highway 57 grocery & deli, grand junction
- millennium market, bolivar
- murphy usa 6834, bolivar
- ny truck stop, bolivar
- q mart, bolivar
- route 64 food mart, bolivar
- tiger mart #4, whiteville
- tiger mart 1, whiteville
- tiger mart 3, middleton
- whiteville quick mart llc, whiteville
Supermarket · 2
- food giant 537, middleton
- maxwell's big star 595, bolivar
Meat/Poultry Specialty · 1
- kimery processing, grand junction
Super Store · 1
- walmart s/c 466, bolivar
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in Tennessee
One of 94 counties in Tennessee, 6 are shown here.
Compare Hardeman County vs Anderson County → · All Tennessee counties →
Counties near Hardeman County's lower low-access or SNAP band
SNAP-led peer set first for Hardeman County (19.3%), with low-access neighbours deduped against it, both outside Tennessee.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside TN (12.5% here).
- Darlington County, SC · 12.5% low-access
- Darlington County, SC · 12.5% low-access
- Jefferson County, OR · 12.5% low-access
- Jefferson County, OR · 12.5% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside TN (19.3% here).
- El Paso County, TX · 19.3% SNAP
- El Paso County, TX · 19.3% SNAP
- Okanogan County, WA · 19.3% SNAP
- Okanogan County, WA · 19.3% 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.
Hardeman County inside a lower low-access state context
Hardeman County sits inside Tennessee (ringed). Each state is colored by population-weighted low-access; click any state to compare.
USDA Economic Research Service, Food Access Research Atlas (2019), population-weighted · Census ACS 2024 context
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 Hardeman County, TN are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 47069. 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.