Signature · 0.7% low-access (3rd pct)
Lanier County, GA
Lanier County lands in the lower national band on low-access (0.7%); supermarket distance is less binding than in the upper band, though local tracts can still diverge.
- 0.7%
- low-access pop.
- 0
- food-desert tracts
- 19.2%
- on SNAP
- 10K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Lanier County, GA
LA-ADEQUATE · BELOW-NATIONAL · LILA-NONE · SNAP-HEAVY · VEH-TYPICAL · DENSITY-CLEAR
- LA-ADEQUATE 0.7% low-access
- BELOW-NATIONAL -21.4 pts vs US
- LILA-NONE 0 food-desert tracts
- SNAP-HEAVY 19.2% SNAP
- VEH-TYPICAL 7.2% no vehicle
- DENSITY-CLEAR 0% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Jefferson County (+ 0.0 pts)
Lower-band low-access
Lanier County lands in the lower national band (0.7%, #3,032 of 3,079); local tracts can still diverge from the county mean.
- #3,032
- national by low-access %
- #142
- in GA
- 0
- low-access tracts
- 24
- food-desert residents
Lower-band county means still leave tract outliers on the table below.
Signature read: 0.7% low-access (3rd pct) (-21.4 pts vs U.S. low-access).
How Lanier County compares nationally
Food access in Lanier County compares favorably nationally: its 0.7% low-access share is lower than the vast majority of the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA data, higher than only 3% of them (rank #3,032).
Lanier County's lower-band USDA tier split
2 census tracts grouped by USDA classification .
All 2 of Lanier 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.
Lanier County vs nearby low low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in Georgia, not a full county-board reprint
- Chattahoochee
Chattahoochee 97.7%
97.7 % low-access
- Lanier 0.7
Lanier 0.7%
0.7 % low-access
- Jefferson 0.7
Jefferson 0.7%
0.7 % low-access
- Long 0.7
Long 0.7%
0.7 % low-access
- Lumpkin 0.7
Lumpkin 0.7%
0.7 % low-access
- Candler 0.6
Candler 0.6%
0.6 % low-access
- Dade 0
Dade 0%
0 % low-access
FARA 2019 · lower low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 2 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 10,078 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 0 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 0 |
| Low-Access Population | 69 |
| Low-Access Share | 0.7%well below the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 24 |
Demographics & Assistance (Census ACS 2024)
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 10,221 |
| Median Household Income | $47,186 |
| Poverty Rate | 26.1%well above the national average |
| SNAP Households | 669 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 19.2%well above the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 7.2%below the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 3.8% |
SNAP retailers in Lanier County
Lanier County has 11 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 4 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 8 locations (73% of the total), followed by combination grocery/other.
Where the store book sits, by town
3 towns share the 11 authorized stores; Lakeland holds 82% of them. 2 of the 3 towns have no grocery-grade outlet, only convenience or dollar/combination stores: Ray City, Stockton.
| Town | SNAP stores | Grocery-grade |
|---|---|---|
| Lakeland | 9 | 2 |
| Ray City | 1 | none |
| Stockton | 1 | none |
Convenience Store · 8
- buldog 1, lakeland
- c mart, lakeland
- cross road pantry, lakeland
- jet food store 91, lakeland
- lakeland quick stop, lakeland
- midtown, lakeland
- stockton quick stop, stockton
- tri-county gas and grocery, ray city
Combination Grocery/Other · 1
- dollar general 1623, lakeland
Medium Grocery Store · 1
- the old butcher shop, lakeland
Supermarket · 1
- piggly wiggly 171, lakeland
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in Georgia
One of 158 counties in Georgia, 6 are shown here.
Compare Lanier County vs Appling County → · All Georgia counties →
Counties near Lanier County's lower low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Lanier County, both outside Georgia so the neighborhoods are not the same-state county list above.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside GA (0.7% here).
- Owen County, IN · 0.7% low-access
- Shelby County, KY · 0.7% low-access
- Hudson County, NJ · 0.7% low-access
- Greensville County, VA · 0.7% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside GA (19.2% here).
- Poinsett County, AR · 19.2% SNAP
- Clearfield County, PA · 19.2% SNAP
- Hardy County, WV · 19.2% SNAP
- Jackson County, WV · 19.2% 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.
Georgia among South Atlantic states
Georgia ranks 1st of 9 South Atlantic states by population-weighted low-access (30.9%). Lanier County, at 0.7%, runs 30.2 pts below the Georgia 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 Lanier County, GA are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 13173. 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.