Signature · 7 LILA tracts (58.3% of tracts)
Macon County, AL
Macon County's signature pressure is desert tracts: 7 LILA tracts (58.3% of the book) alongside 41.9% low-access.
- 41.9%
- low-access pop.
- 7
- food-desert tracts
- 24.1%
- on SNAP
- 19K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Macon County, AL
LA-SEVERE · ABOVE-NATIONAL · LILA-CLUSTER · SNAP-HEAVY · VEH-GAP · DENSITY-DENSE
- LA-SEVERE 41.9% low-access
- ABOVE-NATIONAL +19.8 pts vs US
- LILA-CLUSTER 7 food-desert tracts
- SNAP-HEAVY 24.1% SNAP
- VEH-GAP 9.5% no vehicle
- DENSITY-DENSE 58% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Wilcox County (+ 0.1 pts)
Upper-band low-access
Macon County sits in the upper national band (41.9%, #342 of 3,079) with 7 LILA tracts.
- #342
- national by low-access %
- #3
- in AL
- 7
- low-access tracts
- 5K
- 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: 7 LILA tracts (58.3% of tracts) .
How Macon County compares nationally
Macon County sits among the nation's most food-access-constrained counties: its 41.9% low-access share outpaces 89% of the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA data, ranking #342 most-affected nationwide.
Macon County's elevated USDA tier split
12 census tracts grouped by USDA classification · 7 LILA.
Macon County is mostly rural by USDA tract type (6 rural, 6 urban), so most tracts are held to the 10-mile test and only the 6 urban tracts face the 1-mile one.
Macon County vs nearby high low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in Alabama, not a full county-board reprint
- Bullock
Bullock 68.5%
68.5 % low-access
- Wilcox
Wilcox 42%
42 % low-access
- Macon
Macon 41.9%
41.9 % low-access
- Etowah
Etowah 40.7%
40.7 % low-access
- Perry
Perry 39.5%
39.5 % low-access
- Clarke
Clarke 39.4%
39.4 % low-access
- DeKalb 0
DeKalb 0%
0 % low-access
FARA 2019 · elevated low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 12 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 21,452 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 7 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 7 |
| Low-Access Population | 8,996 |
| Low-Access Share | 41.9%well above the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 4,741 |
ACS 2024 · elevated SNAP band
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 18,691 |
| Median Household Income | $43,707 |
| Poverty Rate | 24.3%well above the national average |
| SNAP Households | 1,745 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 24.1%well above the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 9.5%above the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 13.9% |
SNAP retailers in Macon County
Macon County has 18 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 5 store categories. Combination Grocery/Other lead with 7 locations (39% of the total), followed by convenience store.
Where the store book sits, by town
3 towns share the 18 authorized stores; Tuskegee holds 61% of them. 1 of the 3 towns has no grocery-grade outlet, only convenience or dollar/combination stores: Shorter.
| Town | SNAP stores | Grocery-grade |
|---|---|---|
| Tuskegee | 11 | 3 |
| Shorter | 5 | none |
| Notasulga | 2 | 1 |
Combination Grocery/Other · 7
- cvs pharmacy 4940, tuskegee
- dollar general 11070, notasulga
- dollar general 11901, tuskegee
- dollar general 15322, shorter
- dollar general 16918, tuskegee
- dollar tree 5391, tuskegee
- family dollar 8175, tuskegee
Convenience Store · 7
- ghanshyam food llc, shorter
- love's travel stop 577, shorter
- petro shorter, shorter
- pilot travel center 1436, tuskegee
- skegee food mart, tuskegee
- the yellow store, tuskegee
- tiger pride mart, shorter
Supermarket · 2
- carmack supermarket, notasulga
- piggly wiggly 593, tuskegee
Large Grocery Store · 1
- h & j family foods, tuskegee
Medium Grocery Store · 1
- tuskegee house of meats, tuskegee
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in Alabama
One of 66 counties in Alabama, 6 are shown here.
Compare Macon County vs Autauga County → · All Alabama counties →
Counties near Macon County's elevated low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Macon County, both outside Alabama so the neighborhoods are not the same-state county list above.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside AL (41.9% here).
- Edgar County, IL · 41.9% low-access
- Brevard County, FL · 41.8% low-access
- Madison County, IL · 41.8% low-access
- Adams County, WA · 41.7% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside AL (24.1% here).
- Tulare County, CA · 24.1% SNAP
- Floyd County, KY · 24.1% SNAP
- Doña Ana County, NM · 24.1% SNAP
- Josephine County, OR · 24.1% 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.
Alabama among East South Central states
Alabama ranks 3rd of 4 East South Central states by population-weighted low-access (24.5%). Macon County, at 41.9%, runs 17.4 pts above the Alabama rate.
- Tennessee 27.2%
- Mississippi 26.4%
- Alabama 24.5%
- Kentucky 19.8%
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 Macon County, AL are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 01087. 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.