Signature · 27.4% SNAP (94th pct in GA)
Mitchell County, GA
Mitchell County stands out on SNAP (27.4%, +15.3 pts vs U.S.) with 20.8% low-access from USDA FARA 2019.
- 20.8%
- low-access pop.
- 1
- food-desert tracts
- 27.4%
- on SNAP
- 21K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Mitchell County, GA
LA-ELEVATED · BELOW-NATIONAL · LILA-SINGLE · SNAP-HEAVY · VEH-GAP · DENSITY-MIXED
- LA-ELEVATED 20.8% low-access
- BELOW-NATIONAL -1.3 pts vs US
- LILA-SINGLE 1 food-desert tract
- SNAP-HEAVY 27.4% SNAP
- VEH-GAP 12.1% no vehicle
- DENSITY-MIXED 20% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Elbert County ( -0.1 pts)
The food-access picture
According to the USDA Food Access Research Atlas, Mitchell County ranks #1,619 of 3,079 U.S. counties by low-access share and #74 of 151 counties in GA (20.8% low-access; 1 food-desert tracts).
- #1,619
- national by low-access %
- #74
- in GA
- 1
- low-access tracts
- 2K
- food-desert residents
Low access = living more than 1 mile (urban) or 10 miles (rural) from the nearest supermarket. Food deserts add a low-income condition (USDA LILA).
Signature read: 27.4% SNAP (94th pct in GA) (+15.3 pts vs U.S. SNAP) .
How Mitchell County compares nationally
Relative to the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA food-access data, Mitchell County's 20.8% low-access share is elevated, higher than 48% of them and ranked #1,622 most-affected nationwide.
Mitchell County: USDA Food-Access Tier Breakdown
5 census tracts grouped by USDA classification · 1 LILA.
By USDA urbanicity classification, Mitchell County has 1 urban and 4 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.
Mitchell County low-access neighbourhood
Poles + nearest peers in Georgia, not a full county-board reprint
- Chattahoochee
Chattahoochee 97.7%
97.7 % low-access
- Screven 21
Screven 21%
21 % low-access
- Mitchell 20.8
Mitchell 20.8%
20.8 % low-access
- Elbert 20.7
Elbert 20.7%
20.7 % low-access
- Gordon 20.4
Gordon 20.4%
20.4 % low-access
- Turner 20.4
Turner 20.4%
20.4 % low-access
- Dade 0
Dade 0%
0 % low-access
Food Access (USDA FARA 2019)
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 5 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 23,498 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 1 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 1 |
| Low-Access Population | 4,885 |
| Low-Access Share | 20.8%near the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 1,867 |
ACS 2024 · elevated SNAP band
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 21,058 |
| Median Household Income | $57,613 |
| Poverty Rate | 23.4%well above the national average |
| SNAP Households | 2,143 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 27.4%well above the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 12.1%above the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 7.1% |
Thick SNAP store book in Mitchell County
Mitchell County has 27 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 5 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 16 locations (59% of the total), followed by combination grocery/other.
Convenience Store · 16
- allen food mart, pelham
- bo's food mart, camilla
- camilla exxon, camilla
- easy corner, pelham
- easy corner 2, pelham
- flash foods llc 274282, camilla
- flash foods llc 2745152, pelham
- gary's palm park convenience store, camilla
- krisha food mart, pelham
- one convenient stop 6, camilla
- one stop, camilla
- pace mart, pelham
- quick stop 2, sale city
- stop and shop, pelham
- sunstop 419, camilla
- susie q's 70, camilla
Combination Grocery/Other · 7
- dollar general 4026, camilla
- dollar general 738, pelham
- dollar general 20897, camilla
- dollar general 9797, baconton
- dollar tree 5568, camilla
- family dollar 13465, pelham
- family dollar store 348, camilla
Supermarket · 2
- bob and jeff's iga of camilla, llc 4, camilla
- piggly wiggly 641, pelham
Large Grocery Store · 1
- on the go iga, pelham
Super Store · 1
- walmart supercenter 843, camilla
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 Mitchell County vs Appling County → · All Georgia counties →
Nationwide peers for Mitchell County's low-access or SNAP share
SNAP-led peer set first for Mitchell County (27.4%), with low-access neighbours deduped against it, both outside Georgia.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside GA (20.8% here).
- Madison County, FL · 20.8% low-access
- Madison County, FL · 20.8% low-access
- Bond County, IL · 20.8% low-access
- Bond County, IL · 20.8% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside GA (27.4% here).
- Lee County, SC · 27.4% SNAP
- Lee County, SC · 27.4% SNAP
- Mississippi County, MO · 27.3% SNAP
- Lenoir County, NC · 27.3% 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.
Food access nationally, Georgia in context
Mitchell County sits inside Georgia (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 Mitchell County, GA are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 13205. 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.