Signature · 19.7% SNAP (89th pct in TX)
Nolan County, TX
Nolan County stands out on SNAP (19.7%, +7.6 pts vs U.S.) with 23.5% low-access from USDA FARA 2019.
- 23.5%
- low-access pop.
- 0
- food-desert tracts
- 19.7%
- on SNAP
- 14K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Nolan County, TX
LA-ELEVATED · ABOVE-NATIONAL · LILA-NONE · SNAP-HEAVY · VEH-TYPICAL · DENSITY-CLEAR
- LA-ELEVATED 23.5% low-access
- ABOVE-NATIONAL +1.4 pts vs US
- LILA-NONE 0 food-desert tracts
- SNAP-HEAVY 19.7% SNAP
- VEH-TYPICAL 8.5% no vehicle
- DENSITY-CLEAR 0% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Frio County (+ 0.0 pts)
The food-access picture
According to the USDA Food Access Research Atlas, Nolan County ranks #1,400 of 3,079 U.S. counties by low-access share and #138 of 252 counties in TX (23.5% low-access).
- #1,400
- national by low-access %
- #138
- in TX
- 2
- low-access tracts
- 1K
- 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: 19.7% SNAP (89th pct in TX) (+7.6 pts vs U.S. SNAP) .
How Nolan County compares nationally
Relative to the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA food-access data, Nolan County's 23.5% low-access share is elevated, higher than 55% of them and ranked #1,400 most-affected nationwide.
Nolan County: USDA Food-Access Tier Breakdown
5 census tracts grouped by USDA classification .
Nolan County is mostly urban by USDA tract type (3 urban, 2 rural), so most of its low-access count comes from the 1-mile test; the 2 rural tracts are held to 10 miles.
Nolan County low-access neighbourhood
Poles + nearest peers in Texas, not a full county-board reprint
- Throckmorton
Throckmorton 100%
100 % low-access
- Hartley 23.9
Hartley 23.9%
23.9 % low-access
- Victoria 23.8
Victoria 23.8%
23.8 % low-access
- Nolan 23.5
Nolan 23.5%
23.5 % low-access
- Frio 23.5
Frio 23.5%
23.5 % low-access
- Hale 23.5
Hale 23.5%
23.5 % low-access
- Rains 0
Rains 0%
0 % low-access
Food Access (USDA FARA 2019)
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 5 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 15,216 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 2 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 0 |
| Low-Access Population | 3,578 |
| Low-Access Share | 23.5%near the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 1,079 |
ACS 2024 · elevated SNAP band
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 14,454 |
| Median Household Income | $50,747 |
| Poverty Rate | 22.5%well above the national average |
| SNAP Households | 1,160 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 19.7%well above the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 8.5%near the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 2.7% |
SNAP retailers in Nolan County
Nolan County has 19 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 4 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 13 locations (68% of the total), followed by combination grocery/other.
Where the store book sits, by town
3 towns share the 19 authorized stores; Sweetwater holds 79% of them. 2 of the 3 towns have no grocery-grade outlet, only convenience or dollar/combination stores: Roscoe, Madison.
| Town | SNAP stores | Grocery-grade |
|---|---|---|
| Sweetwater | 15 | 2 |
| Roscoe | 3 | none |
| Madison | 1 | none |
Convenience Store · 13
- 7-eleven 010, sweetwater
- 7-eleven 028, sweetwater
- 7-eleven 045, sweetwater
- 7-eleven 122, sweetwater
- 7-eleven, inc. 42578, roscoe
- allsup's 102414, roscoe
- allsups 102416, sweetwater
- allsups 173, sweetwater
- check mart, sweetwater
- love's travel stop 475, sweetwater
- murphy usa 7176, sweetwater
- mustang short stop, sweetwater
- ta sweetwater 426, sweetwater
Combination Grocery/Other · 4
- dollar general 0353, madison
- dollar general 23329, roscoe
- dollar tree 6483, sweetwater
- family dollar 2959, sweetwater
Super Store · 1
- walmart supercenter #3381 3381, sweetwater
Supermarket · 1
- brookshire food store 117, sweetwater
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in Texas
One of 253 counties in Texas, 6 are shown here.
Compare Nolan County vs Anderson County → · All Texas counties →
Nationwide peers for Nolan County's low-access or SNAP share
SNAP-led peer set first for Nolan County (19.7%), with low-access neighbours deduped against it, both outside Texas.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside TX (23.5% here).
- Kittitas County, WA · 23.5% low-access
- Snohomish County, WA · 23.5% low-access
- Roane County, WV · 23.5% low-access
- Greene County, MO · 23.5% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside TX (19.7% here).
- Marion County, OR · 19.7% SNAP
- Linn County, OR · 19.7% SNAP
- Muskogee County, OK · 19.7% SNAP
- Suffolk County, MA · 19.7% 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.
Texas among West South Central states
Texas ranks 3rd of 4 West South Central states by population-weighted low-access (25.0%). Nolan County, at 23.5%, runs 1.5 pts below the Texas rate.
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 Nolan County, TX are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 48353. 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.