Signature · 2 LILA tracts (33.3% of tracts)
Price County, WI
Price County's signature pressure is desert tracts: 2 LILA tracts (33.3% of the book) alongside 14.2% low-access.
- 14.2%
- low-access pop.
- 2
- food-desert tracts
- 13.2%
- on SNAP
- 14K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Price County, WI
LA-MODERATE · BELOW-NATIONAL · LILA-POCKET · SNAP-TYPICAL · VEH-OK · DENSITY-DENSE
- LA-MODERATE 14.2% low-access
- BELOW-NATIONAL -7.9 pts vs US
- LILA-POCKET 2 food-desert tracts
- SNAP-TYPICAL 13.2% SNAP
- VEH-OK 5.3% no vehicle
- DENSITY-DENSE 33% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Door County (+ 0.5 pts)
Lower-band low-access
Price County lands in the lower national band (14.2%, #2,184 of 3,079); local tracts can still diverge from the county mean.
- #2,184
- national by low-access %
- #46
- in WI
- 2
- low-access tracts
- 711
- food-desert residents
Lower-band county means still leave tract outliers on the table below.
Signature read: 2 LILA tracts (33.3% of tracts) .
How Price County compares nationally
Price County lands in the middle of the national distribution: a 14.2% low-access share that beats 30% of the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA data (rank #2,184).
Price County's lower-band USDA tier split
6 census tracts grouped by USDA classification · 2 LILA.
All 6 of Price 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.
Price County vs nearby low low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in Wisconsin, not a full county-board reprint
- Richland
Richland 52.9%
52.9 % low-access
- Lafayette 15.3
Lafayette 15.3%
15.3 % low-access
- Door 14.7
Door 14.7%
14.7 % low-access
- Price 14.2
Price 14.2%
14.2 % low-access
- Lincoln 13.1
Lincoln 13.1%
13.1 % low-access
- Waupaca 13.1
Waupaca 13.1%
13.1 % low-access
- Pepin 0
Pepin 0%
0 % low-access
FARA 2019 · lower low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 6 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 14,159 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 2 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 2 |
| Low-Access Population | 2,006 |
| Low-Access Share | 14.2%below the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 711 |
ACS 2024 · elevated SNAP band
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 14,092 |
| Median Household Income | $60,546 |
| Poverty Rate | 11.9%below the national average |
| SNAP Households | 861 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 13.2%near the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 5.3%below the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 1.2% |
SNAP retailers in Price County
Price County has 18 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 6 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 8 locations (44% of the total), followed by combination grocery/other.
Where the store book sits, by town
5 towns share the 18 authorized stores; Park Falls holds 39% of them. Every one of these towns has at least one grocery-grade outlet (6 across the county).
| Town | SNAP stores | Grocery-grade |
|---|---|---|
| Park Falls | 7 | 2 |
| Phillips | 5 | 1 |
| Prentice | 3 | 1 |
| Catawba | 2 | 1 |
| Fifield | 1 | 1 |
Convenience Store · 8
- catawba feed and food supply, catawba
- krist food mart 064, park falls
- krist food mart 069, phillips
- kwik trip 1067, phillips
- kwik trip 138, park falls
- rstore 4478, prentice
- rstore 4483, phillips
- rstore 4503, park falls
Combination Grocery/Other · 3
- dollar general 10540, park falls
- dollar general 17471, phillips
- dollar general 25395, prentice
Medium Grocery Store · 3
- fifield grocery, fifield
- fraziers mercantile llc, catawba
- panasia oriental market, park falls
Super Store · 2
- pick 'n save 8127, phillips
- prentice market & deli, prentice
Farmers' Market · 1
- park falls farmers market, park falls
Supermarket · 1
- super one foods 533, park falls
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in Wisconsin
One of 71 counties in Wisconsin, 6 are shown here.
Compare Price County vs Adams County → · All Wisconsin counties →
Counties near Price County's lower low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Price County, both outside Wisconsin so the neighborhoods are not the same-state county list above.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside WI (14.2% here).
- Loudon County, TN · 14.2% low-access
- Bradford County, PA · 14.2% low-access
- Lincoln County, OR · 14.2% low-access
- McIntosh County, OK · 14.2% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside WI (13.2% here).
- Radford city, VA · 13.2% SNAP
- Wythe County, VA · 13.2% SNAP
- Uintah County, UT · 13.2% SNAP
- Falls County, TX · 13.2% 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.
Wisconsin among East North Central states
Wisconsin ranks 4th of 5 East North Central states by population-weighted low-access (21.4%). Price County, at 14.2%, runs 7.2 pts below the Wisconsin 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 Price County, WI are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 55099. 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.