Signature · 2 LILA tracts (33.3% of tracts)
Redwood County, MN
Redwood County's signature pressure is desert tracts: 2 LILA tracts (33.3% of the book) alongside 38.9% low-access.
- 38.9%
- low-access pop.
- 2
- food-desert tracts
- 9.8%
- on SNAP
- 15K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Redwood County, MN
LA-ELEVATED · ABOVE-NATIONAL · LILA-POCKET · SNAP-LIGHT · VEH-OK · DENSITY-DENSE
- LA-ELEVATED 38.9% low-access
- ABOVE-NATIONAL +16.8 pts vs US
- LILA-POCKET 2 food-desert tracts
- SNAP-LIGHT 9.8% SNAP
- VEH-OK 6.0% no vehicle
- DENSITY-DENSE 33% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Blue Earth County (+ 0.0 pts)
Upper-band low-access
Redwood County sits in the upper national band (38.9%, #444 of 3,079) with 2 LILA tracts.
- #444
- national by low-access %
- #14
- in MN
- 4
- low-access tracts
- 2K
- 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: 2 LILA tracts (33.3% of tracts) .
How Redwood County compares nationally
Relative to the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA food-access data, Redwood County's 38.9% low-access share is elevated, higher than 86% of them and ranked #444 most-affected nationwide.
Redwood County's elevated USDA tier split
6 census tracts grouped by USDA classification · 2 LILA.
Redwood County is mostly rural by USDA tract type (4 rural, 2 urban), so most tracts are held to the 10-mile test and only the 2 urban tracts face the 1-mile one.
Redwood County vs nearby high low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in Minnesota, not a full county-board reprint
- Red Lake
Red Lake 99.2%
99.2 % low-access
- Clearwater 39.2
Clearwater 39.2%
39.2 % low-access
- Redwood 38.9
Redwood 38.9%
38.9 % low-access
- Blue Earth 38.9
Blue Earth 38.9%
38.9 % low-access
- Chisago 38.7
Chisago 38.7%
38.7 % low-access
- Big Stone 38.4
Big Stone 38.4%
38.4 % low-access
- Fillmore 2.7
Fillmore 2.7%
2.7 % low-access
FARA 2019 · elevated low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 6 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 16,059 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 4 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 2 |
| Low-Access Population | 6,241 |
| Low-Access Share | 38.9%well above the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 1,873 |
ACS 2024 · elevated SNAP band
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 15,350 |
| Median Household Income | $67,866 |
| Poverty Rate | 13.3%near the national average |
| SNAP Households | 617 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 9.8%below the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 6.0%below the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 2.4% |
SNAP retailers in Redwood County
Redwood County has 11 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 6 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 3 locations (27% of the total), followed by medium grocery store.
Where the store book sits, by town
5 towns share the 11 authorized stores; Redwood Falls holds 55% of them. Every one of these towns has at least one grocery-grade outlet (6 across the county).
| Town | SNAP stores | Grocery-grade |
|---|---|---|
| Redwood Falls | 6 | 2 |
| Lamberton | 2 | 1 |
| Morgan | 1 | 1 |
| Wabasso | 1 | 1 |
| Walnut Grove | 1 | 1 |
Convenience Store · 3
- casey's general store 2184, redwood falls
- casey's general store 3277, redwood falls
- kwik trip 1203, redwood falls
Medium Grocery Store · 3
- beckers super valu, morgan
- bubai foods store, walnut grove
- salfers food center, wabasso
Combination Grocery/Other · 2
- dollartree 7077, redwood falls
- dollar general 25506, lamberton
Large Grocery Store · 1
- maynards of lamberton, lamberton
Super Store · 1
- walmart supercenter 1865, redwood falls
Supermarket · 1
- the market at redwood llc, redwood 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 Minnesota
One of 86 counties in Minnesota, 6 are shown here.
Compare Redwood County vs Aitkin County → · All Minnesota counties →
Counties near Redwood County's elevated low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Redwood County, both outside Minnesota so the neighborhoods are not the same-state county list above.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside MN (38.9% here).
- McCracken County, KY · 38.9% low-access
- Onslow County, NC · 38.9% low-access
- Gwinnett County, GA · 38.9% low-access
- Cobb County, GA · 38.9% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside MN (9.8% here).
- Cape Girardeau County, MO · 9.8% SNAP
- Webster County, MO · 9.8% SNAP
- Hardin County, KY · 9.8% SNAP
- Seward County, KS · 9.8% 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.
Minnesota among West North Central states
Minnesota ranks 3rd of 7 West North Central states by population-weighted low-access (27.4%). Redwood County, at 38.9%, runs 11.5 pts above the Minnesota rate.
- South Dakota 29.1%
- North Dakota 28.9%
- Minnesota 27.4%
- Kansas 26.4%
- Missouri 24.9%
- Nebraska 21.9%
- Iowa 20.0%
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 Redwood County, MN are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 27127. 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.