Signature · 2 LILA tracts (40% of tracts)
Simpson County, MS
Simpson County's signature pressure is desert tracts: 2 LILA tracts (40% of the book) alongside 12.4% low-access.
- 12.4%
- low-access pop.
- 2
- food-desert tracts
- 12.4%
- on SNAP
- 26K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Simpson County, MS
LA-MODERATE · BELOW-NATIONAL · LILA-POCKET · SNAP-TYPICAL · VEH-OK · DENSITY-DENSE
- LA-MODERATE 12.4% low-access
- BELOW-NATIONAL -9.7 pts vs US
- LILA-POCKET 2 food-desert tracts
- SNAP-TYPICAL 12.4% SNAP
- VEH-OK 4.0% no vehicle
- DENSITY-DENSE 40% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Jasper County ( -0.1 pts)
Lower-band low-access
Simpson County lands in the lower national band (12.4%, #2,312 of 3,079); local tracts can still diverge from the county mean.
- #2,312
- national by low-access %
- #64
- in MS
- 2
- low-access tracts
- 2K
- food-desert residents
Lower-band county means still leave tract outliers on the table below.
Signature read: 2 LILA tracts (40% of tracts) .
How Simpson County compares nationally
Simpson County lands in the middle of the national distribution: a 12.4% low-access share that beats 26% of the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA data (rank #2,314).
Simpson County's lower-band USDA tier split
5 census tracts grouped by USDA classification · 2 LILA.
By USDA urbanicity classification, Simpson 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.
Simpson County vs nearby low low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in Mississippi, not a full county-board reprint
- Quitman
Quitman 90.1%
90.1 % low-access
- Choctaw 12.9
Choctaw 12.9%
12.9 % low-access
- Claiborne 12.9
Claiborne 12.9%
12.9 % low-access
- Itawamba 12.8
Itawamba 12.8%
12.8 % low-access
- Simpson 12.4
Simpson 12.4%
12.4 % low-access
- Jasper 12.3
Jasper 12.3%
12.3 % low-access
- Covington 0
Covington 0%
0 % low-access
FARA 2019 · lower low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 5 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 27,503 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 2 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 2 |
| Low-Access Population | 3,418 |
| Low-Access Share | 12.4%well below the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 1,795 |
ACS 2024 · lower SNAP band
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 25,691 |
| Median Household Income | $56,381 |
| Poverty Rate | 20.0%above the national average |
| SNAP Households | 1,186 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 12.4%near the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 4.0%well below the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 2.0% |
Thick SNAP store book in Simpson County
Simpson County has 30 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 5 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 16 locations (53% of the total), followed by combination grocery/other.
Convenience Store · 16
- ajs supermarket llc 0, mendenhall
- circle k 2723397, magee
- circle k 2723469, magee
- dlo food mart inc, d lo
- fleetway 155, magee
- fleetway 157, mendenhall
- hwy 49 shell, mendenhall
- kangaroo crossing #1108, d'lo
- karnrajwinder 2 llc dba r&k food mart, magee
- karnrajwinder 3 llc, magee
- kennedy springs grocery, magee
- love's travel stop 699, magee
- murphy usa 7769, magee
- nate corner store llc, harrisville
- t truck stop, mendenhall
- tienda mexicana los alamos 1, magee
Combination Grocery/Other · 10
- dollar general 3625, magee
- dollar general 3893, mendenhall
- dollar general 17620, magee
- dollar general 22058, pinola
- dollar general 22180, mendenhall
- dollar general 30131, mendenhall
- dollar general store 17169, braxton
- dollar tree 8303, magee
- family dollar store 10905, mendenhall
- walgreens 10805, magee
Super Store · 2
- vowell's marketplace 6, mendenhall
- walmart 1192, magee
Small Grocery Store · 1
- marthas discount grocery, magee
Supermarket · 1
- piggly wiggly 624, magee
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in Mississippi
One of 81 counties in Mississippi, 6 are shown here.
Compare Simpson County vs Adams County → · All Mississippi counties →
Counties near Simpson County's lower low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Simpson County, both outside Mississippi so the neighborhoods are not the same-state county list above.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside MS (12.4% here).
- Pope County, MN · 12.4% low-access
- Pope County, MN · 12.4% low-access
- Herkimer County, NY · 12.4% low-access
- Herkimer County, NY · 12.4% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside MS (12.4% here).
- Delta County, MI · 12.4% SNAP
- Delta County, MI · 12.4% SNAP
- West Baton Rouge Parish, LA · 12.4% SNAP
- West Baton Rouge Parish, LA · 12.4% 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.
Simpson County inside a lower low-access state context
Simpson County sits inside Mississippi (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 Simpson County, MS are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 28127. 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.