Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Information 

Bulletin 

Number 131

December 2014

United States Department of Agriculture

Measuring Access to Healthful, 

Affordable Food in American 

Indian and Alaska Native 

Tribal Areas

Phillip Kaufman, Chris Dicken, and Ryan Williams 
Economic Research Service 

www.ers.usda.gov

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

United States Department of Agriculture

Access this report online:

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib131

Download the charts contained in this report:

• Go to the report’s index page www.ers.usda.gov/publications/

 eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib131

• Click on the bulleted item “Download eib131.zip”

• Open the chart you want, then save it to your computer

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Kaufman, Phillip, Chris Dicken, and Ryan Williams. Measuring Access to Healthful, 

Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, December 2014.

Cover images: Shutterstock (bottom left) and Phil Kaufman.

Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA. 
United States Department of Agriculture

Economic 

Research 

Service

Economic

Information 

Bulletin 

Number 131

December 2014

Abstract

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) populations have about twice the rate of 

nutrition-related health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, 

as non-Hispanic White Americans. The authors found likely sources of healthful, affordable food to be limited in many tribal areas, a factor that may influence diet and food 

choices. Access to large grocery stores and supermarkets—which sell food needed for a 

healthy diet—varied by tribal area. AIAN tribal area populations are mostly rural, unlike 

the national population. Spatial analysis revealed that 25.6 percent of individuals living 

in tribal areas were within 1 mile of a supermarket—defined as walking distance—

compared with 58.8 percent of all Americans. The largest share of AIAN tribal area 

populations are between 1 and 10 miles from a supermarket, defined as driving distance. 

Among the 6 percent of tribal area households without vehicles, more than two-thirds 

lived more than 1 mile from the nearest supermarket. Measures of access are also reported 

for supermarkets authorized for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and 

outlets used by the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.

Keywords:healthful, affordable food; access measures; American Indian and Alaska 

Natives; AIAN; Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area; OTSA; supermarkets; Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP; Food Distribution Program on Indian 

Reservations; FDPIR.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Tim Park and Vince Breneman at USDA Economic Research 

Service (ERS) for their continued support. The authors are also thankful for cooperation, data, and support from Dana Rasmussen and his staff at USDA Food and Nutrition 

Service; Nancy Pindus, Urban Institute; Paula Dutko, University of Florida; Valerie 

Jernigan, University of Oklahoma; and Anita Singh, USDA Food and Nutrition Service. 

The authors also thank Courtney Knauth and Cynthia A. Ray of ERS for editing and 

designing the report.

Phillip Kaufman, Chris Dicken, and Ryan Williams*

Measuring Access to Healthful, 

Affordable Food in American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribal Areas

 *Phillip Kaufman is a Senior Economist (retired) in the USDA-ERS Food Economics Division. Chris 

Dicken and Ryan Williams are Analysts in the USDA-ERS Research Support Division.
ii

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Data Sources and Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Outlet Data Sources and Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Defining Tribal Areas and Population Groupings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Spatial Analysis Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Walking and Driving Distance Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Tribal Area Access Measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Study Exclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Assessing Tribal Area Access to Healthful, Affordable Food. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Tribal Area Population Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Tribal Access Comparisons with National Access Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Access Measures by Walking and Driving Distances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Access Measures by Population Percentiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Summary Tables of Access by Tribal Area and Outlet Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

All Supermarkets Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

SNAP-Authorized Supermarkets Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

FDPIR Outlets Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Distance to the Nearest of Either SNAP-Authorized Supermarket or FDPIR Outlet. . . . . . . . . 23

Individual Tribal Area Access Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
United States Department of Agriculture

A report summary from the Economic Research Service

ERS is a primary source 

of economic research and 

analysis from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 

providing timely information on economic and policy 

issues related to agriculture, 

food, the environment, and 

rural America.

www.ers.usda.gov

Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Information 

Bulletin 

Number 131

December 2014

United States Department of Agriculture

Measuring Access to Healthful, 

Affordable Food in American 

Indian and Alaska Native 

Tribal Areas

Phillip Kaufman, Chris Dicken, and Ryan Williams 

December 2014

Find the full report at 

www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/eib-economic-informationbulletin/eib131

Phillip Kaufman, Chris Dicken, and Ryan Williams

Measuring Access to Healthful, 

Affordable Food in American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribal Areas

What Is the Issue?

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) tribal populations experience about twice the 

rate of nutrition-related health problems—including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and 

obesity—than most Americans. Prior studies cite limited access to supermarkets and other 

sources of affordable and nutritious foods as contributing to less healthful food choices by 

consumers. In many AIAN tribal areas, relatively low population density and limited incomes 

create disincentives for the entry of large grocery stores and supermarkets. Smaller grocery 

stores, convenience stores, and other retail outlets—though more prevalent in AIAN tribal 

areas and more accessible—are less likely to offer comparable foods. Healthy eating can be 

especially challenging for the poorest tribal area households. Although many are eligible for 

assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), limited access is 

also reported for supermarkets authorized for the program. Access measures are also reported 

for outlets used by the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), an alternative program that provides healthful foods where SNAP-authorized food stores are limited. 

This study’s findings contribute to a better understanding of differences in access to healthful, 

affordable food by researchers and policymakers charged with improving the nutrition and 

health status of tribal area populations.

What Did the Study Find? 

Both American Indian and Alaska Native tribal area populations are mostly rural; as a 

result, only 25.6 percent of all tribal area populations were 1 mile or less from a supermarket 

(defined as walking distance), compared with 58.8 percent of the U.S. population. Measured 

by population percentiles, the median distance to the nearest supermarket was 0.8 mile for 

all Americans, compared with 3.3 miles for all tribal area individuals. Although the 20th 

percentile of the population among tribal area and all U.S. individuals were both within 

walking distance, at the 80th percentile tribal area individuals were 13.2 miles from a supermarket, compared with 2.2 miles for all Americans. Almost one-half of all tribal area individuals had incomes at or below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Of those, 

27.8 percent lived in walking distance from a supermarket, compared with 63.6 percent of 

low-income individuals nationwide. 
The shares and population percentiles corresponding to SNAP-authorized supermarkets and FDPIR outlets 

were separately measured to better account for access by low-income individuals, children, the elderly, and 

households without a vehicle—those more likely to rely on food assistance benefits. Among the three tribal 

area types studied—American Indian Tribal Areas, Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas, and Alaska Native 

Village Statistical Areas—the fewer numbers of supermarkets that are authorized for SNAP resulted in an often 

smaller share of low-income individuals within walking distance and a greater share more than 10 miles distant 

compared with the shares for all supermarkets. 

Because FDPIR outlets provide an alternative to SNAP participation in areas where access to SNAP-authorized 

food stores is often limited, they are typically located within the tribal areas they serve. The share of lowincome individuals within walking distance varied by tribal area type, ranging from 7.1 percent in Oklahoma 

Tribal Statistical Areas to 39.4 percent in Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas. 

In tribal areas where both FDPIR and SNAP area available, the selection of the nearest of either outlet—a 

hypothetical outlet type—resulted in a greater share of low-income individuals within walking distance and a 

greater share between 1 and 10 miles driving distance relative to those same shares for SNAP-authorized supermarkets or FDPIR outlets alone. When the shares of walking distance and driving distance between 1 to 10 

miles are combined, their shares ranged from 83.9 percent in American Indian Tribal Areas to 97.4 percent in 

Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas. 

How Was the Study Conducted?

This study uses spatial analysis of the locations of tribal area populations, large grocery stores, supermarkets 

and supercenters, SNAP-authorized supermarkets, and FDPIR outlets to measure differences in access to 

healthful, affordable foods. Population and population subgroup characteristics for American Indian and Alaska 

Native tribal areas were obtained from the 2010 Census of Population and the 2006-2010 American Community 

Survey (ACS) 5-year summary. The 2006-2010 ACS summary file was chosen to allow comparisons with 

national results reported in Ver Ploeg et al. (2012). The locations of large grocery stores, supermarkets, and 

supercenters (herein referred to as supermarkets) are from a 2010 ERS directory developed by the same authors. 

The locations of SNAP-authorized supermarkets and FDPIR outlets were obtained from USDA, Food and 

Nutrition Service, and are based on 2010 data.

Geographic Information System (GIS) methods were used to compute the number and percentage of populations and population subgroups in 545 American Indian and Alaska Native tribal areas by nearest distance to 

each of four outlet types. Each individual tribal area was divided into 1/2-kilometer square grids, and distances 

to the nearest outlet type were computed for each grid-cell population and population subgroup. These results 

were then aggregated to obtain access measures for American Indian Tribal Areas (AITAs), Oklahoma Tribal 

Statistical Areas, and Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas. Two methods were used to measure tribal access. 

The first reports the number and share of tribal area populations by walking (1 mile or less) and driving (more 

than 1 mile) distance. The second method reports distance to outlet type for the 20th, 50th (median), and 80th 

percentile of population. A Statistical Supplement, available along with the report on the ERS website, provides 

tables with access measures for each of the 545 individual tribal areas.

www.ers.usda.gov
1

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Measuring Access to Healthful, 

Affordable Food in American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribal Areas 

Introduction

Native Americans experience high rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease that may be due in 

part to poor diets. Prior studies cite limited access to supermarkets and other sources of affordable 

and nutritious foods as contributing to less healthful food choices by U.S. consumers. In American 

Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) tribal areas, the relatively low population density and often 

limited household incomes create disincentives for the entry of large grocery stores and supermarkets. Smaller, locally accessible grocery stores, convenience stores, and other retail outlets are less 

likely to offer affordable, healthful food choices.1

In this report, we characterize differences in tribal population access to sources of healthful, 

affordable food, based on the nearest distance to a large grocery store or supermarket. The role of 

access and availability to support healthful food choices is an important topic for policymakers and 

Federal, State, and local agencies tasked with improving the Nation’s health. 

Literature on the prevalence of childhood and adult obesity among AIAN populations cite related 

nutritional and health problems. A report by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) used 

the National Health Interview surveys to compile statistics on AIAN populations (NCHS, 2010). 

Compared with other U.S. racial and ethnic groups, AIAN populations reported higher rates of 

many adverse health conditions. Among the total AIAN population, only 29 percent of adults were 

of a healthy weight. Among women, 39.7 percent were obese. Of the total population, 14 percent 

were diagnosed with heart disease, another 34.5 percent were diagnosed with hypertension, and 17.5 

percent had diabetes. 

Changes in the prevalence of nutrition- and health-related deficiencies among the AIAN population have also been examined using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). 

Jernigan et al. (2010) found that between 1996 and 2006, rates of diabetes among AIAN populations increased by 26.9 percent, obesity increased by 25.3 percent, and hypertension increased by 

5 percent. Concurrently, the data found no change in rates of smoking, sedentary behavior, or the 

intake of fruits or vegetables.

Poverty, genetics, consuming nontraditional diets, and lack of physical activity have been cited as 

contributing to the prevalence of obesity among AIAN populations. In a review of studies, Broussard 

et al. (2012) conclude that for many Native American communities the high rates of obesity are a 

relatively recent phenomenon. They cite environmental factors that may encourage the consumption of high-fat and high-sugar foods, including limited access to a healthy food supply and a recent 

proliferation of fast-food restaurants and convenience-food markets on and near reservations.

1For a detailed discussion of differences in affordability and food choices, see Ver Ploeg, et al., Chapter 5 (2009).
2

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

In reviewing the literature on the prevalence of obesity in tribal populations, Halpern (2007) 

concluded that Native American obesity rates had increased dramatically over the prior 30 years. 

Although Native Americans are not a homogeneous demographic group, they share adverse health 

effects from relatively high rates of obesity. Overall, studies demonstrate that obesity begins early for 

AIAN children and is also a significant problem for the adult population (IHS, 2001). Many chronic 

health problems such as type II diabetes, heart disease, stroke, arthritis, and shortness of breath are 

associated with the increasing prevalence of obesity in American Indians and Alaska Natives. Story 

et al. (1998) note that in recent years, obesity has replaced malnutrition as a major health issue, in 

part due to limited access to grocery stores that offer a healthy variety of foods.

A more recent study of both AIAN and White adults examined the association of food insecurity 

with sociodemographics, exercise, and obesity in low-income California communities (Jernigan et 

al., 2013). While the prevalence of food insecurity was the same between the two groups, logistic 

regression found that obesity was not associated with the level of food insecurity in either group, 

adjusting for socioeconomic and exercise differences. The authors cite the need for increased access 

to healthy food in poorer communities. 

Finegold et al. (2005) reviewed existing data sources and prior research on six USDA food assistance programs available to American Indians living in tribal areas. They found that access to 

healthy food may be more difficult due to the limited number of grocery stores on reservations 

and the limited selection available in those stores. In a survey of the Gila River Reservation, it was 

reported that tribal members must travel 15-20 miles to reach a food source other than a small local 

grocery or convenience store. They cited the need for greater availability of traditional foods and the 

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) outlets, as well as foods that meet the 

needs of restricted-diet participants. 

A study of grocery stores on Federal reservations in Washington State evaluated the availability of 

healthful foods based on the availability and cost of 68 healthy foods from USDA’s Thrifty Food 

Plan (O’Connell et al., 2011). Fifty stores were identified on 22 American Indian reservations, 

including 25 convenience stores, 16 grocery stores, and 9 supermarkets. Across all stores, about 38 

percent of checklist items were available, with supermarkets having the most and convenience stores 

the fewest. Foods from the dairy and sugar/sweets groups were the most prevalent, while fresh fruits 

and vegetables were the least. Cost of the most commonly available items was lowest in supermarkets. Seventeen reservations did not have a supermarket, and their nearest off-reservation supermarket was about 10 miles from the tribe’s headquarters, which was used as the standard starting 

point for distance calculations. O’Connell concluded that tribal area populations in Washington State 

often have limited access to foods that make up a nutritious diet at minimal cost.

In separate studies of ethnic minority communities, Gittelsohn and Sharma (2009) conclude that 

obesity and diet-related diseases are directly related to the types of food stores in the community and 

the availability of healthful food. Because food environments vary by area, intervention strategies 

must take into account characteristics such as proximity to food stores and supermarkets, availability 

of healthful foods, the variety of food sources, and store openness (the ease with which customers 

can select food items). Household factors include adequacy of the food supply, seasonal factors, and 

the extent of interhousehold food sharing. The authors cite the need for special attention to such 

ethnic communities because they typically comprise vulnerable populations.

A national study of access to healthful, affordable food by Ver Ploeg et al. (2012) measured access 

to large grocery stores and supermarkets as a proxy for healthful, affordable retail food sources. 
3

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

The study reported on access by total population and population subgroups, including aggregate 

measures for American Indian tribal area populations. Of those tribal populations, 62 percent lived 

more than 1 mile from a supermarket.2 The report found that in urban tribal areas—locations with a 

population of 2,500 or more—47 percent live more than 1 mile from the nearest supermarket, while 

32 percent of rural tribal households—those in areas with a population of less than 2,500—live 

more than 10 miles from a supermarket, large grocery store, or supercenter.

The present report extends the tribal area access analysis in Ver Ploeg’s 2012 study to include 

detailed information for American Indian tribal areas, as well as similar measures for Oklahoma 

Tribal Statistical Areas (OTSAs) and Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas (ANVSAs). In addition to measures of access to all supermarkets, we report distances to the nearest SNAP-authorized 

supermarket, FDPIR outlet, and— where both SNAP and FDPIR are available—to the nearest location of either. 

2Populations within Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas were excluded from Ver Ploeg's analysis.
4

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Background

American Indian and Alaska Native tribal areas are highly varied in rurality, size, composition, and 

location. Among American Indian populations, 70 percent live in rural areas with less than 2,500 

people. Some tribal areas are near large population centers, such as the Gila River, Ft. McDowell, 

and Salt River tribal areas of Arizona that are all adjacent to the urbanized areas of Phoenix. Others 

are in remote locations, such as the Duck Valley tribal area in Nevada and Idaho. Tribal areas vary 

in size, ranging from some like the Taos Pueblo in New Mexico (15.6 square miles) to large reservations such as the Navajo Nation (27,425 square miles). Figure 1 illustrates how area size and proximity vary within Arizona.

Tribal areas included in this study consist of either American Indian Tribal Areas (AITAs), Censusdefined Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas (OTSAs), or Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas 

(figure 2). The Census OTSAs are areas delineated by concentrations of American Indian tribes 

in Oklahoma.3 Since the reallocation of tribal lands in the State, the populations have become less 

homogeneous. In addition, OTSAs have become more developed than many reservation lands and 

are often in proximity to urban areas. These factors may contribute to the greater availability of 

supermarkets and other healthful, affordable food sources in OTSAs than in other tribal areas.

3The General Allotment Act of 1887 (Dawes Act), the 1893 Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes (Dawes Commission), and the Curtis Act of 1889 divided Indian lands in Oklahoma and Indian territories for allotment to individual 

families. 

Figure 1

American Indian reservations in Arizona

Urban areas

Hualapai

Havasupai

Flagstaff

Fort Mojave

Kaibab

Colorado River

Fort Yuma

Cocopah

Yuma

ARIZONA

Navajo

Hopi

Zuni

American Indian Tribal Areas

Phoenix

Casa Grande

Tucson

Fort Apache

San Carlos

Tohono Oòdham

Fort McDowell

Yavapai

Salt River

Maricopa

(Ak Chin)

Gila River
5

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

In Alaska, small towns and the surrounding areas that have concentrations of Alaska Natives are 

defined by Census as Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas (ANVSAs). There are 208 villages, 

ranging in size from a few residents to several thousand. In 2010, the five largest village areas 

accounted for 63 percent of the total ANVSA population of 236,369. 

The challenges of obtaining healthful, affordable food in tribal areas are many. Supermarkets are 

less likely to be located within these areas due to a variety of factors, including a lack of urban 

centers to sustain profitable sales volume; the relatively lower income of tribal area households; and 

tribal government policies and land tenure requirements that may limit nontribal ownership by retail 

firms. Access to healthful, affordable food is often difficult; among the larger tribal areas, populations are often widely dispersed, with few areas of population concentration. As a result, a large 

share of tribal area individuals and households must travel considerable distances to reach larger 

retail food outlets. 

Because a relatively high proportion of tribal populations meet low-income criteria, in addition to all 

supermarkets in the tribal areas, we include nearest distance measures to SNAP-authorized supermarkets, FDPIR outlets, and the nearest of either a SNAP-authorized supermarket or FDPIR outlet. 

Eligible tribal area households may choose between the store-based SNAP and the tribal-based 

FDPIR. Tribal households that participate in SNAP may find authorized supermarkets less accessible than smaller SNAP grocery stores and convenience stores, giving them less variety in food 

choices. As an alternative to SNAP, FDPIR provides a variety of healthful foods at outlets almost 

Figure 2

U.S. tribal areas and FDPIR sites

FDPIR = Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations; AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native; 

ANVSA = Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas; and OTSA = Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas.

● FDPIR sites

AIAN

ANVSA

OTSA
6

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

all located within tribal lands and operated by the tribal government.4 Tribal areas served by FDPIR 

use warehouses, tribal stores, and local sites to distribute USDA foods.5,6 The FDPIR food assistance program consists of a monthly food allotment designed to maintain a nutritionally balanced 

diet comparable in food quantity to SNAP benefits. Eligibility criteria are similar, although not identical, to SNAP requirements.7 Participants may select from over 70 products that include fresh fruits 

and vegetables and frozen foods.8 The availability of FDPIR is more limited among tribal areas 

than SNAP, primarily due to FDPIR rules that limit urban areas served to populations of less than 

10,000.9 In Alaska, FDPIR is currently available in 19 of the 208 ANVSAs. 

4FDPIR is administered by Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) or State agencies. Indian Tribal Organizations and 

State agencies may provide FDPIR services through multiple tribes. Currently, 100 ITOs and 5 State agencies administer 

the program for about 276 tribes.

5To the extent possible, most State agencies and tribal governments offer home delivery services to seniors, disabled, 

and homebound individuals.

6Some tribal areas in Oklahoma, such as the Cherokee Nation, operate FDPIR stores.

7

A Final Rule, published August 27, 2014, changed FDPIR eligibility criteria to promote conformity with SNAP 

requirements.

8Fresh fruits and vegetables, although not mandatory, are offered in lieu of canned products by more than 90 percent of 

all FDPIR tribal outlets.

9Tribal governments can request a waiver from the restriction against serving such areas.
7

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Data Sources and Methods

Data used in this study consist primarily of tribal population-based and individual outlet-based 

sources. Measures of nearest distance to outlet type are reported for both total population and by 

population subgroups, including individuals grouped by low- and non-low-income status, age group, 

and by households with and without a vehicle10. 

We report measures of access to food outlets in two ways: by the number and share of the tribal 

population in terms of walking and driving distances and by distance measures for the 20th, 50th 

(median), and 80th percentile population distribution. Summary statistics based on 545 tribal areas 

are reported for individuals and households living in American Indian tribal lands, Oklahoma Tribal 

Statistical Areas, and Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas. 

Geographical Information System (GIS) methods were used to compute distances within individual 

tribal areas for each of the four outlet types: all supermarkets, SNAP-authorized supermarkets, 

FDPIR outlets, and a hypothetical SNAP/FDPIR outlet type in which eligible individuals always 

choose to participate in the nearest of either outlet. The GIS analysis also takes into account areas 

not served by FDPIR as well as those that are served.11

Outlet Data Sources and Criteria

Source data for identifying large grocery stores, supermarkets, and supercenters are from a directory developed for an ERS national study of food access using 2010 data (Ver Ploeg et al., 2012). 

The directory consists of the Nielsen Company TDLinx® store directory (2010) and a directory of 

SNAP-authorized stores (2010). All large grocery stores, supermarkets, and supercenters (herein 

referred to as supermarkets) with sales of $2 million or more annually were included. To identify 

SNAP-authorized supermarkets, we applied industry supermarket criteria to the directory of SNAPauthorized stores. A special tabulation was performed by USDA, Food and Nutrition Service to 

identify all SNAP-authorized stores that had annual food and nonfood sales of $2 million or more 

and offered all major food departments.12 Similar criteria were used to identify all supermarkets in 

the TDLinx® store directory. 

TheTDLinx® and SNAP supermarket lists were then combined to obtain a single comprehensive 

directory, matching store names and addresses, and, where required, matching by geographic coordinates.13 Although most supermarkets are SNAP-authorized, some large grocery stores that otherwise meet supermarket sales and food variety criteria may not accept SNAP benefits. To account for 

potential differences in access by tribal individuals and households eligible to participate in SNAP, 

we separately identified and measured access to SNAP-authorized supermarkets.

10Vehicle access is defined by Census as by passenger cars, vans, and pickup or panel trucks of one-ton capacity or less 

kept at home and available for the use of household members.

11Access measures for the hypothetical SNAP/FDPIR outlet type apply to those tribal areas served by FDPIR.

12The Economic Census does not identify supermarkets as a retail store class. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 4451 includes both full-line grocery stores and supermarkets without regard to annual sales. 

13Nonmatching stores from both sources are included in the final directory. 
8

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

To measure access to FDPIR outlets, the addresses of outlets were obtained from the USDA, Food 

and Nutrition Service FDPIR Policy Branch. The addresses were converted to geographic coordinates for use in the spatial analysis. 

Defining Tribal Areas and Population Groupings

Boundary data obtained from the 2010 Census TIGER/Line® Shapefiles, American Indian and 

Alaska Native Geography, were used to define tribal area geographies. Population data were 

obtained from the 2010 Census of Population and the American Community Survey, 2006-2010 

Summary file. These data allow for analysis of access by total tribal population and population 

subgroups, including low-income individuals (defined here by income equal to 200 percent of the 

Federal poverty level or less); by age (children, working age, and elderly), and by households with 

and without vehicles.

Spatial Analysis Methods

The ArcGIS spatial analysis system was used to measure access distances. A uniform grid overlay of 

tribal areas was created to obtain location and population data at the 1/2-km-square area. The grid 

cells are typically smaller than Census blocks, resulting in a greater resolution of population distributions within a tribal area. The measurement of distance to access location based on a uniform grid 

also reduces ArcGIS computation requirements relative to nonuniform boundary data. To further 

reduce the computation, the location of supermarkets and FDPIR outlets were measured to the physical center (centroid) of each tribal area grid cell.14

To convert block-level Census data to grid-cell data, we followed methods used by Ver Ploeg et al. 

(2010). The grid cells are first overlaid by Census block-level geographies. For a given grid cell, 

the block’s population is multiplied by the proportion of the block’s area contained within the cell. 

The resulting values for all blocks are summed to obtain the grid-cell population. This process is 

repeated to obtain grid-cell values for each population and population subgroup.

Walking and Driving Distance Criteria

In prior ERS analyses of access to healthful, affordable food, different distance criteria were used 

for determining levels of access, depending on whether the population was classified as urban or 

rural according to Census definitions (Ver Ploeg et al., 2009 and 2012).15 Accordingly, walkingdistance criteria were applied to urban populations and driving-distance criteria to rural populations. 

The current analysis does not distinguish between urban and rural populations within individual 

tribal areas, however. In application to tribal areas where urban areas tend to be small compared 

with urban areas nationwide, urban and rural classifications may introduce a boundary problem. 

For a given urban tract, if one or more adjacent tracts have populations of less than 2,500, those 

tracts are classified by Census as rural. As a result, driving-distance measures of access would apply, 

even if some of the population was within walking distance of a supermarket in the urban tract. 

14All distance measures are Euclidian (straight line point-to-point measures) and were converted to miles from kilometers. 

15Census tracts with a population of 2,500 or more were classified as ‘urban,’ while all other census tracts were classified as ‘rural.’
9

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Because tribal areas are likely to contain a mix of high- and low-density populations, there is a 

greater potential for the misapplication of access-distance criteria. We instead use grid-cell distance 

and population data to determine the number and share of a tribal area population that is within 

walking and driving distance of a supermarket, SNAP supermarket, or FDPIR outlet, regardless of 

urban or rural classification.

Tribal Area Access Measurement

For each American Indian Tribal Area (AITA), Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (OTSA), and 

Alaska Native Village Statistical Area (ANVSA), tribal area access is measured in two ways. The 

first method measures the share of tribal area population within walking distance (1 mile or less), 

and driving distance (more than 1 mile). Driving distance is further subdivided into (a) between 1 

and 10 miles, (b) between 10 and 20 miles, and (c) greater than 20 miles. Within a tribal area, the 

nearest distances to each outlet type are measured for the overall population and five population 

subgroups by individual grid cell. The grid-cell populations meeting defined walking or driving 

distance criteria are then summed to obtain the number and share of the total tribal area population 

living at those distances from each outlet type, and the same calculations are made for each population subgroup.

The second method measures grid-cell distances to nearest outlet type within a tribal area by population percentiles. For each outlet type, grid-cell distances are ranked from shortest to farthest. The 

corresponding grid-cell populations are accumulated, and distance measures at the 20th, median, 

and 80th population percentile are reported. Separate distances by population percentile are calculated for each of the population groups and by outlet type.

A more straightforward approach would have been to measure distance to the nearest supermarket or 

FDPIR outlet from the centroid (geographic center) of each tribal area. Due to the potential for large 

differences in size and the distribution of population across tribal areas, the use of a single centroid 

was deemed unrepresentative of actual distances traveled. By segmenting tribal areas into grids, we 

are able to account for differences in the distribution of populations and population subgroups within 

each tribal area, resulting in more representative measures of access distances.

Measures of access to FDPIR outlets are limited to those tribal areas within FDPIR service 

areas. The FDPIR service areas are determined by both tribal boundaries and areas served and 

not served by FDPIR according to regulations governing the program. Where available, FDPIR 

service areas in Alaska include native populations within 10 miles of an Alaska Native Village 

Statistical Area that contains an FDPIR outlet.16 Service areas were created for those ANVSAs 

that contained an FDPIR outlet.

Study Exclusions

Additional tribal populations and defined areas were considered for inclusion in the analysis. Tribes 

that are recognized by the Federal Government but do not have designated lands were excluded due 

to the spatial nature of this study. State-designated tribal areas and populations were also excluded, 

due to differences between their designation criteria and Federal requirements. 

16Where the 10-mile extended area overlaps with another ANVSA’s extended area, a boundary was created to define 

separate FDPIR service areas in order to avoid double counting of ANVSA populations.
10

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Native Hawaiian Homelands (NHHL) were also excluded from the analysis. These areas consist of 

trust lands created in 1920 for use by Native Hawaiians.17 Of the 290,000 Native Hawaiians living 

in the State, 11 percent live in NHHL trust lands. Of these, 44 percent meet Native Hawaiian 

blood quantum criteria.18 As a result of the special characteristics of the Hawaiian trust areas, 

they were deemed not sufficiently comparable to the American Indian and Alaska Native tribal 

areas in the analysis.

17Hawaiian trust lands are areas set aside for homesteading, including residential, agricultural, and pastoral uses. 

Industrial and commercial uses are prohibited. Residential areas are governed by declarations, covenants, conditions, and 

restrictions. 

18Lessees of Native Hawaiian Trust Lands are required to have a Native Hawaiian blood quantum of at least 50 percent. Successors are limited to other family members and must have a blood quantum of at least 25 percent.
11

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Assessing Tribal Area Access to Healthful, 

Affordable Food

To understand differences in tribal area access to healthful, affordable food, a comparison of 

socioeconomic subgroups is needed, both among tribal areas and with those of the U.S. population.19 Because the analysis is based on data for 545 individual tribal areas, we report summary 

access measures for each of the three tribal area types. Access measures are reported both for the 

total population and population subgroups based on socioeconomic characteristics. Similar access 

measures for individual tribal areas are available in Excel tables that are accessible from the index 

page of the report via the following link: http://cms.usda.net/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib-131.aspx

Tribal Area Population Characteristics

Among almost 3 million individuals living in U.S. tribal areas, 42 percent had incomes at or below 

200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), compared with 32 percent among all U.S. individuals (table 1). Poverty rates varied by tribal area type, however. 

Of the 1 million individuals in American Indian tribal areas, 49 percent had incomes at or below 

200 percent of the FPL. The share of low-income individuals was lower (40.2 percent) in Oklahoma 

19The U.S. population statistics and access measures include tribal area populations. 

Table 1

Population and household characteristics by tribal area type

Population/household

characteristic

U.S. individuals/

households AITAs1 OTSAs2 ANVSAs3

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

All individuals 308,700,000 100.0 1,051,594 100.0 1,572,763 100.0 236,831 100.0

Individuals by income:

Low-income individuals4 98,400,000 31.9 515,469 49.0 632,803 40.2 74,358 31.4

Non-Low-income 

individuals 210,300,000 68.1 536,126 51.0 939,960 59.8 162,473 68.6

Individuals by age:

Children, age 17 or less 73,700,000 23.9 309,899 29.5 388,282 24.7 67,130 28.3

Adults, age 18-64 193,000,000 62.5 613,061 58.3 940,944 59.8 149,400 63.1

Elderly, age 65 or more 42,000,000 13.6 128,633 12.2 243,536 15.5 20,301 8.6

Households by vehicle access:

 Total households 116,716,000 100.0 437,962 100.0 700,946 100.0 104,929 100.0

 Households without vehicle 10,200,000 8.7 30,173 6.9 30,200 4.3 13,780 11.4

 Households with vehicle 106,516,000 91.3 407,789 93.1 670,746 95.7 91,149 88.6

1American Indian Tribal Areas; 2Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas; 3Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas. 4Defined as individuals with a household income of 200 percent or less of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) in 2010.

Sources: ERS estimates based on Census of Population, 2010; American Community Survey, 2006-2010 Summary File; Table 9 and Appendix 

table B3, Ver Ploeg, et al. (2012); Households and Families: 2010, U.S. Census (April, 2012).
12

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

tribal areas. The tribal population in Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas had the lowest share of 

low-income individuals at 31.4 percent—slightly less than the rate for all U.S. individuals. 

The shares of population by age group in tribal areas were comparable to those for the national 

population. Working-age adults (18-64 years) made up the largest share of both the U.S. and tribal 

area populations, followed by children (age 17 or younger) and the elderly (age 65 and up). Alaska 

Native Village populations had a smaller share of elderly and a larger share of children than 

American Indian and Oklahoma tribal populations. 

The share of households without a vehicle varied by tribal area. Among all U.S. households, 8.7 

percent had no vehicle, compared with 11.4 percent of Alaska Native Village households. Both 

American Indian (6.9 percent) and Oklahoma tribal area households (4.3 percent) had a smaller 

share of nonvehicle households than the share for all U.S. households. 

Tribal Access Comparisons with National Access Measures

We compared tribal area access measures to the U.S. national measures reported in the ERS study 

of access (Ver Ploeg et al., 2012). Comparisons were limited to population and household measures 

of access for all supermarkets (without breaking out those authorized for SNAP). Access measures 

include the share of population by walking and driving distances and access distances by percentiles 

of population.

Access Measures by Walking and Driving Distances

Among all U.S. individuals, 41.2 percent lived more than 1 mile from a supermarket, while the share 

among tribal area individuals ranged from 72.9 percent in Oklahoma tribal areas to 76.7 percent in 

American Indian tribal areas (fig. 3 and table 2). 

Figure 3

Share of individuals and households more than 1 mile from a supermarket

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Percentage of individuals/households

41.2

76.7

72.9 74.7

36.4

76.8

68.2

74.9

20.1

74.6

57.2

72.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

U.S. individuals/

households

American Indian

Tribal Areas

Oklahoma Tribal

Statistical Areas

Alaska Native Village

Statistical Areas

All individuals All low-income individuals Households without a vehicle
13

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Similarly, among low-income individuals, a greater share of tribal area populations lived more than 

1 mile from a supermarket than the national percentage. Compared with the share of all low-income 

U.S. individuals (36.4 percent), shares were more than twice as much in American Indian tribal 

areas (76.8 percent) and Alaska Native Village areas (74.9 percent), while slightly less than double in 

Oklahoma tribal areas (68.2 percent). 

Of all U.S. households without a vehicle, 20.1 percent were more than 1 mile from a supermarket. In 

contrast, the share among nonvehicle tribal households more than 1 mile from a supermarket ranged 

from 57.2 percent in OTSAs to 74.6 percent in AITAs. For all tribal areas, the median distance 

among these households was 4.1 miles. These differences suggest that tribal area households without 

a vehicle are concentrated in rural settings, while the majority of similar U.S. households are 

concentrated in urban settings. 

Access Measures by Population Percentiles

We also compared access distances by population percentiles between all U.S. individuals and tribal 

area individuals (table 2). Compared with tribal areas, U.S. individuals had much lower distances 

to the nearest supermarket at the 20th, 50th (median), and 80th population percentile (fig. 4). At 

the 20th percentile of population, nearest distances to a supermarket were less than 1 mile for both 

all U.S. and tribal area individuals (walking distances). Even so, distances ranged from more than 

twice the distance (AITAs) to three times the distance (OTSAs and ANVSAs) as that for all U.S. 

Table 2

U.S. and Tribal area access measures: selected comparisions for all supermarkets

Access measure U.S. AITAs1 OTSAs2 ANVSAs3 All tribal areas4

All individuals: Percent share

Access more than 1 mile 41.2 76.7 72.9 74.7 74.4

Access by percentiles of all individuals Miles

 20th percentile 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8

 50th percentile 0.8 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.3

 80th percentile 2.2 12.8 7.9 10.3 13.2

Low-income individuals: Percent share

Access more than 1 mile 36.4 76.8 68.2 74.9 72.2

Access by percentiles of low-income 

individuals Miles

 20th percentile 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8

 50th percentile 0.8 4.1 2.8 3.5 3.4

 80th percentile 2.0 15.5 8.1 37.7 13.0

Households without a vehicle: Percent share

Access more than 1 mile 20.1 74.6 57.2 72.4 67.1

Access by percentiles of households 

without a vehicle Miles

 20th percentile * 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.7

 50th percentile 0.4 4.2 1.4 10.0 4.1

 80th percentile 1.0 16.7 6.9 76.7 23.9

1American Indian Tribal Areas; 2Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas; 3Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas; 4Average of tribal areas, weighted by 

corresponding population. 

*Value less than 0.5 percent.

Sources: Ver Ploeg, et al. (2012); ERS tabulations.
14

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

individuals. The greatest disparity was at the 80th population percentile, where, compared with U.S. 

individuals, distances ranged from 3.6 times as much in OTSAs to 5.8 times as much in AITAs. 

Low-income tribal area individuals were also within walking distance of a supermarket at the 20th 

population percentile, although at the 80th percentile distances ranged from 8.1 miles in OTSAs to 

37.7 miles in ANVSAs, compared with 2.2 miles for all U.S. low-income individuals. The greater 

distances experienced by low-income tribal area individuals imply higher costs of transportation to 

reach a supermarket relative to higher income individuals.

In tribal areas, access to supermarkets by households without a vehicle differed considerably from all 

U.S. households without a vehicle. While at the 20th percentile both U.S. and tribal areas without a 

vehicle were within 1 mile or less (walking distance), distances at the median population percentile 

differed greatly. Nearest supermarket distances at the median varied from 1.4 miles in OTSAs to 10.0 

miles in ANVSAs, compared with 0.4 miles for all U.S. households without a vehicle. At the 80th 

percentile, tribal area households without a vehicle lived at considerably greater distances to supermarkets than their U.S. household counterparts. U.S. households without a vehicle were within walking 

distance of a supermarket at the 80th percentile, while in tribal areas, distances ranged from 6.9 miles 

in OTSAs to 76.7 miles in ANVSAs. Clearly, these tribal area householders must depend on help from 

other people to reach a supermarket or rely more on smaller grocery stores and other food sources. 

These comparisons of access measures between U.S. and tribal area individuals and households, 

while limited to all supermarkets (without regard to those authorized for SNAP), nevertheless underscore important differences in access to healthful, affordable food. Contributing factors in tribal 

areas may include the greater share of rural individuals and households and the lack of proximity to 

urban and nontribal populations—areas more likely to contain supermarkets.20

20Although the national comparisons do not take into account FDPIR outlets, their inclusion would have a negligible 

contribution to access measures due to the small number of participants relative to the total tribal area population. 

Figure 4

Access distance to all super markets by population percentiles: 

U.S. and tribal area individuals

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Miles

20th percentile 50th percentile 80th percentile

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 0.3

10.3

2.8

0.7

7.9

3.2

0.7

12.8

3.5

0.9

2.2

0.8

U.S. individuals American Indian 

Tribal Areas

Oklahoma Tribal 

Statistical Areas

Alaska Native Village

Statistical Areas
15

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary Tables of Access by Outlet Type

Tables 3 through 6 provide summary measures of access by tribal area type for: (1) all supermarkets, (2) SNAP-authorized supermarkets, (3) FDPIR outlets, and (4) the nearest of either a SNAPauthorized supermarket or an FDPIR source, a hypothetical outlet type. The latter three outlet 

measures are primarily relevant to population subgroups more likely to be eligible for SNAP and 

FDPIR food assistance benefits and include all low-income individuals, children, the elderly, and 

households without vehicles.21

For each outlet type, we first examine tribal area measures of access by walking and driving 

distances and by population and population subgroup. The percent share of distances by walking 

(1 mile or less) and driving (between 1 and 10 miles, between 10 and 20 miles, and greater than 

20 miles) are reported separately for all American Indian tribal areas, Oklahoma tribal areas, and 

Alaska Native Village areas. These measures can be used to compare differences in the distribution 

of population by access distance. 

We also report access measures by population percentiles. For each of the four outlet types, a corresponding nearest distance was calculated at the 20th, 50th (median), and 80th population percentile. 

Within a tribal area, populations tightly clustered around a supermarket, for example, will result in 

relatively small differences in nearest distance at the 20th, 50th, and 80th percentile of the population. More widely distributed populations are likely to have larger differences in the distances for 

those same population percentile values. The use of population percentiles provides an alternative 

measure of access that results from the differences in the distribution of tribal area populations relative to the locations of an outlet type. The distance corresponding to each population percentile can 

also be compared against walking and driving criteria as a measure of access.

All Supermarkets Access

The share of populations and households by walking and driving distances to all supermarkets 

(including SNAP-authorized supermarkets) varied by tribal area type. Among American Indian 

tribal areas, 23.3 percent of all individuals were within 1 mile of a supermarket, while another 51.4 

percent were between 1 and 10 miles (driving distance) of a supermarket (table 3a). The remaining 

25.3 percent of individuals living in American Indian tribal areas were more than 10 miles from 

a supermarket. Compared with all individuals, a greater share (30.6 percent) of the low-income 

population was more than 10 miles distant. Among households, only 25.4 percent of those without a 

vehicle were within walking distance of a supermarket. 

By population percentiles, the top 20 percent of individuals and households were all within 1.0 mile 

or less of a supermarket. The median (50th percentile) distance to a supermarket among all individuals was 3.5 miles. Low-income individuals had a slightly higher median distance (4.1 miles), and 

households without a vehicle had the greatest median distance (4.2 miles). 

Compared with American Indian tribal areas, Oklahoma tribal areas had larger shares of individuals and households within walking distance of a supermarket. Among all OTSA individuals, 27.1 

percent were within 1 mile, compared with 31.8 percent of low-income individuals and 42.8 percent 

of households without a vehicle (table 3b). In addition, a greater share of the OTSA population 

21Census data do not identify low-income individuals or households by demographic subgroups.
16

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 3a

Supermarket access by share of population and population percentiles: American Indian Tribal Areas

Population/household 

characteristic

Individuals/ 

Households

Walking 

distance Driving distance Population percentiles

1 mile or 

less

Between 

1 and 10 

miles

Between 

10 and 

20 miles

Greater 

than 20 

miles

20th 

percentile

50th 

percentile 

(median)

80th 

percentile

Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Miles

All individuals 1,051,594 23.3 51.4 15.0 10.3 0.9 3.5 12.8

Individuals by income:

 Low-income individuals 515,469 23.2 46.3 17.0 13.6 0.9 4.1 15.4

 Non-low-income individuals 536,126 23.5 56.3 13.1 7.1 0.9 3.1 10.1

Individuals by age:

 Children, age 17 or less 309,899 22.2 50.3 16.1 11.4 1.0 3.8 13.7

 Adults, age 18-64 613,061 23.3 52.0 14.7 10.0 0.9 3.4 12.5

 Elderly, age 65 or more 128,633 26.4 50.9 14.0 8.7 0.7 3.1 11.6

Households by vehicle access:

 Total households 437,962 24.3 51.6 14.7 9.4 0.9 3.5 12.6

 Households without vehicle 30,173 25.4 41.7 17.3 15.5 0.9 4.2 16.7

 Households with vehicle 407,789 24.2 52.3 14.5 8.9 0.9 3.5 12.3

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Table 3b

Supermarket access by share of population and population percentiles: Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas

Population/household 

characteristic

Individuals/ 

Households

Walking 

distance Driving distance Population percentiles

1 mile or 

less

Between 

1 and 10 

miles

Between 

10 and 

20 miles

Greater 

than 20 

miles

20th 

percentile

50th 

percentile 

(median)

80th 

percentile

Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Miles

All individuals 1,572,763 27.1 61.6 10.7 0.6 0.7 3.2 7.9

Individuals by income:

 Low-income individuals 632,803 31.8 56.4 11.2 0.6 0.7 2.8 8.1

 Non-low-income individuals 939,960 23.9 65.1 10.4 0.6 0.9 3.4 7.8

Individuals by age:

 Children, age 17 or less 388,282 27.9 61.0 10.5 0.6 0.7 3.1 7.8

 Adults, age 18-64 940,944 26.7 62.1 10.7 0.6 0.7 3.2 7.9

 Elderly, age 65 or more 243,536 27.2 60.6 11.5 0.7 0.7 3.2 8.1

Households by vehicle access:

 Total households 700,946 27.6 60.3 11.4 0.7 0.7 3.4 8.1

 Households without vehicle 30,200 42.8 47.2 9.4 0.6 0.6 1.4 6.9

 Households with vehicle 670,746 27.0 60.9 11.5 0.7 0.7 3.5 8.2

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
17

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

(61.6 percent) was between 1 and 10 miles (driving distance) from a supermarket compared with 

American Indian tribal areas. These differences resulted in a much smaller share of OTSA individuals and households that were more than 10 miles from a supermarket. Tribal areas in Oklahoma 

tend to be closer to urbanized areas and areas of nontribal populations, potentially benefiting from 

greater availability of both SNAP-authorized and non-SNAP supermarkets.

Measured by population percentiles, Oklahoma tribal areas again showed lower corresponding 

distances from a supermarket than American Indian tribal areas. The median distance for all 

individuals was 3.2 miles, while the median among low-income individuals was slightly lower 

(2.8 miles). OTSA households without vehicles had the lowest median distance of all population 

subgroups (1.4 miles). At the 20th percentile, all OTSA population subgroups were within walking 

distance of a supermarket, while at the 80th percentile all subgroups were within 10 miles.

The share of Alaska Native Village Statistical Area residents within walking distance of a supermarket was comparable to the share of American Indian and Oklahoma tribal area residents, ranging 

from 25.1 percent of low-income individuals to 27.6 percent of households without vehicles. In 

contrast to the other tribal areas, however, a much larger share of ANVSA individuals and households were more than 10 miles from a supermarket. Among population subgroups, 32.7 percent of 

low-income individuals and 50.0 percent of households without a vehicle lived more than 10 miles 

from a supermarket. 

By population percentiles, the median distance of ANVSA households without a vehicle was 10 

miles—far greater than for all U.S. individuals (2.8 miles) and low-income individuals (3.5 miles). 

At the 20th percentile, all ANVSA population subgroups were within walking distance of a supermarket. In contrast, at the 80th percentile, low-income individuals (37.7 miles from a supermarket) 

Table 3c

Supermarket access by share of population and population percentiles: Alaska Native Village 

Statistical Areas 

Population/household 

characteristic

Individuals/ 

Households

Walking 

distance Driving distance Population percentiles

1 mile or 

less

Between 

1 and 10 

miles

Between 

10 and 

20 miles

Greater 

than 20 

miles

20th 

percentile

50th 

percentile 

(median)

80th 

percentile

Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Miles

All individuals 236,831 25.3 54.3 6.9 13.5 0.7 2.8 10.3

Individuals by income:

 Low-income individuals 74,358 25.1 42.1 8.4 24.3 0.7 3.5 37.7

 Non-low-income individuals 162,473 25.3 59.8 6.3 8.6 0.7 2.5 7.1

Individuals by age:

 Children, age 17 or less 67,130 23.8 53.2 6.5 16.5 0.9 2.9 13.1

 Adults, age 18-64 149,400 25.4 55.3 6.9 12.5 0.7 2.7 9.5

 Elderly, age 65 or more 20,301 29.2 50.3 8.8 11.8 0.7 2.6 10.2

Households by vehicle access:

 Total households 104,929 24.5 52.7 10.2 12.6 0.9 3.1 12.0

 Households without vehicle 13,780 27.6 22.4 7.2 42.8 0.6 10.0 76.7

 Households with vehicle 91,149 24.0 57.3 10.6 8.1 0.9 2.9 9.9

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
18

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

and households without a vehicle (76.7 miles) were much more distant in comparison with all U.S. 

individuals (10.3 miles). 

SNAP-Authorized Supermarkets Access

Tribal area populations participating in SNAP are likely to find fewer authorized supermarkets, 

resulting in reduced access relative to that for all supermarkets. Within American Indian Tribal 

Areas (AITAs), among population groups more likely to depend on food assistance programs, a 

smaller share of all low-income individuals (17.1 percent), children (16.6 percent), and elderly (23.0 

percent) were within walking distance of SNAP-authorized supermarkets (table 4a) compared with 

the corresponding shares for all supermarkets (23.2, 22.2, and 26.4 percent, respectively) (table 3a). 

Driving distances to SNAP supermarkets were generally greater compared with all supermarkets. A 

greater share of low-income and elderly AITA populations was more than 10 miles from a SNAPauthorized supermarket compared with their distance from all supermarkets. Similarly, a greater 

share of households without a vehicle was more than 10 miles from a SNAP-authorized supermarket 

than the share of these households located 10 miles from all supermarkets.

In AITAs, the median distance to SNAP-authorized supermarkets for low-income individuals, children, and households without a vehicle was greater than that for all supermarkets. The largest differences in distance between SNAP-authorized supermarkets and all supermarkets occurred at the 80th 

percentile of population.

Among Oklahoma tribal area individuals, however, the population shares within walking distance 

of a SNAP-authorized supermarket were comparable to the shares for all supermarkets and larger 

than the shares in American Indian and Alaska Native tribal areas (tables 3b and 4b). Due to the 

Table 4a

SNAP supermarket access by share of population and population percentiles: American Indian Tribal Areas 

Population/household 

characteristic

Individuals/ 

Households

Walking 

distance Driving distance Population percentiles

1 mile or 

less

Between 

1 and 10 

miles

Between 

10 and 

20 miles

Greater 

than 20 

miles

20th 

percentile

50th 

percentile 

(median)

80th 

percentile

Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Miles

All individuals 1,051,594 18.5 47.2 15.3 19.0 1.1 4.9 19.2

Individuals by income:

 Low-income individuals 515,469 17.1 41.3 16.6 25.0 1.3 6.4 23.7

 Non-low-income individuals 536,126 19.8 52.9 14.0 13.3 1.1 3.8 14.0

Individuals by age:

 Children, age 17 or less 309,899 16.6 45.5 16.0 21.9 1.3 5.7 21.3

 Adults, age 18-64 613,061 18.5 47.9 15.1 18.5 1.1 4.7 18.9

 Elderly, age 65 or more 128,633 23.0 47.7 14.7 14.6 0.9 3.8 15.4

Households by vehicle access:

 Total households 437,962 20.3 47.9 15.4 16.3 1.1 4.7 17.6

 Households without vehicle 30,173 19.8 36.3 15.7 28.2 1.1 6.9 28.3

 Households with vehicle 407,789 20.4 48.8 15.4 15.5 1.1 4.6 16.8

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
19

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 4b

SNAP supermarket access by share of population and population percentiles: Oklahoma Tribal 

Statistical Areas 

Population/household 

characteristic

Individuals/ 

Households

Walking 

distance Driving distance Population percentiles

1 mile or 

less

Between 

1 and 10 

miles

Between 

10 and 

20 miles

Greater 

than 20 

miles

20th 

percentile

50th 

percentile 

(median)

80th 

percentile

Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Miles

All individuals 1,572,763 24.5 61.4 13.4 0.7 0.9 3.5 8.6

Individuals by income:

 Low-income individuals 632,803 28.9 56.7 13.7 0.7 0.7 3.1 8.7

 Non-low-income individuals 939,960 21.5 64.5 13.2 0.7 1.0 3.8 8.6

Individuals by age:

 Children, age 17 or less 388,282 25.2 60.8 13.3 0.7 0.9 3.5 8.6

 Adults, age 18-64 940,944 24.2 61.8 13.4 0.7 0.9 3.5 8.6

 Elderly, age 65 or more 243,536 24.6 60.7 13.8 0.9 0.9 3.5 8.7

Households by vehicle access:

 Total households 700,946 25.1 60.2 13.9 0.8 0.9 3.7 8.8

 Households without vehicle 30,200 38.2 50.0 11.1 0.7 0.6 1.6 7.5

 Households with vehicle 670,746 24.5 60.7 14.1 0.8 0.9 3.8 8.8

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Table 4c

SNAP supermarket access by share of population and population percentiles: Alaska Native Village 

Statistical Areas 

Population/household 

characteristic

Individuals/ 

Households

Walking 

distance Driving distance Population percentiles

1 mile or 

less

Between 

1 and 10 

miles

Between 

10 and 

20 miles

Greater 

than 20 

miles

20th 

percentile

50th 

percentile 

(median)

80th 

percentile

Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Miles

All individuals 236,831 21.0 51.8 9.9 17.3 1.0 3.7 15.2

Individuals by income:

 Low-income individuals 74,358 21.0 39.1 11.6 28.2 1.0 5.8 43.3

 Non-low-income individuals 162,473 20.9 57.6 9.1 12.3 1.0 3.2 10.8

Individuals by age:

 Children, age 17 or less 67,130 20.3 51.4 9.1 19.2 1.0 3.8 18.8

 Adults, age 18-64 149,400 20.9 52.6 10.0 16.4 1.0 3.6 14.1

 Elderly, age 65 or more 20,301 23.4 47.1 12.0 17.4 0.9 3.7 15.5

Households by vehicle access:

 Total households 104,929 19.8 48.3 13.9 18.0 1.1 4.5 18.2

 Households without vehicle 13,780 24.3 22.6 7.6 45.5 0.7 13.9 77.7

 Households with vehicle 91,149 19.1 52.2 14.8 13.9 1.1 4.3 14.4

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
20

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

generally fewer supermarkets that are SNAP-authorized, tribal areas in Oklahoma had a smaller 

share of low-income individuals (28.9 percent), children (25.2 percent), elderly (24.6 percent), and 

households without a vehicle (38.2 percent) that were within walking distance of a SNAP-authorized 

supermarket relative to walking distance for all supermarkets. A larger share of those same OTSA 

population groups were more than 10 miles from the nearest SNAP-authorized supermarket than the 

share living that far from all supermarkets.

Median distances in OTSAs were consistent with the shares for walking and driving distances. 

Low-income individuals had a median distance of 3.1 miles from a SNAP-authorized supermarket, 

the lowest of the tribal areas. Similarly, OTSA households without a vehicle had the lowest median 

distance (1.6 miles) among the tribal areas. Children and the elderly had median distances equal 

to those for all OTSA individuals (3.5 miles). At the 20th percentile, all OTSA population groups 

were within walking distance, while at the 80th percentile, all the groups were within 10 miles of a 

SNAP-authorized supermarket.

The shares of individuals and households in Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas living within 

walking distance of a SNAP-authorized supermarket were also lower than their comparable shares 

for all supermarkets (tables 3c and 4c). A smaller share of low-income ANVSA individuals (21.0 

percent), children (20.3 percent), elderly (23.4 percent), and households without a vehicle (24.3 

percent) were within walking distance of a SNAP supermarket relative to those for all supermarkets. Of the three tribal area types, ANVSAs had the greatest difference in the share of individuals 

and households within 1 mile compared with their shares for all supermarkets. They also had the 

greatest disparity between SNAP-authorized supermarkets and all supermarkets in shares of individuals and households more than 10 miles distant. 

In ANVSAs, median distances to a SNAP supermarket were also greater than for all supermarkets 

among individuals and households more likely to be eligible for SNAP benefits. Households without 

a vehicle had a much greater median distance (13.9 miles) than low-income individuals (5.8 miles) 

to SNAP-authorized supermarkets. At the 20th percentile, most ANVSA population groups were 

within walking distance of a SNAP supermarket, while at the 80th percentile, all individuals and 

households were more than 10 miles distant. 

FDPIR Outlets Access

Measures of access to FDPIR outlets are limited to those tribal areas that meet program criteria. 

In total, 73.1 percent of individuals in American Indian tribal areas, 89 percent of individuals in 

Oklahoma tribal areas, and 27 percent of individuals in Alaska Native Village areas were located in 

areas served by FDPIR. 

The share of individuals and households within walking and driving distances of an FDPIR 

outlet varied by tribal area type (tables 5a, b, and c). Within American Indian Tribal Areas, 19.5 

percent of low-income individuals, 19 percent of children, 13.9 percent of elderly, and 19.7 percent 

of households without a vehicle were within walking distance of an FDPIR outlet. Among these 

same AITA groups, the share within 1 to 10 miles ranged from 49 percent (elderly) to 52 percent 

(households without a vehicle). Corresponding shares of those groups who were more than 10 

miles distant from an FDPIR outlet varied from 28.3 miles for households without a vehicle to 

37.1 percent among the elderly.
21

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 5a

FDPIR access by share of population and population percentiles: American Indian Tribal Areas 

Population/household 

characteristic

Individuals/ 

Households

Walking 

distance Driving distance Population percentiles

1 mile or 

less

Between 

1 and 10 

miles

Between 

10 and 

20 miles

Greater 

than 20 

miles

20th 

percentile

50th 

percentile 

(median)

80th 

percentile

Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Miles

All individuals 768,195 17.4 51.1 22.2 9.3 1.3 5.3 13.7

Individuals by income:

 Low-income individuals 411,869 19.5 51.6 21.0 7.9 1.1 4.7 13.1

 Non-low-income individuals 356,327 15.0 50.5 23.6 10.9 1.6 5.8 14.3

Individuals by age:

 Children, age 17 or less 238,816 19.0 51.7 21.2 8.0 1.1 4.9 13.1

 Adults, age 18-64 443,415 17.2 51.2 22.3 9.3 1.3 5.3 13.8

 Elderly, age 65 or more 85,965 13.9 49.0 24.4 12.7 1.7 6.4 15.0

Households by vehicle access:

 Total households 303,435 14.9 49.5 23.0 12.5 1.6 6.2 15.2

 Households without vehicle 23,259 19.7 52.0 21.0 7.3 1.1 4.7 12.8

 Households with vehicle 280,176 14.5 49.3 23.2 13.0 1.6 6.3 15.5

Note: Number of indidivuals and households are for areas served by FDPIR only. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Table 5b

FDPIR access by share of population and population percentiles: Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas 

Population/household 

characteristic

Individuals/ 

Households

Walking 

distance Driving distance Population percentiles

1 mile or 

less

Between 

1 and 10 

miles

Between 

10 and 

20 miles

Greater 

than 20 

miles

20th 

percentile

50th 

percentile 

(median)

80th 

percentile

Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Miles

All individuals 1,400,643 6.0 41.8 37.9 14.2 3.5 10.6 18.2

Individuals by income:

 Low-income individuals 566,125 7.1 40.6 38.5 13.8 3.1 10.6 18.0

 Non-low-income individuals 834,518 5.3 0.0 37.5 14.5 3.8 10.6 18.4

Individuals by age:

 Children, age 17 or less 346,014 6.4 41.9 37.4 14.3 3.4 10.4 18.3

 Adults, age 18-64 836,270 5.9 42.1 38.0 14.0 3.6 10.6 18.2

 Elderly, age 65 or more 218,359 6.0 40.9 38.5 14.6 3.6 10.8 18.4

Households by vehicle access:

 Total households 627,970 6.2 41.0 38.6 14.3 3.7 10.7 18.3

 Households without vehicle 27,100 9.2 42.4 35.5 12.9 2.2 9.6 17.4

 Households with vehicle 600,869 6.0 40.9 38.7 14.3 3.8 10.8 18.3

Note: Number of indidivuals and households are for areas served by FDPIR, only.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
22

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Compared with American Indian Tribal Areas, the share of low-income Oklahoma Tribal Statistical 

Area individuals within walking distance of an FDPIR outlet was much smaller—7.1 percent versus 

19.5 percent (tables 5a and 5b). For other OTSA population groups, the share within walking distance 

was 6.4 percent among children, 6.0 percent among elderly, and 9.2 percent among households without 

a vehicle. The lower shares within walking distance to FDPIR outlets in OTSAs are in contrast to the 

corresponding higher shares of SNAP-authorized supermarkets within walking distance.

Another 40.6 percent of OTSA low-income individuals were within 1 to 10 miles of an FDPIR 

outlet—also fewer in comparison with these same subgroups in AITAs. A correspondingly greater 

share of individuals and households were more than 10 miles distant in OTSAs than in AITAs, 

including low-income individuals (53.3 percent), children (51.7), elderly (53.1 percent), and households without vehicle (48.4 percent).

By population percentiles, the median distance to an FDPIR outlet was more than double that for 

OTSAs compared with AITAs among low-income individuals (10.6 versus 4.7 miles). Similarly, at 

the 20th percentile, the OTSA population groups were typically twice the distance from an FDPIR 

compared with the corresponding AITA groups. Of the three tribal area types, OTSA population 

groups had the greatest distances from an FDPIR outlet at the 80th population percentile. 

Alaska Native Villagers had the highest share of all individuals within walking distance of an 

FDPIR outlet, or 33.8 percent. The share of low-income ANVSAs within walking distance was 

somewhat greater (39.4 percent) than that for all individuals, followed by children (37.3 percent) and 

the elderly (31.2 percent). ANVSA households without a vehicle experienced the largest share of all 

population groups (including other ANVSA groups as well as AITAs and OTSAs) within walking 

Table 5c

FDPIR access by share of population and population percentiles: Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas

Population/household 

characteristic

Individuals/ 

Households

Walking 

distance Driving distance Population percentiles

1 mile or 

less

Between 

1 and 10 

miles

Between 

10 and 

20 miles

Greater 

than 20 

miles

20th 

percentile

50th 

percentile 

(median)

80th 

percentile

Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Miles

All individuals 63,979 33.8 26.8 39.0 0.5 0.6 6.2 15.6

Individuals by income:

 Low-income individuals 25,485 39.4 34.5 25.9 0.1 0.4 2.8 14.2

 Non-low-income individuals 38,494 30.1 21.6 47.6 0.7 0.6 8.5 15.9

Individuals by age:

 Children, age 17 or less 18,537 37.3 29.4 32.9 0.4 0.4 4.0 15.3

 Adults, age 18-64 39,797 32.5 25.9 41.1 0.5 0.6 6.5 15.6

 Elderly, age 65 or more 5,645 31.2 24.4 43.8 0.7 0.6 6.8 16.1

Households by vehicle access:

 Total households 26,648 30.8 25.8 42.7 0.6 0.6 6.7 15.7

 Households without vehicle 6,725 43.0 32.1 24.7 0.2 0.4 2.2 11.2

 Households with vehicle 19,923 26.7 23.7 48.8 0.8 0.7 9.0 15.9

Note: Number of indidivuals and households are for areas served by FDPIR, only.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
23

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

distance to a FDPIR outlet (43.0 percent). The share of ANVSA populations more than 10 miles 

distant from one of the outlets were all less than their corresponding walking-distance shares, except 

among the elderly (44.5 percent). These results are consistent with areas of more concentrated populations, allowing FDPIR outlets to serve a larger share of individuals and households within walking 

distance and driving distances of 10 miles or less.

In Alaska Native Village areas, median distance to an FDPIR outlet varied, depending on the population group. Among those groups more likely to be eligible for FDPIR, median distances varied 

from 2.2 miles (households without a vehicle) to 6.8 miles (for the elderly). At the 20th percentile, those same ANVSA populations were all within walking distance of an FDPIR outlet, while 

distances at the 80th percentile ranged from 11.2 miles (for households without a vehicle) to 15.3 

miles (among children). 

Distance to the Nearest of Either SNAP-Authorized Supermarket 

or FDPIR Outlet

In tribal areas where both SNAP and FDPIR are available, eligible individuals may choose to participate in either program. A hypothetical outlet type, SNAP supermarket of FDPIR outlet, was created 

in which eligible individuals participate in the nearest of either outlet type. Applying these criteria, 

access to the nearest of either outlet type resulted in a greater share of individuals and households 

within walking distance, and a greater share between 1 and 10 miles’ driving distance, compared 

with those same shares for SNAP-authorized supermarkets and FDPIR outlets alone. 

In American Indian tribal areas, 29.7 percent of low-income individuals were within walking 

distance of either a SNAP-authorized supermarket or FDPIR outlet compared with a SNAPauthorized supermarket alone (17.1 percent) or an FDPIR outlet alone (19.5 percent) (table 6a, 4a, 

5a). Another 54.2 percent of low-income AITA individuals were within 1 to 10 miles of the nearest 

of either outlet, compared with 41.3 percent who were that close to a SNAP-authorized supermarket 

alone (table 4a) and 51.6 percent near an FDPIR outlet alone (table 5a). Among populations more 

likely to be eligible for SNAP or FDPIR, the share of AITA population groups within walking 

distance of either outlet type ranged from 27.7 percent of elderly to 30.5 percent of households 

without a vehicle. Similarly, the shares of those same population groups living more than 10 miles 

from the nearest of either outlet type varied from 15.6 percent of households without a vehicle to 17.8 

percent of the elderly. For the low-income AITA population percentile, the median distance to the 

nearest of either outlet type was 2.6 miles, compared with the distance to a SNAP-authorized supermarket alone (6.4 miles) or an FDPIR outlet alone (4.7 miles).

A greater share of Oklahoma tribal area low-income individuals were also within walking distance 

of either outlet type (32.1 percent) compared with a SNAP-authorized supermarket (28.9 percent) or 

an FDPIR outlet (7.1 percent) (tables 6b, 4b, 5b). Another 55.3 percent of OTSA low-income individuals were between 1 to 10 miles of the nearest of either outlet type—slightly lower than the distance 

from a SNAP-authorized supermarket alone (56.7 percent) but greater than to an FDPIR outlet alone 

(40.6 percent). Among populations more likely to be eligible for SNAP or FDPIR, the share of individuals within walking distance of either outlet type ranged from 27.5 percent of OTSA elderly individuals to 41.4 percent of households without a vehicle. The shares of the same population groups 

and households more than 10 miles from either outlet type varied from 10.1 percent of households 

without a vehicle to 12.9 percent of the elderly. By low-income population percentiles, the median 

distance to the nearest of either outlet type was 2.7 miles, compared with the median distance from a 

SNAP-authorized supermarket alone (3.1 miles) or an FDPIR outlet alone (10.6 miles).
24

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Among the 19 Alaska Native Village areas served by FDPIR, the share of low-income individuals 

within walking distance of either a SNAP or an FDPIR outlet was much greater (64.2 percent) 

compared with a SNAP-authorized supermarket, alone (21 percent) or an FDPIR outlet, alone 

(39.4 percent) (table 6c, 4c, 5c). Comparing access to these same outlet types by driving distance, 

33.1 percent of low-income ANVSA individuals were between 1 and 10 miles of either a SNAPauthorized supermarket or an FDPIR outlet. A slightly larger share lived a similar distance from 

a SNAP-authorized supermarket alone (39.1 percent), while 34.5 percent were within the same 

distance from an FDPIR outlet. ANVSAs also had the smallest share of populations likely to be 

eligible for SNAP and FDPIR who were living more than 10 miles driving distance from either 

outlet type, ranging from 1.5 percent of the elderly to 2.8 percent of households without a vehicle. 

The median distance for ANVSA low-income individuals by the nearest outlet of either type was 0.6 

miles, compared with the median distance to a SNAP-authorized supermarket alone (5.8 miles) or 

an FDPIR outlet alone (2.8 miles).

Table 6a

SNAP supermarket or FDPIR outlet access by share of population and population percentiles: 

American Indian Tribal Areas

Population/household 

characteristic

Individuals/ 

Households

Walking 

distance Driving distance Population percentiles

1 mile or 

less

Between 

1 and 10 

miles

Between 

10 and 

20 miles

Greater 

than 20 

miles

20th 

percentile

50th 

percentile 

(median)

80th 

percentile

Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Miles

All individuals 768,195 28.9 55.2 13.9 2.0 0.7 2.6 8.4

Individuals by income:

 Low-income individuals 411,869 29.7 54.2 14.1 2.0 0.7 2.6 8.4

 Non-low-income individuals 356,327 28.0 56.3 13.7 2.0 0.7 2.7 8.3

Individuals by age:

 Children, age 17 or less 238,816 29.6 54.7 13.9 1.9 0.7 2.5 8.2

 Adults, age 18-64 443,415 28.8 55.6 13.7 2.0 0.7 2.6 8.2

 Elderly, age 65 or more 85,965 27.7 54.5 15.4 2.4 0.7 2.9 9.1

Households by vehicle access:

 Total households 303,435 27.1 54.8 15.4 2.7 0.7 3.1 9.6

 Households without vehicle 23,259 30.5 53.9 14.3 1.3 0.7 2.6 8.4

 Households with vehicle 280,176 26.8 54.9 15.5 2.8 0.7 3.1 9.7

Note: Number of individuals and households are for areas served by FDPIR only. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
25

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 6b

SNAP supermarket or FDPIR outlet access by share of population and population percentiles: 

Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas

Population/household 

characteristic

Individuals/ 

Households

Walking 

distance Driving distance Population percentiles

1 mile or 

less

Between 

1 and 10 

miles

Between 

10 and 

20 miles

Greater 

than 20 

miles

20th 

percentile

50th 

percentile 

(median)

80th 

percentile

Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Miles

All individuals 1,400,643 27.4 60.3 12.0 0.3 0.7 3.2 8.1

Individuals by income:

 Low-income individuals 566,125 32.1 55.3 12.3 0.3 0.7 2.7 8.1

 Non-low-income individuals 834,518 24.2 63.6 11.9 0.3 0.9 3.5 8.1

Individuals by age:

 Children, age 17 or less 346,014 28.3 59.6 11.9 0.3 0.7 3.1 8.1

 Adults, age 18-64 836,270 27.0 60.7 12.0 0.3 0.7 3.2 8.1

 Elderly, age 65 or more 218,359 27.5 59.6 12.5 0.4 0.7 3.2 8.3

Households by vehicle access:

 Total households 627,970 27.8 59.5 12.4 0.4 0.7 3.4 8.4

 Households without vehicle 27,100 41.4 48.4 9.8 0.3 0.6 1.6 6.9

 Households with vehicle 600,869 27.1 60.0 12.5 0.4 0.7 3.5 8.4

Note: Number of individuals and households are for areas served by FDPIR only. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Table 6c

SNAP supermarket or FDPIR outlet access by share of population and population percentiles: 

Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas

Population/household 

characteristic

Individuals/ 

Households

Walking 

distance Driving distance Population percentiles

1 mile or 

less

Between 

1 and 10 

miles

Between 

10 and 

20 miles

Greater 

than 20 

miles

20th 

percentile

50th 

percentile 

(median)

80th 

percentile

Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Miles

All individuals 63,979 63.0 35.2 1.8 0.0 0.3 0.6 2.8

Individuals by income:

 Low-income individuals 25,485 64.2 33.1 2.6 0.0 0.3 0.6 3.1

 Non-low-income individuals 38,494 62.1 36.6 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 2.6

Individuals by age:

 Children, age 17 or less 18,537 62.9 34.9 2.2 0.0 0.3 0.7 2.9

 Adults, age 18-64 39,797 62.6 35.7 1.7 0.0 0.3 0.6 2.8

 Elderly, age 65 or more 5,645 65.7 32.8 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 2.4

Households by vehicle access:

 Total households 26,648 62.3 35.3 2.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 3.1

 Households without vehicle 6,725 64.1 33.2 2.8 0.0 0.3 0.6 2.8

 Households with vehicle 19,923 61.7 36.0 2.2 0.1 0.3 0.6 3.1

Note: Number of individuals and households are for areas served by FDPIR only. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
26

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Individual Tribal Area Access Measures

Individual tribal access measures are available on the Economic Research Website (see first page 

of this report for a link). The tables provide measures by share of population within walking and 

driving distance and by population percentiles for the nearest supermarket, nearest SNAP-authorized 

supermarket and FDPIR outlet, and the nearest of either a SNAP-authorized supermarket or an 

FDPIR outlet.

22 In total, we report individual access measures for 545 tribal areas, which include 

American Indian Tribal Areas, Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas, and Alaska Native Village 

Statistical Areas. 

Individual tribal measures are critically important for the identification of extremely low access 

areas. In contrast, summary tables of access mask the variation in distance measures observed in 

the individual tribal measures due to the use of population weighting. For example, among Alaska 

Native Village tribal areas, 140 were found to be more than 20 miles from the nearest supermarket 

measured at the 50th population percentile. Yet when taken together, distance to the nearest 

supermarket at the median population percentile for all ANVSAs was 2.8 miles. Individual tribal 

access measures help to identify underserved populations where policymakers and nutrition and 

health advocates may focus initiatives to improve access to healthful, affordable food sources. 

22Access measures for FDPIR sites and the closest SNAP supermarket or FDPIR site are limited to those tribal areas 

authorized for FDPIR.
27

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conclusions

Tribal area individuals and households are more likely to experience much lower levels of access to 

healthful, affordable food than most Americans. Comparing tribal access measures with national 

access measures, we found large disparities in the share of populations that are greater than 1 mile 

from the nearest supermarket. For example, only 36.4 percent of all U.S. low-income individuals 

were more than 1 mile from a supermarket, compared with 76.8 percent of low-income individuals 

in American Indian tribal areas and 68.2 percent of Oklahoma tribal areas. The greatest disparity 

between national and tribal areas was among households without a vehicle, where the majority in 

tribal areas was farther than 1 mile from a supermarket. As a result, many tribal individuals and 

households may rely more on small grocery stores, convenience stores, general stores, and even fastfood outlets as primary food sources. While local agriculture and farmers and growers markets may 

provide healthful food choices, including traditional Native American foods, the extent to which 

tribal populations have access to these alternative sources is not well documented. 

Because of the higher prevalence of poverty among tribal area individuals relative to all Americans, 

the analysis also focused on the access of low-income and other vulnerable populations to SNAPauthorized supermarkets and FDPIR outlets. Compared with all supermarkets, the shares of lowincome tribal individuals within walking distance of a SNAP-authorized supermarket were often 

found to be lower and driving distance shares higher—a finding that adversely affects those who 

depend on SNAP benefits. 

The results are mixed when comparing low-income individuals’ access to SNAP-authorized supermarkets and FDPIR outlets. Combining walking distance shares with driving distance shares 

between 1 and 10 miles, the share of low-income individuals’ access to FDPIR outlets in American 

Indian tribal areas (71.1 percent) and Alaska Native Village tribal areas (73.9 percent) were greater 

than the same shares corresponding to SNAP-authorized supermarkets. In contrast, tribal areas in 

Oklahoma had lower combined shares for FDPIR outlets and higher shares for SNAP-authorized 

supermarkets. Within a tribal area, differences in access to each outlet type may play a role in determining whether to participate in SNAP or FDPIR. 

To better understand the potential for SNAP and FDPIR to enhance access to healthful food, we 

took advantage of the provision that allows eligible individuals to select participation in either 

program where both are available. The selection of SNAP or FDPIR participation according to 

the nearest outlet distance of either resulted in much higher shares of individuals and households 

within walking distance compared with the shares for SNAP-authorized supermarkets and FDPIR 

outlets alone. 

Overall, the findings of limited access to healthful, affordable food support the need for more 

comprehensive information and research to document the specific food and outlet choices of tribal 

area individuals and households. Such data would allow researchers and policymakers to better 

understand the importance of food access to the nutritional and health outcomes of American Indian 

and Alaska Native tribal area populations.
28

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Barnes, P., P. F. Adams, and E. Powell-Griner. 2010. “Health Characteristics of the American Indian 

or Alaska Native Adult Population: United States, 2004–2008,” National Health Statistics 

Reports, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. 

Dept. of Health and Human Services.

Broussard, B., J. Sugarman, K. Bachman-Carter, K. Booth, L. Stephenson, K. Strauss, and D. 

Gohdes. 1995. “Toward Comprehensive Obesity Prevention Programs in Native American 

Communities,” Obesity: A Research Journal (3):S2:289–97, September. http://onlinelibrary.

wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1550-8528.1995.tb00476.x/pdf

Finegold, K., N. Pindus, D. Levy, T. Tannehill, and W. Hillabrant. 2009. Tribal Food Assistance: The 

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP). The Urban Institute and Support Services International, Inc.

Finegold, K., N. Pindus, L. Wherry, S. Nelson, T. Triplett, and R. Capps. 2005. Background Report 

on the Use and Impact of Food Assistance Programs on Indian Reservations. Contractor and 

Cooperator Report No. 4, U.S. Department of Agriculture and The Urban Institute.

Gittelsohn, J., and S. Sharma. 2009. “Physical, Consumer, and Social Aspects of Measuring the 

Food Environment Among Diverse Low-Income Populations,” American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine 36:S161-65. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19285208

Halpern, P. 2007. Obesity and American Indians/Alaska Natives. U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. http://aspe.hhs.

gov/hsp/07/AI-AN-obesity/report.pdf

Indian Health Service. 2001. HIS Report to Congress: Obesity Prevention and Control for American 

Indians and Alaska Natives. http://www.ihs.gov/hpdp/documents/obesitypreventionreport.doc

Jernigan, V.B.B., Eva Garroutte, Elizabeth Krantz, and Dedra Buchwald. 2013. “Food insecurity 

and obesity among American Indians and Alaska Natives and Whites in California,” Journal of 

Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 8(4):58-71. November. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1

0.1080/19320248.2013.816987?journalCode=when20#.U6mlwvldX6c 

Jernigan, V.B., A.L. Salvatore, D.M. Styne, and M. Winkleby. 2012. “Addressing food insecurity in 

a Native American reservation using community-based participatory research,” Health Education 

Research 27:645-55. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19320248.2013.816987?journal

Code=when20#.U6mlwvldX6c

O’Connell, M., D. Buchwald, and G. Duncan. 2011. “Food access and cost in American Indian 

communities in Washington State,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association 111(9):1375-79. 

September. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21872701 

Story, M., Strauss, K., Zephier, E., Broussard, B. 1998. Nutritional concerns in American Indian 

and Alaska Native children: Transitions and future directions. Journal of the American Dietetic 

Association 98(2)170-77.
29

Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131

Economic Research Service/USDA

Ver Ploeg, M., V. Breneman, P. Dutko, R. Williams, S. Snyder, C. Dicken, and P. Kaufman. 2012. 

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets 

Using 2010 Data. ERR-143, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

Ver Ploeg, M., V. Breneman, T. Farrigan, K. Hamrick, D. Hopkins, P. Kaufman, B. Lin, M. Nord, 

T. Smith, R. Williams, K. Kinnison, C. Olander, A. Singh, and E. Tuckermanty. 2009. Access 

to Affordable and Nutritious Food—Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their 

Consequences: Report to Congress. Administrative Publication No. (AP-036). Economic 

Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.