The Mississippi Small Business and Grocer Investment Act

January 2015
The Mississippi Small Business and Grocer Investment Act
A Closer Look at the Policies and Issues associated with Making Investments
in Underserved Communities
in the State of Mississippi
An Overview for Decision-Makers
Mississippi State Research Team

Judith Phillips, M.B.A., ABD, Research Analyst
Kayla Lee-Hopkins, M.P.P.A.
John Harper, M.P.P.A.
Dallas Breen, Ph.D., Assistant Director
Philip (Eddie) French, Ph.D., Director
Mississippi State University Graduate Students
Supported by Funding from The Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi
The Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi provided funding to the Stennis Institute of Government and Community
Development at Mississippi State University to complete the scope of work presented in this study; this funding is used by
the Stennis Institute to provide graduate students with tuition and graduate student stipends, thereby enabling them to
pursue graduate level course work at Mississippi State University. These students make a significant and important
contribution to all research conducted by the Stennis Institute.
John Harper is from Braxton, Mississippi and graduated from Mendenhall High School in
2007. He earned an associate’s degree in Business Administration from Copiah‐Lincoln
Community College before transferring to Mississippi State University where he received a
bachelor’s degree in Political Science. He completed his master’s degree in Public Policy and
Administration program in 2013. John is currently pursuing a doctorate degree in Higher
Education Leadership to prepare for a career in administration at a college or university.

Kayla Lee‐Hopkins is originally from Brandon, MS and graduated from Northwest Rankin High school in
2007. She completed a bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Mississippi State University
and graduated summa cum laude. Kayla completed her master’s degree in Public Policy and
Administration in 2013. She currently works as a Graduate Research Assistant for the
Stennis Institute of Government. Previously, she was a student intern for the Department of
Veterans Affairs in Jackson, MS. Kayla is currently working on completing a doctoral degree at
Mississippi State University and hopes to continue conducting research related to community
and economic development at the state and local level in the future.

Jacorius Liner is from Rosedale, MS. He graduated from West Bolivar High School in
2009 and attended Mississippi University for Women (MUW) where he earned a bachelor’s
degree in Political Science with a minor in Legal Studies. While at MUW, Jacorius was on the
President’s List and the Dean’s List. Jacorius completed his M.P.P.A. in 2014 and is currently
pursuing a doctoral degree at Mississippi State University.

Adriene Davis is originally from Fort Knox, Kentucky. He graduated from Avon High School
in Avon, IN and then received his bachelor’s degree in Sociology at Indiana University. Adriene
received his master’s degree from the University of Memphis. While attending the University
of Memphis, he was inducted into Alpha Kappa Delta, the sociology honors society. Adriene
began his work as a graduate student assistant at the Stennis Institute in the fall of 2013.
Adriene is currently a sociology doctoral student at Mississippi State University and intends to
pursue a career as a university professor upon completion of his PhD.

The Mississippi Small Business and Grocer Investment Act (H.B. 1328)

Executive Summary
In 2014, the Mississippi Legislature passed, and Governor Phil Bryant signed, House Bill 1328;
this bill is entitled the “Small Business and Grocer Investment Act.” In recognition of the need
to increase access to healthy and nutritious food, the purpose of the Mississippi “Small Business
and Grocer Investment Act” is to provide grants, loans, and other incentives to promote access
to healthy foods in Mississippi’s underserved communities. Investments made to increase
access to healthy and affordable food options such as meat and poultry, fresh fruits and
vegetables, and milk and dairy products in underserved communities have the potential to
improve community health, reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, promote
community revitalization, and create new jobs. At the request of the Partnership for a Healthy
Mississippi, a research team at the Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State
University examined the issues associated with the lack of access to healthy food, the policy
initiatives that have been implemented in other states to incentivize investments in
underserved communities, and the potential economic and fiscal impact of investments in
Mississippi’s underserved communities that might be associated with a state healthy food
financing initiative; the findings of this analysis are presented in this study.
Driven by the obesity epidemic in the United States, policies that reduce obesity, improve
health outcomes, and contain the cost of obesity‐related healthcare have received increasing
attention. A large body of scientific and public policy research has found that lack of access to
healthy food may be a contributing factor to the high prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and
related health problems that are found in the disadvantaged populations that live in
underserved communities. In 2010, the federal government introduced the “Healthy Food
Financing Initiative” to provide funding for programs designed to increase the supply of healthy
foods in underserved communities. The Healthy Food Financing Initiative is a multi‐year,
interagency collaboration that provides funding and incentives from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of
the Treasury to support investments and programs in eligible census tracts throughout the
United States.
This study assumes that a Mississippi healthy food financing initiative will provide state funding
using taxpayer dollars to incentivize investment in underserved communities in the state of
Mississippi; these investments are assumed to use a mix of public and private funding to offset
the barriers to entry for food outlets in communities where financing needs cannot be met by
conventional financial institutions. Although there are numerous underserved communities
throughout the state of Mississippi, census tracts that are eligible for federal grants, loans, and
incentives under the federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative will enable the state of
Mississippi to significantly leverage and minimize the share of state funding that may be
associated with the Mississippi Small Business and Grocer Investment Act; for this reason, HFFI
A Closer Look at Underserved Communities in Mississippi


eligible census tracts are specifically delineated in this study. The development of a Mississippi
healthy food financing initiative will require programs that are designed to be flexible to assure
that the food retailing format is appropriate to the specific needs of the market within each
underserved community. The most common business retail formats used to increase access to
healthy food within underserved communities are investments in supermarkets, grocery stores,
farmers’ markets, food cooperatives, or food hubs. The economic, market, and consumer
profiles that exist within each underserved community will require appropriately designed retail
formats and each retail format will have unique capital requirements, different sources of
capital investment, and may use different investment structures; although policies may be
adopted to enable making these investments in any geographic location in the state of
Mississippi, strategically prioritizing investments in federal HFFI qualifying census tracts will
enable multiple sources of funding to be leveraged to capitalize investments in Mississippi’s
underserved communities. These issues are further discussed in the Policies and Intervention
Strategies in Underserved Communities section of this report (beginning on page 58).
A comprehensive analysis of the 659 census tracts in 72 counties within the state of Mississippi
that are designated as federal HFFI qualifying census tracts to receive funding from the federal
Healthy Food Financing Initiative was beyond the scope of this study. The Stennis Research
Team selected four counties for inclusion in this study: Lowndes County, Pearl River County,
Sunflower County, and Washington County. A socioeconomic profile for all census tracts within
each of these four counties is included in this study; importantly, all HFFI qualifying census
tracts examined in this study are also eligible to receive federal New Market Tax Credits, as well
as other federal funding, to leverage investments made in Mississippi’s underserved
communities. The total population of these four counties was 194,453. The study found that
within these four counties, there were a total of 102,089 people living in HFFI qualifying census
tracts — this represented 52.5 percent of the total population of the four counties. There were
a total of 49,472 children 17 years or younger living in the four counties; 27,160 of these
children (54.9 percent) lived in HFFI qualifying census tracts. Of the 25,626 people age 65 and
older living in the four counties, 12,200 (47.6 percent) lived in HFFI qualifying census tracts.
The total female population of the four counties that were examined in this study was 100,236,
representing 51.5 percent of the total population across the four counties; of the total female
population in the four counties, 53.7 percent lived in HFFI qualifying census tracts. Female
households with children under 18 with no husband present were also found to be
disproportionately represented in HFFI qualifying census tracts; across the four counties, there
were a total of 8,192 female households with children under 18 with no husband present; 70.6
percent of these households were located in HFFI qualifying census tracts. Although the
magnitude of this problem exhibited variation within each county, this research found that HFFI
qualifying census tracts generally exhibit a higher percentage of female households with
children under 18 with no husband present as compared to other census tracts within each


county. Of particular concern is the extraordinarily high poverty level for female households
with children and no husband present; at the county level, poverty rates for these households
ranged from a low of 56.6 percent to a high of 66.7 percent. The poverty level for female
households with children and no husband present was found to be higher within the majority
of the HFFI qualifying census tracts as compared to the county average poverty rate for these
households; in many HFFI qualifying census tracts that were examined during this study, the
poverty rate for female households with children and no husband present was found to exceed
80 percent.
Another indicator of poverty is a household income of less than $15,000. In the state of
Mississippi, 19.5 percent of households have incomes of less than $15,000. There were 16,763
households with a household income of less than $15,000 in the four counties that were
included in this study, representing 23.9 percent of all households in the four counties; 66.9
percent of all households (11,221 households) with incomes of less than $15,000 were found to
live in HFFI qualifying census tracts. This pattern was found to be generally consistent for each
county that was included in this study. When compared to other census tracts within each of
the four counties examined, HFFI qualifying census tracts were found to be characterized as
exhibiting relatively lower educational attainment levels, higher unemployment rates, lower
income, and higher poverty. For those who were employed, median income from employment
tended to be lower in HFFI qualifying census tracts; for those who were retired, retirement
income tended to be lower in HFFI qualifying census tracts; for those who were receiving
income from Social Security, Social Security income tended to be lower in HFFI qualifying
census tracts. These findings reinforce the delineation of federal HFFI qualifying census tracts
as a metric to identify underserved communities in the state of Mississippi.
Low educational attainment, unemployment, low‐income, and poverty walk hand‐in‐hand with
food insecurity, poor nutrition, obesity, and obesity‐related healthcare costs. Scientific
research has demonstrated the relationship between socioeconomic status and obesity; the
prevalence of obesity is disproportionately higher among people with limited resources.
Common morbidities associated with obesity include diabetes, coronary heart disease,
hypertension, and stroke; the cost of obesity and the treatment of obesity related illnesses has
grown exponentially. The economic cost of obesity includes direct medical costs which include
diagnosis, treatment, and drug therapies; the indirect cost of obesity includes the value of lost
work, decreased productivity at work, and absenteeism. From a public policy perspective,
understanding the societal cost and economic burden of obesity‐related healthcare costs can
be valuable in the decision‐making process when evaluating the cost and benefit of obesity‐
related cost containment policies. With an adult obesity rate of 35.1 percent in 2013,
Mississippi and West Virginia have the highest obesity rates in the United States. Although
there is no reliable data for the obesity rate at the census tract level, the socioeconomic profile
of HFFI qualifying census tracts in Mississippi is indicative of obesity rates that are even higher


than 35.1 percent; for example, the obesity rate for females in Mississippi is 36.1 percent, the
obesity rate for those with less than a high school diploma is 38.7 percent in Mississippi, and
among those with a household income of less than $15,000, the obesity rate in Mississippi is
41.2 percent. The relatively high proportion of females, individuals with low educational
attainment levels, and households with incomes of less than $15,000 that were found in HFFI
qualifying census tracts reinforces the assumption that obesity rates and obesity‐related
healthcare costs tend to be higher in HFFI qualifying census tracts.
The most recently available statistics from the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid indicate that the average annual growth rate in the cost of healthcare in the state
of Mississippi is outpacing the average annual growth rate of the cost of healthcare in the
United States; in Mississippi, the per capita healthcare spending for those with publically
funded healthcare is more than twice that of those with private healthcare insurance. Within
the context of the anticipated growth in the cost of healthcare, population growth, a shift from
private insurance to public insurance, and related enrollment increases in public health
insurance programs, the burden of these increasing costs and the obesity‐related cost of
healthcare on the state of Mississippi is unsustainable.
In the state of Mississippi, approximately 35.7 percent of the civilian non‐institutionalized
population relies upon publically funded health care insurance and approximately 17.5 percent
of the population has no healthcare insurance. Within the HFFI census tracts in the four
counties that were the focus of this study, 44.1 percent of the population relied upon public
health insurance and 22.8 percent of the population had no health care insurance; within these
HFFI census tracts, an estimated 42,737 people relied upon public health insurance coverage
and 22,100 people had no health insurance coverage. To provide guidelines for decision‐
makers to evaluate public investment in underserved communities, the Stennis Research Team
developed two relatively conservative estimates of the obesity‐related healthcare cost
associated with each HFFI census tract; these more detailed findings are contained in the body
of this study. Across all HFFI census tracts that were examined in this study, the annual obesity‐
related healthcare cost associated with those who had public insurance coverage was
estimated to range between $10,310,712 and $32,761,240.
In addition to the potential obesity‐related healthcare cost reduction that may be realized by
increasing access to healthy foods, investments in underserved communities will create
economic and fiscal benefits. The Stennis Research Team used econometric input‐output
modeling to estimate the economic and fiscal impact of investments in the construction or
renovation of supermarkets, grocery stores, and the purchase of equipment or fixtures by
existing stores to increase the supply of healthy foods in Mississippi’s underserved
communities. The actual economic and fiscal impact of investments made in Mississippi’s
underserved communities will be determined by multiple factors that include, but are not
limited to: the site selected (which will determine the size of the market served), the amount


and type of construction or renovation investment, the sales associated with the ongoing
operations of the business, management, and other micro‐ and macro‐economic factors that
were unknown at the time of this study. To address this information gap, the Stennis Research
Team used secondary data derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure
Survey and the Environmental Systems Research Institute to develop estimates of consumer
spending on food‐at‐home and the food retail sales gap for each HFFI census tract in the four
counties examined in this study. Alternative scenarios of investments were then modeled for
each of the four counties using econometric input‐output analysis; the findings of this research
are presented in the narrative for each county.
Within the context of each investment being unique, the Stennis Research Team modeled three
alternative investment scenarios at the state level to provide decision‐makers with a
generalized estimate of the economic and fiscal impact that may be associated with potential
investments in Mississippi’s underserved communities. Although job creation in the state of
Mississippi is an important potential benefit that may be associated with investments made in
Mississippi’s underserved communities, an important consideration for decision‐makers is the
potential offsetting tax revenue that may be recaptured as a result of the investment of public
funds; specifically, potential revenue to state government in the form of sales tax, individual
income tax, and corporate income tax. The econometric input‐output models indicate that an
investment of $6,570,000 in a 45,000 square foot supermarket with anticipated annual sales of
$5,401,464 would have the economic impact of creating 92.5 full‐time equivalent jobs during
the construction phase of the project and would support approximately 35.1 full‐time
equivalent jobs during the ongoing operations of business activities. The fiscal impact of this
investment would be to generate approximately $219,181 in combined sales tax, personal
income tax, and corporate income tax during the construction phase of project, and an
additional $162,140 annually of combined sales tax, personal income tax, and corporate income
tax revenue would be associated with the ongoing operations of the business, upon completion
of construction activities. Over a 10‐year period, the gross fiscal impact of this investment
would be approximately $1,840,581 in tax revenues accruing to the benefit of the state of
Mississippi, assuming no sales tax diversions to a municipality, no labor displacement, or
substitution effects are associated with the investment. A change in the dollar amount of the
initial investment in construction or renovation or a change in the projected sales associated
with the ongoing operations of the business will also change the economic and fiscal impact of
any state healthy food financing initiative investment made in an underserved community in
the state of Mississippi. For example, an initial construction investment of $2,920,000 in a
20,000 square foot grocery store with projected annual sales of $2,000,000 modeled at the
state level would have a projected fiscal impact of $97,414 in combined sales tax, personal
income tax, and corporate income tax during the construction phase of the project, and an
annual fiscal impact of $60,025 in combined sales tax, personal income tax, and corporate
income tax during the ongoing operations of the business. Over a 10‐year period, the gross


fiscal impact of this investment would be approximately $697,250 in tax revenues accruing to
the benefit of the state of Mississippi, assuming no sales tax diversions to a municipality, no
labor displacement, or substitution effects are associated with the investment. This smaller
investment could be anticipated to create approximately 41.1 full‐time equivalent jobs during
the construction phase of the project, and an additional 13 full‐time equivalent jobs would be
associated with ongoing business operations.
The permanent job creation that is associated with the ongoing business operations that result
from investments made in Mississippi’s underserved communities represents a significant
employment and job‐training opportunity in census tracts characterized by high unemployment
and low educational attainment; most supermarket and grocery store jobs are entry‐level
positions and workers are frequently trained on‐the‐job; therefore these types of employment
opportunities are well‐matched with the educational and job skills profile that was found to
exist within the HFFI census tracts that were examined in this study. Many supermarkets and
independent grocers provide employee benefits that include healthcare insurance, retirement
programs, and retirement savings plans that would improve the negative income conditions
that were found to exist within the majority of the HFFI qualifying census tracts and would
further reduce the public burden of obesity‐related healthcare costs. Investments in
Mississippi’s underserved communities also represent an opportunity for economic
revitalization in these communities by creating an anchor that has the potential to increase
retail traffic and attract other services and retail stores into the area.
State healthy food financing initiatives are designed to provide initial seed money or tax
incentives to support public‐private programs that aggregate capital from multiple sources to
include banks, philanthropic organizations, and other investors to create loan pools that may be
further leveraged by equity investment through the use of federal New Market Tax Credits and
other sources of federal funding available through the Healthy Food Financing Initiative. For
example, healthy food financing models may use a combination of grant funding, debt capital,
loan guarantees, tax‐exempt bond financing, and New Market Tax Credits to fund investments
in HFFI qualifying census tracts. A healthy food retail strategy may also focus on farmers’
markets; this strategy might include supporting the creation of new farmers’ markets in
underserved communities, increasing the capacity of existing farmers’ markets by providing
refrigeration equipment that would expand the types of products available (i.e. eggs, poultry,
pork, beef, or lamb), providing more permanent structures to enable the farmers’ market to
increase either the scope of product offerings or its frequency of services, or assuring that all
farmers’ markets are able to accept SNAP payments — each strategy would require different
levels of investment, and in the case of farmers’ markets or food hubs, multiple additional
sources of capital may be available from grants or low‐interest loans from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. As a result, the state portion of funding for a healthy food financing initiative to
attract investment into underserved communities is anticipated to be significantly leveraged by


private capital. Using the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative as a model, the Stennis
Research Team assumed that the state share of a $6,570,000 investment in a 45,000 square
foot supermarket would be approximately $1,194,545; the fiscal impact of this investment
would be anticipated to yield sufficient sales tax, personal income tax, and corporate income
tax revenues to provide a pay‐back of this investment within approximately six years. This
investment recapture period assumes that the state share of the investment is able to be
leveraged with additional sources of capital and does not include potential savings associated
with any reduction in obesity‐related healthcare costs that may result from increased access to
affordable, healthy foods in Mississippi’s underserved communities.
To further explore the potential economic and fiscal impacts that may be associated with the
Mississippi “Small Business and Grocer Investment Act,” this study prioritized the analysis of
making investments in supermarkets and grocery stores in census tracts in Mississippi that
qualify for additional funding under the federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI
qualifying census tracts). Although not fully explored in this study, the Stennis Research Team
found that investment in value‐added agricultural policies represent a significant economic
development opportunity for the state of Mississippi. Mississippians spend an estimated
$821,950,189 on fruits and vegetables; in fiscal year 2013, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) benefits in the state of Mississippi were $993,077,956; and in 2013, National
School Lunch Program payments were $197,659,575 in Mississippi. Direct‐to‐consumer
agricultural programs that enable agricultural producers in the state to capture a greater share
of the farm‐to‐retail spread should be considered an important component of a Mississippi
healthy food financing initiative.
This study focused on the potential economic and fiscal impact of investments directly related
to Mississippi’s “Small Business and Grocer Investment Act;” fund management, the ability to
leverage equity and debt investment, prevailing interest rates, debt service, store management,
site selection, and multiple micro‐ and macro‐economic factors that impact the business
climate and the success of any business operation will also determine the magnitude of the
economic and fiscal impact that the program will have in the state of Mississippi. Food retail
investments in underserved communities should not be “stand‐alone” strategies, they must be
integrated with comprehensive community‐based obesity‐prevention initiatives and education
programs as a major focus of healthcare cost‐containment policies. To ensure success, a wide
range of partners, including health and social service providers, schools, businesses, economic
and community developers, and community‐based organizations must be integrated with
Mississippi healthy food financing policy initiatives. As a component of a comprehensive
community‐based obesity‐prevention initiative, investments made in Mississippi’s underserved
communities to increase access to affordable, healthy foods present a significant opportunity to
create jobs for local residents, increase economic activity, offset the economic cost of obesity,
and create healthier communities in the state of Mississippi.


Studies conducted by the Stennis Institute of Government and Community Development at
Mississippi State University are intended to inform the public policy decision‐making process;
the Stennis Institute does not advocate for specific public policies and this study is not intended
to represent a policy recommendation.

Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 11
General and Limiting Conditions .................................................................................................. 13
About the Economic Impact Methodology used in this Study ..................................................... 15
Access to Healthy Food in Underserved Communities................................................................. 21
Underserved Communities and Health .................................................................................... 25
The Health Effects of Obesity ................................................................................................... 27
Obesity among Children ........................................................................................................... 32
Childhood Obesity and Academic Outcomes ........................................................................... 34
The Economic Cost of Obesity .................................................................................................. 35
The Economic Cost of Childhood Obesity ................................................................................. 49
Food Insecurity .............................................................................................................................. 53
Food Insecurity and Health ....................................................................................................... 55
Policies and Intervention Strategies in Underserved Communities ............................................. 58
Value Added Agriculture ........................................................................................................... 65
The Local Food Movement ................................................................................................... 67
Value Added Food Centers (Agribusiness Incubators) ......................................................... 69
Community Supported Agriculture ....................................................................................... 70
Farmers’ Markets .................................................................................................................. 71
Farm to Table Centers and Food Hubs ................................................................................. 73
Farm to School Programs ...................................................................................................... 75
Scaling Up Local Food ........................................................................................................... 75
Direct‐to‐Consumer Sales in the United States .................................................................... 77
Direct‐to‐Consumer Sales in Mississippi ............................................................................... 79
The Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry .......................................................................... 89
Underserved Census Tracts in Four Mississippi Counties............................................................. 99
Lowndes County, Mississippi ...................................................................................................... 103
Eligible Healthy Food Financing Initiative Census Tracts in Lowndes County ........................ 105
Overview of Lowndes County, Mississippi .............................................................................. 107
i


Lowndes County Income by Source ........................................................................................ 117
Food Insecurity in Lowndes County ........................................................................................ 120
The Lowndes County Workforce ............................................................................................ 123
Health Care Insurance in Lowndes County ............................................................................. 127
The Economic Impact of Investments in Lowndes County ..................................................... 129
The Economic Impact of a Supermarket Investment in Lowndes County.......................... 131
The Economic Impact of a Grocery Store Investment in Lowndes County ........................ 133
Pearl River County, Mississippi ................................................................................................... 135
Eligible Healthy Food Financing Initiative Census Tracts in Pearl River County ..................... 137
Overview of Pearl River County .............................................................................................. 139
Food Insecurity in Pearl River County ..................................................................................... 145
Pearl River County Income by Source ..................................................................................... 149
The Pearl River County Workforce ......................................................................................... 153
Health Care Insurance in Pearl River County .......................................................................... 156
The Economic Impact of Investments in Pearl River County .................................................. 159
The Economic Impact of a Supermarket Investment in Pearl River County ...................... 161
The Economic Impact of a Grocery Store Investment in Pearl River County ..................... 163
Investments in Store Renovations, Expansion, and Equipment Purchases in Pearl River
County ................................................................................................................................. 165
Sunflower County, Mississippi .................................................................................................... 167
Eligible Healthy Food Financing Initiative Census Tracts in Sunflower County ...................... 169
Overview of Sunflower County ............................................................................................... 171
Food Insecurity in Sunflower County ...................................................................................... 177
Sunflower County Income by Source ...................................................................................... 179
The Sunflower County Workforce .......................................................................................... 183
Health Care Insurance in Sunflower County ........................................................................... 187
The Economic Impact of Investments in Sunflower County ................................................... 189
The Economic Impact of a Supermarket Investment in a Sunflower County ..................... 191
The Economic Impact of a Grocery Store Investment in Sunflower County ...................... 193
Washington County, Mississippi ................................................................................................. 195
ii


Eligible Healthy Food Financing Initiative Census Tracts in Washington County ................... 197
Overview of Washington County, Mississippi ........................................................................ 201
Food Insecurity in Washington County ................................................................................... 209
Washington County Income by Source ................................................................................... 211
The Washington County Workforce ....................................................................................... 215
Health Care Insurance in Washington County ........................................................................ 219
The Economic Impact of Investments in Washington County ................................................ 221
The Economic Impact of a Supermarket Investment in Washington County .................... 225
The Economic Impact of a Grocery Store Investment in Washington County ................... 227
Investments in Store Renovations, Expansion, and Equipment Purchases in Washington
County ................................................................................................................................. 227
Standardizing the Economic Effects of Investments in Underserved Communities in the State of
Mississippi ................................................................................................................................... 231
The Economic Impact of a Supermarket Investment in Mississippi ....................................... 233
The Economic Impact of a Grocery Store Investment in Mississippi ..................................... 235
The Economic Impact of Small Loans of $500,000 for Store Remodels and New Refrigeration
Equipment ............................................................................................................................... 237
The Cost‐Benefit of Investments in Mississippi’s Underserved Communities ........................... 239
Review of the Findings ................................................................................................................ 255
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 259
Appendix A: U.S. Treasury HHFI‐FA Funding to Community Development Financial Institutions
2011 through 2014 .................................................................................................................. CCLXI
Appendix B: Limited Supermarket Access Rankings by Area Size ........................................ CCLXVII

Index of Figures
Figure 1: Obesity and Overweight High School Students ........................................................................... 32
Figure 2: Obesity and Overweight by Gender ............................................................................................. 33
Figure 3: Per Capita Additional Cost of Obesity‐Related Health Care Cost ................................................ 37
Figure 4: Distribution of Total National Health Care Expenditures by Source of Payment, 2009 Actual and
2020 Projected (in Billions of Dollars) ......................................................................................................... 38
Figure 5: U.S. Per Capita Spending on Health Care 2007 through 2023 ..................................................... 39
Figure 6: Total National Health Expenditures Funded from Public Sources, Actual through 2012 and
Projected through 2023 (in billions of dollars) ........................................................................................... 41
iii


Figure 7: State of Mississippi Enrollment in Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Programs
2003 through 2013 ..................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 8: Comparative Physician Visits ....................................................................................................... 48
Figure 9: Comparative Hospitalization Rates .............................................................................................. 48
Figure 10: Comparative Medical and Drug Expenditures ........................................................................... 48
Figure 11: Dietary Consumption Patterns of High School Students 2012 .................................................. 54
Figure 12: Number of U.S. Supermarkets and Grocery Stores ................................................................... 89
Figure 13: Supermarkets and Grocery Stores in Mississippi ....................................................................... 91
Figure 14: Supermarket Sales by Department as a Percentage of Total Supermarket Sales ..................... 94
Figure 15: Comparison of U.S. and Mississippi Distribution of Supermarkets and Grocery Store
Establishments by Number of Employees .................................................................................................. 97
Figure 16: Lowndes County Population Estimates 2010 through 2013 .................................................... 106
Figure 17: Pearl River County Population 2000 through 2013 ................................................................. 138
Figure 18: Sunflower County Population 2000 through 2013 .................................................................. 170
Figure 19: Washington County Population 2000 through 2013 ............................................................... 200

Index of Tables
Table 1: Healthy Food Financing Initiative Financial Assistance Awards 2011 through 2014 .................... 23
Table 2: New Market Tax Credit Allocatees Domiciled in Mississippi 2002 through 2013 ........................ 24
Table 3: Comparative Disease Mortality Rates for the United States and Mississippi ............................... 26
Table 4: Comparative Prevalence of Health Risk Behaviors and Chronic Conditions in the United States
and Mississippi ............................................................................................................................................ 28
Table 5: Comparative Overweight and Obesity Prevalence by Population Classification Groups 2013 .... 30
Table 6: Personal Health Care Spending by Payer Group for Mississippi and the United States,
Comparison of 2004 and 2009 .................................................................................................................... 40
Table 7: The Uninsured Adult Population of Mississippi and Obesity ........................................................ 44
Table 8: Population Obesity Estimates for the State of Mississippi ........................................................... 45
Table 9: Obesity‐Related Health Costs in Mississippi using the Cawley and Meyerhoefer Model ............ 46
Table 10: Direct‐to‐Consumer Sales in the U.S. and Mississippi 2007 and 2012 ........................................ 68
Table 11: Direct‐to‐Consumer Farm Sales by State 2007 and 2012 ........................................................... 78
Table 12: Limited Supermarket Access Rankings by State .......................................................................... 84
Table 13: LSA Areas and Rankings by Population for Selected Areas ......................................................... 86
Table 14: U.S. Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry Metrics ............................................................... 90
Table 15: Distribution of Employment and Occupational Wages in the Mississippi Supermarket and
Grocery Store Industry 2012 ....................................................................................................................... 92
Table 16: The U.S. Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry (NAICS 44511) Establishments and Sales
2013 ............................................................................................................................................................ 96
Table 17: Distribution of Employment, Stores, and Sales in the U.S. and Mississippi Supermarket and
Grocery Store Industry 2013 ....................................................................................................................... 98
Table 18: Lowndes County Population by Census Tract ........................................................................... 107
Table 19: Lowndes County Racial Distribution by Census Tract ............................................................... 108
Table 20: Lowndes County Selected Gender, Age, and Family Population Data by Census Tract ........... 110
iv


Table 21: Lowndes County Households and Families by Type ................................................................. 111
Table 22: Poverty Rates for Families and Individuals in Lowndes County ................................................ 112
Table 23: Lowndes County Educational Attainment for the Population Age 25 and Older ..................... 114
Table 24: Lowndes County Comparative Employment and Income ......................................................... 116
Table 25: Lowndes County Comparative Earnings and Income by Source ............................................... 118
Table 26: Lowndes County Employment by Industry ............................................................................... 122
Table 27: Median Earnings for Lowndes County Workers ........................................................................ 124
Table 28: Health Insurance Coverage for the Civilian Non‐Institutionalized Population in Lowndes County
.................................................................................................................................................................. 126
Table 29: Lowndes County Estimated Spending on Food ......................................................................... 128
Table 30: Lowndes County Household Spending on Food at Home and the Retail Spending Gap .......... 129
Table 31: The Economic Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Lowndes County ............. 130
Table 32: The Fiscal Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Lowndes County .................... 130
Table 33: The Fiscal Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Supermarket with Annual Sales of $8,352,610
.................................................................................................................................................................. 130
Table 34: The Economic Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Supermarket with Annual Sales of
$8,352,610 ................................................................................................................................................ 130
Table 35: The Economic Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Lowndes County ............. 132
Table 36: The Fiscal Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Lowndes County .................... 132
Table 37: The Economic Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Grocery Store with Annual Sales of
$2,037,329 ................................................................................................................................................ 132
Table 38: The Fiscal Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Grocery Store with Annual Sales of
$2,307,329 ................................................................................................................................................ 132
Table 39: Pearl River County Population by Census Tract ........................................................................ 139
Table 40: Pearl River Racial Distribution by Census Tract......................................................................... 140
Table 41: Pearl River County Selected Gender, Age, and Family Population Data by Census Tract ........ 142
Table 42: Pearl River County Households and Families by Type .............................................................. 143
Table 43: Poverty Rates for Families and Individuals in Pearl River County ............................................. 144
Table 44: Pearl River County Educational Attainment for the Population Age 25 and Over ................... 146
Table 45: Pearl River County Comparative Employment and Income ...................................................... 148
Table 46: Pearl River County Comparative Earnings and Income by Source ............................................ 150
Table 47: Pearl River County Employment by Industry ............................................................................ 152
Table 48: Pearl River County Median Earnings for Workers ..................................................................... 154
Table 49: Health Insurance Coverage for the Civilian Non‐Institutionalized Population in Pearl River
County ....................................................................................................................................................... 155
Table 50: Pearl River County Estimated Spending on Food ...................................................................... 158
Table 51: Pearl River County Household Spending on Food at Home and the Retail Spending Gap ....... 159
Table 52: The Economic Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Pearl River County .......... 160
Table 53: The Fiscal Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Pearl River County ................. 160
$8,446,478 ................................................................................................................................................ 160
.................................................................................................................................................................. 160
v


Table 56: The Economic Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Pearl River County .......... 162
Table 57: The Fiscal Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Pearl River County ................. 162
$2,000,000 ................................................................................................................................................ 162
$2,000,000 ................................................................................................................................................ 162
Table 60: The Economic Impact of a $500,000 Renovation, Expansion, and Equipment Purchase ......... 164
Table 61: The Fiscal Impact of a $500,000 Renovation, Expansion, and Equipment Purchase ................ 164
Table 62: The Economic Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Small Store with Annual Sales of
$500,000 ................................................................................................................................................... 164
Table 63: The Fiscal Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Small Store with Annual Sales of $500,000
.................................................................................................................................................................. 164
Table 64: Sunflower County Population by Census Tract ......................................................................... 171
Table 65: Sunflower County Racial Distribution by Census Tract ............................................................. 172
Table 66: Sunflower County Selected Gender, Age, and Family Population Data by Census Tract ......... 174
Table 67: Percentage of Families and Individuals in Poverty in Sunflower County .................................. 174
Table 68: Sunflower County Households and Families by Type ............................................................... 175
Table 69: Sunflower County Educational Attainment for the Population 25 and Older .......................... 176
Table 70: Sunflower County Comparative Employment and Income ....................................................... 178
Table 71: Sunflower County Comparative Earnings and Income by Source ............................................. 180
Table 72: Sunflower County Employment by Industry ............................................................................. 182
Table 73: Median Earnings for Workers in Sunflower County .................................................................. 184
Table 74: Health Insurance Coverage for the Civilian Non‐Institutionalized Population in Sunflower
County ....................................................................................................................................................... 186
Table 75: Sunflower County Estimated Household Spending on Food .................................................... 188
Table 76: Sunflower County Household Spending on Food at Home and the Food Retail Spending Gap
.................................................................................................................................................................. 189
Table 77: The Economic Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Sunflower County ........... 190
Table 78: The Fiscal Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Sunflower County .................. 190
$4,951,290 ................................................................................................................................................ 190
.................................................................................................................................................................. 190
Table 81: The Economic Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Sunflower County ........... 192
Table 82: The Fiscal Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Sunflower County .................. 192
$2,131,057 ................................................................................................................................................ 192
$2,131,057 ................................................................................................................................................ 192
Table 85: Washington County Population by Census Tract ...................................................................... 201
Table 86: Washington County Racial Distribution by Census Tract .......................................................... 202
Table 87: Washington County Selected Gender, Age, and Family Population Data by Census Tract ...... 204
Table 88: Washington County Households by Type ................................................................................. 205
vi


Table 89: Washington County Poverty Rates for Families and Individuals .............................................. 206
Table 90: Washington County Educational Attainment for the Population 25 Years and Older ............. 208
Table 91: Washington County Comparative Employment and Income .................................................... 210
Table 92: Washington County Comparative Earnings and Income by Source .......................................... 212
Table 93: Washington County Employment by Industry Sector ............................................................... 214
Table 94: Washington County Median Earnings for Workers .................................................................. 217
Table 95: Health Insurance Coverage for the Civilian Non‐Institutionalized Population in Washington
County ....................................................................................................................................................... 218
Table 96: Washington County Household Spending on Food .................................................................. 220
Table 97: Washington County Household Spending on Food at Home and the Retail Spending Gap for
Food at Home............................................................................................................................................ 221
Table 98: The Economic Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Washington County ........ 224
Table 99: The Fiscal Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Washington County ............... 224
$5,116,756 ................................................................................................................................................ 224
Table 101: The Fiscal Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Supermarket with Annual Sales of
$5,116,756 ................................................................................................................................................ 224
Table 102: The Economic Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Washington County ...... 226
Table 103: The Fiscal Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Washington County ............. 226
$3,851,145 ................................................................................................................................................ 226
$3,851,145 ................................................................................................................................................ 226
Table 106: The Economic Impact of a $500,000 Construction or Renovation Investment ...................... 228
Table 107: The Fiscal Impact of a $500,000 Construction or Renovation Investment ............................. 228
Table 108: The Economic Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Store with $500,000 in Grocery Sales in
Washington County .................................................................................................................................. 228
Table 109: The Fiscal Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Store with $500,000 in Grocery Sales in
Washington County .................................................................................................................................. 228
Table 110: The Economic Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in a 45,000 Square Foot
Supermarket ............................................................................................................................................. 232
Table 111: The Fiscal Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in a 45,000 Square Foot
Supermarket ............................................................................................................................................. 232
$5,402,464 ................................................................................................................................................ 232
Table 113: The Fiscal Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Supermarket with Annual Sales of
$5,402,464 ................................................................................................................................................ 232
Table 114: The Economic Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in a Grocery Store in
Mississippi ................................................................................................................................................. 234
Table 115: The Fiscal Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in a Grocery Store in Mississippi
.................................................................................................................................................................. 234
$2,000,000 in Mississippi .......................................................................................................................... 234
vii


$2,000,000 in Mississippi .......................................................................................................................... 234
Table 118: The Economic Impact of a $500,000 Investment in a Store Renovation in Mississippi .......... 236
Table 119: The Fiscal Impact of a $500,000 Investment in a Store Renovation in Mississippi ................. 236
Table 120: The Economic Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Store with Annual Sales of $500,000 236
Table 121: The Fiscal Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Store with Annual Sales of $500,000 ....... 236
Table 122: Lowndes County Obesity‐related Healthcare Cost Estimates ................................................. 238
Table 123: Pearl River County Obesity‐related Healthcare Cost Estimates ............................................. 238
Table 124: Sunflower County Obesity‐related Health Care Cost Estimates ............................................. 240
Table 125: Comparison of Adult Obesity Rate by County ......................................................................... 241
Table 126: Washington County Obesity‐related Healthcare Cost Estimates ........................................... 242
Table 127: Estimated Obesity‐related Healthcare Cost Savings Associated with a One Percent Reduction
in the Obesity Rate in Lowndes County .................................................................................................... 244
in the Obesity Rate in Pearl River County ................................................................................................. 246
in the Obesity Rate in Sunflower County .................................................................................................. 246
in the Obesity Rate in Washington County ............................................................................................... 248
Table 131: Projections of the Economic and Fiscal Impact of a Mississippi Healthy Food Financing
Initiative Pilot Project ................................................................................................................................ 250
Table 132: The Economic Impact of a $2,000,000 Increase in the Direct‐to‐Consumer Agricultural Sales of
Fruits and Vegetables................................................................................................................................ 252
Table 133: The Fiscal Impact of a $2,000,000 Increase in Direct‐to‐Consumer Agricultural Sales of Fruits
and Vegetables .......................................................................................................................................... 252
Table 134: Overview of County Socio‐demographic Characteristics of the Population ........................... 254
Table 137: Recipients of HFFI‐FA Funding 2011 through 2014 ............................................................ CCLXIII
Table 138: U.S. Treasury, CDFI NMTC Data for Washington, Pearl River, Lowndes, and Sunflower
Counties ................................................................................................................................................ CCLXV
Table 139: LSA Rankings for Major Metro Areas with Population Greater than 1,000,000 ................ CCLXIX
Table 140: LSA Rankings for Metro Areas with Population between 500,000 and 1,000,000 ............. CCLXX
Table 141: LSA Rankings for Metro Areas with Population between 250,000 to 500,000 .................. CCLXXI
Table 142: LSA Rankings for Metro Areas with Populations less than 250,000 ................................ CCLXXIII
Table 143: LSA Rankings for Micropolitan Areas ............................................................................... CCLXXVI

Index of Maps
Map 1: Farmers' Markets in Mississippi ..................................................................................................... 72
Map 2: Direct to Consumer Sales 2012....................................................................................................... 76
Map 3: Direct to Consumer Sales per Farm in 2012 ................................................................................... 80
Map 4: Direct‐to‐Consumer Farm Sales in Mississippi 2012 ...................................................................... 82
Map 5: Lowndes County HFFI Qualifying Census Tracts ........................................................................... 103
Map 6: Lowndes County Reference Map .................................................................................................. 104
viii


Map 7: Pearl River County HFFI Qualifying Census Tracts ........................................................................ 135
Map 8: Pearl River County Reference Map ............................................................................................... 136
Map 9: Sunflower County HFFI Qualifying Census Tracts ......................................................................... 167
Map 10: Sunflower County Reference Map ............................................................................................. 168
Map 11: Washington County HFFI Qualifying Census Tracts .................................................................... 195
Map 12: Washington County Reference Map .......................................................................................... 196

ix


This page intentionally left blank for purposes of formatting.
10


Introduction
In recognition of the need to increase access to healthy and nutritious food, the Mississippi
State Legislature passed, and Governor Phil Bryant signed, House Bill 1328 during the 2014
Regular Session; the legislation is entitled as the “Small Business and Grocer Investment Act.”
This legislation is designed to provide grants and loans to promote access to healthy foods in
Mississippi’s underserved communities. This study provides a background of the issues
associated with the lack of access to healthy food and the policy initiatives that have been
implemented in other states to provide incentives to expand access to healthy foods. A primary
focus of this study is to examine the potential economic benefits that may be associated with
investments made in Mississippi’s underserved communities.
To increase access to healthy foods in Mississippi’s underserved communities, incentives
provided with taxpayer funding from the state of Mississippi may be leveraged with additional
federal funds that are available through the federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
Investments in underserved communities in Mississippi may take multiple forms; these
investments may include new construction or the renovation of existing food retail stores, or
they may comprise support for Food Hubs or other Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs)
programs. To be eligible for federal funds, investments made in Mississippi’s underserved
communities must be in qualifying HFFI qualifying census tracts. To develop a multifaceted
perspective of the socioeconomic profile of Mississippi’s underserved communities, four
Mississippi counties were selected for inclusion in this study: Lowndes County, Pearl River
County, Sunflower County, and Washington County; each county is examined at the census
tract level.
A team of researchers at the Stennis Institute of Government and Community Development at
Mississippi State University profiled census tracts, developed initial estimates of spending for
food at home within each census tract in the four counties included in this study, and then
modeled potential demand using econometric input‐output analysis to project the potential
economic impact of investments in these underserved census tracts. The public incentives that
may be provided under the Small Business and Grocer Investment Act to expand access to
healthy food in Mississippi’s underserved communities are anticipated to be predominantly
market‐driven investments made by the private sector; each investment will have unique
characteristics that were undetermined at the time of this study. The size of each investment,
combined with economic and market conditions, consumer purchasing decisions, and the
management of each business will ultimately determine the future magnitude of the economic
effects of investments in underserved communities. Within this context, the economic impact
models provided in this study are designed to provide decision‐makers with an initial
framework to evaluate the potential cost‐benefit of making public investments in Mississippi’s
underserved communities.
11


12


General and Limiting Conditions
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data and analysis contained is this
report are accurate; however, factors exist that are beyond the control of the Stennis Institute
and these factors may affect the estimates and projections contained herein. This study is
based on assumptions, estimates, and other data developed by the Stennis Institute through
independent research efforts, general knowledge of local conditions and the industry, and with
data provided by secondary data sources. Every effort is made to use the most recent,
accurate, and reliable sources of data. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in or any
data source used to prepare this study. Because future events or circumstances (many of which
are unknown as of the date of this study) may affect the projections and estimates contained
herein, no warranty or representation is made by the Stennis Institute that any of the predicted
outcomes or projected results contained in this study will actually be achieved.
Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication or the right to use the
name of the Stennis Institute in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of
the Stennis Institute. No abstracting, excerption or summarization of this study may be made
without first obtaining the prior written consent of the Stennis Institute. This study is not to be
used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other
similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any persons other than the client,
nor is any third party entitled to rely upon this report without first obtaining the prior written
consent of the Stennis Institute. This study may not be used for purposes other than that for
which it is prepared and for which prior written consent has first been obtained from the
Stennis Institute. Any changes made to the study, or any use of the study not specifically
prescribed in the agreement between the parties or otherwise expressly approved by the
Stennis Institute, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or adopting such
use.
This study is qualified in its entirety, and should be considered in light of these limitations,
conditions, and considerations.

13


This page intentionally left blank for purposes of formatting
14


About the Economic Impact Methodology used in this Study
This report evaluates the economic impact during the construction phase and subsequent
impact of the ongoing operations of potential investments in underserved census tracts in the
state of Mississippi. Economic impact goes beyond simply the number of dollars spent within a
defined study area. The term “economic impact” describes a series of events and changes that
occur within an economy as a result of a particular stimulus. In this report, the economic
stimulus examined is the two‐phased economic impact of the construction and then, the
subsequent ongoing operations of investments in underserved communities.
Construction direct economic and fiscal impacts include: actual project expenses, such as
expenditures on architectural and engineering fees, labor costs, and the purchase of
construction materials associated with the construction of potential supermarkets, grocery
stores, and/or renovations to existing stores.
The direct economic and fiscal impact of the ongoing operations of investments in
underserved communities may include: new jobs that will be created to manage or staff
business enterprises, and the related expenditures that will be required to operate a store. The
economic impact of investments in underserved communities is not limited to only the direct
economic impact of construction and ongoing operations because economic activity does not
end at the first transaction between consumers and businesses. The dynamic nature of the
economy is such that the dollars spent reverberate through multiple sectors, generating wages,
profits, and subsequent spending on other goods and services. This process continues until all
spending is leaked out of the local economy. Economic “leakage” means that the money has
exited the system and is no longer being spent or turned over in the model. In this report, the
system is the economy of the state of the state of Mississippi and, specifically, Lowndes County,
Pearl River County, Sunflower County, and Washington County. Leakage can take multiple
forms. Money spent by Mississippi firms on goods and services produced out‐of‐state is a form
of leakage, as are dollars that flow out of the country to purchase goods or services overseas.
Profits taken by Mississippi owners of capital are also considered leakage, not because they exit
the state, but because they exit the system of repeated turnover spending.
This reverberation of spending across sectors is the study of economic impact. The Stennis
Institute’s analysis quantifies the changes in the economy of the four counties that were the
focus of this report and in the state of Mississippi that will take place as a result of spending
related to investments made in underserved communities to increase access to affordable,
healthy foods, and examines the economic effect of the ongoing operations of these business
investments. The underlying driver of economic impact analysis is direct spending, with
subsequent reverberations estimated by multipliers. Multipliers are usually between 1.0 and
3.0. A multiplier of 1.0 means that there is 100 percent leakage after the first round of
spending ‐ that all goods and services in the second turnover come from out of the county or
15


the state (including overseas), depending upon the level of analysis. High multipliers indicate
that local firms are well integrated, and that goods and services are closely linked to other
complementary goods and services within an economy. Different industries can have
significantly different multipliers. A dollar spent in an industry with a high multiplier has a
greater effect on the local economy than a dollar spent in an industry with a low multiplier.
The Stennis Institute’s examination of the economic impact of investments made in
Mississippi’s underserved communities included analysis of the following effects:
 Total Output resulting from on‐site business activity. This is the overall value of the
transactions that result from the economic activities associated with an investment in an
underserved community. Total output is similar to “gross sales” measurements within an
industry.
 Total employment added. This is measured in terms of the total jobs and extends across all
industries.
 Labor Income. This is measured in terms of dollars paid to workers of the businesses
contained in this analysis.
 Indirect Economic Effects. Indirect effects are the summation of changes in the local
economy that occur due to spending for inputs by the industry or industries directly
impacted. For example, if employment at a supermarket increases by 10 jobs, this implies a
corresponding increase in output by the store. As a supermarket or grocery store increases
output (serves more customers), it must also purchase more of its inputs, such as supplies,
electricity, poultry or produce. As a supermarket or grocery store increases the purchase of
these items, its suppliers must also increase their output – hire new workers – or purchase
more supplies, as do suppliers to these suppliers. As these “ripples” of spending move
through the economy, they can be captured and measured; the “ripples” related to these
purchases of goods and services by suppliers to the supermarket or grocery store are
indirect impacts.
The Stennis Institute uses IMPLAN, a software program first developed by the UDSA Forestry
Service to perform impact analysis for planning. IMPLAN’s database includes national, state,
and county‐level data for 528 industrial sectors and, critically, the ways in which those sectors
interact with each other. The county‐level data is specific to the economy of individual counties
within the state of Mississippi. This national, state, and county‐level data allows the Stennis
Institute to quantify the effects of adding jobs or final demand in any industry, or industry
subsector, and to model those changes across all 528 sectors.
IMPLAN uses social accounting matrices, or a set of social accounts, to generate multipliers and
to describe economic relationships. Social accounts track monetary flows between sectors and
institutions in the economy. These monetary flows occur because of final demand for goods
16


and services, or producers’ demand for goods and services. Final demand is consumers’
demand, whereas, producers’ demand is the necessary trade that take place in order to meet
final demand.
IMPLAN’s modeling allows researchers to define given trade areas and to model transactions in
relevant industries. The IMPLAN multipliers are based on data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, and other government agencies.
IMPLAN is a software and data package that applies the principle of input‐output models to
describe and to quantify changes in an economy. These models quantify the relationships
among industries and institutions in a given study area. They include the following:
 Industrial spending patterns. The model measures in what ways, and in what proportions,
each industry distributes expenditures. For example, heavy manufacturing spends money in
wholesale trade, retail trade, food and beverage services, truck transportation, and a host
of other industries. The input‐output models measure the proportions of spending in each
industry via a series of coefficients. These coefficients (called a production function when
grouped together) are the basis for generating economic multipliers to determine the
indirect and induced impacts in other industries.
 Wage and employment distribution. The model measures the proportion of income each
industry spends on wages and the distribution of these wages throughout household
income brackets. This information is the basis for employment forecasts used to quantify
the number of jobs and the level of wages that would be paid to employees as a result of an
economic activity.
 Inter‐institutional trade flows. Money changes hands between several societal institutions
— private industries, government entities, and households of varying income levels. These
trade flows are modeled in IMPLAN to determine the fiscal impacts (flows from industries
and households to government entities) and induced impacts (from households to private
industries).
All changes are measured in terms of a “change in final demand.” For example, if salespeople
who call upon supermarkets or grocery stores remain in the area to call on other accounts, they
may spend $100 per night on a hotel room; if 10 salespeople exhibit this behavior, then the
hotel and motel industry would experience a $1,000 positive change in final demand. Given
this, the IMPLAN model would evaluate the industrial spending pattern for the hotel and motel
industry, and apply the $1,000 spending to all supporting industries in the proper proportion.
For example, a portion of the final demand could be spent in other industries, a portion could
be paid as wages, and a portion could be distributed as profits to the owners (the latter two
could flow to households and ultimately to governments based on inter‐institutional transfers).
17


This social accounting matrix allows researchers to measure the changes in income,
employment, and tax revenues (fiscal impacts) in detail. However, it is important to note that
IMPLAN, like all economic modeling systems, measures the institutional relationships that
currently exist.
IMPLAN and the economic impact models contained in this study do not include analysis of the
employment and spending substitution effects that may occur within an industry when
increased sales at one firm result in decreased sales at another firm resulting in a decrease in
employment at the firm that experiences decreased sales; employment and spending
substitution effects also affect the fiscal impact. This study examined the economic impact of
investments in underserved communities in the state of Mississippi and the effect of the
ongoing operations of business firms based upon existing spending on food at home by
consumers within underserved census tracts; decision‐makers should be aware that
employment and spending substitution effects may reduce the economic effects reported in
this study.
18


19



20


Access to Healthy Food in Underserved Communities
In recent years, public policy research has begun to focus on issues associated with access to healthy
food. The primary policy issue is the concern that there is an insufficient supply of affordable, healthy
food in specific geographic areas that are characterized by high poverty and/or have large minority
populations; and that, lack of access to healthy food is a significant causal variable in the high
prevalence rate of obesity, diabetes, and related health problems in disadvantaged populations. The
2008 Farm Bill defines “an area in the United States with limited access to affordable and nutritious
food, particularly such an area composed of predominately lower‐income neighborhoods and
communities” as a “Food Desert.” Research has found that there are fewer healthy food options in
poor neighborhoods,1 that poor and minority communities have fewer supermarkets than do more
affluent, whiter neighborhoods,2 and lower access to supermarkets and grocery stores based upon
racial and income characteristics.3 Although there is mixed evidence in the research, many studies
have found that there is a relationship between better access to supermarkets or grocery stores and
a healthier diet, lower risk of being overweight or obese, lower body mass index, and the negative
health outcomes associated with being overweight or obese.4, 5, 6 Research regarding the difference
in defining access based upon the relevant distance for households with and without vehicles or
access to transportation,7, 8 particularly in non‐metropolitan or rural areas,9 has found that all
individuals living within a specific area do not have similar access to affordable and nutritious food.
Access to supermarkets and grocery stores may be measured in terms of “travel burden.” Travel
burden and accessibility have multiple dimensions, to include: the cost of travel (time, distance,
monetary); convenience; vehicle ownership; availability, frequency, reliability, and safety of public
transportation; mobility impairments associated with poor health, disability, or age; crime and traffic
hazards that create barriers to travel; and street connectivity and walkability within a spatial area.

1 Lewis, L.B., D.C. Sloane, L.M. Nascimento, A.L. Diamant, J.J. Guinyard, A.K. Yancey, G. Flynn. (2005). African Americans’ Access to
Healthy Food Options in South Los Angeles Restaurants. American Journal of Public Health 95(4): 668–73.
2 Powell, L. M., Slater, S., Mirtcheva, D., Bao, Y. and Chaloupka, F. (2007). Food Store Availability and Neighborhood Characteristics in
the United States. Preventive Medicine 44: 198–95.
3 Neckerman, K. M., Bader, M., Purciel, M. and Yousefzadeh, P. (2009). Measuring Food Access in Urban Areas. National Poverty
Center Working Paper. http://www.npc.umich.edu/news/events/food‐access/index.php (accessed November 1, 2013).
4 Horowitz, C. R., Colson, K. A., Hebert, P. L., and Lancaster, K. (2004). Barriers to Buying Healthy Foods for People with Diabetes:
Evidence of Environmental Disparities. American Journal of Public Health 94(9): 1549‐1554.
5 Moore, L. V., Diez Roux, A. V., Nettleton, J. A., Jacobs, D.R. (2008). Associations of the Local Food Environment with Diet Quality—A
Comparison of Assessments based on Surveys and Geographic Information Systems: The Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. American
Journal of Epidemiology. 170(1): 29 – 36.
6 Pearce, J., Hiscock, R., Blakely, T., and Witten K. (2008). The Contextual Effects of Neighborhood Access to Supermarkets and
Convenience Stores on Individual Fruit and Vegetable Consumption. Journal of Epidemiology Community Health; 62(3): 98‐201.
7 Ibid.
8 Rose, D., Bodor, J. N., Swalm, C. M., Rice, J. C., Farley, T. A., and Paul L. Hutchison, P. L. (2009). Deserts in New Orleans? Illustrations of
Urban Food Access and Implications for Policy. National Poverty Center Working Paper. http://www.npc.umich.edu/news/events/food‐
access/index.php (accessed November 1, 2013).
9 Sharkey, J. R., and Scott Horel. (2009). Characteristics of Potential Spatial Access to a Variety of Fruits and Vegetables in a Large Rural
Area. National Poverty Center Working Paper. http://www.npc.umich.edu/news/events/food‐access/index.php (accessed November 1,
2013).
21


Distressed areas with low income, low education levels, high unemployment, limited retail traffic, and
no economic growth are unattractive markets for supermarkets and grocery stores. In these
communities, profit potential for supermarkets and grocery stores may be so limited that additional
incentives are required to attract and retain investment in these areas.
To address the issues associated with attracting investments in these areas, the Healthy Food
Financing Initiative (HFFI) was inaugurated in 2010 to address the epidemic of childhood obesity. The
Healthy Food Financing Initiative provides support to projects that increase access to healthy,
affordable food in communities that currently do not provide these options. The HFFI is designed to
attract investments that bring grocery stores and healthy food options to underserved communities
in the United States and expand access to fresh and healthy foods. Investment activities may include
development, investment, and equipping supermarkets, grocery stores, small business retailers,
corner stores, and farmers’ markets that sell fresh and healthy food. The HFFI is a multi‐year,
interagency effort that is coordinated through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury; in 2010, the federal
government provided $400 million to fund the HFFI.
 The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was allocated $20 million for Community
Economic Development programs to support the Healthy Food Financing Initiative. In 2014, the
Office of the Administration for Children and Families’ (HHS) Office of Community Services
provided Community Economic Development‐HFFI awards totaling approximately $9.4 million,
with an average award of $670,000.
 The Department of Agriculture was allocated approximately $50 million to support public and
private loans, grants, promotion, and technical assistance to increase access to healthy foods in
underserved communities, to expand demand and retail outlets for farm products, and to
increase the availability of locally produced foods. There are multiple USDA programs that
provide funding in support of the HFFI, including, but not limited to: the Community Facilities
Program, the Rural Business Opportunity Grant Program, the Business and Industry Loan
Guarantee Program, and the Farmers’ Market Promotion Program. In 2012, the USDA awarded
approximately $10 million in competitive grant funding to agricultural projects that developed
producer‐to‐consumer farmers’ markets, roadside stands, and community supported agriculture
programs.
 The Department of the Treasury was provided with authority to provide New Market Tax Credits
and to provide assistance to certified community development financial institutions (CDFIs).
There was no specific set‐aside of New Market Tax Credits for healthy food financing in the U.S.
Department of the Treasury’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI) 2011 NMTC
allocation, with the exception that the CDFI Fund added “HFFI qualifying census tracts” as one of the
two secondary criteria which could be used to qualify a site as “highly distressed” under the Federal
New Markets Tax Credit Program. In 2011, the Treasury began collecting information from New
Market Tax Credit allocatees regarding the percentage of their allocation that would be devoted to
22


HFFI projects and activities. On February 23, 2012, the CDFI announced that 70 communities had
been selected to receive $3.623 billion of NMTC allocations from the 2011 round; this report also
stated that fifty of the 70 allocatees (or 71 percent) indicated that they intended to devote some
portion of their NMTC allocation to Healthy Food Financing investments.10 On May 17, 2012, the
CDFI released a study that found that 24.8 million Americans lived in areas with limited supermarket
access.
A Census Tract qualifies for HFFI funding if it meets the following low income and low access
thresholds:
The Census Tract is a low‐income community based upon having a poverty rate of 20 percent or
greater, or a median family income at or below 80 percent of the area’s median family income; and is
a low‐access community based upon having at least 500 persons and/or at least 33 percent of the
census tract’s population living more than one mile from a supermarket or large grocery store (10
miles in the case of non‐metropolitan census tracts).
In 2011, the CDFI expanded its definition of HFFI qualifying census tracts as either:
1. A census tract determined to be a Food Desert by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as
identified in USDA’s HFFI census tract Locator Tool; or
2. A census tract that qualifies as a Low‐Income Community for New Market Tax Credit purposes
and has been identified as having low access to a supermarket or grocery store through a
methodology that has been adopted for use by another governmental or philanthropic healthy
food initiative, to the extent that QLICI activities will Table 1: Healthy Food Financing Initiative Financial
increase access to healthy food. Assistance Awards 2011 through 2014
CDFI Recipients of HFFI‐FA
In more recent years, there has been increasing emphasis on
New Market Tax Credit Investments in HFFI qualifying census Funding 2011 through 2014
tracts. The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget designated at Year Amount
least $500 million ($250 million per year over a two year 2011 $9,500,000
period) in New Market Tax Credit allocations to support 2012 $17,750,000
financing healthy food options in distressed communities as 2013 $22,300,000
part of the HFFI. In addition to New Market Tax Credits that
2014 $16,650,000
may be awarded to Certified Community Development Source: U.S. Treasury, Community Development
Entities (CDEs) to make HFFI investments, the CDFI Fund also Financial Institutions Fund, HFFI‐FA
Annual State-level data on CDFI HFFI-FA
provides supplemental Healthy Food Financing Initiative
recipients is provided in Appendix A
Financial Assistance (HFFI‐FA) awards to Certified
Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs); Financial Assistance awards require dollar‐
for‐dollar matching funds and only CDFIs that are eligible to receive Financial Assistance Awards are
also eligible to receive HFFI‐FA awards.

10 U.S. Treasury, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Highlights of 2011 Allocation Round.
23


New Market Tax Credits are designed to increase the flow of capital and investment into low income
areas and rural communities to support business growth and to create jobs by providing private
investors with federal tax credits. New Market Tax Credits provide resources that can create a
satisfactory loan structure for investments that might otherwise be denied or only offered a loan at a
significantly higher rate of interest; NMTCs can also be used with other credit enhancements such as
historic rehabilitation tax credits, state New Market Tax Credits, or with other governmental loan
programs that reduce risk and enhance the feasibility of a project in a low income community. New
Market Tax Credit can increase the return for investors in projects, reduce the interest rate on loans,
and/or reduce the risk of an investment; therefore, New Market Tax Credits enable financing for
projects that would otherwise not be feasible. The New Market Tax Credits Program was enacted by
Congress as an element of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000; the program allows
individual and corporate taxpayers to receive a credit against federal income taxes for making
“Qualified Equity Investments (QEI)” in Qualified Community Development Entities (CDEs). The tax
credit provided to the investor equals 39 percent of the QEI and is claimed over a seven‐year period;
under IRC §45D (a) (2), the applicable credit is five percent for the first three years and six percent for
the last four years; NMTC investments made by a CDE cannot be redeemed before the end of the
seven year investment period.
Until recent years, there have been relatively few Mississippi domiciled Community Development
Entities (CDEs) that have received New Market Tax Credits from the U.S. Treasury; since the
program’s inception, Mississippi domiciled organizations have received less than one percent of the
total dollar amount of New Market Tax Credit awards made by the U.S. Treasury. Since the advent of
the issuance of $1 billion of Hurricane Katrina New Market Tax Credits for use in the Gulf Opportunity
Zone, an increasing number of organizations within the state of Mississippi have applied for and
received New Market Tax Credits (Table 2, below).
Table 2: New Market Tax Credit Allocatees Domiciled in Mississippi 2002 through 2013
New Market Tax Credit Awardee City Year Amount

Enterprise Corporation of the Delta Jackson 2002 $15,000,000
MBFC CDE, Inc. Jackson 2007 $20,000,000
MuniStrategies, LLC Jackson 2010 $28,000,000
Secde Ventures, LLC. Madison 2010 $53,000,000
Hope Enterprise Corporation Jackson 2012 $25,000,000
Southern Community Capital, LLC, Jackson 2012 $50,000,000
Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Searchable Award Database
24


Underserved Communities and Health
A lack of access to healthy food has been found to be associated with health disparities.11 Health
disparities refer to differences in the incidence of disease, mortality, and survival rate for one group
of people as compared to another. Factors that contribute to health disparities include income,
education, behavior, race or ethnicity, and environment. The reduction or elimination of health
disparities can produce significant benefits that may include a reduction in morbidity and mortality,
improved quality of life, and reduced costs for illness. Living in an environment where there is lack of
access to healthy food has been linked to multiple health disparities associated with income,
education, and race or ethnicity. For example, failure to consume healthy foods can lead to
cardiovascular disease,12, 13 stroke,14 and certain forms of cancer,15 and multiple studies have
examined the relationship between limited access to healthy food options and higher rates of
obesity.16 The lack of access to healthy food within underserved communities and the relationship
between lack of access and diet and health outcomes has become a major focus of research and
public policy due to the epidemic of obesity and related diabetes in the United States. Underserved
communities have received increased attention and policy initiatives such as the Healthy Food
Financing Initiative have been implemented to make healthy foods more accessible in these areas.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the prevalence of self‐reported obesity among
U.S. adults in 2013 ranged from a low of 21.3 percent in the state of Colorado to a high of 35.1
percent in the state of Mississippi. In the United States, the prevalence of obesity among adults was
highest for Blacks (37.6 percent) as compared to 30.6 percent for Hispanics and 26.6 percent for
Whites; in Mississippi, the prevalence of obesity among African American adults was 42.9 percent as
compared to 30.7 percent among Whites and 28.2 percent among Hispanics.17
Research has found that among women, obesity prevalence increases as educational attainment
levels decrease, but there does not appear to be a similar linkage between educational attainment
and obesity for men; among women, 23.4 percent of those with a college degree are obese and
among those with less than a high school education, the obesity rate is 42.1 percent.18

11 Sharkey, J. R., Johnson, C. M., and Dean, W. R. (2011). Relationship of Household Food Insecurity to Health‐Related Quality of Life.
Women’s Health. 51(5): 442 – 460.
12 Bazzano, L. A., He, J., Ogden, L. G., Loria, C. M., Vupputuri, S., Myers, L., and Whelton, P. K. (2002). Fruit and Vegetable Intake and
Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in U.S. Adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 76: 93 – 99.
13 Ness, A. R., and Powless, J. W. (1997). Fruit and Vegetables and Cardiovascular Disease: A Review. International Journal of
Epidemiology. 26: 1 – 13.
14 Joshipura, K. J., Ascherio, A., Manson, J.E., Stampher, M. J., and Rimm, E. B. (1999). Fruit and Vegetable Intake in Relation to Risk of
Ischemic Stroke. Journal of the American Medical Association. 282: 1233 – 1239.
15 Key, T. J., Schatzkin, A., Willett, W. C., Allen, N., Spencer, E. A. and Travis, R. C. (2004). Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Cancer.
Public Health Nutrition. 7: 197 – 200.
16 Larson, N., Story, M., and Nelson, M. (2009). Neighborhood Environments: Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods in the U.S.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 36(1): 74 – 81.
17 Centers for Disease Control. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2011 through 2013.
18 Ogden, C. L., Lamb, M. M., Carroll, M.D., and Flegal, K. (2010). Obesity and Socioeconomic Status in Adults: United States, 2005 –
2008. NCHS Brief No. 50. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
25


Table 3: Comparative Disease Mortality Rates for the United States and Mississippi
26


The rate of obesity in the United States exhibits a socioeconomic slope with levels of obesity
exhibited disproportionately by people with lower educational attainment, those with limited
resources, racial and ethnic minorities, and for those living in poverty. Studies on dietary choices that
lead to obesity have overwhelmingly found that energy dense diets (foods high in sugars, fats, and
refined grains) are less costly than diets that consist of fresh vegetables, lean meats, and fruit juices.
Because energy dense food are lower in price, they represent a low‐cost option for poor people, with
income and prices affecting food choices, dietary habits, and dietary quality.19, 20, 21
The Health Effects of Obesity
Common morbidities associated with obesity include hypertension and stroke, coronary heart
disease, certain types of cancer, and Type 2 diabetes or non‐insulin dependent diabetes mellitus and
other serious health problems that include sleep apnea, Osteoarthritis, and Gallbladder
disease.22,23,24,25,26 Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States; people who are
overweight are more likely to exhibit the risk factors for heart disease and stroke, which are high
blood pressure, high levels of cholesterol, and blood fats.27 According to the Mississippi State
Department of Health, cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, is the leading cause
of death in Mississippi; in 2011, heart disease accounted for approximately 25.1 percent of all deaths
in the state of Mississippi. Mississippi has the highest death rate from heart disease, hypertension,
and cerebrovascular disease in the nation (see Table 3, page 26); Mississippi also has the second
highest rate of death from diabetes mellitus in the nation. Many of these deaths are preventable; an
update of the 1997 American Health Association’s Scientific Statement on Obesity and Health Disease
found strong evidence that weight loss in overweight and obese individuals reduces risk factors for
diabetes and cardiovascular disease.28

19 Wardle, J. (2002). Sex Differences in Association with SES and Obesity. American Journal of Public Health. 92: 1299–304.
20 Drewnowski, A. and Specter, S., E. (2004). Poverty and Obesity: the Role of Energy Density and Energy Costs. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition. 79 (1): 6 – 16.
21 Cook, J. T. (2002). Clinical Implications of Household Food Security: Definitions, Monitoring, and Policy. Nutrition in Clinical Care. 5
(4): 152 – 167.
22 Are you Obese? Journal of the American Medical Association, 282 (16) October 1999. Additional sources: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
23 Burton, B., T., Foster, W. R., Hirsch, J., and VanItallie, T. B. (1985). Health Implications of Obesity: NIH Consensus Development
Conference. International Journal of Obesity. 9 (3):155‐170.
24 Wienpahl, J., Ragland, D. R., and Sidney, S. (1990). Body Mass Index and 15‐year Mortality in a Cohort of Black Men and Women.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 43 (9):949‐960.
25 Stevens, J., Keil, J. E., Rust, P.F., Tyroler, H. A., Davis, C. E., and Gazes, P.C. (1992). Body Mass Index and Body Girths as Predictors of
Mortality in Black and White Women. Archives of Internal Medicine. 152: 1257‐1262.
26 Stevens J., Plankey, M. W., Williamson, D.F., et al. (1998). The Body Mass Index‐Mortality Relationship in White and African
American Women. Obesity Research. 6: 268‐277.
27 Heart and Stroke Facts, American Heart Association.
28 Poirier, P., Giles, T. D., Bray, G. A., Hong, Y., Stern, J., Pi‐Sunyer, X. and Eckel, R. H. (2006). Obesity and Cadiovascular Disease:
Pathophysiology, Evaluation, and Effect of Weight Loss: An Update of the 1997 American Heart Association Scientific Statement on
Obesity and Health Disease from the Obesity Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism. Journal of the
American Heart Association. 113: 898 – 918.
27


Table 4: Comparative Prevalence of Health Risk Behaviors and Chronic Conditions in the United States and Mississippi
Health Risk Behavior or Chronic Condition Variable State of Mississippi United States Range for All States

Adults with Good or Better Health 76.0 82.8 65.5 to 88.0
Adults between Ages of 18 to 65 who have Healthcare Coverage 69.3 78.7 65.4 to 92.3
Adults aged 18 or Older who were Obese 34.9 27.7 20.7 to 34.9
Adults with Diagnosed Diabetes 12.4 9.5 6.7 to 13.5
Adults having had any type of Cancer 10.8 11.2 2.7 to 14.5
Adults with Current Asthma 7.7 9.1 4.3 to 12.1
Adults with some form of Arthritis 29.1 24.4 10.6 to 35.9
Adults with Hypertension 40.6 31.6 22.5 to 41.3
Adults aged 20 or Older having High Blood‐cholesterol 42.9 38.9 33.6 to 42.9
Adults aged 45 or Older who have had Coronary Heart Disease 13.3 10.9 7.1 to 16.2
Adults aged 45 or Older who have had a Stroke 6.5 4.8 3.0 to 7.2
Adults with Limited Acitivites because of a Physical, Mental, or Emotional Problem 27.6 23.6 16.7 to 31.4
Adults using Special Equipment because of any Health Problem 9.9 7.9 5.1 to 11.3
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States 2011; Volume 63 (9); October 24, 2014
Author's Note: In 2011, BRFSS adopted a new weighting methodology (iterative proportional fitting); as a result data from 2011 forward may not be compared with previous years.
28


Medical research has overwhelmingly demonstrated the linkage between diabetes and being
overweight or obese. The medical community has identified obesity and diabetes as an epidemic in
the United States,29 with body mass index and weight gain being major risk factors for diabetes30, 31, 32
33
and one of the strongest predictors of diabetes.34, 35, 36, 37 A thirty year study of 121,700 female
registered nurses who did not have diagnosed diabetes mellitus, a coronary heart disease, stroke, or
cancer when enrolled in the study found that a weight gain of between 15 and 24 pounds after age
18 was associated with a twofold increase in the risk of diabetes; this study also found that women
who lost more than 11 pounds reduced their risk level for diabetes mellitus by 50 percent or more.38
National mortality statistics have shown an increased risk of death from stroke and a higher
prevalence of diabetes mellitus among African Americans;39, 40, 41 findings indicate the age‐adjusted
diabetes death rates for African Americans in the United States to be approximately twice as high as
death rates for Whites42 and the diabetes death rates among African American youths to be
approximately twice as high as that of White youths.43 The linkage between overweight/obesity and
diabetes is a critical issue in the state of Mississippi. According to the Mississippi State Department
of Health, over 276,000 adults in Mississippi had type 2 diabetes in 2012, and four of every 1,000
deaths in Mississippi were from diabetes. In Mississippi, 12.4 percent of the adult population has
diabetes; this is the second highest rate in the nation (Table 4, page 28).

29 Mokdad A., Serdula M., Dietz W., Bowman B., Marks J., and Koplan, J. (1999). The Spread of the Obesity Epidemic in the United
States, 1991‐1998. Journal of the American Medical Association. 282: 1519 ‐ 1522.
30 American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Facts and Figures. Alexandra, VA; American Diabetes Association; 1997.
31 Pi‐Sunyer, F. X. (1993). Medical Hazards of Obesity. Annals of Internal Medicine. 119 (7): 655‐660.
32 Resnick H., Valsania, P., Halter, J., Lin, X. (2000). Relation of Weight Gain and Weight Loss on Subsequent Diabetes Risk in Overweight
Adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 54: 596‐602.
33Ford, E. S., Williamson, D. F., and Liu, S. (1997). Weight Change and Diabetes Incidence: Findings from a National Cohort of U.S.
Adults. American Journal of Epidemiology. 146:214‐222.
34 Holbrook, T. L., Barrett‐Conor, E., Wingard, D. L. (1989). The Association of Lifetime Weight and Weight Control Patterns with
Diabetes among Men and Women in an Adult Community. International Journal of Obesity. 13: 723‐729.
35 Chan, J. M., Stampfer, M. J., Rimm, E. B., et al. (1994). Obesity, Fat Distribution, and Weight Gain as Risk Factors for Clinical Diabetes
in Men. Diabetes Care. 17:961‐969.
36 Colditz, G. A., Willett, W. C., Rotnitzky, A., et al. (1995). Weight Gain as a Risk Factor for Clinical Diabetes in Women. Annals of
Internal Medicine. 122:481‐486.
37 Hanson, R. L., Narayan, K. M., McCance, D. R., et al. (1995). Rate of Weight Gain, Weight Fluctuation, and Incidence of NIDDM.
Diabetes. 44: 261‐266.
38 Ibid.
39 Kittner, S. J., White, L. R., Losonczy, K. G., Wolf, P. A., and Hebel, J. R. (1990). Black‐White Differences in Stroke Incidence in a National
Sample: The Contribution of Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus. Journal of the American Medical Association. 264: 1267 – 1270.
40 Winkleby, M. A., Kraemer, H. C., Ahn, D. K., and Varady, A. N. (1998). Ethnic and Socioeconomic Differences in Cardiovascular Disease
Risk Factors. Journal of the American Medical Association. 280: 356 – 362.
41 McTigue, K., Larson, J. C., Valoski, A., Burke, G., Kotchen, J., Lewis, C. E., Stefanick, M. L. et al. (2006). Mortality and Cardiac and
Vascular Outcomes in Extremely Obese Women. Journal of the American Medical Association. 296: 79 ‐ 86.
42 National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2006.
43 Racial Disparities in Diabetes Mortality among Persons Aged 1 – 19 Years – United States, 1979 – 2004. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 2008; 299 (10): 1129 – 1130.
29


Table 5: Comparative Overweight and Obesity Prevalence by Population Classification Groups 2013
Percentage Distribution of the Population by Weight Classification by Body Mass Index (BMI): Mississippi and the United States 2013
Underweight Normal Weight Overweight Obese
Weight Classification:
(bmi 12.0‐18.4) (bmi 18.5‐24.9) (bmi 25.0‐29.9) (bmi 30.0 ‐ 99.8)
Mississippi 1.6 29.1 34.2 35.1
Nationwide 1.8 33.4 35.4 29.4
Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity by Gender: Mississippi and the United States 2013
Gender and Category: Overweight Males Overweight Females Obese Males Obese Females
Mississippi 38.9 29.6 33.8 36.4
Nationwide 41.4 29.8 29.1 28.0
Prevalence of Overweight by Race or Ethnicity: Mississippi and the United States 2013
Race or Ethnicity: White Black Hispanic Other
Mississippi 35.4 31.8 41.5 33.7
Nationwide 35.8 34.4 36.9 31.5
Prevalence of Obesity by Race or Ethnicity: Mississippi and the United States 2013
Race or Ethnicity: White Black Hispanic Other
Mississippi 31.1 42.5 35.3 32.8
Nationwide 27.4 37.9 31.5 19.7
Prevalence of Overweight by Educational Attainment: Mississippi and the United States 2013
Educational Attainment: Less than H.S. H.S. or G.E.D. Some post‐H.S. College graduate
Mississippi 32.1 32.8 34.9 37.2
Nationwide 34.2 35.7 34.7 37.3
Prevalence of Obesity by Educational Attainment: Mississippi and the United States 2013
Educational Attainment: Less than H.S. H.S. or G.E.D. Some post‐H.S. College graduate
Mississippi 38.7 38.2 32.7 30.6
Nationwide 33.5 31.1 30.3 22.3
Prevalence of Overweight by Income Group: Mississippi and the United States 2013
Income Group: Less than $15,000 $15,000‐ 24,999 $25,000‐ 34,999 $35,000‐ 49,999 $50,000+
Mississippi 30.6 29.7 34 36.1 38.7
Nationwide 30.4 33.6 35.7 36.9 38.1
Prevalence of Obesity by Income Group: Mississippi and the United States 2013
Income Group: Less than $15,000 $15,000‐ 24,999 $25,000‐ 34,999 $35,000‐ 49,999 $50,000+
Mississippi 41.2 40.7 32.5 35 31.4
Nationwide 33.4 32.7 30.1 30.5 26.6
Prevalence of Overweight by Age Group: Mississippi and the United States 2013
Age Group: 18‐24 25‐34 35‐44 45‐54 55‐64 65+
Mississippi 22.2 33.7 35.4 31.6 38.1 41
Nationwide 26.1 33.7 36.4 36.9 37.8 39.8
Prevalence of Obesity by Age Group: Mississippi and the United States 2013
Age Group: 18‐24 25‐34 35‐44 45‐54 55‐64 65+
Mississippi 23.5 35 38.9 46.2 36.7 28.2
Nationwide 15.6 27.5 32.7 34.1 34.6 26.7
Source: Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Behavioral Risk Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control, 2013
30


Researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have found a link between obesity
and dementia;44 researchers at the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Research in Denver found
that obese adults were 4.6 times more likely to be hospitalized for asthma and had significantly worse
asthma control.
Maternal obesity impacts the health of the mother and the child. Pregnant women who are obese
are at risk of hypertensive and thromboembolic disorders, gestational diabetes, increased rates of
cesarean delivery, and wound infection.45,46,47,48,49 Research published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association found that congenital abnormalities are more likely to occur in the babies of
obese women and found that babies born to an obese mother were more likely to have heart
problems, excess fluid build‐up in the brain, spina bifida, cleft palate or cleft lip, and abnormal
development of the rectum or anus.50
In 2013, 35.1 percent of adults in Mississippi were obese; this was the highest obesity rate in the
United States and compared to a U.S. obesity level of 29.4 percent.51, 52 In Mississippi, 31.1 percent of
Whites were obese, 42.5 percent of African Americans were obese, and 35.3 percent of Hispanics
were obese; nationwide, 27.4 percent of Whites were obese and 37.9 percent of African Americans
were obese.53 In Mississippi, 37.3 percent of females and 31.8 percent of males were obese as
compared to national obesity rates of 28.0 percent for females and 29.1 percent for males; females in
Mississippi had the highest obesity rate in the nation.54

44 Beydoun, M. A., Beydoun, H. A., Wang, Y. (2008). Obesity and Central Obesity as Risk Factors for Incident Dementia and its Subtypes:
a Systematic Review. Obesity Reviews. 9(3): 204 – 218.
45 Chauhan, S. P., Magann, E. E., Carroll, C. S., Barrilleaux, P. S., Scardo, J. A., and Martin, J.N. Jr. (2001). Mode of Delivery for the
Morbidly Obese with Prior Cesarean Delivery: Vaginal versus Repeat Cesarean Section. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
185(2): 349‐354.
46 Chu, S. Y., Callaghan, W. M., Kim, S. Y., et al. (2007). Maternal Obesity and Risk of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 30(8):
2070‐2076.
47 Usha Kiran, T. S., Hemmadi, S., Bethel, J., and Evans, J. (2005). Outcome of Pregnancy in a Woman with Increased Body Mass Index.
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynacology. 112(6): 768‐772.
48 O’Brien, T. E., Ray, J. G., Chan, W. S. (2003). Maternal Body Mass Index and the Risk of Preeclampsia: a Systematic Overview.
Epidemiology. 14(3): 368‐374.
49 Sebire, N. J., Jolly, M., Harris, J. R., et al. (2001). Maternal Obesity and Pregnancy Outcome: a Study of 287,213 Pregnancies in
London. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders. 25(8): 1175‐1182.
50 Katherine J. Stothard, PhD; Peter W. G. Tennant, MSc; Ruth Bell, MD; Judith Rankin, PhD. (2009). Maternal Overweight and Obesity
and the Risk of Congenital Anomalies: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association. 301 (6):
636 – 650.
51 Prevalence of Self‐Reported Obesity among U.S. Adults by State and Territory, 2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Behavioral Risk Surveillance Survey.
52 Author’s note: in 2011 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initiated changes in its methodology for calculating obesity; as
a result, prevalence estimates from 2011 cannot be compared with obesity estimates reported prior to 2011.
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid.
31


Obesity among Children
Obesity and being overweight has
increased dramatically among
children. Between 1976 and 1990,
there was a 40 percent increase in
the prevalence of being overweight
or obese among youth between the
ages of 6 and 17.55, 56 ,57 Research
has found that an estimated 22
percent of youth aged 6 to 17 years
were overweight in 1995 and 25
percent were overweight in 1998.
“The relatively greater increase in
the upper body mass index (BMI)
percentiles compared with the lower Figure 1: Obesity and Overweight High School Students
suggests the severity of overweight
is increasing.”58 “The prevalence of overweight has increased over the last 25 years among all
American children and adolescents, but particularly among racial/ethnic minorities.”59, 60, 61
According to the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey for 2013,62 in the U.S., the percentage of
high school students who were obese was 12.4 percent; for males, this obesity rate was 15.1
percent and for females, this obesity rate was 9.1 percent. Among high school students in
Mississippi, the obesity rate was 15.4 percent for all students; for males in Mississippi high
schools, the obesity rate was 19.2 percent and it was 11.7 percent for females.

55 Rosenbaum, M., Leibel, R. L., (1998). The Physiology of Body Weight Regulation: Relevance to the Etiology of Obesity in
Children. Pediatrics. 101: 525‐539.
56 Troiano, R. P., Flegal, K. M. (1998). Overweight Children and Adolescents: Description, Epidemiology, and Demographics.
Pediatrics. 101: 497‐504.
57 Troiano, R. P., Flegal, K. M., Kuczmarski, R. J., Campbell, S.M., and Johnson, C. L. (1995). Overweight Prevalence and Trends
for Children and Adolescents: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1963 to 1991. Archives of Pediatrics &
Adolescent Medicine. 149: 1085‐1091.
58 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Evidence Syntheses and
Systematic Evidence Reviews 2005, Screening and Interventions for Childhood Overweight, prepared by the Oregon Evidence‐
based Practice Center; Principal Investigators: Evelyn P. Whitlock, MD, MPH; Selvi B. Williams, MD; Rachel Gold, PhD, MPH;
Paula Smith, RN, BSN; and Scott Shipman, MD, MPH.
59 Ibid.
60 Ogden, C. L., (2009). Disparities in Obesity Prevalence in the United States: Black Women at Risk; American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition. 89(4): 1001 ‐ 1002.
61 Robinson, W. R.; Gordon‐Larsen, P.; Kaufman, J. S. et al. (2009). The Female‐Male Disparity in Obesity Prevalence among
Black American Young Adults: Contributions of Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Childhood Family; American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition. 89 (4): 1204‐1212.
62 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance – United States, 2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality
Week Reports, Surveillance Summaries, 63(4).
32


The CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey for 2013 found that the percentage of high school
students who were overweight was 14.9 percent; for males and females, the percentage of high
school students that were overweight was 14.8 percent. Among Mississippi’s high school
students, 13.2 percent were overweight; 10.0 percent of male high school students were
overweight and 16.3 percent of female high school students were overweight. This indicates
that approximately 28.7 percent of Mississippi’s high school students were either obese or
overweight (Figure 2, below).63
In the United States, the percent of children aged six to 11 years who are considered obese was
17.4 percent; 16.0 percent of females and 18.7 percent of males in this age group were
considered obese. Among White children aged six to 11 years, 15.6 percent of children were
obese and among African American children, 20.0 percent of children aged six to 11 years were
obese. For children age six to 11, the obesity rate for children with health insurance was 16.4
percent as compared to an obesity
rate of 26.1 percent for children
with no health insurance. Among
children aged six to 11 years with
health insurance, the obesity rate
among children covered by private
health insurance was 14.5 percent
as compared to 19.8 percent
among children who were covered
by public health insurance.64
Based upon data from the 2011
National Survey of Children’s
Health, the obesity rate among
children age 10 to 17 was 21.7 percent Figure 2: Obesity and Overweight by Gender
in Mississippi; this was the highest level
in the United States.65
Overweight and obese children have a high probability of becoming obese adults and
experiencing a higher incidence of health problems as compared with normal‐weight children.
Studies have found that overweight or obese children have increased blood pressure and
glucose intolerance and exhibit psychosocial difficulties and increased risk of the persistence of
obesity into adulthood. The high cost of treating diseases and health risks associated with
overweight and obese children can be expected to increase significantly as the overweight and

63 Ibid.
64 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Percent of Children and Adolescents Aged 6 to 11 Years who are Considered
Obese. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2005 – 2008.
65 National Survey of Children’s Health, 2011. Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau.
33


obese population ages. Research has found that body fatness is a significant predictor of
cardiovascular disease risk factors in children and youth,66 with the atherosclerotic process
beginning in childhood,67, 68, 69 and that eating habits developed during childhood form the long‐
term eating patterns of the population.70 A study conducted by researchers at the Children’s
Nutrition Research Center at the Baylor College of Medicine found that children who are
overweight have a 1.5 to twofold higher risk of being overweight as adults and that overweight
youth are 2.4 times as likely to have a high cholesterol level and 43.5 times as likely to have
three or more cardiovascular risk factors.71
Childhood Obesity and Academic Outcomes
Causal relationships between student obesity and academic outcomes require more research.
One of the difficulties in identifying the cause and effect relationships between obesity and
student academic outcomes is due to the autocorrelation that exists between childhood
obesity, poverty, race, and parental academic attainment levels. There is significant evidence
to suggest that childhood obesity can impact a student’s performance in school. Research has
established a link between childhood obesity, depression, and low self‐esteem, which in turn is
related to educational attainment. Research has found that obese children in kindergarten
score lower on math and reading tests and overweight females have lower scores on academic
tests between kindergarten and 3rd grade.72, 73 Studies of middle and high school students have
found that students at risk of obesity tend to have lower grades and that obese girls perform
more poorly on math and reading tests when compared to their normal weight peers.74 A 1966
study found that overweight students have a lower college acceptance rate to universities as
compared to normal weight students with similar test scores.75 A longitudinal study of

66 Williams, D. P., Going, S. B., Lohman, T. G., Harsha, D. W., Snnivasan, S. R., Webber, L. S., Berenson, G. S, (1993). Body
Fatness and Risk for Elevated Blood Pressure, Total Cholesterol, and Serum Lipoprotein Ratios in Children and Adolescents:
American Journal of Public Health. 82(3): 358 ‐ 363.
67 National Cholesterol Education Program. Highlights of the Report of the Expert Panel on Blood Cholesterol Levels in Children
and Adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics 1993; 89 (3): 495 – 501.
68 Kavey, R. E., Daniels, S. R., Lauer, R. M., et al. (2003). American Heart Association guidelines for primary prevention of
atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease beginning in childhood. Circulation. 107(11): 1562‐6.
69 McCrindle, B. W., Urbina, E. M., Dennison, B. A., et al. (2007). Drug Therapy of High‐risk Lipid Abnormalities in Children and
Adolescents: A Scientific Statement from the American heart Association Atherosclerosis, Hypertension, and Obesity in Youth
Committee, Council of Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, with the Council on Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation. 115: 1948‐
67.
70 Birch, L. L., Fisher, J. O. (1998). Development of Eating Behaviors among Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics; 101(5): 39–49.
71 Nicklas, T.A., Baranowski, T., Cullen, K.W., and Berenson, G. (2001). Eating Patterns, Dietary Quality and Obesity; Journal of
the American College Nutrition. 20 (6): 599 – 608.
72 Datar, A., Sturm, R., and Magnabosco, J. L. (2004). Childhood Overweight and Academic Performance: National Study of
Kindergartners and First‐graders. Obesity Research, 12 (1): 58‐68.
73 Datar, A., and Sturm, R. (2006). Childhood Overweight and Elementary School Outcomes. International Journal of Obesity, 30:
1449‐1460.
74 Crosnoe, R., and Muller, C. (2004). Body Mass Index, Academic Achievement, and School Context: Examining the Educational
Experiences of Adolescents at Risk of Obesity. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45(4): 393‐407.
75 Canning, H., Majer, J. (1966). Obesity – Its Possible Effect on College Acceptance, New England Journal of Medicine; 275:
1172 – 1174.
34


adolescents and young adults over a seven‐year period found that women who were
overweight in their youth completed less schooling, had higher rates of poverty, and had lower
household incomes as adults.76 A study funded by the Rand Corporation found that female
students who transitioned from being not‐overweight upon entry into kindergarten but became
overweight at the end of third grade experienced negative academic achievement and social‐
behavioral outcomes by the end of third grade, with findings of significant reductions in test
scores.77 Of particular concern is the association between lower school attendance levels and
student obesity. Research has demonstrated the relationship between poor academic
outcomes and school attendance78, 79 and has demonstrated that obesity is a significant
contributor to student absenteeism after adjusting for race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic
status.80
The Economic Cost of Obesity
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has found that overweight and obesity
have a significant impact on the health care system in the United States.81 Longitudinally, the
cost of obesity and the treatment of obesity‐related illnesses has escalated in the United States;
the increase in these costs are primarily a function of increased health care costs and increased
levels of obesity within the population. Research estimates of the cost of obesity in the United
States vary significantly depending upon multiple factors, to include the time frame during
which the research is conducted, the methodology that is used to measure these costs, the
variables included in the analysis, the population included in the study (i.e. adults, children, or
specific sub‐populations), and the purpose of the study. All estimates of the cost of obesity
within the United States (or Mississippi) must be viewed within the context of a degree of
uncertainty that begins with the methods and sources used to measure the level of obesity
within a population and increases from that starting point. The economic cost of obesity
includes direct and indirect costs; some studies expand these categories to include
transportation, human capital costs, or productivity costs. The direct medical costs associated
with overweight and obesity include diagnosis, treatment, and prevention including outpatient
and inpatient health services and drug therapies; indirect costs include the value of lost work
and income related to absenteeism and decreased productivity at work (also called

76 Gortmaker, S. L., Must, A., Perrin, J. M., and Sobol, A. M. (1993). Social and Economic Consequences of Overweight in
Adolescence and Young Adulthood. New England Journal of Medicine. 328: 1008 – 1012.
77 Datar, A., and Sturm, R. (2006). Childhood Overweight and Elementary School Outcomes. International Journal of Obesity.
30: 1449 ‐ 1460.
78 Dunn, M. C., Kadane, J. B., and Garrow, J. R. (2003). Comparing Harm Done by Mobility and Class Absence: Missing Students
and Missing Data. Journal of Education and Behavioral Statistics. 28 (3): 269 – 288.
79 Monk, D., Ibrahim, M. (1984). Patterns of Absence and Pupil Achievement. American Educational Research Journal. 21 (2):
295 – 310.
80 Geier, A. B., Foster, G. D., Womble, L. G., et al. (2007). The Relationship between Relative Weight and School Attendance
among Elementary Schoolchildren. Obesity. 15 (8): 2157 – 2161.
81 The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity (2001). U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
35


“presenteeism,” which is defined as working at less than full capacity), and the value of future
income that is lost due to premature death. From a public policy perspective, an understanding
of the economic burden of obesity, the negative externalities, and shifting of these cost
burdens are useful in the decision‐making process to evaluate the cost and benefit of policy
interventions designed to reduce the prevalence of obesity.
Research conducted in 200482 that examined state level Medicare and Medicaid spending by
state using 1998 – 2000 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavior
Risk Factor Surveillance System found that total U.S. medical spending attributable to adult
obesity was approximately $75.1 billion, with $17.7 billion of obesity‐related health costs being
paid by Medicare and $21.3 billion being paid by Medicaid. This would indicate that
approximately 23.6 percent of the total cost of obesity‐related medical spending is absorbed by
Medicare and 28.4 percent of the total cost of obesity‐related medical spending is absorbed by
Medicaid. These researchers found that in Mississippi, total aggregate medical spending
attributable to obesity in 1998 – 2000 was approximately $757 million (expressed in 2003
dollars); of this amount, $223 million was paid by Medicare and $221 million was paid by
Medicaid during the period from 1998 to 2000. This estimate ($757 million) of the cost of
obesity to the state of Mississippi was also used by the report “Obesity in Mississippi” compiled
by the Mississippi Department of Education’s Office of Health Schools for the Preventing
Obesity with Every Resource (POWER) Project and Governor Haley Barbour’s Obesity Task
Force.
Subsequent research in 200983 estimated that the medical cost of obesity was approximately
$147 billion annually in the United States and that obesity‐related health care costs
represented approximately 12.9 percent of private health care spending, 8.5 percent of
Medicare spending, and 11.8 percent of Medicaid spending in the U.S. This research also found
that the increase in adult per capita medical spending that is attributable to obesity is $1,723
for Medicare beneficiaries, $1,021 for Medicaid beneficiaries, and $1,140 per person for those
who are privately insured; across all payers, the per capita medical spending was $1,429 higher
for those who were obese as compared to persons of normal weight.
A 2009 study conducted by Kenneth E. Thorpe and academic researchers at Emory University
used econometric modeling to estimate obesity‐related direct health care costs in the United
States. This report found that obesity was a rapidly growing public health issue in the U.S. and
that approximately 103 million adults will be obese by 2018, assuming current growth trends
continued. The Emory University study estimated that total obesity‐related health care costs
for adults in the U.S. was between $67.4 and $91.5 billion in 2008 and predicted that these

82 Finkelstein, E. A., Fiebelkorn, I. C., Wang, G. (2004). State‐level Estimates of Annual Medical Expenditures Attributable to
Obesity. Obesity Research. 12 (1): 18 – 24.
83 Finkelstein, E. A., Trogdon, J. G., Cohen, J. W., and Dietz, W. (2009). At the Intersection of Health, Health Care and Policy.
Health Affairs. 28(5): w822 ‐ w831.
36


costs would increase to approximately $343.8 billion by 2018. Using data collected from the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the CDC’s Behavior Risk Factor
Surveillance System, the obesity rate of the population of Mississippi was projected to increase
from 37.7 percent in 2008 to approximately 52.2 percent in 2018.84 In 2008, direct health care
costs associated with obesity were estimated to be $441 per capita for adults in Mississippi and
Mississippi’s obesity‐related health care spending was projected to increase to $1,757 per adult
by 2018.85
More recent research86 has
estimated that the per
capita medical spending for
obese persons was $2,741
per person higher as
compared to non‐obese
persons, $1,152 higher for
obese men and $3,613
higher for women. This
research also found that the
obesity‐related per capita
medical spending for the
uninsured was $3,15387 as
compared to $2,568 for
those with private insurance
and $3,674 for those with Figure 3: Per Capita Additional Cost of Obesity‐Related Health Care Cost
Medicaid (Figure 3). This
research found that the national health care cost associated with obesity was approximately
$209.7 billion; this is higher than any previous estimates and indicates that approximately 20.6
percent of U.S. health care expenditures are related to the cost of treating obesity and its
related illnesses.88

84 Thorpe, K.E., (2009). National and State Estimates of the Impact of Obesity on Direct Health Care Expenses. A Collaborative
Report from the United Health Foundation, the American Public Health Association and Partnership for Prevention.
85 Ibid.
86 Cawley, J., and Meyerhoefer, C. (2012). The Medical Care Costs of Obesity: An Instrumental Variables Approach. Journal of
Health Economics. 31: 219 – 230.
87 Author’s note: no data was provided by the Cawley and Meyerhoefer for the estimated cost to 3rd party payers for the
obesity related health care costs for the uninsured.
88 Ibid.
37

Figure 4: Distribution of Total National Health Care Expenditures by Source of Payment, 2009 Actual and 2020
Projected (in Billions of Dollars)
38


Health care costs are increasing and the rising cost of health care will impact the obesity‐
related cost of health care; as health care costs increase, so too will the cost of obesity‐related
health care. Of particular concern is the level of public spending on health care. Public
spending on health care represents expenditures by Federal, State, and local governments,
private spending on health care is the other component of national health expenditures.
In 2012, National Health Care
Expenditures were $2.8 trillion, an
estimated $8,915 per person and
are projected to increase to
$14,944 per capita by 2023 (Figure
5).89 From 2011 to 2012,
Medicare spending in the U.S.
grew by 4.8 percent to $572.5
billion and represented 21 percent
of total National Health Care
Expenditures; over the same one‐
year period, Medicaid spending
increased by 2.2 percent to $917
billion and represented 15
Figure 5: U.S. Per Capita Spending on Health Care 2007 through 2023
percent of total National
Health Care Expenditures.90 In
2012, federal government spending accounted for 26 percent of National Health Care
Expenditures, private business spending represented 21 percent of National Health Care
Expenditures, and 18 percent of National Health Care Expenditures came from state or local
governments.91 From 2013 through 2023, National Health Care Expenditures are projected to
grow at an average annual rate of 5.7 percent and by 2023; health care expenditures paid for
by Federal, State, and local governments are projected to account for 48.1 percent of National
Health Care Expenditures. In 2013, Medicare, Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance
Programs (SCHIP), and other publically funded health care insurance programs (i.e. Department
of Defense and Department of Veteran’s Affairs) represented approximately 39.1 percent of
total national healthcare expenditures; by 2023, this is projected to increase to 43.1 percent. In
2007, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP expended approximately $769.6 billion on health care
services; in 2009, this amount was approximately $905 billion and is projected to increase to
approximately $2,030 billion by 2023.92

89 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, 2014.
90 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2013 Actuarial Report of the Financial Outlook for Medicaid, Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services The Office of the Actuary in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
91 Ibid.
92 Ibid.
39


Table 6: Personal Health Care Spending by Payer Group for Mississippi and the United States, Comparison of 2004 and 2009
Average Annual
All Personal Health Care Spending 2004 2009
Growth 2001 to 2009
U.S. Spending Per Capita $5,411 $6,815 5.30%

Mississippi Spending Per Capita $5,119 $6,444 6.30%
U.S. Total Spending on Personal Health Care $1,585,019,829,000 $2,089,862,286,000 6.50%
Mississippi Total Spending on Personal Health Care $14,743,145,000 $19,384,199,000 7.00%
U.S. Total Enrollment 292,936,109 306,656,290 1.10%
Mississippi Total Enrollment 2,884,920 2,949,943 0.70%
Average Annual
Medicaid 2004 2009
Growth 2001 to 2009
U.S. Spending Per Capita $6,089 $6,826 3.70%
Mississippi Spending Per Capita $5,241 $6,850 6.20%
U.S. Total Spending on Personal Health Care $271,167,541,000 $345,669,140,000 7.80%
Mississippi Total Enrollment 653,882 620,336 2.30%
Average Annual
Medicare 2004 2009
Growth 2001 to 2009
U.S. Spending per Enrollee $7,362 $10,365 6.30%
Mississippi Spending per Enrollee $7,521 $10,667 6.90%
Mississippi Total Enrollment 446,410 487,978 1.50%
Average Annual
Private Health Insurance 2004 2009
Growth 2001 to 2009
U.S. Spending per Enrollee $2,878 $3,766 6.70%
Mississippi Spending per Enrollee $2,578 $3,230 7.20%
U.S. Total Enrollment 195,546,000 189,086,000 ‐0.60%
Mississippi Total Enrollment 1,649,000 1,534,000 ‐2.50%
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group
Author's Note: The most recent comparable, longitudinal data for the state of Mississippi is presented in the table above. To provide a frame of reference regarding
changing enrollment in publically funded health insurance programs, CMS reported that in August of 2014, total enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP was 637,229 in the
state of Mississippi and that over the one‐year period from 2013 to 2014, enrollment had increased by 52,692 (8.27 percent) in the state of Mississippi.

40


The growth in
public health
spending is
projected to
outpace the growth
of private health
care spending as
the population ages
and becomes
eligible for
Medicare and as
the relatively
expensive aged and
disabled eligible
groups constitute
an increased share
of Medicaid
enrollment. From Figure 6: Total National Health Expenditures Funded from Public Sources, Actual through 2012
2008 through 2017, and Projected through 2023 (in billions of dollars)
enrollment in
Medicaid is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent, with a predicted
national enrollment of 55.1 million by 2017; public spending on Medicare is projected to
increase to 8.1 percent in 2018 and public spending on Medicaid is expected to increase by 8.9
percent by 2018.93 A comparison of Medicare and Medicaid spending in the United States as
compared to the state of Mississippi indicates the following (Table 6, page 40):
 In 2009, total personal health care spending associated with Medicare beneficiaries in the
state of Mississippi was $5.2 billion.
 From 2001 to 2009, total personal health care spending associated with Medicare
beneficiaries in the state of Mississippi grew at an average annual rate of 8.5 percent; the
average annual growth rate of total personal health care spending for Medicare
beneficiaries in the state of Mississippi was higher than that of the United States.

93 Author’s note: The Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publishes actual and predicted
data for national health care expenditures; at the time of this report, comparable state and national level data was only
available through 2009. In 2010, the National Health Statistics Group at CMS undertook a comprehensive revision of the data,
methodology, processing, and definitions (as well as conceptual changes) in the methodology used for reporting national health
care expenditures. For purposes of estimating the economic cost of obesity to the state of Mississippi, this report uses the
2009 data published by the Office of the Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
41


 In 2009, per capita health care spending for Medicare beneficiaries was $10,667 in
Mississippi and grew at an average annual rate of 6.9 percent per enrollee; per capita health
care spending for Medicare beneficiaries in the state of Mississippi was higher than that of
the United States and grew at a faster rate than that of the United States over the period
from 2001 through 2009.
 In 2009, total personal health care spending associated with Medicaid beneficiaries in the
state of Mississippi was $3.6 billion.
 From 2001 to 2009, total personal health care spending associated with Medicaid
beneficiaries in the state of Mississippi grew at an average annual rate of 8.6 percent as
compared to a growth of 7.8 percent at the national level.
 In 2009, per capita health care spending for Medicaid beneficiaries in Mississippi was
$6,850 and grew at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent over the period from 2001 to
2009. In the U.S., per capita health care spending by Medicaid beneficiaries was $6,826 in
2009 and grew at an average annual rate of 3.7 percent from 2001 to 2009.
The total number of individuals enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP programs in August 2014 for all
reporting states in the U.S. (51 states plus the District of Columbia) was 67,931,644; of these,
27,825,231 were children enrolled in CHIP programs in 43 states; based upon this data, it can
be estimated that children enrolled in the Medicaid and CHIP programs constitute
approximately 55 percent of total Medicaid and CHIP program enrollment nationwide.94
In 2015, the requested funding for the Mississippi Office of Medicaid was $5,625,510,068; of
this amount, approximately $4.1 billion is provided from federal sources, $983,049,485 is
provided by state general funds, and the balance is provided by other state agency matching
funds (2 percent) and the Provider Tax (7 percent or $420,052,225).95 In 2014, the budget for
the Mississippi Division of Medicaid was $5,359,605,123. In 2013, direct state funding for the
Mississippi Office of Medicaid totaled $820,544,336; this amount increased by $162.5 million by
2015, the direct state appropriated funding requested by the Mississippi Office of Medicaid was
$983,049,485.96
In the state of Mississippi, there were approximately 643,664 Medicaid beneficiaries and
70,020 State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beneficiaries in 2013; Medicaid
enrollment averaged an annual increase of approximately 1.1 percent per year and CHIP
enrollment averaged an annual increase of 2.8 percent over the period from 2003 through 2013
(Figure 7, page 43). Within the context of projected increases in enrollment in publically
funded health insurance programs, increasing health care costs, the relationship between

94 Medicaid & CHIP: August 2014 Monthly Applications, Eligibility Determinations and Enrollment Report, Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
95 Mississippi Division of Medicaid, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Presentation, September 17, 2013.
96 Ibid.
42


income and obesity,
and the higher cost of
obesity‐related health
care for Medicaid
beneficiaries as
compared to the
other segments of the
population (Figure 3,
page 37 and Figure 10,
page 48), there is little
question that the cost
of obesity‐related
health care represents
a looming fiscal crisis
for the state of
Mississippi.
In addition to the
Figure 7: State of Mississippi Enrollment in Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance
economic cost of Programs 2003 through 2013
obesity that falls upon
state revenue funds, hospitals also share a portion of obesity‐related health care costs.
Generally, Medicare and Medicaid payment rates are set by law, with the exception of
managed care plans that are usually established based upon negotiations with the hospital.
Currently, the payment rates set by Medicare and Medicaid are below all hospitals’ cost of
providing care, resulting in underpayment. Hospital participation in Medicare and Medicaid is
voluntary, but it is a condition for hospitals to receive federal tax exemptions for providing
health care to the community; as a result, most hospitals accept Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries. Hospitals provide an important service to their communities because of the
important role they play in bridging the gap created by government underpayments from
Medicare and Medicaid. Payments received by hospitals for Medicare and Medicaid services
are reported for each hospital in the American Hospital Association’s (AHA) annual report.
According to the AHA’s 2012 report, Medicare and Medicaid underpayments to hospitals were
$56 billion nationwide; hospitals received payments of 86 cents for every dollar spent by
hospitals caring for Medicare patients and 89 cents for every dollar spent caring for Medicaid
patients.97 In addition to underpayments associated with Medicare and Medicaid, hospitals
also bear the burden for uncompensated care associated with charity care and bad debt –
frequently associated with self‐paying, uninsured, or underinsured patients. In 2012, U.S.
hospitals provided an additional $45.9 billion in uncompensated care related to charity and bad

97 American Hospital Association, Underpayment by Medicare and Medicaid Fact Sheet, 2014.
43


debt; this amount increased by $4.8 billion over the one year period from 2011 to 2012.98 In
Mississippi, the cost of uncompensated care is estimated to be $525.5 million; of that amount,
$315 million was not covered by federal reimbursement programs.99 The cost of
underpayments and uncompensated care is frequently shifted to other payers (i.e. employers
and those with private insurance) in the form of a “hidden tax.” A study in 2009100 estimated
that in Mississippi, the insurance premium cost shift associated with uncompensated care for
the uninsured was approximately $320 per individual and $800 per family for those with private
insurance.
Studies indicate that the majority of the uninsured (61 percent) do not have health insurance
because they cannot Table 7: The Uninsured Adult Population of Mississippi and Obesity
afford it or because they
have lost their jobs; these Age Group Total Uninsured Obesity Rate for Age Group Obese Persons
18 to 24 years: 93,135 23.5% 21,887
individuals tend to be low‐ 25 to 34 years: 115,989 35.0% 40,596
income working families 35 to 44 years: 86,886 38.9% 33,799
45 to 54 years: 83,470 46.2% 38,563
and individuals living
55 to 64 years: 63,301 36.7% 23,231
below 200 percent of 65 and Over: 919 28.2% 259
101, 102
poverty. According Total 443,700 N/A 158,335
Uninsured data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey 1‐Year Estimates
to data from the U.S. Obesity data from CDC Behavioral Risk Surveillance Survey, 2013
Census Bureau, there
were approximately 443,700 adults age 18 and over in the state of Mississippi that had no
health insurance. Based upon estimates of obesity levels by age group from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, it can be projected that there are approximately 158,335
uninsured adults in the state of Mississippi that are obese (Table 7, above). This estimate of the
number of obese Mississippians with no health insurance is quite conservative because obesity
rates are significantly higher for low income adults and range between 40.7 percent and 41.2
percent for individuals with incomes of less than $25,000 (see obesity by income group Table 5,
page 30). Based upon prior research on obesity‐related health care costs discussed in previous
sections of this report, obesity‐related health care costs associated with uninsured adults in
Mississippi lie within a range of $158,335,294 and may be as high as $499,231,182 based upon
the per capita additional obesity‐related health care cost estimate of $3,153 for uninsured
adults that was found by Cowley and Meyerhoefer in 2012.103

98 Ibid.
99 American Hospital Association, Uncompensated Hospital Care Cost Fact Sheet, December 2013.
100 Furnas, B. and Harbage, P. (2009). The Cost Shift from the Uninsured. Center for American Progress Action Fund (an update
of prior 2005 research conducted by Kenneth Thorpe).
101 The Uninsured: A Primer, The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, 2013 report.
102 Uninsured Americans: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, One Hundred Sixth Congress, First Session, June 15, 1999. Washington: U.S. G.P.O. ISBN: 060599849.
44


Given annual changes in adult obesity levels, changes in population size, and escalating health
care costs, updated estimates of the cost of obesity within the state of Mississippi are useful for
the purpose of evaluating the cost‐benefit of public policy interventions designed to reduce
obesity in the state of Mississippi. Although a comprehensive analysis of the cost of obesity to
the state of Mississippi is beyond the scope of this study, data from previous studies on the per
capita additional health care cost of obesity that were conducted in prior years when the cost
of health care was lower than during the current time period can be applied to current
population statistics and current adult obesity rates to generate estimates of the economic cost
of obesity within the state of Mississippi. This assumption is further substantiated because, as
demonstrated in Table 6 on page 40, per capita health care spending in the state of Mississippi
closely approximates U.S. health care spending. Based upon 2013 population data for the state
of Mississippi, the
Table 8: Population Obesity Estimates for the State of Mississippi
total population of
Mississippi that State of Mississippi Population 2013 Population Obesity Rate Total Obese Population
was over the age of Total Population 18 and Over 2,253,775 35.1% 791,075
18 was estimated Total White Population 18 and Over 1,393,777 31.1% 433,465

to be 2,253,775; Total Black Population 18 and Over 770,497 42.5% 327,461
Total Other Population 18 and Over 89,501 32.8% 29,356
there were Total Obese Population Using Race 790,282
1,077,466 males
Total Male Population 18 and Over 1,077,466 33.8% 364,184
over the age of 18 Total Female Population 18 and Over 1,176,309 36.4% 428,176
and 1,176,309 Total Obese Population 18 and Over using Gender 792,360
females over the Age Group Total Population Obesity Rate Total Obese Population
18 to 24 years: 312,878 23.5% 73,526
age of 18.104 Using 25 to 34 years: 360,550 35.0% 126,193
alternative 35 to 44 years: 369,623 38.9% 143,783
45 to 54 years: 380,924 46.2% 175,987
methods to 55 to 64 years: 366,771 36.7% 134,605
calculate the 65 and Over: 400,390 28.2% 112,910
Total 2,191,136 N/A 767,004
estimated adult Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey, 1‐Year Estimates
obese population
in the state of Mississippi, it is projected that there are approximately 767,000 to 790,000
obese adults in the state of Mississippi (Table 8, above); this estimate would include all adults
regardless of health insurance status (i.e. insured and uninsured). For purposes of estimating
the medical spending associated with obesity in the state of Mississippi, this study uses the low
point estimate of 767,000 obese adults in the following paragraph.
Using Thorpe’s (2009)105 mid‐point estimate of obesity attributable health care spending per
adult of $761, it may be projected that adult obesity‐related health care costs in the state of

104 Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties, and Puerto Rico
Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1 2010 to July 1, 2013. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates.
45


Mississippi are approximately $583,687,000; using Thorpe’s upper range estimate of obesity
attributable health care spending per adult, it can be estimated that adult obesity‐related
health care costs in the state of Mississippi are approximately $687,999,000. Using Finkelstein’s
(2009)106 estimate of adult medical spending attributable to obesity of $1,429 per capita, it
would be estimated that adult obesity‐related health care costs in the state of Mississippi
approximate $1,096,043,000. Based upon Cawley and Meyerhoefer’s (2012)107 per capita
obesity‐related health care cost point estimate of $2,741 and point estimate of $2,418 to 3rd
party payers (public and private insurers) for all obese persons (Figure 3, page 37), it can be
projected that $247,741,000 of the obesity‐related cost of health care is absorbed by
households or represents uncompensated costs to hospitals or physicians, and approximately
$1,854,606,000 of the obesity‐related costs of health care in the state of Mississippi is absorbed
by either public or private insurance.
The methodology used by Cawley and Meyerhoefer adjusts for the endogeneity and the
measurement error in weight found in some research on obesity‐related health care, and
specifically accounts for differences in obesity‐related health care cost for disadvantaged
minorities and those with low socioeconomic status, creating a powerful empirical model; the
potential cost of obesity‐related health care expenditures in the state of Mississippi was further
examined using the findings of this research.108 Table 9, below, applies proportional gender
and race or ethnicity distributions to the estimated population of 767,000 adult obese persons
in Mississippi and applies subgroup obesity‐related health care expenditure data from the
Cawley and Meyerhoefer model.109
As shown in Table 9, modeling obesity‐related health care expenditures for the state of
Mississippi using the Cawley and Meyerhoefer methodology produces estimates that range
from $1,643,607,756 to $1,868,694,292 for 3rd party payers; these estimates are significantly
higher than previously estimated for the state of Mississippi. As with all statistical models,
Table 9: Obesity‐Related Health Costs in Mississippi using the Cawley and Meyerhoefer Model
Total Obesity
Total Obesity
Mississippi Cost of Obesity based Per Capita Obesity Per Capita Total Obesity Related Health
Obese Related Health Care
upon projected Obese Related Health Care Cost to 3rd Related Health Care Cost
Population Cost to 3rd Party
Population of 767,000 Costs Party Payers Care Costs Absorbed Out‐of‐
Payers
Pocket o
Total Population 767,000 $2,741 $2,418 $2,102,347,000 $1,854,606,000 $247,741,000
White 474,327 $2,729 $2,502 $1,294,439,139 $1,186,766,847 $107,672,292
Non‐White 292,673 $2,731 $2,330 $799,289,206 $681,927,444 $117,361,762
Total based upon Race/Ethnicity 767,000 N/A N/A $2,093,728,345 $1,868,694,292 $225,034,054
Male 366,681 $1,152 $967 $422,416,487 $354,580,506 $67,835,981
Female 400,319 $3,613 $3,220 $1,446,352,625 $1,289,027,250 $157,325,376
Total based upon Gender 767,000 N/A N/A $1,868,769,112 $1,643,607,756 $225,161,357

106 Finkelstein, E. A., Trogdon, J. G., Cohen, J. W., and Dietz, W. (2009). At the Intersection of Health, Health Care and Policy.
Health Affairs. 28(5): w822 ‐ w831.
108 Ibid.
109 Ibid.
46


there are questions regarding the generalizability of the findings and the accuracy of the
estimates; however, it is possible that even these extraordinarily high obesity‐related health
care expenditure cost projections may underestimate the actual cost of obesity in the state of
Mississippi because health care costs have escalated since Cawley and Meyerhoefer modeled
costs using Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data for the period from 2000 – 2005,
and because spending for over‐the‐counter medications are excluded from the model.
Some research has modeled obesity‐related health care costs as a percentage of U.S. national
health expenditures; a statistic widely quoted by multiple sources, including the Centers for
Disease for Control and Prevention, is that 10 percent of U.S. national health expenditures are
attributable to obesity from Finkelstein.110 Other researchers have estimated that 9.1
percent111 of total U.S. national health expenditures are obesity‐related, and in some research,
this estimate is as high as 20.6 percent.112 In 2009, total health expenditures in the state of
Mississippi were $19,384,199,000 (Table 6, page 40). Assuming 10 percent of these
expenditures were attributable to obesity‐related health care, obesity‐related health care
expenditures in the state of Mississippi can be projected to be approximately $1,938,419,900
for all age groups; this amount would also include the cost of child obesity.
As described in the previous paragraphs, the burden of obesity‐related health care costs in the
state of Mississippi is significant regardless of the methodology used to calculate these costs.
Within the framework of the anticipated growth in the cost of health care, future population
growth, a shift from private insurance to public insurance and related enrollment increases in
public health insurance programs, the burden of these increasing costs on the state of
Mississippi portend ominous revenue shortfalls for publically funded insurance programs.
These increasing obesity‐related health care costs will result in either a significant increase in
the burden of these costs to taxpayers or a significant reduction in the ability of the state to
provide services to its citizens.

110 Finkelstein, E. A., Trogdon, J. G., Cohen, J. W., and Dietz, W. (2009). Annual Medical Spending Attributable to Obesity: Payer‐
and Service‐Specific Estimates. Health Affairs. 28(5): w822 – w831.
47


Figure 8: Comparative Physician Visits Figure 9: Comparative Hospitalization Rates
Figure 10: Comparative Medical and Drug Expenditures
48


The Economic Cost of Childhood Obesity
The obesity epidemic in the United States has severely impacted children. The national cost of
childhood obesity is estimated to be approximately $11 billion for children with private
insurance and $3.1 billion for children covered by Medicaid. Research has found that children
from low‐income families who are least able to afford health care are disproportionately
impacted by obesity; these are usually children who receive health care through Medicaid or
State Children’s Health Insurance Programs, or may have no health insurance coverage from
any source. Obese children are two to three times more likely to have a hospital stay during a
year than all children. Children from low‐income families who receive Medicaid are less likely
to visit a doctor (Figure 8, page 48), and their condition may go undiagnosed and untreated
until their health deteriorates to the point where more urgent (and costly) medical treatment is
required; a similar situation exists for children who have no health insurance.113 As a result,
they are more likely to enter a hospital than children with private insurance (see Figure 9, page
48). A study conducted by Thomson Medstat found that the rate of children treated for
diagnosed obesity that were covered by Medicaid was nearly six times higher than that of
privately insured children who were treated for diagnosed obesity.114 The health care cost of
treating children diagnosed with obesity is approximately three times that of non‐obese
children because obese children are more likely to be diagnosed with health conditions that
require higher medical costs such as: diabetes, heart disease, bone, joint, and spinal disorders,
gastroenteritis, hypertension, and mental disorders. The mean annual healthcare cost for
obese children covered by Medicaid has been found to be $4,284 higher (see Figure 10, page
48) than the health care costs for non‐obese children covered by Medicaid and the mean
annual health care cost for obese children covered by private insurance is $2,635 higher than
the health care cost for non‐obese children.115 Given the obstacles that children from low‐
income backgrounds have in accessing the health care system, it is likely that obesity is under‐
diagnosed and under‐treated; therefore, the true cost of obesity‐related health care costs may
be underestimated.
Childhood obesity represents a major cost to private industry and to state or local government
entities that provide health insurance to employees. Reports and surveys conducted by
business groups116, 117 have found that children and adolescent dependents account for
approximately 18.5 percent of large employers’ health care costs (excluding dental care) and

113 Gresenz, C. R., Rogowski, J. and Escarce, J. J. (2006). Dimensions of the Local Health Care Environment and Use of Care by
Uninsured Children in Rural and Urban Areas. Pediatrics (117(3): e509 ‐ e517.
114 Marder, W. D., Chang, S.; Childhood Obesity: Costs, Treatment Patterns, Disparities in Care, and Prevalent Medical
Conditions, 2005; Thomson Medstat Research Brief.
115 Ibid.
116 National Business Group on Health. Maternal and Child Health Benefits Survey. Washington, D.C.: National Business Group
on Health; January 2006.
117 Mercer Health and Benefits Consulting. National Survey of Employer Sponsored Health Plans: 2005 Survey Report. Mercer
Health & Benefits Consulting: 2006.
49


that approximately 33 percent of the beneficiaries of large employers’ health care coverage are
dependents under the age of 25. As demonstrated in the previous paragraphs, the health care
related costs for obese children are significantly higher than for non‐obese children, with obese
children visiting physicians at twice the rate of non‐obese children and having approximately
three times the hospitalization rate as other children. Nationally, childhood obesity and
overweight has been found to be associated with an additional $14.1 billion in annual health
care costs (emergency room and outpatient visits, and additional prescription drug costs).118
Studies have shown that obese children are absent from school more often than their normal
weight peers;119 working parents with sick children exhibit increased absenteeism, tardiness,
and early departure from work either to care for a sick child at home, to pick‐up sick children
from school, or to take their children to appointments with physicians. Because obese children
visit physicians more frequently, have increased rates of hospitalization, and are absent from
school more often, the high economic cost of childhood obesity manifests itself through
increased costs to employers who provide health insurance to their employees’ families,
through increased absenteeism, through the lost productivity of workers, and increased
disruptions in the work place.
Based upon data from the 2013 American Community Survey, there were 56,149 children
under the age of 18 who had no health insurance in the state of Mississippi. The Kaiser Family
Foundation estimates that there are 326,981 children under 18 in Mississippi that are covered
under employers’ or private insurance and 331,981 children under 18 who are covered by
Medicaid (or State Children’s Health Insurance Programs).120
Statistical data for childhood obesity is reported by multiple federal agencies; this data and
reported obesity levels vary based upon source, age group, income, gender, and reporting time
frame; for example, in Mississippi, 13.9 percent of low‐income children between the age of two
to four were reported to be obese;121 21.7 percent of children in Mississippi between the age of
10 to 17 were reported to be obese (the highest in the nation);122 and 15.4 percent of high
school students were reported to be obese.123 The Center for Mississippi Health Policy
reported a prevalence of obesity of 22.0 percent for elementary school students, 27.3 percent
for middle school students, and 23.5 percent for high school students in 2013; this study

Marder, W.D., Chang, S. (2006). Childhood Obesity: Costs, Treatment Patterns, Disparities in Care, and Prevalent Medical
118
Conditions. Thomson Medstat Research Brief.
119 Geier, A.B., Foster, G.D., Womble, L.G., et al; The Relationship between Relative Weight and School Attendance among
Elementary Schoolchildren, 2007; Obesity, 15 (8): 2157 – 2161.
120 Kaiser Family Foundation and Uninsured Estimates based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s March 2014 Current Population
Survey.
121 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Obesity among Low‐Income, Preschool Aged Children – United States, 2008 –
2011. Vital Signs, 62.
122 National Survey of Children’s Health, 2011. Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health
Bureau.
123 Youth Risk Behavior Survey 2013, Centers for Disease Control and Surveillance.
50


reported an obesity prevalence of 23.6 percent across all Mississippi students in kindergarten
through 12th grade.124 There are no recent studies that have estimated the cost of child obesity
in the state of Mississippi, and a study of these costs is beyond the scope of this report;
however, an estimate of child obesity‐related health care costs is useful for purposes of
examining the cost‐benefit of public policy interventions designed to address issues related to
childhood obesity. The Stennis Institute developed an estimate of the cost of childhood obesity
in the state of Mississippi using the generalized assumption that 10 percent of all children who
received employer provided health insurance or were covered under Medicaid were obese; it
was also assumed that 10 percent of all children who had no health insurance were obese.
Given that an assumed obesity rate of 10 percent for all children is significantly lower than the
estimated obesity rate across all age groups under the age of 18 in the state of Mississippi, a
rate of 10 percent will yield very conservative estimates of the cost of child obesity to the state
of Mississippi. There are three components to the cost of childhood obesity to the state of
Mississippi: 1) the cost of child obesity to employers and private insurers; 2) the cost of
childhood obesity associated with public health insurance programs (Medicaid/State Children’s
Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP); and 3) the individual “out‐of‐pocket” and/or unreimbursed
cost of health care to physicians and hospitals associated with childhood obesity for those with
no health insurance.
 With an annual cost of medical and drug expenditures of $3,743125 per obese child covered
by private health insurance, it is estimated that the total health care cost for obese children
covered by private health insurance is $122,388,988 in the state of Mississippi. These costs
are shared between the parent/guardian of the child, the employers, and the insurance
providers and vary based upon the co‐payment and the level of the deductible associated
with individual health care insurance policies; for example, a survey conducted by the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that the average family deductible in the
U.S. was $1,761.
 With an annual cost of medical and drug expenditures of $6,730 per obese child covered by
Medicaid (or SCHIP), it is estimated that the total health care cost for obese children
covered by public insurance in the state of Mississippi is $220,058,213. These costs are
borne by taxpayers through the redistribution of income from federal and state sources; for
example, in the state of Mississippi, the total cost of the State Children’s Health Insurance
Program was approximately $650 million over the period from June 2004 through June
2008; the federal government contributed about $505 million of this cost and the state of

124 Zhang, L.; Kolbo, J. R.; Kirkup, M.; Molaison, E. F.; Harbaugh, B. L.; Werle, N.; and Walker, E. (2014). Childhood Obesity Rates
in Mississippi (Prevalence and Trends in Overweight and Obesity among Mississippi Public School Students, 2005 – 2013).
Journal of the Mississippi State Medical Association. 55(3): 80 – 87.
125 Marder, W. D., Chang, S. (2006). Childhood Obesity: Costs, Treatment Patterns, Disparities in Care, and Prevalent Medical
Conditions, Thomson Medstat Research Brief.
51


Mississippi provided approximately $100 million as its share of total cost.126 Based upon
the assumption that 15 percent of the cost of child obesity‐related health care costs are
borne by the state of Mississippi, it can be estimated that Mississippi spends approximately
$33.9 million of its revenues from taxpayers annually to absorb the obesity‐related health
care costs for children who receive health care coverage through Medicaid or through the
State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
 Although prior research has examined the annual health care costs for the uninsured obese
and found the per capita cost of health care for uninsured adults was $3,271 compared to
$512 for non‐obese uninsured adults, no reliable data is available for the health care cost
for obese, uninsured children. There are approximately 56,149 uninsured children in the
state of Mississippi; assuming that 10 percent of these children are obese, it can be
estimated that the annual cost of health care for obese, uninsured children in the state of
Mississippi falls within a range of $21.1 million to $37.8 million (these estimates are based
upon the research conducted by Marder and Chang in 2005).127
 Theoretically, a one percent reduction in the obesity rate among Mississippi’s children could
result in a savings of approximately $35.1 million in annual obesity‐related health care
costs.

126 Author’s Note: These estimates do not integrate the currently undetermined impact of changes to public health insurance
programs associated with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111 – 148).
127 Marder, W. D., Chang, S.; Childhood Obesity: Costs, Treatment Patterns, Disparities in Care, and Prevalent Medical
Conditions, 2005; Thomson Medstat Research Brief.

52


Food Insecurity
Food security is defined in the literature as existing “when all people at all times have access to
sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life.” Food security relies upon
three factors: 1) food access defined as having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods
for a nutritious diet; 2) food availability defined as having sufficient quantities of food available
on a consistent basis; and 3) food use which is based upon knowledge of basic nutrition. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) monitors the food security of U.S. households; the USDA
defines food insecurity as “limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe
foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways.”
Research has found that food insecurity is associated with household poverty, low educational
attainment levels, minority status, female household status, disability, unemployment, and the
relative price of food.128, 129, 130, 131 Research has found that a one (1) percentage point increase
in the unemployment rate is associated with an increase of 0.5 percentage points in the
prevalence of food insecurity and that an increase of one (1) percent in the relative price of
food (the ratio of food price to the price of all goods and services) is associated with a 0.6
percentage point increase in the prevalence of food insecurity.132 Single parents with children
have been found to be more likely to be food insecure than other households; single men with
children were 3.18 percentage points more likely to be food insecure and single women with
children were found to be 9.6 percentage points more likely to be food insecure than other
households.133 By definition, HFFI qualifying census tracts are tracts with no grocery stores or
tracts that have only small grocery or convenience stores that carry a limited selection of
nutritious food and where food items are more expensive than in larger grocery stores or
supermarkets.134, 135 Research has found that the type of store at which consumers purchase
their food has an effect on food insecurity. One study found that for households living in HFFI
census tracts with a lack of access to food retail, there is a 5.2 percent greater likelihood of
household food insecurity.136

128 Tapogna, J., Suter, A., Nord, M., and Leachman, M. (2004). Explaining Variations in State Hunger Rates. Family Economics
and Nutrition Review. 16(2): 12‐22.
129 Zhang, Q., Jones, S., Ruhm, C. J., and Andrews, M. (2013). Higher Food Prices May Threaten Food Security Status Among
American Low‐Income Households with Children. Journal of Nutrition. 143(10): 1659 – 1665.
130 Nord, M., Andrews, M. and Carlson, S., (2009). Household Food Security in the United States, 2008. Measuring Food
Security. USDA, Economic Research Service. Economic Research Report Number 83.
131 Bartfeld, J., Dunifon, R., Nord, M., and Carlson, S. (2006). What Factors Account for State‐to‐State Differences in Food
Security? Economic Information Bulletin No. 20. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
132 Nord, M., Coleman‐Jensen, A., and Gregory, C. (2014). Prevalence of U.S. Food Insecurity is related to Changes in
Unemployment, Inflation, and the Price of Food. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERR‐167.
133 Ibid.
134 Bitto, E., Morton, L., Oakland, M., and Sand, M. (2003). Grocery Store Access Patterns in Rural Food Deserts. Journal for the
Study of Food and Society. 6: 35 – 48.
135 Guy, C. M., and David, G. (2004). Measuring Physical Access to “healthy foods” in Areas of Social Deprivations: A Case Study
in Cardiff. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 28: 222 – 234.
136 Rice, K. (2010). Measuring the Likelihood of Food Insecurity in Ohio’s Food Deserts. Journal of Food Distribution Research,
41(1): 101 – 107.
53


Figure 11: Dietary Consumption Patterns of High School Students 2012 Source: Centers for Disease Control, Youth Risk Behavior Survey 2013
54


Although there is no reliable, comparable data for food insecurity rates at the census tract level,
the high poverty rates, low educational attainment levels, high unemployment rates, low
incomes, and the relatively high percentage of single female households with children that
were found in HFFI qualifying census tracts in the state of Mississippi and discussed in
subsequent sections of this report indicate support for the assumption that the food insecurity
levels that are reported in the following paragraphs for the state of Mississippi are likely to be
more severe within qualifying HFFI census tracts within the state of Mississippi.
In 2011, approximately 16.4 percent of the U.S. population experienced food insecurity; in
2012, 15.9 percent of the U.S. population was food insecure.137 Across the United States, the
average county‐level food insecurity rate was 14.7 in 2011 and in 2012. In Mississippi, the
overall food insecurity rate was 22.3 percent in 2012; Mississippi had the highest overall food
insecurity rate in the nation in 2012.138
Child food insecurity rates are substantially higher than the food insecurity rate for all age
groups. In the U.S., the child food insecurity rate was 21.6 percent in 2012.139 In 2012, the
state level of child food insecurity rate ranged from a low of 10.6 percent in North Dakota to a
high of 29.2 percent in New Mexico. Mississippi had the second highest level of child food
insecurity in the U.S.; with 28.7 percent of Mississippi’s children being food insecure, it is
estimated that approximately 214,720 children in Mississippi are food insecure.140
Food Insecurity and Health
Studies have found that food insecurity is associated with multiple health problems in children,
adults, and the elderly. Food insecurity is associated with a range of chronic illnesses such as
hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and various cardiovascular risk factors.141 Food insecure adults
have a higher risk for developing diabetes.142, 143 The presence of food insecurity may be
associated with increased weight because less expensive food choices are frequently high in
calories and low in nutrition and households with constrained incomes have less money to
spend on healthy foods that may be more costly.144, 145 Although food insecurity may have

137 Coleman‐Jensen, A., Nord, M. and Singh, A. (2013) Household Food Security in the United States in 2012. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Economic Research Service.
138 Ibid.
139 Ibid.
140 Ibid.
141 Seligman, H. K., Laraia, B. A., and Kushel, M. B. (2010). Food Insecurity is associated with Chronic Disease among Low‐Income
NHANES Participants. The Journal of Nutrition. 140(2): 304 – 310.
142 Gucciardi, E., Vahabi, M., Norris, N., Del Monte, J. P., and Farnum, C., (2014). The Intersection between Food Insecurity and
Diabetes: A Review. Current Nutrition Reports. 3(4): 324 – 332.
143 Seligman, H. K., Jacobs, E. A., Lopez, A., Tschann, J., and Fernandez, A., (2012). Food Insecurity and Glycemic Control among
Low‐Income Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 35(2): 233 – 238.
144 Drewnoski, A. and Specter, S. E. (2004). Poverty and Obesity: The Role of Energy Density and Energy Costs. American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition. 79(1): 6 – 16.
145 Ludwig, D. S. and Pollack, H. A. (2009). Obesity and the Economy: From Crisis to Opportunity. Journal of the American
Medical Association. 301(5): 533 – 535.
55


negative impacts on individuals of any age, it has been found to be extremely devastating for
children. Brain development and cognitive functioning during early childhood can be severely
affected by food insecurity; inadequate nutrition can permanently alter a child’s cognitive
development, impact their intellectual capacity, and affect their future learning.146, 147 Children
who are food insecure may be at higher risk for chronic health conditions, such as anemia or
asthma, and are more likely to require hospitalization; food insecurity among children is
associated with a poor physical quality of life, which may prevent them from being fully
engaged in activities at school and in social interaction with their peers.148 Children who are
food insecure may be at greater risk for increased absenteeism from school and experience an
array of behavioral problems which include mood swings, aggression, anxiety, and
hyperactivity.149
The lack of access to affordable nutritious food is of particular concern for families with
children, and specifically for female headed households with children and no husband present.
Households headed by single mothers have been found to have the highest rates of child food
insecurity,150 with access to adequate food limited by their households’ lack of money and
access to affordable nutritious food; food insecurity represents a serious risk to the health of
children in female headed households with no husband present151 and contributes to negative
academic and psychological outcomes in older children and adolescents.152, 153 Studies have
also found that the time cost of travel to a grocery store and the time involved to prepare
nutritious food for healthy eating are a particular issue for mothers who worked full‐time and
for single mothers; as mothers spend more time working outside the home, food preparation
time declines; single women with children spend less time preparing food than married
women.154
In census tracts with a large percentage of individuals over the age of 65 living alone, there is a
concern that transportation may represent a particular problem for these individuals. Aging

146 Winicki, J. and Jemison, K. (2003). Food Insecurity and Hunger in the Kindergarten Classroom: Its Effect on Learning and
Growth. Contemporary Economic Policy, 21(2): 145–157.
147 Casey, P. H, Szeto, K., Lensing, S. (2001). Children in Food‐Insufficient, Low‐Income Families: Prevalence, Health, and
Nutrition Status. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 155(4): 508–514.
148 Cook, J.T., Frank. D. A., Berkowitz, C. (2004). Food Insecurity Is Associated with Adverse Health Outcomes among Human
Infants and Toddlers. Journal of Nutrition. 134(6): 1432–1438.
149 Alaimo, K., Olson, C. M., and Frongillo, E. A. (2001). Food Insufficiency and American School‐Aged Children’s Cognitive,
Academic, and Psychosocial Development. Pediatrics. 108(1): 44 ‐53.
150 Coleman‐Jensen, A., Nord, M., Singh, A.S. (2013) Household Food Insecurity in the United States in 2012. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2013.
151 Rose‐Jacobs, R., Black. M. M., Casey, P.H., et al. (2008). Household Food Insecurity: Associations with At‐risk Infant and
Toddler Development. Pediatrics. 121(1): 65 —72.
152 Alaimo, K., Olson, C.M., Frongillo, E.A. Jr. (2001). Food Insufficiency and American School‐aged Children’s Cognitive,
Academic, and Psychosocial Development. Pediatrics. 108(1): 44—53.
153 Jyoti, D.F., Frongillo, E.A., Jones, S.J., (2005). Food Insecurity Affects School Children’s Academic Performance, Weight Gain,
and Social Skills. Journal of Nutrition. 135(12): 2831—2839.
154 Mancino, L., and C. Newman (2007). Who has Time to Cook? How Family Resources Influence Food Preparation. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. 40.
56


populations exhibit lower mobility, isolation, and lower access to food stores; older persons are
more likely to be dependent on family, friends, neighbors, or non‐profit organizations to gain
access to food.155 Research on access to affordable and nutritious food identifies
subpopulations that may be highly vulnerable to access barriers; households with no or limited
vehicle access and individuals over the age of 65 are considered to be particularly vulnerable to
barriers to access to affordable, nutritious foods.156
Although living in an underserved community may not be the primary cause of food insecurity,
the lack of access to affordable, nutritious food frames the conditions under which households
must expend greater resources to obtain food from available sources. Lack of access to
affordable, nutritious food retail has been shown to increase the likelihood of food
insecurity.157 Research has linked high poverty, low‐income, and low educational achievement
levels to food insecurity and to the probability of living in an area with limited access to
affordable, healthy foods.158 Income and education have been found to be negatively
correlated with food insecurity;159 as educational attainment and income increase, food
insecurity decreases. Geographic areas with limited access to affordable, healthy foods have
predominantly been found to be home to socioeconomically disadvantaged people relative to
other areas;160 lower income levels indicate that residents in underserved communities have
fewer resources available to purchase healthy foods. High poverty and low income walk hand‐
in‐hand with low educational levels; lower education levels may also imply less knowledge
about the health effects of poor nutrition.161 A review of the research on areas with limited
access to affordable, healthy foods in the United States generally supports the statement that
underserved communities are places where “area‐level deprivation compounds individual
disadvantage.”162

155 Bitto, E., Morton, L. Oakland, M. and Sand, M. (2003). Grocery Store Access Patterns in Food Deserts. Journal for the Study of
Food and Society, 6(2), 35.
156 V. Breneman, et. al. (2009). Report to Congress: Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food, Measuring and Understanding
Food Deserts and Their Consequences. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report.
157 Nord, M., Andrews, M., and Carlson, S. (2008). Household Food Security in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service. Report No. 66.
158 Wild, P., Liobrera, J., and Ver Ploeg, M. (2014). Population Density, Poverty, and Food Retail Access in the United States: An
Empirical Approach. International Food & Agribusiness Management Review. 17: 171—186.
159 Rice, K. (2010). Measuring the Likelihood of Food Insecurity in Ohio’s Food Deserts. Journal of Food Distribution Research.
41(1): 101—107.
160 Beaulac, J., Kristjansson, E., Cummins, S. (2009). A Systematic Review of Food Deserts: 1996 to 2007. Centers for Disease
Control, Preventing Chronic Disease, Public Health Research, Practice, and Policy: 6(3): 105 —125.
161 Dutko, P. (2012). Food Deserts Suffer Persistent Socioeconomic Disadvantages. Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and
Resources. 27(3): 1.
57


Policies and Intervention Strategies in Underserved Communities
Individuals living in underserved communities frequently do not have access to affordable,
nutritious and healthy food. This lack of access has been associated with diet‐related health
problems, obesity, and obesity‐related morbidities or mortality. The focus on making
affordable, nutritious, and healthy food available within a community has resulted in the
development of multiple federal strategic policies that are designed to increase access to
affordable and healthy food, and to provide sustainable food delivery options within areas
defined as “HFFI qualifying census tracts” by the federal government. There are multiple
factors that impact food purchasing and dietary behavior patterns regarding the consumption
of fresh fruits and vegetables; availability and consumer choice will impact consumption and
diet. Investments in underserved communities that are designed to make affordable, nutritious
food available may need to be supplemented with education and marketing programs that
facilitate healthy eating behavioral changes. One focus of this study is to examine potential
policy interventions that are designed to create, expand, or preserve access to fresh food retail
options in Mississippi’s underserved communities.
Multiple states have capitalized healthy food retail initiatives to attract investment into
underserved communities, these initiatives use strategies that involve state and city
governments, private funders, and economic development intermediaries to create a dedicated
source of funding to provide financing and grants to incentivize investments in fresh food retail
options within underserved communities. The majority of these state healthy food financing
initiatives are designed to leverage state investments with Federal funding available through
the Healthy Food Financing Initiative; as a result, these programs frequently leverage Federal
New Market Tax Credits with additional sources of state funding and are structured as Certified
Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and or Community Development Entities
(CDEs) to qualify for Federal New Market Tax Credits and/or to qualify for state‐level
equivalents of New Market Tax Credits. The creation of a properly structured state healthy
food retail initiative will enable multiple sources of funding to be leveraged for investments in
underserved communities; these sources of funding include, but are not limited to:
 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
(CDFI) programs that provide Financial Assistance awards for financing capital, loan loss
reserves, capital reserves, and operations; CDFI programs that provide Technical Assistance
grant funds for personnel (salary and fringe benefits), training travel, professional services,
materials or supplies, equipment, and other service delivery related costs to Certified CDFIs;
and the CDFI New Market Tax Credit Program.
 U.S. Department of Agriculture grant programs, to include the Community Food Projects
Grant Program, the Value‐Added Producer Grant Program, the Farmers Market Promotion
Program, the Federal‐State Marketing Improvement Program, the Rural Micro‐entrepreneur
Assistance Program (grants and loans), the Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program, the
58


Rural Business Opportunity Grant Program, the Rural Cooperative Development Grant
Program, the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, the Healthy Urban
Food Enterprise Development Center Grant Program, the Hunger‐Free Communities
Program, the Small and Socially‐Disadvantaged Producer Grant Program, the Outreach and
Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Grant Program, and the
Sustainable Community Innovation Grants Program
 U.S. Department of Agriculture loan programs, to include the Rural Development Business
and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program, the Guaranteed Farm Loan Program, the
Community Facilities Program (also has some grants available), the Interest Assistance
Program, and the Rural Development Intermediary Relending Program
 U.S. Department of Commerce grant programs, to include the Economic Development
Technical Assistance Program and the Community Economic Development (CED) Program
 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services grant programs, to include the Community
Economic Development Program and the Community Transformation Grant Program
 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development programs, to include the Community
Development Block Grant Program, the Rural Innovation Fund (grants), and the Section 108
Loan Guarantee Program
 U.S. Small Business Administration programs, to include the CDC/504 Loan Program, the
Community Advantage 7(A) Loan Program, and the Microloan Program
 Bank grants, investments, or loans; examples include the Bank of America’s investment in
the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative, Goldman Sachs’ $40 million commitment
of grants and loans to the New York Healthy Foods & Healthy Communities Fund, JP Morgan
Chase’s $100 million commitment to CDFIs including the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing
Initiative; and Wells Fargo’s provision of grants and loans to the Pennsylvania Fresh Food
Financing Initiative for an undisclosed amount
 Funds borrowed from a bank for re‐lending
 Private philanthropic Program Related Investments (PRIs); examples include the Kresge
Foundation, the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the
W. K. Kellogg Foundation—the majority of these PRIs have been associated with grants to
CDFIs or CDEs
Examples of healthy food financing initiatives that have been established by states include:
 The California FreshWorks Fund (CAFWF), which is a $200 million fund created to finance
grocery stores and other forms of fresh food retail and distribution. CAFWF is a public‐
private partnership fund that provides a combination of grant and loan financing. The
Program Administrator for this fund is NCB Capital Impact, a non‐profit community
development organization; the California Endowment (a private, statewide health
foundation) has committed up to a $30 million mission‐related investment for debt and $3
million for grants. Other investors include the California Grocers Association, the Calvert
59


Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Kaiser
Permanente, and Morgan Stanley. On July 20, 2011, the creation of CAFWF was announced
during a ceremony at the White House in Washington, D.C. The FreshWorks Fund provides
loans of up to $8 million to finance projects that create or expand healthy food retail in low
access areas; these investments include:
 Capital investments for building or land acquisition, new construction or expansion,
or tenant improvements based on leasehold collateral value
 Equipment loans for new equipment (up to 100 percent of cost) and for used
equipment (up to 60 percent of appraised value)
 Working capital for inventory (up to 35 percent of gross value) and other working
capital based on demonstrated need, ability to repay, and available collateral

FreshWorks provides grants from $25,000 to $50,000 for projects with demonstrated need
to support priority areas; these include:
 Innovation projects that demonstrate a high potential to increase food access,
innovations in product placement and merchandizing, and write down costs for
projects that are otherwise not feasible
 Workforce development and local hiring programs that may include outreach,
recruitment, employee training, and hiring activities associated with local hiring
 Predevelopment grants for the early costs of capital projects such as market studies
or appraisals; some predevelopment grants may be recovered from projects that
successfully obtain permanent financing

The Calvert Social Investment Foundation is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization that offers a
Community Investment Note that enables investors (individuals, businesses, and other
nonprofits) to make investments in the California FreshWorks Fund Initiative.

The most recently available information on the CAFWF that was available at the time of this
study indicated that the fund had deployed $19 million in capital to support the following
projects:
 The Northgate Gonzalez Market in San Diego, a 42,625 square foot full service
grocery store that created 122 new jobs within the community. The California
FreshWorks Fund, LLC. provided $8.5 million in New Market Tax Credit financing for
tenant improvements and related costs.
 The Northgate Gonzalez Market in Inglewood, a renovation of a 20,000 square foot
full service grocery store that created 110 new jobs within the community; this
investment included $7.6 million in New Market Tax Credit Financing
 The Mandela Marketplace in West Oakland, a 2,000 square foot neighborhood
market with 8 employees. The California FreshWorks Fund, LLC. provided a grant of
60


$50,000 to support a comprehensive business analysis of the operations and
potential for expansion of the market.
 The El Rancho Marketplace in Pismo Beach, a 39,498 square foot full service grocery
store that created 175 new jobs within the community. The California FreshWorks
Fund, LLC provided flexible financing in the amount of $1.7 million to purchase
equipment and inventory for a $3.6 million loan for the renovation of an empty
grocery store
 Provided a $105,000 grant to the Certified Growing Experience Farmers’ Market in
North Long Beach
 Provided a $5,000 grant to the 25th Street Collective and Oakland Food Policy
Council and a $50,000 grant to the Moreno Family Service Association to support the
development of pilot projects for a mobile food vending program
 The H. P. Palomino Grocery Store in Huntington Park, a 6,000 square foot
neighborhood superette. The California FreshWorks Fund, LLC provided $651,840 in
financing and $15,500 in grants to finance equipment and tenant improvements for
the project.
 Numero Uno Markets in South Los Angeles received $12 million in financing from
The California FreshWorks Fund, LLC. to restructure the company’s debt, improve its
cash flow, and allow it to invest in upgrades and expansion. As part of its agreement
with California FreshWorks, Numero Uno discontinued the sale of tobacco, installed
at least one junk‐food free checkout aisle per store, and holds regular health and
wellness fairs at each of its eight stores.
 Pending projects include a commitment of $4.6 million in term financing for the
acquisition, construction, equipment, and working capital costs for a 14,000 square
foot full service supermarket (Supermercado Murphy’s in Bonita) and a $1.2 million
commitment in term financing for construction and permanent financing for a new
15,400 square foot full service supermarket (El Toro Loco Market in Lost Hills).

 The New Orleans Fresh Food Retailer Initiative (FFRI) provides direct financial assistance to
retail supermarkets, grocery stores, and other fresh food retailers; it is a partnership
between the Food Trust (which co‐manages the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing
Initiative) and the Hope Enterprise Corporation. The City of New Orleans approved $7
million of its Disaster Community Development Block Grant funds to implement the
program in 2009; in response to a Request for Proposals issued by the City of New Orleans,
the Food Trust and Hope Enterprise Corporation were selected to administer the program
in April 2010. During the transition from the Nagin Administration to the Landrieu
Administration, the formation of the Initiative was delayed; after additional contract
negotiations between the Landrieu Administration, the Food Trust, and the Hope Enterprise
Corporation, the New Orleans Fresh Food Retailer Initiative was formally completed and
61


announced in March 2011. Under the terms of the agreement, the City of New Orleans’ $7
million investment is matched “dollar‐for‐dollar” by Hope Enterprise Corporation, creating a
$14 million investment fund. In 2013, the New Orleans Fresh Food Retailer Initiative
received the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Culture of Health Prize, which is awarded
to outstanding community partnerships that are helping people live healthier lives.

The New Orleans Fresh Food Retailer Initiative (FFRI) provides forgivable and interest‐
bearing loans to support grocery development; eligible activities include: pre‐development,
site assembly and improvement, construction and rehabilitation, equipment installation and
upgrades, staff training, security, start‐up inventory, and working capital. The total amount
of CDBG FFRI funding awarded per store may not exceed $1 million, of which the total
portion of forgivable loans may not exceed $500,000; additional funding may be provided in
the form of market‐rate, interest bearing loans from private lenders or New Market Tax
Credits. Projects funded through the program must dedicate “significant” shelf space to the
sale of fresh fruit and vegetables, defined as 15 percent of the current or future store shelf
space or 24 linear feet of shelf space, whichever is greater. Projects funded by the New
Orleans Fresh Food Retailer Initiative include:
 Whole Foods on Broad Street in Mid‐City which is a 25,000 square foot element of
an $18.1 million mixed‐use development project located at the site of a 60,000
square foot abandoned Schwegmann’s supermarket. The project received a $1
million FFRI loan, of which $500,000 is forgivable; the New Orleans Redevelopment
Authority also awarded $900,000 in grant funding to the project and additional
funding was derived through New Market Tax Credits, Goldman Sachs, and
JPMorgan Chase. Additional elements of the project include a Liberty’s Kitchen (a
full service café and commercial teaching kitchen that provides culinary and life‐skills
training for at‐risk youth and healthy school meals for public school children) and
Tulane University’s Goldring Center for Culinary Medicine that is a teaching kitchen
for community members, medical students, and practicing medical professionals.
The facility will also provide indoor and outdoor space for programs that promote
health, wellness, gardening, fitness, and other educational programs.
 Circle Food Store in the Seventh Ward is a $9.2 million project designed to reopen
the store which was damaged during Hurricane Katrina and remained closed
through August 2012. The project received a $1 million FFRI loan, of which $500,000
is forgivable, and an additional $100,000 grant from the City of New Orleans’
Economic Development Fund.
 Aerend’s Supermarket on Washington Avenue received $120,000 from FFRI to
expand its footprint (from 10,000 to 18,000 square feet) and to purchase new
equipment.
62


 DaFresh Seafood and Produce in Central City is a 1,000 square foot store; it received
a $117,000 loan from FFRI, of which $17,550 was forgivable if the store remained
open for a five year period. As of December 16, 2013, the store was closed.

 The Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative (PAFFI). The Pennsylvania Fresh Food
Financing Initiative is managed by The Reinvestment Fund (TRF), a CDFI established in
partnership with the Food Trust, the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition, and the
state of Pennsylvania. PAFFI was created in 2004 with an initial investment of $10 million
from the Pennsylvania Legislature; the state provided an additional investment of $10
million in 2005 and $10 million in 2006 for a total state investment of $30 million. Over the
period from 2004 through 2012, this initial investment of $30 million helped to leverage
total investments of $190 million in 88 new or improved grocery stores and fresh food
projects in the state of Pennsylvania. PAFFI makes grants and loans to create new grocery
stores and to expand existing stores; it funds acquisitions, rehabilitations, major expansions,
and equipment for local grocery store operations, to include new and updated display cases
and equipment upgrades that enable stores to either expand the amount of product carried
and/or to carry new lines of product. PAFFI uses a combination of state funding and
partnerships with banks (i.e. JP Morgan Chase) to provide debt capital, funding from
philanthropies, and has New Market Tax Credit allocations from the CDFI fund at the U.S.
Treasury. The PAFFI model has been used by multiple states to create health food financing
initiatives; its model offers grants and loans with the following components:
 Generally, all projects must be within qualifying HFFI census tracts as defined by the
federal government, with some very limited exceptions
 Two types of grants are available: 1) standard grants provide up to $250,000 per
store and $750,000 total for a supermarket operator with multiple stores, and 2)
extraordinary grants of up to $1 million may be available for projects that show a
high potential to address the lack of fresh food outlets in very low income
communities, create a significant number of high‐quality jobs, or maximize debt and
equity financing potential in a manner that demonstrates the efficient use of grant
resources
 Grant funds may be used for pre‐development costs including project feasibility,
market studies, appraisals, and deposits on land and buildings; land assembly and
capital for relocation, demolition, environmental remediation, infrastructure
improvements, and energy‐efficiency investments; soft costs and other preopening
costs for training, security, and other preopening expenses; and construction,
builder overhead, labor, materials, and contingencies funds.
 PAFFI uses bank‐syndicated loan funds that combine loan capital from various banks
(i.e. JP Morgan Chase) and credit‐enhancements provided by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The fund provides five‐year and seven‐year loan products to finance
63


acquisition, construction, renovation, leasehold improvements, and equipment.
TRF’s Core Loan Fund can provide loans for projects that do not fit the parameters of
its bank‐syndicated loan fund; investments by TRF’s Core Loan Fund are mission
driven capital sourced from individuals, non‐profit, and other institutional investors
(PRIs).
 TRF, the managing partner for PAFFI, uses federal New Market Tax Credits (NMTCs)
to finance projects. TRF is a major recipient of NMTCs, having received
approximately $280 million in NMTC allocations, of which approximately 25 percent
have been used to finance healthy food financing initiative related activities.

Examples of projects funded through the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative
include:
 Boyer’s Family Market, a 17‐store chain of supermarkets with stores that range in
size from 9,500 square feet to 32,000 square feet. Boyer’s received PAFFI funding of
$2.75 million in bank‐syndicated loans, $1 million in Energy funds, and a $500,000
grant; funds were used to purchase energy‐efficient supermarket equipment,
furniture and fixtures, leasehold improvements, and to provide employee training.
 ShopRite in Philadelphia received $5 million in NMTC financing and $250,000 in
grant funding for construction and renovation of a 57,000 square foot supermarket
and to provide workforce development training.

According to a report by the U.S. Treasury’s CDFI,163 projects funded by PAFFI in urban
census tracts range from 17,000 to 69,000 square feet, full‐service supermarkets employ
approximately 150 to 200 full‐ and part‐time employees, and have average weekly sales of
between $200,000 and $500,000. Projects funded in rural census tracts range from 12,000
to 22,000 square feet, have between 10 to 84 full‐ and part‐time employees, and are
predominantly family‐owned businesses.

As demonstrated in the previous paragraphs, the development of programs designed to
improve access to fresh, healthy food in an underserved community may take different forms
and the food retailing format will need to be appropriate to the needs of the market within the
community. The most common business retail formats used to increase access to healthy food
within underserved communities are investments in supermarkets, grocery stores, farmers’
markets, food cooperatives, or food hubs. The economic, market, and consumer profiles of a
community will require appropriately designed retail formats, and each retail format will have
unique capital requirements, different sources of capital investment, and may use different
investment structures. For example, healthy food financing models may use a combination of

163 Healthy Food Retail Financing at Work: Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative, Financing Healthy Food Options:
Implementation Handbook. The U. S. Treasury, CDFI Fund, Capacity Building Initiative.
64


grant funding, debt capital, loan guarantees, tax‐exempt bond financing, and New Market Tax
Credits to fund investments in underserved communities. A healthy food retail strategy may
focus on farmers’ markets; this strategy might include supporting the creation of new farmers’
markets in underserved communities, increasing the capacity of existing farmers’ markets by
providing refrigeration equipment that would expand the types of products available (i.e. eggs,
poultry, pork, beef, or lamb), providing more permanent structures to enable the farmers’
market to increase either the scope of product offerings or its frequency of services, or assuring
that all farmers’ markets are able to accept SNAP payments — each strategy would require
different levels of investment, and in the case of farmer’s markets or food hubs, additional
sources of capital may available from grants or low‐interest loans from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Alternatively, a healthy food financing program may invest in the construction of
new grocery stores or the expansion of existing stores; the construction of new stores will have
completely different investment requirements when compared to the investment that would
be required to increase the refrigeration capacity of an existing store to enable it to increase its
offerings of fresh fruits and vegetables.
In more rural areas, strategies may need to be developed that create “one‐stop shopping” retail
facilities that co‐locate multiple services in order to increase foot traffic and to create sufficient
demand or to make the delivery of retail combined with services more cost effective. One
example of this approach is ShopRite in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania that has built stores within
underserved communities that provide affordable, nutritious food combined with banking
services, health clinics, and family nutrition and counseling services.
Value Added Agriculture
There may be multiple opportunities to integrate value‐added agriculture activities with
strategies designed to address issues associated with the lack of access to affordable, healthy
food within Mississippi’s underserved communities. Value added agricultural businesses
include activities engaged in by agricultural producers that increase revenues as a result of: (1)
engaging in a new activity that has not previously been performed or (2) engaging in an activity
that has traditionally been performed at another stage in the supply chain (i.e. direct marketing
of agricultural products to individuals or restaurants) — these two approaches to value added
agriculture are not mutually exclusive and are frequently practiced concurrently. Engaging in
new activities that have not previously been performed generates new revenues from new
sources for agricultural producers; engaging in activities that have traditionally been performed
at another stage in the supply chain enables agricultural producers to command higher prices
for commodities, but does not necessarily create increased cost to consumers and may create
an opportunity to lower the cost of fresh fruits, vegetables, and other agricultural products (i.e.
farmers’ markets) as compared to traditional supermarket pricing structures.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines value‐added agricultural products as: “a change in
the physical state or manner in which the agricultural commodity or product is produced and
65


segregated that results in the expansion of the customer base for the commodity or product and
enables a greater portion of revenue to be derived by the producer from the marketing,
processing or physical segregation of the commodity or product.” Examples of value‐added
agricultural products include:
 The production of a product in a manner that enhances its value, such as organically
produced products, free‐range livestock or poultry, or foods produced for specific ethnic
markets (i.e. Kosher or Halal certified products)
 A change in the physical state or form of the product, such as making fruits into jams, jellies,
and wines, or milling wheat into flour
 Direct sales of agricultural products to individuals or retail outlets, such as the production of
milk, cheese, and soaps from goats or direct sales of pork, beef, or lamb to individuals,
restaurants, local grocery stores, and other institutions (local school districts and hospitals)
 The physical segregation of an agricultural commodity or product in a manner that results in
the enhancement of the value of that commodity or product, such as an identity preserved
marketing system that enables consumers to trace food back to where it came from and
how it was produced
Agricultural producers have faced a long term trend of increasing farm production expenses, a
widening farm‐retail spread (the difference between the prices agricultural producers receive
and the retail price consumers pay), and declining net real farm income. For many agricultural
producers, engaging in value added activities can increase their share of the retail prices that
consumers pay for agricultural products, increase income, and make a significant contribution
to the sustainability of agricultural production. While value added agricultural practices may
offer opportunities to increase net farm income, these endeavors are not without risk; as with
starting any new business, a careful assessment must be made to determine the feasibility of
starting a new enterprise, and many agricultural producers may need technical assistance to
develop the skills required to enter into value added agricultural activities and they may require
continued support during the early years of operations. In addition, the capital investment in
the facilities or equipment that is required to engage in value added agricultural production
and/or direct to consumer sales may be a significant barrier to market entry. Direct marketing
and value added activities require a change of focus for agricultural producers and the
acquisition of knowledge about a range of business skills related to starting and operating an
entrepreneurial business; these skills include, but are not limited to:
 Market research
 Concept assessment, feasibility analysis, and business development
 Creating a business plan
66


 Defining target markets and developing a marketing plan to reach that market which may
require skills in communication, creativity, writing, advertising, direct selling, branding,
electronic commerce, promotion, publicity, and public relations
 Product development
 Management and time management
 Personnel management
 Finance and budgets
 Risk Management
 Networking
 Pricing
 Food safety and regulatory compliance
The Local Food Movement
In May 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a report “Local Food Systems:
Concepts, Impacts, and Issues;”164 this report provides a comprehensive review of food systems
in the United States, including alternative ways to define local food, estimates of market size,
and descriptions of local food consumers and producers; the report also provides preliminary
estimates of the economic and health impact of the local food movement. The information
presented in the following six paragraphs is sourced from this USDA report.

In general, local food is defined as “food that is grown and harvested close to consumers’
homes,” then distributed over much shorter distances than is common in the conventional
global industrial food system. Federal law defines “local” as within 400 miles or inside a state,
whichever is less. A “locavore” is defined by the New Oxford American Dictionary as a resident
who tries to eat food produced within a 100‐mile radius of their residence. The source of the
food and “the story behind the food” is an influential identifier associated with the local food
movement. For example, most Farm to Table programs provide the name, location, and an
expansive description of the farms and farming practices used by farmers and the personality,
ethics, or family traditions of the farmers that grow and provide products for sale through Farm
to Table programs — these identifiers all contribute to the “provenance” of local foods.

Local food distribution networks include two primary markets: the direct‐to‐consumer market
and the direct‐to‐retail/foodservice market. The direct‐to‐consumer market involves
transactions that are conducted directly between the farmer and the consumer; examples
include: farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture (CSAs), food hubs, on‐farm sales,
and farm stands. Direct‐to‐retail/foodservice markets provide farm products directly to retail,
foodservice, and institutions; these transactions may involve direct transactions between the

164 Martinez, Steve; Hand, Michael; Da Pra, Michelle; Pollack, Susan; Ralston, Katherine; Smith, Travis; Vogel, Stephen; Clark,
Shellye; Lohr, Luanne; Low, Sarah; and Newman, Constance (May, 2010). Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues.
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Report Number 97.
67


producer and the business purchasing the agricultural output of a single farmer or may be
supported through value added food centers, food hubs, or organized Farm‐to‐Table programs.
These programs eliminate the middlemen involved in storing, processing, and/or transporting
food destined for grocery and other retail stores, restaurants, schools, hospitals, and other
institutions. Food hubs are centralized locations where farmers drop off their farm products
for distribution to multiple establishments.

The 2010 USDA report found that local food markets account for a small but increasing share of
total U.S. agricultural sales. The 2007 Census of Agriculture indicated that 136,817 farms (6.2
percent of all farms) in the United States engaged in direct‐to consumer marketing, which
accounted for $1.2 billion of sales as compared to $551 million in 1997; this represented 0.4
percent of total agricultural sales in 2007 as compared to 0.3 percent in 1997 according to the
report.165
Based upon research by the Stennis Institute using more recent data from the 2012 Census of
Agriculture, the percentage of farms engaged in direct‐to consumer marketing was lower in the
state of Mississippi than in the U.S. and the percentage of direct‐to‐consumer sales accounted for a
lower percentage of total agricultural sales in Mississippi as compared to the U.S.
Table 10: Direct‐to‐Consumer Sales in the U.S. and Mississippi 2007 and 2012
United States Mississippi
2012 2007 2012 2007
Number of Farms 2,109,303 2,204,792 38,076 41,959
Total Market Value of All Agricultural Products
(expressed in $1,000 of dollars) $394,644,481 $297,220,481 $6,441,025 $4,876,781
Average Market Value of All Ag Products per Farm $187,097 $134,807 $169,162 $116,227
Agricultural Products Sold Directly to Individuals for Human Consumption
Number of Farms 144,530 136,817 1,206 1,229
Total Sales (expressed in $1,000 of dollars) $1,309,827 $1,211,270 $4,284 $9,659
Average per farm $9,063 $8,853 $3,552 $7,859
Percent of all Farms 6.85% 6.21% 3.17% 2.93%
Percent of Total Sales 0.33% 0.41% 0.07% 0.20%
Source: U.S.D.A. 2007 and 2012 Census of Agriculture
Barriers to local food‐market entry and expansion include: capacity constraints for small farms
and lack of distribution systems for moving local food into mainstream markets; limited

165 Martinez, Steve; Hand, Michael; Da Pra, Michelle; Pollack, Susan; Ralston, Katherine; Smith, Travis; Vogel, Stephen; Clark,
Shellye; Lohr, Luanne; Low, Sarah; and Newman, Constance (May, 2010). Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues.
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Report Number 97.
68


research, education, and training for marketing local food, and uncertainties related to
regulations that may affect local food production, such as food safety requirements.

Federal, state, and local government programs increasingly support local food systems and the
number of these programs is growing. Federal policies and programs include the Community
Food Project Grants Program, the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, Senior Farmers’
Market Nutrition Program, Federal State Marketing Improvement Program, National Farmers’
Market Promotion Program, Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, Local Food Promotion
Program, and the USDA Community Facilities Program. The 2010 USDA report also found that
the number of farmers’ markets rose to 5,274 in 2009, up from 2,756 in 1998, and that in 2005,
there were 1,144 community supported agriculture organizations (CSAs) in operation, up from
400 in 2001. More recent data from the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service indicates that
there were 8,144 farmers’ markets in the U.S. in 2013, an increase of 3.6 percent from 2012 to
2013. The number of farm to school programs, which use local farms as food suppliers for
school meal programs, increased to 2,095 in 2009, up from 400 in 2003 based upon data from
the National Farm to School Network. Data from the 2005 School Nutrition and Dietary
Assessment Survey indicates that 16 percent of school districts reported having guidelines for
purchasing locally grown produce.

The five potential impacts of expanding local food systems include:
 Economic development, to include increased entrepreneurship and new business
formation, job creation, and the economic multiplier effect of retaining consumer
expenditure dollars within the local economy combined with import substitution and the
localization of processing activities
 Health and nutrition benefits
 Increased food security and reduced food safety risks
 Reduced energy use and greenhouse gas emissions
 Preserving farmland and sustaining agricultural production

The research and publications of USDA and multiple agricultural market researchers
overwhelming support the statement that the local food movement presents a significant new
business opportunity for farmers and for local economic development.
Value Added Food Centers (Agribusiness Incubators)
Value added food centers and agribusiness incubators are designed to increase the
diversification of the agriculture industry by providing business consulting services to
agriculture‐related businesses to maximize their chance of business viability and success.

69


Value added food centers and agribusiness incubators provide business consulting services to
include:
 Market research
 Analysis of financial and operational performance, processes, and procedures
 Assist with the development of a strategic plan and with the development and execution of
a business plan
 Provide planning and project management services that define and achieve client goals
 Build ongoing relationships that foster continual improvement of operations
 Provide assistance with the development of marketing strategies, branding, and product
positioning

Starting a value added agricultural business is costly and high risk; this is particularly true for
small‐scale value added agricultural product and food manufacturing operations. To assist new
and growing value added agricultural product and food ventures, many value added food
centers and agribusiness incubators provide shared use commercial kitchen and food
processing facilities; many centers and incubators also provide greenhouse space for growing
agricultural produce to include fruits and vegetables, facilities for bottling and labeling value
added agricultural products, shelf life testing, low‐cost office space with additional centralized
administrative and marketing services, or retail space for direct to consumer sales.
Community Supported Agriculture
Community supported agriculture (CSA) is a concept that originated in the 1960s in Japan and
Switzerland, during a time when consumers interested in safe food and farmers seeking stable
markets for their crops joined together in economic partnerships.166 CSAs may take many
forms, i.e. sole proprietorships, cooperatives, or limited liability corporations; all have a
common core of a shared commitment to building local, sustainable agricultural systems with
growers and consumers providing mutual support and sharing the risks and benefits of food
production. In some CSAs, members become shareholders of the farm and pledge to cover the
anticipated costs of the farm operation and the farmer’s salary; in return, they receive shares of
the farm’s output during growing season. By making direct sales to community members, who
provide working capital to the farmer in advance, growers receive better prices for their crops,
gain a level of financial security, and are relieved of the burden of marketing their products.167
One variant of CSA is termed “subscription farming;” these arrangements involve growers
directly contracting with customers (members) who have agreed in advance to buy a minimum

166 DeMuth, Suzanne (1993). Community Supported Agriculture: An Annotated Bibliography and Resource Guide, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library.
167 Ibid.
70


amount of produce at a fixed price, but who have no investment in the farm itself. Types of
CSA programs include:
 Farmer managed: the farmer organizes and markets a CSA program, recruits subscribers,
and determines all management decisions, including what crops will be grown and the
frequency of deliveries
 Shareholder/subscriber: local residents organize a CSA program and hire a farmer to grow
specific crops or other products; the subscribers make the majority of management
decisions
 Farmer cooperative: multiple farmers organize and market a CSA program; this
arrangement may enable farmers to offer a wider variety of products to include fruit, eggs,
poultry, meat, milk, cheese, vegetables, and other produce
 Farmer‐Shareholder cooperative: local residents and nearby farmers jointly own the CSA
program’s resources and manage all aspects of the program jointly
Farmers’ Markets
A major advantage of a farmers’ market is to provide a direct channel of distribution to the
consumer, which enables the producer to receive a higher proportion of the farm‐retail spread,
thereby increasing producer revenues from the sale of commodities. Farmers’ markets also
offer a channel of distribution for local value added agricultural products and help small and
medium‐sized producers incubate their businesses and obtain better prices for high‐value
products and provide a reliable source of farm income. Consumers benefit by receiving fresh,
high quality products and direct interaction with producers. Farmers’ markets also contribute
to an enhanced community image, generate local business activity, and increase the multiplier
effect of the economic impact associated with consumer expenditures on food purchases by
retaining dollars within the community. Farmers’ markets provide a cost effective marketing
outlet for producers to introduce new value added products into the market, thereby acting as
an incubator for entrepreneurial business activity within the community.
Farmers’ markets are successful when there is cooperation, involvement, and communication
among three key groups: 1) the sponsoring community or organization, 2) the producers or
farmers, and 3) the customers and others who support the local farmers’ market. Successful
farmers’ markets require a good variety or mix of vendors operating side by side in the market
and effective marketing, management, and advertising. The farmers’ market location must be
accessible, have adequate parking, and have room for expansion; facilities must be clean with
adequate garbage disposal facilities and properly equipped with electricity, water, and
equipment for transporting heavy items. Good management, clear regulations, effective
signage, and attractive displays all contribute to a positive consumer experience; a successful
farmers’ market can draw customers from a wide geographic area. Problems may arise when
the location of the farmers’ market interferes with public parking in a business area, when the
farmers’ market is viewed as competition with some existing businesses, when management
71


Map 1: Farmers' Markets in Mississippi
72


fails to promote consistency or to effectively promote and advertise the farmers’ market, or
when disagreements among participants interfere with the continued operation of the farmers’
market.
Consumers perceive that purchasing local foods provides them with the opportunity to:
 obtain food items with superior quality characteristics, to include freshness, flavor,
ripeness, and enhanced shelf life
 learn about farming practices used by local growers, which engenders trust in the integrity
and quality of the food they purchase
 support local agriculture and small business development in their community
 preserve local farmland and open space by supporting the economically productive use of
land

A potential driver of increased demand and revenues for farmers’ markets is participation in
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP – formerly called food stamps); farmers’
markets supplying food to local hospitals and health care facilities, and the expansion of farm to
school programs that promote the use of locally grown produce in school cafeterias. In many
underserved communities in Mississippi, investments to expand the product offerings and
increase the days of operation of a farmers’ market may offer an efficient mechanism to cost
effectively expand upon an existing infrastructure to provide affordable, healthy food. Health
fairs and nutrition education programs could further augment the services provided at farmers’
markets. Investments might also be made to expand the scope of farmers’ markets by
integrating them with food hubs or Farm to Table programs.
Farm to Table Programs and Food Hubs
The Farm to Table concept is based upon building local and regional food systems to retain the
economic value of consumer expenditures in food‐producing communities. Farm to Table
programs distribute locally grown farm products to area restaurants, commercial kitchens,
school cafeterias, hospitals, and independent grocery stores. Farm to Table programs provide a
centralized location for the sale, purchase, and distribution of local agricultural products from
multiple local farms to a variety of retail customers; frequently, these programs serve a large
geographic area that may have a delivery and pick up radius within a one‐day drive from the
distribution center.
Over the past 10 years, the food industry has experienced an increase of store types that have
not traditionally been engaged in food sales, generally led by supercenters. This industry
change has created the need for competitors to differentiate their product offerings by
responding to consumer demand for new, healthy product offerings, including local foods.
Increasingly, supermarkets are installing local aisles in their stores and offering an increased
73


variety of locally produced food. Leading retailers to include Wal‐Mart, Kroger, Whole Foods,
Safeway, and Publix have announced local food initiatives and launched advertising campaigns
to focus on locally grown produce. A survey of professional chefs who are members of the
American Culinary Federation was conducted by the National Restaurant Association in 2010,
this survey found that 88 percent of chefs ranked locally grown produce as a “hot trend” and
that locally grown produce ranked first in “hot trends” in 2010.
Food hubs are defined as “a business or organization that actively manages the aggregation,
distribution, and marketing of source‐identified food products primarily from local and regional
producers to strengthen their ability to satisfy wholesale, retail, and institutional demand.”
Food hubs may work on the supply side of agricultural production to support and train
producers in sustainable production practices, production planning, packaging, branding,
certification, season extension, and food safety to enable producers to access wholesale
customers; food hubs may work on the demand side of direct‐to‐consumer marketing by
coordinating with other distributors, processors, and wholesale or institutional buyers to
increase market demand for locally grown products — many food hubs provide both supply and
demand side services. The core function of a food hub is the coordination of supply chain
logistics and a professional business management team. Food hubs may be for‐profit or
nonprofit organizations; nonprofit food hubs have greater access to federal and state grant
programs and support from donations. In some cases, nonprofit, governmental organizations
own farmers’ markets and carry out food hub activities.
The legal structure of the food hub can influence its operations and functions, specifically in
areas such as risk management, capital investment, and liability exposure. Based upon
research conducted by the National Food Hub Collaboration (December 2011), of the 168
regional food hubs in the U.S., 40 percent of food hubs are privately held, 32 percent are
nonprofit, 21 percent are cooperatives, 5 percent are publicly held, and two percent are
informal business organizations. Food hubs are an important element of a growing local food
system that lowers entry barriers to local food markets and provides the infrastructure that is
required to support direct‐to‐retail/restaurant/institutional‐market sales that support local
agricultural production. Research conducted by USDA found that:
 91 percent of food hubs are located near major cities and population centers
 each food hub in the U.S. works with, on average, 80 farms and suppliers
 food hubs have an average of 19 paid employees
 the average sales of food hubs exceeded $3.7 million in 2012
A limited number of studies have used econometric Input‐Output models to examine the
economic impact of shifting consumer purchases of fruits and vegetables to local producers;
the findings of this research are as follows:
74


 a total net increase of $200 million within the state and a net increase of approximately
2,000 jobs168
 a total net increase of $430 million of income in Iowa and a net increase of 6,000 jobs169
 a study of Regional Access, LLC., a New York food hub established in 1989, had $6 million in
sales in 2011, 32 employees, 9 vehicles, and a 25,000 square foot warehouse that provides
over 3,400 products found a net output multiplier of 1.63. This indicates that for every
additional dollar of final demand for food hub products, an additional $0.63 is generated in
related sectors.170
Farm to School Programs
Farm to School programs are supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which
provides grants to support efforts to bring local or regionally produced foods into school
cafeterias; supports hands‐on learning activities such as school gardening, farm visits, and
culinary classes; and funds programs that integrate food‐related education into the regular,
standards‐based classroom curriculum. USDA awards up to $5 million in grants to help schools
connect with local producers and to teach children where their food comes from; grantees
include schools and school districts, producers and producer groups, nonprofit entities, and
state and local agencies.
Scaling Up Local Food
“Scaling Up,” the local food movement is the process of building the system necessary to make
local food available to a wider segment of the population. There are multiple market entry
barriers and obstacles to expansion faced by producers of local foods; these challenges include
ensuring a sufficient, high quality level of agricultural production, providing efficient storage
and transportation, and developing marketing and sales relationships with wholesale buyers,
distributors, and brokers. When producers must allocate more time off‐farm to selling and
marketing their products, they have less time to expand and become more efficient producers.
Significant costs associated with direct marketing and on‐farm processing can act as an obstacle
to the expansion of local food sales. Marketing risks for farmers when selling to local markets
include low sales volume, inability to meet specifications and/or rejection of product based on
quality, price competition from multiple sellers, buyers backing out of contracts, and the
inability to meet transportation or logistical requirements. Institutional or retail purchasers of
local foods (i.e. schools, restaurants, hospitals) face barriers and obstacles that include:
difficulty identifying reliable local suppliers, difficulty making purchases due to ordering

168 Cantrell, P, Conner, D.S., Erikcek, G., Hamm, M.S. Eat Fresh Grow Jobs, Michigan. Beula, MI: Michigan Land Use Institute:
2006.
169 Swenson, D. The Economic Impacts of Increased Fruit and Vegetable Production and Consumption in Iowa: Phase II. Ames,
IA: Regional Food Systems Working Group Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University; May 2006.
170 Schmit, T.M., B.B.R. Jablonski, and D. Kay. 2013. Assessing the Economic Impacts of Regional Food Hubs: The Case of
Regional Access. Cornell University, December 2013. (http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/MS145.09‐2013).
75

Map 2: Direct to Consumer Sales 2012
76


procedures, the need to deal with multiple suppliers, the need to coordinate pick‐up or
delivery, and lack of knowledge about what products are available locally and during different
seasons. The lack of supply chain infrastructure for the distribution of local food has been
found to be a significant barrier to the development of the market for local foods; the absence
of aggregation and distribution systems to include investments in delivery vehicles,
temperature‐controlled storage facilities, processing and packing facilities, and other
equipment or technology represent a significant cost for producers seeking to engage in value
added direct‐to‐retail/foodservice activities. Value Added Food Centers and agribusiness
incubators, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), Farmers’ Markets, Food Hubs, and Farm‐
to‐Table programs can assist in removing the barriers faced by producers and by institutional
and retail purchasers by pooling the production of local farmers and can overcome the scale
limitations of the direct marketing of local foods by providing centralized purchasing, ordering,
packing, distribution, and delivery of local foods.
The 2014 Farm Bill provides $30 million annually in funding for the Farmers’ Market and Local
Food Promotion Program, an increase of $20 million annually over prior years; the 2014 Farm
Bill also provides $72.5 million annually for the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program to promote
fruit and vegetable production – an increase from $52 million annually in the prior year.
Direct‐to‐Consumer Sales in the United States
According to the 2012 USDA Census of Agriculture, direct‐to‐consumer sales in the United
States had a market value of $1,309,827,000 in 2012; from 2007 to 2012, direct‐to‐consumer
sales in the United States increased by $98,557,000 — an increase of 8.14 percent. In 2012,
there were 144,530 farms engaged in direct‐to‐consumer sales in the United States; from 2007
to 2012, the number of farms engaged in direct‐to‐consumer sales increased by 7,713 — an
increase of 5.6 percent (Table 11, page 78). From 2007 to 2012, the total number of all farms in
the United States engaged in agricultural production declined by 4.33 percent; over the same
period, the total number of farms engaged in direct‐to‐consumer sales increased by 5.6
percent. The increase in the number of farms engaged in direct‐to‐consumer sales is not
consistent across all states; from 2007 to 2012, there were 17 states (including the state of
Mississippi) that experienced a decline in the number of farms engaged in direct‐to‐consumer
sales. Although the majority of the states (10 states) that experienced a decline in the number
of farms engaged in direct‐to‐consumer also experienced a decline in the market value of
agricultural products sold to individuals for human consumption, there were some states (7
states) that experienced a decline in the number of farms engaged in direct‐to‐consumer sales
but experienced an increase in the market value of sales. For example, in the state of
Wisconsin, the number of farms engaged in direct‐to‐consumer sales declined by 395 (a
decrease of 6.3 percent) from 2007 to 2012, but the market value of direct‐to‐consumer sales
increased by $3,458,000 (an increase of 7.9 percent); states with similar outcomes included
New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Iowa, and Kentucky (Table 11, page 78).
77


Table 11: Direct‐to‐Consumer Farm Sales by State 2007 and 2012
Percent Percent Farms with

Percent
Change in Change in the Direct‐to‐
Change in
Farms with Farms with Change in the the Market Average Direct‐ Average per Consumer
the Number
Direct‐to‐ Direct‐to‐ Value of Direct‐to‐ Market Value of Direct‐ Market Value of Value of to‐Consumer Farm Value of Sales as a
State of Farms
Consumer Sales Consumer Sales Consumer Sales 2012 to‐Consumer Sales 2007 Direct‐to‐Consumer Direct‐to‐ Sales per Farm Direct‐to‐ Percent of
with Direct
2012 2007 Sales 2007 to 2012 Consumer 2012 Consumer Total Farms
Sales 2007
Sales 2007 Sales 2007 to Statewide
to 2012
to 2012 2012 2012
United States 144,530 136,817 $1,309,827,000 $1,211,270,000 5.64% $98,557,000 8.14% $9,062.67 2.37% 6.9%
Alabama 2,196 2,175 $9,183,000 $8,325,000 0.97% $858,000 10.31% $4,181.69 9.25% 5.1%
Alaska 241 149 $2,227,000 $1,682,000 61.74% $545,000 32.40% $9,240.66 ‐18.14% 31.6%
Arizona 1,216 863 $7,963,000 $5,247,000 40.90% $2,716,000 51.76% $6,548.52 7.71% 6.1%
Arkansas 1,391 1,657 $6,369,000 $8,161,000 ‐16.05% ($1,792,000) ‐21.96% $4,578.72 ‐7.03% 3.1%
California 8,588 7,068 $169,915,000 $162,896,000 21.51% $7,019,000 4.31% $19,785.17 ‐14.15% 11.0%
Colorado 2,896 2,777 $19,199,000 $22,584,000 4.29% ($3,385,000) ‐14.99% $6,629.49 ‐18.48% 8.0%
Connecticut 1,420 1,099 $30,439,000 $29,752,000 29.21% $687,000 2.31% $21,435.92 ‐20.82% 23.8%
Delaware 179 216 $4,302,000 $3,505,000 ‐17.13% $797,000 22.74% $24,033.52 48.11% 7.3%
Florida 3,480 3,181 $19,049,000 $19,363,000 9.40% ($314,000) ‐1.62% $5,473.85 ‐10.07% 7.3%
Georgia 2,177 1,890 $13,197,000 $13,146,000 15.19% $51,000 0.39% $6,062.01 ‐12.85% 5.2%
Hawaii 1,606 1,141 $13,215,000 $8,657,000 40.75% $4,558,000 52.65% $8,228.52 8.45% 22.9%
Idaho 2,420 2,076 $8,523,000 $7,840,000 16.57% $683,000 8.71% $3,521.90 ‐6.74% 9.8%
Illinois 2,981 2,818 $33,009,000 $25,893,000 5.78% $7,116,000 27.48% $11,073.13 20.51% 4.0%
Indiana 3,673 3,576 $26,900,000 $22,268,000 2.71% $4,632,000 20.80% $7,323.71 17.61% 6.3%
Iowa 2,964 2,987 $17,522,000 $16,506,000 ‐0.77% $1,016,000 6.16% $5,911.61 6.98% 3.3%
Kansas 2,044 2,140 $8,957,000 $9,272,000 ‐4.49% ($315,000) ‐3.40% $4,382.09 1.14% 3.3%
Kentucky 3,438 3,445 $16,438,000 $15,173,000 ‐0.20% $1,265,000 8.34% $4,781.27 8.56% 4.5%
Louisiana 1,276 1,276 $7,452,000 $9,175,000 0.00% ($1,723,000) ‐18.78% $5,840.13 ‐18.78% 4.5%
Maine 2,311 1,705 $24,793,000 $18,419,000 35.54% $6,374,000 34.61% $10,728.26 ‐0.69% 28.3%
Maryland 1,276 1,407 $28,038,000 $21,220,000 ‐9.31% $6,818,000 32.13% $21,973.35 45.70% 10.4%
Massachusetts 2,206 1,659 $47,909,000 $42,065,000 32.97% $5,844,000 13.89% $21,717.59 ‐14.35% 28.4%
Michigan 6,243 6,373 $58,793,000 $58,923,000 ‐2.04% ($130,000) ‐0.22% $9,417.43 1.86% 12.0%
Minnesota 4,213 4,293 $33,573,000 $34,667,000 ‐1.86% ($1,094,000) ‐3.16% $7,968.91 ‐1.32% 5.7%
Mississippi 1,206 1,229 $4,284,000 $9,659,000 ‐1.87% ($5,375,000) ‐55.65% $3,552.24 ‐54.80% 3.2%
Missouri 4,096 4,341 $19,664,000 $20,982,000 ‐5.64% ($1,318,000) ‐6.28% $4,800.78 ‐0.68% 4.1%
Montana 1,389 1,287 $9,423,000 $6,321,000 7.93% $3,102,000 49.07% $6,784.02 38.13% 5.0%
Nebraska 1,537 1,288 $8,360,000 $5,902,000 19.33% $2,458,000 41.65% $5,439.17 18.70% 3.1%
Nevada 397 200 $4,265,000 $1,074,000 98.50% $3,191,000 297.11% $10,743.07 100.06% 9.6%
New Hampshire 1,348 982 $20,321,000 $16,021,000 37.27% $4,300,000 26.84% $15,074.93 ‐7.60% 30.7%
New Jersey 1,788 1,931 $33,308,000 $30,106,000 ‐7.41% $3,202,000 10.64% $18,628.64 19.48% 19.7%
New Mexico 1,824 1,529 $8,117,000 $11,193,000 19.29% ($3,076,000) ‐27.48% $4,450.11 ‐39.21% 7.4%
New York 6,342 5,338 $100,646,000 $77,464,000 18.81% $23,182,000 29.93% $15,869.76 9.36% 17.8%
North Carolina 4,475 3,712 $31,826,000 $29,144,000 20.55% $2,682,000 9.20% $7,111.96 ‐9.42% 8.9%
North Dakota 433 444 $1,936,000 $2,429,000 ‐2.48% ($493,000) ‐20.30% $4,471.13 ‐18.27% 1.4%
Ohio 6,612 6,827 $46,615,000 $54,270,000 ‐3.15% ($7,655,000) ‐14.11% $7,050.06 ‐11.31% 8.8%
Oklahoma 2,376 3,194 $7,640,000 $11,534,000 ‐25.61% ($3,894,000) ‐33.76% $3,215.49 ‐10.96% 3.0%
Oregon 6,680 6,274 $44,177,000 $56,362,000 6.47% ($12,185,000) ‐21.62% $6,613.32 ‐26.38% 18.8%
Pennsylvania 7,577 7,537 $86,030,000 $75,893,000 0.53% $10,137,000 13.36% $11,354.10 12.76% 12.8%
Rhode Island 376 249 $6,253,000 $6,292,000 51.00% ($39,000) ‐0.62% $16,630.32 ‐34.19% 30.2%
South Carolina 1,581 1,323 $27,375,000 $12,660,000 19.50% $14,715,000 116.23% $17,314.99 80.95% 6.3%
South Dakota 791 752 $4,349,000 $6,158,000 5.19% ($1,809,000) ‐29.38% $5,498.10 ‐32.86% 2.5%
Tennessee 3,679 3,581 $19,182,000 $15,380,000 2.74% $3,802,000 24.72% $5,213.92 21.40% 5.4%
Texas 7,954 8,619 $27,966,000 $38,696,000 ‐7.72% ($10,730,000) ‐27.73% $3,515.97 ‐21.69% 3.2%
Utah 1,875 1,584 $15,930,000 $10,098,000 18.37% $5,832,000 57.75% $8,496.00 33.27% 10.4%
Vermont 2,071 1,474 $27,430,000 $22,863,000 40.50% $4,567,000 19.98% $13,244.81 ‐14.61% 28.2%
Virginia 3,581 2,855 $41,728,000 $28,878,000 25.43% $12,850,000 44.50% $11,652.61 15.20% 7.8%
Washington 5,640 5,418 $45,124,000 $43,537,000 4.10% $1,587,000 3.65% $8,000.71 ‐0.43% 15.1%
West Virginia 1,926 1,990 $10,950,000 $7,097,000 ‐3.22% $3,853,000 54.29% $5,685.36 59.42% 9.0%
Wisconsin 5,848 6,243 $46,949,000 $43,491,000 ‐6.33% $3,458,000 7.95% $8,028.21 15.24% 8.4%
Wyoming 693 645 $3,018,000 $3,025,000 7.44% ($7,000) ‐0.23% $4,354.98 ‐7.14% 5.9%
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007 and 2012 Census of Agriculture
78


Direct‐to‐Consumer Sales in Mississippi
In 2012, Mississippi ranked as the 8th lowest state in the nation in terms of the number of farms
engaged in direct‐to‐consumer sales; with 3.17 percent of total farms engaged in direct‐to‐
consumer sales, Mississippi ranked as the 6th lowest state, and it had the 4th lowest market
value of direct‐to‐consumer sales among the 50 states in the United States (Table 11, page 78).
In 2012, there were 1,206 farms in the state of Mississippi that sold agricultural products
directly to individuals for human consumption with total sales of $4,284,000 (Table 11, page
78). From 2007 to 2012, the number of farms in Mississippi that sold agricultural products
directly to individuals for human consumption declined by 1.9 percent; however, the
percentage of farms in Mississippi that sold agricultural products directly to individuals for
human consumption (expressed as a percentage of all farms in Mississippi) increased by 8.1
percent over the same period.171
In 2012, farms in Mississippi with total agricultural sales of less than $10,000 annually
represented the largest percentage (60%) of the farms that sold agricultural products directly to
individuals and represented approximately 22.7 percent of the total value of agricultural
products sold directly to individuals for human consumption; in Mississippi, farms with total
agricultural sales of less than $50,000 account for approximately 55.4 percent ($2,373,000) of
the total value of agricultural products sold directly to individuals for human consumption. In
2012, the average per farm value of agricultural products sold directly to individuals for human
consumption was $9,053 in the United States as compared to $3,552 in the state of Mississippi
(Table 11, page 78).
Perspective on Mississippi’s participation in the growing direct‐to‐consumer market for
agricultural products can be gained through comparisons with these activities in other states.
In Mississippi, the number of farms engaged in direct‐to‐consumer sales declined from 1,229 in
2007 to 1,206 in 2012 — a decrease of 1.9%; during the same period, the market value of
direct‐to‐consumer sales declined by $5,375,000 — a decrease of 55.7 percent. From 2007 to
2012, the state of Minnesota experienced a decline in the percentage in the number of farms
engaged in direct‐to‐consumer sales (1.9 percent) that was similar to that of Mississippi,
however, in Minnesota, direct‐to consumer sales only declined by $1,094,000 —a decrease of
3.16 percent. It is noticeable that in Minnesota, the number of farms engaged in direct‐to‐
consumer sales was approximately 3.5 times higher than that of Mississippi in 2012, that the
market value of direct‐to‐consumer sales in Minnesota was $33.6 million as compared to $4.28
million in the state of Mississippi (7.3 times higher in Minnesota as compared to Mississippi),
and that average direct‐to‐consumer per farm sales in Minnesota were $7,969 as compared to

171 Author’s note: this can be explained because the number of total farms in Mississippi declined from 41,959 in 2007 to
38,076 in 2012 (a decrease of 3,883 farms or approximately ‐9.3 percent).
79


Map 3: Direct to Consumer Sales per Farm in 2012

80


$3,552 in Mississippi during 2012. Similar comparisons can also be made with Arizona and
Louisiana, which had 1,216 farms and 1,276 farms, respectively that were engaged in direct‐to‐
consumer sales in 2012 and not significantly different than the number of farms in Mississippi
that were engaged in direct‐to‐consumer sales. In 2012, the total value of direct‐to‐consumer
sales in the state of Arizona was $7,963,000 (an average value of $6,549 per farm) and
$7,452,000 in the state of Louisiana (an average value of $5,840 per farm); this compared to
1,206 farms in the state of Mississippi with a total value of direct‐to‐consumer sales of
$4,284,000 (an average value of $3,552 per farm) in 2012. If the state of Mississippi were able
to increase average direct‐to‐consumer sales per farm to be equivalent to that of Louisiana,
even without an increase in the total number of farms engaged in direct‐to‐consumer sales, this
increase would generate approximately $2.8 million in new direct‐to‐consumer sales in the
state of Mississippi.
Across the United States, the number of farms are declining; faced with ever escalating costs,
farmers are increasingly turning to direct‐to‐consumer sales to generate additional revenues
and the market value of direct‐to‐consumer sales is increasing. However, farmers in Mississippi
have not benefited from the positive growth of direct‐to‐consumer sales to the degree
experienced by farmers in other states. Farmers in Mississippi, particularly small farms, face
significant barriers to entry into the direct‐to‐consumer and the direct‐to‐retail/restaurant/
institutional‐market. There are multiple opportunities that exist within the state of Mississippi
to explore a range of facilities, programs, and services that will enhance value added
agricultural output and integrate these activities with programs designed to increase consumer
access to affordable, nutritious food in Mississippi’s underserved communities. These activities
may include scaling up local food‐to‐table activities with expanded farmers’ markets,
agricultural food centers, agribusiness incubators, food hubs, and farm‐to‐school programs.
These types of programs would have the combined positive impact of increasing access to
affordable, healthy food within underserved communities, magnifying the multiplier of effect of
dollars expended to purchase food by retaining an increased share of the farm‐to‐retail spread
within local communities, and magnify the potential for job creation that would be associated
with investments made in Mississippi’s underserved communities.

81

State of Mississippi: Average Value of Direct-to-Consumer Sales

per Farm in 2012
Desoto
Marshall $6,583
$2,600 Tippah $1,571 Tishomingo
Alcorn
Tate $3,125 Benton Prentiss $333
Average Value of Sales
$6,737 $2,000 $1,000
to Individuals for Human Tunica
Union
Consumption per Farm Panola Lafayette $1,588
2012 Lee Itawamba
Coahoma
$6,556 $1,500
$2,250 Pontotoc $1,667 $1,421
$5,000 Quitman $2,889
$333.33 - $2,666.67
Yalobusha
$2,666.68 - $6,117.65 Tallahatchie $2,286 Calhoun Chickasaw Monroe
$6,117.66 - $13,090.91 Bolivar $8,286 $30,500
$4,063
Grenada
$13,090.92 - $30,500.00 $667 Clay
Webster
No Data Available
Sunflower Leflore Carroll $3,333
Montgomery $500
$2,667 $2,000 Oktibbeha Lowndes
$3,000 Choctaw $3,458
State of Mississippi $5,700 $4,000
Average Value of Washington
$1,000 Attala Winston Noxubee
Sales to Individuals Humphreys Holmes $1,586 $643
for Human Consumption $2,929
per Farm in 2012: Sharkey
$ 3,552 Yazoo Kemper
Leake Neshoba
$4,800 Madison
Issaquena $1,125 $619 $2,400
$2,875
Scott Newton Lauderdale
Warren
Ü
$10,222 $4,769 $2,412
$636
Hinds $2,810
$2,038 Rankin Jasper Clarke
$6,000
Claiborne Smith $1,000 $3,895
Copiah Simpson
$625
$938 $13,091
Jefferson Wayne
Covington
Jones
$1,917 Lawrence $6,118
Lincoln $3,000 $1,182
Adams Franklin Jeff Davis
$1,286 $3,083
$2,167 $500
Forrest
Marion Perry Greene
Amite Pike Lamar
Wilkinson
$3,731 $1,000 $9,619
$2,000 $1,786 $1,684$2,308 $3,952
$4,762
Walthall
George
Pearl River Stone $3,500
$2,040 $5,000
Jackson
Harrison
$2,500
$1,750 $3,594
Hancock
Prepared by: J Phillips

Data Source: USDA Census of Agriculture 2012 and 2007
Map 4: Direct‐to‐Consumer Farm Sales in Mississippi 2012

82


Policies designed to increase access to affordable, healthy food in Mississippi’s underserved
communities will need to have the flexibility to meet a broad continuum of needs that may vary
from one geographic location to another. As discussed in the previous sections of this report,
healthy food financing initiatives that are designed to attract investment may take the form of a
combination of grants, loans, private and public investment, and other incentives. There are
multiple approaches to increasing access to affordable, healthy food, which may include (but
are not limited to) financing the expansion of existing grocery stores or the construction of new
supermarkets or grocery stores, the expansion of existing farmers’ markets, the creation of
food hubs, and other programs designed to increase direct‐to‐consumer agricultural sales.
Programs designed to attract or make investments in underserved communities must meet the
needs that are specific to the community and be designed to provide appropriate localized
interventions; they must also be financially viable and sustainable over time. Due to the rural
nature of the state of Mississippi and its relatively low population density, the state of
Mississippi faces unique challenges in the design of an effective healthy food financing initiative
that will increase access to affordable, healthy food and also be sustainable.
The vast majority of the investments that have used grants, loans, and New Market Tax Credits
associated with the Federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative have been made in relatively
urban areas; distance to a supermarket is a primary determinant used to measure “food
access.” For example, the USDA HFFI Locator identifies census tracts as “low access if at least
33 percent of its residents, or 500 residents (whichever is larger) live more than 1 mile from a
supermarket or large grocery store in urban areas or 10 miles in rural areas.” The Federal use
of distance as a measure of “food access” tends to adversely affect states, such as Mississippi,
that are predominantly rural and have a large percentage of their population living in rural
areas where residents in underserved communities are faced with no local access to affordable,
healthy food within their communities, are further burdened with high poverty rates and have
absolutely no access to any public transportation system. Other measures of “food access”
integrate distance with car ownership rates. Not surprisingly, car ownership rates in urban
areas tend to be lower than in rural areas because public transportation is available in urban
areas, and in many urban areas, having access to a private automobile is considered to be a
“luxury” due to the costs associated car ownership, parking, and fees associated with parking
garages. As a result, these measures of “food access” also tend to obscure the true obstacles to
access that exist in rural areas with high poverty rates because they do not measure the
realities of rural existence, which may include the extremely limited access to reliable and
dependable transportation, the relative cost of transportation for poor families who have to
travel longer distances to access food as compared to their urban counterparts, and the limited
availability of transportation for one‐car families living in isolated rural areas. The methodology
that is currently used to measure healthy food accessibility by federal agencies may mask the
depth of the problem that exists within rural states. For example, The U.S. Treasury’s CDFI
Fund provided funding for a study to identify areas with Limited Supermarket Access (LSAs)
83


Table 12: Limited Supermarket Access Rankings by State
Rank for %
Total LSA
Total % of Rank for Total % % of LSA of LSA
Composite
Place Total Population Population in of Population in Population in Low‐ Population
Population Rank
LSA LSA Income Area in Low
Income
Pennsylvania 12,698,826 1,528,284 12% 7 54% 4 1
Rhode Island 1,052,729 148,745 14% 6 53% 9 2
Louisiana 4,532,703 694,257 15% 4 49% 17 3
Connecticut 3,572,522 273,595 8% 22 62% 1 4
Illinois 12,827,020 1,048,199 8% 19 53% 6 5
Ohio 11,534,079 939,126 8% 20 54% 5 6
West Virginia 1,852,161 309,237 17% 2 46% 24 7
Tennessee 6,344,653 449,129 7% 25 59% 3 8
New York 19,375,996 1,459,034 8% 18 51% 13 9
Maryland 5,773,198 602,845 10% 12 48% 19 10
Wisconsin 5,685,495 402,420 7% 27 53% 7 11
Massachusetts 6,545,161 777,880 12% 9 42% 27 12
Texas 25,141,913 3,427,416 14% 5 39% 32 13
Michigan 9,883,320 836,227 8% 21 49% 16 14
New Jersey 8,789,199 1,024,563 12% 8 40% 29 15
Missouri 5,987,588 389,210 7% 26 52% 11 16
Florida 18,798,030 1,313,487 7% 24 49% 15 17
Arizona 6,390,253 717,791 11% 10 40% 30 18
New Mexico 2,058,796 373,003 18% 1 30% 39 19
Georgia 9,686,326 569,700 6% 31 52% 10 20

Kansas 2,852,631 175,043 6% 36 53% 8 21
Mississippi 2,966,599 156,599 5% 43 60% 2 22
Delaware 897,753 102,009 11% 11 37% 34 23
Virginia 7,999,101 451,048 6% 32 51% 14 24
North Dakota 672,520 111,080 17% 3 21% 44 25
Minnesota 5,302,669 483,458 9% 16 39% 33 26
Kentucky 4,338,867 302,343 7% 28 47% 21 27
Oklahoma 3,750,450 375,630 10% 13 33% 36 28
Wyoming 563,453 43,178 8% 23 42% 28 29
Nevada 2,700,317 272,161 10% 14 30% 38 30
South Carolina 4,624,218 263,033 6% 35 47% 20 31
California 37,244,395 1,680,131 5% 38 48% 18 32
Indiana 6,481,763 391,779 6% 34 46% 22 33
Montana 989,100 102,095 10% 15 27% 42 34
Arkansas 2,915,160 73,957 3% 46 52% 12 35
South Dakota 814,114 73,127 9% 17 13% 46 36
Alabama 4,778,501 221,031 5% 41 46% 23 37
North Carolina 9,533,763 473,802 5% 39 42% 26 38
Colorado 5,028,054 258,174 5% 40 43% 25 39
New Hampshire 1,315,982 88,897 7% 30 35% 35 40
Utah 2,763,220 200,993 7% 29 28% 40 41
Iowa 3,045,618 160,181 5% 42 40% 31 42
Washington 6,722,563 420,135 6% 33 20% 45 43
Nebraska 1,824,456 102,008 6% 37 28% 41 44
Oregon 3,829,991 99,673 3% 45 31% 37 45
Maine 1,328,022 71,968 5% 44 24% 43 46
Idaho 1,567,197 39,085 2% 47 10% 47 47
Vermont 625,574 12,591 2% 48 0% 48 48
Source: Searching for Markets: The Geography of Inequitable Access to Healthy & Affordable Food in the United States, U.S. Department of the Treasury, CDFI Fund
84


and to identify optimal areas for supermarket investment: Searching for Markets: The
Geography of Inequitable Access to Healthy & Affordable Food in the United States. This study
was conducted by The Reinvestment Fund (TRF), the entity that manages the Pennsylvania
Fresh Food Financing Initiative and has been the recipient of approximately $451,865,559 in
funding from CDFI, to include approximately $408 million in New Market Tax Credit allocations
and $12 million in HFFI‐FA awards. In 2010, there were approximately 11,155,486 census block
groups in the United States and approximately 6.1 million of these census blocks have a
population greater than zero; the Searching for Markets study was limited to the examination
of 207,608 block groups with an average population of 1,481 people, and the study eliminated
block groups with populations of less than 250 people or less than 100 households – this
process eliminated many rural areas from the study. Searching for Markets identified
communities with unmet demand for healthy food retail options and was designed to provide
guidelines to identify areas where investments in supermarkets may be a viable intervention
strategy; the study used accessibility to large food retail outlets (i.e. supermarkets, chain stores,
and other midsized or large stores) as the identifier for availability to affordable, nutritious food
and then used distance and automobile ownership (at the census block group level) as
measures of access. Searching for Markets evaluated market potential using projections of
potential grocery store sales demand (based upon 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer
Expenditure Survey data for spending on “food at home”) as compared to actual sales to
measure “leakage” as a measure of unmet demand within a block group and for aggregated
block groups to estimate the magnitude of unmet grocery demand. The TRF study then
developed a composite score using an average of the rankings for the percentage of the total
population living in an LSA and the percentage of the LSA population living in low‐income
blocks; the outcome of these measures is presented in Table 12 on page 84. The TRF study
found that the average state has 8.6 percent of its population living in LSAs, of which, 42
percent live in low‐income areas; Mississippi’s Composite Rank was 22 among the 48 states
included in the study, with 5 percent of its population living in LSAs, of which, 60 percent lived
in low‐income areas. The TRF study also provided the following information:
 among the 51 major metropolitan areas with populations greater than 1 million people, the
average area had 9 percent of its population living in LSAs and 52 percent of the LSA
population living in low‐income areas. The Memphis‐Mississippi‐Arkansas area, with 12
percent of its population living in LSA areas, ranked first due to the high percentage of the
LSA population (75 percent) that lived in low‐income areas
 among the 48 metropolitan areas with populations between 500,000 to 1 million people,
the average area had 9.5 percent of its population living in LSAs and 49 percent of the LSA
population living in low‐income areas. The only Mississippi area included in this category of
the TRF rankings was the City of Jackson, Mississippi, which was evaluated as having 6
percent of its population living in LSAs and 65 percent of the LSA populations living
85


Table 13: LSA Areas and Rankings by Population for Selected Areas
LSA Figures for Metro Areas with Populations Between 500,000 and 1,000,000
Rank for Total % of LSA Rank for % of
Total % of
Total Total LSA % of Population in LSA Population Composite
Place Population in
Population Population Population in Low‐Income in Low Income Rank
LSA
LSA Area Area
Jackson, Mississippi 538,923 33,368 6% 34 65% 11 24
Harrisburg‐Carlisle, PA 549,353 96,668 18% 4 58% 18 4
Wichita, KS 623,024 60,649 10% 20 75% 4 5
Scranton‐‐Wilkes‐Barre, PA 563,331 41,179 7% 29 61% 15 23
LSA Figures for Metro Areas with Populations Less Than 250,000
Total % of
Place Population in
LSA
LSA Area Area
Gulfport‐Biloxi, MS 248,763 24,437 10% 55 69% 22 24
Pascagoula, MS 162,227 11,061 7% 77 14% 88 94
Panama City‐Lynn Haven, FL 168,822 17,928 11% 50 13% 91 83
Altoona, PA 127,041 21,981 17% 19 53% 41 16
Williamsport, PA 116,079 3,189 3% 105 44% 60 95
Lebanon, PA 133,505 5,084 4% 94 34% 72 96
Johnstown, PA 143,592 8,394 6% 82 10% 95 98
Port St. Lucie, FL 423,968 23,743 6% 41 46% 38 49
LSA Figures for Micropolitan Areas
Total % of
Place Population in
LSA
LSA Area Area
Clarksdale, MS 26,140 9,216 35% 13 48% 47 3
Greenville, MS 51,113 9,441 18% 71 81% 19 11
Vicksburg, MS 48,760 14,298 29% 24 20% 109 39
Greenwood, MS 42,899 5,508 13% 101 57% 34 41
Meridian, MS 107,412 11,620 11% 115 56% 36 58
Cleveland, MS 34,134 2,499 7% 164 82% 16 78
Natchez, MS‐LA 53,103 3,336 6% 175 54% 41 104
McComb, MS 53,517 1,913 4% 201 73% 20 109
Oxford, MS 47,343 1,155 2% 240 100% 5 124
Yazoo City, MS 28,055 1,197 4% 207 0% 237 248
Fairmont, MN 20,829 1,067 5% 194 0% 251 249
Lewistown, PA 46,668 13,070 28% 26 0% 195 110
Hun ngdon, PA 45,887 5,802 13% 99 0% 197 170
Ardmore, OK 56,967 14,844 26% 33 23% 102 40
Ardmore, OK 56,967 14,844 26% 33 23% 102 40
New Castle, PA 91,095 24,911 27% 28 43% 56 10
Ge ysburg, PA 101,362 10,259 10% 124 0% 154 154
Complete tables are provided in Appendix B
86


in low‐income areas; of the 48 metropolitan areas, the City of Jackson has a composite
ranking of 24th (see Appendix B, Table 138 for all rankings)
 among the 71 metropolitan areas with populations between 250,000 to 500,000, the
average area had 8.9 percent of its population living in LSAs and 47 percent of the LSA
population living in low‐income areas. There were no Mississippi areas included in this
category in the TRF study
 among the 130 metropolitan areas with populations of less than 250,000, the average area
had 9.6 percent of its population living in LSAs and 38 percent of the LSA population living in
low‐income areas. There were two Mississippi LSAs that were identified by the TRF study;
the Gulfport‐Biloxi area received a composite ranking of 24 and the Pascagoula area
received a composite ranking of 94 (Table 13, page 86)
 among the 257 micropolitan areas included in the TRF study, the average area had 13
percent of its population living in LSAs and 24 percent of the LSA population living in low‐
income areas. To be included in the study, micropolitan statistical areas must have had at
least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 residents but no more than 50,000 residents.
There were 10 Mississippi LSAs identified by the TRF study (Table 13, page 86); Clarksdale
and Greenville received a composite ranking of 3 and 11, respectively
A comparison of the rankings for Pascagoula, Mississippi and Altoona, Pennsylvania provides an
example of the impact that population density, low‐income levels, and research methodology
may have on the analysis of food access and the design of appropriate intervention strategies
to address food access. These rankings also illustrate the unique challenges faced by more rural
states with lower population density, such as Mississippi. As specified in the TRF study, LSA
areas cover vast geographic areas; the population size for all Mississippi designated LSA areas
far exceeds the actual population within the municipal boundaries and frequently even exceeds
the total county population of the designated LSA areas (Table 13). For example, the total
population for the Pascagoula LSA area is specified as 162,227 and the total LSA population is
11,061; in 2010, the total population of the City of Pascagoula was 22,392 and the total
population of Jackson County was 139,668, indicating the population for the Pascagoula LSA as
specified in the TRF study exceeded the total population of the entire county. In 2010, the total
population of the City of Altoona, Pennsylvania was 46,320 and the total population of Blair
County, Pennsylvania was 127,089, which is equal to the population size ascribed to the
Altoona, Pennsylvania LSA in the TRF study. As shown in Table 13, the aggregated total
population for the Pascagoula, Mississippi area included in the TRF study was 162,227 (the
denominator/divisor of the equation) and total LSA population for the Pascagoula LSA was
specified as 11,061 (the numerator/dividend of the equation), resulting in a quotient of 6.8
percent (this value is rounded up to 7 percent in Table 13). These Pascagoula values compare
to a total population of 127,041 and a total LSA population of 21,981 for Altoona, Pennsylvania,
which yields a quotient of 17 percent of the total population in the LSA; this is more than twice
the percentage of the population in the LSA for Pascagoula, Mississippi. The TRF study then
87


ranked each LSA for the total of the population in the LSA, yielding a rank of 77 for the
Pascagoula, Mississippi LSA and a rank of 19 for the Altoona, Pennsylvania LSA for the total
percentage of the population in the LSA; this advantaged the Altoona, Pennsylvania LSA in its
position in the Composite Ranking. Because the TRF study uses the total population as the
divisor and the total LSA population as the dividend in the equation to identify the percent of
the population in an LSA, geographic areas with larger total populations within an LSA (higher
population density) decrease the quotient for the percentage of the population in an LSA, and,
as a result, decrease the ranking for the total percentage of the population in the LSA. The
ranking for the total percentage of the population in the LSA is then averaged with the LSA’s
ranking for the percentage of the LSA population living in low‐income block groups to develop
the Composite Rank for each LSA. The scoring for the percentage of the population living in
low‐income block groups in the TRF study is designed to measure the degree to which the
burden of low access is felt more strongly in low‐income areas. The TRF study specified that in
Pascagoula, the percent of the LSA population in low‐income block groups was 14 percent and
ranked Pascagoula 88 for the percentage of the LSA population in low‐income areas; this
compared to Altoona’s specified percent of the LSA population in low‐income areas of 53
percent with a ranking of 41. The Stennis Institute examined poverty rates and found that the
poverty rate for the City of Pascagoula was 24 percent and the poverty rate for Jackson County
was 15.4 percent, as compared to a poverty rate of 18.3 percent in the City of Altoona and
poverty rate of 13.3 percent for Blair County.172 These differences are partially a function of
research methodology and also a function of urban density, where concentrations of multi‐
tenant, high‐density housing developments, and the higher concentration of larger numbers of
low‐income persons in urban areas may artificially mask the magnitude of the lack of access to
affordable, healthy food in underserved communities that may exist in states that exhibit more
rural characteristics, the state of Mississippi being one example of this issue. Issues associated
with population density, methods used to determine “food access,” and methods used to
evaluate and prioritize investments in underserved communities present unique challenges for
the design and funding of appropriate policy interventions in predominantly rural states.
A primary issue in the design of sustainable intervention strategies in underserved communities
is “sufficiency of the market,” which addresses the question of whether there are sufficient
resources to sustain an intervention strategy, i.e. is there sufficient spending capacity within an
underserved community to support a supermarket, a grocery store, a farmers’ market, a food
hub, or other forms of investments made to increase access to affordable, healthy foods. In
areas with high population density, even when the population exhibits high poverty or low‐
income, there may be sufficient spending on food to justify investments in supermarkets,
grocery stores, or even multiple stores. However, in areas with low population density, there
may be insufficient spending to make investments economically viable and sustainable over the

172 U.S. Census Bureau 2008 – 2012 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates.
88


long‐run, even though these may be areas that have the greatest need. A starting point for
evaluating the “sufficiency of the market” in underserved communities is to examine food
spending “leakage,” which is the current spending on food at home by residents in underserved
census tracts that is not currently being spent at retail food stores or markets within the
underserved census tract, to determine whether specific intervention strategies have the
potential to be financially sustainable over the long‐run. Although state healthy food financing
initiatives may be designed to provide incentives or to create programs designed to increase
food access in underserved communities, these interventions must be designed to be
sustainable. Local, unmet demand for food (leakage), can assist decision‐makers to identify
what form of food retail intervention is most appropriate for a specific underserved
community. Areas with high levels of unmet demand for food may be targeted for the
development of full‐service supermarkets or grocery stores, while areas with lower levels of
unmet demand may be more appropriately targeted for the expansion of existing grocery
stores, farmers’ markets, or the development of other direct‐to‐consumer agricultural food
sales. Although healthy food financing programs should not focus exclusively on supermarkets
and grocery stores, a general discussion of the supermarket and grocery store industry is
provided in the following section of this report to provide decision‐makers with a perspective
on the industry at the national level and for the state of Mississippi.
The Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry
The Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry (NAICS 44511) is a subsector of the Retail Trade
sector; this industry is comprised of establishments generally known as supermarkets and
grocery stores. The industry consists of
supermarkets and grocery stores; the
size of store determines the
nomenclature used to define a specific
store; supermarkets may be categorized
as hypermarkets (> 100,000 square feet),
supermarkets (66,000 to 99,000 square
feet), superstores (55,000 to 65,000
square feet), and grocery stores
(<55,000 square feet). Grocery stores
and supermarkets may be part of a chain
(≥ 11 stores) or they may be
independent (< 11 stores). Figure 12: Number of U.S. Supermarkets and Grocery Stores
In 2013, there were 61,020 grocery
stores and supermarkets in the United States. From 2003 through 2007, the number of grocery
stores and supermarkets in the U.S. declined by approximately 2.6 percent; since 2007, the
number of stores in the United States has increased by 1,741 (an increase of 2.9 percent).
89


Table 14: U.S. Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry Metrics
The U.S. Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry (NAICS 44511)
U.S. Totals in $ millions Per Store Estimates in Dollars
Total Cost of Materials $38,958.90 $626,893.10
Materials Used $15,233.70 $245,127.60
Commission Expense $573.00 $9,220.20
Contract Work $1,654.00 $26,614.70
Cost of Fuels $1,875.60 $30,180.50
Electricity $19,622.70 $315,751.60
Total Payroll & Benefits $74,465.20 $1,198,230.00
Payroll $49,361.00 $794,274.80
HR Benefits $13,429.20 $216,091.10
Health Insurance $4,044.70 $65,083.80
Pension Plans $1,298.80 $20,899.20
Contribution Plans $667.60 $10,742.40
Other HR Benefits $5,663.90 $91,138.60
Total Other Expenses $77,226.40 $1,242,660.80
Shipping & Storage $4,415.80 $71,055.30
Expensed Equipment $1,375.20 $22,128.50
Data Process Services $584.40 $9,403.70
Communications Services $1,638.70 $26,368.60
Repair & Maintenance $4,893.30 $78,738.80
Waste Removal $3,090.30 $49,726.50
Advertising Expenses $12,620.80 $203,083.10
Professional Services $7,823.10 $125,882.60
Taxes & License Fees $8,415.20 $135,410.20
All Other Expenses $32,369.60 $520,863.80
Total Rentals $34,506.50 $555,248.90
Building Rentals $33,123.30 $532,991.70
Machinery Rentals $1,383.20 $22,257.30
Total Capital Expenditures $31,823.40 $512,074.80
Buildings & Structures $15,365.00 $247,240.40
Machinery & Equipment $16,458.40 $264,834.40
Autos & Trucks $266.60 $4,289.90
Computer Equipment $1,456.60 $23,438.40
Other Machinery & Equipment $14,735.20 $237,106.20
Other Industry Metrics (in dollars) for 2012
Total U.S. Industry Sales $461,275,000,000
Average Sales per Store $7,101,100.63
Average Sales per Employee $201,613.00
Average Employees per Store 36.5
Source: Adapted from Barnes Reports Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry 2013 Capital and Expense Series
90


The industry employed 2,412,256 people in 2013; total wages paid were $54,894,662,000173
and the average annual wage for workers in the industry was $22,757.174 In 2013, average sales
per establishment were $7.16 million,
average sales per employee were
$238,928, and the average number of
employees per establishment was 30.175
The average number of employees per
establishment has remained constant
over the period from 2008 through
2013.176
In 2013, there were 455 grocery stores
and supermarkets in the state of
Mississippi. Since 2004, the number of
grocery stores and supermarkets in the
state of Mississippi has declined by 31.6 Figure 13: Supermarkets and Grocery Stores in Mississippi
percent —a loss of approximately 210
stores. In Mississippi, the industry employed 16,364 people in 2013; total wages paid were
$301.6 million and the average annual pay for workers in the industry was $18,431.177
Although employees in Mississippi grocery stores and supermarkets have an average annual
wage of $18,431 that is lower than the average annual wage of $35,890 for all Mississippi
employees across all private industries in the state of Mississippi, the wage disparity for
workers in Mississippi grocery stores and supermarkets is not as great as that exhibited when
compared to the average annual wage across all private industries. In Mississippi, the average
annual wage across all private industries in 2013 was $35,890 as compared to the U.S. average
annual wage of $49,701 across all private industries; 178 across all private industries, Mississippi
workers have an average annual wage that is 72.2 percent of that for U.S. workers across all
private industries; Mississippi workers in the grocery stores and supermarkets have an average
annual wage that is 80.9 percent of that for all U.S. workers in grocery stores and supermarkets.
This indicates that workers in Mississippi grocery stores and supermarkets exhibit greater wage
parity with their U.S. counterparts, as compared to other industry sectors in the state of
Mississippi.
Employment in the Supermarket and Grocery Store industry in the state of Mississippi is
distributed across approximately 48 occupational categories (Table 15, page 92); an estimated

173 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Employment and Wage Statistics.
175 Market Reports, Industry Trends, and Demographic Data. Barnes Reports, Grocery Stores Industry (NAICS 44511).
176 Ibid.
178 Ibid.
91


Table 15: Distribution of Employment and Occupational Wages in the Mississippi Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry 2012
Mississippi Employment in the Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry (NAICS 44511) by Occupation in 2012
Employment Annual Wage
Percent of
10 25 75 90
Occupation Description Employment Total Median
percentile percentile percentile percentile
Employment
Mississippi Total Employment 16,402 100%
Management occupations 252 1.54% 25,538 $25,538 $45,350 $60,656 $86,777
General and operations managers 180 1.10% 44,636 $44,636 $78,394 $101,264 $138,230
Sales managers 28 0.17% 27,289 $27,289 $45,766 $62,133 $85,108
Business and financial operations occupations 68 0.41% 17,907 $17,907 $28,161 $37,327 $46,882
Wholesale and retail buyers, except farm products 35 0.21% 16,939 $16,939 $26,137 $34,863 $45,860
Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media 70 0.43% 14,046 $14,046 $20,425 $25,252 $31,149
Healthcare practitioner and technical occupations 293 1.79% 27,602 $27,602 $50,523 $139,410 $160,745
Pharmacists 147 0.90% 54,398 $54,398 $77,906 $87,723 $94,272
Pharmacy technicians 145 0.88% 15,067 $15,067 $21,936 $25,789 $29,358
Healthcare support occupations 51 0.31% 13,649 $13,649 $18,052 $21,280 $25,253
Pharmacy aides 51 0.31% 14,488 $14,488 $19,165 $22,594 $26,796
Protective service occupations 34 0.21% 15,971 $15,971 $26,228 $35,923 $49,648
Security guards 29 0.18% 15,158 $15,158 $24,771 $35,067 $48,804
Food prepara on and serving related occupa ons 1,924 11.73% 12,538 $12,538 $16,126 $20,796 $26,460
First‐line supervisors/man agers of food prep. workers 166 1.01% 16,621 $16,621 $25,067 $31,146 $37,774
Cooks, fast food 36 0.22% 12,820 $12,820 $16,244 $20,655 $24,974
Cooks, short order 41 0.25% 10,901 $10,901 $14,248 $17,418 $21,307
Food preparation workers 820 5.00% 14,836 $14,836 $18,729 $23,317 $29,494
Combined food prep. workers, including fast food 681 4.15% 12,572 $12,572 $15,785 $19,588 $24,191
Counter attendants, food concession, and coffee shop 83 0.51% 12,297 $12,297 $14,951 $17,676 $22,399
Food preparation and serving related workers, all other 38 0.23% 15,007 $15,007 $20,082 $23,930 $27,545
Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance 120 0.73% 13,224 $13,224 $16,448 $20,572 $25,581
Janitors and cleaners, except maids 118 0.72% 12,375 $12,375 $15,384 $19,157 $23,710
Sales and related occupations 6,833 41.66% 15,311 $15,311 $19,060 $25,058 $36,660
First‐line supervisors/managers of retail sales workers 821 5.01% 17,981 $17,981 $28,721 $36,565 $45,535
Cashiers 5,513 33.61% 12,740 $12,740 $15,409 $18,461 $24,631
Counter and rental clerks 57 0.35% 13,279 $13,279 $17,343 $22,200 $28,917
Retail salespersons 360 2.19% 12,798 $12,798 $16,478 $20,967 $26,806
Demonstrators and product promoters 25 0.15% 12,149 $12,149 $15,164 $18,509 $23,721
Sales and related workers, all other 41 0.25% 14,414 $14,414 $24,151 $29,134 $36,246
Office and administrative support occupations 3,973 24.22% 11,072 $11,072 $14,899 $19,978 $26,224
First‐line supervisors/managers of admin workers 195 1.19% 18,129 $18,129 $28,898 $36,470 $44,567
Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks 132 0.80% 11,364 $11,364 $17,750 $22,347 $27,517
Customer service representatives 447 2.73% 13,251 $13,251 $18,012 $23,332 $29,036
Shipping, receiving, and traffic clerks 120 0.73% 14,369 $14,369 $21,794 $26,762 $34,298
Stock clerks and order fillers 2,784 16.97% 13,096 $13,096 $16,782 $21,580 $28,023
Weighers, checkers, and samplers, recordkeeping 32 0.20% 19,252 $19,252 $29,947 $36,827 $44,546
Office clerks, general 122 0.74% 14,891 $14,891 $19,773 $24,814 $31,427
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 26 0.16% 15,310 $15,310 $24,342 $33,383 $42,345
Production occupations 1,240 7.56% 14,513 $14,513 $22,572 $29,765 $37,388
First‐line supervisors/man agers of production workers 84 0.51% 21,037 $21,037 $30,370 $38,192 $45,768
Bakers 277 1.69% 12,120 $12,120 $17,303 $21,814 $26,574
Butchers and meat cutters 572 3.49% 13,211 $13,211 $21,870 $28,109 $34,081
Meat, poultry, and fish cutters and trimmers 169 1.03% 14,757 $14,757 $19,484 $25,601 $32,503
Food batchmakers 42 0.26% 12,463 $12,463 $16,272 $19,893 $24,467
Painting, coating, and decorating workers 26 0.16% 15,942 $15,942 $22,460 $26,893 $30,953
Transportation and material moving occupations 1,492 9.10% 11,468 $11,468 $13,743 $15,700 $20,789
Source: Barnes Reports Grocery Stores Industry (NAICS 44511), 2012 Jobs and Wages Series

92


77.6 percent of total employment in the industry occurs within three occupational categories;
these are:
1. Sales and Related Occupations (Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupation Code 41‐0000), which
represents approximately 41.7 percent of total employment. In this occupational category,
annual wages range from a low of $15,311 to a high of $36,660; the median annual wage is
$19,060;
2. Office and Administrative Support Occupations (Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupation Code
43‐0000), which represents approximately 24.2 percent of total employment. In this
occupational category, annual wages range from a low of $11,072 to a high of $26,224; the
median annual wage is $14,899; and
3. Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations (Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupation
Code 35‐0000), which represents approximately 11.7 percent of total employment within
the industry. In this occupational category, annual wages range from a low of $12,538 to a
high of $26,460, the median annual wage is $16,126.
Most grocery store and supermarket jobs are entry‐level positions and receive on‐the‐job
training; cashiers, stock clerks, and food preparation workers are trained on‐the‐job, and meat‐
cutters and bakers can attend training at the local community college or they can learn the
necessary skills on‐the‐job. Although some employers seek graduates of community colleges or
4‐year colleges to fill many of the marketing and management positions within the industry,
many employees in the industry start in entry‐level positions and advance to positions of
greater responsibility over time, this enables them to advance to positions with higher wages
and to gain valuable job skills. The jobs created by grocery stores and supermarkets may
represent a significant opportunity for employment within Mississippi census tracts that are
characterized by relatively low educational achievement and unemployment, and these jobs
are well matched with the educational and job skill profile of residents within many of
Mississippi’s underserved communities.
The industry operates in an environment of low margins and depends upon high volume sales
and efficiency of operations. The economics that drive site selection in the Supermarket and
Grocery Store industry are based on fundamental supply and demand. Demand in the industry
is driven by consumer purchasing behavior; food is considered to be a normal good with
demand increasing as income increases. Price is also a determinant of demand; the higher the
price of a specific food, the lower the quantity demanded, and as prices increase, there is an
increasing demand for substitute foods. The budget constraints of lower‐income consumers
will generally lead them to substitute higher priced food with lower priced foods; in many
cases, this leads to substituting healthier (more costly foods) with less healthy foods (canned
fruits or vegetables replace fresh, or fast foods replace home prepared meals). Consumer
demand and purchasing behavior, combined with the budget constraints among lower income
consumers, impact industry site selection; supermarkets and grocery stores are normally
93


located in geographic areas that are anticipated to maximize sales; this includes locating in
close proximity to the largest population of middle to upper income consumers on sites that
have high visibility, high traffic counts, and are located in areas that are experiencing economic
growth (either residential or business activity).
Supply (the number of stores and variety of product offerings) and price are driven by the cost
of inputs — land, construction costs, fixtures and equipment, labor, food costs, and other fixed
and variable operating costs. High fixed costs may require a store to charge a higher price for
goods sold or limit the variety of product offerings. The sales volume of a store will affect the
magnitude of importance that fixed costs play in determining price; when sales volume is high
or when individual consumers spend more (on higher price/higher profit goods or purchase an
increased number or variety of goods), the store will be able to spread fixed costs across a
larger number of consumers, buy in bulk to reduce the wholesale cost of goods sold, and be
able to lower prices while still providing a greater variety of product offerings. Supermarkets
and grocery stores compete by offering a greater variety of products, which requires fixed
investments in distribution
and technology and by
differentiating their product
offerings through
advertising. These fixed
costs create barriers to entry
for competitors.
The supermarket and
grocery store industry has
transformed over time.
Beginning with the increase
in chain stores during the
1900’s based upon
economies of scale, during
the 1960’s, the industry
experienced the rise of the Figure 14: Supermarket Sales by Department as a Percentage of Total Supermarket
supermarket format, driven Sales
by consumer demand for
increased variety and achieved through economies of scope, with the adoption of
computerized logistic distribution and inventory management systems during the late 1980’s
and early 1990’s, supermarket chains were able to efficiently stock, manage, transport, and sell
an increasing variety of product offerings. From 1980 to 2004, the number of products offered
in the industry increased from 14,145 to over 30,000; in 2012, the average number of items
94


carried in a supermarket was 42,686. 179 As product variety and the number of offerings
increased, so too did store size. There is empirical evidence indicating that the consumer
demand for an increased variety of product offerings within the supermarket and grocery store
industry limits the number of firms that can profitably enter a geographic market.180 The
Supermarket and Grocery Store industry has become increasingly concentrated over time;
there are approximately 50 national and regional chains that generate 70 percent of total
revenue, and the top five chains control approximately 30 percent of the market. The largest
supermarket chains in the United States include Walmart Stores; The Kroger Company;
Safeway, Inc.; Albertsons, LLC.; SuperValu, Inc.; Publix Super Markets, Inc.; the Delhaize Group;
Aldi; and Whole Foods Market. In 2012, Walmart’s revenue from grocery sales was
approximately $311 billion, The Kroger Company’s sales were $82.2 billion, and Safeway’s sales
were approximately $41.1 billion. Factors that have led to consolidation within the industry
and have driven the industry towards having fewer, but larger stores dominated by large chains
include economies of scale, economies of scope, and economies of agglomeration. The cost of
operating a store declines as the size of the store increases (economies of scale); the cost
decreases as store size increases and the store is able to provide more shelf space for a larger
quantity of goods while increasing the variety of offerings (economies of scope); and the
cost/benefit of operating a store are lower when a store is located near other stores that
attract consumers (economies of agglomeration). In many cases, endogenous fixed costs drive
the location decision of firms within the supermarket and grocery store industry; in other cases,
response to competition and strategic actions taken by firms include investing in larger stores,
offering more and higher quality product variety, and investing in prime retail locations that are
proximate to high traffic retail locations. Consolidation within the industry, economies of
scale, economies of scope, and economies of agglomeration have all impacted the “supply” of
food access—the number of supermarkets or grocery stores within a geographic location and
where these stores are located. This economic decision‐making has resulted in underserved
communities with limited or no access to affordable, healthy food.”
Market Reports for the Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry (NAICS 44511) includes data
for 62,143 establishments across 12 sub‐industries within the Supermarket and Grocery Store
Industry, as follows:181, 182
 Frozen food and freezer plans, except meat

179 Food Marketing Institute, 2012.
180 Ellickson, P. B. (2005). Does Sutton Apply to Supermarkets? Duke University Economic Department, NBER Summer Institute.
181 Market Reports, Industry Trends, and Demographic Data. Barnes Reports, Grocery Stores Industry (NAICS 44511).
182 Author’s note: data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for supermarkets and grocery stores exhibit slight
differences when compared to the data sourced from Market Reports in this section of the report. For example, data from the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a total of 455 establishments in the supermarket and grocery store industry in Mississippi
with total employment of 16,364 in 2013; this compares to 487 establishments with total employment of 15,899 reported for
Mississippi by Barnes Market Reports for 2013. These differences may be attributable to the methodology used for gathering
and aggregating data, differences in reporting periods, and the variance that exists between sources for statistical data.
95


 Cooperative food stores
 Delicatessen stores
 Independent Grocery Stores
 Grocery Stores
 Independent Supermarkets range between 20,000 to 55,000 square feet
 Supermarkets range between 20,000 to 55,000 square feet
 Supermarket Chains
 Superstores – supermarkets that are between 55,000 and 65,000 square feet
 Hypermarkets – supermarkets that are greater than 100,000 square feet
In 2013, total U.S. sales in the Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry were approximately
$461.27 billion; the average sales across all supermarket and grocery store establishments were
$7,358,961, regardless of size (Table 16, below). Supermarkets and supermarket chains
represent less than 18.8 percent of total establishments within the U.S. Supermarket and
Grocery Store Industry, but represent 81.3 percent of total sales within the industry.
Supermarkets are generally between 20,000 to 50,000 square feet and offer a full line of
groceries, meat, and produce with an average of between 10,000 to 30,000 stock keeping units
(SKUs), and have a sales volume above $2 million annually. The median store size for all
supermarkets in the U.S. was 46,400 square feet in 2013.
Grocery stores, independent grocery stores, and chain grocery stores represent 74.6 percent of
all establishments within the Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry, but with total sales of
approximately $80.3 billion represent only 17.4 percent of total sales (Table 16, below).
Grocery stores typically average approximately 20,000 square feet, offer a general line of
Table 16: The U.S. Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry (NAICS 44511) Establishments and Sales 2013
The Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry Establishments Percent of Total Sales in Percent of

Sub‐Industries Total Establishments $ Millions Total Sales
Grocery stores, independent 7,710 12.3% $24,973.40 5.4%

Grocery stores 37,960 60.6% $47,178.00 10.2%
Grocery stores, chain 1,079 1.7% $8,185.10 1.8%
Supermarkets 4,998 8.0% $109,170.30 23.7%
Supermarkets, chain 5,389 8.6% $246,384.70 53.4%
Supermarkets, greater than 100,000 square feet 41 0.1% $43.50 0.0%
Supermarkets, independent 1,357 2.2% $12,788.20 2.8%
Supermarkets, 55,000 ‐ 65,000 square feet 13 0.0% $6,660.60 1.4%
Supermarkets, 66,000 ‐ 99,000 square feet 10 0.0% $19.20 0.0%
Cooperative food stores 199 0.3% $766.90 0.2%
Delicatessen stores 3,829 6.1% $4,997.20 1.1%
Frozen food and freezer plans, except meat 97 0.2% $107.30 0.0%
Total 62,682 100.0% $461,274.4 100.0%
Source: Market Reports, Industry Trends, and Demographic Data. Barnes Reports, the Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry (NAICS 44511) 2014.
96


grocery and perishable products including meat and produce, and offer an average of between
5,000 to 10,000 stock keeping units.
Market Reports183 for the state of Mississippi indicates that there were 487 establishments with
a total employment of 15,899 and total sales of $2.631 billion in the Supermarket and Grocery
Store industry (NAICS 44511) in 2013 (Table 17, page 98). In addition to the Supermarket and
Grocery Store industry (NAICS 44511), there were approximately 16 establishments in the
General‐Line Grocery Wholesale Industry (NAICS 42441) that were located in the state of
Mississippi in 2013; these firms employed 2,637 people in 2013 and had sales of approximately
$725.3 million.184 As compared to the United States, the percentage of small grocery stores
with less 9 employees is lower in the state of Mississippi; Mississippi also has a lower
percentage of very large grocery stores with more than 100 employees as compared to the
United States (Figure 15, below). In Mississippi, approximately 25.4 percent of industry
employment is in supermarkets or grocery stores with 20 to 49 employees, as compared to 12.8
percent nationwide. In Mississippi, 40.2 percent of workers are employed in supermarkets or
grocery stores with 50 to 99 employees as compared to 27.1 percent nationwide. In the United
States, approximately 42 percent of workers in the supermarket and grocery store industry
work at stores with between 100 to 249 workers; in Mississippi, only 23.6 percent of workers
are employed in stores with 100 to 249 workers (Table 17, page 98).

Figure 15: Comparison of U.S. and Mississippi Distribution of Supermarkets and Grocery Store Establishments by Number of
Employees

183 Market Reports, Industry Trends, and Demographic Data. Barnes Reports, Grocery Stores Industry (NAICS 44511); 2012
184 Ibid.
97


Table 17: Distribution of Employment, Stores, and Sales in the U.S. and Mississippi Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry 2013
1 ‐ 4 5 ‐ 9 10 ‐ 19 20 ‐ 49 50 ‐ 99 100 ‐ 249 250 ‐ 499 500 ‐ 999 > 1,000

Unknown Total
Category Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees
United States
Total Employment 69,988 40,286 86,182 289,802 615,216 952,977 156,836 25,095 1,237 30,720 2,268,339
Number of Stores 23,329 6,714 6,156 8,524 9,321 7,059 521 38 0 479 62,143
Total Sales (in $ $8,826 $4,838 $11,644 $45,298 $104,955 $178,039 $58,668 $24,157 $2,588 $2,292 $441,305
Average Sales per
Store (in dollars) $378,327 $720,584 $1,891,488 $5,314,172 $11,260,058 $25,221,561 $112,606,526 $635,710,526 N/A $4,784,969 $7,101,443
Mississippi
Total Employment 411 282 778 4,038 6,385 3,750 0 0 0 256 15,899
Number of Stores 137 47 56 119 97 28 0 0 0 4 487
Total Sales (in $
$52 $34 $105 $631 $1,089 $701 $0 $0 $0 $19 $2,631
Millions)
Average Sales per
$379,562 $723,404 $1,875,000 $5,302,521 $11,226,804 $25,035,714 N/A N/A N/A $4,750,000 $5,402,464
Store (in dollars)
Columbus, MS
Number of Employees 6 11 13 65 253 0 0 0 0 0 349
Number of Stores 2 2 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 11
Sales (in $ Millions) $1.0 $1.0 $2.0 $10.0 $43.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $57.0
Average Sales per
$500,000 $500,000 $2,000,000 $5,000,000 $10,750,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $5,181,818
Store (in dollars)
Greenville, MS
Number of Stores 2 2 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 11
Average Sales per
$500,000 $500,000 N/A $5,000,000 $10,750,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $6,000,000
Store (in dollars)
Indianola, MS
Number of Employees 10 6 0 59 58 0 0 0 0 134
Number of Stores 4 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 8
Sales (in $ Millions) $1.2 $0.3 $0.0 $9.9 $21.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $32.0
Average Sales per
$300,000 $300,000 N/A $4,950,000 $21,500,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $4,112,500
Store (in dollars)
Picayune, MS
Number of Stores 1 1 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 9
Average Sales per
$300,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $5,000,000 $10,666,667 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $5,555,556
Store (in dollars)
Source: Market Reports, Industry Trends, and Demographic Data, Barnes Reports, The Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry (NAICS 44511), 2013
98


Underserved Census Tracts in Four Mississippi Counties
The following section of this report examines underserved census tracts located in the
Mississippi counties of Lowndes, Pearl River, Sunflower, and Washington that qualify for federal
new market tax credits and other funding under the guidelines of the federal “Healthy Food
Financing Initiative (HFFI).” An analysis of the socio‐economic profile for each county is
provided at the census tract level to provide a comparative profile for the characteristics of the
population living in federal HFFI qualifying census tracts as defined by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and also eligible for grants, loans, and federal New Market Tax Credits through the
Federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative. The following section of this study focuses on census
tracts that are eligible of funding under the federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI
census tracts) due to the important opportunities that exist to significantly leverage the state
share of investments made in Mississippi’s underserved communities with additional federal
grants, loans, or tax credits. The four counties (Lowndes, Pearl River, Sunflower, and
Washington) that are included in this study were selected to be generally representative of
different geographic areas of the state of Mississippi; however, underserved communities exist
throughout the state of Mississippi and state healthy food financing programs should be
designed to be sufficiently flexible to meet a broad continuum of needs throughout the state of
Mississippi.
In recognition of the need to increase access to healthy and nutritious food, the Mississippi
State Legislature passed, and Governor Phil Bryant signed, House Bill 1328 during the 2014
Regular Session; known as the “Small Business and Grocer Investment Act,” this legislation is
designed to provide grants and loans to promote access to fresh fruits and vegetables and
other affordable healthy food in Mississippi’s underserved communities. House Bill 1328 makes
provisions for the Mississippi Development Authority to contract with non‐profit organizations
or community development financial institutions to administer activities through public‐private
partnerships to provide funding for eligible projects. There are a range of investments that may
be made to increase access to affordable, healthy foods in Mississippi’s underserved
communities; these may include, but are not limited to:
 The new construction a traditional supermarket, or the renovation of an abandoned
supermarket or other existing space to create a new supermarket
 The construction of a new grocery store, superette, convenience store, or the expansion of
an existing grocery store, superette, or convenience store to provide expanded refrigeration
and shelf space to increase the offering of an assortment of fresh fruits and vegetables
 The construction of a farmers’ market facility or the expansion of an existing farmers’
market facility to facilitate offering a wider selection of fresh fruits and vegetables
 The creation of a Food Hub warehousing and distribution facility, to increase direct‐to‐
consumer sales by local agricultural producers; these facilities may include direct sales and
distribution to individuals or direct sales to institutions to potentially include restaurants,
99


schools, and hospitals. Such facilities may either provide for on‐site pick‐up of agricultural
products or may provide delivery services.

The economic and fiscal impact associated with potential investments made in Mississippi’s
underserved communities in each of the four counties selected to be included in this study are
also examined in the following section of this report; hereinafter, the term underserved
communities is used interchangeably with the term “HFFI qualifying census tracts.”

The economic impact of each investment in Mississippi’s underserved communities are
anticipated to occur in two phases. The first phase of economic activity will take place during
the construction or renovation phase; the magnitude of the economic impact of construction or
renovation activities will be directly related to the size of the investment being made. The
second phase of economic activity will occur upon the completion of construction activities and
the commencement of ongoing business operations; the magnitude of the economic impact of
the ongoing operations of business activity will be dependent upon the type of investment
made (i.e. supermarket, grocery store, farmers’ market, or food hub), the size of the facility, the
location and size of the market within which the facility is located, and management
experience. Each investment will have unique elements that are not able to be modeled
without information that is specific to the investment; for example, site location may determine
the market potential for a specific site and within each county examined in this report there are
multiple census tracts within which there are a high number of potential sites that may be
selected for investment. To address the issues associated with multiple, currently unknown
elements of the wide range of potential investments that may be made in underserved
communities in the state of Mississippi, economic impact analysis was conducted using the
following framework:

Construction Impacts. In the United States, the average size of traditional supermarkets is
approximately 45,000 square feet, with a selling area of approximately 33,300 square feet;
these stores normally have approximately 9 to 10 checkout lanes and employ approximately 66
people. Across the United States, traditional supermarkets, limited assortment supermarkets,
or grocery stores may range between 20,000 to 55,000 square feet. Assuming face brick with
concrete block backup/steel frame construction, the average cost of constructing a
supermarket or grocery store, including furniture, fixtures, and equipment is approximately
$146 per square foot in the state of Mississippi. 185 The economic impact analysis presented in
this study assumes that for projects that renovate existing stores, the purchase price for the
building combined with the purchase of new furniture, fixtures, and equipment will be
equivalent to the cost of a new construction; therefore, the assumption of $146 per square foot

185 Source: RS Means Online Construction Estimator
100


is assumed to be appropriate renovation projects. Construction phase impacts were modeled
based upon the assumption of three levels of investment:
1. A construction or renovation cost of $6,570,000. This assumption is based upon an
estimated store size of 45,000 square feet which is appropriate for a traditional,
independent supermarket.
2. A construction or renovation cost of $2,920,000. This assumption is based upon an
estimated store size of 20,000 square feet which is appropriate for a limited assortment
supermarket, grocery store, or convenience store.
3. An investment of $500,000 in store renovations and the purchase of new equipment to
enable it to expand its offerings of fruits and vegetables. This assumption is appropriate for
multiple investments that may be required to renovate existing facilities for the purpose of
increasing refrigeration, cooler, or freezer capacity to expand the offerings of fresh fruits
and vegetables; these investments may include renovation and/or new equipment for
existing supermarkets, convenience stores, grocery stores, or farmers’ markets.
Ongoing Operations Impact. In the U.S., the average annual sales for supermarkets and
grocery stores was $7,101,443; in the state of Mississippi, average supermarket and grocery
store sales were $5,402,464 (Table 17, page 98). When a specific retail sales gap in a census
tract level was not specifically identified, retail sales associated with the ongoing operations of
investments in underserved communities were modeled at three levels, using the following
assumptions:
1. Annual sales of approximately $5,000,000; this assumption is based upon estimated store
sales in the state of Mississippi for moderately sized traditional, independent supermarkets.
Although the assumption of annual sales of $5 million may underestimate the economic
impact of supermarkets that are 45,000 square feet, the use of these conservative sales
estimates will also yield relatively conservative estimates of the economic impact of the
ongoing operations associated with these stores (Table 17, page 98).
2. Annual sales of $2,000,000; this assumption is based upon annual sales associated smaller
grocery stores in the state of Mississippi with (Table 17, page 98).
3. Annual sales of $500,000; this assumption is based upon store for relatively small grocery
stores in the state of Mississippi (Table 17, page 98) and upon spending on fruits and
vegetables in the state of Mississippi.
The economic impact of investments for the four counties that are the focus of this study are
examined using census tract specific investment scenarios. Economic and fiscal impacts are
reported for the construction phase of activity and for the ongoing operations of business
activity that are associated with investments made in underserved census tracts in each of the
counties. A separate section of this report provides a state‐level econometric input‐output
analysis of construction impacts and the impact of ongoing business operations that may be
associated with the three alternative investment scenarios in any area of the state.
101



102


Lowndes County, Mississippi
** Denotes HFFI Qualifying Census Tract
** Denotes a Food Desert
Census Tract
Flint Hill
Caledonia
Kolola Springs
28087000101
28087000200
28087000102 Woodlawn
Columbus AFB
Wells
Steens
28087000300
® 28087000800**
28087000900**
28087000401**
Columbus 28087000500
Mayhew 28087000700** 28087000600**

New Hope McCrary
McIntyre
28087001000
28087000403 New Hope
Bent Oak
Whitebury
Artesia
28087000404
Penns
Trinity
Forreston
28087001100**
Plum Grove
Crawford
0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles
Map 5: Lowndes County HFFI Qualifying Census Tracts
103

** Denotes an HFFI
Census Tract
28087000101
28087000200
28087000102
28087000300
® 28087000800**
28087000900**
28087000401**
28087000500
28087000700** 28087000600**
28087001000
28087000403
28087000404
28087001100**
0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles
Map 6: Lowndes County Reference Map
104


Eligible Healthy Food Financing Initiative Census Tracts in Lowndes County
Based upon the data from the USDA’s HFFI Locator Tool, there are six (6) census tracts located
in Lowndes County that are eligible and qualify for funding under the Federal Healthy Food
Financing Initiative; these are:
 Census Tract 28087000401 is designated as a rural tract and is eligible based upon low
income and low access using vehicle access.
 Census Tract 28087000600 is designated as an urban tract and is eligible based upon low
income and low access measured at 1 and 10 miles, at ½ and 10 miles, and at 1 and 20
miles.
miles, and low income and low access using vehicle access.
income and low access measured at ½ and 10 miles and low income and low access using
vehicle access.
income and low access measured at ½ and 10 miles and low income and low access using
vehicle access.
income and low access using vehicle access.
All qualifying HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County are also eligible to receive Federal New
Market Tax Credits.
There are 26,433 people living in HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County; this represents 44.4
percent of the total county population. An estimated 6,751 children (age 0 to 17 years) and
3,594 seniors (age 65 and over) live in HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County; 44.9 percent of all
children and 46.5 percent of all seniors in Lowndes County live in HFFI census tracts.186

186 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012 5‐year Estimates.
105


Figure 16: Lowndes County Population Estimates 2010 through 2013
106


Overview of Lowndes County, Mississippi
In 2013, Lowndes County, Mississippi’s estimated population was 59,922; from 2000 to 2013,
the county had a negative growth rate of 2.6 percent and population declined by approximately
1,607 people. Over the period from 2000 through 2008, Lowndes County’s population
decreased by 2,369 (a decline of 3.85 percent). In recent years, Lowndes County has seen an
upward trend in population growth; from Table 18: Lowndes County Population by Census Tract
2009 through 2013, the population
increased by approximately 259 Total Percent of County
people (Figure 16, page 106). Among Census Tract
Population Population
the 82 counties in the state of 28087000101 6,053 10.16%
Mississippi, Lowndes County ranked 28087000102 2,854 4.79%
among the 18 counties experiencing 28087000200 1,607 2.70%
the highest loss in total population 28087000300 7,690 12.91%
over the period from 2000 to 2013. 28087000401** 7,122 11.95%
28087000403 4,331 7.27%
According to the 2010 U.S. Census,187
28087000404 4,084 6.85%
in the United States, 72.4 percent of
28087000500 4,295 7.21%
the population is White, 12.6 percent
28087000600** 3,285 5.51%
of the population is African
28087000700** 5,124 8.60%
American, 9.1 percent of the 28087000800** 3,610 6.06%
population is Hispanic or Latino,188 28087000900** 5,725 9.61%
5.6 percent of the population is 28087001000 2,237 3.75%
Asian, 1.7 percent of the population 28087001100** 1,567 2.63%
is American Indian or Alaska Native, Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012 5‐Year Estimates
and the balance is some other race; ** Denotes HFFI Eligible Census Tract
in the U.S., 49.2 percent of the population is male and 50.8 percent of the population is female.
In the state of Mississippi, 60.1 percent of the population is White, 37.6 percent of the
population is African American, and less than 2 percent of the population is comprised of some
other racial group; in Mississippi, 48.3 percent of the population is male and 51.7 percent of the
population is female. In Lowndes County, approximately 47.4 percent of the population is male
and 52.6 percent of the population is female; this gender distribution is not significantly
different than that of the state of Mississippi or the United States. In Lowndes County, 43.7
percent of the population is African American and 54.3 percent of the population is White;
American Indians, Asians, and other groups each account for less than one percent of the
population.

187 Author’s Note: there is variation between the data reported for the 2010 U.S. Census, U.S. Census Population Estimates, and
the data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2012 5‐year Estimates. Unless specified, this report uses
American Community Survey 2012 5‐year estimates to make census tract level comparisons.
188 16.2 percent of the U.S. population is Hispanic or Latino; of these, 8.7 percent are classified as “White alone” and 6 percent
are classified as “some other race” by the 2010 U.S. Census.
107


Table 19: Lowndes County Racial Distribution by Census Tract
Percent
Black or Percent American Percent
American Some
Total Percent African Black or Indian and Percent Some
Census Tract White Indian and Asian Other
Population White American African Alaska Asian Other
Alaska Race
alone American Native Race
Native
28087000101 6,053 5,429 89.69% 594 9.81% 0 0.00% 4 0.07% 26 0.43%
28087000102 2,854 1,596 55.92% 1,031 36.12% 15 0.53% 38 1.33% 174 6.10%
28087000200 1,607 1,068 66.46% 281 17.49% 0 0.00% 111 6.91% 147 9.15%
28087000300 7,690 5,660 73.60% 1,854 24.11% 0 0.00% 45 0.59% 131 1.70%
28087000401** 7,122 4,712 66.16% 2,337 32.81% 9 0.13% 0 0.00% 64 0.90%
28087000403 4,331 2,124 49.04% 2,145 49.53% 0 0.00% 54 1.25% 8 0.18%
28087000404 4,084 3,432 84.04% 652 15.96% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28087000500 4,295 1,671 38.91% 2,529 58.88% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 95 2.21%
28087000600** 3,285 828 25.21% 2,457 74.79% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28087000700** 5,124 1,764 34.43% 3,318 64.75% 14 0.27% 15 0.29% 13 0.25%
28087000800** 3,610 229 6.34% 3,375 93.49% 6 0.17% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28087000900** 5,725 2,273 39.70% 3,288 57.43% 26 0.45% 55 0.96% 83 1.45%
28087001000 2,237 1,378 61.60% 837 37.42% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 22 0.98%
28087001100** 1,567 198 12.64% 1,342 85.64% 0 0.00% 6 0.38% 21 1.34%
Total 59,584 32,362 54.31% 26,040 43.70% 70 0.12% 328 0.55% 784 1.32%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012 5‐year Estimates
** Denotes HFFI Eligible Census Tract
108


Research189, 190, 191 has found that HFFI census tracts are more likely to be census tracts with
higher concentrations of minority populations; a similar pattern is exhibited within the HFFI
census tracts in Lowndes County. Overall, Lowndes County’s African American population
represents a higher percentage of the population as compared to the state of Mississippi and to
the United States; the percentage of the population that is African American in HFFI census
tracts in Lowndes County is higher than the county‐level average. For example, in Census Tract
28087000800, 93.49 percent of the population is African American and 74.79 percent of the
population in Census Tract 28087000600 is African American (Table 19, page 108). African
Americans represent 60.9 percent of the total population living in Lowndes County’s six HFFI
census tracts.
Approximately 46.5 percent of Lowndes County’s population age 65 and over live in HFFI census
tracts. In Lowndes County, there are approximately 7,733 people age 65 and over, representing
12.9 percent of the population. Two HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County have a relatively
high percentage of people age 65 and over; in census tract 28087000600, 19.6 percent of the
population is age 65 and over and in census tract 28087000800, 16.1 percent of the population
is age 65 and over (Table 20, page 110).
In Lowndes County, 25.2 percent of the population are children (age 17 and under). There are
two HFFI census tracts that exhibit a significantly higher percentage of children than the county
average; in census tract 28087000600, 32 percent of the population are children and in census
tract 28087000800, 27.1 percent of the population are children (Table 20, page 110). In
Lowndes County, 44.9 percent of all children live in an HFFI qualified census tract.
There are approximately 31,315 females living in Lowndes County; they represent 52.6 percent
of the population. Four HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County have the highest percentage of
females among the 15 census tracts in the county. In census tract 28087000700 and census
tract 28087000800, females represent 62.7 percent and 57.2 percent of the population,
respectively. Approximately 47 percent (14,718 females) of all females in Lowndes County live
in HFFI qualified census tracts.
HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County contain a high number of female families with children
under the age of 18 with no husband present. In Lowndes County, there are approximately
15,628 families; of these, 2,303 (14.74 percent) are single female families with no husband
present who have children under the age of 18; in the state of Mississippi, 10.2 percent of

189 Dutko, Paula, Michele Ver Ploeg, and Tracey Farrigan. Characteristics and Influential Factors of Food Deserts, ERR‐140, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, August 2012.
190 Duran, A. C., et al. (2013). Neighborhood Socioeconomic Characteristics and Differences in the Availability of Healthy Food
Stores and Restaurants in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Health Place 23: 39‐47.
191 Block, J. P., et al. (2004). Fast food, Race/Ethnicity, and Income: A Geographic Analysis. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine 27(3): 211‐217.
109


Table 20: Lowndes County Selected Gender, Age, and Family Population Data by Census Tract
Percent of Tract
Number of Female
Families with Female
Population 17 Percent of Tract Percent of Tract Households, No
Total Female Population Number of Householder, No
Census Tract years and Population 17 Population 65 Husband Present,
Population Population 65 and Over Families Husband Present with
Under and Under and Over with Children
Children under 18
Under 18
Years
28087000101 6,053 48.09% 1,607 26.55% 659 10.89% 1,709 61 2.80%

28087000102 2,854 50.04% 941 32.97% 228 7.99% 750 108 10.90%
28087000200 1,607 41.75% 400 24.89% 0 0.00% 399 0 0.00%
28087000300 7,690 51.95% 1,769 23.00% 1,057 13.75% 2,195 131 4.20%
28087000401** 7,122 51.97% 1,851 25.99% 810 11.37% 2,015 365 12.70%
28087000403 4,331 53.41% 1,117 25.79% 456 10.53% 1,231 82 5.10%
28087000404 4,084 49.00% 1,155 28.28% 436 10.68% 1,181 18 1.20%
28087000500 4,295 51.20% 885 20.61% 918 21.37% 1,015 148 9.20%
28087000600** 3,285 56.80% 1,052 32.02% 645 19.63% 856 378 27.90%
28087000700** 5,124 62.74% 1,271 24.80% 538 10.50% 1,042 388 20.50%
28087000800** 3,610 57.15% 979 27.12% 580 16.07% 814 271 19.10%
28087000900** 5,725 53.66% 1,289 22.52% 778 13.59% 1,343 233 8.90%
28087001000 2,237 48.23% 404 18.06% 385 17.21% 653 31 3.20%
28087001100** 1,567 51.12% 309 19.72% 243 15.51% 425 89 13.00%
County Totals 59,584 52.56% 15,029 25.22% 7,733 12.98% 15,628 2,303 14.74%
* Denotes HFFI Eligible Census Tract

110


households are female headed families with children under 18, and no husband present. Three
HFFI census tracts that exhibit a significantly large percentage of female households with
children under the age of 18 are: census tract 28087000600, census tract 28087000700, and
census tract 28087000900, with the percentage rate of female families with children under 18
and no husband present being 27.9 percent, 20.5 percent, and 19.1 percent, respectively (Table
20, page 110). In Lowndes County, approximately 74.9 percent of all female headed families
with children under 18 and no husband present live in HFFI census tracts (Table 21, below).
In Lowndes County, 46.3 percent of all households live in a HFFI census tract and 42.5 percent
of all family households with children under the age of 18 live in HFFI census tracts (Table 21,
below). An estimated 59.5 percent of households where a person 65 years and over is living
alone are located in HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County and 50.1 percent of households with
one or more people 65 years and over are located in HFFI census tracts in the county.
The lack of access to affordable, nutritious food is of particular concern for families with
children, and specifically for female headed households with children and no husband present.
Households headed by single mothers have been found to have the highest rates of child food
insecurity,192 with access to adequate food limited by their households’ lack of money and

Table 21: Lowndes County Households and Families by Type
Lowndes County Total in Food Percent in Food

Household by Type
Totals Deserts Deserts
Total households 23,429 10,858 46.34%
Family households (families) 15,628 6,495 41.56%
With own children under 18 years 6,907 2,938 42.54%
Married‐couple family 10,728 3,308 30.84%
Male householder, no wife present, family 860 434 50.47%
With own children under 18 years 493 155 31.44%
Female householder, no husband present, family 4,040 2,753 68.14%
Nonfamily households 7,801 4,363 55.93%
Householder living alone 6,894 3,915 56.79%
65 years and over 2,046 1,217 59.48%
Households with one or more people under 18 years 8,190 3,602 43.98%
Households with one or more people 65 years and over 5,407 2,709 50.10%

192 Coleman‐Jensen, A., Nord, M., Singh, A.S. (2013). Household Food Insecurity in the United States in 2012. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2013.
111


Table 22: Poverty Rates for Families and Individuals in Lowndes County
112


access to affordable, nutritious food. Inadequate nutrition and poor diet represent a serious
risk to the health of children, has been linked to poor health and developmental risks,193 and to
negative academic and psychological outcomes in older children and adolescents.194, 195 Studies
have found that living in an HFFI census tract contributes to food insecurity and may be a
principle cause of poor nutrition; although low‐income families have been found to prefer
shopping in supermarkets, they are often forced to shop at smaller food stores or convenience
stores due to restricted budgets and limited resources.196
The large percentage (59.5 percent) of individuals over the age of 65 living alone in HFFI census
tracts in Lowndes County is also of concern due to the higher probability that transportation
may be a particular problem for these individuals. Aging populations exhibit lower mobility,
isolation, and lower access to food stores; older persons are more likely to be dependent on
family, friends, neighbors, or non‐profit organizations to gain access to food.197 Research on
access to affordable and nutritious food identifies subpopulations that may be highly vulnerable
to access barriers; households with no, or limited, vehicle access and individuals over the age of
65 are considered to be particularly vulnerable to barriers to access to affordable, nutritious
foods.198
Mississippi is among the states with the highest poverty rates in the U.S. With a poverty rate of
22.7 percent, the state of Mississippi’s poverty rate is 7.3 percent higher than the U.S. poverty
rate of 15.4 percent. In Lowndes County, the poverty rate is 25.7 percent (Table 22, page 112),
indicating that the overall poverty rate for all people living in Lowndes County is 3.0 percent
higher than that of the state of Mississippi and 10.3 percent higher than that of the United
States. Within five of the six HFFI qualifying census tracts in Lowndes County, the poverty rate
for all people is higher than the poverty rate for all census tracts in Lowndes County, ranging
from 56.7 percent in census tract 28087000800 to 31.3 percent in census tract 28087000900
(Table 22, page 112). With a poverty rate for all people of 22.7 percent, census tract
28087000401 is the only HFFI qualifying census tract in Lowndes County that does

193 Rose‐Jacobs, R., Black. M. M., Casey, P.H., et al. (2008). Household Food Insecurity: Associations with At‐risk Infant and
Toddler Development. Pediatrics. 121(1): 65 —72.
194 Alaimo, K., Olson, C.M., Frongillo, E.A. Jr. (2001). Food Insufficiency and American School‐aged Children’s Cognitive,
Academic, and Psychosocial Development. Pediatrics. 108(1): 44—53.
195 Jyoti, D.F., Frongillo, E.A., Jones, S.J., (2005). Food Insecurity Affects School Children’s Academic Performance, Weight Gain,
and Social Skills. Journal of Nutrition. 135(12): 2831—2839.
196 Grief, M. H., and Barrett A. Lee. (2008). Homelessness and Hunger. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 49(1): 3 – 19.
197 Bitto, E., Morton, L. Oakland, M. and Sand, M. (2003). Grocery Store Access Patterns in Food Deserts. Journal for the Study of
Food and Society, 6(2), 35.
198 V. Breneman, et. al. (2009). Report to Congress: Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food, Measuring and Understanding
Food Deserts and Their Consequences. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report.
113


Table 23: Lowndes County Educational Attainment for the Population Age 25 and Older

**Denote HFFI Eligible Census Tract
114


not have a poverty rate that is higher than that of Lowndes County; however, even in this
census tract, the poverty rate of 35.8 percent for all families with children under 18 is higher
than Lowndes County’s percentage rate of 33.3 percent and significantly higher that the state
average of 27.1 percent and the national average poverty rate of 17.8 percent (Table 22, page
112).
The poverty rate for female households with children under 18 and no husband present and the
poverty rate for people age 65 and older is pronounced in Lowndes County. In the United
States, 40.0 percent of female households with children under 18 and no husband present live
in poverty; in Mississippi, 51.8 percent of single females with children under 18 live in poverty,
and in Lowndes County, 66.7 percent of single females with children under 18 live in poverty.
Similar to the pattern of poverty for all people, five of the six HFFI qualified census tracts in
Lowndes County also have the highest percentage of single female households with children
under 18 living in poverty; in two HFFI qualifying census tracts, approximately 85 percent of the
single female households with children under 18 live in poverty (Census Tracts 280870007000
and 28087000900). The burden of poverty falls heavily upon the children in Lowndes County;
44.8 percent of children under the age of five and 32.8 percent of children age five to
seventeen live in poverty in Lowndes County. In all six of the HFFI qualifying census tracts, the
poverty rate for children under five is higher than the state average of 36.5 percent, and in five
of the six HFFI census tracts, the poverty rate for children under five years old is higher than the
Lowndes County percentage rate (Table 22, page 112). In census tract 28087000800 and
census tract 28087000600, more than 90 percent of the children under the age of five live in
poverty.
In Lowndes County, approximately 16.8 percent of the people age 65 and over live in poverty;
this is 2.8 percentage points higher than that of Mississippi’s senior poverty rate of 14.0
percent, and 7.4 percentage points higher than that of the United States’, which has 9.4
percent of the population age 65 and over living in poverty (Table 22, page 112). Among the six
HFFI qualifying census tracts in Lowndes County, five of the census tracts have poverty rates
that are higher than the average Lowndes County poverty rate for people age 65 and over. In
three of the HFFI qualifying census tracts, the poverty rate for people age 65 and over is above
32 percent — more than twice that of the average poverty rate across Lowndes County.
Lowndes County’s educational attainment levels are approximately equivalent to those of the
state of Mississippi; approximately 82 percent of the population age 25 and over are high
school graduates and 21.4 percent of the population in this age group has a bachelor’s degree
or higher (Table 23, page 114). With the exception of census tract 28087000401, all qualifying
HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County have a lower percentage of high school graduates than
the county average graduation rate for the population age 25 and over. Three of the qualifying
HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County have high school graduation rates that are less than 75
115


Table 24: Lowndes County Comparative Employment and Income
Census Tract or Population 16 Number in Civilian Percent in Labor Percent Number not in

Geographic Area years and over Labor Force Force Unemployed the Labor Force
28087000101 4,861 3,019 62.1% 13.9% 1,772

28087000102 2,065 1,288 62.4% 16.2% 771
28087000200 1,076 427 39.7% 4.0% 150
28087000300 6,554 3,614 55.1% 12.3% 2,490
28087000401** 5,268 3,522 66.9% 11.6% 1,699
28087000403 3,223 2,207 68.5% 7.7% 1,016
28087000404 3,185 2,126 66.8% 6.6% 1,051
28087000500 3,365 1,893 56.3% 17.7% 1,459
28087000600** 2,464 1,378 55.9% 20.1% 1,086
28087000700** 3,994 2,312 57.9% 21.7% 1,682
28087000800** 2,591 1,421 54.8% 30.1% 1,170
28087000900** 4,393 2,650 60.3% 15.4% 1,658
28087001000 2,006 1,237 61.7% 11.4% 729
28087001100** 1,443 779 54.0% 23.6% 664
Lowndes County 46,488 27,873 60.0% 14.6% 17,397
Mississippi 2,312,959 1,343,584 58.1% 11.1% 957,272
United States 246,191,954 157,113,886 64.3% 9.7% 87,994,377
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012 5‐Year Estimates
Percent of Percent of
Median Percent of
Census Tract or Total Households with Housholds with
household Households
Geographic Area Households Income less than Income between
income (dollars) with Earnings
$10,000 $10,000 to $14,999
28087000101 2,199 3.1% 2.9% $54,716 82.6%

28087000102 964 14.5% 8.2% $43,281 77.7%
28087000200 529 5.3% 2.1% $54,018 100.0%
28087000300 3,236 5.3% 8.0% $59,459 73.8%
28087000401** 2,769 11.3% 11.5% $39,972 80.2%
28087000403 1,627 4.7% 8.4% $41,898 81.1%
28087000404 1,537 7.3% 2.2% $58,819 80.5%
28087000500 1,525 9.0% 7.7% $34,632 74.6%
28087000600** 1,369 22.6% 16.9% $20,369 65.6%
28087000700** 1,775 23.3% 19.7% $18,847 67.0%
28087000800** 1,370 33.1% 19.0% $14,237 54.6%
28087000900** 2,559 17.3% 10.1% $29,850 73.6%
28087001000 996 13.1% 4.9% $58,250 73.8%
28087001100** 723 18.0% 15.1% $20,669 61.8%
Lowndes County 23,178 12.6% 9.8% $37,868 74.6%
Mississippi 1,088,073 11.4% 8.1% $39,031 73.9%
United States 115,610,216 7.2% 5.4% $53,046 78.2%
**Denotes HFFI Eligible Census Tract
116


percent; these are census tracts 28087000600, 28087001100, and 28087000800 —in census
tract 28087000800, the high school graduation rate for the population age 25 and over is 34.5
percent (Table 23, page 114). In four of the HFFI qualifying census tracts in Lowndes County, 10
percent or more of the population age 25 and over have less than a 9th grade education (Table
23, page 114); in census tract 28087000800, 15.1 percent of the population have less than a 9th
grade education, and in census tract 280870001100, 20.2 percent of the population have less
than a 9th grade education.
Lowndes County Income by Source
In Lowndes County, the average unemployment rate among the population 16 years and over
was 14.6 percent; this unemployment rate was approximately 3.5 percent higher than that of
the state of Mississippi and 4.9 percent higher than that of the United States for this age group
(Table 24, page 116). The unemployment rate for the population age 16 and over within the
HFFI qualifying census tracts in Lowndes County is generally higher than that of the county
(with the exception of census tract 2808700401). For example, in census tracts 280870011000,
28087000600, and 2087000800, the unemployment rate ranges from 20.1 percent to 30.1
percent (Table 24, page 116); these census tracts also exhibit a significantly high percentage of
the population that are not in the labor force, with percentage rates upward of 40 percent of
the population not in the labor force.
The median household income in Lowndes County is $37,868; median household income in
Lowndes County is approximately $1,163 lower than the state of Mississippi’s median
household income and approximately $15,178 lower than that of the United States (Table 24,
page 116). The median household income in HFFI census tracts is lower than that of Lowndes
County (with the exception of census tract 28087000401); in three of the HFFI census tracts
(census tracts 28087001100, 28087000700, and 28087000800), median household income is
approximately 50 percent of Lowndes County’s median household income.
Of particular concern is the high percentage of households that have household incomes of less
than $15,000. In Lowndes County, approximately 22.4 percent of households have incomes of
less than $15,000; in the state of Mississippi, 19.5 percent of households have incomes of less
than $15,000, and in the U.S., this percentage rate is 12.6 percent (Table 24, page 116). Within
Lowndes County, HFFI census tracts have the highest percentage of households with incomes of
less than $15,000, and in all of these census tracts, the percentage of households with incomes
of less than $15,000 is higher than that of the county. For example, in census tract
28087000800, 52.9 percent of households earn less than $15,000, and in census tract
28087000700, 43.0 percent of households earn less than $15,000. Within Lowndes County’s
HFFI qualifying census tracts, there are 3,590 households with incomes of less than $15,000;
this represents 69.0 percent of all households in Lowndes County with incomes of less than
$15,000. HFFI census tracts also have a higher percentage of households with incomes of less
than $10,000 (Table 24, page 116); these low income levels are indicative of deep poverty.
117


Table 25: Lowndes County Comparative Earnings and Income by Source
Mean cash
Mean Percent of Percent of Mean Percent of Mean Households Households with
Mean Social public
Census Tract or earnings Households Households with retirement Households with Supplemental with cash Food
Security income assistance
Geographic Area (dollars) for with Social retirement income Supplemental Security Income public Stamp/SNAP
(dollars) income
Households Security income (dollars) Security Income (dollars) assistance benefits in the
(dollars)
income past 12 months
28087000101 $62,800 28.7% $17,617 22.1% $17,423 4.6% $11,172 5.0% $1,372 12.4%
28087000102 $59,333 31.2% $12,739 18.3% $15,660 21.5% $7,573 4.0% $7,344 25.7%
28087000200 $56,205 4.3% $2,157 7.2% $51,971 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 2.3%
28087000300 $78,351 27.8% $18,922 22.2% $21,285 6.3% $8,542 3.7% $4,159 5.2%
28087000401** $45,088 34.7% $16,105 23.4% $12,878 4.6% $8,169 5.9% $3,185 15.1%
28087000403 $51,445 26.2% $15,705 17.3% $15,044 7.7% $7,684 1.9% $1,271 15.8%
28087000404 $70,383 32.4% $16,157 20.5% $17,483 6.1% $6,046 0.0% ‐ 5.3%
28087000500 $38,863 36.4% $14,707 21.3% $18,430 5.8% $7,470 2.6% $2,683 18.4%
28087000600** $23,705 33.8% $13,924 18.6% $14,250 8.3% $9,861 14.3% $2,911 48.4%
28087000700** $34,518 32.2% $12,451 10.9% $20,511 12.9% $7,656 7.5% $3,049 35.5%
28087000800** $28,344 31.5% $11,028 13.1% $15,293 15.9% $8,303 14.3% $1,867 40.8%
28087000900** $41,700 26.7% $16,609 18.9% $15,220 7.3% $6,879 6.0% $2,238 19.7%
28087001000 $82,693 36.5% $13,799 21.3% $28,052 7.9% $8,913 3.5% $911 10.3%
28087001100** $44,430 42.7% $13,884 18.4% $10,554 6.2% $6,222 6.2% $720 30.0%
Lowndes County $53,033 30.7% $15,370 19.2% $17,467 7.8% $8,042 5.4% $2,659 19.0%
Mississippi $56,908 32.6% $15,673 17.5% $19,739 7.8% $8,426 2.8% $2,756 17.4%
United States $75,017 28.9% $17,189 17.7% $23,589 4.9% $9,152 2.8% $3,808 12.4%
118


Within Lowndes County, approximately 74.6 percent of households have earnings from
employment (Table 24, page 116); this percentage rate is higher than that of the state of
Mississippi (73.9 percent) and lower than that of the United States (78.2 percent). For
households with income from earnings, mean household earnings in Lowndes County are
$53,033 (Table 25, page 118). Other sources of household income include Social Security,
Retirement Income, Supplemental Security Income, and Cash Public Assistance. In Lowndes
County, approximately 30.7 percent of households receive Social Security Income; this is slightly
lower than the 32.6 percent of households in the state of Mississippi that receive Social Security
Income and slightly higher than the 28.9 percent of households in the U.S. that receive Social
Security Income. Four HFFI census tracts have notably higher percentage rates of households
receiving Social Security Income; these are census tracts 28087001100, where 42.7 percent of
households have Social Security Income; census tract 28087000401, where 34.7 percent of
households have Social Security Income; and tracts 28087000600 and 28087000800, where
33.8 percent and 31.5 percent of households have Social Security Income, respectively.
In Lowndes County, 19.2 percent of households have retirement income; this reflects a greater
percentage of households with retirement income as compared to either the state of
Mississippi (17.5 percent) or the United States (17.7 percent). In Lowndes County, the mean
retirement income is $17,467; this is $2,272 lower than the mean household retirement income
of $19,739 in the state of Mississippi and $6,122 lower than the U.S. mean household
retirement income of $23,589 (Table 25, page 118). In all but one of the HFFI census tracts in
Lowndes County, the mean household retirement income is significantly lower than that of the
county; for example, in census tract 280870001100, the mean household retirement income is
$10,554, which is $6,913 lower than the county level mean retirement income (Table 25, page
118). The average mean retirement income across the six HFFI census tracts in Lowndes
County is $14,784, indicating that households in these census tracts have mean household
retirement incomes that are $2,682 lower than the mean household retirement income in
Lowndes County.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) provides benefits to needy aged, blind, and disabled
people; in the U.S., approximately 40 percent of SSI recipients are over the age of 65; the
remainder are disabled. Children may qualify for SSI benefits if they are disabled. In Lowndes
County, 7.8 percent of households receive SSI income; the percentage of households in
Lowndes County receiving SSI is the same as that of the state but is 2.9 percentage points
higher than that of the United States’. In Lowndes County, there are approximately 1,818
households receiving Supplemental Security Income; 50.6 percent of these households live in
HFFI qualifying census tracts.
Cash Assistance programs are designed to enable households with limited income to meet the
basic needs of living to include shelter, food, utilities, daily living expenses, and child care. In
Mississippi, adults who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) must
119


participate in a work program. In Lowndes County, approximately 5.4 percent of households
receive Cash Public Assistance; this is almost twice the level of the recipients in the state of
Mississippi and in the United States (Table 25, page 118). In all of the six HFFI qualifying census
tracts, the percentage of households receiving Cash Public Assistance is higher than that of
Lowndes County; in census tracts 28087000600 and tract 28087000800, 14.3 percent of all
households receive Cash Public Assistance. In Lowndes County, there are approximately 1,262
households receiving income from Cash Public Assistance; 70.3 percent of these households live
in HFFI qualifying census tracts.
19.0 percent of households in Lowndes County receive SNAP (Food Stamps) benefits; this is
approximately 2.4 percent higher than the percentage rate of households in Mississippi that
receive SNAP Benefits and 7.4 percent higher than the percentage of households in the United
States that receive SNAP benefits. As shown in Table 25 (page 118), the majority of HFFI census
tracts in Lowndes County exhibit a higher percentage rate of households receiving SNAP
benefits as compared to the county level; in some HFFI census tracts, the percentage of
households with SNAP Benefits exceeds 30 percent and is as high as 48.4 percent in census
tract 28087000600.
Food Insecurity in Lowndes County
In 2011, approximately 16.4 percent of all individuals in the U.S. population experienced food
insecurity; in 2012, 15.9 percent of all individuals in the United States were food insecure,199
indicating that food insecurity had declined in the U.S. Across the United States, the average
county‐level food insecurity rate remained stable at 14.7 in 2011 and remained the same in
2012. In Mississippi, the overall food insecurity rate was 22.3 percent in 2012; Mississippi had
the highest overall food insecurity rate in the nation in 2012.200 In 2012, approximately 22.9
percent of the population in Lowndes County was food insecure (15,029 people).201
Child food insecurity rates are substantially higher than the overall food insecurity rate. In the
U.S., the child food insecurity rate was 21.6 percent in 2012.202 In counties across the United
States, the county level of child food insecurity ranged from a low of six percent to a high of 41
percent in 2012; food insecurity rates among households with children have been found to be
considerably higher than that in the general population. In 2012, the state level of child food
insecurity rate ranged from a low of 10.6 percent in North Dakota to a high of 29.2 percent in
New Mexico. Mississippi had the second highest level of child food insecurity in the U.S.; with
28.7 percent of Mississippi’s children being food insecure, it is estimated that approximately

200 Ibid.
201 Gundersen, C., Waxman, E., Engelhard, E., Satho, A. and Namrita, C. Map the Meal Gap 2013: Food Insecurity Estimates at
the County Level. Feeding America, 2013.
120


214,720 children in Mississippi are food insecure.203 In Lowndes County, it is estimated that
27.4 percent of children are food insecure; research indicates that among the 4,120 children
living in Lowndes County that are food insecure, approximately 71 percent are eligible for
Federal Nutrition Assistance programs but 29 percent are not eligible.204
Food insecurity is defined as a continuous lack of access to enough food for an active, healthy
life; although living in an underserved community may not be the primary cause of food
insecurity, the food environment frames the conditions under which households must expend
greater resources to obtain food through available sources. Lack of access to affordable
nutritious food retail has been shown to increase the likelihood of food insecurity.205 Research
has linked high poverty, low‐income, and low educational achievement levels to food security
and to the probability of living in an underserved community.206 Income and education have
been found to be negatively correlated with food insecurity;207 as income and educational
attainment increase, food insecurity decreases. HFFI census tracts have predominantly been
found to be home to socioeconomically disadvantaged people relative to other areas;208 lower
income levels indicate that residents of underserved communities have fewer resources
available to purchase healthy foods. A review of the research on HFFI census tracts in the
United States generally supports the statement that these census tracts are places where
“area‐level deprivation compounds individual disadvantage.”209

203 Ibid.
205 Nord, M., Andrews, M., and Carlson, S. (2008). Household Food Security in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service. Report No. 66.
206 Wild, P., Liobrera, J., and Ver Ploeg, M. (2014). Population Density, Poverty, and Food Retail Access in the United States: An
Empirical Approach. International Food & Agribusiness Management Review. 17: 171—186.
207 Rice, K. (2010). Measuring the Likelihood of Food Insecurity in Ohio’s Food Deserts. Journal of Food Distribution Research.
41(1): 101—107.
209 Ibid.
121


Table 26: Lowndes County Employment by Industry
Civilian employed Transportation/
Census Tract or Geographic Agriculture
population 16 Construction Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Warehousing/
Area and Mining
years and over Utilities
28087000101 2,598 1.2% 11.2% 13.7% 2.6% 12.9% 13.1%
28087000102 1,079 5.5% 6.2% 19.7% 6.3% 11.0% 3.9%
28087000200 410 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 6.1% 7.3% 5.6%
28087000300 3,169 0.0% 8.1% 16.7% 0.0% 14.1% 3.7%
28087000401** 3,115 2.3% 5.3% 11.4% 1.7% 22.3% 8.4%
28087000403 2,038 0.0% 11.7% 14.3% 2.3% 12.5% 7.6%
28087000404 1,986 0.0% 11.9% 21.5% 1.8% 17.2% 5.5%
28087000500 1,557 1.5% 6.4% 15.5% 2.6% 8.7% 5.1%
28087000600** 1,101 1.5% 3.5% 22.9% 1.3% 12.6% 4.8%
28087000700** 1,810 0.5% 5.1% 6.1% 0.7% 20.1% 3.4%
28087000800** 993 0.9% 8.4% 12.5% 0.7% 9.9% 4.3%
28087000900** 2,243 0.7% 5.6% 7.3% 5.8% 10.9% 10.4%
28087001000 1,096 2.6% 9.2% 10.6% 3.6% 9.9% 8.2%
28087001100** 595 2.7% 7.4% 32.3% 0.7% 14.8% 11.3%
Lowndes County 23,790 1.2% 7.8% 14.2% 2.3% 14.3% 7.0%
Lowndes Numeric 23,790 280 1,851 3,370 543 3,396 1,677
Mississippi 1,194,436 3.0% 6.9% 12.9% 2.6% 11.8% 5.7%
United States 141,864,697 1.9% 6.2% 10.5% 2.8% 11.6% 4.9%
Arts/
Professional/ Educational
Finance/ Entertainment/ Other services,
Census Tract or Geographic Scientific/ Services/ Health Public
Information Insurance/ Recreation/ except Public
Area Management/ Care/ Social Administration
Real Estate Accommodation/ Administration
Administrative Assistance
Food Services
28087000101 1.0% 2.5% 2.5% 21.2% 8.4% 2.8% 6.8%
28087000102 0.0% 0.6% 9.7% 19.7% 12.1% 2.7% 2.4%
28087000200 6.6% 4.4% 9.0% 17.3% 7.6% 0.0% 33.2%
28087000300 3.6% 5.0% 9.4% 23.1% 4.9% 3.7% 7.7%
28087000401** 1.3% 5.2% 5.1% 21.7% 3.9% 9.8% 1.6%
28087000403 2.2% 4.6% 8.4% 21.7% 2.8% 6.1% 5.8%
28087000404 0.5% 3.1% 6.3% 19.2% 4.5% 3.4% 5.1%
28087000500 0.4% 3.8% 9.1% 18.0% 17.8% 6.9% 4.2%
28087000600** 3.7% 1.7% 4.5% 14.4% 22.7% 3.3% 3.3%
28087000700** 1.4% 3.3% 3.2% 30.3% 15.3% 7.2% 3.3%
28087000800** 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 33.0% 18.3% 6.2% 1.7%
28087000900** 0.8% 6.3% 7.7% 19.9% 19.1% 3.0% 2.6%
28087001000 1.7% 5.0% 5.3% 29.8% 5.9% 5.7% 2.5%
28087001100** 1.2% 2.0% 1.5% 16.6% 4.0% 3.4% 2.2%
Lowndes County 1.6% 3.8% 6.3% 22.1% 9.7% 5.1% 4.7%
Lowndes Numeric 377 910 1,490 5,256 2,308 1,203 1,129
Mississippi 1.4% 4.9% 6.3% 24.4% 9.4% 5.0% 5.7%
United States 2.2% 6.7% 10.8% 23.2% 9.3% 5.0% 5.0%
122


The Lowndes County Workforce
Among the civilian employed population over the age of 16, the largest percentage of the work
force in Lowndes County is employed in the Educational Services, Health Care, and Social
Assistance sectors of the economy; in Lowndes, employment in these sectors represents
approximately 22.1 percent of total employment (Table 26, page 122).210 There are three HFFI
census tracts that exhibit a relatively high employment rate in the Educational Services, Health
Care, and Social Assistance sectors; these are:
 Census tract 28087000800, with 33.0 percent of the workforce employed in the Educational
Services, Health Care, and Social Assistance sector
In Lowndes County, approximately 14.3 percent of the population is employed in the Retail
Trade sector; the percentage of the workforce that is employed in the Retail Trade sector is
higher in Lowndes County than it is in either the state of Mississippi (11.8 percent) or the
United States (11.6 percent). There are three HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County where the
percentage of the workforce employed in the Retail Trade sector is higher than that of the
county, the state, and the nation; these are:
 Census tract 28087000700, with 20.1 percent of the workforce employed in the Retail Trade
sector
sector
sector; this is only marginally higher than the county’s Retail employment rate of 14.3
percent.
The Manufacturing sector employs approximately 14.2 percent of Lowndes County’s employed
civilian population over the age of 16 (Table 26, page 122); the percentage of the workforce
employed in the Manufacturing sector is higher in Lowndes County than it is in either the state
of Mississippi (12.9 percent) or the U.S. (10.5 percent). There are two qualifying HFFI census

210 Author’s note: the data provided in this section of the report uses American Community Survey 5‐year estimates to provide
valid comparable analysis across census tracts and other geographic areas; subsequent sections of this report will use more
recent data that is specific to Lowndes County, but not available at the census tract level of analysis to conduct economic
analysis. It is also important to note that ACS 5‐year estimate data defines the industry in which the workforce is employed but
does not define the location of the industry; for example, a worker who resides in an HFFI census tract in Lowndes County may
be employed in the Manufacturing sector in a county or geographic area that may be within Lowndes County or outside of
Lowndes County.
123


tracts where the percentage of the workforce that is employed in the Manufacturing sector is
higher than the percentage rate for Lowndes County, these are:
 Census tract 280870001100, where 32.3 percent of the workforce is employed in the
Manufacturing sector
In Lowndes County, 9.7 percent of the workforce is employed in the Arts, Entertainment,
Recreation, or Accommodation and Food Services sectors; this is slightly higher than the
percentage rate for the state of Mississippi (9.4 percent) and that of the United States (9.3
percent) (Table 26, page 122). There are four HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County where the
percentage of employment in Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, or Accommodation and Food
Services is higher than the average in Lowndes County; these are:
 Census tract 28087000600, where 22.7 percent of the workforce is employed in the Arts,
Entertainment, Recreation, or Accommodation and Food Services sectors
Table 27: Median Earnings for Lowndes County Workers
Median earnings Median earnings for Median earnings for

Census Tract or
for workers male full‐time, year‐ female full‐time, year‐
Geographic Area
(dollars) round workers round workers
28087000101 $31,196 $51,140 $37,021
28087000102 $23,050 $43,667 $23,182
28087000200 $28,750 $41,964 $27,386
28087000300 $31,750 $52,639 $32,177
28087000401** $21,374 $46,579 $32,784
28087000403 $29,750 $39,505 $32,695
28087000404 $35,481 $60,091 $32,891
28087000500 $20,594 $37,105 $23,024
28087000600** $13,570 $21,909 $18,250
28087000700** $11,270 $43,350 $28,690
28087000800** $14,626 $22,177 $18,786
28087000900** $22,111 $42,444 $21,691
28087001000 $31,446 $49,938 $30,701
28087001100** $19,831 $37,885 $25,263
Lowndes County $23,496 $45,035 $27,534
Mississippi $25,707 $40,742 $30,604
U.S. $30,538 $49,087 $38,635
124


The median earnings for all workers in Lowndes County was $23,496, as compared to median
earnings of $25,707 in the state of Mississippi and median earnings of $30,538 in the United
States (Table 27, page 124). In Lowndes County, the median earnings for male full‐time
workers that held steady year‐round jobs was $45,035; the median earnings for female full‐
time workers that held steady year‐round jobs was $27,534 (Table 27, page 124). In Lowndes
County’s HFFI census tracts, the mean earnings for all workers was lower than that of Lowndes
County; in HFFI census tracts, the mean earnings for all workers ranged from being $1,385
(census tract 28087000900) lower than that of Lowndes County to being $12,226 lower (census
tract 28087000700) than that of Lowndes County. In five of the six HFFI census tracts, the
median earnings for male full‐time workers that held steady year‐round jobs was lower than
Lowndes county’s median earnings; this negative male earnings differential ranged from a low
of $1,685 in tract 28087000700 to a high of $23,126 in HFFI census tract 28087000600 (Table
27, page 124). In Lowndes County, the median earnings for females who held full‐time, year‐
round jobs was $27,534; in HFFI census tracts, the median earnings for female full‐time workers
that held steady year‐round jobs was lower than that of Lowndes County, with the exception of
HFFI census tract 28087000700. For female full‐time workers that held steady year‐round jobs,
the negative median earnings differential in Lowndes County’s HFFI census tracts ranged from a
low of $2,271 in census tract 28087001100 to a high of $9,284 in census tract 28087000600.
Analysis of employment, age, educational attainment, the percentage of households with
earnings from work or retirement income, and household income indicates that the majority of
individuals residing in HFFI qualifying census tracts in Lowndes County can be categorized as
either the working poor or the elderly poor (persons age 65 and over). HFFI census tracts in
Lowndes County were found to have a higher percentage of single female families with
children, lower educational attainment, and lower incomes and earnings. The food
environment within these census tracts requires special consideration due to the vulnerability
of the population to deprivation amplification. Deprivation amplification is described as a
process where multiple risk factors are combined within an environment and negative
outcomes are augmented; for example, health risk factors associated with low income, such as
obesity or food insecurity, may be combined with limited knowledge about nutrition and be
intensified by living in a food environment that offers little access to affordable, nutritious food.

125


Table 28: Health Insurance Coverage for the Civilian Non‐Institutionalized Population in Lowndes County
Census Tract or With Health With Private Health With Public Health With No Health Population Under 18 Years with No
Geographic Area Insurance Coverage Insurance Insurance Coverage Insurance Coverage Health Insurance Coverage
28087000101 4,888 3,839 1,857 1,101 206

28087000102 2,340 1,290 1,254 489 118
28087000200 897 897 49 92 43
28087000300 6,214 5,237 2,061 1,126 128
28087000401* 5,815 4,119 2,483 1,265 264
28087000403 3,414 2,755 1,101 891 243
28087000404 3,457 3,019 852 613 114
28087000500 3,163 2,183 1,683 905 252
28087000600* 2,401 970 1,842 743 81
28087000700* 3,723 2,106 1,902 1,030 88
28087000800* 2,601 1,159 1,704 1,009 140
28087000900* 4,390 2,883 2,236 1,176 221
28087001000 1,917 1,525 753 251 37
28087001100* 1,258 746 677 309 18
Lowndes 46,478 32,728 20,454 11,000 1,953
Mississippi 2,392,262 1,667,737 1,035,758 506,225 68,473
United States 258,778,088 203,379,999 89,277,994 45,206,153 5,953,533
Percent with Percent with No Percent of Population Under 18

Census Tract of Percent with Health Percent with Public
Private Health Health Insurance Years with No Health Insurance
Geographic Area Insurance Coverage Health Coverage
Insurance Coverage Coverage
28087000101 81.60% 64.10% 31.00% 18.40% 12.80%

28087000102 82.70% 45.60% 44.30% 17.30% 12.50%
28087000200 90.70% 90.70% 5.00% 9.30% 10.80%
28087000300 84.70% 71.30% 28.10% 15.30% 7.20%
28087000401* 82.10% 58.20% 35.10% 17.90% 14.30%
28087000403 79.30% 64.00% 25.60% 20.70% 21.80%
28087000404 84.90% 74.20% 20.90% 15.10% 9.90%
28087000500 77.80% 53.70% 41.40% 22.20% 28.50%
28087000600* 76.40% 30.90% 58.60% 23.60% 7.70%
28087000700* 78.30% 44.30% 40.00% 21.70% 8.00%
28087000800* 72.00% 32.10% 47.20% 28.00% 14.30%
28087000900* 78.90% 51.80% 40.20% 21.10% 17.20%
28087001000 88.40% 70.30% 34.70% 11.60% 10.00%
28087001100* 80.30% 47.60% 43.20% 19.70% 5.80%
Lowndes 80.90% 56.90% 35.60% 19.10% 13.20%
Mississippi 82.50% 57.50% 35.70% 17.50% 9.10%
United States 85.10% 66.90% 29.40% 14.90% 8.10%
Note: Percentage rates for Private, Public, and No Health Insurance Coverage do not sum to 100 percent due to duplicate insurance coverage.
For example, individuals covered by a group health insurance plan may have Medicare as a secondary payer.
* Denotes HFFI Eligible Census Tract

126


Health Care Insurance in Lowndes County
In Lowndes County, 80.9 percent of the civilian, non‐institutionalized population has health
insurance coverage and 19.1 percent of the population has no health insurance coverage
(approximately 11,000 people); 13.2 percent of children under the age of 18 have no health
insurance coverage (Table 28, page 126). Among the population that has health insurance
coverage, 56.9 percent of the population has private health insurance coverage and 35.6
percent has public health coverage (approximately 20,454 people). There are 10,844 people
living in HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County that have public health insurance coverage; this
represents 53.0 percent of the Lowndes County population that has public health insurance
coverage.
The percentage of the civilian, non‐institutionalized population in Lowndes County with no
health insurance coverage (19.1 percent) is slightly higher than that of the state of Mississippi
(17.5 percent), and is 4.2 percentage points higher than the U.S. percentage rate of 14.9
percent (Table 28, page 126). The percentage rate of children under 18 with no health
insurance coverage in Lowndes County (13.2 percent) is higher than that of the state of
Mississippi (9.1 percent) and is also higher than that of the United States’ by 5.1 percent (Table
28, page 126). There are approximately 812 children under the age of 18 with no health
insurance coverage who live in Lowndes County HFFI census tracts; this represents 41.6 percent
of the children under the age of 18 in Lowndes County that have no health insurance coverage.
With the exception of census tract 28087000401, all qualifying HFFI census tracts in Lowndes
County have a greater percentage of the population that have no health insurance; in two of
the HFFI census tracts, the percentage of the population that has no health insurance is quite
substantial; for example, in census tract 28087000800, 28 percent of the population has no
health insurance coverage, and in census tract 28087000600, 23.6 percent of the population
has no health insurance coverage. There are 5,532 people living in Lowndes County HFFI
census tracts who have no health insurance coverage; this represents 50.3 percent of all people
in Lowndes County who have no health insurance coverage and indicates that a
disproportionate number of people living in HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County have no
health insurance given that only 44.3 percent of the total population of Lowndes County reside
in HFFI census tracts.
As discussed in prior sections of this report, the healthcare expenditures associated with
recipients of public health insurance are higher than those who are covered by private
insurance; these healthcare costs and those of the uninsured are predominantly paid for by
federal and state governments or by hospitals and physicians and ultimately paid for by tax
revenues or by a “hidden tax” on the cost of healthcare. Public policies that are designed to
increase the affordability and accessibility of healthy food in underserved communities have a
primary purpose of improving the nutrition and health of the residents, and specifically to
reduce obesity and the related healthcare cost of obesity.
127


Table 29: Lowndes County Estimated Spending on Food
Food at Home Food Away from Food Away from Spending Spending Index
Food at Home Total Total Food
Census Tract Average Household Home Average Home Total Index Food at Food Away
Spending Spending
Spending Household Spending Spending Home from Home
28087000101 $4,070.06 $8,925,649 $2,577.80 $5,653,112 80 80 $14,578,761.00
28087000102 $3,425.43 $3,271,287 $2,167.04 $2,069,521 67 68 $5,340,808.00
28087000200 $3,968.97 $2,417,100 $2,669.28 $1,625,590 78 82 $4,042,690.00
28087000300 $5,971.82 $19,408,419 $3,702.17 $12,032,052 117 116 $31,440,471.00
28087000401** $3,573.36 $10,330,570 $2,191.45 $6,335,468 70 68 $16,666,038.00
28087000403 $3,912.37 $6,733,183 $2,374.28 $4,086,136 77 74 $10,819,319.00

28087000404 $4,669.35 $7,036,711 $2,856.06 $4,304,082 92 89 $11,340,793.00

28087000500 $3,497.78 $5,582,451 $2,152.06 $3,434,693 69 67 $9,017,144.00
28087000600** $1,978.78 $2,657,507 $1,172.89 $1,575,191 39 37 $4,232,698.00
28087000700** $2,330.91 $4,277,223 $1,391.11 $2,552,681 46 43 $6,829,904.00
28087000800** $1,708.91 $2,218,161 $998.92 $1,296,598 34 31 $3,514,759.00
28087000900** $3,531.87 $9,016,852 $2,114.88 $5,399,280 69 66 $14,416,132.00
28087001000 $4,267.28 $4,595,865 $2,472.55 $2,662,935 84 77 $7,258,800.00
28087001100** $2,663.43 $2,064,156 $1,435.55 $1,112,552 52 45 $3,176,708.00
Lowndes County $3,782.15 $89,270,189 $2,298.97 $54,262,625 74 72 $143,532,814.00
Source: ESRI Forecasts; Consumer spending data is derived from 2011 and 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Surveys
The Spending Potential Index is household based and represents the amount spent relative to a national average of 100

The Spending Index measures spending as compared to average spending in the United States which equals 100. A spending
index below 100, indicates that average household spending is lower than that of the United States; a spending index above 100,
indicates that average household spending is higher than that of the United States.

128


The Economic Impact of Investments in Lowndes County
The economic return on investments in Lowndes County’s underserved communities will vary
based upon the type of investment (i.e. supermarket, grocery store, or convenience store), the
amount of the investment, and the geographic location of the investment which will determine
the size of the market. The size of the potential market for an investment is not limited by the
boundaries of a census tract; depending upon site selection, a store may draw customers from
more than one census tract. As shown in Table 29 on page 128, household spending for food at
home varies by census tract; average household spending for food at home is lower in Lowndes
County’s HFFI census tracts as compared to the county‐wide average household spending of
$3,782.15 on food at home. Table 30, below, provides an estimate of total household spending
on food at home within each census tract and also provides an estimate of the supply of food at
home that is met by stores within the census tract. The retail gap is an estimate of the unmet
demand for food at home within the census tract; positive values indicate that demand for food
at home exceeds that which is supplied by stores within the census tract; negative retail gap
values indicate that stores within a census tract are meeting demand for food at home by
households that do not live within that census tract.
With a household fruit and vegetable spending index of 76, all households in Lowndes County
exhibit lower spending levels on fruits and vegetables than the average household spending
level in the United
Table 30: Lowndes County Household Spending on Food at Home and the Retail Spending
States (Table 30, at
Gap
right). In many of
Lowndes County’s HFFI Spending on
Fruit &
Census Tract or Food at Home Estimated Vegetable
census tracts, the Retail Gap Fruits &
Geographic Area Total Spending Supply Spending
Vegetables
Index
household fruit and
vegetable spending 28087000101 $8,925,649 $1,238,199 $7,687,450 $1,645,953 78
$3,271,287 $2,112,230 $1,159,057 $604,820 66
index is extremely low; 28087000102
28087000200 $2,417,100 $3,664,351 ‐$1,247,251 $448,262 77
for example, in HFFI
28087000300 $19,408,419 $8,234,497 $11,173,922 $3,622,029 116
census tract $10,330,570 $1,977,960 $8,352,610 $1,913,675 69
28087000401**
28087000700, the $6,733,183 $3,797,401 $2,935,782 $1,214,048 73
28087000403
household fruit and 28087000404 $7,036,711 $1,576,143 $5,460,568 $1,296,700 89
vegetable spending 28087000500 $5,582,451 $8,951,673 ‐$3,369,222 $1,037,751 75
index is 45 — this 28087000600** $2,657,507 $1,111,700 $1,545,807 $495,114 38
census tract also 28087000700** $4,277,223 $2,239,994 $2,037,229 $792,397 45
indicates a retail gap of 28087000800** $2,218,161 $2,225,930 ‐$7,769 $405,378 32
28087000900** $9,016,852 $39,670,125 ‐$30,653,273 $1,656,846 67

approximately
28087001000 $4,595,865 $214,929 $4,380,936 $837,231 81
$2,037,229, indicating
28087001100** $2,064,156 $1,082,561 $981,595 $349,420 47
there may be sufficient
Total $89,270,189 $78,097,693 $10,437,441 $16,319,624 76
market demand to Source: Consumer Spending data is derived from 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Surveys; Estimated supply is
support a grocery store. from Dunn and Bradstreet, sourced from ESRI Forecasts
129


Table 31: The Economic Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Lowndes County
Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

Direct Effect 52.6 $3,266,305 $3,357,436 $6,570,000
Indirect Effect 7.0 $316,097 $502,253 $901,511
Induced Effect 15.7 $568,567 $1,010,595 $1,675,632
Total Effect 75.4 $4,150,969 $4,870,284 $9,147,142
Source: IMPLAN
Table 32: The Fiscal Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Lowndes County

Table 34: The Economic Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Supermarket with Annual Sales of $8,352,610

Direct Effect 41.7 $1,226,941 $1,614,462 $2,372,141
Indirect Effect 3.1 $115,723 $193,673 $351,449
Induced Effect 5.9 $213,442 $379,618 $629,371
Total Effect 50.7 $1,556,105 $2,187,753 $3,352,961
Source: IMPLAN

Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production

Tax on Production and
and Imports: and Imports: Motor and Imports: and Imports: Other and Imports: S/L
Imports: Sales Tax
Property Tax Vehicle Licenses Severance Tax Taxes Non‐Taxes
$211,048 $119,389 $2,910 $5,786 $17,964 $2,917

Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Personal Tax:
Personal Tax: Personal Tax:
Corporate Profits Tax NonTaxes (Fines‐ Motor Vehicle Other Tax
Income Tax Property Taxes
Fees) License (Fish/Hunt)
$2,689 $20,297 $3,209 $1,439 $559 $725
Source: IMPLAN

130


In HFFI census tract 28087000401, the household fruit and vegetable spending index is 69; the
estimated retail gap in this census tract is approximately $8.3 million, indicating there may be
sufficient demand to support a traditional, independent supermarket. Although a store
located within an HFFI census tract may not capture all spending on food at home within a
census tract, the estimated retail gap was used to evaluate the economic impact of two
potential investments made in HFFI census tracts in Lowndes County. Economic input‐output
models were used to evaluate the impact of economic activity during the construction or
renovation phase of activity and then to evaluate the impact of economic activity during the
ongoing operations of the business upon completion of construction.
The Economic Impact of a Supermarket Investment in Lowndes County
 An initial investment of $6,570,000 in construction or renovation of a 45,000 square foot
supermarket with estimated annual sales of $8,352,610 during the ongoing operations of
the business; modeled at the county level. Based upon these assumptions, this investment
would generate an estimated 75.4 full‐time equivalent jobs during the construction phase
of project activities; approximately 52.6 direct jobs would be created and an additional 22.7
indirect and induced jobs would be created during construction. Total labor income
associated with the construction phase of project activities was estimated to be $4,150,969;
of this amount, $3,266,305 would be direct labor income (Table 31, page 130).

The fiscal impact of construction activities would generate an estimated $285,948 in tax
revenues; of these, $124,044 are sales tax and approximately $71,635 are property taxes on
personal property or on production and imports (Table 32, page 130). The economic and
fiscal impact of construction activities are short term effects that terminate shortly after the
completion of construction.

 A supermarket with annual sales of $8,352,610 would create approximately 50.7 full‐time
equivalent jobs in Lowndes County; of these, approximately 41.7 direct jobs with an average
annual income of $29,423 would be created. These direct jobs would create multiple
employment opportunities within the underserved community where a new store was
located (Table 34, page 130).

The annual fiscal impact of the ongoing operations of a supermarket with annual sales of
$8.3 million would be approximately $388,932; of this amount, sales tax revenues are
estimated to be $211,048 and $139,686 are property taxes on personal property or on
production and imports (Table 33, page 130).

The economic impact and fiscal effects of the ongoing operations of a business firm are
continuous throughout the life of the business, providing employment and tax revenues
131


Table 35: The Economic Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Lowndes County

Direct Effect 22.3 $1,381,571 $1,412,556 $2,920,000
Indirect Effect 4.2 $188,271 $282,850 $509,018
Induced Effect 6.9 $249,187 $442,937 $734,413
Total Effect 33.4 $1,819,029 $2,138,344 $4,163,431
Source: IMPLAN
Table 36: The Fiscal Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Lowndes County

Imports: Sales Tax
$52,744 $29,837 $727 $1,446 $4,489 $729
$2,561 $23,328 $3,689 $1,654 $642 $833
Source: IMPLAN

Table 37: The Economic Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Grocery Store with Annual Sales of $2,037,329

Direct Effect 10.2 $299,255 $393,773 $578,573
Indirect Effect 0.8 $28,225 $47,237 $85,720
Induced Effect 1.4 $52,059 $92,590 $153,505
Total Effect 12.4 $379,539 $533,600 $817,798
Source: IMPLAN

Table 38: The Fiscal Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Grocery Store with Annual Sales of $2,307,329

Imports: Sales Tax
$51,475 $29,119 $710 $1,411 $4,381 $711
$656 $4,950 $783 $351 $136 $177
Source: IMPLAN

132


annually. Depending upon the success of the firm and the economic climate, employment
and related tax revenues may increase or decline over time.
The Economic Impact of a Grocery Store Investment in Lowndes County
 An initial investment of $2,920,000 in the construction or renovation of a 20,000 square
foot grocery store with annual sales of $2,037,329; modeled at the county level. Based
upon these assumptions, approximately 33.4 full‐time equivalent jobs would be supported
during the construction phase of project activities; of these 22.3 would be on‐site direct
construction jobs with associated labor income of approximately $1,381,571. An additional
11.1 indirect and induced full‐time equivalent jobs would be created during the
construction phase of project activities (Table 35, page 132).
During the construction phase of project activities, the fiscal impact is estimated to be
$122,879; of this amount, associated sales tax revenues are estimated to be $52,744 (Table
36, page 132).
 The ongoing operations of a grocery store located in an underserved community in Lowndes
County with estimated annual sales of approximately $2,037,329 would create
approximately 12.4 full‐time equivalent jobs, with associated labor income of $379,539
annually. An estimated 10.2 direct jobs would be associated with the ongoing operations of
the store, creating employment opportunities for the low‐income residents living within the
underserved community (Table 37, page 132).
The annual fiscal impact of the ongoing operations of the project are estimated to be
$94,860; of this amount, sales tax revenues are projected to be $51,475 and property tax
revenues are projected to be $29,255 (Table 38, page 132).

133


This page intentionally left blank for purposes of formatting
134


Pearl River County, Mississippi

Census Tract

Lumberton Young
Villa Ridge

Fords Creek
Hillsdale
Orvisburg Gum Pond

28109950200 Poplarville
28109950300
28109950100**
White Sand
Crossroads Nortac
Juniper Grove
Derby
Savannah
Chinquapin Silver Run

Henleyfield
Mill Creek Barth

McNeill
28109950401
Hawthorne 28109950502

Cybur
28109950402
®

Carriere
Ozona Caesar
Industrial
Hide-A-Way Lake
Richardson
28109950501
28109950600**
Picayune
28109950700**
Nicholson
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
Nicholson Miles

Map 7: Pearl River County HFFI Qualifying Census Tracts
135

** Denotes an HFFI
Census Tract
28109950200
28109950300
28109950100**
28109950401
28109950502
28109950402
®
28109950501
28109950600**
28109950700**
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
Miles
Map 8: Pearl River County Reference Map
136


Eligible Healthy Food Financing Initiative Census Tracts in Pearl River County
Based upon the data from the USDA’s HFFI Locator Tool, there are three (3) census tracts
located in Pearl River County that are eligible HFFI census tracts and qualify for funding under
the Federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative; these are:
 Census Tract 28109950100 is designated as a rural tract that is eligible based upon low
income and low access measured at 1 and 10 miles, low income and low access measured
at ½ and 10 miles and low income and low access using vehicle access.
 Census Tract 28109950600 is designated as an urban tract that is eligible based upon low
income and low access measured at ½ and 10 miles.
 Census Tract 28109950700 is designated as an urban tract that is eligible based upon low
All eligible HFFI census tracts in Pearl River County are also qualifying census tracts to receive
Federal New Market Tax Credits.
In Pearl River County, an estimated 18,017 people live in HFFI census tracts; this represents
approximately 32.4 percent of the total county population. There are approximately 4,714
children (age 0 to 17 years) and 2,211 seniors (age 65 and over) living in HFFI census tracts in
Pearl River County; 34.8 percent of all children and 26.1 percent of all seniors in Pearl River
County live in HFFI qualifying census tracts.
137


Figure 17: Pearl River County Population 2000 through 2013
138


Overview of Pearl River County
In 2013, Pearl River County’s estimated population was 55,072; from 2000 to 2013, the county’s
population increased by 6,451 (an increase of 13.3 percent). During the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina, Pearl River County experienced a surge in population and the population peaked at
56,538 in 2008: between 2008 and 2013, the population of Pearl River County declined by
approximately 1,466 people (Figure 17, page 138). Over the period from 2000 to 2013, Pearl
River County experienced the 8th highest growth rate in total population and the 11th highest
percentage increase in population among the 82 counties in the state of Mississippi.
According to U.S. Census population Table 39: Pearl River County Population by Census Tract
estimates, in the United States, 72.4 Total Percent of County
percent of the population is White, Census Tract
Population Population
12.6 percent of the population is 28109950100** 6,000 10.80%
African American, 9.1 percent of the 28109950200 5,992 10.78%
population is Hispanic or Latino,211 5.6 28109950300 3,207 5.77%
percent of the population is Asian, 1.7 28109950401 6,798 12.23%
percent of the population is American 28109950402 5,971 10.75%
Indian or Alaska Native, and the 28109950501 7,883 14.19%
balance is some other race; in the 28109950502 7,701 13.86%
U.S., 49.2 percent of the population is 28109950600** 4,212 7.58%
male and 50.8 percent of the 28109950700** 7,805 14.05%
population is female.
** Denotes HFFI Census Tract
In Pearl River County, 84.5 percent of the population is White and 12.7 percent of the
population is African American; American Indians, Asians, and other groups account for
approximately 1.3 percent of the population (Table 40, page 140). In Pearl River County,
approximately 48.9 percent of the population is male and 50.1 percent of the population is
female; this gender distribution is similar to that of the state of Mississippi and to that of the
United States.

211 16.2 percent of the U.S. population is Hispanic or Latino; of these, 8.7 percent are classified as “White alone” and 6 percent
are classified as “some other race” by the 2010 U.S. Census.
139


Table 40: Pearl River Racial Distribution by Census Tract

American Percent
Percent
Black or Indian American Some Percent
Total Percent Black or Percent
Census Tract White African and Indian and Asian other Some other
Population White African Asian
American Alaska Alaska Race Race
American
Native Native
alone
28109950100** 6,000 5,783 96.38% 115 1.92% 72 1.20% 0 0.00% 30 0.50%
28109950200 5,992 4,736 79.04% 1,137 18.98% 8 0.13% 0 0.00% 71 1.18%
28109950300 3,207 2,216 69.10% 738 23.01% 44 1.37% 41 1.28% 0 0.00%
28109950401 6,798 5,998 88.23% 640 9.41% 0 0.00% 43 0.63% 0 0.00%
28109950402 5,971 5,463 91.49% 508 8.51% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28109950501 7,883 7,389 93.73% 329 4.17% 72 0.91% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28109950502 7,701 6,908 89.70% 466 6.05% 11 0.14% 89 1.16% 78 1.01%
28109950600** 4,212 3,438 81.62% 574 13.63% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 17 0.40%
28109950700** 7,805 5,049 64.69% 2,558 32.77% 0 0.00% 167 2.14% 0 0.00%
Total 55,569 46,980 84.54% 7,065 12.71% 207 0.37% 340 0.61% 196 0.35%

140


In Pearl River County, 45.9 percent of the African American population lives in an HFFI census
tract. In two of Pearl River County’s HFFI census tracts, the percentage of the African American
population is higher than the county average of 12.7 percent; in census tract 2810950600, 13.6
percent of the population is African American and in census tract 28109950700, 32.7 percent of
the population is African American (Table 40, page 140). These two census tracts replicate the
pattern found in research on HFFI census tracts, 212, 213, 214 which indicates that HFFI census
tracts are more likely to be census tracts with higher concentrations of minority populations.
However, in census tract 28109950100 (an HFFI census tract), African Americans represent only
1.9 percent of the census tract population; in census tract 28109950300, which is not a
qualifying HFFI census tract, 23.0 percent of the census tract population is African American
(Table 40, page 140).
In Pearl River County, there are approximately 8,473 people age 65 and over; these seniors
represent 15.2 percent of Pearl River County’s total population. An estimated 2,211 seniors live
in HFFI census tracts in Pearl River County; they represent 26.1 percent of the total county
population age 65 and over (Table 41, page 142). HFFI census tract 28109950600 has a
relatively high percentage of people age 65 and over; in this tract, 16.5 percent of the
population is 65 or older. The poverty rate for people age 65 and over is 8.5 percent in Pearl
River County; this senior poverty rate is lower than that of the state of Mississippi and of the
United States (Table 43, page 144). With a poverty rate of 16.8 percent, HFFI census tract
28109950600 has the highest senior poverty rate in Pearl River County. There are
approximately 2,183 households in Pearl River County with seniors living alone; in HFFI census
tracts, an estimated 717 households are comprised of individuals age 65 and over who live
alone (Table 42, page 143). Senior populations face unique food access issues due to the
transportation issues faced by this segment of the population; they frequently rely upon family
members or friends for transportation, and they frequently have mobility and disability issues;
programs to increase senior access to affordable, nutritious food must be designed to meet the
special needs of the senior population.
There are approximately 28,351 females living in Pearl River County; they represent 51.0
percent of the population. Two HFFI census tracts in Pearl River County have a relatively high
percentage of females; in census tract 28109950600, 58.6 percent of the population is female
and in census tract 28109950700, 55.3 percent of the population is female (Table 41, page 142).
Approximately 34.9 percent (9,901 females) of all females in Pearl River County live in HFFI
census tracts.

Medicine 27(3): 211‐217.
141


Table 41: Pearl River County Selected Gender, Age, and Family Population Data by Census Tract
Percent of Tract
Number of
Families with
Female
Female
Population 17 Percent of Tract Percent of Tract Households, No
Total Percent Population 65 Number of Householder,
Census Tract years and Population 17 Population 65 Husband
Population Female and Over Families No Husband
Under and Under and Over Present, with
Present with
Children Under
Children under
18
18 Years
28109950100** 6,000 51.93% 1,523 25.38% 816 13.60% 1,721 150 8.72%
28109950200 5,992 46.38% 1,201 20.04% 837 13.97% 1,568 114 7.27%
28109950300 3,207 52.82% 732 22.83% 489 15.25% 704 139 19.74%
28109950401 6,798 47.31% 1,472 21.65% 1,276 18.77% 1,960 216 11.02%
28109950402 5,971 52.97% 1,728 28.94% 960 16.08% 1,534 172 11.21%
28109950501 7,883 48.52% 1,719 21.81% 1,442 18.29% 2,126 62 2.92%
28109950502 7,701 48.97% 1,981 25.72% 1,258 16.34% 2,189 215 9.82%
28109950600** 4,212 58.59% 829 19.68% 693 16.45% 1,132 130 11.48%
28109950700** 7,805 55.31% 2,362 30.26% 702 8.99% 2,024 636 31.42%
County Totals 55,569 51.02% 13,547 24.38% 8,473 15.25% 14,958 1,834 12.26%
142


In Pearl River County, 24.4 percent of the population are children (age 17 and under). There
are two HFFI census tracts that exhibit a higher percentage of children than the county average;
in census tract 28109950700, 30.3 percent of the population are children and in census tract
28109950100, 25.4 percent of the population are children (Table 41, page 142). In Pearl River
County, 34.8 percent of all children live in an HFFI census tract. Although the poverty rate for
all people in Pearl River County is approximately the same as that of the state of Mississippi, it
is 6.8 percent higher than the U.S. poverty rate of 15.4 percent (Table 43, page 144). Child
poverty rates in Pearl River County are higher than those for the state of Mississippi and
significantly higher than the U.S. poverty rate for children. Among children under the age of
five, the poverty rate in Pearl River County is 40 percent and for children between the age of 5
and 17, the poverty rate is 31.7 percent in Pearl River County (Table 43, page 144). HFFI census
tract 28109950700 exhibits a high rate of poverty for older children; 46.8 percent of children
age 5 to 17 live in poverty in this tract —the magnitude of this issue is of particular concern
because this census tract also has the largest population of children (2,362 children) when
compared to the other HFFI census tracts in Pearl River County. In HFFI census tract
28109950100, younger children experience an extremely high poverty rate, with 65.0 percent
of all children under the age of five living in poverty.
There are a total of 14,958 families living in Pearl River County; 32.6 percent of these families
live in HFFI census tracts (Table 42, below). There are 1,834 female headed families with no
husband present, that have children under 18 years old in Pearl River County; these single
female parents represent 12.3 percent of all families in Pearl River County — almost 50 percent
of these single female families with children live in HFFI census tracts. Among female
Table 42: Pearl River County Households and Families by Type
Pearl River Total in HFFI Percent in HFFI

Household by Type
County Total Census Tracts Census Tracts
With own children under 18 years 1,834 916 49.95%
65 years and over 2,183 717 32.84%
143


Table 43: Poverty Rates for Families and Individuals in Pearl River County
Female Households, No
All Families with Persons 65
Census Tract of Husband Present, with All Children All Children
All people All Families related children years and
Geographic Area related children under Under 5 5 to 17
under 18 years older
18 years
28109950100** 26.10% 18.30% 29.60% 69.50% 65.00% 31.20% 8.10%
28109950200 23.30% 19.00% 28.60% 83.30% 21.30% 39.40% 14.00%
28109950300 23.40% 18.90% 27.90% 50.00% 44.60% 16.10% 13.50%
28109950401 23.10% 16.40% 30.60% 56.70% 74.50% 21.80% 5.90%
28109950402 32.90% 24.40% 44.90% 92.30% 37.00% 55.10% 14.60%
28109950501 13.50% 8.60% 14.30% 91.10% 22.90% 17.00% 5.30%
28109950502 10.10% 9.80% 17.40% 47.90% 16.30% 17.20% 1.60%
28109950600** 15.30% 14.70% 14.80% 35.10% 3.60% 20.30% 16.80%
28109950700** 33.00% 30.20% 41.80% 63.20% 35.40% 46.80% 7.20%
Pearl River County 22.20% 17.50% 28.50% 63.80% 40.00% 31.70% 8.50%
State of Mississippi 22.70% 17.80% 27.10% 51.80% 36.50% 30.50% 14.00%
United States 15.40% 11.30% 17.80% 40.00% 24.70% 20.00% 9.40%
144


families with children under the age of 18, with no husband present, the poverty rate is 63.8
percent; this poverty rate is 12.0 percent higher than that of the state of Mississippi and 23.8 percent
higher than that of the United States. With 636 single female families with children (Table 41, page
142), representing 31.4 percent of the total number of single female families with children in Pearl
River County, HFFI census tract 28109950700 has the highest concentration of single female families
with children as compared to all tracts in Pearl River County; 63.2 percent of these families live in
poverty (Table 43, page 144).
In Pearl River County, 83.2 percent of the population age 25 and over has a high school degree and
13.2 percent of the population has a Bachelor’s degree or higher; the percentage of Pearl River
County’s population 25 and older with a high school degree is 1.7 percent higher than that of the
state of Mississippi (Table 44, page 146). Although the percentage of Pearl River County’s population
age 25 and older with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (13.2 percent) is lower than that of the state of
Mississippi (20.1 percent), Pearl River County has a higher percentage of people age 25 and older
who have completed some college, but have no degree and a higher percentage of people who have
completed an Associate’s degree as compared to these categories of educational attainment at the
state level. For example, in the state of Mississippi, 8.1 percent of the population age 25 and over
has an Associate’s degree; in Pearl River County, 10.6 percent of the population age 25 and over has
an Associate’s degree (Table 44, page 146). Generally, the educational attainment level for the
population age 25 and over living in Pearl River County’s HFFI census tracts is not significantly
different than the educational attainment levels for the entire county, but there are a few notable
differences. For example, in HFFI census tracts 28109950100 and 28109950700, the percentage of
the population who completed some high school but have no high school degree is 11.8 percent and
12.8 percent, respectively; this compares to 10 percent at the county level (Table 44, page 146). Also,
in HFFI census tract 28109950700, 9.7 percent of the population has a Bachelor’s degree or higher
and in tract 28109950100, 9.6 percent of the population age 25 and over have Bachelor’s degrees or
higher; these educational attainment levels are lower than the Pearl River County average of 13.2
percent.
Food Insecurity in Pearl River County
indicating that food insecurity had declined in the U.S. Across the United States, the average county‐
level food insecurity rate remained stable at 14.7 percent in 2011 and in 2012. In Mississippi, the
insecurity rate for individuals in the nation in 2012. In 2012, approximately 17.3 percent of all
individuals in Pearl River County were food insecure — an estimated 9,690 people.

145


Table 44: Pearl River County Educational Attainment for the Population Age 25 and Over

146


Child food insecurity rates are substantially higher than the overall food insecurity rate for all age
groups in the entire population. In the U.S., the child food insecurity rate was 21.6 percent in
2012.216 In counties across the United States, the county level of child food insecurity ranged from a
low of six percent to a high of 41 percent in 2012; food insecurity rates among households with
children have been found to be considerably higher than that in the general population. In 2012, the
state level child food insecurity rate ranged from a low of 10.6 percent in North Dakota to a high of
29.2 percent in New Mexico. Mississippi had the second highest level of child food insecurity in the
U.S.; with 28.7 percent of Mississippi’s children being food insecure, it is estimated that
approximately 214,720 children in Mississippi are food insecure.217 In Pearl River County, it is
estimated that 29.9 percent of children are food insecure; research indicates that among the 4,110
children living in Pearl River County that are food insecure, approximately 78 percent are eligible for
Federal Nutrition Assistance programs but 22 percent are not eligible for these programs.218

217 Ibid.
218 Gundersen, C., Waxman, E., Engelhard, E., Satho, A. and Namrita, C. Map the Meal Gap 2013: Food Insecurity Estimates at the
County Level. Feeding America, 2013.
147


Table 45: Pearl River County Comparative Employment and Income
Population 16 Number Not in
Census Tract or Number in the Percent In the Labor Percent
years and the Labor
Geographic Area Civilian Labor Force Force Unemployed
over Force
28109950100** 4,716 2,642 56.0% 13.8% 2,074
28109950200 4,849 2,493 51.4% 13.3% 2,356
28109950300 2,547 1,274 50.0% 2.8% 1,273
28109950401 5,546 2,746 49.5% 13.9% 2,800
28109950402 4,469 2,515 56.3% 13.7% 1,954
28109950501 6,418 3,524 54.9% 11.6% 2,894
28109950502 5,992 3,492 58.3% 7.8% 2,500
28109950600** 3,462 2,093 60.5% 11.7% 1,369
28109950700** 5,830 3,186 54.6% 9.8% 2,644
Pearl River County 43,829 23,899 54.7% 11.3% 19,864
Mississippi 2,312,959 1,343,584 58.1% 11.1% 957,272
United States 246,191,954 157,113,886 64.3% 9.7% 87,994,377
Median Percent of
Census Tract or Total Households with Housholds with
household income Households
Geographic Area Households Income less than Income between
(dollars) with Earnings
$10,000 $10,000 to $14,999
28109950100** 2,189 9.0% 14.7% $32,188 69.8%
28109950200 2,161 10.6% 9.8% $38,816 65.2%
28109950300 1,034 7.8% 12.2% $36,964 71.3%
28109950401 2,791 14.0% 8.4% $41,663 67.8%
28109950402 2,094 13.2% 8.9% $40,263 70.8%
28109950501 2,782 11.5% 2.3% $51,035 66.9%
28109950502 2,885 5.9% 4.4% $54,672 73.4%
28109950600** 1,728 7.5% 10.8% $42,500 72.7%
28109950700** 2,892 15.0% 13.3% $26,793 69.8%
Pearl River County 20,556 10.8% 9.0% $42,510 69.6%
Mississippi 1,088,073 11.4% 8.1% $39,031 73.9%
United States 115,610,216 7.2% 5.4% $53,046 78.2%
148


Pearl River County Income by Source
Pearl River County has a population of approximately 43,829 people who are age 16 and over;
54.7 percent of this population is in the civilian labor force. In Pearl River County, the average
unemployment rate among the population 16 years and over was 11.3 percent; this
unemployment rate was not statistically higher than that of the state of Mississippi (11.1
percent) and 1.6 percent higher than that of the United States for this age group (Table 45,
page 148). The unemployment rate for the population age 16 and over within the HFFI
qualifying census tracts in Pearl River County is slightly higher in tract 28109950600 than the
average unemployment rate in the county, but not significantly different. In HFFI census tract
28109950100, the unemployment rate is 13.8 percent and approximately 2,074 people in this
tract are not in the labor force. In Pearl River County, the labor force participation rate is 54.7
percent; this participation rate is 3.4 percent lower than that of the state of Mississippi and 9.6
percent lower than the U.S. labor force participation rate. In Pearl River County, there are
approximately 19,864 people age 16 and over who are not in the labor force; this represents
45.3 percent of the population in this age group (Table 45, page 148). There are an estimated
6,087 people age 16 and over who are not in the labor force who live in HFFI census tracts in
Pearl River County, representing 43.5 percent of the total population age 16 and over within
these tracts. Non‐participation in the labor force for individuals age 16 and over may be
accounted for by those people who are retired, by those who are enrolled in school and not
working, by people who are not able to work due to health or disability, and by those who
select not to work due to a variety of reasons.
The median household income in Pearl River County is $42,510; median household income in
Pearl River County is approximately $3,479 higher than the state of Mississippi’s median
page 148). The median household income in two HFFI census tracts is lower than that of Pearl
River County; in HFFI census tract 28109950100, the median household income is $32,188
($10,322 lower than the county median income) and in HFFI census tract 28109950700, the
median income is $26,793; this is $15,717 lower than the average median income in Pearl River
County (Table 45, page 148).
Poverty is a function of income, family size, and age. For example, for single persons under 65,
the income poverty threshold is $11,945 and for persons over 65, the poverty threshold is
$11,011; for two people under the age of 65, the income poverty threshold is $15,450 and for
two people over the age of 65, the income poverty threshold is $13,892. For family units
consisting of three people or more, the income poverty threshold starts at $18,284 and
increases based upon the size of the family. Of particular concern is the percentage of
households that have household incomes of less than $15,000 due to the resource constraints
that exist for these households. In Pearl River County, approximately 19.8 percent of
households have incomes of less than $15,000; in the state of Mississippi, 19.5 percent of
149


Table 46: Pearl River County Comparative Earnings and Income by Source
Percent of Percent of Mean Mean cash
Percent of Mean Social Mean Households Households with
Mean earnings Households Households Supplemental public
Census Tract or Households Security retirement with cash Food
(dollars) for with with Security assistance
Geographic Area with Social income income public Stamp/SNAP
Households retirement Supplemental Income income
Security (dollars) (dollars) assistance benefits in the
income Security Income (dollars) (dollars)
28109950100** $52,554 37.4% $14,558 16.9% $18,689 7.8% $7,604 6.8% $4,813 17.9%
28109950200 $55,753 39.9% $16,773 19.1% $20,069 7.8% $5,486 1.1% $5,025 24.4%
28109950300 $62,498 34.0% $16,134 18.1% $24,574 4.0% $7,654 0.8% $3,875 18.1%
28109950401 $53,617 40.5% $14,982 22.2% $23,474 5.4% $5,953 1.6% $4,046 21.6%
28109950402 $62,914 34.0% $16,083 18.8% $14,030 8.5% $8,814 3.4% $4,721 23.6%
28109950501 $66,413 36.0% $16,377 19.1% $26,262 9.5% $8,556 2.2% $5,868 18.4%
28109950502 $68,286 40.8% $18,555 24.0% $24,932 1.8% $11,406 1.4% $4,173 8.7%
28109950600** $56,784 36.1% $15,431 20.6% $17,891 5.2% $9,821 1.0% $3,365 16.7%
28109950700** $39,985 31.6% $12,621 14.7% $15,204 13.8% $8,717 1.9% $1,539 32.3%
Pearl River County $57,327 36.9% $15,787 19.4% $21,043 7.3% $8,063 2.3% $4,377 20.4%
Mississippi $56,908 32.6% $15,673 17.5% $19,739 7.8% $8,426 2.80% $2,756 17.4%
U.S. $75,017 28.9% $17,189 17.7% $23,589 4.9% $9,152 2.80% $3,808 12.4%
150


households have incomes of less than $15,000, and in the U.S., this percentage rate is 12.6
percent (Table 45, page 148). Two of Pearl River County’s HFFI census tracts exhibit a relatively
high percentage of households with incomes of less than $15,000; in census tract
28109950700, 28.3 percent of households have incomes less than $15,000, and 23.7 percent of
households in census tract 28109950100 have incomes of less than $15,000.
Household mean earnings are $57,327 in Pearl River County; household earnings in Pearl River
County are slightly higher than those in the state of Mississippi (Table 46, page 150). Although
mean household earnings in HFFI census tract 28109950600 are $56,784, this level of annual
household earnings is not significantly different than the county average. However, in HFFI
census tract 28109950100, mean household earnings are $4,773 lower than Pearl River
County’s mean household earnings and in HFFI census tract 28109950700, mean household
earnings are $17,342 lower than Pearl River County’s mean household earnings.
Additional sources of household income may include Retirement income, Social Security or
Supplemental Social Security Income, and some form of public assistance. In Pearl River
County, approximately 19.4 percent of households receive income from retirement, and the
mean retirement income is $21,043 (Table 46, page 150). The mean household retirement
income in all HFFI census tracts in Pearl River County is lower than the county‐level mean
household retirement income; for example, in HFFI census tract 28109950100, the mean
household retirement income is $2,354 lower than that of the county, and in HFFI census tract
28109950700, the mean household retirement income is $5,839 lower than that of the county.
Approximately 7.3 percent of households in Pearl River County receive Supplemental Social
Security Income; this is slightly lower than the 7.8 percent of households in the state of
Mississippi receiving Supplemental Social Security Income (Table 46, page 150). Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) provides benefits to needy aged, blind, and disabled people; in the U.S.,
approximately 40 percent of SSI recipients are over the age of 65; the remainder are disabled.
Children may qualify for SSI benefits if they are disabled. Of the estimated 1,510 households in
Pearl River County receiving SSI benefits, 43.6 percent live in the three Pearl River County HFFI
census tracts; there are approximately 398 (13.8 percent) households in HFFI census tract
28109950700 receiving Supplemental Social Security Income (Table 46, page 150).
In Pearl River County, 2.3 percent of households receive cash public assistance income and 20.4
percent of households receive SNAP benefits. In HFFI census tract 28109950100, 6.8 percent of
households receive cash public assistance income and 17.9 percent of households receive SNAP
benefits. In HFFI census tract 28109950700, 1.9 percent of households receive cash public
assistance income and 32.3 percent of households receive food stamp benefits (Table 46, page
150).
151


Table 47: Pearl River County Employment by Industry
Civilian
Transportation/
Census Tract or employed Agriculture and
Construction Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Warehousing/
Geographic Area population 16 Mining
Utilities
years and over
28109950100** 2,260 5.3% 9.3% 8.8% 3.5% 12.3% 11.8%

28109950200 2,161 2.3% 8.6% 13.9% 1.8% 16.1% 4.3%
28109950300 1,233 5.8% 6.7% 12.2% 0.3% 16.0% 6.2%
28109950401 2,363 5.1% 10.4% 14.0% 0.0% 3.3% 7.4%
28109950402 2,170 2.4% 20.0% 13.5% 0.0% 9.5% 5.3%
28109950501 3,092 1.3% 18.2% 10.0% 7.1% 10.0% 5.8%
28109950502 3,221 3.7% 3.8% 9.2% 3.3% 19.0% 4.8%
28109950600** 1,849 2.0% 6.8% 9.3% 3.6% 15.3% 1.0%
28109950700** 2,858 1.8% 10.1% 7.7% 2.2% 14.4% 2.9%
Pearl River County 21,207 3.1% 10.6% 10.7% 2.7% 12.8% 5.5%
Pearl River Numeric 21,207 663 2,256 2,267 580 2,723 1,167
Mississippi 1,194,436 3.0% 6.9% 12.9% 2.6% 11.8% 5.7%
United States 141,864,697 1.9% 6.2% 10.5% 2.8% 11.6% 4.9%
Arts/
Census Tract or Scientific/ Services/ Health Public
Information Insurance/ Real Recreation/ except Public
Geographic Area Management/ Care/ Social Administration
Estate Accommodation/ Administration
Food Services
28109950100** 1.9% 2.3% 6.6% 15.9% 9.9% 5.0% 7.3%
28109950200 1.5% 2.0% 9.0% 21.1% 7.0% 4.3% 8.1%
28109950300 1.5% 5.0% 3.0% 25.1% 13.1% 2.4% 2.6%
28109950401 1.1% 8.3% 7.2% 27.4% 4.4% 8.0% 3.5%
28109950402 0.8% 0.6% 8.2% 28.2% 4.7% 4.0% 2.8%
28109950501 1.7% 2.5% 7.6% 18.6% 5.0% 4.3% 7.7%
28109950502 1.9% 9.8% 6.7% 18.6% 6.6% 3.5% 9.1%
28109950600** 2.5% 3.9% 10.8% 25.6% 10.9% 3.1% 5.2%
28109950700** 0.2% 1.5% 9.9% 22.9% 16.7% 6.3% 3.4%
Pearl River County 1.4% 4.1% 7.8% 22.1% 8.4% 4.7% 5.8%
Pearl River Numeric 307 875 1,662 4,684 1,788 996 1,239
Mississippi 1.4% 4.9% 6.3% 24.4% 9.4% 5.0% 5.7%
United States 2.2% 6.7% 10.8% 23.2% 9.3% 5.0% 5.0%

152


The Pearl River County Workforce
The largest percentage of the work force in Pearl River County is employed in the Educational
Services, Health Care, and Social Assistance sectors of the economy; in Pearl River County,
employment in these sectors represents approximately 22.1 percent of total employment
(Table 47, page 152). In HFFI census tract 18109950600, 25.6 percent of the population is
employed in the Educational Services, Health Care, and Social Assistance sectors.
In Pearl River County, approximately 12.8 percent of the population is employed in the Retail
higher in Pearl River County than it is in either the state of Mississippi (11.8 percent) or the
United States (11.6 percent). There are two HFFI census tracts in Pearl River County where the
sector
sector

The Manufacturing sector employs approximately 10.7 percent of Pearl River County’s
employed civilian population over the age of 16 (Table 47, page 152); the percentage of the
workforce employed in the Manufacturing sector is lower in Pearl River County than it is in the
state of Mississippi (12.9 percent), but nominally higher than that of the U.S. (10.5 percent).

In Pearl River County, a relatively high percentage (10.6 percent) of the civilian workforce is
employed in the Construction industry as compared to the state of Mississippi (6.9 percent) and
the United States (6.2 percent).

In Pearl River County, 8.4 percent of the workforce is employed in the Arts, Entertainment,
Recreation, Accommodation, or Food Services sectors; this is slightly lower than the percentage
rate for the state of Mississippi (9.4 percent) and that of the United States (Table 47, page 152).
In the three HFFI census tracts in Pearl River County, the percentage of employment in the Arts,
Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, or Food Services is higher than the average
percentage rate of employment in these industries in Pearl River County; as follows:

 In census tract 28109950100, 9.9 percent of the workforce is employed in the Arts,
153


The median earnings for all workers in Pearl River County was $27,892 as compared to median
States (Table 48, below). In Pearl River County, the median earnings for male full‐time workers
that held steady year‐round jobs was $45,252, and the median earnings for female full‐time
workers that held steady year‐round jobs was $30,614. In Pearl River County’s HFFI census
tracts, the mean earnings for all workers was lower than that of Pearl River County; in HFFI
census tracts, the mean earnings for all workers ranged from being $2,369 (census tract
28109950100) lower than that of Pearl River County to being $8,345 lower (census tract
28109950700) than that of Pearl River County. In all three of the Pearl River County HFFI
census tracts, the median earnings for male full‐time workers that held steady year‐round jobs
was lower than Pearl River County’s median earnings for male full‐time workers; this negative
male earnings differential ranged from a low of $1,242 in tract 28109950600 to a high of $4,179
in HFFI census tract 28109950700 (Table 48, below). In Pearl River County, the median earnings
for females who held full‐time, year‐round jobs was $30,614; in two HFFI census tracts, the
median earnings for female full‐time workers that held steady year‐round jobs was higher than
that of Pearl River County— significantly so in census tract 28109950600, where the median
earnings for females who held full‐time, year‐round jobs was $7,065 higher than that of Pearl
River County. In HFFI census tract 28109950700, females with full‐time, year‐round jobs had
median earnings that were approximately $4,105 lower than the Pearl River County median
earnings of $30,614 for female workers with full‐time, year round jobs (Table 48, below).
Table 48: Pearl River County Median Earnings for Workers
Median earnings for Median earnings for
Census Tract or Median earnings for
male full‐time, year‐ female full‐time, year‐
Geographic Area workers (dollars)
round workers (dollars) round workers (dollars)
28109950100** $25,543 $41,406 $30,804

28109950200 $28,057 $43,619 $30,065
28109950300 $20,000 $51,932 $31,364
28109950401 $34,574 $44,167 $41,250
28109950402 $29,140 $46,803 $29,368
28109950501 $30,264 $42,384 $36,148
28109950502 $34,154 $55,000 $31,489
28109950600** $22,547 $44,010 $37,679
28109950700** $19,547 $41,073 $26,509
Pearl River County $27,892 $45,252 $30,614
Mississippi $25,707 $40,742 $30,604
United States $30,538 $49,087 $38,635
154


Table 49: Health Insurance Coverage for the Civilian Non‐Institutionalized Population in Pearl River County
Population
No health Under 18 Years
Census Tract or With health With private With public
insurance with No Health
Geographic Area insurance coverage health insurance coverage
coverage Insurance
Coverage
28109950100** 4,383 2,700 2,347 1,598 280
28109950200 4,474 3,211 1,830 1,301 249
28109950300 2,566 1,758 1,113 487 17
28109950401 5,392 3,886 2,474 1,406 246
28109950402 4,574 2,941 2,517 1,397 303
28109950501 6,462 4,561 2,826 1,197 82
28109950502 6,749 5,734 2,076 952 282
28109950600** 3,019 2,257 1,311 1,107 164
28109950700** 5,663 2,727 3,474 2,108 241
Pearl River County 43,282 29,775 19,968 11,553 1,864
Mississippi 2,392,262 1,667,737 1,035,758 506,225 68,473
United States 258,778,088 203,379,999 89,277,994 45,206,153 5,953,533
Population
No health Under 18 Years
insurance with No Health
coverage Insurance
Coverage
28109950100** 73.3% 45.1% 39.2% 26.7% 18.4%
28109950200 77.5% 55.6% 31.7% 22.5% 20.7%
28109950300 84.0% 57.6% 36.5% 16.0% 2.3%
28109950401 79.3% 57.2% 36.4% 20.7% 16.7%
28109950402 76.6% 49.3% 42.2% 23.4% 17.5%
28109950501 84.4% 59.6% 36.9% 15.6% 4.8%
28109950502 87.6% 74.5% 27.0% 12.4% 14.2%
28109950600** 73.2% 54.7% 31.8% 26.8% 19.8%
28109950700** 72.9% 35.1% 44.7% 27.1% 10.2%
Pearl River County 78.9% 54.3% 36.4% 21.1% 13.8%
Mississippi 82.5% 57.5% 35.7% 17.5% 9.1%
United States 85.1% 66.9% 29.4% 14.9% 8.1%
155


Health Care Insurance in Pearl River County
In Pearl River County, 78.9 percent of the civilian, non‐institutionalized population has health
living in HFFI census tracts in Pearl River County that have public health insurance coverage;
this represents 35.7 percent of the Pearl River County population that has public health
insurance coverage.
The percentage of the civilian, non‐institutionalized population in Pearl River County with no
health insurance coverage (21.1 percent) is higher than that of the state of Mississippi (17.5
percent), and is 6.2 percentage points higher than the U.S. percentage rate of 14.9 percent
(Table 49, page 155). The percentage rate of children under 18 with no health insurance
coverage in Pearl River County (13.8 percent) is higher than that of the state of Mississippi (9.1
percent) and is also higher than that of the United States’ by 5.7 percent (Table 49, page 155).
There are approximately 685 children under the age of 18 with no health insurance coverage
who live in Pearl River County HFFI census tracts; this represents 36.7 percent of the children
under the age of 18 in Pearl River County that have no health insurance coverage.
All of the qualifying HFFI census tracts in Pearl River County have a higher percentage of the
population that have no health insurance as compared to the county‐wide average; for
example, in census tract 28109950600, 26.8 percent of the population has no health insurance
coverage, and in census tract 28109950700, 27.1 percent of the population has no health
insurance coverage. There are 4,813 people living in Pearl River County HFFI census tracts who
have no health insurance coverage; this represents 41.6 percent of all people in Pearl River
County who have no health insurance coverage and indicates that a disproportionate number
of people living in HFFI census tracts in Pearl River County have no health insurance given that
only 32.4 percent of the total population of Pearl River County reside in HFFI census tracts.
The healthcare expenditures associated with recipients of public health insurance are higher
than those who are covered by private insurance; these healthcare costs and those of the
uninsured are predominantly paid for by federal and state governments or by hospitals and
physicians and are ultimately paid for by tax revenues or by a “hidden tax” on the cost of
healthcare. Public policies that are designed to increase the affordability and accessibility of
healthy food in underserved communities have a primary purpose of improving the nutrition
and health of the residents in these communities, and specifically to reduce obesity and the
related healthcare cost of obesity.

156



157


Table 50: Pearl River County Estimated Spending on Food
Spending
Food at Home Food Away from Food Away from Spending
Food at Home Index Food Total Food
Census Tract Average Household Home Average Home Total Index Food at
Total Spending Away from Spending
Spending Household Spending Spending Home
Home
28109950100** $3,777.49 $8,446,478 $2,123.42 $4,747,967 74 66 $13,194,445
28109950200 $4,069.63 $8,839,226 $2,347.48 $5,098,736 80 73 $13,937,962
28109950300 $3,780.46 $3,969,481 $2,100.34 $2,205,356 74 66 $6,174,837
28109950401 $4,476.92 $12,418,980 $2,504.86 $6,948,472 88 78 $19,367,452
28109950402 $4,294.23 $9,936,856 $2,622.74 $6,069,027 84 82 $16,005,883
28109950501 $4,466.93 $12,476,149 $2,728.22 $7,619,924 88 85 $20,096,073
28109950502 $4,978.55 $14,527,406 $3,085.06 $9,002,193 98 96 $23,529,599
28109950600** $3,346.56 $5,926,752 $2,029.24 $3,593,792 66 63 $9,520,544
28109950700** $3,012.16 $8,732,251 $1,681.17 $4,873,706 59 52 $13,605,957
Pearl River County $4,095.21 $85,273,579 $2,395.98 $50,159,173 80 75 $135,432,752


158


The Economic Impact of Investments in Pearl River County
The economic return on investments in underserved communities will vary based upon the
type of investment (i.e. supermarket, grocery store, or convenience store), the amount of the
investment, and the geographic location of the investment which will determine the size of the
market. The size of the potential market for an investment is not limited by the boundaries of a
census tract; depending upon site selection, a store may draw customers from more than one
census tract. As shown in Table 50 on page 158, household spending for food at home varies
by census tract; average household spending for food at home is lower in Pearl River County’s
HFFI census tracts as compared to the county‐wide average household spending of $4,095.21
on food at home. Table 51, below, provides an estimate of total food spending on food at
home by households within each census tract and also provides an estimate of the supply of
food at home that is met by stores within the census tract. The retail gap is an estimate of the
unmet demand for food at home within the census tract; positive values indicate that demand
for food at home exceeds that which is supplied by stores within the census tract; negative
retail gap values indicate that stores within a census tract are meeting demand for food at
home by households that do not live within that census tract.
With a household fruit and vegetable spending index of 75, all households in Pearl River County
level in the United States (Table 51, below). In many of Pearl River County’s HFFI census tracts,
the household fruit and vegetable spending index is quite low; for example, in HFFI census tract
28109950100, the household fruit and vegetable spending index is 68 — this census tract also
indicates a retail gap of approximately $8,446,478, indicating there may be sufficient market
demand to support an independent supermarket or multiple small grocery stores within this
Table 51: Pearl River County Household Spending on Food at Home and the Retail Spending Gap
Fruit &
Spending on
Census Tract or Food at Home Estimated Vegetable
Retail Gap Fruits &
Geographic Area Total Spending Supply Spending
Vegetables
Index
28109950100** $8,446,478 $0 $8,446,478 $1,464,732 68
28109950200 $8,839,226 $446,011 $8,393,215 $1,543,800 74
28109950300 $3,969,481 $7,802,316 ‐$3,832,835 $698,046 69
28109950401 $12,418,980 $910,567 $11,508,413 $2,150,873 81
28109950402 $9,936,856 $718,345 $9,218,511 $1,763,923 79
28109950501 $12,476,149 $2,478,681 $9,997,468 $2,214,678 82
28109950502 $14,527,406 $0 $14,527,406 $2,713,761 97
28109950600** $5,926,752 $30,106,302 ‐$24,179,550 $1,098,147 64
28109950700** $8,732,251 $37,438,545 ‐$28,706,294 $1,533,070 55
Pearl River County $85,273,579 $79,900,767 $5,372,812 $15,181,030 75
Source: Consumer Spending data is derived from 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Surveys; Estimated supply is from Dunn and
159


Table 52: The Economic Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Pearl River County

Direct Effect 67.6 $1,861,926 $1,956,032 $6,570,000
Indirect Effect 11.8 $368,248 $601,369 $1,628,918
Induced Effect 7.9 $221,677 $495,962 $859,839
Total Effect 87.3 $2,451,852 $3,053,363 $9,058,756
Source: IMPLAN
Table 53: The Fiscal Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Pearl River County
Tax on Production Tax on Production and Tax on Production Tax on Production and

Tax on Production and Tax on Production and
and Imports: Sales Imports: Motor Vehicle and Imports: Other Imports: S/L Non‐
Imports: Property Tax Imports: Severance Tax
Tax Licenses Taxes Taxes
$106,299 $60,133 $1,466 $2,914 $9,048 $1,469
Corporate Profits Personal Tax: Income Personal Tax: NonTaxes Personal Tax: Motor Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Other
Tax Tax (Fines‐ Fees) Vehicle License Property Taxes Tax (Fish/Hunt)
$4,744 $30,936 $4,892 $2,193 $852 $1,105
Source: IMPLAN

Direct Effect 42.7 $1,227,815 $1,623,977 $2,398,800
Indirect Effect 3.2 $85,865 $164,797 $321,226
Induced Effect 4.6 $129,370 $289,365 $501,881
Total Effect 50.4 $1,443,051 $2,078,139 $3,221,907
Source: IMPLAN

Tax on Production Tax on Production and Tax on Production Tax on Production and

Tax on Production and Tax on Production and
and Imports: Sales Imports: Motor Vehicle and Imports: Other Imports: S/L Non‐
Imports: Property Tax Imports: Severance Tax
Tax Licenses Taxes Taxes
$219,088 $123,937 $3,021 $6,007 $18,648 $3,028
Corporate Profits Personal Tax: Income Personal Tax: NonTaxes Personal Tax: Motor Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Other
Tax Tax (Fines‐ Fees) Vehicle License Property Taxes Tax (Fish/Hunt)
$2,705 $17,754 $2,807 $1,259 $489 $634
Source: IMPLAN

160


census tract. In HFFI census tract 28109950700, the household fruit and vegetable spending
index is 55. Initial evaluation of the retail gap in census tract 28109950700 indicates that stores
are meeting the existing demand for food at home and also meeting the food demand that
exists in other geographic areas; there may be specific communities within this tract that would
benefit from a small grocery store or some other source of affordable, healthy food supply.
Economic input‐output models were used to evaluate two levels of investments in Pearl River
County’s underserved communities; these models evaluated the impact of economic activity
during the construction or renovation phase of a project and also evaluated the impact of
economic activity during the ongoing operations of the business upon completion of
construction.
The Economic Impact of a Supermarket Investment in Pearl River County
 A store located within a census tract may not capture all spending on food at home within
the census tract, or it may capture spending on food at home from areas outside of the
census tract. To model the economic impact of an initial investment of $6,570,000 in the
construction or renovation of a 45,000 square foot supermarket, annual sales were
estimated to be $8,446,478 during the ongoing operations of the business; this investment
was modeled at the county level. Based upon these assumptions, this investment would
generate an estimated 87.3 full‐time equivalent jobs during the construction phase of
project activities; approximately 67.6 direct construction related jobs would be created, and
an additional 19.7 indirect and induced jobs would be created during construction. Total
labor income associated with the construction phase of project activities was estimated to
be $2,451,852; of this amount, $1,861,926 would be direct labor income (Table 52, page
160).

The fiscal impact of construction activities would generate an estimated $226,051 in tax
revenues; of these, $106,299 are sales tax and approximately $60,985 are property taxes on
personal property or on production and imports (Table 53, page 160). The economic and
fiscal impact of construction activities are short term effects that terminate shortly after the
completion of construction.

 A supermarket with annual sales of $8,446,478 would create approximately 50.4 full‐time
equivalent jobs in Pearl River County; of these, approximately 42.7 direct jobs with an
average annual income of $28,754 would be created. The total labor income associated
with all jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) created as a result of the ongoing operations of
this investment is estimated to be $1,443,051 annually (Table 54, page 160).

161


Table 56: The Economic Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Pearl River County

Direct Effect 30 $827,523 $869,348 $2,920,000
Indirect Effect 5.3 $163,666 $267,275 $723,964
Induced Effect 3.5 $98,523 $220,428 $382,151
Total Effect 38.8 $1,089,712 $1,357,050 $4,026,114
Source: IMPLAN
Table 57: The Fiscal Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Pearl River County
Tax on Production Tax on
Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production
and Imports: Production and
and Imports: Sales and Imports: and Imports: and Imports:
Motor Vehicle Imports: S/L Non‐
Tax Property Tax Severance Tax Other Taxes
Licenses Taxes
$47,244 $26,726 $651 $1,295 $4,021 $653

Corporate Profits Personal Tax: Personal Tax:
NonTaxes (Fines‐ Motor Vehicle Other Tax
Tax Income Tax Property Taxes
$2,108 $13,749 $2,174 $975 $379 $491

Source: IMPLAN


Direct Effect 10.1 $290,728 $384,534 $568,000
Indirect Effect 0.8 $20,332 $39,021 $76,061
Induced Effect 1.1 $30,633 $68,517 $118,838
Total Effect 11.9 $341,693 $492,072 $762,899
Source: IMPLAN
Tax on Production Tax on
and Imports: Production and
and Imports: Sales and Imports: and Imports: and Imports:
Motor Vehicle Imports: S/L Non‐
Tax Property Tax Severance Tax Other Taxes
Licenses Taxes
$51,877 $29,346 $715 $1,422 $4,416 $717
$640 $4,204 $665 $298 $116 $150

Source: IMPLAN
162


The annual fiscal impact of the ongoing operations of a supermarket with annual sales of $8.4
million would be approximately $399,377; of this amount, sales tax revenues are estimated to
be $219,088 and $124,426 are property taxes on personal property or on production and
imports (Table 55, page 160).
The Economic Impact of a Grocery Store Investment in Pearl River County
foot grocery store with annual sales of $2,000,000; modeled at the county level. Based
upon these assumptions, approximately 38.8 full‐time equivalent jobs would be supported
during the construction phase of project activities; of these 30 jobs would be on‐site direct
construction jobs with associated labor income of approximately $827,523. An additional
8.8 indirect and induced full‐time equivalent jobs would be created during the construction
phase of project activities (Table 56, page 162).
$100,466; of this amount, associated sales tax revenues are estimated to be $47,244 (Table
57, page 162) and property tax revenues are projected to be $27,105.
 The ongoing operations of a grocery store located in Pearl River County with estimated
annual sales of approximately $2 million would create approximately 11.9 full‐time
equivalent jobs, with associated labor income of $290,728 annually. An estimated 10.1
direct jobs, with an average annual wage of $28,784 would be associated with the ongoing
operations of the store, creating employment opportunities for the low‐income residents
living within underserved communities in Pearl River County (Table 58, page 162).
$94,566; of this amount, sales tax revenues are projected to be $51,877 and property tax
revenues are projected to be $29,462, including personal property tax and property tax on
production and imports (Table 59, page 162).
The economic impact and fiscal effects of the ongoing operations of a business firm are
continuous throughout the life of the business, providing employment and tax revenues
annually. Depending upon the success of the firm and the economic climate, employment
and related tax revenues may increase or decline over time.

163


Table 60: The Economic Impact of a $500,000 Renovation, Expansion, and Equipment Purchase

Direct Effect 2.7 $132,830 $149,768 $293,500
Indirect Effect 0.7 $30,108 $45,784 $97,488
Induced Effect 0.9 $33,112 $60,382 $105,613
Total Effect 4.3 $196,050 $255,934 $496,601
Source: IMPLAN
Table 61: The Fiscal Impact of a $500,000 Renovation, Expansion, and Equipment Purchase
Tax on Production
and Imports:
and Imports: Sales and Imports: and Imports: and Imports: and Imports: S/L
Motor Vehicle
Tax Property Tax Severance Tax Other Taxes Non‐Taxes
Licenses
$11,589 $6,556 $160 $318 $986 $160
$442 $2,567 $406 $182 $71 $92
Source: IMPLAN
Table 62: The Economic Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Small Store with Annual Sales of $500,000

Direct Effect 2.5 $72,682 $96,133 $142,000
Indirect Effect 0.2 $5,083 $9,755 $19,015
Induced Effect 0.3 $7,658 $17,129 $29,709
Total Effect 3.0 $85,423 $123,018 $190,725
Source: IMPLAN

Table 63: The Fiscal Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Small Store with Annual Sales of $500,000
Tax on Production
and Imports:
Motor Vehicle
Licenses
$13,470 $7,620 $186 $369 $1,147 $186
$223 $1,313 $208 $93 $36 $47
Source: IMPLAN
164


Investments in Store Renovations, Expansion, and Equipment Purchases in Pearl River County
The preliminary analysis of HFFI census tracts 28109950600 and 28109950700 indicates no
existing retail sales gap in these two tracts; however, there may exist opportunities to renovate
or expand existing stores in specific areas to enable them to offer fresh fruits or vegetables in
order to increase access to affordable, nutritious food for community residents. To examine
the economic impact of these investments, it was assumed that an initial investment of
$500,000 is made in store renovations, expansions, and equipment purchases. It is then
assumed that annual sales revenues will be $500,000 during the ongoing operations of the
business, upon completion of these investments. These investments and the ongoing impact of
business operations are reported the state level; the Stennis Research Team ran individuals
models of this investment scenario for each county and found insignificant geographic variation
in the economic and fiscal impact associated with these investments, therefore the model
provided in this report provides a general guideline for similar investments that may be made in
any census tract in the state of Mississippi.
 An investment of $500,000 in a store renovation or expansion will support a total of
approximately 4.3 full‐time equivalent jobs during the construction phase of project
activities; of these, 2.7 jobs will be direct employment and an additional 1.6 jobs will be
indirect or induced jobs. The total labor income associated with this investment is
predicted to be approximately $196,050 (Table 60, page 164).
An investment of $500,000 in store renovation or expansion will generate approximately
$23,529 of tax revenue during the construction phase of project activities; of this amount,
$11,589 is associated with sales tax revenue (Table 61, page 164).
 Approximately 3.0 full‐time equivalent jobs will be associated with the ongoing operations
of a store with $500,000 in annual sales; of these, 2.5 direct jobs will be created at the store
with an additional 0.5 indirect and induced jobs. The labor income effect of the ongoing
operations of the store is projected to be $85,423 annually (Table 62, page 164).
The fiscal impact of the ongoing operations of a store with annual sales of $500,000 is
predicted to be $24,989 annually; of this amount, $15,006 is associated with sales tax,
personal income tax, and corporate income tax revenue (Table 63, page 164).

165



166


Sunflower County, Mississippi
Baltzer
Rome
** Denotes HFFI Qualifying Census Tract
Minot
Census Tract
Parchman
Lombardy
Fitzhugh
28133950100**
Dwiggins Whitney
Sandy Bayou

Drew
Brooks
Ballaston

Jaquith

Dockery
Ruleville
Halstead
White City Cottondale

28133950200**
Eastland
Steiner
Blaine
Shaw Pentecost
Roundaway
Frazier Dwyer
Stephenville
®
Boyer Sunflower
Furry
28133950300** Inwood
Faisonia
McDaniels

Holly Ridge 28133950401 Mattoon
Moorhead
28133950402**
Indianola Baird
JohnsonvilleMarkham

28133950500**
Woodburn
1
Inverness Southside
28133950600 Bowies
Waco
Kinlock
Gumwood Milroy
Elmwood Caile
0 1.5 3 6 9 12
Miles
New Town
Isola

Map 9: Sunflower County HFFI Qualifying Census Tracts
167

** Denotes an HFFI
Census Tract
28133950100**
28133950200**
® 28133950300**
28133950401
28133950402**
28133950500**
1
28133950600
0 1.5 3 6 9 12
Miles

Map 10: Sunflower County Reference Map
168


Eligible Healthy Food Financing Initiative Census Tracts in Sunflower County
Based upon the data from the USDA’s HFFI Locator Tool, there are five (5) census tracts located
in Sunflower County that are eligible HFFI census tracts and qualify for funding under the
Federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative; these are:
 Census Tract 28133950100 is designated a rural tract and is eligible based upon low income
and low access using vehicle access.
 Census Tract 28133950402 is designated an urban tract and is eligible based upon low
 Census Tract 28133950500 is designated an urban tract and is eligible based upon low
All eligible HFFI census tracts in Sunflower County also qualify to receive Federal New Market
Tax Credits.
There are approximately 22,944 people who live in HFFI census tracts in Sunflower County; this
represents approximately 79.9 percent of the total county population. There are approximately
5,689 children (age 0 to 17 years) and 2,232 seniors (age 65 and over) living in HFFI census
tracts in Sunflower County; this indicates that 82.2 percent of all children and 72.5 percent of all
seniors in Sunflower County live in HFFI qualifying census tracts.

169


Figure 18: Sunflower County Population 2000 through 2013
170


Overview of Sunflower County
Over the 13 year period from 2000 to 2013, Sunflower County’s population base has been in
steady decline, with an average population loss of slightly less than one percent per year
(Figure 18, page 170). In 2013, Sunflower County’s estimated population was 27,997; from
2000 to 2013, the county’s population decreased by 6,252 (a decline of 18.3). Among the 82
counties in Mississippi, Sunflower County experienced the third highest population loss over
the period from 2000 to 2013 and it had the 8th highest percentage rate of decrease in
population.
Table 64: Sunflower County Population by Census Tract
In the United States, 72.4 percent of
the population is White, 12.6 Percent of County
percent of the population is African Census Tract Total Population
Population
American, 9.1 percent of the
28133950100** 7,239 25.20%
population is Hispanic or Latino,219
28133950200** 4,697 16.35%
Asian, 1.7 percent of the population 28133950401 3,538 12.32%
is American Indian or Alaska Native, 28133950402** 5,878 20.47%
and the balance is some other race; 28133950500** 2,644 9.21%
in the U.S., 49.2 percent of the 28133950600 2,240 7.80%
population is male and 50.8 percent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012 5‐Year Estimates
of the population is female. ** Denotes HFFI Eligible Census Tract
In Sunflower County, 73.1 percent of the population is African American and 25.7 percent of
the population is White (Table 65, page 172). U.S. Census data indicates that 1.9 percent of the
population in census tract 28133950100 and 3.6 percent of the population in census tracts
28133950300 and 28133950402 is Hispanic or Latino; these three census tracts have the largest
Hispanic or Latino populations in Sunflower County. American Indians, Asians, and other
groups account for slightly less than one percent of the population. In Sunflower County,
approximately 53.1 percent of the population is male and 46.9 percent of the population is
female; as compared to the state of Mississippi and the United States, the relatively high
percentage of males in Sunflower County’s population is due to the inclusion of inmates at
Parchman Prison in Census Bureau data for Sunflower County (census tract 28133950100).

171


Table 65: Sunflower County Racial Distribution by Census Tract
Percent
Percent American Percent
Black or American Some
Total Percent Black or Indian and Percent Some
Census Tract White African Indian and Asian other
Population White African Alaska Asian Other
American Alaska race
American Native Race
Native
28133950100** 7,239 2,269 31.34% 4,958 68.49% 0 0.00% 3 0.04% 9 0.12%
28133950200** 4,697 1,371 29.19% 3,310 70.47% 0 0.00% 11 0.23% 0 0.00%
28133950300** 2,486 951 38.25% 1,424 57.28% 0 0.00% 3 0.12% 92 3.70%
28133950401 3,538 1,718 48.56% 1,777 50.23% 0 0.00% 34 0.96% 9 0.25%
28133950402** 5,878 57 0.97% 5,725 97.40% 26 0.44% 17 0.29% 17 0.29%
28133950500** 2,644 406 15.36% 2,197 83.09% 0 0.00% 8 0.30% 0 0.00%
28133950600 2,240 596 26.61% 1,606 71.70% 0 0.00% 27 1.21% 7 0.31%
Total 28,722 7,368 25.65% 20,997 73.10% 26 0.09% 103 0.36% 134 0.47%

172


In Sunflower County, 79.9 percent of the county’s total population lives in HFFI qualifying
census tracts. There are an estimated 17,614 African Americans living in Sunflower County’s
HFFI census tracts; this represents 83.9 percent of the total African American population in the
county and is significantly higher than the representation of African Americans as a percentage
of Sunflower County’s total population (73.1 percent). This high concentration of minority
populations within Sunflower County’s HFFI census tracts is similar to that found in research on
HFFI census tracts.220, 221, 222 There are two HFFI census tracts in Sunflower County where the
African American population exceeds 80 percent of the tracts’ population; these are: census
tract 28133950402 and 28133950500; in these tracts, the African American population
represents 97.4 percent and 83.1 percent of the population, respectively (Table 65, page 172).
In Sunflower County, 75.9 percent of all families live in an HFFI census tract. In Sunflower
County, there are 1,134 families that are female households with children under 18 that have
no husband present; this represents 19.2 percent of all family households in Sunflower County
(Table 66, page 174). There are 936 families that are female households with children under 18
and have no husband present who live in HFFI census tracts in Sunflower County; this
represents 82.5 percent of all single female households with children in Sunflower County; this
indicates that female households with no husband present who have children are concentrated
in HFFI census tracts in Sunflower County. Single females with children experience significantly
higher poverty as compared to other families with children. In Sunflower County, the poverty
rate for all families is 31.3 percent; for female households with no husband present that have
children under 18, the poverty rate is 59.5 percent in (Table 67, page 174). As shown in Table
67, the percentage of single female households with children that live in poverty is higher in
Sunflower County as compared with the state of Mississippi and is almost 20 percent higher
than that of the United States.
In Sunflower County, there are an estimated 6,923 children age 17 and under; they represent
24.1 percent of the total population. There are 5,689 children age 17 and under living in HFFI
census tracts in Sunflower County; they represent 82.2 percent of all children in Sunflower
County. With the exception of the census tract that contains Parchman Prison (census tract
28133950100), children represent a higher percentage of the total HFFI census tract population
when compared to the county average of 24.1 percent; for example, in HFFI census tract
38133950402, children age 17 and under represent 32.3 percent of the census tract’s
population as compared to 24.1 percent of Sunflower County’s total population. In

Medicine 27(3): 211‐217.
173


Table 66: Sunflower County Selected Gender, Age, and Family Population Data by Census Tract
Number of Female Percent of Tract
Percent of Tract Percent of Tract Households, No Families with Female
Total Percent Population 17 Population Number of
Census Tract Population 17 and Population 65 Husband Present, Householder, No
Population Female years and Under 65 and Over Families
Under and Over with Children Husband Present with
Under 18 Children under 18 Years
28133950100** 7,239 23.79% 1,083 14.96% 539 7.45% 868 124 14.29%
28133950200** 4,697 52.80% 1,290 27.46% 649 13.82% 1,114 164 14.72%
28133950300** 2,486 55.11% 707 28.44% 240 9.65% 616 139 22.56%
28133950401 3,538 58.82% 661 18.68% 564 15.94% 852 110 12.91%
28133950402** 5,878 55.50% 1,897 32.27% 537 9.14% 1,355 342 25.24%
28133950500** 2,644 52.69% 712 26.93% 267 10.10% 537 167 31.10%
28133950600 2,240 55.98% 573 25.58% 284 12.68% 573 88 15.36%
Total 28,722 47.22% 6,923 24.10% 3,080 10.72% 5,915 1,134 19.17%
Table 67: Percentage of Families and Individuals in Poverty in Sunflower County
Female Households,
All Families with All All Children Persons 65
Census Tract or All No Husband Present,
All people related children Children 5 to 17 years and
Geographic Area families with related children
under 18 years Under 5 years over
under 18 years
28133950100** 41.50% 34.80% 53.30% 80.30% 57.90% 69.40% 21.40%

28133950200** 28.70% 26.20% 32.30% 34.90% 48.50% 27.80% 18.00%
28133950300** 37.00% 31.00% 44.70% 64.80% 42.80% 48.30% 28.30%
28133950401 23.70% 21.00% 31.30% 63.60% 81.30% 11.00% 23.20%
28133950402** 41.90% 35.50% 48.10% 52.70% 63.30% 49.80% 24.10%
28133950500** 50.80% 47.10% 69.50% 78.30% 62.60% 72.90% 34.80%
28133950600 29.80% 26.50% 33.90% 56.60% 33.70% 52.30% 25.70%
Sunflower County 36.10% 31.30% 44.40% 59.50% 56.40% 47.60% 23.90%
United States 15.40% 11.30% 17.80% 40.00% 24.70% 20.00% 9.40%
174


Sunflower County, the percentage of children living in poverty is significant; the poverty rate for
children under 5 is 56.4 percent and the poverty rate for children age 5 to 17 is 47.6 percent
(Table 67, page 174). The percentage of children under 5 years old that live in poverty in
Sunflower County is almost 20 percent higher than that of the state of Mississippi and is more
than twice that of the United States’; the percentage of children between the age of 5 and 17
who live in poverty in Sunflower County is 17.1 percent higher than that of the state of
Mississippi and 27.6 percent higher than that of the United States’. Within the context of the
extreme child poverty that exists in Sunflower County, many HFFI census tracts exhibit child
poverty levels that are even higher than the county poverty rate for children; for example, in
census tract 28133950500, 62.6 percent of all children under 5 years old live in poverty and
72.9 percent of all children between the age of 5 to 17 live in poverty (Table 67, page 174).
Approximately 2,232 people age 65 and over live in HFFI census tracts in Sunflower County; this
represents 72.5 percent of the senior population in the county. Among people age 65 and over,
23.9 percent live in poverty in Sunflower County; Sunflower County’s poverty rate for seniors is
9.9 percent higher than that of the state of Mississippi and 14.5 percent higher than that of the
United States (Table 67, page 174). Approximately 66.4 percent of seniors who live alone
reside in HFFI census tracts in Sunflower County (Table 68, below). Faced with limited mobility,
increased dependence upon others for transportation, and limited access to affordable,
nutritious food, senior populations living in HFFI census tracts are at high risk for food insecurity
and the negative health outcomes associated with poor nutrition; this is particularly true for
seniors living in poverty because they must expend more income to obtain food from available
sources.
Table 68: Sunflower County Households and Families by Type
Sunflower Total in HFFI Percent in HFFI

Household by Type
County Total Census Tracts Census Tracts
With own children under 18 years 1,134 936 82.54%
65 years and over 786 522 66.41%
175


Table 69: Sunflower County Educational Attainment for the Population 25 and Older
High school Percent high Percent

9th to 12th Some Graduate or
Census Tract of Less than graduate Associate's Bachelor's school Bachelor's
grade, no college, no Professional
Geographic Area 9th grade (includes degree degree graduate or degree or
diploma degree degree
equivalency) higher higher
28133950100** 9.4% 26.7% 34.8% 18.6% 5.8% 3.3% 1.4% 63.9% 4.7%
28133950200** 14.7% 15.4% 19.0% 27.3% 7.4% 10.4% 5.8% 69.9% 16.1%
28133950300** 13.1% 20.4% 25.5% 26.1% 5.3% 6.1% 3.5% 66.5% 9.6%
28133950401 7.9% 5.5% 25.9% 28.3% 2.5% 17.0% 12.9% 86.6% 30.0%
28133950402** 14.0% 15.7% 24.8% 27.6% 4.6% 7.8% 5.4% 70.3% 13.2%
28133950500** 15.9% 18.4% 29.2% 22.5% 6.9% 4.2% 2.9% 65.7% 7.1%
28133950600 14.1% 11.4% 32.1% 21.5% 4.1% 10.5% 6.3% 74.5% 16.8%
Sunflower County 12.1% 17.7% 27.9% 24.1% 5.3% 7.9% 5.0% 70.2% 13.0%
State of Mississippi 6.4% 12.1% 30.5% 22.7% 8.1% 12.8% 7.3% 81.5% 20.1%
United States 5.9% 8.0% 28.1% 21.2% 7.8% 18.0% 10.8% 86.0% 28.8%

176


In Sunflower County, 70.2 percent of the population age 25 and over are high school graduates and
13.0 percent of the population has a Bachelor’s degree or higher; these educational attainment levels
are significantly lower than the educational attainment levels exhibited at the state level and at the
national level. For example, in the state of Mississippi, 81.5 percent of the population age 25 and
over are high school graduates and at the national level 86.0 percent of the population are high
school graduates. Of particular concern is the relatively high percentage of people in Sunflower
County that have either less than a 9th grade level of education or have completed some level of high
school, but have no high school diploma. Because of the relationship that exists between educational
attainment, income, poverty, obesity, and health outcomes, the probability exists that persons with
very low educational attainment will be more likely to live in poverty, are more likely to be obese and
to exhibit the negative health outcomes associated with obesity, and are also more likely to be
recipients of publicly funded health insurance or to have no health insurance — for these individuals,
living in an HFFI census tract further compounds the socioeconomic disadvantages they experience.
In Sunflower County, the percentage of the population age 25 and over that has less than a 9th grade
education is almost twice that of the state of Mississippi; 12.1 percent in Sunflower County as
compared to 6.4 percent at the state level (Table 69, page 176). In some HFFI census tracts, the
percent of the population age 25 and over with less than a 9th grade education is as high as 15.9
percent (census tract 28133950500). In Sunflower County, 17.7 percent of the population age 25 and
over has completed some level of high school but has no diploma; in HFFI census tracts 28133950300
and 28133950100, the percent of the population age 25 and over that has completed some level of
high school, but has no diploma, is 20.4 percent and 26.7 percent, respectively (Table 69, page 176).
Food Insecurity in Sunflower County
indicating that food insecurity had declined in the U.S. Across the United States, the average county‐
level food insecurity rate remained stable at 14.7 percent in 2011 and in 2012. In Mississippi, the
insecurity rate in the nation in 2012. In 2012, approximately 30.6 percent of all individuals in
Sunflower County were food insecure (8,940 people).
Child food insecurity rates are substantially higher than the overall food insecurity rate for the entire
population. In the U.S., the child food insecurity rate was 21.6 percent in 2012.224 In counties across
the United States, the county level of child food insecurity ranged from a low of six percent to a high
of 41 percent in 2012; food insecurity rates among households with children have been found to be
considerably higher than that in the general population. In 2012, the state level child food insecurity

224 Ibid.
177


Table 70: Sunflower County Comparative Employment and Income
Population 16
Census Tract or Number in the Civilian Percent In the Labor Percent Number Not in
years and
Geographic Area Labor Force Force Unemployed the Labor Force
over
28133950100** 6,220 1,621 21.6% 17.3% 4,590
28133950200** 3,542 1,771 38.9% 22.2% 1,771
28133950300** 1,803 1,025 43.0% 24.3% 778
28133950401 2,957 1,768 50.9% 14.9% 1,189
28133950402** 4,231 2,538 45.4% 24.4% 1,688
28133950500** 2,010 1,086 33.8% 37.5% 924
28133950600 1,742 991 49.4% 13.1% 751
Sunflower County 22,505 10,814 48.0% 21.7% 11,691
Mississippi 2,312,959 1,343,584 58.1% 11.1% 957,272
United States 246,191,954 157,113,886 64.3% 9.7% 87,994,377
Median
Percent of Households Percent of Housholds Percent of
Census Tract or Total household
with Income less than with Income between Households with
Geographic Area Households income
$10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 Earnings
(dollars)
28133950100** 1,284 17.0% 15.9% $28,768 71.3%
28133950200** 1,516 19.3% 12.3% $26,836 67.1%
28133950300** 856 21.1% 15.4% $25,197 68.8%
28133950401 1,304 13.2% 15.2% $35,833 68.2%
28133950402** 1,827 16.9% 9.9% $23,854 76.6%
28133950500** 783 25.8% 12.3% $19,244 58.2%
28133950600 824 13.8% 6.2% $31,034 72.9%
Sunflower County 8,394 17.7% 12.5% $26,619 69.9%
Mississippi 1,088,073 11.4% 8.1% $39,031 73.9%
United States 115,610,216 7.2% 5.4% $53,046 78.2%
178


rate ranged from a low of 10.6 percent in North Dakota to a high of 29.2 percent in New
Mexico. Mississippi had the second highest level of child food insecurity in the U.S.; with 28.7
percent of Mississippi’s children being food insecure, it is estimated that approximately 214,720
children in Mississippi are food insecure.225 In Sunflower County, it is estimated that 30.5
percent of children are food insecure; research indicates that among the 2,170 children living in
Sunflower County that are food insecure, approximately 69 percent are eligible for Federal
Nutrition Assistance programs but 31 percent are not eligible.226
Sunflower County Income by Source
In Sunflower County, the average unemployment rate among the population 16 and over was
21.7 percent; this unemployment rate was approximately 10.6 percent higher than the
unemployment rate for the state of Mississippi and 12.0 percent higher than the
unemployment rate for the United States (Table 70, page 178). With the exception of HFFI
census tract 28133950100, all HFFI census tracts in Sunflower County exhibit unemployment
rates that are higher than 21.7 percent and range as high as 37.5 percent in HFFI census tract
28133950500. With 48 percent of the population age 16 and over in the labor force, Sunflower
County exhibits a relatively low labor force participation rate; in the state of Mississippi, 58.1
percent of the population age 16 and over is in the labor force, and in the United States, 64.3
percent of the population in this age group is in the labor force.
The median household income in Sunflower County is $26,619; median household income in
Sunflower County is approximately $12,619 lower than the state of Mississippi’s median
page 178). Within the context of having median household incomes that are pervasively lower
throughout the county, the median household income in three of Sunflower County’s five HFFI
census tracts is lower than that of Sunflower County; for example, in HFFI census tract
28133950500, the median household income is $19,244 — $7,375 lower than the county wide
median household income of $26,619.
Of particular concern is the high percentage of households that have household incomes of less
than $15,000. In Sunflower County, approximately 30.2 percent of households have incomes of
less than $15,000; in the state of Mississippi, 19.5 percent of households have incomes of less
than $15,000, and in the U.S., this percentage rate is 12.6 percent (Table 70, page 178). Within
Sunflower County, HFFI census tracts have the highest percentage of households with incomes
of less than $15,000 (with the exception of census tract 28133950402); for example, in HFFI
census tracts 28133950500 and 28133950300, the percentage of households with incomes of

225 Ibid.
179


Table 71: Sunflower County Comparative Earnings and Income by Source
Percent of Percent of Mean Mean cash
Mean Percent of Mean Social Mean Households Households
Households Households Supplemental public
Census Tract or earnings Households Security retirement with cash with Food
with with Security assistance
Geographic Area (dollars) for with Social income income public Stamp/SNAP
retirement Supplemental Income income
Households Security (dollars) (dollars) assistance benefits in the
income Security Income (dollars) (dollars)
28133950100** $37,638 30.8% $13,826 19.3% $14,587 14.9% $6,978 4.4% $2,177 34.9%
28133950200** $39,629 36.1% $13,110 17.3% $15,334 18.5% $8,393 5.1% $1,474 40.6%
28133950300** $36,362 32.1% $12,659 12.7% $17,761 17.4% $7,238 5.8% $1,260 30.0%
28133950401 $71,115 30.4% $14,658 23.0% $16,746 14.6% $8,743 2.3% $8,213 22.2%
28133950402** $33,153 34.1% $11,910 19.8% $11,922 13.1% $10,538 4.2% $1,397 47.1%
28133950500** $27,707 41.3% $12,823 13.7% $10,925 18.4% $7,031 7.0% $3,265 45.1%
28133950600 $44,041 35.6% $13,483 16.6% $12,623 12.9% $8,863 0.8% $3,286 30.8%
Sunflower County $41,743 34.0% $13,125 18.2% $14,303 15.5% $8,388 4.2% $2,432 36.7%
Mississippi $56,908 32.6% $15,673 17.5% $19,739 7.8% $8,426 2.8% $2,756 17.4%
United States $75,017 28.9% $17,189 17.7% $23,589 4.9% $9,152 2.8% $3,808 12.4%
180


less than $15,000 is 38.1 percent and 36.5 percent, respectively. Within Sunflower County’s
HFFI qualifying census tracts, there are approximately 2,001 households with incomes of less
than $15,000; this represents 78.9 percent of all households in Sunflower County with incomes
of less than $15,000. There are approximately 1,486 households in Sunflower County with
incomes of less than $10,000; 80.9 percent of these households live in Sunflower County’s HFFI
census tracts.
Within Sunflower County, approximately 69.9 percent of households have earnings from
employment (Table 70, page 178); this percentage rate is lower than that of the state of
Mississippi (73.9 percent) and lower than that of the United States (78.2 percent). For
households with income from earnings, mean household earnings in Sunflower County are
$41,743 (Table 71, page 180). Other sources of household income include Social Security,
Retirement Income, Supplemental Security Income, and Cash Public Assistance. In Sunflower
County, approximately 34.0 percent of households receive Social Security Income; this is slightly
higher than the 32.6 percent of households in the state of Mississippi that receive Social
Security Income and the 28.9 percent of households in the U.S. that receive Social Security
Income.
In Sunflower County, 18.2 percent of households have retirement income; this reflects a
greater percentage of households with retirement income as compared to either the state of
Mississippi (17.5 percent) or the United States (17.7 percent). In Sunflower County, the mean
retirement income is $14,303; this is $5,436 lower than the mean household retirement income
of $19,739 in the state of Mississippi and $9,286 lower than the U.S. mean household
retirement income of $23,589 (Table 71, page 180). HFFI census tracts 28133950402 and
28133950500 exhibit an extraordinarily low mean retirement income; these two census tracts
have mean retirement incomes of $11,922 and $10,925, respectively.
remainder are disabled. Children may qualify for SSI benefits if they are disabled. In Sunflower
County, 15.5 percent of households receive SSI income; this is nearly twice the statewide
percentage of 7.8 percent of households that receive Supplemental Security Income.
Cash Public Assistance programs are designed to enable households with limited income to
meet the basic needs of living to include shelter, food, utilities, daily living expenses, and child
care. In Mississippi, adults who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) must
participate in a work program. In Sunflower County, approximately 4.2 percent of households
receive Cash Public Assistance; this compares with 2.8 percent of households in the state of
Mississippi and the United States (Table 71, page 180). In all of the HFFI qualifying census
tracts, the percentage of households receiving Cash Public Assistance is equal to or higher than
that of Sunflower County; in HFFI census tract 28133950500, 7.0 percent of households receive
181


Table 72: Sunflower County Employment by Industry
Census Tract or Agriculture
population 16 years Construction Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Warehousing/
Geographic Area and Mining
and over Utilities
28133950100** 1,341 11.7% 4.2% 7.5% 6.3% 14.7% 2.7%
28133950200** 1,377 14.0% 5.2% 12.1% 0.0% 3.8% 1.4%
28133950300** 776 17.8% 5.3% 6.6% 2.8% 15.5% 3.1%
28133950401 1,505 2.7% 8.0% 6.0% 1.9% 10.1% 3.9%
28133950402** 1,919 2.2% 1.7% 16.4% 4.0% 21.5% 8.9%
28133950500** 679 13.5% 2.4% 6.3% 17.7% 19.3% 2.7%
28133950600 861 9.8% 8.2% 9.1% 4.3% 13.0% 10.3%
Sunflower County 8,458 8.8% 4.8% 10.0% 4.3% 13.9% 4.9%
Sunflower Numeric 8,458 746 409 844 367 1,177 415
Mississippi 1,194,436 3.0% 6.9% 12.9% 2.6% 11.8% 5.7%
United States 141,864,697 1.9% 6.2% 10.5% 2.8% 11.6% 4.9%
Arts/
Census Tract or Scientific/ Services/ Health Public
Information Insurance/ Recreation/ except Public
Geographic Area Management/ Care/ Social Administration
Real Estate Accommodation/ Administration
Food Services
28133950100** 0.2% 2.5% 4.3% 20.2% 5.1% 3.6% 17.2%

28133950200** 0.0% 3.3% 2.7% 40.2% 2.3% 3.5% 11.4%
28133950300** 2.1% 8.1% 0.4% 27.6% 3.2% 4.0% 3.6%
28133950401 0.0% 6.0% 2.1% 27.0% 15.1% 10.9% 6.2%
28133950402** 0.0% 2.4% 4.3% 18.9% 10.9% 2.0% 6.9%
28133950500** 4.0% 2.8% 1.2% 17.4% 4.0% 3.2% 5.6%
28133950600 1.3% 2.0% 1.3% 21.3% 4.5% 6.6% 8.4%
Sunflower County 0.7% 3.7% 2.7% 24.9% 7.4% 4.8% 8.9%
Sunflower Numeric 57 316 229 2,110 628 408 752
Mississippi 1.4% 4.9% 6.3% 24.4% 9.4% 5.0% 5.7%
United States 2.2% 6.7% 10.8% 23.2% 9.3% 5.0% 5.0%


182


income from Cash Public Assistance programs.
In Sunflower County, 36.7 percent of households receive SNAP (Food Stamps) benefits; this is
approximately 19.3 percent higher than the percentage rate of households in Mississippi that
receive SNAP benefits and 24.3 percent higher than the percentage of households in the United
States that receive SNAP benefits. As shown in Table 71 (page 180), the majority of HFFI census
tracts in Sunflower County exhibit a higher percentage rate of households receiving SNAP
benefits as compared to the county level; in some HFFI census tracts, the percentage of
households with SNAP benefits exceeds 40 percent and is as high as 47.1 percent in census
tract 28133950402.
The Sunflower County Workforce
force in Sunflower County is employed in the Educational Services, Health Care, and Social
Assistance sectors of the economy; in Sunflower County, employment in these sectors
represents approximately 24.9 percent of total employment (Table 72, page 182).227
In Sunflower County, approximately 13.9 percent of the population is employed in the Retail
higher in Sunflower County than it is in either the state of Mississippi (11.8 percent) or the
United States (11.6 percent). There are four HFFI census tracts in Sunflower County where the
sector
sector
sector
sector

The Manufacturing sector employs approximately 10.0 percent of Sunflower County’s

227 Author’s note: the data provided in this section of the report uses American Community Survey 5‐year estimates to provide
valid comparable analysis across census tracts and other geographic areas; subsequent sections of this report will use more
recent data that is specific to Sunflower County, but not available at the census tract level of analysis to conduct economic
analysis. It is also important to note that ACS 5‐year estimate data defines the industry in which the workforce is employed but
does not define the location of the industry; for example a worker who resides in an HFFI census tract in Sunflower County may
be employed in the Manufacturing sector in a county or geographic area that may be within Sunflower County or outside of
Sunflower County.
183


workforce employed in the Manufacturing sector is lower in Sunflower County than it is in
either the state of Mississippi (12.9 percent) or the U.S. (10.5 percent). There are two HFFI
qualifying census tracts where the percentage of the workforce that is employed in the
Manufacturing sector is higher than the percentage rate for Sunflower County; these are:

The Public Administration sector represents the fourth largest employer in Sunflower County,
with 8.9 percent of the civilian employed population age 16 and over working in Public
Administration. In Sunflower County, employment in the Public Administration is higher than
that of the state of Mississippi (5.7 percent). In two HFFI census tracts, employment in the
Public Administration sector is quite high, with 17.2 percent of the civilian employed population
age 16 and over working in Public Administration in census tract 28133950100 and 11.4 percent
of the civilian employed population age 16 and over working in Public Administration in census
tract 28133950200 (Table 72, page 182).
In Sunflower County, 8.8 percent of the employed civilian population 16 years and over is
employed in Agriculture or Mining; this is 5.8 percent higher than the percentage of this
population that is employed in Agriculture or Mining at the state level and 5.9 percent higher
than in the United States (Table 72, page 182).
The median earnings for all workers in Sunflower County was $19,238, as compared to median
Table 73: Median Earnings for Workers in Sunflower County
184


States (Table 73, page 184). In Sunflower County, the median earnings for male full‐time
workers that held steady year‐round jobs was $30,481; the median earnings for female full‐
time workers that held steady year‐round jobs was $26,230. In Sunflower County, the median
earnings for male full‐time, year‐round workers was $10,261 lower than the median earnings
for male full‐time, year‐round workers in the state of Mississippi. In Sunflower County, the
median earnings for female full‐time, year‐round workers was $4,374 lower than the median
earnings for female full‐time, year‐round workers in the state of Mississippi (Table 73, page
184).

185


Table 74: Health Insurance Coverage for the Civilian Non‐Institutionalized Population in Sunflower County
No health Population Under 18
insurance Years with No Health
coverage Insurance Coverage
28133950100** 2,964 1,529 1,735 694 65
28133950200** 3,661 1,713 2,210 869 77
28133950300** 1,937 1,000 1,113 549 110
28133950401 2,934 2,053 1,306 478 36
28133950402** 4,590 1,923 3,075 1,236 106
28133950500** 1,926 817 1,275 707 45
28133950600 1,677 977 918 563 106
Sunflower County 19,689 10,012 11,632 5,096 545
Mississippi 2,392,262 1,667,737 1,035,758 506,225 68,473
United States 258,778,088 203,379,999 89,277,994 45,206,153 5,953,533
No health Population Under 18
insurance Years with No Health
coverage Insurance Coverage
28133950100** 81.0% 41.8% 47.4% 19.0% 6.0%

28133950200** 80.8% 37.8% 48.8% 19.2% 6.0%
28133950300** 77.9% 40.2% 44.8% 22.1% 15.6%
28133950401 86.0% 60.2% 38.3% 14.0% 5.4%
28133950402** 78.8% 33.0% 52.8% 21.2% 5.6%
28133950500** 73.1% 31.0% 48.4% 26.9% 6.3%
28133950600 74.9% 43.6% 41.0% 25.1% 18.5%
Sunflower County 79.4% 40.4% 46.9% 20.6% 7.9%
Mississippi 82.5% 57.5% 35.7% 17.5% 9.1%
United States 85.1% 66.9% 29.4% 14.9% 8.1%

186


Health Care Insurance in Sunflower County
In Sunflower County, 79.4 percent of the civilian, non‐institutionalized population has health
percent has public health insurance coverage (approximately 11,632 people). There are 9,408
people living in HFFI census tracts in Sunflower County that have public health insurance
coverage; this represents 80.9 percent of the Sunflower County population that has public
health insurance coverage.
The percentage of the civilian, non‐institutionalized population in Sunflower County with no
health insurance coverage (20.6 percent) is 3.1 percent higher than that of the state of
Mississippi (17.5 percent), and is 5.7 percentage points higher than the U.S. percentage rate of
14.9 percent (Table 74, page 186). The percentage rate of children under 18 with no health
insurance coverage in Sunflower County (7.9 percent) is lower than that of the state of
Mississippi (9.1 percent) and is also lower than that of the United States’. Due to the relatively
low income levels and high poverty rates exhibited in Sunflower County, it is likely that a high
percentage of children in Sunflower County are eligible for the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program; this may explain the relatively low percentage of children with no health
insurance in Sunflower County. There are approximately 403 children under the age of 18 with
no health insurance coverage who live in Sunflower County HFFI census tracts; this represents
73.9 percent of the children under the age of 18 in Sunflower County that have no health
insurance coverage.
There are 5,096 people living in Sunflower County who have no health insurance coverage;
4,055 of these individuals live in HFFI census tracts and represent 79.6 percent of all people in
Sunflower County who have no health insurance coverage.
As discussed in prior sections of this report, the healthcare expenditures associated with
recipients of public health insurance are higher than those who are covered by private
insurance; these healthcare costs and those of the uninsured are predominantly paid for by
federal and state governments or by hospitals and physicians and ultimately paid for by tax
revenues or by a “hidden tax” on the cost of healthcare. Public policies that are designed to
increase the affordability and accessibility of healthy food in underserved communities have a
primary purpose of improving the nutrition and health of the residents in these communities,
and specifically, to reduce obesity and the related healthcare cost of obesity.
187


Table 75: Sunflower County Estimated Household Spending on Food
Food at Home Spending
Food Away from Food Away from Spending
Average Food at Home Index Food Total Food
Census Tract Home Average Home Total Index Food
Household Total Spending Away from Spending
Household Spending Spending at Home
Spending Home
28133950100** $2,717.57 $3,676,872 $1,527.94 $2,067,308 53 48 $5,744,180
28133950200** $3,051.92 $4,660,279 $1,740.17 $2,657,234 60 54 $7,317,513
28133950300** $3,269.67 $2,798,836 $1,848.25 $1,582,102 64 58 $4,380,938
28133950401 $3,325.21 $4,359,354 $1,977.72 $2,592,796 65 62 $6,952,150
28133950402** $2,045.86 $3,934,195 $1,195.83 $2,299,584 40 37 $6,233,779
28133950500** $2,587.72 $2,134,873 $1,512.56 $1,247,859 51 47 $3,382,732
28133950600 $3,685.54 $3,261,703 $2,079.95 $1,840,759 72 65 $5,102,462
Sunflower County $2,856.57 $24,826,112 $1,644.98 $14,287,642 56 51 $39,113,754

188


The Economic Impact of Investments in Sunflower County
investment, and the geographic location of the investment which will determine the size of the
census tract; depending upon site selection a store may draw customers from more than one
census tract. As shown in Table 75 on page 188, household spending for food at home varies
by census tract; average household spending for food at home in Sunflower County’s HFFI
census tracts tends to be lower than the county‐wide average household spending of
$2,856.57. Sunflower County’s food at home spending index is 56 (Table 75, page 188). Table
76, below, provides an estimate of total food spending on food at home by households within
each census tract and also provides an estimate of the supply of food at home that is met by
stores within the census tract. The retail gap is an estimate of the unmet demand for food at
home within the census tract; positive values indicate that demand for food at home exceeds
that which is supplied by stores within the census tract, while negative retail gap dollar values
indicate that stores within a census tract are meeting demand for food at home by households
that do not live in that census tract. Sunflower County’s negative retail gap of approximately
$24.5 million indicates that grocery stores in Sunflower County are supplying to consumers who
are drawn from outside of the county.
Sunflower County’s household fruit and vegetable spending index of 55 indicates that
households in Sunflower County spend slightly more than one‐half the amount that U.S.
households spend on fruits and vegetables (Table 76, below). In many of Sunflower County’s
HFFI census tracts, the household fruit and vegetable spending index is extremely low; for
example, in HFFI census tract 28133950500, the household fruit and vegetable spending
Table 76: Sunflower County Household Spending on Food at Home and the Food Retail Spending Gap
Food &
Food at Home Spending on
Census Tract or Estimated Vegetable
Total Retail Gap Fruits &
Geographic Area Supply Spending
Spending Vegetables
Index
28133950100** $3,676,872 $4,473,788 ‐$796,916 $647,570 50
28133950200** $4,660,279 $32,918,405 ‐$28,258,126 $831,650 57
28133950300** $2,798,836 $667,779 $2,131,057 $495,787 60
28133950401 $4,359,354 $8,484,085 ‐$4,124,731 $800,484 63
28133950402** $3,934,195 $2,333,041 $1,601,154 $718,648 39
28133950500** $2,134,873 $0 $2,134,873 $389,972 49
28133950600 $3,261,703 $445,186 $2,816,517 $568,898 67
Sunflower County $24,826,112 $49,322,284 ‐$24,496,172 $4,453,009 55
Source: Consumer Spending data is derived from 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Surveys; Estimated supply is from Dunn
and Bradstreet, sourced from ESRI Forecasts
189


Table 77: The Economic Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Sunflower County

Direct Effect 68.2 $1,818,890 $1,913,838 $6,570,000
Indirect Effect 15.5 $448,892 $686,680 $1,485,944
Induced Effect 7.1 $210,859 $463,049 $766,986
Total Effect 90.7 $2,478,641 $3,063,567 $8,822,929
Source: IMPLAN
Table 78: The Fiscal Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Sunflower County
Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production

and Imports: Sales and Imports: Property and Imports: Motor and Imports: and Imports: and Imports: S/L
Tax Tax Vehicle Licenses Severance Tax Other Taxes Non‐Taxes
$118,194 $66,862 $1,630 $3,241 $10,060 $1,634
Personal Tax: Income Personal Tax:
Tax Property Taxes
$4,267 $31,584 $4,994 $2,239 $870 $1,128
Source: IMPLAN


Direct Effect 26.4 $680,958 $926,055 $1,406,166
Indirect Effect 1.6 $54,183 $90,986 $169,456
Induced Effect 2.3 $68,391 $150,188 $248,764
Total Effect 30.3 $803,532 $1,167,229 $1,824,387
Source: IMPLAN

and Imports: Sales and Imports: Property and Imports: Motor and Imports: and Imports: and Imports: S/L
Tax Tax Vehicle Licenses Severance Tax Other Taxes Non‐Taxes
$132,137 $74,749 $1,822 $3,623 $11,247 $1,826

Personal Tax: Income Personal Tax:
Tax Property Taxes
$1,375 $10,256 $1,622 $727 $282 $366

Source: IMPLAN

190


index is 49 — this census tract also indicates a grocery spending retail gap of approximately
$2,134,873. This level of spending would be sufficient to support a grocery store; alternatively,
a store that is properly located within this census tract might be able to attract grocery
spending from census tract 28133950600, a non‐qualified HFFI census tract with a retail gap of
$2,816,517. The combined food at home spending of census tracts 28133950500 and
2813395060 ($4,951,290) might be sufficient to support an independent supermarket;
depending upon site selection, a supermarket in this area might also be able to attract spending
from rural areas outside of Sunflower County. In Sunflower County HFFI census tract
28133950300, the food at home retail spending gap is $2,131,057; this level of spending is
sufficient to support a grocery store. These two levels of potential investment in Sunflower
County were evaluated using an econometric input‐output, as follows:
The Economic Impact of a Supermarket Investment in a Sunflower County
foot supermarket with estimated annual sales of $4,951,290 upon the completion of
construction and the start‐up of business operations; modeled at the county level. Based
upon these assumptions, the economic effect of this investment would be the generation of
approximately 90.7 full‐time equivalent jobs with associated labor income of $2,478,641.
During construction, the direct employment effect is estimated to be 68.2 construction‐
related jobs with associated labor income of $1,818,890; an additional 22.6 indirect and
induced full‐time equivalent jobs would be supported in Sunflower County over the
duration of construction activities (Table 77, page 190).

The fiscal impact of this investment during the construction phase of project activities is
projected to generate an estimated $246,703 in tax revenues (Table 78, page 190); of this
amount, sales tax revenues are projected to be $118,194 and property tax revenues are
estimated to be $67,732 (combined property tax revenues on production and imports with
personal property tax revenues).

The economic and fiscal impact of construction activities are one‐time events and limited to
the duration of expenditures associated with construction.

 Upon the completion of construction activities and the start‐up of business activities, and
assuming annual sales of $4,951,290, the economic effect of a supermarket project in
Sunflower County is projected to generate approximately 30.3 jobs in Sunflower County
with associated labor income of $803,532. An estimated 26.4 full‐time equivalent direct
jobs would be created at the store, and an additional 3.9 full‐time equivalent indirect and
induced jobs would be created in Sunflower County (Table 79, page 190).
191


Table 81: The Economic Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Sunflower County

Direct Effect 30.3 $808,396 $850,595 $2,920,000
Indirect Effect 6.9 $199,508 $305,191 $660,419
Induced Effect 3.1 $93,715 $205,799 $340,883
Total Effect 40.3 $1,101,618 $1,361,585 $3,921,302
Source: IMPLAN

Table 82: The Fiscal Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Sunflower County

and Imports: Sales and Imports: and Imports: Motor and Imports: and Imports: Other and Imports: S/L
Tax Property Tax Vehicle Licenses Severance Tax Taxes Non‐Taxes
$52,531 $29,717 $724 $1,440 $4,471 $726
Corporate Profits Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Other
NonTaxes (Fines‐ Motor Vehicle
Tax Income Tax Property Taxes Tax (Fish/Hunt)
Fees) License
$1,896 $14,037 $2,220 $995 $387 $501
Source: IMPLAN


Direct Effect 11.4 $293,087 $398,578 $605,220
Indirect Effect 0.7 $23,321 $39,161 $72,935
Induced Effect 1.0 $29,436 $64,642 $107,069
Total Effect 13 $345,844 $502,381 $785,224
Source: IMPLAN


$56,872 $32,172 $784 $1,559 $4,841 $786
Corporate Profits Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Other
NonTaxes (Fines‐ Motor Vehicle
Tax Income Tax Property Taxes Tax (Fish/Hunt)
Fees) License
$592 $4,414 $698 $313 $122 $158
Source: IMPLAN
192


The annual fiscal impact of the ongoing operations of a supermarket in Sunflower County
with estimated annual sales of $4,951,290 is projected to be $240,032. The annual sales tax
revenues associated with this investment are projected to be $132,137 and the personal
income tax revenue is estimated to be $10,256 (Table 80, page 190).
The Economic Impact of a Grocery Store Investment in Sunflower County
foot grocery store with annual sales of $2,131,057 was modeled at the county level using
econometric input‐output software. Based upon these assumptions, approximately 40.3
full‐time equivalent jobs would be supported during the construction phase of project
activities; of these, 30.3 would be on‐site direct construction jobs with associated labor
income of approximately $808,396. An additional 10 indirect and induced full‐time
equivalent jobs would be created during the construction phase of project activities (Table
81, page 192).
$109,645; of this amount, associated sales tax revenues are estimated to be $52,531 and
personal income tax revenues are projected to be $14,037 (Table 82, page 192).
 The ongoing operations of a grocery store located in Sunflower County with estimated
annual sales of approximately $2,131,057 would create approximately 13.0 full‐time
equivalent jobs, with associated labor income of $345,844 annually. An estimated 11.4
direct jobs would be associated with the ongoing operations of the store, creating
employment opportunities for the residents living within an underserved community (Table
83, page 192).
$103,311; of this amount, sales tax revenues are projected to be $56,872 and personal
income tax revenues are projected to be $4,414 (Table 84, page 192).

193


194


Washington County, Mississippi
Census Tract
Priscilla
Winterville Nepanee
Helm
Hunt
Brighton
Tamburo
28151000200 Heads
Metcalfe
Magenta Ingrams
28151000300** StonevilleElizabeth Dunleith
28151000400**
28151001300** 28151001600** Hollyknowe
28151000600** 28151001700**
28151000900**28151001400** Leland Geneill
28151000701 Isenberg
28151000702 Aldridge
Greenville BurdetteHaysAlmy Tribbett
28151000800
Bourbon
Refuge Wilmot
Osseola28151000100
Johnston McGrath
Wayside Manhattan Tralake
Arcola
Floyd
Avon McCutcheon Darlove
®
Estill Empire
James
28151002100**
28151001500** Hollandale
28151002000
Longwood
Overby
Kongo Murphy
Percy
ChathamLeota Erwin
Byrne City Foote
Marathon
Alhambra Hampton
Spencer
Glen AllanWoodside
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10

Miles
Map 11: Washington County HFFI Qualifying Census Tracts
195

** Denotes an HFFI
Census Tract
28151000200
28151000300**
28151000400**
28151001300** 28151001600**
28151000600** 28151001700**
28151000900**
28151001400**
28151000701
28151000702
28151000800
28151000100
® 28151001500**
28151002100**
28151002000
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10

Miles

Map 12: Washington County Reference Map
196


Eligible Healthy Food Financing Initiative Census Tracts in Washington County
Based upon the data from the USDA’s HFFI Locator Tool, there are thirteen (13) census tracts
located in Washington County that are eligible and qualify for funding under the Federal
Healthy Food Financing Initiative; these are:
income and low access measured at ½ and 10 miles, and low income and low access using
vehicle access.
vehicle access.
vehicle access.
income and low access measured at ½ and 10 miles
income and low access measured at 1 and 10 miles, and at ½ and 10 miles
miles.

197


In Washington County, an estimated 34,695 people live in qualifying HFFI census tracts; this
represents approximately 49.1 percent of the total county population. There are approximately
10,006 children (age 0 to 17 years) and 4,163 seniors (age 65 and over) living in HFFI census
tracts in Washington County; 71.6 percent of all children and 65.7 percent of all seniors in
Washington County live in qualifying HFFI census tracts (Table 87, page 204).228

228 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012 5‐Year Estimates.
198


199


Figure 19: Washington County Population 2000 through 2013
200


Overview of Washington County, Mississippi
In 2013, Washington County had a population of 49,688 (Figure 19, page 200). Although
population decline has slowed in recent years, Washington County’s population has
experienced an average annual decrease of 1.8 percent over the period from 2000 to 2013
(Figure 19, page 200), and with a population loss of 12,969 people, it had the largest population
decline among the 82 counties in the state of Mississippi. Despite this population loss,
Washington County had the 15th largest population among the 82 counties in the state of
Mississippi in 2013. Table 85: Washington County Population by Census Tract
According to the 2010 U.S. Census,229 Percent of County
Census Tract Total Population
in the United States, 72.4 percent of Population
28151000100 1,615 3.19%
the population is White, 12.6 percent
28151000200 1,814 3.59%
of the population is African
28151000300** 3,713 7.34%
American, 9.1 percent of the 28151000400** 3,310 6.54%
population is Hispanic or Latino,230 28151000600** 2,680 5.30%
5.6 percent of the population is 28151000701 3,512 6.94%
Asian, 1.7 percent of the population 28151000702 4,080 8.07%
is American Indian or Alaska Native, 28151000800 3,439 6.80%
and the balance is some other race; 28151000900** 2,913 5.76%
in the U.S., 49.2 percent of the 28151001000** 1,251 2.47%
population is male and 50.8 percent 28151001100** 1,744 3.45%
28151001200** 2,226 4.40%
of the population is female.
28151001300** 2,462 4.87%
In the state of Mississippi, 60.1 28151001400** 3,812 7.54%
percent of the population is White, 28151001500** 4,315 8.53%
28151001700** 2,978 5.89%
African American, and less than 2
28151002000 1,423 2.81%
percent of the population is
28151002100** 1,290 2.55%
comprised of some other racial Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012 5‐Year Estimates
group; in Mississippi, 48.3 percent of **Denotes HFFI Eligible Census Tract
the population is male and 51.7 percent of the population is female.
In Washington County, 70.9 percent of the population is African American and 26.9 percent of
the population is White (Table 86, page 202).

229 Author’s Note: there is variation between the data reported for the 2010 U.S. Census, U.S. Census Population Estimates and
the data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2012 5‐year Estimates. Unless specified, this report uses
American Community Survey 2012 5‐year estimates to make census tract level comparisons. When not provided within the
body of this report, supporting tables and documentation are provided in the appendices of this report.

201


Table 86: Washington County Racial Distribution by Census Tract
American Percent
Percent
Black or Indian and American
Total Percent Black or Percent Some other Percent Some
Census Tract White African Alaska Indian and Asian
Population White African Asian Race other Race
American Native Alaska
American
alone Native alone
28151000100 1,615 850 52.63% 729 45.14% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 25 1.55%
28151000200 1,814 379 20.89% 1,435 79.11% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28151000300** 3,713 179 4.82% 3,450 92.92% 71 1.91% 0 0.00% 5 0.13%
28151000400** 3,310 0 0.00% 3,301 99.73% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28151000600* 2,680 34 1.27% 2,641 98.54% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28151000701 3,512 1,417 40.35% 2,044 58.20% 0 0.00% 35 1.00% 0 0.00%
28151000702 4,080 2,292 56.18% 1,212 29.71% 0 0.00% 210 5.15% 321 7.87%
28151000800 3,439 1,752 50.95% 1,662 48.33% 0 0.00% 25 0.73% 0 0.00%
28151000900** 2,913 829 28.46% 2,057 70.61% 11 0.38% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28151001000** 1,251 35 2.80% 1,135 90.73% 5 0.40% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28151001100** 1,744 18 1.03% 1,717 98.45% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28151001200** 2,226 50 2.25% 2,156 96.86% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28151001300** 2,462 114 4.63% 2,321 94.27% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28151001400** 3,812 1,061 27.83% 2,745 72.01% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28151001500** 4,315 3,046 70.59% 1,235 28.62% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 34 0.79%
28151001600** 2,001 647 32.33% 1,305 65.22% 3 0.15% 25 1.25% 11 0.55%
28151001700** 2,978 595 19.98% 2,372 79.65% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 0.13%
28151002000 1,423 263 18.48% 1,160 81.52% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
28151002100** 1,290 86 6.67% 1,202 93.18% 2 0.16% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total 50,578 13,647 26.98% 35,879 70.94% 92 0.18% 295 0.58% 400 0.79%
202


In Washington County, 68.6 percent of the total population lives in HFFI census tracts.
Approximately 27,637 African Americans live in Washington County’s HFFI census tracts,
representing 77.0 percent of the total African American population in the county; this is
statistically higher than the representation of African Americans in Washington County’s total
population (70.9 percent). The higher concentration of minority populations within
Washington County’s HFFI census tracts repeats the pattern found in other research on HFFI
census tracts.231, 232, 233 There are eight HFFI census tracts in Washington County where the
African American population exceeds 90 percent of the tract’s population; these are: Census
Tract 28151000300, Census Tract 28151000400, Census Tract 28151000600, Census Tract
28151001000, Census Tract 28151001100, Census Tract 28151001200, Census Tract
28151001300, and Census Tract 28151002100 (Table 86, page 202).
Women are disproportionally represented in Washington County’s HFFI census tracts. There
are approximately 27,007 females living in Washington County; they represent 53.4 percent of
the county’s population. Approximately 18,989 females live in HFFI census tracts in
Washington County; this represents 70.3 percent of Washington County’s female population.
In some of Washington County’s HFFI census tracts, women represent a significantly higher
percentage of the census tract’s population as compared to the county average; for example, in
census tract 28151000300 and in census tract 28151001200, females represent 62.8 percent
and 58.2 percent of the total population, respectively (Table 87, page 204).
In Washington County, there are 2,921 families that are female households with children under
18 and no husband present; this represents 23.5 percent of all family households in Washington
County. There are 2,206 families that are female households with children under 18 and have
no husband present who live in HFFI census tracts in Washington County; this represents 75.5
percent of all single female households with children in Washington County (Table 88, page
205). These families and their children are at the highest risk of poverty, at the highest risk for
food insecurity, and are the most likely to be detrimentally impacted by poor nutrition and the
negative health outcomes that have been found to be associated with living in an underserved
community, as reported in prior sections of this report.
Of the 12,412 families in Washington County, 66.7 percent live in HFFI census tracts (Table 88,
page 205). In Washington County, 27.6 percent of the population are children (age 17 and
under) — an estimated 13,973 children. There are many HFFI qualifying census tracts in

Medicine 27(3): 211‐217.
203


Table 87: Washington County Selected Gender, Age, and Family Population Data by Census Tract
Number of
Percent of Tract Families
Female
Population 17 Percent of Tract Percent of Tract with Female
Total Percent Population Number of Households, No
Census Tract years and Population 17 and Population 65 and Householder, No
Population Female 65 and Over Families Husband Present,
Under Under Over Husband Present with
with Children
Children under 18 Years
Under 18
28151000100 1,615 51.21% 402 24.89% 134 8.30% 406 41 10.10%

28151000200 1,814 52.92% 566 31.20% 236 13.01% 476 114 23.95%
28151000300** 3,713 62.78% 1,283 34.55% 374 10.07% 806 292 36.23%
28151000400** 3,310 54.80% 928 28.04% 307 9.27% 767 237 30.90%
28151000600** 2,680 53.51% 498 18.58% 293 10.93% 628 92 14.65%
28151000701 3,512 49.74% 860 24.49% 557 15.86% 841 141 16.77%
28151000702 4,080 49.56% 889 21.79% 625 15.32% 1,186 88 7.42%
28151000800 3,439 52.05% 827 24.05% 445 12.94% 904 223 24.67%
28151000900** 2,913 57.71% 982 33.71% 377 12.94% 672 150 22.32%
28151001000** 1,251 47.48% 392 31.33% 126 10.07% 242 107 44.21%
28151001100** 1,744 53.04% 407 23.34% 164 9.40% 409 116 28.36%
28151001200** 2,226 58.22% 477 21.43% 613 27.54% 485 90 18.56%
28151001300** 2,462 51.54% 963 39.11% 195 7.92% 535 183 34.21%
28151001400** 3,812 55.77% 1,316 34.52% 319 8.37% 965 266 27.56%
28151001500** 4,315 50.75% 1,110 25.72% 659 15.27% 1,171 248 21.18%
28151001600** 2,001 51.92% 389 19.44% 217 10.84% 531 179 33.71%
28151001700** 2,978 51.98% 825 27.70% 395 13.26% 711 118 16.60%
28151002000 1,423 47.22% 423 29.73% 180 12.65% 325 108 33.23%
28151002100** 1,290 57.52% 436 33.80% 124 9.61% 352 128 36.36%
Total 50,578 53.40% 13,973 27.63% 6,340 12.54% 12,412 2,921 23.53%
204


Washington County that exhibit an extraordinarily high number and percentage of children,
these include, but are not limited to: 963 children in census tract 28151001300, representing
39.1 percent of the tract’s total population; 1,283 children in census tract 28151000300,
representing 34.5 percent of the tract’s total population; and 1,316 children in census tract
28151001400, representing 34.5 percent of the tract’s total population. An estimated 10,006
children live in Washington County’s HFFI qualifying census tracts; this represents 71.6 percent
of all children in Washington County. Lack of access to affordable, nutritious food is of
particular concern for children due to the negative impact that inadequate nutrition may have
on child brain development, cognitive functioning, and the potential detrimental effects on
their health and on future learning.234, 235, 236
In Washington County, there are approximately 6,340 people aged 65 and older; they represent
approximately 12.5 percent of the total population. There are 4,163 people aged 65 and older
living in Washington County’s HFFI qualifying census tracts; this represent 65.7 percent of
Washington County’s population aged 65 and older (Table 87, page 204). Two HFFI census
tracts in Washington County exhibit a relatively high number and high percentage of seniors;
approximately 659 seniors live in census tract 28151001500, representing 15.3 percent of the
tract’s total population, and 613 seniors live in census tract 28151001200, representing 27.5
percent of the tract’s total population (Table 87, page 204). Among the 4,822 households in
Washington County that have one or more people age 65 and older, 66.1 percent of these
households are located in HFFI census tracts and 67.9 percent of all nonfamily households with
people age 65 Table 88: Washington County Households by Type
and older Washington Total in HFFI Percent in HFFI
Household by Type
living alone County Total Census Tracts Census Tracts
reside in HFFI Family households (families) 12,412 8,274 66.66%
qualifying With own children under 18 years 5,259 3,499 66.53%
census tracts
in Male householder, no wife present, family 869 555 63.87%
Washington With own children under 18 years 351 164 46.72%
County (Table With own children under 18 years 2,921 2,206 75.52%
88, at right). Nonfamily households 5,711 3,859 67.57%
65 years and over 1,905 1,295 67.98%

234 Winicki, J. and Jemison, K. (2003). Food Insecurity and Hunger in the Kindergarten Classroom: Its Effect on Learning and
Growth. Contemporary Economic Policy, 21(2): 145–157.
235 Casey, P. H, Szeto, K., Lensing, S. (2001). Children in Food‐Insufficient, Low‐Income Families: Prevalence, Health, and
Nutrition Status. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 155(4): 508–514.
236 Alaimo, K., Olson, C. M., and Frongillo, E. A. (2001). Food Insufficiency and American School‐Aged Children’s Cognitive,
Academic, and Psychosocial Development. Pediatrics. 108(1): 44 ‐53.
205


Table 89: Washington County Poverty Rates for Families and Individuals
Female Households,
All Families with All All Children
Census Tract or All No Husband Present, Persons 65
All people related children Children 5 to 17
Geographic Area families with related children and over
under 18 years Under 5 years
under 18 years

28151000100 18.60% 13.10% 17.10% 40.30% 8.90% 20.40% 14.30%
28151000200 33.50% 34.00% 42.40% 52.60% 74.10% 45.20% 22.50%
28151000300** 49.50% 40.90% 52.20% 62.20% 85.40% 63.00% 32.10%
28151000400** 54.80% 47.80% 69.50% 66.90% 84.90% 63.40% 20.80%
28151000600** 46.10% 37.60% 42.30% 67.80% 49.20% 57.20% 38.60%
28151000701 25.60% 16.90% 29.40% 19.10% 35.20% 42.20% 13.80%
28151000702 4.20% 0.70% 1.50% 5.60% 7.00% 0.00% 1.00%
28151000800 22.20% 16.90% 32.60% 44.60% 82.10% 32.20% 13.90%
28151000900** 45.90% 32.90% 58.80% 72.10% 60.60% 81.60% 6.90%
28151001000** 39.80% 29.30% 36.20% 33.90% 46.00% 34.60% 21.10%
28151001100** 50.90% 44.50% 63.20% 72.00% 49.00% 67.30% 19.50%
28151001200** 39.60% 36.50% 54.30% 65.80% 44.90% 65.70% 18.00%
28151001300** 57.10% 50.80% 73.00% 84.00% 82.00% 84.50% 11.80%

28151001400** 33.40% 30.50% 41.20% 53.80% 57.50% 53.50% 14.10%
28151001500** 35.60% 25.40% 40.20% 50.00% 75.10% 34.80% 21.40%
28151001600** 44.20% 44.60% 57.30% 63.90% 63.40% 57.20% 16.60%
28151001700** 41.70% 34.90% 43.60% 58.50% 58.80% 45.00% 39.00%
28151002000 39.10% 36.30% 45.20% 46.30% 93.30% 54.40% 33.90%

28151002100** 58.10% 56.00% 68.50% 76.40% 100.00% 61.50% 19.40%
Washington County 37.30% 30.30% 43.90% 56.60% 60.30% 51.70% 18.70%
United States 15.40% 11.30% 17.80% 40.00% 24.70% 20.00% 9.40%

206


Mississippi has one of the highest poverty rates in the United States. With a poverty rate of
22.7 percent, the state of Mississippi’s poverty rate is 7.3 percent higher than the U.S. poverty
rate of 15.4 percent. In Washington County, the poverty rate is 37.3 percent (Table 89, page
206), indicating that the overall poverty rate for all people living in Washington County is 14.6
percent higher than that of the state of Mississippi and 21.9 percent higher than that of the
United States (more than twice that of the nation).
In Washington County, 60.3 percent of all children under the age of 5 and 51.7 percent of all
children between the ages of 5 to 17 live in poverty. In Washington County, the poverty rate
among children under the age of 5 is 23.8 percent higher than the state of Mississippi’s poverty
rate for children in this age group and is 35.6 percent higher than the United States’ poverty
rate for children under the age of 5 (Table 89, page 206). For children between the age of 5
and 17, the poverty rate for children in Washington County is 21.2 percent higher than the
state of Mississippi’s poverty rate of 30.5 percent for children age 5 to 17 and 31.7 percent
higher than the U.S. poverty rate for children in this age group (Table 89, page 206). Although
any level of poverty for children in the United States is unacceptable, the poverty rate for
children under 5 in all of Washington County’s HFFI census tracts is more than twice that of the
United States’ poverty rate for children under 5. There are five HFFI census tracts in
Washington County that have more than 75 percent of all children under five living in poverty;
for example, in census tract 28151002100, all (100 percent) children under five live in poverty
and in census tract 28151000300, an estimated 84.4 percent of all young children live in
poverty (Table 89, page 206). In ten of Washington County’s HFFI census tracts, the poverty
rate for children between the age of 5 and 17 is higher than the county’s poverty rate of 51.7
percent for children in this age group; in HFFI census tracts 28151001300 and 28151000900,
the poverty rate for children age 5 to 17 is 84.5 percent and 81.6 percent, respectively.
The burden of poverty falls heavily upon children in female households with no husband
present; in Washington County, the poverty rate for female households with no husband
present who have children under 18 years is 56.6 percent and this poverty rate is approximately
12.7 percent higher when compared to the poverty rate for all families with children under 18
(Table 89, page 206). Replicating the pattern of poverty for children age 5 to 17, ten of the HFFI
census tracts in Washington County exhibit poverty rates that exceed the county poverty rate
for female households with no husband present who have children under 18 years. Of the
estimated 1,650 female households with no husband present who have children under 18 and
are living in poverty, 84.4 percent of these households live in HFFI qualifying census tracts in
Washington County.
The poverty rate of seniors in Washington County is 18.7 percent; this is 4.7 percent higher
than the state of Mississippi’s poverty rate of 14 percent and 9.3 percent higher than the
United States’ poverty rate for people in this age group (Table 89, page 206).
207


Table 90: Washington County Educational Attainment for the Population 25 Years and Older
High school Percent
9th to 12th Some Graduate Percent high
Census Tract or Less than 9th graduate Associate's Bachelor's Bachelor's
grade, no college, no or.Professiona school graduate
Geographic Area grade (includes degree degree degree or
diploma degree l degree or higher
equivalency) higher
28151000100 13.7% 7.9% 22.6% 23.1% 7.4% 16.2% 9.3% 78.4% 25.4%
28151000200 9.5% 25.2% 29.7% 16.9% 6.4% 8.6% 3.7% 65.3% 12.2%
28151000300** 7.0% 20.0% 36.6% 19.9% 4.6% 6.6% 5.3% 72.9% 11.9%
28151000400** 14.2% 26.5% 28.0% 22.7% 1.8% 6.8% 0.0% 59.3% 6.8%
28151000600** 10.2% 18.6% 39.6% 21.5% 2.9% 7.3% 0.0% 71.2% 7.3%
28151000701 7.3% 10.9% 26.3% 24.5% 8.4% 14.6% 7.9% 81.7% 22.5%
28151000702 2.4% 7.8% 17.5% 22.7% 10.2% 26.0% 13.3% 89.8% 39.3%
28151000800 3.4% 8.8% 26.9% 26.3% 8.4% 18.4% 7.7% 87.8% 26.2%
28151000900** 9.4% 10.5% 29.0% 15.3% 6.8% 18.2% 10.8% 80.1% 29.0%
28151001000** 21.3% 15.9% 23.7% 23.7% 9.5% 5.7% 0.3% 62.9% 6.0%
28151001100** 12.1% 30.1% 27.7% 17.0% 5.9% 5.8% 1.4% 57.8% 7.2%
28151001200** 11.8% 13.1% 24.9% 24.1% 6.8% 10.8% 8.6% 75.1% 19.3%
28151001300** 8.4% 18.9% 34.1% 21.3% 6.8% 7.5% 3.0% 72.7% 10.5%
28151001400** 2.6% 19.7% 34.0% 20.3% 6.9% 13.2% 3.4% 77.7% 16.6%
28151001500** 9.6% 16.1% 33.7% 20.6% 5.2% 9.3% 5.5% 74.3% 14.8%
28151001600** 7.0% 20.0% 22.7% 23.9% 5.2% 14.4% 6.9% 73.1% 21.3%
28151001700** 19.0% 8.4% 27.8% 17.4% 7.3% 16.1% 4.1% 72.6% 20.2%
28151002000 8.5% 11.7% 26.7% 23.9% 6.6% 16.7% 5.8% 79.8% 22.5%
28151002100** 16.4% 10.9% 37.7% 19.1% 5.0% 9.8% 1.0% 72.7% 10.8%
Washington County 9.0% 15.4% 28.8% 21.5% 6.5% 13.0% 5.8% 75.5% 18.7%
State of Mississippi 6.4% 12.1% 30.5% 22.7% 8.1% 12.8% 7.3% 81.5% 20.1%
United States 5.9% 8.0% 28.1% 21.2% 7.8% 18.0% 10.8% 86.0% 28.8%
208


As shown in Table 89 on page 206, there are eight HFFI census tracts in Washington County that
exhibit a higher percentage of seniors living in poverty as compared to the county poverty rate
of 18.7 percent for people age 65 and over. In some Washington County HFFI census tracts,
almost 40 percent of the senior population lives in poverty (i.e. census tract 28151001700).
Seniors face significant transportation and mobility barriers when access to nutritious food is
limited; poverty further exacerbates these mobility barriers because they must expend greater
resources to obtain food from available sources. These individual disadvantages are further
compounded when there is lack of access to affordable, nutritious foods.
In Washington County, approximately 75.5 percent of the population age 25 and older have a
high school degree and 18.7 percent of the population in this age group has a Bachelor’s degree
or higher; these educational attainment levels are lower than those of the general population
age 25 and older in the state of Mississippi (Table 90, page 208). In the majority (11 out of 13,
or 84.6 percent) of Washington County’s HFFI census tracts, the percent of the tracts’
population with a high school degree is lower than the county average high school graduation
rate of 75.5 percent for the population 25 years and older. Because there is a high correlation
between educational attainment, income, poverty, obesity, and negative health outcomes, the
relatively large percentage of people age 25 and older who do not have a high school diploma
in Washington County is of specific concern. In the U.S., approximately 8.8 percent of the
population age 25 and older do not have a high school diploma; in the state of Mississippi,
approximately 12.1 percent of those age 25 and older do not have a high school diploma, and in
Washington County, 15.4 percent of the population 25 and older do not have a high school
diploma. In many of Washington County’s HFFI qualifying census tracts, the percent of the
population age 25 and older that do not have a high school diploma exceeds 18 percent; for
example, in census tract 28151000400, 26.5 percent of the population have no high school
diploma and in census tract 28151000300, 20 percent of the population age 25 and older have
no high school degree (Table 90, page 208).
Food Insecurity in Washington County
In 2011, approximately 16.4 percent of all individuals in the U.S. experienced food insecurity; in
2012, 15.9 percent of all individuals in the United States were food insecure,237 indicating that
food insecurity had declined in the U.S. Across the United States, the average county‐level
food insecurity rate remained stable at 14.7 percent in 2011 and in 2012. In Mississippi, the
insecurity rate in the nation in 2012. In 2012, approximately 31.0 percent of all individuals in
Washington County were food insecure (15,810 people).

209


Table 91: Washington County Comparative Employment and Income
Percent of
Percent of Median
Number in the Number Not Households with Percent of
Census Tract of Population 16 Percent in the Percent Households with Household
Civilian Labor in the Labor Total Households Income between Households
Geographic Area years and over Labor Force Unemployed Income less than Income
Force Force $10,000 to with Earnings
$10,000 (dollars)
$14,999
28151000100 1,295 828 63.9% 15.8% 467 540 6.1% 12.4% $46,667 82.6%
28151000200 1,333 728 54.6% 31.2% 605 614 15.6% 13.5% $26,417 66.6%
28151000300** 2,484 1,375 55.4% 33.7% 1,109 1,087 27.8% 10.5% $21,902 65.2%
28151000400** 2,462 1,181 48.0% 37.0% 1,281 1,121 23.5% 28.2% $14,694 58.1%
28151000600** 2,261 855 37.8% 23.4% 1,406 1,061 27.4% 20.4% $16,031 44.7%
28151000701 2,671 1,826 68.4% 20.0% 845 1,442 10.8% 9.1% $44,538 76.5%
28151000702 3,269 2,291 71.0% 8.1% 949 1,641 3.0% 3.8% $63,536 82.8%
28151000800 2,700 1,852 68.6% 13.9% 848 1,247 8.9% 5.4% $47,656 81.3%
28151000900** 2,047 1,318 64.4% 22.0% 729 991 7.6% 8.2% $32,823 78.5%
28151001000** 958 492 51.4% 38.4% 466 411 20.0% 9.7% $22,868 65.9%
28151001100** 1,403 702 50.0% 20.5% 701 685 22.5% 14.0% $18,449 59.6%
28151001200** 1,827 813 44.5% 30.0% 1,014 779 15.0% 19.6% $22,837 60.5%
28151001300** 1,644 784 47.7% 21.9% 860 765 17.5% 21.3% $19,236 64.4%
28151001400** 2,593 1,748 67.4% 18.2% 845 1,275 7.0% 12.2% $31,330 72.5%
28151001500** 3,330 1,866 56.3% 14.9% 1,456 1,631 18.8% 10.4% $29,929 66.5%
28151001600** 1,661 901 54.2% 20.4% 760 793 23.3% 6.4% $26,863 70.6%
28151001700** 2,272 1,187 52.2% 23.0% 1,085 1,076 14.2% 6.6% $25,000 62.2%
28151002000 1,104 584 52.9% 19.3% 520 506 17.4% 9.9% $28,636 71.1%
28151002100** 914 528 57.8% 37.9% 386 458 27.3% 15.9% $18,438 62.2%
Washington County 38,228 21,859 57.3% 21.4% 16,332 18,123 15.5% 11.9% $28,093 68.8%
Mississippi 2,312,959 1,343,584 58.1% 11.1% 957,272 1,088,073 11.4% 8.1% $39,031 73.9%
United States 246,191,954 157,113,886 64.3% 9.7% 87,994,377 115,610,216 7.2% 5.4% $53,046 78.2%
210


Child food insecurity rates are substantially higher than the overall food insecurity rate for the
entire population. In the U.S., the child food insecurity rate was 21.6 percent in 2012.238 In
counties across the United States, the county level of child food insecurity ranged from a low of
six percent to a high of 41 percent in 2012. In 2012, the state level child food insecurity rate
ranged from a low of 10.6 percent in North Dakota to a high of 29.2 percent in New Mexico.
Mississippi had the second highest level of child food insecurity in the U.S.; with 28.7 percent of
Mississippi’s children being food insecure, it is estimated that approximately 214,720 children
in Mississippi are food insecure.239 In Washington County, it is estimated that 32.5 percent of
children are food insecure; research indicates that among the 4,670 children living in
Washington County that are food insecure, approximately 68 percent are eligible for Federal
Nutrition Assistance programs but 32 percent are not eligible for these assistance programs.240
Washington County Income by Source
In Washington County, the labor force participation rate is 57.3 percent and the unemployment
rate for those in the civilian labor force is 21.4 percent; this unemployment rate is 10.3 percent
higher than Mississippi’s unemployment rate of 11.1 percent and 11.7 percent higher than the
U.S. unemployment rate of 9.7 percent (Table 91, page 210). In Washington County, many HFFI
census tracts exhibit extremely elevated unemployment rates; for example, in census tracts
28151001000 and 28151002100, the unemployment rates are 38.4 percent and 37.9 percent,
respectively (Table 91, page 210).
In Washington County, the median household income is $28,093; median household income in
Washington County is $10,938 lower than Mississippi’s median household income and $24,953
lower than the median household income in the United States (Table 91, page 210).
Households with incomes of $15,000 or less are more likely to live in poverty and are at a
higher risk for food insecurity and related negative health outcomes, to include obesity and
diabetes. As a result, these low income households are also more likely to have high health
care costs associated with obesity. Living in an underserved community, with limited access to
affordable, nutritious food may exacerbate these risk factors and further compound the
individual effects of low household income. In Washington County, 27.4 percent of all
households have incomes of $15,000 or less; this compares to an estimated 19.5 percent of all
households in the state of Mississippi with incomes of $15,000 or less. In ten of Washington
County’s HFFI census tracts, the percentage of households with incomes of $15,000 or less
equals or exceeds 30 percent. For example, in census tract 28151000400 and census tract

238 Ibid.
239 Ibid.
211


Table 92: Washington County Comparative Earnings and Income by Source
Percent of Percent of Mean cash
Mean Percent of Mean Households Mean Households with
Mean Social Households Households public
Census Tract or earnings Households retirement with Supplemental Food
Security income with with cash public assistance
Geographic Area (dollars) for with Social income Supplemental Security Income Stamp/SNAP
(dollars) retirement assistance income
Workers Security (dollars) Security (dollars) benefits in the
income income (dollars)
Income past 12 months
28151000100 $57,982 30.2% $12,121 12.0% $14,758 11.3% $8,464 1.5% $2,375 22.8%
28151000200 $59,907 39.3% $15,308 12.5% $13,956 9.6% $6,631 4.6% $1,343 34.0%
28151000300** $33,085 35.9% $13,567 11.8% $25,454 16.6% $8,534 2.9% $994 47.3%
28151000400** $19,757 41.2% $10,315 12.0% $6,893 28.0% $7,890 8.6% $2,115 57.9%
28151000600** $25,890 48.7% $11,082 13.7% $7,999 27.1% $7,689 4.0% $2,900 42.8%
28151000701 $56,658 36.5% $16,501 25.7% $17,185 5.7% $8,580 2.2% $2,156 17.3%
28151000702 $86,602 37.1% $19,511 18.2% $17,922 5.7% $7,453 0.5% $1,813 8.9%
28151000800 $57,990 34.4% $14,890 14.6% $25,885 6.3% $7,090 1.8% $1,864 19.4%
28151000900** $40,853 36.1% $14,958 16.4% $8,788 14.2% $7,183 1.1% $1,455 33.5%
28151001000** $34,192 29.0% $9,260 14.1% $12,566 21.7% $8,965 7.5% $1,942 51.6%
28151001100** $24,359 42.6% $9,552 7.0% $13,965 27.0% $8,518 14.7% $2,896 56.5%
28151001200** $26,418 55.5% $14,611 23.7% $17,594 14.1% $8,857 3.5% $5,389 43.8%
28151001300** $29,844 37.6% $13,169 14.5% $23,305 15.2% $10,817 9.5% $5,521 54.6%
28151001400** $41,293 26.7% $14,850 17.6% $16,310 14.0% $8,772 1.3% $5,150 24.4%
28151001500** $51,272 36.2% $16,579 10.0% $12,826 8.3% $9,178 4.2% $881 19.5%
28151001600** $46,477 27.6% $14,502 12.6% $16,972 11.3% $11,680 3.7% $962 42.2%
28151001700** $52,027 35.1% $11,712 10.5% $7,519 18.7% $8,680 2.9% $1,326 35.9%
28151002000 $37,517 36.8% $10,851 10.7% $14,300 13.4% $10,376 2.8% $1,957 37.0%
28151002100** $28,006 36.2% $11,422 12.9% $15,820 14.6% $8,137 7.0% $1,584 53.7%
Washington County $47,489 37.0% $14,034 14.8% $15,857 14.0% $8,500 3.9% $2,488 33.4%
Mississippi $56,908 32.6% $15,673 17.5% $19,739 15.5% $8,426 4.2% $2,756 17.4%
United States $75,017 28.9% $17,189 17.7% $23,589 4.9% $9,152 2.8% $3,808 12.4%
212


28151000600, the percentage of households with incomes of $15,000 or less is 51.7 percent
and 47.8 percent, respectively— in these two census tracts, more than 20 percent of
households have incomes of less than $10,000 (Table 91, page 210). Of the estimated 4,966
households with incomes of $15,000 or less, 80.1 percent live in HFFI census tracts in
Washington County.
In Washington County, 68.8 percent of households have earnings from work (Table 91, page
210); mean income for households with earnings from work is $47,489 in Washington County
(Table 92, page 212). In addition to earnings from work, households may have income from
Social Security or Supplemental Security, Retirement, and from other forms of public
assistance. In Washington County, 37 percent of households have Social Security income, with
a mean Social Security income of $14,034; the percentage of households with Social Security
income is 5.6 percent higher in Washington County as compared to the state of Mississippi and
these households’ mean Social Security income is approximately $1,639 lower than the mean
Social Security income in the state of Mississippi — given an average household spending on
food at home of $3,054 annually in Washington County, this difference is not insignificant. Of
the estimated 6,705 households with Social Security income in Washington County, 67.9
percent live in HFFI qualifying census tracts.
remainder are disabled. Children may qualify for SSI benefits if they are disabled. In
Washington County, 14 percent of households receive SSI; this is slightly lower than the
percentage of households in the state of Mississippi that receive SSI (15.5 percent). In
Washington County, there are approximately 2,537 households that receive SSI income; 82.6
percent of these households live in HFFI census tracts (Table 92, page 212).
Approximately 14.8 percent of households in Washington County receive retirement income;
the mean retirement income is $15,857 (Table 92, page 212). As compared to the state of
Mississippi, 2.7 percent fewer households receive retirement income, and among those that do,
their mean retirement income is approximately $3,882 lower than the mean retirement income
of the state. Among the estimated 2,681 households in Washington County that receive
retirement income, 1,633 (60.9 percent) live in HFFI census tracts.
There are approximately 701 households in Washington County that receive income from Cash
Public Assistance; 84.1 percent of these households live in HFFI census tracts. Approximately
33.4 percent of households in Washington County receive SNAP benefits; this is almost twice
the percentage rate for the state of Mississippi (Table 92, page 212). In the majority (85
percent) of Washington County’s HFFI eligible census tracts, the percentage of households
receiving SNAP benefits is higher than the county average. In HFFI eligible census tracts
28151000400, 28151001100, 28151001300, 28151002100, and 28151001000, the
213


Table 93: Washington County Employment by Industry Sector
Census Tract or Geographic Agriculture
population 16 Construction Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Warehousing/
Area and Mining
years and over Utilities
28151000100 697 12.3% 7.5% 3.4% 3.3% 4.6% 15.4%

28151000200 501 11.6% 4.6% 7.6% 3.6% 5.8% 7.4%
28151000300** 911 3.4% 6.7% 17.1% 1.5% 9.9% 1.4%
28151000400** 744 0.0% 0.0% 7.9% 2.3% 21.5% 6.7%
28151000600** 655 3.8% 0.0% 7.6% 0.0% 13.0% 4.9%
28151000701 1,461 10.6% 0.7% 3.1% 0.8% 16.6% 6.6%
28151000702 2,106 0.9% 9.0% 7.5% 0.5% 9.8% 4.6%
28151000800 1,595 4.1% 4.8% 10.2% 1.5% 16.7% 2.0%
28151000900** 1,028 2.0% 6.3% 7.8% 0.8% 10.9% 0.0%
28151001000** 303 6.3% 0.0% 11.6% 6.9% 13.2% 0.0%
28151001100** 558 0.0% 7.0% 0.7% 1.8% 12.5% 7.2%
28151001200** 569 0.7% 1.6% 6.3% 1.4% 11.1% 0.7%
28151001300** 612 4.1% 8.3% 8.5% 1.3% 19.9% 4.2%
28151001400** 1,430 0.0% 2.4% 10.1% 6.2% 7.8% 8.2%
28151001500** 1,588 8.4% 7.8% 8.9% 3.7% 13.5% 5.5%
28151001600** 717 7.1% 2.8% 7.9% 0.0% 14.2% 4.3%
28151001700** 914 0.7% 1.0% 5.7% 0.5% 19.0% 9.0%
28151002000 471 8.9% 0.0% 13.4% 7.2% 5.7% 11.3%
28151002100** 328 2.7% 4.0% 7.3% 2.4% 15.5% 9.1%
Washington County 17,188 4.4% 4.5% 8.1% 2.1% 12.8% 5.4%
Washington Numeric 17,188 751 776 1,384 368 2,197 935
Mississippi 1,194,436 3.0% 6.9% 12.9% 2.6% 11.8% 5.7%
United States 141,864,697 1.9% 6.2% 10.5% 2.8% 11.6% 4.9%
Arts/
Professional/
Finance/ Educational Services/ Entertainment/ Other services,
Census Tract or Geographic Scientific/ Public
Information Insurance/ Health Care/ Social Recreation/ except Public
Area Management/ Administration
Real Estate Assistance Accommodation/ Administration
Administrative
Food Services
28151000100 0.0% 6.2% 9.2% 13.5% 5.9% 10.2% 8.6%
28151000200 3.2% 7.6% 5.6% 23.6% 9.2% 3.4% 7.0%
28151000300** 0.0% 2.4% 1.1% 41.6% 7.7% 1.1% 6.0%
28151000400** 0.0% 1.1% 4.4% 20.2% 20.4% 13.2% 2.3%
28151000600** 1.2% 3.7% 3.2% 30.7% 19.1% 1.7% 11.1%
28151000701 0.4% 7.3% 5.6% 25.1% 7.0% 3.0% 13.2%
28151000702 0.0% 9.2% 7.6% 30.3% 7.5% 6.5% 6.6%
28151000800 2.0% 2.9% 10.1% 25.6% 7.0% 3.4% 9.7%
28151000900** 2.7% 5.8% 8.9% 28.3% 13.8% 5.6% 6.9%
28151001000** 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 37.6% 15.2% 0.0% 9.2%
28151001100** 0.0% 0.0% 13.4% 12.5% 37.6% 2.2% 5.0%
28151001200** 0.0% 3.7% 6.7% 47.8% 7.4% 6.7% 6.0%
28151001300** 0.0% 1.8% 1.6% 22.4% 18.3% 4.2% 5.2%
28151001400** 7.7% 1.0% 2.0% 16.4% 18.0% 10.0% 10.1%
28151001500** 0.6% 3.1% 12.3% 11.2% 6.5% 14.0% 4.3%
28151001600** 0.0% 3.2% 12.0% 29.3% 8.1% 4.0% 7.0%
28151001700** 8.0% 5.0% 4.2% 25.1% 10.0% 3.0% 9.0%
28151002000 0.8% 1.5% 5.7% 32.5% 1.3% 8.7% 3.0%
28151002100** 8.2% 2.7% 0.0% 20.7% 16.8% 1.5% 8.8%
Washington County 1.8% 4.2% 6.7% 25.1% 11.2% 6.1% 7.6%
Washington Numeric 314 722 1,149 4,313 1,929 1,043 1,307
Mississippi 1.4% 4.9% 6.3% 24.4% 9.4% 5.0% 5.7%
United States 2.2% 6.7% 10.8% 23.2% 9.3% 5.0% 5.0%

214


percentage of households receiving food stamp benefits exceeds 50 percent. Among the 6,059
households receiving SNAP benefits In Washington County, 80.9 percent live in HFFI qualifying
census tracts (Table 92, page 212).
The Washington County Workforce
force in Washington County is employed in the Educational Services, Health Care, and Social
Assistance sectors of the economy; in Washington County, these industry sectors employ
approximately 4,313 people and represent approximately 25.1 percent of total county
employment (Table 93, page 214). The percentage of Washington County’s workforce that is
employed in the Educational Services, Health Care, and Social Assistance sectors of the
economy is higher than it is in either the state of Mississippi (24.4 percent) or the United States
(23.2 percent).
There are three HFFI census tracts that exhibit a relatively high employment rate in the
Educational Services, Health Care, and Social Assistance sectors; these are:
In Washington County, approximately 12.8 percent of the population is employed in the Retail
Trade sector; with approximately 2,197 people working in Retail Trade, this sector is the second
largest employer in Washington County (Table 93, page 214). There are three HFFI qualifying
census tracts in Washington County where the percentage of the workforce employed in the
Retail Trade sector approaches 20 percent or higher and is significantly higher than that of the
sector
sector
sector

The Manufacturing sector employs approximately 8.1 percent of Washington County’s
workforce employed in the Manufacturing sector is significantly lower in Washington County
215


than it is in either the state of Mississippi (12.9 percent) or the U.S. (10.5 percent). There are
three qualifying HFFI census tracts where the percentage of the workforce that is employed in
the Manufacturing sector is higher than the percentage rate for Washington County; these are:


In Washington County, 11.2 percent of the workforce is employed in the Arts, Entertainment,
Recreation, or Accommodation and Food Services sectors; this is higher than the percentage
rate for the state of Mississippi (9.4 percent) and that of the United States (Table 93, page 214).
In eight of Washington County’s thirteen HFFI census tracts, the percentage of employment in
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, or Accommodation and Food Services sectors is higher than
the average in Washington County; examples include:

The median earnings for all workers in Washington County was $21,545 as compared to median
earnings of $25,707 in the state of Mississippi, and median earnings of $30,538 in the United
States (Table 94, page 217). In Washington County, the median earnings for male full‐time
workers that held steady year‐round jobs was $34,399 and the median earnings for female full‐
time workers that held steady year‐round jobs was $27,330 (Table 94, page 217). Within 10 of
Washington County’s HFFI census tracts, the mean earnings for all workers ranged from being
$2,175 (census tract 28151001400) lower than the mean earnings for workers of $21,545 for
Washington County to being $7,922 lower (census tract 28151000400) than the mean for
Washington County. In the majority of Washington County’s HFFI census tracts, the median
earnings for male and female full‐time workers that held steady year‐round jobs was lower
than Washington County’s median earnings for workers in this category. For men, this negative
earnings differential ranged from a low of $588 (tract 28151001500) to a high of $20,144 (tract
28151001100); for women, this negative earnings differential ranged from a low of $792 (tract
216


28151001600) to a high of $9,552 (tract 28151001100). In Washington County, the median
earnings for all workers is approximately $4,162 lower than the median earnings for all workers
in Mississippi; male full‐time workers have median earnings that are $6,343 lower and female
full‐time workers have median earnings that are approximately $3,274 lower than median
earning in the state of Mississippi in these classes of workers (Table 94, below).

Table 94: Washington County Median Earnings for Workers

Median earnings for Median earnings for
Census Tract or Median earnings for male full‐time, year‐ female full‐time,
Geographic Area workers (dollars) round workers year‐round workers
(dollars) (dollars)
28151000100 $27,411 $47,321 $27,423
28151000200 $20,208 $44,231 $24,375
28151000300** $19,087 $30,711 $22,500
28151000400** $13,623 $23,906 $18,445
28151000600** $15,493 $27,083 $24,358
28151000701 $24,349 $30,639 $42,813
28151000702 $29,937 $53,534 $29,874
28151000800 $29,675 $50,694 $37,113
28151000900** $23,851 $31,230 $18,864
28151001000** $14,974 $26,944 $20,733
28151001100** $13,790 $14,255 $17,778
28151001200** $15,931 $23,750 $22,500
28151001300** $16,574 $29,917 $21,458
28151001400** $19,370 $28,242 $28,750
28151001500** $22,068 $33,811 $23,800
28151001600** $17,566 $35,789 $26,538
28151001700** $35,215 $37,700 $39,083
28151002000 $14,631 $31,019 $36,339
28151002100** $14,049 $30,865 $18,750
Washington County $21,545 $34,399 $27,330
Mississippi $25,707 $40,742 $30,604
United States $30,538 $49,087 $38,635
217


Table 95: Health Insurance Coverage for the Civilian Non‐Institutionalized Population in Washington County
Census Tract or With health With private With public No health Population Under 18 Years with No

Geographic Area insurance coverage health insurance coverage insurance coverage Health Insurance Coverage
28151000100 1,333 931 544 280 47

28151000200 1,432 631 938 382 28
28151000300** 2,351 775 1,782 1,174 381
28151000400** 2,362 587 1,970 948 81
28151000600* 2,001 676 1,439 566 56
28151000701 2,811 1,755 1,416 688 61
28151000702 3,493 2,701 1,316 558 57
28151000800 2,881 1,908 1,293 558 9
28151000900** 2,206 1,083 1,438 707 195
28151001000** 940 321 638 259 3
28151001100** 1,307 428 1,069 437 15
28151001200** 1,659 747 1,271 434 14
28151001300** 1,874 579 1,435 553 93
28151001400** 3,304 1,757 1,757 508 82
28151001500** 3,727 2,168 2,055 580 26
28151001600** 1,416 848 804 585 55
28151001700** 2,305 1,146 1,371 664 70
28151002000 1,079 498 682 322 39
28151002100** 1,005 369 750 285 34
Washington County 39,486 19,908 23,968 10,488 1,346
Mississippi 2,392,262 1,667,737 1,035,758 506,225 68,473
United States 258,778,088 203,379,999 89,277,994 45,206,153 5,953,533
Census Tract or With health With private With public No health insurance Population Under 18 Years with

Geographic Area insurance coverage health insurance coverage coverage No Health Insurance Coverage
28151000100 82.6% 57.7% 33.7% 17.4% 11.7%
28151000200 78.9% 34.8% 51.7% 21.1% 4.9%
28151000300** 66.7% 22.0% 50.6% 33.3% 29.7%
28151000400** 71.4% 17.7% 59.5% 28.6% 8.7%
28151000600* 78.0% 26.3% 56.1% 22.0% 11.4%
28151000701 80.3% 50.2% 40.5% 19.7% 7.1%
28151000702 86.2% 66.7% 32.5% 13.8% 6.4%
28151000800 83.8% 55.5% 37.6% 16.2% 1.1%
28151000900** 75.7% 37.2% 49.4% 24.3% 19.9%
28151001000** 78.4% 26.8% 53.2% 21.6% 0.8%
28151001100** 74.9% 24.5% 61.3% 25.1% 3.7%
28151001200** 79.3% 35.7% 60.7% 20.7% 2.9%
28151001300** 77.2% 23.9% 59.1% 22.8% 9.9%
28151001400** 86.7% 46.1% 46.1% 13.3% 6.2%
28151001500** 86.5% 50.3% 47.7% 13.5% 2.3%
28151001600** 70.8% 42.4% 40.2% 29.2% 14.1%
28151001700** 77.6% 38.6% 46.2% 22.4% 8.5%
28151002000 77.0% 35.5% 48.7% 23.0% 9.2%
28151002100** 77.9% 28.6% 58.1% 22.1% 7.8%
Washington County 79.0% 39.8% 48.0% 21.0% 9.7%
Mississippi 82.5% 57.5% 35.7% 17.5% 9.1%
United States 85.1% 66.9% 29.4% 14.9% 8.1%
Note: Percentage rates for Private, Public, and No Health Insurance Coverage do not sum to 100 percent due to duplicate insurance
coverage. For example, individuals covered by a group health insurance plan may have Medicare as a secondary payer.
218


Health Care Insurance in Washington County
In Washington County, 79.0 percent of the civilian, non‐institutionalized population has health
living in HFFI census tracts in Washington County that have public health insurance coverage;
this represents 74.2 percent of the Washington County population that has public health
insurance coverage.
The percentage of the civilian, non‐institutionalized population in Washington County with no
health insurance coverage (21.0 percent) is 3.5 percent higher than that of the state of
Mississippi (17.5 percent) and is 6.1 percentage points higher than the U.S. percentage rate of
14.9 percent (Table 95, page 218). The percentage rate of children under 18 with no health
insurance coverage in Washington County (9.7 percent) is higher than that of the state of
Mississippi (9.1 percent) and is also higher than that of the United States’. Due to the relatively
low income levels and high poverty rates exhibited in Washington County, it is likely that a high
percentage of children in Washington County are eligible for the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program; this may explain the relatively low percentage of children with no health
insurance in Washington County. There are approximately 1,071 children under the age of 18
with no health insurance coverage who live in Washington County HFFI qualifying census tracts;
this represents 79.6 percent of the children under the age of 18 in Washington County that
have no health insurance coverage.
There are 10,488 people living in Washington County who have no health insurance coverage;
7,700 of these individuals live in HFFI qualifying census tracts and they represent 73.4 percent
of all people in Washington County who have no health insurance coverage.

219


Table 96: Washington County Household Spending on Food
Food at Home Food Away from Spending

Food Away from Spending
Average Food at Home Home Average Index Food Total Food
Census Tract Home Total Index Food
Household Total Spending Household Away from Spending
Spending at Home
Spending Spending Home
28151000100 $4,049.27 $2,364,776 $2,280.71 $1,331,935 80 71 $3,696,711

28151000200 $3,002.21 $2,224,641 $1,705.52 $1,263,793 59 53 $3,488,434
28151000300** $2,276.01 $2,503,609 $1,330.35 $1,463,390 45 42 $3,966,999
28151000400** $1,763.45 $1,874,543 $1,030.93 $1,095,876 35 32 $2,970,419
28151000600** $1,648.73 $1,765,790 $963.70 $1,032,126 32 30 $2,797,916
28151000701 $3,689.36 $5,427,044 $2,176.53 $3,201,679 72 68 $8,628,723
28151000702 $4,736.14 $7,440,477 $2,994.04 $4,703,638 93 93 $12,144,115
28151000800 $4,247.27 $5,508,704 $2,527.18 $3,277,753 83 79 $8,786,457
28151000900** $3,818.69 $4,368,587 $2,331.33 $2,667,046 75 73 $7,035,633
28151001000** $2,028.65 $801,315 $1,185.89 $468,426 40 37 $1,269,741
28151001100** $1,913.41 $1,222,670 $1,118.41 $714,665 38 35 $1,937,335
28151001200** $1,992.25 $1,743,216 $1,164.49 $1,018,931 39 36 $2,762,147
28151001300** $1,849.17 $1,536,663 $1,081.05 $898,350 36 34 $2,435,013
28151001400** $3,077.18 $4,326,514 $1,893.60 $2,662,407 60 59 $6,988,921
28151001500** $3,862.13 $6,233,479 $2,235.83 $3,608,630 76 77 $9,842,109
28151001600** $2,900.37 $2,244,883 $1,740.50 $1,347,150 57 54 $3,592,033
28151001700** $2,586.22 $2,581,043 $1,496.24 $1,493,247 51 47 $4,074,290
28151002000 $2,669.40 $1,337,369 $1,538.26 $770,668 52 48 $2,108,037
28151002100** $1,998.61 $995,306 $1,168.21 $581,768 39 36 $1,577,074
Washington County $3,054.45 $56,730,340 $1,806.67 $33,555,210 60 56 $90,285,550
220


The Economic Impact of Investments in Washington County
investment, and the geographic location of the investment, which will determine the size of the
census tract; depending upon site selection and multiple other factors to include management,
marketing, and consumer decision making, a store may draw customers from more than one
census tract. Customer spending on food will determine the total sales for a supermarket,
grocery store, or any other type of food retail format; total sales will determine the economic
impact of the ongoing operations of investments made in underserved communities.
The household spending index for food at home in the state of Mississippi is 78 as compared to
a U.S. spending index of 100, indicating that Mississippi households in general spend less on
food at home as compared to households across the United States (Table 96, page 220). The
Table 97: Washington County Household Spending on Food at Home and the Retail Spending Gap for Food at Home
Food at Home Spending on Fruit &

Census Tract or Estimated
Total Retail Gap Fruits & Vegetable
Geographic Area Supply
Spending Vegetables Spending Index
28151000100 $2,364,776 $222,593 $2,142,183 $411,922 73
28151000200 $2,224,641 $222,593 $2,002,048 $396,302 56
28151000300** $2,503,609 $4,211,461 ‐$1,707,852 $457,330 43
28151000400** $1,874,543 $1,335,558 $538,985 $343,031 34
28151000600* $1,765,790 $3,269,240 ‐$1,503,450 $322,554 31
28151000701 $5,427,044 $423,078 $5,003,966 $991,832 70
28151000702 $7,440,477 $1,112,965 $6,327,512 $1,408,586 93
28151000800 $5,508,704 $7,157,623 ‐$1,648,919 $1,009,654 81
28151000900** $4,368,587 $2,999,086 $1,369,501 $810,698 74
28151001000** $801,315 $222,593 $578,722 $146,536 39
28151001100** $1,222,670 $1,890,828 ‐$668,158 $223,343 36
28151001200** $1,743,216 $1,199,084 $544,132 $318,430 38
28151001300** $1,536,663 $29,263,994 ‐$27,727,331 $281,209 35
28151001400** $4,326,514 $475,369 $3,851,145 $802,545 59
28151001500** $6,233,479 $1,762,788 $4,470,691 $1,083,750 70
28151001600** $2,244,883 $1,455,224 $789,659 $415,518 56
28151001700** $2,581,043 $1,112,964 $1,468,079 $467,339 49
28151002000 $1,337,369 $2,188,798 ‐$851,429 $241,332 50
28151002100** $995,306 $349,241 $646,065 $181,813 38
Washington County $56,730,340 $60,875,080 ‐$4,144,740 $10,313,724 58
Source: Consumer Spending data is derived from 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Surveys; Estimated supply is from Dunn
and Bradstreet, sourced from ESRI Forecasts
221


household food at home spending index for Washington County is 60; this indicates that
household spending on food at home is approximately 10 percent lower than that of the
average household in the state of Mississippi and 40 percent lower than that of the average
household in the United States. For example, in the state of Mississippi, the average household
spends approximately $3,981.78 on food at home;241 in Washington County, the average
household spends $3,054.45 on food at home (Table 96, page 220). In Washington County,
household spending for food at home varies by census tract; in 10 of Washington County’s HFFI
census tracts, the average household spending on food at home is lower than the county‐wide
average household spending of $3,054.45 on food at home. In many of Washington County’s
HFFI census tracts, the average household spending on food at home is more than $1,000 lower
than the county average; examples include HFFI census tracts 28151000600 and 28151000400,
where average household spending on food at home is $1,405.27 and $1,290.55 lower,
respectively, than the county‐wide average (Table 96, page 220). Table 97 on page 221
provides an estimate of total spending on food at home by households within each census tract
and also provides an estimate of the supply of food at home that is met by stores within the
census tract. The retail gap is an estimate of the unmet demand for food at home within the
census tract; positive values indicate that demand for food at home exceeds that which is
supplied by stores within the census tract, while negative retail gap values indicate that stores
within a census tract are meeting demand for food at home by households that do not live in
that census tract.
The state of Mississippi household spending index for fruits and vegetables is 76; with a
household fruit and vegetable spending index of 58, all households in Washington County
level in the state of Mississippi, and spending on fruits and vegetables by households in
Washington County is approximately 42 percent lower than that of the United States (Table 97,
page 221). In many of Washington County’s HFFI census tracts, the household fruit and
vegetable spending index is extremely low; for example, in HFFI census tract 28151002100, the
household fruit and vegetable spending index is 38 — this census tract indicates a retail food at
home spending gap of approximately $646,065, indicating there may be sufficient market
demand to support the renovation and the purchase of refrigeration equipment to provide
shelf space to increase the supply of fresh produce and fruits that are currently being supplied
at the existing store within this census tract. In Washington County HFFI census tract
28151001500, the fruit and vegetable spending index is 70; this is one of the highest fruit and
vegetable spending indices in Washington County — the food at home spending retail gap in
this census tract is $4,470,691. An examination of Map 11 on page 195 indicates that HFFI
census tracts 28151002100 and 28151001500 are contiguous geographic areas and are also

241 Consumer spending data is derived from the 2012 Consumer Expenditure Surveys of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and from
ESRI Forecast for 2014.
222


located in a highly rural area with the potential to draw customers from the rural areas in the
adjacent county; as a result, there may exist sufficient demand for a supermarket or for a
grocery store within these census tracts. The combined food at home retail spending gap for
HFFI census tracts 28151002100 and 28151001500 is estimated to be $5,116,756. Multiple
similar investment scenarios exist throughout Washington County.
The economic effect of construction activities are short‐term in nature, and normally decline
rapidly upon the completion of construction. The economic effect of the ongoing operations of
a business are long term and continuous throughout the life of the business; the business
continuously maintains a workforce to support ongoing operations and tax revenues are
generated on an annual basis. The economic effect of the ongoing operations of a business are
difficult to accurately predict and are unique to each firm; management decisions and market
conditions will determine the actual economic effect of a business. Site location, decisions
regarding the number of employees to hire and wage levels, marketing and advertising
strategies, and consumer decision making are currently unknown variables that will impact the
variability of the reliability and validity of econometric models used in this study to model
investments in underserved communities. To examine the economic impact of investments
made in Washington County’s HFFI census tracts, the Stennis Research Team used three
potential investment scenarios and used econometric input‐output software modeling to
develop projections of the potential job creations and related tax revenues that would be
associated with these investments. The economic effects of these investments are modeled at
two stages; the first stage is the economic effect of an investment during the construction
phase of a project, the second stage is the economic effect of an investment upon completion
of construction activities and upon the start‐up of business activity. These findings are
presented on the following pages.

223


Table 98: The Economic Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Washington County

Direct Effect 64.6 $2,075,392 $2,165,321 $6,570,000
Indirect Effect 14 $587,682 $831,659 $1,499,565
Induced Effect 12.9 $401,183 $759,171 $1,264,608
Total Effect 91.5 $3,064,257 $3,756,151 $9,334,172
Source: IMPLAN
Table 99: The Fiscal Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in Washington County
Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production and Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production

and Imports: Sales and Imports: Imports: Motor and Imports: and Imports: Other and Imports: S/L
$132,473 $74,940 $1,826 $3,632 $11,276 $1,831
Corporate Profits Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Motor Personal Tax:
NonTaxes (Fines‐ Other Tax
Tax Income Tax Vehicle License Property Taxes
Fees) (Fish/Hunt)
$5,149 $41,469 $6,557 $2,940 $1,142 $1,481
Source: IMPLAN

Direct Effect 25.1 $763,337 $996,841 $1,453,159
Indirect Effect 2.2 $78,076 $124,560 $236,916
Induced Effect 4.1 $126,750 $239,848 $399,521
Total Effect 31.4 $968,163 $1,361,249 $2,089,596
Source: IMPLAN

$131,186 $74,211 $1,809 $3,597 $11,166 $1,813
Corporate Profits Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Motor Personal Tax:
NonTaxes (Fines‐ Other Tax
Tax Income Tax Vehicle License Property Taxes
Fees) (Fish/Hunt)
$1,682 $13,023 $2,059 $923 $359 $465
Source: IMPLAN
224


The Economic Impact of a Supermarket Investment in Washington County
construction and the start‐up of business operations was modeled at the county level.
Based upon these assumptions, the economic effect of this investment would be the
generation of approximately 91.5 full‐time equivalent jobs with associated labor income of
$3,064,257. During construction, the direct employment effect is estimated to be 64.6
construction‐related jobs with associated labor income of $2,075,392; the average annual
wage associated with construction employment is project to be $32,127. An additional 26.9
indirect and induced full‐time equivalent jobs would be supported in Washington County
over the duration of construction activities (Table 98, page 224).

projected to generate an estimated $284,716 in tax revenues (Table 99, page 224). Sales
tax revenues are projected to be $132,473, personal income tax revenues are estimated to
be $41,469, and property tax revenues are estimated to be $76,082 (combined property tax
revenues on production and imports with personal property tax revenues).

 Upon the completion of construction activities and the start‐up of business activities,
assuming annual sales of $5,116,756, the economic effect of a supermarket project in
Washington County is projected to generate approximately 31.4 jobs with associated labor
income of $968,163. An estimated 25.1 full‐time equivalent direct jobs would be created at
the store, and an additional 6.3 full‐time equivalent indirect and induced jobs would be
created in Washington County (Table 100, page 224). The creation of employment
opportunities for residents of underserved communities in Washington County would
contribute to addressing the high unemployment, poverty, and low‐incomes that were
found to exist throughout underserved communities within the county.

The annual fiscal impact of the ongoing operations of a supermarket in Washington County
with estimated annual sales of $5,116,756 is projected to be $242,293. The annual sales tax
revenues associated with this investment are projected to be $131,186, personal income
tax revenues are predicted to be $13,023, and corporate income tax is estimated to be
$1,682 (Table 101, page 224).

225


Table 102: The Economic Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Washington County

Direct Effect 28.7 $922,396 $962,365 $2,920,000
Indirect Effect 6.2 $261,192 $369,626 $666,473
Induced Effect 5.7 $178,303 $337,409 $562,048
Total Effect 40.7 $1,361,892 $1,669,401 $4,148,521
Source: IMPLAN

Table 103: The Fiscal Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in Washington County

$58,877 $33,306 $812 $1,614 $5,011 $814
$2,288 $18,431 $2,914 $1,307 $508 $658
Source: IMPLAN


Direct Effect 18.9 $574,528 $750,276 $1,093,725
Indirect Effect 1.7 $58,764 $93,750 $178,316
Induced Effect 3.1 $95,399 $180,522 $300,701
Total Effect 23.6 $728,692 $1,024,549 $1,572,742
Source: IMPLAN


$98,737 $55,855 $1,361 $2,707 $8,404 $1,365
$1,266 $9,801 $1,550 $695 $270 $350
Source: IMPLAN

226


The Economic Impact of a Grocery Store Investment in Washington County
foot grocery store with annual sales of $3,851,145, based upon the retail gap in HFFI census
tract 28151001400, was modeled at the county level using econometric input‐output
software. Based upon these assumptions, approximately 40.7 full‐time equivalent jobs
would be supported during the construction phase of project activities; of these 28.7 would
be on‐site direct construction jobs with associated labor income of approximately $922,396.
An additional 11.9 indirect and induced full‐time equivalent jobs would be created during
the construction phase of project activities (Table 102, page 226).
$126,540; of this amount, associated sales tax revenues are estimated to be $58,877 and
personal income tax revenues are projected to be $18,431 (Table 103, page 226).
 The ongoing operations of a grocery store located in an underserved community in
Washington County with estimated annual sales of approximately $3,851,145 would create
approximately 23.6 full‐time equivalent jobs, with associated labor income of $728,692
annually. An estimated 18.9 direct jobs would be associated with the ongoing operations of
the store, creating employment opportunities for the low‐income residents living within the
community; the annual labor income of these jobs is estimated to be $574,528 (Table 104,
page 226).
$182,361; of this amount, sales tax revenues are projected to be $98,737 and personal
income tax revenues are projected to be $9,801 (Table 105, page 226).
Investments in Store Renovations, Expansion, and Equipment Purchases in Washington County
The preliminary analysis of HFFI census tracts in Washington County found multiple tracts with
a food at home spending gap of $500,000 or more; therefore, multiple opportunities may exist
to renovate or expand existing stores in specific areas to enable them to increase their offerings
of fresh fruits or vegetables to community residents. To examine the economic impact of these
investments, it was assumed that an initial investment of $500,000 is made in store
renovations, expansions, and equipment purchases. Upon completion of construction
activities, it is then assumed that annual sales revenues will be $500,000 during the ongoing
operations of the business. The Stennis Research Team ran individual models of this
investment scenario for each county and found relatively insignificant geographic variation in
the economic and fiscal impact associated with the economic impact of investments; therefore,
the economic effect of investments made during the construction phase of project activities are
modeled at the state level. To provide a point of comparison, the economic effects of the
ongoing operations of a store with annual sales of $500,000 were modeled at the county level.
227


Table 106: The Economic Impact of a $500,000 Construction or Renovation Investment

Direct Effect 2.7 $132,830 $149,768 $293,500
Indirect Effect 0.7 $30,108 $45,784 $97,488
Induced Effect 0.9 $33,112 $60,382 $105,613
Total Effect 4.3 $196,050 $255,934 $496,601
Source: IMPLAN
Table 107: The Fiscal Impact of a $500,000 Construction or Renovation Investment
Tax on Production
and Imports:
Motor Vehicle
Licenses
$11,589 $6,556 $160 $318 $986 $160
$442 $2,567 $406 $182 $71 $92
Source: IMPLAN
Table 108: The Economic Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Store with $500,000 in Grocery Sales in Washington County

Direct Effect 2.5 $74,592 $97,409 $142,000
Indirect Effect 0.2 $7,629 $12,172 $23,151
Induced Effect 0.4 $12,386 $23,437 $39,040
Total Effect 3.1 $94,607 $133,019 $204,192
Source: IMPLAN
Table 109: The Fiscal Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Store with $500,000 in Grocery Sales in Washington County
Tax on Production
and Imports:
Motor Vehicle
Licenses
$12,819 $7,252 $177 $351 $1,091 $177
$164 $1,273 $201 $90 $35 $45
Source: IMPLAN
228


 An investment of $500,000 in a store renovation or expansion will support a total of
approximately 4.3 full‐time equivalent jobs during the construction phase of project
activities; of these, 2.7 jobs will be direct employment and an additional 1.6 jobs will be
indirect or induced jobs. The total labor income associated with this investment is
predicted to be approximately $196,050 (Table 106, page 228).
An investment of $500,000 in store renovation or expansion will generate approximately
$23,529 of tax revenue during the construction phase of project activities; of this amount,
$11,589 is associated with sales tax revenue and $2,567 is associated with personal income
tax revenue (Table 107, page 228).
 Approximately 3.1 full‐time equivalent jobs will be associated with the ongoing operations
of a store in Washington County with $500,000 in annual sales; of these, 2.5 direct jobs will
be created at the store with an additional 0.6 indirect and induced jobs. The labor income
effect of the ongoing operations of the store is projected to be $94,607 annually (Table 108,
page 228).
The fiscal impact of the ongoing operations of a store with annual sales of $500,000 is
predicted to be $23,675 annually; of this amount, $12,819 is associated with sales tax
revenue and personal income tax revenues are projected to be $1,273 (Table 109, page
228).

229


230


Standardizing the Economic Effects of Investments in Underserved
Communities in the State of Mississippi
The prior sections of this report examined investments made in underserved communities in
four Mississippi counties; the economic effects of these investments were predominantly
modeled at the county level, using food at home retail spending gap analysis to provide specific
examples of potential investments within each county and to examine the impact that these
investments would have on job creation in qualifying HFFI census tracts. As a result, the
economic impact of these investments, as discussed in prior sections of this report, may not be
generalizable and also do not fully capture the total impact of economic activity state‐wide. For
example, construction equipment and supplies may be purchased outside of the county, and
the sales tax revenues associated with these sales will not be captured by county‐level models;
also, workers may commute from outside of a county and the personal income taxes they pay
will not be included in county‐level econometric models. A standardized investment scenario
modeled at the state level will also enable decision‐makers to examine the cost‐benefit of
potential investments in Mississippi’s underserved communities that are made in locations
outside of the four counties that were the focus of this report. To provide this information, the
Stennis Research Team modeled three levels of potential investments in underserved
communities at the state level, as follows:
1. The construction or renovation of a 45,000 square foot supermarket with a
construction investment of $6,570,000 (assuming a construction cost of $124 per
square foot) and annual store sales of $5,402,464.
2. The construction or renovation of a 20,000 square foot grocery store with a
construction investment of $2,920,000 (assuming a construction cost of $124 per
square foot) and annual store sales of $2,000,000.
3. An investment of $500,000 in store renovations and new equipment and annual
store sales of $500,000; this level of investment would also be appropriate for
upgrading a farmers’ market.

It is important to note that the Agriculture Act of 2014 (the Farm Bill) has multiple provisions to
increase access to healthy foods that are not addressed in the three investment scenarios
described above; examples include programs that allow SNAP benefits to purchase shares in
Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) programs and “Double Value Coupon” programs that
provide monetary incentives to SNAP beneficiaries when they purchase food at participating
farmers’ markets.

231


Table 110: The Economic Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in a 45,000 Square Foot Supermarket

Direct Effect 56.5 $2,648,466 $2,727,184 $6,570,000
Indirect Effect 16.6 $785,078 $1,167,733 $2,558,955
Induced Effect 19.3 $697,312 $1,271,567 $2,224,021
Total Effect 92.5 $4,130,857 $5,166,484 $11,352,976
Source: IMPLAN

Table 111: The Fiscal Impact of a $6,570,000 Construction Investment in a 45,000 Square Foot Supermarket

and Imports: Sales and Imports: and Imports: Motor and Imports: and Imports: and Imports: S/L
Tax Property Tax Vehicle Licenses Severance Tax Other Taxes Non‐Taxes
$156,266 $88,399 $2,155 $4,284 $13,301 $2,160
$8,631 $54,284 $8,584 $3,848 $1,495 $1,939
Source: IMPLAN


Direct Effect 27.0 $792,126 $1,043,259 $1,534,300
Indirect Effect 3.0 $109,660 $191,360 $345,523
Induced Effect 5.1 $183,284 $334,234 $584,603
Total Effect 35.1 $1,085,070 $1,568,853 $2,464,426
Source: IMPLAN


and Imports: Sales and Imports: and Imports: Motor and Imports: and Imports: and Imports: S/L
Tax Property Tax Vehicle Licenses Severance Tax Other Taxes Non‐Taxes
$145,542 $82,333 $2,007 $3,990 $12,388 $2,011
$2,415 $14,184 $2,243 $1,005 $391 $507
Source: IMPLAN
232


The Economic Impact of a Supermarket Investment in Mississippi
construction and the start‐up of business operations was modeled at the state level. Based
upon these assumptions, the economic effect of this investment would be the generation of
approximately 92.5 full‐time equivalent jobs with associated labor income of $4,130,857.
During construction, the direct employment effect is estimated to be 56.5 construction‐
related jobs with associated labor income of $2,648,466. An additional 35.9 indirect and
induced full‐time equivalent jobs would be supported in the state of Mississippi over the
duration of construction activities (Table 110, page 232).

projected to generate an estimated $345,346 in tax revenues (Table 111, page 232). Sales
tax revenues are projected to be $156,266, personal income tax revenues are estimated to
be $54,284, and corporate profits tax revenues are projected to be $8,631.

 Upon the completion of construction activities and the start‐up of business activities,
assuming annual sales of $5,402,464, the economic effect of a supermarket project in the
state of Mississippi is projected to generate approximately 35.1 jobs with associated labor
income of $1,085,070. An estimated 27 full‐time equivalent direct jobs would be created at
the store, and an additional 8.1 full‐time equivalent indirect and induced jobs would be
created within the state (Table 112, page 232).

The annual fiscal impact of the ongoing operations of a supermarket in the state of
Mississippi with estimated annual sales of $5,402,464 is projected to be $269,016. The
annual sales tax revenues associated with this investment are projected to be $145,542,
personal income tax revenues are predicted to be $14,184, and corporate profits tax
revenues are estimated to be $2,415 (Table 113, page 232).

233


Table 114: The Economic Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in a Grocery Store in Mississippi

Direct Effect 25.1 $1,177,096 $1,212,082 $2,920,000
Indirect Effect 7.4 $348,924 $518,992 $1,137,313
Induced Effect 8.6 $309,917 $565,141 $988,454
Total Effect 41.1 $1,835,936 $2,296,215 $5,045,767
Source: IMPLAN

Table 115: The Fiscal Impact of a $2,920,000 Construction Investment in a Grocery Store in Mississippi

$69,452 $39,289 $958 $1,904 $5,912 $960
Personal Tax:
Corporate Profits Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Motor Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Other
NonTaxes (Fines‐
Tax Income Tax Vehicle License Property Taxes Tax (Fish/Hunt)
Fees)
$3,836 $24,126 $3,815 $1,710 $664 $862
Source: IMPLAN

Table 116: The Economic Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Grocery Store with Annual Sales of $2,000,000 in Mississippi

Direct Effect 10.0 $293,246 $386,216 $568,000
Indirect Effect 1.1 $40,596 $70,842 $127,913
Induced Effect 1.9 $67,852 $123,734 $216,421
Total Effect 13.0 $401,694 $580,792 $912,334
Source: IMPLAN

Table 117: The Fiscal Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Grocery Store with Annual Sales of $2,000,000 in Mississippi

$53,880 $30,480 $743 $1,477 $4,586 $745
Personal Tax:
NonTaxes (Fines‐
Fees)
$894 $5,251 $830 $372 $145 $188
Source: IMPLAN
234


The Economic Impact of a Grocery Store Investment in Mississippi
 Based upon the assumption of an initial investment of $2,920,000 in the construction or
renovation of a 20,000 square foot grocery store with annual sales of $2,000,000, an
estimated 41.1 full‐time equivalent jobs would be supported during the construction phase
of project activities; of these, 25.1 would be on‐site direct construction jobs with associated
labor income of approximately $1,177,096. An additional 16 indirect and induced full‐time
equivalent jobs would be created during the construction phase of project activities
Table 114, page 234).
$153,488; of this amount, associated sales tax revenues are estimated to be $69,452,
corporate profits tax is projected to be $3,836, and personal income tax is predicted to be
$24,126 (Table 115, page 234).
 The ongoing operations of a grocery store with estimated annual sales of approximately
$2,000,000 would create approximately 13 full‐time equivalent jobs, with associated labor
income of $401,694 annually. An estimated 10 direct jobs with labor income of $293,246
would be associated with the ongoing operations of the store (Table 116, page 234).
$99,591. Sales tax revenues are projected to be $53,880, personal income tax revenues are
anticipated to be $5,251, and corporate profits taxes will be approximately $894 (Table 117,
page 234).

235


Table 118: The Economic Impact of a $500,000 Investment in a Store Renovation in Mississippi

Direct Effect 2.7 $132,830 $149,768 $293,500
Indirect Effect 0.7 $30,108 $45,784 $97,488
Induced Effect 0.9 $33,112 $60,382 $105,613
Total Effect 4.3 $196,050 $255,934 $496,601
Source: IMPLAN
Table 119: The Fiscal Impact of a $500,000 Investment in a Store Renovation in Mississippi

$11,589 $6,556 $160 $318 $986 $160
Personal Tax:
NonTaxes (Fines‐
Fees)
$442 $2,567 $406 $182 $71 $92
Source: IMPLAN
Table 120: The Economic Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Store with Annual Sales of $500,000

Direct Effect 2.5 $73,312 $96,554 $142,000
Indirect Effect 0.3 $10,149 $17,710 $31,978
Induced Effect 0.5 $16,963 $30,933 $54,105
Total Effect 3.2 $100,424 $145,198 $228,083
Source: IMPLAN
Table 121: The Fiscal Impact of the Ongoing Operations of a Store with Annual Sales of $500,000

$13,470 $7,620 $186 $369 $1,147 $186
Personal Tax:
NonTaxes (Fines‐
Fees)
$223 $1,313 $208 $93 $36 $47
Source: IMPLAN

236


The Economic Impact of Small Loans of $500,000 for Store Remodels and New
Refrigeration Equipment
 This investment scenario assumes a small loan or grant in the amount of $500,000 is
provided to existing stores to enable them to create additional space and to purchase
refrigeration equipment to increase the supply of fruits, vegetables, and other nutritious
food to community residents. This scenario assumes that upon completion of construction
related activities, the annual sales of the store will be $500,000. During the
construction/renovation phase of project activities, it is estimated that a total of 4.3 full‐
time equivalent jobs with associated labor income of $196,050 will be created.
Approximately 2.7 full‐time equivalent direct jobs in the construction trades with associated
labor income of $132,830 will be created by this investment (Table 118, page 236).
$23,529; of this amount, associated sales tax revenues are estimated to be $11,589,
corporate profits tax is projected to be $442, and personal income tax revenue is predicted
to be $2,567 (Table 119, page 236).
 The ongoing operations of a store with estimated annual sales of approximately $500,000
would create approximately 3.2 full‐time equivalent jobs, with associated labor income of
$100,424 annually. An estimated 2.5 direct jobs with labor income of approximately
$73,312 would be associated with the ongoing operations of the store (Table 120, page
236).
$24,898. Sales tax revenues are projected to be $13,470, personal income tax revenues are
anticipated to be $1,313, and corporate profits taxes will be approximately $223 (Table 121,
page 236).

237


Table 122: Lowndes County Obesity‐related Healthcare Cost Estimates
Estimated Obesity Related 3rd Party Healthcare Cost based upon Thorpe's (2009) Point Estimate of Estimated Obesity Related 3rd Party Healthcare Cost based upon Cawley and
$761 per Obese Adult Meyerhoefer's (2012) Point Estimate of $2,418 per Obese Adult
Census Tract or Cost for Privately Cost for Public Cost for Those with Cost for Privately Cost for Public Cost for Those
Total Total
Geographic Area Insured Insurance Coverage No Insurance Insured Insurance Coverage with No Insurance
28087000101 $876,444 $423,953 $251,358 $1,551,755 $2,784,811 $1,347,068 $798,665 $4,930,544
28087000102 $294,507 $286,288 $111,639 $692,434 $935,766 $909,652 $354,721 $2,200,138
28087000200 $204,785 $11,187 $21,004 $236,975 $650,684 $35,545 $66,737 $752,965
28087000300 $1,195,607 $470,526 $257,066 $1,923,199 $3,798,920 $1,495,049 $816,800 $6,110,770
28087000401** $940,368 $566,869 $288,800 $1,796,036 $2,987,923 $1,801,168 $917,631 $5,706,722
28087000403 $628,967 $251,358 $203,415 $1,083,740 $1,998,477 $798,665 $646,331 $3,443,474
28087000404 $689,238 $194,512 $139,948 $1,023,697 $2,189,983 $618,041 $444,670 $3,252,694
28087000500 $498,379 $384,229 $206,612 $1,089,219 $1,583,548 $1,220,848 $656,487 $3,460,883
28087000600** $221,451 $420,529 $169,627 $811,607 $703,638 $1,336,187 $538,972 $2,578,797
28087000700** $480,800 $434,227 $235,149 $1,150,175 $1,527,692 $1,379,711 $747,162 $3,654,565
28087000800** $264,600 $389,023 $230,355 $883,978 $840,739 $1,236,082 $731,929 $2,808,749
28087000900** $658,189 $510,479 $268,481 $1,437,149 $2,091,328 $1,621,994 $853,070 $4,566,393
28087001000 $348,158 $171,910 $57,303 $577,371 $1,106,235 $546,226 $182,075 $1,834,537
28087001100** $170,312 $154,559 $70,545 $395,416 $541,148 $491,096 $224,149 $1,256,393
Lowndes County $7,471,802 $4,669,648 $2,511,300 $14,652,751 $23,740,891 $14,837,332 $7,979,400 $46,557,623
Sources: Insurance Coverage sourced from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012, 5‐Year Estimates; obesity rates calculated at 30 percent for each insurance population sub‐group
Table 123: Pearl River County Obesity‐related Healthcare Cost Estimates
Total Total
28109950100** $616,410 $535,820 $364,823 $1,517,054 $1,958,580 $1,702,514 $1,159,189 $4,820,283
28109950200 $733,071 $417,789 $297,018 $1,447,879 $2,329,259 $1,327,482 $943,745 $4,600,487
28109950300 $401,351 $254,098 $111,182 $766,631 $1,275,253 $807,370 $353,270 $2,435,893
28109950401 $887,174 $564,814 $320,990 $1,772,978 $2,818,904 $1,794,640 $1,019,912 $5,633,456
28109950402 $671,430 $574,631 $318,935 $1,564,997 $2,133,401 $1,825,832 $1,013,384 $4,972,617
28109950501 $1,041,276 $645,176 $273,275 $1,959,727 $3,308,549 $2,049,980 $868,304 $6,226,834
28109950502 $1,309,072 $473,951 $217,342 $2,000,365 $4,159,444 $1,505,930 $690,581 $6,355,955
28109950600** $515,273 $299,301 $252,728 $1,067,303 $1,637,228 $950,999 $803,018 $3,391,245
28109950700** $622,574 $793,114 $481,256 $1,896,945 $1,978,166 $2,520,040 $1,529,143 $6,027,349
Pearl River County $6,797,633 $4,558,694 $2,637,550 $13,993,877 $21,598,785 $14,484,787 $8,380,546 $44,464,118
238


The Cost‐Benefit of Investments in Mississippi’s Underserved
Communities
Public policy designed to increase the supply of affordable, healthy food in underserved
communities is based upon the body of research that supports the relationship between better
access to affordable, healthy food and a healthier diet, a lower risk of obesity, and a reduction
in the negative health outcomes associated with being overweight or obese. Multiple states
have adopted policies designed to improve the retail food environment to make healthier food
more easily accessible to underserved populations; these state healthy food financing initiatives
are designed to incentivize private sector investments into HFFI qualifying census tracts for the
purpose of increasing the supply of affordable, healthy food. State healthy food financing
initiatives typically provide legislative appropriations for grants, loans, or tax incentives to
support investments in supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores, farmers’ markets,
and other direct‐to‐consumer agricultural sales activities, including Food Hubs or Community
Supported Agricultural (CSAs) programs.
Typically, state healthy food financing initiatives provide a share of the cost for investments
made in HFFI census tracts by the private sector, but may also support investments made by
non‐profit entities. The costs associated with state healthy food financing initiative
investments may include:
 Pre‐development costs, which may include appraisals, feasibility analysis, or market studies
 Land acquisition
 Store construction or renovation
 Equipment, furnishings, or fixtures
 Technical assistance
 Job training
 Program evaluation
The potential benefits associated with state healthy food financing initiatives include an
improved retail food environment, increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, healthier
diets, and lower levels of obesity. One possible benefit of improving the retail food
environment in Mississippi’s underserved communities includes the potential to reduce
obesity‐related healthcare costs in the state. As discussed in prior sections of this report,
obesity‐related healthcare costs are a significant financial burden on the state of Mississippi.
The obesity‐related healthcare costs of recipients of public health insurance and for those who
have no healthcare insurance are higher than for those who are covered by private insurance.
The obesity‐related healthcare costs for recipients of public health insurance and for the
uninsured are predominantly paid for by federal and state governments, or by hospitals and
physicians; ultimately, these costs are paid for by tax revenues or are passed through as a
239


Table 124: Sunflower County Obesity‐related Health Care Cost Estimates
Census Tract or Cost for Privately Cost for Public Cost for Those with Cost for Privately Cost for Public Cost for those

Total Total
28133950100** $349,071 $396,101 $158,440 $903,611 $1,109,137 $1,258,569 $503,428 $2,871,133
28133950200** $391,078 $504,543 $198,393 $1,094,014 $1,242,610 $1,603,134 $630,373 $3,476,117
28133950300** $228,300 $254,098 $125,337 $607,735 $725,400 $807,370 $398,245 $1,931,015
28133950401 $468,700 $298,160 $109,127 $875,987 $1,489,246 $947,372 $346,741 $2,783,360
28133950402** $439,021 $702,023 $282,179 $1,423,222 $1,394,944 $2,230,605 $896,594 $4,522,144
28133950500** $186,521 $291,083 $161,408 $639,012 $592,652 $924,885 $512,858 $2,030,395
28133950600 $223,049 $209,579 $128,533 $561,161 $708,716 $665,917 $408,400 $1,783,033
Sunflower County $2,285,740 $2,655,586 $1,163,417 $6,104,742 $7,262,705 $8,437,853 $3,696,638 $19,397,196
240


“hidden tax” on the cost of healthcare. A potential reduction in obesity‐related healthcare
costs also represents a potential savings in state expenditures related to these healthcare costs;
this is particularly true for the obesity‐related healthcare costs that may be associated with
those with public health insurance coverage. Within the context of the variability that is
inherent in estimates of population obesity rates and the obesity‐related cost of healthcare, it
may be useful for decision‐makers to evaluate the cost‐benefit of investments made in
Mississippi’s underserved communities from the perspective of improving health outcomes in
these communities and the potential to reduce obesity‐related healthcare costs within
Mississippi’s underserved communities. These metrics may also be useful for the purpose of
prioritizing the cost‐benefit of making investments in specific HFFI qualifying census tracts.
With an adult obesity rate of 35.1 percent in 2013, Mississippi and West Virginia had the
highest obesity rates in the United States.242 According to the Robert Woods Johnson
Foundation’s “County Health Rankings and Roadmaps,” adult obesity and diabetes rates in the
four counties examined in this study were as follows:
Table 125: Comparison of Adult Obesity Rate by County
Percent of Adults
Percent of Adults Average Health
County Diagnosed with
that were Obese Care Costs
Diabetes
Lowndes County 37% 14% $9,140
Pearl River County 33% 13% $10,688
Sunflower County 42% 14% $12,438
Washington County 38% 13% $9,606
State of Mississippi 35% 13% $10,688
Source: Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, County Health Rankings and Roadmaps, 2013
Obesity rates exhibit variability based upon gender, race or ethnicity, age, and other
socioeconomic characteristics of the population and of the individual (see Table 5, page 30). In
addition, there is inherent variability in the statistical methods used to estimate obesity rates
and the accuracy of predicted confidence intervals (variance around the mean). As previously
discussed in this study, there is also variability in the findings of prior research that has
examined obesity‐related healthcare costs. As a result, estimates of the percentage of the
population that is obese and estimates of the healthcare costs associated with obesity also
exhibit significant variability. For example, conservative estimates of obesity‐related healthcare
costs indicate that the increase in adult per capita medical spending that is attributable to
obesity is $1,140 per person for those who are privately insured, $1,021 for those who are

242 Mississippi State Department of Health website: http://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/43,0,289.html (accessed November
20, 2014).
241


Table 126: Washington County Obesity‐related Healthcare Cost Estimates
Total Total
28151000100 $212,547 $124,195 $63,924 $400,667 $675,347 $394,618 $203,112 $1,273,077
28151000200 $144,057 $214,145 $87,211 $445,413 $457,727 $680,425 $277,103 $1,415,255
28151000300** $176,933 $406,831 $268,024 $851,787 $562,185 $1,292,663 $851,620 $2,706,467
28151000400** $134,012 $449,751 $216,428 $800,192 $425,810 $1,429,038 $687,679 $2,542,527
28151000600* $154,331 $328,524 $129,218 $612,072 $490,370 $1,043,851 $410,576 $1,944,797
28151000701 $400,667 $323,273 $157,070 $881,010 $1,273,077 $1,027,166 $499,075 $2,799,319
28151000702 $616,638 $300,443 $127,391 $1,044,473 $1,959,305 $954,626 $404,773 $3,318,705
28151000800 $435,596 $295,192 $127,391 $858,180 $1,384,063 $937,942 $404,773 $2,726,779
28151000900** $247,249 $328,295 $161,408 $736,952 $785,608 $1,043,125 $512,858 $2,341,591
28151001000** $73,284 $145,655 $59,130 $278,069 $232,853 $462,805 $187,879 $883,537
28151001100** $97,712 $244,053 $99,767 $441,532 $310,471 $775,453 $317,000 $1,402,924
28151001200** $170,540 $290,169 $99,082 $559,792 $541,874 $921,983 $314,824 $1,778,681
28151001300** $132,186 $327,611 $126,250 $586,046 $420,007 $1,040,949 $401,146 $1,862,102
28151001400** $401,123 $401,123 $115,976 $918,223 $1,274,528 $1,274,528 $368,503 $2,917,559
28151001500** $494,954 $469,157 $132,414 $1,096,525 $1,572,667 $1,490,697 $420,732 $3,484,096
28151001600** $193,598 $183,553 $133,556 $510,707 $615,139 $583,222 $424,359 $1,622,720
28151001700** $261,632 $312,999 $151,591 $726,222 $831,308 $994,523 $481,666 $2,307,497
28151002000 $113,693 $155,701 $73,513 $342,907 $361,249 $494,723 $233,579 $1,089,551
28151002100** $84,243 $171,225 $65,066 $320,533 $267,673 $544,050 $206,739 $1,018,462
Washington County $4,544,996 $5,471,894 $2,394,410 $12,411,301 $14,441,263 $17,386,387 $7,607,995 $39,435,646
242


insured through Medicaid, and $1,723 per person for those who are insured through Medicare.
More recent estimates of obesity‐related healthcare costs indicate that the per capita
additional 3rd party cost of obesity‐ related health care is $2,346 for those who are privately
insured, $3,521 for those who are publically insured, and $3,153 for obese persons who have
no insurance.243
The modeling of highly specific, census tract level obesity‐related healthcare costs was beyond
the scope of this study; therefore, the Stennis Research Team selected to develop conservative
estimates for a range of obesity‐related healthcare costs. To develop a generalized guideline
for the potential obesity‐related healthcare costs in Mississippi’s HFFI census tracts, the Stennis
Research Team used two estimates of potential obesity‐related healthcare costs: 1) a
conservative estimate based upon Thorpe’s (2009)244 mid‐point estimate of obesity attributable
health care spending per adult of $761, and 2) an estimate based upon Cawley and
Meyerhoefer’s (2012)245 per capita point estimate of a 3rd party (public and private insurers, or
uncompensated costs to hospitals or physicians) obesity‐related healthcare cost of $2,418; for
both of these estimates, the model assumed an adult obesity rate of 30 percent. The results of
these estimates are shown in Table 122 and Table 123 on page 238, in Table 124 on page 240,
and in Table 126 on page 242. To further examine the potential cost‐benefit of using taxpayer
funds to make investments in Mississippi’s underserved communities, the Stennis Research
Team calculated the potential savings that might be associated with a reduction in the obesity
rate in each census tract within the four counties that were the focus of this study; these
estimates were based upon the assumption that the obesity rate declined from 30 percent to
29 percent of the population in each census tract — an assumption of a one percent (1%)
reduction in the obesity rate. The obesity‐related healthcare cost savings were calculated at
two levels; one level of cost reduction was estimated based upon Thorpe’s (2009)246 mid‐point
estimate of obesity attributable health care spending per adult of $761, and a second level of
cost reduction was estimated based upon Cawley and Meyerhoefer’s (2012)247 per capita point
estimate of a 3rd party (public and private insurers, or uncompensated costs to hospitals or
physicians) obesity‐related healthcare cost of $2,418. The estimated potential savings in
obesity‐related healthcare cost associated with a one percent (1%) reduction in the obesity rate


243


Table 127: Estimated Obesity‐related Healthcare Cost Savings Associated with a One Percent Reduction in the Obesity Rate in Lowndes County
Estimated Obesity Related 3rd Party Cost Savings Assuming a One (1%) Percent Reduction in the Obesity Rate
Savings Based on Thorpe's (2009) Point Estimate of $761 per Savings Based on Cawley and Meyerhoefer's Point Estimate of
Obese Adult $2,418 per Obese Adult
Census Tract or
Private Insurance Public Insurance No Insurance Total Private Insurance Public Insurance No Insurance Total
Geographic Area
28087000101 $29,215 $14,132 $8,379 $51,725 $92,827 $44,902 $26,622 $164,351
28087000102 $9,817 $9,543 $3,721 $23,081 $31,192 $30,322 $11,824 $73,338
28087000200 $6,826 $373 $700 $7,899 $21,689 $1,185 $2,225 $25,099
28087000300 $39,854 $15,684 $8,569 $64,107 $126,631 $49,835 $27,227 $203,692
28087000401** $31,346 $18,896 $9,627 $59,868 $99,597 $60,039 $30,588 $190,224
28087000403 $20,966 $8,379 $6,781 $36,125 $66,616 $26,622 $21,544 $114,782
28087000404 $22,975 $6,484 $4,665 $34,123 $72,999 $20,601 $14,822 $108,423
28087000500 $16,613 $12,808 $6,887 $36,307 $52,785 $40,695 $21,883 $115,363
28087000600** $7,382 $14,018 $5,654 $27,054 $23,455 $44,540 $17,966 $85,960
28087000700** $16,027 $14,474 $7,838 $38,339 $50,923 $45,990 $24,905 $121,819
28087000800** $8,820 $12,967 $7,678 $29,466 $28,025 $41,203 $24,398 $93,625
28087000900** $21,940 $17,016 $8,949 $47,905 $69,711 $54,066 $28,436 $152,213
28087001000 $11,605 $5,730 $1,910 $19,246 $36,875 $18,208 $6,069 $61,151
28087001100** $5,677 $5,152 $2,351 $13,181 $18,038 $16,370 $7,472 $41,880
Lowndes County $249,060 $155,655 $83,710 $488,425 $791,363 $494,578 $265,980 $1,551,921
Source: Insurance Coverage sourced from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012 5‐Year Estimates; obesity rates calculated at 29 percent for each population sub‐group
244


in the counties examined in this study are presented in Table 127, Table 128, Table 129, and
Table 130 on pages 244, 246, 246, and 248. The true obesity‐related healthcare costs are likely
to be higher in the state of Mississippi than those presented in this study and the true obesity‐
related healthcare costs associated with the populations living in Mississippi’s underserved
communities are likely to be extraordinarily expensive due to the high poverty rates and low‐
income levels that were found to exist in Mississippi’s HFFI census tracts. For example, in
Sunflower County, the adult obesity rate is 42 percent, and in Washington County, the adult
obesity rate is 38 percent (Table 125, page 241). In Lowndes County, 22.4 percent of
households have incomes of less than $15,000, and in many of Lowndes County’s HFFI census
tracts, the percentage of households with incomes of less than $15,000 approaches 50 percent
(Table 24, page 116); in Mississippi, the obesity rate among those with incomes of less than
$15,000 is 41.2 percent (Table 5, page 30). Because the Stennis Research Team selected to
develop conservative estimates for use in this study and used the generalized assumption of an
adult obesity rate of 30 percent to develop obesity‐related healthcare cost estimates, the
obesity‐related healthcare cost estimates associated with those who have public insurance are
most likely underestimated due to the low‐income eligibility levels that are associated with
public insurance programs. Within this context, decision‐makers conducting a cost‐benefit
analysis of the investment of public dollars to provide grants, loans, or tax incentives to support
a state healthy food financing initiative in the state of Mississippi should integrate the potential
savings that may be associated with any reductions in the state’s share of obesity‐related
healthcare costs; this is specifically true for the obesity‐related healthcare costs that are
associated with public insurance because a share of these costs are paid for with taxpayer funds
that are appropriated by the Mississippi Legislature to support public insurance programs, and
any cost savings associated with a reduction in obesity will accrue to the benefit of the General
Fund on an annual basis. For example, as shown in Table 127 on page 244, assuming an
obesity‐related healthcare cost of $2,418 per obese adult, the potential public insurance
obesity‐related healthcare savings associated with a one percent reduction in the adult obesity
level in Lowndes County’s HFFI census tract 28087000900 is projected to be $54,066. If
Mississippi’s Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for Medicaid is 74.17 percent, then
the annual healthcare cost savings to the state of Mississippi associated with a one percent
reduction in the obesity rate in HFFI census tract 28087000900 would be approximately
$13,976 annually, or $139,652 over a 10‐year period. These potential savings should be
included in the cost‐benefit analysis for a healthy food financing initiative investment.
In addition to the potential health benefits and potential obesity‐related healthcare cost
savings associated with a state healthy food financing initiative, investments in underserved
communities generate economic activity, job creation, and employment opportunities, and may
serve as anchors to attract other types of commercial or retail activity. The economic benefits
associated with these investments will occur in two phases; a first phase of economic impact
245


Table 128: Estimated Obesity‐related Healthcare Cost Savings Associated with a One Percent Reduction in the Obesity Rate in Pearl River County
Census Tract or
Geographic Area
28109950100** $20,547 $17,861 $12,161 $50,568 $65,286 $56,750 $38,640 $160,676
28109950200 $24,436 $13,926 $9,901 $48,263 $77,642 $44,249 $31,458 $153,350
28109950300 $13,378 $8,470 $3,706 $25,554 $42,508 $26,912 $11,776 $81,196
28109950401 $29,572 $18,827 $10,700 $59,099 $93,963 $59,821 $33,997 $187,782
28109950402 $22,381 $19,154 $10,631 $52,167 $71,113 $60,861 $33,779 $165,754
28109950501 $34,709 $21,506 $9,109 $65,324 $110,285 $68,333 $28,943 $207,561
28109950502 $43,636 $15,798 $7,245 $66,679 $138,648 $50,198 $23,019 $211,865
28109950600** $17,176 $9,977 $8,424 $35,577 $54,574 $31,700 $26,767 $113,042
28109950700** $20,752 $26,437 $16,042 $63,231 $65,939 $84,001 $50,971 $200,912
Pearl River County $226,588 $151,956 $87,918 $466,463 $719,960 $482,826 $279,352 $1,482,137
Table 129: Estimated Obesity‐related Healthcare Cost Savings Associated with a One Percent Reduction in the Obesity Rate in Sunflower County
Census Tract or
Geographic Area
28133950100** $11,636 $13,203 $5,281 $30,120 $36,971 $41,952 $16,781 $95,704
28133950200** $13,036 $16,818 $6,613 $36,467 $41,420 $53,438 $21,012 $115,871
28133950300** $7,610 $8,470 $4,178 $20,258 $24,180 $26,912 $13,275 $64,367
28133950401 $15,623 $9,939 $3,638 $29,200 $49,642 $31,579 $11,558 $92,779
28133950402** $14,634 $23,401 $9,406 $47,441 $46,498 $74,354 $29,886 $150,738
28133950500** $6,217 $9,703 $5,380 $21,300 $19,755 $30,830 $17,095 $67,680
28133950600 $7,435 $6,986 $4,284 $18,705 $23,624 $22,197 $13,613 $59,434
Sunflower County $76,191 $88,520 $38,781 $203,491 $242,090 $281,262 $123,221 $646,573
246


will occur during the construction or renovation phase of the project and a second phase of
economic impact will occur during the ongoing operations of the business.
Construction economic impacts are relatively short‐term in nature, generally lasting through
the duration of construction related spending. The economic impact of ongoing business
operations is long‐term in nature, and continuous throughout the life of the business. For
example, during the construction or renovation phase of a project, labor will be hired and will
spend their wages to make purchases; this spending will support employment at the businesses
and suppliers to the businesses from which labor makes purchases. When construction is
completed, labor is no longer receiving wages and the economic activity associated with their
expenditures ends. Alternatively, the economic impact of the ongoing operations of the
business continues from year‐to‐year; the firm employs labor (direct employment) and makes
purchases from suppliers on a continuous basis; the spending associated with labor income and
business purchases supports other jobs (indirect and induced employment) with related
additional spending within the economy. The fiscal impact of this economic activity is also
continuous; firms and individuals pay income taxes on an annual basis and sales tax revenues
associated with the ongoing operations of the business are continuously generated.
When examining the cost‐benefit of making public investments in a state healthy food financing
initiatives using taxpayer funds, the primary consideration for elected decision‐makers is the
fiscal effect of these investments. At the state level, tax revenues associated with sales tax,
personal income tax, and corporate income taxes represent the greatest potential for
generating increased revenue to offset the cost of making public investments in underserved
communities. At the county level, property tax represents the greatest potential for generating
increased revenue associated with making a public investment in an underserved community;
at the municipal level, property taxes and the municipal sales tax diversions represent the
greatest potential to offset the cost of making a public investment in an underserved
community, assuming the investment is made within the municipal boundaries. As
demonstrated in previous sections of this study, the magnitude of the economic and fiscal
effects of investments in underserved communities are directly related to the size of the
investment, the sales associated with the ongoing operations of the business upon completion
of construction or renovation, and the geographic location of the investment. For example,
when modeled at the state‐level, an investment of $6,570,000 in a 45,000 square foot
supermarket with anticipated annual sales of $5,402,464 would have the economic impact of
creating approximately 92.5 full‐time equivalent jobs during the construction phase of project
activities, and then would have the economic impact of creating approximately 35.1 full‐time
equivalent jobs during the ongoing operations of business activity upon completion of
construction (Table 110 and Table 112, page 232). The fiscal impact of this investment would
be to generate approximately $219,181 in combined sales tax, personal income tax, and
247


Table 130: Estimated Obesity‐related Healthcare Cost Savings Associated with a One Percent Reduction in the Obesity Rate in Washington County
Census Tract or
Geographic Area
28151000100 $7,085 $4,140 $2,131 $13,356 $22,512 $13,154 $6,770 $42,436
28151000200 $4,802 $7,138 $2,907 $14,847 $15,258 $22,681 $9,237 $47,175
28151000300** $5,898 $13,561 $8,934 $28,393 $18,740 $43,089 $28,387 $90,216
28151000400** $4,467 $14,992 $7,214 $26,673 $14,194 $47,635 $22,923 $84,751
28151000600* $5,144 $10,951 $4,307 $20,402 $16,346 $34,795 $13,686 $64,827
28151000701 $13,356 $10,776 $5,236 $29,367 $42,436 $34,239 $16,636 $93,311
28151000702 $20,555 $10,015 $4,246 $34,816 $65,310 $31,821 $13,492 $110,624
28151000800 $14,520 $9,840 $4,246 $28,606 $46,135 $31,265 $13,492 $90,893
28151000900** $8,242 $10,943 $5,380 $24,565 $26,187 $34,771 $17,095 $78,053
28151001000** $2,443 $4,855 $1,971 $9,269 $7,762 $15,427 $6,263 $29,451
28151001100** $3,257 $8,135 $3,326 $14,718 $10,349 $25,848 $10,567 $46,764
28151001200** $5,685 $9,672 $3,303 $18,660 $18,062 $30,733 $10,494 $59,289
28151001300** $4,406 $10,920 $4,208 $19,535 $14,000 $34,698 $13,372 $62,070
28151001400** $13,371 $13,371 $3,866 $30,607 $42,484 $42,484 $12,283 $97,252
28151001500** $16,498 $15,639 $4,414 $36,551 $52,422 $49,690 $14,024 $116,137
28151001600** $6,453 $6,118 $4,452 $17,024 $20,505 $19,441 $14,145 $54,091
28151001700** $8,721 $10,433 $5,053 $24,207 $27,710 $33,151 $16,056 $76,917
28151002000 $3,790 $5,190 $2,450 $11,430 $12,042 $16,491 $7,786 $36,318
28151002100** $2,808 $5,708 $2,169 $10,684 $8,922 $18,135 $6,891 $33,949
Washington County $151,500 $182,396 $79,814 $413,710 $481,375 $579,546 $253,600 $1,314,522
248


corporate income tax during the construction phase of project, and an additional $162,140
annually of combined sales tax, personal income tax, and corporate income tax revenue would
be associated with the ongoing operations of the business upon completion of construction
activities (Table 111 and Table 113, page 232). Over a 10‐year period, the gross fiscal impact of
this investment would be approximately $1,840,581 in tax revenues accruing to the benefit of
the state of Mississippi, assuming no sales tax diversions to a municipality, no labor
displacement, or substitution effects are associated with the investment. A change in the dollar
amount of the initial investment in construction or renovation, or a change in the projected
sales associated with the ongoing operations of the business, will also change the economic and
fiscal impact of any healthy food financing initiative investment made in underserved
communities within the state of Mississippi. For example, an initial construction investment of
$2,920,000 in a 20,000 square foot grocery store with projected annual sales of $2,000,000
modeled at the state level, would have a projected fiscal impact of $97,414 in combined sales
tax, personal income tax, and corporate income tax during the construction phase of the
project, and an annual fiscal impact of $60,025 in combined sales tax, personal income tax, and
corporate income tax during the ongoing operations of the business (Table 115 and Table 117,
page 234). Over a 10‐year period, the gross fiscal impact of this investment would be
approximately $697,250 in tax revenues accruing to the benefit of the state of Mississippi,
assuming no sales tax diversions to a municipality, no labor displacement, or substitution
effects are associated with the investment.
State healthy food financing initiatives are designed to stimulate private investment by
leveraging private capital with state funding to meet the financing needs of business operators
who are currently located in or planning to open retail food outlets in communities where
credit needs cannot be met by conventional financial institutions. Healthy food financing
initiatives assist developers and business operators to overcome many of the higher start‐up
costs and other barriers to making investments in retail food outlets in low‐income areas; this
assistance may include flexible construction lending standards, financing at lower interest rates,
and other flexible debt terms. Typically, state healthy food financing initiatives provide initial
seed money or tax incentives to support public‐private programs that aggregate capital from
multiple sources to include banks, philanthropic organizations, and other investors to create
loan pools that are further leveraged by equity investment through the use of federal New
Market Tax Credits and other sources of federal funding available through the Healthy Food
Financing Initiative. As a result, the state portion of funding for a healthy food financing
initiative to attract investment into HFFI census tracts is significantly leveraged by private
capital; for example, in the state of Pennsylvania, $30 million in state funding was leveraged to
generate $165 million in total investment,248 indicating that the state share of the total

248 HR 728, Fresh Food Financing Initiative, enacted 2010, Pennsylvania Legislature.
249


Table 131: Projections of the Economic and Fiscal Impact of a Mississippi Healthy Food Financing Initiative Pilot Project
Full‐time Combined Sales Tax,
Lowndes County Equivalent Personal Income Tax,
Employment and Corporate Income
Construction of a 45,000 square foot supermarket with Annual Sales of $8,352,601
Construction Impact 75.4 $182,856
Ongoing Operations Impact 50.7 $213,442
Constructon of a 20,000 square foot grocery store with Annual Sales of $2,037,329
Combined Sales Tax,
Full‐time
Personal Income Tax,
Pearl River County Equivalent
and Corporate Income
Employment
Tax
Construction of 45,000 square foot supermarket with Annual Sales of $8,446,478
Construction Impact 87.3 $141,979.00
Ongoing Operations Impact 50.4 $239,547.00
Construction of 20,000 square foot grocery store with Annual Sales of $2,000,000
Combined Sales Tax,
Full‐time
Sunflower County Equivalent
Employment
Tax
Construction of a 20,000 square foot grocery store with Annual Sales of $2,131,057
Ongoing Operations Impact 13 $61,878
Combined Sales Tax,
Full‐time
Washington County Equivalent
Employment
Tax
Construction of a 20,000 square foot grocery store with Annual Sales of $3,851,145
Combined Sales Tax,
Full‐time
Four $500,000 Store Remodels and Equipment Purchases Equivalent
Employment
Tax
Four $500,000 Store Remodels and Equipment Purchases with Annual Sales of $500,000
Ongoing Operations 12.8 $15,006
Combined Sales Tax,
Full‐time
Summary of All Economic and Fiscal Impacts Equivalent
Employment
Tax
Total Construction Impacts 515.3 $925,043
Annual Total Ongoing Operations Impact 236.5 $1,043,138
250


investment associated with the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative was approximately
18.2 percent. It is important to note that this magnitude of leveraging investments will only be
possible in census tracts that are eligible for federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative
incentives. Using a similar metric for the investment of $6,570,000 in a 45,000 square foot
supermarket as described on page 247, the state share of the investment would be
approximately $1,194,545. This investment would generate approximately $219,181 in
combined sales tax, personal income tax, and corporate income tax during the construction
phase of project (Table 111, page 232), and approximately $162,140 annually of combined sales
tax, personal income tax, and corporate income tax revenue (Table 113, page 232). This would
indicate that within approximately six years the state would receive sufficient revenue from the
fiscal impact (combined sales tax, personal income tax, and corporate income tax) of the
investment to significantly offset the state’s contribution of approximately $1,194,545. If the
investment contributes to a reduction in obesity and obesity‐related healthcare costs to the
state, the payback on this investment could be accelerated.
At the time of this study, there are multiple unknown factors associated with the creation of a
state healthy food financing initiative in Mississippi; these factors include fund management,
the ability to leverage equity and debt investment, prevailing interest rates, debt service,
success in securing federal grant funding to leverage investments, store management, site
selection, store sales, consumer purchasing behavior, and multiple micro‐ and macro‐economic
factors that impact the business climate and the success of any business operation. Within the
context of this uncertainty, the Stennis Research Team modeled a scenario for a Mississippi
Healthy Food Financing Pilot Program, using the county‐level investment scenarios presented in
previous sections of this report and using the following assumptions:
 The construction related cost for a 45,000 square foot supermarket and a 20,000 square
foot grocery store was standardized at $6,570,000 and $2,920,000, respectively. The state
share of these investments was assumed to be 18.2 percent; $1,195,740 for an investment
of $6,570,000 and $531,440 for an investment of $2,920,000. The scenario assumes that
one 45,000 square foot supermarket and one 20,000 square foot grocery store will be
constructed or renovated in each of the four counties examined in this study, using the
potential annual sales that were modeled for each county (Table 131, page 250).
 One investment of $500,000 in store renovation to provide space and purchase new
equipment to increase shelf space for healthy food will be made in each of the four
counties, and that annual sales associated with these investments will be $500,000 at each
of the four stores; these impacts are modeled at the state level. It is assumed that the state
share of these investments is 50 percent ($1,000,000).
 The Pilot Program scenario assumes that an additional $1,000,000 of state funding will be
for technical assistance, education programs, implementation, and program evaluation.
 The Pilot Program scenario assumes a state cost for administrative fees of 15 percent
($1,336,308).
251


Table 132: The Economic Impact of a $2,000,000 Increase in the Direct‐to‐Consumer Agricultural Sales of Fruits and Vegetables

Direct Effect 8.6 $1,104,281 $1,083,704 $2,000,000
Indirect Effect 7.6 $265,092 $362,470 $802,665
Induced Effect 7.7 $276,492 $504,072 $881,493
Total Effect 23.9 $1,645,866 $1,950,245 $3,684,158
Source: IMPLAN

Table 133: The Fiscal Impact of a $2,000,000 Increase in Direct‐to‐Consumer Agricultural Sales of Fruits and Vegetables
Tax on Tax on
Production and Production and
and Imports: Motor and Imports: and Imports: Other and Imports: S/L
Imports: Sales Imports:
Vehicle Licenses Severance Tax Taxes Non‐Taxes
Tax Property Tax
$62,293 $35,239 $859 $1,708 $5,302 $861
Personal Tax:
Corporate Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Motor Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Other
NonTaxes (Fines‐
Profits Tax Income Tax Vehicle License Property Taxes Tax (Fish/Hunt)
Fees)
$2,172 $22,398 $3,542 $1,588 $617 $800
Source: IMPLAN
252


Based upon these assumptions, a Mississippi Healthy Food Financing Initiative would require a
state investment of $10,245,028 to leverage $39,960,000 of public and private investments in
the new construction and renovation of existing supermarkets, grocery stores, and other
existing food retail formats. This magnitude of private investment leveraging may only be
possible for investments made in census tracts that qualify under the federal guidelines for the
Healthy Food Financing Initiative or the federal New Market Tax Credit program. The economic
impact of these investments would be to create 515.3 full‐time equivalent jobs and an
estimated $925,043 of fiscal impact would be associated with the combined sales tax, personal
income tax, and corporate income tax during the construction phase of project activities. Upon
completion of construction activities, an estimated 236.5 full‐time equivalent jobs would be
associated with the ongoing operations of business activities and the annual fiscal impact
associated with ongoing operations is projected to be $1,043,138 in combined sales tax,
personal income tax, and corporate income tax (Table 131, page 250). Based upon the
assumptions used to model a Mississippi Healthy Food Financing Initiative Pilot Program, it is
estimated that it would take approximately 8.9 years for the state to recapture its initial
investment of $10,245,028 from the combined sales tax, personal income tax, and corporate
income tax that would be associated with the fiscal effects of investments in Mississippi’s
underserved communities, assuming no sales tax diversions to municipalities, no labor
displacement, or substitution effects are associated with these investments.
In addition to making investments in supermarkets, grocery stores, and other traditional food
retail formats, value‐added agricultural and direct‐to‐consumer agricultural sales represent a
significant economic growth opportunity for the state of Mississippi. Investments and policies
designed to support farmers’ markets, food hubs, farm‐to‐school programs, and Community
Supported Agricultural programs (CSAs) represent an additional strategy for increasing access
to affordable, healthy foods in Mississippi’s underserved communities that has extraordinary
potential. The magnitude of the economic and fiscal impact of investments that enable the
state of Mississippi to capture a larger share of the farm‐to‐retail price spread within the state’s
agricultural economy, to retain expenditures associated with existing food spending, while
offering fresh food at an affordable price have the potential to be quite significant. In 2013,
Mississippians spent an estimated $821,950,189 on fruits and vegetables; in 2013, National
School Lunch Program payments to the state of Mississippi were $197,659,575, and
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/Food Stamp) expenditures in the state of
Mississippi were $993,077,956. Capturing just a small percentage of this spending within
Mississippi’s agricultural economy would create significant economic and fiscal impact. For
example, a $2,000,000 increase in the sale of Mississippi produced fruits and vegetables would
create approximately 23.9 full‐time equivalents jobs in the state of Mississippi and would have
an annual fiscal impact of $137,379; of this amount, $86,863 is associated with sales tax,
personal income tax, and corporate income tax revenue (Table 132 and Table 133, page 252).
253


Table 134: Overview of County Socio‐demographic Characteristics of the Population
Lowndes Pearl River Sunflower Washington All Four

Socio‐demographic Characteristic
County County County County Counties
Total Population 59,584 55,569 28,722 50,578 194,453
Population Living in HFFI Census Tracts 26,433 18,017 22,944 34,695 102,089
Percent of Total Population Living in HFFI Census Tracts 44.4% 32.4% 79.9% 68.6% 52.5%
Total White Population 32,362 46,980 7,368 13,647 100,357
White Population Living in HFFI Census Tracts 10,004 14,270 5,054 6,694 36,022
Percent of White Population Living in HFFI Census Tracts 30.9% 30.4% 68.6% 49.1% 35.9%
Total African American Population 26,040 7,065 20,997 35,879 89,981
African American Population Living in HFFI Census Tracts 16,117 3,247 17,614 27,637 64,615
Percent of African American Population Living in HFFI Census Tracts 61.9% 46.0% 83.9% 77.0% 71.8%
Percent of Total Population that is White 54.3% 84.5% 25.7% 27.0% 51.6%
Percent of Total Population that is African American 43.7% 12.7% 73.1% 70.9% 46.3%
Total Female Population 31,315 28,351 13,563 27,009 100,237
Female Population Living in HFFI Census Tracts 14,718 9,901 10,227 18,989 53,835
Percent of Total Female Population Living in HFFI Census Tracts 47.0% 34.9% 75.4% 70.3% 53.7%
Percent of Total Population that is Female 52.6% 51.0% 47.2% 53.4% 51.5%
Total Population 17 Years and Under 15,029 13,547 6,923 13,973 49,472
Population 17 Years and Under Living in HFFI Census Tracts 6,751 4,714 5,689 10,006 27,160
Percent of Total Population 17 and Under Living in HFFI Census Tracts 44.9% 34.8% 82.2% 71.6% 54.9%
Percent of Total Population that is 17 and Under 25.2% 24.4% 24.1% 27.6% 25.4%
Total Population 65 and Over 7,733 8,473 3,080 6,340 25,626
Population 65 and Over Living in HFFI Census Tracts 3,594 2,211 2,232 4,163 12,200
Percent of the Population 65 and Over Living in HFFI Census Tracts 46.5% 26.1% 72.5% 65.7% 47.6%
Percent of Total Population that is 65 and Over 13.0% 15.2% 10.7% 12.5% 13.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2012 5‐Year Estimates
Authors Note: total population estimates provided in Table 134 above is sourced from 2012 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates, population totals
presented in Figure 16 (page 106), Figure 17 (page 138), Figure 18 (page 170), and Figure 19 (page 200) are sourced from 2014 U.S. Census Bureau, Population
Estimates. The use of different data sources results in minor variation in reported population totals.
254


Review of the Findings
The federal government has defined specific census tracts as geographic areas with limited
access to affordable and nutritious food; these census tracts are designated as eligible for
federal funding under the Healthy Food Financing Initiative; these HFFI eligible census tracts are
low‐income areas with a poverty rate of 20 percent or greater, or a median family income at or
below 80 percent of the area’s median income. Research has linked food access, nutritious
diets, and public health. Obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and premature death from
diet‐related disease has been found to be higher in populations living in HFFI census tracts; the
medical treatment of obesity‐related diseases is costly. The state of Mississippi has the highest
prevalence of health risk behaviors, chronic conditions, and the highest death rate from heart
disease, cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, and hypertensive renal disease in the United
States (Table 3, page 26 and Table 4, page 28); there is a significant need in the state of
Mississippi for public policy interventions designed to improve public health outcomes, to
reduce obesity‐related disease, and to contain the healthcare costs associated with obesity.
This study examined Lowndes County, Pearl River County, Sunflower County, and Washington
County at the census tract level to develop a comparative analysis of the characteristics found
in HFFI census tracts in the state of Mississippi. Although each county and census tract was
found to exhibit unique socio‐economic characteristics, the HFFI census tracts examined in this
study can be generally characterized as having low income, low educational attainment levels,
and relatively high unemployment. Women, children, and the elderly were found to be
disproportionately represented in HFFI census tracts (Table 134, page 254).
The predominant economic determinates of site selection in the Supermarket and Grocery
Store Industry include locating in proximity to areas with high population density, close
proximity to a large population of middle to upper income consumers, high traffic counts, and
location in areas exhibiting strong economic growth; these determinants combined with
industry trends towards an increase in the variety of product offerings and increased store size
create significant barriers to improving access to healthy food in underserved communities.
The absence of supermarkets and grocery stores in underserved communities is further
exacerbated by small markets and stores that offer few affordable, healthy food options. This
is particularly true in rural areas in the state of Mississippi. The primary purpose of a state
healthy food financing initiative is to provide incentives to reduce the risk associated with
making investments in supermarkets and grocery stores in underserved communities by
providing technical and financial assistance through an array of funding options that may
include grants, loans, and tax credits through leveraged public‐private partnerships. Many
state healthy food financing initiatives also provide grants and loans to smaller existing stores
or to farmers’ markets to make renovations and equipment purchases to expand their offering
of healthier food options and to enable these stores and farmers’ markets to promote the use
of SNAP benefits to purchase healthy food.
255


Based upon consumer expenditures for food‐at‐home combined with a retail food purchasing
gap analysis at the census tract level, this study found sufficient market potential to exist within
a number of HFFI census tracts examined in this study. At the time of this study, multiple
factors associated with potential investments in Mississippi’s underserved communities were
unknown due to the unique funding mechanisms (i.e. debt, equity, bonds, loans, tax credits or
grants) that may be used to structure each investment; each investment will differ depending
upon site location, market size, the magnitude of the investment, potential sales, the retail
format of a future store, and other micro‐ and macro‐economic variables that will impact the
future sustainability and economic impact of these investments. Within this context, the
Stennis Research Team developed three healthy food financing scenarios for use in modeling
the economic and fiscal impact of investments in underserved communities at the county level
for each of the four counties included in this study; these models are discussed in the body of
this study. A potential scenario for a Mississippi Healthy Food Financing Pilot Program was also
developed; this scenario assumed a state investment of $10,245,028 to leverage $39,960,000 of
public and private investments in the new construction and renovation of existing
supermarkets, grocery stores, and other existing food retail formats; this degree of leveraging
may only be feasible for investments made in census tracts that qualify for federal Healthy Food
Financing Initiative funding and incentives. The construction impact of this investment was
found to be associated with the creation of 515.3 full‐time equivalent jobs with a one‐time
fiscal impact of $925,043 in combined sales tax, personal income tax, and corporate income
tax; upon the commencement of business activities, these investments would support an
estimated 236.5 full‐time equivalent jobs and the annual fiscal impact associated was projected
to be $1,043,138 in combined sales tax, personal income tax, and corporate income tax (Table
131, page 250). Based upon the assumptions used to model a Mississippi Healthy Food
Financing Initiative Pilot Program, it was estimated that it would take approximately 8.9 years
for the state to recapture its initial investment of $10,245,028 from the combined sales tax,
personal income tax, and corporate income tax that would be associated with the fiscal effects
of investments in Mississippi’s underserved communities, assuming no sales tax diversions to
municipalities, no labor displacement, or substitution effects are associated with these
investments, and that investments are made in HFFI qualifying census tracts.
An extensive infrastructure of existing farmers’ markets was found to exist throughout the state
of Mississippi (Map 1, page 72); significant opportunities exist to make investments in this
existing infrastructure to increase access to affordable, healthy foods and the economic
potential of increased direct‐to‐consumer agricultural sales through food hubs is virtually
untapped in the state.
A critical issue in the success of a healthy food financing initiative in the state of Mississippi will
be fund management, experience in structuring leveraged equity and debt investments with tax
credits, capacity to attract investment from the private and philanthropic sectors, the ability to
256


secure federal grant funding to further leverage state funds, and expertise in evaluating and
managing risk; providing technical assistance, partnering with community organizations, the
delivery of education programs, and objective program evaluation are strongly recommended.
Investments made to increase access to affordable, healthy foods in Mississippi’s underserved
communities will provide jobs for community residents and also have the potential to revitalize
communities by acting as an anchor to attract other investments. In more rural areas,
strategies that co‐locate services to create “one‐stop shopping” that may include banking
services, dry‐cleaning, family nutrition, childcare, and other educational programs, or health
clinics will provide new services to the community, create additional jobs, and increase retail
traffic. The majority of the jobs that are created through investments in grocery stores and
supermarkets will be entry‐level positions and receive on‐the‐job training; cashiers, stock
clerks, and food preparation workers are trained on‐the‐job, and meat‐cutters and bakers can
attend training at the local community college or they can learn the necessary skills on‐the‐job.
This study found that educational attainment levels for the populations living in HFFI qualifying
census tracts is relatively low; in HFFI census tracts, the percentage of the population without a
high school degree ranges from 17.0 percent to 32.9 percent of the population age 25 and over;
the entry‐level jobs created by investments in underserved communities will provide residents
with employment opportunities, the chance to gain valuable job skills, and to advance to
positions with greater responsibility and higher wages over time. Flexible work schedules and
part‐time employment opportunities may also provide new income opportunities, particularly
for the high percentage of females and for female households with children and no husband
present that were found in HFFI qualifying census tracts.
A Mississippi healthy food financing initiative may be viewed as a policy intervention strategy
designed to increase access to affordable, healthy foods in Mississippi’s underserved
communities with the objective of increasing the consumption of healthy food, improving the
diet of residents within these communities, and reducing obesity and obesity‐related illnesses.
An important potential benefit associated with this policy is the containment of obesity‐related
healthcare costs. The economic cost of obesity includes medical costs, lost worker productivity,
absenteeism from work, and the future value of income that is lost due to illness and
premature death. The majority of the economic costs of obesity are negative externalities that
shift the burden of the cost of obesity to other parties; for those who are employed and
privately insured, the majority of the burden of obesity‐related healthcare cost is shared by
employers and health insurance companies; for those who are covered by public health
insurance, the burden of obesity‐related healthcare cost is predominantly paid for by federal
and state governments; and for those who have no health insurance, the cost of
uncompensated healthcare is shifted to others in the form of higher healthcare costs. A
potential reduction in obesity‐related healthcare costs also represents a potential savings in
state expenditures, specifically those related to those who are covered by public health
257


insurance. In all four counties that were examined during this study, the percentage of the
population that was covered by public health insurance was higher than the state average of
43.3 percent; among the 27 HFFI qualifying census tracts that were examined in this study, the
percentage of the population with public health insurance was generally found to be higher
than the county‐wide and the state‐wide average (the exceptions to this statement were
Lowndes County HFFI census tract 28087000401, Pearl River County HFFI census tract
28109950700, Sunflower County HFFI census tract 28133950300, and Washington County HFFI
census tracts 28151001400 and 28151001500). To assist decision‐makers to formulate an
appropriate Mississippi healthy food financing initiative policy, estimates of obesity‐related
healthcare costs at the census tract level are included in this study; the annual obesity‐related
healthcare costs associated with the populations living in HFFI census tracts and covered by
public health insurance was estimated to range between $10,310,712 and $32,761,240 (Tables
127 through 130, pages 244 to 248).
This study was designed to assist decision‐makers to evaluate policy intervention strategies
associated with a future Mississippi Healthy Food Financing Initiative that is aligned with the
purpose of H.B. 1328 — the Small Business and Grocer Investment Act of 2014. This study
focused on evaluating census tracts that qualify for additional loans, grants, tax credits and
other incentives under the federal Health Food Financing Initiative; although numerous
underserved communities exist throughout the state of Mississippi, investments made in HFFI
eligible census tracts will create opportunities to significantly leverage the use of any future
state funding that may be provided to meet the objectives of the Mississippi Small Business and
Grocer Investment Act of 2014. The assumptions, projections, cost estimates, and methodology
used in this study are fully described for the purpose of transparency and are based upon the
best information that was available at the time the study was conducted. Studies conducted by
the Stennis Institute are intended to inform the public policy decision‐making process; the
Stennis Institute does not support specific public policies, nor is this study intended to be a
policy recommendation.
258


Appendices
259


CCLX


Appendix A: U.S. Treasury HHFI‐FA Funding to Community Development
Financial Institutions 2011 through 2014

CCLXI



CCLXII


Table 135: Recipients of HFFI‐FA Funding 2011 through 2014
CDFI Recipients of HFFI‐FA Funding 2011 through 2014
Awardee City Year Amount
California
Low Income Investment Fund San Francisco 2011 $3,000,000
Total California: 3
Colorado
Colorado Enterprise Fund Denver 2012 $750,000
Colorado Enterprise Fund Denver 2013 $800,000
First Nations Oweesta Corporation Longmont 2014 $500,000
Total Colorado: 3
Georgia
Appalachian Community Enterprises Cleveland 2011 $500,000
Total Georgia: 1
Illinois
Chicago Community Loan Fund Chicago 2012 $3,000,000
IFF Chicago 2011 $3,000,000
IFF Chicago 2012 $3,000,000
IFF Chicago 2013 $3,000,000
Total Illinois: 4
Kentucky
Community Ventures Corporation, Inc. Lexington 2012 $2,000,000
Community Ventures Corporation, Inc. Lexington 2013 $1,500,000
Total Kentucky: 2
Louisiana
ASI Federal Credit Union Harahan 2011 $3,000,000
ASI Federal Credit Union Harahan 2012 $2,000,000
Total Louisiana: 2
Massachusetts
Boston Community Loan Fund Boston 2013 $500,000
Boston Community Loan Fund Boston 2014 $2,750,000
Common Capital, Inc. Holyoke 2011 $500,000
Common Capital, Inc. Holyoke 2014 $500,000
Cooperative Fund of New England Amherst 2011 $2,000,000
Cooperative Fund of New England Amherst 2012 $1,000,000
Local Enterprise Assistance Fund Brookline 2011 $500,000
Local Enterprise Assistance Fund Brookline 2014 $400,000
Total Massachusetts: 8
Table continued on next page
CCLXIII


Recipients of HFFI‐FA 2011 through 2014 continued
CCLXIV


Table 136: U.S. Treasury, CDFI NMTC Data for Washington, Pearl River, Lowndes, and Sunflower Counties
ACS
Population
NMTC Poverty Median Unemployment
Census Tract Metro Designation for which Stennis Area Description
Eligible Rate Income Rate
Poverty is
determined
Washington
28151000100 Yes 20.10% 94.14 16.90% non 1,718 Arcola Area
28151000200 Yes 36.40% 58.58 21.40% non 1,558 Metcalfe Area/Mid Delta Airport
28151000300 Yes 54.20% 41.02 27.20% non 4,073
28151000400 Yes 50.90% 47.37 30.70% non 3,124
28151000600 Yes 48.60% 40.83 25.30% non 2,664
28151000701 No 14.30% 117.52 11.40% non 3,532 Greenville
28151000900 Yes 31.60% 82.39 17.40% non 3,009
28151001000 Yes 52.60% 44.07 51.60% non 1,532
28151001100 Yes 54.50% 50.66 12.90% non 1,757
28151001200 Yes 36.50% 59.95 30.70% non 2,683 Delta Regional Medical Center Area
28151001300 Yes 0.548 36.44 0.242 non 2347
28151001400 Yes 21.30% 74.69 19.30% non 3898
28151001500 Yes 30.10% 80.67 22.40% non 4,867 Chatham/Avon/Wayside/Glen Allan
28151001600 Yes 57.40% 36.71 23.40% non 2,140 Leland
28151001700 Yes 36.30% 41.85 21.20% non 2,968 Leland
28151002000 Yes 35.40% 74.18 28.40% non 1,338 Hollandale
28151002100 Yes 44.20% 44.45 27.50% non 1,465 Hollandale
Sunflower
28133950100 Yes 33.00% 77.68 18.80% non 3,508 Drew Area
28133950200 Yes 27.60% 73.87 17.10% non 4,707 Ruleville Area
28133950300 Yes 28.70% 72.65 11.50% non 2,621 Sunflower Area
28133950401 No 12.70% 111.25 12.60% non 3,585 Indianola North of RR and Pollock Road
28133950402 Yes 46.00% 43.04 17.50% non 6,195 Indianola South of RR and Pollock Road
28133950500 Yes 48.40% 53.45 25.60% non 2,514 Moorhead
28133950600 Yes 32.00% 68.11 10.90% non 2,779 Inverness area
Pearl River
28109950100 Yes 23.40% 88.09 10.30% non 6,509
28109950200 Yes 20.20% 99.04 8.90% non 5,567 Poplarville
28109950300 Yes 34.40% 94.45 4.70% non 2,499
28109950401 No 17.10% 109.86 6.90% non 7,736
28109950402 No 15.80% 127.17 4.40% non 5,548
28109950501 No 15.60% 107.46 6.40% non 7,468
28109950502 No 9.40% 132.59 4.60% non 6,759 Carrier
28109950600 Yes 20.10% 85.05 10.40% non 4,671 Picayunne
28109950700 Yes 32.80% 73.76 11.00% non 7,641 Nicholson
Lowndes
28087000101 No 14.70% 112.06 6.50% non 5,536 Caledonia Area
28087000102 No 13.60% 104.33 9.90% non 2,760
28087000200 No 8.30% 122.86 8.50% non 1,419 Columbus AFB Area
28087000300 No 92.00% 149.66 7.40% non 7,374 Pennington Lake Area
28087000401 Yes 20.50% 94.97 9.10% non 7,255 Steens Area
28087000403 No 17.10% 99.32 8.10% non 4,187 Lowndes County Airport Area
28087000404 No 10.70% 128.06 10.90% non 3,872 Lake Lowndes State Park Area
28087000500 No 14.40% 110.74 12.90% non 4,055 Gardner Blvd/Warpath Road
28087000600 Yes 43.70% 43.77 22.30% non 2,747
28087000700 Yes 45.70% 51.67 19.10% non 4,554 Lexapallila Creek Recreation Area (slightly north of)
28087000800 Yes 50.70% 39.25 29.70% non 3,578 Area Around Union Cemetary
28087000900 Yes 24.60% 100.63 17.10% non 6,094 Plymouth Road/Wilkins Wise Road Area
28087001000 No 16.00% 129.20 10.10% non 2,058 Artesia
28087001100 Yes 36.60% 45.50 21.80% non 1,729 Crawford
Source: U.S. Treasury Department, CDFI, Qualifying NMTC Census Tracts
CCLXV


CCLXVI


Appendix B: Limited Supermarket Access Rankings by Area Size
CCLXVII


CCLXVIII


Table 137: LSA Rankings for Major Metro Areas with Population Greater than 1,000,000
% of LSA Rank for % of
Total % of Rank for Total % Population LSA
Total Total LSA Composite
Place Population in of Population in in Low‐ Population in
Population Population Rank
LSA LSA Income Low Income
Area Area
Memphis, TN‐MS‐AR 1,315,850 155,419 12% 14 75% 5 1
Pittsburgh, PA 2,355,231 422,513 18% 5 57% 18 2
Richmond, VA 1,257,997 124,662 10% 20 84% 3 3
New Orleans‐Metairie‐Kenner, LA 1,167,694 242,172 21% 3 56% 20 4
Philadelphia‐Camden‐Wilmington, PA‐NJ‐DE‐MD 5,964,299 796,746 13% 8 57% 17 5
Milwaukee‐Waukesha‐West Allis, WI 1,555,512 167,167 11% 17 71% 8 6
St. Louis, MO‐IL 2,836,702 383,039 14% 6 50% 25 7
Bal more‐Towson, MD 2,710,302 350,267 13% 10 55% 22 8
Cleveland‐Elyria‐Mentor, OH 2,076,526 206,908 10% 19 61% 15 9
Bu alo‐Niagara Falls, NY 1,135,409 210,555 19% 4 46% 33 10
Rochester, NY 1,054,223 142,498 14% 7 48% 31 11
Cincinnati‐Middletown, OH‐KY‐IN 2,129,957 287,398 13% 11 49% 28 12
Providence‐New Bedford‐Fall River, RI‐MA 1,600,594 192,940 12% 13 50% 26 13
Tampa‐St. Petersburg‐Clearwater, FL 2,782,537 194,775 7% 29 64% 11 14
Chicago‐Naperville‐Joliet, IL‐IN‐WI 9,458,230 765,637 8% 23 56% 19 15
Kansas City, MO‐KS 2,035,230 73,929 4% 42 87% 2 16
Miami‐Fort Lauderdale‐Miami Beach, FL 5,563,854 471,392 8% 24 55% 21 17
San Antonio, TX 2,141,925 504,912 24% 1 35% 44 18
Washington‐Arlington‐Alexandria, DC‐VA‐MD‐WV 5,581,672 326,925 6% 33 62% 14 19
Detroit‐Warren‐Livonia, MI 4,296,154 437,681 10% 18 48% 30 20
Houston‐Baytown‐Sugar Land, TX 5,945,811 753,656 13% 9 39% 40 21
Jacksonville, FL 1,345,526 58,822 4% 45 75% 4 22
Dallas‐Fort Worth‐Arlington, TX 6,371,469 722,864 11% 15 44% 35 23
Minneapolis‐St. Paul‐Bloomington, MN‐WI 3,279,239 383,762 12% 12 40% 38 24
Columbus, OH 1,836,118 141,760 8% 27 54% 23 25
Aus n‐Round Rock, TX 1,716,227 400,195 23% 2 28% 48 26
Virginia Beach‐Norfolk‐Newport News, VA‐NC 1,671,213 106,962 6% 37 63% 13 27
Raleigh‐Cary, NC 1,130,501 25,155 2% 49 92% 1 28
Birmingham‐Hoover, AL 1,127,897 109,552 10% 21 49% 29 29
Los Angeles‐Long Beach‐Santa Ana, CA 12,825,385 450,523 4% 41 67% 10 30
Nashville‐Davidson‐‐Murfreesboro, TN 1,589,709 70,446 4% 44 71% 7 31
Boston‐Cambridge‐Quincy, MA‐NH 4,550,897 496,617 11% 16 42% 36 32
Har ord‐West Harford‐East Har ord, CT 1,211,964 51,401 4% 46 74% 6 33
Louisville, KY‐IN 1,283,234 81,679 6% 38 59% 16 34
Charlotte‐Gastonia‐Concord, NC‐SC 1,757,665 74,306 4% 43 64% 12 35
Salt Lake City, UT 1,123,900 27,604 2% 50 68% 9 36
Atlanta‐Sandy Springs‐Marie a, GA 5,268,182 356,313 7% 28 47% 32 37
San Francisco‐Oakland‐Fremont, CA 4,333,418 209,260 5% 39 51% 24 38
Phoenix‐Mesa‐Sco sdale, AZ 4,191,789 325,011 8% 26 41% 37 39
New York‐Northern New Jersey‐Long Island, NY‐NJ‐PA 18,894,316 1,190,504 6% 32 44% 34 40
Orlando, FL 2,134,116 111,459 5% 40 49% 27 41
Riverside‐San Bernardino‐Ontario, CA 4,224,123 346,421 8% 25 37% 43 42
Oklahoma City, OK 1,252,690 115,170 9% 22 30% 46 43
Indianapolis, IN 1,756,113 119,733 7% 31 39% 41 44
Sacramento‐‐Arden‐Arcade‐‐Roseville, CA 2,148,007 133,443 6% 36 40% 39 45
Las Vegas‐Paradise, NV 1,951,178 128,981 7% 30 31% 45 46
Denver‐Aurora, CO 2,519,310 159,236 6% 35 38% 42 47
Seattle‐Tacoma‐Bellevue, WA 3,438,719 193,158 6% 34 23% 50 48
Portland‐Vancouver‐Beaverton, OR‐WA 2,225,457 47,821 2% 48 29% 47 49
San Diego‐Carlsbad‐San Marcos, CA 3,095,171 108,149 3% 47 24% 49 50
San Jose‐Sunnyvale‐Santa Clara, CA 1,836,506 23,147 1% 51 9% 51 51

CCLXIX


Table 138: LSA Rankings for Metro Areas with Population between 500,000 and 1,000,000
Rank for % of
Rank for % of LSA
Total % of LSA
Total Total LSA Total % of Population in Composite
Place Population in Population in
Population Population Population Low‐Income Rank
LSA Low Income
in LSA Area
Area
Albany‐Schenectady‐Troy, NY 870,462 134,880 15% 7 65% 9 1

Baton Rouge, LA 802,302 86,095 11% 15 77% 3 2
New Haven‐Milford, CT 862,229 115,382 13% 11 67% 8 3
Harrisburg‐Carlisle, PA 549,353 96,668 18% 4 58% 18 4
Wichita, KS 623,024 60,649 10% 20 75% 4 5
Spring eld, MA 692,755 112,803 16% 6 56% 21 6
Youngstown‐Warren‐Boardman, OH‐PA 565,509 67,411 12% 14 58% 17 7
El Paso, TX 800,634 95,763 12% 13 57% 19 8
McAllen‐Edinburg‐Mission, TX 774,636 320,982 41% 1 45% 31 9
Greensboro‐High Point, NC 723,683 48,113 7% 26 71% 6 10
Des Moines, IA 569,534 33,474 6% 33 90% 1 11
Bakers eld, CA 839,430 50,302 6% 31 71% 5 12
Poughkeepsie‐Newburgh‐Middletown, NY 670,117 135,557 20% 3 44% 33 13
Cha anooga, TN‐GA 528,050 32,481 6% 35 81% 2 14
Tulsa, OK 937,378 67,275 7% 25 62% 14 15
Fresno, CA 930,636 77,872 8% 23 59% 16 16
Charleston‐North Charleston, SC 664,439 72,613 11% 17 54% 23 17
Tucson, AZ 979,978 202,777 21% 2 31% 40 18
Knoxville, TN 697,848 77,756 11% 16 50% 26 19
Dayton, OH 841,255 47,848 6% 30 63% 13 20
Akron, OH 703,276 67,303 10% 19 52% 24 21
Syracuse, NY 662,343 75,392 11% 18 51% 25 22
Scranton‐‐Wilkes‐Barre, PA 563,331 41,179 7% 29 61% 15 23
Jackson, MS 538,923 33,368 6% 34 65% 11 24
Worcester, MA 798,228 110,950 14% 9 32% 38 25
Allentown‐Bethlehem‐Easton, PA‐NJ 821,031 101,271 12% 12 40% 36 26
Albuquerque, NM 886,993 147,171 17% 5 16% 44 27
Bradenton‐Sarasota‐Venice, FL 702,196 49,287 7% 27 54% 22 28
Ogden‐Clear eld, UT 547,057 29,412 5% 40 65% 10 29
Li le Rock‐North Li le Rock, AR 699,723 19,360 3% 44 71% 7 30
Greenville, SC 636,825 52,896 8% 24 50% 27 31
Toledo, OH 651,380 55,889 9% 22 46% 30 32
Stockton, CA 685,071 25,280 4% 42 64% 12 33
Bridgeport‐Stamford‐Norwalk, CT 916,108 48,827 5% 36 56% 20 34
Palm Bay‐Melbourne‐Titusville, FL 543,278 74,660 14% 10 11% 46 35
Provo‐Orem, UT 526,678 77,075 15% 8 5% 48 36
Colorado Springs, CO 645,447 44,250 7% 28 45% 32 37
Durham, NC 504,276 49,377 10% 21 30% 41 38
Columbia, SC 767,471 35,783 5% 37 46% 29 39
Madison, WI 568,422 29,326 5% 39 48% 28 40
Cape Coral‐Fort Myers, FL 618,573 37,562 6% 32 26% 42 41
Omaha‐Council Blu s, NE‐IA 865,324 34,307 4% 41 42% 35 42
Lakeland, FL 601,963 31,202 5% 38 23% 43 43
Augusta‐Richmond County, GA‐SC 556,733 12,258 2% 47 43% 34 44
Grand Rapids‐Wyoming, MI 774,136 23,557 3% 43 32% 39 45
Lancaster, PA 519,370 17,220 3% 45 36% 37 46
Boise City‐Nampa, ID 616,434 8,347 1% 48 16% 45 47
Portland‐South Portland‐Biddeford, ME 514,035 13,368 3% 46 8% 47 48

CCLXX


Table 139: LSA Rankings for Metro Areas with Population between 250,000 to 500,000
Rank for %
Rank for Total % of LSA of LSA
Total % of
Total Total LSA % of Population in Population Composite
Place Population in
Population Population Population in Low‐Income in Low Rank
LSA
LSA Area Income
Area
Trenton‐Ewing, NJ 366,608 62,535 17% 11 70% 17 1

Columbus, GA‐AL 294,919 36,997 13% 17 73% 11 2
Savannah, GA 347,596 38,272 11% 22 83% 7 3
Erie, PA 280,523 34,465 12% 20 71% 13 4
Atlan c City, NJ 274,537 58,108 21% 4 57% 30 5
Lexington‐Fayette, KY 472,040 53,010 11% 21 70% 15 6
Lansing‐East Lansing, MI 464,028 64,196 14% 15 62% 22 7
Fort Wayne, IN 416,160 28,244 7% 34 94% 5 8
Hagerstown‐Martinsburg, MD‐WV 269,092 39,557 15% 14 59% 25 9
Ann Arbor, MI 344,783 65,925 19% 6 53% 34 10
Corpus Christi, TX 428,043 96,968 23% 2 43% 40 11
Beaumont‐Port Arthur, TX 388,667 33,613 9% 30 71% 12 12
Kalamazoo‐Portage, MI 326,584 37,560 12% 19 59% 24 13
Shreveport‐Bossier City, LA 398,559 108,994 27% 1 37% 45 14
Rockford, IL 349,313 24,461 7% 36 76% 10 15
Reno‐Sparks, NV 425,375 81,074 19% 5 38% 43 16
Roanoke, VA 308,701 52,525 17% 12 49% 36 17
Ocala, FL 331,247 38,000 11% 23 57% 27 18
Binghamton, NY 251,607 42,940 17% 13 49% 37 19
Manchester‐Nashua, NH 400,375 71,833 18% 7 38% 44 20
York‐Hanover, PA 434,800 72,230 17% 10 38% 42 21
Brownsville‐Harlingen, TX 406,129 89,288 22% 3 35% 49 22
Norwich‐New London, CT 273,969 34,308 13% 18 51% 35 23
Lafayette, LA 273,846 18,600 7% 39 71% 14 24
South Bend‐Mishawaka, IN‐MI 319,213 33,033 10% 26 56% 31 25
Utica‐Rome, NY 299,301 32,102 11% 24 55% 33 26
Mobile, AL 412,889 29,524 7% 35 59% 23 27
Charleston, WV 304,158 53,386 18% 8 34% 50 28
Visalia‐Porterville, CA 442,011 17,624 4% 52 82% 8 29
Vallejo‐Fairfield, CA 413,767 23,136 6% 42 69% 18 30
Deltona‐Daytona Beach‐Ormond Beach, FL 494,502 25,421 5% 44 68% 19 31
Kingsport‐Bristol‐Bristol, TN‐VA 309,474 10,090 3% 59 100% 4 32
Canton‐Massillon, OH 404,283 8,070 2% 62 100% 2 33


CCLXXI


Table 139 continued
Rank for %
Rank for Total % of LSA of LSA
Total % of
Total Total LSA % of Population in Population Composite
Place Population in
Population Population Population in Low‐Income in Low Rank
LSA
LSA Area Income
Area
Duluth, MN‐WI 279,666 49,520 18% 9 27% 55 34
Winston‐Salem, NC 477,702 36,157 8% 33 55% 32 35
Flint, MI 425,782 21,209 5% 45 68% 20 36
Peoria, IL 379,054 51,667 14% 16 32% 51 37
Eugene‐Springfield, OR 351,601 5,306 2% 64 100% 3 38
Hunngton‐Ashland, WV‐KY‐OH 287,596 18,703 7% 38 57% 29 39
Spokane, WA 471,082 6,849 1% 70 100% 1 40
Lubbock, TX 284,815 30,348 11% 25 37% 46 41
Pensacola‐Ferry Pass‐Brent, FL 448,904 18,148 4% 51 64% 21 42
Santa Barbara‐Santa Maria, CA 423,763 20,313 5% 46 57% 26 43
Wilmington, NC 362,246 8,416 2% 63 76% 9 44
Fort Smith, AR‐OK 298,484 6,601 2% 66 90% 6 45
Huntsville, AL 417,502 12,649 3% 57 70% 16 46
Lynchburg, VA 252,541 26,246 10% 27 37% 47 47
Green Bay, WI 306,195 22,913 7% 37 45% 39 48
Port St. Lucie, FL 423,968 23,743 6% 41 46% 38 49
Davenport‐Moline‐Rock Island, IA‐IL 379,538 33,742 9% 31 27% 54 50
Killeen‐Temple‐Fort Hood, TX 405,215 37,001 9% 29 16% 59 51
Bremerton‐Silverdale, WA 251,090 16,641 7% 40 37% 48 52
Montgomery, AL 374,432 35,501 9% 32 21% 58 53
Naples‐Marco Island, FL 321,460 5,528 2% 65 57% 28 54
Clarksville, TN‐KY 273,920 10,937 4% 55 39% 41 55
Olympia, WA 252,136 25,198 10% 28 0% 71 56
Asheville, NC 424,737 17,081 4% 53 27% 53 57
Fayetteville, NC 366,305 15,504 4% 54 29% 52 58
Merced, CA 255,311 13,711 5% 50 26% 56 59
Salinas, CA 414,998 19,057 5% 47 0% 63 60
Evansville, IN‐KY 358,571 17,256 5% 48 0% 64 61
Cedar Rapids, IA 257,904 16,118 6% 43 0% 70 62
Spartanburg, SC 284,121 12,830 5% 49 0% 66 63
Hickory‐Lenoir‐Morganton, NC 365,390 10,343 3% 58 10% 62 64
Reading, PA 411,336 6,645 2% 61 12% 60 65
Holland‐Grand Haven, MI 263,797 10,066 4% 56 0% 68 66
Santa Rosa‐Petaluma, CA 483,749 5,645 1% 69 23% 57 67
San Luis Obispo‐Paso Robles, CA 269,545 8,992 3% 60 0% 67 68
Gainesville, FL 264,360 4,318 2% 67 11% 61 69
Boulder, CO 318,080 869 0% 71 0% 65 70
Santa Cruz‐Watsonville, CA 262,265 5,704 2% 68 0% 69 71

CCLXXII


Table 140: LSA Rankings for Metro Areas with Populations less than 250,000

Total % of
Place Population in
LSA
LSA Area Area
Decatur, IL 110,726 20,260 18% 15 81% 16 1

Muskegon‐Norton Shores, MI 172,186 25,131 15% 29 85% 12 2
College Sta on‐Bryan, TX 228,644 39,183 17% 17 61% 29 3
Lafayette, IN 201,731 31,146 15% 26 66% 24 4
Show Low, AZ 107,417 17,427 16% 24 63% 26 5
Racine, WI 195,337 31,253 16% 21 61% 30 6
Monroe, LA 176,384 45,279 26% 5 50% 46 7
Houma‐Bayou Cane‐
Thibodaux, LA 208,158 57,119 27% 2 48% 52 8
Pueblo, CO 159,001 30,311 19% 11 51% 45 9
Sioux City, IA‐NE‐SD 143,521 29,835 21% 9 50% 47 10
Janesville, WI 160,296 24,529 15% 30 62% 27 11
Cheyenne, WY 91,712 14,050 15% 32 65% 25 12
Amarillo, TX 249,818 33,584 13% 35 66% 23 13
Bloomington‐Normal, IL 169,507 27,083 16% 22 54% 36 14
Lewiston‐Auburn, ME 107,652 13,569 13% 41 76% 18 15
Altoona, PA 127,041 21,981 17% 19 53% 41 16
Farmington, NM 130,017 35,587 27% 4 45% 59 17
Casper, WY 75,431 9,175 12% 49 76% 19 18
Athens‐Clarke County, GA 192,538 16,155 8% 66 100% 3 19
Santa Fe, NM 144,136 30,794 21% 8 42% 62 20
Kingston, NY 182,430 36,578 20% 10 41% 63 21
Wheeling, WV‐OH 147,860 28,711 19% 12 42% 61 22
Kankakee‐Bradley, IL 113,432 10,975 10% 59 85% 14 23
Gulfport‐Biloxi, MS 248,763 24,437 10% 55 69% 22 24
Saginaw‐Saginaw Township
North, MI 200,169 15,964 8% 63 83% 15 25
Niles‐Benton Harbor, MI 156,813 15,558 10% 58 75% 20 26
Alexandria, LA 153,885 41,292 27% 3 26% 79 27
Lawton, OK 124,062 51,462 41% 1 23% 81 28
Macon, GA 232,278 15,279 7% 74 91% 9 29
El Centro, CA 174,488 25,752 15% 28 46% 56 30
Yuba City, CA 166,849 42,703 26% 6 27% 78 31
Brunswick, GA 112,364 8,444 8% 73 88% 11 32
Waco, TX 234,904 39,561 17% 16 35% 69 33
Topeka, KS 233,805 11,186 5% 84 100% 1 34
Springfield, IL 210,090 27,034 13% 37 49% 49 35
Morgantown, WV 129,660 18,902 15% 31 46% 57 36
Cumberland, MD‐WV 103,275 19,258 19% 13 31% 75 37
Ithaca, NY 101,540 6,913 7% 80 100% 8 38
Ocean City, NJ 97,229 22,385 23% 7 22% 82 39
Las Cruces, NM 209,197 27,570 13% 38 47% 55 40
CCLXXIII


Table 139 continued

Total % of
Place Population in
LSA
LSA Area Area
Dalton, GA 142,155 16,644 12% 46 50% 48 41

Michigan City‐La Porte, IN 111,434 12,247 11% 52 53% 42 42
Johnson City, TN 198,672 15,608 8% 65 58% 32 43
Springfield, OH 138,326 6,578 5% 87 91% 10 44
Bay City, MI 107,768 12,278 11% 54 53% 43 45
Vineland‐Millville‐Bridgeton, NJ 156,853 22,260 14% 34 39% 65 46
Jackson, MI 160,247 13,556 8% 70 60% 31 47
Albany, GA 157,266 7,676 5% 86 80% 17 48
Jackson, TN 115,444 5,319 5% 90 85% 13 49
Anderson, SC 187,078 14,081 8% 67 53% 37 50
Je erson City, MO 149,777 4,364 3% 100 100% 5 51
Weirton‐Steubenville, WV‐OH 124,384 14,272 11% 51 48% 54 52
Terre Haute, IN 172,335 14,196 8% 68 53% 39 53
Valdosta, GA 139,548 4,847 3% 101 100% 6 54
Champaign‐Urbana, IL 231,788 5,016 2% 107 100% 2 55
Waterloo‐Cedar Falls, IA 167,810 13,994 8% 69 53% 40 56
Grand Forks, ND‐MN 98,443 13,070 13% 43 39% 66 57
Muncie, IN 117,632 6,083 5% 89 74% 21 58
Fargo, ND‐MN 208,759 37,454 18% 14 8% 98 59
Oshkosh‐Neenah, WI 166,973 20,484 12% 45 38% 67 60
Sherman‐Denison, TX 120,831 20,430 17% 20 13% 92 61
Barnstable Town, MA 215,802 27,589 13% 36 28% 77 62
Lake Havasu City‐Kingman, AZ 200,146 16,932 8% 64 49% 50 63
Danville, VA 106,533 17,498 16% 25 14% 89 64
St. George, UT 138,092 23,881 17% 18 9% 97 65
Rocky Mount, NC 152,352 3,104 2% 113 100% 4 66
Flagstaff, AZ 134,386 15,723 12% 47 35% 70 67
Burlington, NC 151,088 24,150 16% 23 9% 96 68
Wausau, WI 133,940 17,217 13% 39 26% 80 69
Gainesville, GA 179,645 26,565 15% 27 10% 94 70
Salisbury, MD 125,195 9,781 8% 72 49% 51 71
Goldsboro, NC 122,598 9,181 7% 79 52% 44 72
Wenatchee, WA 110,850 5,279 5% 91 55% 35 73
Sumter, SC 107,421 1,916 2% 119 100% 7 74
Florence, SC 205,495 14,989 7% 75 48% 53 75
Battle Creek, MI 136,146 10,554 8% 71 45% 58 76
Parkersburg‐Mariettaa, WV‐OH 162,002 21,938 14% 33 8% 99 77
Sandusky, OH 77,075 9,752 13% 44 14% 90 78
Winchester, VA‐WV 128,434 15,544 12% 48 17% 87 79
Danville, IL 81,595 7,225 9% 61 33% 74 80
Fort Walton Beach‐Crestview‐
Destin, FL 180,789 4,649 3% 98 53% 38 81

CCLXXIV


Table 139 continued
CCLXXV


Table 141: LSA Rankings for Micropolitan Areas
Rank for %
Rank for % of LSA of LSA
Total % of
Total Total LSA Total % of Population Population Composite
Place Population
Population Population Population in Low‐ in Low Rank
in LSA
in LSA Income Area Income
Area
Amsterdam, NY 50,215 18,152 36% 9 58% 31 1

Macomb, IL 32,604 8,045 25% 39 87% 15 2
Clarksdale, MS 26,140 9,216 35% 13 48% 47 3
Tallulah, LA 12,091 3,080 25% 40 69% 23 4
Gallup, NM 71,476 39,824 56% 2 40% 63 5
Marion, OH 66,490 17,266 26% 32 55% 38 6
Ottumwa, IA 35,611 8,117 23% 46 59% 30 7
Sierra Vista‐Douglas, AZ 131,299 30,887 24% 41 54% 40 8
Price, UT 21,396 7,548 35% 14 39% 69 9
New Castle, PA 91,095 24,911 27% 28 43% 56 10
Greenville, MS 51,113 9,441 18% 71 81% 19 11
Austin, MN 39,152 11,867 30% 21 38% 72 12
Los Alamos, NM 17,943 7,942 44% 5 30% 89 13
Somerset, PA 77,724 26,247 34% 15 32% 83 14
Payson, AZ 53,575 11,875 22% 50 47% 49 15
Taos, NM 32,925 13,421 41% 6 28% 93 16
De Ridder, LA 35,646 10,771 30% 22 31% 86 17
Helena‐West Helena, AR 21,697 7,880 36% 11 26% 97 18
Cortland, NY 49,322 11,124 23% 45 40% 65 19
Cordele, GA 23,432 4,794 20% 61 46% 52 20
Zanesville, OH 86,039 17,153 20% 55 41% 60 21
Fairmont, WV 56,389 8,475 15% 83 57% 32 22
Bonham, TX 33,907 11,035 33% 17 25% 99 23
Williman c, CT 118,398 20,945 18% 69 47% 48 24
Rio Grande City, TX 60,955 39,477 65% 1 18% 117 25
Butte‐Silver Bow, MT 34,181 6,207 18% 72 48% 46 26
Bay City, TX 36,689 4,273 12% 112 100% 7 27
Minot, ND 69,537 17,951 26% 31 29% 90 28
Marine e, WI‐MI 65,772 15,286 23% 43 34% 80 29
Oneonta, NY 62,246 12,394 20% 57 39% 67 30
Key West, FL 73,041 22,298 31% 18 20% 107 31
Lake City, FL 67,516 19,951 30% 19 20% 108 32
Klamath Falls, OR 66,349 14,765 22% 48 34% 79 33
Uvalde, TX 26,396 7,261 28% 27 25% 100 34
Selma, AL 43,804 5,812 13% 100 59% 29 35
Harrisburg, IL 24,912 4,781 19% 67 41% 62 36
Deming, NM 25,087 2,944 12% 113 82% 17 37
Greenwood, SC 69,661 9,072 13% 96 55% 37 38
Vicksburg, MS 48,760 14,298 29% 24 20% 109 39
Ardmore, OK 56,967 14,844 26% 33 23% 102 40
Greenwood, MS 42,899 5,508 13% 101 57% 34 41
Pittsburg, KS 39,118 5,061 13% 103 57% 35 42
Morgan City, LA 54,645 10,664 20% 58 33% 81 43
CCLXXVI


Table 141 continued
Rank for %
Total % of
Place Population
in LSA
Area
Wauchula, FL 27,724 2,668 10% 128 100% 11 44
Pierre Part, LA 23,421 9,548 41% 7 13% 132 45
Liberal, KS 22,944 5,121 22% 51 30% 88 46
Beckley, WV 78,837 14,146 18% 70 38% 70 47
Elizabeth City, NC 64,078 13,055 20% 56 32% 84 48
Cornelia, GA 43,041 4,731 11% 119 70% 22 49
Kill Devil Hills, NC 33,913 6,481 19% 65 36% 76 50
Pahrump, NV 43,907 23,516 54% 3 10% 139 51
Oak Harbor, WA 78,494 19,351 25% 38 21% 106 52
Havre, MT 16,090 3,508 22% 52 28% 94 53
Espanola, NM 40,232 19,721 49% 4 8% 143 54
Big Rapids, MI 42,797 5,800 14% 91 43% 57 55
Astoria, OR 37,039 13,966 38% 8 10% 140 56
Martinsville, VA 67,952 19,973 29% 23 15% 126 57
Meridian, MS 107,412 11,620 11% 115 56% 36 58
Wilson, NC 81,218 6,735 8% 148 100% 3 59
Corning, NY 98,952 8,533 9% 132 72% 21 60
Hudson, NY 63,077 7,472 12% 108 48% 45 61
Sikeston, MO 39,174 14,298 36% 10 7% 144 62
Plattsburgh, NY 82,109 20,687 25% 37 17% 120 63
Lexington Park, MD 105,145 28,996 28% 25 12% 133 64
Adrian, MI 99,888 10,754 11% 116 53% 42 65
Palatka, FL 74,340 14,309 19% 62 26% 96 66
Chambersburg, PA 149,575 17,509 12% 105 44% 55 67
Helena, MT 74,797 6,628 9% 134 67% 26 68
Elko, NV 50,794 10,329 20% 59 23% 103 69
Grants, NM 27,210 2,079 8% 154 100% 12 70
Homosassa Springs, FL 141,196 33,175 23% 42 14% 127 71
Ashtabula, OH 101,497 7,990 8% 145 67% 25 72
Oak Hill, WV 46,016 3,998 9% 138 57% 33 73
Sevierville, TN 89,872 22,397 25% 36 10% 138 74
Carbondale, IL 60,204 6,003 10% 125 46% 51 75
Middlesborough, KY 28,686 5,643 20% 60 19% 116 76
Centralia, WA 75,430 13,013 17% 73 22% 104 77
Cleveland, MS 34,134 2,499 7% 164 82% 16 78
Pecos, TX 13,777 975 7% 167 100% 14 79
Clearlake, CA 64,659 13,904 22% 49 12% 134 80
Bogalusa, LA 47,168 6,130 13% 98 32% 85 81
Gardnerville Ranchos, NV 46,986 8,153 17% 75 20% 110 82
Harrison, AR 45,216 2,178 5% 183 100% 6 83
Shelton, WA 60,681 21,353 35% 12 0% 178 84
Granbury, TX 59,671 6,689 11% 117 37% 74 85
Mount Sterling, KY 44,386 7,710 17% 77 19% 114 86
Ada, OK 37,475 4,903 13% 104 30% 87 87
CCLXXVII


Table 141 continued
Rank for %
Total % of
Place Population
in LSA
Area
Port Angeles, WA 71,383 6,091 9% 135 42% 58 88
Cedar City, UT 46,158 7,462 16% 82 20% 112 89
Muscatine, IA 54,107 4,963 9% 136 42% 59 90
Hilton Head Island‐Beaufort, 186,977 10,702 6% 168 61% 28 91
Wahpeton, ND‐MN 22,894 3,788 17% 79 18% 118 92
Morehead City, NC 66,449 8,075 12% 107 29% 91 93
Crescent City, CA 28,610 1,373 5% 189 100% 10 94
Palestine, TX 58,438 17,374 30% 20 0% 180 95
Roswell, NM 65,632 11,400 17% 74 14% 128 96
Brookings, OR 22,358 1,029 5% 191 100% 13 97
Norfolk, NE 48,259 9,244 19% 63 9% 142 98
Seneca, SC 74,253 11,780 16% 81 15% 125 99
Watertown‐Fort Drum, NY 116,203 16,767 14% 90 16% 121 100
Jamestown‐Dunkirk‐Fredonia 134,863 5,129 4% 195 81% 18 101
Coldwater, MI 45,247 7,895 17% 76 11% 137 102
Fort Polk South, LA 52,319 14,334 27% 29 0% 185 103
Natchez, MS‐LA 53,103 3,336 6% 175 54% 41 104
Bemidji, MN 44,428 3,499 8% 150 39% 68 105
Ottawa‐Streator, IL 154,951 12,344 8% 142 34% 77 106
Calhoun, GA 55,173 1,407 3% 215 100% 4 107
La Grande, OR 25,736 3,915 15% 89 13% 131 108
McComb, MS 53,517 1,913 4% 201 73% 20 109
Lewistown, PA 46,668 13,070 28% 26 0% 195 110
Sebring, FL 98,755 5,863 6% 169 45% 53 111
Rockland, ME 39,721 13,460 34% 16 0% 207 112
East Stroudsburg, PA 169,806 27,099 16% 80 5% 145 113
Crossville, TN 56,045 12,830 23% 44 0% 181 114
Kearney, NE 51,024 3,555 7% 162 40% 64 115
Muskogee, OK 70,957 2,651 4% 200 62% 27 116
Cullman, AL 80,387 9,666 12% 106 16% 122 117
Stillwater, OK 77,333 5,631 7% 158 38% 71 118
Truckee‐Grass Valley, CA 98,738 2,198 2% 229 100% 1 119
Manitowoc, WI 81,418 5,177 6% 171 41% 61 120
Marion‐Herrin, IL 66,328 8,378 13% 97 9% 141 121
Hastings, NE 37,906 1,721 5% 186 45% 54 122
The Villages, FL 93,410 3,913 4% 198 51% 44 123
Oxford, MS 47,343 1,155 2% 240 100% 5 124
Alice, TX 40,825 2,686 7% 163 33% 82 125
East Liverpool‐Salem, OH 107,840 4,630 4% 196 46% 50 126
Sanford, AZ 45,644 5,250 12% 110 11% 136 127
Mankato‐North Mankato, MN 96,715 7,901 8% 146 24% 101 128
Madisonville, KY 46,908 4,355 9% 137 20% 111 129
Grants Pass, OR 82,687 1,214 1% 250 100% 2 130
McAlester, OK 45,816 4,128 9% 139 20% 113 131
CCLXXVIII


Table 141 continued
Rank for %
Total % of
Place Population
in LSA
Area
Eufaula, AL‐GA 29,961 471 2% 243 100% 9 132

Phoenix Lake‐Cedar Ridge, CA 55,341 2,700 5% 181 36% 75 133
Danville, KY 53,185 5,294 10% 126 13% 130 134
Batavia, NY 60,063 1,646 3% 214 52% 43 135
Arkadelphia, AR 22,988 1,709 7% 166 29% 92 136
Aberdeen, WA 72,768 9,565 13% 95 0% 166 137
Cambridge, MD 32,618 8,349 26% 34 0% 228 138
Kingsville, TX 32,470 416 1% 256 100% 8 139
Thomasville‐Lexington, NC 162,832 14,972 9% 130 11% 135 140
Pottsville, PA 148,217 2,857 2% 227 54% 39 141
Moses Lake, WA 89,108 6,710 8% 147 17% 119 142
El Dorado, AR 41,622 3,369 8% 151 19% 115 143
Augusta‐Waterville, ME 122,116 9,481 8% 144 15% 123 144
Lebanon, NH‐VT 174,696 2,082 1% 247 67% 24 145
Paris, TX 49,793 7,297 15% 84 0% 188 146
City of The Dalles, OR 25,203 6,793 27% 30 0% 242 147
Wooster, OH 114,525 11,030 10% 122 0% 151 148
Eureka‐Arcata‐Fortuna, CA 134,623 4,143 3% 209 39% 66 149
Susanville, CA 34,894 7,333 21% 53 0% 222 150
Roseburg, OR 107,622 11,181 10% 123 0% 153 151
Indiana, PA 88,878 3,405 4% 199 34% 78 152
Brookings, SD 31,965 7,208 23% 47 0% 230 153
Gettysburg, PA 101,362 10,259 10% 124 0% 154 154
Rock Springs, WY 43,795 7,311 17% 78 0% 200 155
Traverse City, MI 143,365 12,409 9% 131 0% 148 156
Watertown, SD 33,129 6,948 21% 54 0% 225 157
Whitewater, WI 102,209 6,878 7% 157 15% 124 158
Coshocton, OH 36,901 7,166 19% 64 0% 217 159
Raymondville, TX 22,128 5,774 26% 35 0% 248 160
Bozeman, MT 89,493 3,076 3% 211 37% 73 161
Blue eld, WV‐VA 107,297 7,735 7% 156 13% 129 162
Greeneville, TN 68,803 3,344 5% 180 22% 105 163
Fort Madison‐Keokuk, IA‐MO 42,985 6,442 15% 85 0% 202 164
Sunbury, PA 94,508 3,525 4% 197 27% 95 165
Ukiah, CA 87,821 7,468 9% 133 0% 159 166
Harriman, TN 54,164 6,621 12% 109 0% 183 167
Manhattan, KS 127,048 10,593 8% 143 0% 150 168
Selinsgrove, PA 39,690 5,763 15% 86 0% 208 169
Huntingdon, PA 45,887 5,802 13% 99 0% 197 170
Miami, OK 31,837 6,127 19% 66 0% 231 171
Minden, LA 41,189 5,408 13% 102 0% 204 172
Newport, TN 35,651 5,449 15% 87 0% 221 173
Culpeper, VA 46,684 5,190 11% 118 0% 194 174
Burley, ID 43,012 5,092 12% 111 0% 201 175
Brigham City, UT 49,962 1,625 3% 217 25% 98 176
CCLXXIX


Table 141 continued
Rank for %
Total % of
Place Population
in LSA
Area
Woodward, OK 20,076 3,832 19% 68 0% 254 177
Grand Island, NE 72,708 4,829 7% 159 0% 167 178
Great Bend, KS 27,659 4,104 15% 88 0% 238 179
Lumberton, NC 134,138 7,102 5% 179 0% 149 180
Galesburg, IL 70,605 4,693 7% 160 0% 168 181
Mineral Wells, TX 28,111 4,060 14% 92 0% 236 182
Pendleton‐Hermiston, OR 87,034 5,518 6% 170 0% 160 183
Athens, OH 64,755 4,746 7% 161 0% 172 184
Lancaster, SC 76,636 4,257 6% 172 0% 163 185
Scottsbluff, NE 37,645 4,223 11% 120 0% 215 186
Marshfield‐Wisconsin Rapids, WI 74,721 4,800 6% 173 0% 165 187
Plymouth, IN 47,034 3,791 8% 149 0% 192 188
Forest City, NC 67,791 3,997 6% 174 0% 169 189
Jamestown, ND 21,100 2,931 14% 93 0% 250 190
Guymon, OK 20,635 2,939 14% 94 0% 252 191
Brevard, NC 33,080 3,408 10% 127 0% 226 192
Dickinson, ND 24,982 2,980 12% 114 0% 243 193
Garden City, KS 36,776 3,309 9% 140 0% 219 194
Twin Falls, ID 99,577 2,834 3% 210 0% 155 195
Stephenville, TX 37,889 3,054 8% 152 0% 214 196
Clinton, IA 49,104 2,407 5% 182 0% 190 197
Gillette, WY 46,124 2,578 6% 176 0% 196 198
Findlay, OH 74,781 1,904 3% 212 0% 164 199
Borger, TX 22,142 2,242 10% 129 0% 247 200
Pella, IA 33,299 2,763 8% 153 0% 224 201
Huron, SD 17,398 1,999 11% 121 0% 257 202
Ogdensburg‐Massena, NY 111,909 2,470 2% 228 0% 152 203
La Follette, TN 40,699 2,522 6% 177 0% 205 204
Duncan, OK 45,031 2,091 5% 184 0% 199 205
Cape Girardeau‐Jackson, MO‐IL 96,242 1,456 2% 230 0% 156 206
Brainerd, MN 91,008 2,039 2% 231 0% 157 207
Kalispell, MT 90,902 1,442 2% 232 0% 158 208
Torrington, CT 189,854 2,732 1% 246 0% 146 209
Georgetown, SC 60,169 1,670 3% 213 0% 179 210
Natchitoches, LA 39,550 2,167 5% 185 0% 209 211
Boone, IA 26,295 2,051 8% 155 0% 240 212
Bishop, CA 18,546 1,583 9% 141 0% 256 213
Las Vegas, NM 29,382 2,050 7% 165 0% 235 214
Fernley, NV 51,973 1,676 3% 216 0% 186 215
Daphne‐Fairhope, AL 182,225 544 0% 257 0% 147 216
Charleston‐Mattoon, IL 64,909 1,394 2% 233 0% 171 217
Durant, OK 42,403 1,565 4% 202 0% 203 218
Newton, IA 36,831 1,983 5% 187 0% 218 219
Hobbs, NM 64,702 1,402 2% 234 0% 173 220
Branson, MO 83,860 836 1% 248 0% 161 221
CCLXXX


Table 141 continued
Rank for %
Total % of
Place Population
in LSA
Area
Washington, NC 47,743 1,355 3% 218 0% 191 222
Coos Bay, OR 63,015 997 2% 235 0% 175 223
Opelousas‐Eunice, LA 83,379 769 1% 249 0% 162 224
Lock Haven, PA 39,228 1,466 4% 203 0% 210 225
Pon ac, IL 38,831 1,495 4% 204 0% 211 226
Henderson, NC 45,413 1,542 3% 219 0% 198 227
Gloversville, NY 55,507 1,200 2% 236 0% 182 228
Marshall, TX 65,609 984 1% 251 0% 170 229
Ontario, OR‐ID 53,928 823 2% 237 0% 184 230
Lincoln, IL 30,290 1,627 5% 188 0% 233 231
Malone, NY 51,587 895 2% 238 0% 187 232
Alamogordo, NM 63,779 544 1% 252 0% 174 233
Okeechobee, FL 39,985 1,265 3% 220 0% 206 234
Kerrville, TX 49,623 748 2% 239 0% 189 235
Ruston, LA 62,995 939 1% 253 0% 176 236
Mountain Home, ID 27,030 1,455 5% 190 0% 239 237
Fremont, OH 60,925 599 1% 254 0% 177 238
Troy, AL 32,838 1,436 4% 205 0% 227 239
Portales, NM 19,842 1,163 6% 178 0% 255 240
Canon City, CO 46,808 808 2% 241 0% 193 241
Sault Ste. Marie, MI 38,512 1,158 3% 221 0% 213 242
North Pla e, NE 37,575 1,302 3% 222 0% 216 243
Hood River, OR 22,342 1,153 5% 192 0% 246 244
Silver City, NM 29,512 1,065 4% 206 0% 234 245
Tuskegee, AL 21,443 1,024 5% 193 0% 249 246
Laramie, WY 36,288 1,046 3% 223 0% 220 247
Yazoo City, MS 28,055 1,197 4% 207 0% 237 248
Fairmont, MN 20,829 1,067 5% 194 0% 251 249
Dodge City, KS 33,837 1,061 3% 224 0% 223 250
Mitchell, SD 22,834 930 4% 208 0% 244 251
Camden, AR 31,470 930 3% 225 0% 232 252
Houghton, MI 38,779 442 1% 255 0% 212 253
Mount Pleasant, TX 32,333 695 2% 242 0% 229 254
Ruidoso, NM 20,490 547 3% 226 0% 253 255
Marshall, MN 25,845 614 2% 244 0% 241 256
Williston, ND 22,395 538 2% 245 0% 245 257

CCLXXXI

The Mission Statement of
The Stennis Institute of Government and Community Development
Elected to the United States Senate in 1947 with the promise to "plow a straight
furrow to the end of the row," John C. Stennis recognized the need for an
organization to assist governments with a wide range of issues and to better equip
citizens to participate in the political process. In 1976, Senator Stennis set the
mission parameters and ushered in the development of a policy research and
assistance institute which was to bear his name as an acknowledgment of his
service to the people of Mississippi. Created as a service and research arm of
Mississippi State University, the John C. Stennis Institute of Government was
established on February 9, 1976. Announcing its formation during a two-day
Forum on Politics honoring U.S. Senators John Stennis and Margaret Chase
Smith, MSU President William L. Giles outlined the Institute's mission and goals.
According to Giles, the Institute would seek to integrate research, service, and
teaching activities to improve government in the state, as well as promote the
training of students who seek careers in public service.
Thirty-nine years later, the Stennis Institute of Government has remained true to
that initial charge. By providing meaningful, applied research to both local and
state units of Mississippi government, the Institute brings a wealth of experience
and knowledge to bear on real-world issues. Through its economic and community
development research, executive development education programs, training
activities, and technical assistance programs, the Institute provides support for
today's policy-makers from the courthouse to the classroom. And, by playing an
active role in the development of tomorrow's leaders, the Institute is working to
ensure that Mississippi's future remains strong.

E-Mail: publications@sig.msstate.edu
Website: http://www.msgovt.org
Mississippi State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion,
national origin, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, group affiliation, or veteran status.
THE JOHN C. STENNIS

INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT
Post Office Drawer LV, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Voice 662.325.3328 Fax 662.325.3772

The Mississippi Small Business and Grocer Investment Act

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Mississippi Small Business and Grocer Investment Act

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

January 2015

The Mississippi Small Business and Grocer Investment Act

An Overview for Decision-Makers

Mississippi State Research Team

New Market Tax Credit Awardee City Year Amount

Health Risk Behavior or Chronic Condition Variable State of Mississippi United States Range for All States

U.S. Spending Per Capita $5,411 $6,815 5.30%

18 was estimated Total White Population 18 and Over 1,393,777 31.1% 433,465

Percent Percent Farms with

State of Mississippi: Average Value of Direct-to-Consumer Sales

Prepared by: J Phillips

The Supermarket and Grocery Store Industry Establishments Percent of Total Sales in Percent of

Grocery stores, independent 7,710 12.3% $24,973.40 5.4%

1 ‐ 4 5 ‐ 9 10 ‐ 19 20 ‐ 49 50 ‐ 99 100 ‐ 249 250 ‐ 499 500 ‐ 999 > 1,000

Mayhew 28087000700** 28087000600**

28087000101 6,053 48.09% 1,607 26.55% 659 10.89% 1,709 61 2.80%

Lowndes County Total in Food Percent in Food

Census Tract or Population 16 Number in Civilian Percent in Labor Percent Number not in

28087000101 4,861 3,019 62.1% 13.9% 1,772

28087000101 2,199 3.1% 2.9% $54,716 82.6%

Median earnings Median earnings for Median earnings for

28087000101 4,888 3,839 1,857 1,101 206

Percent with Percent with No Percent of Population Under 18

28087000101 81.60% 64.10% 31.00% 18.40% 12.80%

census tract also 28087000700** $4,277,223 $2,239,994 $2,037,229 $792,397 45

indicates a retail gap of 28087000800** $2,218,161 $2,225,930 ‐$7,769 $405,378 32

28087000900** $9,016,852 $39,670,125 ‐$30,653,273 $1,656,846 67

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production

$211,048 $119,389 $2,910 $5,786 $17,964 $2,917

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production

Mill Creek Barth

Pearl River Total in HFFI Percent in HFFI

28109950100** 2,260 5.3% 9.3% 8.8% 3.5% 12.3% 11.8%

28109950100** $25,543 $41,406 $30,804

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

Tax on Production Tax on Production and Tax on Production Tax on Production and

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

Tax on Production Tax on Production and Tax on Production Tax on Production and

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Personal Tax:

$2,108 $13,749 $2,174 $975 $379 $491

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

$640 $4,204 $665 $298 $116 $150

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

28133950100** 41.50% 34.80% 53.30% 80.30% 57.90% 69.40% 21.40%

Sunflower Total in HFFI Percent in HFFI

High school Percent high Percent

28133950100** 0.2% 2.5% 4.3% 20.2% 5.1% 3.6% 17.2%

28133950100** 81.0% 41.8% 47.4% 19.0% 6.0%

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production Tax on Production

$132,137 $74,749 $1,822 $3,623 $11,247 $1,826

Personal Tax: Personal Tax: Personal Tax:

$1,375 $10,256 $1,622 $727 $282 $366

Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output

Mayhew 28087000700 28087000600