Skip to main content

PantryPath Research · WIC Coverage Atlas

WIC in North Carolina

64.0% coverage

North Carolina's WIC program reaches 64.0% of eligible residents — an estimated 229,000 participants out of 358,000 who qualify. That leaves 129,000 pregnant women, infants, and young children eligible but not receiving WIC's food package or nutrition counseling.

358K

WIC eligibles

229K

Participants (FY2024 avg)

129K

Unserved eligibles

100

Counties

North Carolina by county

← Back to national atlas

Toggle between estimated WIC eligibles, unserved gap, low-income child counts, and child-poverty share. Hover a county for its exact value.

Note: USDA does not publish sub-state WIC participation, so every county in North Carolina inherits the state's 64.0% coverage rate. County-level eligibles are allocated from state totals in proportion to the county's share of low-income children under 6 (ACS B17024). See methodology.

Loading county map…

Fewer
More

North Carolina at a glance

Coverage rate

64.0%

Participants ÷ eligibles

Participation gap

36.0%

1 − coverage

Eligibles

358K

USDA FNS FY2022

Participants

229K

Monthly avg FY2024

Unserved

129K

Eligibles − participants

Kids < 6 low-income

278K

39.3% of universe

County-level hotspots

Top five counties across 100 counties in North Carolina.

Most WIC eligibles

Estimated eligible population

  1. 1 Mecklenburg 34K
  2. 2 Wake 25K
  3. 3 Guilford 21K
  4. 4 Cumberland 20K
  5. 5 Forsyth 15K

Largest unserved gap

Eligibles not receiving WIC

  1. 1 Mecklenburg 12K
  2. 2 Wake 9K
  3. 3 Guilford 7K
  4. 4 Cumberland 7K
  5. 5 Forsyth 5K

Highest child-poverty share

Children < 6 at ≤185% FPL

  1. 1 Greene 79.3%
  2. 2 Robeson 70.8%
  3. 3 Swain 69.9%
  4. 4 Hertford 66.8%
  5. 5 Anson 66.3%

Every county in North Carolina

All 100 counties with WIC eligibility estimates, unserved gap, and ACS child-poverty context.

County Eligibles est. Participants est. Unserved est. Kids < 6 low-income Poverty share
Alamance 6,127 3,919 2,208 4,756 40.8%
Alexander 1,308 836 472 1,015 48.7%
Alleghany 429 274 155 333 54.2%
Anson 1,211 775 436 940 66.3%
Ashe 747 478 269 580 47.3%
Avery 602 385 217 467 60.4%
Beaufort 1,737 1,111 626 1,348 56.3%
Bertie 578 370 208 449 53.6%
Bladen 915 585 330 710 44.7%
Brunswick 3,362 2,151 1,211 2,610 40.5%
Buncombe 6,740 4,312 2,428 5,232 35.6%
Burke 3,194 2,043 1,151 2,479 52.2%
Cabarrus 5,770 3,691 2,079 4,479 26.6%
Caldwell 2,705 1,731 974 2,100 47.3%
Camden 296 190 106 230 28.1%
Carteret 1,183 756 427 918 30.0%
Caswell 573 367 206 445 36.5%
Catawba 5,142 3,289 1,853 3,991 38.2%
Chatham 1,847 1,182 665 1,434 34.4%
Cherokee 533 341 192 414 34.5%
Chowan 513 328 185 398 47.8%
Clay 188 120 68 146 24.2%
Cleveland 4,800 3,070 1,730 3,726 54.1%
Columbus 2,468 1,579 889 1,916 58.4%
Craven 4,032 2,579 1,453 3,130 43.3%
Cumberland 19,878 12,715 7,163 15,430 52.8%
Currituck 437 279 158 339 17.6%
Dare 830 531 299 644 32.1%
Davidson 7,065 4,519 2,546 5,484 48.2%
Davie 949 607 342 737 29.1%
Duplin 2,601 1,664 937 2,019 55.1%
Durham 10,429 6,671 3,758 8,095 36.1%
Edgecombe 3,003 1,921 1,082 2,331 64.2%
Forsyth 15,181 9,711 5,470 11,784 44.5%
Franklin 2,738 1,751 987 2,125 43.5%
Gaston 8,540 5,463 3,077 6,629 41.9%
Gates 225 144 81 175 43.6%
Graham 137 87 50 106 28.6%
Granville 1,962 1,255 707 1,523 42.2%
Greene 1,120 716 404 869 79.3%
Guilford 20,788 13,297 7,491 16,136 45.8%
Halifax 2,388 1,528 860 1,854 62.6%
Harnett 5,569 3,562 2,007 4,323 37.0%
Haywood 1,836 1,174 662 1,425 43.7%
Henderson 3,705 2,370 1,335 2,876 43.8%
Hertford 885 566 319 687 66.8%
Hoke 2,238 1,431 807 1,737 38.0%
Hyde 27 17 10 21 16.5%
Iredell 4,622 2,957 1,665 3,588 28.5%
Jackson 1,183 756 427 918 49.9%
Johnston 7,285 4,660 2,625 5,655 34.3%
Jones 336 215 121 261 45.5%
Lee 2,793 1,787 1,006 2,168 49.8%
Lenoir 2,589 1,656 933 2,010 51.0%
Lincoln 2,354 1,506 848 1,827 33.3%
Macon 1,114 713 401 865 49.7%
Madison 192 123 69 149 12.0%
Martin 782 500 282 607 49.7%
McDowell 2,073 1,326 747 1,609 60.9%
Mecklenburg 33,664 21,534 12,130 26,131 30.4%
Mitchell 280 179 101 217 24.6%
Montgomery 1,217 779 438 945 55.1%
Moore 2,412 1,543 869 1,872 27.1%
Nash 2,904 1,857 1,047 2,254 39.6%
New Hanover 6,010 3,844 2,166 4,665 36.1%
Northampton 660 422 238 512 51.6%
Onslow 10,865 6,950 3,915 8,434 43.0%
Orange 1,922 1,230 692 1,492 20.8%
Pamlico 259 166 93 201 39.5%
Pasquotank 1,483 949 534 1,151 40.7%
Pender 1,558 996 562 1,209 29.5%
Perquimans 358 229 129 278 40.5%
Person 1,412 903 509 1,096 46.6%
Pitt 6,569 4,202 2,367 5,099 44.3%
Polk 437 279 158 339 42.5%
Randolph 6,450 4,126 2,324 5,007 51.9%
Richmond 2,307 1,476 831 1,791 62.7%
Robeson 8,543 5,464 3,079 6,631 70.8%
Rockingham 2,919 1,867 1,052 2,266 48.1%
Rowan 5,911 3,781 2,130 4,588 46.1%
Rutherford 3,070 1,964 1,106 2,383 59.4%
Sampson 3,280 2,098 1,182 2,546 57.6%
Scotland 2,084 1,333 751 1,618 62.3%
Stanly 2,740 1,753 987 2,127 46.7%
Stokes 1,436 919 517 1,115 49.5%
Surry 2,388 1,528 860 1,854 42.2%
Swain 831 532 299 645 69.9%
Transylvania 933 597 336 724 42.8%
Tyrrell 130 83 47 101 59.4%
Union 5,737 3,670 2,067 4,453 27.4%
Vance 2,386 1,526 860 1,852 60.1%
Wake 24,732 15,820 8,912 19,198 23.7%
Warren 818 523 295 635 62.7%
Washington 204 130 74 158 59.0%
Watauga 651 416 235 505 25.0%
Wayne 5,607 3,586 2,021 4,352 48.4%
Wilkes 2,305 1,474 831 1,789 50.1%
Wilson 4,027 2,576 1,451 3,126 57.2%
Yadkin 953 610 343 740 32.2%
Yancey 693 443 250 538 50.3%

Apply for WIC in North Carolina

Income limits, food-package rules, clinic locator, and application instructions specific to North Carolina's WIC agency.

North Carolina WIC guide

Families with children

Our population-specific guide: WIC, SNAP, school meals, Summer EBT, and pantry programs for families with kids in North Carolina.

Families guide

North Carolina SNAP

SNAP recipients are automatically income-eligible for WIC through adjunctive eligibility — often the fastest path to enrollment.

North Carolina SNAP guide

Find a food pantry

Search North Carolina's verified pantries — many partner with WIC clinics and distribute infant formula, baby food, and diapers.

North Carolina food pantries

WIC methodology

How we estimated county-level eligibles, why state coverage rates can't be disaggregated, and which data sources we used.

Full methodology