PantryPath Research · WIC Coverage Atlas
WIC in Oklahoma
46.8% coverageOklahoma's WIC program reaches 46.8% of eligible residents — an estimated 66,000 participants out of 141,000 who qualify. That leaves 75,000 pregnant women, infants, and young children eligible but not receiving WIC's food package or nutrition counseling.
141K
WIC eligibles
66K
Participants (FY2024 avg)
75K
Unserved eligibles
77
Counties
Oklahoma by county
← Back to national atlasToggle 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 Oklahoma inherits the state's 46.8% 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…
Oklahoma at a glance
Coverage rate
46.8%
Participants ÷ eligibles
Participation gap
53.2%
1 − coverage
Eligibles
141K
USDA FNS FY2022
Participants
66K
Monthly avg FY2024
Unserved
75K
Eligibles − participants
Kids < 6 low-income
134K
45.8% of universe
County-level hotspots
Top five counties across 77 counties in Oklahoma.
Most WIC eligibles
Estimated eligible population
- 1 Oklahoma 31K
- 2 Tulsa 26K
- 3 Cleveland 7K
- 4 Comanche 5K
- 5 Canadian 4K
Largest unserved gap
Eligibles not receiving WIC
- 1 Oklahoma 17K
- 2 Tulsa 14K
- 3 Cleveland 4K
- 4 Comanche 3K
- 5 Canadian 2K
Highest child-poverty share
Children < 6 at ≤185% FPL
- 1 Cimarron 77.1%
- 2 Tillman 66.7%
- 3 Le Flore 64.5%
- 4 Latimer 64.2%
- 5 Okfuskee 64.0%
Every county in Oklahoma
All 77 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adair | 924 | 433 | 491 | 880 | 57.4% |
| Alfalfa | 148 | 69 | 79 | 141 | 43.9% |
| Atoka | 390 | 182 | 208 | 371 | 44.6% |
| Beaver | 217 | 102 | 115 | 207 | 60.4% |
| Beckham | 873 | 408 | 465 | 831 | 45.7% |
| Blaine | 258 | 121 | 137 | 246 | 43.5% |
| Bryan | 1,787 | 837 | 950 | 1,702 | 50.8% |
| Caddo | 1,062 | 497 | 565 | 1,011 | 53.9% |
| Canadian | 3,561 | 1,667 | 1,894 | 3,391 | 26.9% |
| Carter | 1,852 | 867 | 985 | 1,764 | 49.2% |
| Cherokee | 1,638 | 767 | 871 | 1,560 | 51.8% |
| Choctaw | 665 | 311 | 354 | 633 | 54.5% |
| Cimarron | 142 | 66 | 76 | 135 | 77.1% |
| Cleveland | 7,260 | 3,398 | 3,862 | 6,914 | 38.5% |
| Coal | 248 | 116 | 132 | 236 | 54.4% |
| Comanche | 5,082 | 2,379 | 2,703 | 4,840 | 49.7% |
| Cotton | 217 | 102 | 115 | 207 | 62.2% |
| Craig | 502 | 235 | 267 | 478 | 55.1% |
| Creek | 1,952 | 914 | 1,038 | 1,859 | 36.6% |
| Custer | 1,090 | 510 | 580 | 1,038 | 51.2% |
| Delaware | 1,514 | 709 | 805 | 1,442 | 59.7% |
| Dewey | 208 | 97 | 111 | 198 | 55.3% |
| Ellis | 133 | 62 | 71 | 127 | 47.9% |
| Garfield | 1,819 | 851 | 968 | 1,732 | 36.8% |
| Garvin | 998 | 467 | 531 | 950 | 52.9% |
| Grady | 1,253 | 586 | 667 | 1,193 | 35.9% |
| Grant | 133 | 62 | 71 | 127 | 49.8% |
| Greer | 239 | 112 | 127 | 228 | 58.3% |
| Harmon | 77 | 36 | 41 | 73 | 51.4% |
| Harper | 127 | 59 | 68 | 121 | 48.4% |
| Haskell | 467 | 219 | 248 | 445 | 56.1% |
| Hughes | 462 | 216 | 246 | 440 | 46.2% |
| Jackson | 1,019 | 477 | 542 | 970 | 47.9% |
| Jefferson | 242 | 113 | 129 | 230 | 61.8% |
| Johnston | 324 | 152 | 172 | 309 | 50.5% |
| Kay | 1,826 | 855 | 971 | 1,739 | 53.4% |
| Kingfisher | 405 | 190 | 215 | 386 | 35.4% |
| Kiowa | 354 | 166 | 188 | 337 | 52.2% |
| Latimer | 413 | 193 | 220 | 393 | 64.2% |
| Le Flore | 2,430 | 1,137 | 1,293 | 2,314 | 64.5% |
| Lincoln | 1,174 | 550 | 624 | 1,118 | 52.1% |
| Logan | 1,328 | 622 | 706 | 1,265 | 42.3% |
| Love | 331 | 155 | 176 | 315 | 41.8% |
| Major | 195 | 91 | 104 | 186 | 35.2% |
| Marshall | 600 | 281 | 319 | 571 | 52.4% |
| Mayes | 1,389 | 650 | 739 | 1,323 | 50.0% |
| McClain | 1,090 | 510 | 580 | 1,038 | 36.2% |
| McCurtain | 1,559 | 730 | 829 | 1,485 | 57.9% |
| McIntosh | 547 | 256 | 291 | 521 | 44.3% |
| Murray | 453 | 212 | 241 | 431 | 49.9% |
| Muskogee | 3,202 | 1,499 | 1,703 | 3,049 | 61.5% |
| Noble | 293 | 137 | 156 | 279 | 41.0% |
| Nowata | 477 | 223 | 254 | 454 | 60.9% |
| Okfuskee | 502 | 235 | 267 | 478 | 64.0% |
| Oklahoma | 31,202 | 14,605 | 16,597 | 29,714 | 44.7% |
| Okmulgee | 1,662 | 778 | 884 | 1,583 | 60.2% |
| Osage | 1,476 | 691 | 785 | 1,406 | 52.2% |
| Ottawa | 1,546 | 724 | 822 | 1,472 | 61.7% |
| Pawnee | 496 | 232 | 264 | 472 | 46.1% |
| Payne | 2,179 | 1,020 | 1,159 | 2,075 | 41.4% |
| Pittsburg | 1,526 | 714 | 812 | 1,453 | 49.0% |
| Pontotoc | 1,390 | 651 | 739 | 1,324 | 45.2% |
| Pottawatomie | 2,477 | 1,160 | 1,317 | 2,359 | 48.1% |
| Pushmataha | 429 | 201 | 228 | 409 | 61.3% |
| Roger Mills | 110 | 52 | 58 | 105 | 55.0% |
| Rogers | 2,649 | 1,240 | 1,409 | 2,523 | 39.8% |
| Seminole | 1,045 | 489 | 556 | 995 | 59.0% |
| Sequoyah | 1,794 | 840 | 954 | 1,708 | 57.9% |
| Stephens | 1,636 | 766 | 870 | 1,558 | 51.1% |
| Texas | 946 | 443 | 503 | 901 | 47.6% |
| Tillman | 332 | 155 | 177 | 316 | 66.7% |
| Tulsa | 26,014 | 12,177 | 13,837 | 24,773 | 46.7% |
| Wagoner | 1,855 | 869 | 986 | 1,767 | 30.9% |
| Washington | 1,578 | 739 | 839 | 1,503 | 44.1% |
| Washita | 328 | 153 | 175 | 312 | 38.8% |
| Woods | 121 | 57 | 64 | 115 | 22.7% |
| Woodward | 757 | 354 | 403 | 721 | 51.2% |
Apply for WIC in Oklahoma
Income limits, food-package rules, clinic locator, and application instructions specific to Oklahoma's WIC agency.
Oklahoma WIC guideFamilies with children
Our population-specific guide: WIC, SNAP, school meals, Summer EBT, and pantry programs for families with kids in Oklahoma.
Families guideOklahoma SNAP
SNAP recipients are automatically income-eligible for WIC through adjunctive eligibility — often the fastest path to enrollment.
Oklahoma SNAP guideFind a food pantry
Search Oklahoma's verified pantries — many partner with WIC clinics and distribute infant formula, baby food, and diapers.
Oklahoma food pantriesWIC methodology
How we estimated county-level eligibles, why state coverage rates can't be disaggregated, and which data sources we used.
Full methodology