PantryPath Research · WIC Coverage Atlas
WIC in South Dakota
60.9% coverageSouth Dakota's WIC program reaches 60.9% of eligible residents — an estimated 14,000 participants out of 23,000 who qualify. That leaves 9,000 pregnant women, infants, and young children eligible but not receiving WIC's food package or nutrition counseling.
23K
WIC eligibles
14K
Participants (FY2024 avg)
9K
Unserved eligibles
66
Counties
South Dakota 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 South Dakota inherits the state's 60.9% 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…
South Dakota at a glance
Coverage rate
60.9%
Participants ÷ eligibles
Participation gap
39.1%
1 − coverage
Eligibles
23K
USDA FNS FY2022
Participants
14K
Monthly avg FY2024
Unserved
9K
Eligibles − participants
Kids < 6 low-income
24K
34.8% of universe
County-level hotspots
Top five counties across 66 counties in South Dakota.
Most WIC eligibles
Estimated eligible population
- 1 Minnehaha 5K
- 2 Pennington 2K
- 3 Oglala Lakota 1K
- 4 Todd 1K
- 5 Brookings 958
Largest unserved gap
Eligibles not receiving WIC
- 1 Minnehaha 2K
- 2 Pennington 908
- 3 Oglala Lakota 453
- 4 Todd 400
- 5 Brookings 375
Highest child-poverty share
Children < 6 at ≤185% FPL
- 1 Todd 87.6%
- 2 Buffalo 84.1%
- 3 Jackson 83.0%
- 4 Mellette 83.0%
- 5 Oglala Lakota 79.9%
Every county in South Dakota
All 66 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aurora | 64 | 39 | 25 | 67 | 36.6% |
| Beadle | 827 | 504 | 323 | 864 | 44.7% |
| Bennett | 259 | 158 | 101 | 271 | 72.5% |
| Bon Homme | 181 | 110 | 71 | 189 | 44.2% |
| Brookings | 958 | 583 | 375 | 1,001 | 40.7% |
| Brown | 650 | 396 | 254 | 679 | 26.7% |
| Brule | 103 | 63 | 40 | 108 | 30.2% |
| Buffalo | 177 | 108 | 69 | 185 | 84.1% |
| Butte | 212 | 129 | 83 | 221 | 26.8% |
| Campbell | 46 | 28 | 18 | 48 | 44.4% |
| Charles Mix | 395 | 241 | 154 | 413 | 46.9% |
| Clark | 126 | 77 | 49 | 132 | 35.1% |
| Clay | 326 | 199 | 127 | 341 | 38.1% |
| Codington | 578 | 352 | 226 | 604 | 31.1% |
| Corson | 303 | 184 | 119 | 316 | 73.3% |
| Custer | 111 | 68 | 43 | 116 | 30.9% |
| Davison | 588 | 358 | 230 | 614 | 39.3% |
| Day | 117 | 71 | 46 | 122 | 37.6% |
| Deuel | 94 | 57 | 37 | 98 | 33.0% |
| Dewey | 424 | 258 | 166 | 443 | 68.3% |
| Douglas | 91 | 55 | 36 | 95 | 37.0% |
| Edmunds | 75 | 45 | 30 | 78 | 22.8% |
| Fall River | 250 | 152 | 98 | 261 | 75.0% |
| Faulk | 38 | 23 | 15 | 40 | 33.3% |
| Grant | 103 | 63 | 40 | 108 | 23.1% |
| Gregory | 81 | 50 | 31 | 85 | 27.5% |
| Haakon | 71 | 43 | 28 | 74 | 60.2% |
| Hamlin | 261 | 159 | 102 | 273 | 35.9% |
| Hand | 17 | 10 | 7 | 18 | 9.3% |
| Hanson | 86 | 52 | 34 | 90 | 29.2% |
| Harding | 15 | 9 | 6 | 16 | 21.6% |
| Hughes | 323 | 196 | 127 | 337 | 30.5% |
| Hutchinson | 163 | 99 | 64 | 170 | 23.6% |
| Hyde | 34 | 20 | 14 | 35 | 30.4% |
| Jackson | 230 | 140 | 90 | 240 | 83.0% |
| Jerauld | 48 | 29 | 19 | 50 | 40.3% |
| Jones | 103 | 63 | 40 | 108 | 71.5% |
| Kingsbury | 84 | 51 | 33 | 88 | 21.9% |
| Lake | 231 | 140 | 91 | 241 | 43.5% |
| Lawrence | 348 | 212 | 136 | 364 | 30.7% |
| Lincoln | 694 | 423 | 271 | 725 | 13.7% |
| Lyman | 221 | 135 | 86 | 231 | 56.8% |
| Marshall | 86 | 52 | 34 | 90 | 24.2% |
| McCook | 67 | 41 | 26 | 70 | 12.6% |
| McPherson | 25 | 15 | 10 | 26 | 15.0% |
| Meade | 639 | 389 | 250 | 667 | 33.6% |
| Mellette | 145 | 88 | 57 | 151 | 83.0% |
| Miner | 26 | 16 | 10 | 27 | 25.0% |
| Minnehaha | 5,386 | 3,279 | 2,107 | 5,626 | 33.2% |
| Moody | 157 | 96 | 61 | 164 | 30.9% |
| Oglala Lakota | 1,158 | 705 | 453 | 1,209 | 79.9% |
| Pennington | 2,319 | 1,411 | 908 | 2,422 | 30.6% |
| Perkins | 70 | 43 | 27 | 73 | 29.7% |
| Potter | 94 | 57 | 37 | 98 | 50.5% |
| Roberts | 415 | 252 | 163 | 433 | 48.6% |
| Sanborn | 20 | 12 | 8 | 21 | 9.9% |
| Spink | 163 | 99 | 64 | 170 | 32.6% |
| Stanley | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1.4% |
| Sully | 8 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 8.4% |
| Todd | 1,024 | 624 | 400 | 1,070 | 87.6% |
| Tripp | 193 | 118 | 75 | 202 | 50.5% |
| Turner | 184 | 112 | 72 | 192 | 29.7% |
| Union | 133 | 81 | 52 | 139 | 12.4% |
| Walworth | 178 | 108 | 70 | 186 | 39.7% |
| Yankton | 270 | 164 | 106 | 282 | 19.1% |
| Ziebach | 130 | 79 | 51 | 136 | 61.3% |
Apply for WIC in South Dakota
Income limits, food-package rules, clinic locator, and application instructions specific to South Dakota's WIC agency.
South Dakota WIC guideFamilies with children
Our population-specific guide: WIC, SNAP, school meals, Summer EBT, and pantry programs for families with kids in South Dakota.
Families guideSouth Dakota SNAP
SNAP recipients are automatically income-eligible for WIC through adjunctive eligibility — often the fastest path to enrollment.
South Dakota SNAP guideFind a food pantry
Search South Dakota's verified pantries — many partner with WIC clinics and distribute infant formula, baby food, and diapers.
South Dakota 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