SNAP benefits fail to cover meal costs in 99% of U.S. counties

SNAP benefits are insufficient to cover the cost of a moderately priced meal in 99% of U.S. counties, according to a new report from the Urban Institute. The Washington, D.C.-based think tank analyzed data to determine how federal food assistance compares to actual grocery prices across the nation.

The report indicates that SNAP helped 42 million Americans purchase food in 2025. Out of 3,144 counties nationwide, the benefit covered the cost of meals in only 27 of them. The average cost of a meal was 25% higher than the average maximum SNAP benefit, creating a monthly shortfall of almost $67 per person.

In 75% of counties, meal prices exceeded the SNAP benefit by more than 50 cents. The gap was wider in several urban areas, where the cost of meals was 80% higher than the benefits provided. In Pulaski County, the cost of a modestly priced meal is 22% higher than the SNAP benefit.

Economic conditions in 2026 are expected to worsen the disparity. The USDA reports that food costs have risen 2.5% year over year. Additionally, the U.S.-Israel war in Iran has caused a dramatic rise in fuel costs, further reducing household spending power. The Center for American Progress states that the conflict has cost American households $2,000 each.

Food insecurity has persisted in the state and the nation. In 2024, 14.4% of Americans were food insecure, a rate just below the 16.6% peak during the Great Recession. Arkansas was the most food insecure state in the country in 2022, 2023, and 2024. In 2024, 19.4% of Arkansans were food insecure, though a February report from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences placed the figure closer to 30%.

The disparity stems partly from the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by Republicans in 2025. This legislation implemented the largest ever cutbacks to the program. The Urban Institute notes that the bill requires updates to the Thrifty Food Plan to be cost neutral. This restriction limits SNAP's ability to bridge the gap between food prices and benefits, making it harder to improve benefit adequacy in the future.