An Urban Institute study released last week found that, in 99 percent of U.S. counties, food stamp benefits are not enough to cover the full cost of an inexpensive meal, even for those who have no net income. In President Donald Trump’s proposed 2019 budget, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would lose $213 billion in funding over the next decade.

Here is data about area counties:

Yates: The average cost of a meal is $1.92, 3 percent more than the $1.86 SNAP benefit.

Ontario: The average cost of a meal is $2.28, 23 percent more than the $1.86 SNAP benefit.

Seneca: The average cost of a meal is $1.98, 6 percent more than the $1.86 SNAP benefit.

Schuyler: The average cost of a meal is $2.25, 21 percent more than the $1.86 SNAP benefit.

Steuben: The average cost of a meal is $2.19, 18 percent more than the $1.86 SNAP benefit.

“The average cost of a low-income meal, which is defined as part of the study, was $2.36. That cost is 27 percent higher than the maximum SNAP benefit per meal of $1.86,” Bill Lucia reports for Route Fifty. “Over the course of a month, benefits were shy of average meal costs by $46.50 per person.”

SNAP benefits aren’t meant to cover the full cost of a household’s meals except for those that have zero net income, usually because of a lifelong disability. For those households — about 37 percent of SNAP recipients in FY 2016, — SNAP is the only way to pay for meals.

The study found the biggest gaps between SNAP benefits and food prices were in expensive urban areas like San Francisco and smaller rural counties, some with tourist attractions. The report concludes SNAP will be more effective if the government can better match up benefits to the local cost of food. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service, which oversees SNAP,  told Lucia that the agency will review the study and consider its recommendations.

Interactive map available at www.urban.org/research/publication/how-far-do-snap-benefits-fall-short-covering-cost-meal