Which states have the highest and lowest average monthly SNAP benefits per recipient?

1. Big Winners and Losers — What the datasets claim and how they differ

One set of analyses identifies Hawaii as the highest per-recipient average at $377.11 and Minnesota as the lowest at $157.23, while a different 2025 study reports Alaska at $364.31 and Hawaii at $361.78 as the top two, and lists New York, Massachusetts, and Tennessee as having notably high averages among contiguous states ^{[2] [1]}. These conflicting top/bottom identifications reveal that single-source statements about "highest" and "lowest" can be misleading when other studies using different data windows or household-versus-recipient denominators reach different conclusions. The variance between studies indicates that the headline ranking depends heavily on whether analysts are reporting per-person or per-household averages, the months or fiscal year covered, and any adjustments for cost-of-living or emergency supplements.

2. Why Alaska and Hawaii report much higher averages — a consistent pattern with clear drivers

Multiple analyses converge on Alaska and Hawaii having substantially higher average monthly benefits per recipient than most states, a pattern driven by higher retail food costs, geographic isolation raising distribution costs, and program policy adjustments or supplemental state benefits in some cases ^[1]. These two states often appear as outliers in SNAP benefit reporting because national per-person averages are heavily influenced by local pricing and access to groceries, which increase nominal benefit levels needed to purchase a comparable food basket. The higher averages in these states therefore reflect cost-of-living realities rather than necessarily greater underlying poverty rates, and any ranking that omits this context risks implying incorrect causal interpretations.

3. Lower-ranked states and confusing signals — Minnesota, Wyoming, and methodological noise

The datasets show different actors at the bottom: one source points to Minnesota as the lowest average per recipient, while another emphasizes Wyoming’s low participation rate and relatively modest benefits for its enrolled population ^{[2] [1]}. States with lower average per-recipient benefits can reflect smaller household sizes, lower local food costs, different eligibility mixes (e.g., higher shares of elderly or child-only cases), or administrative and policy choices that affect benefit levels and caseload composition. Because the reports do not uniformly report the same denominators or controls, the appearance of Minnesota or Wyoming as “lowest” is not definitive without harmonizing methods across datasets.

4. Data gaps, USDA reporting, and limits on firm conclusions

USDA program reports provide detailed national and state-level context on rules, participation, and household characteristics but do not always publish directly comparable per-recipient average figures that match third‑party studies’ headline claims ^{[3] [4]}. The analyses supplied here note national per-household and per-person averages — for example, roughly $332 per household and $177 per person in one characterization — but these national summaries do not replace a consistent, state-level methodology for ranking states ^[5]. The absence of a single standardized public table in the cited materials that exactly matches each study’s calculations means apparent contradictions across sources are often methodological rather than substantive.

5. How to read rankings responsibly — what’s missing and what to ask next

Readers should treat state rankings of average SNAP benefits per recipient as diagnostic signals rather than definitive causal statements. To evaluate whether a high average benefit signals deeper need or simply higher costs, ask whether the analysis adjusts for local food price indices, household size and composition, program waivers or supplements, and the precise unit of analysis (person vs. household). The studies presented provide plausible, consistent evidence that Alaska and Hawaii top many per-recipient lists and that some Midwest and Mountain states report lower averages, but policy takeaways require harmonized, transparent methods and up-to-date USDA state tables to separate price effects from participation and eligibility differences ^{[1] [5] [3]}.