Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which states had the lowest average SNAP benefit per person in 2025 and how did demographics or eligibility restrict benefits?
Executive Summary
The data available from the provided analyses identifies Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Kentucky as the states with the lowest reported average monthly SNAP benefit per participant in FY2024, at $157.23, $161.12, and $161.03 respectively; the materials cite KFF’s compiled figures for average benefits [1]. The supplied documents collectively note that demographic composition, program rules like work requirements, and state-level policy choices influence who participates and how benefits are distributed, but the available excerpts do not include a direct, state-by-state breakdown explaining how demographics or eligibility rules causally reduced per-person averages in those states [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why the headline states show up at the bottom of the benefit list — and what the data actually says
The KFF-derived figure places Minnesota ($157.23), Wisconsin ($161.12), and Kentucky ($161.03) among the lowest average monthly SNAP benefits per participant in FY2024; these numbers represent averages across all participants in a state rather than benefits for any particular household size or category. The dataset cited by the analysis emphasizes average monthly benefit per participant, which collapses large variation in household size, participation composition (children, elderly, disabled, working-age adults), and benefit formulas into a single mean value [1]. That averaging effect means a low per-person average can reflect many small households receiving minimal benefits, a high share of participants in categories entitled to lower standard allotments, or administrative or policy differences that affect enrollment and case composition, none of which are resolved by the one-line averages provided [1] [5].
2. What the demographic slices in the supplied materials indicate — children, adults, and missing state detail
The supplemental materials underscore a child-heavy share of participants nationally — about 39% children and 42% adults aged 18–59 in FY2023 — but do not link those national shares to state-level averages or to the three lowest-average states specifically [2]. A higher proportion of children in a state can either raise or lower per-person averages depending on household composition and program rules: children affect household size and benefit calculation but do not alone determine per-person averages. The analyses explicitly note that the participation-by-age data does not provide average benefit per person by state, leaving a gap between national demographic composition and state average-dollar outcomes [2].
3. How eligibility rules and work requirements could constrain benefits — what the manuals and guides show
State and local implementation of work requirements and program rules can shape who remains eligible and how benefits are allocated; for example, the Illinois SNAP manual requires an average of 20 hours per week of work or engagement in SNAP E&T to meet work requirements, illustrating how administrative rules can gate participation [3]. The provided documents discuss general eligibility limits, income thresholds, and program updates—including minimum monthly benefit floors and rule changes noted for 2025—but none of the supplied excerpts link specific state-level administrative choices to the low average-dollar outcomes in Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Kentucky [3] [4] [6].
4. What the gaps in the supplied evidence prevent us from concluding with certainty
The given analyses repeatedly flag that the data does not provide explicit causal links between demographics or eligibility restrictions and the low per-person averages observed in the identified states [1] [2] [3]. The sources include national tables, eligibility rules summaries, and articles on benefit calculations, but they lack state-level crosswalks that would show whether low averages reflect smaller household sizes, a higher share of participants receiving the minimum benefit, differing caseload compositions (e.g., comparatively more single-person households), or administrative choices that affect enrollment patterns [5] [7]. Without those linkages, any attribution of cause remains inferential rather than empirically established by the provided material.
5. Where to look next to convert averages into explained differences and what to expect from those sources
To explain whether demographics or eligibility restricted benefits in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Kentucky, the logical next step is to examine state-level SNAP caseload composition tables, household-size distributions, state policy memos on work requirements and SNAP E&T participation, and the USDA/FNS state SNAP payment and issuance reports for FY2024–FY2025. The supplied materials point to data tables and reports that could provide these specifics, but the excerpts provided stop short of including those tables [5] [7]. State agencies’ administrative rule changes—such as the November 2025 SNAP rule revisions referenced—could also change who qualifies and in what amounts, underscoring the need for matched, state-level demographic and policy data to convert average-dollar distinctions into documented causal explanations [8] [7].