Which states have the highest rates of SNAP trafficking per capita and how are those rates measured?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No reliable, publicly available dataset in the provided reporting directly measures “SNAP trafficking” per capita or ranks states on that precise metric; existing sources instead provide separate state-level data on human trafficking prosecutions and on SNAP participation or reliance, which are related but not equivalent phenomena (human-trafficking per-capita prosecution highs: South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Virginia, Rhode Island) [1], while SNAP reliance peaks in states such as New Mexico (about 21% of residents) [2] [3] [4].
1. What the user is really asking — unpacking the phrase “SNAP trafficking”
The query appears to seek states with the highest per-capita incidence of criminal schemes tied to SNAP benefits (illegal resale, trafficking of EBT cards, vendor fraud) or exploitation of SNAP beneficiaries by traffickers, but none of the provided sources define or measure a distinct category called “SNAP trafficking,” so the available reporting cannot answer that exact metric directly (no source defines “SNAP trafficking” or provides state per-capita rankings for it) [5] [6].
2. Closest published measures available in the reporting: human-trafficking prosecutions and SNAP reliance
Two kinds of state-level numbers are present in the sources: (a) human-trafficking prosecutions normalized per capita (Allies Against Slavery’s 2025 State Human Trafficking Report highlights that when normalized for population South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Virginia, and Rhode Island have the highest per-capita prosecution rates) [1], and (b) SNAP participation or “reliance” as a share of state population (USDA/ERS and compilations show New Mexico highest at ~21% of residents, with national averages and state-by-state spreads documented) [2] [4] [3]. These metrics are methodologically distinct and cannot be conflated without additional data [1] [2].
3. How the available measures are calculated and their limits
Per-capita prosecution rates come from counting prosecutions or cases and dividing by state population to normalize for size; Allies Against Slavery reports such normalized rates to show where prosecutions are most concentrated relative to population [1]. SNAP reliance figures — from USDA/ERS and state-level compilations — use monthly participation counts divided by state population (ERS: SNAP served 41.7 million people in FY2024 and state shares ranged up to 21.2% in New Mexico) [2] [4]. Neither dataset measures illegal diversion of SNAP benefits, EBT trafficking, or vendor fraud specifically, and prosecutions reflect enforcement activity as much as prevalence, producing important measurement bias [1] [6].
4. Why conflating trafficking and SNAP participation produces misleading comparisons
High SNAP participation indicates economic need and program reliance (New Mexico, others), not criminal misuse; conversely, high per-capita human-trafficking prosecutions highlight criminal justice activity that may reflect reporting, policing, or prosecutorial priorities rather than underlying victim counts [2] [1]. No source in the packet links state SNAP enrollment to human-trafficking prosecution rates or provides a validated metric for “SNAP trafficking” per capita, so any assertion that a particular state has the highest SNAP-trafficking rate would be unsupported by the provided reporting [1] [2] [6].
5. Where to look next and what measures would be needed to answer the question rigorously
Answering which states have the highest rates of SNAP-related trafficking would require dedicated data on SNAP fraud and trafficking: validated counts of EBT trafficking incidents, vendor fraud prosecutions, beneficiaries coerced into surrendering benefits, or cross-referenced hotline reports tied to SNAP misuse, all normalized by state population or SNAP enrollment; none of the supplied sources publish that crosswalk, so the current reporting only allows cautious, separate statements about human-trafficking prosecutions and SNAP reliance [6] [1] [4].
6. Caveats, alternative viewpoints, and potential hidden agendas in reporting
Enforcement-driven metrics (prosecutions) can be amplified by advocacy groups or law-enforcement priorities and may be used rhetorically to justify policy changes; similarly, SNAP participation rates are often highlighted by both advocates to show need and critics to argue for program limits — sources like Visual Capitalist and SmartAsset present reliance data without standardized context about program changes or local economic drivers [3] [4]. Readers should therefore treat cross-source comparisons cautiously and seek specialized USDA Office of Inspector General or state attorney-general reports for validated SNAP-fraud figures, which were not included in the provided material [6].