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: How do state-level cost of living and eligibility rules affect average SNAP benefit amounts in 2025?
Executive Summary
State-level cost-of-living adjustments and eligibility rules meaningfully shaped average SNAP benefit amounts in 2025 by combining a modest federal COLA tied to the Thrifty Food Plan with divergent state administration and eligibility thresholds; federal COLA raised maximum allotments slightly while state rules determined how many households qualified and how benefits translated into per-person averages. Federal guidance and national data show small across-the-board increases for 2025 benefits, but state variations in income limits, deductions, and administrative practices produced measurable differences in average monthly benefits per participant across states [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Why a small federal COLA didn’t mean uniform gains for families
The USDA’s 2025 adjustment to the Thrifty Food Plan set the baseline for maximum SNAP allotments and produced a modest COLA that increased maximum benefits—for example, the one-person maximum rose by a small dollar amount—affecting national averages directly through higher ceilings on monthly allotments [1] [2]. That federal increase was necessary but not sufficient to equalize benefits, because SNAP is federally funded but state-administered; states set certain categorical eligibility rules, apply differing deductions, and manage outreach and recertification processes that shape who receives benefits and how much on average [4] [5]. Consequently, the national COLA raised potential benefits, but state-level policies determined the realized average per participant.
2. States changed eligibility lines and that shifted average benefits
Several states adjusted gross income eligibility thresholds or other standards in response to the updated federal poverty measures and the 2025 COLA; Rhode Island explicitly raised maximum gross income limits for multiple household configurations, which expanded the pool of potentially eligible households and thus influenced the distribution of benefits across participants [3]. Expanding eligibility often reduces average per-person benefit size because newly eligible households may have somewhat higher incomes or different household compositions than previously enrolled households, spreading available dollars across more people and altering the state and national averages [6] [7]. States that tightened rules or maintained narrower deductions tended to concentrate benefits among higher-need households, raising average benefit amounts per participant.
3. Administrative differences changed who actually received the higher allotments
Beyond written eligibility standards, state variation in application processing, outreach, and recertification influenced benefit uptake rates and timing; reports on newly published SNAP “rules” in late October 2025 emphasize attempts to simplify applications and speed distributions to avoid benefit interruptions [6] [7] [8]. Implementation friction matters: two states with identical income thresholds can exhibit very different average monthly benefits if one state enrolls a higher share of eligible elderly or disabled participants (who may get different deductions) or if one state has faster certification that gets the COLA to recipients without gaps [4] [9]. That administrative variability magnified the observable state-by-state differences in average SNAP benefits reported in 2024–2025 datasets.
4. Data patterns show clear state-to-state variation, but not a single cause
Federal SNAP data tables and independent compilations demonstrate that average monthly benefits per participant vary by state and over time, reflecting the combined effects of the Thrifty Food Plan recalculation, the 2025 COLA, and state-level rules [4] [5]. No single policy explains all variation: higher averages can result from larger household sizes, more severe poverty concentrations, or policies that prioritize deeper benefits for the poorest households; lower averages can result from expanded eligibility or demographic shifts among participants. Cross-referencing state announcements and national datasets is required to parse whether a state’s higher average is a policy choice, a demographic outcome, or an administrative artifact [1] [5].
5. What this means for interpreting 2025 average benefit numbers
When reading headlines about 2025 SNAP benefit increases, treat the federal COLA as a predictable, modest upward push in maximum allotments, and treat state-level policy choices and implementation as the decisive factors shaping actual average benefit experienced by participants [2] [8]. Researchers and policymakers should combine program-level time series from USDA with state policy trackers and administrative performance data to separate the COLA’s direct effect from enrollment composition and state rule changes [4] [9]. Comparing states requires attention to income limits, deduction rules, categorical eligibility, and administrative throughput because these explain why national averages mask substantial subnational differences [6] [5].