HB 1307 creates a new sensory kit grant program within the Indiana Department of Homeland Security. The program is intended to provide grants to public safety agencies so they can purchase sensory kits to use during emergencies when interacting with individuals with autism spectrum disorder or other cognitive disorders. The bill defines a sensory kit as a collection of communication or calming items, such as communication boards, dry erase markers, headphones, and similar sensory tools, and specifically includes Ben’s Blue Bags.
The bill also establishes a dedicated sensory kit grant fund, administered by the department, to receive appropriations, interest, and other deposits. Public safety agencies may apply for grants under rules adopted by the department, and the fund’s money does not revert to the state general fund at the end of the fiscal year. The bill makes an appropriation of $142,000 from the state general fund for the 2025-2027 biennium and is effective July 1, 2025.
Impact
HB 1307 amends Indiana Code provisions governing the Department of Homeland Security by adding administration of the sensory kit grant program to the department’s duties. It creates a new chapter in Title 10 establishing the program, the grant fund, eligibility for public safety agencies, and rulemaking authority. The bill also creates a continuing fund structure for grant administration and appropriates state money to support purchases of sensory kits for emergency response use.
Sentiment
The available record suggests generally positive, noncontroversial support for the bill’s purpose, but there is no committee transcript or vote history to show detailed debate. The bill’s focus on helping first responders communicate with and reduce stress for individuals with autism spectrum disorder or cognitive disorders indicates a public-safety and accessibility framing that is typically viewed favorably. Because no votes or hearing comments are provided, there is no evidence of opposition or divided sentiment in the materials supplied.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas that could have drawn questions, based on the bill text alone, include the size and source of the appropriation, the department’s discretion in administering grants and adopting rules, and whether the program should be limited to certain agencies or emergency uses. However, the record provided does not show any expressed objections or competing viewpoints.