Senate Bill 529 changes Indiana law governing expanded categorical eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Under current law, the state must apply a countable asset limit of no more than $5,000 for individuals qualifying through expanded categorical eligibility, while excluding funeral and burial resources from the resource test. The bill eliminates that countable asset limitation entirely, meaning eligible households would no longer be subject to a state-imposed resource cap for this SNAP pathway.
The bill retains the requirement that the Division of Family Resources notify the U.S. Department of Agriculture and take any other steps needed to participate in and implement expanded categorical eligibility. It also preserves the division’s authority to adopt implementing rules. The bill is effective July 1, 2025, and amends IC 12-14-30-4 in the Indiana Code concerning human services.
Impact
SB 529 would remove Indiana’s $5,000 countable asset limit for expanded categorical eligibility in SNAP, likely broadening access to food assistance for households with modest savings or other countable resources. This would affect the Division of Family Resources’ eligibility determinations and could increase the number of households that qualify for benefits under the expanded categorical eligibility option. The bill amends IC 12-14-30-4 and would supersede the existing state resource-limit language for this SNAP category.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. It was reported out of the Senate Committee on Family and Children Services with a Do Pass recommendation by a 7-2 vote and then reassigned to Appropriations, indicating committee support but also some opposition. No floor debate transcript is provided, so the record here reflects committee-level approval rather than broader chamber sentiment.
Contention
The main point of contention is the elimination of the asset test for SNAP expanded categorical eligibility. Supporters are likely focused on reducing barriers to food assistance and simplifying eligibility for low-income households, while opponents may be concerned about program costs, broader eligibility, or the policy of allowing households with assets above the current limit to qualify. The 7-2 committee vote indicates some disagreement, but the specific arguments for and against are not included in the available materials.