An act relating to removing the Reach Up asset limit
H.554 would amend Vermont’s Reach Up program rules to remove the program’s asset limit as a factor in determining eligibility. Reach Up is Vermont’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, and under current law families must generally stay below a $9,000 asset cap to qualify and remain eligible. The bill would strike the existing asset-limit language, which is the core policy change reflected in the bill’s title and purpose statement.
The bill also preserves and clarifies certain exclusions from the asset test for retirement accounts and qualified education savings accounts, but because the asset limit itself is being removed, those exclusions would become largely unnecessary in practice. The bill does not change the program’s basic structure, benefit levels, or other eligibility rules beyond eliminating the asset-cap requirement. It would take effect on July 1, 2026.
If enacted, H.554 would amend 33 V.S.A. § 1103, the statute governing Reach Up eligibility and benefit levels, by repealing the asset-limit provision for families applying for or continuing in the program. This would make it easier for low-income families to qualify for and stay on Reach Up even if they have modest savings, retirement funds, or other assets. The change would reduce a barrier that can discourage saving and could affect the Department for Children and Families’ eligibility determinations and administrative rules for the TANF program.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided material, the bill appears to be framed as a pro-assistance, anti-barrier policy change intended to improve access to cash assistance for needy families. The introduced language suggests a straightforward policy objective rather than a controversial restructuring of the program. No formal vote history or transcript comments are available here to show broader support or opposition.
The main point of contention would likely be whether Vermont should continue to impose any asset test on Reach Up recipients. Supporters would view repeal of the asset limit as reducing administrative burden and removing a disincentive to saving, especially for families with small emergency funds or retirement savings. Potential critics might argue that eliminating the cap could expand eligibility beyond the neediest households or increase program costs, though no specific opposition is documented in the provided materials.