Lawmakers in Kentucky discussed, but did not vote on, a proposal Tuesday that would reinstate financial asset limits and impose stricter income requirements for residents seeking food assistance.
Senate Bill 257 would also require more frequent eligibility checks for those receiving benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. State data shows more than half a million Kentuckians received SNAP benefits this month, with about 40% being children.
The proposal has drawn opposition from groups that warn it could remove thousands from food assistance at a time when participation is already declining. Since changes tied to Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” took effect in July, SNAP enrollment in Kentucky has dropped by about 81,000 people.
Republican sponsor Shelley Funke Frommeyer of Alexandria said the bill is intended to simplify eligibility and ensure assistance reaches those most in need.
“We want to put this program in alignment with what it was meant to be,” Funke Frommeyer said. “We’ve got to align it… we’ve got to tighten back up.”
She added the measure could help reduce the state’s SNAP error rate, which tracks overpayments and underpayments. That metric has gained importance after recent federal policy changes requiring states with high error rates to share program costs.
“We don’t want hunger. We truly don’t want our children hungry. Let’s focus on the main thing,” she said. “This is an effort to simplify it so we really are within our error rates.”
However, concerns within the legislature stalled the bill. Republican Sen. Robin Webb said lawmakers need a full cost analysis before moving forward.
“I think this bill does require a fiscal note. I think we need to know what the administrative costs are,” Webb said.
What the bill proposes
SB 257 would eliminate broad-based categorical eligibility, a policy most states use to expand access to SNAP.
Currently, families can qualify with gross incomes up to 200% of the poverty line under that policy, though net income must still fall below 130%. The bill would lower that threshold and reinstate an asset test, which considers savings and other resources when determining eligibility.
Former state SNAP director Jason Dunn said the changes could discourage families from saving money and make it harder for those in high-cost areas to qualify.
“We’re making that [benefits] cliff worse,” Dunn said. “This policy just makes that cliff worse and takes away all the gains we’ve made.”
He also noted that reintroducing asset checks would require new verification systems and documentation, potentially causing eligible applicants to lose benefits if they cannot complete the process on time.
The bill would further require Kentucky’s Department for Community-Based Services to review federal data on recipients monthly, instead of the current once- or twice-yearly recertification.
Jessica Klein warned that these added requirements could increase administrative workload and potentially raise the error rate rather than reduce it.
“What that means is a lot more work for administrative staff, but also a higher cost overall for the SNAP program moving forward,” she said.
Kentucky’s current unofficial error rate is about 4% for 2025, down from roughly 9% the previous year and below the threshold that would require the state to share benefit costs.
Advocates estimate that removing categorical eligibility could strip SNAP benefits from around 40,000 Kentuckians, including 16,800 children and 6,600 seniors.
Richard Gianzero criticized the proposal, saying it prioritizes cost-cutting over helping vulnerable residents.
“We want accountability, but the accountability structure is already there,” Gianzero said. “This imposes further bureaucratic restrictions… and takes away from people who are in need.”
Funke Frommeyer said the bill aligns with broader efforts to boost employment and reduce reliance on assistance programs.
“We’re continuing to tackle our employment rate… and as Kentucky becomes more economically healthy, especially in rural areas, we’re going to see fewer people needing these supports,” she said.
It remains unclear whether SB 257 will gain enough support to advance out of committee.
Leave a Comment