Nebraska bill would shorten TANF eligibility, proponents cite workforce gains while advocates warn of harm to families

Sen. Bob Anderson, R‑District 49, introduced LB926 on the Health and Human Services Committee floor on Feb. 9, proposing to shrink lifetime eligibility for Nebraska’s Aid to Dependent Children (ADC)/TANF program from 60 months to 36 months and to eliminate certain transitional benefits such as childcare assistance once the training period ends.

Anderson said the change is intended to ‘‘apply common sense principles to the temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) program’’ and to align eligibility with vocational training statutes, noting that ‘‘there are over 300 programs that can be completed in 24 to 36 months’’ and citing a DHHS fiscal-note estimate of roughly $1.2 million in annual savings.

Supporters framed the bill around workforce development and fiscal responsibility. Connor Herbert of the Nebraska Commission on African American Affairs told the committee the commission supports the bill’s goals of promoting ‘‘work, responsibility, and long term self sufficiency’’ while urging careful attention to implementation. Anderson told senators he hoped the shorter limit would encourage recipients to complete credentialing and enter the workforce sooner.

Opponents, including Voices for Children and legal and domestic‑violence advocates, said the proposal would reduce supports families rely on to stabilize after crises. Katie Nungesser of Voices for Children said Nebraska has nearly 60,000 children living in poverty and that shortening benefit timeframes ‘‘cuts off supports before families can stabilize.’’ She warned that removing childcare and narrowing eligible family members could increase child‑welfare involvement and the number of children removed from homes.

Testimony from a former ADC participant, Jennifer Monroe, drew on personal experience: she said she used the program’s full 60 months to complete a bachelor’s degree and that a 36‑month cap would have forced her to drop out and remain in poverty. Advocates from Nebraska Appleseed and the Nebraska Coalition to End Domestic Violence described research and local data linking adequate cash assistance to reduced child maltreatment and stronger pathways to self‑sufficiency.

Committee members questioned whether exceptions exist for extreme hardship and how childcare removal would affect parents who already work but rely on child care to remain employed. Sen. John Fredericksen noted statutory language about DHHS allowing cash assistance for those facing ‘‘extreme hardship’’ and asked how that would operate under the proposed change; Anderson said DHHS had described ‘‘extreme hardship’’ as a situation where recipients ‘‘are not making up money to pay their bills,’’ and added he expected training and certification obtained during the benefit period would enable employment.

Advocates pushed back on Anderson’s cost‑and‑eligibility examples, including his characterization of income thresholds: witnesses and staff pointed to the ADC benefit table and fiscal notes to clarify that the program’s monthly grants are far lower than some figures cited in testimony.

The committee heard multiple community voices that described barriers unique to rural counties — including sparse childcare slots — and warned that simply shortening eligibility will not address access gaps. Several witnesses urged the committee to pursue alternative reforms and increased supports rather than tighter time limits.

The hearing closed with Anderson saying he would work with the committee and legal counsel on technical clarifications; no committee vote was recorded during the session.

The committee will decide whether to advance LB926 after further review of the fiscal note and follow‑up with DHHS.