Skip to main content

The statement can be attributed to Olivia Golden, Interim Executive Director at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)  

November 6, 2024, Washington, D.C.—Today, as we confront the prospect of a second Trump administration, we are deeply concerned about the significant impact of his administration’s policies. We know what his intentions are because he has stated them many times: to target immigrant communities, people of color, women, and LGBTQ Americans; to harm workers and people with low incomes, including threatening job protections and the right to unionize, for the benefit of billionaires; and to threaten core public programs and the capacity of public officials to do their jobs honestly, fairly, and without fear.

CLASP is prepared for this moment, informed by our experience in responding to the first Trump administration, which previewed all these threats. Our preparations include strengthening the powerful coalitions we are already engaged in, including those that protect immigrant families and children, and building new ones where needed; working with partners to build on our collective knowledge and expertise to slow down, minimize, and where possible prevent or mitigate damage; standing ready to build on our powerful past record of documenting the harm when it happens and telling the story to the public; moving the vision forward in the states; and bringing our deep knowledge into partnership with organizing and movement leaders.

CLASP has a long history of and commitment to advocating for the safety, rights, and economic security that families with low incomes, workers, children, and immigrants deserve. As these communities stand to lose the most under another Trump administration, it’s more important than ever that we remain steadfast in advocating for social, economic, and racial justice.

Donald Trump and his advisors have made no secret about their roadmap for administration priorities. It’s a path that will benefit the very wealthy while creating and exacerbating hardship for millions.  CLASP fought the fight to resist these priorities and elevate a very different vision during his first administration, and we are committed to doing so again.  As we prepare for this work, we are inspired by the partners who share this work with us.

By: Suzanne Wikle 

In 2024, a record 21.4 million people received their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces. Enrollment gains among Black, Latino, and people with low incomes drove the increased enrollment. Sustaining the policy choices that led to record enrollment and adding in long overdue eligibility for people with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status will be important to keep up the momentum and keep affordable health insurance available. With these policies in place, 2025 is poised to be another record-breaking year for Marketplace enrollment.  

Several policies have led to this historic enrollment, but the gains are not guaranteed to stay, unless Congress acts.  

Enhanced Premium Tax Credits
People receive premium tax credits to purchase health insurance through the ACA Marketplaces when they do not have other affordable options. The premium tax credits lower the amount people pay every month for their premiums. Starting in 2021 the tax credits were enhanced, making Marketplace plans much more affordable. People earning less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level can be insured for $0 monthly premium; for those who had out-of-pocket costs, their premiums were reduced an average of 44 percent.  

Since the enhanced tax credits became available, 83 percent of the growth in Marketplace enrollment has been by people with incomes less than 250 percent of the federal poverty level. Black and Hispanic enrollment increased the most. Compared to 2020 (non-enhanced tax credits), enrollment in 2023 (with enhanced tax credits) increased by 95 percent among Black enrollees and 103 percent among Latino enrollees. Enrollment among American Indians and Alaskan Natives grew by 59 percent;, multiracial enrollment grew by 28 percent;, white enrollment grew by 25 percent;, and Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander enrollment grew by 14 percent. 

What’s at stake: The enhanced tax credits for Marketplace enrollments are slated to end on December 31, 2025. Congress must act to extend or make permanent the enhanced tax credits that have led to record enrollment, particularly among people with low incomes and people of color. Without Congressional action, we can expect to see fewer people enrolling in Marketplace coverage, greater out-of-pocket costs for those who do enroll, and an increase in the number of people without health insurance. An individual making $21,000 per year would have to pay nearly $800 more in annual premiums, and a family of four making $60,000 would see an annual premium increase of $2,700.  

DACA Eligibility for ACA Marketplace Tax Credits 

 When the annual open enrollment period begins on November 1, 2024, an exciting and long overdue new policy will take effect. People with DACA will be newly eligible to buy health insurance and receive tax credits through the Marketplace. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that around 100,000 people with DACA will enroll for 2025 coverage. The new policy also clarifies that other vulnerable youth, such as those who have been approved for Special Immigrant Juvenile status and those applying for asylum, will also be eligible for coverage.  

What’s at stake: DACA eligibility for Marketplace coverage is being challenged by some states. Oral arguments were held on October 15, 2024, but at the time of publication, people with DACA will still be able to enroll in Marketplace coverage and receive tax credits when open enrollment begins on November 1, 2024. 

The progress made connecting people with affordable health insurance options is the direct result of important policy changes. In order to continue the progress and not lose ground – especially for Black people, Latinos,  DACA recipients, and immigrant youth – we must ensure the right policies stay in place. Congress must act to continue enhanced premium tax credits beyond 2025 and ensure DACA recipients and immigrant youth continue to have access to affordable health care.  

 

CLASP and the Economic Policy Institute hosted a joint webinar on state progress in advancing equity in child care 

 

Tuesday, October 8, 2024

2:00pm ET/1:00pm CT

The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) and the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) hosted a webinar about equity in the child care and early education space. We were proud to co-sponsor this webinar with EPI’s Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN) as part of their EARNTalk series. EARN is a nationwide network of research, policy, and advocacy organizations fighting, state by state, for an economy that works for everyone.

This virtual webinar features a child care provider, administrator, parent advocate, and nonprofit leader who will discuss the work happening across states to strengthen the child care sector and address the inequities that make child care particularly inaccessible for people of color and people with low incomes. The panel also reviews the current federal landscape for child care and what needs to change to help families access the care they need.

Speakers included:

Download and view the webinar recording with the passcode: 0%epN@Qk

 

 

Mark Greenberg worked at CLASP from 1988-2007 and was CLASP’s Director of Policy from 2001-2007. In the Obama Administration, he was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and then Acting Assistant Secretary at the Administration for Children and Families. He is now a Deputy General Counsel at HHS’ Office of the General Counsel. His remarks are made in his personal capacity.

By Mark Greenberg

I can’t speak to much of CLASP history before 1988, but in the late 1980s and early 1990s, much of CLASP’s work around child care flowed from our work relating to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, the cash assistance program for families with low incomes and children that existed before TANF. In addition to enacting the Child Care and Development Block Grant in 1990, Congress had created separate programs to guarantee child care to families receiving AFDC, provide transitional child care to families leaving AFDC due to employment, and provide funding for families “at risk” of receiving AFDC. CLASP worked to help advocates and states understand how these programs could be used to help families access child care, to improve these programs, and to support “seamless service” for families in light of the many complexities of different programs with different rules.

When the 1996 welfare law passed, CLASP worked extensively to encourage states to make humane and family-supportive choices in TANF implementation, but it became apparent very quickly that the number of families receiving cash assistance was falling sharply. While we engaged in multiple efforts to preserve access to cash assistance, we also recognized that the drop in cash assistance spending provided a potentially historic opportunity to expand child care assistance to families to support parents’ work and child development. CLASP’s then-Executive Director, Alan Houseman, was very supportive of our efforts to increase our work around child care. Joan Lombardi, who had been the first Director of the Child Care Bureau (now the Office of Child Care) at the Department of Health and Human Services, began working with CLASP. Our first hire was Rachel Schumacher, and later Danielle Ewen, Jennifer Mezey, and Hannah Matthews joined the team. Katie Hamm was one of our early research assistants.

Our first major projects focused on explaining the law and describing child care-TANF intersections. We did reports on access to child care after leaving cash assistance, a report analyzing considerations in direct spending versus transferring TANF funds for child care, and a study of how states were using TANF to expand child care. Within a short period our work broadened to focus on attention to coordination with Head Start and pre-kindergarten, strategies to strengthen Head Start, and the potential use of both TANF and CCDF funds in support of state efforts to for universal pre-kindergarten efforts. We did a set of detailed state case studies and made recommendations to states and Congress for improving coordination of child care, Head Start and pre-K.

We worked closely with advocates and states across the country and focused on what we hoped would be a significant child care expansion in connection with TANF and child care reauthorizations in 2002. In 2001, we called upon the Bush Administration to advance a reauthorization proposal which would increase child care funding; improve the quality of child care; remove administrative barriers that made it difficult for families to access and maintain subsidies; promote parents’ ability to choose and have equal access to a wide array of early care and education options; and enhance data collection and research capacity to increase understanding of the subsidy system and its impacts on children, parents, and providers. We pursued those goals throughout reauthorization efforts, working closely with state and national advocacy groups in our efforts.

While much has changed over the past 25 years, CLASP’s crucial role in addressing child care and early education policy and practice dates back to these very early efforts. I want to congratulate CLASP for 25 years of extraordinary and invaluable work.

By Shengwei Sun, Karen Schulman, Rachel Wilensky, and Melissa Boteach

Child care allows parents to enter or stay in the labor force, improves the well-being of families and communities, yields long-term positive outcomes for future generations, and buttresses economic growth. Yet in the United States, child care is perceived and funded as a private responsibility that is made possible by women’s unpaid or underpaid labor. The private provision of child care is “a textbook example of a broken market,” with families paying unaffordable fees and early educators—predominantly women who are disproportionately Black and Hispanic compared to the overall workforce—subsidizing the system with their poverty wages. While the value of child care extends to the entire society and far into the future, what individual families can afford to pay cannot match the true value of care work. The United States’ failure to invest in this crucial sector has created a fragile and patchwork system unable to meet the demand for child care.

Even before the pandemic, rising child care costs were far outpacing the rate of overall inflation. A long history of racism and sexism has contributed to early educators, especially women of color and immigrant women, remaining some of the most underpaid workers in the country. In 2019, the median annual pay for child care workers ($24,230) was less than half that of kindergarten teachers ($56,850), and Black early educators were paid on average $0.78 less per hour than their white peers. A long history of racist and xenophobic biases toward Black, Latinx, and immigrant families has also created significant gaps in child care assistance policies and funding, with only one in six children who qualify for federally funded child care assistance actually receiving it.

The pandemic pushed the already precarious child care sector to the brink of collapse. In response, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) included initial relief funding to the child care sector, followed by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which included an even larger investment to better stabilize the sector and support families with children. The ARPA legislation provided $24 billion in stabilization funds to the child care industry and a $15 billion increase in the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), the major federal child care program that provides funding to states to help families afford child care and invest in the quality and supply of child care. The ARPA relief dollars were the largest federal investment in the child care sector since World War II, but with the expiration of child care stabilization dollars in September 2023 and the upcoming expiration of the CCDBG supplemental funding, the sector will be left with a funding cliff that will only exacerbate its fragility.

What lessons have we learned from this short-term investment? While the pandemic child care relief dollars have provided critical support for families and early educators as they navigate the crisis, these one-time relief funds are not nearly enough to remedy the failures in the existing child care market. Moreover, not all impacts of the expiration will be immediate. The negative effects of this expiration will be long term and deeply damaging. Only sustained and robust public investment can address the long-term structural flaws and build a child care system where all families can find and afford care and where all early educators are valued and paid robust wages and benefits.

>> Download the full fact sheet for recommendations

This blog is part of a series that lifts up alumni, partner, and board member reflections in celebration of CLASP Child Care and Early Education team’s 25th anniversary. Rachel started working on child care policy at CLASP in 1999.

By Rachel Schumacher

Rachel Schumacher

What were some of the greatest successes and victories for the child care sector during your tenure at CLASP? What was your/the team’s role?  

My time at CLASP ran from 1999-2010. Our team was small but mighty for much of that time!

CLASP went to work explaining how states could use the new TANF block grant for child care in language advocates and administrators could understand, [which meant] many PowerPoints and charts. We also documented how access to child care was plummeting after TANF went into effect.

Head Start was reauthorized in 2005. CLASP talked to Hill staff and tracked every version as part of a coalition of groups working to improve the outcomes of the legislation. States innovated new ways to deliver pre-kindergarten and Early/Head Start in child care settings in the absence of major federal funding expansion., CLASP wrote “All Together Now” and other papers to point out pros and cons and encourage more innovation in other states.

What were some of the greatest challenges facing the child care sector during your tenure at CLASP? How did you and/or the team overcome them?  

Federal funding increased in small increments or not at all during most of [my tenure], so CLASP tried to bring attention to the difference between potential children and families that could benefit and how many the program was [actually] serving. CLASP staff attorney Jennifer Mezey and Mark Greenberg, who was involved in advocacy for child care and the 1998 Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) regulations, developed ways to quantify this since federal agencies were not promoting this gap.

The other challenge was the dominant idea that child care was just babysitting for working parents. A major influential thinker and political operative at the federal level was heard to say that all that was needed was a “clean, well-lit room.” CLASP lifted up examples of how states were investing more in child care through mixed delivery and standards to show that child care could and should be considered part of the education continuum. We also developed a Starting Off Right project with ZERO TO THREE to focus on the particular challenges for infant and toddler child care and key ways to measure whether state policies were positive for children [between the ages of newborn to age three] and their families.

How did CLASP amplify policy considerations of families with low incomes, families of color, and of marginalized communities during your tenure at CLASP? 

CLASP was and is an expert at technical analysis of the subsidy system, how it undermines equity, and the goals of the CCDBG in how it was regulated and implemented by states. We hammered on the misguided assumption in states that they could only use vouchers/certificates to distribute assistance and tried to persuade states they could use contracts/grants to stabilize the supply of child care. We interviewed state administrators who were using grants and contracts to get their insight on  how it helped them build more quality and supply in underserved areas, for infants/toddlers, children with disabilities, etc.

CLASP started to analyze and publish Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) data annually, which wasn’t really being done by any organizations, to build understanding of how comprehensive the program was (and still is!). [CLASP also] advocated for more connection to comprehensive services for children served in child care subsidy, whose families also needed a two-generation approach to [support].

CLASP also led the way [in using] analytical skills with data and research to spotlight  the racial inequity and bias against access to child care for children of immigrants.

What does a transformed, well-resourced child care system look like? What do you think are the next steps to get there? How can the CLASP CCEE team lead the way?  

We need publicly funded, universal child care that meets the needs of all families and compensates its workforce fairly. Policy and advocacy are important, but we need to expand public will and support power-building among the parent and provider leaders who are closest to the pain points of the child care system and passionate advocates. CLASP has recognized this and has been a partner in movement building.

What is your fondest memory of your time on the CLASP CCEE team?  

Once CLASP was able to raise money to have a child care team, we were able to bring in amazing young women early in their careers who have gone on to great work in early childhood and related areas like Katie Hamm, Hannah Matthews, Kate Irish, and Elizabeth Hoffman.

On the sillier side, CLASP used to have an incredibly competitive white elephant game at the holidays as well as an annual Oscar pool.

>> Learn more and register for the 25th Anniversary of the child care and early education team.

By Celeste Dorantes

History of Exclusion

In 2012, the Obama Administration announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA has allowed hundreds of thousands of young people to work and live in the United States without fear of deportation—including becoming our teachers, health care providers, and caregivers.

Yet, due to restrictive policies, they have been almost completely barred from purchasing health coverage and accessing federal public benefit programs. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 prevented lawfully present immigrants, including deferred action recipients with DACA, from accessing Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, and other public benefits.

Those restrictive policies set a dangerous precedent in excluding immigrants from federal policies, including barring DACA recipients from further care. When the DACA program began, recipients were explicitly excluded from being able to purchase health plans on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace.

Since the inception of DACA in 2012, more than 800,000 DACA recipients have been barred from coverage through the ACA.

Ensuring DACA Recipients have Access to Care

In May 2024, the Biden Administration finalized a rule that would allow DACA recipients to purchase ACA Marketplace plans and become eligible for the accompanying tax credits and subsidies beginning in the fall of 2024. This rule is expected to expand health coverage to over 100,000 uninsured DACA recipients. However, barriers to Medicaid, SNAP, and other federal public benefits still persist for DACA recipients. Those barriers mean that DACA recipients, and often their family, go without care they may need.

Access to health care is a human right. The Biden Administration’s final rule extending ACA Marketplace coverage to DACA recipients and other immigrant youth is an important step in ensuring everyone has access to the health care they need. However, DACA recipients continue to remain ineligible for Medicaid, CHIP, and other critical public benefits. We urge Congress to support policy solutions that remove harmful and unnecessary barriers for immigrants’ access to care by cosponsoring:

The LIFT the BAR Act (H.R.4170/ S.2038)

The HEAL for Immigrant Families Act (H.R. 5008 / S.2646)

By Eddie Martin, Jr.

This is the fifth in a series of commentaries from CLASP experts that explore dimensions of poverty as part of the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual release of poverty, income, and health insurance coverage statistics from the previous year. On September 10, we provided a snapshot of the economic hardship that children, youth and young adults, and families experienced in 2023. Ahead of the release, CLASP experts offered key insights on the impending 2025 tax debate, the child care crisis, Medicaid unwinding, and raising labor standards and enacting new regulations to protect workers. The complete series is available here. 

As we reflect on the U.S. Census Bureau’s recent poverty and income report—showing that more than 1 in 10 people in America live in poverty and documenting stubbornly higher poverty rates for Black, Hispanic and Native American people—it is crucial to revisit President Lyndon B. Johnson’s declaration 60 years ago of an “unconditional” War on Poverty. Johnson sought not only to address the symptoms of poverty but to “cure it and, above all, to prevent it.” He poignantly remarked that “many Americans live on the outskirts of hope—some because of their poverty, some because of their color, and all too many because of both.” Johnson understood that these issues were not the result of individual failures but were rooted in systemic inequities like limited access to education, health care, housing, and opportunities for upward mobility. He recognized poverty as a moral and societal challenge tied to short-sighted public policies that left too many Americans behind.

The War on Poverty led to significant programs like Head Start, Medicaid, and Medicare. At the time, the national poverty rate stood at 19 percent and was nearly double that for Black Americans. These programs reduced poverty and provided a safety net for millions. But the latest Census report shows that the 2023 poverty rate was 11.1 percent, revealing only marginal progress after six decades. Johnson’s vision has been hindered by political compromises and reforms that failed to tackle economic inequality and racial disparities.

A major shortcoming of the War on Poverty was its inability to fully address the intersection of racial injustice and economic inequity. Johnson’s Great Society agenda laid the groundwork for progress through landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which linked racial justice to economic opportunity. However, the failure to implement more “radical” solutions—such as guaranteed incomes or large-scale systemic reforms in housing, law enforcement, education, and civil rights enforcement—has meant that poverty, particularly for communities of color, persists.

Today, these shortcomings are glaringly apparent. The lack of affordable child care and early education continues to create economic instability for families. Black and Hispanic workers remain overrepresented in jobs without adequate benefits or wages, perpetuating the cycle of the “working poor.” The housing crisis, driven by rising costs and stagnant wages, has pushed many who were once part of the middle class to the brink of homelessness. Elected officials have failed to prioritize justice, and equity and progress has been painfully incremental, leaving children and families across the U.S. to suffer.

These interconnected challenges create a vicious cycle that deepens inequality and undermines democracy. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. emphasized, “the evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism are all tied together.” Poverty erodes both economic participation and political engagement. When individuals and communities are trapped in poverty, they are less able to participate in the democratic process, less likely to trust public institutions, and often deprived of basic human rights. Both Johnson and King understood that poverty is not just an economic issue—it is a fundamental threat to democracy itself.

To truly revive the War on Poverty and achieve Johnson’s vision, we must enact bold policies that create a strong safety net for workers and families. These measures should go beyond merely lifting people above the poverty line. Rather, we must ensure that economic progress is met with sustained access to benefits and opportunities. This means investing in an equitable, high-quality child care and early education system; enacting comprehensive minimum wage reform; strengthening labor laws; permanently expanding the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit; and ensuring universal health coverage that includes publicly funded care for immigrant populations, including the undocumented. As Olivia Golden, CLASP’s interim executive director, has stated, such bold approaches, grounded in both an economic strategy and the necessary investments in core programs, are vital to eliminating poverty. Without comprehensive support, poverty will remain episodic, trapping families in cycles of hardship across generations.

In 1967, King called for a “radical revolution of values,” urging society to shift from a “thing-oriented” to a “person-oriented” approach. He argued that poverty demands not just charity, but systemic change, stating “true compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It is seeing that an edifice that produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.” King’s message remains as relevant today as it was in the 1960s. He recognized that to achieve true democracy, our country needed a complete reimagining of our economic and political systems rooted in a redistribution of power and wealth.

If we are ever to truly defeat systemic poverty, we must have a national awakening—a profound shift in values, driven by moral and political courage. We must ensure that all people, not just the fortunate few, have access to the resources and opportunities they need not only to survive but to thrive. This means dismantling the structural inequities that perpetuate racial and economic disparities while building a more just, compassionate, and equitable society for all. Only then can we realize the vision Johnson and King had of an America free from poverty, where opportunity and democracy are truly accessible to everyone.

By 

EXCERPT

Sometimes, students are even pulled to be translators for their peers, according to Hannah Liu, a policy analyst at the The Center for Law and Social Policy in D.C.

It’s not just an individual school issue, she said, “it’s a very widespread issue. And I think that’s something that’s been normalized in the immigrant child experience … We need to denormalize and say, ‘OK, actually, we are not supporting our kids enough.’”

Read the full article here.

By Isha Weerasinghe and Suma Setty

After connecting with several organizations across the country supporting immigrant mental health in programs and policy on the local, state, and national levels, CLASP recognized the need for a national immigrant mental health advocacy framework.

This framework intends to provide a unifying set of goals across actors and movements to improve immigrant mental health and well-being in the United States. It serves as an advocacy roadmap for immigration and mental health advocates who work at the local, state, and federal levels, as well as direct service organizations interested in pursuing policy advocacy.

As different immigrant mental health needs are better understood within changing political and policy contexts, we expect that there will be aspects to modify and build in the framework. Our hope is that advocates see these initial priorities as ways to push state and federal policymakers to create a solid foundation for a responsive mental health system, with healing-centered, culturally sensitive, and linguistically appropriate services and accommodations for all immigrants residing in the U.S.

>>Download the report