Skip to main content

Washington, D.C., March 4, 2025—David Hansell, Chair of the CLASP Board of Trustees issued the following statement today:

The Board of Trustees, Staff, and Alumni of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) mourn the loss of Alan Houseman who passed away on February 26, 2025, after a brief illness.

Alan’s legacy at CLASP is unparalleled. He served as the organization’s executive director for a remarkable 32 years, joining in 1981 (only 12 years after the organization’s founding) and retiring in 2013. He built a strong, vital organization that transformed the lives of millions of people with low incomes.

“With Alan at the helm, CLASP was an acknowledged leader in the fight to combat poverty and injustice. Under his leadership, CLASP provided crucial guidance to executive branch and congressional staff, as well as to like-minded organizations, and helped develop the next generation of advocates.” 

— Joe Onek, Former CLASP Executive Director & Board Chair; Current CLASP Trustee

During his tenure, Alan led CLASP’s efforts to strengthen and preserve the Legal Services Corporation, which funds local legal services offices across the country to ensure people with low incomes have access to quality representation. An outspoken advocate for legal aid as a tool for fighting poverty, he co-authored a definitive report: Securing Equal Justice for All: A Brief History of Civil Legal Assistance in the United States.

“Alan was a visionary leader and champion in the legal services community.  He was one of the first presidents of the Legal Services Corporation, a nonprofit corporation created by Congress to assure people with low incomes have access to civil legal assistance in America.  Through his work at CLASP, he provided counsel and guidance to legal services programs during pivotal times when Congressional restrictions sought to limit how legal services lawyers could represent their clients.” 

— LaVeeda Morgan Battle, Former CLASP Board Chair; Current CLASP Trustee

He also set CLASP on its course as a leading advocate for families and children—fighting for improved child support systems, federal welfare reform, expanded child care and early education, and comprehensive job training and education programs.

While the political climate in Washington, D.C. grew more contentious over time, Alan established CLASP’s reputation as a no-nonsense, nonpartisan voice with only one bias: what’s best for people with low incomes. That approach led to landmark policy victories during his tenure in the movement for economic justice.

“Alan did so much to lay the foundation for what CLASP is today. He had an unstinting, inspiring belief in the power of public policy to advance equity for low-income people and infused CLASP with that commitment. His proud legacy endures.”

— David Dodson, Current CLASP Trustee

In the child policy sphere, Alan was instrumental in transforming the child support system from a focus on recovery of state welfare assistance to a focus on family support; establishing Early Head Start to bring vital Head Start services to infants and toddlers; launching the Child Care and Development Block Grant; and advocating for passage of the Fostering Connections and Increasing Adoptions Act.

“Alan was such a remarkable leader in so many ways. As a career-long legal aid lawyer in Chicago, I know that Alan’s crucial work to advise and support local programs and secure federal sources of funding was both crucial and sensitive to local concerns — he had been a state-based legal aid guy himself. And that contribution to the cause of equal justice was magnified many times over by the way he took CLASP into its national role in fighting poverty. He leaves a giant imprint for the good on many systems and millions of lives. We will miss our champion and good friend.”

— John Bouman, Current CLASP Trustee

In the broader realm of addressing poverty, Alan ensured that CLASP played a crucial role in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which included the $5 billion TANF emergency fund to support the economic security of millions of people with low incomes. CLASP’s work on this emergency fund included extensive technical assistance to states so they could get assistance to the people who needed it most.

“Alan’s 30-plus-year tenure at CLASP shaped the extraordinary organizational strengths that I found when I succeeded him, that motivated me to come to CLASP, and that still make the organization indispensable today. These include the outstanding quality of the work; the commitment to both data and story-telling; the core underlying values of economic and racial justice; the combination of breadth across specific policy topics and depth within each; the understanding of how national policy connects to state and local policy and implementation and to the lives of individuals and families; and the modesty and lack of ego so characteristic of Alan and, because of him, of CLASP. To this day, that lack of ego is a defining feature people mention about CLASP – and one of the big reasons CLASP is so valued as a coalition partner. We’re in a moment when we need Alan’s generosity of spirit, wisdom, and commitment to unfailing core values more than ever.  We will miss him, and I know I will try my best to live up to his memory.”

— Olivia Golden, CLASP Executive Director, 2013-2022

After stepping down from CLASP, Alan served as President of the Consortium for the National Equal Justice Library. His numerous awards and honors include the National Equal Justice Award, the Coalition on Human Needs Heroes Award, and the Oberlin College Distinguished Achievement Award.

In these tenuous times for our country, as we witness the likely shrinking or dismantling of programs that support economic security, Alan’s lifetime of service will inspire us and inform our strategy.

Alan’s family asked us to share the following information:

We want to thank everyone who has gotten in touch regarding Alan’s sudden passing.  Your thoughts and well-wishes are deeply appreciated, and Alan would be very proud of the kind words we’ve heard from so many of you.

We aren’t conducting a public funeral but will let you know of any plans for a gathering or remembrance in the future.

If you wish to make a contribution in Alan’s name, please consider either a donation to CLASP (click here) or to the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Endowed Internship Fund at Oberlin College (click here and select the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Endowed Internship Fund, noting the gift is in memory of Alan Houseman.)

 

By Ashley Burnside and Jesse Fairbanks,

In 2025, several provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 are scheduled to expire. This provides an opportunity for lawmakers to reform our tax code so that it serves families with low incomes instead of the wealthiest individuals and corporations. The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) has recommendations that would improve the well-being of families and children with low incomes through the tax code, and have positive benefits for our economy.[⎆1]

Who Benefitted from the TCJA

The TCJA largely benefitted wealthy households and corporations through measures such as reducing the corporate tax rate. These measures not only drove up the deficit but also made our tax code less fair. While the TCJA doubled the size of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) that families can claim per child, it also made the full credit available to families making from $110,000 all the way up to $400,000 in annual income, dramatically expanding eligibility for the full credit to high income families. But families with the lowest earnings cannot claim the full credit because it is not fully refundable. The TCJA also restricted eligibility for children who don’t have Social Security numbers. The 2025 tax package presents an important opportunity to reverse these policy choices to ensure the very wealthy and corporations pay their fair share.

Extending the TCJA Would be Expensive and Leave Less Revenue for Families

The tax code creates revenue for critical infrastructure in our nation. If lawmakers extended the TCJA provisions for ten years, the Department of Treasury estimated this would cost $4.2 trillion. [⎆2] If lawmakers reversed the tax cuts for those with incomes above $400,000 and allowed the business and estate tax cuts to expire on schedule, the total cost would be reduced to $1.8 trillion. The extra $2.4 trillion could be used for worthy investments that would help working families, like implementing a national paid family leave policy, expanding child care for families, and investing in home and community-based services for people with disabilities. Lawmakers should not extend tax breaks for the very wealthy and instead should make investments in the care economy.

Recommendations

CLASP believes that lawmakers should prioritize the following three goals in the 2025 tax package:

  1. Expand tax credits targeted at individuals and families with low incomes, including the CTC, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and a new temporary Renters Tax Credit.
  2. Make the tax code fairer by asking the very wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share.
  3. Use the tax code to generate more revenue than would be generated if the TCJA simply expired. This revenue should be invested in housing, communities, and infrastructure.

Expanding Tax Credits to Boost Income for Families, Renters, and Workers

Expand the CTC and Allow Access for Mixed-Immigration Status Families

The CTC is an important tool for reducing poverty and investing in children. Congress should expand the CTC and make it accessible to families with little to no earnings by permanently making the credit fully refundable. Under current law, an estimated 18 million kids[⎆3] don’t get the full credit because their families earn too little – and this disproportionately includes Black, Latino, and Indigenous children due to the wage gap, discrimination in the labor market, and other systemic factors.[⎆4]

Congress should also restore CTC eligibility for children with Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs). The TCJA removed access to the credit for an estimated 1 million children with ITINs.[⎆7] Children should receive the CTC regardless of whether they have a Social Security number, as their families contribute billions of dollars in taxes and should be entitled to the same benefits as other tax-paying families.[⎆8]

Expand the EITC for Workers Without Dependent Kids, Young Workers, and Old Workers

The EITC effectively bolsters the wages of workers with low and moderate incomes, but because of how the credit is structured, some workers who don’t live with children are taxed deeper into poverty.[⎆9] Congress should increase the credit for workers without dependent children in the household. Under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the EITC tripled for this population temporarily (the maximum credit increased from about $500 to $1,500) the income cap to qualify for the full credit increased, and the credit phase-in and phase-out rates increased. Congress should include a similar expansion in the 2025 tax bill. Congress should also extend access to the credit for younger workers (ages 19-24, and age 18 for former foster care youth and homeless youth) and for older workers (ages 65 and over) as they did in 2021. This is especially important because young adults are largely excluded from our nation’s anti-poverty programs, and the age demographic faces high poverty rates compared to other age groups.[⎆10] Based on the Supplemental Poverty Measure, young adults ages 18- 24 in 2022 had a poverty rate of 17.7 percent, and 22.5 percent for young people of color.[⎆11]

Create a Temporary Renter’s Tax Credit to Help People with Low Incomes Afford Housing

low wages have combined with high housing costs to make renting the biggest expense many people face. About 75 percent of renters with very low incomes, or 8 million households, spend over 50 percent of their incomes on housing and utilities.[⎆12] Cost-burdened renters earning less than $30,000 are left with an average of $170 a month for all other expenses.[⎆13] High housing costs put a dire strain on renters’ budgets, forcing millions of parents to decide between feeding their children, keeping the electricity on, or paying rent.

Despite millions of people struggling to afford housing, there is no reliable program providing rent relief to all who need it. Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) fail to reach most eligible renters because of severe underfunding—the program assists just a quarter of eligible people.[⎆14] Additionally, HCVs are challenging to use because they depend on the private rental market to provide housing.

Landlords can choose not to participate in the program in most places, resulting in 40 percent of people who are lucky enough to get a voucher losing it before they find a place to rent.[⎆15]

Every day that we wait for the government to invest in affordable housing results in another eviction, another tent on the street, or another parent foregoing dinner so their child can eat. Congress must establish a temporary, refundable renter’s tax credit for people with very low incomes. The credit could further target a population at great risk of eviction, such as single parents. Establishing a targeted renter’s tax credit will provide relief to people in desperate need of financial assistance until the government produces adequate affordable housing.

Make the Tax Code Fairer by Asking the Wealthy and Corporations to Pay Their Fair Share

Increasing access to credits that can help families meet their basic needs and using revenue to invest in our future will help grow the U.S. economy and ensure that more people are able to thrive instead of just a wealthy few.

Please reach out to ✉Ashley Burnside or ✉Jesse Fairbanks with any questions about this fact sheet.

Sources: Download publication to view full sources and citations.

This statement can be attributed to Cemeré James, interim executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) 

Washington, D.C., February 26, 2025 – The hollowing out of the federal workforce by the Trump Administration through mass layoffs is an underhanded strategy to dismantle countless programs that support children, families, people with low incomes, communities of color, and other underserved populations. These actions will also deepen the immense harm created by the administration’s elimination of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs—and make it more difficult for families to access the supports they need.

The cuts to jobs across federal agencies—from the Administration for Children and Families and the Department of Education to the Department of Justice and Department of Housing and Urban Development—are said to be done in the name of cost savings and efficiency. But these cuts are causing chaos, disruption, and inefficiencies. They are directly and immediately impacting the lives and families of the employees who have been laid off but also harming children and families across the country. We are only seeing the beginning of the layoffs’ consequences. These cuts are ultimately efforts to limit access to important programs like child care and housing that support people on a path to economic security.

CLASP is concerned that these federal layoffs will decimate the many programs that support people with low incomes and communities of color, ultimately causing negative effects on our nation’s overall economy. While we are already seeing some of the damage, it’s clear that the long-term consequences will be even more significant and could affect generations to come. That’s why we urge everyone who cares about the well-being of individuals and their families, as well as the nation’s economic health, to demand that members of Congress use their authority to stop the decimation of the programs they established and funded.

 

By Suzanne Wikle 

Congress is setting state policymakers up to face incredibly hard decisions about everything from health care cuts, deciding who should go hungry, and supporting their rural communities.  

Both the Senate and House of Representatives have put enormous budget cuts on the table. The House is planning to cut $2 trillion and the Senate has passed a budget resolution with $340 billion in cuts, with a second bill planned to cut more. Budget cuts of this size cannot be achieved without major reductions in core programs that provide health care, nutrition assistance, and other aid to tens of millions of people.  

Big Federal Cuts Mean Hard Decisions for States 

If the proposed Congressional cuts are enacted, states will see a significant reduction in federal dollars. This will directly impact state budgets and state policymakers will have to decide how to absorb the loss of federal dollars and what programs to cut.  

The House budget resolution calls for at least $880 billion in cuts from the committee that oversees Medicaid. Ideas proposed to reach this level of cuts include reducing the federal matching rate for Medicaid or capping federal expenditures through block grants or per capita caps.  

Medicaid is the largest source of federal funding for states. Cutting federal Medicaid funds by $880 billion over ten years would cut 11 percent of all federal Medicaid dollars to states. This chart details how much Medicaid federal dollars each state received in federal fiscal year 2023. 

No state can absorb that level of cuts and maintain their current Medicaid program. But it will be state legislators – not Congress – making the tough decisions of whether to reduce eligibility, slash provider reimbursement rates, and reduce benefits (non-mandatory Medicaid benefits for adults include dental, vision, and prescription coverage). In reality, it will probably have to be a combination of all three.  

Conversations in state capitols will be around how much longer to make waiting lists for waiver services, how much to slash provider rates and still expect them to participate in the program, and what benefits can be cut.  

It’s worth remembering that Medicaid covers more than 79 million people – about 1 in 4 people in the country. This includes 30 million children and more than 7.2 million seniors. The downstream effects of the Medicaid cuts will be significant. In addition to people losing their coverage, many health care workers, including home health aides, will lose their jobs. Nursing homes and rural hospitals will have more trouble keeping their doors open – and when hospitals in rural communities close it’s harder to keep doctors and other professionals in the community.  

And Medicaid is only one example of the enormous budget cuts being proposed by Congress. This scenario of forcing state policymakers to pick winners and losers will also play out with federal education cuts, including higher education and federal student loans, and more demand for other social services when federal funds are cut.  

Proposed cuts to nutrition assistance total $230 billion, meaning 230 billion fewer dollars being spent in communities buying food. This will hurt grocers and corner stores, which in turn are likely to reduce jobs and raise prices of food and other goods.  

Every dollar of food assistance spent creates between $1.50 and $1.80 in economic activity. Taking 230 billion food assistance dollars out of the economy will have far-reaching economic consequences while also causing hunger to skyrocket among tens of millions of people.  

The disappearance of federal dollars doesn’t make hunger go away, but it’s not feasible for states to fill the void these cuts will create. The result is that people will go hungry and food-related businesses, including truck drivers and packing plants, will take a hit. The downstream economic damage will hurt state revenues through less income and sales tax collections.  

Timing and State Budget Implications 

If Congress sticks to their timeline, these drastic cuts will go into effect starting October 1, 2025. For states who use a fiscal year from July to June, this timeline means that major reductions in federal dollars will start only 25 percent into the new state fiscal year. Most of those state budgets are being built right now, assuming no major changes in federal funding.  

State budgets will quickly be in the red, likely forcing governors to start cutting programs immediately or call special sessions for legislators to make cuts. And states have to balance their budgets–unlike Congress, they can’t spend more than their revenues.  

Why These Cuts? 

There is no need for these massive cuts to Medicaid, food assistance, and other critical programs. They are on the table in combination with the effort to extend tax cuts for a small number of wealthy people, which will add at least 4 trillion to our federal debt. These cuts are not only cruel to the people who need these programs in order to have health care and enough food to eat, but they are also positioning state policymakers to be the bad guys when reality hits and hard decisions have to be made.  

This statement can be attributed to Wendy Cervantes, director of immigration and immigrant families at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) 

Washington, D.C. February 20, 2025 – Last night, the Trump Administration issued another baseless and misguided executive order on immigration. This latest order is yet another attempt to scare immigrant families from accessing the essential services they need to thrive. 

The reality, which the order itself acknowledges, is that undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for the vast majority of federal programs. States and localities receive federal funding for essential services that benefit all residents, regardless of their immigration status. These programs support our economy and promote public health and healthy child development. Cutting funding will hurt everyone who benefits from those programs and create a chilling effect, especially for U.S. citizen children living in a mixed-status family.

This executive order is just the administration’s latest effort to try to perpetuate misinformation about immigrant families and bully states into implementing its mass deportation agenda, which threatens to upend state and local budgets. The need for families to provide for their children doesn’t go away just because the Trump Administration and Elon Musk say so. If the federal government withholds funding, states and localities will need to determine how to support their residents.

CLASP remains committed to supporting immigrants and their families, and we call on our anti-poverty partners to push back against the Trump Administration’s continued efforts to scapegoat and harm our immigrant community.

By Teon Hayes

Budget numbers can feel distant, as if they’re just abstract figures debated by those with privilege in the halls of power. But behind those numbers are people, families, and entire communities that will bear the brunt of decisions made in Washington. The House Budget Resolution proposes sweeping cuts that would affect the amount of groceries people can buy, the education of our children, and access to life-saving health care. The real-world consequences of these reductions will be devastating for millions of Americans.

Food on the Table: The Impact of Agriculture Cuts

For many families, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the difference between having food on the table and going hungry. The proposed $230 billion in cuts to agriculture would likely mean deep reductions to SNAP, hitting families with low incomes, seniors, and children the hardest. These cuts could lead to stricter eligibility requirements, reduced benefits, and rising rates of food insecurity.

For example, a single mother in North Carolina has a full-time job but still struggles to afford groceries for her children. SNAP helps her bridge the gap, ensuring that her family has nutritious meals. If these proposed cuts go through, her family could see their food assistance slashed or eliminated, forcing this mother to make impossible choices between paying rent and feeding her kids.

The Cost of Cutting Education: A Blow to Future Generations

Education is often hailed as the great equalizer but slashing at least $330 billion from education funding threatens to widen disparities and limit opportunities for the next generation of leaders. This isn’t just about numbers; it’s about lost opportunities for millions of students.

Imagine a high school senior in rural Pennsylvania who dreams of becoming a nurse. He plans to attend a public college, relying on federal grants and affordable tuition to make his education possible. However, if these cuts become reality, the public college he wants to attend may be forced to raise tuition, reduce financial aid, and cut essential student support services. A reduction in education funding could mean fewer grants and higher student loan burdens, discouraging this student from pursuing the education he needs to thrive in the workforce. As a result, the cycle of poverty continues.

Decrease in Public Higher Education Appropriations per Full-Time Equivalent Student by State, FYI 2001-2023

Source: “Threats to the Department of Education: Private Equity Replacing Public Funding”

The Human Cost of Health Care Cuts

The proposed draft directs the committee that handles Medicaid to cut at least $880 billion, which will likely affect Medicaid most directly. This would have catastrophic consequences for millions of individuals who rely on the program for health care. These cuts could result in reducing coverage for essential services, increasing the number of uninsured Americans, and possibly closing hospitals and nursing homes.

Picture a diabetic patient unable to afford insulin, a child missing critical treatments, or a senior losing access to home health care. Stripping away Medicaid funding doesn’t just take away health care. It endangers lives.

Beyond the Numbers: Why This Matters

These proposed cuts represent real consequences for real people. While policymakers may see this as a fiscal decision, for millions of Americans, it’s a question of survival.

As these discussions unfold, we must ask: who benefits from these cuts, and who suffers? A budget is a moral document that reflects our priorities as a nation. What kind of country do we want to be: one that invests in its people, or one that turns its back on them?

This budget doesn’t just reduce spending; it threatens the stability of millions of families. Single mothers, high school seniors, people with chronic illnesses – they are just some of the real people who will feel the impact of these choices. The United States should be investing in policies that lift people up—ensuring that children have enough to eat, that schools have the resources to educate, and that communities have the support they need to be healthy and thrive.

This brief, part of the TANF 101 series, explains the fixed block grant awarded to states under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

By Suzanne Wikle and Juliana Zhou

Medicaid is a cornerstone of our health care system but Republicans in Congress are talking about large Medicaid cuts. Cutting Medicaid and taking away people’s health care will harm millions of Americans, worsen our maternal health crisis, increase child poverty, and further jeopardize rural hospitals and other providers.

>> View the fact sheet here

By Suzanne Wikle

The 119th Congress has begun debating legislation to renew the first Trump Administration’s tax package from 2017 that many are framing as a discussion about tax cuts. However, the debate is really about whether making billionaires and large corporations wealthier is more important than health care and food for millions of Americans. That’s because Republicans have clearly stated they want to cut Medicaid and food assistance so they can make the super-rich even richer.

Medicaid provides health insurance to 79 million Americans, primarily children, seniors, people with disabilities, and pregnant women. Republicans have proposed several changes to Medicaid as a way to “pay for” tax cuts, totaling one-third of all federal Medicaid spending over the next decade.

Any change to Medicaid that offsets or “pays for” tax cuts is a cut to Medicaid, and cutting Medicaid will set off a cascade of negative effects. Millions of people will lose their health insurance, which means worse health outcomes that could have been prevented, premature death, and increased medical debt and bankruptcies. As Medicaid is the largest payer of mental health and substance use services, many individuals’ mental health concerns will go untreated or become more severe. For hospitals and other health care providers, cuts to Medicaid directly translate to more uncompensated care, as well as the likely closure of rural hospitals and nursing homes. The proposed cuts will also create a major budget hole for state budgets. On average, federal Medicaid dollars account for 57 percent of total federal funds spent by states. Federal cuts to Medicaid will force states to kick people off Medicaid and likely cut other parts of their budgets.

Congress has also proposed slashing nutrition assistance as part of the package to provide wealthy Americans with more tax cuts. By reversing recent policies that increased nutrition benefits to account for higher food costs that all Americans are facing and creating more red tape and eligibility limitations, policymakers would ultimately take food off the table of families, people with disabilities, and seniors, while also draining money out of local economies.

An honest debate about taxes would not suggest wholesale and disastrous changes to people’s health care and nutrition access as a means of making billionaires like Elon Musk even wealthier.

Our tax system should help families and children, not the wealthy and powerful. Tax policy can have a huge role in decreasing poverty, as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic when the expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC) slashed childhood poverty in half. Congress should make these changes to the CTC permanent. In addition, lawmakers should establish a renter’s tax credit to support Americans priced out of homeownership. Finally, policymakers should expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to invest in workers of all ages without dependent children. These tax policies have the potential to affect the lives of millions of Americans in a positive way, rather than just a few at the wealthiest end of the economic spectrum.

As advocates, we’ll continue to voice the truth: the proposals by Republican members of Congress will make billionaires wealthier by taking away health care and nutrition support from millions of Americans, including constituents in their districts. There is no middle ground if it includes cuts to people’s basic human rights of health care and food.

By Ashley Burnside

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a federal tax credit for workers with low and moderate incomes. The EITC helps to bolster their incomes and offset taxes owed; it is effective at reducing poverty and has traditionally received bipartisan support. But the EITC available to workers without dependent children in the household is small and not available to younger and older workers without children. Lawmakers should permanently expand the EITC available to this population of workers.

Workers Without Children Are Largely Left Out of the EITC

Workers without dependent children in the household are only eligible for a meager credit, and this results in some workers being taxed deeper into poverty when they file their taxes.[1] A worker making $18,000 in annual income would only be eligible for an EITC of about $44 in tax year 2024.[2] The maximum income to be eligible for the EITC for this population of workers is also low, meaning that workers become ineligible for the credit at lower incomes. For example, in tax year 2024, a single, childless worker would become ineligible for the EITC if they made more than $18,600 in income.[3]

Figure 1:

Younger and older workers are ineligible for the EITC if they don’t have children. This is especially detrimental because younger workers are likelier to start their careers working in jobs that pay a lower wage and may not have as much savings built up due to their age. For these populations, getting an EITC is especially important. One study found that the expanded EITC decreased the share of young workers with difficulty affording their rent and mortgage payments.[4] Young workers are also often ineligible for support through federal anti-poverty programs, or are only eligible for meager benefits, and face higher poverty rates than other age demographics. According to the Supplemental Poverty Measure, 17.7 percent of young adults (ages 18-24) experienced poverty in 2022, and the rate increased to 22.5 percent for young people of color (See: Figure 1).[5]

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) temporarily changed this by expanding the EITC available to workers without dependent children. The EITC nearly tripled for this group of workers, the income eligibility amount increased, the credit phase-in rate increased, and the bill made younger and older workers without children eligible.[6] Lawmakers should make these changes permanent.

Workers who are paid low wages and who work in critical sectors of our economy, including child care and as home health workers, would benefit from this EITC expansion. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) projects that about 737,000 cashiers, 506,000 cooks, 478,000 janitors, 312,000 personal care aides, and 229,000 child care workers would benefit.[7] The number of workers without dependent children who claimed the EITC nearly doubled when comparing tax year 2019 to tax year 2021 (when the ARPA expansions were in effect.) Approximately 15.1 million taxpayers claimed it in 2021, compared to 7.6 million in 2019.[8] A total of about 14 million workers would benefit from permanent expansion of the EITC in tax year 2024 (See: Figure 2). According to estimates from the CBPP, about 4 million young workers and 1.5 million older workers would be newly eligible for the credit in 2024 if these expansions were put in place.[9]

Figure 2:

Policy Recommendations: Permanently Expand the EITC Available to Workers Without Children

Lawmakers should permanently expand the EITC for workers without dependent children in the following ways, using ARPA as a model:

In addition, lawmakers should explore making the EITC available to families periodically, as has been done in pilots and as is included in the EITC Modernization Act, so that the credit can be used to help workers afford month-to-month costs such as rent and bills.

Conclusion

The EITC is a critical tax credit, and lawmakers should permanently expand it for workers without dependent children. Expanding the EITC would reduce the number of workers being taxed deeper into poverty, help to bolster wages for younger and older workers, and make our tax code fairer.

Endnotes

1 “Policy Basics: The Earned Income Tax Credit,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, updated April 28, 2023, https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-the-earned-income-tax-credit.

2 This estimate was calculated using the IRS Earned Income Tax Credit Assistant tool. The hypothetical filer is between the ages of 25 and 64, files as single, and has $18,000 in annual wage/salary income. “Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Assistant,” Internal Revenue Service, last updated/reviewed December 5, 2024, https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit/use-the-eitc-assistant.

3 “Earned income and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) tables,” Internal Revenue Service, last updated/reviewed January 27, 2025, https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit/earned-income-and-earned-income-tax-credit-eitc-tables.

4 Margot Crandall-Hollick, Nikhita Airi, and Richard Auxier, “How the American Rescue Plan’s Temporary EITC Expansion Impacted Workers Without Children,” Urban Institute and Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, September 6, 2024, https://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/how-american-rescue-plans-temporary-eitc-expansion-impacted-workers-without-children.

5 “Why We Still Can’t Wait: Youth Data Update 2023,” CLASP, https://www.clasp.org/new-deal-4- youth/youth-data-economic-justice-2023/.

6 The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 expanded the EITC available to workers without dependent children by increasing the credit phase-in and phase-out rates from 7.65 percent to 15.3 percent, increasing the maximum credit from $543 to $1,502, and increasing the income where the credit begins to phase out from $8,880 to $11,610 (and from $14,820 to $17,550 for married couples). The bill also made workers eligible beginning at age 19, and at age 18 for former foster youth and homeless youth. The maximum age cap was also removed, making workers aged 65 and older newly eligible. These changes were all temporary and in place for 2021. For more information about the changes made under the American Rescue Plan Act: “The ‘Childless’ EITC: Temporary Expansion for 2021 Under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,” Congressional Research Service, updated May 3, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11610.

7 Kiran Rachamallu, “About 14 Million Low-Income Adults Not Raising Children at Home Would Benefit From Permanently Expanded EITC,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, September 19, 2024, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/about-14-million-low-income-adults-not-raising-children-at-home-would-benefit-from-permanently.

8 Crandall-Hollick, et. al., “How the American Rescue Plan’s Temporary EITC.”

9 Rachamallu, “About 14 Million Low-Income Adults.”

10 Carl Davis, Marco Guzman, and Emma Sifre, “Tax Payments by Undocumented Immigrants,” Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, July 30 2024, https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/

>>Read the full fact sheet.