Skip to main content

A Black History Month Reflection on Key Leaders in the Fight for Civil Rights

As we approach the closing days of Black History Month, now is a good time to reflect on the memories and positive stories associated with the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. But the work started by many of those we honor this month is far from over.

read more

Cash Assistance is a Critical Part of Reproductive Justice

The conversation on reproductive justice has been front and center in many spaces following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. Many advocates, organizers, and policymakers have united across issue areas to support reproductive rights—specifically access to safe, affordable, and accessible abortion. However, economic insecurity and poverty are incompatible with reproductive justice.

read more

Challenges to Just and Effective 988 Implementation

Youth and young adults currently face an unprecedented mental and behavioral health crisis that has led to an increase in youth suicide rates, mental and behavioral health concerns, and disconnection from school and work. This series of fact sheets explores the challenges and missed opportunities to effectively implement the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and transform our country’s existing mental and behavioral health crisis response system.

read more

Making USDA More Equitable

In 2022 Elizabeth Lower-Basch was appointed to serve on the USDA Equity Commission, which released its final report today at a meeting where she served as a panelist. In a blog, Elizabeth shares her reflections on the Commission’s work and its 66 recommendations for improving equity in the USDA’s many policies, practices, and programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

read more

This new report examines the pivotal role of Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCUs) in addressing the educational needs of students of color, particularly Black immigrants, amid systemic inequities in postsecondary education.

read more


CLASP in the News & Partner Blogs


Why we need to rethink the term “student-athlete”


Op Ed: SCOTUS Ruling Disproportionately Impacts Opportunities for Black Males

Upcoming Events

February 28: Christian Collins will give a virtual guest lecture to graduate students in the Sports Administration program at UNC-Chapel Hill on his Equal Play, Unequal Pay report. The lecture will also focus on the unique ways that college athletics and public policy intersect.

Recent Events

February 22: Isha Weerasinghe presented to a cohort of 13 state legislators who are part of the Future Caucus on the importance of addressing maternal mental health.

February 13: The Biden-Harris Administration brought together nearly 90 young people from across the nation for the first-ever interagency Youth Policy Summit: Cultivating Possibilities. New Deal for Youth Changemakers and members of CLASP staff served on the youth planning committee, helped with preparation, moderated panels and discussions, and attended the event.


Sign up for more updates like this, directly to your inbox!


By India Heckstall, Christian Collins, Felecia Russell, and Melquin Ramos

The report “Fostering Inclusion for Black Immigrant Students at HBCUs” examines the pivotal role of Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCUs) in addressing the educational needs of students of color, particularly Black immigrants, amid systemic inequities in postsecondary education. Despite facing declining enrollment, HBCUs remain vital for fostering academic success and socioeconomic mobility, especially for Black immigrant students. The report highlights challenges such as declining enrollment, financial barriers, and limited support for immigrant students. It offers policy recommendations that emphasize the importance of auditing admissions policies, building supportive environments, and expanding access to federal financial aid. Collaborative efforts between federal agencies, states, and institutions are crucial to creating inclusive environments and removing barriers for Black immigrant students, thus promoting equity and diversity in higher education.

>> Read the full report

By Sapna Mehta

In 2021 and 2022, President Biden signed three critical bills into law—the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Science Act (CHIPS and Science Act). They provide nearly $2 trillion in federal infrastructure, clean energy, and technology funding with the potential to create millions of good jobs in local communities. Together they have the potential to revitalize the U.S. labor market and pave the way toward diversifying a range of occupations and industries.

These laws stand to modernize and enhance the transportation, energy, clean water, and digital sectors by directing significant funds toward these efforts.

These measures hold promise to increase economic opportunity and security for workers with low incomes, people of color, and women. Yet jobs in many of the industries experiencing investment are disproportionately held by white men. Turning these investments into high-quality jobs for women, people of color, and persons with low incomes will require intentional efforts to address their severe underrepresentation in the industries where federal investments are flowing.

In this report, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) aims to support national, state, and community leaders and advocates in navigating these laws by:

>>View the full report

Note: This publication was updated on December 18, 2023.

By Katherine Knott, Inside Higher Ed


Some committee members pointed out how student loan debt disproportionately impacts Black families and exacerbates inequities. “Pursuing higher education can negatively impact Black families’ wealth because of the debt burden,” said India Heckstall with the Center for Law and Social Policy, a nonprofit, and a negotiator for civil rights organizations.

Read the full article here.

The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) is grateful for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record to the House Subcommittee on Higher Education and the Workforce. CLASP is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit advancing anti-poverty policy solutions that disrupt structural and systemic racism and sexism and remove barriers blocking people from economic security and opportunity. We advocate for federal, state, and local policies to strengthen families and create pathways to education and work. CLASP has deep expertise on a wide range of issue areas such as childcare and early education, youth policy, job quality, income and work supports, workforce development, postsecondary education, immigration and cross-cutting issues like mental health, racial equity, and criminal justice. CLASP works to amplify the voices of directly impacted workers and families and help public officials design and implement effective programs.


>> Read full statement for the record

By Madison Trice

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard College ruling held that affirmative action violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The decision claims that considering race in holistic admissions is a “zero-sum game…where students compete for a finite number of seats in each school’s entering class,” and that any additional acknowledgment of race will necessarily hurt one race while helping another. This perspective doesn’t reflect the ways that holistic admissions functions. Holistic admissions allow colleges to take race into account as one of many factors that could shape a student’s lived experience. Race is not a positive factor for one race and a negative factor for another. Holistic admissions can intentionally be broadly applied, allowing all students of color to be helped.

Eliminating holistic admissions while preserving legacy admissions won’t just result in a dramatically reduced presence of students of color on campus. This move will also protect advantages conferred on white students. Yet this aspect of the ruling has received less attention.

The retention of legacy admissions, and the advantages they confer, are never negotiated in the fixed pie of opportunity that people of color must compete for. The zero-sum equation is incomplete if systemic advantages to whiteness—white generational wealth, white educational attrition and legacy—are not viewed as a part of the problem. Rather than responding to and reinforcing the confines of a systemically racist educational and economic system, solidarity directs us to this truth: the greater access there is for any underrepresented group, the more all people of color, and the nation as a whole, stand to benefit.

The movement for holistic admissions reflected this truth. I was a witness for the SFFA vs. Harvard trial in the Massachusetts Supreme Court.  The people who showed up on the side of holistic admissions were racially diverse. They represented the diversity of my campus, of our home. In preparing for the trial, I saw student organizers from all racial communities on campus: Asian, white, Indigenous, Black, and Latino. Though I received support from my community outside of the trial itself, with Black students bringing me gifts of food hugs and emotional support, most of the students who testified in favor of affirmative action were Asian American.  My lawyers were Black American and Asian American. At a rally before the Supreme Court building before the verdict, an Asian American alum and I spoke about the importance of holistic admissions. The image SFFA has presented of affirmative action opposition is predominantly Asian American. In fact, 69 percent of Asian American voters support better access to higher education for women and all communities of color. Behind the scenes, the leaders of SFFA have been white. Prior cases have argued that white students were disadvantaged by affirmative action, as with the University of Texas case in 2016. Anti-affirmative action advocates may have shifted their strategy in SFFA v. Harvard, but the heart of the case is the same: white, rich, powerful people pitting Black, Asian, and Latino students against one another for the sake of limiting people of color’s collective access to education.

The Supreme Court’s ruling neglects the potential educational and sociocultural detriments caused by a lack of diversity in higher education. I have been in spaces that were severely lacking in diversity. My time at Harvard, and at CLASP, have been beautiful because both spaces are so diverse. When police brutality occurred on campus, Black students were able to mobilize for change with a diverse cross-section of other students. Conversely, at my very wealthy, predominantly white private high school in the Southwest, affinity groups of color were actively prohibited from forming spaces to meet together. This is because my high school—like the Supreme Court, SFFA, and Ed Blum (the legal activist and founder of SFFA)—recognized that there is power in solidarity and diversity, and that power scared them. That power is limited when people of color aren’t able to be educated in diverse spaces and build coalitions that will widen the paths of opportunity for those who follow.

Using the power of coalition building and solidarity is the best way to secure a diverse future for higher education in spite of the Supreme Court’s ruling. For instance, students at UC Berkeley have mobilized with the student organization Bridges, using their manpower to focus on recruiting students of color in their capacity as individuals. Our policies must respond  by reinforcing the importance of colleges providing spaces for students to articulate and be valued for their diverse experiences in the application process and on campuses. Policy must refuse to engage with the fixed-pie fallacy and instead carve out a broader path to economic and educational opportunity for people of color.

I would like to extend a special acknowledgment to our Emerson Hunger Fellow, Landy Lin, who helped with this blog.

The following statement can be attributed to Indivar Dutta-Gupta, president, and executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).

Washington, D.C., June 29, 2023—Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn nearly 50 years of precedent—yet again—is ahistorical and harmful to building a multiracial and prosperous democracy. In SFFA v. UNC and Harvard, a 6-3 majority broadly struck down race-conscious higher education admissions as unconstitutional.

Among its many flaws, this ruling fails to appreciate the history of the Constitution’s 14th amendment. Its equal protection clause was widely understood to authorize—not restrict—the sort of race-conscious policies now being struck down.

Holistic, race-conscious admissions policies offer upward economic mobility for Black and brown communities. The Court insists that such policies cannot go on indefinitely. Yet, we are not aware of an expiration date for racism and racial discrimination. As Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent “Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially unequal. What was true in the 1860s, and again in 1954, is true today: Equality requires acknowledgment of inequality.”

Today’s decision will make the fight to end poverty in this country, which robs tens of millions of people of their potential, more challenging. Poverty affects a disproportionate share of people of color due to structural, systemic, and institutional racism, including at institutions of higher education. Higher education can be an effective path to economic security and upward social and economic mobility, but the Court today closes that path for many. Going forward, higher education institutions will do more to reproduce racial hierarchies and less to advance equal opportunity.

In turn, our nation’s potential for democratic stability and economic prosperity will be weakened. Sustaining those aims requires the richness that racial equity and diversity bring to higher education, which prepares the vast majority of those who hold significant economic and political power in our nation. Yet, these aims can be realized only by correcting past harms that will otherwise haunt us indefinitely. Because race-neutral efforts in a society rife with racial injustice will inevitably fall short of what our nation’s promises of equality demand, CLASP is committed to working with our partners to reverse the decision and advance effective race-conscious policies to build true unity and undo centuries of harm to communities of color.



By Christian Collins

Accessibility and affordability of postsecondary educational opportunities remain a persistent obstacle preventing millions of Americans and their families from acquiring high-quality employment. Though unlikely to pass through Congress, President Biden’s FY2024 budget strongly signals a priority on increasing accessibility of postsecondary education at community colleges through his administration’s proposed $90 billion over 10 years for universal tuition-free community college. The budget also includes $500 million to implement a new first-dollar grant program that would lay the foundation for free community colleges. Because state-level reforms have a substantially higher likelihood of success, state governments can play an even larger role in increasing both accessibility and affordability of postsecondary education. A highly effective tool available to states is the expansion of dual enrollment programs. 

Dual enrollment is the practice of students enrolling in two separate academic institutions simultaneously, most commonly with high school students taking college courses while still in high school. This practice originated in 1955 when the University of Connecticut began offering collegiate courses at area high schools and has since expanded to 82 percent of public high schools offering some version of dual enrollment.  

Underfunded, but not Underutilized 

Community colleges are the backbone of dual enrollment programs, as roughly 70 percent of all dual enrollment high school students take their courses through community colleges. These programs aren’t just a resource for students seeking access to affordable postsecondary education, they’ve also served to protect the health of community colleges themselves. While community college enrollment rates have continued to drop throughout the last decade, dual enrollment rates have increased. Postsecondary students aged 17 or younger had the only enrollment increases between 2020 and 2022 of any age group in undergraduate education at 9.3 percent, driven by a 12.8 percent increase in enrollment at public 2-year colleges. 

Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia offer state-level dual enrollment programs, but not every program is designed with equity in mind. Of the 88 state-level programs nationwide, 40 require students to contribute at least a portion of their tuition, creating a cost barrier for potential students. Twelve states don’t provide any public funds for dual enrollment programs, leaving students and their families to pay all costs by themselves.  

This funding patchwork has led to inequitable access to dual enrollment opportunities based on race and family income. Nearly 13 percent of white high school students participated in dual enrollment, making them the only racial demographic with a double-digit percentage and more than doubling the rate of Black students. Schools serving higher percentages of students living in poverty offer significantly fewer dual enrollment options compared to schools with lower poverty levels, even when controlling for school size, school type, and school locale. 

Program availability is also limited by cost for under-resourced schools and districts, given that common cost barriers include a lack of available equipment, fewer available staff to facilitate programs, and less physical space to provide courses. Transportation is another cost obstacle to students seeking to enroll in programs, since 24 percent of all dual enrollment students had to commute to college campuses or other high schools to take courses, with this figure rising to as high as 32 percent for students in densely populated areas. The balance of dual enrollment students took their courses either online or at their high school.  

Cost barriers don’t affect just students seeking to dual enroll. The very colleges seeking to develop and implement these programs must grapple with financial issues. Tuition at community colleges for dual enrollment programs—no matter whether paid through public funds or by students themselves—is often offered at a discount compared to regular tuition rates due to state laws. Given that dual enrollment students represent nearly 20 percent of all community college students nationally, and with some states approaching 40 percent representation, that’s a significant revenue stream loss for community colleges. States must counter this shortfall through state-level funding to help ensure the financial sustainability of community colleges providing dual enrollment. Coupled with state governments chronically underfunding community colleges, some institutions don’t have the financial support needed to offer dual enrollment programs.  

Dual Enrollment is Well Worth the Costs 

Dual enrollment programs are arguably the largest available free college program in the country, and they represent a significant opportunity for the continued expansion of accessible and affordable postsecondary education. By contributing to increased income for graduates, helping lower unemployment rates, and generating significantly more tax revenue than they cost to run, community colleges are vital economic mobility lifelines.  

Through its $200 million proposal to create a Career-Connected High Schools initiative that integrates dual enrollment into high schools across the country, the Biden Administration is prioritizing the importance of such opportunities for millions of students. States’ underfunding of community colleges has already led to significant revenue gaps compared to 4-year colleges, and allowing these gaps to persist threatens the sustainability of vital anti-poverty programs like dual enrollment. To truly improve outcomes for the next generation, states must not just match the Biden Administration’s efforts but exceed them. 

On May 2, Indi Dutta-Gupta will speak on a plenary panel focused on postsecondary policy at National Skills Coalition’s 2023 Skills Summit in Washington, D.C.

By Melissa Young and Emily Andrews


Millions of people in the United States want to work but cannot access employment and quality job opportunities due to many factors rooted in structural inequity. Such challenges disproportionately harm Black, Indigenous, and Latinx individuals, other people of color, women, youth, people with disabilities, and individuals with intersectional identities. Despite economic growth, the Black male unemployment rate remains consistently high.[i] In fact, it is about twice as high as white male unemployment, a ratio that has stubbornly persisted for over 50 years.[ii] Young workers (ages 16 to 24 years old) have also experienced unemployment at extraordinarily high rates, especially during economic downturns.[iii] Even when the economy is strong, these and other workers with intersectional identities face unrelenting challenges in getting and keeping quality jobs.

A man working in engineering field looking hopeful. Source: Getty, Nitat Termmee

Recent shifts in federal guidance and an influx of new federal investments have created opportunities to leverage and coordinate funding streams across the federal government to address racial and racial-gender economic inequality. Subsidized employment and transitional jobs are proven workforce strategies that reduce poverty and inequality – specifically for Black and Hispanic workers. These programs are poised to have significant positive impacts for workers if coordinated and deployed in strategic ways.[iv]

The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) believes that aligning subsidized employment and transitional jobs programs across the federal government effectively requires that the federal government take a whole-of-government approach. Such an approach can:

  1. Ensure that more communities and individuals have access to subsidized employment and transitional jobs programs;
  2. Guide implementation toward best and promising practices; and
  3. Advance effectiveness with an explicit focus on equity, inclusion, and building programs that work best for people who are economically marginalized.

We also believe that taking this approach is in keeping with the Biden Administration’s goals of leveraging comprehensive approaches across the federal government to advance equity for all. That includes people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.[v]

This brief offers perspectives from CLASP on how the Biden Administration can advance a whole-of-government approach to managing and directing these resources.


Since the Great Depression, policymakers have leveraged federal funding at various times to subsidize wage-paying, real work opportunities for people who want to work but cannot access employment. The goals of these investments have been to connect people to work in times of high unemployment, increase income for individuals and families, and support pathways to unsubsidized employment, among others.

These programs have been called subsidized employment, transitional jobs, and paid work experience. They have also been referred to as publicly funded jobs or jobs of last resort. Currently, smaller uncoordinated pots of federal funding for these programs are housed in the U.S. Departments of Labor; Health and Human Services; Agriculture; Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice. Notably, these pots of federal resources are not specifically dedicated to these strategies. Rather, these federal funding streams are used on a discretionary basis to implement subsidized employment, transitional jobs, and wage-paid work, among other uses of funds. Therefore, the whims or political vagaries of the times can limit or derail the use of this funding for these employment strategies. (The table in the Appendix on page 9 lists current funding streams and target populations.)

Subsidized employment and transitional jobs programs have been rigorously evaluated for over 40 years, demonstrating a range of positive impacts for workers, families, communities, and employers.[vi] These positive effects have included stabilizing and increasing income among workers; reducing housing instability; supporting transitions from incarceration to community for people returning from incarceration; improving health and wellbeing; bolstering the educational attainment of children whose parents participate in these programs; and reducing gun violence, among others. Wages paid to program participants stimulate local economies and have been shown to improve access to public services.[vii] Employers routinely articulate the benefits of these programs.

Above all, these programs have a demonstrated ability to directly reduce poverty and economic inequality. Multiple models have shown that subsidized employment and transitional jobs can reduce poverty by double digits—with higher impacts for Black and Hispanic workers.[viii]

More recently, we anticipate seeing increased implementation of these programs by states and localities and higher likelihood and need for federal coordination. This is in part because of new federal guidance and initiatives, along with new or increased funding.


Whole-of-Government Approach

A whole-of-government approach refers to a set of joint activities performed by diverse public agencies to support a common or aligned solution to issues. CLASP recommends the following elements for applying a whole-of-government approach that leverages subsidized employment and transitional jobs programs to reduce economic inequity and marginalization:

Employing a whole-of-government strategy to leverage these resources can support the Biden Administration’s economic and racial equity goals. Moreover, this approach can link current investments for workers with new and emerging jobs and economic development investments galvanized through the implementation of IIJA and IRA.

Goals and Principles

Depending on the funding stream and the federal agency jurisdiction, the goals of subsidized employment and transitional jobs programs can differ. When advancing a whole-of-government approach, there is value in identifying a set of primary goals and principles to guide how these programs are designed and implemented across the federal government. A common set of goals and principles can support efforts to blend funding to implement these programs at the state and local levels and focus the goals of stakeholders. This practice can also help measure the effectiveness of these programs in increasing income and advancing more equitable access to employment and quality jobs.

Program goals should inform program design. The following three goals should guide subsidized employment and transitional jobs programs across the federal government. At the same time, not every program or funding stream used for subsidized employment or transitional jobs programs will share each of these goals:

The following principles should constitute the foundation for these programs across the federal government:

Many of these principles are reflected in a national framework endorsed by nearly 30 national organizations and are included in recent frameworks by national research and policy organizations. [xvi] [xvii]

Common or Aligned Performance Measures

As policymakers conceptualize and design subsidized employment and transitional jobs programs funded by the federal government, they can build common or aligned performance measures into funding opportunities. Incentives can support data collection and monitoring over time to understand the impact of these programs on the above-mentioned goals. In some cases, such as the use of TANF funds, programs are prohibited from collecting data beyond the statutory requirements. However, where federal flexibility exists or new programs are established through competitive grants, common aligned data can and should be collected.

Program evaluators have recommended the following performance measures that may offer a template for federal partners to use. Programs and data should be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, and other participant characteristics, such as:

Requiring or recommending that programs collect these data is not enough. The federal government should incentivize the use of these data in tracking program effectiveness and improving programs over time. Programs should supplement this quantitative data with regular, consistent opportunities for workers and other stakeholders to provide feedback on program structure, design, and effectiveness through qualitative mechanisms. Federal partners should incentivize and support the collection and monitoring of both quantitative and qualitative data. In addition, programs should leverage capacity, technical assistance, and resources to support these goals.

Capacity-Building Resources

It will be critical for stakeholders to identify and leverage resources at all levels of government to support capacity-building efforts that ensure programs are effective and aligned with identified goals. New resources and increased flexibility will allow an increased number of states, cities, intermediaries, and providers to implement subsidized employment programs.

Policymakers should identify and set aside funds to provide technical assistance to support states and communities in leveraging these resources; designing programs; building data capacity; engaging in cross-agency collaboration; educating on best and promising program practices; conducting program monitoring and compliance; implementing communications; and ensuring worker voice is supported, compensated, and incentivized in program development and implementation.

Programs should also dedicate capacity to support cross-learning among subsidized employment and transitional jobs programs nationwide, as well as lift up implementation profiles and examples of quality programs. Moreover, programs should identify federal agency staff to support capacity-building efforts in alignment with the goals stated here.

Federal Leadership and Coordination

To support a whole-of-government approach to these resources, the White House Domestic Policy Council should establish or identify dedicated staff and leadership to promote a vision for these programs and their transformative possibilities. These individuals should share a commitment to building the infrastructure necessary to support this vision for people and communities who have been economically marginalized. Staff should leverage federal leadership across agencies to support program and policy development and alignment and ensure that worker voice is centered in program design.

Leaders selected to steward these resources should also possess the authority and ability to:


Regardless of the business cycle, far too many people face chronic unemployment and poverty. Federal leaders can help people most in need—and advance economic and racial equity goals—by seizing this extraordinary moment. That is, policymakers can leverage a whole-of-government approach for supporting and managing current and future investments and new federal flexibility for subsidized employment.

Using this comprehensive strategy can ensure that these investments have maximum positive impact for individuals, families, and entire communities.

>> View full brief and appendix


[i] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Databases, Tables, and Calculators by Subject, 2022,

[ii] Valerie Wilson, “Racism and the Economy, Focus on Employment,” Economic Policy Institute, 2020,

[iii] Elise Gould, Melat Kassa, Young Workers hit hard by the COVID-19 economy, Economic Policy Institute, 2020,

[iv] Kye Lippold, Reducing Poverty in the United States: Results of a Microsimulation Analysis of the Community Advocates Public Policy Institute Policy Package, table B-3, Urban Institute, March 2015,

[v] Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, White House, Presidential Actions, 2021,

[vi] Indivar Dutta-Gupta, Kali Grant, Matthew Eckel, and Peter Edelman, Lesson Learned from 40 Years of Subsidized Employment Programs, Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality, Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality, 2016,

[vii] Jonah Kushner, Chicago Neighborhood JobStart evaluation report: A transitional jobs response to the great recession, Chicago: Social IMPACT Research Center, 2012,

[viii] Kye Lippold, Reducing Poverty in the United States: Results of a Microsimulation Analysis of the Community Advocates Public Policy Institute Policy Package, table B-3, Urban Institute, March 2015,

[ix] Elizabeth Lower-Basch, Melissa Young, Subsidized Employment: A Strategy to Address Equity and Inclusion in SNAP E&T Programs, Center for Law and Social Policy, 2022,

[x] Melissa Young, Nia West-Bey, Designing Equitable Community Violence Intervention Strategies with Employment and Workforce Supports, Center for Law and Social Policy, 2022,

[xi] FACT SHEET: President Biden Takes Executive Actions to Tackle the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, Create Jobs, and Restore Scientific Integrity Across Federal Government, The White House, 2021,

[xii] Office of Management and Budget, Interim Implementation Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative, July 20, 2021,

[xiii] Maxine Joselow, Vanessa Montalbano, “The Climate 202: The Civilian Climate Corps was dropped from the climate bill. Now What?” Washington Post, September 8, 2022.

[xiv] Back to Work: Listening to Americans, Gallup and Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2021,

[xv] Sapna Mehta, Emily Andrews, Updating WIOA to Empower Workers and Create Shared Prosperity, Center for Law and Social Policy, 2022,

[xvi] Caitlin C. Schnur, Chris Warland, Melissa Young, Framework for an Equity Centered National Subsidized Employment Program, Heartland Alliance, 2021,

[xvii] Algernon Austin, Annabel Utz, Toward Black Full Employment: A Subsidized Employment Proposal, Center for Economy and Policy Research, September 2022,