Children, Youth, & Families Archives

High maternal mortality rates and rising mental health stressors across the country underscore the need for policies, research, and programming that support maternal mental health and evaluate existing services, particularly for communities of color who face disproportionate barriers to accessing care.

This paper seeks to advance maternal mental health care and policy that best serves communities of color and other historically disenfranchised populations, highlighting both progress and opportunities for improvement.

Using Michigan and Colorado as case studies, the report analyzes key state-level policies and programs ascertained through informant interviews, focus groups, and background research to identify existing services, policies, funding streams, and the broader context in both states. Through this analysis, the authors aim to help policymakers develop, evaluate, and advance maternal mental health systems to eliminate inequities in their own states.

Inequities in Care

Barriers to maternal mental health care have deadly consequences. In Michigan, 81 percent of Black maternal deaths are preventable, and these inequities persist regardless of income level. In Detroit specifically, pregnant Black people are 2.2 times more at risk of maternal mortality than their white counterparts.

Similarly, in Colorado, pregnant Black and Indigenous people face the highest maternal mortality rates in the state, and almost 40 percent of Colorado counties are considered maternal health care deserts, meaning they lack a hospital, birth center, or obstetric care providers. Existing disparities and implementation challenges have been compounded by diminishing fiscal support from the federal government.

The Trump Administration’s 2025 budget package is expected to greatly deplete funding for federal health programs, including those serving communities of color, communities with low incomes, and other historically marginalized groups.

Many of the state-administered programs discussed in this report distribute federal funding to local communities, meaning their work is at risk. Current and upcoming federal funding cuts have already changed program infrastructure and will greatly impact the programs discussed in this report and the families they serve.

Michigan and Colorado

Maternal mental health is a rising policy priority in Michigan, with Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s leadership fueling legislative efforts to address maternal mortality inequities in the state. Positive policy developments include:

Colorado lawmakers have also achieved legislative momentum for maternal mental health, with the COVID-19 pandemic underscoring the need to better support new parents.

Efforts in the state legislature built on the creation of the Colorado Behavioral Health Task Force Governor Jared Polis commissioned in 2019, but strict budget limitations across the state have restricted progress.

Despite the increased awareness, interest, and policy development to improve maternal mental health in both states, key informants felt that their state still needs more policies in place to support birthing people’s needs and expand the supply of affordable, accessible, and culturally responsive care.

Amid efforts to improve the system, there can still be a disconnect between policymakers, providers, and directly impacted groups.

Maternal Mental Health Recommendations

The report makes recommendations to help states provide equitable care that prioritizes the well-being of people during the perinatal, pregnancy, and postpartum periods. They include, but are not limited to:

This statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, president and executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).

Washington, D.C., January 9, 2026 – This week, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced the withholding of funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) child care subsidies, and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program from California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York. These states stand to lose a total of $10 billion in federal funding this year for allegations of fraud. And the administration has already signaled that broader cuts may be coming.

Arbitrarily withholding federal funds from these five states is illegal, reckless, and cruel. While instances of fraud should be taken seriously, these unilateral actions to freeze funding for basic needs programs cause widespread harm. In fact, there is no evidence to prove the alleged claims. Programs already have extensive built-in mechanisms for managing allegations, ranging from detailed state plans outlining intentions for how resources will be utilized to extensive reporting and audit requirements.

TANF provides families who have very low incomes with temporary monthly cash assistance, work activities and support, and child care services. Children and families will bear the brunt of these cuts, while already facing an affordability crisis and cuts to other critical public benefit programs, like SNAP and Medicaid. Without TANF funding, families with low incomes won’t have access to monthly cash assistance that helps parents afford essentials like rent, diapers, and groceries.

Freezing CCDF funds for child care centers and family child care homes will threaten providers’ ability to provide services and keep their doors open, which will challenge access to care for parents. Most programs operate on razor-thin margins with limited or no reserves. This comes on top of all states being required by the “defend the spend” directive to provide detailed justification to draw down resources to support child care subsidies.

SSBG freezes will not only impact child care but also local health services, services for vulnerable and elderly adults, services for individuals with disabilities, and more.

This all comes at a time when states face an increasingly challenging budgetary environment, especially as they begin to implement mandatory changes in SNAP and other programs specified in H.R. 1, which narrowly passed last July and creates new barriers to food assistance and health coverage that will leave millions hungry and uninsured. Moreover, the increased costs of health coverage follow the failure of Congress and the administration to extend the enhanced premium tax credits for the ACA Marketplace. Families are already experiencing increased costs of living. The administration’s persistence in further burdening families by stripping away supports that allow them to thrive will have devastating consequences for all our communities and states.

The Trump Administration is using politically motivated, racist, and anti-immigrant commentary to villainize those who oppose them and excuse the illegal withholding of federal funding. Children, families, and child care providers will suffer from these actions. Moreover, state administrators of these programs are already facing confusion and chaos, adding to the existing burden of navigating the barrage of regulatory contradictions from the administration. HHS should reverse this decision and provide all states with their funding to serve children and families.

Suma Setty, a senior analyst of policies affecting immigrant families at the Center for Law and Social Policy, said her organization has received a “huge increase” in inquiries about temporary guardianship from local advocates and child care providers.

“The reason why these are becoming more popular is because parents are terrified” of what could happen if an arrangement is not in place, Setty told Verite News in a phone interview Thursday.

“They’re not going to have access to health insurance, they’re not going to have access to food, and now are going to have a challenging time accessing childcare. It’s going to be multiple hits to families who already are in a position where they need support,” said Schmit. “I see this as, on the whole … something that’s really aiming to undermine the needs of families with low incomes in this country.”

This statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, president and executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)

January 7, 2026, Washington, D.C. – Today’s shooting of an unarmed woman by ICE agents in Minneapolis is only the latest tragic fatality to result from the Trump Administration’s aggressive and reckless immigration enforcement activities. The 37-year-old was killed as ICE was launching a crackdown that surged approximately 2,000 agents into the city. As a direct result of ICE activity, yet another person was needlessly ripped away from their loved ones and community because of the actions of this administration.

On the first day of President Trump’s second term, he signed an executive order beginning his deportation agenda, including strengthening the capacity for officers to conduct immigration enforcement actions with little to no limitations and increasing collaboration between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local police officers. The administration and Congress have given, and continue to give, ICE exorbitant resources to conduct indiscriminate immigration enforcement in the name of “safety,” but the reality is these policies have devastating consequences for communities, regardless of immigration status.

The evidence of harm since the beginning of Trump’s second term is clear: this is not the first fatal shooting since January 20, 2025, thousands more have been deported (including U.S. citizens), a record number of people have died in ICE detention, families have been torn apart, and entire communities have been thrust into confusion and chaos.

The administration’s crusade against immigrants has violent and deadly consequences. We must reject ICE’s deportation and terrorism campaign if we want our communities to be truly safe.

As an organization advocating for immigrant children and their families, CLASP abhors this tragedy and calls for Congress and state and local officials to hold this administration accountable for the irreversible harm they have caused.

Other states have successfully conjoined funding streams so that extra TANF funds can be used on child care vouchers without technically being considered “transferred funds,” explained Stephanie Schmit, director of Child Care and Early Education at the Center for Law and Social Policy. It can sometimes be complicated.

Washington, D.C., January 5, 2026 — Last week, an ill-informed YouTube “influencer” accused child care centers run by Somali providers in Minnesota of fraud. In response to these accusations and without any further investigation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) took immediate actions to freeze federal child care funding for Minnesota, to implement a “Defend the Spend” effort for all states, and to establish a fraud reporting website and hotline. Since then, numerous “influencers” have made similar claims against child care providers in other states.

Stephanie Schmit, Director of Child Care and Early Education at the Center for Law and Social Policy, said, “It is hard to see this as anything but politically motivated attacks on child care providers and reactions that will punish children and families nationwide. Child care providers of diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds offer critical, culturally competent care that meets the unique needs of the children and families in their communities across the country.” 

The Child Care and Development Fund is a lifeline for families with low incomes to access stable and reliable child care so they can go to work. Disruptions to this essential funding will only harm children, families, and providers.

While HHS has not yet released information about how it will implement “Defend the Spend,” the very brief implementation of the program in April resulted in delayed payments to states. This created barriers for families because providers, who operate on razor-thin margins, depend on timely payments from the states to run their programs. Because additional information has not yet been released, there is significant confusion and worry about the impact that this might have.

“Child care providers and state child care agency staff already put a lot of effort and energy into reporting how they spend their resources. Adding further reporting requirements to their overburdened workload will take their time and attention away from where it should be–focused on providing the best care possible for children,” Schmit said.

It is troubling that a federal agency would make such a destabilizing decision based on the unfounded claims of an “influencer” with a long history of videos that prioritize shock over facts. HHS should consider the actual impacts of any requirements on children, families, and providers, and make decisions accordingly.

If the new documentation requirements are the same or more onerous, providers that are chronically underfunded will struggle to keep their doors open, she said.

“We already know that child care providers don’t have a lot of additional time to do things like this,” Schmit said.

Wendy Cervantes, del Centro para Ley y Política Social, sostiene que la meta de la regla es “asustar a las familias”, lo que aumentaría pobreza, hambre y falta de vivienda.

Wendy Cervantes, from the Center for Law and Social Policy, argues that the goal of the rule is to “scare families,” which would increase poverty, hunger, and homelessness.

Immigrants are essential to the care workforce, making up 20% of child care workers, including 26% of center-based child care providers and early educators, and 23% of preschool teachers, according to the Center for Law and Social Policy.

CLASP

The Center for Law and Social Policy

Executive Summary

Inequities in Care

Michigan and Colorado

Maternal Mental Health Recommendations