Skip to main content

Last year, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) released a report, Putting the Pieces Together for Families with Young Children: Aligning State Health and Human Services, Nutrition, Child Care, and Paid Family and Medical Leave. This report highlights the challenges parents of young children face in accessing the benefits and services they need to thrive and the steps that some states are taking to make this process easier. In this webinar, CLASP staff will interview parents, advocates, and administrators from California, Washington, and Washington D.C. who will offer insight into what it takes to build an aligned system of supports for families in this critical period.

Panelists:

>> Register <<

By Shira Small and Stephanie Schmit

4 min read.

Now that the federal fiscal year (FY) 2024 budget is finalized, we’re moving into advocacy for FY2025, which begins on October 1. The first step in the yearly budgeting process is the release of the President’s budget, which is a mechanism for the President to share his priorities and vision for the forthcoming fiscal year. President Biden’s recently released FY2025 budget proposes bold investments in children and families. It prioritizes improved access to child care and recognizes the need for increased funding for families, providers, and the economy. While congressional action is needed to make the president’s proposals a reality, the budget’s investments make President Biden’s recognition of the value of child care clear.  

Given the expiration of the final child care relief investments and the need for resources to implement the new Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) final rule, investments in child care in the FY2025 budget are critically important to ensure that positive progress made at the state level can be maintained and that more children have access to care.  

The president’s budget includes both proposed investments in mandatory spending (longer-term, more sustainable funding) and discretionary spending for FY2025 (year-to-year investments approved through the appropriations process).  

Affordable Child Care for America 

President Biden’s Affordable Child Care for America initiative is the most notable proposed investment in child care and early education. The initiative would invest $600 billion in mandatory child care and universal pre-K over the next 10 years.  

If implemented, the initiative would guarantee affordable care for families earning up to $200,000 a year from birth through kindergarten, capping the daily cost of care at $10 for most families. The budget estimates that this would extend child care access to 16 million children and save families over $600 a month on average per child, helping parents and especially women re-enter the workforce. The increased investment would also go toward raising compensation for child care providers.  

The proposed budget would also fund universal preschool for four-year-olds and help expand preschool enrollment for three-year-olds. Parents would have the option to access preschool using a variety of options such as child care centers, public schools, Head Start, and more. 

FY2025 Discretionary Proposals for Child Care and Early Education Programs 

The following discretionary investments in child care and early education programs are included in the FY2025 budget: 

President Biden’s budget reflects the administration’s effort to invest in the care economy and extend affordable child care to more children and families. These investments can only be realized if Congress makes a strong commitment to creating a sustainable child care system that works for children, families, and providers. It is long past time that the child care sector receives the funding that recognizes its value to families and the economy and meets children’s needs. 

Due to the timing of President Biden’s budget release, funding proposals were compared to FY2023 investments within the budget documents as FY2024 funding bills had not yet been finalized. We maintained those comparisons in this piece to remain consistent with the numbers and increases outlined in the President’s budget documents. On March 23, Congress passed the FY2024 funding bill, which included significant increases in CCDBG and Head Start. The CCDBG investment in FY2024 therefore exceeds the discretionary amounts in President’s FY2025 proposed budget. We hope Congress will recognize the ongoing need for increased funding for these important programs and deliver on the investments advocated for in our FY2025 community letter. 

On March 23, 2024, President Joe Biden signed the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 into law. The act’s allocations for fiscal year (FY) 2024 included a significant increase of $725 million in discretionary funds for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). This was in addition to a smaller increase for Head Start and level funding for other important child care and early education programs such as Parts B and C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

CCDBG is a critical support for families with low incomes who, without access to assistance, would likely be unable to afford their current child care arrangements. However, due to limited federal funding, the program was only able to serve 18 percent of eligible children in 2020.[1] The annual appropriations process is an important opportunity to increase federal investments in programs that respond to increased need and ensure funding keeps up with rising inflation.

The FY2024 CCDBG appropriation of $8.7 billion represented an increase of 9 percent, or $725 million, above the previous year’s funding.[2] This increase is a positive step forward in a difficult funding environment. However, we need much more investment in child care to truly meet the needs of families and providers; to deliver on the new requirements in the 2024 final rule on Improving Child Care Access, Affordability, and Stability in CCDBG; and to support states in maintaining and building on the positive improvements from the pandemic relief funding.

As concerns about economic recovery, unemployment, and inflation persist—and with the federal child care funding through the American Rescue Plan Act set to expire on September 30, 2024—significant and sustained increases in annual discretionary funding remain a critical support. And, given the fragile nature of the child care sector caused in part by decades of insufficient federal funding, the need for long-term and sustainable increases for child care remains ever present.

The following table provides each state’s actual distribution of grant year[3] (GY) 2023 annual discretionary funds;[4] the estimated distribution for GY2024 discretionary funds; and the estimated increase from 2023 to 2024. The increases in 2024 for each state range from $910,000 in Wyoming to $88 million in Texas.

For questions, please contact Stephanie Schmit at sschmit@clasp.org.

State Distribution of GY2023 Discretionary Funds Estimated Distribution of GY2024 Discretionary Funds[5] Increase from GY2023 to GY2024 Discretionary Funds
Alabama $142,609,329 $157,154,309 $14,544,980
Alaska $13,260,771 $14,613,261 $1,352,490
Arizona $185,096,490 $203,974,811 $18,878,321
Arkansas $99,638,070 $109,800,334 $10,162,264
California $753,500,129 $830,350,951 $76,850,822
Colorado $84,322,763 $92,922,992 $8,600,229
Connecticut $54,523,163 $60,084,078 $5,560,915
Delaware $19,895,267 $21,924,421 $2,029,154
District of Columbia $11,883,837 $13,095,891 $1,212,054
Florida $441,113,418 $486,103,362 $44,989,944
Georgia $317,820,970 $350,236,098 $32,415,128
Hawaii $26,897,347 $29,640,655 $2,743,308
Idaho $44,718,419 $49,279,330 $4,560,911
Illinois $233,707,994 $257,544,289 $23,836,295
Indiana $171,467,643 $188,955,934 $17,488,291
Iowa $72,959,695 $80,400,984 $7,441,289
Kansas $67,235,470 $74,092,935 $6,857,465
Kentucky $140,087,611 $154,375,396 $14,287,785
Louisiana $141,504,238 $155,936,508 $14,432,270
Maine $21,418,590 $23,603,110 $2,184,520
Maryland $98,099,044 $108,104,340 $10,005,296
Massachusetts $99,909,733 $110,099,705 $10,189,972
Michigan $212,718,838 $234,414,412 $21,695,574
Minnesota $100,562,168 $110,818,683 $10,256,515
Mississippi $94,348,400 $103,971,162 $9,622,762
Missouri $150,588,278 $165,947,045 $15,358,767
Montana $19,982,100 $22,020,110 $2,038,010
Nebraska $43,765,096 $48,228,776 $4,463,680
Nevada $65,493,410 $72,173,200 $6,679,790
New Hampshire $16,264,699 $17,923,565 $1,658,866
New Jersey $147,878,694 $162,961,106 $15,082,412
New Mexico $66,533,555 $73,319,431 $6,785,876
New York $357,011,697 $393,423,957 $36,412,260
North Carolina $235,784,820 $259,832,934 $24,048,114
North Dakota $14,277,486 $15,733,672 $1,456,186
Ohio $272,731,543 $300,547,919 $27,816,376
Oklahoma $121,009,871 $133,351,884 $12,342,013
Oregon $72,388,389 $79,771,410 $7,383,021
Pennsylvania $243,242,551 $268,051,293 $24,808,742
Puerto Rico $48,996,165 $53,993,371 $4,997,206
Rhode Island $17,717,650 $19,524,705 $1,807,055
South Carolina $140,670,054 $155,017,244 $14,347,190
South Dakota $21,668,578 $23,878,595 $2,210,017
Tennessee $211,736,964 $233,332,395 $21,595,431
Texas $859,633,625 $947,309,191 $87,675,566
Utah $95,913,285 $105,695,652 $9,782,367
Vermont $8,986,530 $9,903,082 $916,552
Virginia $153,733,954 $169,413,554 $15,679,600
Washington $116,622,646 $128,517,198 $11,894,552
West Virginia $49,333,493 $54,365,104 $5,031,611
Wisconsin $112,457,640 $123,927,395 $11,469,755
Wyoming $8,924,631 $9,834,870 $910,239
United States $8,021,387,000[6] $8,746,387,000[7] $725,000,000[8]

[1] Nina Chien, “Estimates of Child Care Eligibility & Receipt for Fiscal Year 2020,” Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/efe9fa1a258722ea752bf30d4d427ba9/cy2020-child-care-subsidy-eligibility.pdf.

[2] CLASP calculation based on enacted appropriations amount according to each appropriations bill, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr2617/BILLS-117hr2617enr.pdf, Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr2882/BILLS-118hr2882enr.pdf.

[3] Fiscal Year (FY) refers to the period from October 1 through September 30, during which states and territories may spend funds awarded in the current and prior years. Grant Year (GY) refers to the year the funds were awarded, although states and territories may liquidate some Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) funding streams in later fiscal years. Note: CCDF refers to the federal funding sources for child care and is used interchangeably with CCDBG in this fact sheet.

[4] CCDBG annual discretionary funds are distributed based on three main factors. The first two factors compare the ratio of the number of children in a state to the number of children in the country within the following categories: the number of children under five and the number of children who receive free or reduced priced lunch. The other factor makes a comparison of the three-year national per capita income with the three-year average state per capital income.

[5] CLASP’s estimated state discretionary funding distributions are derived from the GY2023 CCDF Allocations based on Appropriations, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, 2023, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/data/gy-2023-ccdf-allocations-based-appropriations. Actual amounts may differ due to the HHS Secretary’s authority and discretion in set-aside funding and re-allocation of previous year’s resources.

[6] The total reflects the discretionary funding amount detailed in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, which includes funds for tribes, territories, and state; research, evaluation, technical assistance; and the CCDF hotline and website. This total does not reflect a $80,213,870 transfer based on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 provision giving the HHS Secretary authority to transfer discretionary funding between appropriations. In addition, the total does not include any funds available through the American Rescue Plan Act.

[7] The total includes all discretionary funds for tribes, territories, and states; research, evaluation, technical assistance, federal administration; and the CCDF hotline and website as detailed in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr2882/BILLS-118hr2882enr.pdf.

[8] The estimated increase in funds from GY2023 to GY2024 is based on the amounts detailed in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 and does not reflect the $80 million that was transferred out of CCDBG under the authority of the HHS Secretary in GY2023, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/data/gy-2023-ccdf-allocations-based-appropriations.

>> Download the fact sheet here

By Parker Gilkesson Davis

3 min read.

As a former social services caseworker turned SNAP policy expert, I’ve spent years navigating the intricacies of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) interview requirement. Even as a caseworker, I questioned the necessity of interviews, especially for clients who were already familiar with the program, didn’t have questions about SNAP or their case, and had submitted all the necessary information. 

For many clients, the interview process often felt redundant, as it asked the exact questions already covered in the application. Over time, I realized that the primary purpose of these interviews was to detect possible instances of fraud by trying to catch discrepancies between the application and the answers during the interview. While maintaining program integrity is important, it’s essential to note that SNAP fraud is remarkably rare. In fiscal year 2019, only 0.1 percent of SNAP issuances were overpayments based on Intentional Program Violations—which worked out to just a dime for every $100 of SNAP benefits. Moreover, only 0.9 percent were overpayments of any sort, including household and agency errors.  

Meanwhile, the SNAP program reaches, on average, 22 percent of those eligible. That means families are going without the food they need; and administrative burdens like the interview requirement are one of the reasons people find it hard to access SNAP. For example, these interviews are often scheduled without input from the client, which may require them to miss work to attend. Sometimes clients receive notification of their interview date after the actual date has passed.  

The focus on fraud increases the stigma attached to accessing food benefits through SNAP by implying that SNAP participants are thieves who must be watched. In reality, SNAP participants are children, parents, and grandparents. Many have disabilities or are trying to keep their loved ones fed while they are between jobs. They are working in the low-wage jobs that keep our society functioning, as nurses, home health aides, housekeepers, and possibly the friendly cashier at your local coffee shop.  

Despite the low incidence of fraud, caseworkers are required to dedicate significant time and resources to fraud prevention. This focus often overshadows other critical aspects of our work, such as providing trauma-informed care or referring families to additional assistance to address the myriad challenges of living in poverty. 

Removing the interview requirement would not only streamline the application process but also help minimize agency errors. With an interview option, workers can focus their efforts on those clients who need extra support. The time spent on unnecessary interviews can instead be spent on providing essential services to clients, addressing their immediate needs, and connecting them with appropriate resources. This shift in focus from fraud prevention to client-centered care is crucial in creating a more compassionate and effective social services system. 

Caseworkers are often better trained to look for fraud than to provide holistic support and assistance. But in my experience, caseworkers don’t want to spend time on unnecessary interviews that are ineffective at finding what infinitesimal fraud exists. They want to use those critical personal interactions with clients to help their clients find the resources and support they need to thrive. As we work toward an improved SNAP program, we must include an optional interview for those who would benefit from it and ensure that these caseworker jobs are secure, well-paid, and high quality. Caseworkers are essential to the success of SNAP.  

As we advocate for change, it’s vital to recognize the deep investments made in program integrity and the stereotypes that often surround public benefits recipients. Removing unnecessary barriers like the interview requirement is a step toward reorienting our priorities and ensuring that SNAP truly serves those in need with dignity and respect. Efforts to remove the interview requirement specifically for recertification is a nice first step, but our ultimate goal is to strengthen the program so it better serves those who need it by making the SNAP interview optional. This approach aims to uplift SNAP workers and recipients alike, fostering a more compassionate and responsive system that meets the diverse needs of our communities. 

By Suzanne Wikle

4 min read.

Many states across the country are embracing multi-year continuous coverage for young children insured by Medicaid. This is an important policy for supporting the health and well-being of children. But less attention has been paid to the positive impact this policy has on coverage for kids of color, in particular, and how the policy reduces administrative burdens for people experiencing poverty.

Multi-year continuous coverage means that once children are enrolled in Medicaid, they remain eligible, regardless of changes in their families’ income, until the end of their eligibility period. For example, several states have asked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for permission to provide multi-year continuous eligibility for children through age six. This means that when children younger than six are enrolled in Medicaid, they will remain eligible until their sixth birthday. After they turn six, their family would need to complete the renewal process to determine if the child is still eligible and may stay enrolled. For babies enrolled in Medicaid shortly after their birth, this policy means they would have the assurance of affordable health insurance for the first six years of their life, without interruption.

Continuous Coverage and Racial Equity
Providing multiple years of continuous eligibility eliminates a lot of administrative burdens, such as navigating bureaucratic paperwork and waiting to hear if additional information needs to be submitted, for up to six years. We know that administrative burdens exacerbate inequity and directly lead to procedural disenrollments, so any reduction in these burdens is a step in the right direction.

More than two-thirds of children enrolled in Medicaid are Black, Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian or Alaska Native, or multiracial. Between that and the fact that administrative burdens are more likely to lead to coverage loss among people of color, it’s imperative that states take steps to minimize the administrative burden for eligible people to remain on Medicaid. Multi-year continuous coverage is a positive step forward.

As pandemic-era protections that kept people continuously enrolled in Medicaid have ended over the past year, we have a better sense of the impact of administrative burden. States resumed Medicaid renewals about a year ago and more than 4.5 million children have lost Medicaid coverage. But that doesn’t mean those children aren’t still eligible for Medicaid. There are two reasons someone may lose coverage: they are found ineligible for Medicaid or they are disenrolled for procedural reasons, meaning their paperwork was not completed and an assessment of ongoing eligibility was not made.

While we don’t have data that tell us the number of child-specific procedural disenrollments, we do know that 70 percent of total disenrollments across the country have been for procedural reasons. We also know that applications are increasing in many states, suggesting that people who were procedurally disenrolled are re-applying and likely still eligible.

Louisiana provides one snapshot of data because it is publishing unwinding and churn data by age. Children in the state accounted for 32 percent of closed cases and nearly 50 percent of people who “churned” back onto Medicaid. Multi-year continuous eligibility policies will help reduce this cycle of procedural disenrollments and churning back onto Medicaid. It’s a smart move for children and for the state.

Multi-year Eligibility Aids Anti-Poverty Work

Nearly half of all children insured by Medicaid are in families living below the poverty line. More than 60 percent of families earn less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level. These rates are higher for all minority groups. Multi-year continuous eligibility policies are important for anti-poverty policy work for two reasons.

First, these policies significantly reduce administrative burden, which in turn eliminates a small part of the mental load of poverty. When families are struggling to make ends meet, put food on the table, or pay rent, it’s easy to miss an envelope with the paperwork for Medicaid renewals. Taking that off the “to-do” list allows families to focus on other pressing needs.

Second, families will not have to decide between a better-paying job and losing Medicaid for their young children. Continuous eligibility means that children remain eligible even if their family begins to earn more money, which may put them over the eligibility criteria. This allows families to prioritize their income for other expenses that come with young children, such as child care.

Looking Ahead

We expect to see more approvals from CMS for states asking to implement multi-year continuous eligibility and more states looking to adopt this promising policy. For the more than 30 million kids insured by Medicaid, this is a concrete action states can carry out to ensure young children are more likely to receive all their developmental check-ups, while also taking positive steps to decrease inequities and help families.

NOTE: A previous version of this blog post incorrectly characterized the percentage of Medicaid disenrollments due to procedural reasons as consisting only of children. The percentage includes both children and adults, and the post was corrected on April 8, 2024, to reflect this information.

 

 

By Tatiana Villegas

4 min read.

On February 7, 2024, Nex Benedict—a transgender, nonbinary Indigenous 16-year-old—passed away a day after being attacked in their school bathroom. Nex had discussed how they were bullied often due to “the way we dress” and their queer identity. Nex was taken too soon from this world. This tragedy took place in the state of Oklahoma: a state that has some of the most anti-trans laws on the books, a state that has the most anti-trans bills under consideration by the legislature, and a state that ranks 47 in LGBTQ+ safety according to safehome.org.

On this Trans Day of Visibility, it’s important to recognize how anti-trans bills are connected to the legacy of colonialism and to understand how these bills continue the oppression of historically marginalized groups.

Much of the anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and policies we see today stem from Western colonization. Western colonization is a global phenomenon with many of the same nations sharing similar histories of white supremacy, violence, erasure, and exploitation. Western countries imposed their rigid ideas of gender and sexuality on Indigenous peoples, ideas that were often in conflict with the existing cultural norms.

This applies to Western colonization in the United States. It has been documented that around 150 pre-colonial Native American tribes acknowledged third-gender people. European colonizers condemned same-sex relationships and third-gendered people calling it sinful. During this period there was also an abundance of dehumanizing rhetoric around Indigenous people and their culture, including transphobic and homophobic language. The enforcement of binary gender and gender roles by Western colonization disrupted longstanding cultural traditions and attempted to eradicate Indigenous beliefs as a whole. The ongoing violence against Queer Indigenous people, like Nex, is a legacy of this colonial violence.

The effects of colonization linger today with direct impacts on people’s lives systematically, socially, and economically. Many of the current bills, acts, and policies demonstrate parallels to historical policies through institutional forces that worked to destroy Indigenous culture. For example, the tactics of removal and forced assimilation that have been used to minimize Indigenous sovereignty and identity are the same tactics being used to attack Transgender people today.

This year, Wyoming House Bill 156 stated that gender-affirming care was “not in the best interest” for trans youth. The bill would have meant that a transgender child could be removed from a loving safe home that supported gender-affirming care. While this legislation failed to pass the Wyoming House, similar policies have been proposed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

Attempts to remove young people from affirming households are not new. Recently, the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), an Act that bolstered Indigenous sovereignty was put into question for being racially discriminatory to non-Native people. Overturning ICWA would have subjected Indigenous youth to being physically away from their tribal lands, separated from other Indigenous people, and disconnected from their culture. Even though ICWA was upheld in this case, the challenge to ICWA is a reminder that Indigenous sovereignty continues to be attacked under a colonialist state.

In both cases, policymakers have long understood that displacing people in non-affirming places pushes toward assimilation and erasure of their identity. Attempted erasure of identities belonging to marginalized communities is not a new tactic. During times of forced assimilation and racist rhetoric around Native people, it benefited Indigenous people to assimilate and distance themselves from their culture and people. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, when there was an increase of Indigenous resistance and sovereignty, there was a spike in people identifying with being Native American on the U.S Census. There weren’t more Indigenous children being born necessarily, but rather, more Native people were reclaiming their identity. Similarly, despite the rhetoric of many on the right, Trans and Queer people have always existed. However, their visibility depends on the safety of being “out.”

When historically oppressed groups are granted more rights and social rhetoric changes to be more positive, there is an increase in their pride, self-acceptance, and sheer presence in society. Trans existence, Black and brown joy, and the independence of all people combat the erasure that is essential to the colonial project.

Trans Day of Visibility should be about honoring and acknowledging Trans and Queer histories and about celebrating Trans and Queer people in all of their identities. Despite the political violence and physical violence Trans people are being subjected to, the Transgender and Queer community show resilience through organizing, celebrating, and educating others about what it means to be a part of the LGBTQ+ community. Embracing cultures and identities like that of Indigenous and Transgender backgrounds collectively strengthens all communities through the rejection of colonial norms.

Trans and Queer people deserve to be protected, loved, and live long fulfilling lives. Honor Nex Benedict by speaking out against hateful rhetoric, educating others about the beauties of the LGBTQ+ community, and pushing for political rights for Trans and Queer people. In solidarity and unity, we can work toward a future of love, acceptance, and freedom for all people.

By 

(EXCERPT)

When President Biden was campaigning in 2020, he pledged to strengthen our country by supporting and welcoming immigrants. Early in his presidency, he began taking steps in that direction.

On his first day in office, Biden proclaimed an end to his predecessor’s “Muslim ban,” which summarily banned migration from several Muslim-majority countries. And In February 2021, Biden introduced an executive order aimed at reversing some of the Trump administration’s damage to our immigration system, from family separations to backlogs in our asylum system.

Read the full article here. 

By Kayla Tawa

As mental health concerns and awareness around mental health challenges have increased, policymakers have prioritized mental health policy. Within these conversations, there is a broad recognition that far too often people experiencing mental health challenges encounter the criminal legal system rather than accessing mental health supports. In response, many policymakers have championed policies that aim to divert people experiencing mental health challenges away from prisons and jails and into mental health treatment. However, some of these policies, particularly those involving forced treatment, rely on carceral tactics and replicate incarceration.

The following brief analyzes state and local policies that adopt carceral approaches to mental health treatment, showing:

>> Continue to the full brief

This week: John Oliver Shouts out CLASP, Celebrating Women’s History Month

RECENTLY FROM CLASP
March 21, 2024

John Oliver Tackles Student Debt, Features CLASP Report
In the most recent “Last Week Tonight” show, John Oliver focused on student debt and cited a 2022 report we co-authored with the National Consumer Law Center. Our report addressed the disproportionate impact of student debt on Black borrowers.
WATCH HERE

CLASP Reflects on Women’s History Month
Over the month of March, CLASP has used our social media channels to lift up the voices and impact of women who have played key roles in the fight for economic, social, racial, and gender justice. Among the women we have featured so far are Nancy Duff Campbell, Marian Wright Edelman, and Marcia Greenberger. Stay tuned as we highlight other women leaders this month.

Unleashing Worker Power: Building Good Jobs Beyond the Traditional Workforce System
On March 12, CLASP, in partnership with other organizations, launched The Good Jobs Collaborative (GJC). In a new report released at the event, GJC features its findings from projects in which workers are improving their jobs through organizing, policy, workforce training, job restructuring, and more.
READ REPORT
WATCH LAUNCH EVENT
The United States remains one of the few countries that does not offer paid family or medical leave. This often forces working families to make the difficult choice between financial stability and their health and well-being. The recently re-introduced Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act hopes to establish a comprehensive and inclusive federal paid leave policy that meets the needs of workers.
READ MORE

CLASP in the News

MARCH 19 | INSIDE HIGHER ED

The Exploitation of Black Athletes

MARCH 18, 2024 | TEEN VOGUE

Young Workers Have Rights: What to Know About Your Labor Protections

MARCH 18, 2024 | POLITICO

POLITICO Weekly Education

Recent Events
March 19: Tiffany Ferrette gave a lecture at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy and Practice on child care and early education policy situated within U.S. social systems and the history of race/ism in social policy.

 
March 14: India Heckstall spoke at the Generation Hope conference in New Orleans on a panel about CLASP’s work on Black student fathers.

By Deanie Anyangwe

4 min read.

“[M]urder rate go up—murder rate go down—like I said. But there’s always killing.”

-Young Adult Focus Group Participant, Behind the Asterisk*, 2019

For many young people in the United States, community violence is an unfortunate part of daily life. Also called neighborhood violence, community violence is an interpersonal form of violence between individuals not involved in familial or intimate relationships. It includes incidents such as shootings, stabbings, and other aggravated assaults; is often carried out by young people; and frequently occurs in public settings. These situations happen when complex environmental factors like poverty, structural racism, systemic disinvestment, and easy access to alcohol, drugs, and weapons coincide.

“I was stabbed six times with a screwdriver, and the second time I was stabbed six times in the night. So that makes me who I am now. I never trust anybody to be behind me. I always watch my back.”

-Young Adult Focus Group Participant, Behind the Asterisk*, 2019

Community violence is a traumatic stressor that has damaging effects on young people’s mental, social, psychological, physical and economic well-being. Young people exposed to violence are at risk for poor long-term behavioral and mental health outcomes, such as depression, anxiety, and aggressive behaviors. In instances where young people are chronically exposed to community violence, they may also demonstrate symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, regardless of whether they are victims, direct witnesses, or hear about the crime. Evidence also shows that people who were exposed to gun violence fatalities experienced higher levels of depression and suicidal ideation than those who were not exposed.

Community violence also creates barriers to developing healthy relationships with peers and community members. Young people are less likely to use public spaces such as parks due to safety concerns. Youth exposure to community violence is associated with poor academic performance, educational outcomes, labor force participation, and earnings into adulthood. Exposure to community violence and the ripple effects of trauma and grief place enormous strain on children and youth, families, schools, employers, hospitals, government systems, and entire communities.

Gun violence overwhelmingly harms people in communities that have been economically marginalized. Neighborhoods with high levels of violence routinely face multiple compounding challenges arising from and exacerbated by structural inequity and racist policies such as segregation; limited availability of or access to quality jobs; a lack of safe and affordable housing; a lack of affordable, quality physical and mental health services; and histories of divestment. Moreover, significant research on the interactions of place and violence, along with a robust body of evidence, demonstrates the connection between state-sponsored racial segregation and rates of violence today. 

“But, you know, and then on the other hand, you have these communities where people feel that we need to shoot each other, you know? You got gangs being the only support that people have. You got all these bad and bad influences, mental health problems, mass shootings. You don’t know. People are, they’re not getting support like on all fronts.”

-Young Adult Focus Group Participant, 2023

While some young people embrace guns, this is largely due to a collective failure to keep our young people safe using non-carceral, community-centered, effective community safety strategies. Many young people that carry guns don’t intend to commit crimes but feel the weapons are necessary to protect their own physical safety. They often have guns to protect their own physical safety and largely do not convey any intent to use these weapons to proactively commit crimes. 

Black youth are 14 percent of young people ages 14-24 in the U.S., but account for nearly 48 percent of all gun-related deaths among all young people in this age group. Yet Black youth continue to be targeted as the cause for the rising violence in America. Policymakers in states such as Maryland and Georgia and cities including  Washington, D.C., New York City, and Philadelphia are pathologizing Black youth to justify anti-Black, tough on crime policies, despite the vast evidence that these policies are both destructive and ineffective. This bipartisan effort to criminalize Black youth subjects them to state-sanctioned violence as punishment for structural problems that they did not create. And while the overall number of homicides committed by youth rose slightly in recent years along with national trends, current youth arrest rates are the lowest that they have been in the last 40 years.

Successful non-carceral CVI strategies that have led to decreases in community violence in cities across the country include non-police street outreach and violence interruption, and hospital-based violence intervention programs. Policymakers examine these strategies, and embrace a structural analysis to understand the reasons that cause young people to own guns, and invest in communities to enable them to lead this work. Policymakers must adopt a more nuanced understanding of the roles systemic divestment, place-based disadvantage, anti-Black racism, racial capitalism, mass criminalization and other critical factors have in driving community violence. Lastly, policymakers should ground proposed interventions in knowledge of how interlocking systems of violence manifest to create the circumstances that lead to community violence in order to effectively address the problem and keep our young people safe. 

Behind every act of community violence there are families, friends, and communities left to grapple with the aftermath of trauma, injury, and/or loss of life. Interventions that address community violence support youth mental health. Our young people have been clear on what they need. It is now on us to do our part to keep them safe.