Month: March 2026

Childhood poverty in the U.S. fell to its lowest level in history in 2021. The fall was largely due to the expanded child tax credit and other COVID-19 pandemic supports that put cash directly in the hands of parents and lifted millions of children out of poverty.

Once these safety net changes expired at the end of 2021, childhood poverty rebounded, surging from 5% in 2021 to 13% in 2024.

While federal anti-poverty initiatives like the child tax credit expansion have stalled, states like Colorado are increasingly leveraging their tax codes to combat poverty. The Colorado Family Affordability Tax Credit took effect in tax year 2024. It is one of the most substantial and accessible state-level programs designed to support families, potentially offering thousands of dollars to low-income Colorado parents.

As economic policy researchers, we are conducting a three-year evaluation of the Colorado Family Affordability Tax Credit. We estimate that the credit reduces child poverty in Colorado by about 20%, and that reduction increases to 37% when combined with other state tax credits for low-income families, moving roughly 52,000 children above the poverty line.

Colorado’s approach is projected to have one of the strongest anti-poverty effects among state refundable child tax credits. If Colorado’s design were implemented in every U.S. state, child poverty nationwide could be reduced by more than one-third.

However, due to the complicated funding structure of the Colorado tax credit, the program is at risk. Changes in federal legislation created tax breaks for Colorado businesses, reducing state revenue projections. Since the credit is only available when Colorado state revenue growth is above 3%, these tax breaks caused the Family Affordability Tax Credit to be suspended for 2026, meaning the credit may not be part of families’ 2027 tax refunds.

Changes put Colorado families at risk

State anti-poverty programs are more vital now as planned cuts to federal safety net programs may substantially reduce the benefits available for low-income families. The 2025 federal tax breaks and spending cuts package expanded work requirements for the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and Medicaid – programs that millions of families rely on to meet their food and healthcare needs.

Following this change, most working-age adults enrolled in these programs must work 80 hours per month. Previously, Medicaid had no work requirements and SNAP had work requirement exemptions for older working-age adults. The law requires states to implement these changes by Jan. 1, 2027, though some states, such as Georgia and Ohio, are starting earlier. Proponents argue that work requirements encourage labor force participation and reduce government spending.

However, research finds that stricter work requirements reduce program participation more than they increase work. Changing enrollment systems requires retraining staff and providing outreach and education to enrollees, which is costly to implement.

As a result, many Americans may lose benefits not because of an unwillingness to work, but because of complex rules and red tape, which are difficult to manage while juggling unsteady jobs, caregiving obligations or health issues.

Federal changes to the safety net will hit Colorado especially hard. Early estimates from simulation models applying the new requirements show that roughly 298,000 Colorado families could lose their SNAP benefits, and 154,000 could lose Medicaid coverage. These cuts will disproportionately affect families with children, low-wage workers and families already struggling to make ends meet.

Amid soaring costs of living in the state, tighter eligibility doesn’t eliminate need. Instead, it forces families into difficult trade-offs. Those could include skipping meals, delaying medical care or falling behind on rent.

Using the tax system to support families

Colorado’s Family Affordability Tax Credit was implemented in 2024. The credit provides US$3,200 per child under age 6 and $2,400 per child ages 6 to 16, making it one of the most substantial state child tax credits.

Married couples filing jointly with eligible children who earn up to about $95,000 per year qualify for a portion of the credit. It is fully refundable, meaning families can receive the credit as a tax refund even if they do not owe anything in state taxes. Delivered through the tax system, access is simple and largely automatic for most households.

Parents who received the credit consistently told us in interviews that it made it easier for them to afford paying for their basic needs, such as food, housing, utilities and transportation. The reduced financial strain also improved their emotional well-being and family dynamics. As one caregiver noted, lower stress meant they weren’t in “hustle mode” just to keep the lights on.

The credit is “more than a dollar amount,” another said. It provides “peace of mind.”

Parents also highlighted the positive effects that receiving this tax credit had on children. The money allowed some to take their kids to activities and on outings, and allowed many parents to feel more present with their children.

“If I’m relaxed and my own cup is full, I can fill theirs,” said one parent. “It’s a ripple effect.”

More than 60% of the families we surveyed said they preferred the tax credit to other kinds of government benefits, citing its flexibility and ease of use. Unlike programs that require frequent reporting or compliance checks, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Colorado’s Family Affordability Tax Credit was often described as straightforward.

“I never feel it’s that difficult to get,” said one participant we interviewed.

Why tax credits work — and where this approach can fall short

Colorado’s tax-based approach to fighting poverty, which includes the Family Affordability Tax Credit, the Colorado Earned Income Tax Credit and the Colorado Child Tax Credit, offers flexible support via a familiar system. However, this approach has limitations.

Millions, including about 1 in 4 workers eligible for the federal Earned Income Tax Credit in Colorado, don’t file taxes. That means they may miss out on the tax credits.

Another issue is that lump-sum payments can be difficult to budget for people who rely on government benefits to make ends meet. Our research suggests that one-third of Colorado respondents preferred monthly payments. We’ve also found that two-thirds of federal child tax credit recipients in 2021 preferred monthly payments for budgeting reasons.

Why state investment in children matters

Although the full impacts of the Family Affordability Tax Credit on Colorado’s children are not yet known, a robust body of research points to the powerful role state policies can play in shaping young children’s development. Increased family income benefits children by enabling greater family resources, such as educational spending, and reducing parental stress.

Importantly, increasing spending that supports families with children can yield long-term benefits for society by improving children’s health, education, employment and economic stability later in life. Research shows a 10-to-1 return on investment from providing refundable tax credits to these families.

As federal support wanes, state policies, like Colorado’s, could be crucial for providing the stability children need to grow, learn and thrive. Unless Colorado makes the Family Affordability Tax Credit a permanent and reliable fixture of the state budget – as a recent proposal aims to do – the progress the state has made in reducing child poverty may only be temporary.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Stephen Roll receives funding from Gary Community Ventures.

Jenn Finders has received funding from the National Science Foundation, Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.

Leah Hamilton receives funding from Gary Community Ventures.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The Department of Homeland Security issued a policy memo in February 2026 that could lead to the detention of refugees who are legally in the country.

The new policy states that “DHS may arrest and detain a refugee who has lived in the United States for at least one year and has not yet acquired” lawful permanent resident status. Approximately 100,000 refugees could be at risk for such arrest and detention.

The policy rescinds a 2010 DHS policy that limited the agency’s ability to arrest refugees. The 2010 policy was cited in a 2026 court order that temporarily prohibited agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from arresting refugees in Minnesota in an effort to root out cases of fraud in the refugee admissions process.

As an immigration scholar, I believe the new DHS memo constitutes a massive departure from previous policy – one that could result in the detention of thousands of people who have lawful immigration status.

To better understand the new DHS policy and the change it represents, it’s helpful to clarify what it means to be a refugee.

Refugees flee persecution

Refugees flee their countries to escape persecution due to their race, religion, nationality or political opinion. Under U.S. immigration law, a refugee is someone who arrived in the U.S. through an official U.S. resettlement process.

After registering as a refugee abroad, the process for being resettled in the U.S. can take years – sometimes decades – and requires rigorous background checks.

Upon arrival, refugees are permitted to live and work indefinitely in the U.S. They are also eligible to “adjust” their immigration status to lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card,” after one year in the country.

At issue with the new DHS policy is the interpretation of Section 209 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the statute that governs refugee adjustments and moves them from refugee status to lawful permanent resident.

Section 209 states that refugees who have been physically present in the U.S. for one year and haven’t yet received lawful permanent resident status “shall, at the end of such year period, return or be returned to the custody of DHS for inspection and admission” as a lawful permanent resident.

Historically, this has meant that refugees are required to undergo a secondary screening, through an interview or paper application, before receiving their green cards.

But DHS is now interpreting the language in Section 209 to impose a duty on refugees to voluntarily return to DHS custody – which it defines as detention – after one year in the country. This is despite the fact that refugees are not even eligible for legal permanent resident status until they have been in the country for a full year, putting refugees in an impossible situation.

Essentially, every refugee could face imprisonment unless immigration officials review and approve their green card applications at exactly the one-year mark.

History of refugee policy

The language in Section 209 arose after the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, a law that created our current refugee resettlement framework. Prior to this, there was no fixed legal mechanism for resettling refugees in the U.S.

Instead, the government responded to humanitarian crises largely on an ad hoc basis. It temporarily allowed people into the U.S. from Vietnam and Cuba.

Once here, those individuals had no long-term legal status unless Congress managed to pass after-the-fact legislation authorizing them to apply for green cards, as it did for Cubans with the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.

The Refugee Act of 1980 was meant to solve this problem. It established a legal mechanism for refugee resettlement. It created a new refugee immigration status and ensured that refugees are eligible for permanent residency.

The earliest regulations implementing Section 209 show the “returned to custody” language was satisfied by attending an interview at a local immigration office. It was part of the green card process that was eventually replaced with a paper application.

The regulations implementing that change state that the “‘custody’ requirement for refugees applying for adjustment of status” can be met by filing an application.

What the DHS memo means for refugees

So, what normally happens if a refugee fails to submit their application?

Usually, nothing.

Until relatively recently, refugees weren’t even permitted to file for lawful permanent residence until after living in the country for a year.

Previous ICE guidance recognized that even if a refugee fails to file a green card application at all, they still maintain their lawful refugee immigration status. The failure to submit an application did not create any basis to deport a refugee. Therefore, absent other factors, immigration detention was inappropriate.

What will refugees do now?

Immigration attorneys are advising their refugee clients to file for lawful permanent status immediately, if they have not yet done so, to reduce the risk of detention. But that may not be enough.

The DHS memo states that a refugee “may be considered to have voluntarily returned to custody” if they filed their application and complied with any interviews. But the wording of the memo leaves open the door to detain anyone who has not yet had their application approved.

This leads to another issue, which is DHS administrative delays. The government currently takes approximately 12 months to approve refugee green card applications for requests it’s willing to process.

In January 2026, another DHS policy put an indefinite hold on all applications for individuals from a list of 39 countries. Consequently, applications for refugees from countries including Haiti, Afghanistan and Republic of the Congo are not being reviewed at all.

This means that refugees who have done everything right could be imprisoned indefinitely under this policy, because the U.S. government is refusing to judge their applications.

Against this backdrop, the Trump administration has capped refugee admissions for 2026 to a record low of 7,500.

At least one federal lawsuit has already been filed to challenge this new policy.

What happens now depends on how far DHS is willing to go and whether the courts allow it to do so.

Ashley Sanchez is the director of the Notre Dame Immigration Clinic, where she and her students represent refugees seeking permanent residency. She was previously the Supervising Attorney at Cleveland Catholic Charities, Migration and Refugee Services.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation