A bright future in child welfare policy
Safety should be the standard, not the aspiration.
Last month, we opened this newsletter with, “If we want better outcomes, we need to be willing to rethink the systems producing them.”
This month, that statement rings especially true.
FREOPP recently launched a new initiative: The Center for Safe and Stable Futures. Child welfare policy has consistently failed those it promises to protect. With disconnected agencies, overwhelmed staff, and inconsistent definitions and action, America’s most vulnerable children have been left at the wayside.
The Center for Safe and Stable Futures’ mission sets out to change that.
Founded by FREOPP’s Executive Vice President, Aly Brodsky, with supportive research from Tiffany Perrin and Les Ford as Senior Fellows, they want to make one thing clear: Safety is the standard, not the aspiration.
Did you know?
1 in 7 children experience abuse or neglect each year.
3+ million children are investigated each year.
4.4 million reports of child abuse or neglect are received by U.S. hotlines each year.
Curious to learn more? Visit the Center’s website here and consider signing up for updates.
Read some of our research on child welfare policy:
How child welfare lost the plot and how to find the path forward
Flying blind on child welfare data
Katherine’s path out of addiction
States can help all parents save for education expenses through 529 accounts
Policymakers should leverage 529 accounts to help all children choose the best education and job training opportunities throughout their lives.
Why it matters: 529 accounts have evolved from college-only savings tools into flexible, lifelong education savings vehicles that can fund K–12, higher education, and job training. But while they are widely used and hold over $500 billion in assets, access is uneven—higher-income families benefit most, raising concerns that expanding these accounts without targeted support could worsen educational inequality.
What we found: 529 plans are popular and increasingly versatile, with federal policy expanding allowable uses significantly in recent years. However, awareness and usage remain low—especially among lower-income families. Evidence suggests that when governments or private actors contribute seed or matching funds, participation rises and outcomes improve, indicating a path to make these accounts more equitable.
The policy points:
Align state tax rules with federal law so families can use 529 funds for the full range of eligible education expenses.
Offer state tax incentives (credits or deductions) to encourage contributions.
Encourage or enable employer contributions into employee-held 529 accounts.
Provide seed funding or matching contributions, especially for low-income families.
Reduce penalties or inconsistencies in how states treat withdrawals for K–12 expenses.
Improve outreach and awareness, particularly among families unfamiliar with 529 plans.
What policymakers should do: State policymakers should treat 529 accounts as a tool for expanding educational opportunity—not just tax advantages for those already saving. That means aligning state policies with federal flexibility, incentivizing contributions, and—most importantly—directly funding accounts for lower-income children through seed deposits or matches.
Higher Education Reform After the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
Congress should end subsidized loans for institutions that economically fail their students.
Why it matters: The modern higher education system—built around the Higher Education Act of 1965—channels federal aid through students to institutions without tying funding to outcomes. This design has contributed to rising tuition, mounting student debt, and weak accountability for whether degrees actually improve earnings. The recent One Big Beautiful Bill Act begins to reform student lending, making this a pivotal moment to rethink how higher education is financed and evaluated.
What we found: The core flaw in federal higher education policy is the disconnect between funding and student success. Over time, expansions of grants and especially uncapped lending (like PLUS loans) allowed institutions to raise prices without accountability. The new law takes steps to rein in borrowing—such as capping loans and restructuring repayment—but does not fully fix the underlying incentive problem. Without tying federal aid to outcomes like earnings or repayment, colleges still face limited pressure to ensure value for students.
The policy points:
Federal aid should be linked to student outcomes, especially earnings and loan repayment.
Institutions with poor economic outcomes should lose access to subsidized federal loans.
Borrowing limits should be maintained or strengthened to prevent excessive debt.
Simplify and rationalize repayment systems to improve transparency and accountability.
Expand pathways like workforce training while holding programs accountable for results.
Shift the system away from institution-driven funding toward student-centered value measures.
What policymakers should do: Policymakers should build on recent reforms by fundamentally restructuring federal higher education finance around outcomes, not enrollment. That means conditioning access to federal aid on whether programs deliver real economic value, limiting taxpayer exposure to low-return degrees, and ensuring students have clear information about expected earnings.
Implementing Medicaid work requirements the right way
Federal policy is increasingly protecting affluent retirees while shifting the costs onto younger generations.
Why it matters: Medicaid work requirements are now federal policy, making implementation—not just ideology—the central issue. While critics argue these requirements risk coverage loss, the bigger determinant of success is how states design and administer them. Poor implementation could lead to eligible individuals losing coverage due to administrative barriers, while thoughtful implementation could better align Medicaid with work and community engagement without unnecessary disruption.
What we found: Work requirements themselves are not inherently flawed, but historically have been undermined by weak execution—especially overly complex reporting systems and insufficient outreach. Successful implementation depends on minimizing administrative burden, automating verification where possible, and clearly communicating requirements and exemptions.
The policy points:
Prioritize automatic verification using existing data (e.g., SNAP or wage records) rather than requiring manual reporting.
Simplify reporting systems to reduce confusion and administrative burden.
Ensure clear, repeated communication about requirements and exemptions.
Design exemptions carefully and make them easy to claim.
Avoid frequent eligibility churn caused by technical noncompliance.
Treat implementation as a core policy challenge—not an afterthought.
What policymakers should do: Policymakers should invest in modern eligibility systems, leveraging existing data to verify compliance automatically, and designing policies around real-world user behavior. If states fail to do this, work requirements will primarily function as administrative hurdles rather than meaningful incentives—undermining coverage stability.
European overreach: How CS3D threatens American jobs and undermines EU-U.S. trade relations
European regulatory requirements will raise costs for consumer goods and have the potential to result in significant American job losses.
Why it matters: The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) represents a major shift in global economic governance by extending EU regulatory authority beyond its borders to American companies and their supply chains. This is not just a compliance issue—it raises concerns about U.S. sovereignty, trade relations, and the potential for higher consumer costs and job losses in key industries like manufacturing, energy, and agriculture.
What we found: CS3D imposes sweeping requirements on large companies with significant EU revenue, forcing them to monitor and enforce environmental and labor standards across their entire supply chains—including U.S.-based vendors. Compliance costs could be enormous (approaching $1 trillion in aggregate), and the burden will extend to smaller American firms indirectly. The directive also risks disrupting key sectors like energy exports to Europe and could strain EU–U.S. trade relations by effectively allowing EU regulators to set rules for American economic activity.
The policy points:
CS3D applies to non-EU firms with substantial EU revenue and extends to their full supply chains.
Companies face significant penalties (up to 3% of global turnover) for noncompliance.
Compliance costs could be extremely high, affecting prices and competitiveness.
Approximately 14.5 million U.S. workers are in sectors most exposed (manufacturing, energy, agriculture).
The directive may undermine U.S. energy exports and broader transatlantic trade.
The policy effectively allows EU regulators to impose standards on U.S.-based economic activity.
What policymakers should do: Congress should respond to CS3D as a matter of economic and regulatory sovereignty. That includes pushing back against extraterritorial regulation, protecting American firms from overlapping compliance regimes, and ensuring that U.S. laws—not foreign directives—govern domestic economic activity. Without action, CS3D could set a precedent for broader external control over American industries and weaken U.S. competitiveness.
Thanks for keeping up with FREOPP, and have a great week!
FREOPP’s work is made possible by people like you, who share our belief that equal opportunity is central to the American Dream. Please join them by making a donation today.