Case Studies

In the first weeks of 2017, news reports of a leaked executive order indicated that President Trump was planning to make drastic changes to the definition of public charge, a century-old policy applied in determining whether an immigrant can be admitted to the United States or receive a green card. These changes would both apply a “wealth test” and treat the receipt of a wide range of public benefits as a negative factor.

In response, together with partners at CLASP and the National Immigration Law Center, I helped conceive, launch and implement the multi-sector Protecting Immigrant Families (PIF) campaign, growing it from a few organizations to over 500 active members across anti-poverty, health care, nutrition, disability, senior and faith-based advocacy.

Operating under intense time pressure and with limited resources, we built a structure that let very different partners contribute in ways that matched their strengths. Early on I identified the problem that the rule mattered to many groups but was unlikely to be the top priority for any of them. So we asked to speak at meetings they were already holding rather than expecting people to join a separate webinar, and identified sector leads to write template comments that made it easy for their partners to take part.

We needed both quality and quantity. “Quality” meant detailed technical comments that gave the substantive basis for litigation and for the Biden Administration’s eventual replacement of the rule. Alongside that we needed mass engagement to build political opposition, without creating additional fear in the communities affected. We set an ambitious goal of at least 100,000 public comments and ultimately delivered more than a quarter of a million.

I subsequently helped transition PIF to operating as an independent organization. I currently serve as a senior policy consultant to PIF, focusing on administrative actions.

During the Great Recession, Congress authorized an additional $5 billion TANF Emergency Contingency Fund to support cash assistance, one-time supports and subsidized jobs.

I soon realized that states were not drawing these funds down, and that without intensive advocacy and technical assistance they were likely to leave them on the table despite the deep need.

I delivered that assistance: a comprehensive explainer of the allowable uses of TANF and state Maintenance of Effort funds, presentations in multiple states, and a weekly tracker of state drawdown, which helped create a sense of urgency to access the funds. Alongside it I developed and led real-time research on how states were using the money, so states could learn from each other and tell an accurate story to the public and to Congress. Because of the limits on federal TANF reporting, there would have been no national data on the use of these funds without that effort.

States ultimately drew down the full $5 billion — twice what the Congressional Budget Office had originally estimated they would use. Families received cash assistance, and more than 260,000 low-income parents and young people were hired into subsidized jobs.