Category: Testimony

Economic Development Tax Credits Should Provide Positive Net-Benefits to New Jersey’s Communities

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Economic development tax credits should be targeted towards projects that create good jobs for working people, spur needed economic development in areas of the state that have faced historic disinvestment, and provide positive net-benefits to the communities where projects are built.

The reauthorization of the state’s economic tax credit programs added statutory guardrails and accountability to prior programs through Emerge and Aspire, requiring that corporations that wanted state subsidies needed to prove they were providing real benefits to the state’s communities most in need of business development. New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) encourages state lawmakers to incorporate those principles into this program to protect the state’s finances and its residents from bad deals.

The simplest path forward: Build the manufacturing tax credit program within the existing structure of Emerge, rather than create it from scratch.

As it stands, the proposed program will take potential credits out of Emerge and Aspire, making less available for economic development and affordable housing construction in the parts of the state most in need. Instead of using the existing guardrails of Emerge or Aspire, the proposed bill instead delegates much of the responsibility for ensuring fair deals to the Economic Development Authority (EDA), rather than codifying them in statute.

The EDA has shown how Emerge and Aspire can encourage economic growth without giving up on enforcement of accountability measures for corporations truly committed to equitable growth in New Jersey. But a future EDA administration, without the statutory requirements of those programs, might take a trip back to the bad old days of unaccountable money going out the door without clear benefits for the state’s residents and communities.

Regardless of the overall merits of a manufacturing tax credit program, no one industry should sidestep the state’s existing guardrails and requirements for economic development tax credits. If corporations will get substantial state subsidization, the state should ensure its residents reap the benefits, not just corporate shareholders.

Federal Leaders Should Preserve the Quality of SNAP Data to Protect Program Integrity

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Attn: James C. Miller, Administrator
Food and Nutrition Service
United States Department of Agriculture
1320 Braddock Place, 5th floor
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program: Rescission of Changes to Civil Rights Data Collection Methods,
90 F.R. 20825 (RIN 0584-AF19, May 16, 2025)

Dear Mr. Miller:

I am writing on behalf of New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) in response to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) proposal to rescind the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Revision of Civil Rights Data Collection Methods final rule, which ended the practice of visual observations to determine SNAP participants’ race or ethnicity. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments expressing our concerns with this change in data collection methods.

NJPP strongly disagrees with the proposed rescission, which would reinstate the allowance of visual observation as a program standard for the collection of race and ethnicity data of participants. This would be a step backward for the reliability and accuracy of data and would threaten the fair administration of SNAP. We recommend that the rule remain in place to continue improved data collection practices, maintain the accuracy of program analyses, and respect the civil rights of participants. 

The quality of data significantly impacts its usefulness, including the potential scope and accuracy of analyses that can be produced. In the case of visual observation of race, studies have shown that conclusions using this practice are often inaccurate when compared with self-reported data by the person whose race is being evaluated, if the goal is to determine the individual’s identity, family background, and lived experience.[i] Additionally, the perceptions of the interviewers or administrators visually observing race can vary, resulting in errors that do not follow predictable patterns or allow for reliable adjustments when evaluating the data. This makes it more difficult to produce program evaluations with high levels of confidence in their accuracy.[ii]

In addition to the accuracy of data collected, visual observation of race and ethnicity as a practice can threaten the process of the interview itself. Establishing a standard practice of asking an interviewer to potentially report the race or ethnicity of an interviewee primes the interviewer to think about and evaluate the characteristics of the participant throughout the interview. This can lead to an increase in biases within the interviewer’s approach and harm their rapport with the interviewee.

By diminishing the reliability and accuracy of demographic variables like race and ethnicity, any analyses that look to determine whether SNAP continues to be administered in ways that comply with federal civil rights requirements will be limited in their ability to confidently produce accurate results. Although allowing the interviewer to report the suspected race or ethnicity of a participant may lead to fewer unreported results and increase the number of “complete” questionnaire responses, the filling in of these gaps with unreliable data further reduces the data’s utility and harms program administration and outcomes.[iii] Researchers, program analysts, and lawyers would face greater difficulties reporting on the quality of the program’s administration and its legal standing with regard to civil rights requirements.

If officials are interested in filling gaps in the program data reported and wish to develop methods of producing more complete files, they must recognize that the most reliable and accurate data will come from the participant, who knows their family and individual background and identification. In order to encourage participants to answer this sensitive question more often, officials should look to methods of building trust between caseworkers and participants, improve and promote the security of the data provided, as well as adjust the structure of the questionnaire and potential answers to best allow for the participant to answer fully and accurately.[iv]

Due to the concerns outlined above, NJPP opposes the proposed rescission of this rule and hopes that the Department will consider other methods of filling data gaps and improving the overall quality of program evaluations.

Sincerely,

Brittany Holom-Trundy
Senior Policy Analyst
New Jersey Policy Perspective

End Notes

[i] Note that if the goal of a study is to record the race or ethnicity that external people may observe — thus, studying biases in observations — then the reporting of a visual observation of race and ethnicity would be valid in terms of what it seeks to capture. However, with program data, the aim is generally to better administer the program and ensure that there are no unintended or intended exclusions of communities based on their demographic characteristics.

[ii] This is not just a challenge for visual observation of race and ethnicity, but is also a broader challenge for any externally imposed completion of missing race and ethnicity data. For a discussion of statistical challenges, see Megan Randall, Alena Stern, and Yipeng Su (2021), “Five Ethical Risks to Consider Before Filling Missing Race and Ethnicity Data,” Urban Institute,

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103830/five-ethical-risks-to-consider-before-filling-missing-race-and-ethnicity-data-workshop-findings.pdf.

[iii] The USDA’s Civil Rights Impact Analysis for the original rule recognized that the removal of visual observation as standard practice would increase the accuracy of its data: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-13058/p-35. Without additional study results showing outcomes to the contrary, the reinstatement of the practice remains unsupported and should be considered to most likely decrease accuracy.

[iv] The ability of participants to fully answer the question in a way that they identify as accurate can significantly impact the response rates and the validity of the data. See, for example: Garbarski, Dana, Jennifer Dykema, Cameron P. Jones, Tiffany S. Neman, Nora Cate Schaeffer, and Dorothy Farrar Edwards (2024), “Questioning Identity: How a Diverse Set of Respondents Answer Standard Questions About Ethnicity and Race.” Field Methods 36, no. 2: 113-130. For an in-depth discussion of data collection on race and ethnicity, see Sharghi, Sima, Shokoufeh Khalatbari, Amy Laird, Jodi Lapidus, Felicity T. Enders, Jareen Meinzen-Derr, Amanda L. Tapia, and Jody D. Ciolino. “Race, ethnicity, and considerations for data collection and analysis in research studies.” Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 8, no. 1 (2024): e182.

Legislators Must Protect the Rights of New Jerseyans & Invest in Long-Term Solutions for Mental Health Care

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good morning Chairman Vitale and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony in opposition to S4263. My name is Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

NJPP strongly opposes the permanent extension of involuntary commitment length, which threatens the health and rights of New Jersey residents. The role of involuntary commitment in treatment for those experiencing mental health crises has long been recognized as complicated and, often, problematic. Research has shown that racism, sexism, and other biases in health treatment settings lead to disparities not only in judgments about people’s pain or illness, but also in diagnoses of psychological disorders.[i] Because involuntary commitment requires medical judgments from healthcare professionals about whether a person is a “danger to self” or “danger to others or property,” emphasizing these situations further as a blunt tool for care without needed data opens doors to increased discrimination.[ii] Studies have shown that patients of color are more likely to be determined to be a “danger” and involuntarily committed than white patients.[iii] Meanwhile, there remains very little research on the medical effectiveness of 72-hour holds, let alone double that amount of time.[iv]

Though involuntary commitment may be necessary as a blunt tool to address an emergency situation, it is certainly not the ideal approach to care, and not one that should be prolonged arbitrarily. Hospitals often do not have the resources necessary to provide the standard of care for patients in involuntary commitment throughout its original 72-hour length; thus, extending the possible length of time simply invites worsening conditions resulting from staff and resource shortages.

The need for extended involuntary commitment remains low, and when it is utilized, it indicates other gaps in care. According to quarterly reports submitted to the Department of Human Services since the initial introduction of this extension, facilities requested extended holds for less than 1-2% of all hospitalizations due to psychiatric crises.[v] This means that these holds were needed for less than 1% of all patients screened for mental health crises, most of whom are discharged without hospitalization.

Such a small number does not indicate a pressing need to permanently suspend patients’ rights to reasonable, humane treatment in the standard timeframe. Instead, if our goal as leaders is to improve care, further decrease the number of cases in need of involuntary commitment, and address challenges within that system, then we must consider the question of why these patients were in need of help and were unable to receive that help within 72 hours (3 days), which should be achievable. In particular, attention to the following would allow for a better, more targeted response:

  • Whether and where beds were available at the time of the hold
  • Staff shortages at the facility holding the patient
  • Reports of refusals to accept patients based on complicating medical conditions, criminal history, insurance status, or other circumstances
  • Insurance status of patients held and payments charged

By considering these factors, lawmakers could determine if more psychiatric facilities and beds are needed; if increased staffing at hospitals should be prioritized; if staff need improved training, regulation, or support; or if facilities have financial incentive to keep some patients longer than others. Addressing these root causes of issues would provide better long-term solutions than the band-aid of simply extending involuntary commitment. Leaders could seek to invest state resources into long-term solutions to improve the mental health system so that we can decrease the number of people reporting mental health crises, improve treatment for those experiencing crises, and ensure the best, most efficient use of hospital care settings for both patients and healthcare workers.

New Jersey needs long-term investment in the mental health system, not a self-fulling solution that invites further abuse and ignores the cause in the first place.

We hope that the Committee will agree and hold this bill and consider these concerns today.

Thank you for your time.

End Notes

[i] Hamed, Sarah, Hannah Bradby, Beth Maina Ahlberg, and Suruchi Thapar-Björkert. “Racism in healthcare: a scoping review.” BMC Public Health 22, no. 1 (2022): 988; Zhang, Lanlan, Elizabeth A. Reynolds Losin, Yoni K. Ashar, Leonie Koban, and Tor D. Wager. “Gender biases in estimation of others’ pain.” The Journal of Pain 22, no. 9 (2021): 1048-1059; Garb, Howard N. “Race bias and gender bias in the diagnosis of psychological disorders.” Clinical Psychology Review 90 (2021): 102087.

[ii] Morris, Nathaniel P. “Detention without data: public tracking of civil commitment.” Psychiatric Services 71, no. 7 (2020): 741-744.

[iii] Shea, Timothy, Samuel Dotson, Griffin Tyree, Lucy Ogbu-Nwobodo, Stuart Beck, and Derri Shtasel. “Racial and ethnic inequities in inpatient psychiatric civil commitment.” Psychiatric Services 73, no. 12 (2022): 1322-1329.

[iv] Morris, Nathaniel P. “Reasonable or random: 72-hour limits to psychiatric holds.” Psychiatric Services 72, no. 2 (2021): 210-212.

[v] New Jersey Department of Human Services. Continued Hold Orders. https://nj.gov/humanservices/dmhas/publications/orders/

Federal Medicaid Reductions Would Have Disastrous Effects on New Jersey’s Communities

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Any reduction in federal Medicaid spending directly harms New Jersey’s budget and its residents. As a state-federal partnership, Medicaid depends on reliable and sustainable federal funding to balance state funds. Regardless of the specific method that Medicaid spending is cut, the end result is the same: less money for the state and costs pushed from the federal budget onto state budgets.

A $2 billion cut, no matter how you slice it

Analysis from national health care researchers estimates that the proposed cuts in the federal Medicaid budget would mean a $2 billion annual cut in New Jersey’s Medicaid budget. (See Appendix A). This corresponds with analysis by New Jersey’s Department of Human Services putting a cost of a minimum of $2 billion on proposed federal changes. (See Appendix B)

By way of comparison the entire proposed state appropriation for Medicaid is $5.7 billion for FY 2026.[i] Another way of contextualizing the numbers – the estimated cuts are the equivalent to the cost of 87% of kids enrolled in Medicaid. (See Appendix A)

I will leave to other experts to discuss the mechanics of particular proposals, whether a per capita cap, a change in federal reimbursement rate, or onerous work requirements. But regardless of the method, the state budget will face a multi-billion dollar hole with no solution.

A trickle-down budget disaster for states, localities, and health care providers

The state budget would take the immediate cut from whichever federal cuts are realized. Some of that effect may be spread out over multiple years but one way or another, the money will stop showing up in the state’s revenues.

But the ripple effects of these cuts would eat even further into the state’s budget.

  • If the state chooses to fill in the federal gaps with its own funding, it would have to generate new revenues to do so at a time when the budget is already running deficits.
  • If people become disenrolled from Medicaid, they will likely incur costs elsewhere in the health care system, whether in hospital charity care or other uninsured settings.
  • Health care providers depend on Medicaid payments, as detailed in the NJ DHS analysis (See Appendix B), and funding cuts would affect their revenues as well.

 

Limited solutions

Reducing costs for Medicaid at the state level would be difficult for a program that already runs at very low cost compared to the private insurance market. Medicaid costs less to insure an enrollee than the private market and spending has grown more slowly than the private market.[ii]

  • Already-low reimbursement rates: New Jersey already has comparatively low reimbursement rates for Medicaid,[iii] limiting options for provider availability if rates are capped or reduced.
  • Already-low overhead costs: Overhead costs for Medicaid are already low – around 4.4% for New Jersey.[iv]
  • Increased administrative costs of proposed changes: Creating a state system for work requirements or other potentially onerous federal mandates would increase, not decrease, those administrative costs.

One additional note of caution: recessions typically see an increase in demand for Medicaid, as people become unemployed or underemployed.[v] If economic uncertainty produces a recession, this would further increase the state budgetary cost of reduced federal Medicaid spending. In the 2001, 2008, and 2020 recessions, the federal government increased Medicaid reimbursement rates, but that may be unlikely this time around.

The takeaway: A Medicaid cut by any name would impose huge costs on the state budget, with few solutions and devastating effects on New Jerseyans’ health.

End Notes

[i] State of New Jersey, The Governor’s FY 2026 Budget: Detailed Budget (2025), p. D-209.

[ii] Hannah Katch et al., Frequently Asked Questions about Medicaid, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Nov. 22, 2019), https://www.cbpp.org/research/correcting-seven-myths-about-medicaid

[iii] New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute, Primary Care in New Jersey: Findings and Recommendations to Support Advoanced Primary Care (January 2024) https://www.njhcqi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Primary-Care-Report_2024_v11.pdf.

[iv] Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC), MACStats: Medicaid and CHIP Data Book (December 2024), p. 46 exh. 16, https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/EXHIBIT-16.-Medicaid-Spending-by-State-Category-and-Source-of-Funds-FY-2023.pdf.

[v] Katherine Young et al., Medicaid Spending Growth in the Great Recession and Its Aftermath, FY 2007-2012, Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (July 2014), pp. 5-6, https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/8309-03-medicaid-spending-growth-in-the-great-recession-and-its-aftermath-fy-2007-2012.pdf

Data Centers Should Bring Their Own Clean Energy to New Jersey

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of A5564, which requires AI data centers to plan for their energy usage and to derive all electricity from clean energy sources.

At a time when affordability is out of reach for so many families, I appreciate the state taking actions to address the cause of the upcoming utility bill increases. Most of us already know that the main driver of these increases is a combination of PJM’s slow interconnection process which is bottlenecking supply, and a surge in projected demand. But what some of you may not know is that 70 percent of that increase in demand is due to AI data centers.[i] It is concerning that residential ratepayers like you and I are now paying the cost for AI data centers, and it’s also important all the PJM states work together to craft policies like this one to prevent this problem in the future.

According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2022 New Jersey consumed over six times as much energy as we produced.[ii] We know as a state we are a net importer of energy, and we may always be. We need proactive planning, like what’s proposed in this bill, to reduce in-state demand and increase supply, which will ultimately protect ratepayers.

Another note about AI data centers is that they are not necessarily the economic boon some may think they are. Data centers, once constructed, need very few workers in very large spaces. One data center CEO operator, John Johnson of Patmos Hosting, even said, “Data centers have rightly earned a dismal reputation of creating the lowest number of jobs per square foot in their facilities.”[iii] This means they will not bring lasting economic benefits to our communities.

I want to end by pointing out that adding newer, safer, and more reliable sources of energy to our grid will increase reliability and drive down costs. Currently less than 4 percent of the energy we generate as a state comes from renewables–the majority of the rest comes from nuclear and natural gas.[iv] As a comparison, the national average for renewables is over 21 percent.[v] We all agree we need more energy, and we need to diversify our energy portfolio with reliable sources like solar and wind paired with battery storage.

Data centers are driving up prices for consumers, draining our energy grid, and may not bring significant long-term economic benefits to our communities. But if they do want to come to our state, it makes sense to ask them to bring additional energy sources, and those sources may as well be clean and reliable. This is one way to protect ratepayers from higher costs. Thank you.

End Notes

[i] Chavin, Sabine, et al.Tackling the PJM Cost Crisis. Evergreen Collaborative. Apr. 15, 2025. p.6.

[ii] NJPP analysis of New Jersey State Profile Data. U.S. Energy Information Administration.

[iii] Dotan, Tom. “The AI Data-Center Boom Is a Job-Creation Bust.” Wall Street Journal. Feb. 25, 2025.

[iv] See “Utility-Scale Net Electricity Generation” at New Jersey State Profile Data. U.S. Energy Information Administration.

[v] Ibid.

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Should Investigate PJM Pricing

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of AJR216, which directs BPU to investigate PJM’s Reliability Pricing Model, directs State to promote affordable energy practices, and urges PJM to implement certain reforms.

Having affordable and reliable energy available for New Jersey residents and businesses is critical, but PJM is hindering our ability to deliver it. The regional RTO is frankly stuck in the past, and has been sitting on its hands while other RTOs are adapting to a changing energy landscape. We also know that PJM tends to overestimate demand load forecasts and did not consider all energy resources in the last capacity auction.[1] This, combined with the shortfall of supply due to its antiquated interconnection process, drives up costs for consumers. Additionally, PJM is giving an unfair advantage to gas power plant proposals, which are increasingly unreliable under extreme weather, instead of diversifying our energy portfolio with new sources of energy, like solar and wind paired with battery storage.[2] They can and should do better, and requiring BPU to investigate these practices is a step in the right direction.

New Jersey’s utility rates are already 20 percent higher than the national average, and these upcoming increases will only exacerbate that.[3] Additionally, LIHEAP, the federal program that helps residents save hundreds of dollars a year on their utility bills, is on the chopping block, putting hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans at risk of not being able to pay their bills.[4]

These increases in electricity rates are not going anywhere. A recent report from Evergreen Collaborative found that if PJM continues business as usual, our region could see up to 60 percent increases in our utility bills.[5] But if they implement certain reforms, and if states enact policies to increase energy supply, New Jersey ratepayers could see a reduction in their bills, averaging over $400 a year.[6] Additionally, because these reforms would remove barriers to building more clean energy in-state, we will see a net increase of 23,000 jobs annually.[7] Those are good union jobs building and maintaining solar energy, wind energy, battery storage, and its associated infrastructure.

The report also recommends that states consider permitting and siting reform to speed up project development, including establishing deadlines for clean energy and transmission permit consideration. Uncertainty is a project-killer, and the faster we can go from application to interconnection, the less uncertainty there is, and the more new energy resources we can add to our grid. This, combined with PJM reforms, will help drive down costs for customers and build a more resilient grid. Thank you for your consideration.

End Note

[1] Wilson, J.F. What’s With the PJM Load Forecast??. Wilson Energy Economics. Oct. 22, 2024. See figure 3, p. 2.

See PJM’s letter on Reliability Must Run (RMR) resources: https://www.pjm.com/-/media/DotCom/about-pjm/who-we-are/public-disclosures/2024/20240919-pjm-board-response-consumer-advocates-letter-re-urgent-reforms-pjm-capacity-market-re-reliability-must-run-units.ashx

[2] Azhar, A. Clean Energy Industry Questions a New PJM Proposal That Could Move Fossil Fuel Projects to the Front of the Interconnection Queue. Inside Climate News. Dec. 8, 2024.

Gas Malfunction. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2024.

[3] NJPP analysis of U.S. Energy Information Administration data of residential prices.

[4] Chen, P. A LI“HEAP” of Trouble: Slashing Federal Utility Assistance Will Hurt New Jersey Seniors, Families, and Working-Class Households. New Jersey Policy Perspective. (2025).

[5] Chavin, Sabine, et al.Tackling the PJM Cost Crisis. Evergreen Collaborative. Apr. 15, 2025. p.1

[6] Chavin, Sabine, et al.Tackling the PJM Cost Crisis. Evergreen Collaborative. Apr. 15, 2025. p.5.

[7] Chavin, Sabine, et al.Tackling the PJM Cost Crisis. Evergreen Collaborative. Apr. 15, 2025. p.22.

End the Unjust Subminimum Wage for Tipped Workers

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of A-5433, which phases out subminimum wages for tipped workers. Eliminating the tipped minimum wage will help to alleviate poverty, reduce racial and gender pay disparities, and reduce wage violations in industries prone to exploitation. New Jersey tipped workers have a wage of $5.62 an hour – an appallingly low number in a state with a high cost of living.

A-5433 will reduce employee abuse and wage theft.

  • Tipped workers are subject to high rates of wage theft. According to Rutgers’ research from 2021, restaurants and bars had the highest rate of minimum wage violations outside of private households.
  • With the current subminimum tipped wage system, workers bear the burden of tracking their hours and tips to ensure they are fairly compensated, followed by filing complaints to claw back the wages they rightly earned. (This is confusing for businesses as well!)

 

A-5433 will reduce poverty for tipped workers.

  • Tipped workers have historically received lower total wages than their non-tipped peers and are more likely to live in poverty.
  • They are also disproportionately women and people of color, whose low wages deepen the racial and gender pay gap.
  • Subminimum wages are associated with dramatically higher poverty for tipped workers.

 

A-5433 will allow workers and tipped industries to thrive. 

  • States with one fair wage for tipped workers and untipped workers alike have shown higher growth in restaurants and restaurant employment than states with lower tipped wages.
  • States heavily reliant on food service and hospitality (Nevada, Hawaii, California) have adopted one fair wage and continued to see restaurant growth.
  • Higher base wages will not prevent workers from receiving tips. Gratuities are by definition gratuitous, and consumers can continue to provide tips for service.

 

Phasing out the subminimum tipped wage will be a win for workers and businesses alike.

Legislature Must Raise Revenue, Support Working Families in FY 2026 Budget

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good Morning, Chair Pintor Marin and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the Fiscal Year 2026 budget.

The governor’s proposed budget takes important steps toward fiscal stability in the long term, particularly by raising additional revenue. Although NJPP would prefer more revenue measures targeting high-wealth individuals and large corporations that profit from our state, it’s clear that additional revenue is needed, especially as community grant programs and affordability initiatives such as the Child Tax Credit remain flat-funded or face cuts. To ensure New Jersey remains an affordable place for all residents to raise a family and thrive, the state budget must include more revenue.

The need for revenue and responsible budgeting becomes even more urgent in light of potential federal cuts. The legislature and governor have made clear that even minor federal reductions could have devastating effects on New Jersey’s state budget and on New Jerseyans who depend on federal funds for health insurance, food assistance, and affordable housing. The proposed surplus would only sustain the state for 39 days in the event of an economic downturn or federal cuts. 

Now, at a time when working families are struggling with affordability, the budget offers little additional aid to help them make ends meet, including:

  • No increase in Child Tax Credit or Earned Income Tax Credit benefits;
  • No increase in Work First New Jersey cash assistance for low-income households;
  • No increase in rental assistance, child care assistance, or food assistance.

 

Instead, the budget includes cuts to key programs such as community colleges, legal services, and lead paint remediation, while diverting funds from long-term investments like the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Clean Energy Fund.

New Jersey must not follow the federal trend of cutting benefits and programs for working- and middle-class households while maintaining tax breaks for wealthy households and big corporations. Rather, the state should pursue progressive revenues policies that ensure those with the most to contribute their fair share, as outlined in NJPP’s 2024 report Fair and Square: Changing New Jersey’s Tax Code to Promote Equity and Fiscal Responsibility.

These measures include:

  • Adopting the governor’s proposal to increase the assessment on property sales over $1 million
  • Adding income tax brackets for very high earners above $2 million, $5 million, and $10 million
  • Requiring multinational corporations to disclose their profits from foreign tax havens
  • Increasing tax enforcement to improve compliance with existing tax laws

 

By ensuring that the wealthy contribute more equitably, the state can expand its ability to help working New Jerseyans afford the cost of living in the state and build the investments in school construction, public transit infrastructure, and climate resiliency that the state needs for a brighter future.

One final note on future fiscal planning: The Fiscal Year 2027 budget will face significant constraints due to the expansion of the Stay NJ program, which is slated for funding this year despite falling short of the surplus targets outlined in the legislation. While the state has less money to spend and potential federal cuts looming, the program is set to distribute more than $500 million in Fiscal Year 2026, disproportionately benefiting high-income, wealthy homeowners. These payments partially rely on prior years’ contributions, but Fiscal Year 2027 will have no such cushion — doubling the cost to more than $1 billion and further deepening the deficit.

The state budget can and should reflect a commitment for shared prosperity, where revenue generated by working New Jerseyans supports schools, transportation, and communities that make the state strong. That requires raising additional revenues from the state’s wealthy and reducing cuts to programs that promote affordable and opportunity for all.

New Jersey Department of Human Services Can Secure Support for Residents Ahead of Uncertain Federal Policy Landscape

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good afternoon, Commissioner and DHS team. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the FY 2026 budget for the Department of Human Services. My name is Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

With a looming uncertain federal policy landscape, the state’s Department of Human Services provides a critical channel for support for individuals and families. Now more than ever is a time for the state to cement its commitment to that support and ensure that all Garden State families are protected, regardless of possible federal changes. To do this, the Department should prioritize policies that will help to lessen and eliminate daily uncertainty that many working families, immigrants, and low-income residents currently face and may be threatened with in coming years.

In order to provide families with unwavering support, here are five priorities for the Department to consider for next fiscal year.

1. Protect Cover All Kids

Possible federal cuts to programs like Medicaid mean that the state needs to fully commit to keeping all children covered with quality, affordable health insurance through the Cover All Kids program. The Department already uses state funds to cover kids enrolled through the program’s expansion to all children regardless of immigration status, and maintaining that guarantee is crucial. Keeping that connection with immigrant communities at such a fraught time will also require improved and increased outreach efforts, as well as stronger privacy protections. Additionally, if federal reductions cut funding that helps to cover those kids who were already eligible with federal matching, the state must increase its own funding to ensure that no kids become uninsured even if the state must shift funds to fill new gaps.

 

NJPP urges DHS to ensure that the expansion remains fully funded in FY 2026, that outreach efforts are strengthened, and that privacy considerations are fully protected. This means making sure that state funds continue to cover the over 42,000 newly eligible, enrolled children, and accommodating any further increases in that number (approximately $156 million). It also means increasing funding for outreach efforts, as well as funding any improvements to the privacy protections needed to safely maintain the enrollment of immigrant children.

2. Expand Affordable Health Insurance Options

In addition to possible cuts to programs like Medicaid, other looming possibilities with federal transitions are threats to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), its protections, and its affordable options for low- to middle-income families. To ensure that the progress toward universal coverage over the past decade is not lost, the state must step up to safeguard the ACA’s advancements and lead in providing further coverage options.

By investing in affordable and quality health insurance options, the state can limit the financial impact of federal cuts to services and preserve public health for the Garden State. To do this, NJPP encourages DHS to set the budget so that it can (1) build the final bridges for uninsured children by funding a buy-in option for the children who are not income-eligible for NJ FamilyCare (NJFC) and yet do not qualify for GetCovered NJ coverage due to immigration status; and (2) establish and fund a public option open to all residents, regardless of immigration status or age.

3. Meet Economic Needs with Reforms to Anti-Poverty Programs

Despite the intense coverage on economic issues during and after the federal election, the reality is that the long-running anti-poverty programs funded by the federal government and states remain woefully neglected. Even with low-income residents facing daily economic insecurity, the main programs helping to lift families out of deep poverty — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and, in New Jersey, the full collection of programs under the umbrella of Work First New Jersey (WFNJ) — remain outdated and subject to the punitive stereotypes of 1990s welfare reform. Federal changes may also threaten the existence of these programs. NJPP encourages the Department to consider how to protect the WFNJ programs from federal cuts and make them work for the state’s poorest families.

By investing at least $46 million, the Department can begin the process of gradually increasing the WFNJ monthly grant amount to at least 50 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) over the next three years, starting with a baseline increase to 34% of the FPL in the first year. Maintaining current Emergency Assistance funding is also crucial. Finally, additional funds can help to improve off-ramps, reduce work hour requirements to better meet families’ realities, eliminate barriers for immigrants, and ensure that children and parents are lifted out of deep poverty.

4. Defend, Shield, and Support New Jersey’s Immigrant Communities

Potential federal policy changes threaten the safety and security of New Jersey’s diverse immigrant communities. More urgently than ever, the state needs to step up to protect Garden State immigrant families, providing them the empathy and enthusiasm that all families who call the state home are afforded.

To adequately respond to and prepare for possible federal actions, the Department should ensure that funding is available to codify the Office of New Americans and to support and strengthen the continuation of services like the Deportation Detention Defense Initiative, legal services for unaccompanied minors, and fee waivers and assistance for refugees and asylum seekers. Additionally, any further funding needed to improve language access across all programs will be a vital commitment at a time when communication will become key to protection.

5. Support Quality Child Care Options in the Face of Increased Demand

As offices push for employees to return to commuting and in-person only setups, more and more families are having to make tough decisions about how to best care for their children during the work day. Having affordable, quality child care options that fit into a working family’s budget and meet the true cost of child care helps to build economic security and guarantee a more stable future for families and the state. At the same time, a quality child care system provides wages that fairly value the importance of child care providers’ work and ensures that they are able to cover their living expenses.

NJPP urges the Department to take action to make sure that child care wages keep up with demand. Additionally, DHS should adjust child care subsidy rates to meet the needs of workers and families.

In order to continue to fund all of these vital services, NJPP urges the administration to consider a range of revenue raisers that can be found in our latest report.[1] 

Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

End Notes

[1] New Jersey Policy Perspective, Fair and Square: Changing New Jersey’s Tax Code to Promote Equity and Fiscal Responsibility, 2024. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/fair-and-square-changing-new-jerseys-tax-code-to-promote-equity-and-fiscal-responsibility/

New Jersey’s Ballot Design Should Prioritize Transparency, Fairness, and Accessibility

Posted on by Peter Chen

New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a statewide nonpartisan nonprofit think tank focused on economic, social and racial justice, has long advocated for fair ballots in the state, including multiple reports on the harmful influence of the “county line” on primary election choices.

I broadly ask you to build a ballot that applies best practices and does not allow for any visual advantage, either in terms of order, position, highlighting, font, or other visual cues.

1. Any ballot design process must include as much of the public as possible.

When a committee focused on ballot design sets last-minute meeting times at difficult times for members of the public to attend, the committee is leaving out members of the public, particularly lower-information voters, whose understanding of the ballot is most important for the committee to hear. It is impossible to design effective ballots without clear public feedback on what confusion and concerns they have about ballot design.

NJPP urges more notice, more convenient meeting times, and more public feedback, not less.

2. New Jersey should move towards clean, office-block ballots with minimal visual cues that give an advantage to any candidate over any other.

New Jersey should follow the principles of the opinion in the Hanlon case, as well as best practices of national ballot design experts. The vast majority of states use an office-block design with minimal visual cues to indicate endorsement or incumbency.

Allowing any highlighting, asterisks, endorsements, placement, bracketing, incumbency markings, or other visual cues that signal that one candidate is special over any other creates a risk of unfair balloting. Randomized electronic draws can prevent placement-order advantages.

3. There is more to good ballot design than office-block balloting; this committee should ensure the state’s ballot reflects other best practices.

If New Jersey means to revamp its ballot design to provide for fairness and reduce confusion among voters, it should adhere to ballot design best practices advanced by civic engagement experts. As an example, New Jersey counties frequently use all-caps to indicate candidate names and as emphasis throughout the instructions, even though they make word shapes harder to recognize and lead to lower comprehension. Similarly, many New Jersey ballots use centered type, even though left-justified type is more legible. Instructions are often nonstandard and do not include visual cues.

Ballot design should also reflect the diverse array of voters in New Jersey, including voters who are blind, deaf or hard of hearing, or otherwise have a disability; voters with limited English proficiency; voters with low literacy levels; voters who may require assistance in filling out their ballots; etc. User testing should include all of these voter groups.

If the concern of the committee is to reduce confusion by voters, any attempt to redesign New Jersey’s ballots must incorporate these best practices, rather than exclusively focus on the questions of slogans, bracketing, and other indicators that potentially give advantages to one candidate.

Older Posts »»