Category: Testimony

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.

Medical Debt Protections Paired with Debt Elimination and Addressing High Health Care Cost Leads to Health Equity

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good afternoon Chairman Sarlo and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on S2806, the Louisa Carman Medical Debt Relief Act. 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 supports the goals of S2806, which are to prohibit the reporting of medical debt to credit reporting agencies and ensure that patients are protected from financial ruin just from seeking medical care. This is particularly crucial for the well-being of the state’s residents with lower incomes. Many with lower incomes avoid preventative medical care due to costs and time restrictions, meaning that those with the least are also the most likely to face medical emergencies.[i] Beyond the burden of the debt, the current status quo means that this debt can be reported to credit reporting agencies and impact other vital needs: with a reported debt, suddenly housing and other means of support may be inaccessible, making more medical issues even more likely. This is true not only for those without insurance, but for those with insurance coverage and up-to-date preventive medical care as well, as unexpected medical emergencies happen and affordability remains a critical issue.[ii]

However, there are a few amendments that would make this bill stronger for the patients that it is seeking to assist. For example, it is important to strengthen the ability of patients to take action when violations of the bill occur, as well as ensure that the care-providing entity remains responsible for offering a reasonable payment plan. Additionally, it is important that all means by which patients pay for care are included in this reporting ban — meaning that things like certain medical care credit cards and the broad category of “secured debt” should not be excluded.

It is important to note that this bill does not address the root issue of high costs in our health care system, nor does it eliminate medical debt altogether. However, this will at least provide families with the knowledge that medical debt will not pervade their lives and create obstacles to other basic necessities. This bill is crucial to addressing calamities and the ways that our expensive health care system currently cripples families for life. By prohibiting the reporting of debt to credit reporting agencies and ensuring that patients are protected, we can bring more humanity to our health care system and promise residents that medical debt will not control their future.

We hope that the Committee will agree and release this bill with the adoption of the proposed amendments suggested by the groups here today.

Thank you for your time.

End Notes

[i] U.S. Census Bureau, Most Vulnerable More Likely to Depend on Emergency Rooms for Preventable Care, 2022. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/01/who-makes-more-preventable-visits-to-emergency-rooms.html

[ii] Commonwealth Fund, The Cost of Not Getting Care: Income Disparities in the Affordability of Health Services Across High-Income Countries, 2023. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/surveys/2023/nov/cost-not-getting-care-income-disparities-affordability-health

Benefits to Allocating Tax Credits for Artificial Intelligence Are Risky and Unclear

Posted on by Peter Chen

Allocating $500 million in tax credits in untested technology like artificial intelligence should give the state pause. Business tax credits should be used sparingly when subsidizing private profits, yet this proposal has almost no guard rails that ensure that these investments are responsible or sustainable, nor does it require that the jobs created be based in economically distressed communities.

One major concern is the redirecting of Aspire and Emerge credits to an unrelated purpose. Aspire and Emerge focus on revitalizing economically distressed areas with transit-oriented development and job creation. The new AI program would use those potential funds instead on promoting a narrow and risky subsector employing relatively few people. Without the commitment to economically distressed municipalities, it’s likely that AI tax credits would end up in already-wealthy communities and business owner pockets, rather than in the communities most in need.

AI data centers are also notorious for being extremely energy-intensive, with the International Energy Agency estimating that data centers and artificial intelligence will use as much energy as the entire country of Japan by 2026. As a state committed to reducing greenhouse emissions and increasing energy efficiency, New Jersey would be wise to put safeguards in place to prevent an increase in emissions at a time when the state can scarcely meet its current emissions reduction goals.

There may be a sense that because these credits come from unexpended Aspire and Emerge allocations that they are “free money.” But make no mistake, if a tax credit is handed out, the check will come due. The state has already seen the result of these credits in prior years with revenue reductions in the current tax year, as OLS detailed in its revenue report.

A $500 million tax credit to subsidize a risky investment deserves careful consideration, not a vague last-minute proposal with a mere sketch of guardrails and unclear benefits to the state.

NJPP urges the committee to pause this proposal for a robust debate rather than rubber-stamp it.

Handouts to Horse Racing Industry Do Little to Benefit Working New Jerseyans

Posted on by Peter Chen

The state of New Jersey should not be in the business of subsidizing horse racing at all, let alone at a level of $20 million a year. Horse racing is not a public service, a benefit to the public at large, or frankly a benefit at all. It is, rather, a private multi-billion dollar industry, whose profits go largely to the pockets of executives and investors, not everyday New Jerseyans.

Nationally, purse amounts are substantially above pre-pandemic trend with average purse amounts at an all-time record high. Meanwhile gaming revenues and profits continue to increase. Again, it is unclear why these subsidies are needed or justified, nor whether they were needed at all in the first place.

At a time when everyday New Jerseyans continue to struggle with affordability and with the state running a structural deficit and burning through its surplus, handing $100 million to further prop up the horse racing industry puts state dollars where they are least needed.

I urge you to vote no on this bill.

Tax Credit Awards Should Benefit Communities, Not Just Developers and Landowners

Posted on by Peter Chen

Any changes that loosen requirements for developers and landowners when it comes to redevelopment tax credits should be carefully scrutinized, as stringent requirements are necessary to ensure that tax credit awards represent a true benefit to their communities rather than mere tax giveaways. It’s unclear why changes are necessary to Aspire given that the legislature amended the program last year and the EDA has just begun awarding credits based on the regulations updated to those legislative changes.

A few items of concern in the current bill:

  1. Removal of the three-bedroom apartment requirement: New Jersey rental housing remains scarce especially for affordable family units. The replacement of the three-bedroom requirement with a mere 5 percent increase in project cost for three-bedroom inclusion does not change the economic incentives for developers, who can obtain much more rent per square foot from non-family units. Requiring family housing should be part of affordable housing policy broadly.
  2. Use of credits for warehousing: Even with the addition of a $10 million environmental remediation requirement, warehousing should not be the focus of the Aspire program. As warehousing expands its footprint across the state, it’s unclear why warehouses need any incentives to build, even if substantial environmental remediation costs exist.
  3. Inclusion of parking in total square footage: The purpose of a transformative project is to improve communities with dramatic changes in residential or commercial space. New Jersey should not be subsidizing housing for cars at the expense of housing for people.
  4. Reduction in retail space: Reducing the requirement from 50,000 to 20,000 square feet of commercial space is a dramatic shift with no explanation. Again, defining “transformative” downwards is not clearly benefiting communities that have faced underinvestment for years.
  5. Redevelopment Bridge Program within EDA: Although a bridge financing program may be a good policy in order to assist in building the necessary finance stack for construction, NJPP has concerns about the EDA issuing loans and loan guarantees through the bridge program as well as the credits against which the loans are guaranteed. This creates a potential conflict.
  6. Carry-forward and transfer concerns: Extending the time window for redemption does increase the value of the credits, but each change in the time window for redemption also results in erosion of the predictability of credit claims. As seen in this year’s budget, tax credits from years earlier can come back to bite state revenue in a future year, making it more difficult to estimate revenues.

NJPP urges the committee to revisit and revise this legislation to address some of these concerns and also to pump the brakes on wholesale changes to the Aspire program this soon after previous changes.

Film Tax Credits Are a Bad Deal for New Jersey, With Few Benefits Coming Back to the State

Posted on by Peter Chen

Film tax credits have long been a bad deal for states, yielding pennies on the dollar while leaving Hollywood studios the lion’s share of the benefits. The current bill would loosen requirements on these credits even further, weakening the case of their supposed economic benefits to New Jersey.

One main concern is the treatment of Pennsylvania workers as New Jersey workers for the purposes of defining qualified production expenses. Why should the state be subsidizing workers from other states who pay income elsewhere? If a film production uses out-of-state labor, that’s certainly a choice they can make, but it’s unclear why New Jersey would allow companies to count those workers towards their economic costs accrued in-state.

Another is the rollover of Aspire and Emerge credits into the film tax credit program. Aspire and Emerge each have requirements on projects that limit credits to deserving programs that can serve to revitalize underinvested communities. This bill allows unused tax credits from Aspire and Emerge to simply be made available through this program to a wider range of potential claimants and raises the cap to $300 million. Given the long-term financial cost of tax credits on the state budget, the state should think twice before expanding access to tax credits without stringent requirements on ensuring benefits go to communities, not big corporations.

Given the dire economic straits the state budget finds itself in, it may be tempting to view the film tax credit program as free money, which can be doled out without appropriation and without budgetary cost. But this is purely an illusion; loosening requirements on tax credit programs means money going out the door with fewer benefits coming back to the state.

NJPP urges the committee to vote no on this legislation.

Prohibiting Reporting Medical Debt to Credit Reporting Agencies Would Help Protect New Jersey’s Most Vulnerable Residents from Financial Ruin

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good morning Chairman Freiman and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on A3861, the Louisa Carman Medical Debt Relief Act. 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 supports A3861, which would prohibit the reporting of medical debt to credit reporting agencies and ensure that patients are protected from financial ruin just from seeking medical care.

These actions are crucial for the well-being of the state’s families, especially those with lower incomes. Health care researchers have long recognized that poverty and the resulting inaccessibility of health care in and of itself can lead to a greater likelihood for medical emergencies and chronic illnesses because residents with low incomes or who lack insurance do not have access to needed resources and may avoid preventative medical care due to costs and time restrictions.[i] This means that those with the least means to pay for medical emergencies are also the most likely to face them — and with medical emergencies come extremely high bills, requiring money beyond what the individuals and families can afford. This worsens health inequities that we already see in the state; for example, we know that residents of color are twice as likely to have medical debt in collections.[ii]

Even for those with insurance coverage and up-to-date preventive medical care, unexpected medical emergencies happen and affordability remains a critical issue.[iii] People often have to go to the nearest emergency room, regardless of their coverage, and face bills of thousands of dollars simply because they were in an accident or woke up one morning with a failing organ.

It is important to note that this bill does not necessarily address the root issue of high costs in our health care system nor does it eliminate medical debt altogether. However, this will at least provide families with the knowledge that medical debt will not pervade their lives and create obstacles to other basic necessities. This bill is crucial to addressing calamities and the ways that our expensive health care system currently cripples families for life. In prohibiting the reporting of debt to credit reporting agencies and ensuring that patients are protected, we can bring more humanity to our health care system and promise residents that medical debt will not control their future.

We hope that the Committee will agree and release this bill with the adoption of the proposed amendments suggested by the groups here today.

Thank you for your time.

End Notes

[i] U.S. Census Bureau, Most Vulnerable More Likely to Depend on Emergency Rooms for Preventable Care, 2022. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/01/who-makes-more-preventable-visits-to-emergency-rooms.html

[ii] Urban Institute, Debt in America. https://apps.urban.org/features/debt-interactive-map/?type=medical&variable=medcoll&state=34.

[iii] Commonwealth Fund, The Cost of Not Getting Care: Income Disparities in the Affordability of Health Services Across High-Income Countries, 2023. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/surveys/2023/nov/cost-not-getting-care-income-disparities-affordability-health

Lengthy Sentences Do Not Serve as Deterrents, Address Root Causes, or Reduce Crime

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chairman Stack and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I’m Marleina Ubel, a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

First, I want to acknowledge that the work you do is challenging. You are pulled in different directions by people who feel passionately about these issues, and I believe that you are all trying to do what you feel is right. When I was younger, I had a mentor tell me, “doing the right thing is easy. It is knowing what the right thing is that is the hard part.” So, today I will share some information to help determine the right thing.

As written, S3006 will essentially turn trespassing into 2nd degree burglary subject to NERA. What that means is, this legislature is asking that someone who enters any place with an accommodation for sleeping without permission, whether or not the place is empty, be sent to prison for 5 to 10 years, have to serve at least 85% of their sentence before they are even eligible for parole, and have an additional mandatory period of supervision tacked on. Make no mistake, this will create a new mandatory minimum, even if those words do not appear in the bill. It can also make that person essentially ineligible for other programming, such as diversion programs for juveniles or recovery court for individuals who use drugs.

Research shows that property crime like burglary is tied to economic circumstances. So, this bill will target some of the most vulnerable New Jerseyans, such as unhoused people, and make them ineligible for services that might actually reduce the chances for reoffense. Thus, this bill will have unintended consequences and increase the chances that people reoffend by making support services — the kind that actually address root causes of crime — out of reach. This bill will also adversely affect juveniles, because a 2nd degree NERA offense makes it more likely that they are tried in an adult court even if their record is clean.

Lengthy sentences do not serve as deterrents or address root causes, and they do not reduce crime. In fact, research has shown that increased and continuous exposure to the penal system increases recidivism and exacerbates the circumstances that lead to criminal activity in the first place, things like, employment and educational opportunities, economic stability, relationships with community members and family – all of these things are ripped away from people when they are sent to prison. In this case, ripped away from someone who is likely vulnerable, nonviolent, or unhoused for what could be decade.

Bills like this are how we got to where we are today, known across the world as the incarceration nation. Please do the right thing and vote no on this bill.

Thank you and happy to take any questions.

Dedicating Corporate Transit Fee Revenue to NJ Transit Makes Fiscal and Policy Sense

Posted on by Peter Chen

The Corporate Transit Fee is a critical investment for our state — making Big Business pay back some of its record profits in support of the New Jersey infrastructure that generated those profits in the first place.

But it also represents an important bulwark against the tide of eroding corporate taxes that have affected both federal and state governments. An increasingly concentrated group of the most profitable corporations now soak up an enormous percentage of the world’s economic production, with tax cuts and loopholes for corporations to reduce already-shrinking tax liability. If states are unable to pull back wealth from these sophisticated corporate actors, they will find themselves with less revenue to fund critical investments like schools, public health, and infrastructure, while placing more burden on in-state residents and institutions.

As NJPP noted in its recent report, this fee would affect less than 1% of New Jersey business tax filers, almost all of whom are located out of state. Rather than harming New Jersey businesses, this would help level the playing field between small and midsize businesses and corporate behemoths, ensuring that a business collecting $100,000 in profits does not pay the same tax rate as a business collecting $100,000,000.

The prior corporate surtax allowed New Jersey’s tax collections to grow proportionally with the record profits generated by businesses post-2020, while other states lagged behind. The Corporate Transit Fee will hopefully allow this trend to continue.

Dedicating the fee to NJ Transit makes both fiscal and policy sense. As you are well aware, NJ Transit faces an $850 million budget deficit starting in fiscal year 2026. Without the CTF, the trains and buses that form the backbone of New Jersey’s economic success would face immediate cutbacks and cancellations, with shuttered stations and riders left stranded. The most profitable businesses should pay their fair share for infrastructure that helps them generate their profits. NJ Transit needs sustainable dedicated funding to preserve its operations for years to come.

Older Posts »»