New York's new $1,800 baby benefit offers relief for postpartum moms
By the time most new moms in America are home from the hospital, they're already doing math. Diaper costs. Lost wages. If they can afford the night nurse or housecleaner that friends say are critical to their mental health postpartum. It's a crash course in economic survival, all while healing from birth.
New York State just announced a budget that takes a small but powerful step toward acknowledging that reality: a one-time, no-strings-attached $1,800 'BABY Benefit' for low-income families who welcome a new child this year.
The program, officially called the Birth Allowance for Beginning Year (BABY) Benefit, was approved as part of New York's FY 2026 budget. It's designed to support families receiving public assistance by helping with the most immediate and essential newborn costs—from cribs and car seats to postpartum care, rent, or just a few precious weeks of not choosing between diapers and dinner.
And crucially, this is cash assistance with no restrictions, which is nearly unheard of in the world of family support. No formula receipts to submit. No bureaucratic hoops to jump. Just help when and where moms need it most.
Related: New York just made history: Pregnant workers will get paid prenatal leave starting 2025
Let's be honest: Being a new mom in America can feel like a financial punishment. We live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, yet there's still no paid federal maternity leave. Child care costs rival monthly mortgage payments. And for families living paycheck to paycheck, a single unexpected expense—a broken breast pump, a rent hike, a utility shutoff—can tip the balance from 'barely managing' to 'can't make it work.'
The BABY Benefit challenges that reality. It's a message from the state that says: We see you. We value your labor. And your baby deserves a strong, supported start.
By offering flexible, no-strings-attached cash at a moment when many moms are physically and financially stretched thin, New York is doing what far too few governments have had the courage to do—putting tangible resources behind all that talk about 'supporting families.'
According to FingerLakes1 reporting, to receive the BABY Benefit, a family must:
Live in New York State
Be enrolled in public assistance programs
Welcome a new child during the 2025–2026 fiscal year
The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance will release more info soon about how families can claim the funds.
In addition to the $1,800 benefit, New York's FY 2026 budget includes:
$2.2 billion to expand access to child care, including subsidies for New York City families
$110 million in grants to build or renovate child care centers in underserved areas
A partnership with Baby2Baby to provide free diapers, postpartum care kits, and self-care items to new parents
An expansion of the Child Tax Credit: $1,000 per child under 4, $500 for children 4–16, and expanded eligibility for 187,000 more children
The average Child Tax Credit benefit will nearly double from $472 to $943, impacting 2.75 million children across the state.
Related: New York is officially the first state to mandate PTO for prenatal care
Need ideas on how to use $1,800 wisely postpartum? Many moms will likely put it toward:
Rent or utilities to stay housed during recovery
Essential baby gear like cribs, carriers, and car seats
Postpartum care
Hiring a few hours of help—because sleep is health care too
Want to see a program like this in your state? Start by contacting your state reps. Direct cash assistance for new moms has growing bipartisan support, especially when framed as an investment in maternal and infant health.
This benefit doesn't fix everything—but for thousands of New York families, it's a financial exhale when they need it most. In a country where most new moms are asked to 'make it work' with broken systems and empty platitudes, $1,800 is more than just money. It's a message: You—and your baby—matter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
How Much Cash Does Each Generation Have in Their Emergency Funds?
One of the fundamental teachings of personal finance is to have an emergency fund stashed with three to six months' worth of living expenses. This fund is there to get you through unexpected monetary challenges, such as a job loss or an emergency medical expense, and can protect you from having to take on debt. Be Prepared: Read Next: Yet, not all Americans have one — and even those who do might not have enough in it. According to a recent Bread Financial report, the likelihood of having a sufficient emergency fund varies by generation. Here's a look at how much Americans in each generation have in their emergency funds. Baby boomers are the most likely to have sufficient emergency savings, the Bread Financial report found. One-fifth of all boomers (20%) have three to six months of expenses in an emergency fund and 33% have more than six months. They're also the least likely of the generations to have no emergency fund (30%) or less than three months of expenses in their fund (16%). Among Gen X, 39% have no emergency fund, 26% have three to six months' worth of expenses, 19% have less than three months and 16% have more than six months. They're the generation most likely to have no emergency fund at all. Millennials are the next most-likely to lack an emergency fund — 37% admit they have nothing saved for an emergency. On the plus side, a little short of half of all millennials do have sufficient emergency savings — 27% have three to six months saved and 13% have more than six months. An additional 22% have an emergency fund, but it has less than three months' worth of expenses in it. Although Gen Z has had the least time to build their emergency funds, they're faring relatively well. Nearly one-third (29%) have three to six months saved and 14% have more than six months. Twenty-two percent have less than three months saved, and 36% don't have an emergency fund. Explore More: As the report shows, the baby boomer generation — now ages 61 to 79 — are the most likely to have a fully funded emergency fund. There are several reasons for this. 'Boomers tend to be more mature and stable,' said Trae Bodge, personal finance expert and founder of True Trae. 'They've made their mistakes, but now they are close to retirement and less likely to play fast and loose with their money. Younger people can take more risks.' Younger generations have also had to deal with more financial hardships during their early earning years. 'Younger generations have endured a series of economic struggles, all while living and housing costs have soared, making it harder to save,' said Andrea Woroch, a money-saving expert. 'Boomers have had more time to save before a series of economic struggles ensued. 'Not to mention, boomers are also at an age where they may have paid off their mortgage and/or no longer have children living at home, reducing the total amount of monthly spending, which allows them to save more.' While three to six months of expenses is the typical guideline for emergency funds, some experts believe six months should be the goal for members of all generations. 'At least six months of expenses is a good target,' Bodge said. 'The hope is that in six months, you'll be able to right the ship after a job loss, illness or unexpected expense.' Woroch also believes that six months should be the goal. To come up with your ideal number, start making a list of all of your necessary living expenses. 'You also want to think about some of those wants that you may not want to live without when dealing with a financial emergency,' she said. 'This could be a gym membership to ensure you can stay healthy and boost your mood during a tough time, or even hair care services to keep up with your appearance for future job interviews. Build in these expenses into your monthly savings goal.' More From GOBankingRates 4 Housing Markets That Have Plummeted in Value Over the Past 5 Years This article originally appeared on How Much Cash Does Each Generation Have in Their Emergency Funds? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Child Tax Credit Could Be Stripped From Millions of Children
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new budget proposal that would impose new restrictions on the federal Child Tax Credit could eliminate the benefit for millions of U.S. citizens or legally resident children, policy experts have said. Proposed under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the rule would require both the tax filer and their spouse to have Social Security numbers in order to claim the Child Tax Credit (CTC) for their children. As a result, children with mixed-status parents — for instance, one parent who is a U.S. citizen and another who is not — would lose eligibility for the credit, according to Carl Davis, research director at the nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). Policy experts and researchers from the Center for Migration Studies have estimated that around 4.5 million children — primarily in California, Texas, and Florida — could lose access to CTC if the rule changes are implemented. "The proposal now is actually to tighten the eligibility rules even more and to say, 'We basically don't care if the child is a citizen or not — we need every person in the household to be a citizen or otherwise have legal status in order for the credit to be paid out,'" he told CBS News. A new budget proposal that would impose new restrictions on the federal Child Tax Credit could eliminate the benefit for millions of U.S. citizens, policy experts have said. A new budget proposal that would impose new restrictions on the federal Child Tax Credit could eliminate the benefit for millions of U.S. citizens, policy experts have said. GETTY Why It Matters The CTC, first introduced in 1997, offers families up to $2,000 for every eligible child under the age of 17 with a valid Social Security number. Under current rules, only the child's Social Security number is required, not the parents'. The credit is a key tool in reducing child poverty across the U.S., helping families cover essential expenses such as food, clothing, and school supplies. What To Know Under the new Republican legislation, part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, parents would only be eligible to claim the CTC if both the filer and their spouse possess Social Security numbers. The stipulation would bar eligibility for families with undocumented parents or parents on non-working visas, as well as families where only one parent can obtain a Social Security number. Most undocumented migrants are already barred from most federal tax credits. Analysts warn that the policy would largely impact U.S. citizens and legally resident children living with non-citizen parents. In addition to the CTC, the proposal would tie the eligibility requirement to other tax benefits, such as provisions that eliminate taxes on worker tips and overtime pay. Shelby Gonzales, vice president for immigration policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, argued that the bill would "treat children differently based on the immigration status of their parents." Republicans plan to boost the CTC to $2,500 for 2025 through 2028. GOP lawmakers backing the proposal contend that increasing the credit and adjusting it for inflation would provide relief to American families, while the new restrictions would prevent taxpayer benefits from going to households with undocumented members. What People Are Saying House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith said the bill would "increase the Child Tax Credit, the standard deduction and the Death Tax exemption," aiming to restrict access for undocumented immigrants. Carl Davis, research director at ITEP, told CBS News: "We basically don't care if the child is a citizen or not — we need every person in the household to be a citizen or otherwise have legal status in order for the credit to be paid out." George Carrillo, former director of social determinants of health for Oregon and CEO of the Hispanic Construction Council,told Newsweek that the bill "strives to deliver immediate financial relief to many American families," but also "raises concerns about fairness and long-term impact." "Immigration-related provisions restricting access to tax credits disproportionately harm vulnerable communities, while a $4 trillion debt increase raises questions about fiscal responsibility and passing burdens onto future generations," he said. Shelby Gonzales, vice president for immigration policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told CBS News: "It seems to say, if your parents don't meet this criteria regarding their immigration status, then you will be treated differently as a child than all other children in the U.S. who were born of two parents that meet the qualifications." What Happens Next The budget package passed the House by a narrow margin and is under review in the Senate, where some lawmakers have voiced opposition on fiscal grounds. The bill could undergo substantial changes as the legislative process continues.
New York Times
3 days ago
- New York Times
Tax Credit Increase Would Exclude Millions of Low-Income Children, Study Finds
While the giant domestic policy bill that Republicans pushed through the House last monthincludes tens of billions of dollars to increase child-rearing subsidies, millions of low-income children would not benefit because their parents earn too little, a new analysis shows. The change involves the child tax credit, a once-obscure segment of the tax code that distributes about $110 billion a year and has ignited partisan debates over poverty and inequality. Republicans say their support for the credit, which President Trump doubled in his first term, shows concern for ordinary families, while Democrats fault income tests that exclude the neediest parents. The G.O.P. bill raises the maximum credit to $2,500 per child, from $2,000, and includes virtually all middle- and upper-income families. But a third of children would not receive the full credit because their parents have low wages or lack jobs, according to the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University. Families must reach income targets to receive the full benefit. Of the 22 million low-income children who would be denied the full credit under the House bill, 17 million would receive no additional help from the House bill, and five million would receive only part of the $500 increase, the study found. Those excluded from the maximum aid include 65 percent of children with single mothers, 51 percent of Black children, 44 percent of Latino children and 40 percent of children in rural areas. 'This is a very large federal expenditure on children, but low- and moderate-income families won't receive the full benefit, and that's where the money would do the most good,' said Sophie Collyer, a Columbia researcher and co-author of the study. The plan to raise the credit, which would cost nearly $25 billion a year, renews partisan jousting over the program's purpose. Republicans see it primarily as a tax cut, so they direct it toward families who owe income tax, although some needy families with no income tax bills receive partial payments. Democrats would give the credit to all low-income parents, regardless of how much they work or earn, essentially creating an income guarantee to fight child poverty. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
