Why Nebraskans keep standing up for Head Start
Head Start helps thousands of Nebraskans access quality child care. (Stock photo by)
As the recipient of Nebraska's largest Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership grant, we've made a promise: to show up with care, consistency and compassion, especially when families face the toughest of times. Our work with CRCC, CSI, Educare Lincoln and Educare of Omaha, Inc., brings more than 200 combined years of experience in serving Nebraska's children and their families.
The federally funded Head Start program is part of that promise, one that has received bipartisan support year after year. But in recent weeks, news broke about a federal budget proposal that would zero out funding for Head Start in 2026. It is impossible to state the impact this move would have on nearly 800,000 children and their families nationwide.
Congress has the power to decide what gets funded and what doesn't. That's where we need to act.
In Nebraska, Head Start funding supports the capacity for 5,653 eligible children, employing 2,187 staff in 179 child care centers across the state. These are not just numbers. These are real Nebraska children and families with real futures. And now, the funding to support them is at real risk.
For 60 years, this nationally recognized, locally rooted program has given our most vulnerable children a safe, developmentally rich environment to learn and grow while their parents work to achieve economic self-sufficiency. The National Head Start Association's 2025 Nebraska Head Start Profile shows that 4,137 parents of enrolled children were employed, in school or in job training, which would not be possible without reliable child care through Head Start.
Protecting Head Start is essential to the well-being of children, families, and communities. Any move away from this risks consequences we can't afford. We don't use these words lightly.
Head Start is a vital foundation for families working to build a better future. It offers reliable support for parents and strong, nurturing early education for children — along with meals, vision and hearing screenings, developmental assessments, and dental care.
Protecting Head Start means preserving stability, opportunity and access to care for at-risk children and over a million parents who rely on it to stay in the workforce. Communities nationwide depend on it as a cornerstone of their child and family support systems.
Head Start works. Not because it's easy — but because it's essential. It's a federal program with decades of data, bipartisan support and consistent, community-driven results. It combines local donations with state and federal funds to provide exactly what Nebraska families need: dependable, comprehensive quality child care.
Given Head Start's proven return and essential impact, the conversations in Congress and in our communities should be about increasing funding, not eliminating it. The return on investment is clear.
Nobel Laureate economist James Heckman found that every dollar invested in quality early childhood programs like Head Start returns more than seven dollars in reduced crime, improved health and increased earnings. Supporting Head Start is not just a moral imperative. It's a smart economic one.
How much does the country invest? Head Start funding accounts for 0.18% of the FY2024 federal budget.
Head Start funding strengthens our work as long-standing early childhood partners in Nebraska. We know these families. We work alongside them. We see the deep commitment to their children and their dreams for their families' futures, many of which would not be possible without help from Head Start.
As a state that values hard work, personal responsibility and community, Nebraskans should encourage congressional support for this invaluable program. When we talk about Nebraska family values, we do not abandon our youngest citizens when they need us most.
We call on our elected officials, neighbors, friends and fellow Nebraskans — from Lincoln to Scottsbluff, Omaha to Ogallala — to speak up. Let your voice be heard. Speak up. Share this message. Remind Washington that Nebraska protects its children.
Let's ensure that, as Head Start celebrates 60 years of impact this May, the gift we give back is unwavering support. Because when we invest in children, we invest in us all.
Sarah Ann Kotchian is chief executive officer of the Nebraska Early Childhood Collaborative. She has served on local and state commissions, task forces and boards.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety.
Washington Post
3 hours ago
- Washington Post
After outcry, 4-year-old girl can stay in U.S. for lifesaving care
Deysi Vargas's 4-year-old daughter was fussy on Wednesday as she carried her into their Bakersfield, California, home after a dental procedure. In a few hours, Vargas would have to prepare the girl's next feeding — washing her hands thoroughly, measuring formula and flushing her daughter's gastric tube. It was a routine Vargas had perfected through fear. Missing even one step could mean disaster, she said. But for the first time in months, she felt like she could finally breathe. Vargas and her family, who hail from Mexico, could stay in the United States, the only country where her daughter can receive the complex and specialized treatment that keeps her alive. The girl has short bowel syndrome, a condition where the body cannot absorb enough nutrients from food. The relief that washed over Vargas had come after nearly two excruciating months, she said. In April, the government had abruptly revoked the family's humanitarian parole without giving them a reason. The move triggered swift international outrage and prompted 38 Democratic members of Congress to send a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem urging her to reverse the decision. Then on Tuesday, Vargas received a notice from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: The family had been granted another year of parole. 'I felt more than tranquility — peace,' Vargas, 28, told The Washington Post. 'These moments of not knowing whether we'd be deported or allowed to stay were beyond overwhelming. It was horrible knowing that my daughter's ability to stay alive depended on this humanitarian parole.' In a statement Friday, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed the family was approved to stay in the United States. The agency did not respond to questions about why their parole had been revoked after initially being granted until July. Vargas's attorney, Gina Amato Lough, said the family fit into two categories of people who have seen their status canceled amid the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration: people with parole and those who entered the country through the Biden administration's CBP One app. The Trump administration has also rolled back humanitarian protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The girl, whom the family's lawyers identify by the pseudonym Sofia, was born in Playa del Carmen, Mexico, in fragile health. She had her first surgery at four days old for a malformation in her intestine. Four more surgeries followed, Vargas said, and left the girl with short bowel syndrome. Soon, the girl was transferred to a hospital nearly 800 miles away in Mexico City. Vargas and her husband uprooted their lives to move close to the facility, which their daughter did not leave for two years. After two more surgeries and a near-death experience, doctors told Vargas they were running out of options. The only thing left to try was an intestine transplant, which had never been done in that hospital before, Vargas recalled being told. 'They told me my child was most likely going to die,' she said. Vargas refused to give up hope. She started researching transplants and alternative treatments in Spain and the United States, and contacting hospitals. At the same time, she prepared an application for humanitarian parole, which allows people to temporarily live in the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons. In 2023, the family boarded a flight to Tijuana from Mexico City. They carried the girl — still connected to nutrition bags — to the border and legally entered the United States through an appointment secured through the CBP One app, Vargas said. They were granted humanitarian parole until July 2025. The girl arrived in California as an emaciated toddler and was transported to a children's hospital in San Diego. She soon began to thrive under specialized care, Vargas said, including hours tethered to an intravenous feeding system — a machine that pumps nutrients into her through a tube. Little by little, the child reached milestones — like sitting up and taking her first steps — that to Vargas had once seemed impossibly out of reach. She was transferred to Children's Hospital Los Angeles after a year. In September, the girl was discharged and allowed to live something close to a normal life: playing in the park, painting with her father and attending day care while Vargas works in a buffet-style restaurant. She loves dancing, especially to 'Mambo No. 5' by Lou Bega. 'She feels the rhythm and starts moving her body,' Vargas said, laughing. For a while, it felt like the family was moving forward. Then came the April 11 letter from DHS, giving them just seven days before their legal status would be revoked. 'Do not attempt to remain in the United States — the federal government will find you. Please depart the United States immediately,' read the email, which was reviewed by The Post. The family received two more such notices. The last one, from May 13, warned Vargas that her work authorization had also been canceled. 'I can't explain the fear,' she said. 'Feeling like any time we were out on the streets someone was going to take us away and deport us.' Adding to her anxiety, Vargas said, was the fact that her daughter's medical team had said the equipment that keeps the girl alive can't leave the country — and patients on this treatment aren't allowed to travel. DHS denied in its statement that the family was 'actively being deported.' Though the family hadn't been placed in removal proceedings or received a final deportation order, Amato Lough said the revocation of their status effectively left them undocumented. The letter the family received from DHS warned: 'If you do not depart the United States immediately you will be subject to potential law enforcement actions that will result in your removal.' On May 14, Vargas and her family filed another application for humanitarian parole. Weeks went by without an answer. Then, after the Los Angeles Times reported on the family's situation, USCIS contacted the family to begin scheduling biometrics appointments — a standard, early step in many immigration benefit applications. Days later, the family was told they would have status for a year. 'While we celebrate this victory, we cannot ignore the systemic challenges that brought [the girl] to the brink,' Amato Lough and her co-counsel, Rebecca Brown, said in a statement. 'Her parole was terminated without warning, and for weeks there was no functional avenue to alert USCIS that a child's life was in danger. It took an international outcry and pressure from elected officials to get a response — something that used to take a single phone call.' In Bakersfield, Vargas rocked her daughter gently this week and whispered reassurances. 'She's so groggy,' she said, as the girl whined. 'But she's going to be okay.' This time, she believed it.
Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
'Right down the line': Medicaid reform in 'big, beautiful bill' divides lawmakers by party
Medicaid reform in President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" has drawn a partisan line through Congress. Democrats have railed against potential Medicaid cuts since Trump was elected, while Republicans have celebrated Medicaid reform through the reconciliation process as an efficient way to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the welfare program. Fox News Digital asked lawmakers from both ends of the political spectrum to react to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's Medicaid reform. The results were as expectedly divided. "This is all B.S., what the Democrats are doing," Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., told Fox News Digital. "They're pushing the agenda that we're cutting 10 million people off Medicaid. It's people that actually shouldn't be on it, illegals that shouldn't be on it. We're reforming it." The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency that has been ridiculed by Republicans, estimated this week that Trump's "big, beautiful bill" would leave 10.9 million people without health insurance, including 1.4 million who are in the country without legal status in state-funded programs. But Republicans are holding firm in their defense of Medicaid reform, which Republicans say only cuts benefits to illegal immigrants, those ineligible to receive benefits who are currently receiving benefits, duplicate enrollees in one or more states and those who are able but choosing not to work. "The people who would not continue to get Medicaid benefits under this bill were not qualified to get them in the first place," Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Fox News Digital. Democrats continue to sound off on the healthcare threat of eliminating 10 million people from Medicaid. Not a single House Democrat voted to pass Trump's championed legislation, which includes fulfilling key campaign promises like cutting taxes, immigration reform and American energy production. "These burdensome regulatory requirements for proving that somebody has obtained or sought work are going to mean millions of people will go without healthcare, and the restrictions on food assistance are equally an obstacle to people meeting their everyday needs," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said. Blumenthal added he is "very, very concerned about these seemingly cruel and unproductive ways of raising money simply to finance tax cuts" for "wealthy billionaires." New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim said he is happy to have an "honest conversation" about government efficiency and saving taxpayer dollars, but that's not the reality of this bill. "People are struggling, and I feel like, in the richest, most powerful country in the world, we should be able to make sure that people can have the basic needs they need to be able to survive," Kim said of Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., told Fox News Digital there is "nothing beautiful" about Trump's "big, beautiful bill." "This is horrific, and it adds massive amounts to our debt, compromising our ability to [fund] the fundamentals in the future, foundations for families to thrive — health care, housing, education, good-paying jobs. That's what we should be doing here, not doing massive tax cuts for billionaires and paying for them by tearing down programs for ordinary families," Merkley said. The national debt stands at more than $36.2 trillion as of June 5, according to the Fox Business, based on data from the Treasury Department. The CBO's report this week also estimated Trump's bill will cut taxes by $3.7 trillion while raising deficits by $2.4 trillion over a decade.
