Boston is appallingly unaffordable. Trial effort of no-strings-attached payments to families will be life-changing.
Those numbers describe damage that reaches far beyond the homes and shelters where those kids live, and way beyond childhood. They mean slower development and lower academic achievement, more anxiety and housing insecurity, diminished health and safety, more persistent generational disadvantages.
Curing those maladies is exponentially more expensive than preventing them in the first place. A bunch of research shows that
Advertisement
All it takes is money, and not even that much of it. We saw during the pandemic what a difference a few hundred extra
dollars can do each month. In 2021, the expanded child tax credit halved the child poverty rate in this country. When Republicans forced its expiration, all of those kids
Advertisement
We also know that giving struggling families a little money to spend as they see fit works, too. Cities all over the country, including
In pandemic New York, Holly Fogle ran her own experiment. She grew up in Appalachia on the border between Ohio and West Virginia, and her family knew struggle. She went to Wharton as a finance major and spent a career as a McKinsey consultant before starting her family foundation. The kind of philanthropy she'd been doing wasn't working fast enough during lockdown, when the unluckiest single mothers lived in isolation, beyond the reach of the government assistance that could have kept them afloat.
'These were families we deeply cared about, and the only thing we could do was get cash in their hands,' Fogle recalled. 'We quickly realized we were onto something.'
Advertisement
Briana Drummer, 33, was working and on her way to a college degree in early 2024 when she became homeless after fleeing a domestic abuser. Shortly afterward, she discovered she was pregnant, and a social worker connected her with The Bridge Project. The extra money made all the difference, she said, allowing her to graduate from college, find an apartment, and pay for diapers and other supplies for her daughter. Now she is heading for a master's degree and a career in human resources.
'I am a young Black woman, I get judged before I even speak,' Drummer said. 'When The Bridge Project met me, there was no judgment. They just saw me as a mom and they trusted me to make the right decisions.'
If only the whole country ran like that. But it doesn't, so The Bridge Project now operates in six states. Usually, philanthropists and activists in those states raise money for the cash payments, and Fogle's operation administers the grants.
Now The Bridge Project is setting up in Boston. It's appalling that the city needs it, but for 250 struggling parents-to-be and their babies, it will be life-changing.
Recipients, chosen via a rolling lottery, will receive a one-time stipend of $1,125, and $750 per month for the first 15 months, then $375 each month for 21 months. The hope is that by then, the extra cash will have given them a route — a bridge — to stability.
Advertisement
It's such an obviously smart way to lift people up — and this is such a terrifying time for anyone who cares about inequality, with Republicans in Washington rolling back decades of measures designed to make the country more just — that donors here have rallied, raising $5 million in grant money in short order. Philanthropists have been willing to 'lean in with a little bit more courageous generosity to do something very tangible,' said Emily Nielsen Jones,
Part of the appeal here is speed.
'This is moving at the right pace, the same pace at which all the chaos is coming down,' said Natanja Craig Oquendo, executive director of the Boston Women's Fund, and one of the people who was determined to bring The Bridge Project to Boston.
We shouldn't need to do this, but we do. Now, more than ever.
Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
38 minutes ago
- UPI
Appeals court: Arkansas can ban gender-affirming care for minors
Participants walk up Market Street in the 55th annual San Francisco Pride Parade in San Francisco on Sunday, June 29, 2025. An appeals court on Tuesday permitted Arkansas to enforce its gender-affirming care ban for minors. File Photo by Terry Schmitt/UPI | License Photo Aug. 13 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court has ruled that Arkansas may enforce its ban on minors receiving gender-affirming care, overturning a lower court's decision that found the law unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its ruling Tuesday, stating the lower court erred in June 2023 when it struck down Arkansas' Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act for violating the First Amendment and both the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause. It said the lower court's ruling was incongruent with a recent Supreme Court decision that upheld Tennessee's gender-affirming care ban for minors. "Because the district court rested its permanent injunction on incorrect conclusions of law, it abused its discretion," the appeals court ruled. Arkansas' Republican attorney general, Tim Griffin, celebrated the ruling. "I applaud the court's decision recognizing that Arkansas has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological health of children and am pleased that children in Arkansas will be protected from risky, experimental procedures with lifelong consequences," he said in a statement. Gender-affirming care includes a range of therapies, from psychological, behavioral and medical interventions with surgeries for minors being exceedingly rare. The medical practice has been endorsed by every medical association. Despite the evidence and the support of the medical community, Republicans and conservatives, often with the use of misinformation, have been targeting gender-affirming care amid a larger push threatening the rights of the LGBTQ community. Arkansas passed the SAVE Act in 2021, but then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson vetoed it that same year, calling the ban a "product of the cultural war in America" that would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. The GOP-majority legislature then overrode his veto, making Arkansas the first state to pass a bill banning gender-affirming care for minors in the United States. Four transgender minors and their parents then challenged the law, saying it violated their rights, resulting in the 2023 ruling overturning the ban, which marked a victory in the fight for LGBTQ healthcare until Tuesday. "This is a tragically unjust result for transgender Arkansans, their doctors and their families," Holly Dickson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said in a statement. "As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want transgender Arkansans to know they are far from alone and we remain as determined as ever to secure their right to safety, dignity and equal access to the healthcare they need." The ruling comes as Republicans seeking to restrict transgender healthcare have gained a support in the White House with President Donald Trump who has implemented several federal policies that align with their efforts. On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order making it federal policy that there are only two genders, male and female, both of which were determined at "conception." He has also banned transgender Americans from the military and has sought to bar transgender athletes from competing on teams and in competitions that align with their gender identity. Twenty-six states and the territory of Puerto Rico have banned gender-affirming care for minors, according to the Movement Advancement Project.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
When Trump meets Putin, anything could happen
Top Republicans were horrified. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called it a 'disgraceful performance.' Trump's own national security adviser at the time, John Bolton, would later write that 'Putin had to be laughing uproariously at what he had gotten away with in Helsinki.' Trump plans to see Putin on Friday in Alaska for the first time since his return to the White House to discuss the U.S. president's goal of ending the war between Russia and Ukraine. With Putin pressing peace proposals that heavily favor Russia, many analysts and former Trump officials worry that he will once again turn a meeting with Trump to his advantage. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up During Trump's first term, he and Putin met six times in person and had several more phone conversations. (His successor, Joe Biden, met Putin only once, in June 2021, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.) Advertisement Those interactions alarmed many of Trump's senior aides, who watched as the U.S. president disregarded their advice, excluded them from meetings with the Russian leader and proposed impractical ideas that appeared to have been planted by Putin, like creating a U.S.-Russia 'impenetrable Cyber Security unit.' The idea was dropped as soon as Trump got back to Washington. Advertisement The relationship has grown more complicated in Trump's second term. In recent months Trump, eager to fulfill his promises of settling the war between Russia and Ukraine, has grown irritated by Putin's unwillingness to de-escalate the conflict. Putin will land in Alaska determined to rewind Trump's view of the war to February, when he berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at a contentious White House meeting for not showing more gratitude for U.S. support, while speaking warmly about Putin. 'Since the blowup between Trump and Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, Europeans, Ukrainians and Ukraine's supporters inside the administration have cobbled together a policy of helping Ukraine stay in the fight and preventing the lurch by Trump to embrace Russia's view of the conflict,' said Andrew Weiss, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'The real test on Friday will be how much of that policy survives the first in-person contact between Trump and Putin in his second term,' Weiss added. The White House portrays the meeting as an example of Trump's dedication to stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine and defends his unconventional style as a needed break from slow-moving diplomatic customs. But critics worry that the hastily planned conversation will play into the hands of Putin, a former KGB agent known as a master manipulator. 'I think he believes he should reel Trump back in, and believes his KGB skills will do that,' Bolton said in an interview with NewsNation last week. The Russian leader may also benefit from the fact that Trump, in contrast to his first term, has few advisers pushing back against Putin's worldview. For his trip to Helsinki, for instance, Trump was surrounded by such Russia hawks as Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Advertisement Today, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is the lone member of Trump's inner circle with a clear record of criticizing Putin. But even Rubio, who also serves as Trump's national security adviser, has softened his tone since joining Trump's Cabinet. The Alaska meeting was set after Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, met with Putin in Moscow last week. Witkoff, a friend of Trump and a fellow real estate mogul, had no diplomatic experience before joining government. He has been criticized for meeting with Putin without other U.S. officials and for echoing his talking points afterward. To be sure, the Russia hawks around Trump in his first term often had little success. When Trump called Putin after the Russian president was reelected in a March 2018 vote widely seen as illegitimate, Trump's aides placed a clear instruction in his briefing papers: 'DO NOT CONGRATULATE.' Trump did so anyway. Not even a federal investigation into 2016 Russian election interference was enough to restrain Trump. When the two leaders last met in person, on the sidelines of a 2019 Group of 20 gathering in Osaka, Japan, Trump joked with Putin about the subject. 'Don't meddle in the election!' Trump said, with a smirk and a finger wag. Putin grinned in delight. The investigation, and the presence of Putin critics at high levels of his administration, may have led Trump to conduct his conversations with unusual secrecy, however. When the men first sat down together, at a G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, in 2017, Trump was joined only by his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, and an interpreter. After the meeting, Trump took the interpreter's notes and ordered him not to disclose what he heard. Advertisement That evening, Trump and Putin had an impromptu conversation, initiated by Trump, at a group dinner. No other Americans were present, and the White House confirmed the meeting only after surprised witnesses spoke to reporters. Asked by reporters what he had told Trump in Hamburg about the 2016 election, Putin replied, 'I got the impression that my answers satisfied him.' For his part, Trump called a New York Times reporter in Hamburg just as he was departing from the summit and said Putin had told him that Russia could not have been involved in the 2016 election because its operations were so sophisticated they never would have been detected. Trump said he was 'very impressed' by that argument, a case he went on to make in public. Analysts said they have low expectations for the sort of breakthrough on Ukraine that Trump is hoping to achieve in Alaska. Putin has shown every sign that he believes he can gain more on the battlefield than in negotiations -- at least on the terms Trump has so far required. Maria Snegovaya, a senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that in his first term Trump tried to strike major deals with the authoritarian leaders of such nations as China and North Korea, with limited results. 'In general, Trump's history of meetings with strong men from Xi Jinping to Kim Jong Un does not lead to a successful deal that follows,' she said. Advertisement Fiona Hill, who was senior director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council in the first Trump White House, agreed that any breakthrough appeared unlikely. Putin and his aides have been frustrated at a lack of diplomatic progress with the Trump administration, and Hill said she sees little fresh ground for a deal, even one favorable to Putin. The Russians 'always want something they can take to the bank, an agreement they can hold the U.S. to,' she said. 'They were excited by Witkoff at first, since he's a direct channel to Trump, but they're frustrated there's no structure around it.' While Putin might welcome a leader-to-leader meeting, she said, 'he wants the details to be worked out later. And Trump isn't a details guy.' This article originally appeared in
UPI
4 hours ago
- UPI
Texas files motion against O'Rourke in fight over redistricting maps
Texas on Tuesday filed a contempt motion against Beto O'Rourke, alleging he is violating a court order by continuing to fundraise for state legislators who fled the Lone Star State earlier this month. File Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI | License Photo Aug. 12 (UPI) -- Texas filed a motion for contempt Tuesday against Beto O'Rourke, accusing him of violating a temporary restraining order barring him from fundraising for Democratic lawmakers who fled the state earlier this month amid a deepening fight with Republicans over redistricting maps. In the motion, filed in the District Court for Tarrant County, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton alleges that O'Rourke -- a former U.S. House legislator and potential Democratic presidential candidate -- violated a court order that was handed down Friday by continuing to solicit donations for Texas Democrats through the Democratic Party's ActBlue fundraising arm, specifically at rallies in Fort Worth and Abilene that were held over the weekend and online. "Beto is about to find out that running your mouth and ignoring the rule of law has consequences in Texas," Paxton said on X. "It's time to lock him up." Democrats have come out in force since their Texas colleagues fled the state earlier this month to deny Republicans a quorum to pass redistricting maps that would give the GOP five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Critics and Democrats argue that the maps draw lines that dilute the voting power of Latino and Black people, while serving as a power grab by President Donald Trump through rigging the GOP representation in the House ahead of next year's midterm elections. Usually, redistricting occurs once a decade with the publishing of U.S. Census Bureau data. O'Rourke has been at the forefront of the effort to support Texas Democrats and a target of Paxton, who, on Friday, secured a temporary restraining order barring his fellow Texan from soliciting donations for nonpolitical purposes, including to fund "out-of-state travel, hotel or dining accommodations or services to unexcused Texas legislators during any special legislative session called by the Texas governor." The motion filed Tuesday centers mainly on social media posts by O'Rourke that encourage people to donate "to have the backs of our Texas Democrats in this fight," and the two rallies held over the weekend, specifically the Saturday event in Fort Worth, where Paxton in the motion quotes the Democrat as having said, "There are no refs in this game. [expletive] the rules," seemingly to suggest he was openly flouting the court order. O'Rourke responded to the lawsuit by accusing Paxton of purposefully misusing his words in a social media post, that included a clip from the rally the attorney general quoted him from. The clip shows O'Rourke speaking about encouraging all Democratic-led states to redraw their maps as Texas has to "maximize Democratic Party advantage" because "there are no refs in this game." In the Tuesday response, O'Rourke said Paxton was "lying to try to silence us." "We alerted the court that the AG's office blatantly lied in its filing," he said in a post on X. "We're seeking maximum sanctions in response to his abuse of office." If the court finds O'Rourke in violation of the temporary restraining order, it could fine him up to $500 and jail him for up to six months. The next hearing in the case has been scheduled for Aug. 19. The filing comes the same day the Texas Senate approved the controversial redistricting map 19-2 along party lines, with nine of the 11 Democrats walking out before the vote in protest.
