IN THE TRANSITION to clean energy, low- to moderate-income homeowners in Massachusetts have the odds stacked against them. Our state has the second-oldest housing stock in the country, along with some of the highest utility prices.  

A study from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy shows that low-income Black, Hispanic, and Native American households face dramatically higher energy burdens – spending a larger share of their income on energy bills – than the average household. At the same time, this historically expensive market means more homeowners are seeking to improve where they already live instead of purchasing a new house. 

Programs for those types of energy improvements have largely focused on electrifying or decarbonizing units in larger multifamily buildings rather than on single-family homes — even though 1-4 family homes count for 60 percent of building emissions. Plus, higher-income borrowers tend to be the ones to take advantage of existing incentive programs, while low-income communities are vulnerable to predatory lending practices — particularly amid the confusing nature of solar leasing programs.  

Given that Massachusetts wants to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, we need to make clean energy improvements possible for every homeowner. We can’t afford to leave anyone behind. 

The answer: flexible, innovative financing options that empower homeowners — the ones who had been excluded from the chance to upgrade their homes — to make energy improvements that save money and cut emissions.  

Because of its ubiquity and quick return on investment, rooftop solar is an easy choice. When Nectar Community Investments designed and tested our Solar Plus pilot program in 2023, we had a chance to see what worked. The program included decarbonization assessments and subsidies, and three homeowners purchased solar panels and made other required energy-efficiency upgrades or retrofits required to get their homes ready.  

The Massachusetts Community Climate Bank is on the right track with the Energy Saver Home Loan Program, a new $20 million program that launched in April 2024 to help low- and moderate-income homeowners make clean energy improvements to their homes. After our Solar Plus pilot, we became an early participating lender in the Energy Saver program. We’re proud to partner with the Healey-Driscoll Administration, MassHousing, and others on this sustainable approach to financing green infrastructure. The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center’s Solar for All program is expected to be released this summer, and we look forward to participating in it. 

We’ve closed our first two homeowner loans through Energy Saver, but we know there’s more work to do. Just in our home city of Lawrence, there are more than 400 units heated by electrical baseboard and more than 2,000 units heated with oil, making them potential candidates for electrification and solar.  

Climate change is disproportionately harming these homeowners, and they need options to keep from falling behind. Flexibility and creativity in financing are exactly what we need to meet the moment before us. Our future depends on it.  

Glynn Lloyd is the executive director of Nectar Community Investments, a community development financial institution headquartered in Lawrence. He also serves on the Commonwealth’s Energy Transformation Advisory Board.

The post In the fight for a more sustainable future, we can’t afford to leave underserved communities behind  appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

THIS ISSUE BRIEF is part of a series examining a variety of controversial local and national issues, focusing on specific policy proposals that are under active consideration. The premise of these essays, as outlined here and here, is that many important public policy issues are more complicated than the most fervent adherents to either side usually acknowledge, a dynamic that often hinders our ability to engage in thoughtful debate. (Earlier essays in the series have addressed proposals for free community college; free MBTA service; right-to-shelter;  rent control; supervised injection sites; school library books; reparations;  voter ID requirements; a moratorium on prison construction; and limiting investments in natural gas infrastructure.)  

The Proposal 

Enact a universal basic Income plan to ensure that every household in Massachusetts has a minimum monthly income to cover essential living expenses. 

Background 

Universal basic income (UBI) is an anti-poverty and income stability proposal intended to ensure that all households have a guaranteed income with few, if any, strings attached.   

Five cities in Massachusetts have launched limited pilot programs with monthly stipends up to $500, to evaluate the impact on recipients, especially with regard to food security, health, and employment.  State Sen. Jason Lewis has introduced a bill to establish a five-year state-sponsored pilot for 1,500 people to ensure recipients have a monthly income from all sources that is “at least equal to a living wage,” which for a single-adult with two children would average about $11,250 (pre-tax) in Massachusetts, according to the MIT Living Wage Calculator. 

A form of UBI, called the negative income tax, was proposed by free-market economist Milton Friedman in the early 1960s as a way to put cash in the hands of poor people without the need for large bureaucracies to manage anti-poverty programs. President Richard Nixon, with advice and advocacy from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, borrowed Friedman’s idea as the basis for his Family Assistance Plan, which would have replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children, but it was rejected by Congress in 1972.   

A related approach, called the earned income tax credit, was first enacted by Congress in 1975 to provide low-income workers with supplementary income through a refundable credit against their federal tax bill. Similarly, in 1997 Congress passed the child tax credit to help pay for childcare to enable parents to work or go to school.   

The EITC and CTC have been expanded over the years and some states, including Massachusetts, have enacted their own versions to supplement the federal benefits. The federal EITC is worth up to $7,800, with Massachusetts adding up to $3,100. The maximum federal CTC benefit is $2,000 per child ($1,400 of which is refundable for families that don’t pay federal income taxes), to which Massachusetts adds up to $440. 

Although the idea of a universal basic income has resurfaced periodically over the years, it has gained political traction over the past decade, especially during the COVID pandemic when the  federal government provided billions of dollars in additional cash assistance and tax credits to displaced workers and low-income families. 

Bumper Stickers and Sticking Points 

End Poverty, Now!: Poverty is not a bug, but a feature of American capitalism. The free market is inherently rigged against poor people, limiting their opportunities for employment or forcing them into low-wage, mostly part-time jobs with no benefits. The accelerating pace of technological change is making a bad situation worse, not just for poor people, but for the middle class, too. As a result, the only solution to poverty and financial instability is to ensure every family has a government guaranteed income.  

No More Handouts!:  Cash welfare payments inevitably discourage people from working and create patterns of dependency that are passed on from generation to generation. Increasing the size of welfare checks and extending them to people who are already self-sufficient only serves to undermine personal responsibility and deepen a sense of entitlement, sapping the country of the hard-working, entrepreneurial spirit that has made it the world’s most successful economy. 

Evidence-Based Case in Favor 

The animating idea behind a universal basic income is that by establishing a financial floor under every household, federal and state governments can simplify the current patchwork of cash and in-kind benefits for low-income households, thereby increasing participation of eligible families and reducing the negative impacts and perverse incentives of “cliff effects,” wherein recipients lose public benefits as their income rises.   

At the same time, a guaranteed income promises to create greater household financial stability and security, especially in light of long-term wage stagnation and the ongoing disruption of labor markets due to technology and globalization, thereby enabling families to better plan for their future while reducing food and housing insecurity and creating a better environment for raising children. 

To date, the largest and longest running guaranteed income programs have been implemented in economically developing countries with high levels of deep poverty, such as Prospera in Mexico and Bolsa Familia in Brazil, both of which have produced positive results in terms of health indicators, educational outcomes, employment, and inter-generational economic mobility. 

More recently, a growing number of pilot programs have been launched in US cities, typically providing families with monthly cash grants of $400-$1,000. From this pool of data points, some promising findings are emerging.  

Importantly, the majority of expenditures resulting from UBI payments go for basic needs, like food, housing, transportation, and health care, according to aggregated data from over 30 US pilots compiled by Stanford University’s Basic Income Lab. In no case does it appear as if cash grants have been used for frivolous purposes, let alone self-destructive ones, such as drugs or alcohol. 

Here in Massachusetts, the Shah Foundation sponsored a 2020-21 pilot in which 2,000 Chelsea residents received $400 per month via debit cards. A study of the program by Harvard’s Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston found that about three-quarters of the funds were spent at supermarkets or grocery stores and other food retailers. 

A similar program in Cambridge provided low-income, single-parent households with $500 per month for 18 months. Recipients “reported higher incomes and lower income volatility” than a control group, according to a study conducted by the Center for Guaranteed Income Research at the University of Pennsylvania, contributing to a lower housing cost burden and greater food stability.  

Besides the positive direct financial effects associated with UBI, researchers consistently find indirect benefits related to mental health, family stability, and educational outcomes. For example, according to researchers at the Penn center, the children in the Cambridge UBI “treatment group” saw positive educational effects, such as higher grades and fewer absences. 

All these studies point to consistently positive effects of these UBI pilots, even though the monthly stipends have been relatively small, and the duration of the pilots has been short. 

A more recent large-scale example of the potential impact of cash grant programs is the expansion of the federal child tax credit during COVID. In 2021, low-income families received a fully refundable tax credit of up to $3,600 per child and child poverty dropped by over 40 percent, lifting over 2 million children out of poverty.  After the CTC expansion lapsed in 2022, child poverty rates doubled.  

Evidence-Based Case Opposed 

Universal basic income proposals can be terribly expensive and perhaps more important, most studies of UBI programs have shown little, if any, positive impact on employment and earnings.  Similarly, although there is strong evidence that these initiatives raise household income and improve living conditions, they do not appear to help families escape poverty. 

According to a 2019 analysis, a nationwide UBI program that pays $12,000 per adult per year,  phasing out at the median income level, would likely increase the annual fiscal impact of the federal social welfare programs they replace (excluding health care and Social Security retirement benefits) by over $900 billion or 250 percent.   

Here in Massachusetts, the Department of Transitional Assistance estimates that there are about 700,000 recipients in the Commonwealth of SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program) and/or TAFDC (Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children) cash grants. Taken together these programs provide the average participating household with about $12,500 per year in benefits – not counting additional funds low-income households can access through federal and state CTC and EITC refundable tax credits, which average over $5,000 combined.  

If Massachusetts were to provide additional cash grants on top of existing federal and state benefit programs to get all households to the poverty line (pegged by the federal government at close to $80,000 statewide for a family of three) it would cost the Commonwealth billions of dollars. The pilot program proposed by Sen. Lewis would be even more expensive, since it ties UBI payments to a “living wage,” which averages close to $135,000 per year for a single-parent family of three in Massachusetts, according to the MIT Living Wage Calculator. 

But that’s not all. Most UBI proposals are designed to go beyond low-income families. As a result, they would include more numerous working- and middle-class households that would end up receiving the bulk of additional resources, even if cash grants were gradually phased out as earned income increases.   

UBI programs that narrowly target low-income families would be cheaper, but they would present the same “cliff effects” as the existing social welfare system, since any additional earned income would reduce public cash grants, thereby discouraging work.   

Notwithstanding the potential costs of UBI, there’s little evidence to suggest that they enable, let alone encourage, the surest pathway out of poverty, namely work.  

A recent randomized controlled trial of two privately funded three-year pilot programs in Dallas and Chicago found that a $1,000 per month stipend caused “a 3.9 percentage point decrease in labor market participation. Participants reduced their work hours as a result of the transfers by 1-2 hours/week and participants’ partners reduced their work hours by a comparable amount. Among other categories of time use, the greatest increase generated by the transfer was in time spent on leisure.” 

The potential for negative effects on employment – especially full-time employment – not only undermines the likelihood of escaping poverty in the near term, it also raises the risks of ongoing inter-generational dependency.   

Potential for Common Ground or Higher Ground 

Poverty rates in America have long been among the highest in the economically developed world, with little movement since the 1970s except in response to the ups and downs of the overall economy, despite several rounds of policy reforms. In many respects, UBI proposals are a natural reflection of these frustratingly stagnant trends.   

The difference of opinion over UBI generally comes down to what’s valued most by either side of the argument: reducing the effects of poverty now or increasing self-sufficiency in the future. 

There’s no solution that’s been shown to do both together and, unfortunately, neither are there cost-effective approaches that have even been able to achieve either one separately. While the current patchwork of social services and income supports is overly complex and expensive to operate, as a practical and political matter the best near-term option may be to pursue incremental improvements, rather than sweeping transformation.   

EITC, CTC and SNAP appear to have the biggest impact on reducing childhood poverty. EITC directly incentivizes work by supplementing earned income, while CTC and SNAP directly address the basic needs of children and families. CTC, which is the largest anti-poverty program targeting children, also fully phases out at relatively high income levels, thereby mitigating some of the “cliff effects” associated with increased earnings. 

Less than 80 percent of eligible EITC and SNAP households participate in those programs, while over 90 percent receive CTC benefits. Fully aligning or even consolidating all three programs (or at least EITC and CTC) would simplify and improve access, as would more efficient or automatic methods for enrollment. Other reforms related to eligibility, work or education and training requirements, and the phase-in and phase-out rules could also be considered. 

Regardless of the path forward, it seems impractical for Massachusetts to make significant changes to social welfare programs on its own, including the implementation of some version of UBI, without the full participation and leadership of the federal government. 

James Peyser served most recently as Massachusetts secretary of education under Gov. Charlie Baker. 

Data: 

• Poverty rate in MA (2024): 10.4 percent (39^th in the US) 

• Median household income in MA (2025): $89,645 (2^nd in the US) 

• Percent of MA population enrolled in Medicaid (2025): 27.2 percent (23^rd in the US) 

• Projected Fiscal Impact of MA Earned Income Tax Credit (2025): $341M 

• Projected Fiscal Impact of MA Child and Family Tax Credit (2025): $460M 

• Average annual SNAP benefit per MA household (2023): $4,020 

• Average annual TAFDC benefit per MA household (2023): $8, 532 

• Overall public welfare spending in MA per capita (2022): $4,545 (1^st in US) 

Sources and Resources: 

US Census Bureau:  https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty.html 

US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service: https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap 

Internal Revenue Service:  https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-credits-for-individuals-what-they-mean-and-how-they-can-help-refunds 

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy:  https://itep.org/ 

Peter G. Peterson Foundation: https://www.pgpf.org/issues/social-programs/ 

Stanford Basic Income Lab:  https://basicincome.stanford.edu/ 

Center for Guaranteed Income Research:  https://www.penncgir.org/ 

MIT Living Wage Calculator: https://livingwage.mit.edu/states/25/locations 

The post Should Massachusetts implement a program providing universal basic income?   appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

The post The Download: FEMA quietly removes access to New England coastal erosion hazard tool appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

AT SOME POINT between February and early March, as seasonal wind and rain hammered New England coasts, a relatively new but enthusiastically embraced tool for predicting erosion slipped off the Federal Emergency Management Agency website. 

Pioneered on Nantucket in 2020, the Coastal Erosion Hazard viewer that covered all of New England is now unavailable. It predicted erosion risk across the coast for the years 2030, 2050, and 2100, and until recently was publicly accessible on an online map used by planners and individuals alike. 

“The tool was really helpful,” said Leah Hill, Nantucket’s coastal resilience coordinator, “because erosion is episodic. So, an area can be stable for five, 10, 15 years, maybe lose like a foot [of beach] or so, or nothing, and then a storm could come and it could lose a bunch.”  

Historical erosion data and flood maps kept by the state are useful, she said, but the FEMA maps incorporated sea level rise to project potential future erosion over time.  The Biden administration promoted the tool for homeowners, business owners, and community officials making resiliency decisions based on erosion concerns. 

Hill is acutely aware of climate risks to the small island, which has one of the highest erosion rates in the state. These erosion maps, which resulted in a detailed Nantucket erosion assessment, have become baked into her work to inform residents about their property risks.  

“Prospective homeowners or homeowners will call me and say, ‘You know, I’m thinking about purchasing this property. What are the risks associated with it?’” Hill said. “I’ll create, using the best available data, a risk assessment for that property. I don’t give real estate advice, but I can tell them about certain risk criteria. … And in order to do so, I use the FEMA erosion projection maps.” 

When Hill went to the site in early March, the page that used to open up the ArcGIS erosion maps instead took her to a login screen with no way to access the maps. When the maps remained inaccessible for weeks, she reached out to the Woods Hole Sea Grant for help connecting with the FEMA Region 1 team, which covers New England, receiving a brief email response on March 24. 

“FEMA is currently taking swift action to ensure the alignment with President Trump and Secretary [Kristi] Noem’s direction,” wrote Kerry Bogdan, the risk analysis branch chief at FEMA Region 1. “To that end, FEMA Region 1’s Coastal Erosion Hazard viewer will be unavailable at this time.” 

FEMA did not respond to request for comment on the timing or rationale of removing the maps.  

Business magazine Fast Company reported that two software engineers were able to save and recreate data from FEMA’s Future Risk Index tool when it, too, quietly vanished in February. The index mapped the projected economic losses from climate change down to the county level, based on hazards like flooding, drought, heat waves, and wildfires under different emissions scenarios. 

The FEMA future erosion maps are what’s known as “non-regulatory products,” essentially tools that are designed to be accessible and user-friendly, geared toward communicating information to the public, while regulatory products like FEMA floodplain maps are required by law and determine floodplain management, mitigation, and insurance policy. 

For instance, if a building is in a FEMA regulatory floodplain, there may be rules for resiliency improvements. But if a parcel is a long-term future erosion risk, the way to protect it or develop it is often up to the owner’s discretion and informed by the available public information. 

“I’m scrambling a little bit,” Hill said. She saved some of the GIS maps, but not all of them, and it isn’t yet clear if the data sets have been saved elsewhere. 

The map scrubbing is an abrupt about-face on federal data sets, just six months after the federal government touted them as a way to help people plan for a future in the face of climate change. 

Bogdan told The Connecticut Mirror in September 2024 that an assortment of FEMA tools like erosion maps and forward-looking flood risk maps offered critical and helpful insights for municipalities and individuals alike. 

“They’re not going to tell you where you can develop, how to develop, what your insurance rate should be, but they are going to convey that hazard risk,” Bogdan said. “What the risk is so people can plan for it.” 

Communities have incorporated the erosion map viewer with enthusiasm, she said.   

“Some of our severely impacted communities from coastal erosion have really embraced this tool, and they’re incorporating it into their long-term planning for things like grid retreat, placement of utilities, water lines, gas lines, that kind of stuff,” Bogdan told The Mirror. 

The Trump administration has, in its first three months, taken steps to roll back policies around climate resiliency planning. On March 25, FEMA announced that it stopped implementing certain floodplain management requirements for federally funded projects.  

This Obama-era standard, which was a mechanism for federal agencies to manage risk by requiring federally funded projects to be located out of flood risk areas or constructed to reduce the effects of current and future flood hazards, was halted under the first Trump administration, reinstated by Biden, and is now off again. 

“Stopping implementation will reduce the total timeline to rebuild in disaster-impacted communities and eliminate additional costs previously required to adhere to these strict requirements,” the FEMA announcement said in late March. 

Last week, FEMA announced that it is ending the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which has given states and communities billions of dollars to protect against natural disasters. The agency is also canceling all BRIC applications from fiscal years 2020-2023. FEMA said the BRIC program is “more concerned with climate change than helping Americans affected by natural disasters” in a statement announcing the cuts. 

There has been no official statement on removing public mapping software that anticipates future flood or erosion risk. Other pages removed include the agency’s 2022 “Guide to Expanding Mitigation: Making the Connection to the Coast,” which supplied emergency managers, community planners, coastal and floodplain managers, and other community stakeholders with resources and ideas to mitigate risk. 

A banner atop FEMA’s website reads: “FEMA.gov is being updated to comply with President Trump’s Executive Orders. Thank you for your patience and understanding.” 

Shannon Hulst, a floodplain and community rating system specialist with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Sea Grant and Cape Cod Cooperative Extension, who was able to connect Hill with FEMA Region 1, said ad-hoc data removal is cause for concern. 

“It’s disconcerting,” said Hulst, who works on projects like developing flood insurance programs for towns along Cape Cod. “And it certainly can make our jobs more challenging. I know, on our end, we’re working on downloading some of that data to make sure we continue to have access to it.” 

In her capacity, Hulst mostly relies on regulatory products like the floodplain maps, which are “a whole different ball game.” There is no word that the flood maps will be taken down, Hulst said, and Massachusetts keeps state-level flood maps as back-up. 

“We’ll still be OK with that data,” she said of the flood maps, but the disappearance of solid predictive data is an issue for consistent long-term planning. “When we know that there is a risk, and that is what we were using as the best available data to inform us about that risk, and we’re trying to manage our communities to the best of our ability to protect ourselves from that risk,” she said, “it makes it difficult.” 

The post FEMA quietly removes access to New England coastal erosion hazard tool appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

WITH THREE state-funded youth mental health programs at risk of closing, lawmakers and providers ramped up their opposition this week to Gov. Maura Healey’s proposed budget cuts that come as Massachusetts continues to grapple with a behavioral health care crisis.

Two 15-bed intensive residential treatment programs (IRTP), operated by NFI Massachusetts in Westborough, that serve teenagers with serious mental health and safety issues would close under Healey’s fiscal 2026 spending plan. That would leave just two other IRTPs in the state.

The governor’s budget would also shutter the state’s only clinically intensive residential treatment (CIRT) program, called Three Rivers in Belchertown, that has a dozen beds and treats children ages 6 to 12.

At a budget hearing Monday in Attleboro, Department of Mental Health Commissioner Brooke Doyle said those facilities are slated to close due to low patient counts, inadequate staffing and location hurdles. The cost-saving measure comes as DMH — which would receive a 7 percent overall budget increase under Healey’s proposal — looks to prioritize resources for its over-capacity psychiatric hospitals.

“These programs have been very difficult to maintain adequate and safe staffing within. They’ve been understaffed for extended periods of time, and that has contributed in large part to why we had difficulty keeping all the beds filled,” Doyle said in Attleboro. “The programs do provide a specialized service need, and the reality is, that we haven’t been able to operate them fully today. So what we’re proposing to do is to right-size the IRTP, reflecting the volume that does get utilized.”

Doyle said the state pays for those beds “in full,” regardless of whether or not they are occupied. She argued that makes it “not sustainable to continue to pay for 50 percent utilization.”

Doyle highlighted the state’s investment in community-based mental health resources, though the IRTP and CIRT programs are seen as a last resort to stabilize young patients who repeatedly end up in the hospital and pose significant safety risks to themselves and their family.

“Without these services, youth will continue to cycle through expensive and disruptive emergency and acute hospital services,” Lydia Todd, executive director of NFI Massachusetts, said at a State House budget hearing Tuesday, according to a copy of her prepared remarks. “Their families face income loss because it is impossible to maintain employment when they are regularly needed to respond to mental health crises.”

Todd added, “If this program is closed, the commonwealth will lose a recently renovated facility, a highly credentialed, experienced and skilled multi-disciplinary team of 95 staff, a Joint Commission-accredited program, and most importantly, the ability to help youth and families with the most serious needs to manage their mental health issues in their natural communities, and be less likely to end up in one of our adult systems.”

Todd told the News Service 95 out of 100 positions are filled. 

“We could be fully utilized — no problem,” she said. 

Program leaders and lawmakers contend the programs are underutilized due to a complicated DMH referral process that can leave youth languishing in hospitals for weeks or months before they secure placement. Due to high staff turnover during the COVID pandemic, some hospital mental health providers also were unaware the IRTP and CIRT programs existed, said Sen. Jake Oliveira of Ludlow. 

“It’s my hope that we can restore the funding for these critical programs because everything that we hear from constituents and everything that we read, there is a dire need for youth beds, particularly adolescent mental health beds throughout Massachusetts,” Oliveira told the News Service. “If we have programs that are underutilized, then DMH needs to do a better job with the referral process to get help to families across Massachusetts.”

Doyle admitted the referral process was “too clunky” at the hearing Monday.

“So I’ve actually made some changes to that referral process, going to preview it with stakeholders this month, with a go-live plan for May,” Doyle said.

In another major budget cut, DMH plans to slash the case management workforce in half, which would save the state $12.4 million. That move recently triggered DMH workers represented by SEIU Local 509 to take a vote of no confidence in Doyle. 

Gov. Maura Healey has already hit pause on a controversial plan to shutter a 16-bed psychiatric hospital in Cape Cod. That closure, combined with the three youth mental health programs, would have saved the state a total of $20.1 million, according to a presentation from the Executive Office of Health and Human Services.

As House Democrats prepare to release their budget next week, Rep. Aaron Saunders of Belchertown said he plans to fight to ensure the CIRT, operated by Cutchins Programs for Children & Families, receives funding.

“We need it to be there,” Saunders told the News Service. “It is a level of intervention and service that other programs are not designed to provide, and that to me really is the linchpin.”

Saunders added, “In my conversations with the administration, I’ve tried to impress upon them that there needs to be access, in some way, shape or form, to this level of service.”

Tina Champagne, CEO of Cutchins Programs for Children & Families, urged lawmakers Tuesday to “dig deeper and to save our programs.” In prepared remarks, Champagne said the state remains in the throes of a “children’s mental health crisis” and argued “this is no time for a reduction in intensive mental health services in our state.”

“The decision to cut the CIRT is not only in direct opposition to well-established evidence-based practices for children and families with some of the most persistent and challenging mental health and safety concerns, but also puts the the most vulnerable children and families in the commonwealth at even greater risk by perpetuating the cycle of ACES and traumatic experiences,” Champagne said, referring to adverse childhood experiences.

She added, “The degree of safety and mental health challenges that must occur for youth to be considered for a DMH referral for the CIRT is highly intensive and the youth’s safety concerns are typically quite serious. If these youth could be treated elsewhere in the community, they would have been referred to those services, and usually have already utilized these services, but they are not intensive enough to maintain safety and mental health stabilization.”

At the hearing, Oliveira told Doyle he was insulted by her remarks that signaled the Belchertown program was not viable due to its location in western Massachusetts.

“That’s insulting to any western Mass. lawmaker who might be sending people halfway across the state, hours away to get the programs to utilize them,” Oliveira said.

The commissioner told Oliveira she regretted if her testimony seemed to be “disrespectful.”

“It’s more of a matter that we have to weigh parents’ requests and parents’ priorities, as well,” Doyle said. “So, it has always been a western Mass.-located program. It’s not new. And what we’re seeing is that it is getting a bit more challenging, particularly with workforce constraints, that when we don’t have full staff operating, it requires that the department have to make decisions with parents about whether or not their their child can be safely treated in that environment, based on staff that are available at that time.”

Rep. Kelly Pease, a Westfield Republican, questioned whether the adolescent mental health programs represented the “smart place” for DMH to make cuts. Without providing sufficient care to young Bay Staters early on, the state may exacerbate the prison pipeline and end up incurring more costs in the future, Pease told Health and Human Services Secretary Kate Walsh.

Walsh insisted those programs were 50 percent occupied and emphasized EOHHS’s push to “right-size our behavioral health infrastructure.” Pease argued the low patient census was a function of DMH’s “antiquated process to get a referral.”

“I think the question for the Legislature is: Do you want to pay for standby capacity in two or three programs across the state that may or may not be used?” Walsh said at the hearing Monday. “In the meantime, you should challenge us to significantly improve our antiquated or very complicated processes to get people into these systems — some of which, I will remind us, were the result of court decisions. So we have patient referral pathways for people with, for children with behavioral health challenges that were built by lawyers, with due respect.”

The post Opponents knock Healey’s youth mental health plan appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

THIS PAST WEEKEND, news of a huge and unexpected loss in Massachusetts politics rippled through my phone: Phil Johnston had passed away. As soon as I heard, I was stopped in my tracks — and immediately thought about breakfast.  

Just shy of 25 years ago, Phil Johnston was the new chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. I was a college student running the Young Democrats of Massachusetts from a fax machine on a folding table in my studio apartment.  

A lot of party chairs would have ignored someone like me. Not Phil. He called me up and invited me for a breakfast meeting at the Parker House.  

I don’t think I had ever had a breakfast meeting before, and I had most definitely never been to the Parker House — let alone with someone who was a regular there and who greeted almost every other power player in the room as he made his way to the table.  

I had moved to Massachusetts from rural Pennsylvania maybe two years before, not knowing a soul and having this vague idea that I was interested in politics. It’s an understatement to say I was intimidated at that first meeting. 

During our breakfast, Phil put me at ease. He told stories of his days organizing as a young person. He cracked jokes. He not only asked me my opinion and for my ideas, but he listened. And he wanted to know how he could both support our work with the Young Dems, and also me personally.  

He let us use the conference room in his company’s office building, and always magically made sure pizza was waiting for us when we showed up. He donated to the organization. He encouraged me to run for a seat on the Democratic State Committee, and when I won put me on committees that exposed me to all sorts of people and types of work within the party.  

Later, when I ran for office in Brookline and beyond, he was always in my corner — loudly and enthusiastically, with his signature hearty laugh and a little bit of bluster. 

Of course, Phil did so much for so many — on a macro level as well as for countless individuals. It seems that everyone who knew Phil has a story to tell.  

Amy Rosenthal, now the executive director of Health Care for All, was just getting her sea legs in Massachusetts politics back in the day when she was introduced to Phil by her then-boss at the health care nonprofit Community Catalyst, the legendary Rob Restuccia. That meeting, while she was a lower-level staffer working for a big local figure, turned into decades of having Phil as her cheerleader.  

Amy lights up when describing what it meant to have someone with his resume have faith in her, especially at an early stage of her career as a young woman making her way in the health care policy world in the Commonwealth.  

“Phil was just one of those constants in my career,” said Amy. “And his confidence in me gave me that little extra bit of confidence in myself.”  

Wakefield Town Councilor Jonathan Chines is a fellow former Young Democrat, who spent a summer while in graduate school working for Phil’s firm. Jonathan points to Phil’s instinctive support of young people, giving freely of his time and advice, and centering youth voices.  

When the Supreme Judicial Court handed down its landmark 2003 marriage equality decision, Phil sought out a statement from the Young Democrats to include in the official party response — a platform that was not commonly given to the party’s young activists.  

Of course, Jonathan heard more than his fair share of Phil’s incredible stories, talking a blue streak about Bobby Kennedy or another political legend. You never knew when a conversation about work would turn into a laughter-filled stroll down memory lane.

“He was so passionate about the work, but also so much fun to be around,” said Jonathan.  

For me, Phil’s simple act of taking me seriously — when I was young, unconnected, and inexperienced, but idealistic and ready to get to work — was so powerful. All these years later, I still remember every detail about that breakfast. I know where we sat. I know what I ate. But mainly I know that this man who could have easily dismissed me instead decided to take me seriously, encourage me, and invest in me. 

On Sunday the Massachusetts political world will come together to celebrate Phil’s life. I will be there, thinking about Phil’s example. Phil understood that young people aren’t just the future of the party or the nation, they’re a vital part of our present. For that – like Amy and Jonathan — I am forever in his debt.   

Jesse Mermell is president and founder of deWit Impact Group. She’s a former member of the Brookline Select Board and served as communications director under Gov. Deval Patrick. 

The post Why I’ll always remember my Parker House breakfast with Phil Johnston appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

The post The Download: Legislators consider 8 bills to increase cap on cannabis dispensary ownership appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

AS EIGHT BILLS in this legislative session seek to increase the number of dispensaries or cannabis establishments that any one individual or organization can own, the cannabis industry remains divided on whether the Legislature should maintain the current cap of three. 

The state set the license cap in 2017 as a measure to keep large companies from monopolizing the cannabis industry and to protect small cannabis business owners – particularly those who come from communities harmed most by the war on drugs. 

Now, some cannabis operators are saying that the cap restricts their ability to run their businesses. Some cannabis business owners have argued that the Legislature needs to increase the license cap to allow struggling business owners to attract desperately needed capital from large multistate operators and provide an opportunity for them to sell their companies. 

The bills currently pending all seek to raise the license cap from three to either six or nine. One bill seeks to allow companies that have already reached a three-license limit to increase the amount of ownership stake they can have in four additional social equity businesses. 

On Wednesday, at the Legislature’s first cannabis committee hearing of the session, cannabis business owners and leaders spoke in favor of the bills to increase the cap. 

Payton Shubrick, the owner of 6 Bricks dispensary in Springfield, argued in favor of increasing the cap. She said that her business is family-owned and has faced headwinds with the falling price of marijuana since she opened the dispensary. Increasing the license cap will mean that larger companies will have more opportunities to buy up or invest in companies like hers, she testified. 

“At this point in time, I’m sitting on an asset that’s losing value over time with oversaturation and oversupply creating a dynamic where I can’t create a successful exit,” said Shubrick. 

The owner of Apex Noire – the first black-owned dispensary to open in Boston – and a former member of the Boston city council, Tito Jackson, also spoke in support of changing the license cap. 

“Increasing the license cap should be seen as a tool – one that business owners can use if they are able to,” said Jackson. “It does not mean that … everyone has to sell. However, not giving those individuals the options to do so is problematic.” 

Other cannabis business owners testified in opposition.  

“I can guarantee you that raising the cap will do the exact opposite of what other people have mentioned here,” said Ruben Seyde, the owner of Delivered, Inc., a cannabis delivery company. “It is not going to help [social equity businesses like mine]. It is only going to put me in a worse position than the one I am in right now. I am already struggling in this market. If these entities are able to double their resources by partnering up with [multistate operators] and other larger entities, I have no future. I have no viable road from my current to take and to still reach some level of profitability.” 

Ahead of the legislative hearing, nearly 60 business leaders and advocates in the cannabis industry signed a letter urging legislators to continue to cap the number of dispensaries any business can own at three. 

“If the license cap is removed, we’re going to see [multi-state cannabis businesses] gobbling up equity businesses, consolidating the market and devaluing the value of licenses for those who are in the industry,” said Kevin Gilnack, Deputy Director of the cannabis advocacy group Equitable Opportunities Now, in a phone interview ahead of the hearing. 

Kimberly Roy, a commissioner on the Cannabis Control Commission, submitted written testimony to the legislative committee in favor of maintaining the license cap.    

“Current statutory ownership limits help to create a Massachusetts cannabis industry that encourages full participation, competition, locally owned and operated entrepreneurship … while fostering a diverse marketplace,” said Roy. “Current proposals to lift the current license cap threaten to undermine these goals, harm those we are mandated to help and as a by-product may create a ‘Walmart effect’ supply chain where market consolidation, buying power and price manipulation can be controlled by the wealthy few.”  

The cannabis industry has been struggling with the falling price of marijuana and the lack of access to capital. Social equity business owners – who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and, by definition, have limited access to capital – have been particularly hit by debt and the challenges of the industry.  

Two bills that would double cannabis purchase and possession limits and make it easier for those who work in the cannabis industry to get registered received widespread support at the hearing. Currently, every person who works at a cannabis business must get a separate registration for every different licensed establishment. One person may need multiple registrations, which is costly for business owners. The industry widely supports making the change to streamline the process.  

Another bill would make it so that medical marijuana businesses no longer have to cultivate, process, and dispense cannabis to maintain their licenses. In addition to removing that requirement, the bill would also decrease the licensing fee for medical dispensaries and allow people from other states to use their medical marijuana cards at Massachusetts medical dispensaries.  

“​​We need to reinvest in the future of the program, and that means streamlining it, modernizing it, and removing the shackles that limit patient access and prevent equity [owners] from participating in the medical industry,” said Jeremiah MacKinnon, the president of the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance. “We brought these issues to the [Cannabis Control] Commission’s attention, but after six years of advocacy, nothing’s changed. It has not been on their list of priorities.”  

The post Legislators consider 8 bills to increase cap on cannabis dispensary ownership  appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

MASSACHUSETTS FAMILIES ARE facing skyrocketing energy bills, and the Trump administration’s reckless energy and trade policies are making it worse.

Already, some Bay Staters are paying double what they did last year on their energy bills, largely thanks to an aging gas system struggling to respond to extreme weather fueled by climate change. And in New England, where approximately 10 percent of electricity and 80 percent of gasoline and diesel fuel come from Canada, Trump’s on-again, off-again approach to tariffs is creating significant uncertainty and instability in the energy market. 

The last thing Massachusetts families need is an administration lurching from one headline-driven policy to the next.  

In March, President Trump announced a 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico and a lower 10 percent tariff on Canadian energy imports, with certain exemptions. If just the 10 percent tariff level on energy imports from Canada is fully implemented, Bay Staters could foot more than $370 million per year in additional costs, and New Englanders could be out over $1 billion.  

The temporary halt in March of electricity exports on a key transmission line carrying primarily hydropower from Quebec to New England underscored just how interconnected Massachusetts and the broader region are with Canadian energy.   

Then, earlier this month, Trump announced broad tariffs on top of those already in place. On Wednesday, he backed down and paused some of their implementation for 90 days. Once they go into effect, these tariffs will disrupt supply chains, shrink paychecks, and drive up energy costs across the country. The increasingly high tariff on China, and general uncertainty around the tariffs, is likely to still do just that.  

Yet this isn’t just about today’s energy bills — it’s about the future of our energy system and our planet. In Massachusetts, the climate crisis is no longer a distant threat. Cities like Boston are enduring more frequent extreme heat days and record-breaking temperatures. 

Sea level is projected to climb as much as four feet by 2070, threatening homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure from Cape Cod to the South Coast. And heavy rainfall is overwhelming stormwater systems and exacerbating environmental injustices in places like the Mystic River Watershed. These escalating impacts hit hardest in communities already grappling with unaffordable energy bills, aging infrastructure, and limited resources. Without urgent action to curb emissions and build resilience, the consequences — to lives, livelihoods, and our economy — will only grow. 

Tackling climate change requires a comprehensive energy strategy that invests in cost-effective and quick-to-deploy renewables, safeguards community health, and boosts resilience. Trump’s haphazard trade war — coupled with attacks on renewables and executive orders expediting oil and gas production and exports — does none of that.  

His tariffs exempt the oil and gas industry — the very industry that donated $1 billion to his campaign. And as oil and gas executives further invest in the dirty energy that fuels the extreme weather, consumers will only spend more on heating and cooling their homes while the wealthy continue to profit.  

Just as Massachusetts families must not be left at the mercy of chaotic trade policies, volatile fossil fuel markets, and greedy oil executives, neither should they be left at the mercy of utility profit seeking or price-gouging suppliers.  

While Bay Staters struggle to pay for heat, multibillion-dollar utility companies continue to hike rates and rake in massive profits for their shareholders, largely thanks to misaligned incentives for investor-owned utilities. At the same time, certain competitive electric suppliers disproportionately target low-income households and communities of color with tactics that lure many into contracts that promise savings but end up costing more.    

Families deserve long-term strategies that lower costs, ensure energy security and resilience, and protect ratepayers. That means deploying renewable energy and energy efficiency, upgrading our grid, and ensuring policies that serve working families — not corporate profits.  

While state officials work to provide immediate relief to consumers, we must fully invest in energy assistance that meets the scale of the crisis. In Massachusetts, more than 150,000 families depend on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to heat and cool their homes each month.  

My Heating and Cooling Relief Act would expand LIHEAP and ensure more families can afford to stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer. Yet the Trump administration just eliminated the federal staff responsible for LIHEAP — increasing the risk that more families will be forced to choose between paying their bills or putting food on the table. We must protect energy assistance for low-income households as energy prices increase.   

Massachusetts families shouldn’t have to bear the costs of Trump’s trade war and corporate greed. We must break our dependence on expensive and polluting fossil fuels by accelerating the transition to clean energy — no matter what Trump and his Big Oil barons try to do. As Massachusetts continues its climate leadership, I will keep fighting in DC for policies that put renewables over fossil fuels and people over profits — not the other way around. Together, we will deliver the energy security and affordability our communities deserve.  

Edward Markey is a US senator from Massachusetts. He is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and co-author of the Green New Deal resolution.  

The post Energy prices are soaring in Massachusetts. Trump’s tariffs are making it worse.   appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

The post The Download: Push for the ‘right to read’ landing at State House appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.