IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah
Search
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Recommended
Chicago Head Start Programs Face Uncertainty After Regional Office Closure
As a Head Start grantee, critical federal funds help provide these nutritious meals, a majority of what a child at Carole Robertson will eat in a day. Now that funding is in jeopardy.
One of the largest early childhood and youth development organizations in the area, it serves nearly 2,500 children aged 0-17—a majority of whom are under the age of five.
Widespread federal cutbacks and the recent closure of five regional Head Start offices—including the Chicago branch, which services the entire Midwest—have sent hundreds of providers into panic.
Since its inception, Head Start has served nearly 40 million children nationwide and more than 790,000 in the last year alone.
“We heard about the regional office closure on April 1, the same day [it closed],” said Julissa Cruz, senior director of community-based advocacy at the Carole Robertson Center.
Regional offices provide Head Start affiliates with training, technical assistance, and operational and fiscal support. They also assign a direct contact to each organization to communicate with to ensure they have enough resources to operate seamlessly, according to Cruz.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
These closures come months after a temporary federal funding freeze disrupted Head Start programs across the country, briefly blocking affiliates’ access to aid that is used to pay employees.
While Carole Robertson receives some money from the state of Illinois and other partners to fund its early learning programs, Cruz said 76% of the operating budget comes from its Head Start grant.
In recent weeks, reports of an internal federal budget proposal to completely defund the 60-year-old organization were released, though no official steps have been taken yet by the Trump administration to further these plans.
On Monday, the Illinois Head Start Association (IHSA) joined several other states in a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) over its plans to defund the program.
“When the regional office closed, it didn't necessarily interrupt our day to day,” said Cruz. “However, [the closure] points to this bigger kind of vision that the administration has for not only Head Start, but government programs at large,” she said.
Carole Robertson children line up to go play outside. (Credit: Claire Murphy)
A cancellation of the federal funds would impact their ability to offer vital resources to children and families. For other providers, who pull less money from different areas, it would mean a forced closure.
“In a lot of rural areas, Head Start is sometimes the only option available for parents, and parents won’t be able to go to work if they don’t have a safe, secure, educational place for their child,” said IHSA Executive Director Lauri Morrison-Frichtl. This would greatly impact not only the economic stability of the family but also the total welfare of the child, she said.
A 2018 analysis from the Center for American Progress found that Head Start is most critical in rural communities, where child care deserts are common. Of the 10 states surveyed, rural Head Start programs accounted for 22% of the state’s total child care capacity.
Almost 46% of all federally funded Head Start programs are located in rural districts. Without these programs, many rural communities would lose child care altogether.
IHSA serves over 28,000 low-income children and families across the state, with over 500 Head Start sites that provide direct childcare services. Morrison-Frichtl said IHSA receives over $478 million in federal funding for its Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
If the program were to be defunded, it would be a devastating hit for “the most at risk, children and families across the country,” she said.
But these programs do much more than provide educational care for children.
Carole Robertson, named for one of the four young girls killed in the 1963 KKK church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama, provides nutritional meals, medical screenings, and mental health and parental support.
“We have a team of family support specialists who help connect a family to resources,” said Cruz. These resources include assistance in navigating food insecurity, unemployment, housing concerns, and primary care access.
“If the child is not meeting their developmental milestones, there is a team of people who can work with that family so that that parent understands what their options are,” said Cruz. “It’s really 360 degrees of support.”
Through several external partnerships, the Carole Robertson Center for Learning reaches about 15,000 families across Chicago. (Credit: Claire Murphy)
Data from the Office of Head Start supports the assertion of the program’s long-term benefits for at-risk children.
Not only are Head Start children less likely to live in poverty and receive public assistance as adults, but they demonstrate higher levels of social-emotional skills, language abilities, and cognitive development than children who did not attend the program.
“Head Start has proven benefits for children's developmental needs,” said Terri Sabol, a developmental psychologist and an associate professor in the School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University.
“There's been several large-scale, randomized, controlled trials that basically show the short-term impact of Head Start for kids who attended Head Start versus those who weren't given access,” said Sabol.
Sabol is also the faculty co-director of the Early Childhood Research Alliance of Chicago (EC*Reach), which serves as a data hub for early childhood education.
Sabol’s department is currently examining Chicago neighborhoods that have the highest rates of enrolled Head Start children, which will subsequently be most impacted by the regional office closure.
IHSA is actively working with Illinois elected officials and congressional members to get the word out about potential funding cuts. Grantees have created advocacy and call-to-action toolkits that parents and supporters can share to social media.
“We’ve traveled this road before, and parents made the difference in keeping Head Start alive in difficult times,” said Morrison-Frichtl. “We are working with parents across the state to use their voice and let their members of Congress know how much this program means to them.”
Morrison-Frichtl is hopeful that external support will preserve Head Start’s place in the administration’s upcoming budget proposal.
“Head Start is celebrating 60 years this year. We plan to be here for another 60 years,” she said.
Claire Murphy is a master’s student in the investigative specialization at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. She is also a freelance journalist and is based in Chicago, IL.
Cancer Research in the U.S. Is World Class Because of Its Broad Base of Funding − With the Government Pulling Out, Its Future Is Uncertain
The United States has long led the world in cancer research. It has spent more on cancer research than any other country, including more than US$7.2 billion annually through the National Cancer Institute alone. Since the 1971 National Cancer Act, this sustained public investment has helped drive dramatic declines in cancer mortality, with death rates falling by 34% since 1991. In the past five years, the Food and Drug Administration has approved over 100 new cancer drugs, and the U.S. has brought more cancer drugs to the global market than any other nation.
But that legacy is under threat. Funding delays, political shifts and instability across sectors have created an environment where basic research into the fundamentals of cancer biology is struggling to keep traction and the drug development pipeline is showing signs of stress.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
These disruptions go far beyond uncertainty and have real consequences. Early-career scientists faced with unstable funding and limited job prospects may leave academia altogether. Mid-career researchers often spend more time chasing scarce funding than conducting research. Interrupted research budgets and shifting policy priorities can unravel multiyear collaborations. I, along with many other researchers, believe these setbacks will slow progress, break training pipelines and drain expertise from critical areas of cancer research – delays that ultimately hurt patients waiting for new treatments.
A 50-year foundation of federal investment
The modern era of U.S. cancer research began with the signing of the National Cancer Act in 1971. That law dramatically expanded the National Cancer Institute, an agency within the National Institutes of Health focusing on cancer research and education. The NCI laid the groundwork for a robust national infrastructure for cancer science, funding everything from early research in the lab to large-scale clinical trials and supporting the training of a generation of cancer researchers.
This federal support has driven advances leading to higher survival rates and the transformation of some cancers into a manageable chronic or curable condition. Progress in screening, diagnostics and targeted therapies – and the patients who have benefited from them – owe much to decades of NIH support.
The Trump administration is cutting billions of dollars of biomedical research funding.youtu.be
But federal funding has always been vulnerable to political headwinds. During the first Trump administration, deep cuts to biomedical science budgets threatened to stall the progress made under initiatives such as the 2016 Cancer Moonshot. The rationale given for these cuts was to slash overall spending, despite facing strong bipartisan opposition in Congress. Lawmakers ultimately rejected the administration’s proposal and instead increased NIH funding. In 2022, the Biden administration worked to relaunch the Cancer Moonshot.
This uncertainty has worsened in 2025 as the second Trump administration has cut or canceled many NIH grants. Labs that relied on these awards are suddenly facing funding cliffs, forcing them to lay off staff, pause experiments or shutter entirely. Deliberate delays in communication from the Department of Health and Human Services have stalled new NIH grant reviews and funding decisions, putting many promising research proposals already in the pipeline at risk.
Philanthropy’s support is powerful – but limited
While federal agencies remain the backbone of cancer research funding, philanthropic organizations provide the critical support for breakthroughs – especially for new ideas and riskier projects.
Groups such as the American Cancer Society, Stand Up To Cancer and major hospital foundations have filled important gaps in support, often funding pilot studies or supporting early-career investigators before they secure federal grants. By supporting bold ideas and providing seed funding, they help launch innovative research that may later attract large-scale support from the NIH.
Without the bureaucratic constraints of federal agencies, philanthropy is more nimble and flexible. It can move faster to support work in emerging areas, such as immunotherapy and precision oncology. For example, the American Cancer Society grant review process typically takes about four months from submission, while the NIH grant review process takes an average of eight months.
Ted Kennedy Jr., right, and Jeff Keith raise money for the American Cancer Society in 1984.Mikki Ansin/Getty ImagesBut philanthropic funds are smaller in scale and often disease-specific. Many foundations are created around a specific cause, such as advancing cures for pancreatic, breast or pediatric cancers. Their urgency to make an impact allows them to fund bold approaches that federal funders may see as too preliminary or speculative. Their giving also fluctuates. For instance, the American Cancer Society awarded nearly $60 million less in research grants in 2020 compared with 2019.
While private foundations are vital partners for cancer research, they cannot replace the scale and consistency of federal funding. Total U.S. philanthropic funding for cancer research is estimated at a few billion dollars per year, spread across hundreds of organizations. In comparison, the federal government has typically contributed roughly five to eight times more than philanthropy to cancer research each year.
Industry innovation − and its priorities
Private-sector innovation is essential for translating discoveries into treatments. In 2021, nearly 80% of the roughly $57 billion the U.S. spent on cancer drugs came from pharmaceutical and biotech companies. Many of the treatments used in oncology today, including immunotherapies and targeted therapies, emerged from collaborations between academic labs and industry partners.
But commercial priorities don’t always align with public health needs. Companies naturally focus on areas with strong financial returns: common cancers, projects that qualify for fast-track regulatory approval, and high-priced drugs. Rare cancers, pediatric cancers and basic science often receive less attention.
Industry is also saddled with uncertainty. Rising R&D costs, tough regulatory requirements and investor wariness have created a challenging environment to bring new drugs to market. Several biotech startups have folded or downsized in the past year, leaving promising new drugs stranded in limbo in the lab before they can reach clinical trials.
Without federal or philanthropic entities to pick up the slack, these discoveries may never reach the patients who need them.
A system under strain
Cancer is not going away. As the U.S. population ages, the burden of cancer on society will only grow. Disparities in treatment access and outcomes persist across race, income and geography. And factors such as environmental exposures and infectious diseases continue to intersect with cancer risk in new and complex ways.
Addressing these challenges requires a strong, stable and well-coordinated research system. But that system is under strain. National Cancer Institute grant paylines, or funding cutoffs, remain highly competitive. Early-career researchers face precarious job prospects. Labs are losing technicians and postdoctoral researchers to higher-paying roles in industry or to burnout. And patients, especially those hoping to enroll in clinical trials, face delays, disruptions and dwindling options.
Researchers have been rallying to protect the future of science in the U.S.AP Photo/John McDonnellThis is not just a funding issue. It’s a coordination issue between the federal government, academia and industry. There are currently no long-term policy solutions that ensure sustained federal investment, foster collaboration between academia and industry, or make room for philanthropy to drive innovation instead of just filling gaps.
I believe that for the U.S. to remain a global leader in cancer research, it will need to recommit to the model that made success possible: a balanced ecosystem of public funding, private investment and nonprofit support. Up until recently, that meant fully funding the NIH and NCI with predictable, long-term budgets that allow labs to plan for the future; incentivizing partnerships that move discoveries from bench to bedside without compromising academic freedom; supporting career pathways for young scientists so talent doesn’t leave the field; and creating mechanisms for equity to ensure that research includes and benefits all communities.
Cancer research and science has come a long way, saving about 4.5 million lives in the U.S. from cancer from 1991 to 2022. Today, patients are living longer and better because of decades of hard-won discoveries made by thousands of researchers. But science doesn’t run on good intentions alone. It needs universities. It needs philanthropy. It needs industry. It needs vision. And it requires continued support from the federal government.
Cancer Research in the U.S. Is World Class Because of Its Broad Base of Funding − With the Government Pulling Out, Its Future Is Uncertain was originally published by The Conversation and is shared with permission.
Jeffrey MacKeigan, Ph.D., is a senior advisor for Michigan State University Office of Research and Innovation.