Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Jennifer Greenfield Speaks Out for Colorado Families

News

Jennifer Greenfield Speaks Out for Colorado Families

When Jennifer Greenfield wrote an op-ed in The Denver Post warning that proposed federal budget cuts would devastate Coloradans who rely on programs like Medicaid and SNAP, she hoped her words might help change the conversation—and the outcome. Her piece drew a wave of responses, including appreciation from state leaders and an invitation to speak at a local event. Although the GOP’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” ultimately became law, Greenfield continues to warn about its long-term consequences. She spoke with SSN about the ripple effects of her op-ed and shared advice for fellow scholars who want their research to make a difference. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Q&A with Jennifer Greenfield

You recently wrote an op-ed about the GOP’s budget bill. What message were you hoping to get across?


Jennifer: My work focuses on family well-being—especially how people balance paid work and caregiving. In the U.S., most of us are doing both: raising kids, caring for aging parents or disabled family members, all while holding down jobs. My research looks at what kinds of policies help families not just get by, but actually thrive.

This new federal law does the opposite. It cuts critical supports like Medicaid and food assistance—programs that help working families and caregivers. And the impact stretches across people’s lives: kids losing access to food, working people losing health coverage, and older adults affected by cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. It takes from those with the least and gives more to those at the top. That’s the opposite of good policymaking.

What prompted you to write the op-ed, and what was the process like?

Jennifer: I’ve written op-eds before because they’re a powerful way to reach congressional leaders or state legislators. In this case, an organization that works with the Scholars Strategy Network put out a call for scholars to write in their local papers about the effects of this bill on low- and middle-income households. I jumped on it.

Colorado’s in a particularly tough spot because of TABOR—the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights—which severely limits how the state can raise or spend money. So when the federal government pulls funding, Colorado can’t make up the difference. We’re forced to cut programs, often the ones serving the most vulnerable. That’s why I felt it was important to speak up and help people see what’s really at stake.

What kind of response did you get after it ran?

Jennifer: A few things stand out. I heard from our state treasurer—he thanked me and confirmed the bill would really hurt Colorado. That was encouraging.

Then a grassroots group in Colorado’s 8th congressional district reached out. They were organizing to pressure their representative, Gabe Evans, to oppose the bill. He ended up voting to support it, but they held a town hall event with about 150 people and invited me to speak. That invitation came as a result of the op-ed.

I was also quoted in Newsweek and have been included in a few follow-ups. U.S. News & World Report picked up the issue, too. I can’t say for sure if those national pieces stemmed from the op-ed, but the timing aligns.

What was the town hall event like?

Jennifer: It was in Greeley, a fairly rural, historically conservative part of Colorado—and yet the turnout was strong. Teachers, cancer patients, caregivers—people who would be directly affected by the cuts—came to speak. Hearing their stories and connecting those personal experiences with broader research was incredibly powerful.

At that point, Representative Evans had already voted for the House version of the bill, and it was clear he wasn’t going to change course. But the event still mattered. It made the consequences of his vote visible and started to build momentum toward holding him accountable—or replacing him.

He and his staff were invited multiple times, but didn’t show. I’m not sure if any other current elected officials were there, but at least one candidate attended. And there were conversations about organizing locally, even at the city council level. It wasn’t just about Congress—it was about building power from the ground up.

You also contacted members of Colorado’s congressional delegation. What did you hope to accomplish?

Jennifer: After the op-ed was published, I sent the link to my representative and both senators. Senators [John] Hickenlooper and [Michael] Bennet had already voted against the bill, so I wanted to thank them and offer the op-ed as a resource. Senator Bennet’s office even replied, which was great—he’s been a longtime champion of the child tax credit, which the bill also threatens.

My representative is Lauren Boebert, who’s rather famous in the U.S. She voted for the bill, and my message was that I didn’t think her vote reflected the needs of our district. I even included Douglas County-specific data showing how the cuts would hurt our community. I never heard back.

You’ve been doing public engagement for a while. How does this fit into your overall approach to research?

Jennifer: I believe in applied research—work that serves the public good. That means making findings accessible to the people who can use them: policymakers, advocates, and voters.

One example is my work on paid family and medical leave. I spent years collecting data, writing op-eds, speaking to the media, and testifying at the legislature. After multiple failed bills, we moved to a ballot initiative in 2020—right in the middle of the pandemic. I had just wrapped up a study estimating the program’s costs and benefits, and that research played a key role in getting it passed.

The program launched in January 2024, and now I’m working with the state’s new FAMLI [Family and Medical Leave Insurance] agency and a colleague to evaluate how it’s working. We just finished collecting survey data from participants, and I’ll be taking those results back to the coalition that helped pass the law so we can keep improving it.

That’s how I like to do research—not just to understand the world, but to help change it.

What advice do you have for scholars who want to get more involved in public policy?

Jennifer: The first thing I’d say is don’t be shy. My first experience came from seeing a bill I believed in and emailing the legislator to say, “Thanks—how can I help?” That turned into a long-standing relationship where she invited me to write an op-ed, testify, and stay involved—not as an advocate, but as a researcher.

Also, use the people around you who know media and policy. I’ve leaned on my university’s communications team and SSN. Academics often struggle to write clearly and concisely for a broader audience—that’s where support makes all the difference.

And relationships with media matter. Because I’ve written for The Denver Post and other local outlets before, I now have a direct line to some editors. That helped get the op-ed into the Sunday print edition, which has a bigger reach.

Finally, don’t underestimate social media. I don’t love being on camera—I’m not making TikToks—but LinkedIn and Instagram can help amplify your message. Colorado’s state treasurer found me on LinkedIn and reached out. Using social media channels also helps drive traffic to the outlet, which editors appreciate.

You co-lead the Colorado SSN chapter. What’s in store for the coming academic year?

Jennifer: We were pretty quiet last year—I was finishing an administrative role that was really time consuming—but this year I’m excited to dive back in. Even though it’s politically an off-cycle year, we’ve got a governor’s race and some important issues on the table. It’s actually a great time to push for policy change.

First, I’m hoping to recruit a new chapter co-lead. Then I want to host a fall kickoff event to get people thinking about how they can engage. My university’s Scrivner Institute of Public Policy brings together public policy faculty from different disciplines, so I’m hoping to build momentum through that network and partner with other campuses across the state. Once the legislative session starts in the spring, we’ll be ready to go deeper.

What has being part of SSN meant to you?

Jennifer: The support I’ve gotten from SSN—especially from folks like Dominik [Doemer, SSN’s Director of Communications]—has been incredibly helpful. He’s a fantastic editor, especially for someone like me who always goes over the word limit. He helps me distill the key points quickly and clearly.

I’ve also learned a ton from other chapter leaders through webinars and peer calls. We share strategies, swap ideas, and support each other. The national convening in D.C. was especially energizing—meeting people from all kinds of fields who are committed to public scholarship was inspiring.

And having the national SSN team as a resource makes a big difference. They help us stay focused, connect us with allies, and remind us to write like humans—not academics.

Jennifer Greenfield Speaks Out for Colorado Families was first published by the Scholars Strategy Network and was republished with permission.

The Scholars Strategy Network (SSN) is a national membership organization made up of college- and university-based researchers interested in improving policy and strengthening democracy.

Read More

A stethoscope, calculator, pills, and cash.

As ACA subsidies expire and Medicaid rolls shrink, millions could face higher premiums or lose coverage, reigniting a national healthcare debate.

Getty Images, athima tongloom

How Expiring Subsidies and Medicaid Cuts Could Reshape U.S. Access to Care

Current Issue

In the coming year, millions of Americans could see their health insurance premiums rise, or lose coverage entirely, as key federal supports for affordable care are set to expire. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace, which were later extended by the Inflation Reduction Act, are scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. According to one analysis, if these enhanced subsidies expire, premiums on average could increase by 25-100 percent. At the same time, several states are reducing Medicaid rolls following the end of the pandemic-era continuous coverage requirement. Over 25 million people had been disenrolled from Medicaid and CHIP during this process in 2024. Together, these changes could redefine U.S. healthcare access, reigniting debates about public health and fiscal restraint.

Background

The ACA, passed in 2010, aimed to make health insurance more accessible for millions of uninsured Americans by expanding Medicaid eligibility and creating subsidized plans under the premium tax credit. The ARPA of 2021 significantly increased those marketplace subsidies, eliminating the 400% of poverty threshold for eligibility and reducing the percentage of income that enrollees must pay in premiums. As a result, the number of people eligible for marketplace subsidies increased from 18.1 million to 21.8 million from 2020-2021. Meanwhile, pandemic policies prevented states from disenrolling almost all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees for over three years. When this continuous coverage requirement ended in April of 2023, states began to reevaluate the eligibility of tens of millions of people. The expiration of ARPA temporary subsidies combined with the end of continuous Medicaid coverage set the stage for a contentious healthcare market next year.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Healthcare in 2025: Chaos, Costs, and Controversy Without Real Progress
a person wearing a blue shirt with a white circle on it
Photo by Nappy on Unsplash

U.S. Healthcare in 2025: Chaos, Costs, and Controversy Without Real Progress

The year 2025 has been one of the most turbulent years in modern U.S. healthcare. The headlines were explosive, the rhetoric dramatic, and the controversies nonstop. Yet for all the hoopla and upheaval, the medical care Americans receive now, month in and month out, looks no better than what they experienced on January 1 — but far more expensive.

Here are five areas of healthcare that generated chaos, confusion, and conflict in 2025 without meaningful improvement.

Keep ReadingShow less
University Roundtable Puts Latino Mental Health Front and Center

woman holds "Hablo Espanol" button

Picture Provided

University Roundtable Puts Latino Mental Health Front and Center

“Keep it to yourself. Push it down. Don’t say anything.” That is how Isis Lara Fernandez was taught to live with her status as an undocumented immigrant in the United States.

At 6-years-old, Lara Fernandez fled to the U.S. with her mother and siblings to escape domestic violence in Honduras. From that point forward, Lara Fernandez navigated life with a persistent fear that her secret could be discovered at any point in time.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Health Care Debate & Feldstein’s Fix
black and gray stethoscope

The Health Care Debate & Feldstein’s Fix

Serving in Congress during the implementation of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, Republicans embraced the position of “repeal and replace.” Repeal the ACA, but replace it with what? The debate is front-and-center again, though the ground has shifted some. There is more support for the ACA. Even some Republicans are looking to temporarily extend COVID-era subsidies for ACA health plans. Other Republicans want Health Savings Accounts, so more money goes to individuals instead of insurance companies. Democratic leadership seeks an approach temporarily extending the expanded premium subsidies, during which the entire approach to health care can be rethought.

The late economist Martin Feldstein had the fix: Martin Feldstein proposed a voucher system in which everyone could purchase a health insurance plan covering health care expenses exceeding 15% of their income. This could be combined with HSAs if they prove popular with the public.

Keep ReadingShow less