Recent Actions by the Trump Administration Target Children with Disabilities – First Focus on Children

Report on Policy Changes Affecting Children with Disabilities and Their Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

A series of proposed regulatory changes and administrative actions threaten to undermine the support systems for children with disabilities in the United States. These policies, particularly concerning Supplemental Security Income (SSI), educational oversight, and healthcare funding, create significant barriers to achieving key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Impact on Economic Stability and Poverty Reduction (SDG 1 & SDG 10)

Proposed Revisions to Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a critical program that provides a financial foundation for children with disabilities from families with limited resources, directly supporting the objective of SDG 1 (No Poverty). A proposed rule by the Social Security Administration would revise the “in-kind support and maintenance” (ISM) regulations, with significant consequences.

• Elimination of SNAP Exemption: The proposal would remove the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from the list of public assistance programs that exempt a household from SSI benefit reductions.
• Stricter Household Requirements: The rule would require all household members, not just one, to receive public assistance to qualify for the ISM exemption.
• Projected Impact: It is estimated that these changes could lead to benefit reductions or complete loss of eligibility for approximately 400,000 beneficiaries, a quarter of whom are children. This action directly contravenes SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by disproportionately affecting a vulnerable population and increasing their risk of poverty.

By reducing financial stability, these changes limit a family’s ability to cover basic needs and the additional costs associated with raising a child with a disability, such as specialized therapies and adaptive equipment.

Threats to Quality Education and Inclusion (SDG 4 & SDG 10)

Erosion of Federal Oversight for Disability Rights in Education

Recent reductions in force (RIFs) at federal agencies jeopardize the enforcement of educational rights for children with disabilities, undermining progress toward SDG 4 (Quality Education).

1. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS): Significant staff reductions at OSERS threaten the agency’s capacity to monitor state compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This is particularly concerning given that a recent Department of Education review found only 38% of states were meeting IDEA requirements. Weakened oversight compromises the guarantee of a free, appropriate, and inclusive public education.
2. Office for Civil Rights: Staffing reductions at the Office for Civil Rights diminish the federal government’s ability to enforce civil rights protections for students, further exacerbating the challenges faced by students with disabilities and hindering the goal of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

These administrative actions risk dismantling the institutional frameworks designed to ensure students with disabilities receive the inclusive education they are entitled to, a core tenet of SDG 4.

Challenges to Health and Well-being (SDG 3)

Reductions in Healthcare Funding

Legislative funding cuts to essential health programs present a direct threat to the health outcomes of children with disabilities, conflicting with the aims of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

• Medicaid and CHIP Cuts: Significant funding reductions for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) impact the primary source of health coverage for many children with special health care needs. Approximately two in five children with special needs rely on these programs.
• Impact on School-Based Health Services: Medicaid is a crucial source of funding for school-based health services, providing over $7.5 billion annually. These services, including therapies and mental health care mandated under IDEA, are essential for enabling children with disabilities to attend and thrive in school. Reductions in this funding stream force schools to choose between educational programs and essential health services, negatively impacting both SDG 3 and SDG 4.

Conclusion: A Regression in Sustainable Development

The cumulative effect of these policy changes represents a significant setback for the rights and development of children with disabilities. By increasing poverty risk, weakening educational protections, and reducing access to essential healthcare, these actions are in direct opposition to the global commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals. Reversing these policies is necessary to protect vulnerable children and realign national priorities with the principles of poverty reduction, quality education, good health, and reduced inequality.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  • The article directly connects the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to poverty prevention for families with children with disabilities. It states, “For many families, SSI means the difference between stability and poverty.” The proposed cuts to this program threaten to push these vulnerable families into poverty.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  • The article discusses how SSI helps cover “medical care, therapies, adaptive equipment.” Furthermore, it highlights massive funding cuts of “nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP),” which are critical for the health of children with special needs. It also notes the impact on school-based health services.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  • The article details threats to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the primary law protecting the educational rights of students with disabilities. It mentions that reductions in force at the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) “jeopardize the ability of ED to administer IDEA funding and to enforce protections for students with disabilities in schools.”

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • The central theme of the article is the disenfranchisement of a specific vulnerable group: children with disabilities. The proposed policy changes and budget cuts disproportionately harm these children, increasing inequality. The article argues that these actions “further harm them at a time when policymakers should be dedicating more resources to their development.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
     • The article focuses on SSI, a key social protection system in the U.S. for children with disabilities from low-income families. The proposed rule changes threaten to reduce the coverage and effectiveness of this system, directly opposing the goal of this target.

2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services… for all.
     • The article discusses cuts to Medicaid and CHIP, which it describes as the “only source of coverage for 1-in-3 children with special health care needs.” These cuts threaten health coverage and access to essential services, including school-based health programs, for this vulnerable population.

3. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate… disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education… for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities.
     • The article highlights how layoffs at OSERS and the Office for Civil Rights threaten the enforcement of IDEA, the law designed to ensure equal access to education for students with disabilities. This undermines efforts to reduce educational disparities for this group.
   • Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.
     • The article notes that schools rely on Medicaid reimbursement to provide “specialized equipment for children with disabilities.” Cuts to this funding directly impact the ability of schools to provide disability-sensitive facilities and learning environments.

4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… disability.
     • The policies described in the article actively work against this target by creating financial instability (SSI cuts), reducing access to healthcare (Medicaid cuts), and jeopardizing educational rights (IDEA threats), thereby hindering the social and economic inclusion of children with disabilities.
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… policies and practices.
     • The proposed rule change for SSI is presented as a policy that would create unequal outcomes for children with disabilities. The article calls for the administration to “reverse course and instead protect and strengthen the rights of and supports for children with disabilities,” aligning with the goal of eliminating policies that increase inequality.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 1 (Target 1.3):

   • Implied Indicator: Proportion of children with disabilities covered by social protection benefits.
     • The article provides data points for this: “Nearly 1 million kids with disabilities… rely on SSI,” and the proposed rule could make it difficult for “as many as 100,000 children to qualify.” This directly measures the coverage of the social protection system.

2. For SDG 3 (Target 3.8):

   • Implied Indicator: Proportion of children with special health care needs covered by public health insurance.
     • The article states that “Medicaid and CHIP cover roughly 2-in-5 children with special health care needs.” This statistic can be used to track health coverage for this specific population.
   • Implied Indicator: Public expenditure on health programs.
     • The article mentions specific financial figures, such as a cut of “nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program” and that Medicaid supports “more than $7.5 billion annually in school-based health programs.” These figures serve as indicators of financial commitment to health services.

3. For SDG 4 (Target 4.5):

   • Implied Indicator: Rate of state compliance with national laws on inclusive education.
     • The article provides a direct metric: “the most recent Department of Education review found that only 19 out of 50 states (38%) meet IDEA’s requirements.” This is a clear indicator for measuring the implementation of policies for equal access to education.

4. For SDG 10 (Target 10.2/10.3):

   • Implied Indicator: Number of individuals from vulnerable groups negatively affected by policy changes.
     • The article quantifies the impact of the proposed SSI rule, stating it would subject “as many as 400,000 SSI beneficiaries — a quarter of them children — to benefit reductions or, in many cases, the complete loss of benefits altogether.” This measures the direct effect of a policy on inequality.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: firstfocus.org