Research Roundup: Jobs Saved By Recovery Act, Mapping the Anti-Immigrant Movement, and More

In this week’s Research Roundup: New reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on statistics that show 2.9 million jobs saved by the Recovery Act, the Center for New Community on mapping the anti-immigrant movement in America, and Community Catalyst on how to best advocate for the “Essential Health Benefits” provision of federal health care reform:

New CBO Report Finds Up to 2.9 Million People Owe Their Jobs to the Recovery Act
– This brief from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities spotlights a new nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report which estimates that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) increased the number of people with jobs by between 1.0 million and 2.9 million jobs as of June 2011. CBPP’s analysis concludes that the Recovery Act “has significantly boosted both the number of people employed and the number of hours worked, and that without its impact, “millions more workers would be either unemployed or struggling to get by on less income”

Mapping the Anti-Immigrant Movement in America – This study by the Center for New Community takes a close look at the right-wing anti-immigrant movement nationally and maps the individuals, funders, organizations, and other players nationally and in the states that are a part of it, many of whom are connected to noted “white nationalist” John Tanton. The authors add that “what appeared to the public as a variety of voices advocating for severe immigration enforcement was nothing more than a series of front groups, ‘coalitions,’ and spin-offs seeking to overwhelm reasonable debate on immigration.”

Essential Health Benefits: A Federal Strategy Guide for Advocates – This guide from Community Catalyst explains the Essential Health Benefits (EHB) package guidelines under the Affordable Care Act – the new “floor” of what many health insurance plans must cover. In outlining advocacy strategies, the guide suggests voicing the following principles in order to “unite consumer groups in their advocacy for a robust EHB for all consumers”: that the EHB development process must be transparent and consumer driven, that Congress intended the EHB to be robust, and that underinsuring consumers is both unjust and shortsighted, placing consumers at risk of medical debt, reducing the likelihood of preventive medical care, and increasing the chance of a missed or late diagnosis.