Foundations
Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Jed Foundation Receives $40 Million Gift From MacKenzie Scott
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 6 -- The Jed Foundation issued the following news release on Dec. 5, 2025:* * *
The Jed Foundation Receives $40 Million Gift From MacKenzie Scott
The unrestricted gift is the second since 2022 and will advance JED's mission to support emotional well-being and prevent suicide for teens and young adults.
*
[New York, New York] -- The Jed Foundation (JED), a leading nonprofit that protects emotional health and prevents suicide for teens and young adults nationwide, today announced that it has received an extraordinarily generous $40 million gift from philanthropist ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 6 -- The Jed Foundation issued the following news release on Dec. 5, 2025: * * * The Jed Foundation Receives $40 Million Gift From MacKenzie Scott The unrestricted gift is the second since 2022 and will advance JED's mission to support emotional well-being and prevent suicide for teens and young adults. * [New York, New York] -- The Jed Foundation (JED), a leading nonprofit that protects emotional health and prevents suicide for teens and young adults nationwide, today announced that it has received an extraordinarily generous $40 million gift from philanthropistMacKenzie Scott.
The unrestricted gift, the largest in JED's history and arriving nearly four years after Ms. Scott made a $15 million donation to the organization, comes at a critical time for youth mental health. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among people aged 10 to 34, and according to a 2024 report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2.6 million adolescents age 12 to 17 years (10.1%) had serious thoughts of suicide in the past year. Approximately 1.2 million (4.6 %) made a plan for suicide, and 700,000 (2.7%) attempted suicide in the past 12 months. And yet, mental health receives just 0.5% of all philanthropic health spending, the lowest proportion of any area of health care funding.
"We are deeply grateful for MacKenzie Scott's continued, transformational generosity to The Jed Foundation and the trust she has placed in us. The gift she made in 2022 helped catalyze the growth we've since achieved, adding four million youth served through JED's school and community-based programs. Today's gift significantly builds on her support for our mission," says John MacPhee, JED's CEO. "This powerful endorsement of our direction and team allows us to think boldly and strategically about how we will dramatically elevate our impact. We plan to utilize these resources over the next five to eight years to ensure they create durable, sustainable change."
"Ms. Scott's milestone gift, as well as the continued support from our many generous donors, is very much appreciated and an altruistic testament to the importance of our work," said Adee Shepen, JED's chief growth officer. "The commitment from the philanthropic community is critical to the success of our team's tireless efforts and organization's mission helping young people thrive while also equipping them with lifelong skills for sustained emotional resilience and growth."
For more than 25 years, JED has touched the lives of more than seven million students and formed partnerships with over 550 colleges, 150 high schools, and 28 school districts representing an additional 670 schools. JED also works with youth-serving community-based organizations, representing over 1.8 million youth, to strengthen their mental health, substance misuse, and suicide prevention programs and systems through its Comprehensive Approach to Mental Health Promotion and Suicide Prevention.
A recent report by JED analyzed a decade of data (2013 to 2023) from schools participating in its JED Campus program and found that JED's Comprehensive Approach was effective. Schools that completed JED Campus saw statistically significant improvements in student mental health at the end of the program compared to baseline. Students reported they were:
* 10% less likely to experience suicidal ideation
* 13% less likely to make a suicide plan
* 25% less likely to attempt suicide in the last year
Students also had improved average anxiety and depression scores and were more likely to stay in school and graduate.
JED was created in 2000 by Phil and Donna Satow following the loss of their youngest son, Jed, to suicide while he was in college. At the time, there was no uniform model for preventing suicide in schools, and mental health was frequently overlooked due to the shame, secrecy, and stigma that often surrounded mental health challenges. As a result, the Satows created a suicide prevention blueprint to help students navigate the emotional challenges of high school and college, prepare for adulthood, and thrive.
"Since we lost Jed, we committed ourselves to helping other parents avoid our heartbreak," said Phil Satow, JED's co-founder, board member, and former board chair. "This remarkable expression of generosity is sure to touch countless families giving young people the chance for a full life. We are so grateful and thank MacKenzie Scott from the bottom of our hearts."
Visit jedfoundation.org for information or get tips and resources to support the emotional well-being of teens and young adults at JED's Mental Health Resource Center.
* * *
About The Jed Foundation (JED)
JED is a nonprofit that protects emotional health and prevents suicide for our nation's teens and young adults. We're partnering with high schools, colleges, school districts, and youth-serving community-based organizations to strengthen their mental health, substance misuse, and suicide prevention programs and systems. We're equipping teens and young adults with the skills and knowledge to help themselves and each other. We're encouraging community awareness, understanding, and action for young adult mental health.
* * *
Original text here: https://jedfoundation.org/the-jed-foundation-receives-40-million-gift-from-mackenzie-scott/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Spain's Courtroom Politics
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Dec. 5, 2025:* * *
Spain's Courtroom Politics
Lawfare is costing taxpayers and eroding trust.
By Mark Nayler
If there is a threat to democracy in Spain, it's not from the "far right," that mysterious force to which Socialist prime minister Pedro Sanchez wants to attribute all the country's problems. Recent developments have highlighted two issues that are causing much more damage to public trust in democratic institutions - namely, the politicization of the judiciary, or "lawfare," and financial ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Dec. 5, 2025: * * * Spain's Courtroom Politics Lawfare is costing taxpayers and eroding trust. By Mark Nayler If there is a threat to democracy in Spain, it's not from the "far right," that mysterious force to which Socialist prime minister Pedro Sanchez wants to attribute all the country's problems. Recent developments have highlighted two issues that are causing much more damage to public trust in democratic institutions - namely, the politicization of the judiciary, or "lawfare," and financialcorruption. Lawfare is alleged to be the reason for an unprecedented ruling against Spain's former attorney general; while a massive fraud case centered on 95-year-old Jordi Pujol, president of Catalonia from 1980 to 2003, has tarnished the reputation of a once-revered politician.
At the end of last month, Spain's attorney general Alvaro Garcia Ortiz resigned after the Supreme Court found him guilty of leaking details of a tax probe into the romantic partner of Isabel Diaz Ayuso, the Conservative president of Madrid. Ayuso has established herself as Sanchez's most formidable critic, and claims that the investigation into her boyfriend Alberto Gonzalez Amador is an attempt to push her out of power. As she said last March: "The most suspicious thing, the most murky thing, is to see all the powers of the state leaking data about an individual... to try to destroy a politician."
Amador, a businessman, is charged with defrauding the tax office of around EUR350,000 ($408,000) earned on face mask contracts during the pandemic. Last March, Spanish media reported that his defense team had asked for a plea bargain, before it was officially announced by the Prosecutor's Office. According to the deal, Amador would admit to tax fraud in order to avoid a trial and potentially prison. The seven-judge panel at the Supreme Court - comprising five judges considered conservative and two "progressive"identified Ortiz as the leaker, although several journalists testified that he had not been their source. It announced its verdict quickly, even before publishing the legal rationale on which it was based. Leftist Podemos, formerly a member of Sanchez's coalition, called it a " judicial coup "proof that the tribunal had "taken another step in its subversive escalation."
Ayuso's mortal enemy must empathize with her on some level. Sanchez, who nominated Ortiz for attorney general in 2022, also claims that the judiciary is out to get him. It was confirmed in September that his wife Begona Gomez will face a jury trial over charges of corruption and influence-peddling, even though the evidence seems thin. The case against Sanchez's brother David, who is accused of holding a state position created especially for him, will also go to court. Even more damagingly for the Socialist leader, several former members of his government are under investigation for taking kickbacks on face mask contracts during the pandemic; one of them, ex-transport minister Jose Luis Abalos, was recently sent into pre-trial custody (the government's enthusiasm for face masks, the efficacy of which was always questionable, now makes a lot more sense). Sanchez portrays all this as a smear campaign designed to topple his government. If both he and Ayuso are right, though, judicial bias goes both ways. Spain's top judges might be corrupt, but at least they're dishing out punishment to both the left and right.
Catalan separatists have also claimed to be victims of a politicized judiciary. For Pujol's supporters, the fraud allegations against him and his family represent another attempt by the establishment to discredit the secessionist cause - but the years of investigation already carried out, plus Pujol's own admissions, suggest that there's real substance to them. Pujol's plight is similar to that of 87-year-old Juan Carlos, Spain's former king. Both were key figures in the transition to democracy after the death of dictator Francisco Franco in 1975, Pujol by championing Catalonia's language and culture after decades of repression, Juan Carlos for guiding the country back to constitutional monarchy. But in their dotage both men have been dogged by allegations of corruption. (Juan Carlos fled Spain in August 2020 amidst suspicion of multimillion-euro fraud, but all the charges were dropped two years later.)
Pujol's day in court has been coming for a long time. In 2014 (the year Juan Carlos abdicated in favor of his son, Felipe), he publicly apologized for holding an offshore fortune in Andorra - although he claimed it was an inheritance from his father. But in 2021, he was indicted by Spain's National Court on charges of money laundering, document forgery, and criminal organization. Pujol and his seven children (the eldest of whom, Jordi Pujol Ferrusola, is now 67) are on trial for stashing illegal commissions in offshore accounts, all earned during the patriarch's two-decade presidency of Catalonia. The verdict is not expected until 2027, by which point the ailing Pujol Senior (who is joining the proceedings via videolink) might not be around to hear it.
The 2019 trial of Catalan secessionists was more obviously politicized. For orchestrating an independence referendum in October 2017, which had been declared illegal in advance by the Constitutional Court, nine leading members of the pro-independence camp were sentenced to between nine and thirteen years in jail. The relevant precedent suggested that they had been tried as symbols, rather than individuals: Artur Mas, who also staged an illegal independence in 2014, was merely banned from public office and fined EUR36,500. In 2022, a UN committee found that Spain had violated the political rights of four of the jailed secessionists.
Sanchez could afford to be a unionist back in 2019, and hailed the sentences as "the conclusion of an exemplary legal process." He adopted the same line on Ortiz's resignation, saying that although he believes the former attorney general is innocent, he "respects [legal] rulings and abides by them." To this must be added the crucial caveat: unless they interfere with his agenda. In late 2023, Sanchez granted amnesty to all the imprisoned separatists in order to secure their parties' backing to return as prime minister. His U-turn triggered protests across the country and raised concerns within the EU about damage to the rule of law. Spain, it seems, has a judicialized executive as well as a politicized judiciary.
Spain's deeply polarized politics has also obstructed the functioning of its legal watchdog. The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), a 20-member body of judges and legal experts, exists partly to maintain a robust distinction between politics and the law. But after Sanchez took power in 2018, parliamentary deadlocks repeatedly prevented new appointments, which must be approved by a three-fifths majority. A long-overdue agreement between the Socialists and Conservatives in June 2024 finally ended this six-year freeze, with each party nominating ten new members.
Clearly, the renewed CGPJ has work to do. The scandals around Sanchez, Ayuso, Ortiz, and Catalan separatists reveal how much the line between Spain's judiciary and executive has been blurred over recent years. Spain's political class has contributed substantially to the erosion of that distinction, by using the courts as extensions of congress - and supplying most of the defendants.
* * *
Mark Nayler is a freelance journalist based in Malaga, Spain, and writes regularly for The Spectator and Foreign Policy on politics and culture.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/spains-courtroom-politics/
ONE+ Program Provides Financial Assistance to Over 250 First-time Homebuyers in Mass.
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 5 (TNSrpt) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on Dec. 4, 2025:* * *
ONE+ Program provides financial assistance to over 250 first-time homebuyers in Mass.
Program distributes over $8 million in first year; more planned for 2026
*
The ONE+ Program has unlocked homeownership opportunities for well over 200 families in its first year, according to a new report released by the Boston Foundation today. Led by the Massachusetts Housing Partnership (MHP) and with the support of the Boston Foundation and partners including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 5 (TNSrpt) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on Dec. 4, 2025: * * * ONE+ Program provides financial assistance to over 250 first-time homebuyers in Mass. Program distributes over $8 million in first year; more planned for 2026 * The ONE+ Program has unlocked homeownership opportunities for well over 200 families in its first year, according to a new report released by the Boston Foundation today. Led by the Massachusetts Housing Partnership (MHP) and with the support of the Boston Foundation and partners including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,Eastern Bank Foundation, State Street Foundation, and Barr Foundation, the ONE+ Program provides an affordable mortgage product--alongside up to $50,000 in down payment assistance, closing costs support, and interest rate buy-downs--to low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers from one of 29 eligible Massachusetts communities.
Launched in November 2024, the program has supported 255 prospective homebuyers, providing over $8 million in support in its first year. ONE+ homebuyers were able to purchase single-family homes, condominiums, or multifamily homes in dozens of communities across Massachusetts.
The ONE+ Program was the first programmatic investment of the Racial Wealth Gap Partnership, a coalition of more than 40 cross-sector organizations working to expand wealth in underrepresented and historically marginalized communities through homeownership. The group's research suggests a $25 million investment in financial assistance for at least 500 homebuyers could result in $150 million or more in wealth accumulation via home equity over 10 years.
"The ONE+ Program has done exactly what we hoped when we made down payment assistance the Partnership's first programmatic focus for creating intergenerational wealth in our community," said Lee Pelton, President and CEO of the Boston Foundation, which convened the Racial Wealth Gap Partnership. "The success of the Wealth Gap Partnership's investment is not only measured in the home purchases ONE+ has made possible, but in the powerful stories we have heard from homeowners whose entire family trajectories have been shifted by achieving the long-deferred dream of homeownership."
The report, entitled A New Path to Homeownership: Early Findings from the ONE+ Mortgage Program, brings together data from the program's first 11 months and a series of interviews with ONE+ borrowers about their experiences with the program and the homebuying process in general.
"We are in one of the most challenging home purchase markets in decades," said MHP Homeownership Director Elliot Schmiedl. "For too many prospective first-time homebuyers, getting the keys to their first home is only a dream, or they end up using every dime they have for a down payment. MHP is pleased to partner with lenders and organizations to deliver another innovative financing solution that's putting homeownership within reach for hundreds of families who would otherwise be priced out of the market and putting them on the road to building generational wealth."
"Homeownership is a gamechanger for creating a pathway to a thriving life, and we are proud to see the ONE+ Mortgage Program and the Massachusetts Housing Partnership making meaningful inroads for first-time homebuyers across Gateway Cities like Lynn, Lawrence and Lowell. We need to take a regional approach to successfully close historical wealth gaps," said Turahn Dorsey, President & Chief Executive Officer of Eastern Bank Foundation, which provided funding to support first-time homebuyers in those three communities.
Read the Boston Indicators Report (https://www.bostonindicators.org/reports/report-detail-pages/one-plus-review)
Boston Indicators report highlights opportunities created statewide for lower-income households across racial groups
Researchers from Boston Indicators, the research center at the Boston Foundation, compiled data from the first 11 months of the ONE+ program, along with interviews with program participants, for the report A New Path to Homeownership: Early Findings from the ONE+ Mortgage Program.
The report data illustrate the success of supporting home purchases for families with incomes at or below their area's median income who have demonstrated sufficient financial stability to manage ongoing mortgage costs. Borrowers using ONE+ had an average credit score of 733, and used the program to secure homes with an average purchase price of $433,725. Program participants purchased a mix of condominiums, single-family, and multifamily homes.
The participating households through October 2025 had incomes below their area's median income for their household size, with 44 percent earning below 80% of the AMI. While a majority of those taking part in the program identified as Latino or Hispanic, participants were from a full range of racial groups. "I honestly never thought that I was going to be a homeowner," one participant said in follow-up interviews with the Boston Indicators team. "Of course, it was in my dreams, but I never really thought I could make it a reality."
Among the striking elements of the program data was the geographical spread of where the participants purchased their homes. While the largest number of program homebuyers purchased their new homes in cities like Springfield, New Bedford, Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn and Fall River, ONE+ homebuyers found new homes in well over 60 communities across Massachusetts. As one participant noted, "I was looking to live in Boston, just because it was a lot closer to work and to family.... I ended up being a little more flexible."
Twenty-three lenders from across Massachusetts have participated in the ONE+ program to date, including: BankFive, Bay State Savings Bank, Berkshire Bank, Brookline Bank, Cambridge Savings, Citizens Banks, Cornerstone Bank, Dedham Institution for Savings, East Cambridge Savings, Eastern Bank, Freedom Credit Union, Hometown Mortgage, Institution for Savings, Leader Bank, M&T Bank, Mechanics Cooperative Bank, Needham Bank, Northern Bank & Trust Company, Rockland Trust, St. Mary's Credit Union, The Cooperative Bank, Webster Bank, and Webster Five Cents Savings Bank.
To learn more about ONE+ or find a participating lender, visit https://www.mhp.net/one-mortgage/programs-2/one-plus
* * *
REPORT: https://www.bostonindicators.org/-/media/indicators/boston-indicators-reports/report-files/bi_oneplus_120125.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2025/december/oneplus-program-success-update
WV Quarry Workers Win Freedom from Unwanted Boilermakers Union
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Dec. 5 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:* * *
WV Quarry Workers Win Freedom from Unwanted Boilermakers Union
*
National Labor Board revokes union's monopoly status after union officials disclaim interest due to overwhelming worker support for decertification
Harpers Ferry, WV (December 5, 2025) - Holcim Millville Quarry employees are officially free from International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (IBB) Local DNCL union officials after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Regional Director of Region 5 revoked ... Show Full Article SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Dec. 5 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release: * * * WV Quarry Workers Win Freedom from Unwanted Boilermakers Union * National Labor Board revokes union's monopoly status after union officials disclaim interest due to overwhelming worker support for decertification Harpers Ferry, WV (December 5, 2025) - Holcim Millville Quarry employees are officially free from International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (IBB) Local DNCL union officials after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Regional Director of Region 5 revokedthe certification of the IBB as the workers monopoly "representative."
The NLRB's decision comes after IBB bosses "disclaimed interest" in the work unit, which followed a majority of workers signing a petition last month, asking the NLRB to hold a secret ballot election to "decertify" IBB union bosses as the workers exclusive representative. That petition was filed by quarry employee Curtis Mills with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency tasked with enforcing federal labor law and with adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual workers.
Mills petition was signed by a majority of the approximately 36 workers in the bargaining unit. The election, close to being scheduled, would have taken place among all the drivers, loaders, maintenance, and laborers at the Millville Quarry Harpers Ferry, WV, facility.
IBB officials faced with the reality that most workers wanted nothing to do with the union, decided to avoid the embarrassment of a formal vote by a majority of workers against the union, and disclaimed their status as the workers' so-called representative.
"For the first time in a long time we are thrilled with the union's decision," commented Mills. "We are glad to have been able to reclaim our workplace."
West Virginia is one of 26 states with Right to Work protections that ensure union affiliation and dues payment are fully voluntary. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials can impose exclusive bargaining control upon all workers within a workplace, even those who oppose the union.
"The Foundation is pleased to have played a part in helping Mills and his colleagues achieve their desired outcome in so short a time," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "Unfortunately, the experience of many other independent-minded workers is less streamlined, as the combination of union legal tactics and an NLRB that has created numerous non-statutory rules to undermine decertification efforts makes it frequently difficult to even get an election scheduled.
"Workers facing such circumstances should know the Foundation is here to assist them, because no worker should be trapped in union boss 'representation' they oppose," added Mix.
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print Share
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
Posted on Dec 5, 2025 in News Releases
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/west-virginia-quarry-workers-12052025/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Interdisciplinary Harm Reduction - A Practical Guide
LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 5 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Dec. 4, 2025:* * *
Interdisciplinary harm reduction: A practical guide
The goal is to identify where policies may be incongruent, such as through gaps in care, conflicting mandates, or fragmented accountability, and to design coordinated responses that reduce those harms without creating new ones.
By Layal Bou Harfouch, Drug Policy Analyst
Public policy often approaches complex problems as if they can be neatly separated into specific categories, like public health, education, housing, transportation, ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 5 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Dec. 4, 2025: * * * Interdisciplinary harm reduction: A practical guide The goal is to identify where policies may be incongruent, such as through gaps in care, conflicting mandates, or fragmented accountability, and to design coordinated responses that reduce those harms without creating new ones. By Layal Bou Harfouch, Drug Policy Analyst Public policy often approaches complex problems as if they can be neatly separated into specific categories, like public health, education, housing, transportation,or justice. Each agency develops solutions within its own silo, narrowly focused on its own specific outcomes of interest.
While this specialization can increase efficiency, it also leads to significant institutional blind spots. In reality, people do not live within administrative divisions. The conditions that shape a person's life--where they live, learn, work, and seek care--are deeply intertwined. As a result, a policy that may achieve desired outcomes in one department can unintentionally create harmful consequences in another, ultimately undermining broader goals of improving health and well-being.
For example, a city might fund a highly structured addiction treatment program that integrates counseling, medication, and case management. Yet without stable housing or employment opportunities, even the most effective interventions can falter once patients leave care. A state might pass legislation to improve public safety by increasing penalties for public drug use or expanding police authority to clear encampments. But without concurrent mental health and housing coordination, enforcement can produce the opposite of its intended outcome. Cities that increase enforcement without increasing services often see more frequent crisis calls, higher incarceration rates, and repeated emergency department visits, because individuals are cycled through short-term punitive responses instead of being stabilized through treatment, housing, or crisis-care coordination. These policy mismatches are a direct result of siloed policy-making, which is built to solve isolated problems rather than address the overlapping complexities of human behavior and institutional systems.
An interdisciplinary harm reduction approach identifies where policies intersect, overlap, or conflict, showing how siloed decisions can generate unintended harms elsewhere. It asks policymakers to view every issue as part of a larger ecosystem--what public health professionals call a "continuum of care." The goal is to identify where policies may be incongruent, such as through gaps in care, conflicting mandates, or fragmented accountability, and to design coordinated responses that reduce those harms without creating new ones elsewhere. Though harm reduction is often associated with drug policy, its logic is conceptually applicable across disciplines. It is a pragmatic framework for thinking about risk mitigation that recognizes that human beings are not automatons and that each makes discreet decisions based on their own circumstances, background, and perceptions. A harm reduction approach doesn't attempt to craft policy for a conceptualized version of humanity, but caters to the needs of real human beings by prioritizing practicality, coordination, and evidence over ideology.
The value of an interdisciplinary approach can be better understood through economist Friedrich Hayek's work on imperfect knowledge. Hayek argued that no single entity--whether a government agency, a business owner, or an expert committee--possesses all the information needed to make perfect decisions. Knowledge is distributed across countless individuals and institutions and is constantly in flux. This means that sound policymaking cannot rely on centralized control but must instead employ mechanisms that facilitate information sharing, test ideas in real-world conditions, and adapt based on feedback. While harm reduction does not originate from Hayek's theories, an interdisciplinary harm reduction framework reflects this same insight. It brings together actors from different systems to identify shared goals, map where policies overlap, conflict, or create gaps, and build solutions that are both pragmatic and self-correcting.
In some arenas, these ideas are already being put into practice. For example, when police officers are trained in harm reduction principles, such as recognizing overdose symptoms, using naloxone, and collaborating with health providers, enforcement becomes more effective and safer for both patients and officers. When cities apply behavioral insights to design roads that naturally cue drivers to reduce speed--like using roundabouts instead of traditional intersections, as Golden, Colo., did--speeds and crash severity decline without relying on police presence. In healthcare, supervised consumption sites in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, have managed overdoses on-site, preventing deaths while reducing ambulance calls by 700 each year and saving more than $2.3 million annually in emergency costs. These examples spanning different sectors share the same underlying logic: measure concrete outcomes, coordinate across systems, and reduce avoidable harm.
This same logic can be successfully applied to housing, urban planning, education reform, governance, and beyond. By aligning their goals, data, and evaluation methods, agencies can prevent duplication, save public resources, and craft policy approaches that reinforce, rather than undermine, one another.
Reason Foundation's Interdisciplinary Harm Reduction Framework is built on that logic. Drawing on established models--including the National Harm Reduction Coalition's core principles, continuum-of-care approaches used in public health, and Continuous Quality Improvement methods--it defines harm reduction as a pragmatic and evidence-informed approach to reducing avoidable harms across multiple areas of public policy, including health, housing, education, technology, finance, governance, and public safety. The framework provides policymakers with a guide to identify preventable harms, design proportionate responses, and evaluate their effectiveness in reducing risk for individuals and communities. Ultimately, it moves harm reduction policy design from theory to practice, creating a shared, interdisciplinary language for effective and measurable reform.
How to use this framework
This guide provides a clear explanation of the Interdisciplinary Harm Reduction Framework and its application across different areas of public policy. We begin by outlining the framework's core principles and defining each one in the context of real-world decision-making. We then walk through the process of operationalizing these principles, offering a step-by-step guide for identifying harm, designing proportionate interventions, aligning incentives, and measuring outcomes. Each section is designed to be accessible for readers, whether or not they have a background in harm reduction or public policy. The ultimate goal is to translate this framework into a practical decision-making tool applicable to any policy area, from health and housing to education, governance, and technology.
Core principles
1. Outcome-Informed Decision-Making: An effective harm reduction approach must be grounded in reliable data, empirical research, and rigorous evaluation. This means prioritizing interventions with a demonstrable record of success in real-world conditions, using measurable indicators of harm reduction to track progress, and maintaining a willingness to adapt as new evidence emerges. Simultaneously, policies must proactively anticipate and minimize unintended consequences, such as fueling illicit markets, displacing harms to other populations or settings, or creating perverse incentives. This requires both pre-implementation analysis and ongoing monitoring to identify and correct harmful trends early. The emphasis should be on facts over ideology, ensuring that policy choices remain tethered to outcomes rather than political whim.
2. Risk Minimization Without Blanket Restrictions: This principle advocates for policies aimed at reducing the severity and likelihood of preventable harm without resorting to one-size-fits-all or authoritarian policy interventions. Overly broad restrictions affect entire populations, often imposing costs on the majority because a relatively small minority engages in higher-risk behaviors or encounters higher-risk conditions. A harm reduction approach focuses instead on identifying higher-risk individuals and areas to tailor interventions to have the greatest positive impact without unnecessarily limiting the freedoms of the general public.
3. Individual Autonomy and Voluntary Action: This principle prioritizes empowering people to make voluntary, informed choices about their own lives, so long as those choices do not cause direct and demonstrable harm to another person. Rather than relying on coercive mandates, the focus is on removing barriers to support and safeguarding personal agency. This allows individuals to voluntarily adopt safer behaviors when they are ready. This approach also recognizes that individual decisions can have ripple effects for families, communities, and broader society, and that these effects must also be addressed to strengthen both personal and collective outcomes. Lasting change is most effective when it is chosen willingly, not compelled. This principle acknowledges that responsibility for outcomes ultimately lies with individuals.
4. Targeted, Context-Specific Solutions: One-size-fits-all approaches are rarely effective and impose high costs, burdens, and harms on the general public. Harm reduction requires a nuanced understanding of specific communities, environments, and markets to tailor strategies that meet their unique needs. Whether applied to health, housing, finance, or technology, interventions should be proportional to the scale of the problem, appropriate for the target population, and feasible for sustained implementation.
5. Cross-Disciplinary Application: Harm reduction needn't be confined to public health and drug policy. It offers a versatile framework applicable to housing stability, educational access, financial resilience, technology safety, governance reform, and public safety initiatives, among other issues. Viewing harm reduction through multiple policy lenses ensures more comprehensive solutions, prevents siloed thinking, and helps identify overlapping areas where small, well-designed policy changes can yield compounding benefits.
6. Practicality and Real-World Application: Proposed solutions must be operationally feasible, cost-effective, and workable in the real world. This requires an objective assessment of cost-effectiveness to ensure that both public and private resources are directed toward policies that deliver the greatest reduction in harm per dollar spent. Rather than pursuing unattainable ideals, this principle prioritizes tangible, incremental improvements that can be implemented within existing legal, economic, and cultural contexts. The goal is meaningful, sustainable progress over large-scale, disruptive changes that carry a high risk of both failure and unintended consequences.
7. Incentive Alignment: Sustainable harm reduction requires aligning the interests of individuals, communities, and institutions. Policies should be structured so that all stakeholders share a vested interest in achieving positive outcomes. This can be done through market-based incentives, regulatory flexibility, or public-private collaboration. Equally important is ensuring that policies do not create additional harms, allowing harm reduction efforts to gain long-term support based on shared value rather than enforcement or compliance mandates.
Step-by-step operational playbook
A successful operational playbook translates the Interdisciplinary Harm Reduction Framework into a six-step process that moves from problem identification to coordinated solution implementation. It begins with defining the policy problem and desired outcome, clarifying the harm being addressed, what measurable improvement looks like, and who is responsible for leading the effort. The next step involves mapping the systems and actors involved to visualize how different agencies, organizations, and individuals interact across health, justice, and community sectors. This step also includes establishing a steering committee composed of representatives from each partner agency and at least one community member with direct experience with the specific issue being addressed (e.g., substance use, homelessness, or navigating the justice system) to guide coordination and monitor progress.
Once these overlapping dynamics are mapped, the process turns to identifying points of risk, friction, or missed opportunity--areas where harm accumulates, or coordination fails--and recording them in a simple risk register to ensure accountability. After these risks are identified, teams apply the framework's principles to decision-making, using the seven harm reduction principles as a lens to test whether proposed actions are practical, proportionate, and evidence-based. The fifth step focuses on designing coordinated interventions and evaluation plans that align funding, roles, and outcomes across systems while creating shared metrics to track progress transparently. Finally, the process concludes with implementation, learning, and adaptation, during which the steering committee meets regularly to review data, adjust strategies based on results, and share updates publicly to promote accountability and continuous improvement.
Step 1. Define the policy problem and the desired outcome
Begin by clearly describing the specific problem and what measurable improvement would look like. Define the harm you are trying to reduce and how success can be measured. Before moving forward, assign a preliminary lead agency and identify all necessary stakeholders that should be involved in defining the problem. Early clarity about ownership of the issue prevents confusion later.
Questions to consider:
* What harm or challenge are you trying to reduce?
* Who is most affected, and in what environments or circumstances?
* What would improvement look like in both the short- and long-term?
* How will you measure success?
Step 2. Map the systems and actors involved
List and visualize all systems, organizations, and individuals that influence this issue. Include public agencies, community groups, non-governmental organizations, private entities, and informal supports, such as families or peer networks. Mapping reveals how decisions in one ambit of life can affect outcomes in another. As you map, identify who has authority, who provides data, and who will make final decisions. Assign a sponsor with budgetary or legal authority, an accountable lead for daily coordination, a data steward for evaluation, and at least one community representative to ensure real-world experiences inform every stage of the process.
Questions to consider:
* Which systems or organizations currently influence this issue?
* Where do people most often fall through the cracks?
* Who are the main decision-makers, funders, or gatekeepers?
* Where do responsibilities overlap or duplicate?
Step 3. Identify points of risk, friction, or missed opportunity
With the systems mapped, identify where harm accumulates or where efforts are misaligned. These are the points where coordination fails, incentives conflict, or barriers prevent access to support. Political or community pressures can also limit coordination, especially when proposed changes are controversial or misunderstood, and these should be identified as part of the same risk landscape. Recognizing these intersections early allows attention and resources to be focused where they can make the greatest impact.
Once identified, document these friction points in a simple tracking table or "risk register" that summarizes potential risks. For each, include its likelihood, impact, early warning signs, mitigation strategy, and responsible party. Review this document regularly in coordination meetings to ensure potential harms are identified early and addressed proportionately.
Questions to consider:
* Do any current or proposed laws, statutes, or ordinances create barriers to implementing coordinated policies?
* Where does harm most often occur within or between systems?
* Are there communication gaps or conflicting priorities among agencies?
* Do any current policies create or worsen unintended harms?
* Which groups or communities are most likely to be overlooked?
* What new risks could arise from this intervention?
* How will we monitor for unintended effects or privacy issues?
* Who is responsible for updating the risk register?
Step 4. Apply the framework's principles to each decision area
Once the risks are identified, use the seven harm reduction principles to guide decision-making on how to address them. This framework is not meant for exclusive use by government officials. It is better understood as a shared checklist that independent actors can use when they convene to weigh tradeoffs, compare options, and discard approaches that do not work in practice. When public agencies participate, their role is primarily to bring partners together, share existing data, and remove unnecessary regulatory or administrative barriers so that those closest to the problem are free to test and refine solutions.
Apply each principle to the systems and decisions you have mapped to help ensure that responses are realistic, coordinated, and effective. The principles act as a filter to check whether proposed solutions reflect outcome-based, context-specific, and collaborative thinking grounded in local knowledge rather than top-down assumptions.
Every principle should be reviewed through the lens of those directly affected and those implementing support on the ground. Invite both service recipients and frontline practitioners to comment on how each principle applies in practice. When discussing context-specific design, confirm that diverse populations and geographic realities are represented.
Questions to consider:
* Are desired outcomes clear, measurable, and evidence-based?
* Is the proposed intervention proportional to the level of harm?
* Does it respect individual choice and autonomy?
* Is the approach tailored to local needs and contexts?
* Are agencies and partners collaborating toward a shared goal?
* Can it be implemented with available capacity and resources?
* Are incentives aligned to reinforce positive outcomes rather than process?
* Have affected communities been asked how proposed changes may impact them?
* What accommodations are needed for language, disability, or access?
* How will feedback be tracked and reported back?
Step 5. Design coordinated interventions and evaluation plans
With the principles applied, move from mapping to planning. Develop coordinated interventions across systems, assign clear roles, and clarify how each participating organization chooses to contribute. In an interdisciplinary harm reduction landscape, partners include public agencies, private providers, philanthropic funders, and community organizations. Each of these actors controls its own mission, budget, and internal accountability structures. Public officials may revise the way public programs are funded, contracted, or evaluated, but they do not direct or supervise the internal operations of independent institutions.
Within that constraint, "aligning funding" means using the tools that each actor legitimately controls to support the shared goals identified in earlier steps. Public agencies can decide how to structure their own grants, contracts, or reimbursement rules so that public dollars reward reductions in avoidable harm rather than simple service volume. Philanthropic organizations can voluntarily support parts of the effort that align with their missions. Service providers and community groups can decide how to allocate their own staff time and resources to participate in the coordinated response. No single institution sets funding levels for the others. Coordination emerges because different actors see value in the shared objectives and choose to orient some of their resources toward them.
Accountability is created similarly. Each partner remains accountable first to its own constituents, boards, donors, or voters. To make collaboration workable, partners can record their voluntary commitments in simple memoranda of understanding, contracts, or grant agreements that specify who is responsible for which activities and what indicators will be used to judge success. Where public funds are involved, outcome measures and reporting expectations should be defined clearly and published in advance, so that participation is both informed and voluntary. For purely private or philanthropic efforts, this framework still offers a template that organizations can adopt internally to clarify expectations and track results.
Once roles and commitments are clear, establish a shared evaluation plan that integrates information from these efforts and tracks progress across relevant sectors, not just within a single agency. The goal is to create a transparent picture of whether the overall approach is reducing harm, while respecting the independence of each participating institution.
Establish a feedback loop where results, risks, and community feedback are reviewed together at defined intervals. This integrated review structure replaces fragmented reporting and ensures that decisions remain transparent and data-driven.
Questions to consider:
* Who will lead and coordinate implementation across systems?
* How will roles and responsibilities be shared?
* What data or evaluation tools will be used to track progress?
* How will feedback and learning be used to improve the program over time?
* What process is in place for identifying and correcting unintended harms?
Step 6. Implement, learn, and adapt
Implementation should include a standing review meeting--monthly during pilots--to compare data to benchmarks, discuss new risks, and document lessons learned. Decisions about scaling up, sustaining, modifying, or stopping an initiative should be based on those reviews, not on intuition or politics. Publish concise progress reports regularly so partners and the public can follow the evidence and stay invested.
Questions to consider:
* Are we meeting regularly enough to detect problems early and adjust accordingly?
* What evidence or benchmarks will guide decisions about scaling, modifying, or discontinuing the intervention?
* How will we document lessons learned so they meaningfully inform future decisions?
* Are any political, organizational, or resource pressures influencing implementation decisions?
* How will we ensure transparency so partners and the public can track progress?
* Do we have a clear process for deciding when and how to adapt the approach if circumstances change?
Hypothetical example: applying the framework to post-release overdose prevention
This section demonstrates how the Interdisciplinary Harm Reduction Framework can be applied to a real-world issue: preventing overdose deaths among people recently released from prison.
Step 1. Define the policy problem and desired outcome
In this example, we begin with a clear definition of the harm to be addressed, which is the sharp rise in overdose deaths that occurs in the first two weeks among those released from prison, a period when overall mortality can be up to 10 times higher than in the general population and overdose deaths up to 15.5 times higher.
In one Colorado cohort of 905 people released from state prison, nearly 78 percent of people had a chronic medical or psychological condition, yet only about 10 percent had even a single outpatient visit within 30 days of release, and only 31 percent used any health service at the main safety-net system within 180 days. Upon release, individuals frequently face delays in reinstating Medicaid coverage, securing stable housing, or reconnecting with treatment providers secondary to loss of access to medication, housing, or support networks they once had, thereby disrupting the continuity of care.
These administrative and logistical barriers create dangerous interruptions in care precisely when overdose risk is highest. Using the framework, policymakers first define the problem as avoidable harm linked to gaps in post-release coordination. The desired outcome might be to reduce fatal and non-fatal overdoses within 90 days of release and increase access to and voluntary use of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD).
Applying the principle of outcome-informed decision-making, the team might identify measurable targets as: (1) a 15 percent reduction in 90-day overdoses; (2) a 20 percent increase in MOUD initiation within 14 days of release; and (3) a decrease in emergency department visits or emergency calls related to overdose. These outcomes are clear, evidence-based, and trackable across systems.
Step 2. Map the systems and actors involved
Mapping this issue involves correctional health, probation, public health, community clinics, pharmacies, emergency medical services, and peer recovery organizations. It demonstrates that, while each system plays a role, none are responsible for the transition from custody to care, revealing a high-risk gap in care upon prisoner release.
To operationalize the principle of cross-disciplinary collaboration, the example establishes a shared governance model for addressing the target problem. The sponsor (county public health) holds decision-making authority and funding. The accountable lead (correctional health) manages daily coordination. The data steward and evaluator ensure data integrity and oversight. The team also establishes a steering committee composed of representatives from each lead agency, the data steward, and a community advisor. The committee oversees progress, reviews data, and ensures that decisions remain transparent and evidence-based throughout the project. This clear structure transforms the mapping exercise into a functional plan for coordination.
This shared governance structure reflects real-world models that have already reduced deaths after release from prison. For example, Rhode Island's statewide corrections-based MOUD program is sponsored by a cross-agency overdose task force, with the Department of Corrections as the operational lead and community treatment providers and public health officials jointly responsible for data and evaluation. In that program, everyone entering custody is screened for opioid use disorder, offered all forms of medication treatment while incarcerated, and connected to community clinics and Medicaid coverage before release. Evaluations found that this coordinated approach was associated with a roughly 61 percent reduction in overdose deaths among people recently released from incarceration and a 12 percent decline in overdose fatalities statewide, illustrating how clearly defined roles, shared accountability, and continuous data review can translate into measurable reductions in avoidable harm.
Step 3. Identify points of risk, friction, and missed opportunity
Once the systems are mapped, policymakers can then identify key friction points where harm accumulates. In our example, the team identifies significant harm associated with evening releases that occur after treatment clinics and community providers have closed, leaving individuals without immediate access to medication or follow-up care; inconsistent naloxone access; inadequate data exchange between correctional facilities, community health providers, and social service agencies; and stigma encountered during the initial stages of treatment engagement in the community.
Each of these issues is logged in the risk register with ratings for likelihood and impact, early indicators, and assigned mitigation responsibilities. For example, risks tied to evening releases may be reduced through partnerships with mobile response teams, while data-related risks are mitigated by implementing role-based access to shared records to protect privacy and improve continuity of care. This keeps risk management transparent, targeted, and proportionate to actual harm.
Step 4. Apply the framework's principles to decision areas
This step illustrates how the framework's principles inform design choices:
* Outcome-informed decision-making anchors each intervention to a specific measure.
* Risk-minimization keeps the focus on key transition moments without adding barriers.
* Individual autonomy ensures the program remains voluntary and participant-driven.
* Targeted, context-specific solutions allow scheduling and staffing to adapt to local needs.
* Cross-disciplinary collaboration connects correctional, clinical, and community systems.
* Practicality and real-world application keep interventions feasible with existing resources.
* Incentive alignment ties payments to performance measures, including successful post-release care coordination, treatment initiation, and retention in recovery services.
In the worked example, these principles directly shape the policy response: naloxone is offered at release, next-day MOUD appointments are reserved, peer recovery coaches facilitate linkage, and data dashboards track both health and justice outcomes.
Embedding input from people who have personally navigated the reentry process is also built into this step. The framework emphasizes participation from those most affected. In this example, individuals who have recently been released from custody review program materials, test the discharge workflow, and highlight gaps such as transportation and stigma. Their feedback is formally documented and integrated into revisions, making engagement an accountability tool, rather than a symbolic exercise.
Step 5. Design coordinated interventions and evaluation plans
Here, the framework moves from planning to execution, including a pilot study for the proposed interventions. The mapped systems and agreed principles guide the design of an integrated pilot:
* Screening and identification: At the time of incarceration, individuals are screened for opioid use risk during the correctional health intake process and monitored throughout custody and release.
* Harm reduction at transition: Naloxone is provided at release, with a brief training before discharge.
* Linkage to treatment: Peer recovery coaches meet people at release or within 24 hours to connect them with clinics.
* Continuity of care: To prevent treatment interruption, pharmacies issue short-term bridge prescriptions, which are temporary supplies of medications like buprenorphine, to cover the period between release and a confirmed clinic appointment.
* Monitoring and evaluation: Public health and correctional partners share de-identified data through a secure dashboard.
Evaluation follows the framework's rule of evidence before expansion. The pilot uses a stepped-wedge design, which means the program is rolled out in phases--starting with one jail and gradually expanding to the others. This allows researchers to compare outcomes before and after implementation at each site and see whether improvements, such as fewer overdoses and stronger treatment connections, are linked to the program rather than other changes over time.
Step 6. Implement, learn, and adapt
The final stage in the framework emphasizes learning as an ongoing function. In the worked example, the steering committee meets monthly to review performance data, risk indicators, and community feedback. New challenges, such as transportation gaps or clinic delays, trigger minor course corrections. Decisions to expand, sustain, or stop the intervention depend entirely on whether the predefined data-driven outcomes are met, ensuring that changes are based on evidence rather than assumptions. Transparent reporting ensures that progress, setbacks, and adaptations are documented and shared with partners and the public.
Outcome of the example
If the coordinated pilot is implemented effectively, the county might see promising indicators within the first year--more people accessing treatment, fewer overdose-related emergency responses, and improved coordination across systems.
However, if these outcomes do not materialize, the framework still provides a structure for identifying where breakdowns occurred, what barriers--political, operational, or resource-related--interfered, and how the approach should be adapted or scaled back. The purpose of the example is to illustrate how the framework guides both improvement and course correction.
Final note for policymakers and advocates
This framework is both a mindset and a method. It encourages policymakers to move beyond assumptions toward evidence, collaboration, and continuous learning. By clearly defining harms, designing proportionate responses, measuring outcomes, and adjusting based on results, public systems can reduce avoidable suffering and wasted public resources while preserving choice, privacy, and dignity.
The goal is progress that is practical, measurable, and humane. When public responses expressly recognize that knowledge is dispersed across individuals and institutions, approaches can be tested through evidence and refined through feedback, officials are able to not only reduce harm but also strengthen trust and accountability across every system they touch.
* * *
Layal Bou Harfouch is a drug policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/interdisciplinary-harm-reduction-a-practical-guide/
Pathways to Justice: Learning From the Past, Charting the Future in Asia, Sri Lanka - 1960-2024
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 5 -- The Asia Foundation issued the following news on Dec. 4, 2025:* * *
Pathways to Justice: Learning from the past, charting the future in Asia, Sri Lanka (1960-2024)
By Ramani Jayasundere and Dinusha Wickremesekera
The second publication in the Pathways to Justice series traces more than seventy years of The Asia Foundation's engagement in Sri Lanka's law and justice sector, situating this trajectory within a political landscape marked by civil conflict, constitutional upheavals, and recurring socio-economic crises. Across this shifting environment, TAF ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 5 -- The Asia Foundation issued the following news on Dec. 4, 2025: * * * Pathways to Justice: Learning from the past, charting the future in Asia, Sri Lanka (1960-2024) By Ramani Jayasundere and Dinusha Wickremesekera The second publication in the Pathways to Justice series traces more than seventy years of The Asia Foundation's engagement in Sri Lanka's law and justice sector, situating this trajectory within a political landscape marked by civil conflict, constitutional upheavals, and recurring socio-economic crises. Across this shifting environment, TAFhas worked with state institutions and civil society to expand access to justice and strengthen the rule of law through reforms that combine institutional capacity-building, community-based mechanisms, and rights-focused programming. Central to this contribution has been the national institutionalization of legal aid, now delivered through 77 state-funded branch offices and the development of a professionalized mediation system resolving roughly 200,000 disputes annually across 329 divisions. The publication also documents the emergence of community-oriented policing and the scaling of Tamil-language training for Sinhala police officers, innovations that were adopted across 150 stations before later political dynamics constrained further reform.
From the mid-2010s, gender justice became a defining area of work, generating empirical insights into survivors' encounters with the justice system and strengthening accountability alongside improved service delivery by women-led organizations. Taken together, the Sri Lanka profile demonstrates how long-term, locally grounded partnerships can generate reform even amid political volatility and evolving donor priorities, while also revealing persistent tensions between long-term structural change and short-term programming cycles. Looking forward, the publication identifies opportunities to deepen cross-country learning within TAF's regional justice portfolio, integrate psychosocial and mental health support into justice services, and make more explicit the linkages between justice, peacebuilding, social cohesion, and local governance.
* * *
Original text here: https://asiafoundation.org/publication/pathways-to-justice-sri-lanka/
Child Poverty Strategy Marks Progress, But Must Go Further
LONDON, England, Dec. 5 -- The Health Foundation posted the following news release on Dec. 4, 2025:* * *
Child Poverty Strategy marks progress, but must go further
Responding to the publication of the Child Poverty Strategy, Amrik Arshi, Senior Economist in the Healthy Lives Team at the Health Foundation, said:
'We welcome this long-awaited strategy, which outlines actions to boost family incomes, reduce the cost of essentials and begin to tackle the problem of too many children living in health-damaging temporary accommodation.
'Tackling child poverty is a prescription for good health ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, Dec. 5 -- The Health Foundation posted the following news release on Dec. 4, 2025: * * * Child Poverty Strategy marks progress, but must go further Responding to the publication of the Child Poverty Strategy, Amrik Arshi, Senior Economist in the Healthy Lives Team at the Health Foundation, said: 'We welcome this long-awaited strategy, which outlines actions to boost family incomes, reduce the cost of essentials and begin to tackle the problem of too many children living in health-damaging temporary accommodation. 'Tackling child poverty is a prescription for good healthand reduced inequalities - with our health and wellbeing being built from our earliest years. The lifting of the two-child limit on Universal Credit was an important step to alleviate poverty now. But the strategy must deliver on a preventative approach that tackles the deep structural causes of poverty. Only then will we ensure that every child - now and in the future - has the opportunity to grow up with security and to thrive.'
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/child-poverty-strategy-marks-progress-but-must-go-further