Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Local Data Center Moratoria are Costly for the Whole Country
LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Director of Technology Policy Max Gulker:
* * *
Local data center moratoria are costly for the whole country
The backlash against artificial intelligence and data centers has distorted basic facts, making it more difficult for local authorities to get them right.
-
The most contentious, passionate, and consequential debates around artificial intelligence (AI) are currently playing out before local zoning boards, town councils, and public electric utilities. The growing demand for computing ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Director of Technology Policy Max Gulker: * * * Local data center moratoria are costly for the whole country The backlash against artificial intelligence and data centers has distorted basic facts, making it more difficult for local authorities to get them right. - The most contentious, passionate, and consequential debates around artificial intelligence (AI) are currently playing out before local zoning boards, town councils, and public electric utilities. The growing demand for computingpower, both to create frontier AI models and to enable their widespread use, has transformed the storage and processing of data from activities with a physical presence so negligible as to be called the "cloud" to the basis of a construction boom in communities across the country.
The data center debate poses unique challenges due to a combination of issues and incentives that are intensely local on one hand, but have national and society-wide concerns on the other. Local authorities must weigh highly technical, case-specific data when determining what, if any, data center projects are right for their area. But the hundreds of meetings held by local governments and public utilities for this purpose have also become venues for a burgeoning mass anti-AI movement, making the job communities face when deliberating over data centers much more difficult.
A recent report finds that local opposition has blocked $18 billion in proposed data center projects and slowed the approval of over twice that amount. The momentum and publicity of these "wins" against data centers have now shifted the goal of some opposed to the AI from rejecting specific projects to preemptive moratoria-bans on considering new data center projects for one or more years, ostensibly so officials can gather more information or draft new regulations. Dozens of communities have enacted such moratoria in just the past few months.
Faced with constituencies understandably concerned about the changes brought about by AI, but often misinformed about the basic attributes of data centers, officials in towns and cities see the political appeal in backing these measures. As blocked developments and moratoria increase in number and momentum, however, their costs go beyond lost local economic development and begin to be felt nationwide. Data centers are essential infrastructure for modern society, with virtually all of us using them every day for countless computing tasks. The national movement to convince communities that data centers are a bad deal across the board is slowing down and complicating the important process of AI adoption for everyone.
Local matters
Like any other major commercial development, data centers undergo extensive review processes with local, state, and regional authorities before construction begins. While the details vary considerably by jurisdiction, developers are likely to encounter zoning boards, environmental review of multiple kinds, and public utility commissions. These review processes mean that developers can expect due diligence with communities to take over a year--and often multiple years--to complete. Local deliberation of this kind is essential because whether or not a data center is a good deal for a given community depends on many technical and case-specific facts on the ground.
Data centers bring communities economic benefits that are underappreciated in the current debate. Across the country, they have been a consistent source of tax revenue for local governments, accounting for as much as a third of all incoming revenue in some of the Virginia counties home to large facilities. They have also fueled a construction boom, with medium-sized "co-location" facilities and large "hyperscalers" supporting hundreds and thousands of jobs, respectively. These construction jobs are too often written off as "temporary" in debates about the economic value of data centers. Construction workers and union members often feature prominently in testimony supporting data center projects and opposing moratoria, noting that they keep many workers closer to home instead of on far-flung temporary job sites.
The permanent employment supported by data centers is also underappreciated by many, especially when viewed in proper perspective. While the numbers vary widely, co-location facilities typically support a few dozen high-paying, highly-skilled permanent jobs. This number may be smaller than that of other types of large commercial development, such as a big-box retailer or factory. However, co-location facilities provide these jobs without impacting small businesses or increasing traffic, to name just two factors that communities often worry about when considering more traditional commercial development. Hyperscale data centers, which have become the primary lightning rod in recent debates, support hundreds of permanent, highly skilled jobs, and recent research shows their potential to serve as anchors for additional tech-focused employment and small businesses in the communities where they are built.
Concerns about the local impact of data centers mostly focus on their electricity and water consumption. Data centers require considerably more electricity than traditional types of commercial development, such as retail or factories. Developers prefer to locate them in areas with spare grid capacity, but with skyrocketing demand for computing power, this has become something of a bottleneck in certain parts of the country. Protecting local consumers from electricity price hikes--not to mention protecting power grids from excess demand--must be taken seriously. Recent public outrage often overlooks the fact that local officials and developers are indeed carefully considering these matters. Many states are introducing a special electric rate class for data centers with extra requirements that they fund their own capacity upgrades, while tech companies and developers are investing heavily in innovative approaches to both bring in their own power and flexibly allocate electricity demand across different sites.
Concerns over data centers' use of water follow a similar pattern, depending greatly on local factors rather than a common set of issues nationwide. The consequences of water consumption by a data center depend not only on the area's overall water resources but on how much of that water is treated or processed for different uses, the capacity of those systems, and the type of cooling system the data center proposes to use. Once again, rapid innovation is rapidly changing the nature of these questions, with an increasing number of data centers using systems that operate in a closed loop or require no water processed for household or commercial uses at all.
Because so many of these questions depend critically on local conditions and infrastructure, they are best answered by residents and governments in the areas where data centers are being built. But the backlash against AI and data centers, national in scope and motivation, has begun distorting many of the basic facts on the ground in ways that make it more difficult for local authorities to get them right.
National backlash
The ability of citizens to protest or resist unwanted commercial development in their communities is an important part of the American political system. At its best, this tradition has enabled communities to fight back against industrial polluters and neighborhood-flattening highways, creating David-versus-Goliath stories seared into Americans' political consciousness. At its worst, this tradition has yielded NIMBY (not in my backyard) movements that have held back housing construction across the country, leading to shortages and high prices at the center of a current affordability crisis. Opposing local development through protests on the ground and especially by showing up at town hall meetings is a type of activism Americans understand.
In the past few years, Americans have often heard overheated rhetoric about the massive changes AI will soon bring to their lives, not to mention overblown fears fueled by media hype. In this environment, the anti-data center movement seemingly presents a familiar way for people to make their voices heard. This has caused a disproportionate amount of public concern about AI to be superimposed onto local data center debates, leading to misunderstanding and misinformation that gains momentum.
Combined with such intense public engagement, the highly technical and case-specific nature of the issues makes misinformation very difficult to combat. National data on both electricity and water is easily manipulated to yield eye-popping numbers that are irrelevant or misleading when applied to the concrete impacts of a specific data center in a specific location. In early June, for example, Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted a statistic that households living near data centers saw their electricity bills increase by "as much as 267 percent in the last five years." That figure, from a 2025 Bloomberg article, referred to wholesale electricity rates rather than the retail rates paid by consumers, and did not separate the impact of data centers from other causes of rising rates, such as aging infrastructure, wildfires, and other climate impacts. When controlling for these factors, researchers find that new data centers built during the period resulted in slightly lower retail rates by encouraging new investments in grid capacity and infrastructure. The authors do, however, caution that future development in areas with strained grid capacity could result in rate increases, underscoring the need for a detailed local-level review of projects.
Once people believe that data centers are bound to cause electricity rate hikes, it becomes difficult to explain the complexities of local grid capacity, the impacts of numerous other factors on prices, or the recent innovations that enable data centers to bring their own power or consume power flexibly across multiple locations. Once people believe that data centers "use up" water supplies, it becomes difficult to explain the many different cooling systems they employ and the differences between water processed for different uses in different areas. This mismatch between national and local questions can generate highly problematic incentives for local government officials.
The trouble with moratoria
Moratoria pose a particular challenge in the current environment. Instead of deliberating over the specifics of how a proposed project will interact with energy and water infrastructure in a particular community, these temporary bans force officials to consider data centers in the abstract, where those opposed to AI can most easily distort the facts. This is a difficult environment for good governance to take hold. The political incentives that local leaders face to support moratoria, given the ongoing national backlash, are undeniable.
The most important benefits of data centers are not the jobs and tax revenue they bring to local communities, significant though those may be. They are essential infrastructure for virtually every computing task each of us now performs on a daily basis. Preemptively crossing hundreds of communities off the list for potential development, often without any local justification, will make the development and use of AI, not to mention other types of computing, more expensive.
A telling moment occurred in April when Maine Gov. Janet Mills vetoed a statewide moratorium bill, saying that while she believed it was "warranted" in theory, it failed to make an exception for a specific $550 million project in the state slated to begin construction. Mills was able to cite the economic benefits and safeguards in place for that project, and why it would clearly benefit the community where it was being built. This wider view of the issue in statehouses is likely why of the 14 state moratorium bills brought this year, none have become law, and only two (Maine and New York) have passed their legislatures.
Supporters of data centers must continue to fight the intense backlash, primarily through education and debate, despite the current difficulties. The authority and ability of local governments and citizens to make the right choices for their own communities must be respected. The best way to do so is through rigorous deliberation of the facts on the ground for specific projects, not preemptive bans.
* * *
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/local-data-center-moratoria-are-costly-for-the-whole-country/
* * *
Local data center moratoria are costly for the whole country
The backlash against artificial intelligence and data centers has distorted basic facts, making it more difficult for local authorities to get them right.
-
The most contentious, passionate, and consequential debates around artificial intelligence (AI) are currently playing out before local zoning boards, town councils, and public electric utilities. The growing demand for computing ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Director of Technology Policy Max Gulker: * * * Local data center moratoria are costly for the whole country The backlash against artificial intelligence and data centers has distorted basic facts, making it more difficult for local authorities to get them right. - The most contentious, passionate, and consequential debates around artificial intelligence (AI) are currently playing out before local zoning boards, town councils, and public electric utilities. The growing demand for computingpower, both to create frontier AI models and to enable their widespread use, has transformed the storage and processing of data from activities with a physical presence so negligible as to be called the "cloud" to the basis of a construction boom in communities across the country.
The data center debate poses unique challenges due to a combination of issues and incentives that are intensely local on one hand, but have national and society-wide concerns on the other. Local authorities must weigh highly technical, case-specific data when determining what, if any, data center projects are right for their area. But the hundreds of meetings held by local governments and public utilities for this purpose have also become venues for a burgeoning mass anti-AI movement, making the job communities face when deliberating over data centers much more difficult.
A recent report finds that local opposition has blocked $18 billion in proposed data center projects and slowed the approval of over twice that amount. The momentum and publicity of these "wins" against data centers have now shifted the goal of some opposed to the AI from rejecting specific projects to preemptive moratoria-bans on considering new data center projects for one or more years, ostensibly so officials can gather more information or draft new regulations. Dozens of communities have enacted such moratoria in just the past few months.
Faced with constituencies understandably concerned about the changes brought about by AI, but often misinformed about the basic attributes of data centers, officials in towns and cities see the political appeal in backing these measures. As blocked developments and moratoria increase in number and momentum, however, their costs go beyond lost local economic development and begin to be felt nationwide. Data centers are essential infrastructure for modern society, with virtually all of us using them every day for countless computing tasks. The national movement to convince communities that data centers are a bad deal across the board is slowing down and complicating the important process of AI adoption for everyone.
Local matters
Like any other major commercial development, data centers undergo extensive review processes with local, state, and regional authorities before construction begins. While the details vary considerably by jurisdiction, developers are likely to encounter zoning boards, environmental review of multiple kinds, and public utility commissions. These review processes mean that developers can expect due diligence with communities to take over a year--and often multiple years--to complete. Local deliberation of this kind is essential because whether or not a data center is a good deal for a given community depends on many technical and case-specific facts on the ground.
Data centers bring communities economic benefits that are underappreciated in the current debate. Across the country, they have been a consistent source of tax revenue for local governments, accounting for as much as a third of all incoming revenue in some of the Virginia counties home to large facilities. They have also fueled a construction boom, with medium-sized "co-location" facilities and large "hyperscalers" supporting hundreds and thousands of jobs, respectively. These construction jobs are too often written off as "temporary" in debates about the economic value of data centers. Construction workers and union members often feature prominently in testimony supporting data center projects and opposing moratoria, noting that they keep many workers closer to home instead of on far-flung temporary job sites.
The permanent employment supported by data centers is also underappreciated by many, especially when viewed in proper perspective. While the numbers vary widely, co-location facilities typically support a few dozen high-paying, highly-skilled permanent jobs. This number may be smaller than that of other types of large commercial development, such as a big-box retailer or factory. However, co-location facilities provide these jobs without impacting small businesses or increasing traffic, to name just two factors that communities often worry about when considering more traditional commercial development. Hyperscale data centers, which have become the primary lightning rod in recent debates, support hundreds of permanent, highly skilled jobs, and recent research shows their potential to serve as anchors for additional tech-focused employment and small businesses in the communities where they are built.
Concerns about the local impact of data centers mostly focus on their electricity and water consumption. Data centers require considerably more electricity than traditional types of commercial development, such as retail or factories. Developers prefer to locate them in areas with spare grid capacity, but with skyrocketing demand for computing power, this has become something of a bottleneck in certain parts of the country. Protecting local consumers from electricity price hikes--not to mention protecting power grids from excess demand--must be taken seriously. Recent public outrage often overlooks the fact that local officials and developers are indeed carefully considering these matters. Many states are introducing a special electric rate class for data centers with extra requirements that they fund their own capacity upgrades, while tech companies and developers are investing heavily in innovative approaches to both bring in their own power and flexibly allocate electricity demand across different sites.
Concerns over data centers' use of water follow a similar pattern, depending greatly on local factors rather than a common set of issues nationwide. The consequences of water consumption by a data center depend not only on the area's overall water resources but on how much of that water is treated or processed for different uses, the capacity of those systems, and the type of cooling system the data center proposes to use. Once again, rapid innovation is rapidly changing the nature of these questions, with an increasing number of data centers using systems that operate in a closed loop or require no water processed for household or commercial uses at all.
Because so many of these questions depend critically on local conditions and infrastructure, they are best answered by residents and governments in the areas where data centers are being built. But the backlash against AI and data centers, national in scope and motivation, has begun distorting many of the basic facts on the ground in ways that make it more difficult for local authorities to get them right.
National backlash
The ability of citizens to protest or resist unwanted commercial development in their communities is an important part of the American political system. At its best, this tradition has enabled communities to fight back against industrial polluters and neighborhood-flattening highways, creating David-versus-Goliath stories seared into Americans' political consciousness. At its worst, this tradition has yielded NIMBY (not in my backyard) movements that have held back housing construction across the country, leading to shortages and high prices at the center of a current affordability crisis. Opposing local development through protests on the ground and especially by showing up at town hall meetings is a type of activism Americans understand.
In the past few years, Americans have often heard overheated rhetoric about the massive changes AI will soon bring to their lives, not to mention overblown fears fueled by media hype. In this environment, the anti-data center movement seemingly presents a familiar way for people to make their voices heard. This has caused a disproportionate amount of public concern about AI to be superimposed onto local data center debates, leading to misunderstanding and misinformation that gains momentum.
Combined with such intense public engagement, the highly technical and case-specific nature of the issues makes misinformation very difficult to combat. National data on both electricity and water is easily manipulated to yield eye-popping numbers that are irrelevant or misleading when applied to the concrete impacts of a specific data center in a specific location. In early June, for example, Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted a statistic that households living near data centers saw their electricity bills increase by "as much as 267 percent in the last five years." That figure, from a 2025 Bloomberg article, referred to wholesale electricity rates rather than the retail rates paid by consumers, and did not separate the impact of data centers from other causes of rising rates, such as aging infrastructure, wildfires, and other climate impacts. When controlling for these factors, researchers find that new data centers built during the period resulted in slightly lower retail rates by encouraging new investments in grid capacity and infrastructure. The authors do, however, caution that future development in areas with strained grid capacity could result in rate increases, underscoring the need for a detailed local-level review of projects.
Once people believe that data centers are bound to cause electricity rate hikes, it becomes difficult to explain the complexities of local grid capacity, the impacts of numerous other factors on prices, or the recent innovations that enable data centers to bring their own power or consume power flexibly across multiple locations. Once people believe that data centers "use up" water supplies, it becomes difficult to explain the many different cooling systems they employ and the differences between water processed for different uses in different areas. This mismatch between national and local questions can generate highly problematic incentives for local government officials.
The trouble with moratoria
Moratoria pose a particular challenge in the current environment. Instead of deliberating over the specifics of how a proposed project will interact with energy and water infrastructure in a particular community, these temporary bans force officials to consider data centers in the abstract, where those opposed to AI can most easily distort the facts. This is a difficult environment for good governance to take hold. The political incentives that local leaders face to support moratoria, given the ongoing national backlash, are undeniable.
The most important benefits of data centers are not the jobs and tax revenue they bring to local communities, significant though those may be. They are essential infrastructure for virtually every computing task each of us now performs on a daily basis. Preemptively crossing hundreds of communities off the list for potential development, often without any local justification, will make the development and use of AI, not to mention other types of computing, more expensive.
A telling moment occurred in April when Maine Gov. Janet Mills vetoed a statewide moratorium bill, saying that while she believed it was "warranted" in theory, it failed to make an exception for a specific $550 million project in the state slated to begin construction. Mills was able to cite the economic benefits and safeguards in place for that project, and why it would clearly benefit the community where it was being built. This wider view of the issue in statehouses is likely why of the 14 state moratorium bills brought this year, none have become law, and only two (Maine and New York) have passed their legislatures.
Supporters of data centers must continue to fight the intense backlash, primarily through education and debate, despite the current difficulties. The authority and ability of local governments and citizens to make the right choices for their own communities must be respected. The best way to do so is through rigorous deliberation of the facts on the ground for specific projects, not preemptive bans.
* * *
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/local-data-center-moratoria-are-costly-for-the-whole-country/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Illinois - Don't Let Social Security Safe Harbor Compliance Become a Blank Check for Tier 2 Benefit Expansion
LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior fellow Rod Crane:
* * *
Illinois: Don't let Social Security safe harbor compliance become a blank check for Tier 2 benefit expansion
Illinois' five major state pension systems remain the most underfunded in the nation, carrying roughly $144.6 billion in unfunded liabilities and a combined funded ratio of just 47% as of the June 30, 2025, actuarial valuations.
Into this fragile fiscal environment comes the perennial push to overhaul Tier 2--the scaled-back defined-benefit plan created in 2011 ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior fellow Rod Crane: * * * Illinois: Don't let Social Security safe harbor compliance become a blank check for Tier 2 benefit expansion Illinois' five major state pension systems remain the most underfunded in the nation, carrying roughly $144.6 billion in unfunded liabilities and a combined funded ratio of just 47% as of the June 30, 2025, actuarial valuations. Into this fragile fiscal environment comes the perennial push to overhaul Tier 2--the scaled-back defined-benefit plan created in 2011for workers hired after that year. The latest vehicle is Senate Bill 1937, the Fair Retirement and Recruitment Act (FRAA), which proposes a rollback of many of the benefit reductions made in 2011 in response to rising pension costs. The bill advanced in committee in late 2025 but remains stalled amid ongoing negotiations. Gov. JB Pritzker has publicly stated the package needs "a lot more work."
Proponents repeatedly cite a narrow federal compliance concern--that the Tier 2 benefit formula does not meet minimum benefit requirements for non-Social Security participants--as the urgent reason to act. But the FRRA and similar proposals use these minimum benefit compliance concerns as a Trojan horse to justify a far broader, far costlier overhaul.
What is the Social Security "minimum benefit" issue?
Federal law (Treas. Reg. Sec. 31.3121(b)(7)-2 and Rev. Proc. 91-40) allows state and local governments to exempt employees from FICA (Social Security/Medicare) taxes and coverage only if the public pension qualifies as an eligible "replacement plan." If the Social Security replacement plan is a defined benefit pension plan, it must provide an annuity (starting no later than Social Security's full retirement age) at least equal to the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) the worker would have received under Social Security.
Compliance is tested via three tiers: a basic formula (1.5% multiplier x final-average compensation x service years, using Social Security wage base and 3-year averaging), a modified formula (adjusting baselines for plan differences, like longer averaging periods), or an equivalent formula (individual-by-individual comparison).
Illinois Tier 2 pension benefits typically feature a 2.2% pension accrual formula for non-Social Security employees, final average salary based on the highest eight of the last 10 years, a pensionable salary cap that grows by the lesser of 3% or one-half of Consumer Price Index - Urban Wage Earners (CPI-U), normal retirement at age 67 (with reductions earlier), and a non-compounded cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) of the lesser of 3% or one-half of CPI-U.
The clearest safe harbor compliance issue is that Tier 2's pensionable salary cap (currently $129,192 in 2026) lags behind the $184,500 wage base of Social Security.
Under the safe-harbor test, this divergence, combined with Tier 2's longer eight-year final-average-salary period and early-retirement reduction, drops the effective accrual rate below the required 1.75% threshold for the general formulas in the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS), State Employees' Retirement System (SERS), and State Universities Retirement System (SURS). The result is a technical plan-level failure that could, in theory, jeopardize the FICA exemption for affected higher-earning participants.
The Trojan Horse response
Even granting that the salary-cap issue creates a genuine compliance risk, Rev. Proc. 91-40's mechanical tests require only that the initial annual annuity meet a baseline comparable to Social Security's Primary Insurance Amount. Nothing in the minimum benefit framework mandates shorter averaging periods, earlier unreduced retirement, richer COLAs, or any of the rollbacks of the 2011 pension reforms now on the table. Those are discretionary policy choices. Treating federal minimum benefit compliance as a blank check for undoing prior reforms misuses a narrow regulatory concern to bypass the hard trade-offs that should govern public pension design.
Importantly, however, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has never issued a ruling, audit finding, or enforcement action confirming this interpretation for Illinois Tier 2. Prudent policymaking, therefore, calls for seeking formal IRS clarification or a private-letter ruling before treating the issue as settled law.
That said, even if we accept the compliance risk as valid and worth addressing, the narrow fix required is modest and targeted: simply align the Tier 2 pensionable salary cap with the full Social Security wage base each year, indexing it identically going forward. As reported by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) in 2025, this single change would restore modified safe-harbor compliance at a projected cost of roughly $5.6 to $6.2 billion in additional contributions through 2045, concentrated among the small share of higher earners who actually hit the cap.
Instead, the Fair Retirement and Recruitment Act of 2026 (SB 1937) and similar proposals use the safe-harbor concern as a Trojan horse to justify a far broader, far costlier overhaul. These bills bundle the necessary cap alignment with multiple enhancements that have nothing to do with federal compliance:
* Shortening the final-average-salary period from the highest eight of the last 10 years to six of the last 10.
* Lowering retirement eligibility ages and service requirements for unreduced benefits (e.g., age 62 if they have reached the 75% of covered salary cap, age 65 with 20 years of service, or age 67 with 10 years of service).
* Improving the automatic annual COLA increase to a more generous 3% simple (non-compounded) structure.
* In some variants, additional tweaks to survivor benefits, reciprocal service, or delaying funding targets to 90% funded by 2045.
Actuarial costs for these add-ons are significantly higher, with one projecting about $46 billion in additional costs through 2049 above the minimum benefit fix alone.
Leveraging compliance issues to improperly bolster benefits
Any reforms beyond the minimum cap alignment must therefore be evaluated strictly on independent benefit-policy and funding-policy grounds: retirement-income adequacy, benefit equity across cohorts, taxpayer affordability, and effective recruitment and retention. On these criteria, the broader proposals fall short without rigorous justification and pre-funding.
The adequacy of the current level of pension benefits should not be viewed as a crisis. A full-career Tier 2 non-Social Security worker with 30 years of service still replaces roughly 66% of final average salary--often competitive with private-sector 401(k) outcomes when paired with personal savings. It is important to note that the entire issue arises from the Tier 2 salary cap mechanism, so the only participants who could have a safe harbor compliance problem are high-earning employees earning more than the salary cap ($129,192 in 2026). Most Tier 2 plan participants are not affected by this situation; for example, only about 6% of SERS employees earn above the salary cap.
The minimum benefit compliance debate has become a convenient rhetorical shield. Invoking "the feds are coming" sounds more urgent than admitting a desire for richer pensions. Illinois cannot afford that sleight of hand. If the minimum compliance fix is needed, enact the narrow salary-cap alignment after seeking IRS confirmation. Any additional enhancements must stand or fall on their independent merits under the tests of adequacy, equity, affordability, and workforce needs--not on an unconfirmed regulatory theory. Sound public policy, not selective regulatory leverage, must decide the future of Tier 2.
* * *
Rod Crane is a senior fellow at Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/illinois-social-security-safe-harbor-compliance-blank-check-tier-2-benefit-expansion/
* * *
Illinois: Don't let Social Security safe harbor compliance become a blank check for Tier 2 benefit expansion
Illinois' five major state pension systems remain the most underfunded in the nation, carrying roughly $144.6 billion in unfunded liabilities and a combined funded ratio of just 47% as of the June 30, 2025, actuarial valuations.
Into this fragile fiscal environment comes the perennial push to overhaul Tier 2--the scaled-back defined-benefit plan created in 2011 ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by senior fellow Rod Crane: * * * Illinois: Don't let Social Security safe harbor compliance become a blank check for Tier 2 benefit expansion Illinois' five major state pension systems remain the most underfunded in the nation, carrying roughly $144.6 billion in unfunded liabilities and a combined funded ratio of just 47% as of the June 30, 2025, actuarial valuations. Into this fragile fiscal environment comes the perennial push to overhaul Tier 2--the scaled-back defined-benefit plan created in 2011for workers hired after that year. The latest vehicle is Senate Bill 1937, the Fair Retirement and Recruitment Act (FRAA), which proposes a rollback of many of the benefit reductions made in 2011 in response to rising pension costs. The bill advanced in committee in late 2025 but remains stalled amid ongoing negotiations. Gov. JB Pritzker has publicly stated the package needs "a lot more work."
Proponents repeatedly cite a narrow federal compliance concern--that the Tier 2 benefit formula does not meet minimum benefit requirements for non-Social Security participants--as the urgent reason to act. But the FRRA and similar proposals use these minimum benefit compliance concerns as a Trojan horse to justify a far broader, far costlier overhaul.
What is the Social Security "minimum benefit" issue?
Federal law (Treas. Reg. Sec. 31.3121(b)(7)-2 and Rev. Proc. 91-40) allows state and local governments to exempt employees from FICA (Social Security/Medicare) taxes and coverage only if the public pension qualifies as an eligible "replacement plan." If the Social Security replacement plan is a defined benefit pension plan, it must provide an annuity (starting no later than Social Security's full retirement age) at least equal to the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) the worker would have received under Social Security.
Compliance is tested via three tiers: a basic formula (1.5% multiplier x final-average compensation x service years, using Social Security wage base and 3-year averaging), a modified formula (adjusting baselines for plan differences, like longer averaging periods), or an equivalent formula (individual-by-individual comparison).
Illinois Tier 2 pension benefits typically feature a 2.2% pension accrual formula for non-Social Security employees, final average salary based on the highest eight of the last 10 years, a pensionable salary cap that grows by the lesser of 3% or one-half of Consumer Price Index - Urban Wage Earners (CPI-U), normal retirement at age 67 (with reductions earlier), and a non-compounded cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) of the lesser of 3% or one-half of CPI-U.
The clearest safe harbor compliance issue is that Tier 2's pensionable salary cap (currently $129,192 in 2026) lags behind the $184,500 wage base of Social Security.
Under the safe-harbor test, this divergence, combined with Tier 2's longer eight-year final-average-salary period and early-retirement reduction, drops the effective accrual rate below the required 1.75% threshold for the general formulas in the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS), State Employees' Retirement System (SERS), and State Universities Retirement System (SURS). The result is a technical plan-level failure that could, in theory, jeopardize the FICA exemption for affected higher-earning participants.
The Trojan Horse response
Even granting that the salary-cap issue creates a genuine compliance risk, Rev. Proc. 91-40's mechanical tests require only that the initial annual annuity meet a baseline comparable to Social Security's Primary Insurance Amount. Nothing in the minimum benefit framework mandates shorter averaging periods, earlier unreduced retirement, richer COLAs, or any of the rollbacks of the 2011 pension reforms now on the table. Those are discretionary policy choices. Treating federal minimum benefit compliance as a blank check for undoing prior reforms misuses a narrow regulatory concern to bypass the hard trade-offs that should govern public pension design.
Importantly, however, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has never issued a ruling, audit finding, or enforcement action confirming this interpretation for Illinois Tier 2. Prudent policymaking, therefore, calls for seeking formal IRS clarification or a private-letter ruling before treating the issue as settled law.
That said, even if we accept the compliance risk as valid and worth addressing, the narrow fix required is modest and targeted: simply align the Tier 2 pensionable salary cap with the full Social Security wage base each year, indexing it identically going forward. As reported by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) in 2025, this single change would restore modified safe-harbor compliance at a projected cost of roughly $5.6 to $6.2 billion in additional contributions through 2045, concentrated among the small share of higher earners who actually hit the cap.
Instead, the Fair Retirement and Recruitment Act of 2026 (SB 1937) and similar proposals use the safe-harbor concern as a Trojan horse to justify a far broader, far costlier overhaul. These bills bundle the necessary cap alignment with multiple enhancements that have nothing to do with federal compliance:
* Shortening the final-average-salary period from the highest eight of the last 10 years to six of the last 10.
* Lowering retirement eligibility ages and service requirements for unreduced benefits (e.g., age 62 if they have reached the 75% of covered salary cap, age 65 with 20 years of service, or age 67 with 10 years of service).
* Improving the automatic annual COLA increase to a more generous 3% simple (non-compounded) structure.
* In some variants, additional tweaks to survivor benefits, reciprocal service, or delaying funding targets to 90% funded by 2045.
Actuarial costs for these add-ons are significantly higher, with one projecting about $46 billion in additional costs through 2049 above the minimum benefit fix alone.
Leveraging compliance issues to improperly bolster benefits
Any reforms beyond the minimum cap alignment must therefore be evaluated strictly on independent benefit-policy and funding-policy grounds: retirement-income adequacy, benefit equity across cohorts, taxpayer affordability, and effective recruitment and retention. On these criteria, the broader proposals fall short without rigorous justification and pre-funding.
The adequacy of the current level of pension benefits should not be viewed as a crisis. A full-career Tier 2 non-Social Security worker with 30 years of service still replaces roughly 66% of final average salary--often competitive with private-sector 401(k) outcomes when paired with personal savings. It is important to note that the entire issue arises from the Tier 2 salary cap mechanism, so the only participants who could have a safe harbor compliance problem are high-earning employees earning more than the salary cap ($129,192 in 2026). Most Tier 2 plan participants are not affected by this situation; for example, only about 6% of SERS employees earn above the salary cap.
The minimum benefit compliance debate has become a convenient rhetorical shield. Invoking "the feds are coming" sounds more urgent than admitting a desire for richer pensions. Illinois cannot afford that sleight of hand. If the minimum compliance fix is needed, enact the narrow salary-cap alignment after seeking IRS confirmation. Any additional enhancements must stand or fall on their independent merits under the tests of adequacy, equity, affordability, and workforce needs--not on an unconfirmed regulatory theory. Sound public policy, not selective regulatory leverage, must decide the future of Tier 2.
* * *
Rod Crane is a senior fellow at Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/illinois-social-security-safe-harbor-compliance-blank-check-tier-2-benefit-expansion/
Central New York Community Foundation: Madison County Rural Health Council Chosen by Madison County Residents to Receive $75K for Housing Stability Efforts
SYRACUSE, New York, June 27 -- The Central New York Community Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Madison County Rural Health Council Chosen by Madison County Residents to Receive $75K for Housing Stability Efforts
The winning grant will help the council combine emergency financial assistance with education, resource navigation and community partnerships.
-
The Central New York Community Foundation has named Madison County Rural Health Council the winner of a $75,000 participatory budgeting grant to support housing stability for families in Madison County. The winning proposal, ... Show Full Article SYRACUSE, New York, June 27 -- The Central New York Community Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Madison County Rural Health Council Chosen by Madison County Residents to Receive $75K for Housing Stability Efforts The winning grant will help the council combine emergency financial assistance with education, resource navigation and community partnerships. - The Central New York Community Foundation has named Madison County Rural Health Council the winner of a $75,000 participatory budgeting grant to support housing stability for families in Madison County. The winning proposal,which is focused on emergency assistance and education, was selected through a public vote held Thursday, June 25, as part of the Community Foundation's participatory budgeting initiative celebrating its upcoming centennial.
Voting took place online throughout the day and in person during a live community celebration held at the Smithfield Community Center. A total of 137 votes were cast.
The winning grant will help the council combine emergency financial assistance with education, resource navigation and community partnerships. The project aims to help working families remain safely housed while connecting them to services that support financial well-being and overall health. By addressing housing instability, the organization hopes to strengthen household resilience and improve quality of life for Madison County residents.
"We are deeply grateful to the Community Foundation, the Madison County community, and our dedicated team for believing in our mission and investing in our vision," said Christine Paul, executive director of MCRHC. "Their confidence in our proposal reflects a shared commitment to ensuring that individuals and families have access to the resources they need to achieve housing stability and financial empowerment. We are honored by this partnership and excited to put these resources to work for the people we serve, ensuring that the impact is felt directly in neighborhoods throughout our community."
Thursday's vote marked the culmination of a month-long community engagement process that invited Madison County residents to help determine how funding should be invested locally. During two participatory budgeting sessions held earlier this month at Madison County Cornell Cooperative Extension, residents worked to identify pressing community challenges and develop project ideas that would best support local needs. Participants identified increasing housing stability for families as the community's top funding priority.
"This process was designed to ensure that residents had a direct voice in shaping solutions for their community," said Qiana Williams, senior program officer at the Community Foundation. "Community members shared their experiences, identified what they believed was most needed and helped guide this investment from start to finish. That level of participation and collaboration is what makes participatory budgeting so meaningful."
The ballot also included proposals submitted by Community Action Partnership for Madison County. Participating nonprofit organizations worked closely with Community Foundation staff to refine their ideas and ensure proposals reflected community input gathered during the participatory budgeting sessions.
The Madison County initiative is the second of five participatory budgeting projects the Community Foundation will host across its service area as part of its two-year centennial celebration leading up to 2027. Collectively, the initiatives will distribute $500,000 in funding through projects selected directly by residents. Additional participatory budgeting initiatives are taking place in Oswego, Cortland, Cayuga and Onondaga counties.
Participatory budgeting is a community engagement process in which residents help decide how funding is allocated through a structured process of community need identification, prioritization and voting. In partnership with residents, nonprofits and grassroots organizations, participants identify priorities, co-design solutions and ultimately select the project they believe will best address a community need.
To learn more about the Community Foundation's participatory budgeting initiative, visit cnycf.org/pbmadisoncounty.
* * *
Original text here: https://cnycf.org/madison-county-rural-health-council-chosen-by-madison-county-residents-to-receive-75k-for-housing-stability-efforts/
* * *
Madison County Rural Health Council Chosen by Madison County Residents to Receive $75K for Housing Stability Efforts
The winning grant will help the council combine emergency financial assistance with education, resource navigation and community partnerships.
-
The Central New York Community Foundation has named Madison County Rural Health Council the winner of a $75,000 participatory budgeting grant to support housing stability for families in Madison County. The winning proposal, ... Show Full Article SYRACUSE, New York, June 27 -- The Central New York Community Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Madison County Rural Health Council Chosen by Madison County Residents to Receive $75K for Housing Stability Efforts The winning grant will help the council combine emergency financial assistance with education, resource navigation and community partnerships. - The Central New York Community Foundation has named Madison County Rural Health Council the winner of a $75,000 participatory budgeting grant to support housing stability for families in Madison County. The winning proposal,which is focused on emergency assistance and education, was selected through a public vote held Thursday, June 25, as part of the Community Foundation's participatory budgeting initiative celebrating its upcoming centennial.
Voting took place online throughout the day and in person during a live community celebration held at the Smithfield Community Center. A total of 137 votes were cast.
The winning grant will help the council combine emergency financial assistance with education, resource navigation and community partnerships. The project aims to help working families remain safely housed while connecting them to services that support financial well-being and overall health. By addressing housing instability, the organization hopes to strengthen household resilience and improve quality of life for Madison County residents.
"We are deeply grateful to the Community Foundation, the Madison County community, and our dedicated team for believing in our mission and investing in our vision," said Christine Paul, executive director of MCRHC. "Their confidence in our proposal reflects a shared commitment to ensuring that individuals and families have access to the resources they need to achieve housing stability and financial empowerment. We are honored by this partnership and excited to put these resources to work for the people we serve, ensuring that the impact is felt directly in neighborhoods throughout our community."
Thursday's vote marked the culmination of a month-long community engagement process that invited Madison County residents to help determine how funding should be invested locally. During two participatory budgeting sessions held earlier this month at Madison County Cornell Cooperative Extension, residents worked to identify pressing community challenges and develop project ideas that would best support local needs. Participants identified increasing housing stability for families as the community's top funding priority.
"This process was designed to ensure that residents had a direct voice in shaping solutions for their community," said Qiana Williams, senior program officer at the Community Foundation. "Community members shared their experiences, identified what they believed was most needed and helped guide this investment from start to finish. That level of participation and collaboration is what makes participatory budgeting so meaningful."
The ballot also included proposals submitted by Community Action Partnership for Madison County. Participating nonprofit organizations worked closely with Community Foundation staff to refine their ideas and ensure proposals reflected community input gathered during the participatory budgeting sessions.
The Madison County initiative is the second of five participatory budgeting projects the Community Foundation will host across its service area as part of its two-year centennial celebration leading up to 2027. Collectively, the initiatives will distribute $500,000 in funding through projects selected directly by residents. Additional participatory budgeting initiatives are taking place in Oswego, Cortland, Cayuga and Onondaga counties.
Participatory budgeting is a community engagement process in which residents help decide how funding is allocated through a structured process of community need identification, prioritization and voting. In partnership with residents, nonprofits and grassroots organizations, participants identify priorities, co-design solutions and ultimately select the project they believe will best address a community need.
To learn more about the Community Foundation's participatory budgeting initiative, visit cnycf.org/pbmadisoncounty.
* * *
Original text here: https://cnycf.org/madison-county-rural-health-council-chosen-by-madison-county-residents-to-receive-75k-for-housing-stability-efforts/
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust: Immunotherapy Drug Pembrolizumab Available for Use on the NHS for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancers
LONDON, England, June 26 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news:
* * *
Immunotherapy drug pembrolizumab available for use on the NHS for locally advanced cervical cancers
The approval follows a recommendation by the National Institute for Health and Social Care Excellence (NICE).
-
The Royal Marsden welcomes the decision to make the immunotherapy drug pembrolizumab available for use on the NHS for patients with locally advanced cervical cancers.
Pembrolizumab, combined with chemoradiotherapy, has been shown to increase the length of time that ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, June 26 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news: * * * Immunotherapy drug pembrolizumab available for use on the NHS for locally advanced cervical cancers The approval follows a recommendation by the National Institute for Health and Social Care Excellence (NICE). - The Royal Marsden welcomes the decision to make the immunotherapy drug pembrolizumab available for use on the NHS for patients with locally advanced cervical cancers. Pembrolizumab, combined with chemoradiotherapy, has been shown to increase the length of time thatpeople have their cancer controlled and how long they live compared with chemoradiotherapy alone.
The Royal Marsden was one of two UK centres that trialled the drug as part of the KEYNOTE-A18 study.
Trial results showed increased survival rates amongst cervical cancer patients when compared to chemotherapy alone
"I am proud to have been involved in the Keynote-A18 trial in the UK and at The Royal Marsden," says Dr Susan Lalondrelle, Consultant Clinical Oncologist at The Royal Marsden and UK primary investigator on the study.
"Most importantly, we are now seeing the results translate into real benefit for patients, with pembrolizumab improving outcomes and offering new hope for women with locally advanced cervical cancer."
Evidence from KEYNOTE-A18 showed that at 24 months, progression-free survival for patients was 68 per cent with pembrolizumab and chemoradiotherapy versus 57 per cent with chemoradiotherapy alone.
Results also showed that at 36 months, survival rates were 82.6 per cent with pembrolizumab and chemoradiotherapy compared with 74.8 per cent with chemoradiotherapy alone.
Following a recommendation by the National Institute for Health and Social Care Excellence (NICE), the treatment will be available for patients with stages 3 to 4 locally advanced cervical cancer.
'The main reason I joined the trial was to help others'
Louise Broadbelt, 55, joined KEYNOTE-A18 shortly after being diagnosed at The Royal Marsden in September 2021. She continues to undergo monitoring but is currently not receiving treatment, with scans showing no evidence of the disease.
"I decided to take part in the trial after discussing it with my consultant, Susan Lalondrelle," shares Louise. "She explained that if I received the treatment, it could potentially help me, and she also pointed out that by participating I would be helping future patients if the treatment proved successful.
"That really resonated with me. As soon as she said that, I knew I wanted to take part. I wanted to do whatever I could to help other people in the future.
"Clinical trials are vital because they help researchers understand whether new treatments work, and even if a trial doesn't directly benefit the individual taking part, it can still make a huge difference for future patients.
"The main reason I joined the trial was to help others. To see that research progressing and potentially becoming available to more patients is amazing, and I'm proud to have played a small part in that journey."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/news-and-events/news/immunotherapy-drug-pembrolizumab-available-use-nhs-locally-advanced-cervical
* * *
Immunotherapy drug pembrolizumab available for use on the NHS for locally advanced cervical cancers
The approval follows a recommendation by the National Institute for Health and Social Care Excellence (NICE).
-
The Royal Marsden welcomes the decision to make the immunotherapy drug pembrolizumab available for use on the NHS for patients with locally advanced cervical cancers.
Pembrolizumab, combined with chemoradiotherapy, has been shown to increase the length of time that ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, June 26 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news: * * * Immunotherapy drug pembrolizumab available for use on the NHS for locally advanced cervical cancers The approval follows a recommendation by the National Institute for Health and Social Care Excellence (NICE). - The Royal Marsden welcomes the decision to make the immunotherapy drug pembrolizumab available for use on the NHS for patients with locally advanced cervical cancers. Pembrolizumab, combined with chemoradiotherapy, has been shown to increase the length of time thatpeople have their cancer controlled and how long they live compared with chemoradiotherapy alone.
The Royal Marsden was one of two UK centres that trialled the drug as part of the KEYNOTE-A18 study.
Trial results showed increased survival rates amongst cervical cancer patients when compared to chemotherapy alone
"I am proud to have been involved in the Keynote-A18 trial in the UK and at The Royal Marsden," says Dr Susan Lalondrelle, Consultant Clinical Oncologist at The Royal Marsden and UK primary investigator on the study.
"Most importantly, we are now seeing the results translate into real benefit for patients, with pembrolizumab improving outcomes and offering new hope for women with locally advanced cervical cancer."
Evidence from KEYNOTE-A18 showed that at 24 months, progression-free survival for patients was 68 per cent with pembrolizumab and chemoradiotherapy versus 57 per cent with chemoradiotherapy alone.
Results also showed that at 36 months, survival rates were 82.6 per cent with pembrolizumab and chemoradiotherapy compared with 74.8 per cent with chemoradiotherapy alone.
Following a recommendation by the National Institute for Health and Social Care Excellence (NICE), the treatment will be available for patients with stages 3 to 4 locally advanced cervical cancer.
'The main reason I joined the trial was to help others'
Louise Broadbelt, 55, joined KEYNOTE-A18 shortly after being diagnosed at The Royal Marsden in September 2021. She continues to undergo monitoring but is currently not receiving treatment, with scans showing no evidence of the disease.
"I decided to take part in the trial after discussing it with my consultant, Susan Lalondrelle," shares Louise. "She explained that if I received the treatment, it could potentially help me, and she also pointed out that by participating I would be helping future patients if the treatment proved successful.
"That really resonated with me. As soon as she said that, I knew I wanted to take part. I wanted to do whatever I could to help other people in the future.
"Clinical trials are vital because they help researchers understand whether new treatments work, and even if a trial doesn't directly benefit the individual taking part, it can still make a huge difference for future patients.
"The main reason I joined the trial was to help others. To see that research progressing and potentially becoming available to more patients is amazing, and I'm proud to have played a small part in that journey."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/news-and-events/news/immunotherapy-drug-pembrolizumab-available-use-nhs-locally-advanced-cervical
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Taxation by Citation - A 50-State Data and Policy Report on Local Government Fines and Forfeitures
LOS ANGELES, California, June 26 (TNSrep) -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Criminal Justice Policy Director Vittorio Nastasi, Managing Director of Government Finance Jordan Campbell, criminal justice policy intern Maegan Smarkusky and Sephria Reynolds-Tanner, criminal justice and drug policy analyst:
* * *
Taxation by citation: A 50-state data and policy report on local government fines and forfeitures
This report maps the scope of local governments' dependence on fines and forfeitures to fund basic operations and why decades of reform efforts have fallen short.
-
Local ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, June 26 (TNSrep) -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Criminal Justice Policy Director Vittorio Nastasi, Managing Director of Government Finance Jordan Campbell, criminal justice policy intern Maegan Smarkusky and Sephria Reynolds-Tanner, criminal justice and drug policy analyst: * * * Taxation by citation: A 50-state data and policy report on local government fines and forfeitures This report maps the scope of local governments' dependence on fines and forfeitures to fund basic operations and why decades of reform efforts have fallen short. - Localgovernments across the United States collect substantial revenues through law enforcement fines and forfeitures. While monetary penalties serve legitimate purposes in the criminal justice system, their use becomes exploitative when governments rely on law enforcement and courts as essential revenue sources, creating conflicts of interest that undermine public safety and erode public trust.
Despite widespread agreement that reform is necessary, limited data has been a persistent barrier to effective policy change. Policymakers seeking to understand the scope of the problem in their own states have often lacked basic information about how much revenue local governments collect, which jurisdictions are most reliant on it, and whether existing reforms are working to correct perverse incentives.
A new Reason Foundation report, Taxation by Citation: A 50-State Data and Policy Report on Local Government Fines and Forfeitures, aims to address that gap through a novel dataset of audited local government financial statements covering more than 10,000 cities and counties, as well as a systematic review of existing reform efforts.
Prior to this report, the Census Bureau's Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances was the only national source of data on local government fines and forfeitures. Census data are valuable for national and state-level estimates, but they have significant limitations for identifying specific problem jurisdictions. Individual government values are frequently imputed rather than directly reported; the Census Bureau's revenue classification system does not always align with how governments record their own finances, and the most recent data lag by several years.
To address the limitations of the Census data, Reason Foundation compiled audited financial statements for 8,054 cities and 2,478 counties, covering fiscal year 2023. This dataset is made fully accessible through the interactive report, with complete financial statements available for every government included in the analysis.
State-level findings (Census Bureau data, FY 2022)
Local governments across the 50 states collected $8.3 billion in fines and forfeitures in fiscal year 2022. While fines represent just 0.38% of general revenue on average, reliance is heavily concentrated in a small number of jurisdictions.
* * *
Chart: Fines and fees collected by the local governments in all 50 states
* * *
Arkansas, Illinois, New York, Tennessee, and Georgia lead all states in the share of local general revenue derived from fines and forfeitures, each exceeding 0.65%. Eight of the 10 states with the highest reliance are in the South or South-Central region. Nebraska, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Hawaii rank at the bottom, each well below the national average.
* * *
Table: All 50 states ranked by reliance of local governments on fines and fees
* * *
Arkansas leads all states at 0.78% of local general revenue, followed by Illinois (0.73%), New York and Tennessee (0.69% each), and Georgia (0.66%).
* * *
Table: State rankings: Per capita and tol fines and forfeitures collected by the local governments in all 50 states
* * *
In raw dollar terms, New York and California each collected more than $1 billion in FY 2022. The top 10 states alone accounted for more than $5.8 billion, about 70% of total local fines and forfeitures revenue nationwide.
New York also leads on a per-capita basis at $75.81 per resident--about 1.4 times more than the next-highest state, Illinois, at $53.76. The national weighted average was $24.77 per resident.
Local government findings (audited financial statements, FY 2023)
Census data provide a useful national picture but cannot reliably identify specific high-reliance jurisdictions. The audited financial statement dataset addresses this shortcoming. Because the accounting standards for financial statements exclude fines and forfeitures from the general revenue denominator, reliance ratios can exceed 1.0 if fine revenue surpasses the government's entire conventional tax-derived revenue base. The full report's technical appendix explains the methodology in detail.
Among the governments in this dataset, 275 jurisdictions across 25 states reported fines exceeding $0.10 for every dollar of general revenues in their 2023 fiscal years. High reliance on fines and forfeitures is concentrated heavily in Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Illinois, and Oklahoma, which together account for nearly three-quarters of high-reliance cities.
* * *
Chart: The 42 cities that collect over 50 cents in fines and fees for every $1 of revenue
* * *
The 42 cities that collect more than 50 cents in fines for every dollar of general revenue are concentrated almost entirely in the South and South-Central United States, with the densest cluster in Louisiana.
* * *
Table: The 42 cities that collect over 50 cents in fines and fees for every $1 of revenue
* * *
McNary and Port Vincent, both in Louisiana, top the list of fines for every dollar of general revenue at 291% and 275%, respectively. Seven of the top 10 cities are in Louisiana. Henderson, Louisiana, and Poulan, Georgia (ranked 7th and 8th nationally), are profiled as case studies in the full report.
* * *
Chart: The 41 cities that collect over $500 per capita in fines and fees
* * *
On a per capita basis, 41 cities collected more than $500 per resident in fines in FY 2023. The geographic pattern is similar, though extreme per capita outliers appear in Ohio and New York as well as the South.
* * *
Table: The 41 cities that collect over $500 per capita in fines and fees
* * *
Linndale, Ohio, leads all cities at $8,885 per resident, followed by Robeline, Louisiana ($2,987), Ocean Beach, New York ($2,970), and Georgetown, Louisiana ($2,933).
Cities in Louisiana account for four of the top 10 for per-capita fines and forfeitures.
* * *
Table: The 50 counties that collect the most fines and fees per capita
* * *
At the county level, high per capita fine collections are concentrated in Georgia, Texas, South Carolina, and parts of the West. Georgia and South Carolina dominate the highest per capita figures, with several counties exceeding $500 per resident.
* * *
Table: The 50 counties that collect the most fines and fees per capita
* * *
Taliaferro County, Georgia, leads all counties at $762 in fines and forfeitures per resident, followed by Turner County, Georgia ($515), and Lee County, South Carolina ($484).
Georgia accounts for five of the top 10 counties. Turner County is profiled as a case study in the full report.
Why it matters
Fiscal dependence on enforcement revenue produces measurable changes in policing behavior. Research shows that counties and cities increase traffic citations following revenue shortfalls, and that jurisdictions collecting higher shares of revenue from fines have lower crime clearance rates. When resources are diverted toward revenue generation, other public safety priorities suffer.
The U.S. Department of Justice's 2015 investigation of Ferguson, Missouri, found that city officials routinely pressured police to increase citation revenue, fueling a pattern of unconstitutional policing. Similar dynamics have emerged in jurisdictions across the country, from Brookside, Alabama, to Mantua, Utah.
The full report features five case studies (Henderson, Louisiana; Poulan, Georgia; Turner County, Georgia; Seat Pleasant, Maryland; and Stringtown, Oklahoma) showing what structural fiscal dependence looks like in practice and why it has proven so difficult to dislodge.
The reform landscape
The report includes the most systematic review of state-level reform efforts to date, examining quota bans, fine revenue caps, and other oversight frameworks. The analysis assesses the specific design features, legislative histories, and practical track records of each approach, identifying loopholes and enforcement failures that have allowed revenue-oriented policing to persist even in states that have pursued reform.
About half of all states have enacted police quota bans, prohibiting local law enforcement agencies from requiring officers to meet specific numerical targets for arrests, citations, or traffic stops. However, definitional ambiguities, broad exceptions, and the absence of meaningful enforcement mechanisms have left law enforcement officer behavior largely unchanged.
A smaller number of states have addressed fiscal incentives more directly. Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Maryland have each enacted revenue caps designed to eliminate financial incentives to issue citations, with widely varying results.
Missouri's Macks Creek Law, which caps fines, bond forfeitures, and court costs arising from municipal ordinance violations and minor traffic violations at 20% of general operating revenue for all municipalities statewide, has been revised multiple times over three decades in response to persistent evasion, including after the Ferguson investigation exposed its limitations.
Alabama's 10% cap on traffic ticket revenue, enacted in 2022, is the strictest in the nation but narrowly applies only to traffic citations. The cap was a direct response to the scandal in Brookside, a town of roughly 1,250 residents, whose fines and forfeitures revenue grew by more than 640% between 2018 and 2020, ultimately accounting for half of its budget. At the height of its enforcement push, Brookside recorded more misdemeanor arrests than it had residents.
Utah's cap, enacted the same year, produced measurable compliance but similarly covers only traffic fine revenue.
Reform efforts to date have followed a consistent pattern of responding to specific scandals without addressing the underlying fiscal incentive. As a consequence, these reforms have largely failed to achieve their goals. Durable reform requires both well-designed revenue caps and the enforcement infrastructure to make them stick.
Policy recommendations
The report concludes with six recommendations for more durable reform to reduce the use and abuse of fines and forfeitures:
1. States should adopt comprehensive caps on fine revenue with robust enforcement mechanisms. Caps that limit how much fine revenue local governments may retain are the most direct way to reduce the fiscal incentive for revenue-oriented policing. Existing state caps have been undermined by narrow definitions that invite evasion. Effective caps must cover all enforcement revenue, use a denominator anchored to audited financial statements, and include mandatory reporting and diversion of excess revenue to purposes outside the collecting government's control.
2. States should strengthen and enforce quota bans. About half of the states prohibit police quotas, but most of these laws lack meaningful enforcement mechanisms, contain broad exceptions for performance evaluations, and fail to address informal pressure to meet numerical targets. States should adopt the expansive definitions of prohibited quotas, establish centralized reporting systems for officers to flag violations, and impose consequences for those who violate the law.
3. Eliminate municipal courts in small jurisdictions. Cities with their own courts collect between 62% and 98% more in fines and forfeitures than comparable cities without their own courts. In small jurisdictions, the same officials who control the budget also control the court. States should consider requiring that minor offenses in jurisdictions with populations below a minimum threshold be adjudicated in independent county or regional courts.
4. Mandate comprehensive data collection and reporting. The opacity surrounding fines and forfeiture practices has allowed abuses to persist and made it difficult to assess whether reforms are working. The data presented in this report required substantial effort to compile precisely because no centralized, standardized reporting infrastructure exists. States should require local governments to submit annual certified reports on enforcement revenue to a state oversight authority, with results published in a publicly accessible database.
5. Fully fund court systems from general revenues. When courts depend on the fines and fees they collect to cover their own operating costs, including, in some cases, judicial salaries, they face the same perverse incentives as the police departments that generate the cases they adjudicate. States should work toward funding local courts from general revenues rather than user fees, with intermediate steps including state assumption of specific court functions and the elimination of the most problematic fee categories.
6. Build rigorous evaluation into reform legislation. Most existing research on fines and forfeitures relies on observational methods, making it difficult to confidently determine whether specific reforms have actually changed enforcement behavior or improved public safety outcomes. Reform legislation should include a statutory requirement for independent external evaluation using experimental or quasi-experimental methods, with findings submitted to the governor and legislature within a defined timeframe and published publicly.
The full report is available here (https://fines-fees-2025.vercel.app/).
* * *
Vittorio Nastasi is the director of criminal justice policy at Reason Foundation.
Sephria Reynolds-Tanner is a criminal justice and drug policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Maegan Smarkusky is a criminal justice policy intern at Reason Foundation.
Jordan Campbell is managing director of government finance and senior quantitative analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/50-state-data-policy-report-local-government-fines-forfeitures/
* * *
Taxation by citation: A 50-state data and policy report on local government fines and forfeitures
This report maps the scope of local governments' dependence on fines and forfeitures to fund basic operations and why decades of reform efforts have fallen short.
-
Local ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, June 26 (TNSrep) -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Criminal Justice Policy Director Vittorio Nastasi, Managing Director of Government Finance Jordan Campbell, criminal justice policy intern Maegan Smarkusky and Sephria Reynolds-Tanner, criminal justice and drug policy analyst: * * * Taxation by citation: A 50-state data and policy report on local government fines and forfeitures This report maps the scope of local governments' dependence on fines and forfeitures to fund basic operations and why decades of reform efforts have fallen short. - Localgovernments across the United States collect substantial revenues through law enforcement fines and forfeitures. While monetary penalties serve legitimate purposes in the criminal justice system, their use becomes exploitative when governments rely on law enforcement and courts as essential revenue sources, creating conflicts of interest that undermine public safety and erode public trust.
Despite widespread agreement that reform is necessary, limited data has been a persistent barrier to effective policy change. Policymakers seeking to understand the scope of the problem in their own states have often lacked basic information about how much revenue local governments collect, which jurisdictions are most reliant on it, and whether existing reforms are working to correct perverse incentives.
A new Reason Foundation report, Taxation by Citation: A 50-State Data and Policy Report on Local Government Fines and Forfeitures, aims to address that gap through a novel dataset of audited local government financial statements covering more than 10,000 cities and counties, as well as a systematic review of existing reform efforts.
Prior to this report, the Census Bureau's Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances was the only national source of data on local government fines and forfeitures. Census data are valuable for national and state-level estimates, but they have significant limitations for identifying specific problem jurisdictions. Individual government values are frequently imputed rather than directly reported; the Census Bureau's revenue classification system does not always align with how governments record their own finances, and the most recent data lag by several years.
To address the limitations of the Census data, Reason Foundation compiled audited financial statements for 8,054 cities and 2,478 counties, covering fiscal year 2023. This dataset is made fully accessible through the interactive report, with complete financial statements available for every government included in the analysis.
State-level findings (Census Bureau data, FY 2022)
Local governments across the 50 states collected $8.3 billion in fines and forfeitures in fiscal year 2022. While fines represent just 0.38% of general revenue on average, reliance is heavily concentrated in a small number of jurisdictions.
* * *
Chart: Fines and fees collected by the local governments in all 50 states
* * *
Arkansas, Illinois, New York, Tennessee, and Georgia lead all states in the share of local general revenue derived from fines and forfeitures, each exceeding 0.65%. Eight of the 10 states with the highest reliance are in the South or South-Central region. Nebraska, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Hawaii rank at the bottom, each well below the national average.
* * *
Table: All 50 states ranked by reliance of local governments on fines and fees
* * *
Arkansas leads all states at 0.78% of local general revenue, followed by Illinois (0.73%), New York and Tennessee (0.69% each), and Georgia (0.66%).
* * *
Table: State rankings: Per capita and tol fines and forfeitures collected by the local governments in all 50 states
* * *
In raw dollar terms, New York and California each collected more than $1 billion in FY 2022. The top 10 states alone accounted for more than $5.8 billion, about 70% of total local fines and forfeitures revenue nationwide.
New York also leads on a per-capita basis at $75.81 per resident--about 1.4 times more than the next-highest state, Illinois, at $53.76. The national weighted average was $24.77 per resident.
Local government findings (audited financial statements, FY 2023)
Census data provide a useful national picture but cannot reliably identify specific high-reliance jurisdictions. The audited financial statement dataset addresses this shortcoming. Because the accounting standards for financial statements exclude fines and forfeitures from the general revenue denominator, reliance ratios can exceed 1.0 if fine revenue surpasses the government's entire conventional tax-derived revenue base. The full report's technical appendix explains the methodology in detail.
Among the governments in this dataset, 275 jurisdictions across 25 states reported fines exceeding $0.10 for every dollar of general revenues in their 2023 fiscal years. High reliance on fines and forfeitures is concentrated heavily in Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Illinois, and Oklahoma, which together account for nearly three-quarters of high-reliance cities.
* * *
Chart: The 42 cities that collect over 50 cents in fines and fees for every $1 of revenue
* * *
The 42 cities that collect more than 50 cents in fines for every dollar of general revenue are concentrated almost entirely in the South and South-Central United States, with the densest cluster in Louisiana.
* * *
Table: The 42 cities that collect over 50 cents in fines and fees for every $1 of revenue
* * *
McNary and Port Vincent, both in Louisiana, top the list of fines for every dollar of general revenue at 291% and 275%, respectively. Seven of the top 10 cities are in Louisiana. Henderson, Louisiana, and Poulan, Georgia (ranked 7th and 8th nationally), are profiled as case studies in the full report.
* * *
Chart: The 41 cities that collect over $500 per capita in fines and fees
* * *
On a per capita basis, 41 cities collected more than $500 per resident in fines in FY 2023. The geographic pattern is similar, though extreme per capita outliers appear in Ohio and New York as well as the South.
* * *
Table: The 41 cities that collect over $500 per capita in fines and fees
* * *
Linndale, Ohio, leads all cities at $8,885 per resident, followed by Robeline, Louisiana ($2,987), Ocean Beach, New York ($2,970), and Georgetown, Louisiana ($2,933).
Cities in Louisiana account for four of the top 10 for per-capita fines and forfeitures.
* * *
Table: The 50 counties that collect the most fines and fees per capita
* * *
At the county level, high per capita fine collections are concentrated in Georgia, Texas, South Carolina, and parts of the West. Georgia and South Carolina dominate the highest per capita figures, with several counties exceeding $500 per resident.
* * *
Table: The 50 counties that collect the most fines and fees per capita
* * *
Taliaferro County, Georgia, leads all counties at $762 in fines and forfeitures per resident, followed by Turner County, Georgia ($515), and Lee County, South Carolina ($484).
Georgia accounts for five of the top 10 counties. Turner County is profiled as a case study in the full report.
Why it matters
Fiscal dependence on enforcement revenue produces measurable changes in policing behavior. Research shows that counties and cities increase traffic citations following revenue shortfalls, and that jurisdictions collecting higher shares of revenue from fines have lower crime clearance rates. When resources are diverted toward revenue generation, other public safety priorities suffer.
The U.S. Department of Justice's 2015 investigation of Ferguson, Missouri, found that city officials routinely pressured police to increase citation revenue, fueling a pattern of unconstitutional policing. Similar dynamics have emerged in jurisdictions across the country, from Brookside, Alabama, to Mantua, Utah.
The full report features five case studies (Henderson, Louisiana; Poulan, Georgia; Turner County, Georgia; Seat Pleasant, Maryland; and Stringtown, Oklahoma) showing what structural fiscal dependence looks like in practice and why it has proven so difficult to dislodge.
The reform landscape
The report includes the most systematic review of state-level reform efforts to date, examining quota bans, fine revenue caps, and other oversight frameworks. The analysis assesses the specific design features, legislative histories, and practical track records of each approach, identifying loopholes and enforcement failures that have allowed revenue-oriented policing to persist even in states that have pursued reform.
About half of all states have enacted police quota bans, prohibiting local law enforcement agencies from requiring officers to meet specific numerical targets for arrests, citations, or traffic stops. However, definitional ambiguities, broad exceptions, and the absence of meaningful enforcement mechanisms have left law enforcement officer behavior largely unchanged.
A smaller number of states have addressed fiscal incentives more directly. Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Maryland have each enacted revenue caps designed to eliminate financial incentives to issue citations, with widely varying results.
Missouri's Macks Creek Law, which caps fines, bond forfeitures, and court costs arising from municipal ordinance violations and minor traffic violations at 20% of general operating revenue for all municipalities statewide, has been revised multiple times over three decades in response to persistent evasion, including after the Ferguson investigation exposed its limitations.
Alabama's 10% cap on traffic ticket revenue, enacted in 2022, is the strictest in the nation but narrowly applies only to traffic citations. The cap was a direct response to the scandal in Brookside, a town of roughly 1,250 residents, whose fines and forfeitures revenue grew by more than 640% between 2018 and 2020, ultimately accounting for half of its budget. At the height of its enforcement push, Brookside recorded more misdemeanor arrests than it had residents.
Utah's cap, enacted the same year, produced measurable compliance but similarly covers only traffic fine revenue.
Reform efforts to date have followed a consistent pattern of responding to specific scandals without addressing the underlying fiscal incentive. As a consequence, these reforms have largely failed to achieve their goals. Durable reform requires both well-designed revenue caps and the enforcement infrastructure to make them stick.
Policy recommendations
The report concludes with six recommendations for more durable reform to reduce the use and abuse of fines and forfeitures:
1. States should adopt comprehensive caps on fine revenue with robust enforcement mechanisms. Caps that limit how much fine revenue local governments may retain are the most direct way to reduce the fiscal incentive for revenue-oriented policing. Existing state caps have been undermined by narrow definitions that invite evasion. Effective caps must cover all enforcement revenue, use a denominator anchored to audited financial statements, and include mandatory reporting and diversion of excess revenue to purposes outside the collecting government's control.
2. States should strengthen and enforce quota bans. About half of the states prohibit police quotas, but most of these laws lack meaningful enforcement mechanisms, contain broad exceptions for performance evaluations, and fail to address informal pressure to meet numerical targets. States should adopt the expansive definitions of prohibited quotas, establish centralized reporting systems for officers to flag violations, and impose consequences for those who violate the law.
3. Eliminate municipal courts in small jurisdictions. Cities with their own courts collect between 62% and 98% more in fines and forfeitures than comparable cities without their own courts. In small jurisdictions, the same officials who control the budget also control the court. States should consider requiring that minor offenses in jurisdictions with populations below a minimum threshold be adjudicated in independent county or regional courts.
4. Mandate comprehensive data collection and reporting. The opacity surrounding fines and forfeiture practices has allowed abuses to persist and made it difficult to assess whether reforms are working. The data presented in this report required substantial effort to compile precisely because no centralized, standardized reporting infrastructure exists. States should require local governments to submit annual certified reports on enforcement revenue to a state oversight authority, with results published in a publicly accessible database.
5. Fully fund court systems from general revenues. When courts depend on the fines and fees they collect to cover their own operating costs, including, in some cases, judicial salaries, they face the same perverse incentives as the police departments that generate the cases they adjudicate. States should work toward funding local courts from general revenues rather than user fees, with intermediate steps including state assumption of specific court functions and the elimination of the most problematic fee categories.
6. Build rigorous evaluation into reform legislation. Most existing research on fines and forfeitures relies on observational methods, making it difficult to confidently determine whether specific reforms have actually changed enforcement behavior or improved public safety outcomes. Reform legislation should include a statutory requirement for independent external evaluation using experimental or quasi-experimental methods, with findings submitted to the governor and legislature within a defined timeframe and published publicly.
The full report is available here (https://fines-fees-2025.vercel.app/).
* * *
Vittorio Nastasi is the director of criminal justice policy at Reason Foundation.
Sephria Reynolds-Tanner is a criminal justice and drug policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Maegan Smarkusky is a criminal justice policy intern at Reason Foundation.
Jordan Campbell is managing director of government finance and senior quantitative analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/50-state-data-policy-report-local-government-fines-forfeitures/
Foundation for California Community Colleges: Building Stronger Pathways for California's Student Veterans
SACRAMENTO, California, June 26 -- The Foundation for California Community Colleges issued the following news:
* * *
Building Stronger Pathways for California's Student Veterans
Veterans, educators, policymakers, and community leaders gathered to explore innovative strategies for expanding educational opportunities and strengthening support systems for California's veteran and military-connected students as they transition from military service to higher education and the workforce at the 13th Annual California Community Colleges Veterans Summit (Opens in a new window) in Indian Wells.
Led ... Show Full Article SACRAMENTO, California, June 26 -- The Foundation for California Community Colleges issued the following news: * * * Building Stronger Pathways for California's Student Veterans Veterans, educators, policymakers, and community leaders gathered to explore innovative strategies for expanding educational opportunities and strengthening support systems for California's veteran and military-connected students as they transition from military service to higher education and the workforce at the 13th Annual California Community Colleges Veterans Summit (Opens in a new window) in Indian Wells. Ledby the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office (Opens in a new window) and supported by the Foundation for California Community Colleges (FoundationCCC), the theme of this year's summit, held from June 15-17, 2026, was Desert Muster: Refresh, Realign, Reimagine.
"Often, the brave men and women who served our country are the ones left behind in higher education. The Veterans Summit brings together program experts to ensure veterans can access college, receive support navigating their military benefits, and find pathways to successful civilian careers with sustainable wages. Many of the professionals who lead Veterans Resource Centers on community college campuses are veterans themselves and understand the unique journey of student veterans. Sometimes it can be difficult for those who have experienced deployment and military service to ask for help in the classroom. That is why we are here, to ensure they have the support and resources they need to succeed," said Manuel Baca, Board Member, FoundationCCC, and Co-Founder, Veterans Summit.
Baca understands the student veteran experience firsthand. A former U.S. Marine and graduate and professor emeritus of political science at Rio Hondo College (Opens in a new window), he has dedicated his career to building stronger support networks for veterans pursuing higher education. As a member of the California Community Colleges Board of Governors and Co-Chair of the Veterans Committee, Baca ensured funding and direction to increase CCC veterans resource centers from approximately eight in 2009 to more than 90 statewide.
Throughout the three-day symposium, attendees from the California Community Colleges, California State University, and University of California systems participated in engaging workshops, keynote presentations from industry experts, and networking opportunities designed to foster collaboration among military service practitioners and advocates. Speakers included education liaison representatives from the United States Department of Veteran Affairs as well as Veterans Specialist Heather McClenahen, and Vice Chancellor Gina Browne from the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office and Dylan Bender, Director of Veterans Services for Irvine Valley College. Sessions focused on sharing best practices, strengthening partnerships, and identifying actionable solutions that support veterans through enrollment, academic achievement, graduation, and workforce transition.
Bender delivered the summit's closing keynote titled, The Warrior Adaptation, and a workshop, Designing the Next Mission: A Model for Veteran Purpose and Future Vision.
"With nearly a million veterans pursuing postsecondary education nationwide, higher education represents one of the greatest opportunities to improve veteran transition outcomes. Colleges are not simply preparing veterans for careers; they are helping them build new identities, relationships, and futures. The work being done across California demonstrates what is possible when veterans are provided intentional support and meaningful connection. The impact extends far beyond graduation." -- Dylan Bender, Director of Veterans Services for Irvine Valley College
FoundationCCC works closely with the Chancellor's Office and partners across the state to provide direct support for military members, veterans, and their families, including emergency financial assistance for first-generation student veterans. With an estimated 1.8 million veterans living in California, many turn to the state's community colleges for affordable, debt-free education and workforce training as they transition to civilian life. Each year, approximately 55,000 veterans, active-duty service members, and military dependents are enrolled in California Community Colleges.
Learn more about Veterans Services (https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Chancellors-Office/Divisions/Educational-Services-and-Support/Student-Service/What-we-do/Veterans-Education-and-Transition-Services)
* * *
Original text here: https://foundationccc.org/building-stronger-pathways-for-californias-student-veterans/
* * *
Building Stronger Pathways for California's Student Veterans
Veterans, educators, policymakers, and community leaders gathered to explore innovative strategies for expanding educational opportunities and strengthening support systems for California's veteran and military-connected students as they transition from military service to higher education and the workforce at the 13th Annual California Community Colleges Veterans Summit (Opens in a new window) in Indian Wells.
Led ... Show Full Article SACRAMENTO, California, June 26 -- The Foundation for California Community Colleges issued the following news: * * * Building Stronger Pathways for California's Student Veterans Veterans, educators, policymakers, and community leaders gathered to explore innovative strategies for expanding educational opportunities and strengthening support systems for California's veteran and military-connected students as they transition from military service to higher education and the workforce at the 13th Annual California Community Colleges Veterans Summit (Opens in a new window) in Indian Wells. Ledby the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office (Opens in a new window) and supported by the Foundation for California Community Colleges (FoundationCCC), the theme of this year's summit, held from June 15-17, 2026, was Desert Muster: Refresh, Realign, Reimagine.
"Often, the brave men and women who served our country are the ones left behind in higher education. The Veterans Summit brings together program experts to ensure veterans can access college, receive support navigating their military benefits, and find pathways to successful civilian careers with sustainable wages. Many of the professionals who lead Veterans Resource Centers on community college campuses are veterans themselves and understand the unique journey of student veterans. Sometimes it can be difficult for those who have experienced deployment and military service to ask for help in the classroom. That is why we are here, to ensure they have the support and resources they need to succeed," said Manuel Baca, Board Member, FoundationCCC, and Co-Founder, Veterans Summit.
Baca understands the student veteran experience firsthand. A former U.S. Marine and graduate and professor emeritus of political science at Rio Hondo College (Opens in a new window), he has dedicated his career to building stronger support networks for veterans pursuing higher education. As a member of the California Community Colleges Board of Governors and Co-Chair of the Veterans Committee, Baca ensured funding and direction to increase CCC veterans resource centers from approximately eight in 2009 to more than 90 statewide.
Throughout the three-day symposium, attendees from the California Community Colleges, California State University, and University of California systems participated in engaging workshops, keynote presentations from industry experts, and networking opportunities designed to foster collaboration among military service practitioners and advocates. Speakers included education liaison representatives from the United States Department of Veteran Affairs as well as Veterans Specialist Heather McClenahen, and Vice Chancellor Gina Browne from the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office and Dylan Bender, Director of Veterans Services for Irvine Valley College. Sessions focused on sharing best practices, strengthening partnerships, and identifying actionable solutions that support veterans through enrollment, academic achievement, graduation, and workforce transition.
Bender delivered the summit's closing keynote titled, The Warrior Adaptation, and a workshop, Designing the Next Mission: A Model for Veteran Purpose and Future Vision.
"With nearly a million veterans pursuing postsecondary education nationwide, higher education represents one of the greatest opportunities to improve veteran transition outcomes. Colleges are not simply preparing veterans for careers; they are helping them build new identities, relationships, and futures. The work being done across California demonstrates what is possible when veterans are provided intentional support and meaningful connection. The impact extends far beyond graduation." -- Dylan Bender, Director of Veterans Services for Irvine Valley College
FoundationCCC works closely with the Chancellor's Office and partners across the state to provide direct support for military members, veterans, and their families, including emergency financial assistance for first-generation student veterans. With an estimated 1.8 million veterans living in California, many turn to the state's community colleges for affordable, debt-free education and workforce training as they transition to civilian life. Each year, approximately 55,000 veterans, active-duty service members, and military dependents are enrolled in California Community Colleges.
Learn more about Veterans Services (https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Chancellors-Office/Divisions/Educational-Services-and-Support/Student-Service/What-we-do/Veterans-Education-and-Transition-Services)
* * *
Original text here: https://foundationccc.org/building-stronger-pathways-for-californias-student-veterans/
Court Upholds Life-Saving National Soot Air Quality Standard
BOSTON, Massachusetts, June 26 -- Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Court Upholds Life-Saving National Soot Air Quality Standard
*
Soot is a lethal combination of metals, organic chemicals, and acidic substances so tiny that they can be easily inhaled into our lungs and delivered directly into our bloodstream. Photo: Shutterstock
June 26, 2026 (Boston, MA) - Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the national, health-based limit on fine particulate matter (PM2.5), also known as soot, that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthened ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, June 26 -- Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Court Upholds Life-Saving National Soot Air Quality Standard * Soot is a lethal combination of metals, organic chemicals, and acidic substances so tiny that they can be easily inhaled into our lungs and delivered directly into our bloodstream. Photo: Shutterstock June 26, 2026 (Boston, MA) - Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the national, health-based limit on fine particulate matter (PM2.5), also known as soot, that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthenedin 2024. Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) joined a coalition of environmental groups that intervened to defend tighter standards as necessary to protect public health.
Soot, made up of tiny toxic particles that lodge deep in the lungs, results in severe health harms, including premature death, and comes from sources like vehicle exhaust pipes, power plants, and factories.
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 set baseline national air quality standards to reduce the harms of this deadly air pollutant for communities across the country. Last year, in an unprecedented move, the Trump administration's EPA gave up defending the strengthened standard against challenges from industry and aligned states and asked the court to strike it down on narrow legal grounds, without ever disputing the science underlying the standard. Health, environmental, and community groups, along with a coalition of states led by California, continued to defend the standard.
"The court did the right thing today by standing up for our health and safety," said Rachel Briggs, CLF staff attorney. "We should never put the polluting status-quo over people, especially when it fuels chronic respiratory and cardiac illnesses. We'll never compromise when it comes to the safety of our neighbors, communities, and the low-income and Black and Brown families that continue to shoulder the worst of these toxins."
"Clean air is not a luxury. We are thrilled these vital air quality standards have been upheld by a federal court," said Patrice Simms, vice president of Healthy Communities at Earthjustice. "The 2024 soot standard is a critical advancement for public health, projected to save thousands of lives every year. Lee Zeldin's EPA must stop catering to polluters and must instead fulfill its mission to protect public health. The time for implementing the 2024 soot standard is now."
"Fine particulate matter standards provide critical public health protections. The court correctly rejected EPA's about-face on the need for a stronger standard," said Shaun Goho, senior director, Legal Advocacy at Clean Air Task Force. "The science is clear that soot has many serious health impacts, particularly for children, the elderly, and those with asthma. By EPA's own estimate, implementing the 2024 soot standard will prevent 800,000 cases of asthma symptoms, 2,000 hospital visits, and 4,500 premature deaths in 2032. Today marks an important step in the right direction, but EPA must now implement the 2024 standard without delay."
"The federal court's decision to uphold the 2024 strengthened particle pollution standard is a win for public health," said Katie Huffling, DNP, RN, CNM, FAAN, executive director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. "Every day in practice, nurses witness and treat conditions made worse by soot pollution. From asthma exacerbations and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to heart disease and preterm birth, nurses see the real-world health implications of toxic air pollution. The science shows stronger limits to reduce dangerous soot pollution provide significant health benefits for Americans, especially for those most vulnerable and those exposed to higher levels of particulate matter pollution. We now urge EPA to fully implement the strengthened standard to ensure those health benefits are realized."
"Today's federal court decision is good news for clean air in America and for the millions of people harmed by deadly soot," said Noha Haggag, senior attorney for Environmental Defense Fund. "Soot can cause asthma attacks, lung cancer, and premature deaths. The court's rejection of the Trump administration's attempt to eliminate our national health standards for soot will mean healthier, longer lives for people across the country."
"While the Trump EPA has dragged its heels, millions of Americans have kept breathing unhealthy air," said Vijay Limaye, climate and health scientist at NRDC. Every day of delay means more premature deaths, more asthma attacks, and more hospitalizations. This decision removes any remaining doubt: the science has long been clear, and now the law is too. The Trump EPA must stop stalling and deliver the healthier air the science and the law demand."
Background
Soot is a lethal combination of metals, organic chemicals, and acidic substances so tiny that they can be easily inhaled into our lungs and delivered directly into our bloodstream. It threatens our health and environment - posing especially heightened risks for children, seniors and people with chronic illnesses. Among the health harms it is linked to are death, cardiovascular harms, new and exacerbated asthma cases, lung cancer, and serious neurological harms, like Alzheimer's disease.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has for decades set baseline national air quality standards for six harmful pollutants, including soot. In 2024 the agency strengthened the soot standard from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter,
According to the EPA, the strengthened soot standard will result in significant public health net benefits that could be as high as $46 billion by 2032. The EPA's estimate of costs is an order of magnitude less. Polluters' exaggerated claims about costs have been repeatedly debunked.
After the agency strengthened the soot standard, corporations and attorneys general in allied states sued. Earthjustice, its clients and partners intervened to defend the strengthened soot standard. Earthjustice clients are Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Northeast Ohio Community Resilience Centre (formerly the Northeast Ohio Black Health Coalition), Rio Grande International Study Center, and Sierra Club. Clean Air Task Force represents Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future and Conservation Law Foundation.
A recent white paper found that 75 million people live in counties whose air quality violates the standard. The Clean Air Act mandated that the EPA formally identify the areas that violate the standard by Feb. 6, 2026. When EPA failed to meet that deadline, a group of health, environmental, and community groups, and a state coalition, sued to require it to obey the law. That key step will require pollution reductions in those areas, to bring them into compliance with the 2024 NAAQS.
Experts are available for further comment.
***
Original text here: https://www.clf.org/newsroom/court-upholds-life-saving-national-soot-air-quality-standard/
* * *
Court Upholds Life-Saving National Soot Air Quality Standard
*
Soot is a lethal combination of metals, organic chemicals, and acidic substances so tiny that they can be easily inhaled into our lungs and delivered directly into our bloodstream. Photo: Shutterstock
June 26, 2026 (Boston, MA) - Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the national, health-based limit on fine particulate matter (PM2.5), also known as soot, that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthened ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, June 26 -- Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Court Upholds Life-Saving National Soot Air Quality Standard * Soot is a lethal combination of metals, organic chemicals, and acidic substances so tiny that they can be easily inhaled into our lungs and delivered directly into our bloodstream. Photo: Shutterstock June 26, 2026 (Boston, MA) - Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the national, health-based limit on fine particulate matter (PM2.5), also known as soot, that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthenedin 2024. Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) joined a coalition of environmental groups that intervened to defend tighter standards as necessary to protect public health.
Soot, made up of tiny toxic particles that lodge deep in the lungs, results in severe health harms, including premature death, and comes from sources like vehicle exhaust pipes, power plants, and factories.
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 set baseline national air quality standards to reduce the harms of this deadly air pollutant for communities across the country. Last year, in an unprecedented move, the Trump administration's EPA gave up defending the strengthened standard against challenges from industry and aligned states and asked the court to strike it down on narrow legal grounds, without ever disputing the science underlying the standard. Health, environmental, and community groups, along with a coalition of states led by California, continued to defend the standard.
"The court did the right thing today by standing up for our health and safety," said Rachel Briggs, CLF staff attorney. "We should never put the polluting status-quo over people, especially when it fuels chronic respiratory and cardiac illnesses. We'll never compromise when it comes to the safety of our neighbors, communities, and the low-income and Black and Brown families that continue to shoulder the worst of these toxins."
"Clean air is not a luxury. We are thrilled these vital air quality standards have been upheld by a federal court," said Patrice Simms, vice president of Healthy Communities at Earthjustice. "The 2024 soot standard is a critical advancement for public health, projected to save thousands of lives every year. Lee Zeldin's EPA must stop catering to polluters and must instead fulfill its mission to protect public health. The time for implementing the 2024 soot standard is now."
"Fine particulate matter standards provide critical public health protections. The court correctly rejected EPA's about-face on the need for a stronger standard," said Shaun Goho, senior director, Legal Advocacy at Clean Air Task Force. "The science is clear that soot has many serious health impacts, particularly for children, the elderly, and those with asthma. By EPA's own estimate, implementing the 2024 soot standard will prevent 800,000 cases of asthma symptoms, 2,000 hospital visits, and 4,500 premature deaths in 2032. Today marks an important step in the right direction, but EPA must now implement the 2024 standard without delay."
"The federal court's decision to uphold the 2024 strengthened particle pollution standard is a win for public health," said Katie Huffling, DNP, RN, CNM, FAAN, executive director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. "Every day in practice, nurses witness and treat conditions made worse by soot pollution. From asthma exacerbations and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to heart disease and preterm birth, nurses see the real-world health implications of toxic air pollution. The science shows stronger limits to reduce dangerous soot pollution provide significant health benefits for Americans, especially for those most vulnerable and those exposed to higher levels of particulate matter pollution. We now urge EPA to fully implement the strengthened standard to ensure those health benefits are realized."
"Today's federal court decision is good news for clean air in America and for the millions of people harmed by deadly soot," said Noha Haggag, senior attorney for Environmental Defense Fund. "Soot can cause asthma attacks, lung cancer, and premature deaths. The court's rejection of the Trump administration's attempt to eliminate our national health standards for soot will mean healthier, longer lives for people across the country."
"While the Trump EPA has dragged its heels, millions of Americans have kept breathing unhealthy air," said Vijay Limaye, climate and health scientist at NRDC. Every day of delay means more premature deaths, more asthma attacks, and more hospitalizations. This decision removes any remaining doubt: the science has long been clear, and now the law is too. The Trump EPA must stop stalling and deliver the healthier air the science and the law demand."
Background
Soot is a lethal combination of metals, organic chemicals, and acidic substances so tiny that they can be easily inhaled into our lungs and delivered directly into our bloodstream. It threatens our health and environment - posing especially heightened risks for children, seniors and people with chronic illnesses. Among the health harms it is linked to are death, cardiovascular harms, new and exacerbated asthma cases, lung cancer, and serious neurological harms, like Alzheimer's disease.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has for decades set baseline national air quality standards for six harmful pollutants, including soot. In 2024 the agency strengthened the soot standard from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter,
According to the EPA, the strengthened soot standard will result in significant public health net benefits that could be as high as $46 billion by 2032. The EPA's estimate of costs is an order of magnitude less. Polluters' exaggerated claims about costs have been repeatedly debunked.
After the agency strengthened the soot standard, corporations and attorneys general in allied states sued. Earthjustice, its clients and partners intervened to defend the strengthened soot standard. Earthjustice clients are Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Northeast Ohio Community Resilience Centre (formerly the Northeast Ohio Black Health Coalition), Rio Grande International Study Center, and Sierra Club. Clean Air Task Force represents Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future and Conservation Law Foundation.
A recent white paper found that 75 million people live in counties whose air quality violates the standard. The Clean Air Act mandated that the EPA formally identify the areas that violate the standard by Feb. 6, 2026. When EPA failed to meet that deadline, a group of health, environmental, and community groups, and a state coalition, sued to require it to obey the law. That key step will require pollution reductions in those areas, to bring them into compliance with the 2024 NAAQS.
Experts are available for further comment.
***
Original text here: https://www.clf.org/newsroom/court-upholds-life-saving-national-soot-air-quality-standard/