Foundations
Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Funding Education Opportunity: How States are Reacting to the New Federal Tax-credit Scholarship
LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 16 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news on Sept. 15, 2025:* * *
Funding Education Opportunity: How states are reacting to the new federal tax-credit scholarship
Plus: The D.C. scholarship program, and school choice news from Kentucky and Wyoming.
By Jude Schwalbach, Senior Policy Analyst
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text), passed this summer, included the Educational Choice for Children Act (https://www.federationforchildren.org/national-school-choice/), the first federal tax-credit scholarship ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 16 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news on Sept. 15, 2025: * * * Funding Education Opportunity: How states are reacting to the new federal tax-credit scholarship Plus: The D.C. scholarship program, and school choice news from Kentucky and Wyoming. By Jude Schwalbach, Senior Policy Analyst The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text), passed this summer, included the Educational Choice for Children Act (https://www.federationforchildren.org/national-school-choice/), the first federal tax-credit scholarshipprogram. The new law allows individual taxpayers to contribute up to $1,700 per year to an approved scholarship-granting organization, which is typically a nonprofit that receives donations and uses the funds to provide tuition assistance to students. While taxpayers can contribute to any scholarship-granting organization, only students residing in states that opt into the program will be eligible to receive a scholarship. The law also specifies that to be eligible, a scholarship recipient's family's income must not exceed 300% of their area's median gross income.
Scholarship-granting organizations have yet to determine the amounts they'll offer, but recipients will be able to use them to pay for approved education expenses, such as private school tuition, tutoring, and school uniforms. Moreover, many of the program's details are still in flux because federal lawmakers have left a significant amount of discretion to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to establish rules governing the program.
The letter of law appears to make students in traditional public schools or charter schools eligible. They could use "the funds to pay for items such as tutoring costs, test preparation courses, exam fees, internet services, and special-needs education," the American Enterprise Institute's Ian Rowe and Democrats for Education Reform's Jorge Elorza argued.
Until the program's rules-making process is finalized, many governors are likely to be hesitant about committing to participation. According to Education Week, many states will "await federal rules and guidance clarifying the provision" before making a decision on whether to participate.
To date, only Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) and North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein (D) have clearly announced plans to opt into the program, while Oregon's Gov. Tina Kotek (D), New Mexico's Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D), and Wisconsin's Gov. Tony Evers (D) have said they'll opt out of it.
While there is no guarantee that they will participate, based on governors' public statements and analyses of them by EdChoice and ExcelinEd, it appears that 26 governors support school choice policies, and 14 governors have outright opposed them. Table 1 summarizes the stances of governors on school choice policies nationwide.
Table 1: Governors' School Choice Stances, Various Sources (https://reason.org/education-newsletter/how-states-are-reacting-to-the-new-federal-tax-credit-scholarship/)
The decision by North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein (D) to opt into the federal tax-credit scholarship program could be a harbinger of what's to come in state governments that are divided over school choice. When Gov. Stein announced his intention to opt North Carolina into the federal tax-credit program, he also vetoed a state-level proposal that would have established a private school choice program, calling it unnecessary in light of the federal program.
This is because the new federal tax-credit scholarship has created a dilemma for staunch opponents of school choice programs. As the Fordham Institute's Mike Petrilli explained:
"Will Democratic leaders opt their states into the new federal school choice program, allowing families to accept scholarships that are funded by charitable donations from taxpayers nationwide--scholarships that don't cost their state a penny, and therefore can't be said to be taking any money from their public schools?
Or will they bow to the demands of the teachers' unions and bar the schoolhouse door instead, creating a grand opportunity for GOP candidates running against them?"
National polling by EdChoice and Morning Consult found that 84% of parents supported school choice policies. Moreover, school choice policies are supported by 78% of Black parents and 83% of Latino parents.
Even if governors choose to opt out of the program, it's not clear that the buck would stop with them in every case. The federal law states that decisions to participate must be made by a state governor or "by such other individual, agency, or entity as is designated under State law to make such elections on behalf of the State with respect to Federal tax benefits."
Conflicts are likely to arise when state leaders disagree about who has the authority to opt in or out of the program, especially in states like Arizona, where the governor opposes school choice policies, but state legislators and agencies support them. This could lead to significant jousting between state officials in the years leading up to the program's launch in 2027.
However, much of this will be determined by the Department of the Treasury's rulemaking. Governors typically opposed to school choice could be willing to opt into the program if the agency's rules let them impose significant regulations on participating private schools or target the funds to students enrolled in public schools.
What to watch
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) introduced House Resolution (H.R.) 5181, which would reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the federal city's private school choice program, for another seven years. Since its launch in 2004, more than 12,000 low-income students in the District of Columbia have benefited from the program, receiving scholarships to pay for private school tuition. During the 2025-26 school year, elementary and high school students can receive scholarships valued at up to $10,000 and $15,000, respectively.
The Kentucky State Supreme Court is set to hear arguments this month about whether the state can fund charter schools. Since 2017, charter schools have been legal in Kentucky, but have lacked a funding mechanism. House Bill 9 was passed in 2022, which would let state and local education dollars follow students enrolling in charter schools. However, a Franklin County Circuit Judge ruled the law unconstitutional, stating that it would "establish a separate class of publicly funded but privately controlled schools" and create a "separate and unequal" system.
Laramie County District Judge Peter Froelicher denied the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit against Wyoming's new private school scholarship program. Eligible recipients could use their $7,000 scholarship to cover a range of approved educational expenses, including private school tuition and tutoring.
Recommended reading
Risk Sharing: The Student Loan Reform Whose Time Has Come?
Preston Cooper at the American Enterprise Institute
"Requiring institutions to shoulder a portion of student loan risk would realign their incentives. Rather than maximizing student loan volume in any way possible, institutions would seek to disburse student loans only when they have a reasonable expectation that the loan will be repaid. While this would save taxpayers money, the primary beneficiaries would be students, who would face less pressure from institutions to take on debts they cannot afford. Going forward, lawmakers should keep in mind risk sharing as a tool for higher education accountability."
COVID Worsened Long Decline in 12th-Graders' Reading, Math Skills
Greg Toppo at The74
"The results, released Tuesday by the U.S. Education Department, are 'sobering,' said Matthew Soldner, acting commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics. He noted 'significant declines in achievement' among the lowest-performing students going back even before the pandemic. In one particularly grim indicator, a larger percentage of the Class of 2024 scored in the tests' 'below basic' level in both math and reading than in any previous assessment dating back decades."
Here Comes "The Big Shrink"
Marguerite Roza, Ph.D., at School Business Now
"Nationally, we can expect a 0.5% decline in enrollment per year. Some districts will be hit much harder. Over the next decade, Los Angeles Unified will lose about a third of its enrollment. None of this should be a surprise. When enrollment is down in the youngest grades, it means there are fewer students in the pipeline. Shrinking is hard. But it doesn't have to erode systems and hurt students. With a strong plan, leaders can approach shrinking as a path toward a smaller, stronger, more nimble school system that better serves its remaining students."
* * *
Jude Schwalbach is a senior education policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/education-newsletter/how-states-are-reacting-to-the-new-federal-tax-credit-scholarship/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Chips-for-Rare-Earths Truce
DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 16 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Sept. 14, 2025:* * *
The Chips-for-Rare-Earths Truce
Pragmatism meets protectionism in China trade.
By Jake Scott
All is fare in love and war. That's not a typo--anything can be sold, even and especially during a trade war.
In the unfolding drama of the US-China economic rivalry, a fragile ceasefire has emerged, not through diplomacy, but through mutual dependency. In the midst of heavy US transshipping tariffs--aimed at China, and hitting the whole world in the process--a "chips-for-rare-earths" ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 16 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Sept. 14, 2025: * * * The Chips-for-Rare-Earths Truce Pragmatism meets protectionism in China trade. By Jake Scott All is fare in love and war. That's not a typo--anything can be sold, even and especially during a trade war. In the unfolding drama of the US-China economic rivalry, a fragile ceasefire has emerged, not through diplomacy, but through mutual dependency. In the midst of heavy US transshipping tariffs--aimed at China, and hitting the whole world in the process--a "chips-for-rare-earths"truce has emerged: the US has momentarily lifted restrictions on Nvidia's H20 chips, while China continues supplying critical rare-earth minerals.
Each side holds leverage: China controls between 60% and 70% of global rare-earth extraction and about 90% of processing capacity, while the US and its allies remain leaders in cutting-edge semiconductors.
As Gideon Rachman writes, China is enjoying more favorable tariff rates with the US than either Switzerland or India. But, as Rachman points out, China has been building up this reserve of strength in global economic negotiation, beginning with an oil-for-rare-earths trade with the Middle East in the 1980s; a gamble at the time, but evidently valuable in retrospect.
This arrangement is no alliance; rather, it's a strategic circuit breaker--each side restrains from dramatic escalation despite mounting tensions. It's a telling snapshot of today's global economy: national economies seem to exist in a state of competition, rather than the cooperation theorized and championed by global liberal theorists, leading to a form of interdependence long thought extinct.
To understand how we arrived here, we must trace the contours of China's economic model. State capitalism--more accurately, the socialist market economy--was articulated by Jiang Zemin in 1992 in pursuit of blending market mechanisms with firm state guidance. China is not quite "capitalist," as Ronald Coase and Ning Wang argued, but the mid 1990s ushered in radical reforms: price liberalization, tax reform, and a sweeping privatization of state owned enterprises (SOEs) transformed China's economic landscape.
A watershed moment came in 2001, when China was admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO). In accordance with the rules of membership, China surrendered to stricter conditions than other developing nations, undertook systemic legal overhaul, amending trademark, patent, and copyright laws, and liberalized its services and financial sectors. The sea change was significant, immense, and rapid: by 2005, private enterprise constituted 70% of GDP, and China had cemented its role in global supply chains. The reverberations are still being felt: "Made in China" is a ubiquitous phrase known around the world, for better or for worse.
The SOE-centric model evolved yet again: in certain key sectors, the state retained control, but non-SOEs surged in efficiency, outpacing state firms. A vertical structure emerged, where SOEs were protected upstream while competition thrived downstream. This may be the model Vietnam is pursuing in aiming to become a tiger economy--only time will tell if they're successful.
Since entering the WTO, China was catapulted into the heart of global trade, and the world shifted with them: by 2023, around 70% of economies traded more with China than they did with the US--a steep climb from 2001. Those exchanges also grew, with more than half of those economies now trading twice as much with China as with America: almost all of Eastern Europe and Africa fall into this category.
Yet these developments did not erase the undercurrents of tension. China's deep involvement in tiered global supply chains, combined with its vast trade surpluses, sparked alarm, and continues to do so, in Washington and beyond. The international system is fragmenting. Trade policies are regionalizing, and industrial policy is reasserting itself as geopolitical blocs remap global flows.
The "chips-for-rare-earths" deal is emblematic of broader shifts. The US is speeding efforts to reshore rare-earth production, injecting hundreds of millions into domestic capacity, as China continues facing technological bottlenecks. Meanwhile, trade tensions have spurred demand substitution: China is booking up to 10 million metric tons of soybeans from Argentina and Uruguay for 2025-26--effectively bypassing US exporters. As above, China has a history of negotiating assets with an eye to the future--there's every chance that negotiations will feature access to foodstuffs increasingly often.
These adjustments reflect a recalibration of supply chains. John Waldron at the Financial Times defined the era in which we now live as one of "strategic interdependence," where geopolitical risk, not efficiency, now governs trade decisions. Chinese outbound investment in the US is falling; US imports from China are declining; Vietnam and Mexico, among others, are rising, with Vietnam's share of US imports doubling since 2017, and Mexico now becoming the US's largest trade partner.
Analysts warn of a looming "second China shock": not the price cutting surge of the early 2000s, but a systemic disruption in advanced manufacturing. US tariffs and restrictions may unintentionally accelerate China's technological self sufficiency, isolating the United States and pushing global allies closer to China rather than further away.
Today, the US and China are locked in a high stakes balancing act. They barter because neither can afford to sever ties fully; global trade is an undeniable reality, not an optional extra. Meanwhile, China's diversified trading network deepens, and its state capitalist apparatus evolves with renewed emphasis on domestic resilience (such as its dual circulation strategy and "Made in China 2025").
The liberal, multilateral trading system that rose after 1945 is fragmenting. Where once trade meant efficiency-first globalization, it is now geography, security, and strategic positioning that matter most. The deal reached here over chips is not a resolution. It's a stopgap in a world being re-stitched around competing blocs and economic models.
This is the new normal: competition cloaked in dependency, trade routes rerouted for security, markets shaped by state strategy. State capitalism has matured, and not just as an economic model, but as a geopolitical force. For all its contradictions, it is here to stay. And the rest of the world is already adapting.
* * *
Jake Scott
Dr Jake Scott is a political theorist specialising in populism and its relationship to political constitutionality. He has taught at multiple British universities and produced research reports for several think tanks.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/the-chips-for-rare-earths-truce/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: AI's Energy Appetite
DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 16 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Sept. 15, 2025:* * *
AI's Energy Appetite
Gemini fuels Europe's nuclear debate.
By Lika Kobeshavidze
Every time we ask an AI tool a question, it silently consumes electricity and water. But until now, we never knew how much. Google has set the record straight by publishing calculations from its Gemini model. Gemini is an artificial intelligence system that can process text, images, video, and audio.
According to the company, one text query to the system consumes as much energy as watching ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 16 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Sept. 15, 2025: * * * AI's Energy Appetite Gemini fuels Europe's nuclear debate. By Lika Kobeshavidze Every time we ask an AI tool a question, it silently consumes electricity and water. But until now, we never knew how much. Google has set the record straight by publishing calculations from its Gemini model. Gemini is an artificial intelligence system that can process text, images, video, and audio. According to the company, one text query to the system consumes as much energy as watchingnine seconds of TV, uses about five drops of water, and releases 0.03 grams of CO(2). This doesn't seem like much, right? But imagine millions of users making multiple requests at the same time, several times per minute. These numbers add up quickly. So, how much electricity will it take to satisfy our growing appetite for artificial intelligence? If we continue to use AI as we do now, we will need more electricity. Because of this, major tech executives suggested that nuclear power is an inevitable solution to meet these needs. The cost of one data center could be around $100 billion. In five years, it is predicted that around 10% of the US energy demand will come from data centers.
But what about European countries? Governments across the continent advocate clean energy, but still have disagreements about this topic. France receives more than half of its electricity from nuclear plants. Finland has one of the largest reactors in the world. Germany, once the leading nuclear user, shut down its last reactors in 2023 in response to environmental campaigns. Belgium had a plan to phase out its reactors, but it was dropped by parliament. So, the role of nuclear power remains contentious.
People use AI every day, from answering simple questions and writing essays to planning a trip and even helping understand medical diagnostics. Each interaction requires energy, and it's not comparable to using Google Search. In fact, a single Google query only takes about 0.0003 kWh of electricity, similar to keeping a 60-watt light bulb on for 17 seconds. Now, multiply these small interactions by billions of users worldwide, and the scale becomes enormous. AI operates on electricity, and it has to come from somewhere.
If European countries continue to reject nuclear energy, their dependence on renewable energy and imports will increase. This energy is common in Europe, but it is very expensive, as the sun does not shine all the time, and the wind does not blow on schedule. Even the most modern energy storage technologies cannot fully compensate for this. There are many examples when the over-reliance on clean energy went wrong. A sudden drop in solar power led to a massive blackout in the Iberian Peninsula earlier this year. As a result, Spain and Portugal were left in complete darkness for nearly ten hours.
Artificial intelligence and digital technologies will not wait. Every request to a chatbot or image generator requires resources, and these requests are multiplying daily. If Europe does not find a way to provide stable and clean electricity, then either technological development will slow down, or the region will depend on external energy suppliers.
AI is convenient for users, but it is a burden on infrastructure. Every time we ask a question, we are essentially voting for new power plants to be built. And while Europe debates its energy future, demand will only grow.
One possible solution is not just to argue about whether to build or close nuclear power plants, but to learn how to manage the demand itself. For example, if AI requires a lot of power, regulations could encourage companies to develop energy-efficient algorithms. This would reduce the pressure on the grid and lower dependence on controversial sources, be it nuclear or gas.
Maybe in decades we will have revolutionary technologies that will replace atomic energy, coal, and gas. But right now, the world is faced with the fact that AI requires energy today. Is Europe ready to answer honestly, where will this power come from?
* * *
Lika Kobeshavidze
Lika Kobeshavidze is a Georgian political writer, analytical journalist and fellow with Young Voices Europe, specialising in EU policy and regional security in Europe. She is currently based in Lund, Sweden, pursuing advanced studies in European Studies.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/ais-energy-appetite/
Denver Foundation: Awareness to Action
DENVER, Colorado, Sept. 16 -- The Denver Foundation issued the following news:* * *
Awareness to Action
These are excerpts from Chapter 4 of our book, "A Century of Impact: The Denver Foundation's First 100 Years." It offers a glimpse into the history of the foundation, highlighting our ongoing journey to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in our work. Read other excerpts from Chapter 4 here (https://denverfoundation.org/2025/02/awareness-to-action/).
Looking Inward
In the mid-2000s, The Denver Foundation continued to support diverse organizations and communities but recognized that ... Show Full Article DENVER, Colorado, Sept. 16 -- The Denver Foundation issued the following news: * * * Awareness to Action These are excerpts from Chapter 4 of our book, "A Century of Impact: The Denver Foundation's First 100 Years." It offers a glimpse into the history of the foundation, highlighting our ongoing journey to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in our work. Read other excerpts from Chapter 4 here (https://denverfoundation.org/2025/02/awareness-to-action/). Looking Inward In the mid-2000s, The Denver Foundation continued to support diverse organizations and communities but recognized thatit could--and must--improve when it came to reflecting those communities within its own staff and leadership. The foundation had always prided itself on being a diverse place to work, from its days as a volunteer-run organization to its professional staff. However, the understanding of diversity and inclusion has evolved.
In 1992, the foundation boasted that its staff was diverse, which at the time meant it was balanced between male and female employees.
Today, our society sees diversity differently: it encompasses diversity of thought, race, gender and gender expression, sexual orientation, experience, religion, political stance, socioeconomic status, and more.
Beginning in 2001, the foundation made conscious efforts to create boards and committees that reflected Metro Denver more fully. The foundation invested in staff training and welcomed graduates of the Strengthening Neighborhoods Leadership Development Program to join grant-making committees and play an active role in supporting other up-and-coming community organizations.
The foundation's open invitation was well received. Several graduates of the Leadership Development Program joined grant committees and, later, the board of trustees, including Jeff S. Fard (https://denverfoundation.org/2025/09/bringing-community-voices-to-the-table/), a longtime collaborator with The Denver Foundation and a graduate of the Leadership Development Program.
Turning Inclusiveness into Action
The Denver Foundation was inspired by the results of diversifying its own staff, committees, and board. What if all organizations had the opportunity to invest in up-and-coming leaders in their communities? The Inclusiveness Project began as a way to answer that question. The project sought to financially support community organizations as they trained and recruited more diverse staff--staff who reflected their communities but might not have the appropriate professional qualifications.
This groundbreaking capacity-building project helped community organizations train and hire local staff and recruit diverse board members. In 2011, the program received the Council on Foundations' Critical Impact Award. Denver organizations--both grassroots and well-established nonprofits--joined the pursuit of becoming more equitable figures within their communities.
Lauren Casteel and the fostering of community service
Laureen Casteel spearheaded the Inclusiveness Project. Casteel served as the foundation's vice president of philanthropic partnerships and donor services for 16 years. A familiar and influential name in the Denver nonprofit sector, she recently retired as the president of The Women's Foundation of Colorado. As the daughter of civil rights leader Whitney Young, she was raised with the fight for justice and equity in her bones.
Casteel also oversaw the foundation's Nonprofit Internship Program, which placed students in summer internships with organizations around Denver as a way to introduce promising young talent to the nonprofit field. This widely successful program generated enthusiasm, real-life experience, and plenty of heartwarming stories.
"One thing [the interns] learn from each other," Casteel said, "is that while they come from extremely diverse backgrounds, and many come from extremely adverse situations, their profoundly human stories and common goal of service to the community bring them together, and in each case, the ambitions lead them to achieve--not solely for achievement's sake, but for the sake of fostering reciprocity within Metro Denver communities."
Tackling Systemic Issues
Today, The Denver Foundation balances buy-in from partners, community leaders, and everyday donors alike, ensuring that it is democratizing philanthropy. After decades of racial equity work led to new and formalized standards of inclusion, the "giving circles" movement (https://denverfoundation.org/2025/07/giving-circles-growth-and-impact-over-the-years/) was a natural evolution of that philanthropy.
In working to create equitable, sustainable policies within its organizational structure and grant programs, the foundation naturally wanted more input from the community. Giving circles are a way to bring donors of similar backgrounds together, in real time, to make decisions about how funds are given. Giving circle members are active players supporting the causes they choose through collective giving.
As the first giving circle at The Denver Foundation, and the first in the West for African-American men, Denver African American Philanthropists created an intentional space for Black philanthropists to direct how they distributed their funds to the communities they sought to support.
Beginning in 2012, members came together to hear each other's thoughts and collaborate, and it gave them a larger platform by unifying their funds--donations large and small. The giving circle supports organizations such as the Urban League of Metropolitan Denver Inc., QueenShipp, Center for African American Health, and the Second Chance Center, all while creating community and fostering an "every dollar and opinion matters" mindset.
* * *
"There's the idea that if you are a philanthropist, you must have some amazing amount to give every single month or every single day. And you're talking about a community that ... is still building up from years of oppression, so most of us don't know that philanthropy can be at $1 a month. And that collective dollar a month changes the world."
--Giving Circle member, 2022
* * *
Generosity and philanthropy have a legacy in communities of color that far predates The Denver Foundation, but the giving circle movement has amplified those already outspoken voices. The same is true for the philanthropists who make up the foundation's other giving circles, including the Colorado Asian American Pacific Islander Circle, Latinos Impacting our Future Together (L.I.F.T.), and LatinasGive!. These communities have long been generous--since before The Denver Foundation existed-- but the foundation can provide additional resources and an intentional space for collaboration.
Giving circle members give in ways beyond their individual financial support by sharing their time, talent, ties, and testimony as well. Many volunteer in their communities in addition to supporting charitable organizations. Recognizing the impact of this multi-layered work, the foundation created the Elevating Philanthropy in Communities of Color (EPIC) initiative to formalize its support of philanthropists, whether new or experienced. Building on giving circle members' existing knowledge and experience, EPIC seeks to increase the impact of everyday philanthropists of color in ways that are meaningful to them.
As part of its journey of listening, learning, and collaborating to train the lens of racial equity onto everything it does, the foundation has regularly taken stock of its progress using third-party evaluation and other metrics. The foundation's desire to be self-critical and respond to feedback creates an environment where hard conversations are not only possible but welcomed. It ensures that the foundation is ready to continue the work of listening by bringing a chorus of voices and experiences to the table for the next century to come.
* * *
Original text here: https://denverfoundation.org/2025/09/awareness-to-action-2/
Boston Foundation Partners With Donors to Distribute $900,000 in Meeting the Moment Grants to Regional Food Nonprofits
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Sept. 16 -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on Sept. 15, 2025:* * *
The Boston Foundation partners with donors to distribute $900,000 in Meeting the Moment grants to regional food nonprofits
New round raises overall commitment to $1.9 million as part of organization-wide "Meeting the Moment: Sustaining Families" work
*
The Boston Foundation today announced a second round of Meeting the Moment: Sustaining Families grants as part of its ongoing commitment to support local organizations and communities threatened by federal cuts to critical programs. ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Sept. 16 -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on Sept. 15, 2025: * * * The Boston Foundation partners with donors to distribute $900,000 in Meeting the Moment grants to regional food nonprofits New round raises overall commitment to $1.9 million as part of organization-wide "Meeting the Moment: Sustaining Families" work * The Boston Foundation today announced a second round of Meeting the Moment: Sustaining Families grants as part of its ongoing commitment to support local organizations and communities threatened by federal cuts to critical programs.The grants, totaling $900,000, are being awarded to nine organizations that advocate for, supply, distribute, and deliver vital food supplies across Eastern Massachusetts.
"We are thankful to those donors whose contributions nearly doubled the size of this round of grants to regional food pantries, distributors and networks across the region," said Lee Pelton, President and CEO of the Boston Foundation. "As the federal government's callous and cruel changes to basic needs programs force thousands of hard-working people in Massachusetts off food assistance, regional organizations like these and the Greater Boston Food Bank will strive to close the gaps, and they will need support from all of us in our communities to do it."
The new round of grants was seeded with $500,000 from the Boston Foundation's Fund for Boston's Future, which donors quickly supplemented as part of the Foundation's long-term commitment to meeting basic needs. The Foundation announced its first grant, a $1 million commitment to the Greater Boston Food Bank, last month as part of a design to support both the hub and spokes of the region's complex food system.
The Greater Boston Food Bank distributes as much as 80 percent of the food supplied to food pantries across the Commonwealth; the nine grantees announced today were chosen for their essential role in the Greater Boston ecosystem, the amount of food they deliver to partner organizations, the models they use for food distribution, and the cities and towns they serve.
Grantmaking is just one part of the Boston Foundation's Meeting the Moment commitment, which uses the Foundation's grantmaking, donor partnerships, research, convening, and advocacy power to distribute critical funding that responds to current need, identifies paths to protect critical systems and institutions, and collaboratively reimagines what a more resilient, robust safety net could look like.
As part of the effort, Boston Indicators, the Foundation's research center, released a new brief last week that found well over 40,000 current Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients in Greater Boston are at risk of having their support stripped or reduced by new regulations. The Foundation is also hosting regular meetings to discuss the need and coordinate strategies to support key organizations, and is working with local and state leaders to highlight needs and areas for support.
"By working together to ensure everyone who lives in Greater Boston is seen and provided what they need to survive and thrive, we can emerge from this era even stronger as a community," said Orlando Watkins, Vice President and Chief Program Officer at the Boston Foundation. "These grants represent just one element of our commitment as a civic leader and partner in the community."
Meeting the Moment: Sustaining Families grantees
In addition to the Greater Boston Food Bank, which received a $1 million grant last month, the following nine organizations are receiving $100,000 grants. They include:
Distributors:
Merrimack Valley Food Bank
The Merrimack Valley Food Bank provides nutritious food and personal care items to emergency feeding programs serving the low-income, homeless, and hungry. They are one of four food banks in Massachusetts that serve food pantries, shelters, and meal programs that, in turn, serve individuals and families. In FY2024, they distributed over 4 million pounds of food and have distributed over 63 million pounds of food since their founding. They serve 103 member agencies in 33 cities and towns.
Spoonfuls
Spoonfuls helps to facilitate the recovery and distribution of healthy, fresh food that would otherwise be discarded. Since 2010, they have kept over 40 million pounds of good food out of landfills, and this year, they are on track to recover more than 5.8 million pounds of food to distribute to 195 partners across Massachusetts.
Greater Boston Food Access Hub
The Greater Boston Food Access Hub is a collaborative food storage and distribution center in Roxbury that distributes food throughout Boston, with the YMCA of Greater Boston as its lead organization. A unique collaboration among a major healthcare institution, a community-focused nonprofit, and City government, the collaborative hub will allow fresher, refrigerated food to reach food pantries, soup kitchens, and other food distribution sites throughout Boston, particularly in neighborhoods with the highest rates of food insecurity.
Suppliers:
Boston Area Gleaners
Boston Area Gleaners builds innovative partnerships with local organizations and businesses to bridge food distribution gaps, improve healthy food access, prevent on-farm food waste, and create new markets for locally grown produce. Their vision is to sustain a permanent agricultural supply chain that will improve the viability of local farms and the health of communities that have historically suffered from inequity in the food system. In 2024, they helped distribute over 4.2 million pounds of food to 72 partners by working with more than 70 farms across the state.
The Food Project
The Food Project's youth, staff, and volunteers grow 200,000 pounds of food annually on their farms and operate farmers' markets in Boston's Dudley neighborhood and in Lynn. Each year, the Food Project hires 120 teens to help grow food and donate more than 80,000 servings of fresh produce to 20 hunger relief organizations across eastern Massachusetts. Their farms make fresh, culturally relevant produce available to neighbors and provide a platform for testing new affordability models. These markets were the first in Massachusetts to accept electronic SNAP benefits and to pilot the SNAP-matching programs that have now been adopted statewide.
Gaining Ground
Gaining Ground, a nonprofit organic farm in Concord, Massachusetts, grows vegetables and fruit with the help of several thousand community volunteers and donates 100% of this fresh food to area meal programs and food pantries. Their approach is local and sustainable--most of the produce is distributed within 20 miles of the farm and within 24 hours of harvest. They donate over 130,000 pounds of produce to 18 organizations each year. Over the past couple of years, they have acquired more federal land to cultivate and grow more food.
Food Pantries and Deliveries:
Brockton Area Hunger Network Cooperative
In 2020, The Charity Guild (TCG) was invited by the City of Brockton to lead a discussion on Food Insecurity and TCG proposed an innovative cross-agency program to unify the client intake processes of local food pantries. Using a shared intake system, cooperative members have streamlined the process of receiving food, significantly reduced waiting times, better connected neighbors to local food programs, and given community members more time for their daily needs. The Charity Guild continues to lead this collaborative program and member agencies include Boys & Girls Club of Metro South, Brockton Public Schools, Catholic Charities South, Father Bill's & MainSpring, Full Gospel Tabernacle Church, Massasoit Community College, Salvation Army Brockton, and the Brockton Farmers Market.
Community Servings
Community Servings actively engages the community to provide fresh, medically-tailored meals to individuals and their families experiencing critical or chronic illness and nutrition insecurity. This year, they will provide over 1.2 million meals to more than 6,000 individuals experiencing critical and chronic illnesses. Their meals meet the medical and nutritional needs of clients with HIV/AIDS, cancer, kidney disease, diabetes, and other life-threatening illnesses.
Advocacy and Networks:
Project Bread
Project Bread connects people and communities in Massachusetts to reliable sources of food while advocating for policies that make food more accessible--so that no one goes hungry. Working with the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, they help schools with their breakfast programs and encourage student participation in school meals. Their Summer Eats helps fill the summer nutrition gap by continuing to provide free meals to all kids and teens, 18 and under, across the state.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2025/september/meeting-the-moment-sustaining-families-grants-20250915
Louisiana Poultry Employee Submits Second Petition Seeking Vote to Oust UFCW Union
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Sept. 15 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:* * *
Louisiana Poultry Employee Submits Second Petition Seeking Vote to Oust UFCW Union
*
Workers' first petition stalled by non-statutory NLRB 'contract bar' protecting unions' control over workers
Hammond, LA (September 15, 2025) - Coty Hally, an employee of Wayne Sanderson Farms' Hammond processing facility, has just filed a second petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a union "decertification" election to remove United Food and Commercial ... Show Full Article SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Sept. 15 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Louisiana Poultry Employee Submits Second Petition Seeking Vote to Oust UFCW Union * Workers' first petition stalled by non-statutory NLRB 'contract bar' protecting unions' control over workers Hammond, LA (September 15, 2025) - Coty Hally, an employee of Wayne Sanderson Farms' Hammond processing facility, has just filed a second petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a union "decertification" election to remove United Food and CommercialWorkers (UFCW) Local 455 union officials from the workplace. Hally's earlier petition in June of this year was dismissed by an NLRB Regional Director, which ruled that under its non-statutory "contract bar" policy no employee-requested decertification votes may occur for up to three years after a union contract is imposed. This occurred despite Hally having never seen the contract extension agreement that barred his petition.
Hally's current petition, filed outside the contract bar's arbitrary restriction, is supported by over 50% of his facility's 550-person unit. The unit includes all production and maintenance employees, including truck drivers, at the poultry facility in Hammond, LA. Hally received free legal aid in filing both petitions from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Concurrent with his two filed petitions, Hally also submitted a Request for Review to the NLRB, arguing that the agency should eliminate the three-year contract bar entirely, as it has no basis in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the NLRA and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees. Under the text of the NLRA, the NLRB can only reject a worker's petition for an election if another election has already taken place in the past 12 months. Hally's Request for Review points out that the contract bar is nowhere to be found in the text of the NLRA. It explains that the doctrine was instead made up by unelected NLRB bureaucrats, who overstepped their legal authority by adopting policies that are detrimental to the rights of workers the Board is tasked with defending.
The contract bar has prevented Hally and his coworkers from having an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election for months, protecting union officials from being held accountable by workers that do not recognize them as their "representatives." The NLRB's contract bar places undue burdens on workers' right to free choice.
"A system that necessitates the filing of two separate petitions, signed by a majority of a workplace, seeking to remove one union is not only a broken system, but one that actively works against the best interests of employees," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "Big Labor is not content with the special privileges granted to them by the law. Union bosses have also seen to it that they get a protected status from a federal agency that ought to be neutral and uncompromised.
"The NLRB needs to re-establish its impartiality in dealing with the disputes of American workers by doing away with the 'contract bar' and other non-statutory 'bars' that only serve to protect incumbent union bosses' power over workplaces where they are opposed by most workers," Mix added.
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print Share
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
Posted on Sep 15, 2025 in News Releases
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/louisiana-poultry-employee-09152025/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: How Much Wood?
DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 13 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary on Sept. 12, 2025:* * *
How Much Wood?
Lumber and the American economy.
By Katrina Gulliver
The lumber market in recent years has been a roller-coaster. For those operating logging businesses, or lumber yards and mills, or contractors and homeowners looking to replace a few planks on the deck, not knowing which way the market will shift has been stressful.
According to a report in the Wall Street Journal:
* Wood markets have been whipsawed of late by trade uncertainty and a deteriorating ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 13 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary on Sept. 12, 2025: * * * How Much Wood? Lumber and the American economy. By Katrina Gulliver The lumber market in recent years has been a roller-coaster. For those operating logging businesses, or lumber yards and mills, or contractors and homeowners looking to replace a few planks on the deck, not knowing which way the market will shift has been stressful. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal: * Wood markets have been whipsawed of late by trade uncertainty and a deterioratinghousing market. Futures have dropped roughly 25% since hitting a three-year high at the beginning of August and are trading Monday at about $522 per thousand board feet.
* The price drop might have been greater--but two of North America's biggest sawyers said last week that they would curtail output, slowing the decline.
* Crashing wood prices are troubling because they have been a reliable leading indicator on the direction of the housing market as well as broader economic activity.
Quite why they are such an indicator is a reflection of the US construction industry.
Historically, in most of the US, wood has been a local and affordable material for building houses. From the first European settlers, the hardwood forests that covered much of the continent were a bounty of material for houses, ships, furniture, and anything else--as well as a key export commodity.
But its continuing ubiquity as a building material makes lumber prices a good bellwether for the construction economy. Housing in America is overwhelmingly wood-framed. An estimated 90%+ of new residential construction in the US is wood-framed, compared to Europe where houses tend to be brick-built, but with many regional variations (Norway, with ample trees, favors wood for housing).
In other parts of Europe, prefabricated homes are also a much larger share of the market, from an estimated 25% in Germany to a whopping 80% in Sweden (although it is perhaps not surprising in the home of IKEA).
Yet according to the National Association of Home-builders, factory-built homes were just 3% of the US market in 2023. This is a tiny base, but it is growing. The fad for "tiny houses" and alternative and sustainable options have led more would-be homeowners to consider modular options.
A hundred years ago, kit homes were more common in the US. Sold by Sears, Montgomery Ward, and other local firms, buyers received the plans and the pieces for a house and put it together themselves. Economies of scale made these a viable option for someone looking to build a house in the expanding suburbs.
The 1914 Sears Modern Homes catalog shows three homes that could each be bought for $656 (in the small print, they admit your outlay would be more like $1,250 all-in, including brick, cement, plaster--which they don't supply--and labor). Your kit house would be delivered by rail; it was generally assumed householders would be handy enough (or know whom to hire) to put it all together from the supplied plans.
According to a 1930 report by the National Bureau of Economic Research, National Income and Its Purchasing Power, in 1914, the average clerk could be making $1,000, and a factory manager earning $2,300. That means these houses were within reach of lots of people--especially bearing in mind that land costs in many cities were also relatively low. In Chicago, lots within 5 miles of downtown were available for less than 50cents/square foot in 1914.
Those kit homes included wood, metal, and glass, and reflected both the tastes of consumers and the economies of bulk production. The various styles in the catalog over the years included craftsman, Dutch colonial, Federal, and cottage--styles that have continued to be popular in residential architecture of the US.
The Sears catalog of 1936 states: "This is the age of modern efficiency. No longer can human hands compete with machine precision and production. 'Speed with accuracy' is the watchword in any department of our great factories."
(For those curious about such houses, fans of Sears kit homes put together lists of examples still standing.)
Today's prefab homes include different products--in European kit homes around half the materials used being concrete, glass, metal and synthetics--with the same economies of mass production. But wood-and-stick-framed homes continue to dominate the US market.
If the housing market softens, which it looks to be doing, demand for wood will slow and prices drop. Per the WSJ, "Residential building permits dropped in July to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of about 1.4 million units, the fewest since June 2020."
That doesn't bode well for timber sellers, but prospective builders could be looking at alternative materials, too.
* * *
Katrina Gulliver
Katrina Gulliver is Editorial Director at FEE. She holds a PhD from Cambridge University, and has held faculty positions at universities in Germany, Britain and Australia. She has written for Wall St Journal, Reason, The American Conservative, National Review and the New Criterion, among others.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/how-much-wood/