Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Space Foundation and L3Harris Host New Generation Space Leaders Event in Palm Bay, Florida
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado, July 15 -- Space Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Space Foundation and L3Harris Host New Generation Space Leaders Event in Palm Bay, Florida
Emerging space professionals unite for networking, mentorship and industry access
-
PALM BAY, FL. -- Space Foundation and L3Harris Technologies brought together emerging professionals from across Florida's space industry during the New Generation Space Leaders Event: Launching the Future on Tuesday, July 14, at L3Harris Technologies in Palm Bay, Fla.
Designed for emerging space professionals, the event ... Show Full Article COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado, July 15 -- Space Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Space Foundation and L3Harris Host New Generation Space Leaders Event in Palm Bay, Florida Emerging space professionals unite for networking, mentorship and industry access - PALM BAY, FL. -- Space Foundation and L3Harris Technologies brought together emerging professionals from across Florida's space industry during the New Generation Space Leaders Event: Launching the Future on Tuesday, July 14, at L3Harris Technologies in Palm Bay, Fla. Designed for emerging space professionals, the eventoffered direct access to industry leaders, innovative technologies and real-world career opportunities, representing an investment in the strength and future of the global space workforce. Among the attendees were National Space interns, NASA interns and other emerging professionals pursuing careers across the space industry.
Throughout the evening, attendees engaged with peers and industry leaders, participated in a special program featuring remarks from company executives and toured select facilities on the L3Harris campus. The experience offered early-career professionals a closer look at the technologies and capabilities driving innovation in defense and space.
"Investing talent has never been more important. Through our partnership with L3Harris, we connected Florida's emerging space professionals with the mentors, networks, and opportunities they need to build rewarding careers and become the leaders we need to drive our industry forward," said Space Foundation CEO Heather Pringle.
"We know the future of space depends on the next generation of innovators, engineers and leaders," said Ed Zoiss, vice president of Engineering, Technology & Innovation at L3Harris and a member of Space Foundation's Board of Directors. "Collaborating with Space Foundation to host this event reflects our commitment to developing talent by providing opportunities to learn from experienced professionals, build meaningful connections and gain firsthand exposure to the technologies advancing today's most critical space missions. We are proud to help inspire and develop the workforce that will shape the future of the space industry."
Space Foundation and L3Harris are committed to helping strengthen the space talent pipeline through strategic collaboration and meaningful engagement with emerging professionals. By bringing together early-career talent, industry leaders and hands-on learning opportunities, the organizations are fostering connections that support career development and advance the future of the space industry. As the global space sector continues to expand, partnerships like these play an important role in preparing the skilled workforce needed for tomorrow's missions and innovations.
Journalists may use photos and video from this link [link] in print and broadcast coverage with appropriate credit to L3Harris. The materials may be used to help showcase the event and highlight efforts to strengthen the space workforce pipeline.
* * *
About L3Harris Technologies
L3Harris is the Trusted Disruptor in defense tech. With customers' mission-critical needs always in mind, our employees deliver end-to-end technology solutions connecting the space, air, land, sea and cyber domains in the interest of national security. Visit L3Harris.com for more information.
* * *
About Space Foundation
Space Foundation is a nonprofit organization founded in 1983 as a gateway to advance the global space community. Space Foundation uniquely educates, collaborates and informs the entire space workforce, from early education through post-secondary (college, non-college, vocational), to the start of their careers as new professionals, and ultimately as leaders at the highest levels of government and commercial industry. As a charitable organization, Space Foundation receives support from corporate members, sponsors, individual giving, and grants.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.spacefoundation.org/2026/07/14/space-foundation-and-l3harris-host-new-generation-space-leaders-event-in-palm-bay-florida/
* * *
Space Foundation and L3Harris Host New Generation Space Leaders Event in Palm Bay, Florida
Emerging space professionals unite for networking, mentorship and industry access
-
PALM BAY, FL. -- Space Foundation and L3Harris Technologies brought together emerging professionals from across Florida's space industry during the New Generation Space Leaders Event: Launching the Future on Tuesday, July 14, at L3Harris Technologies in Palm Bay, Fla.
Designed for emerging space professionals, the event ... Show Full Article COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado, July 15 -- Space Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Space Foundation and L3Harris Host New Generation Space Leaders Event in Palm Bay, Florida Emerging space professionals unite for networking, mentorship and industry access - PALM BAY, FL. -- Space Foundation and L3Harris Technologies brought together emerging professionals from across Florida's space industry during the New Generation Space Leaders Event: Launching the Future on Tuesday, July 14, at L3Harris Technologies in Palm Bay, Fla. Designed for emerging space professionals, the eventoffered direct access to industry leaders, innovative technologies and real-world career opportunities, representing an investment in the strength and future of the global space workforce. Among the attendees were National Space interns, NASA interns and other emerging professionals pursuing careers across the space industry.
Throughout the evening, attendees engaged with peers and industry leaders, participated in a special program featuring remarks from company executives and toured select facilities on the L3Harris campus. The experience offered early-career professionals a closer look at the technologies and capabilities driving innovation in defense and space.
"Investing talent has never been more important. Through our partnership with L3Harris, we connected Florida's emerging space professionals with the mentors, networks, and opportunities they need to build rewarding careers and become the leaders we need to drive our industry forward," said Space Foundation CEO Heather Pringle.
"We know the future of space depends on the next generation of innovators, engineers and leaders," said Ed Zoiss, vice president of Engineering, Technology & Innovation at L3Harris and a member of Space Foundation's Board of Directors. "Collaborating with Space Foundation to host this event reflects our commitment to developing talent by providing opportunities to learn from experienced professionals, build meaningful connections and gain firsthand exposure to the technologies advancing today's most critical space missions. We are proud to help inspire and develop the workforce that will shape the future of the space industry."
Space Foundation and L3Harris are committed to helping strengthen the space talent pipeline through strategic collaboration and meaningful engagement with emerging professionals. By bringing together early-career talent, industry leaders and hands-on learning opportunities, the organizations are fostering connections that support career development and advance the future of the space industry. As the global space sector continues to expand, partnerships like these play an important role in preparing the skilled workforce needed for tomorrow's missions and innovations.
Journalists may use photos and video from this link [link] in print and broadcast coverage with appropriate credit to L3Harris. The materials may be used to help showcase the event and highlight efforts to strengthen the space workforce pipeline.
* * *
About L3Harris Technologies
L3Harris is the Trusted Disruptor in defense tech. With customers' mission-critical needs always in mind, our employees deliver end-to-end technology solutions connecting the space, air, land, sea and cyber domains in the interest of national security. Visit L3Harris.com for more information.
* * *
About Space Foundation
Space Foundation is a nonprofit organization founded in 1983 as a gateway to advance the global space community. Space Foundation uniquely educates, collaborates and informs the entire space workforce, from early education through post-secondary (college, non-college, vocational), to the start of their careers as new professionals, and ultimately as leaders at the highest levels of government and commercial industry. As a charitable organization, Space Foundation receives support from corporate members, sponsors, individual giving, and grants.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.spacefoundation.org/2026/07/14/space-foundation-and-l3harris-host-new-generation-space-leaders-event-in-palm-bay-florida/
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust Installs Free Sunscreen Dispensers to Promote Skin Cancer Prevention
LONDON, England, July 15 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news:
* * *
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust installs free sunscreen dispensers to promote skin cancer prevention
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust has installed free, dermatologically tested SPF 50 sunscreen dispensers at the entrances to its sites, as part of its ongoing commitment to cancer prevention.
The initiative provides patients, visitors and staff with easy access to high-quality sunscreen while helping to raise awareness of the importance of protecting skin from ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, July 15 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news: * * * The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust installs free sunscreen dispensers to promote skin cancer prevention The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust has installed free, dermatologically tested SPF 50 sunscreen dispensers at the entrances to its sites, as part of its ongoing commitment to cancer prevention. The initiative provides patients, visitors and staff with easy access to high-quality sunscreen while helping to raise awareness of the importance of protecting skin fromharmful ultraviolet (UV) rays. The dispensers have been installed at the entrances to The Royal Marsden's sites in Sutton, Chelsea and Cavendish Square.
Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the UK, with cases continuing to rise 1 UV exposure is the main cause of skin cancer. As a national and international leader in cancer treatment, research and prevention, The Royal Marsden is committed to supporting practical initiatives that help reduce cancer risk and encourage healthier daily habits.
Reducing skin cancer risk through simple measures
"Skin cancer is largely preventable, yet we continue to see rising rates across the UK," explains Dr Kara Heelan, Consultant Dermatologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust.
"Initiatives like this make sun protection more accessible in everyday settings and help reinforce the importance of regular sunscreen use, especially during periods of high UV exposure. Simple measures like this can make a real difference in reducing the risk of skin cancer.
"Anyone can develop skin cancer, and it can develop anywhere on the body, but it most commonly occurs in areas with the greatest UV exposure, such as the head, neck, chest, back of the hands, and in women in particular, the lower legs.
"Skin cancer can appear in many different ways depending on the individual. It may present as a lump or bump, a non-healing wound, a scaly patch, or a new or changing mole. The key message is that anything new, changing, or unusual on your skin should be checked."
Small, everyday steps to encourage skin protection
The initiative has been supported by funds donated by recipients of the Jack Petchey Award, demonstrating how the contribution of young volunteers is helping to support cancer prevention and improve the experience of everyone who visits The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust.
Celia Fox, a volunteer at The Royal Marsden and one of the Jack Petchey Award winners who helped fund the dispensers, shared her response to the installation of the dispensers.
"I'm incredibly grateful to have received this award, and supporting the installation of sunscreen dispensers is something I care deeply about," she said.
"I hope this initiative encourages people to protect their skin, think about the small everyday steps they can take to reduce the risk and raise awareness of skin cancer prevention while making sun protection easily accessible to patients, visitors and staff."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/news-and-events/news/royal-marsden-nhs-foundation-trust-installs-free-sunscreen-dispensers-promote
* * *
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust installs free sunscreen dispensers to promote skin cancer prevention
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust has installed free, dermatologically tested SPF 50 sunscreen dispensers at the entrances to its sites, as part of its ongoing commitment to cancer prevention.
The initiative provides patients, visitors and staff with easy access to high-quality sunscreen while helping to raise awareness of the importance of protecting skin from ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, July 15 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news: * * * The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust installs free sunscreen dispensers to promote skin cancer prevention The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust has installed free, dermatologically tested SPF 50 sunscreen dispensers at the entrances to its sites, as part of its ongoing commitment to cancer prevention. The initiative provides patients, visitors and staff with easy access to high-quality sunscreen while helping to raise awareness of the importance of protecting skin fromharmful ultraviolet (UV) rays. The dispensers have been installed at the entrances to The Royal Marsden's sites in Sutton, Chelsea and Cavendish Square.
Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the UK, with cases continuing to rise 1 UV exposure is the main cause of skin cancer. As a national and international leader in cancer treatment, research and prevention, The Royal Marsden is committed to supporting practical initiatives that help reduce cancer risk and encourage healthier daily habits.
Reducing skin cancer risk through simple measures
"Skin cancer is largely preventable, yet we continue to see rising rates across the UK," explains Dr Kara Heelan, Consultant Dermatologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust.
"Initiatives like this make sun protection more accessible in everyday settings and help reinforce the importance of regular sunscreen use, especially during periods of high UV exposure. Simple measures like this can make a real difference in reducing the risk of skin cancer.
"Anyone can develop skin cancer, and it can develop anywhere on the body, but it most commonly occurs in areas with the greatest UV exposure, such as the head, neck, chest, back of the hands, and in women in particular, the lower legs.
"Skin cancer can appear in many different ways depending on the individual. It may present as a lump or bump, a non-healing wound, a scaly patch, or a new or changing mole. The key message is that anything new, changing, or unusual on your skin should be checked."
Small, everyday steps to encourage skin protection
The initiative has been supported by funds donated by recipients of the Jack Petchey Award, demonstrating how the contribution of young volunteers is helping to support cancer prevention and improve the experience of everyone who visits The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust.
Celia Fox, a volunteer at The Royal Marsden and one of the Jack Petchey Award winners who helped fund the dispensers, shared her response to the installation of the dispensers.
"I'm incredibly grateful to have received this award, and supporting the installation of sunscreen dispensers is something I care deeply about," she said.
"I hope this initiative encourages people to protect their skin, think about the small everyday steps they can take to reduce the risk and raise awareness of skin cancer prevention while making sun protection easily accessible to patients, visitors and staff."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/news-and-events/news/royal-marsden-nhs-foundation-trust-installs-free-sunscreen-dispensers-promote
Rockefeller Foundation: New Commission Launches to Chart Next Chapter of Foreign Assistance
NEW YORK, July 15 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release on July 14, 2026:
* * *
New Commission Launches to Chart Next Chapter of Foreign Assistance
* Co-chaired by former Gov. David Beasley (R -- South Carolina) and former Sen. Ben Cardin (D -- Maryland), Rockefeller and Packard Foundations, along with other partners, launch initiative one year after USAID's closure.
* Independent Commission gets underway as new polling shows 8 in 10 Americans want aid reformed, not eliminated.
* With Brookings Institution and AEI support, Commissioners (former senior U.S. politicians ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 15 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release on July 14, 2026: * * * New Commission Launches to Chart Next Chapter of Foreign Assistance * Co-chaired by former Gov. David Beasley (R -- South Carolina) and former Sen. Ben Cardin (D -- Maryland), Rockefeller and Packard Foundations, along with other partners, launch initiative one year after USAID's closure. * Independent Commission gets underway as new polling shows 8 in 10 Americans want aid reformed, not eliminated. * With Brookings Institution and AEI support, Commissioners (former senior U.S. politiciansand executives from across the political spectrum) will spend the next year building a blueprint for a more effective and accountable system of U.S. foreign assistance.
-
The Rockefeller Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, along with other partners, announced today the launch of the new Commission on the Future of Foreign Assistance to reimagine a more effective, accountable, and widely supported system for delivering U.S. assistance around the world. Co-chaired by former Governor of South Carolina and Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), the Honorable David Beasley, and the Honorable Ben Cardin, former U.S. Senator from Maryland, the ten-member Commission, composed of former members of Congress and former senior officials from across the political spectrum, is charged with developing a forward-looking blueprint for U.S. foreign assistance that will be released in 2027. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Brookings Institution will support the independent body's efforts to identify the reforms needed to strengthen foreign aid as a key pillar of U.S. foreign and national security policy, but also how a new approach could secure the widespread public support and backing needed to sustain its work going forward.
Gov. Beasley said: "From my years leading the World Food Programme, I witnessed some of the most devastating humanitarian crises of our time first-hand and saw how foreign assistance must address both the emergency needs as well as the root causes if we want to protect U.S. interests at home and around the world. Yet, U.S. assistance programs are often skewed towards short term crises rather than building long-term resilience. We now have an opportunity to build a better system -- and we must take it."
Sen. Cardin said: "As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I witnessed the fraying of foreign policy on political grounds. Yet, in order to ensure that U.S. foreign assistance is a predictable and reliable tool to make us safer, stronger, and more prosperous, we need to restore a bipartisan approach that can be explained to the American people in a persuasive way. Having introduced legislation with then Senator Rubio to make foreign aid more transparent and accountable, I am excited to serve on this bipartisan Commission and look forward to beginning our work."
One year ago, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was shuttered, one part of the steepest single-year cut to global aid on record. According to the OECD, total official development assistance (ODA) fell 23.1% in 2025, from $215.1 billion to $174.3 billion -- a decline of roughly $40 billion and the largest annual contraction ever recorded. These cuts will have a real human toll given their impact on life-saving programs that were curtailed or terminated.
At the same time, a recent survey -- An American Perspective on Foreign Aid -- by Echelon Insights, commissioned by The Rockefeller Foundation last month, surveyed more than 2,000 respondents nationwide across age, education, and political backgrounds, and found that a majority (54%) across the political spectrum remains favorable toward foreign assistance a year after USAID's dismantlement, and 8 in 10 say the path forward is to reform and strengthen foreign assistance, not eliminate it.
"America's global leadership was built on the bipartisan belief that helping the world's most vulnerable is an investment in our own security and prosperity. That's why decisive majorities of Americans still support international cooperation to fight poverty, hunger, and disease around the world," said Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation and former USAID Administrator. "At a time when wealthy countries are pulling back from their commitments to the needy, this Commission is an important step toward building a 21st-century approach that empowers local innovators, delivers value for money, and builds enduring political support."
"Foreign assistance is an expression of deeply held American values, including compassion, generosity, and shared prosperity, as well as an effective means to serve our national security interests," said Nancy Lindborg, President and CEO of the Packard Foundation. "Over the decades, these critical investments have saved countless lives, built more resilient communities, and strengthened America's partnerships around the world. This moment of profound disruption is an opportunity to think boldly about what comes next."
The Commission on the Future of Foreign Assistance
The ten-member Commission is composed of former members of Congress and former senior officials with decades of experience in U.S. foreign policy and national security. Over the coming months, the Commission will conduct a series of consultations and analysis before offering publicly shared recommendations to reimagine and redesign a U.S. foreign assistance system that can deliver more effectively and garner the public support and political will needed to sustain its work. These suggested reforms will help chart a path for the next chapter of U.S. international engagement and global leadership. In doing so, the Commission aims to illustrate this work in a way that is salient, digestible, and resonant among the citizens who fund it.
Key objectives include:
* Clarifying the scope of foreign assistance that best serves U.S. strategic interests in the world;
* Renewing the purpose of foreign assistance while building a broad-based coalition that aligns government, the private sector, civil society, and the public to direct and implement a new approach to foreign assistance; and
* Proposing a new architecture to deliver foreign assistance more effectively and transparently and to more closely align it with U.S. national and economic security.
The Commissioners have each worked to forge broad reaching policies, even in a time of great political division. The members of the Commission are:
1. David Beasley, co-chair of the Commission, former Republican Governor of South Carolina and former Executive Director of the World Food Programme (WFP), who recently joined The Rockefeller Foundation's Board of Trustees.
2. Ben Cardin, co-chair of the Commission, former Democratic Senator from Maryland and former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
3. Roy Blunt, former Republican Senator and Member of Congress from Missouri, former Secretary of State of Missouri
4. Kay Bailey Hutchison, former Republican Senator and former U.S. Ambassador to NATO
5. Ted Yoho, former Republican Member of Congress from Florida
6. Henrietta Fore, former Administrator of USAID, former Executive Director of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), and former Director of the United States Mint
7. Tom Daschle, former Democratic Senator from South Dakota, former Senate Majority Leader, and current chair of the board of the National Democratic Institute (NDI)
8. Heidi Heitkamp, former Democratic Senator from North Dakota and former Attorney General of North Dakota
9. Daniel Glickman, former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and Democratic Member of Congress from Kansas
10. Alice Albright, former Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and former CEO of the Global Partnership for Education
The Rockefeller Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation worked with other partners to form this Commission and are working to assemble additional partners and support for its important work. To inform its analysis and consultations, the Commission will also draw on research and policy expertise from the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution across national security, global economics, development, and geopolitics.
"AEI is excited about participating in the Commission on the Future of Foreign Assistance," said Robert Doar, President of AEI. "For years, Republicans and Democrats alike have been dissatisfied with U.S. foreign assistance. Structures had become unwieldy and dated. Contributions to U.S. foreign policy, economic, and security priorities were difficult to discern, or, at times, were counterproductive. Although the process that brought us to this moment may have been chaotic, the opportunity to fundamentally rethink, reform, and reprioritize U.S. foreign assistance is extraordinary. By doing so, we aim to ensure that foreign assistance will be a more effective tool of U.S. policy in the 21st century."
"Brookings equips decisionmakers with nonpartisan research and policy strategies to create a more prosperous and secure country and world," said Cecilia Rouse, President of the Brookings Institution. "As such, we are excited and well-positioned to bring the breadth of our expertise to the critical work of the Commission on the Future of Foreign Assistance."
* * *
About the American Enterprise Institute
The American Enterprise Institute is a public policy think tank dedicated to defending human dignity, expanding human potential, and building a freer and safer world. The work of our scholars and staff advances ideas rooted in our belief in democracy, free enterprise, American strength and global leadership, solidarity with those at the periphery of our society, and a pluralistic, entrepreneurial culture. For more information, visit www.aei.org. Follow us on LinkedIn, Instagram, X, and YouTube.
* * *
About the Brookings Institution
Brookings equips decisionmakers with nonpartisan research and policy strategies to create a more prosperous and secure country and world. For more information, visit www.brookings.edu. Follow us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, X, and YouTube.
* * *
About the David and Lucile Packard Foundation
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation is a family foundation that funds innovative leaders and organizations with powerful ideas, knowledge, and experiences who share our vision to build a just and equitable world where people and nature flourish. For over six decades, the Packard Foundation has helped build a world where families and communities have the power to shape their lives, societies are more just and inclusive, and all of nature is sustained by a healthy ocean and climate. For more information, visit www.packard.org.
* * *
About The Rockefeller Foundation
Investing $30 billion over the last 113 years to promote the well-being of humanity, The Rockefeller Foundation is a pioneering philanthropy built on unlikely partnerships and innovative solutions that deliver measurable results for people in the United States and around the world. We leverage scientific breakthroughs, artificial intelligence, and new technologies to make big bets across energy, food, health, and finance with our partners and our affiliated public charity, RFCC. For more information, follow us on LinkedIn @the-rockefeller-foundation, X @RockefellerFdn, Instagram @rockefellerfdn, and YouTube @RockefellerFdn, and sign up for our newsletter at www.rockefellerfoundation.org/subscribe.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/new-commission-launches-to-chart-next-chapter-of-foreign-assistance/
* * *
New Commission Launches to Chart Next Chapter of Foreign Assistance
* Co-chaired by former Gov. David Beasley (R -- South Carolina) and former Sen. Ben Cardin (D -- Maryland), Rockefeller and Packard Foundations, along with other partners, launch initiative one year after USAID's closure.
* Independent Commission gets underway as new polling shows 8 in 10 Americans want aid reformed, not eliminated.
* With Brookings Institution and AEI support, Commissioners (former senior U.S. politicians ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 15 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release on July 14, 2026: * * * New Commission Launches to Chart Next Chapter of Foreign Assistance * Co-chaired by former Gov. David Beasley (R -- South Carolina) and former Sen. Ben Cardin (D -- Maryland), Rockefeller and Packard Foundations, along with other partners, launch initiative one year after USAID's closure. * Independent Commission gets underway as new polling shows 8 in 10 Americans want aid reformed, not eliminated. * With Brookings Institution and AEI support, Commissioners (former senior U.S. politiciansand executives from across the political spectrum) will spend the next year building a blueprint for a more effective and accountable system of U.S. foreign assistance.
-
The Rockefeller Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, along with other partners, announced today the launch of the new Commission on the Future of Foreign Assistance to reimagine a more effective, accountable, and widely supported system for delivering U.S. assistance around the world. Co-chaired by former Governor of South Carolina and Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), the Honorable David Beasley, and the Honorable Ben Cardin, former U.S. Senator from Maryland, the ten-member Commission, composed of former members of Congress and former senior officials from across the political spectrum, is charged with developing a forward-looking blueprint for U.S. foreign assistance that will be released in 2027. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Brookings Institution will support the independent body's efforts to identify the reforms needed to strengthen foreign aid as a key pillar of U.S. foreign and national security policy, but also how a new approach could secure the widespread public support and backing needed to sustain its work going forward.
Gov. Beasley said: "From my years leading the World Food Programme, I witnessed some of the most devastating humanitarian crises of our time first-hand and saw how foreign assistance must address both the emergency needs as well as the root causes if we want to protect U.S. interests at home and around the world. Yet, U.S. assistance programs are often skewed towards short term crises rather than building long-term resilience. We now have an opportunity to build a better system -- and we must take it."
Sen. Cardin said: "As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I witnessed the fraying of foreign policy on political grounds. Yet, in order to ensure that U.S. foreign assistance is a predictable and reliable tool to make us safer, stronger, and more prosperous, we need to restore a bipartisan approach that can be explained to the American people in a persuasive way. Having introduced legislation with then Senator Rubio to make foreign aid more transparent and accountable, I am excited to serve on this bipartisan Commission and look forward to beginning our work."
One year ago, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was shuttered, one part of the steepest single-year cut to global aid on record. According to the OECD, total official development assistance (ODA) fell 23.1% in 2025, from $215.1 billion to $174.3 billion -- a decline of roughly $40 billion and the largest annual contraction ever recorded. These cuts will have a real human toll given their impact on life-saving programs that were curtailed or terminated.
At the same time, a recent survey -- An American Perspective on Foreign Aid -- by Echelon Insights, commissioned by The Rockefeller Foundation last month, surveyed more than 2,000 respondents nationwide across age, education, and political backgrounds, and found that a majority (54%) across the political spectrum remains favorable toward foreign assistance a year after USAID's dismantlement, and 8 in 10 say the path forward is to reform and strengthen foreign assistance, not eliminate it.
"America's global leadership was built on the bipartisan belief that helping the world's most vulnerable is an investment in our own security and prosperity. That's why decisive majorities of Americans still support international cooperation to fight poverty, hunger, and disease around the world," said Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation and former USAID Administrator. "At a time when wealthy countries are pulling back from their commitments to the needy, this Commission is an important step toward building a 21st-century approach that empowers local innovators, delivers value for money, and builds enduring political support."
"Foreign assistance is an expression of deeply held American values, including compassion, generosity, and shared prosperity, as well as an effective means to serve our national security interests," said Nancy Lindborg, President and CEO of the Packard Foundation. "Over the decades, these critical investments have saved countless lives, built more resilient communities, and strengthened America's partnerships around the world. This moment of profound disruption is an opportunity to think boldly about what comes next."
The Commission on the Future of Foreign Assistance
The ten-member Commission is composed of former members of Congress and former senior officials with decades of experience in U.S. foreign policy and national security. Over the coming months, the Commission will conduct a series of consultations and analysis before offering publicly shared recommendations to reimagine and redesign a U.S. foreign assistance system that can deliver more effectively and garner the public support and political will needed to sustain its work. These suggested reforms will help chart a path for the next chapter of U.S. international engagement and global leadership. In doing so, the Commission aims to illustrate this work in a way that is salient, digestible, and resonant among the citizens who fund it.
Key objectives include:
* Clarifying the scope of foreign assistance that best serves U.S. strategic interests in the world;
* Renewing the purpose of foreign assistance while building a broad-based coalition that aligns government, the private sector, civil society, and the public to direct and implement a new approach to foreign assistance; and
* Proposing a new architecture to deliver foreign assistance more effectively and transparently and to more closely align it with U.S. national and economic security.
The Commissioners have each worked to forge broad reaching policies, even in a time of great political division. The members of the Commission are:
1. David Beasley, co-chair of the Commission, former Republican Governor of South Carolina and former Executive Director of the World Food Programme (WFP), who recently joined The Rockefeller Foundation's Board of Trustees.
2. Ben Cardin, co-chair of the Commission, former Democratic Senator from Maryland and former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
3. Roy Blunt, former Republican Senator and Member of Congress from Missouri, former Secretary of State of Missouri
4. Kay Bailey Hutchison, former Republican Senator and former U.S. Ambassador to NATO
5. Ted Yoho, former Republican Member of Congress from Florida
6. Henrietta Fore, former Administrator of USAID, former Executive Director of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), and former Director of the United States Mint
7. Tom Daschle, former Democratic Senator from South Dakota, former Senate Majority Leader, and current chair of the board of the National Democratic Institute (NDI)
8. Heidi Heitkamp, former Democratic Senator from North Dakota and former Attorney General of North Dakota
9. Daniel Glickman, former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and Democratic Member of Congress from Kansas
10. Alice Albright, former Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and former CEO of the Global Partnership for Education
The Rockefeller Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation worked with other partners to form this Commission and are working to assemble additional partners and support for its important work. To inform its analysis and consultations, the Commission will also draw on research and policy expertise from the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution across national security, global economics, development, and geopolitics.
"AEI is excited about participating in the Commission on the Future of Foreign Assistance," said Robert Doar, President of AEI. "For years, Republicans and Democrats alike have been dissatisfied with U.S. foreign assistance. Structures had become unwieldy and dated. Contributions to U.S. foreign policy, economic, and security priorities were difficult to discern, or, at times, were counterproductive. Although the process that brought us to this moment may have been chaotic, the opportunity to fundamentally rethink, reform, and reprioritize U.S. foreign assistance is extraordinary. By doing so, we aim to ensure that foreign assistance will be a more effective tool of U.S. policy in the 21st century."
"Brookings equips decisionmakers with nonpartisan research and policy strategies to create a more prosperous and secure country and world," said Cecilia Rouse, President of the Brookings Institution. "As such, we are excited and well-positioned to bring the breadth of our expertise to the critical work of the Commission on the Future of Foreign Assistance."
* * *
About the American Enterprise Institute
The American Enterprise Institute is a public policy think tank dedicated to defending human dignity, expanding human potential, and building a freer and safer world. The work of our scholars and staff advances ideas rooted in our belief in democracy, free enterprise, American strength and global leadership, solidarity with those at the periphery of our society, and a pluralistic, entrepreneurial culture. For more information, visit www.aei.org. Follow us on LinkedIn, Instagram, X, and YouTube.
* * *
About the Brookings Institution
Brookings equips decisionmakers with nonpartisan research and policy strategies to create a more prosperous and secure country and world. For more information, visit www.brookings.edu. Follow us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, X, and YouTube.
* * *
About the David and Lucile Packard Foundation
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation is a family foundation that funds innovative leaders and organizations with powerful ideas, knowledge, and experiences who share our vision to build a just and equitable world where people and nature flourish. For over six decades, the Packard Foundation has helped build a world where families and communities have the power to shape their lives, societies are more just and inclusive, and all of nature is sustained by a healthy ocean and climate. For more information, visit www.packard.org.
* * *
About The Rockefeller Foundation
Investing $30 billion over the last 113 years to promote the well-being of humanity, The Rockefeller Foundation is a pioneering philanthropy built on unlikely partnerships and innovative solutions that deliver measurable results for people in the United States and around the world. We leverage scientific breakthroughs, artificial intelligence, and new technologies to make big bets across energy, food, health, and finance with our partners and our affiliated public charity, RFCC. For more information, follow us on LinkedIn @the-rockefeller-foundation, X @RockefellerFdn, Instagram @rockefellerfdn, and YouTube @RockefellerFdn, and sign up for our newsletter at www.rockefellerfoundation.org/subscribe.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/new-commission-launches-to-chart-next-chapter-of-foreign-assistance/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Maryland Reduces Uncertainty in Occupational Licensing Decisions for Applicants With Criminal Records
LOS ANGELES, California, July 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Criminal Justice Policy Director Vittorio Nastasi:
* * *
Maryland reduces uncertainty in occupational licensing decisions for applicants with criminal records
House Bill 557 creates a predetermination review process so citizens with disqualifying criminal records don't waste time and money training for a license.
-
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed House Bill (HB) 557 into law earlier this year, establishing a process for people with criminal records to ask state licensing agencies whether their record ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Criminal Justice Policy Director Vittorio Nastasi: * * * Maryland reduces uncertainty in occupational licensing decisions for applicants with criminal records House Bill 557 creates a predetermination review process so citizens with disqualifying criminal records don't waste time and money training for a license. - Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed House Bill (HB) 557 into law earlier this year, establishing a process for people with criminal records to ask state licensing agencies whether their recordwill disqualify them from an occupational license before they invest time and money in training.
An occupational license is a government-issued state credential that many workers must obtain before they can legally work in fields ranging from cosmetology to contracting. Nationally, roughly one in five workers holds a job that requires an occupational license, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Maryland itself requires licensure or certification for at least 131 occupations according to the Archbridge Institute's 2025 State Occupational Licensing Index.
For the estimated 500,000 Marylanders with a felony or misdemeanor conviction record, licensing requirements are also a source of uncertainty. Someone could spend months or years completing the required coursework, apprenticeship hours, and exam fees for a trade like cosmetology or HVAC repair, only to be denied a license because of a conviction from years earlier.
HB 557, sponsored by Del. Andrea Fletcher Harrison (D-District 24), took effect on July 1. Prior to this bill's passage, Maryland law already limited how licensing boards could use criminal history. The state's five major licensing departments were prohibited from denying a license solely because an applicant has a conviction unless the board finds a direct relationship between the conviction and the occupation or concludes that licensure would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. Additionally, applicants whose sentences ended at least seven years prior to their application for licensure and who had no new offenses since could not be denied based upon that old conviction at all.
What Maryland lacked was a way for applicants to get an answer before completing the training and education requirements for a license. Someone with a conviction had no way to know whether a board would ultimately approve or deny their application until after they had already sunk the time and money into qualifying for it.
Under the new predetermination process created by HB 557, an applicant can ask a covered department to review their criminal history and determine whether it would disqualify them from a specific license before they apply. That determination is binding on the department unless the applicant's criminal history materially changes afterward. If a department determines the applicant would be denied, it must explain why, citing the same factors used in ordinary licensing decisions, including the seriousness of the offense, time elapsed, and evidence of rehabilitation. Applicants can request an updated determination after a year or if their record changes. Departments may charge up to $100 for a review, but must waive the fee for applicants at or below 300% of the federal poverty level.
HB 557 is written as a three-year pilot that will sunset on June 30, 2029, unless the legislature decides to continue it. The law requires the affected departments to use existing staff and resources to conduct these reviews, rather than hiring new personnel, and to report to the legislature by October 2028 on how many predetermination requests they received and what it cost to process them.
As Del. Harrison noted in testimony submitted to the House Economic Matters Committee:
Current data show that previously incarcerated people face unemployment rates many times higher than the general population, and those barriers are especially acute during the first few years after release, when stable employment is critical to successful re-entry and public safety. With approximately 19 percent of Maryland jobs requiring a license or certificate, ensuring a fair and transparent path to licensure can unlock economic opportunity, strengthen families, and reduce recidivism.
John Dove, the commissioner for Occupational and Professional Licensing with the Maryland Department of Labor, also testified in support of HB 557, saying:
This legislation reflects a thoughtful effort to ensure our licensing systems are fair and accessible while still maintaining standards necessary to protect the public. From our work, we consistently hear from Marylanders with prior justice system involvement who are unsure about whether their criminal record makes them ineligible for licensure. ... Qualified and capable Marylanders often never apply, cutting themselves off from professional opportunities before taking the necessary steps to start the process.
Reason Foundation contributed to the legislature's consideration of HB 557 through technical assistance, educational outreach to lawmakers, and public testimony.
HB 557 passed the House, 96-28, and the Senate unanimously, 45-0, reflecting broad, bipartisan recognition that Marylanders who have served their time deserve a clear answer before they invest in training. With HB 557, Maryland joins more than 25 other states, including Kentucky and West Virginia, that have adopted predetermination processes for occupational licensing.
* * *
Vittorio Nastasi is the director of criminal justice policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/maryland-reduces-uncertainty-in-occupational-licensing-decisions-for-applicants-with-criminal-records/
* * *
Maryland reduces uncertainty in occupational licensing decisions for applicants with criminal records
House Bill 557 creates a predetermination review process so citizens with disqualifying criminal records don't waste time and money training for a license.
-
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed House Bill (HB) 557 into law earlier this year, establishing a process for people with criminal records to ask state licensing agencies whether their record ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Criminal Justice Policy Director Vittorio Nastasi: * * * Maryland reduces uncertainty in occupational licensing decisions for applicants with criminal records House Bill 557 creates a predetermination review process so citizens with disqualifying criminal records don't waste time and money training for a license. - Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed House Bill (HB) 557 into law earlier this year, establishing a process for people with criminal records to ask state licensing agencies whether their recordwill disqualify them from an occupational license before they invest time and money in training.
An occupational license is a government-issued state credential that many workers must obtain before they can legally work in fields ranging from cosmetology to contracting. Nationally, roughly one in five workers holds a job that requires an occupational license, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Maryland itself requires licensure or certification for at least 131 occupations according to the Archbridge Institute's 2025 State Occupational Licensing Index.
For the estimated 500,000 Marylanders with a felony or misdemeanor conviction record, licensing requirements are also a source of uncertainty. Someone could spend months or years completing the required coursework, apprenticeship hours, and exam fees for a trade like cosmetology or HVAC repair, only to be denied a license because of a conviction from years earlier.
HB 557, sponsored by Del. Andrea Fletcher Harrison (D-District 24), took effect on July 1. Prior to this bill's passage, Maryland law already limited how licensing boards could use criminal history. The state's five major licensing departments were prohibited from denying a license solely because an applicant has a conviction unless the board finds a direct relationship between the conviction and the occupation or concludes that licensure would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. Additionally, applicants whose sentences ended at least seven years prior to their application for licensure and who had no new offenses since could not be denied based upon that old conviction at all.
What Maryland lacked was a way for applicants to get an answer before completing the training and education requirements for a license. Someone with a conviction had no way to know whether a board would ultimately approve or deny their application until after they had already sunk the time and money into qualifying for it.
Under the new predetermination process created by HB 557, an applicant can ask a covered department to review their criminal history and determine whether it would disqualify them from a specific license before they apply. That determination is binding on the department unless the applicant's criminal history materially changes afterward. If a department determines the applicant would be denied, it must explain why, citing the same factors used in ordinary licensing decisions, including the seriousness of the offense, time elapsed, and evidence of rehabilitation. Applicants can request an updated determination after a year or if their record changes. Departments may charge up to $100 for a review, but must waive the fee for applicants at or below 300% of the federal poverty level.
HB 557 is written as a three-year pilot that will sunset on June 30, 2029, unless the legislature decides to continue it. The law requires the affected departments to use existing staff and resources to conduct these reviews, rather than hiring new personnel, and to report to the legislature by October 2028 on how many predetermination requests they received and what it cost to process them.
As Del. Harrison noted in testimony submitted to the House Economic Matters Committee:
Current data show that previously incarcerated people face unemployment rates many times higher than the general population, and those barriers are especially acute during the first few years after release, when stable employment is critical to successful re-entry and public safety. With approximately 19 percent of Maryland jobs requiring a license or certificate, ensuring a fair and transparent path to licensure can unlock economic opportunity, strengthen families, and reduce recidivism.
John Dove, the commissioner for Occupational and Professional Licensing with the Maryland Department of Labor, also testified in support of HB 557, saying:
This legislation reflects a thoughtful effort to ensure our licensing systems are fair and accessible while still maintaining standards necessary to protect the public. From our work, we consistently hear from Marylanders with prior justice system involvement who are unsure about whether their criminal record makes them ineligible for licensure. ... Qualified and capable Marylanders often never apply, cutting themselves off from professional opportunities before taking the necessary steps to start the process.
Reason Foundation contributed to the legislature's consideration of HB 557 through technical assistance, educational outreach to lawmakers, and public testimony.
HB 557 passed the House, 96-28, and the Senate unanimously, 45-0, reflecting broad, bipartisan recognition that Marylanders who have served their time deserve a clear answer before they invest in training. With HB 557, Maryland joins more than 25 other states, including Kentucky and West Virginia, that have adopted predetermination processes for occupational licensing.
* * *
Vittorio Nastasi is the director of criminal justice policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/maryland-reduces-uncertainty-in-occupational-licensing-decisions-for-applicants-with-criminal-records/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Drug Enforcement Administration's Arbitrary 7-OH Ban is Not Rooted in Science
LOS ANGELES, California, July 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Drug Policy Managing Director Michelle Minton:
* * *
The Drug Enforcement Administration's arbitrary 7-OH ban is not rooted in science
In banning certain kratom-derived substances, the Drug Enforcement Administration ignores science.
-
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced plans July 1 to temporarily place certain kratom-derived substances into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This action would criminalize products used by millions of Americans as a safer alternative ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Drug Policy Managing Director Michelle Minton: * * * The Drug Enforcement Administration's arbitrary 7-OH ban is not rooted in science In banning certain kratom-derived substances, the Drug Enforcement Administration ignores science. - The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced plans July 1 to temporarily place certain kratom-derived substances into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This action would criminalize products used by millions of Americans as a safer alternativeto opioids for chronic pain, mental health, and opioid use disorder, potentially pushing many back toward the use of illicit opioids. Given that the federal government can only plausibly point to a handful of deaths linked to these products over the last near-decade and the opioid overdose crisis this country continues to face, the move is likely to cause far more harm than it prevents.
The Notice of Intent specifically targets 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), one of the two active alkaloids found in kratom plants. An additional Notice of Intent would also place three related compounds--mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16--in Schedule I. Schedule I is the most restrictive category of controlled substances, for drugs the government claims have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical uses, and lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Examples include heroin, LSD, and MDMA, among others.
Surveys of U.S. kratom users indicate that a majority use kratom to reduce chronic pain, often citing their inability to get adequate relief through standard methods as their motivation for trying kratom. A significant portion of users, over 40% in some surveys, also report using kratom products as a long-term replacement for opioids and rate it as effective for addressing withdrawal symptoms and cravings. Many report continuous opioid abstinence at six months and one year.
The move to ban kratom follows calls to control 7-OH made last summer by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary. It also follows more recent and seemingly contradictory comments from President Donald Trump made in May 2026 that his administration was "looking very seriously at natural 7-OH and getting that approved."
In a press release announcing the order, the DEA claimed its action will protect the public from an "imminent threat" posed by these products, with Kennedy stating that "7-OH, MP, MGM-16, and MGM-16 are dangerous opioids that fuel addiction and put American lives at risk." But, the available data, including evidence cited in DEA's own notice, do not support claims of a major looming threat from kratom-derived products that would warrant emergency scheduling.
For background, kratom products are derived from the leaves of Mitragyna speciosa, a tropical tree native to Southeast Asia where, for generations, its leaves have been chewed or brewed into tea to boost energy or self-manage depression, chronic pain, and substance use disorders. Kratom has only recently gained popularity in Europe and the U.S., with "kratom" products extending from more-traditional raw leaf products to more concentrated extracts.
Early research indicates kratom compounds hold great promise as a safe and effective tool to address opioid addiction. In fact, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has already awarded millions of dollars in grants to study kratom derivatives for exactly this purpose.
Kratom's effects stem from the plant's natural alkaloids, the most prominent of which is mitragynine. A second alkaloid, 7-hyroxymitragynine (7-OH), occurs naturally in kratom leaves in much smaller amounts. 7-OH can also be produced by converting mitragynine into this more potent form, which happens after consuming kratom as liver enzymes metabolize and convert mitragynine into 7-OH. It can also be produced by processing kratom extract in a lab to make concentrated products.
At low-to-moderate doses, kratom can be both stimulating and pain relieving. At higher doses, the increasing levels of 7-OH created by the body metabolizing mitragynine leads to a more sedative effect and stronger pain relief. For mitragynine, there is no apparent risk of suppressed breathing--the side effect that causes most opioid overdose deaths. Direct administration of 7-OH, on the other hand, has been shown in at least one animal study to slow down breathing.
For raw, unconcentrated kratom, there appears to be no risk of fatal respiratory problems, as the liver enzymes needed to convert mitragynine into 7-OH are naturally limited, creating a "ceiling" effect. For concentrated 7-OH products, the same may not be true. This risk, while serious, is likely not as a dire a threat is it may seem or the DEA would have the public believe.
The good news is that naloxone--the same medication used to reverse opioid overdose--appears to be equally effective at reversing respiratory effects induced by 7-OH. More importantly, while those taking very high doses may face some respiratory-related risk, the available data, including that cited by DEA, indicates that this is risk is low and can be reduced further by simply providing consumers with vital information about how these products should be consumed.
According to its order, the DEA has identified just 85 drug overdose cases involving 7-OH since 2019, 55 of which were fatal. Though "kratom-involved" deaths have recently made big headlines, the mere presence of kratom in autopsies does not tell us whether kratom contributed to a death. The fact is that exceedingly few--if any--of these deaths involved only kratom, with most occurring alongside the use of opioids, like fentanyl. That is not particularly surprising given the reasons users cite for kratom use.
The most comprehensive federal analysis, which reviewed 27,338 overdose deaths between July 2016 and December 2017, identified just 152 deaths--about half of one percent--where kratom was involved. Of those 152, only seven cases involved only kratom. Even this low number may be an overestimate if postmortem testing failed to account for other potentially contributing substances, like Benadryl, which has been found in some "kratom-linked" deaths in an amount that could cause fatal outcomes on its own.
With estimates putting the annual U.S. sales of 7-OH in the billions of dollars--representing potentially hundreds of millions of doses consumed--the low number of deaths even tangentially linked to 7-OH use indicates a relatively low risk given these levels of consumption.
Of course, death is not the only side effect worthy of concern. There is evidence that kratom, and 7-OH in particular, can be habit forming, leading to symptoms of withdrawal with discontinuation (though these are typically reported as milder than those associated with classic opioids and treatable with the same medications used for opioid addiction).
Other side effects reported by kratom users tend to be mild, such as nausea, constipation, drowsiness, or irritability, with less than one percent of users reportedly seeking medical treatment related to kratom use. Though rare, more serious side effects, like seizures and liver toxicity, have been reported.
In its order, the DEA notes "an increasing volume of calls to poison control centers" as evidence of widespread adverse events related to 7-OH use. But, as even DEA acknowledges, that increase is likely related to the fact that kratom only received its own code in the National Poison Data system in the spring of 2025, allowing such calls to be tracked, and the DEA does not provide the monthly data needed to substantiate how much of an increase in calls occurred.
Still, over the seven months between January 1 and July 31, 2025, DEA reports just 165 exposure calls to U.S. poison centers involving 7-OH, with about 58 of those resulting in "serious health problems" These serious health problems reportedly ranged from relatively benign gastrointestinal symptoms, like vomiting, to more concerning effects, like loss of consciousness or difficulty breathing. But it is unclear how many of these 58 cases fell into the less or more serious category based on available information. More importantly, these calls only tell us what callers report, which may not include relevant information like the other substances they were using.
None of this is to say that kratom or 7-OH products are without risk. Mixing kratom with other depressants, like alcohol, antihistamines, and certain prescription medications, may put users at increased risk due to the compounding effects on breathing. Mixing kratom with certain prescription and over-the-counter medications can also lead to those medications building up, as the liver enzymes needed to process mitragynine also process many common medications. Contamination of kratom products with heavy metals and pathogens, stemming from poor manufacturing practices, is also a real risk to consumers, but it is a risk that, as in other industries, is addressable through regulation.
Rules stipulating safe manufacturing and testing practices, accurate labeling, and warnings about medication mixing would eliminate the bulk of the risk currently associated with kratom. Prohibition, on the other hand, addresses none of these risks and will likely exacerbate them as users seek alternatives in the illicit market, where manufacturers have even fewer incentives to follow such guidelines.
A Schedule I designation would penalize consumers who are trying to reduce their risks by using a less harmful alternative to opioids, likely pushing many back toward potentially adulterated opioids, and stymieing the research needed to demonstrate kratom's potential as a therapy. Thoughtful regulation on these products would be more likely to achieve the DEA's stated public health goals than prohibition.
* * *
Michelle Minton is the managing director of drug policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/the-drug-enforcement-administrations-arbitrary-7-oh-ban-is-not-rooted-in-science/
* * *
The Drug Enforcement Administration's arbitrary 7-OH ban is not rooted in science
In banning certain kratom-derived substances, the Drug Enforcement Administration ignores science.
-
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced plans July 1 to temporarily place certain kratom-derived substances into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This action would criminalize products used by millions of Americans as a safer alternative ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Drug Policy Managing Director Michelle Minton: * * * The Drug Enforcement Administration's arbitrary 7-OH ban is not rooted in science In banning certain kratom-derived substances, the Drug Enforcement Administration ignores science. - The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced plans July 1 to temporarily place certain kratom-derived substances into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This action would criminalize products used by millions of Americans as a safer alternativeto opioids for chronic pain, mental health, and opioid use disorder, potentially pushing many back toward the use of illicit opioids. Given that the federal government can only plausibly point to a handful of deaths linked to these products over the last near-decade and the opioid overdose crisis this country continues to face, the move is likely to cause far more harm than it prevents.
The Notice of Intent specifically targets 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), one of the two active alkaloids found in kratom plants. An additional Notice of Intent would also place three related compounds--mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16--in Schedule I. Schedule I is the most restrictive category of controlled substances, for drugs the government claims have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical uses, and lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Examples include heroin, LSD, and MDMA, among others.
Surveys of U.S. kratom users indicate that a majority use kratom to reduce chronic pain, often citing their inability to get adequate relief through standard methods as their motivation for trying kratom. A significant portion of users, over 40% in some surveys, also report using kratom products as a long-term replacement for opioids and rate it as effective for addressing withdrawal symptoms and cravings. Many report continuous opioid abstinence at six months and one year.
The move to ban kratom follows calls to control 7-OH made last summer by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary. It also follows more recent and seemingly contradictory comments from President Donald Trump made in May 2026 that his administration was "looking very seriously at natural 7-OH and getting that approved."
In a press release announcing the order, the DEA claimed its action will protect the public from an "imminent threat" posed by these products, with Kennedy stating that "7-OH, MP, MGM-16, and MGM-16 are dangerous opioids that fuel addiction and put American lives at risk." But, the available data, including evidence cited in DEA's own notice, do not support claims of a major looming threat from kratom-derived products that would warrant emergency scheduling.
For background, kratom products are derived from the leaves of Mitragyna speciosa, a tropical tree native to Southeast Asia where, for generations, its leaves have been chewed or brewed into tea to boost energy or self-manage depression, chronic pain, and substance use disorders. Kratom has only recently gained popularity in Europe and the U.S., with "kratom" products extending from more-traditional raw leaf products to more concentrated extracts.
Early research indicates kratom compounds hold great promise as a safe and effective tool to address opioid addiction. In fact, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has already awarded millions of dollars in grants to study kratom derivatives for exactly this purpose.
Kratom's effects stem from the plant's natural alkaloids, the most prominent of which is mitragynine. A second alkaloid, 7-hyroxymitragynine (7-OH), occurs naturally in kratom leaves in much smaller amounts. 7-OH can also be produced by converting mitragynine into this more potent form, which happens after consuming kratom as liver enzymes metabolize and convert mitragynine into 7-OH. It can also be produced by processing kratom extract in a lab to make concentrated products.
At low-to-moderate doses, kratom can be both stimulating and pain relieving. At higher doses, the increasing levels of 7-OH created by the body metabolizing mitragynine leads to a more sedative effect and stronger pain relief. For mitragynine, there is no apparent risk of suppressed breathing--the side effect that causes most opioid overdose deaths. Direct administration of 7-OH, on the other hand, has been shown in at least one animal study to slow down breathing.
For raw, unconcentrated kratom, there appears to be no risk of fatal respiratory problems, as the liver enzymes needed to convert mitragynine into 7-OH are naturally limited, creating a "ceiling" effect. For concentrated 7-OH products, the same may not be true. This risk, while serious, is likely not as a dire a threat is it may seem or the DEA would have the public believe.
The good news is that naloxone--the same medication used to reverse opioid overdose--appears to be equally effective at reversing respiratory effects induced by 7-OH. More importantly, while those taking very high doses may face some respiratory-related risk, the available data, including that cited by DEA, indicates that this is risk is low and can be reduced further by simply providing consumers with vital information about how these products should be consumed.
According to its order, the DEA has identified just 85 drug overdose cases involving 7-OH since 2019, 55 of which were fatal. Though "kratom-involved" deaths have recently made big headlines, the mere presence of kratom in autopsies does not tell us whether kratom contributed to a death. The fact is that exceedingly few--if any--of these deaths involved only kratom, with most occurring alongside the use of opioids, like fentanyl. That is not particularly surprising given the reasons users cite for kratom use.
The most comprehensive federal analysis, which reviewed 27,338 overdose deaths between July 2016 and December 2017, identified just 152 deaths--about half of one percent--where kratom was involved. Of those 152, only seven cases involved only kratom. Even this low number may be an overestimate if postmortem testing failed to account for other potentially contributing substances, like Benadryl, which has been found in some "kratom-linked" deaths in an amount that could cause fatal outcomes on its own.
With estimates putting the annual U.S. sales of 7-OH in the billions of dollars--representing potentially hundreds of millions of doses consumed--the low number of deaths even tangentially linked to 7-OH use indicates a relatively low risk given these levels of consumption.
Of course, death is not the only side effect worthy of concern. There is evidence that kratom, and 7-OH in particular, can be habit forming, leading to symptoms of withdrawal with discontinuation (though these are typically reported as milder than those associated with classic opioids and treatable with the same medications used for opioid addiction).
Other side effects reported by kratom users tend to be mild, such as nausea, constipation, drowsiness, or irritability, with less than one percent of users reportedly seeking medical treatment related to kratom use. Though rare, more serious side effects, like seizures and liver toxicity, have been reported.
In its order, the DEA notes "an increasing volume of calls to poison control centers" as evidence of widespread adverse events related to 7-OH use. But, as even DEA acknowledges, that increase is likely related to the fact that kratom only received its own code in the National Poison Data system in the spring of 2025, allowing such calls to be tracked, and the DEA does not provide the monthly data needed to substantiate how much of an increase in calls occurred.
Still, over the seven months between January 1 and July 31, 2025, DEA reports just 165 exposure calls to U.S. poison centers involving 7-OH, with about 58 of those resulting in "serious health problems" These serious health problems reportedly ranged from relatively benign gastrointestinal symptoms, like vomiting, to more concerning effects, like loss of consciousness or difficulty breathing. But it is unclear how many of these 58 cases fell into the less or more serious category based on available information. More importantly, these calls only tell us what callers report, which may not include relevant information like the other substances they were using.
None of this is to say that kratom or 7-OH products are without risk. Mixing kratom with other depressants, like alcohol, antihistamines, and certain prescription medications, may put users at increased risk due to the compounding effects on breathing. Mixing kratom with certain prescription and over-the-counter medications can also lead to those medications building up, as the liver enzymes needed to process mitragynine also process many common medications. Contamination of kratom products with heavy metals and pathogens, stemming from poor manufacturing practices, is also a real risk to consumers, but it is a risk that, as in other industries, is addressable through regulation.
Rules stipulating safe manufacturing and testing practices, accurate labeling, and warnings about medication mixing would eliminate the bulk of the risk currently associated with kratom. Prohibition, on the other hand, addresses none of these risks and will likely exacerbate them as users seek alternatives in the illicit market, where manufacturers have even fewer incentives to follow such guidelines.
A Schedule I designation would penalize consumers who are trying to reduce their risks by using a less harmful alternative to opioids, likely pushing many back toward potentially adulterated opioids, and stymieing the research needed to demonstrate kratom's potential as a therapy. Thoughtful regulation on these products would be more likely to achieve the DEA's stated public health goals than prohibition.
* * *
Michelle Minton is the managing director of drug policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/the-drug-enforcement-administrations-arbitrary-7-oh-ban-is-not-rooted-in-science/
Lumina Foundation Issues Commentary: Americans Haven't Given Up on Higher Ed
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, July 15 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following commentary by chief data and research officer Courtney Brown:
* * *
Americans haven't given up on higher ed. They're asking more of it.
Every year, Gallup's survey on confidence in higher education generates a familiar headline: Americans are losing faith in colleges and universities.
This year's findings seem to reinforce that narrative. Confidence fell again, with just 38 percent of Americans now saying they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in higher education, down from 42 percent last year and ... Show Full Article INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, July 15 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following commentary by chief data and research officer Courtney Brown: * * * Americans haven't given up on higher ed. They're asking more of it. Every year, Gallup's survey on confidence in higher education generates a familiar headline: Americans are losing faith in colleges and universities. This year's findings seem to reinforce that narrative. Confidence fell again, with just 38 percent of Americans now saying they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in higher education, down from 42 percent last year andwell below the 57 percent who expressed that level of confidence when Gallup first asked the question in 2015.
But the more interesting story isn't just that confidence has declined. It's that confidence has become conditional. Confidence is no longer an assumption that precedes performance. It is a judgment people make after weighing costs, outcomes, and alternatives.
For generations, higher education benefited from a powerful assumption. Earning a college degree was widely viewed as a reliable path to opportunity, economic mobility, and a better future. Colleges certainly faced criticism, but their value was rarely questioned.
That assumption no longer exists.
Today's Americans still believe in higher education. They simply expect it to demonstrate its value in ways previous generations did not. Even as confidence has fallen, three-quarters of Americans still express at least some confidence in higher education. Only one-quarter reports having very little confidence or none at all.
That is not the profile of a country abandoning higher education. It's the profile of a country becoming more discerning about the value it expects higher ed to deliver.
The survey's open-ended responses reveal why. Among Americans who remain confident in higher education, the leading reasons are not tradition or prestige. They believe colleges train students in critical thinking and other important skills. They believe higher education creates informed, knowledgeable citizens. They believe it opens the door to better job opportunities.
Notice what those responses have in common: they all focus on outcomes. People trust higher education because they believe it prepares students for life and work.
Those who lack confidence are also focused on outcomes, but they reach a different conclusion. Their concerns generally fall into three broad themes:
* First, politics. Thirty-one percent say colleges are promoting political agendas.
* Second, cost. Thirty percent say college is simply too expensive.
* Third, workforce preparation. Twenty-five percent say colleges are not preparing students well for the jobs of today and tomorrow.
Those findings challenge the way we often talk about public confidence in higher education.
Much of the national conversation treats confidence as a political issue. Politics certainly matters, but the Gallup data suggest Americans are wrestling with something much broader. They are asking whether higher education is delivering enough value to justify the investment.
That's a different, and ultimately more constructive, question.
Whether these concerns are fully justified matters less than what they reveal. Students and families are weighing tuition against future earnings and asking not whether education matters, but which educational investment is most likely to pay off.
The competition has changed. Higher education is no longer competing only with other colleges. It is competing with certificates, apprenticeships, employer-sponsored learning, military service, and other routes to economic opportunity. That shift reflects the realities of today's economy, and a public that increasingly expects institutions to deliver results rather than rely on reputation.
One new finding in this year's survey illustrates just how quickly those expectations are changing. For the first time, Gallup asked Americans how artificial intelligence will affect the value of a college degree over the next five years. Nearly half believe AI will make degrees less important, while only one in five thinks degrees will become more important.
AI matters here not because anyone knows exactly how it will reshape work, but because it brings new uncertainty about the future value of today's credentials. As uncertainty grows, people naturally become more demanding about the return on the value of educational investments. Whether those predictions ultimately prove correct is almost beside the point. They reflect a public increasingly asking whether today's credentials will still matter tomorrow.
The pattern extends beyond partisan politics and across demographic groups.
Republicans have experienced the steepest long-term decline in confidence, but they are not alone. Over the past decade, confidence has also fallen substantially among Democrats, college graduates, postgraduates, young adults, and women. This year's decline occurred primarily among Democrats, but the longer trend extends well beyond any one political party. That suggests higher education faces a challenge that is larger than partisan politics. It is operating in an era in which trust must be earned continuously.
The encouraging news is that Americans have not lost faith in learning itself. They still believe education should prepare people with knowledge, skills, opportunity, and the ability to contribute to society.
What has changed is the standard by which institutions are judged. Confidence is no longer automatic. It is conditional.
Americans are asking colleges to demonstrate that graduates are prepared for meaningful careers. That credentials create economic opportunity. That students develop durable skills that will remain valuable as technology reshapes work. That the investment of time and money is worthwhile.
Earning confidence in this environment requires more than communicating value. It requires demonstrating it through stronger student outcomes, clearer connections between education and opportunity, greater transparency about costs, and evidence that graduates are prepared for the future of work.
That's the new standard. The future of higher education may depend less on persuading Americans that college matters than on showing, with clarity and consistency, how it delivers on its promise. And the institutions that embrace it will be the ones that earn the public's confidence in the years ahead.
* * *
About the Author
Courtney Brown is the foundation's chief data and research officer and leads Lumina's strategic planning, research, evaluation, data, and learning efforts
* * *
Original text here: https://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-views/americans-havent-given-up-on-higher-ed-theyre-asking-more-of-it/
* * *
Americans haven't given up on higher ed. They're asking more of it.
Every year, Gallup's survey on confidence in higher education generates a familiar headline: Americans are losing faith in colleges and universities.
This year's findings seem to reinforce that narrative. Confidence fell again, with just 38 percent of Americans now saying they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in higher education, down from 42 percent last year and ... Show Full Article INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, July 15 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following commentary by chief data and research officer Courtney Brown: * * * Americans haven't given up on higher ed. They're asking more of it. Every year, Gallup's survey on confidence in higher education generates a familiar headline: Americans are losing faith in colleges and universities. This year's findings seem to reinforce that narrative. Confidence fell again, with just 38 percent of Americans now saying they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in higher education, down from 42 percent last year andwell below the 57 percent who expressed that level of confidence when Gallup first asked the question in 2015.
But the more interesting story isn't just that confidence has declined. It's that confidence has become conditional. Confidence is no longer an assumption that precedes performance. It is a judgment people make after weighing costs, outcomes, and alternatives.
For generations, higher education benefited from a powerful assumption. Earning a college degree was widely viewed as a reliable path to opportunity, economic mobility, and a better future. Colleges certainly faced criticism, but their value was rarely questioned.
That assumption no longer exists.
Today's Americans still believe in higher education. They simply expect it to demonstrate its value in ways previous generations did not. Even as confidence has fallen, three-quarters of Americans still express at least some confidence in higher education. Only one-quarter reports having very little confidence or none at all.
That is not the profile of a country abandoning higher education. It's the profile of a country becoming more discerning about the value it expects higher ed to deliver.
The survey's open-ended responses reveal why. Among Americans who remain confident in higher education, the leading reasons are not tradition or prestige. They believe colleges train students in critical thinking and other important skills. They believe higher education creates informed, knowledgeable citizens. They believe it opens the door to better job opportunities.
Notice what those responses have in common: they all focus on outcomes. People trust higher education because they believe it prepares students for life and work.
Those who lack confidence are also focused on outcomes, but they reach a different conclusion. Their concerns generally fall into three broad themes:
* First, politics. Thirty-one percent say colleges are promoting political agendas.
* Second, cost. Thirty percent say college is simply too expensive.
* Third, workforce preparation. Twenty-five percent say colleges are not preparing students well for the jobs of today and tomorrow.
Those findings challenge the way we often talk about public confidence in higher education.
Much of the national conversation treats confidence as a political issue. Politics certainly matters, but the Gallup data suggest Americans are wrestling with something much broader. They are asking whether higher education is delivering enough value to justify the investment.
That's a different, and ultimately more constructive, question.
Whether these concerns are fully justified matters less than what they reveal. Students and families are weighing tuition against future earnings and asking not whether education matters, but which educational investment is most likely to pay off.
The competition has changed. Higher education is no longer competing only with other colleges. It is competing with certificates, apprenticeships, employer-sponsored learning, military service, and other routes to economic opportunity. That shift reflects the realities of today's economy, and a public that increasingly expects institutions to deliver results rather than rely on reputation.
One new finding in this year's survey illustrates just how quickly those expectations are changing. For the first time, Gallup asked Americans how artificial intelligence will affect the value of a college degree over the next five years. Nearly half believe AI will make degrees less important, while only one in five thinks degrees will become more important.
AI matters here not because anyone knows exactly how it will reshape work, but because it brings new uncertainty about the future value of today's credentials. As uncertainty grows, people naturally become more demanding about the return on the value of educational investments. Whether those predictions ultimately prove correct is almost beside the point. They reflect a public increasingly asking whether today's credentials will still matter tomorrow.
The pattern extends beyond partisan politics and across demographic groups.
Republicans have experienced the steepest long-term decline in confidence, but they are not alone. Over the past decade, confidence has also fallen substantially among Democrats, college graduates, postgraduates, young adults, and women. This year's decline occurred primarily among Democrats, but the longer trend extends well beyond any one political party. That suggests higher education faces a challenge that is larger than partisan politics. It is operating in an era in which trust must be earned continuously.
The encouraging news is that Americans have not lost faith in learning itself. They still believe education should prepare people with knowledge, skills, opportunity, and the ability to contribute to society.
What has changed is the standard by which institutions are judged. Confidence is no longer automatic. It is conditional.
Americans are asking colleges to demonstrate that graduates are prepared for meaningful careers. That credentials create economic opportunity. That students develop durable skills that will remain valuable as technology reshapes work. That the investment of time and money is worthwhile.
Earning confidence in this environment requires more than communicating value. It requires demonstrating it through stronger student outcomes, clearer connections between education and opportunity, greater transparency about costs, and evidence that graduates are prepared for the future of work.
That's the new standard. The future of higher education may depend less on persuading Americans that college matters than on showing, with clarity and consistency, how it delivers on its promise. And the institutions that embrace it will be the ones that earn the public's confidence in the years ahead.
* * *
About the Author
Courtney Brown is the foundation's chief data and research officer and leads Lumina's strategic planning, research, evaluation, data, and learning efforts
* * *
Original text here: https://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-views/americans-havent-given-up-on-higher-ed-theyre-asking-more-of-it/
Boston Foundation: Building Code Requirements Creating Obstacles for Building "missing Middle" Residential Housing, Suggests New Report
BOSTON, Massachusetts, July 15 (TNSrpt) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on July 14, 2026, from its affiliate, Boston Indicators:
* * *
Building code requirements creating obstacles for building "missing middle" residential housing, suggests new report
Permitting, fire, and accessibility codes designed for larger buildings raise costs and complications for small (3-24 unit) developments in transit corridors
-
The system of building codes in Massachusetts is driving up costs and complicating requirements for building the smaller multifamily housing near transit that ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, July 15 (TNSrpt) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on July 14, 2026, from its affiliate, Boston Indicators: * * * Building code requirements creating obstacles for building "missing middle" residential housing, suggests new report Permitting, fire, and accessibility codes designed for larger buildings raise costs and complications for small (3-24 unit) developments in transit corridors - The system of building codes in Massachusetts is driving up costs and complicating requirements for building the smaller multifamily housing near transit thatcould have the greatest impact on Massachusetts' housing shortage, says a new report released today by Boston Indicators, the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard and the design firm Nominal.
The report, Unlocking Small Multifamily Housing Through Building Code Reform, compared the two international codes that form the model for nearly all residential construction in Massachusetts: the International Residential Code (IRC), which applies to single-family homes, duplexes, and townhomes, and the International Building Code (IBC), which governs everything else, from triple-deckers to soccer stadiums. In interviews and research, report lead author Sam Naylor from Nominal found that moving from a two-unit building subject to the IRC to a three-unit building subject to the IBC requires substantial design and permitting changes often costing $100,000 or more - making 3-10 unit developments less suitable for affordable housing development.
The report then recommends following examples from other cities and states that have revised their building codes to better support small multifamily developments, and that have given greater authority and support to local bodies in charge of crafting and revising codes in their jurisdictions.
"Our two-tiered building code system is well-intended, but too often results in unnecessary regulations that don't improve safety, accessibility or design for smaller buildings," said Naylor. "In Massachusetts, we could make an immediate impact by developing code requirements that specifically apply to small multifamily developments, and by better equipping the Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS) to review and improve state codes applying to these buildings. Doing so would ensure we can fully take advantage of the state's zoning reform efforts and build much-needed homes for Massachusetts families."
The report specifically notes a number of areas where requirements that are sensible for large, 100 or more-unit buildings are less appropriate for buildings like triple-deckers or small apartment buildings. Commercial-grade sprinkler systems, elevator requirements and review processes befitting large-scale developments are often applied to much smaller buildings, with predictable results.
"When the requirements, timeline and review processes are the same for a three-unit and a 100-unit building, it's not surprising that developers will forgo the smaller projects," said Luc Schuster, Executive Director of Boston Indicators. "As a result, while we have removed zoning restrictions that discourage building on smaller lots near transit, the code requirements make projects less desirable for developers and less affordable for families."
The report recommends several changes based on reforms undertaken in several other U.S. cities and states that have sparked production. Among them:
* Develop a dedicated section of the building code for small multifamily housing (up to 24 units, no more than 3 stories), likely as an appendix to the Residential Code/IRC. This approach would keep the less burdensome residential code as the baseline and facilitate the addition of requirements that are necessary for small multifamily housing, but nothing more.
* Strengthen the BBRS's capacity and responsibility to revise model codes, by updating its mission to more explicitly evaluate how building code provisions affect housing production, affordability, and design quality, while maintaining appropriate safety standards.
* Provide the board with added research and evaluation capacity and a broader representation of perspectives, including a dedicated multifamily housing technical advisory committee focused on the affordability, feasibility, and design of multi-unit housing.
* Reform fire protection standards to provide multiple compliance pathways that better balance automatic sprinkler protection with other passive systems such as fire-rated assemblies and compartmentalization..
* Amend the code to allow for low-rise single-stair construction in buildings of up to eight units per floor, and modernize codes and standards related to elevators and other accessibility requirements to align with current technologies and best practices.
* Streamline engineering and permitting requirements and processes for smaller wood-framed buildings, and review other places where the costs and complexity of code requirements may work against broader goals - for example, where energy code requirements for new buildings are so stringent they result in people being forced to remain in older, less efficient homes.
* * *
REPORT: https://www.bostonindicators.org/-/media/indicators/boston-indicators-reports/report-files/2026/071326_smh_compressed.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2026/july/building-codes-report-release-20260714
* * *
Building code requirements creating obstacles for building "missing middle" residential housing, suggests new report
Permitting, fire, and accessibility codes designed for larger buildings raise costs and complications for small (3-24 unit) developments in transit corridors
-
The system of building codes in Massachusetts is driving up costs and complicating requirements for building the smaller multifamily housing near transit that ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, July 15 (TNSrpt) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on July 14, 2026, from its affiliate, Boston Indicators: * * * Building code requirements creating obstacles for building "missing middle" residential housing, suggests new report Permitting, fire, and accessibility codes designed for larger buildings raise costs and complications for small (3-24 unit) developments in transit corridors - The system of building codes in Massachusetts is driving up costs and complicating requirements for building the smaller multifamily housing near transit thatcould have the greatest impact on Massachusetts' housing shortage, says a new report released today by Boston Indicators, the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard and the design firm Nominal.
The report, Unlocking Small Multifamily Housing Through Building Code Reform, compared the two international codes that form the model for nearly all residential construction in Massachusetts: the International Residential Code (IRC), which applies to single-family homes, duplexes, and townhomes, and the International Building Code (IBC), which governs everything else, from triple-deckers to soccer stadiums. In interviews and research, report lead author Sam Naylor from Nominal found that moving from a two-unit building subject to the IRC to a three-unit building subject to the IBC requires substantial design and permitting changes often costing $100,000 or more - making 3-10 unit developments less suitable for affordable housing development.
The report then recommends following examples from other cities and states that have revised their building codes to better support small multifamily developments, and that have given greater authority and support to local bodies in charge of crafting and revising codes in their jurisdictions.
"Our two-tiered building code system is well-intended, but too often results in unnecessary regulations that don't improve safety, accessibility or design for smaller buildings," said Naylor. "In Massachusetts, we could make an immediate impact by developing code requirements that specifically apply to small multifamily developments, and by better equipping the Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS) to review and improve state codes applying to these buildings. Doing so would ensure we can fully take advantage of the state's zoning reform efforts and build much-needed homes for Massachusetts families."
The report specifically notes a number of areas where requirements that are sensible for large, 100 or more-unit buildings are less appropriate for buildings like triple-deckers or small apartment buildings. Commercial-grade sprinkler systems, elevator requirements and review processes befitting large-scale developments are often applied to much smaller buildings, with predictable results.
"When the requirements, timeline and review processes are the same for a three-unit and a 100-unit building, it's not surprising that developers will forgo the smaller projects," said Luc Schuster, Executive Director of Boston Indicators. "As a result, while we have removed zoning restrictions that discourage building on smaller lots near transit, the code requirements make projects less desirable for developers and less affordable for families."
The report recommends several changes based on reforms undertaken in several other U.S. cities and states that have sparked production. Among them:
* Develop a dedicated section of the building code for small multifamily housing (up to 24 units, no more than 3 stories), likely as an appendix to the Residential Code/IRC. This approach would keep the less burdensome residential code as the baseline and facilitate the addition of requirements that are necessary for small multifamily housing, but nothing more.
* Strengthen the BBRS's capacity and responsibility to revise model codes, by updating its mission to more explicitly evaluate how building code provisions affect housing production, affordability, and design quality, while maintaining appropriate safety standards.
* Provide the board with added research and evaluation capacity and a broader representation of perspectives, including a dedicated multifamily housing technical advisory committee focused on the affordability, feasibility, and design of multi-unit housing.
* Reform fire protection standards to provide multiple compliance pathways that better balance automatic sprinkler protection with other passive systems such as fire-rated assemblies and compartmentalization..
* Amend the code to allow for low-rise single-stair construction in buildings of up to eight units per floor, and modernize codes and standards related to elevators and other accessibility requirements to align with current technologies and best practices.
* Streamline engineering and permitting requirements and processes for smaller wood-framed buildings, and review other places where the costs and complexity of code requirements may work against broader goals - for example, where energy code requirements for new buildings are so stringent they result in people being forced to remain in older, less efficient homes.
* * *
REPORT: https://www.bostonindicators.org/-/media/indicators/boston-indicators-reports/report-files/2026/071326_smh_compressed.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2026/july/building-codes-report-release-20260714