Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
National Study Offers Fresh Insight Into the Lives and Livelihoods of U.S. Artists
NEW YORK, Nov. 20 -- The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
New National Study Offers Fresh Insight into the Lives and Livelihoods of US Artists
At a time when creative work is both celebrated and increasingly difficult to sustain, the Mellon Foundation today released the National Survey of Artists, a study conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago (NORC), that sheds new light on the lives, work, and economic realities of artists across the United States.
Drawing on responses from a nationally representative sample of artists and culture bearers, the study offers
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Nov. 20 -- The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
New National Study Offers Fresh Insight into the Lives and Livelihoods of US Artists
At a time when creative work is both celebrated and increasingly difficult to sustain, the Mellon Foundation today released the National Survey of Artists, a study conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago (NORC), that sheds new light on the lives, work, and economic realities of artists across the United States.
Drawing on responses from a nationally representative sample of artists and culture bearers, the study offersone of the most comprehensive portraits to date of how creative workers live, work, and sustain their practices. It expands national understanding of who counts as an artist, beyond those who earn a living solely from their art, while revealing the complex ways creative workers build their livelihoods, often across multiple jobs, and the financial challenges they face. Together, these findings illuminate the diverse forms of artistic contributions that drive and enrich the nation's cultural life amid shifting economic and social conditions.
Key findings reveal that artists across the United States continue to face significant financial insecurity and complex working lives. More than half (57%) of artists reported being somewhat or very worried about at least one form of financial vulnerability--such as affording food, housing, medical care, or utilities--with 22% concerned about having enough to eat and 32% about covering medical costs in the month ahead.
The study also highlights the multifaceted nature of artistic employment: 34% of artists are fully self-employed, 50% are self-employed in their primary job, and 11% juggled three or more jobs in the past year. Nearly one-third (28%) identify as teaching artists, another 28% provide unpaid care for a loved one with a health condition or disability, and 8% have served in the U.S. military. Together, these findings offer one of the clearest pictures to date of how creative workers sustain their practices amid overlapping economic, professional, and personal demands--providing critical insight for funders, policymakers, and arts organizations working to strengthen support systems for artists nationwide.
"Artists are essential to how we understand and shape the world around us, yet we have long lacked a complete picture of who they are and how they make their lives and work possible," said Deana Haggag, Program Director for Arts and Culture at the Mellon Foundation. "There are many incredible organizations across the country working tirelessly to support artists and ensure they are able to live with dignity. By expanding our definition of what it means to be an artist and illuminating the diverse conditions under which they live and work, we hope this study helps the field imagine systems and possibilities that can more fully sustain creative life in the United States."
The report arrives at a pivotal time for creative workers and the broader U.S. economy. As inflation and the ongoing rise of gig and contract work reshape the artistic world, artists continue to be affected by income instability and limited access to benefits. By capturing the full scope of artists' work lives - from employment patterns to financial vulnerability - the study provides the field with evidence to inform smarter investments, public policy, and support systems that can strengthen creative work for the long term.
"We're proud to partner with Mellon on this groundbreaking effort to better understand artists as workers," said Gwendolyn Rugg, Senior Research Scientist at NORC and lead author of the report. "Artists contribute immeasurably to our communities, yet we have only ever had very limited data on them which by and large did not reflect the full population of working artists and culture bearers in the U.S. With the publication of this study, we now have for the first time a more expansive national portrait of who artists are, how they live and work, and what challenges they experience. This lays the groundwork for creating programs and policies that are truly responsive to artists' needs."
Together, Mellon and NORC invite policymakers, funders, researchers, and arts leaders to use these findings to better understand--and support--the nation's artists. The full National Survey of Artists topline report, dataset, and accompanying materials are available here (https://www.mellon.org/article/window-into-us-artists-their-livelihoods).
* * *
About the National Survey of Artists
The National Survey of Artists was designed and conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago with funding and research support from the Mellon Foundation. The project outputs include the survey instrument, a public-use dataset, technical documentation, and a topline report. The findings reflect responses from a nationally representative sample of artists and culture bearers who maintain a dedicated, professionalized artistic practice. By centering artists as workers, the study provides essential data for building policies and systems that reflect how creative professionals actually live and work in the United States.
*
About NORC at the University of Chicago
NORC at the University of Chicago conducts research and analysis that decision-makers trust. As a nonpartisan research organization and a pioneer in measuring and understanding the world, we have studied almost every aspect of the human experience and every major news event for more than eight decades. Today, we partner with government, corporate, and nonprofit clients around the world to provide the objectivity and expertise necessary to inform the critical decisions facing society.
*
About The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation is the nation's largest supporter of the arts and humanities. Since 1969, the Foundation has been guided by its core belief that the humanities and arts are essential to human understanding. The Foundation believes that the arts and humanities are where we express our complex humanity, and that everyone deserves the beauty and empowerment that can be found there. Through our grants, we seek to build just communities enriched by meaning and guided by critical thinking, where ideas and imagination can thrive. Learn more at mellon.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mellon.org/news/new-national-study-offers-fresh-insight-lives-livelihoods-us-artists
WLF Urges Supreme Court to Reinforce Limits on Manufactured Appeals in the Wayward Ninth Circuit
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Urges Supreme Court to Reinforce Limits on Manufactured Appeals in the Wayward Ninth Circuit
*
WASHINGTON, DCWashington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reverse the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision permitting appellate review of an interlocutory ruling after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all their claims with prejudice. WLF contends that the ruling conflicts with Microsoft Corp. v. Baker by undermining
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Urges Supreme Court to Reinforce Limits on Manufactured Appeals in the Wayward Ninth Circuit
*
WASHINGTON, DCWashington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reverse the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision permitting appellate review of an interlocutory ruling after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all their claims with prejudice. WLF contends that the ruling conflicts with Microsoft Corp. v. Baker by underminingthe final-judgment rule and encouraging plaintiffs' bar tactics to secure immediate appeals from adverse orders. WLF also asks the Court to decide whether the appeal is also barred by Article III.
The case stems from Trendsettah's lawsuit against Swisher International alleging antitrust violations over flavored cigar products, which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of Trendsettah. After the district court granted Swisher's Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment due to Trendsettah's fraud on the court, Trendsettah voluntarily dismissed its claims with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Agreeing that Trendsettah's dismissal created a "final" appealable order, the Ninth Circuit accepted jurisdiction and reinstated a portion of the jury's verdict, prompting Swisher's certiorari petition.
In its amicus brief, WLF argues the Ninth Circuit's decision distorts Baker 's prohibition on manufactured finality, ignoring Article III's case-or-controversy requirement since no live dispute remains after dismissal with prejudice. This approach erodes judicial efficiency, burdens defendants with piecemeal appeals, and invites forum-shopping. WLF urges review to clarify that inferior courts cannot subvert Supreme Court precedent.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2025/11/19/communicating/wlf-urges-supreme-court-to-reinforce-limits-on-manufactured-appeals-in-the-wayward-ninth-circuit/
SEC's Refusal to Rule on No-Action Requests Creates Legal Limbo, Shirks Responsibility, and Harms Shareholders
OAKLAND, California, Nov. 18 -- As You Sow Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
SEC's Refusal to Rule on No-Action Requests Creates Legal Limbo, Shirks Responsibility, and Harms Shareholders
*
MEDIA CONTACT: Ryon Harms, ryon@asyousow.org, (310) 730-9407
EL CERRITO, CANovember 18, 2025 Today's announcement from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it will no longer substantively review corporate no-action requests under Rule 14a-8 represents a dangerous abandonment of the agency's longstanding role as a neutral arbiter in the shareholder proposal process.
"Now
... Show Full Article
OAKLAND, California, Nov. 18 -- As You Sow Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
SEC's Refusal to Rule on No-Action Requests Creates Legal Limbo, Shirks Responsibility, and Harms Shareholders
*
MEDIA CONTACT: Ryon Harms, ryon@asyousow.org, (310) 730-9407
EL CERRITO, CANovember 18, 2025 Today's announcement from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it will no longer substantively review corporate no-action requests under Rule 14a-8 represents a dangerous abandonment of the agency's longstanding role as a neutral arbiter in the shareholder proposal process.
"Nowthat the government shut down is over, the SEC staff can and should resume their normal duties, just as they did after the last government shut down," said Danielle Fugere, President & Chief Counsel at As You Sow, a shareholder representative. "Instead, despite being fairly early in the shareholder season, the Commission is walking away from its responsibilities and leaving investors and companies in legal limbo."
Since 1947, Rule 14a-8 has provided a well-established, stable, and predictable framework that enables shareholders to raise material issues for consideration at annual meetings. The SEC's no-action process plays a critical role in ensuring not only that proposals meet legal standards, but that companies do not arbitrarily block shareholder input and oversight. This clarity is foundational to maintaining investor confidence in the companies in which they have invested.
The SEC cited last year's government shutdown and resource constraints as justification. However, the agency has been in this position before and has successfully processed no-action requests even during an extended shutdown and at higher levels of shareholder proposal filings. Notably, fewer resolutions were submitted last year and early indicators provide no basis to anticipate any increase in filings this year.
"The suggestion that the Commission is unable to manage this year's workload raises legitimate concerns about the SEC's willingness to support this time-tested process," added Fugere. "A 43-day shutdown cannot be used as justification for shutting down an entire no-action season that spans until September 30 of next year. By stepping back from the no-action process, the SEC is effectively forcing these matters into court, an expensive and lengthy outcome that is detrimental to both shareholders and companies."
Far from protecting market participants, the SEC's announced action harms market players, including shareholders, who lose the SEC's interpretive clarity; companies who now face heightened legal risk; and financial markets that depended on the predictable governance process.
By refusing to perform its longstanding duties, the SEC leaves both parties to navigate the proposal process without guidance, accountability, or consistency.
"Responsible companies should continue including legitimate shareholder proposals in their proxies as an opportunity for engagement and transparency on material issues of shareholder concern," said Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow. "Excluding proposals does nothing but create confusion and expose companies to legal and reputational risk."
Investors deserve a functional regulator, not an absent one. If the SEC no longer intends to engage in the process it created, then it is, in effect, changing its own shareholder proposal rule without going through proper rulemaking. The Commission should restore its full role in the Rule 14a-8 process, immediately, to prevent further confusion, legal exposure, and erosion of shareholder protections.
As You Sow is the nation's leading shareholder representative, with a 30+ year track record promoting environmental and social corporate responsibility. Its focus areas include climate change, ocean plastics, toxins in the food system, the Rights of Nature, racial justice, and workplace diversity. Click here to view As You Sow 's shareholder resolution tracker.
***
Original text here: https://www.asyousow.org/press-releases/2025/11/18/secs-refusal-to-rule-on-no-action-requests-creates-legal-limbo-shirks-responsibility-and-harms-shareholdersnbsp
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Most Public Pension Contributions Go Toward Paying Off Debt, Not Funding Benefits
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 18 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:
* * *
Most public pension contributions go toward paying off debt, not funding benefits
Over 50% of the public pension contributions by state and local governments are directed toward paying off pension debt rather than to benefits themselves.
By Mariana Trujillo, Managing Director
State and local governments have been making higher pension contributions to their employees' pension funds, but not because public pension benefits have become more generous. Instead, growing debt from past underfunding of
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 18 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:
* * *
Most public pension contributions go toward paying off debt, not funding benefits
Over 50% of the public pension contributions by state and local governments are directed toward paying off pension debt rather than to benefits themselves.
By Mariana Trujillo, Managing Director
State and local governments have been making higher pension contributions to their employees' pension funds, but not because public pension benefits have become more generous. Instead, growing debt from past underfunding ofpension benefits has largely driven the increase in contribution rates. Today, the majority of contributions made to public pension systems go toward amortizing unfunded liabilities rather than funding the benefits promised to current employees.
One way to evaluate the burden of pension contributions is to measure their size in comparison to payroll. Between 2014 and 2024, average pension contributions by state and local governments rose from 23% to 29% of payroll--a 26% increase, Reason Foundation's Annual Pension Solvency and Performance Report finds.
Differences among states
The median pension contribution rate as a share of payroll in 2014 was 22%; in 2024, it was 26%.
Among states, New Jersey saw the highest increase during these 10 years, 28.5 percentage points, with the aggregate contribution rate going from 13.5% to 42%. Alaska's 28-point increase, from 41% to 69%, was the second largest, followed by Wisconsin (+25 percentage points), Kentucky (+18), Connecticut (+15), and California (+15).
In eight states, however, thanks to some combination of fiscal discipline, additional pension contributions, strong financial returns, and successful pension reforms, pension contributions as a share of payroll actually decreased between 2014 and 2024, including West Virginia (-7.7 percentage points), New York (-6.4), and Indiana (-3.1).
Some of the observed increases in contribution rates may actually reflect fiscal prudence, not recklessness. States that have made either one-time or ongoing additional contributions to their pensions--such as Connecticut, West Virginia, and Alaska--will have higher contribution rates in the years those additional payments are made. These payments accelerate the amortization schedule and cut decades of interest costs, generating long-term savings. In subsequent years, as their debts are paid off, their required contribution rates should decline.
Amortization rises while normal cost stays stable
One might assume that the long-term nationwide increase in pension contribution rates is a result of public employee pensions becoming more generous. That is not the case. Instead, larger contributions have been needed to compensate for past underfunding--that is, to make up for decades of underestimating the true cost of providing the pensions promised to state and local employees.
There are two components of contribution rates: normal costs and amortization costs.
Normal Cost: The portion of pension contributions used to cover the cost of benefits earned in a given year. This is a forward-looking estimate of the amount that needs to be contributed to pay the benefits accrued by employees during the fiscal year.
Amortization cost: The portion of pension contributions used to pay down unfunded pension liabilities, which arise because normal costs were either underestimated or not fully funded in the past. This is a backward-looking payment, structured over a set period (e.g., 20-30 years), to gradually pay down pension debt.
From 2014 to 2024, normal costs have remained virtually flat, even declining slightly, from 14% to 13%. Meanwhile, amortization costs have increased from 9% to 16%--an 80% increase.
There are two main drivers of the significant increase in amortization costs: first, a widespread, decades-long underestimation of the true cost of the pension benefits promised to public employees; and second, retroactive benefit increases.
The underestimation of costs has been primarily driven by chronic overestimation of investment returns. Since the 2000s, public pensions have assumed that they would earn higher investment returns than they really have. Plans have been increasingly forced to reckon with this reality, and amortization costs have risen to compensate.
Normal costs have been stable. This is due to public pension reforms across the country--such as the creation of new tiers, fine-tuning of cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), and the introduction of defined contribution plans--which have kept actuarial costs stable.
Some increases in pension benefits, however, do not manifest as increases in normal costs, which only capture actuarial and pre-determined benefits. When benefits enhancements are forward-looking and pre-funded--as they are supposed to be--normal costs increase correspondingly. But in some cases, state legislatures and cities give retroactive pension enhancements--such as increased salary multipliers or COLAs--without pre-funding them. The costs of such retroactive benefit increases show up all at once, as a debt to be amortized, and only to a small degree, as an increase in normal costs. Because amortization costs have been rising while normal costs have remained stable, the composition of pension contributions has shifted. In 2014, 60% of pension contributions were directed to fund the pension benefits that current employees accrued that year. By 2024, only 45% of contributions funded current benefits. More than half of the contributions, 55%, go toward covering previous underfunding.
State and local governments have footed the increase
In almost all defined benefit plans, employee contribution rates are fixed. If the costs of pension benefits unexpectedly increase due to the expansion of COLAs, disappointing investment returns, or readjustments to discount rates, employers--that is, the sponsoring state or local government--must cover this difference on their own.
That explains the following chart, which shows that, from 2014 to 2023, employer contribution rates increased by 31%, while employee contribution rates rose by only 14%.
State and local governments have had to absorb nearly all of the increased pension costs, because, ultimately, it is public employers--and, by extension, taxpayers--who bear full risk for any unexpected costs in funding pension benefits. The result is that a growing share of current taxpayers' money is being used to pay pension benefits for past employees--that is, to cover the costs of services they themselves did not use.
The nation's estimated $1.5 trillion in government pension debt will continue to generate significant strains on budgets and taxpayers. Lawmakers should continue to prioritize strategies that accelerate amortization schedules and ensure annual contributions are sufficient to pay down existing liabilities, not just maintain them.
Looking ahead, states should adopt cost-sharing and alternative retirement plan designs for new hires that align costs and risks more evenly between employers and employees, preventing the accumulation of new unfunded liabilities.
* * *
Mariana Trujillo is managing director of government finance at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/most-pension-contributions-go-toward-paying-off-debt-not-funding-benefits/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Florida Must Stay the Course to Pay for Promised Pension Benefits
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 18 (TNSrep) -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news on Nov. 17, 2025:
* * *
Florida must stay the course to pay for promised pension benefits
Florida's retirement system for public workers is estimated to be 17 years away from eliminating expensive pension debt.
By Zachary Christensen, Managing Director and Steve Vu, Quantitative Analyst
Florida's retirement system for public workers, which covers most of the state's teachers, police, firefighters, and other government employees, is estimated to be 17 years away from eliminating expensive pension debt.
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 18 (TNSrep) -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news on Nov. 17, 2025:
* * *
Florida must stay the course to pay for promised pension benefits
Florida's retirement system for public workers is estimated to be 17 years away from eliminating expensive pension debt.
By Zachary Christensen, Managing Director and Steve Vu, Quantitative Analyst
Florida's retirement system for public workers, which covers most of the state's teachers, police, firefighters, and other government employees, is estimated to be 17 years away from eliminating expensive pension debt.However, this result will depend significantly on market outcomes. A recession during that period could undo years of progress and drive up costs for government budgets and taxpayers. Lawmakers in the Sunshine State need to stay the course and resist the temptation to add to pension promises while they remain several years away from being able to fund existing promises fully.
A new analysis (https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2025/09/15/study-shows-states-pension-plan-on-track-despite-past-troubles/86099480007/) by Aon Investments USA Inc. (a market consulting company), commissioned by the Florida State Board of Administrators (SBA), predicts that the Florida Retirement System, FRS, is on track to eliminate all unfunded pension liabilities by 2042. Lawmakers reformed the system in 2011 by introducing a defined contribution (DC) option called the Investment Plan, and subsequently made it the default retirement plan for most new hires in 2018. These reforms have helped FRS make progress in closing what was a nearly $40 billion funding shortfall after the Great Recession.
The latest reporting from FRS now gives the system an 83.7% funded ratio (up from 70% in 2009), indicating that the state has made progress but still needs to stay the course to return to its pre-recession, full funding status. According to Reason Foundation's recently released Annual Pension Solvency and Performance Report (https://reason.org/data-visualization/state-pension-debt/), one bad year in the market (0% returns in 2026) would essentially undo that progress, bringing the system's unfunded liabilities back to an estimated $40 billion overnight.
* * *
Florida has a long way to go before catching up with its public pension promises
Source: Reason's Annual Pension Solvency and Performance Report, using FRS annual valuation reports (https://a8d50b36.delivery.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/image-90.png).
* * *
If market outcomes over the next two decades resemble those of the last 20 years, FRS won't achieve full funding anytime soon. The pension system's 24-year average return since 2001 is 6.4%, falling short of the plan's 6.7% assumption. According to Reason Foundation's actuarial modeling of FRS, this seemingly small 0.3% shortfall would push the date for reaching full funding out by another three years.
Another major recession would also significantly derail the system. Reason Foundation's modeling indicates that an investment loss in 2026 similar to that of 2009 (a 20% loss) would result in a funding ratio of 62%, and it would take 15 years just to climb back to today's funding levels. The full funding date would extend well beyond 2055 in that scenario.
Lower market returns would also drive up the annual costs of FRS, which taxpayers and lawmakers should be wary of. In 2024, employers contributing to the FRS pension paid an amount equal to around 12.7% of payroll (totaling $5.6 billion statewide annually). If everything goes as planned, with returns matching the system's assumptions, this cost will remain relatively stable and drop significantly once the system is free from pension debt. Under the scenario of a major recession, annual costs will need to rise to as high as 22.9% of payroll to maintain full pension benefit payments.
* * *
A recession would necessitate much larger government contributions
Source: Reason actuarial modeling of FRS. Recessions use return scenarios reflective of Dodd-Frank testing regulations (https://a8d50b36.delivery.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/image-91.png).
* * *
When it comes to public pensions, policymakers can hope for the best, but they need to prepare for the worst. At a minimum, they should structure pension systems to withstand the same market pressures and funding challenges that created today's costly pension debt.
Florida lawmakers should consider these risks as they weigh proposals to expand benefits. During the 2025 legislative session, lawmakers saw (and rejected) a proposal to unroll the state's crucial 2011 reform by again granting cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to all FRS members.
Reason Foundation's analysis of the proposal warned that even under a best-case scenario, the move would add $36 billion in new costs over the next 30 years. A scenario in which the system sees multiple recessions over the next 30 years would have driven the estimated costs of the proposed COLA to $47 billion.
For a pension fund that is still many years away from having the assets to fulfill existing retirement promises, the last thing it needs is to double down on more costs and liabilities.
Current proposals to cut taxes in the Sunshine State should also factor into any consideration of granting additional pension benefits to public workers. A new group of bills introduced in the state's House of Representatives signals that lawmakers intend to offer several property tax-cutting measures to voters on the 2026 ballot. It is safe to say that the idea of increasing pension costs on Florida's local governments while simultaneously facing the prospect of reduced tax revenue is ill-advised.
Through prudent reforms, Florida has made some laudable progress in improving the funding of its public pension system. However, the state is still several years away from achieving the end goal of all these efforts, and any level of market turbulence would push the finish line out by decades. Policymakers need to be aware of Florida's long-term pension funding strategy and avoid any proposals to add to the costs and risks imposed on taxpayers through new pension benefits.
* * *
Zachary Christensen is a managing director of Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project.
Steve Vu is a quantitative analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/florida-must-stay-the-course-to-pay-for-promised-pension-benefits/
Health Foundation Responds to the Public Accounts Committee Report on Reducing NHS Waiting Times
LONDON, England, Nov. 18 -- The Health Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Health Foundation responds to the Public Accounts Committee report on reducing NHS waiting times
Responding to the Public Accounts Committee report on reducing NHS waiting times for elective care, Dr Hugh Alderwick, Director of Research and Policy at the Health Foundation said:
'While the elective waiting list is in slightly better shape than when Labour took office, analysis of recent trends shows that achieving the government's pledge to restore the 18-week standard by the end of this parliament will
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Nov. 18 -- The Health Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Health Foundation responds to the Public Accounts Committee report on reducing NHS waiting times
Responding to the Public Accounts Committee report on reducing NHS waiting times for elective care, Dr Hugh Alderwick, Director of Research and Policy at the Health Foundation said:
'While the elective waiting list is in slightly better shape than when Labour took office, analysis of recent trends shows that achieving the government's pledge to restore the 18-week standard by the end of this parliament willbe challenging. Progress on reducing waiting lists will depend on sustained focus and resources, and may mean slower progress on other political promises, like boosting prevention or investing in primary care. These trade-offs matter, not least because the public's top priority for improving the NHS is better access to GP appointments, not the elective waiting list.
'The committee is right to question the government's approach to major policy change in the NHS. The government has embarked on yet another round of top-down restructuring of the health service, at a time when the NHS is under massive pressure and political ambitions for improvement are sky-high. This is risky, at best, given experience from a long line of previous reorganisations suggests they cause widespread disruption, take years to deliver, and rarely deliver the benefits policymakers expect. The big worry is that NHS leaders are distracted from the task of improving services.
'Rather than reforms to the structure of the health service, like merging or scrapping organisations, greater attention is needed on what happens within it, including by developing the skills and capabilities for the NHS to identify, implement, evaluate and spread improvements to care in different contexts. Cuts to local NHS bodies risk making this harder.'
* * *
Notes to editors
1. One year on: is the government on track to meet its waiting times pledge?
2. Mind the gap: public perceptions of the NHS and social care
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/health-foundation-responds-to-the-public-accounts-committee-report-on-reducing-nhs-waiting-times
Billionaire Trump's Regime to Defund Housing for 170,000 Americans
CHICAGO, Illinois, Nov. 18 -- The AIDS Foundation of Chicago issued the following news on Nov. 17, 2025:
* * *
Billionaire Trump's Regime to Defund Housing for 170,000 Americans
By Patty Conway, Director of Communications
A recent change to funding policy could cause 170,000 people across the country and 21,000 in Illinois to lose housing. Directed by the Trump administration through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Continuum of Care (CoC) Program, the change will take funding away from programs that use evidence-based, housing-first, permanent supportive housing models
... Show Full Article
CHICAGO, Illinois, Nov. 18 -- The AIDS Foundation of Chicago issued the following news on Nov. 17, 2025:
* * *
Billionaire Trump's Regime to Defund Housing for 170,000 Americans
By Patty Conway, Director of Communications
A recent change to funding policy could cause 170,000 people across the country and 21,000 in Illinois to lose housing. Directed by the Trump administration through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Continuum of Care (CoC) Program, the change will take funding away from programs that use evidence-based, housing-first, permanent supportive housing modelsfor people who are formerly homeless - the vast majority of housing funded nationally by the CoC project. Instead, the Trump administration will prioritize short-term housing programs with mandatory substance use treatment, mandatory mental health treatment, and work requirements. This policy change will directly affect people who are formerly homeless and disabled - including people living with HIV - who are living in CoC-funded permanent housing programs and could lose their homes.
At AIDS Foundation Chicago and our subsidiary Center for Housing and Health, CoC funding supports housing for 721 people and accounts for $13.9M in revenue for the two organizations. Stable housing for these participants is at risk because of the Trump administration's proposed policy.
The HUD notice was issued months after the normal CoC funding cycle concluded and represents a major shift away from proven housing programs and toward incarceration for people experiencing chronic homelessness, addiction, and mental illness. According to the notice, some of the new funding policies include: support of housing-first programs will be capped at 30% of CoC fund recipients; essential harm reduction work - like syringe exchange or safer use spaces - would not be permitted; and all funded organizations must only consider gender as binary. In addition to the cap on funds for proven permanent supportive housing programs, the funding notice also implements a scoring system that prioritizes funding for states and localities that criminalize homelessness, deny housing to immigrants, and eschew diversity and equity initiatives.
Not only is this position cruel and punitive, it will not reduce incidence of homelessness, mental illness, or addiction. If implemented, this new policy will drastically increase the number of people experiencing homelessness. The cuts to permanent supportive housing and harm reduction programs will be devastating to our progress toward ending the HIV epidemic, of which stable housing and harm reduction are key pillars. There will be an increase in HIV transmission as thousands lose housing stability and access to sterile syringes, and all communities across our state will feel the impact. The cost of supporting our community members in crisis will fall to us to cover, while our federal tax dollars are directed elsewhere.
In Illinois, CoC funds support housing for 21,000 Illinoisans and 27,000 emergency shelter beds. Across the state, federal CoC funding currently supports more than 330 CoC grants, totaling approximately $182.5 million, to nonprofit and local government agencies. The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates that 60% of all permanent supportive housing in Illinois is federally funded, and in some downstate and rural communities, the percentage is much higher. Under the policy, existing CoC grantees could run out of funding as soon as early 2026.
Let's be clear - this change is not about improving or reforming housing policy. It is about gutting the social safety net programs upon which our communities rely to ensure that people experiencing chronic homelessness and illness can find stability and support. It is about criminalizing poverty and punishing the Black and Latine communities disproportionately impacted by homelessness. At the same time as issuing this policy change to how housing is funded by HUD, the Trump administration is seeking to build institutions that many fear will function as de-facto prisons or work camps to incarcerate people experiencing homelessness, mental illness, or addiction.
At AIDS Foundation Chicago and the Center for Housing & Health, we know permanent supportive housing and housing-first programs work and are the best way to interrupt chronic homelessness, substance use, and mental health challenges for our unhoused neighbors. As the name describes, housing-first programs provide participants with housing and then offer supportive services like mental health care and substance use treatment, to which people are more able and likely to adhere once they have the safety and stability of housing. This is a proven approach that is critical to our work to end the HIV epidemic. The root cause of homelessness in the United States is the soaring, unaffordable cost of housing, not an individual's choices or behavioral health challenges.
Together with our partners, we are advocating for HUD to rescind this change. Over 300 housing providers in Illinois issued a joint letter to HUD's Secretary Scott Turner, and we call upon all of our partners and supporters to contact your congressional representatives and loudly voice your opposition to this HUD directive.
TAKE ACTION:
Participate in this campaign from The National Alliance to End Homelessness: ACT NOW: Tell Congress to stop HUD!
Call your Congress person via the Capitol Switchboard and tell them you support permanent supportive housing and oppose the new funding requirements for HUD's Continuum of Care program: (202) 224-3121.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.aidschicago.org/hudchange/
