The trial would seek approval of ibogaine as a treatment for opioid use disorder, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other behavioral health conditions, especially those suffered by military veterans. If the FDA approves ibogaine to treat a medical condition, the legislation would allow licensed physicians to prescribe ibogaine administration for a patient under supervision.  

The post Proposed Model Policy: “Veterans Mental Health Innovations Act”  appeared first on Reason Foundation.

State-based research and clinical trials

• After years of advocacy by veterans’ organizations and researchers, a bipartisan coalition of state legislators in Texas voted to fund ibogaine research programs (Texas Senate Bill 2308). In 2025, Texas launched a multimillion-dollar endeavor that will allow any state that enacts the VMHI to join the effort on ibogaine clinical trials.
• The most effective way to ensure those in need benefit from ibogaine is to conduct clinical trials using ibogaine as an investigational new drug. Clinical trials are a costly and lengthy endeavor for any one entity, but through VMHI, multiple states will conduct their own local trials, advancing a single unified application to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
• Under the VMHI, each participating state selects and funds a research grantee of their choice to conduct ibogaine clinical trials locally with in-state participants.

Multistate collaboration and shared success

• A multistate consortium allows states with limited resources to take part in what could be nearly a billion-dollar endeavor. This public effort to conduct FDA-approved clinical trials will be in partnership with a private drug developer, which will assume financial risk and responsibility for advancing the treatment through the clinical trial process. 
• Under VHMI, states retain the long-term benefits of the research they fund. Instead of handing over value to pharmaceutical companies, the bill keeps the research and development process rooted locally and ensures states are compensated if an application is successful.

Federal government and the role of the FDA

• Ibogaine is deemed a Schedule I drug by the federal government. Engaging in FDA-approved research is the surest way to prove its medicinal and treatment value.
• Once ibogaine is approved by the FDA to treat a medical condition, the VMHI would allow licensed physicians to prescribe ibogaine administration for a patient under supervision.
• The VMHI leaves direct engagement with the FDA to the drug developer, eliminating the need for states to navigate the complex clinical trial application process.

The model legislation for the Veterans Mental Health Innovations Act is available below. The template is designed to be easily adapted by states, with the sections that need customization highlighted.

The post Model legislation would authorize groundbreaking research into ibogaine for mental health appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Policymakers must have the best data possible to inform their public education decisions. The following analysis from Reason Foundation’s K-12 Education Spending Spotlight brings together the latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau and National Center for Education Statistics and highlights five key insights from our tool and their implications for state policymakers and other stakeholders.

These critical insights include examining and ranking every state’s total K-12 and per student public school funding, the public school enrollment levels in every state and how states continue to hire more non-teaching staff even as they lose students, how and why teachers’ salaries are failing to keep up with inflation in nearly every state, how much public school funding is increasingly being shifted to cover pension debt, and the disappointing student scores on key standardized tests since the pandemic.

Total U.S. public school funding is approaching $1 trillion and now exceeds $25,000 per student in eight states.

Nationwide, public school funding increased by 35.8% between 2002 and 2023, rising from $14,969 per student to $20,322 per student after adjusting for inflation, Reason Foundation’s K-12 Education Spending Spotlight finds.

In total, U.S. public schools received $946.5 billion in funding in 2023, with New York topping all states at $36,976 per student, followed by New Jersey at $30,267 per student.

Notably, eight states exceeded $25,000 per student in 2023: New York, New Jersey, Vermont ($29,169 per student), Connecticut ($28,975), Pennsylvania ($26,242), California ($25,941), Rhode Island ($25,709), and Hawaii ($25,485).

The lowest-spending state, Idaho, was the only state spending less than $12,000 per student. Utah, Oklahoma and North Carolina spent less than $14,000 per student.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increase in per-student spending has occurred in California, rising 31.5% from $19,724 in 2020 to $25,941 in 2023.

Michigan, Kentucky and Missouri were the next biggest percentage increasers, all spending 17% more per student in 2023 compared to 2020.

Per student spending also rose by over 15% from 2020 to 2023 in Hawaii, New Mexico, Arizona, Mississippi and Alabama.

Nationally, compared to pre-pandemic levels, K-12 funding is up by 8.6%, rising by $1,610 per student in real terms between 2020 and 2023. However, the bulk of these new education dollars, since 2020—approximately $1,181 per student—are from the $190 billion in federal COVID-19 relief funding that public schools received during the pandemic. While non-federal dollars increased by $429 per student during this time, this is a departure from pre-pandemic trends, when state and local funding rose by $1,089 per student between 2017 and 2020.

Policy implications of K-12 funding levels

For policymakers, K-12 funding has increased dramatically in the past couple of decades, with public schools in all 50 states seeing substantial increases. However, with federal pandemic relief funding now expired, combined with rising economic uncertainty, declining public school enrollment, and increased competition from school choice and homeschooling, the era of unrelenting public school funding growth may be coming to an end. Public school funding is at record levels, and state and local policymakers should shift the focus to maximizing the impact of existing K-12 dollars in ways that can improve student outcomes.

Public school funding is increasingly spent on employee benefits, including teacher pensions.

Inflation-adjusted K-12 education spending on employee benefits—which includes teacher pensions, health insurance, and other expenses—increased by 81.1% between 2002 and 2023, rising from $2,221 per student to $4,022 per student, Reason Foundation’s analysis shows.

In comparison, real spending on employee salaries grew modestly, rising from $8,449 per student to $9,098 per student, a 7.7% increase. As a result, for every new $1 that public schools spent on employee salaries between 2002 and 2023, benefit expenditures rose by $3.27. In 12 states, growth of employee benefits exceeded 100%, including Hawaii (194.1%), Vermont (171.3%), Illinois (169.9%), New Jersey (167.1%), and Pennsylvania (166.4%), as shown in Table 2.

In 2023, employee benefit costs in New Jersey were $8,333 per student. In New York, the cost was $7,949 per student. Vermont and Connecticut also spent more than $7,000 on employee benefits per student they serve.

Employee benefit costs also exceeded $5,000 per student in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and Alaska.

Policy implications of rising benefits costs on K-12 spending

Research shows that teacher pension debt is the primary driver of rising benefit spending. For years, states have failed to set aside enough money to cover the pension benefits promised to teachers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities (i.e., the difference between the total pension benefits owed to teachers and the dollars available in pension funds). Today, this means that more K-12 education funding must be used to cover pension costs, even while many states have reduced benefits for teachers, rather than in classrooms.

Policymakers should take steps to reverse this trend by paying down pension debt as fast as possible to avoid high-interest costs and modernizing antiquated assumptions and benefit designs. Otherwise, pension costs will continue to eat up a greater share of teachers’ paychecks and school districts’ budgets.

Despite plummeting enrollment, the surge in public school staffing has persisted.

Between 2002 and 2023, the number of public school staff increased by 15.1%, while student enrollment grew by only 4.1%. The bulk of new K-12 hires were non-teachers, which increased by 22.8%, such as counselors, social workers, speech pathologists, and instructional aides.

In comparison, the number of teachers rose by 7.6% during this time. Nationwide, non-teaching staff now account for over half, 52.5%, of all public school employees, up from 49.2% in 2002. Table 3 shows the growth in non-teaching staff, while Table 4 displays enrollment growth.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the public school staffing surge has persisted. Despite public school enrollment falling by 1.18 million students between 2020 and 2023, public schools added over 81,000 non-teaching staff to their payrolls during that period.

For example, California has lost 318,532 students since 2020, but has added 3,400 non-teaching staff members, while New York has lost 159,701 students but has added 6,996 non-teaching staff members.

Public school enrollment fell in 39 states from 2020 to 2023.

The 2% increases in public school enrollment in Idaho and North Dakota were the largest gains in the country. The only other states where public school enrollment grew from 2020 to 2023 were South Dakota, Delaware, Louisiana, Utah, Alabama, Montana, Texas, Florida and South Carolina.

With a 6% decrease in public school enrollment, Hawaii has experienced the largest decline in public school students since the pandemic. Enrollment also decreased by more than five percent in New York, Mississippi, Oregon, and California, and by at least four percent in New Mexico, New Hampshire, Illinois, West Virginia, Colorado, Kentucky, Washington, Rhode Island, and Michigan, according to Reason Foundation’s analysis.

Policy implications of decreased public school enrollment and current staff sizes

With the National Center for Education Statistics projecting a 5.3% decline in public school enrollment between 2024 and 2032, current staffing levels are unsustainable. School closures are on the horizon in places like Boston, Houston, Seattle, and Oakland, but it will also be important to reduce staffing to levels that match enrollment.

To minimize the need for layoffs, school districts can leverage staff resignations and retirements, while also giving greater scrutiny to costly across-the-board pay increases. Critically, public schools should also consider the return on investment from decades of adding non-teaching personnel to their payrolls and whether this aligns with their core educational mission.

The average teacher salary has declined significantly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nationwide, the average inflation-adjusted teacher salary fell from $75,152 in 2002 to $70,548 in 2022, the most recent year with complete data available, a 6.1% decline, Reason Foundation finds.

However, most of this drop in teachers’ salaries occurred in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Between 2002 and 2020, the average teacher salary remained virtually flat, decreasing by 0.6% to $74,698—but then from 2020 to 2022, it dropped by $4,151, or 5.6%.

From 2020 to 2022, the average teacher’s salary decreased by more than five percent in 38 states. They declined the most in North Carolina (−9.6%), New Mexico (−8.8%), South Carolina (−8.7%), West Virginia (−8.6%), and Mississippi (−8.2%).

Only one state, Minnesota, increased teachers’ salaries after the pandemic.

As a result of the decreases following the pandemic, only 10 states experienced positive gains in average teacher salary between 2002 and 2022, with Washington (18.6%), New York (12%), and Massachusetts (11.7%) leading the list, as shown in Table 5.

In comparison, three states saw teacher salaries decline by more than 20% from 2002 to 2022: North Carolina, Michigan, and Indiana.

Policy implications of teachers’ salaries declining

For over two decades, large and regular increases in public school funding haven’t boosted teacher salaries, and this is unlikely to change without structural reforms.

First, it’s important to understand why teacher salaries stagnated between 2002 and 2020. Public school revenue grew by $3,742 per student (25%) during this period, but funding increasingly went to cover the costs of support services spending, which rose by $1,135 per student (25.4%), and employee benefits, which increased by $1,745 per student (78.6%).

Because teacher pay is tied to years of experience and educational attainment—and teacher salaries vary substantially by state—it’s also possible that demographic shifts in the teacher population contributed to the observed trends. However, available federal data make it difficult to draw firm conclusions. While the share of teachers with over 20 years of experience has declined, educational attainment has increased, with the proportion of teachers holding only a bachelor’s degree falling over time.

What drove the decline in teacher salaries between 2020 and 2022?

Teacher turnover and other factors played a role, but historic inflation levels were likely the most significant factor. In the 2022 school year, the average monthly price level was 9.6% higher than it had been just two years earlier, negating funding increases from state legislatures and eating into teacher paychecks. Large and widespread increases in nominal pay would’ve been required just for teacher salaries to keep pace with inflation, let alone increase, during these years.

For policymakers, the key takeaway is that public school spending decisions, combined with rising pension costs, are eating into teachers’ paychecks. Even if teacher demographics have shifted over time, school officials are increasingly prioritizing spending education funding on non-teaching personnel, while unfunded pension liabilities also consume a larger share of K-12 dollars.

Student outcomes were falling even before the COVID-19 pandemic, despite record funding levels.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the gold standard for measuring national and state K-12 outcomes in math, reading, and other subjects. While the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) publishes average scale scores that are precise, they also publish more intuitive proficiency levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.

Importantly, the proficient benchmark is an aggressive target that doesn’t equate with grade-level proficiency or meeting state standards. According to NCES, “Students performing at or above the NAEP Proficient level on NAEP assessments demonstrate solid academic performance and competency over challenging subject matter.” For this reason, our analysis focuses on the share of students who perform below the basic performance threshold.

Across all four subjects examined—4th and 8th-grade math and reading—the trend is clear: the share of students scoring below NAEP basic fell between 2003 and 2013, increased by 2019, and then grew sharply in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022. Except for 4th-grade math, scores regressed again from 2022 to 2024, and outcomes in all four subjects were worse in 2024 than in 2003. These figures are presented in Table 6 below.

For low-income students, a similar trend is observed, as shown in Table 7. Student performance improved from 2003 to 2013, worsened before the pandemic in 2019, and then dropped dramatically in 2022.

By 2024, low-income 8th graders fared worse than they did in 2003, while 4th-grade students still performed slightly better. Notably, performance in three of the four subjects was worse in 2024 than in 2022.

Policy implications of NAEP scores

For policymakers, a pressing concern is the widespread failure of public schools to get students back up to speed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite receiving $190 billion in federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency (ESSER) relief funding during the pandemic.

Research shows that public schools were given more than enough money to reopen safely; yet, many used the windfall to prioritize things other than academics, even as students fell behind. For instance, researchers at Georgetown University’s Edunomics Lab estimate that approximately 20% of the federal pandemic relief dollars were allocated to school facilities, including building repairs and HVAC upgrades. While this was permitted under the law—and some public schools used their federal relief funds wisely—ESSER was a policy failure, especially when viewed through the lens of student achievement.

It’s also notable that, even before the pandemic, student outcomes were trending downward despite record education funding levels across states. For example, 34% of 4th graders and 27% of 8th graders scored below basic on NAEP reading in 2019. While gains were made between 2003 and 2013, a large share of students still scored below the lowest performance threshold in this peak year.

Conclusion

In the years ahead, policymakers will need to address a complex set of K-12 challenges, including declining public school enrollment, bloated staffing for current and projected enrollment levels, mounting pension costs and debt, stagnant teacher salaries, and underwhelming academic outcomes. These problems arose during a period when public schools saw historic funding increases, and money alone won’t solve them.

Instead, lawmakers will need policy solutions that address their root causes and maximize the use of existing K-12 funding. Reason Foundation’s K-12 Education Spending Spotlight aims to help them get started.

Related: K-12 Education Spending Spotlight Archives

The post K-12 Education Spending Spotlight 2025: Annual public school spending nears $1 trillion appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The cities of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, the city and county of San Francisco*, and Houston report the most total liabilities.

The $1.4 trillion in debt carried by cities, towns, and other incorporated municipalities represents 23% of total state and local government debt found in the State and Local Government Finance Report, which can be explored interactively in Reason Foundation’s GovFinance Dashboard.

In per capita terms for cities with 10,000 residents or more, the city and county of San Francisco* ranks first, with total liabilities representing about $43,000 per resident. The rest of the top five cities in per capita debt are Nantucket (MA), New York, Ocean City (NJ), and Miami Beach.

Total debt, reported as “total liabilities,” includes money a city owes in the near term, such as unpaid bills and accrued payroll, as well as long-term obligations, including bonds, pensions, and retiree healthcare.

Reason Foundation extracted this data from publicly available, audited financial reports filed by each county for their fiscal year 2023. While the dashboard covers 90% of the U.S. population living in an incorporated city, this analysis displays the top 50 cities in each category, among cities with 10,000 residents or more.

* Several jurisdictions in the United States operate under consolidated city–county governments, meaning their financial data reflect both city and county functions. Due to their structure and financial reporting practices, these entities could be considered either a city or a county, and therefore, are listed in both the city and county rankings of this report, which can make some comparisons to other cities or counties difficult. Some of the entities most impacted in the rankings and figures are San Francisco, Denver, Honolulu, Nashville, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

The combined entities in the report include the city and borough of Juneau (AK), city and borough of Sitka (AK), city and borough of Wrangell (AK), city and county of San Francisco (CA), city and county of Broomfield (CO), city and county of Denver (CO), Jacksonville (FL), Athens–Clarke County (GA), Columbus–Muscogee County (GA), Georgetown–Quitman County (GA), Macon–Bibb County (GA), city and county of Honolulu (HI), Greeley County (KS), Wyandotte County (KS), Lexington–Fayette Urban County (KY), Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (KY), New Orleans (LA), Anaconda–Deer Lodge County (MT), Butte–Silver Bow County (MT), Philadelphia (PA), Lynchburg–Moore County Metropolitan Government (TN), and Nashville–Davidson County (TN). In our aggregate figures, these entities are added to the “county total.”

The five New York City counties—Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond—are consolidated in a single city government and financial report and are listed collectively as New York City in this report.

Baltimore (MD), St. Louis (MO), Chesapeake (VA), Norfolk (VA), Virginia Beach (VA), Baton Rouge (LA), and the District of Columbia (DC) are independent city governments. They have no overlapping county, and perform both municipal and county functions—or in the case of Baton Rouge, the county government falls under the umbrella of the city. In our aggregate figures, these entities are added to the “municipal total.” For more details, please see the report’s about page.

City governments’ long-term debt

About 85% of city debt is long-term—that is, due in more than one year. This category consists of bonds, loans, and notes (50%), unfunded pension liabilities (25%), unfunded retiree health care (18%), and accrued leave payouts (2%).

Cities collectively report $1.2 trillion in long-term debt, or about $6,000 per capita nationally.

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, the city and county of San Francisco, and Houston declared the most total long-term debt.

For cities with 10,000 residents or more, the city and county of San Francisco ranks first in per capita long-term debt, at $36,602 per resident, followed by Ocean City (NJ), Nantucket (MA), New York City, and Miami Beach.

City government pension debt

Unfunded pension liabilities arise when governments set aside fewer assets than required to fulfill the retirement benefits promised to its public employees–declared as net pension liability.

Cities collectively report nearly $300 billion in unfunded pension obligations, equal to 25% of their long-term debt and equivalent to about $1,500 per capita nationally.

For cities with 10,000 residents or more, New York City has the most total public pension debt at $40 billion, followed by Chicago, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Philadelphia.

In per capita terms, the city of Chicago ranks first, with its pension debt representing about $13,500 per resident. Beverly Hills, Miami Beach, Riverdale (IL), and Forest Park (IL) follow.

City government OPEB debt

Other post-employment benefits (OPEB) are mostly retiree health care for public employees. OPEB debt arises when governments promise these benefits but do not set aside enough money in advance to cover the future costs, which are declared as net OPEB liability.

Cities collectively report $215 billion in OPEB debt, equal to 18% of their long-term debt, equivalent to roughly $1,100 per capita nationally.

The city New York has the most total pension debt at $95 billion, followed by city and county of San Francisco, Austin, Yonkers (NY), and Boston.

In per capita terms, among cities with 10,000 residents or more, the city of Yonkers (NY) ranks first, with its OPEB debt representing about $12,100 per resident. Waltham (MA), New York, Hoboken (NJ), and Plattsburgh (NY) follow.

City governments’ outstanding bonded debt

Bonds, loans, and notes represent the portion of a city’s long-term liabilities explicitly borrowed in credit markets. Unlike pensions or OPEB, which accumulate as estimated unfunded promises, these instruments are contractual debt obligations with fixed repayment schedules.

Nationally, cities report $608 billion in outstanding bonds, loans, and notes—50% of all long-term liabilities. This equals about $3,000 per capita.

New York City has the most total bonded debt at $105 billion, followed by Los Angeles, Chicago, the city and county of San Francisco, and Houston.

In per capita terms, the city and county of San Francisco (CA) ranks first, with its bonded debt representing about $27,900 per resident. Celina (TX), Salt Lake City (UT), Nantucket (MA), and Washington (DC) follow.

Reason Foundation’s State and Local Government Finance Report totals the liabilities of each state government, as well as the cities, towns, counties, and school districts within each state. This report covers all 50 state governments, over 2,000 county governments, 8,000 municipal governments, and 10,000 school districts, which serve 331 million Americans nationwide.

All figures in the State and Local Government Finance Report are sourced from the financial reports of state and local governments, most often their annual comprehensive financial reports. The data is from the 2023 fiscal year, the most recent year for which complete data are available. Nevada and a handful of cities and counties across the country have not reported 2023 data. Our database lists the available 2023 fiscal year data for each city.

Despite a thorough review, data collection at this scale can result in discrepancies. Please alert us if you identify any errors.

For personalized reports on municipal entities or more detailed information on assets, liquidity, and solvency, please visit the GovFinance Dashboard.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this data more, please email Mariana Trujillo at mariana.trujillo@reason.org or Jordan Campbell at jordan.campbell@reason.org.

Related:

Report: State and local governments have $6.1 trillion in debt

Report ranks every state’s total debt, from California’s $497 billion to South Dakota’s $2 billion

The post Report: Cities have $1.4 trillion in debt appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Los Angeles County has the most debt of any county government: $62.36 billion.

The combined city and county of San Francisco and Miami-Dade County each had more than $30 billion in debt at the end of 2023. Cook County and the combined city and county of Philadelphia were next, with over $20 billion in debt.

The rest of the 10 most-indebted counties at the end of 2023 were Washington, D.C. ($19.83 billion), the combined city and county of Denver* ($14.3 billion), Nassau County ($14.2 billion), Santa Clara County ($13.4 billion), and the combined city and county of Honolulu* ($12 billion).

This analysis is part of Reason Foundation’s State and Local Government Finance Report, which can be explored interactively in the GovFinance Dashboard. Reason Foundation extracted this data from publicly available, audited financial reports filed by each county for their fiscal year 2023.

Total debt, reported as total liabilities, includes money a county government owes in the near term, such as unpaid bills and accrued payroll, as well as long-term obligations, including bonds, public pension benefits, and retiree health care benefits.

In per capita terms, North Slope Borough, Alaska, ranks first, with its total debt representing $46,883 per county resident.

For counties with 10,000 residents or more, the combined city and county of San Francisco, Washington, DC, the combined city and county of Denver, and Baltimore have the next highest per capita debt levels.

At $12,880 per person, Los Alamos County, New Mexico, has the sixth most per capita county debt.

For counties with 10,000 residents or more, a total of 43 counties reported at least $7,000 in per capita debt, including 21 counties with more than $10,000 in per capita debt.

* Several jurisdictions in the United States operate under consolidated city–county governments, meaning their financial data reflect both city and county functions. Due to their structure and financial reporting practices, these entities could be considered either a city or a county, and therefore, are listed in both the city and county rankings of this report, which can make some comparisons to other cities or counties difficult. Some of the entities most impacted in the rankings and figures are San Francisco, Denver, Honolulu, Nashville, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

The combined entities in the report include the city and borough of Juneau (AK), city and borough of Sitka (AK), city and borough of Wrangell (AK), city and county of San Francisco (CA), city and county of Broomfield (CO), city and county of Denver (CO), Jacksonville (FL), Athens–Clarke County (GA), Columbus–Muscogee County (GA), Georgetown–Quitman County (GA), Macon–Bibb County (GA), city and county of Honolulu (HI), Greeley County (KS), Wyandotte County (KS), Lexington–Fayette Urban County (KY), Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (KY), New Orleans (LA), Anaconda–Deer Lodge County (MT), Butte–Silver Bow County (MT), Philadelphia (PA), Lynchburg–Moore County Metropolitan Government (TN), and Nashville–Davidson County (TN). In our aggregate figures, these entities are added to the “county total.”

The five New York City counties—Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond—are consolidated in a single city government and financial report and are listed collectively as the city of New York (NY) in this report.

Baltimore (MD), St. Louis (MO), Chesapeake (VA), Norfolk (VA), Virginia Beach (VA), Baton Rouge (LA), and the District of Columbia (DC) are independent city governments. They have no overlapping county, and perform both municipal and county functions—or in the case of Baton Rouge the county government falls under the umbrella of the city. In our aggregate figures, these entities are added to the “municipal total.” For more details, please see the report’s about page.

Long-term debt

About 80% of county debt is long-term debt, which is due in more than one year. Long-term debt consists of bonds, loans, and notes (44%), unfunded pension liabilities (29%), unfunded retiree health care (17%), and accrued leave payouts (3%).

Counties collectively report $624 billion in long-term debt, or $2,200 per capita nationally.

Los Angeles County has the most long-term liabilities at $52 billion, followed by the combined city and county of San Francisco, Miami-Dade County, Cook County, and the combined city and county of Philadelphia.

In per capita terms, for counties with 10,000 residents or more, the city and county of San Francisco has the most long-term liabilities, representing $46,883 per resident. North Slope Borough, Alaska, was second, with more than $35,000 in long-term debt per resident, followed by Washington, D.C., with over $23,000 per capita.

The combined city and county of Denver, Baltimore, Los Alamos County (NM), the combined city and county of Honolulu, Cape May County (NJ), Inyo County (CA), the combined city of Nashville-Davidson County (TN), and Miami-Dade County also had long-term liabilities exceeding $10,000 per capita.

County pension debt

Unfunded pension liabilities arise when governments set aside fewer assets than required to fulfill the retirement benefits promised to their public employees, which are declared as net pension liabilities.

At the end of 2023, counties collectively reported $181 billion in unfunded pension obligations, which represent 30% of their long-term debt. On a per capita basis, this county pension debt amounts to about $600 per person nationally.

Los Angeles County has the most public pension debt at $13.2 billion, followed by Cook County, Santa Clara County, San Diego County, and the combined city and county of Philadelphia.

In per capita terms, for counties with 10,000 residents or more, North Slope Borough, Alaska, ranks highest in the nation, with its public pension debt representing $12,318 per county resident, followed by Los Alamos County ($6,057 per capita), Mono County ($5,111), Juneau City and Borough ($4,386), Inyo County ($4,363) and Colusa County ($4,220).

Other post-employment benefits debt

Other post-employment benefits debt (OPEB), which are primarily public employee retiree health care benefits, are rarely pre-funded, making them a significant source of unfunded liabilities for governments. OPEB debt arises when governments promise health care or other post-employment benefits to workers but fail to set aside enough money in advance to cover the future costs.

At the end of 2023, counties collectively reported $107 billion in OPEB debt, which represents 17% of their long-term debt. On a per capita basis, this OPEB debt is equivalent to about $400 per capita nationally.

Los Angeles County had the largest total other post-employment benefits debt at $25 billion, more than four times that of the next highest county.

Nassau County, Suffolk County, the combined city and county of San Francisco, and Harris County have the next highest OPEB debt.

In per capita terms, for counties with 10,000 residents or more, Essex County (NY) ranks first, with its OPEB debt representing $4,885 per resident.

The combined city and county of San Francisco, Nassau County, and Schoharie County also had OPEB debt of more than $4,000 per capita at the end of 2023

Outstanding bonded debt

Bonds, loans, and notes represent the portion of a state government’s long-term liabilities that are explicitly borrowed in credit markets. Unlike public pension benefits or OPEB, which accumulate as estimated unfunded promises, these instruments are contractual debt obligations with fixed repayment schedules.

Nationally, counties report $275 billion in outstanding bonds, loans, and notes, which represent 44% of their long-term debt. On a per capita basis, this equals $956 per capita nationally.

The city and county of San Francisco has the most total bonded debt at $23.5 billion, followed by Miami-Dade County ($19.5 billion), Washington, DC ($12.6 billion), city and county of Denver ($9.9 billion, and city and county Honolulu ($7.1 billion).

In per capita terms, San Francisco ranks first, with its bonded debt representing $26,892 per resident. North Slope Borough, Washington, DC, Denver, and Arlington County (VA) were the next highest.

Reason Foundation’s State and Local Government Finance Report totals the liabilities of each state government, as well as the cities, towns, counties, and school districts within each state. This report covers all 50 state governments, over 2,000 county governments, 8,000 municipal governments, and 10,000 school districts, which serve 331 million Americans nationwide.

All figures in the State and Local Government Finance Report are sourced from the financial reports of state and local governments, most often their annual comprehensive financial reports. The data is from the 2023 fiscal year, the most recent year for which complete data are available. Nevada and a handful of cities and counties across the country have not reported 2023 data. Our database lists the available 2023 fiscal year data for each city.

Despite a thorough review, data collection at this scale can result in discrepancies. Please alert us if you identify any errors.

For personalized reports on municipal entities or more detailed information on assets, liquidity, and solvency, please visit the GovFinance Dashboard.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this data more, please email Mariana Trujillo at mariana.trujillo@reason.org or Jordan Campbell at jordan.campbell@reason.org.

Related:

Report: State and local governments have $6.1 trillion in debt

Report ranks every state’s total debt, from California’s $497 billion to South Dakota’s $2 billion

The post Report: County governments have $757 billion in debt appeared first on Reason Foundation.

• Ibogaine is a psychoactive alkaloid from the western Central African iboga shrub that can rapidly reduce, and sometimes eliminate, opioid withdrawal and craving symptoms within a single dose.
• Ibogaine is a potential breakthrough treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) due to its unique ability to heal the neurochemical brain injury caused by opioid use and alleviate withdrawal symptoms.
• Opioid withdrawal syndrome (OWS) is the debilitating physical and neurological symptoms that are induced by the cessation of opioid consumption.
• Ibogaine has shown promising results in resolving OWS within 36 to 48 hours of administration under safe, clinically controlled conditions.

Ibogaine could reduce lifetime direct costs of OUD by nearly 90%

• A growing body of research suggests that ibogaine treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) could be significantly more cost-effective than traditional medication-assisted treatments (MATs), such as methadone and buprenorphine (suboxone).
• Unlike MATs—which require long-term, or even lifelong, use—ibogaine offers a clear root-cause intervention, capable of disrupting OUD within a single dose. In one study, 30% achieved complete opioid abstinence after only one ibogaine session.
• Patients who discontinue MATs often relapse when opioid withdrawal and craving symptoms return. MAT success is therefore measured on program retention (or continuation) instead of abstinence.
• The comparative cost-analysis below predicts that ibogaine treatment for OUD could reduce the 20-year direct lifetime costs of MATs involving methadone and buprenorphine by 87% and 86%. Concurrently, this analysis reveals just how quickly per-patient costs for MATs exceed $100,000.

Cost-Effectiveness for OUD Treatment: Ibogaine vs. MATs

Download the full backgrounder here:

The post Ibogaine could transform public spending on opioid treatment appeared first on Reason Foundation.

• To commercialize a new drug, the Food and Drug Administration requires three ‘phases’ of testing to demonstrate that a molecule is both safe and effective for the treatment of a specified condition. Drug makers (“sponsors”) finance and run trials for which the study design must be pre-approved by the FDA.
• Upon successful completion of the final phase, the sponsor can submit a New Drug Application to the FDA. If if the FDA approves the application, the sponsor gains the right to market the drug as a treatment for the specified condition.

How long does it usually take, by phase?

• In all, it can take between 5 and 12 years to complete a drug trial. The timeline to drug approval can vary significantly depending on the type of treatment, according to a report from Health and Human Services (HHS). Initial discovery of a molecule and treatment in animals may take an indeterminate amount of time, but a molecule cannot enter trials in human beings until a sponsor has submitted an Investigational New Drug application to the FDA.
• Phase 1 is the first stage in which an investigational drug is permitted to be administered to a healthy sample of human beings, to determine proper dosing and potential toxicity levels, and averages 1.8 years.
• Phase 2, which includes placebo-controlled randomized trials in a small sample of human beings suffering from the specified condition, takes about 2.1 years.
• Phase 3 requires a drug to demonstrate effectiveness statistically greater than a placebo in two large-scale, well-designed clinical trials. The statistical significance thresholds often require a trial to include thousands of participants in each Phase 3 trial and to include double-blind control groups that receive a placebo. This phase frequently takes up to 4 years.

How is drug approval accelerated with a ‘Breakthrough’ designation?

• The FDA can award a “Breakthrough” designation for drugs that demonstrate exceptional preliminary results. The designation grants the sponsor a more efficient process that includes ongoing agency collaboration on trial design, “rolling” review of trial evidence in lieu of compiling years’ worth of evidence into a completed application, and priority review of a New Drug Application. These changes drastically reduce costs and uncertainty facing drug sponsors and can facilitate capital formation by the sponsor. One study found that a breakthrough designation can shorten the average time to approval to five years.

Have psychedelic drugs received Breakthrough status?

• Since 2017, a number of psychedelic drugs, including synthetic versions of MDMA (“ecstasy”), psilocybin (“magic mushrooms”), and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), have been granted breakthrough status by the FDA. Psychedelic drugs have a pattern of showing strong preliminary results in treating mental health issues.
• Non-FDA supervised clinical trials using ibogaine in foreign jurisdictions have also shown very strong results. If a drug sponsor used the same formulation of ibogaine used in these early clinical trials, it could argue that data already exists to show ibogaine offers a substantial improvement over existing therapies.

Are any manufacturers taking ibogaine-like drugs through the FDA process?

• Yes. Manufacturers Atai’s and DemRX’s ibogaine-like drug have already completed Phase I and may soon move on to Phase II. Another manufacturer, Gilgamesh, was awarded a $14 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to finance Phase I trials of its compound for the treatment of opioid disorder. State participation in an ibogaine research collaborative could steer funding toward a new drug or potentially support an existing clinical trial.

The post FAQ: Timeline for FDA ibogaine approval appeared first on Reason Foundation.

• According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) annual report on suicide prevention, there are an average of 17.6 veteran suicides a day, indicating a significant gap between available mental healthcare and veterans’ needs. Some advocacy groups estimate the true number is closer to 44 Veterans a day when accounting for overdose deaths and other self-destructive behaviors linked to untreated trauma.
• VA has a backlog in mental healthcare services due to over 1.7 million veterans with only about 10,000 psychologists and psychiatrists to treat them.
• Veterans wait an indeterminable amount of time to secure an appointment and receive limited care if they are deemed “functionally stable.” Many current or former VA clinical psychologists report great pressure to cap individual therapy sessions to vets deemed “functionally stable.”
• VA works with veterans over 8-15 initial therapy sessions, then offloads the patient back to primary care as they are deemed “functionally stable.” However, many veterans only reach “functional stability” temporarily during the therapy sequence and decline once services are discontinued.

Current PTSD treatment = lifetime sentence of medication

• While selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are considered a common and safe treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—and are routinely prescribed to veterans on a daily, perpetual basis—many experts and PTSD patients report that SSRIs have limited efficacy and effectiveness.
• Many veterans are prescribed multiple psychotropic drugs, receiving prescriptions for medication after medication that do not solve the underlying condition(s).
• This breakdown breeds mistrust and despair, as Veterans begin to wonder not only if they can recover, but if the system meant to help them is even capable of healing them.

One ibogaine treatment can replace a lifetime of medication

• Ibogaine is an extract of Tabernanthe iboga, a Central African shrub, and is a psychoactive compound that has long been used in spiritual practices and shows promising results in mental health treatments.
• Ibogaine’s Schedule I status in the U.S. has forced thousands of American Veterans to seek treatment abroad—most often in Mexico, where ibogaine is unregulated and available through private clinics.
• The profound results of ibogaine are seen in the study done by Stanford Medicine, showing an 88% decrease in PTSD symptoms, 87% in depression symptoms, and 81% in anxiety symptoms one month after an ibogaine treatment in a cohort of 30 special operations veterans with a history of traumatic brain injuries (TBI).
• Additional trial results published in Nature Medicine showed significant improvements in concentration, information processing, memory, and impulse control following ibogaine treatment.

Bottom line

Promising breakthrough treatments like ibogaine can provide military veterans with PTSD and other mental health conditions by eliminating the need to take medication every day and targeting the root conditions driving suicidal ideation, hyper-aggression, depression, or the many other conditions many veterans face.

Read the full Backgrounder:

The post Ibogaine and veterans’ mental health appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Current treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)—achieve only 30–40% remission rates, with many patients discontinuing treatment early, limited long-term efficacy, and significant side effects, particularly for those with treatment-resistant cases.

Association for Psychological Science (2021): “Approximately two-thirds of veterans with PTSD remain with the disorder following treatment. […] Treatments for veterans with PTSD show limited overall effectiveness in real-world settings.”

Promise of ibogaine

Psychological Healing occurs through the boosts in neurotrophic factors to promote neural regeneration and repair, profoundly revolutionizing the approach to treatment for addiction, traumatic brain injuries (TBI), and neurodegenerative diseases.

Research by Stanford University published in Nature Medicine in 2024 found that ibogaine treatment led to significant improvement in a cohort of 30 veterans. After one month of following treatment, these participants experienced average reductions of 88% of PTSD symptoms, 87% in depression symptoms, and 81% in anxiety symptoms relative to their initial conditions. The results held at 6 months. In a small-scale study, 75% of patients remained abstinent from opioids for an entire year following treatment.

Typical ibogaine treatment protocol

A standard ibogaine treatment protocol consists of a 5 to 10-day inpatient program conducted in a medically supervised environment. Participants undergo comprehensive medical evaluation, safety preparation, and therapeutic support prior to treatment, followed by a recommended 12 months of ongoing, structured integration and support services.

The post Ibogaine offers breakthrough treatment for mental health, addiction, and TBIs appeared first on Reason Foundation.

State pension plans continue to carry the majority of the nation’s public pension debt, holding $1.29 trillion in unfunded liabilities, compared to local governments’ $187 billion in debt, Reason Foundation finds.

The median funded ratio of this report’s sample of pension plans stood at 78% at the end of 2024, a 3% increase from last year. This indicates that, while public pension funding has improved over the previous year, governments have still saved only 78 cents of every dollar needed to provide promised retirement benefits.

Reason Foundation’s stress tests also suggest that public pensions remain vulnerable to market downturns. A single economic recession could significantly increase their unfunded accrued liabilities, potentially raising the state and local total of public pension debt to as much as $2.74 trillion by 2026.

The Pension Solvency and Performance Report provides a comprehensive overview of the current and future status of state and local public pension funds. As the nation navigates another year marked by significant economic fluctuations and demographic shifts, this report assesses the resilience and adaptability of U.S. public pension systems. This analysis ranks, aggregates, and contrasts public pension plans based on their funding, investment outcomes, actuarial assumptions, and other indicators.

In addition to 24 years of historical data, the 2025 edition of Reason Foundation’s Pension Solvency and Performance Report includes financial and actuarial data from the pension plans’ 2024 fiscal year, the most recent year for which most government pension plans have reported data.

This edition of the report ranks public pension systems from best to worst across five core dimensions: funded status, investment performance, contribution rate adequacy, asset allocation risk, and probability of meeting assumed returns. Together, these measures reveal which states have positioned their public pension systems for long-term stability and which remain vulnerable to rising costs, market volatility, and political shortfalls in funding discipline.

Unfunded public pension liabilities

In recent decades, public pension systems in the U.S. have seen a significant increase in unfunded liabilities, particularly during the Great Recession. Between 2007 and 2010, unfunded public pension liabilities grew by over $1.15 trillion—an 809% increase—reflecting the financial challenges faced during that period. Despite some improvements in funding ratios over the last decade, these pension liabilities have continued to rise, underscoring ongoing financial pressures on state and local governments and taxpayers.

As of the end of the 2024 fiscal year for each public pension system, total unfunded public pension liabilities (UAL) reached $1.48 trillion, with state pension plans carrying the majority of the debt.

Nationwide, the median funded ratio of public pension plans stood at 78% at the end of 2024. Still, stress tests suggest that another economic downturn could significantly increase unfunded liabilities, potentially raising the total to $2.74 trillion by 2026.

Funded ratios of public pensions

The funded ratio of public pensions, which indicates the percentage of promised benefits that are currently funded, has experienced considerable fluctuations. After returning to 96% funded in 2007, the funded ratio of U.S. public pension systems fell to 64% during the Great Recession. Although funded ratios have recovered somewhat, they remain susceptible to market downturns.

A stress test scenario for 2026, assessing the impact of a 20% market downturn, indicates that the average funding level of public pension plans could fall to 63%. This could lead to critical underfunding for many pension plans, raising concerns about their ability to fulfill future obligations.

Changes in investment strategies

Over the past two decades, investment strategies of public pension funds have shifted notably. Allocations to traditional asset classes, like public equities and fixed income, have decreased while investments in alternative assets, such as private equity, real estate, and hedge funds, have increased. This shift reflects a strategic move for pension systems trying to achieve higher investment returns in a challenging market environment.

By the end of the 2024 fiscal year for each pension system, public pension funds managed approximately $5.49 trillion in assets, with a significant portion now invested in alternative assets, such as private equity/credit, and hedge funds. While these alternative investments may offer the potential for higher returns, they also introduce greater complexity and risk.

Investment performance

Public pension funds have faced challenges meeting their assumed rates of return (ARRs). Over the past 24 years, the national average annual rate of investment returns of pension systems has been 6.62%—still below what the plans had assumed. The average assumed rate of return for public pensions has been gradually reduced from 8.02% in 2001 to 6.87% in 2024.

Failing to meet their overly optimistic assumed rates of return has contributed to a significant increase in unfunded liabilities, requiring additional pension contributions from state and local governments, i.e., taxpayers, to maintain funding levels.

Investment returns themselves have varied widely, with public pension plans posting very strong gains in 2021 (25.4% returns), in contrast to large losses in 2009 (-12.9% returns on average) and further losses in 2022 (-5.1%). This volatility between expected rates of return and actual investment returns has created budgetary challenges for governments and taxpayers.

Employer contributions and cash flow

Employer contributions continue to dominate pension funding, while employee rates remain stable. In 2024, the total contribution rate was 28.8% of payroll, with employers covering 21.6% and debt amortization alone consuming 15.7%. More than half of all contributions—54%—went to paying down past pension debt rather than funding new benefits.

Net cash flows improved modestly, narrowing to -1.7% of assets, but systems remain reliant on strong investment returns to cover ongoing benefit payments.

Conclusion

Despite a year of substantial market gains and improved funding ratios, systemic risks remain for public pension systems. Far too many pension plans continue to rely on optimistic return assumptions, volatile markets, and a heavy reliance on taxpayer contributions to manage their legacy debt. Without sustained public pension reforms and more disciplined funding policies, today’s limited progress could quickly reverse.

This report was produced by Reason Foundation’s Pension Integrity Project, an initiative to conduct research and provide consulting and insight about the public pension challenges our nation grapples with.

Webinar

To dive deeper into the findings, watch our pre-recorded webinar below, where Reason Foundation’s Pension Integrity Project team details the report’s findings, explains key trends, and unpacks what these results mean for state and local governments, public employees, and taxpayers.

Related:

Study: Illinois, Connecticut, Alaska, Hawaii, New Jersey and Mississippi have the most per capita pension debt

The public pension plans with the most debt, worst investment returns of the year

The post Report: State and local pension plans have $1.48 trillion in debt appeared first on Reason Foundation.

With $497 billion in liabilities, California had the largest state government debt as of the end of the 2023 fiscal year, the most recent year for which complete data are available.

Four other state governments had more than $200 billion in state debt: New York ($233 billion), Illinois ($223 billion), Texas ($217 billion), and New Jersey ($213 billion). Massachusetts had $120 billion in state liabilities, followed by Connecticut, Washington, Pennsylvania and Florida.

Meanwhile, 10 states—South Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska, Montana, New Hampshire, Utah, Vermont, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and Maine—each had less than $10 billion in debt at the end of 2023, according to Reason Foundation’s State and Local Government Finance Report.

On a per capita basis, Connecticut had the highest state debt, with $26,187 of debt per state resident at the end of 2023. With $22,968 in debt per resident, New Jersey was the only other state with more than $20,000 in liabilities per capita.

Reason Foundation finds 13 states—Connecticut, New Jersey, Hawaii, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, California, Washington, New York, and Vermont—had more than $10,000 in debt per resident.

Of other more populous states, Texas had $7,443 in per capita debt, Pennsylvania reported $5,872 per capita, and Florida had $3,334 in debt per capita.

The state governments with the lowest per capita debt at the end of 2023 were Tennessee, Utah, Nebraska, Idaho, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Indiana, each with less than $3,000 in debt per resident.

Total state debt, reported as total liabilities, includes money state governments owe in the near term, such as unpaid bills and accrued payroll, as well as long-term obligations, including bonds, public pension benefits, and retiree health care benefits.

State governments’ long-term debt

Approximately 72% of state government debt is long-term, meaning it is due in more than one year. This long-term debt consists of bonds, loans, and notes (33%), unfunded public employee pension benefits (35%), unfunded public employee retiree health care benefits (22%), and accrued public employee leave payouts (2%).

State governments collectively reported $1.9 trillion in long-term debt, or approximately $5,800 per capita nationally, as of the end of 2023.

Reason Foundation found 29 states held at least $10 billion in long-term liabilities at the end of 2023.

Six of those states had more than $100 billion in long-term liabilities each: California ($299 billion in long-term debt), Illinois ($199 billion), New Jersey ($197 billion), Texas ($171 billion), New York ($154 billion), and Massachusetts ($104 billion).

Connecticut had the highest per capita long-term debt in the nation, at $23,934 per resident. New Jersey was just behind, with $21,197 in long-term debt per capita.

Hawaii, Illinois, Delaware, and Massachusetts were the other states with long-term debt exceeding $10,000 per capita at the end of 2023.

Of the larger states, New York ranked 12th in per capita long-term debt, with $7,615 per resident. California ranked 13th, with $7,552 per capita long-term debt. Texas was 16th, with $5,870 per capita. Florida ranked 37th in the nation in long-term liabilities, with $2,129 per capita.

Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah, and South Dakota were the only states reporting less than $1,000 per capita long-term debt at the end of 2023.

State public pension debt

Unfunded public employee pension liabilities occur when governments allocate fewer assets than necessary to fulfill the retirement benefits promised to public workers and retirees.

State governments collectively reported $664 billion in unfunded public pension obligations, equivalent to 35% of their long-term debt, or approximately $2,000 per capita nationally, as of the end of 2023.

As of the end of 2023, Illinois had the largest state pension debt, at $145 billion. It was the only state with more than $100 billion in state public pension debt.

California had the second-most state pension debt, $90 billion, which is primarily the state government’s portion of the larger unfunded liabilities held by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System.

Five other state governments reported over $20 billion in pension debt: New Jersey ($80 billion), Texas ($55 billion), Massachusetts ($42 billion), Connecticut ($40 billion), and Kentucky ($29 billion)

On a per capita basis, Illinois again had the most pension debt, with $11,355 per resident. Connecticut was close behind with $11,192 per capita pension debt.

The remaining top 10 states with the highest per capita pension debt were New Jersey, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Alaska, Vermont, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Maryland.

In per capita pension debt, California ranks 14th, at $2,272 per resident; Texas ranks 16th, at $1,870; Florida ranks 41st, at $362; and New York ranks 49th, at $-157.

Three states did not have state pension debt at the end of 2023. Washington, New York, and South Dakota each reported more assets than projected liabilities across public pension systems.

Other post-employment benefits debt

Other post-employment benefits debt (OPEB), which are primarily public employee retiree health care benefits, are rarely pre-funded, making them a significant source of unfunded liabilities for governments. OPEB debt arises when governments promise health care or other post-employment benefits to workers but fail to set aside enough money in advance to cover the future costs.

State governments reported $421 billion in OPEB debt (22% of long-term liabilities), or about $1,300 per capita nationally, at the end of 2023.

Four states stand out with the most OPEB debt. California ($82 billion in OPEB debt), New Jersey ($75 billion), New York ($66 billion), and Texas ($53 billion).

Five other states had more than $10 billion in OPEB debt: Illinois ($20 billion), Pennsylvania ($17 billion), Connecticut ($17 billion), Massachusetts ($13 billion), and Maryland ($12 billion).

In per capita terms, New Jersey’s $8,067 of OPEB debt per resident was the highest. Delaware was close behind with $7,888 of OPED debt per capita.
The rest of the states with the most OPEB debt per capita at the end of 2023 were Connecticut ($4,687), New York ($3,289), Hawaii ($3,275), Vermont ($2,346), California ($2,069), Maryland ($1,921), Texas ($1,816), and Massachusetts ($1,805).

Alaska, Oregon, Utah, and South Dakota did not report any OPEB debt according to their 2023 financial reports.

State governments’ outstanding bonded debt

Bonds, loans, and notes represent the portion of a state government’s long-term liabilities that are explicitly borrowed in credit markets. Unlike public pension benefits or OPEB, which accumulate as estimated unfunded promises, these instruments are contractual debt obligations with fixed repayment schedules.

Nationally, state governments reported $630 billion in outstanding bonds, loans, and notes—33% of all state long-term liabilities, Reason Foundation finds. On a per capita basis, the state’s debt from bonds, loans, and notes equals about $1,900 per American.

California has the most outstanding bond debt, with $111.8 billion.

Texas has the second most bond debt, with $67 billion, followed by New York ($50 billion), Massachusetts ($46 billion), Illinois ($30 billion), Connecticut ($29 billion), Washington ($28 billion), New Jersey ($27 billion), Maryland ($22 billion), and Florida ($17 billion).

Two state governments, Indiana and Nebraska, reported zero outstanding bond debt at the end of 2023.

In per capita terms, the state governments of Hawaii and Connecticut rank first and second, respectively, with outstanding bonds of over $8,000 per resident.

Massachusetts, Delaware, and North Dakota follow, all with outstanding bond debt exceeding $4,000 per capita.

California ranked 10th, with $2,828 bond debt per resident. New York ranked 12th, with $2,487 per capita. Texas reported $2,284 in bond debt per resident, the 14th highest in the country, and Florida ranked 39th, with $785 per capita.

Indiana, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana and Tennessee each reported less than $250 of bonded debt per resident. Indiana and Nebraska reported no outstanding bonds.

Reason Foundation’s State and Local Government Finance Report totals the liabilities of each state government, as well as the cities, towns, counties, and school districts within each state. This report covers all 50 state governments, over 2,000 county governments, 8,000 municipal governments, and 10,000 school districts, which serve 331 million Americans nationwide.

All figures in Reason Foundation’s State and Local Government Finance Report are sourced from state governments’ own financial reports, most often their annual comprehensive financial reports. The data in this report is from the 2023 fiscal year, the most recent year for which complete data are available. Nevada has not reported 2023 data. Therefore, the data the state reported for 2022 was used. Despite a thorough review, data collection at this scale can result in discrepancies. Please alert us if you identify any errors.

For personalized reports on municipal entities or more detailed information on assets, liquidity, and solvency, please visit the GovFinance Dashboard.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this data further, please email Mariana Trujillo at mariana.trujillo@reason.org  or Jordan Campbell at jordan.campbell@reason.org.

Related:

Report: State and local governments have $6.1 trillion in debt

The post Report ranks every state’s debt, from California’s $497 billion to South Dakota’s $2 billion appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Of the $6.1 trillion in state and local debt, $2.66 trillion is held by state governments, $1.4 trillion by municipalities, $1.27 trillion by school districts, and $757 billion by counties.

Reason Foundation’s State and Local Government Finance Report finds that $1 trillion is owed by California’s state and local governments, most in the country.

New York’s state and local debt is the second-highest in the nation, at $798 billion, followed by Texas’s $550 billion in state and local debt, Illinois’s $407 billion, New Jersey’s $310 billion, and Florida’s $242 billion.

Additionally, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Washington, Michigan, Georgia, Maryland, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Colorado each have more than $100 billion in state and local government debt.

At the end of 2023, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48 of the 50 states had at least $10 billion in total debt.

Only Vermont ($8.8 billion) and South Dakota ($5.9 billion) had less than $10 billion in state and local debt.

State and local government debt includes both short- and long-term obligations—from salaries due at the end of this month to bonds maturing decades from now. The $6.1 trillion in liabilities includes $1.5 trillion in public pension obligations, and $958 billion for retiree health care obligations,

In per capita terms, New York’s state and local debt is the highest in the nation. New York’s state government, cities, counties, and school districts hold debt of $39,491 per resident. This is more than double the national average of about $18,400, according to Reason Foundation’s analysis.

In addition to New York, four other states had per capita state and local debt exceeding $30,000 per resident at the end of 2023: Connecticut ($34,592), New Jersey ($33,338), Illinois ($31,783), and Hawaii ($30,399).

Massachusetts, California, Alaska, North Dakota, Delaware, Wyoming, and Maryland also had state and local liabilities of over $20,000 per resident.

Texas ranked next highest, 13th overall, with $18,872 in debt per Texan. Florida ranked 32nd, with $11,217 per person.

State and local debt was lowest in Idaho, Indiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Oklahoma, where the liabilities were less than $7,500 per resident at the end of 2023.

State and local government long-term debt

About 80% of state and local debt is long-term, meaning it is due in more than a year. This long-term debt category consists of bonds, loans, and notes (41% of the total), unfunded public pension liabilities (32%), unfunded retiree health care benefits (20%), and accrued leave payouts (2%).

Nationally, state and local governments reported $4.9 trillion in long-term debt at the end of 2023, Reason Foundation’s State and Local Government Finance Report finds. On a per capita basis, long-term debt amounts to approximately $14,700 in state and local debt for every person in the United States.

California, New York, Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey hold the largest long-term debt totals. Together, these five states account for $2.5 trillion, over half of the national total of $4.9 trillion in long-term liabilities.

There are 14 states where long-term state and local debt exceeds $100 billion, and 36 states where it is more than $20 billion.

In per capita terms, New York reported the most state and local long-term debt, at $31,369 per New Yorker, followed closely by New Jersey’s long-term state and local debt of $31,064 per person.

State and local long-term debt exceeds $20,000 per person in Connecticut ($30,998), Illinois ($28,291), Hawaii ($26,271), Massachusetts ($24,520), and California ($20,280).

Texas ranked 10th, with $15,818 per capita in long-term debt, and Florida ranked 30th, with $8,926 per Floridian.

Idaho, South Dakota, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have the lowest long-term debt, with each state having less than $5,200 per resident.

State and local government pension debt

Unfunded public employee retirement liabilities, also known as public pension debt, form when governments set aside fewer assets than required to fulfill promised benefits.

Nationally, state and local governments reported $1.5 trillion in pension debt, or 32% of long-term liabilities, at the end of 2023. On a per capita basis, this state and local public pension debt amounts to approximately $4,600 per American.

California carries the most total state and local public pension debt in the nation, with $269 billion in unfunded liabilities.

Illinois ($228 billion in unfunded liabilities) reported the second most public pension debt in the country.

New Jersey ($98 billion in pension debt), Texas ($96 billion), Pennsylvania ($70 billion), New York ($63 billion), and Florida ($62 billion) all had unfunded pension liabilities exceeding $60 billion at the end of 2023.

These top seven states account for more than half of the nation’s state and local pension debt.

In per capita terms, Illinois has the most unfunded pension liabilities: $17,786 per resident.

Connecticut ($12,997) and New Jersey ($10,601) were the two other states with public pension debt exceeding $10,000 per capita.

Massachusetts, Alaska, Kentucky, and Hawaii are the next highest, with each state’s per capita pension debt reaching over $7,000 per person, well above the national average of about $4,600.

California, despite its large aggregate pension burden, ranks only 8th in per capita pension debt, with $6,796 per resident.

Texas ranks 29th in per capita public pension debt, at $3,277 per resident, and Florida ranks 33rd, with $2,868 per resident.

Two states, Washington and South Dakota, reported no public pension debt in 2023.

State and local government OPEB debt

Other post-employment benefits (OPEB) primarily consist of unfunded retiree health care promised to public employees. Unlike pension benefits, most governments have not pre-funded these obligations, leaving other post-employment benefits (OPEB) almost entirely unfunded.

Nationally, state and local governments report $958 billion in OPEB debt, which accounts for 20% of their long-term liabilities. On a per capita basis, OPEB debt equals about $2,900 per American.

New York reports the largest aggregate OPEB debt among its state and local governments in the country. With $303 billion in OPEB debt at the end of 2023, New York is responsible for about one-third of the nation’s aggregate OPEB debt.

California has the second-highest OPEB debt, with over $147 billion, followed by New Jersey ($98 billion) and Texas ($77 billion).

Eleven other states have at least $10 billion in OPEB debt.

In per capita terms, New York again ranks first, with $15,017 in OPEB debt for each New Yorker.

New Jersey follows with $10,599 per capita OPEB debt, Delaware with $8,448 per capita, Connecticut with $6,657, and Massachusetts with $6,308.

California ranks 8th, at $3,712 per resident. Texas ranks 10th, at $2,649, and Florida ranks 29th, at $689.

Alaska, Ohio, Utah, Idaho, and South Dakota report OPEB debt of less than $110 per resident.

State and local outstanding bonded debt

Bonds, loans, and notes represent the portion of state and local liabilities explicitly borrowed in credit markets. Unlike pensions or OPEB, which accumulate as estimated unfunded promises, these instruments are contractual debt obligations with fixed repayment schedules.

Nationally, state and local governments report $2 trillion in outstanding bonds, loans, and notes, which represents 41% of their long-term liabilities. On a per capita basis, this equals $6,100 per resident.

California leads with the largest stock of outstanding bonds and loans, totaling $334 billion across state and local issuers.

Texas owes $287 billion in outstanding bonds and loans, followed by New York ($197 billion), Illinois ($98 billion), and Florida ($81 billion).

Together, these five states account for about half of all outstanding municipal bonds and loans.

The per capita rankings differ significantly. Hawaii owes $14,295 per Hawaiian in bonds and loans.

Connecticut and Massachusetts follow, owing more than $10,000 per resident. Texas, New York, and North Dakota, with more than $9,000 per resident, are next.

Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Alabama each have less than $2,000 of bonded debt per resident.

Reason Foundation’s State and Local Government Finance Report totals the liabilities of each state government, as well as the cities, towns, counties, and school districts within each state. This report covers all 50 state governments, over 2,000 county governments, 8,000 municipal governments, and 10,000 school districts, which serve 331 million Americans nationwide.

All figures in the State and Local Government Finance Report are sourced from the financial reports of state and local governments, most often their annual comprehensive financial reports. The data is from the 2023 fiscal year, the most recent year for which complete data are available. Nevada and a handful of cities and counties across the country have not reported 2023 data. Therefore, the data reported for 2022 was used. Despite a thorough review, data collection at this scale can result in discrepancies. Please alert us if you identify any errors.

For personalized reports on municipal entities or more detailed information on assets, liquidity, and solvency, please visit the GovFinance Dashboard.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this data more, please email Mariana Trujillo at mariana.trujillo@reason.org or Jordan Campbell at jordan.campbell@reason.org.

Related:

Report ranks every state’s total debt, from California’s $497 billion to South Dakota’s $2 billion

The post Report: State and local governments have $6.1 trillion in debt appeared first on Reason Foundation.

There is a poorly understood criminal justice metric that might just be a key component of fixing a faltering system that has gotten more expensive and, arguably, less effective at protecting public safety over decades. Clearance rates are the closest metric we have to evaluating how well the criminal justice system does at catching people who commit crimes. Clearance rates measure the percentage of reported crimes that result in a suspect being arrested, in an attempt to approximate the effectiveness of police agencies at that critical job. This brief is particularly interested in how effective the police are at solving violent crimes, a top concern of the public.

The effectiveness of the U.S. criminal enforcement system in solving violent crimes—as reflected by clearance rates—has been flat with a slightly downward trend over time. When focusing just on homicides, those rates have suffered a decades-long slide since the mid-1960s, with an even more pronounced decline in the years since 2019. Even as crime rates have trended down fairly consistently since 1993, and even though police spending has dramatically increased, not declined, since 1982, the percentage of violent crimes reported that get “cleared” (solved) has been stagnant at best since about the mid-1960s.

To put a finer point on the increased spending on police, the Urban Institute concluded from analyzing census data that “[f]rom 1977 to 2021, in 2021 inflation-adjusted dollars, state and local government spending on police increased from $47 billion to $135 billion, an increase of 189%.” In addition, a study by ABC-owned television stations examining budgets of more than 100 cities and counties determined that 83% spent at least 2% more on police in 2022 than they spent in 2019.

Early indications suggest that some of the steeper declines in clearance rates that were experienced after 2019 bounced back somewhat in 2023 and 2024, but there is no conclusive data yet, and the long-term trend since the 1980s remains in place. The chaos of the pandemic years likely plays an outsize role in the data for those years so, looking back in hindsight, the accelerated decline in rates may prove those years to be outliers. Even so, the long-term trends demonstrate that vast improvement can be had in clearance rates across the criminal system.

In the mid-1960s, more than 90% of murders were solved nationally (Figure 1). By 1990, that percentage had dropped into the 60s. In 2022, only 37% of violent crimes were cleared, and just over half of murders, according to FBI data. These are historic lows for a statistic that has been collected using the same methodology since at least 1960. Meanwhile, peer nations in Western Europe and Asia reportedly performed as well as the U.S. did in the 1960s, and their numbers have remained much higher than the figures for the U.S. Note that though clearance rates for property crimes and lower-level offenses are typically much worse than those for violent crimes, they have also remained more stable over time (Figure 2). As an example, in 2022, 36.7% of violent crimes reported to police were cleared, compared with 12.1% of property crimes.

When violent crimes are not prosecuted, or perpetrators don’t face punishment, it harms public safety and causes fear in the community; if left unchecked, this can lead to rampant disrespect for the law and eventually produce chaos. The perpetrator remains unidentified and loose in the community, able to commit further crimes.

Allowing cases to languish unsolved has additional implications for deterrence. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “Research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment.” So even as our prisons and jails are bursting with people being confined for ever-longer time periods, there is evidence that our policy choices are not yielding effective deterrence, let alone crafted to achieve optimal results. Indeed, the evidence is well-established that long sentences are not the only or even best way to address crime. When roughly half of murderers can expect to get away with it, the deterrent effect of amping penalties without increasing the likelihood of being caught will be limited. With property crime, those incentives are even worse since those are less likely to be cleared.

Failing to solve cases is also a severe disservice to victims, who are rarely healed or compensated by our present system. In fact, surveys show that victims of violent crime prefer prevention strategies to long prison sentences.

So why aren’t clearance rates the most important criminal justice metric we have? Why have many members of the public not even heard of them? This brief will discuss clearance rates, their merits, and their decades-long downward trajectory. Why do clearance rates matter? How can the abysmal rates seen today be improved? Can public awareness of this crisis lead to action? What are the solutions?

Download the full policy brief below:

The post Could clearance rates be key to addressing criminal justice failures? appeared first on Reason Foundation.

PEPRA has saved billions, but it still needs decades to get California on track

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, CalPERS, estimates that PEPRA has saved the state more than $5 billion since its inception. Another $25 billion in savings is estimated over the next 10 years, but only if members reject AB1383 and guard the shared PEPRA commitments.

How AB 1383 would undermine the PEPRA reforms:

• It expands the definition of pensionable compensation for all California pensions, granting large—and expensive—benefit bumps for the state’s top-earning government workers.
• It removes critical cost-sharing requirements that have shielded taxpayers from paying for all unexpected pension costs. The bill would allow employers to pay part of employees’ required contributions, which would undermine the shared limit set by PEPRA and disrupt the careful balance of responsibility established by the 2012 reform.
• It makes special exceptions for public safety workers, reducing their retirement age from 57 to 55, and granting them a new level of higher-cost benefits. It also changes rules to allow public safety employers to move all of their existing members into this new, higher-level benefit.

AB 1383 would cost taxpayers more than $9 billion

State taxpayers are already heavily burdened by the costs of public pension enhancements going back to 1999. According to CalPERS, AB 1383 would add an additional $9 billion over the next 20 years. The ultimate cost to taxpayers could extend well beyond that if market results resemble those of the last 20 years, or CalPERS continues its prudent lowering of its expected rate of return on investments.

Bottom line

Assembly Bill 1383 rolls back crucial elements of the landmark PEPRA reform, which would impose billions in extra costs on the state’s already stretched taxpayers. California needs to stay the course with PEPRA and fully fund its pensions before promising richer benefits.

Download the full backgrounder:

The post Assembly Bill 1383 brings back major pension costs for California appeared first on Reason Foundation.

K-12 open enrollment allows students to transfer to public schools other than their residentially assigned schools, provided space is available. Parents with children in school widely support this policy. Polling from June 2025 by EdChoice-Morning Consult showed that 78% of school parents—including 84% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 72% of Independents—support open enrollment. Moreover, of this subgroup, 84% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 72% of Independents support the policy.

Additionally, “Yes. every kid” released national polling in November 2024 that showed that 65% of Americans support letting students attend schools that are the right fit for them, regardless of where they live or their families’ financial circumstances. Moreover, 58% of respondents support ending residential assignment—the practice of assigning students to schools based on where they live—in public schools.

Open enrollment policies can help many students find public schools that are the right fit for them. Strengthening these policies would be a significant boon to the 49.4 million students enrolled in public schools in all 50 states.

About 39.4 million students, or 80% of students enrolled in public schools, reside in states with weak or ineffective open enrollment laws. This study finds that only 16 states had strong open enrollment laws in 2024.

However, four states—Arkansas, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina—significantly improved their open enrollment laws during the 2025 legislative sessions.

At the same time, policymakers in 24 states introduced at least 54 bills that would have improved open enrollment laws if codified according to the Reason Foundation’s open enrollment best practices. On the other hand, one proposal introduced in Oklahoma would have significantly undermined states’ strong open enrollment laws.

This study, the 4th edition of Public Schools Without Boundaries, updates Reason Foundation’s 2024 ratings and rankings of states’ open enrollment laws, highlights the latest open enrollment research, and provides other developments related to open enrollment.

New Research on K-12 Open Enrollment

Reason Foundation’s previous reports on open enrollment included the latest research examining its benefits, common weaknesses in states’ policies, and the most recent data available from states with open enrollment policies. Since then, education researchers have published new studies on the topic.

This section reviews the most recent open enrollment data available, examines how the policy benefits students, highlights barriers to effective policy, and demonstrates that many states’ and districts’ open enrollment data and practices lack transparency.

New Data on Open Enrollment Participation

A Reason Foundation study of 19 states found that more than 1.6 million students used open enrollment to attend schools other than their assigned ones. Additionally, a 2025 report by the Bluegrass Institute estimated that approximately 26,000 students used cross-district open enrollment in Kentucky during the 2023-24 school year to attend brick-and-mortar schools. Combined with Reason Foundation’s research, more than 1,627,000 students used open enrollment in 20 states.

Reason Foundation’s 2025 study, “Open Enrollment by the Numbers,” reveals that, on average, 16% of students used public funds to attend a school of their choice through open enrollment, charter schools, or private school scholarships in 19 states. Students using open enrollment accounted for 7% of publicly funded students in these states, on average. Using the freshest data from each state, Figure 1 below shows the different schooling options students paid for with public funds in each state.

However, participation often varied depending on the strength of a state’s open enrollment law. For instance, on average, students using open enrollment accounted for 10% of students enrolled in public schools in states with strong open enrollment laws, whereas they accounted for only 6% of students in public schools in states with weak open enrollment.

Based on data available from 10 states, the study also found that more than two in five students using open enrollment came from low-income households, accounting for about 148,000 transfers. Additionally, one in 10 transfers in these states were also students with disabilities (SWD), benefiting about 121,000 students.

Open Enrollment Benefits Students

Continuing trends from previous years, students participating in Arizona’s, Florida’s, and Texas’ student transfer programs tended to transfer to public school districts that were ranked higher by the state.

In Arizona, 90% of cross-district transfers enrolled in districts rated as A or B; in Florida, 94% of cross-district transfers enrolled in districts rated as A or B; and in Texas, 95% of cross-district transfers enrolled in districts rated as A or B.

Overall, more than 294,000 students in these states transferred to districts rated as A or B by their state education agencies (SEAs).

Barriers to Open Enrollment

Only six states—Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and West Virginia—allow students to transfer via open enrollment year-round. While laws in 19 states ensure a restricted transfer window, 25 states have no law addressing districts’ transfer windows.

The most common reason school districts in Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Wisconsin denied open enrollment transfers was insufficient capacity. Specifically, data from Nebraska and Wisconsin showed that 24% and 20% of rejected applicants were rejected because of lack of space in special education programs. Wisconsin’s data continued trends from previous years, showing that school districts deny students with disabilities at higher rates than their non-disabled peers.

This level of data wasn’t available for other states.

Open Enrollment Data Are Often Opaque

State education agencies often only collect limited open enrollment data. This is bad because families, taxpayers, and policymakers lack the tools to assess the impact of or demand for open enrollment programs. SEAs in 19 states were able to provide the number of students using open enrollment from recent school years. Two states–Utah and Idaho–did not collect data on the number of transfers.

Additional information, such as the number of rejected applicants or why they were denied, was often not available. Out of the 21 states reviewed, only five states—Idaho, Oklahoma, Nebraska, West Virginia, and Wisconsin—tracked the number of rejected applicants, but only three of these (Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Wisconsin) tracked rejected applicants by denial category.

Districts Often Let Transparency Fall by the Wayside

Just eight states continue to require public school districts to publish their available capacity by grade level and their open enrollment policies and procedures on their websites under state law. School districts also struggle to ensure that the open enrollment process is transparent, even when required to do so by state law.

A key component of district-level transparency is publishing the number of seats available by grade level on each district’s website. This ensures that families are aware of vacancies before submitting transfer applications.

However, many districts don’t comply with state laws that require them to make open enrollment information available online. For example, 77% of Oklahoma’s school districts comply with a state law that requires them to post their available capacity online, according to a 2025 analysis.

However, of the districts that published this information, 36% had the most recent data, and 29% had outdated data. Even when data were available, this analysis found that it was often difficult to locate on district websites. Therefore, this study recommends that school districts reconsider their practices and ensure that information about their available capacity is easily accessible on their websites, improving transparency for families and researchers.

Similarly, a report studied Utah’s school districts’ practices regarding posting their available capacity on their websites, as required by state law. The report found that most school districts don’t fully comply with state law by making their available capacity easily accessible on their websites. Only six districts published an open enrollment report as described in state statute, 15 districts published a partial capacity report, and while 20 districts did not publish a capacity report in any form, their websites gave information about open enrollment.

An audit of six Kansas districts’ reported available capacity called into question their accuracy. In particular, the report showed that even though five of the districts collectively lost more than 5,000 students since 2019, the districts’ only claimed they had space for about 2,000 transfer students during the 2024-25 school year.

Moreover, Wichita Public Schools (WPS), the largest school district in Kansas, did not comply with state law, which requires all districts to post their available capacity on their websites. Since 2019, WPS’ student counts have dropped by more than 2,600 students. These discrepancies led the author to recommend penalizing districts for misreporting their available capacity and to define the term “capacity.” In particular, he recommended basing available capacity on building capacity rather than staffing capacity.

Open Enrollment Can Weaken the Effects of Housing Redlining

School district and attendance zone boundaries in Missouri and California continue to replicate housing redlining policies that aimed to segregate neighborhoods and schools in the early 20th century, according to a 2025 Available to All report, a nonpartisan watchdog organization. It identified three instances where Missouri school districts were affected by these boundaries, which continue to limit students’ schooling options based on where they live.

Similarly, in California’s Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)—the second-largest school district in the nation—Available to All identified eight instances where the district’s attendance zones were redlined. These attendance zones housed some of LAUSD’s elite public schools and excluded students from nearby neighborhoods who were assigned to lower-performing schools. The authors suggested that strong open enrollment laws can help students access schools that are a better fit.

Open Enrollment Best Practices

Seven key components characterize robust open enrollment laws. In Reason’s calculations, states only receive credit for each metric if it is clearly included in their open enrollment laws.

Open Enrollment Rankings and Methodology

Rankings assign letter grades to each state’s policy, identifying weaknesses and strengths in their laws. This system ranks open enrollment policies on a scale of 0-100, assigning grades “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” and “F” to states based on their rankings. “A” would correspond to a score of 90+, “B” to 80+, “C” to 70+, and “D” to 60+. All lower scores are ranked as “F.” States receive full credit when they meet a metric, and partial credit when a metric is only partially met.

#1 Statewide cross-district open enrollment = 60 points.

This practice typically expands public school choice the most for students. Since it offers the most educational options, its weight is significantly greater than others, giving states a significant boost in achieving a higher rank. States with voluntary or limited cross-district open enrollment receive partial credit, valued at 30 points.

#2 Statewide within-district open enrollment = 15 points.

This is the second most valuable metric since it expands schooling options for students living inside a district’s geographic boundaries. This reform is worth fewer points since it’s easier to achieve because students and their education dollars remain inside the assigned district. States with voluntary or limited within-district open enrollment receive partial credit, valued at 5 points.

#3 School districts free to all students = 10 points.

Tuition can be a major barrier to transfer students, especially when it costs thousands of dollars. Removing this barrier is an important victory for students whose families cannot afford to pay public school tuition. There is no partial credit for this metric.

#4 School districts open to all students = 5 points.

State law should make clear to school districts that access to public schools shouldn’t depend on an applicant’s ability or disability. Open enrollment laws that clearly state that school districts cannot discriminate against transfer applicants based on their disability receive 3 points, while states that stop school districts from discriminating against applicants based on their ability, i.e., academic achievement, GPA, past or future academic record, receive 2 points. The former is of higher value since students with disabilities have not always had equal access to education.

#5 Transparent SEA reports = 4 points.

These reports ensure policymakers, families, and taxpayers can hold school districts accountable for their open enrollment practices. Because this metric often only requires tweaks to existing reports, making it an easier reform, each component is valued at one point. To receive credit, states must codify that the SEA publishes district-level open enrollment data in an annual report, which includes the number of transfer students (1 point), the number of rejected applicants (1 point), and the reasons why applicants were rejected (1 point).

#6 Transparent district reporting = 4 points.

States that require districts to post their policies and procedures on their websites receive 2 points; requiring districts to post their available capacity by grade level earns a state an additional 2 points. If a state requires a district to post its available capacity, but not by grade level, it receives 1 point.

#7 Transfer applicants can appeal rejected applications = 2 points.

States that require school districts to provide rejected applicants with the reasons for their denial in writing receive 1 point, while those that offer an external appeals process to rejected applicants receive an additional point.

Ranking Every State’s Open Enrollment Policies

The most common weaknesses in states’ open enrollment laws are poor appeals processes or insufficiently transparent SEA reports. No state fully meets all seven metrics.

However, Oklahoma and Arkansas fully meet six out of seven metrics. Only Idaho fully meets just five out of seven metrics, and only Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Utah, and West Virginia fully meet just four out of seven metrics.

Using Reason Foundation’s best practices checklist as a measure: 16 states have statewide cross-district open enrollment, 17 states have statewide within-district open enrollment, 28 states make public schools free to all students, 10 states make public schools open to all students, five states’ SEAs publish annual open enrollment reports, eight states have transparent district reporting, and four states have a strong appeals process.

Based on these metrics, six states–Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia–are ranked as “A”, seven states are ranked as “B”, two states are ranked as “C”, two states are ranked as “D”, and 33 states score an “F.”

Table 3 presents each state’s grade and ranking in relation to Reason Foundation’s best open enrollment practices.

Note: See Hawaii Summary for an explanation of its score.

The post Public schools without boundaries 2025: Ranking every state’s open enrollment laws appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Despite $2.7 trillion in public spending to address the drug overdose crisis, the United States continues to experience alarmingly high death rates, strained emergency systems, and ineffective intervention pathways. Current strategies that are largely centered on enforcement and abstinence-only treatment are not meeting the scale or complexity of the drug problem. Public systems remain reactive rather than preventative, leaving taxpayers to fund a revolving door of crisis care that fails to produce meaningful or lasting outcomes.

This policy brief presents a case for integrating harm reduction into the federal response, not as a replacement for drug treatment, but as a pragmatic complement. Harm reduction includes proven tools like naloxone distribution, syringe service programs, fentanyl test strip access, and supervised consumption sites. These interventions reduce healthcare costs, lower disease transmission, and improve individual and community outcomes without requiring drug abstinence. They represent low-cost, high-impact strategies that support public health and public safety alike.

To assess the current drug policy landscape, the brief includes a 50-state matrix evaluating implementation of five core harm reduction policies, including: syringe service programs (SSPs), naloxone access, legality of fentanyl test strips, Good Samaritan laws, and supervised consumption sites (SCSs). While two states meet all five benchmarks, others fall short due to outdated paraphernalia laws, inconsistent naloxone access, and surveillance practices that discourage participation. These gaps reduce effectiveness, create preventable costs, and deter early intervention by eroding trust in care systems.

Key policy recommendations in this paper include decriminalizing essential health tools, strengthening “Good Samaritan” protection laws, limiting surveillance in service delivery, and funding flexible, community-led initiatives. These policy reforms do not expand federal authority or create new regulatory structures. They promote local autonomy and make room for innovation by empowering the organizations best positioned to serve people on the ground.

Harm reduction is a public health approach that prioritizes safety, dignity, and evidence-based care, aiming to build trust in healthcare systems and ensure public resources are used effectively. It’s a practical path forward that aligns with the core principles of reducing government waste, investing in what works, and protecting individual liberty.

Based on the existing evidence, Reason Foundation concludes that expanding access to harm reduction services may be one of the most cost-effective, community-driven uses of funds designated to reduce the harms of the opioid crisis.

Introduction

The United States is confronting a multifaceted drug crisis that carries not only a significant economic burden but a devastating human toll as well. Opioid overdoses alone are projected to claim between 543,000 and 842,000 lives between 2020 and 2032. Beyond the personal loss, these deaths strain emergency response systems, drive up healthcare costs, and contribute to lost productivity and long-term societal expense.

Although treatment options exist, access remains uneven, and relapse rates continue to hover between 40% and 60%. Despite these challenges, many policies continue to prioritize a one-size-fits-all rehabilitation model—often centered around abstinence—which is not sufficient to meet the diverse needs of individuals struggling with substance use disorders.

Traditional treatments for substance use disorders include psychological therapies such as cognitive behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, contingency management, and family therapy. Medication-assisted treatments (MAT) like methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone also offer effective options, as do mutual support groups. However, psychological therapies have an average dropout rate of 30%, and medication-assisted treatments often suffer from limited accessibility and a lack of coordination with psychological or peer-based support systems.

This current system is inefficient, as it fails to reach or retain many of the individuals most in need at great financial cost. For example, among those who inject drugs, preventable infections like HIV and hepatitis C are common due to unsafe injection practices like sharing needles. The average lifetime medical cost of one HIV infection is over $261,000, while hepatitis C treatment can exceed $38,000 per case. Preventable hospitalizations due to abscesses, infections, or overdoses also drive up costs, with each non-fatal overdose costing thousands in emergency department use alone.

In addition to their limitations in efficacy and accessibility, these approaches can unintentionally reinforce harmful stereotypes about people who use drugs. Abstinence-centered rehabilitation often assumes complete sobriety as the only path to recovery. This misconception perpetuates the false notion that one-size-fits-all treatment is effective for everyone. It shapes public opinion of substance use disorder as a moral failing instead of a health issue. It also drives policy and healthcare decisions that discriminate against people who use drugs and restrict access to harm reduction and treatment programs. The persistent ethical condemnation of drug use exacerbates the challenges of treating substance use disorder and prevents people from receiving or even seeking the assistance they need.

Substance use exists on a spectrum. Research shows that most drug use is occasional, short-term, and not associated with addiction. A clinical diagnosis of substance use disorder requires meeting specific criteria outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), which classifies most drug use as “transient.” Unfortunately, treatment protocols often fail to reflect this definition, sidelining evidence-based approaches that could better align with actual patterns of use in communities.

Current research also supports the idea that addiction is not solely the result of individual behavior, but a complex condition influenced by biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors—including physical dependence. For many people with opioid use disorder, quitting abruptly can be dangerous. Unlike illnesses such as diabetes or cancer, which manifest with relatively uniform effects, the effects of addiction vary significantly from person to person. This complexity undermines the effectiveness of uniform treatment strategies. It also reinforces the importance of broadening public health responses to include harm reduction—a practical, compassionate approach that prioritizes health, safety, and human dignity without imposing immediate or total abstinence.

Harm reduction offers a pragmatic complement to existing treatment approaches. It prioritizes reducing the negative health consequences of drug use, particularly among individuals who are not yet ready or able to pursue abstinence. These programs include syringe service initiatives, naloxone distribution, and access to medication-assisted therapy—all of which have been shown to reduce emergency room visits, lower disease transmission, and improve long-term outcomes.

One illustrative example is Taiwan’s 2005 needle exchange program, launched during a surge in HIV among intravenous drug users. Despite the country’s strict anti-drug policies, the program reduced new HIV infections by 90% within four years—demonstrating the public health and fiscal power of targeted harm reduction policies. Similar evidence from cities like Vancouver and Lisbon supports this trend, showing how such approaches can relieve public health systems while improving the quality of life for individuals and families.

Despite the extensive data supporting harm reduction in mitigating drug-related harm, ongoing misinformation about drugs and those who use them continues to hinder widespread acceptance of these strategies in the United States.

However, other nations such as Portugal, Uruguay, the Netherlands, Canada, and Mexico have shifted towards more effective policies for mitigating the potential dangers of drug use. An international trend is emerging, with more nations adopting harm reduction approaches that uphold individual freedom and recognize the right of people to make informed decisions about drug use and treatment.

American policymakers should similarly refocus drug policies from the supply to the demand side and work primarily to reduce the harmful effects of drug use.

Full Policy Brief: Harm Reduction: An Evidence-Based Approach to the Drug War

The post Harm reduction: An evidence-based approach to the drug war appeared first on Reason Foundation.

While the United States has mostly private utilities and has had several decades of long-term public-private partnerships in highways and transit, all but one of its commercial airports are government-owned. By contrast, as independent researchers have identified the benefits of airport privatization—such as significantly better performance—governments in Australia, Europe, Latin America, and portions of Asia have privatized large fractions of their commercial airports, via either outright sale or long-term public-private partnership (P3) leases.

Congress has enacted several versions of a law to permit government airport owners to enter into long-term P3 leases of their airports. To date, only San Juan, Puerto Rico, has entered into such a lease, although planned leases of Chicago Midway and St. Louis Lambert attracted significant investor interest.

Several federal bodies have looked into why airport privatization has not caught on in the United States. Airline opposition is no longer a significant factor, with airline-friendly lease terms worked out for the three cases noted above.

The policy that could most likely open the US airport privatization market appears to be tax changes to put US airport financing on a level playing field with countries where airport privatization and public-private partnerships are widely used.

This report explores two tax law changes. One would remove the requirement that tax-exempt airport bonds must be paid off before there is a change in control, such as a long-term lease.

The other would expand the scope of successful surface transportation tax-exempt private activity bonds (PABs) to include airports and other transportation infrastructure.

These changes would enable airport owners to receive an amount closer to their airport’s gross value, rather than the net value after paying off the outstanding tax-exempt bonds. Data in this report show that long-term P3 leases could yield windfalls for the owners of many large and medium hub airports. In some cases, the airport owner’s proceeds could be enough to pay off a significant portion or all of the jurisdiction’s unfunded public employee pension liability. The proceeds could also go toward needed but unfunded infrastructure projects or toward reducing other indebtedness.

Introduction

Over the past three decades, airports in many developed countries have been privatized, via either sale to investors or long-term leases generally referred to as public-private partnerships (P3s).

Data from Airports Council International (ACI) before the COVID-19 pandemic found that in Europe, 75% of passengers used privatized airports. Similar figures were found for passengers in Latin America (66%) and the Asia-Pacific (47%).

By comparison, only 1% of passengers in North America use privatized airports.

The only privatized US commercial airport is San Juan’s Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport, which was leased as a P3 in 2013.

With more than 400 airports worldwide either sold or long-term leased to investors, researchers now have enough data to analyze privatized airports’ performance compared with traditional government-owned, government-operated airports. The largest of these studies, a 2023 working paper by Sabrina T. Howell et al., found many benefits at airports where the investors included infrastructure investment funds, which operate airports as real businesses. The changes include

• More airlines, serving a larger number of destinations;
• Lower average airfares due to increased competition, including from low-cost carriers;
• Increased airport productivity; and
• Greater passenger satisfaction, as measured by ACI’s annual Airport Service Quality survey.

One factor in these improvements is the rise in airport groups (such as Aeroports de Paris, Aena Aeropuertos, Fraport, VINCI Airports, and Flughafen Zurich). By managing multiple airports, such airport groups benefit from economies of scale, standardized practices, and a pipeline of experienced managers who can move up to larger airports.

Congress has encouraged US airport privatization since enacting an Airport Privatization Pilot Program (APPP) in 1996, which allowed up to five airports to be leased as a P3. That program was expanded to 10 airports in 2012.

Most recently, in the 2018 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization legislation, Congress replaced the APPP with broader legislation, the Airport Investment Partnership Program (AIPP). It opened the program to all US commercial airports, reduced other restrictions, and, for the first time, allowed the proceeds from an airport P3 lease to be used for general government purposes by the airport owner (rather than being restricted to investments in airport improvements).

Yet since that landmark legislation, not a single US airport has been leased as a P3, though several have tried. St. Louis in 2019 offered a long-term P3 lease of Lambert International Airport. Eighteen international teams responded, and the highest-ranked dozen made detailed in-person presentations to the city government and its advisers. In addition, the airlines serving the airport developed a pro forma agreement with the airport. But the mayor terminated the process due to regional political opposition.

This report explores a possible way to make US airport privatization more attractive to airport owners by proposing a level financial playing field for potential private-sector airport investors, similar to what already exists for US surface transportation P3 infrastructure. Those changes would result in larger upfront lease payments, in addition to the performance improvements noted by Howell et al.

This paper was produced under a joint AEI-Brookings project.

The post Incentivizing US airport privatization appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The series offers recommendations to help states design effective retirement systems that meet the needs of both employees and taxpayers.

The Gold Standard in Public Retirement System Design Series includes:

• Best practices in the design and utilization of defined contribution plans 
• Best practices in incorporating risk sharing into defined benefit pension plans
• Best practices for cost-of-living adjustment designs in public pension systems
• Best practices in hybrid retirement plan design
• Best practices for pension debt amortization
• Best practices in optional defined contribution plans for public workers
• Best practices in cash balance plan design
• Designing an optimized retirement plan for today’s state and local government employees

If you have any questions or would like more information, please email the Reason Pension Reform Help Desk at pensionhelpdesk@reason.org.

The post The Gold Standard In Public Retirement System Design Series appeared first on Reason Foundation.