There were more than 771,000 unhoused people on a single night in 2024. This is an 18% increase over 2023 and the highest number recorded since the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began its Annual Homelessness Assessment Report in 2007. As the number of those who are unhoused continues to rise, many unhoused individuals struggle to navigate the legal system. They face difficulties securing legal aid, resources, and representation because of their separation from mainstream society. Unhoused courts, also known as homeless or housing courts, give these individuals a way to access legal support. These courts address unhoused individuals' legal issues and connect them to social services, housing assistance, and programs to reintegrate them back into society. Instead of relying on punitive measures, this approach not only lessens the legal burdens of the homeless population but also reduces recidivism. These specialty courts address root causes like housing shortages and mental health issues that lead to mostly minor offenses. Several states have statutes or court orders establishing or maintaining homeless courts, such as Arizona, South Carolina, and Washington. Other states have established housing courts or initiatives aimed at assisting homeless individuals. In Arizona, for example, the Maricopa County Regional Homeless Court helps individuals experiencing homelessness resolve misdemeanor cases and warrants. In California, community and homeless courts are both therapeutic justice courts offering programs in community service centers that address the problems that lead to the individual being homeless. In Florida, Miami-Dade County supports homeless individuals through community resource centers offering essential services, housing assistance, and support programs.. As more states try to tackle the issues of unhoused individuals, housing courts and diversion programs continue to evolve and expand which can lead to more stable housing solutions, less crime, and stronger communities.

Over 50 pieces of legislation in 25 states have been introduced as of mid-March 2025 to address concerns over judicial and courthouse security. This marks the fourth straight year of a high level of legislative interest. Most of the 2025 bills can be categorized into four main types. The first prohibits the release of personally identifiable information regarding judges, court staff, andr their families. One example is Kentucky H.B. 662, which prohibits state government agencies from disclosing personally identifiable information of individuals if a judicial officer or their immediate family member submits a written request to refrain from such disclosure. Once a request is received, the agency must remove the personally identifiable information within 72 hours. The second type makes it easier for judicial officers to carry firearms. For example, Illinois H.B. 56, would allow judges to carry concealed firearms into courthouses with the written consent of the chief judge of the judicial circuit. Texas H.B. 3789 / S.B. 890 expands the types of judges who qualify for an expedited process to receive a concealed carry permit in the state. The third type creates or modifies court security plans and standards. For example, Maryland H.B. 789 / S.B. 621 establishes minimum standards for courtroom security at all courthouse facilities.. Finally, the fourth type creates a specific crime and enhanced penalties for actions taken against judicial officers. Missouri S.B. 453, for example, provides that any person convicted of the offense of tampering with a judicial officer and the offense of tampering with a judicial proceeding shall not be eligible for parole, probation, or conditional release.

A crucial question of Fourth Amendment law has recently divided courts: When government agents conduct a digital scan through a massive database, how much of a "search" occurs? The issue pops up in contexts ranging from geofence warrants and reverse keyword searches to the installation of Internet pen registers. When a government agent runs a filter through a massive database, resulting in a list of hits, is the scale of the search determined by the size of the database, the filter setting, or the filter output? Fourth Amendment law is closely attuned to the scale of a search. No search means no Fourth Amendment oversight, small searches ordinarily require warrants, and limitless searches are categorically unconstitutional. But how broad is a data scan? This essay argues that that Fourth Amendment implications of data scans should be measured primarily by filter settings. Whether a search occurs, and how far it extends, should be based on what information is exposed to human observation. This standard demands a contextual analysis of what the output reveals about the dataset based on the filter setting. Data that passes through a filter is searched or not searched depending on whether the filter is set to expose that specific information. The proper question is what information is expressly or implicitly exposed, not what raw data passes through the filter or the raw data output. The implications of this approach are then evaluated for a range of important applications, among them geofence warrants, reverse keyword searches, and Internet pen registers.

As the education and workforce landscapes change, the need for postsecondary education has increased for students. Estimates show that 72% of jobs will require postsecondary education or training by 2031. Nondegree credentials (e.g., certificates, industry credentials and professional licenses), which can typically be completed quickly, continue growing to fill these needs. While the value is clear, leaders face challenges in data collection and use, but many states are reporting promising practices to respond. Nondegree credential programs have already grown in prevalence; in the 2021-22 school year there were: (1) over 1 million certificates awarded; (2) almost 17,000 individual credential issuers; and (3) over 600,000 credentials provided by nonacademic providers. Collecting and connecting nondegree credential data with workforce outcomes is essential for states and the students that they serve. For students, access to comprehensive data helps make more informed decisions about programs that lead to higher wages. It also provides students with information to understand pathways to current credentials and the possible connections to future education and training. Clear data connections between nondegree credentials and workforce outcomes help students invest in programs that demonstrate real career benefits.

Addressing the needs of all student groups is paramount for ensuring access to learning opportunities and fostering high academic success for all students. Students in the United States come from a diverse range of backgrounds, bringing with them knowledge, experiences, and other assets that inform the way they learn, but may also come with different learning needs that require greater support. Among the student groups that may require such additional support are English learners (ELs) and students from low-income backgrounds. National testing data show that ELs and students from low-income backgrounds exhibit lower achievement than their peers, and these rates are lower still for students who are both ELs and from low-income backgrounds. This report reviews how states’ school funding programs currently address the needs of English learners and students from low-income families. Key findings include 49 states, including Florida provide separate, additional funding for students who are English learners on top of base funding for schools in the 2023–24 school year; 44 states currently provide unique funding for at-risk students; and 37 states provide dual funding for students who qualify as both English learners and from low-income families.

In March 2024, state and local governments employed 19.9 million people, an increase of 2.5% from the 2023 figure of 19.4 million. Nationally, local government workers comprised the majority of the state and local government workforce with 14.4 million employees (72.3%). In comparison, state governments employed 5.5 million workers (27.7%). Of the total 19.9 million employed, 15.4 million were classified as full-time and 4.5 million as part-time. Full-time employment by state governments increased by 3.3% to 4.0 million, while full-time employment by local governments increased 2.1% to 11.4 million. The number of part-time state government employees increased 2.1% to 1.5 million, with the largest total increase in higher education. Part-time local government employees increased 3.4% to 3.0 million, with the largest total increases in elementary and secondary education, parks and recreation, and all other and un-allocable. Education, hospitals, and police protection constitute the largest functional categories of state and local governments.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers seven Community Facilities Programs through the Rural Housing Service that support essential community facilities. USDA defines essential community facilities as public improvements necessary for "the beneficial and orderly development of a community that is operated on a nonprofit basis." These programs support projects that construct or repair essential community facilities and pay for the equipment and vehicles associated with the facilities. Examples of essential community facilities include police departments, fire stations, libraries, health clinics, and community gardens. Equipment and vehicles associated with these facilities include fire trucks, ambulances, and farming equipment. These programs must help develop rural communities and be located in rural areas. This report provides an overview of USDA Community Facilities Programs, including the authorizing legislation, activities supported through the programs, and funding. The report details funding that Congress provided to support specific initiatives. The report also discusses policy issues of potential congressional interest, including whether to reduce or eliminate the programs, expand the programs to pay for rural-health-care-related expenses, adjust funding for competitive applications for the programs, and allow program funding to support non-rural facilities that are used by rural communities. From Fiscal Year 2015 to Fiscal Year 2024, Congress appropriated approximately $2.197 billion in inflation-adjusted 2024 dollars for Community Facilities Programs. During this time, Congress provided program funding to support rural health care facilities, the repair of facilities damaged from natural disasters, and projects requested by members.

Adult day services centers assist primarily older adults with activities of daily living, medical care, and social or recreational activities in community-based settings. In 2020, some service centers were required or chose to temporarily close physical centers and changed how they provided services in response to COVID-19 mitigation efforts. The National Post-acute and Long-term Care Study provided preliminary estimates of service center operating statuses in 2020. This report provides updated estimates for 2022, comparing centers that were physically open and provided services onsite only with centers that were open or temporarily closed and provided services onsite, at participants’ residences, or virtually. Operating status estimates are compared by U.S. census region, metropolitan statistical area status, Medicaid licensure, and number of enrolled participants. Overall, nearly three-quarters of service centers operated onsite only (72.9%), and 27.1% provided services onsite or offsite, or both, in 2022. Higher percentages of service centers in the Northeast (84.6%), Midwest (84.0%), and South (80.8%) were onsite only compared with the West (52.3%). A higher percentage of centers in non-metropolitan statistical areas were onsite only (84.1%) compared with those in metropolitan statistical areas (71.5%). More Medicaid-licensed centers were onsite only (78.4%) compared with non-Medicaid-licensed centers (56.1%). More service centers with 1 to 50 enrolled participants were onsite only (81.2%) compared with centers having more than 50 participants (61.7%).

Opioids are powerful drugs that activate opioid receptors, which are present in cells throughout the body, especially in the brain. This activation leads to chemical changes that block the feeling of pain and cause euphoric effects, often described as a strong sensation of warmth or well-being. Opioids include prescription medications such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, fentanyl, and morphine, as well as illicit opioids such as heroin and illicitly made fentanyl. This report uses data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) to analyze national estimates and trends for opioid-involved emergency department visits. These visits involve prescription opioids, fentanyl, heroin, and opioids not otherwise specified. The percentage of emergency department visits involving an opioid significantly increased between 2021 and 2023 and then remained stable in 2024. Fentanyl-involved emergency department visits significantly increased over the entire time frame, while heroin-involved emergency department visits and prescription opioid–involved visits both decreased. In addition, an estimated 2.0 million opioid-involved emergency department visits occurred between 2022 and 2024; prescription opioids were involved in 34.2% of these visits, heroin in 27.4%, fentanyl in 25.7%, and opioids not otherwise specified in 20.2%.

This paper estimates regional price levels for medical services in the United States using two of the largest available sources of commercial health claims-- the Health Care Cost Institute and the Merative MarketScan databases. This paper provides estimates for inpatient, outpatient, and professional services, as well as aggregate expenditure-weighted estimates. By using two independent data sources, this paper addresses representativeness concerns and sheds light on the interchangeability of two widely used commercial claims databases. Researchers utilize the estimated price indices to examine the relationship between medical prices and total health care spending per beneficiary, and also provide a novel state-level comparison of medical and non-medical price levels. Researchers find that Alaska, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Oregon, and California tend to have the highest health care prices, while Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Louisiana have the lowest. Medical prices are significantly more dispersed than non-medical prices, and the correlation between the two is weak across states. Researchers also find that variation in the medical price level explains about one-half of the variation in health care spending per person.