Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Children

Arizona’s families need solutions that work: Here’s why HB2682 and HB2698 make sense

Phoenix Vice Mayor Kesha Hodge Washington

Arizona is facing a crisis that threatens family stability, children’s outcomes, and the economic health of our communities. While headlines often focus on rising rents or visible homelessness, the data tells a deeper story. Thousands of hardworking families are being pushed to the brink by temporary financial emergencies, and our state lacks a permanent safety net to stop preventable evictions before they happen.

Last year, Maricopa County recorded more than 87,000 eviction filings, a record high and a 21% increase over 2019. January 2024 alone saw nearly 8,000 filings, the highest single month ever. Even more telling, 96% of these cases stem from nonpayment of rent, often triggered not by irresponsibility, but by short term setbacks like car repairs, medical bills or reduced work hours. One bad month can spiral into catastrophe.

From 2021 to 2024, Arizona had a lifeline. The Arizona Rental Assistance Program helped stabilize thousands of households, but it ended in August of 2024 when federal funding ran out. Today, Maricopa County receives roughly 1,900 calls every month from families seeking rental assistance and many are being turned away. That is why I strongly support House Bill 2682 and House Bill 2698.

Smart, fiscally responsible solutions 

HB 2682 reinvigorates the Arizona Rental Assistance Program with a $5,000,000 investment, providing targeted support to families with children facing temporary crises. This is not a handout. It is a carefully designed intervention with eligibility requirements and reasonable guardrails. Families must demonstrate residency, show future ability to pay rent, be no more than two months behind, and document a genuine emergency. Assistance is limited to once per year and capped at two months or $5,000. Payments go directly to landlords, who agree not to pursue eviction during the covered period.

HB 2698 compliments that effort by establishing a Study Committee on Rental Assistance, bringing together renters, landlords, housing developers, tenant advocates and government agencies to evaluate what works and recommend long term, data driven improvements. This is responsible governance: act now, measure outcomes and refine solutions. 

The fiscal case is clear. Emergency shelter for a family of four costs between $13,500 to $20,000 for just three months, nearly four times the maximum rental assistance. Research shows eviction increases homelessness risk by 300 to 467% and reduces family earnings by $1,300 to $2,400 annually. Children change schools and fall behind. Communities absorb cascading costs in emergency medical care, social services and lost tax revenue.

With a $5,000,000 investment, Arizona could help 1,000 to 1,600 families remain housed. The return on investment is conservatively $3 in savings for every $1 expended. This is not charity. It is smart economics.

Everyone benefits 

Landlords benefit too. Evictions typically cost property owners $3,500 to $10,000 in legal fees, lost rent, and turnover expenses. HB 2682 pays landlords directly, providing the agreed upon rent instead of costly court battles, while keeping units occupied.

Children, the most vulnerable victims of eviction, benefit most of all. They did not create the financial emergency. Yet research shows eviction in childhood leads to worse outcomes that persist for years. Arizona has a moral obligation to protect them.

For less than 3% of the cost of a single highway interchange, we can keep families in their homes, children in their schools, and communities intact. We will spend this money one way or another, either on prevention now, or on emergency services later.

Prevention is cheaper. Prevention is smarter. Prevention is more humane. 

Behind those 87,000 eviction filings are real families, neighbors doing everything right who were blindsided by unexpected hardship. Any of us could be one crisis away from needing help.

The choice is clear. Arizona should advance HB 2682 and HB 2698. Our families deserve stability. Our children deserve security. The time to act is now.

Kesha Hodge Washington is the Vice Mayor of the City of Phoenix.

Measles cases soar as politicians target vaccines

Dr. Steve R. Brown

The new year often brings resolutions dominated by gym memberships and healthy eating. For too many of us in Arizona, it has also brought another new habit — monitoring and avoiding the growing measles outbreak in our state and across the country.

We closed out 2025 with 214 measles cases, with 66% of those cases being in children under 18. This is a dangerous increase from the five cases that were reported in the Grand Canyon State in 2024 and a worrying trend. With childhood vaccination rates waning across the country and disease rates rising, now is the time for our top public health officials to take action.

But shortly after the start of the new year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) overhauled the childhood immunization schedule, making an unprecedented shift away from decades of accepted medical recommendations without scientific reasoning or the insight from medical and scientific professionals that has historically been standard in the United States. 

This announcement quickly rippled through communities and created confusion. Which vaccines would still be available? What would insurance cover? What would this mean for young children and other vulnerable populations? 

As a family doctor, I am dedicated to creating an environment where patients feel comfortable asking questions. When it comes to vaccines, I always tell them the same thing. Vaccines are incredibly safe and effective, and a critical tool to protect themselves and their families. As a medical educator, I ensure that students and residents learn to do the same. But now more than ever, I worry about how these abrupt changes are undermining long-standing medical evidence and will affect my patients’ confidence in voicing their questions, hurt their access, and ultimately, the impact it will have on the health of our children. 

Health should come before politics.. However, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., responsible for enhancing the health and well-being of all Americans, has taken unprecedented actions that will hurt the health of our country’s children without scientific evidence or precedent. 

Most recently, RFK Jr. commented that it might be “better” for fewer children to receive the flu vaccine. With flu cases surging across the country and some hospitals and emergency rooms already overwhelmed with cases, this rhetoric – detached from scientific evidence – is dangerous. Influenza this season has led to 5,000 deaths, including nine children. 

While hundreds of medical groups have sounded the alarm, it can’t just be us physicians speaking up for children. If our elected leaders care about protecting families, they must also stand up for vaccine access. That is why I call upon our Arizona federal legislators to speak out against the blatant misinformation and confusion spreading from the highest levels. 

Our elected leaders have a responsibility to protect public health and to ensure that policies reflect sound science rather than political ideology. Vaccines are not about politics. They are about protecting children, families, and our loved ones from preventable illness. We know what works. And we know what is right. Now, we need the courage from our elected leaders to stand up for it. 

Steve R. Brown is a medical educator in Arizona known for his passion for innovation and dedication to patients and trainees.

Appeals court overrules LDS church position, jury needs to hear details of child abuse

Key Points:
  • Appeals court rules against Mormon church in child sexual abuse case
  • Lower court has tossed lawsuit
  • Church leaders say they will appeal, citing confession confidentiality

An appeals court has revived a lawsuit accusing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and two of its bishops of failing to tell authorities that a Bisbee man was sexually abusing his young children. 

The lawsuit filed by two daughters and a son who were victims of Paul Adams had been dismissed by a judge in Cochise County in 2023. The judge ruled there was no evidence church officials knew of the abuse of the children identified in court as Jane Doe 1 and 2 and John Doe outside of the confidential communications they had with Adams. 

Cochise County Superior Court Judge Timothy Dickerson noted that Arizona laws that require such incidents to be reported are overridden when the only source of that information is divulged to them in ‘confession’ or similar conversations.

The Court of Appeals had ruled before Dickerson dismissed the case that church confessionals in this case were protected. 

But the new ruling said a jury should decide if church leaders knew of the abuse in other ways.

Attorneys for the three children pointed out in their appeal that Adams had told his wife, Leizza, about the abuse during a meeting their bishop set up after he confessed to him. They argued that statement triggered Arizona’s mandatory reporter law because it fell outside the confession and the bishop was present. 

They also argued that the excommunication hearing and subsequent appeal, during which Paul Adams admitted the abuse, triggered the law. Adams had admitted the abuse to a church appeals panel that upheld his 2013 excommunication.

The appeals court’s new ruling said a jury could conclude that was the case.

“A jury could reasonably infer that Paul’s actions in the later proceeding voluntarily waived the clergy-penitent privilege for the purpose of disclosing his abuse of Doe to all members in attendance, clergy and non-clergy alike,” Appeals Court Judge Christopher P. Staring wrote for the three-judge panel that reversed the trial court dismissal.

The church argued both were protected.

The children’s attorneys also pointed to a portion of the church’s “general handbook” and testimony of Adams’ first church counselor, which they said contradicted assertions by the church lawyers that Paul’s confession “must have been kept secret” according to Church doctrine, according to the new ruling.

The trial court judge didn’t indicate if he had considered that argument or whether it constituted a “genuine issue of material fact,” Starling wrote for the panel. 

“We believe it does,” he wrote.

The handbook entry and testimony also raise questions about whether the church and its bishops broke their own rules about when reporting Adams was required, the appeals court said.

“In other words, there is a genuine issue whether it was “reasonable and necessary” for Church Defendants to withhold reporting Jane Doe I’s abuse,” the ruling said.

The Court of Appeals ruling, issued July 29, found that a jury could conclude that the bishops and the church did have outside knowledge of the abuse. They sent the case back to the lower court for a trial.

But The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it will appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. It issued a statement saying that it “dedicates significant resources to prevent, report and address abuse.”

“In this tragic case involving abuse perpetrated by the children’s father, the Church and its clergy acted in accordance with Arizona law,” the statement said. 

The failure of church leaders to tell authorities what they knew about the abuse meant Adams’ children were subjected to years of additional abuse before he was arrested. The arrest came after an unrelated tip to authorities about sexually explicit videos of the abuse he posted online.

In addition to the LDS church, the lawsuit names two bishops who counseled Adams. Adams confessed to John Herrod, a bishop of the Bisbee Ward, that he had sexually abused his elder daughter. Herrod then had Leizza attend a session where he repeated the admission. 

When Herrod left his post in 2012, he told the new bishop, Kim Mauzy, about the abuse. Adams was excommunicated from the church in 2013, but he continued to live with his wife and their children.

He committed suicide in jail after his 2017 arrest. Liezza Adams, who learned of the abuse in the church meeting with their bishop, was sentenced to 2 ½ years in prison after admitting she did not report that her children were being molested. She was released in 2020.

In an interview on July 30, the children’s attorney, John Trebon, said the appeals court ruling was important because it prevents clergy from hiding abuse when the law requires that it be reported to authorities. He called that duty “fundamentally important for the protection of children who have no voice and have no other protection if they’re being abused by their own parents.”

If third parties know or should know about abuse, he said it is a minimal and moral obligation to report it. And he said courts need to look carefully before letting exceptions be carved out. 

“If everybody can chip away at (mandatory reporting laws), then the children don’t have any protection anymore,” Trebon said. “So it’s good that the courts are willing to give it a real life, because sometimes those statutes can be snuffed out with litigation.”

The hidden cost of incarceration – Arizona’s forgotten children

Sasha Kuhl

We collect data on test scores, attendance and graduation rates. But we have no idea how many children have a parent behind bars. Why? 

In Arizona, many young people are growing up with a parent in prison or jail, yet we have no clear idea how many. That’s because our state does not collect this data. There is no system in place to estimate how many children are affected by parental incarceration. This gap doesn’t protect them; it leaves them without recognition or the support they may need. Many state agencies, such as schools and child welfare programs, utilize data to understand which children may need additional resources. Without being able to see the scope of parental incarceration, Arizona can not adequately deliver support or services to these children. This is not just about counting children of incarcerated parents, but acknowledging a vulnerable population that has been left out of the conversation for way too long. 

When a parent is incarcerated, the child often pays a hidden sentence. These children are more likely to face out-of-home placements, socioeconomic disadvantage, mental health problems, and more. Research suggests that they’re even at a higher risk of becoming system-involved themselves. Not because it “runs in the family” as it’s often assumed, but because they are simply experiencing overwhelming stress, increasing anti-social behaviors — such as aggression, substance use or impulsive decision-making. 

Criminologists call this type of stress that children of incarcerated parents feel strain. Robert Agnew’s Strain Theory explains that when individuals, especially youth, experience high levels of stress or pressure, it can lead to an increased development of harmful coping mechanisms. Without the proper support and care, these youth may disengage from school, act out or face silent emotional struggles. 

This theory is especially relevant in Arizona, where communities are already grappling with high incarceration rates. When a child’s parent is incarcerated, they are not just losing a parent, they are losing stability. These children are experiencing family disruption, financial insecurity, social stigma, and emotional stress all at once. Without understanding the scope of this issue, we are missing critical opportunities for early intervention to disrupt harmful cycles before stress leads to damaging behaviors or deeper involvement in the justice system. 

Other states have already started making efforts to begin collecting this data. Minnesota has implemented the Minnesota Student Survey (MSS), which has collected anonymous survey data from youth since 1989 on various topics ranging from school performance to health and safety. In 2013, the interagency team administering the survey added a question that asked, “Have any of your parents or guardians ever been in jail or prison?” 

That one question made it possible to begin collecting data that helps these kids. It didn’t require a massive overhaul of data systems, just a commitment to visibility. Arizona could follow this lead by creating a simple, anonymous way to collect similar information across schools, probation programs and youth-serving agencies. This is about taking the first small, intentional step toward recognizing a population that has been invisible for too long. With this data, schools and youth agencies could more effectively develop tailored programming, offer support groups and allocate mental health resources. It’s about meeting kids where they are, instead of leaving them to navigate their trauma alone. We may be behind, but we can begin the work now by asking one compassionate question and recognizing that these kids exist.

A critical factor of this process is the collection of anonymous data. We do not want to label youth and produce unnecessary stigma, but we need to start hearing their voices. These kids are not background noise in someone else’s incarceration sentence. They deserve attention, investment, and care. That all begins in understanding the scope of these needs. 

We can’t support kids we refuse to see. Counting children of incarcerated parents isn’t just data. It’s dignity, healing, and prevention.

Sasha Kuhl is a doctoral student in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University and a member of the Youth Justice Laboratory. 

New ESA handbook approved by State Board of Education

Key Points:
  • ESA Handbook approved by state board after lengthy deliberation 
  • Controversial price caps exchanged for evaluation framework
  • Department, lawmakers and parents failed to find consensus  

After months of meetings and pages of public comment, the State Board of Education signed off on the annual Empowerment Scholarship Account Handbook at a meeting on June 23.

Approval did not come without lingering doubts from a sect of parents and a coalition of lawmakers as the Arizona Department of Education made some, but not every, concession in the final draft. 

Though this year’s handbook made it through, conversations around the handbook, the ESA program and the department’s role may return in the Legislature amid lingering concerns from lawmakers. 

“The ESA Handbook should be in alignment with state statute, and there’s some concerns about what has been said and what’s been done,” Rep. Lisa Fink, R-Glendale, said.  

Deliberation over the annual policy manual and guidebook for ESA accountholders started in October with the convening of an ESA Parent Handbook committee. 

The committee forwarded a draft in December, which was then tinkered with by the state Department of Education and eventually presented to the State Board and the public in March. 

The first attempt caught immediate flak for the inclusion of price limits. 

Under the initial draft handbook, ESA accountholders would be barred from spending more than $2,000 on personal laptops and computers, $4,000 on instruments, $2,500 on physical education equipment, $2,500 on a playground, $3,000 on a SmartBoard, $1,500 on tools for vocational education and $500 annually on home economic equipment.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said the limits aligned with the department’s responsibility to ensure purchases in the program are both educational and reasonably priced. 

Those opposed to the price limits claimed the department overstepped its authority and contended the policy could stand to impact home-schooling students and students with disabilities by denying purchases prudent to education. 

The second draft, published in April, was not much different. Instead of using “limits,” the department opted for “coverage amounts,” and made it clearer that students with disabilities could seek an exemption from price caps with a note from a doctor. 

The change did little to alleviate concerns from ESA accountholders, and prompted a call to action for legislators. That led Horne and the state board to delay consideration of a draft handbook to June as the department negotiated with lawmakers and sought more parent input. 

By the time the meeting came around, ESA Director John Ward said the department, lawmakers and parents had failed to reach total consensus throughout meetings and negotiations. 

“Are we all in 100% agreement on it? No,” Ward said. “But we’re certainly a lot closer than we were a couple of months ago.” 

Ward said the department addressed the “most notorious issue” — spending caps — by trading in price caps for a framework the department can use to assess purchases.

The latest handbook uses a three-point process for approving purchases: a review of the specific circumstances and educational needs of the student; a check on whether the department has previously approved the item; and an assessment of whether the cost and quantity of the item meet educational needs when weighed against other available alternatives. 

The department also added a provision allowing certified special education teachers to provide notes to support purchases for students with disabilities.

Parents who spoke in opposition to the handbook claimed the language introduced new uncertainty to the process. 

Lawmakers still had their problems with the draft, too, and sent a letter on the morning of June 23 claiming an “outpouring of constituent concern regarding the legality” of the handbook. 

The 11 representatives and three Senators who signed on claimed they did not have a full opportunity to review the handbook. 

They flagged one provision requiring additional documentation for purchases, and another allowing for changes to best practices as “very likely unlawful and unenforceable because they are unintelligible, arbitrary and inconsistent with state law.” 

The lawmakers claimed the department’s role is to ensure compliance with statute and established rules, “not creating or modifying rules at will.” 

Board members pressed Ward on the questions of legality raised by legislators, a schism Ward attributed to philosophical differences. 

He said some lawmakers and parents are of the opinion that the only limitation on purchases should be the amount of money deposited in the account. Ward maintained the department’s power and fiduciary responsibility to ensure purchases are a legitimate expense of taxpayer dollars. 

Board President Katherine Haley inquired about the new process for determining allowable items and raised questions about how the department planned to maintain an objective standard and whether it had considered a delineated list of allowable and disallowable items, as required by state law. 

Ward said the framework was about as close as they could get to clarity. 

“Parents have the ability to engage in and shop in a massive open market,” Ward said.

She added that the creation of any exhaustive list would be “impossible” and a “fool’s errand.”

“The idea that we would ever have this very objective checklist that we used to go through to say something is allowable or not is probably just never going to happen in the education freedom space,” Ward said. “What might be allowable and approvable for one student may not be allowable and approvable for another student.” 

The board was then tasked with either approving the handbook as is, or rejecting it and maintaining the current version, last approved in 2023, or sending the department back to the drawing board. 

In the end, the board approved the ESA handbook 8-1, with Haley voting no.

Board member Daniel Corr told Ward to “prove your critics wrong.” 

“Parents, we have heard you. Hard caps have been removed. Concessions have been made. Negotiations have occurred. Yes, ambiguity still exists,” Corr said. “We have a choice to trust, empower and hold accountable the department, or we can go to our worst fears and believe that cannot be done, and it will be discriminatory or not effective. I’m going to choose the former.” 

The 2025-2026 ESA Handbook will take effect on July 1. 

This story was updated on June 27, 2025. 

New law curbs how marijuana businesses can promote their product

Key Points: 
  • Approved law restricts marijuana advertising in public spaces
  • Any symbols or characters that might entice people under 21 years old will be banned
  • Law does not go into effect until June 2026

First, they came for Joe Camel.

Now, Arizona lawmakers are targeting Santa Claus.

No, they’re not trying to erase him. But they don’t want his image being used to pitch the sale of marijuana any more than the R.J. Reynolds mascot was used to promote smoking.

A new law approved by a wide margin and signed by Gov. Katie Hobbs will curb how those state-regulated marijuana establishments can promote their products. The key, according to Rep. Selina Bliss, is to stop promoting the drug, which is legal for adults, to anyone younger than 21.

That, said the Prescott Republican, means ensuring none of the advertising is targeted at those in that age group.

That means no images or likenesses of toys, cartoons, “or animated or fictional characters, including Santa Claus,” in marijuana advertising. 

Also off limits are names on products that resemble or imitate food or drink brands marketed to children. It also bans any sort of advertising in any medium that targets young viewers.

However, even when the advertiser claims to target adults, there are additional restrictions.

Advertising will also be banned at public airports, public buses and trains, including the shelters set up at stops.

Even general advertising on websites will have special restrictions: It can exist — but only if 73.6% of the audience is expected to be at least 21 years old.

That figure is not random.

Bliss said it is based on census population data of the U.S. population that is at least 21 years old. More to the point, Bliss said that’s the standard set by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States for determining whether advertising is targeted at adults or children.

That same figure also appears elsewhere in the new law: It bars marijuana retailers from sponsoring any sporting event unless at least 73.6% of the audience is expected to be at least 21 years old.

Also outlawed will be billboards within 1,000 feet of any child care center, church, substance abuse recovery facility, public park or playground, or any public or private school that teaches children through the 12th grade.

“At the end of the day, this is about protecting our children,” Bliss told colleagues. And she said this isn’t just an academic issue to her.

“I, myself, as a nurse in the ER and the ICU, have seen accidental poisonings by these agents causing a child to have to go on a ventilator,” she said. “And for some, they lose vital organ function forever, if not death.”

During House testimony on the bill, Gary Kirkilas, a Phoenix pediatrician, said the proposal is not any different than when the Federal Trade Commission cracked down on tobacco advertising meant to entice children to smoke. Perhaps the most famous of these was the ruling ordering R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. to stop using the Joe Camel character.

Now, he told lawmakers, they need to set the same restrictions on the sale of marijuana.

The drug first became legal in Arizona after voters approved a medical marijuana program in 2010, allowing people with certain conditions and a doctor’s recommendation to possess the drug. A decade later, recreational use for those 21 and older became the law.

And with legalization came advertising.

Kirkilas came armed with pictures he had taken himself.

This is the photo that Gary Kirkilas showed to state lawmakers as he asked them to ban the use of cartoon and fictional characters — including Santa — on billboards advertising marijuana.

One was a photo from a billboard from a Phoenix area freeway “with a Santa Claus smoking a blunt,” he said.

“This happens every December,” Kirkilas said — and not just by shops selling marijuana. He showed another picture of Santa holding a bong, captioned, “Santa knows where to get the dopest gifts.”

“Adults can do what they want to do,” Kirkilas said. “But I have absolutely no patience for somebody targeting youth in their advertising.”

It actually took four tries to get lawmakers to approve the restrictions. Prior measures, going back to 2018, all faltered amid varying objections.

That almost happened this time too — with concerns about whether Bliss’ proposal would extend beyond marijuana dealers to those that sell hemp-infused items that have so little of the psychoactive drug as to not qualify as marijuana. Lawmakers agreed to exempt those products from the terms of the legislation.

Still, don’t be surprised if Santa shows up on a billboard this Christmas touting his favorite THC gummies.

Lawmakers did agree to give businesses some time to come into compliance. So, while the measure was approved and signed by the governor, it does not take effect until June 30, 2026.

Authorities praise new strict penalties on child sex predators

Key Points:
  • Republican lawmakers and law enforcement officials celebrated the signing of Senate Bill 1585
  • The new law allows predators who are caught soliciting undercover officers to be charged with sex crimes
  • Those convicted could face an average prison sentence of 10 years

Sen. Janae Shamp joined Republican lawmakers and law enforcement leaders from Pinal County to announce the signing of a bill that will impose stricter penalties on child sex predators.

The new law amends the definition of dangerous crimes against children to include offenses committed against adults who pose as minors. The law is intended to close what officials say is a loophole that allows some people convicted of child sex crimes to avoid prison.

Gov. Katie Hobbs signed the law on April 18. The legislation, introduced as Senate Bill 1585, passed through the House and Senate chambers with unanimous approval.

Under the previous law, someone arrested for a child sex crime would likely only face a Class 3 felony and probation if they were caught during a sting operation talking to a law enforcement officer.

The new law would close the loophole and impose stricter penalties with an average prison sentence of 10 years, said Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller.

Miller and Shamp spoke at a press conference on May 13 along with Pinal County Sheriff Ross Teeple, and Apache Junction Police Chief Michael Pooley. Several other legislators from both chambers attended in support of the law.

Shamp didn’t celebrate the bill’s passage as a legislative victory or a political win, but as an opportunity to support “the children and the innocent voices that have been silenced by fear,” she said.

“It’s about the lives shattered by rape, sexual abuse, manipulation and trauma, all caused by disgusting predators who saw them as objects and not the innocent human beings that they are,” she said.

Shamp introduced the bill after the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office conducted two undercover sting operations earlier this year that resulted in the arrest of 20 adults who were suspected of luring children for sex acts.

However, a handful of those arrested only received probation because no actual children were involved. Miller said that a number of the other cases were still being processed.

“A lot of times, you have to prove intent. Did the person have premeditated intent to commit murder? Did the person knowingly or recklessly do something?” Teeple said. “We know what these perverts’ intent was. It was to do irreparable harm against children.”

The Apache Junction Police Department also took part in the multi-agency sting. Pooley said some of the suspects who were arrested traveled up to 60 miles from other parts of the Valley to meet up with children.

“We do operations like this, we end up arresting the same individual,” Pooley said. “The same individuals come into the same type of crime, and there’s only a certain amount of things we can do.”

With the passage of the new law, legislators and officials expressed confidence that those who target children for sex crimes will face harsher punishment and won’t take advantage of any more loopholes. 

“If an adult tries to lure a child for sex, even if that child is an undercover officer, they will face real consequences,” Shamp said. “No more hiding behind excuses, no more slipping through legal cracks.”

ESA handbook proposes limits on certain purchases, drawing opposition

Key Points:
  • Vote delayed on handbook to allow additional input from lawmakers, account holders.
  • Concerns over price caps and impact on families of students with disabilities remain.
  • State board wants at least one “town hall”-style forum with ESA parents.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne and the State Board of Education delayed a vote on the Empowerment Scholarship Account handbook to allow additional input from lawmakers and ESA account holders. 

The process of adopting year-to-year guidance for ESA users has again proven contentious, as home educating families and lawmakers continue to oppose a proposal to cap prices on certain purchases. 

State board members were slated to vote on the latest draft manual promulgated by the Arizona Department of Education and its ESA Parent Handbook Committee on April 28, but Horne requested a postponement due to concerns from lawmakers. The state board agreed, given a lack of direct dialogue between the department and ESA users. 

The state board plans to consider adopting a handbook again in June. It requests that the department hold at least one “town hall”-style forum with ESA parents. 

Meanwhile, Horne is meeting with lawmakers. 

“They wanted discussions and possibly negotiations,” Horne said in his superintendent’s report. “The Legislature makes our laws. They are the supreme authority. And I, of course, do whatever they ask me to do.”  

The department released the first draft of this year’s handbook in early March — a byproduct of a draft from the parent committee and later edits by the department. 

The 2025-26 ESA Handbook draft included price limits on certain purchases – a proposal first presented by the parent committee and kept, but altered, by the department. 

If adopted, ESA account holders would be prohibited from spending more than $2,000 on personal laptops and computers, $4,000 on instruments, $2,500 on physical education equipment, $2,500 on a playground, $3,000 on a SmartBoard, $1,500 on vocational education, and $500 annually on home economic equipment. 

The draft included an exemption for students with disabilities as long as they could provide a letter from a medical provider or specialist showing the necessity to exceed the price caps. 

On first consideration during a State Board of Education meeting on March 24, opposition focused on how price caps could negatively impact students with disabilities and home-educated students taking on higher-ticket vocational studies. 

The state board declined to vote on the first draft, requesting that the department clarify and better specify the exemption for students with disabilities. 

The second draft made the exemption clearer and changed the “limit” for “coverage amounts” in describing price caps, though it kept the same figures, prompting some ESA users to reach out to their representatives.

Stacey Brown, an ESA parent and former member of the ESA Parent Handbook committee, has continued to advocate against the current handbook’s passage, and said parents had been in contact with Rep. Michael Carbone, Rep. Lisa Fink, Rep. Michael Way and Sen. Jake Hoffman. 

Fink said the two problems at this point are the price caps and the potential impact on families of students with disabilities if the department requires a letter from a specialist in order to exceed purchase limits. 

“What’s happening is moving the goal posts on the parents,” Fink said. 

Horne met with lawmakers on May 1.

Horne said they hadn’t gotten “down to brass tacks” just yet, but continued the conversation. He said he planned to meet with legislators again, with the potential to involve ESA Parent Handbook committee members down the line.

Horne noted that the Education Department’s position continues to be that all educational expenditures serve a legitimate educational purpose and are bought at market price. 

“There may be some negotiations,” Horne said. “I can be flexible on specifics, so long as they’re reasonable.” 

Beyond legislative input, Board President Katherine Haley said that members agreed to postpone the vote, given the need for more direct discussions with ESA account holders. 

Haley drew attention to the fact that board members had previously requested the Arizona Department of Education hold at least two town hall meetings to get direct parent feedback. She said the board was “disappointed” the request was not honored. 

However, looking ahead to the June meeting, Haley noted that the department had agreed to hold a forum with parents. 

“Direct dialogue with families is essential to building a better program, and we remain committed to ensuring their voices are heard,” Haley said. 

State law requires the Arizona Department of Education to develop an ESA applicant and participant handbook, with up-to-date information on the policies and processes of the program. 

State Board of Education rules set a March 1 deadline for a draft and a May 1 deadline for handbook adoption, though with an effective date of July 1 in line with the statute. The board plans to take up the handbook for final consideration in June.

Battle royale over childhood disabilities programs continues

Gov. Katie Hobbs lashed out Feb. 26 at Republican lawmakers, accusing them of using families with children with developmental disabilities as “pawns” in the fight over the budget.

“Their negligence is jeopardizing the health, independence and lives of more than 50,000 Arizonans with disabilities and autism, intellectual disability and cerebral palsy who depend on DDD for health services and support for independent living,” the governor told members of the Arizona Disability Advocacy Council who were meeting at the Capitol. She said the program immediately needs $122 million or it will not be able to pay providers by May.

“Funding for DDD is under threat because the legislative majority has decided that they want to use the people in this room as political pawns rather than serve you and do their job,” she said.

But Rep. David Livingston, who heads the House Appropriations Committee, said there’s a simple reason the program is running out of funds: the governor overspent her authorized budget.

“The Legislature was never consulted before these funds were spent,” he said in an open letter this week to the governor. “Yet now taxpayers are being asked to cover the consequences.”

At the heart of the funding problem is a program that provides funds for parents who serve as caregivers for their own children.

That program did not exist until 2020, when federal officials agreed to finance it entirely with Medicaid dollars. That was designed to help address the difficulty some families faced in finding caregivers during the Covid outbreak.

The problem is that most of those federal dollars are disappearing, but Hobbs has continued the program anyway.

The governor, by contrast, has insisted that everyone — including the Republican-controlled Legislature when it adopted a new budget for the current year — understood that the state would pick up the difference.

Yes, she acknowledged, there is a shortfall. But Hobbs said that’s due entirely to unanticipated growth in the entire developmental disabilities program.

And that has led to the current stalemate — and war of words — with Hobbs hoping to build public support by saying all this is an emergency and speaking publicly, with TV cameras present, to an audience who brought their children with disabilities to hear her. 

“It does not matter how many times they try to spin it,” the governor said. “They are trying to put the blame for this on me and it is squarely on them.”

She said the solution is simple: allocate more money right now. In fact, Hobbs said she sent them a budget in January not just for the new fiscal year that begins July 1, but also to provide the needed funds for the balance of this budget year.

“If they have other ideas, they should give me a budget instead,” Hobbs said. “If you don’t like the budget I presented, then send me your budget.”

Livingston said that simply providing more dollars because, as he puts it, the governor overspent, is not an option. What is needed, he said, is “serious, responsible discussions.”

“Rather than engaging with the Legislature in good faith, you and your staff have chosen to issue public statements, assign blame, and demand more taxpayer dollars — without addressing the broken system that led us here,” he wrote to the governor.

Hobbs, for her part, said that she had sent them her proposal and that the next move was up to the Legislature.

“I haven’t seen one plan from them,” she said. “Why would I negotiate with them if I don’t even know what they want?”

And Hobbs sniffed at the idea that there’s something unusual in a governor asking for supplemental funding in the middle of a budget year. She pointed out that such requests are not only routine but also granted, as happened two years ago when funding fell short for the universal voucher program that provides tax dollars for parents to send their children to private and parochial schools as well as have their own home schools.

“The same legislators who rubber stamped supplemental funding year after year, who haven’t batted an eye at the blank checks being written for pet projects, today are refusing to fund critical services for Arizona’s most vulnerable population,” Hobbs said.

This fight over funding disability programs is likely just the start of a larger battle over what happens in Arizona if and when Medicaid funds dry up.

The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state’s Medicaid program, provides care for those up to 138% of the federal poverty level, about $35,100 for a family of three. The feds pick up about three-fourths of the cost.

More than 2 million Arizonans currently receive care from one or more of the AHCCCS programs.

But the Republican-controlled Congress is moving to make cuts in Medicaid funding, leaving Arizona holding the financial bag in what, even with federal funding, is among the largest single item expenses at $2.6 billion of the $17 billion state budget.

“It is something that is looming,” Hobbs said Feb. 26.

“The hospitals and everyone are sounding the alarm,” she said, particularly rural hospitals, which might have to close because they could not bear the cost of uncompensated health care.

10,000 more kids to qualify for health care insurance

Nearly 10,000 Arizona children of the working poor will soon be eligible for subsidized health care. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has approved a bid by the...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Legislation seeks permanency for foster children

For the average American kid, turning 18 is a highly celebrated milestone. On the cusp of adulthood, teens anticipate voting and leaving home for the military, college, work, and adventure....

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.