funding | Arizona Capitol Times

ESA program reaches 100,000 students, costs soar past $1B

Key Points:

ESA enrollment tops 100,000, leaving gross cost to state over $1 billion
Growth fuels debate over public schools’ funding, enrollment levels
Analysts dispute oversight, future growth, budget impacts

Enrollment in the Empowerment Scholarship Account program has officially surpassed 100,000 students, with the milestone reigniting conversations about program costs and oversight.

Since allowing any student to enroll at the end of 2022, the program has grown from around 12,000 students to 100,474 as of Jan. 26, and has increased gross costs from $189 million to around $1 billion.

Proponents of school choice herald continued growth as a signal of the program’s success.

Matt Beienburg, director of education policy at the Goldwater Institute, said, “That’s a milestone, that’s a testament to the demand and demand for the program, the value of the program, I think that’s something that reflects the interest amongst parents and students for the opportunities the program provides.”

Meanwhile, those opposed claim a greater student count means continued funding and enrollment trouble in district and charter schools, while public school advocates cite increased school closures and inadequate funding for public education.

“This isn’t the only factor, but it’s the straw that broke the camel’s back,” Tyler Kowch, communications director for Save Our Schools Arizona, said.

In a departure from past years, program growth has now come in closer alignment with projections from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

JLBC estimated the program would reach 101,602 in FY2026 and 113,602 in FY2027.

Yet with more students comes rising costs, with the Department of Education needing $59.8 million above its original appropriation in FY2026 to cover an increase in ESA awards and an estimated $154.2 million more needed to cover growth in FY2027.

Dave Wells, research director of the Grand Canyon Institute, a nonpartisan public policy research center, said ESA enrollment had grown faster than he and others had initially expected, but he still expected it to taper off.

He noted, too, that enrollment increases are not exclusive to universal eligibility, pointing out that the program’s disability population continues to grow.

According to the latest quarterly report, students with disabilities accounted for about 19% of the program, up from 15% at the start of 2024. Growth across the board in the ESA program naturally prompts a discussion of enrollment flux in public schools.

As for migration between the school systems in the state, JLBC found ESA recipients increased by 16,000 in the past year while public school enrollment has declined by 25,000, with the average cost per child increasing by about 3%.

About two dozen schools have closed in the last year, raising questions about the ESA program’s role in declining enrollment.

Kowch claims the increased enrollment in the ESA program correlates with an uptick in school closures. And though he acknowledges it’s not the sole reason, he notes that it worsens an already financially strapped school system.

“Arizona public schools were defunded to the bone following the 2008 financial crisis, and they have been struggling for years. And the combination of Covid funding going away, continual lack of investment from the Arizona state Legislature. And then, this,” Kowch said. “Tiny changes in enrollment have massive impacts.”

Beidenburg claims enrollment drops are primarily driven by factors outside the ESA program, pointing to declines in birth rates, building space outpacing enrollment and competition among public schools, as students either enroll in another district or opt for a charter school.

“All of those are vastly larger impacts than the number of kids who’ve left the district for an ESA,” Beienburg said.

But, Beienburg said it was hard to say exactly where enrollment trends will go from here.

“I think you will continue to see more students switching from public schools to ESA,” Beienburg said. “You’ll continue to see as families are having kids just entering the system, or perhaps even moving to Arizona from out of state, I think you are going to still see growth. Where that lands exactly is yet to be seen.”

On the financial side, annual ESA awards range from around $4,700 to around $47,500. The vast majority of students, about 61,918, receive $7,000 to $7,999. About 9,768 students receive more than $30,000.

As far as cost to the state, Wells urged a focus on the net cost rather than the gross cost, which he estimates at about $350 million to $400 million.

When a student previously enrolled in a public or charter school takes an ESA, they are funded at about 90% of the charter total, meaning a student switching from a public or charter does not levy a totally new cost on the state, while those coming directly from a private school or enrolling as a homeschooling student represents a new cost to the state.

A report from the RAND Corporation estimated that about 71% of the students in the program came directly from private schools or homeschool settings, though the number had decreased from 79%.

The Department of Education reported that about 56.5% of the universally eligible students who enrolled in grades 1-12 since the prior fiscal year came directly from a public school.

Beienburg acknowledged each student from a private or homeschool setting previously unfunded by public dollars ratchets the cost up, but he noted students switching from public or charter schools do not create a substantive change in education funding, given the 90% formula.

“With awards, and hundreds of millions of dollars, it sounds scary,” Beienburg said. “But in terms of budgetary impact, it ends up essentially being a wash.”

Still, the program remains in the crosshairs amid a tight budget year. Gov. Katie Hobbs, with support from Democrats, again called for limiting the program to families earning less than $250,000 and continued to push for additional guardrails to prevent misspending of taxpayer dollars.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne and ESA Director John Ward, joined by Republican lawmakers, continue to push for additional staffing to administer the program.

Ward said the department has enough funding to cover 42 staff members, but it currently has only 35 employees. To truly run an efficient program, Ward estimated a need for three times more employees.

“We operate on about four-tenths of 1% of the dollars that we distribute in this program. I don’t believe there’s likely any other public program in this state that operates on that slim of a margin,” Ward said.

Federal cutbacks shift education-related civil rights issues to state

Key Points:

Federal disability complaint system slowed by staffing cuts
Handoff to states puts more focus on state-level complaint system
Advocates plan to revamp conversation around complaint coverage

With empty desks and a heavy caseload at the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, advocates for families with disabilities anticipate a pivot away from the federal route for discrimination complaint resolution.

Instead, attorneys and a policy expert expect new attention to the state level complaint system and the statutory plan constructed to protect students with disabilities in the next legislative session.

“It is a very tough time to be a student with a disability in general,” Amanda Glass, education team managing attorney at Disability Rights Arizona, said. “Technically, you do still have protections. The laws still exist. But as we’ve discussed, your enforcement options are becoming more and more limited.”

The Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education is tasked with enforcing discrimination complaints dealing with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 at any K-12 or higher education institution in receipt of federal funding.

In the past, Glass said, her office would recommend the Office of Civil Rights as a strong starting point for resolving disability discrimination complaints.

The complaint process starts with a summary of the alleged events. From there, investigators with OCR would frame the set of facts within the law and pursue public records, subpoenas, interviews and return with a finding and eventual settlement or corrective action.

“The beauty of all that was that a parent could file. You didn’t need a lawyer. It was free of charge. The enforcement agency did all the work of investigating, and then you could get a remedy that is potentially comparable to what you would get if you filed a lawsuit,” Glass said.

Since the change in administration, the U.S. Department of Education has cut its employee count in half and closed seven of the 12 OCR offices across the country.

A database of pending cases has not been updated since January. At the time of the last update, more than 12,000 cases were pending nationally and 269 were open in Arizona.

Publicly, OCR has more prominently taken up and kept an eye on Title VI, in the realm of diversity, equity and inclusion and consideration of race in admissions, financial aid, hiring and training, as well as Title IX, specifically as it pertains to transgender girls’ ability to access gender-aligned restrooms, locker rooms and sports teams.

According to the department, from January to July, about 89% of the cases OCR closed with resolution agreements and negotiated settlement agreements are disability-related and plans to increasingly use mediation and expedited case processing to address disability-related complaints.

“To better serve American students and families, changes are being made as to how OCR will conduct its operations. OCR’s staff is composed of top-performing personnel with years of experience enforcing federal civil rights laws,” Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the U.S. Department of Education, said in a statement. “We are confident that the dedicated staff of OCR will deliver on its statutory responsibilities while working to resolve the longstanding backlog left by the previous administration.”

Glass noted that this year she had seen some pending cases resolved but has not filed any new complaints because of rationed staff and a shift in priority areas of the current administration.

“It’s really no longer a viable option,” Glass said.

That leaves the state complaint system – the Exceptional Student Services Dispute Resolution Unit – reserved for students with an individualized education plan (IEP) with protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to ensure a free, appropriate public education.

The state level complaint system functions similarly to OCR in taking a complaint, performing an administrative inquiry into whether a violation occurred and ultimately issuing an official report with corrective action if necessary.

At the Arizona Department of Education, there has been a slight uptick in complaints submitted in 2025, as compared to the same period in 2024.

From January to August 12, 2024, the department received a total of 77 complaints meeting investigative standards. In the same period this year, the department received 90, with 14 active pending complaints.

Glass said in the past she would typically opt for the federal route, but did not count out the state complaint system entirely.

Disability Rights Arizona saw through a complaint on behalf of a student at the Arizona State Schools for the Deaf and Blind after the student was removed from the school due to an autism diagnosis, incorrectly placed outside of his home district and left without the speech and occupational therapy and counseling services required in his IEP.

The report, issued in January of this year, requires ASDB to work with a special monitor to ensure the student receives the education and support he was initially entitled to, perform an audit of records of all students who did not receive services required by their IEPs, develop a plan to avoid the same issue in the future and train staff on IDEA requirements.

Though Glass lauded the success, she noted the state complaint still leaves out complainants with claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504, which could be an opening for the Legislature to create a more robust state level enforcement mechanism.

Karla Phillips-Krivickas, longtime policy advocate for students with disabilities and co-founder and director of strategic partnerships and policy for Champions for Kids, said the state complaint system sits at the top of the priority list for the next legislative session.

“Federal law is always the bottom, it’s the floor, it’s not the ceiling,” Phillips-Krivickas said. “The intent of IDEA is to create a complaint system that the state would run, but they were given maximum leeway to do it. Most states are doing the bare minimum.”

Phillips-Krivickas said the challenge going forward is mapping out the gaps, which proves difficult with the narrow reach of the current complaint system.

And Phillips-Krivickas emphasized the importance of getting a more systematic view, likening the current complaint process to a game of “whack-a-mole.”

“Even if the system works – we help this family, another pops up, we help this family, another pops up – we’re not addressing systemic issues,” Phillips-Krivickas said.

As for the next legislative session, Champions for Kids, a new organization headed by Phillips-Krivickas, hopes to start a dialogue on state complaints, though sooner than anticipated given the gradual hand-off of more education duties to the states.

“My short term has changed, honestly, because of what’s happening at the federal level,” Phillips-Krivickas said. “When I started this work a year ago, I would not have put state complaint so high. But now it’s very much at the top of our list of things we need to address.”

Arizona leaders need to defend growing bioscience industry

More than 3,000 companies in Arizona have created over 40,000 jobs in the bioscience fields, which has led to a positive economic impact of nearly $44 billion. These are the types of good-paying jobs — many paying $20,000 higher than the private sector average — that attract the highly educated, productive workers that states clamor for. Arizona’s contribution to the bioscience sector has changed patients’ lives for the better and made our economy stronger.

A new proposal from Washington, though, takes a page from Europe and could reverse the progress scientists and researchers here have achieved, leaving our medical treatments, therapies and the economy worse off.

Consider the example of one of Arizona’s shining stars, TGen, the Translational Genomics Research Institute. Created in 2002, TGen’s work in identifying rare diseases and advancing technologies for early cancer detection has laid the foundation for scientific discoveries that are directly affecting patients and creating positive health outcomes for all Americans.

It’s an Arizona success story, made possible by heavy recruitment by state and federal government leaders, funding by the state, nonprofits, and private industry, and a pro-business, pro-innovation environment that fosters and encourages life-changing research. Over the past decade, dozens of smaller biotech startups in the state have made groundbreaking discoveries in oncology, diagnostics, respiratory health and regenerative medicines.

All that success is at risk, though, because of a policy proposal called “Most Favored Nation (MFN),” which would introduce foreign price controls for prescription drugs.

It’s true that many medicines in foreign countries cost less than they do here in the United States. But that’s because foreign governments impose strict price controls — think 1970s gasoline markets for pharmaceuticals, complete with shortages and reduced access.

Because of price controls, European countries and Canada typically do not have access to many of the specialty drugs that treat diseases like cancer or arthritis until many years after they are introduced in the U.S. In fact, Canadians have access only to roughly 11% of cancer medications while the U.S. has access to about 90% of those medications.

The prescription drug ecosystem is a complicated one, to be sure, but imposing a policy like MFN would ultimately lead to less innovation, shortages in prescription medication supply, and much less investment in the science to create new cures and treatment options for patients. It’s a bad tradeoff.

Instead of imposing European-style policies like MFN here in the U.S., we should strongly encourage European countries to liberalize their markets so that the full spectrum of innovative medicines can be made more widely available and so that the research and development that is needed to bring groundbreaking medicines to the public does not fall squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. Through trade agreements, we can do for prescription drugs what we’ve done for the defense sector.

The Arizona congressional delegation — House and Senate — should stand up for our bioscience sector and oppose any policy like MFN and instead support efforts that aim to address costs while preserving investment in the biotech industry.

Arizona has come so far this century and seen advancements that were once unthinkable. For our biotech industry to continue to grow in the future, we need our representatives in Washington to fight for it.

Danny Seiden is president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry.

Arizona’s law enforcement is in dire need of a tech update

Arizona often hosts all types of nationally and even internationally renowned events, like the Super Bowl and the Waste Management Open. In addition to great exposure for the state, these high-profile, crowded-filled gatherings bring security risks that the public never fully grasps.

At the center of any significant event is the ability for a variety of local, county, state and federal law enforcement to communicate and coordinate responses. And in this arena, Arizona faces potential disaster.

Many public safety agencies use the Department of Public Safety towers to communicate and the state agency takes the lead on all those major events. The problem is, the technology that DPS uses to communicate comes straight from the 1980s. DPS is living an analog life in a digital world.

The cost to bring the state up-to-date is, sadly, hefty. Years of neglect for our communications infrastructure has caught up to us. The agency estimates a cost of $320 million and an eight-year build time. But every year of delay only further drives the cost up — and endangers residents, motorists, law enforcement and those major entertainment and sports targets.

This need for a 21st century radio system isn’t just for those major events. Daily, our local law enforcement agencies around the state use the DPS towers to communicate.

The real-world consequences are evident every day. Troopers lose communication with dispatch often. Rural public safety law enforcement agencies find it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to communicate with each other. In times of emergencies like car crashes or officer-involved incidents, these delays can be tragic. Our troopers have lost contact with dispatch during emergencies. Those are scary times for the public and our troopers.

Dead zones exist throughout the state, especially on our hilly, vast border regions. Our federal law enforcement partners and county sheriffs use our towers to communicate in high-stress situations like chases involving human and drug smugglers.

With that in mind, we have talked to federal legislators like U.S. Rep. Juan Ciscomani and U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly. This isn’t a partisan or political issue. Instead, it’s about safety. This new system would provide coverage for 97% of the state, far greater than what exists today with the analog system. We are making progress but still waiting for the federal government to step up and provide help to cover part of this important infrastructure.

Budgets are tight at the state and national level. They always have been and always will be. Individual spending priorities, along with tax cuts, always create competition for finite dollars. But public safety is a core governmental duty — one that can’t be dismissed by our leaders. The key to all of the law enforcement agencies in Arizona is being able to communicate with each other in times of stress and danger. Arizona, and the federal government, cannot afford to overlook this urgent need any longer. The troopers hope our federal delegation members and state lawmakers begin to prioritize a new communications system for the safety of all residents, visitors and law enforcement.

Jeff Hawkins is president of the DPS troopers’ union.

Revived bill aims to restrict public funding for abortion services in Arizona

Key Points:

Rep. Lupe Diaz plans to reintroduce a bill that would prevent the state from providing public funding to clinics that promote or perform abortions
Opponents of the proposed bill say it would restrict health care access for low income patients
Republican lawmaker plans to revive bill to ban public funding for abortions

A Republican lawmaker wants to revive a bill that would prohibit the state from providing public funding to facilities and clinics that perform or promote abortions.

Rep. Lupe Diaz, R-Benson, said he plans to reintroduce his measure to prevent the state from entering into a contract or providing grants to any person or facility that provides or advises clients to seek an abortion.

Under current law, Arizona doesn’t allow public funding for most abortions except for emergencies, but Diaz’s proposal would expand upon that provision.

“For me and … all of the Republican Caucus, is that it is an individual and that individual deserves the same rights as any citizen under the constitution, which means protection of life,” said Diaz, who serves as the pastor of a nondenominational church in Benson. “Once you begin to violate … to cross that line, then, yeah, I’m going to restrict every dollar that I can from going to promote, perform and provide an abortion.”

Diaz’s original bill, House Bill 2547, passed the House along party lines before moving to the Senate, where it was approved in the Senate Government Committee. The measure then stalled before being approved by the chamber.

Supporters of the bill acknowledged that voters approved Proposition 139 last fall, which enshrines the right to an abortion in the state Constitution. However, they opposed the idea of taxpayer money funding facilities that advertise the procedure as a viable option for unwanted pregnancies.

“The crux of this whole issue is whether the taxpayer should be paying for that promotion,” said U.S. Rep Andy Biggs, R-Ariz, at the Senate Government Committee hearing on March 19. “So if you’re defining promotion as someone going in and being referred to a specific specialist for medical care, in this instance, there is no rationale that says that the public should have to be paying for that.”

The legislation drew strong opposition from medical professionals and abortion-rights groups that criticized the bill for attempting to circumvent the new constitutional right to abortion.

According to those groups, the bill could limit access to health care options, affect low income people who rely on publicly funded clinics for reproductive health care and lead to the closure of facilities that provide abortions and other health care.

“Arizonans spoke loud and clear last election when they overwhelmingly approved Prop 139. Yet extremists in the state legislature continuously target and stigmatize health care professionals and health centers at the expense of the health and well-being of Arizona’s already-vulnerable communities,” said Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona Interim President and CEO, April Donovan, in a statement. “We made clear this legislative session that HB 2547 is unpopular among voters and completely misleading – the bill was stalled and should not be revived.”

Diaz disagreed with the idea that the legislation would restrict health care services.

“There’s still going to be services provided. And for the low income, there’s going to be plenty of medical availability for them,” he said. “They just can’t perform abortions or promote them.”

Diaz originally said on X on June 26 that he was going to bring back the bill after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic case that a private citizen couldn’t sue South Carolina for excluding Planned Parenthood from receiving state Medicaid funding.

Although the ruling allows South Carolina to move forward with its plans, it still doesn’t address the legality of removing government funding from clinics that perform abortions, said James G. Hodge Jr., the Peter Kiewit Foundation professor of law and director of the Center for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.

“They did not make any statement about whether South Carolina’s maneuver here was actually legally sound,” Hodge said. “We still don’t know exactly whether or not that will fly with the U.S. Supreme Court. They have not clarified that. My best guess is they will probably allow it.”

Arizona is one of 38 states with laws that restrict the use of public resources for abortions to varying degrees, according to data compiled in November 2022 by Temple University’s Center for Public Health Law Research.

Most of the state policies mirror federal law by restricting funding for abortions except for emergencies.

States have intensified efforts to limit abortions since the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade and withdrew the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, Hodge said.

However, Diaz’s bill might face obstacles with Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who has expressed her support for protecting abortion rights and women’s healthcare.

But that still won’t deter Diaz, who referred to Prop. 139 as a “special interest initiative.”

“I believe in good and evil,” he said. “And this was nothing but evil.”

Medicaid and SNAP benefits are a lifeline for many Arizonans

Laura Pacific

Raising my 14-year-old son has been the most rewarding aspect of my life. He is my bright light and a constant source of joy. But providing for the two of us is a daily battle as I struggle to make ends meet.

I’ve worked in several different industries, including dental assistance, food service and data entry. Being in the workforce gave me a sense of pride and purpose. It allowed me to provide for my son the way any parent wants to. Unfortunately, last year, my doctor said I’m medically unable to work. I’m grateful for the financial support I began to receive through Social Security Disability Insurance three months ago, but it’s barely enough to keep myself and my son afloat. We live a simple life in a one bedroom apartment and I’ve cut down our expenses as much as I can, but between rent, phone, electricity, and internet, we are barely getting by. For years, it has been a financial struggle, made even harder when I had to pay hundreds of dollars for child care each month. However, I was always willing to make the sacrifices needed — including selling my car a few years ago because I couldn’t afford it anymore.

Besides SSDI, we also rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Feeding a teenage son is expensive and grocery prices are unforgiving — especially when your son is a growing teenager who’s already sprouted to 6’2”! The $286 a month we receive doesn’t go far, but it helps cover the basics: whole milk, ground beef, beans, rice, and a few apples. No snacks or anything extra. To make up for the groceries we can’t afford, I’ve started going to our local food bank regularly. And even then, it’s not enough. I’ve skipped meals so my son doesn’t have to. Without SNAP, we would be skipping more and wouldn’t be able to survive.

When I was working, I couldn’t afford my family’s health care, just like nearly 13 million other other working women. Since losing my ability to work through no fault of my own, the health care burden remains, and my son and I simply couldn’t make it without our health care from Medicaid.

When our state legislature came together with our Republican governor to pass Medicaid in 2013, Arizona lawmakers said women, children, seniors and all people deserve access to health care in the richest nation on earth. It’s how Medicaid has been there for my son his entire life. When he was born, our benefits helped me cover costs. Since then, he gets regular doctors’ appointments and dental check-ins.

He plays football and without Medicaid, he can’t get physicals and would be cut from his team. I have used Medicaid to pay for important surgeries for myself, including a hernia repair and a laparoscopy. I have issues with my hip that I can only afford to treat because of Medicaid. Medicaid has helped ensure that as a mother, I can raise my son.

When Senators in D.C. vote to cut SNAP and Medicaid, they’re hurting people like me and my son. Two million people across Arizona need Medicaid in order to survive. Fifteen percent of households here — or 900,000 people — rely on SNAP benefits every day. These aren’t handouts, they’re lifelines.

I’m grateful my Senators, Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, understand what Arizona families need to get by and voted against cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. However, when the House of Representatives voted on cuts to SNAP and Medicaid last month, my representative, Rep. David Schweikert, slept through the vote. He couldn’t be bothered to wake up to defend the programs that keep families like mine alive. President Trump, Rep. Schweikert, and others want to take away what little stability we have left to give billionaires tax breaks. They’re not just turning their backs on us; they’re trying to strip away the very programs we, as taxpayers, pay into and depend on to give people who already have immense wealth and power more of both.

They may not see us, but we are not invisible. We see each other and the challenges we all face. We see the kind of state we have been and what we want to be as Arizonans. A great, but caring state, where everyone can see a doctor, grow up playing football, and be there to raise their children.

Every day, I get up and do what I can to provide a good life for my son. I ask for very little, no luxuries, just the necessities and basic dignity — the ability to feed my son, afford the doctor, and live a joyful life.

We are running out of time for our lawmakers to do the right thing and stand up for American families. People like me are fighting to stay alive. The very least our leaders can do is stay awake for the fight.

Laura Pacific is a Phoenix mother.

Only 900 children to benefit from Arizona’s child care subsidy

Key Points:

Arizona parents eligible for subsidized child care can apply again
$125.9 million allocated will only help 900 children in 530 families
Eligibility for assistance based on income, preference for most needy families

Arizona parents who are eligible for subsidized child care can once again get in line. However, be warned — the $125.9 million allocated won’t be nearly enough.

In fact, initial estimates indicate that the recent allocation will assist only 900 children in 530 families. There are currently around 6,100 youngsters from nearly 3,700 families on the list.

And Stacey Reinstein, deputy assistant director of the Department of Economic Security, stated on July 21 that the system is designed so that those at or below the federal poverty level — $26,650 per year for a family of three — will be the first to qualify. She said there are about 2,200 children on the list who fit that category.

Reinstein said, however, that there’s a chance there will be enough money to help even some who are not yet on the list, particularly if they fall into that poverty level category.

They would have to wait their turn, but if they are among the most needy, they still would have a better chance of getting help than those who may have been on the list longer but have higher incomes.

This will be the first major dent in a waiting list that has been in place for years.

Arizona didn’t have a wait list until lawmakers cut state funding under the administration of Gov. Jan Brewer. The list shrank in 2018 when the state got a federal grant.

Then, when COVID-19 hit, Arizona received $1.2 billion in federal COVID-19 funds for child care.

Barbie Prinster, executive director of the Arizona Early Childhood Education Association, said what also happened is the state finally updated its reimbursement rate for child care centers, the first time since 2000. That was no problem with those federal dollars coming in.

But then the federal funds dried up.

Last year, lawmakers provided $12 million in state funds — the first state dollars in a dozen years.

“However, that wasn’t enough money to fund the system,” Prinster said, not only because of the number of applicants, but also because of the higher reimbursement rate. “So that’s why the wait list had to start.”

Eligibility starts with income.

Strictly speaking, the program provides subsidized child care for families making less than 165% of the federal poverty level, about $43,972 for a family of three.

But the chances of anyone above the federal poverty level getting aid depend on how far those dollars stretch.

Reinstein said the system set up by DES will first use the funds to help the neediest of families. Only when — and if — there is money left will DES start funding those at 110% of the federal poverty level.

And, as dollars remain available, those in subsequent higher income categories will get help, up to that 165% limit. She said this “phased release” means that, in the end, there could be more than 900 children who get care from the funds lawmakers have made available.

There is, however, a catch.

Some children get to skip the line entirely.

That includes those who receive cash from DES, such as recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families who are employed, and those in a grant diversion program who are seeking employment. They are considered categorically eligible.

The same applies to children referred from the Department of Child Safety.

But there’s something else.

Except for those who automatically qualify, a parent has to work at least 20 hours a week. What that means, Prinster said, is there’s no help for those who want to go out and search for a job.

“The people that want to go to work are screwed,” she said.

Reinstein acknowledged that gap.

“If they don’t meet the current DES child care eligibility requirements, we are limited with that,” she said. “I think there are multiple ways that people can seek assistance, whether it’s through their child care provider or through their community to help support that.”

None of what DES provides is free of charge.

“The federal government requires families to share in the cost of care through a copayment,” Reinstein said, with that linked to family income. But even those at or below the federal poverty line are supposed to pay $1 per day for each child.

Prinster, whose organization represents private licensed child care centers, said that kind of copay is important for parents “having some skin in the game and having a little bit of responsibility.”

She said, though, that there’s another factor, based on the rates providers charge, which can vary depending on the child’s age.

“So let’s say DES is reimbursing me $300 a week for an infant, but I charge $350,” Prinster said.

“The business can choose whether or not they want to charge that difference,” she said. “Nine times out of 10 they’re not going to be able to afford it,” what with many parents possibly making only the minimum wage of $14.70 an hour.

The state is currently sending letters and text messages to those on the wait list who are the most in need. That provides a way to connect them with DES caseworkers.

However, not everyone who received the messages may be in line for care, as a family’s situation may have changed since they first went on the wait list a year ago, whether due to a higher income or a child now being older and no longer needing daycare.

And that, in turn, raises the question of whether additional slots will be available.

How to apply:

Anyone already on the waitlist need not submit a new application, although they must respond to any letter or message they receive from DES to ensure they remain eligible and still require care.

Anyone else can apply online at “atozarizona.gov,” which provides links for child care assistance and other state services, including food stamps, unemployment benefits, and help with utility bills.

Paper applications also can be submitted at any DES office. There is a link at “des.az.gov/find-your-local-office” to search.

DES says eligibility determination is not based on the method of application.

Gov. Hobbs seeks federal reimbursement for Arizona’s border costs

Key Points:

Arizona spent $100 million building and $70 million removing a border wall
Gov. Hobbs is now seeking federal reimbursement for those costs
Big Beautiful Bill has $10 billion in available grants for border wall funding

As secretary of state, Katie Hobbs blasted then-Gov. Doug Ducey in 2022 when he spent about $100 million erecting a “wall” of storage containers along the border, calling it a “publicity stunt.”

And her assessment continued after the state was forced to remove them — at a cost of $70 million more — following the Biden administration’s filing of a lawsuit, which charged that the barriers were illegal.

But Hobbs, who replaced Ducey in January 2023, said she now wants the federal government to reimburse Arizona for all the money spent by her predecessor.

The governor noted that the recently approved federal legislation — originally dubbed the Big Beautiful Bill — has $10 billion available for grants to states that have paid for border barriers or other security measures since January 20, 2021. That date is not random; it is the day President Joe Biden was inaugurated.

The provision came largely at the behest of senators from Texas, which claims it spent more than $11 billion for border security. However, Hobbs said on July 10 that, while she’s still studying the federal legislation, she believes Arizona is entitled to a share.

“I can’t imagine us not asking,” the governor said.

“Arizonans paid nearly $200 million for putting up that container wall and taking it down and storing,” she said. “I think we deserve some of those funds back.”

Hobbs did not address the fact that the “wall” of containers was removed to settle the lawsuit with the Biden administration which had declared the construction illegal. But she did point out that all this happened under the prior Ducey administration — and over her objections.

“I believe I’ve said many times that my predecessor misspent that money,” the governor said. But that, she said, is irrelevant.

“Hopefully the feds will reimburse us,” Hobbs said.

And what does the former governor think of the bid for reimbursement of his would-be border barrier?

“Let’s hope she uses the funds for border security and public safety, as it was intended,” said Daniel Scarpinato, the former chief of staff for Ducey, responding on his behalf. “But given her track record, we won’t be holding our breath.”

At the heart of the issue was the Republican-controlled Legislature’s decision to approve a $335 million Arizona Border Security Fund in 2022. Those dollars came with strings, including requirements that they be spent on erecting a barrier.

Ducey used $95 million of that to pay AshBritt Management & Logistics to obtain and use old storage containers to erect a border barrier with a double-high wall.

The Biden administration responded by citing a 1907 proclamation by then President Theodore Roosevelt declaring a 60-foot wide strip just inside the border belongs to the federal government rather than the state. And that was precisely where Ducey had started to put up the containers in Cochise and Yuma counties.

In the end, Ducey agreed to remove the containers at additional cost to the state. Plus, the state paid another $2.1 million to the Forest Service to remediate the damage done by the containers in the first place.

This resulted in the dismissal of all pending litigation.

Hobbs said that the money she will seek may extend beyond the costs of erecting and dismantling the border barrier.

In late 2023, she billed the Biden administration for $512.5 million to cover what she believed the state had spent on border security “including migrant transportation, drug interdiction, and law enforcement.”

“I look forward to your prompt response,” she wrote to the president.

The state has yet to get that cash. In fact, Hobbs said that the total is “a lot more now” than her original request, although she had no specific figures.

That leaves the question of whether the money in the newly enacted federal legislation covers those costs, too, and not just the border barrier.

“We’re still sorting through all of the implications of the bill,” she said, including not just reimbursement for border expenses but also “the things that are going to harm Arizonans, the things that are going to help Arizonans.”

“I don’t know the answer to that yet,” Hobbs said.

Ciscomani voted to defund Planned Parenthood and gut Medicaid, let’s hold him accountable

Last week, Rep. Juan Ciscomani voted to defund Planned Parenthood and gut AHCCCS, Arizona’s Medicaid program — all so that billionaires can enjoy bigger tax breaks.

The GOP bill, which was signed into law by President Trump on July 4, will force 13.7 million people nationwide off their health care coverage. Here in Arizona, 2 million people stand to lose their health care coverage — including 186,000 people in Ciscomani’s district.

That’s 186,000 of Ciscomani’s own constituents that he happily sent to the wolves.

If that’s not bad enough, this law will also close 200 Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide. Planned Parenthood is Arizona’s largest nonprofit reproductive health care provider. Without it, many Arizonans would have nowhere to go for health care like birth control, cancer screenings, and STI treatment and testing.

The truth is Ciscomani has betrayed hundreds of thousands of Arizonans by voting for this budget. And he knows it, too.

That’s why he’s been refusing to meet with his outraged constituents. He knows that this wildly unpopular budget will devastate our families and communities. And it’s especially bad for pregnant women and their families.

About 50% of births in Arizona are covered by Arizona’s Medicaid program called AHCCCS. Put bluntly, Ciscomani’s plan to cut Medicaid would result in more Arizona mothers dying preventable deaths.

We can’t afford that in a state where maternal mortality rates quadrupled in the past two decades.

To make matters worse, this budget will close hospitals in parts of the state where health care is already limited. Small hospitals that serve rural Arizonans — known as Critical Access Hospitals — are often the only health care provider within miles.

In an emergency, every minute matters. With this budget now being law, these hospitals will close, and the lives of rural Arizonans will hang in the balance.

The reality is we need Medicaid to keep our families and communities healthy and thriving. And Planned Parenthood is just as important —1 in 3 women have been to a Planned Parenthood in their lifetime. The majority of Americans see Planned Parenthood as a trusted provider.

These programs need to be protected — not put on the chopping block. But that’s exactly what Republicans are doing. And instead of facing voters, they’ve resorted to hiding and lying.

Rep. Ciscomani doesn’t have the nerve to meet with his constituents, but he had the nerve to post on social media that the budget he voted for will “strengthen” Medicaid. He is also trying to pretend that he is a champion for protecting Medicaid — these are bold-faced lies.

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis found that Republicans’ budget would cut Americans’ health benefits, kick them off of their health insurance, and slash payments to providers that are already struggling to stay open.

And it’s not just Ciscomani who knows the truth. Months ago, Rep. David Schweikert, another Arizona Republican, knew that this bill was so bad for Arizonans, he called it “immoral.” But when push came to shove, neither he nor Ciscomani did anything to stop this wicked bill from becoming law.

Ciscomani needs to be reminded that he answers to us, the people who elected him — not billionaires who only care about deepening their pockets.

Ciscomani had the chance to protect our health care, but he ignored us in order to prioritize billionaires.

He will face us in November 2026 when we vote him out of office.

Athena Salman is Reproductive Freedom for All director of Arizona campaigns.

Civil legal aid funded, but still under threat of federal cuts

Key Points:

Civil legal aid funded by the state for the first time
Federal funding cuts could still impact service
Attorneys, lawmakers plan still focused on funding

Facing sweeping federal cuts, Arizona has allocated state funding to civil legal aid for the first time in its fiscal history.

Currently, three organizations provide civil legal assistance to those who cannot afford an attorney – Community Legal Services, Southern Arizona Legal Aid and DNA People’s Legal Services.

Federal funding from the Legal Services Corporation, or LSC, accounts for around 53% to 80% of the three organizations’ budgets. But with a White House budget seeking to dismantle LSC entirely and no state budget ever accounting for legal need, Arizona’s three aid organizations were left in limbo.

The final state budget for Fiscal Year 2026 allocates $3 million for civil legal aid organizations, an appropriation advocates hope will soften the blow to the state’s pro-bono and low-cost legal services in the event of a full-blown $16 million federal budget cut.

“Certainly $3 million into the process provides some cushion. It certainly doesn’t replace $16 million if, heaven forbid, the worst case scenario takes place, but it’s an additional support,” Sharon Sergent, executive director of Community Legal Services, said. “Hopefully we never get to that worst case scenario, but we are definitely thankful that state funding has been appropriated.”

The threat of a federal funding pull has loomed over civil legal aid before, but never came to fruition under President Donald Trump’s first term. However, the president’s 2026 budget proposal reduces LSC funding from $560 million to $21 million in shutdown costs, bringing the fear into focus once again.

In response, the Arizona Supreme Court convened civil legal service providers, lawmakers and members of the judiciary to mobilize around an appropriation in the state budget.

“Lawmakers get those phone calls on a daily basis from constituents explaining the problems they’re facing, be it housing issues, issues with Social Security,” Sergent said. “I think they have a sensitivity to that already, and it’s providing the information as to how legal services steps into that breach and provides that access to justice. We are the ones that are called upon for many of their constituents who don’t have another place to turn.”

The aim was initially $10 million, with Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, taking up the issue in the Democratic caucus, and Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, working with Republicans.

Ortiz attributed the success in getting funding in the budget at all to a stroke of bipartisanship.

“This is an example of us being able to put politics aside in order to do what is best for low income Arizonans in particular,” Ortiz said.

Looking forward, Ortiz hopes the same spirit takes hold of state delegates as the proposed cuts move through Congress.

“I hope congressional Republicans will learn from the bipartisanship we display here in Arizona to do what’s necessary to stop the federal funding cuts that are coming to civil legal aid,” Ortiz said.

Chris Groninger, chief strategy officer for the Arizona Bar Foundation, said she hopes the $3 million will prevent an all-out shuttering of services in the event of a slash.

“Three million feels like we’re not going to shut doors. This will lessen the crash. This will lessen the impact,” Groninger said. “We understand that there’s a lot of tough decisions that are being made, and we’re grateful for the opportunity to really show how this service matters in real time, not in the emergency.”

Sergent said civil legal service organizations will continue to work to educate lawmakers on the contributions to constituents.

“If legal aid isn’t properly funded at both the state and the federal level, Arizonans’ ability to get justice is going to depend on how much money they have in their pockets. And that’s not justice.”

US Supreme Court ruling could impact Planned Parenthood in Arizona

Key Points:

Supreme Court ruling revives debate over Arizona abortion law
Planned Parenthood funding tied to broader abortion fight
Legal challenge needed to lift enforcement injunction

A new ruling on June 26 by the U.S. Supreme Court could pave the way for Arizona to finally enforce an existing state law that denies funds for Planned Parenthood.

But it’s unlikely to be automatic.

That 2012 Arizona statute spells out that Planned Parenthood is ineligible to get paid for services it provides for any service it provides to Medicaid patients, including health care, breast exams, family planning and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, simply because it also provides abortions. Planned Parenthood sued.

A federal judge blocked enforcement. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling. And in 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to disturb that decision.

But the law remains on the books.

What makes that significant is that the current members of the nation’s high court voted 6-3 to uphold a similar South Carolina restriction against Medicaid funds for Planned Parenthood, this one enacted by an executive order by Gov. Henry McMaster.

Strictly speaking, neither the unenforced but still in the statutes Arizona law nor the South Carolina regulation is about abortion. In fact, federal law already bars the use of Medicaid funds for elective abortions.

But the issue is whether lawmakers can decide to deny any organization that provides abortion from payment for other Medicaid services.

In blocking the enforcement of the 2012 Arizona law, U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake said that it is beyond the power of the state. He said those enrolled in the Medicaid program are entitled to choose where they get their non-abortion services.

“The Arizona act violates the freedom of choice provision of the Medicaid Act precisely because every Medicaid beneficiary has the right to select any qualified health care provider,” the judge wrote.

More to the point, Wake’s injunction remains in place to this day. And the only way to overturn that now would be for someone to file legal papers to dissolve it.

But Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, who crafted the original 2012 law, said he is working to find someone to do that.

That may not be as simple as it sounds.

Olson said that does not include the Republican-controlled Legislature. But he said legislative lawyers believe the attorney general does have that right.

An aide to Attorney General Kris Mayes said her office is reviewing the Supreme Court ruling “to understand its implications, if any, for Arizona law.”

But Mayes is unlikely to move to reinstate the 2012 law: She has consistently refused to defend any law she said she believes affects the ability of Arizonans to terminate a pregnancy.

Olson said, however, any of the 15 county attorneys also appear to have a right to resurrect the issue. And he told Capitol Media Services he will be reaching out to some of them to see if they will pick up the case.

There are some clear parallels between the South Carolina case and the rulings blocking the Arizona law.

The South Carolina case involved not a statute but an executive order issued in 2018 by Gov. McMaster declaring that any nonprofit organization or practitioner that offers abortions can no longer participate in the state’s Medicaid program.

That drew a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood and Julie Edwards, who had been a patient there.

She said she needed Medicaid coverage but preferred that organization for her gynecological care. Edwards argued that McMaster’s order violates the requirements in federal law that Medicaid patients can get care from “any qualified provider to perform the service.”

A trial judge and appeals court agreed with her. But Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing June 26 for the majority, said Edwards had no right to sue in the first place.

“Deciding whether to permit private enforcement poses delicate policy questions involving competing costs and benefits — decisions for elected representatives, not judges,” he wrote.

McMaster declared it a victory.

“Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina’s authority and values – and today, we are finally victorious,” he said. “The legality of my executive order prohibiting taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood has been affirmed by the highest court in the land.”

Olson said what was behind his 2012 legislation directly parallels the reason McMaster issued his executive order.

“It will protect taxpayers from having to fund something a large portion of society views as morally wrong,” he said. And Olson said it’s irrelevant that Planned Parenthood already can’t use Medicaid funds for abortions.

“If we’re funding an organization that is providing elective abortions, then we are providing an opportunity for those organizations to exist and continue to provide those elective abortions,” he said.

“The concern is that there is an indirect subsidy with tax dollars for the elective abortions they’re providing,” Olson said. “And that’s what this would prohibit from occurring.”

There’s another reason that the Supreme Court ruling does not immediately reinvigorate the 2012 Arizona law. That’s because, technically, the decision applies only to the South Carolina regulation. It does not by itself overturn Wake’s ruling.

It does, however, provide what Olson said is needed to file new pleadings to force a federal judge — not Wake, as he is now retired — to reconsider his ruling and dissolve the injunction.

But even with the ruling applying only to South Carolina, it’s not just Olson who believes that the ruling has nationwide implications. Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, acknowledged in a statement that she fears the ruling could lead other states to pursue similar restrictions.

And there’s something else.

It also comes as the Trump administration already is moving to withhold federal family planning funds from several Planned Parenthood organizations across the country. And the budget now being debated by Congress contains a provision to defund Planned Parenthood.

Gov. Hobbs likely to sign bill for Chase Field despite opposition

Gov. Katie Hobbs may not sign a budget this week, but she will likely sign a negotiated measure to use sales tax revenue and state income tax revenue for stadium renovations at Chase Field.

The House passed House Bill 2704 (tax; distribution; county stadium district) 35-20, with the Freedom Caucus joining some Democrats in opposition.

The bill is intended to keep the Diamondbacks in downtown Phoenix, with the team’s lease at the stadium ending in 2027.

Other Democrats who were previously hesitant about the bill voted for it because of the jobs it will bring to Arizonans.

“This morning, I wasn’t ready to vote yes on this bill,” said Rep. Mariana Sandoval. “But because I’ve learned that unions have signed contracts to get work from this bill, I am going to support it.”

The city of Phoenix now supports the bill after fighting against it all legislative session. Before the Senate voted on the bill last week, an amendment was added to bring the city in support of the bill, which caps Phoenix’s annual contribution to the stadium at $3.5 million, adjusted at 3% for inflation.

Stadium renovations are expected to use $500 million collected from sales tax revenue at the stadium district and from income taxes of Diamondbacks players and staff over the next 30 years.

“I just want to remind the Arizona Diamondbacks that this is public money that should be used for public good,” said Rep. Cesar Aguilar.

The bill now also restricts the use of tax dollars provided to the Maricopa County Stadium District from being used for luxury amenities such as club seating or pool suites. The Legislature intends for the team to contribute $250 million for the stadium and the bill now has a provision which would put the team on the hook for stadium repairs if the Legislature repeals the tax distributions before 2056.

Key Points:

ESA enrollment tops 100,000, leaving gross cost to state over $1 billion

Growth fuels debate over public schools’ funding, enrollment levels

Analysts dispute oversight, future growth, budget impacts

Key Points:

Federal disability complaint system slowed by staffing cuts

Handoff to states puts more focus on state-level complaint system

Advocates plan to revamp conversation around complaint coverage

Key Points:

Rep. Lupe Diaz plans to reintroduce a bill that would prevent the state from providing public funding to clinics that promote or perform abortions

Opponents of the proposed bill say it would restrict health care access for low income patients

Republican lawmaker plans to revive bill to ban public funding for abortions

Key Points:

Arizona parents eligible for subsidized child care can apply again

$125.9 million allocated will only help 900 children in 530 families

Eligibility for assistance based on income, preference for most needy families

Key Points:

Arizona spent $100 million building and $70 million removing a border wall

Gov. Hobbs is now seeking federal reimbursement for those costs

Big Beautiful Bill has $10 billion in available grants for border wall funding

Key Points:

Civil legal aid funded by the state for the first time

Federal funding cuts could still impact service

Attorneys, lawmakers plan still focused on funding

Key Points:

Supreme Court ruling revives debate over Arizona abortion law

Planned Parenthood funding tied to broader abortion fight

Legal challenge needed to lift enforcement injunction