Issue overview
Due to the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic, states and cities are anticipating large budget shortfalls. If officials do not exercise fiscal restraint, they may be tempted to turn to civil asset forfeiture to make up budget shortfalls. Police and prosecutors around the country have a long history of using forfeited cars, cash, and other assets to fund their operations—despite the fact that many property owners who have their property forfeited are never convicted of, or even tried for, a crime. Fortunately, many states have reformed their civil forfeiture laws in recent years to better protect property owners and put the focus of forfeiture actions back on prosecuting actual crimes rather than “policing for profit.” The looming state and municipal budget crisis should not be used as an opportunity to reverse these reforms. On the contrary, now is the time to ensure that states that have not implemented these important protections adopt them.
Policy recommendation
Reform civil forfeiture laws and strengthen protections for private property owners.
Examples of Abuse
In 2016, a sheriff’s deputy in Muskogee, Oklahoma, pulled over a car for a broken taillight. During the stop, he discovered that the driver, Eh Wah, had approximately $53,000 cash in the car. Eh explained that he was the manager of a Christian music group from Burma and had been touring the country playing in churches to raise money for their church back in Burma and for an orphanage in Thailand. Some of the money was even in envelopes marked “donation,” with the name of the orphanage on them. Despite this, the sheriff seized all the money and released Eh without charging him with any crime. The sheriff returned the money only after a front-page story about the case ran in the Washington Times.
In 2017, Phil Parhamovich was pulled over during a routine traffic stop in Wyoming. During the stop, deputies discovered he had $91,800 cash in the car. Phil explained that it was his life savings. No drugs or any other indications of wrongdoing were found in the car. Under aggressive questioning, deputies convinced Phil to sign a roadside waiver “giving” the money to the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. Phil was then issued a $25 ticket for not wearing his seatbelt. He was never charged with any other crime. Only after Phil sued to get his money back, and after substantial media attention, did the deputies relent and return the cash.
Fiscal considerations
There is no negative fiscal impact from maintaining current protections against civil forfeiture. Depending on current levels of abuse, reforms that seek to curb that abuse can carry fiscal implications. But nothing in these reforms stops law enforcement from using revenue collected from people who have been convicted of a crime.
VIEW MODEL LEGISLATION

Issue overview
Traditional public education is often poorly suited to meet the needs of individual students—whether they are gifted, have special needs, or simply do not fit into one-size-fits-all modes of instruction. As witnessed during the pandemic, many school systems have struggled to adapt to the learning needs and life circumstances of students, with some districts even suspending all instruction for all students because they could not guarantee equitable services for students with special needs or without internet access.
Given the failure of so many school systems to meet the needs of their students, it is perhaps no surprise that 40% of families surveyed in the midst of the coronavirus crisis stated they are now more likely to enroll their children in a homeschooling co-op or virtual school as a way to ensure their children receive an education that best fits their needs.
Policy recommendation
Implement, broaden, and/or accelerate access to education savings accounts (ESAs). ESAs take a portion of what a state would have spent on a student in a public school and instead deposit those funds into flexible spending accounts that parents can use to meet their children’s individual educational needs, whether via tutoring, textbooks, private school tuition, special education therapies, online instruction, or at-home curricula. Especially during times in which school systems are being disrupted, ESAs can ensure that families have the resources, flexibility, and control necessary to continue supporting their children’s learning.
In states that have already implemented ESAs, policymakers should require the expedited processing of new applications to ensure that families can more seamlessly transition to an ESA if the need arises. In states like Arizona, while statute requires new applications to be processed within 45 days, the vast majority of applications submitted in spring/summer are delayed well beyond this.
Stories of Success
Five states—Arizona, Tennessee, Mississippi, Florida, and North Carolina—have successfully implemented ESAs for special needs or other student groups most in need of educational flexibility, including students from D- and F-rated public schools, foster care, Native American reservations, and military families.
ESAs have found champions like one Arizona mother who testified in 2019 to legislators in support of her state’s program: As a “former public school teacher, army veteran, special needs mom, and now an ESA parent … having access to this incredible program has literally saved my special needs son and my family.”
Fiscal considerations
ESAs generate fiscal savings for taxpayers. In Arizona, for example, the median (non-special needs) ESA award in FY 2019 cost roughly $6,100, compared to over $10,000 in per pupil spending in public schools. ESAs can also reduce budget pressures on school districts by serving high-need, high-cost special needs students, who—according to districts—cost more to educate than districts receive in funding.
VIEW MODEL LEGISLATION