| Program Continuity & SO Status |
Established continuous framework. Approved Scholarship Organizations renew under existing rules with standard annual reporting. |
Terminates current authority effective 2027-28. All organizations must newly apply and qualify as “scholarship granting organizations” under rewritten DCED criteria. Existing approvals do not automatically continue. |
Severe disruption risk for SOs.Continuity of operations, donor relationships, and scholarship pipelines broken. Smaller or specialized SOs face higher barriers. Temporary gaps in funding pipelines possible. Families and schools lose reliable partners overnight. |
| Costs Imposed on Scholarship Organizations |
SOs may retain a limited percentage (typically up to ~10%, sometimes higher under specific conditions) for legitimate administration. No mandatory remittance to the Commonwealth. |
Mandatory 2% remittance of total contributions into the new “Accountability for Diverted Tax Dollars Restricted Account” funding state agencies (DCED, Revenue, Auditor General, PDE). Strict 90%/85% program-spend rules. Extensive new reporting and Auditor General audits. Noncompliance triggers a two-year ban. |
Direct reduction in net dollars available for scholarships.The 2% “tax” siphons funds that would otherwise reach students. Higher compliance costs further erode capacity. SOs face existential pressure; fewer organizations or reduced awards mean fewer scholarships overall. |
| Business / Donor Incentives |
75% credit (one-year commitment) or 90% credit (two-year commitment). Predictable, established process trusted by Pennsylvania businesses for more than two decades. |
Variable rates (75% for general scholarships; 90% for early childhood/educational improvement; 99% for economically disadvantaged). Additional reporting that can increase donor visibility. First-come, first-served under new rules. |
Reduced attractiveness for traditional scholarship contributions.Loss of the clear, high-value two-year 90% incentive for many donors. Increased compliance and visibility risks deter participation. Net effect: less private capital flowing into scholarships. |
| Family / Student Eligibility & Availability |
Income limits historically adjusted with inflation (recent base ~$116k + per-dependent add-on). Economically Disadvantaged Schools (EDS) supplemental scholarships available (up to $2,000 elementary / $4,000 high school). Demand already exceeds supply (~70,000 unfunded applications). |
$120,000 base + adjustments, but future increases tied to legislatively enacted minimum-wage hikes—not inflation. EDS supplemental scholarships eliminated and replaced by geography/low-achieving-school targeting. Large reallocation toward a new economically disadvantaged category. |
Restricted growth in eligibility and loss of supplemental aid.Families currently relying on EDS or near income margins risk reduced or lost support. Reallocation plus SO cost pressures shrink the traditional scholarship pool. Result: higher out-of-pocket tuition costs and longer, more severe waitlists. |
| Mandates on Participating Schools |
Relatively light participation requirements focused on accepting scholarships and basic compliance. |
Annual notification to DCED; mandatory submission of tuition/fee schedules, admissions and financial-aid policies, and enrollment data; anti-discrimination and other compliance certifications; subject to regular Auditor General audits. |
Significant new administrative and compliance burden.Schools (especially smaller nonpublic schools) incur higher costs for data systems, staff time, and audit preparation. These costs are typically recovered through tuition increases—directly raising the net price families must pay even when scholarships are available. |
| Overall Scholarship Dollars & Access |
Growing program serving more than 100,000 students annually in recent years, constrained only by statutory caps. Proven bipartisan track record spanning 25 years and over one million scholarship awards. |
Headline $680 million retained on paper, but subject to the 2% diversion, higher SO and school overhead, reallocation, eligibility constraints, and participation friction. |
Net reduction in effective scholarship resources and availability.Bureaucracy and cost shifts reduce what actually reaches students. Combined with donor deterrence and eligibility changes, the practical outcome is fewer scholarships, smaller awards relative to rising tuition, and greater financial strain on the exact families and schools the program was designed to help. |