The recent Anchorage Daily News editorial urging us to face a smaller school system misses the real crisis: Our schools are being hollowed out by policy choices at the state level, not inevitability.

Take school nursing. Because of chronic underfunding at the state level, the Anchorage School District is shifting to an untested, unclear regional nursing model. That budget adjustment saves dollars by reducing daily, onsite care — exactly the care chronically ill and vulnerable students rely on to attend school, learn and stay safe. This is not prudent shrinking; it is forcing our students and staff to pay the price for budget shortfalls driven by state inaction.

[Related opinion: Anchorage schools are shrinking. It’s time to face it.]

In elementary schools, art and music are being cut in half. Children will have music in the fall and art in the spring, rotating instructors across semesters. These subjects are not seasonal fluff for young minds. They build creativity, executive function, cultural literacy and social-emotional skills that drive engagement and long-term success. Treating them as short-term elective subjects sends a clear message: We no longer value the full education kids need.

Class sizes tell the same story. A kindergartner who joined a class of 20 in 2015 now shares a room with 27 peers. High school freshman classes built for 30 are packed with 37. Averages hide these extremes — specialized small classes mask overcrowding in general education. At 40 students, a teacher becomes a manager of bodies and behavior rather than an educator of minds.

We are not shrinking responsibly. We are cutting the supports that keep children connected to school and learning. Over the last two decades, state funding for education has fallen in real terms, and student outcomes have followed. When investments decline, programs that prevent disengagement — art, athletics, nurses, counselors — are the first on the chopping block. The result is predictable: higher youth disconnection, lower preparedness for work and fewer pathways to stable careers.

Retention and recruitment problems compound the damage. Without a stable retirement system and competitive benefits, experienced educators leave. Anchorage spends millions each year on short-term fixes — substitutes, recruitment bonuses and temporary staffing — that would be better spent in classrooms and on services that actually improve outcomes.

If the goal is a smaller, more efficient system, be honest about the trade-offs. But don’t dress cuts as inevitability when they are policy choices. The “we spend more for worse outcomes” claim ignores Alaska’s higher cost of doing business and the erosion of per-pupil investment over time. It also ignores the real human cost: a student kept home because a school nurse isn’t available, a child who loses daily music and with it a source of identity, a teacher burning out in an overcrowded room.

Alaskans can choose a different path: restore adequate per-pupil funding that reflects our geography and costs; protect essential services like full-time nurses, art and music; and secure retirement stability so teachers stay. Waiting for a “better” fiscal moment is a decision to lose a child’s year of learning forever. This requires all of us to pay attention to which of our state representatives and state senators are supporting education funding and retirement fixes, and which are offering hollow alternatives and empty assurances.

I hope you will join me in remembering in November when we have the opportunity to chart a better course for our kids.

Christi Sitz has taught elementary and special education in Anchorage schools for 27 years. She is a mom of four Anchorage School District graduates and currently serves as president of the Anchorage Education Association.

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

by Leah Bowers, Cronkite News
April 30, 2026

PHOENIX – Access to nature in southern Arizona has been limited not only by environmental risks but also by immigration enforcement and cost, according to a study about barriers to outdoor access for Mexican immigrants and low-income people.   

Fiorella Carlos Chavez wanted to celebrate her birthday at a local park – set up at a table in the shade, and enjoy the scenery. 

“Then one of my friends told me, ‘You actually have to register and pay,’ and I said, ‘Register? I don’t get it’,” she said, referring to the fee required to reserve a picnic area for larger groups. 

Carlos Chavez, a Peruvian immigrant and an assistant professor at Arizona State University, was surprised: “It blew my mind. This is a park, what do you mean you have to make a reservation?” 

Mexican immigrants and low-income communities have limited access to nature in Tucson, not because of distance, but because of legal, economic and structural barriers, said Rebecca Crocker, an assistant research professor at the University of Arizona and one of the co-authors of the recent study.

“Each of us have different natural inclinations to what feels like nature,” Crocker said, adding that fear can hinder the experience and health effects of the outdoors. 

“Whether that fear comes from the fact that you are worried you are going to see a rattlesnake or, more presently, you are worried about getting perceived by immigration enforcement and get deported.”

Crocker explained that many Latinos feel that moving across Arizona’s landscape has always put them at risk. “I feel that the localized experience of immigration surveillance in southern Arizona is very detrimental to people’s health in lots of ways. And not being able to feel free to move across the landscape that they now reside in is a huge piece of why it’s so unhealthy for them.” 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests in Arizona more than tripled in fiscal year 2025 compared to the prior year, according to reporting by Arizona Luminaria, a nonprofit based in Tucson. 

In March, the Tucson City Council unanimously approved an ordinance to restrict federal immigration enforcement on city property, barring staging or operations in areas such as parks.

Gary Nabhan, research social scientist emeritus at the University of Arizona, has spent decades studying what he calls the human microbiome — the trillions of microorganisms accumulated through contact with soil, plants and animals that form the foundation of the immune system.

Nabhan also refers to it as the “hidden landscape” on a person’s body –  “a reflection of the natural landscape around us. We get those microbes from our contact with nature and animals and soil and plants.”

Nabhan links the lack of microbiomes and a weakened immune system to vulnerability to chronic diseases and shorter lifespans. 

“It’s not just a perk, it’s not just an amenity for the rich,” said Peter James, an adjunct associate professor of Environmental Health at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “We should really look at nature as just as important as the sewer system, the electricity grid. This is vital infrastructure.”

For Latino communities, that vital infrastructure is deeply rooted in history. Generations of people, particularly those of Mexican descent, worked the land in the U.S. Southwest as farmers and ranchers, shaped by Spanish colonization, Mexican land grants and ranching traditions. 

In Tucson, the problem isn’t that parks don’t exist near Latino neighborhoods. It’s that for thousands of residents, those parks might as well be behind a wall.

James said that “objective access or availability of a park nearby” does not mean that Latino communities will use that park: “Proximity does not equal access.”

Carlos Chavez said in Latino communities, “people are overworked. … It’s a part of (their) identity.”

Even in her own life, she sees time in nature “as a luxury.” 

“Yes, I want to go to the park, but I’m too tired, I’m not going to do it, or I have something else to do from work,” she said. “So I think it comes to that decision: Can I give up what I need to do now from work in order to enjoy the outdoors?”

This is one of the main barriers Crocker focused on in her study. Tiredness and lack of time are not only personal but also systematic barriers in the communities. “There’s always a deeper story there,” she said. 

“To expect at the end of the day, someone is going to have time and energy and resources to figure this all out on their own is too much to expect of an individual person. We really need to look more structurally at how we can promote access,” Crocker said. 

This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2026/04/30/latino-community-nature-access-southern-arizona/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org”>Cronkite News</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/favicon1.png?resize=85%2C85&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

<img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=103012″ style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2026/04/30/latino-community-nature-access-southern-arizona/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/cronkitenews.azpbs.org/p.js”></script>

Canonical Tag:



Copy Tag

Article Content:

Nature is out of reach for many Latinos in southern Arizona, new study finds <p>Leah Bowers, Cronkite News<br /> April 30, 2026 <p>PHOENIX – Access to nature in southern Arizona has been limited not only by environmental risks but also by immigration enforcement and cost, according to a study about barriers to outdoor access for Mexican immigrants and low-income people.   <div class="mvp-post-ad-wrap"><span class="mvp-ad-label">Advertisement</span><div class="mvp-post-ad"> </div></div> <p>Fiorella Carlos Chavez wanted to celebrate her birthday at a local park – set up at a table in the shade, and enjoy the scenery.  <p>“Then one of my friends told me, ‘You actually have to register and pay,’ and I said, ‘Register? I don’t get it’,” she said, referring to the fee required to reserve a picnic area for larger groups.  <p>Carlos Chavez, a Peruvian immigrant and an assistant professor at Arizona State University, was surprised: “It blew my mind. This is a park, what do you mean you have to make a reservation?”  <p>Mexican immigrants and low-income communities have limited access to nature in Tucson, not because of distance, but because of legal, economic and structural barriers, said Rebecca Crocker, an assistant research professor at the University of Arizona and one of the co-authors of the recent study. <p>“Each of us have different natural inclinations to what feels like nature,” Crocker said, adding that fear can hinder the experience and health effects of the outdoors. <div class="mvp-post-ad-wrap"><span class="mvp-ad-label">Advertisement</span><div class="mvp-post-ad"> </div></div> <p>“Whether that fear comes from the fact that you are worried you are going to see a rattlesnake or, more presently, you are worried about getting perceived by immigration enforcement and get deported.” <p>Crocker explained that many Latinos feel that moving across Arizona’s landscape has always put them at risk. “I feel that the localized experience of immigration surveillance in southern Arizona is very detrimental to people’s health in lots of ways. And not being able to feel free to move across the landscape that they now reside in is a huge piece of why it’s so unhealthy for them.”  <p>Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests in Arizona more than tripled in fiscal year 2025 compared to the prior year, according to reporting by Arizona Luminaria, a nonprofit based in Tucson.  <p>In March, the Tucson City Council unanimously approved an ordinance to restrict federal immigration enforcement on city property, barring staging or operations in areas such as parks. <p>Gary Nabhan, research social scientist emeritus at the University of Arizona, has spent decades studying what he calls the human microbiome — the trillions of microorganisms accumulated through contact with soil, plants and animals that form the foundation of the immune system.<div class="mvp-post-ad-wrap"><span class="mvp-ad-label">Advertisement</span><div class="mvp-post-ad"> </div></div> <p>Nabhan also refers to it as the “hidden landscape” on a person’s body –  “a reflection of the natural landscape around us. We get those microbes from our contact with nature and animals and soil and plants.” <p>Nabhan links the lack of microbiomes and a weakened immune system to vulnerability to chronic diseases and shorter lifespans.  <p>“It’s not just a perk, it’s not just an amenity for the rich,” said Peter James, an adjunct associate professor of Environmental Health at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “We should really look at nature as just as important as the sewer system, the electricity grid. This is vital infrastructure.” <p>For Latino communities, that vital infrastructure is deeply rooted in history. Generations of people, particularly those of Mexican descent, worked the land in the U.S. Southwest as farmers and ranchers, shaped by Spanish colonization, Mexican land grants and ranching traditions.  <p>In Tucson, the problem isn’t that parks don’t exist near Latino neighborhoods. It’s that for thousands of residents, those parks might as well be behind a wall.<div class="mvp-post-ad-wrap"><span class="mvp-ad-label">Advertisement</span><div class="mvp-post-ad"> </div></div> <p>James said that “objective access or availability of a park nearby” does not mean that Latino communities will use that park: “Proximity does not equal access.” <p>Carlos Chavez said in Latino communities, “people are overworked. … It’s a part of (their) identity.” <p>Even in her own life, she sees time in nature “as a luxury.”  <p>“Yes, I want to go to the park, but I’m too tired, I’m not going to do it, or I have something else to do from work,” she said. “So I think it comes to that decision: Can I give up what I need to do now from work in order to enjoy the outdoors?” <p>This is one of the main barriers Crocker focused on in her study. Tiredness and lack of time are not only personal but also systematic barriers in the communities. “There’s always a deeper story there,” she said. <div class="mvp-post-ad-wrap"><span class="mvp-ad-label">Advertisement</span><div class="mvp-post-ad"> </div></div> <p>“To expect at the end of the day, someone is going to have time and energy and resources to figure this all out on their own is too much to expect of an individual person. We really need to look more structurally at how we can promote access,” Crocker said.  <p>This article first appeared on Cronkite News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copy Content

Tracking snippet:



Copy Snippet

Introduction

California has several state budget reserves. These reserves help to maintain essential public services — like education, health care, and child care — when revenues fall short, such as during recessions. Reserves aren’t for everyday spending, but rather a financial safety net for the state.

This report describes California’s state budget reserves, explains how funds can be accessed and used, and discusses proposals to reshape these reserves that have been floated in recent years. For more information about California’s reserve accounts, see the Budget Center’s companion resources, including this video — California’s State Budget Reserves Explained — and this fact sheet — 5 Key Questions About California’s State Budget Reserves.

Budget Stabilization Account (BSA): California’s Largest Reserve

The BSA is California’s largest state budget reserve. Deposits into and withdrawals from this “rainy day fund” are based on complex rules that were added to the state Constitution by Proposition 2 of 2014. Key rules include the following:

An annual deposit is required. Prop. 2 requires that 1.5% of General Fund revenues be set aside every year. Until 2029-30 half of these revenues must be deposited into the BSA and the other half must be used to pay down certain state debts. Beginning in 2030-31, the entire amount must be deposited into the BSA, although state leaders will have the option of redirecting up to one-half of each year’s deposit to pay down debts.

In some years, the state must set aside additional General Fund revenues. This occurs in years when estimated General Fund revenues that come from personal income taxes on capital gains exceed 8% of total General Fund proceeds of taxes. The share of these “excess” capital gains revenues that is not owed to K-12 schools and community colleges under the state’s Prop. 98 funding guarantee must be used for BSA deposits and debt repayments, following the same requirements as the mandatory 1.5% deposit.  Since Prop. 2 was enacted, capital gains tax revenues have exceeded the 8% threshold in most years, but could fall below the threshold in years when there are downturns in the stock market.

State leaders may also make discretionary deposits. In addition to the mandatory annual deposits required by Prop. 2, policymakers have the option of saving additional, discretionary revenue in the BSA.

The required annual deposit may be reduced or suspended in the event of a “budget emergency. If the governor declares a budget emergency, the state may reduce or suspend the required BSA deposit with a majority vote of each house of the Legislature. Prop. 2 defines a budget emergency as a situation where:

• Conditions of disaster or extreme peril are present; or
• The state has insufficient resources to maintain General Fund expenditures at the highest level of spending in the three most recent fiscal years, adjusted for state population growth and the change in the cost of living.

BSA funds may be withdrawn in the event of a budget emergency, but the entire balance cannot be removed at once. If the governor declares a budget emergency and the Legislature agrees with a majority vote of each house, funds may be taken out of the BSA. However, the entire balance cannot be removed immediately. Only the amount needed to address the budget emergency may be withdrawn, subject to the additional limitation that a withdrawal may not exceed 50% of the BSA balance in the first year of a budget emergency. In the second consecutive year of a budget emergency, all of the funds remaining in the BSA may be withdrawn.

Funds that are taken out of the BSA may go toward any purpose determined by the Legislature. For example, these dollars could be used for health care services, subsidized child care for working families, cash assistance for people with low incomes, K-12 schools, and any number of other public services and systems.

Funds in the BSA cannot exceed 10% of General Fund tax revenues. Prop. 2 caps the balance of the BSA. Once the balance — excluding any discretionary deposits — reaches 10% of General Fund tax revenues, any revenue that would otherwise have been required to go into the reserve must be instead spent on infrastructure, which includes housing. Prior to 2026, the BSA balance reached the cap twice — in 2022-23 and 2023-24 — but then dropped below the cap as state leaders withdrew funds in some years to address budget shortfalls.

Prop. 2 of 2014 also established the PSSSA, the state’s budget reserve for California’s K-12 schools and community colleges. Prop. 2 does not require an annual deposit into this reserve. Moreover, Prop. 2 restricts the circumstances under which transfers to the PSSSA can occur. For a PSSSA deposit to be required, all of the following conditions must be met:

• General Fund revenues that come from personal income taxes on capital gains are relatively strong;
• Growth in General Fund revenues leads to relatively strong growth in the state’s annual minimum funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges; and
• The Legislature does not suspend the annual K-14 education minimum funding guarantee.

Even under these restricted circumstances, Prop. 2 limits the size of the deposit to the schools reserve when such a deposit is required.

Deposits to the PSSSA may be reduced or suspended in the event of a budget emergency under the same rules that govern reductions or suspensions of deposits to the BSA (see the prior section of this report). Similarly, funds may be withdrawn from the schools reserve if the governor declares a budget emergency and the Legislature agrees with a majority vote of each house.

In contrast to the rules governing the withdrawal of funds from the BSA, all of the PSSSA funds may be withdrawn in one year. Moreover, funds withdrawn from the PSSSA must be used to support K-12 schools and community colleges.

Safety Net Reserve: Funds to Protect the Medi-Cal and CalWORKs Programs

The Safety Net Reserve was created in 2018 to set aside funds to help cover the costs of two programs that often see increases in enrollment during recessions: Medi-Cal and California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs). Both of these programs serve Californians with low incomes — with Medi-Cal delivering health coverage, and CalWORKs providing modest cash assistance to families with children. During economic downturns, more people become unemployed and temporarily rely on these programs to cover their basic needs, increasing state costs.

The Safety Net Reserve is not a constitutional reserve, so there are no binding requirements governing deposits or withdrawals. This means that funds can be transferred into and withdrawn from the reserve at the discretion of the Legislature. In fact, state policymakers voluntarily deposited $900 million in the Safety Net Reserve before draining all of those funds in 2024 to help address a $55 billion state budget problem.

Moreover, while state law specifies that the funds are to be used only for Medi-Cal and CalWORKs costs during economic downturns, state policymakers could decide to modify this language and use the funds for other purposes. However, in establishing this reserve, policymakers clearly recognized the need to protect critical services for Californians with low incomes from budget cuts — cuts that would undermine Medi-Cal and CalWORKs at the very time that these programs are needed most.

Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU): The Discretionary Reserve

The SFEU is the state’s discretionary General Fund budget reserve, meaning policymakers have a great deal of latitude in spending the funds in the reserve. The amount of money in the SFEU is equal to the difference between General Fund resources and General Fund spending in a given fiscal year.

The SFEU acts as a buffer against unanticipated revenue shortfalls or spending increases. Due to California’s constitutional balanced-budget requirement, which requires the state to enact a budget in which spending does not exceed available resources, the projected SFEU balance cannot be less than zero at the time the annual budget is adopted. However, if state revenues come in lower than projected and/or spending unexpectedly rises, the SFEU balance will decline, and may become negative as spending begins to exceed revenues.

The Legislature can appropriate funds from the SFEU at any time and for any purpose. Additionally, in the event of a disaster, the governor can allocate funds from the SFEU without the prior approval of the Legislature. Specifically, when the governor declares a state of emergency, the Department of Finance (DOF) can transfer funds from the SFEU into a subaccount called the Disaster Response-Emergency Operations Account (DREOA). These funds are allocated to state agencies for costs that are “immediate and necessary to deal with an ongoing or emerging crisis.”

Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account: A Place to Set Aside Anticipated Surplus Revenues

State leaders created the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account in 2024. This account gives policymakers a place to temporarily set aside anticipated surplus revenues, “ensuring that funds are only spent once they are realized.”

State leaders have broad authority to determine whether or how to use this holding account. The only requirement is that revenues that go into the account cannot remain there for longer than one year. If state revenues materialize as projected, the revenues in the account may be spent for any purpose or transferred back to the General Fund for future use.

This holding account is a “pilot budgeting project” that expires at the end of 2030, although state leaders could approve an extension as well as potentially modify the rules.

What’s Next for California’s State Budget Reserves?

The rules that govern California’s budget reserves can be amended by voters or state policymakers. Changing the reserve rules established by Prop. 2 (2014) would require voters to approve a constitutional amendment. Other reserve rules can be changed by state policymakers without the need for voter approval.

In recent years, state policymakers and others have advanced proposals to revise California’s reserve policies, although none have moved beyond the conceptual stage. Common proposals for changing state reserve policies include the following: