HomePostTopic: Florida

Florida

Kentucky lawmakers passed HB 136, which updates crime data collection to strengthen the criminal justice system.

The Kentucky General Assembly has passed a law (House Bill 136) that improves the data collection and transparency practices of the state’s criminal justice system. 

The bill, crafted with research and expertise from the Georgia Center for Opportunity, addresses the state’s lack of comprehensive data on sentencing, parole, and recidivism. Because of these gaps, policymakers have relied on incomplete data and anecdotal evidence to make serious decisions—ones that are often life-and-death.

The criminal justice system is the primary way government protects families and communities. It’s also the point of intersection between government and citizens when an individual breaks the law and decisions must be made about the future of their liberty and life. 

With such high stakes, nothing should be more important and deserving of respect than the criminal justice system and its ability to make informed, just decisions. That’s where HB 136 comes in.

HB 136 equips lawmakers to assess the criminal justice system based on evidence, not anecdotes

The bill requires the state’s Department of Corrections to provide the Kentucky General Assembly with comprehensive data on sentence lengths, parole outcomes, recidivism rates, and demographic data. 

  • Length of stay for first-time offenders: Data on the number of inmates released, average sentence lengths, time served, and parole release rates must all be made available under the bill.
  • Parolee data and supervision outcomes: This includes demographic information—including race, gender, age, and parental status—plus education levels, gang affiliation, and engagement in rehabilitation programs.
  • Supervision activities: Drug test results, employment outcomes, housing stability, and program compliance would all be made available.
  • Recidivism and criminal history trends: Under the measure, the state government would track repeat offenses to evaluate the effectiveness of parole or probation programs.

With this information, elected leaders can make better decisions, improve transparency and accountability in the system, and direct resources to the most successful rehabilitation and reentry programs. 

These changes would bolster the downward trend in crime that Kentucky is already seeing this year, thanks in part to implementation of other GCO recommendations in the 2024 Safer Kentucky Act. In Louisville alone, homicides are down 30%, non-fatal shootings have dropped by 40%, and carjackings have plummeted by 43%.

HB 136 turns data into a fairer system and safer communities

With these changes in place, Kentucky communities will have the benefits of enhanced public safety, a fairer system, and improved use of taxpayer dollars.

  • Reduced recidivism: Access to detailed data on reoffending rates and parole violations allows Kentucky to invest in programs that truly help individuals reintegrate into society, reducing the likelihood of repeat offenses.
  • Fairer sentencing practices: Analyzing trends in sentencing and parole provides lawmakers with the tools to ensure that policies are applied consistently and equitably—and criminals are appropriately held accountable for their crimes.

     

  • Improved public safety: By identifying practices that reduce recidivism and improve parole outcomes, policymakers can enhance community safety and stability.

     

  • Better allocation of funding: Tracking incarceration and parole data helps Kentucky allocate resources effectively, ensuring that correctional facilities and rehabilitation programs are adequately funded without unnecessary overspending.

     

  • Lower racial and gender disparities: Detailed demographic data illuminates any potential disparities in sentencing or parole practices, enabling targeted reforms to promote equity within the justice system. 

While these data practices are new to Kentucky, they are common in other states. Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, and even California have implemented similar data-driven approaches and seen positive results. Now Kentucky can join these states as a leader in transforming data into insights that empower lawmakers to shape a better criminal justice system. 

Watch GCO’s Testimony on HB 136

Voting preferences in the 2024 election confirm that better public safety is a priority for Americans.

Key Points

  • In state and local elections, voters across the political spectrum chose candidates who shared their priority for greater public safety and order.
  • The 2024 election results underscore an important pillar of healthy communities: Safety is the first step to stability and prosperity.

In state and local elections, voters across the political spectrum chose candidates who shared their priority for greater public safety and order.

While the 2024 election represents different things to different voters, it may well be remembered, as my friend Rafael Mangual of the Manhattan Institute put it, as the “anti-crime election.” 

In recent years, there has been a divide between elected officials and the public when it comes to crime. As more local leaders have taken relaxed stances to public safety, voters have become increasingly concerned. 

With the 2024 election, this crime divide between voters and politicians has narrowed because voters changed their politicians. As Mangual lays out in a great new piece in City Journal, voters all over the country rejected soft-on-crime approaches to public safety, including in progressive enclaves like Oakland, CA.

Search Interest by State in Crime

In the 2024 Election, crime was consistently a top issue being searched across all 50 states.

Source: Associated Press, “What election issues are Americans searching on Google?”, October 2024

From Georgia to California, voters reject the “progressive prosecutor” movement

Voters’ frustration with soft-on-crime prosecutors began in 2022 with the recall of San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin and continued with the defeat of Portland-area District Attorney Mike Schmidt earlier this year. 

For residents favoring law and order and a return to normalcy, another boost came on election day. The biggest news of the day was the defeat of Los Angeles District Attorney George Gasćon.

Gasćon had run on a progressive platform and quickly made good on his promises. He declined to pursue the death penalty in capital murder cases, instructed his office to avoid seeking lengthy sentences in gang and gun cases through available sentence enhancements, and diverted more and more cases from prosecution. Gasćon lost his re-election bid by a margin of 60-40.

Closer to home, in Athens, GA, progressive District Attorney Deborah Gonzalez lost to challenger Kalki Yalamanchili by almost the same margin. In Tampa, FL, incumbent Andrew Warren, suspended by Gov. Ron DeSantis over his non-prosecution policies, lost to a law-and-order challenger. In total, of the 25 progressive prosecutors on the ballot this election, 12 either lost or were recalled.

Voters favor local candidates and ballot measures focused on stronger public safety 

Voters also showed a pro-public safety bent on election day in their support of ballot initiatives. In California, voters approved an initiative to enhance penalties for repeat drug and theft offenses. Colorado residents overwhelmingly passed a ballot initiative that increases consequences for violent offenses. 

Voters in San Francisco elected a mayor who plans to get tough on the drug dealing plaguing the city. Oakland residents also recalled their mayor who, through a mix of bad policy and benign neglect, had let violent crime spiral.

Americans repeatedly told pollsters ahead of the 2024 election that they were concerned about crime. On November 5, they voted like it. The 2024 election may well be remembered for voters demanding better and reminding elected officials of what every leader should remember—that the first step to a prosperous community is a safe one. 

Key Points

  • Public school transfers are an education option that allows parents to move their child to a public school they’re not zoned for (as long as the school has space). 
  • Georgia currently allows public school transfers within a student’s district but not outside of it.
  • Parents must apply for a public school transfer. Scroll down to find out how to check with your local school district for availability and application deadlines.

Public school transfers explained

Public school transfers, also referred to as open enrollment for public schools, allow parents to move their student to a different public school than the one they’re zoned for. 

This is a great option for states to provide because it increases flexibility within the public school system—something parents increasingly want. The majority of Georgia students (84%) attend public school, so transfers empower more parents to choose the public school environment that’s right for their child.

Public school transfers available in Georgia

  • Allowed: Transfers within assigned school districts. Georgia offers restricted public school transfers. Families can send their child to any school within their assigned local district as long as that school has space and has been operating for at least four years. This option is known as an “intra-district transfer.” 
  • Not yet allowed: Transfers outside of assigned school districts. Another type of public school transfer, called an “inter-district transfer,” permits students to switch to a public school outside of the district they’re zoned for. This option isn’t allowed in Georgia yet. Georgia lawmakers would need to pass a bill to make it available to families.

How Georgia’s public school transfers work

Parents must contact their local school system to see which schools will accept transfers and for which grades. The Georgia Department of Education provides a database of public school contact information. 

Each school system is required to notify parents by July 1 about which schools have space, and many systems post this information on their websites before that date. Most districts only allow transfers at the beginning of the school year, but all can choose to accept students throughout the year. 

Parents must then apply for a transfer through their district’s website, at the district office, or at the local school. If more students apply than space is available, some school systems will make decisions on a first-come, first-served basis. Others will hold a random lottery.

Eligibility requirements

  • A student must be enrolled in a public school in Georgia. 

School options

  • Transfers open up access to other public schools within a student’s school district. 
  • Transfers don’t apply to public schools outside a student’s assigned district. They also don’t apply to non-public schools. 
  • A student who transfers to another public school may continue to attend that school until they’ve completed all grades at the school.

Cost to families

  • School systems can’t charge tuition for students transferring within their district. 
  • Transportation is the parents’ or guardians’ responsibility. 

Five application guidelines to follow:

1. Contact your local school system to see which schools accept transfers and in which grades.

2. Check your school system’s website by July 1. Each system is required to notify parents annually about which schools have space available. State law requires school systems to post this information by July 1, but it’s often available earlier, so consider checking the website as early as April or May.

3. Access the transfer application on your district’s website, at the district office, or at your local school and complete the application (note: some school systems require parents to do this in person at the district office).

4. Application periods can be as short as one to two weeks. For many districts, this application window opens in June or July. In other areas, it can open as early as January. Get in touch with your district or check its website early and often so you don’t miss any deadlines.

5. The school system will notify parents about whether their transfer request was accepted or denied. If more students apply than space is available, school systems will make decisions on a first-come, first-served basis or through a random lottery. 

How Georgia can expand public school options 

Georgia lawmakers could expand opportunities in the public school system by removing all restrictions on open enrollment and allowing both inter-district and intra-district transfers. 

Parents with children in schools across the country are widely in favor of reforms like this. Polling from June 2025 by EdChoice-Morning Consult showed that 78% of parents nationwide—regardless of their political affiliation—support open enrollment.

To set up a successful transfer program, Georgia could look to many other states’ examples. In 2025, the Reason Foundation reported that policymakers in 24 states introduced at least 54 bills that focused on open enrollment, providing more evidence of the strong interest in these policies.

Of Georgia’s neighbors, Florida offers the broadest transfer opportunities to students and their families. The state passed a law in 2016 allowing state-wide open enrollment and required all districts to participate. Through the program, students can transfer from the school they’re zoned for to any public school that has space in their grade level. These transfers allow Florida students to attend the school that’s the best fit for them. They also enable parents to send their children to schools near their jobs, which helps lift barriers to rewarding work.

South Carolina followed suit in 2025 when it passed a bill requiring school districts to implement an inter-district transfer policy once the state’s Department of Education issues guidelines. Intra-district transfers have already been allowed there for some time.

The open enrollment policies in other nearby states vary:

  • Tennessee: The state currently allows intra-district transfers.
  • Alabama: Open enrollment is limited and voluntary for school districts. 
  • North Carolina: There is no statewide policy on open enrollment.

To better position Georgia as a leader in education choice, state lawmakers are paying attention to advances in open enrollment like those in Florida and South Carolina.

In Georgia’s 2026 legislative session, the House of Representatives is considering a bill (HB 917) that would significantly expand current intra-district transfer options and also provide inter-district transfer options for Georgia students. 

If the bill becomes law, the state will be able to provide families with more educational opportunities and, ultimately, an educational system that better serves every child’s unique situation and needs.

Man sitting with his hands folded

Key Points

  • Indiana passed a scholarship program that will allow any family below 400% of the amount required to qualify for the federal free and reduced-price lunch program to access education scholarships.
  • South Carolina expanded their scholarship program with similar guidelines to those in Indiana.
  • Georgia failed to pass a transformative education scholarship program that would have positively impacted the lowest performing communities in the state.

The year isn’t even halfway over, and six states have already enacted laws that create universal educational access for all students in 2023.

In total, Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, Florida, and now South Carolina and Indiana have enacted either universal—or nearly universal—educational opportunity this year. That’s on top of Arizona and West Virginia, which did so in 2021 or 2022.

Each state has its own version of a scholarship or educational savings account that the state funds for children’s needs outside of traditional public school. For example, these types of accounts send a portion of each student’s public school dollars to allow the child to attend a private school of their family’s choice. In some cases, families who choose to homeschool their children can use the funds for educational expenses.

 

Indiana

Indiana is the most recent state to join that list. That state’s scholarship program will now be available to any family below 400% of the amount required to qualify for the federal free and reduced-price lunch program. That translates to a salary of around $222,000 a year for a family of four. 

Previously, requirements were in place that further limited the program, such as it only being open to families with students previously enrolled in a public school or to children in the foster care system. Under the new law, only an estimated 3.5% of Indiana’s families won’t qualify for this option.

 

The Georgia Center for Opportunity led a state-wide campaign to educate parents and legislators on the positive impact that choice brings to public education.

The Georgia Center for Opportunity led a state-wide campaign to educate parents and legislators on the positive impact that choice brings to public education.

South Carolina

Meanwhile, South Carolina governor Henry McMaster recently signed a bill into law that eventually expands that state’s scholarship program to families at or below 200% of F&R priced lunch as well. The program is more limited in scope than Indiana’s. It will only be available to 5,000 students the first year, 10,000 the second year, and 15,000 students the third year.

South Carolina’s program allows for the establishment of Educational Scholarship Trust Funds. Funds deposited in these accounts can be used not only for expanded school choice, but may also be used for special needs therapies, such as physical therapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy. Tutors and transportation may also be included for families caring for special needs students. 

So, what happened in Georgia?

If the Georgia Legislative Session had passed Senate Bill 233, also known as the Georgia Promise Scholarship Act, it would have put $6,500 per student back into parents’ pockets so they could fund the best educational approaches for their children. The funds would have been eligible for use as private school tuition and public school alternatives, such as homeschooling. 

According to the Georgia Department of Education, families who qualified would have had students enrolled into the lower 25% of schools in Georgia. This amounted to roughly 400,000 students. 

SB 233 was a strong bill, passing the Senate with unanimous Republican support and going on to the House. Despite receiving no support from Senate Democrats, it’s excellent news that the bill made it so far through legislative proceedings. 

The House vote proved to be tougher, with bipartisan representatives voting against it. Rep. Mesha Mainor of Atlanta was the lone Democrat in the House to vote in favor. On its final day of session, SB 233 was only six votes short of the 91 it needed to pass. 

The good news is that the Georgia Promise Scholarship Act is eligible for reconsideration during the 2024 legislative session. 

Looking to what’s next

Public schools are not the problem. We love and support public schools—they will remain the right and best choice for the vast majority of Georgia families. But we can love, support, and move public schools forward while expanding education into new areas.

Public education is a foundational and vital part of the success of American society, but an increasing number of families are looking toward alternatives—and their choices are just as valid. We must work to deliver quality education to all students, which means finding ways to support families who take a different schooling path. While many will access their education through public schools, not all kids are a perfect fit for that system, and they cannot be left behind.

Subscribe

* indicates required

Subscribe

* indicates required
Donate