Revises provisions governing the Nevada Educational Choice Scholarship Program. (BDR 34-1082)
AB 364 revises the Nevada Educational Choice Scholarship Program, which allows scholarship organizations to receive donations that generate tax credits for donors and then use those funds to provide grants for eligible pupils to attend schools of their parents’ or guardians’ choice, including private schools. The bill keeps the existing income-based eligibility framework for pupils in households at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level, but adds new restrictions on when scholarship organizations may use tax-credit-supported donations for a pupil’s grant.
Under the bill, a scholarship organization may not use a donation tied to a tax credit for a pupil unless that organization also used such a donation for that same pupil at the same school in the immediately preceding school year. If a scholarship organization violates that rule, it must repay the related tax credit amount to the Department of Taxation. The bill also requires scholarship organizations to notify the Department if they no longer have any pupils eligible for grants, and bars the Department from approving new tax-credit applications from organizations that have provided, or are required to provide, that notice. If an organization still has unspent tax-credit donations when it loses all eligible pupils, it must repay tax credits equal to the unexpended amount.
The bill’s impact is primarily on the administration and compliance rules for the state’s education tax credit program. It amends the statutes governing modified business tax credits for donations to scholarship organizations and adds new repayment and reporting obligations, while also limiting the Department of Taxation’s ability to approve future credits for organizations that are no longer actively serving eligible pupils. The bill does not change the overall structure of the tax credit program or the income eligibility threshold, but it does tighten oversight and create financial consequences for noncompliance.
There is little recorded public sentiment in the available materials because there are no committee transcripts or vote records included. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as an accountability and program-integrity bill rather than a major policy expansion or contraction. Its emphasis on continuity of service, notification, and repayment suggests a technical effort to prevent unused or misapplied scholarship funds.
The main points of contention likely concern the added restrictions on scholarship organizations and the repayment requirement, especially for organizations that may lose eligible pupils or experience enrollment changes at participating schools. Supporters would likely view the bill as protecting the integrity of the tax credit system and ensuring donations continue to benefit students consistently, while critics could argue that the new rules reduce flexibility for scholarship organizations and may make it harder to serve students who change schools or whose circumstances shift.
AB 364 amends NRS 388D.270, NRS 363A.139, and NRS 363B.119 to impose new reporting, eligibility, and repayment requirements on scholarship organizations participating in the Nevada Educational Choice Scholarship Program. It directs the Department of Taxation to deny new tax-credit approvals for organizations that have notified, or must notify, the department that they no longer have any eligible pupils, and it requires repayment of tax credits in specified circumstances involving unexpended donations or improper use of tax-credit-supported funds. The bill takes effect July 1, 2025.
No committee testimony or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate to measure support or opposition. The bill’s language suggests a generally neutral-to-supportive policy posture focused on oversight, accountability, and program administration rather than ideological change. In the absence of recorded votes or transcripts, the available context does not show organized opposition, but the new restrictions could draw concern from scholarship organizations and school-choice advocates who prefer more operational flexibility.
The likely contention centers on the bill’s new limits on how scholarship organizations may use tax-credit-supported donations and the requirement to repay credits if they lose all eligible pupils or fail to maintain continuity for a pupil at the same school. Scholarship organizations may view the repayment and notification rules as burdensome and potentially disruptive, especially if student enrollment changes midstream. Supporters, by contrast, would likely argue that the bill prevents misuse of tax-credit funds, ensures grants are tied to active participation in the program, and protects state revenue by requiring repayment when funds are not used as intended.