Editor’s note: This is the first report in an ongoing series.

The patient came in with a belly full of blood, Dr. Leilah Zahedi-Spung recalled. Her pregnancy was ectopic, no longer viable, and could have killed her if left untreated. But when she went to a mobile pregnancy help center offering free care in an RV in St. Louis, she was told the pregnancy could be saved.

By the time she saw Zahedi-Spung days later, her fallopian tube had ruptured.

In North Lauderdale, Florida, Ieshia Scott was pregnant and in the throes of postpartum depression. She thought she’d arrived at an abortion clinic. She told the staff she might hurt herself if she had another baby. They told her God would give her strength.

A woman and her partner in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, went to a pregnancy help center by mistake. When they made it to a Planned Parenthood clinic across the street, the pregnant patient handed Dr. Kristin Lyerly a copy of the sonogram. But the scan was not of her uterus. It was her bladder.

All three patients had gone to crisis pregnancy centers, organizations that advertise free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds but dissuade women from pursuing abortions and contraceptive options. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ended national abortion access in June 2022, the centers have seen an infusion of taxpayer dollars in many Republican-led states. But medical experts have urged lawmakers to reconsider the state support, as the centers can endanger public health by “causing delays in accessing legitimate health care,” according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

States Newsroom conducted a 50-state investigation examining state and federal budgets, as well as the tax records of these organizations, finding that while the magnitude of public funding for them is growing, oversight is not. 

Twenty-one states funneled nearly a half-billion dollars, or $491 million, of taxpayer money to crisis pregnancy center organizations between fiscal years 2022 and 2025. That figure does not include millions some states diverted from federal programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and it does not include multimillion-dollar tax credit programs launched after federal protections for abortion rights were overturned. 

Nearly $1.3 billion in local, state or federal government grants were awarded to 1,259 crisis pregnancy centers in total between 2019 and 2024, according to States Newsroom’s analysis of tax records. The actual figure may be higher, as digital records are not comprehensive or entirely up to date.

Yet that largesse hasn’t been matched by corresponding regulation. Oversight of taxpayer funding remains weak, either blocked by legislators or ignored by state agencies. 

The centers are most often faith-based nonprofits that say they provide much-needed support for pregnant clients at no cost. An estimated 2,633 crisis pregnancy centers were operating in the United States as of March 31, 2024, according to research from the University of Georgia. 

John Mize, CEO of Americans United for Life, argues that pregnancy centers are important for people who really don’t want an abortion, and for anyone who regrets their abortion to find support. 

“I am strongly of the opinion that most women that have abortions do it because they don’t feel like they have any other option,” Mize said.

But critics and researchers say the pregnancy centers mislead potential clients about their services or pose as medical clinics despite lacking proper licensure. They sometimes promote treatments like abortion pill reversal, which is unproven and potentially dangerous. 

“Often, patients are lured in by this idea of getting free care,” said Dr. Rachel Jensen, Darney-Landy complex family planning fellow at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “It’s free, because it’s often subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Free health care sounds amazing. It should be available to all people. But the problem is, then, that the CPCs are unregulated — and they operate outside of ethical principles and best care practices.”

Firsthand accounts: ‘What’s your plan for this pregnancy?’ Comfort, shame and a missed diagnosis

Indiana state Sen. Shelli Yoder, a Democrat, said access to maternal health care in her state continues to decrease while support for crisis pregnancy centers increases. Indiana boosted its budget for the centers from $250,000 in 2021 to $2 million, then doubled it to $4 million by 2024. The state’s maternal mortality rate is among the worst in the country. 

“It’s not that these centers don’t serve a purpose. But they certainly are not a replacement for maternal health care, and they are not health care centers, and yet our state is using taxpayer money to fund them as if they are,” Yoder said. “And we are sending a message to moms, or to women, that they are health care centers, and they are not.”  

Zahedi-Spung was working an emergency room shift in 2019 at a St. Louis hospital, not too far from the pregnancy center housed in an RV and frequently parked in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic. She said she was horrified to learn the patient with the ruptured ectopic pregnancy had been told at the mobile crisis pregnancy center a few days before that it could be saved. A tubal ectopic pregnancy is never viable.

Today, Zahedi-Spung works in Colorado as a high-risk OB-GYN. But that experience in the ER still haunts her.

“They’re a private organization providing medical care without a medical license, so they are not liable for anything they tell anyone,” she said.

Andrea Trudden, spokesperson for Heartbeat International, one of the largest pregnancy center networks in the U.S., said that as of 2025, more than 75% of Heartbeat affiliates offer medical services and are different from pregnancy resource centers, which offer parenting classes and material aid but not medical services.

“Medical affiliates that provide limited obstetrical ultrasound or other services follow applicable state laws, professional standards, and clinical protocols,” Trudden said in a written statement.

According to a report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, 37% of 2,775 crisis pregnancy centers provided testing for sexually transmitted infections, and 29% provided STI treatment in 2024. The institute, which is the research arm of one of the largest anti-abortion policy groups, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, found that 81% of surveyed centers provided ultrasound services in 2024. The report notes that 28% of paid center staff have medical licenses, along with 12% of volunteers.

The only option for miles

In North Florida’s largely rural Wakulla County, there are no full-time practicing OB-GYNs. Wakulla Pregnancy Center is in Crawfordville, the county seat of about 4,800 people. Many women in the area lack transportation, said the center’s director, Pam Pilkinton. They have to travel about 20 miles north to Tallahassee for prenatal care.

Run by a local ministry, the center has a blue-and-white sign that advertises “Free Pregnancy Tests.” Inside, a cozy living room furnished with sofas leads to a counseling room and donation space, where moms peruse a range of free baby clothes and supplies. Most of the center’s clients have low incomes, and are on Medicaid or uninsured.

When Florida passed a six-week abortion ban in 2023, legislators simultaneously increased state funding for crisis pregnancy centers by 455% — from $4.5 million to $25 million. The following legislative session, they added another $4.5 million. 

The funds go to the Florida Pregnancy Care Network, which manages contracts with more than 100 crisis pregnancy centers across the state. The organization is required to report the amount and types of services provided and the expenditures to the governor and state legislature once a year. But it is not required to make any noncompliance findings public. 

The public money for centers in Florida doesn’t end there. Wakulla Pregnancy Center received a separate allocation in the 2025 budget of $136,000. According to the funding request, $60,000 is allocated for a building asbestos issue, and $58,000 pays for the salary and benefits of the executive director and client coordinator. The rest is for pregnancy tests, educational materials, ultrasound referrals and other supplies. 

But Pilkinton is clear about one point: The center does not provide medical care in this maternal health care desert. 

“We’re not a medical facility, and that is something that we let everyone know up front,” Pilkinton said. “We provide material support, education, information and peer counseling.”

That doesn’t include practices like referring a patient to an OB-GYN for prenatal care after a positive test, for example, “because we’re not a medical facility,” she said.

Wakulla County’s severe maternal hospitalization rates ranked among the worst in the state in 2023 and 2024.

Like in other states, maternal health care has continued to flounder in Florida — and shortages are likely to worsen. Nearly half of 1,500 OB-GYNs who responded to a state survey say they plan to stop delivering babies within the next two years. 

The money Florida allocated for pregnancy centers might have covered more maternity care across the state, said Democratic state Rep. Anna V. Eskamani.

“We do need to strengthen our safety nets when it comes to supporting new moms,” Eskamani said. “Instead of addressing those gaps and investing in those areas, we continue to dole out millions of dollars to these unregulated and often religiously affiliated anti-abortion centers that are not addressing any of these disparities.”

In previous legislative sessions, Eskamani filed bills to repeal state funding and introduce regulation of existing centers. The bills have yet to receive a hearing, but she and her colleagues have filed them again.

“These not-for-profit organizations run with very little federal or state oversight, and sometimes they don’t even have licensed medical staff on site,” she said. “At this point, it’s a blank check.”

Big checks, little oversight

Much of the state funding for pregnancy centers did not exist before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision ended federal protections for abortion rights in June 2022. 

Conservative-led states — such as Texas — that already allocated tens of millions to pregnancy centers have doubled or tripled their budgets for pregnancy resource groups since 2022. In Missouri, lawmakers have budgeted nearly $50 million since fiscal year 2022 from the general fund and federal block grant dollars. Texas’ allocation ballooned from $140 million in fiscal years 2024 and 2025 to $180 million in 2026 and 2027. 

In southwest Missouri, Republican state Rep. Christopher Warwick’s support of the centers is a focus of his reelection campaign.

“I think it’s important that we fund organizations that are willing to save life,” he said.

Read more: Federal funding for people in poverty heading to anti-abortion centers instead

Louisiana lawmakers directed $4 million from the state’s general fund to pregnancy centers for 2025, as part of its Pregnancy and Baby Care Initiative. But an audit found the state doled out the maximum amount per center allowed by state law — $100,800 — to most of the groups without requiring them to fully document how they spent it.

Auditors were concerned Louisiana paid the centers more than the cost of the actual services provided.

In Oklahoma, state auditors discovered in 2022 that an anti-abortion nonprofit called Oklahoma Pregnancy Care Network disbursed less than 7% of the $1.6 million it promised to nonprofits under the state’s Choosing Childbirth program. A month and a half before its contract was scheduled to end, the group had served 524 women, less than 6% of the 9,300 Oklahoma women it initially projected it would serve. An administrator with the nonprofit told The Oklahoman she was unaware there were problems.

Despite those findings, state lawmakers later directed nearly $18 million — a quarter of the state health department’s entire budget — toward Choosing Childbirth through November 2027. More than $4 million of it went to the Oklahoma Pregnancy Care Network. The network did not respond to States Newsroom’s requests for comment.

Inner workings

Lyerly, the OB-GYN in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, said the couple with the mislabeled sonogram came into her Planned Parenthood clinic in the early months of 2022. It wasn’t uncommon for patients with appointments at Planned Parenthood to accidentally go to the crisis pregnancy center across the street. This couple sought an abortion, she said, but came in with the ultrasound image of the woman’s bladder rather than her uterus. On top of the mislabeled ultrasound, they felt misled, because they were told the pregnancy was just a few weeks along when it was much more advanced.

“This was a challenging situation for them, was emotional and frustrating and upsetting to them, and it was so unnecessary,” said Lyerly. She stopped providing abortions in Wisconsin later that year when a state law banning the procedure went back into effect after the Dobbs decision.

Many centers are affiliated with umbrella organizations, including Care Net, Heartbeat International (formerly Alternatives to Abortion International) and National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, but often do not disclose that connection on their website. The parent companies provide guidance for operations, including yearly conferences, along with training for limited ultrasounds and other services. Training and funding for many of these centers’ ultrasound programs also come from national religious groups like Focus on the Family and the Knights of Columbus.

Heartbeat International is the largest of the three, with more than 4,000 affiliated service providers across the U.S. and in more than 100 countries, according to Trudden.

Trudden said Heartbeat International offers professional training and practical resources for affiliates, who determine their own governance, leadership and location and must agree to a set of standards also shared by Care Net and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. Those standards include practicing honesty and confidentiality with clients and complying with all legal and regulatory requirements. 

Some pregnancy centers are staffed with licensed professionals trained in sonography. The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates says it has trained more than 6,000 health care professionals “in the medical and legal ‘how to’s’ of limited obstetrical ultrasound.” But at its national conference last year, leaders discouraged centers from performing ultrasounds on women who they suspect have ectopic pregnancies to avoid liability. The guidance came in the wake of a lawsuit against a Massachusetts center, in which the plaintiffs alleged that center staff failed to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy that ruptured, prompting emergency surgery. The clinic reached a settlement with the patient. 

Some centers offer more medical services, like prenatal support and testing and treatment for STIs, such as Idaho’s Stanton Healthcare, which is accredited by the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care and does not receive any public funding. 

“We have caught ectopic pregnancies. … I can think of three in the last eight months off the top of my head,” said Angela Dwyer, Stanton’s director of client services. 

But advocacy groups such as Campaign for Accountability have raised alarms about how many clinics do not have to follow federal health privacy laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, known as HIPAA.

Clinics that offer free services and do not bill insurance face no penalty for disclosing a client’s information. 

In contrast, Jessica Scharfenberg, CEO of Healthfirst Network in central Wisconsin, said if any of her 10 reproductive health clinics violated HIPAA, they would face steep federal fines and possible jail time for staffers. 

“If my entity broke HIPAA, we would have federal consequences, even though we also have an internal policy for it,” Scharfenberg said. “They have their internal policies. They break HIPAA, there’s no consequences for it.”

The websites of some centers give the appearance of being HIPAA compliant even though they aren’t, States Newsroom has reported. 

The other two main umbrella organizations did not respond to multiple requests for comment by email and phone. 

‘So much help’

In North Lauderdale, Ieshia Scott would stare at her 6-month-old, unable to hold the baby when she cried. Scott, who also had a 10-year-old, felt overwhelmed by a constant cloud of stress and sadness, all while trying to keep up with college classes.

When she found out she was pregnant again, Scott searched for an abortion clinic in the city, and a pregnancy resource center came up in the search results. That 2018 visit would last nearly three hours, during which she fielded dozens of questions about why she wanted an abortion. Scott had suicidal thoughts and was depressed but felt totally unheard. 

“I really was disregarded,” said Scott, now 36. “I was actually saying to her, like — ‘I don’t know, I might hurt myself, I might hurt the baby.’”

The center didn’t refer her to a psychiatrist, therapist or OB-GYN. The staff member instead reminded her of the Ten Commandments.

“I’m literally telling her, I can’t — I can’t do it. And she was like, ‘You can, you can. And there’s so much help.’”

Mental health is a contributing factor in about 23% of the nation’s maternal deaths, reports from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

Scott eventually went to a clinic to get the care she needed. But she worries for women who can’t. 

More than a dozen states passed abortion bans after Dobbs, and efforts continue nationwide to dismantle what access remains. Several states with abortion bans — including Missouri, South Carolina and Texas — have moved to cut Planned Parenthood out of state Medicaid programs as well, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that excluding the organization did not violate Medicaid’s provision requiring freedom of choice in providers. Florida legislators are also discussing cutting Planned Parenthood out of the state Medicaid program.

In 2025, at least 51 Planned Parenthood locations closed or limited medical services after losing state and federal support. Those communities lost access not only to abortion services but also to other reproductive and primary medical care. Independent clinics such as Maine Family Planning stopped offering primary care services for about 600 patients because of a funding loss of about $1.9 million, even though none of the Medicaid dollars were used for abortion.

‘Government handouts’

Lawmakers are not only opening public coffers to provide direct financial support to pregnancy centers, but they’re also creating tax breaks, drawing on federal sources and shifting funds meant to help low-income families to aid the anti-abortion organizations — with few regulations.

Some legislators have resisted stronger oversight. 

In Missouri, state Rep. Warwick opposed a colleague’s suggestion to require the centers to report how they spend their donations in a tax credit program, saying he wanted to limit bureaucracy. He said in a February 2025 legislative hearing that the tax credit keeps the state from having to “verify what programs work.” 

“I don’t think they’re funded enough to be able to mishandle their money,” he told States Newsroom in December. “At least not the ones I’m familiar with.”

Warwick proposed raising the tax credit for pregnancy center donations from 70% to 100% in 2025, meaning someone donating to a pregnancy center could reduce their state tax bill by the exact amount donated. 

The credits that Missourians redeemed shot up from about $2 million to an average of more than $7 million per year after lawmakers removed a cap on credits in 2021, according to a fiscal note attached to Warwick’s bill. State officials estimated a 100% tax credit just for pregnancy center donations would cost the state more than $10.7 million in the first year.

Missouri also funnels more than $2 million per year in state and federal dollars to pregnancy resource centers and similar organizations through its Alternatives to Abortion program. That’s in addition to what the centers receive from Missouri’s federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families fund — $10.3 million in this fiscal year.

Although Warwick’s 100% pregnancy center tax credit failed, he plans to try again in this year’s session. “I don’t think it (a 100% tax credit) would significantly hurt the state, especially when we’re talking about protecting life, protecting the birth of children,” he said.

Nebraska Sen. Joni Albrecht, a Republican who also sponsored a six-week abortion ban, said the centers were a valuable investment when she sought to create a $10 million tax credit program that was revised down to $1 million in 2024. 

Of the 13 pregnancy centers approved for tax credits in Nebraska, four provided less than $150,000 in services, according to tax returns, and one had three consecutive state audit reports with findings of deficiencies in controlling and complying with federal grant funding requirements.

In Montana, a state without an abortion ban, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte found another way to give taxpayer money to pregnancy centers by donating a portion of his annual salary. In 2020, he pledged to give his salary to nonprofit organizations and charities, and has for the past three years included pregnancy centers in that list for a total of more than $60,000.

Idaho state Sen. Ben Adams, a Republican who sponsored a bill to establish a grant fund of $1 million for crisis pregnancy centers in 2025, told States Newsroom he felt it was important to put resources into helping people choose to have a baby. 

“We have, for a very long time, primarily through the federal government, essentially funded abortion through funding for Planned Parenthood and all these different organizations,” Adams said. “We say we’re going to restrict a woman’s access to abortion and that we’re pro-life. Well then, we actually have to be investing in those folks who are choosing life and show them that we mean it when we say we want them to choose life.”

For decades, the Hyde Amendment, a provision Congress has renewed annually, has prohibited the use of federal funding for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother’s life.

Idaho is one of a few states with an abortion ban that isn’t providing government support for crisis pregnancy centers. Adams’ bill failed by one vote in committee and faced opposition from many constituents, including a former board chairman of a crisis pregnancy center in Idaho who said subsidizing nonprofit entities with taxpayer dollars is not the proper role of government.

“Providing taxpayer funds on either side of this moral question is inappropriate,” said John Crowder in his testimony to the legislative committee, prefacing his comments by saying he is a Christian who believes life begins at conception. “Such decisions to lend financial support should be left to churches and individuals, not the government.”

Based on his knowledge of the finances of that center, Crowder said, it was clear they could meet the goals of their mission with the donations they received and “without government handouts.” 

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford contributed to this report. 

This story is part of a reporting fellowship sponsored by the Association of Health Care Journalists and supported by the Commonwealth Fund.

States Newsroom’s investigation is ongoing. If you have had an experience with a crisis pregnancy center, please get in touch at cpcproject@statesnewsroom.com.

METHODOLOGY: To identify government grant funding received by nonprofit crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), a team of States Newsroom reporters used multiple data sources. Reporters reviewed state and federal budgets and legislation to identify public funding allocated to CPCs between 2019 and 2025, with a particular focus on the period following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June 2022, as well as in prior years, as applicable. The team did not include federal funding from sources such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in the nationwide analysis, and state tax credit programs were also excluded.

Data reporter Amanda Watford cleaned and analyzed a publicly available dataset of CPCs originally collected by the nonprofit advocacy group Reproductive Health and Freedom Watch. Organizations that appeared to be permanently closed or did not report enough revenue to file a full IRS Form 990 were removed from the States Newsroom analysis. Watford extracted filings from ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer for about 2,000 organizations, covering 2019 to 2025. Government grant totals were only available for 217 organizations for 2023 and 2024 due to data infrastructure limitations. A separate analysis using the GivingTuesday 990 database captured basic financial and government grant data for 1,243 organizations between 2019 and 2023. Watford combined the 2019-2023 GivingTuesday data and 2023-2024 ProPublica data. The total amount of government funding provided to CPCs was calculated for each year, yielding a grand total of nearly $1.3 billion across 1,259 CPCs between 2019 and 2024.

This analysis is not comprehensive. Some IRS Form 990 filings were unavailable digitally, and some organizations did not report any government grant funding, so grant funding reported outside the available electronic filings was not fully captured. Financial information available through IRS Form 990 filings is self-reported by organizations to the IRS and is not independently audited. Additionally, there is a lag between when organizations are expected to file returns and when filings are publicly available. Due to these factors, the States Newsroom  findings likely undercount the total amount of public, government funding directed to CPCs. An estimated 2,633 CPCs were operating in the United States in 2024, according to research from the University of Georgia.

ORLANDO, Fla.,- International Motors, LLC* (“International”) announced the International and IC Bus Dealer of the Year award winners at its annual dealer meeting this week in Orlando. This event is an opportunity for International to celebrate the successes of the dealer network from the previous year. More importantly, it is a moment to align our strategy to ensure we deliver quality solutions for our customers every day.

The 2025 Dealer of the Year award winners were selected based on their performance in several criteria, such as vehicle sales, parts sales, International S13 Integrated Powertrain sales, and service dwell time. Growth in key areas like market share, customer experience survey results, and leveraging solutions through International Financial are additional data points used to make Dealer of the Year selections.

“The annual International dealer meeting is always an exciting event because it brings our network together,” said Dan Kayser, executive vice president, Commercial Operations, International. “Our truck and bus dealers are our closest partners, and they work hard every day to give customers a dependable, consistent experience. This event celebrates that partnership and the strength we have when we’re aligned as one International.”

2025 International U.S. and Canada Dealer of the Year: Wieland Truck and Trailer

Michigan-based Wieland Truck and Trailer had an impressive year, exceeding their targets across the board — from parts growth and truck sales to significant gains in customer experience and market share. They achieved nearly seven times their goal for conquest customer count.

“Customers count on dealers who act as true partners, and Wieland Truck and Trailer delivered above and beyond that promise,” said Justina Morosin, senior vice president, Sales and Field Operations, International. “Their accomplishments are a direct result of their focus and customer first approach, and we’re proud of the consistency and care their team brings to every interaction.”

“Being named Dealer of the Year is an incredible honor, and I’m proud of what our team accomplished this past year,” said Rob Cleary, dealer principal, Wieland Truck and Trailer. “Customers expect a partner who can support them across their entire operation, and our team takes that responsibility seriously. I’m looking forward to celebrating with them at the dealership and seeing what we achieve in the year ahead.”

Wieland Truck and Trailer, founded in the 1930s, has three locations in Michigan.

2025 International Latin America Dealer of the Year: Capasa

Capasa was selected as the Dealer of the Year winner because of their commitment to achieving a unique customer experience through comprehensive solutions and support.

“Capasa puts customers at the center of what they do,” said Rafael Alvarenga, vice president, Latin America Commercial Operations, International. “Their commitment to providing effective solutions and strong support makes a meaningful impact across Latin America and sets a strong example for our entire dealer network.”

“It’s an honor to be named Dealer of the Year. We take great pride in offering transportation solutions that support our customers at every stage of their operations,” said Luis Gerardo Amarante Alvarado, dealer principal, Capasa. “This award is a celebration of our team’s effort and commitment, and I look forward to what we’ll accomplish in the year ahead.”

Capasa was founded in 1962 to meet the needs of the state of Sinaloa, Mexico. They have a presence in the cities of Culiacán, Los Mochis, Mazatlán and Guamúchil and in the state of Baja California Sur in the cities of Los Cabos and La Paz.

2025 IC Bus Dealer of the Year: Midwest Transit Equipment

Midwest Transit Equipment’s strong commitment to excellence, commercial execution and customer support made them a perfect fit for IC Bus Dealer of the Year. They exceeded their target in orders, advanced battery-electric vehicle readiness and adoption, and completed training with extensive customer-facing engagement.

“Our dealers play an essential role in providing safe, dependable transportation for students,” said Charles Chilton, vice president and general manager, IC Bus. “Midwest Transit Equipment embodies what it means to be part of IC Bus through their teamwork, customer focus and dedication to building a stronger future for our industry. We’re proud of their team for the example they set for our network.”

“Celebrating our 50th year and being named IC Bus Dealer of the Year is an incredible honor for us,” said John McKinney, chairman, Midwest Transit Equipment. “Our team is committed to trust, collaboration and setting a high standard for the customers and communities we serve. I’m grateful for their effort and excited to celebrate this achievement together.”

Midwest Transit Equipment is the largest volume school bus dealership in the United States. They have nine locations and a team of 300 employees.

To find your nearest International or IC Bus dealer in the U.S. and Canada visit the dealer locators on International.com or ICBus.com. For distributors in Mexico and Latin America, search Mexico.International.com and Latin-America.InternationalCamiones.com.

About International:
Based in Lisle, Illinois, International Motors, LLC* creates solutions that deliver greater uptime and productivity to our customers throughout the full operation of our commercial vehicles. We build International trucks and engines and IC Bus school and commercial buses that are as tough and as smart as the people who drive them. We also develop Fleetrite aftermarket parts. In everything we do, our vision is to accelerate the impact of sustainable mobility to create the cleaner, safer world we all deserve. As of 2021, we joined Scania, MAN and Volkswagen Truck & Bus in TRATON GROUP, a global champion of the truck and transport services industry. To learn more, visit www.International.com.

The post International Motors Honors 2025 Dealers of the Year appeared first on School Transportation News.

Traveling the world and studying how children get to school has given me a deep appreciation for the difference in how nations approach something as simple—and as complicated—as pupil transportation.

Last month, I compared systems in the U.S. and India. This month, my attention is on Colombia, a country whose breathtaking geography, social dynamics and history shape the school commute in ways that most Americans would never experience in their daily lives. Despite all the differences, the underlying mission remains the same everywhere I go. Communities getting children safely to school so they can learn, grow and reach their potential.

When I think about school transportation in the U.S., the image that immediately comes to mind is that familiar yellow school bus. It’s amazing how recognizable it is—even internationally. No matter where I travel, people know what that yellow bus symbolizes. It represents regulation, structure, stability and the idea that education begins the moment a child steps into a professionally operated transportation system. Nearly 25 million children ride these buses every school day, making it the largest mass transportation system in the U.S. And it operates with a level of uniformity that, in many places around the world, is simply unheard of.

This system isn’t accidental. American school buses are purpose-built from the ground up with safety in mind: Compartmentalized seating, high visibility, reinforced frames, stop arms, flashing lights, emergency exits, and strict federal standards. As someone who has spent years in the fields of safety and security, I’m constantly impressed by the investment our country places in the transportation of its students. And it’s not just the equipment—it’s the people. In the U.S., drivers undergo specialized training not only in vehicle operation but also in behavior management, first aid, emergency evacuation, situational awareness, and increasingly, how to identify potential security threats. Whether you’re in a rural district in Missouri, a suburb in Ohio, or a dense metropolitan area like Chicago or Phoenix, you can expect the same level of commitment and consistency.

Of course, our system has challenges. Anyone who works in pupil transportation knows the constant struggle with driver shortages, bus replacements, new technology integration, and motorists who still don’t understand—or choose to ignore—stop arms. But even with those obstacles, the foundation is solid. There are predictable structures and regulated safety nets that American families have come to trust.

Colombia presents a very different picture—one shaped by dramatic landscapes, economic diversity and a transportation network that must continuously adapt. When I’ve spent time in Colombia’s major cities—Bogotá and Medellín—I’ve seen buses that closely resemble those in the U.S., often operated by private schools or contracted services. These buses usually include attendants responsible for helping younger children board and exit the vehicle safely. The presence of attendants is especially important in cities where the traffic congestion is unlike anything most Americans experience on a regular basis. A 30-minute ride in an American suburb might easily become an hour or more in Bogotá, simply because clogged streets and gridlock are daily realities.

Yet even these city operations are only part of Colombia’s story. Once you leave the urban centers, the transportation landscape changes dramatically. The country’s geography is breathtaking but unforgiving—towering Andean mountains, deep valleys, dense rainforests and winding rural roads carved into hillsides. In small towns and rural villages, I’ve watched children board brightly painted chivas—rugged, colorful buses that are as much a symbol of rural Colombia as the yellow bus is in America. I’ve ridden in colectivos, the shared vans that serve as the backbone of transportation for many families. I’ve seen children climb onto the backs of motorcycles driven by parents or hired riders. In river communities, I’ve watched entire groups of students load into wooden boats at daybreak, drifting along waterways to reach schools that are otherwise inaccessible.

One of the most striking sights I’ve encountered in isolated Andean regions is students traveling to school on horseback or mule-back. For them, it is entirely normal—simply the most reliable way to traverse rugged mountain trails that no motorized vehicle could safely navigate. To an American child, that might sound like something out of a storybook. But in these communities, it is simply life.

These different methods bring different safety challenges. In the U.S., we worry about motorists illegally passing stopped school buses, maintaining aging fleets, rolling out electric buses, securing qualified drivers, and ensuring that our transportation teams are supported and properly trained. The hazards we face largely come from human behavior and modern roadway issues.

In Colombia, the risks can be far more varied and unpredictable. I’ve seen narrow mountain roads so tight that one wrong turn would send a vehicle over a steep drop-off. I’ve seen roads washed out by landslides during the rainy season—forcing communities to carve temporary alternative routes or walk long distances. Some rural roads never see maintenance at all. In certain areas, the presence of criminal or terrorist groups adds an entirely different dimension of risk that American school transportation rarely encounters. Despite these challenges, Colombian communities continue to show remarkable resilience and ingenuity. Many rural drivers have an almost intuitive understanding of the landscape, knowing which curves are the most dangerous, which areas flood quickly, and where rocks tend to fall after a storm.

What stands out the most to me in Colombia is the power of community. I’ve seen neighbors without children pitch in money to keep an old community van running so other people’s children don’t have to trek miles through dangerous terrain. I’ve watched drivers show immense pride in their role because they know they are providing children with opportunities that could shape their futures. I’ve seen parents walk hand-in-hand with their kids along muddy roads, ensuring they reach the main path where they can catch a ride. In indigenous communities, I’ve witnessed elders accompany groups of children through forest paths—viewing education as a shared responsibility rather than an individual task.

Back in the U.S., that same commitment exists, but it takes a different form. Our strength lies in structure—transportation departments with budgets, routing software, regulations, and formalized training programs. Drivers form long-term bonds with students. Administrators work behind the scenes to ensure compliance and safety. School boards debate funding for improvements because they recognize that transportation is not just a logistical service—it’s a vital part of education.

---

Related: What Differs Between Pupil Transportation in the U.S. and the U.K.?
Related: Report: Inequities in Canadian Electric School Bus Transition Threaten At-risk Populations
Related: Routes Around the World: Quarterly Quotes From Anson Stewart

---

As I compare school buses in the U.S. and Columbia, I keep coming back to the fact that the vehicles may look different, the roads may be different, and the challenges may come in different forms, but the heart behind the work is the same. Whether a child is riding a chiva in the mountains, a wooden boat in the Amazon basin, a motorcycle through a rural town, or a yellow school bus in Texas, the journey to school symbolizes hope, opportunity, and the shared belief that education matters.

Next month, I’ll continue exploring pupil transportation across the globe as we examine Germany. Every country I visit teaches me something new—not just about transportation, but about culture, community, and the universal commitment to keeping children safe as they pursue their futures.

---

Bret E. Brooks is the chief operating officer for Gray Ram Tactical, LLC, a Missouri-based international consulting and training firm specializing in transportation safety and security. He is a keynote speaker, author of multiple books and articles, and has trained audiences around the world. Reach him directly at BretBrooks@GrayRamTacticalTraining.com.

The post Pupil Transportation Around the World: A Comparative Look at the U.S. and Colombia appeared first on School Transportation News.

In the U.S., pupil transportation is highly structured, professionalized and heavily regulated. The yellow school bus has become a global icon of education and with good reason. Every day, nearly 25 million American children ride them to and from school. In scale, the U.S. school bus network is the largest mass transportation system in the country — larger than all municipal transit systems combined.

Last month, Bret Brooks shared his experiences with pupil transportation in the United Kingdom as part of this ongoing series exploring how different nations move their most precious cargo: Children.

The emphasis is on safety and uniformity. School buses are designed with reinforced bodies, high-backed seats and flashing stop arms. Drivers undergo training that covers not only vehicle operation but also student management and emergency response. Transportation departments map routes with precision, ensuring children in rural areas, suburbs and congested cities alike can access education. In short, the American system reflects the resources of a nation that prioritizes regulation, logistics and consistency.

India, by contrast, presents a far more diverse and uneven picture. In major urban centers like Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore, larger private schools often operate their own fleets of buses with professional drivers and attendants. These buses can resemble their western counterparts, and for middle- and upper-class families they provide reliable and relatively safe transportation. Yet this represents only a fraction of India’s pupil transportation reality.

In rural areas, where the majority of India’s population still lives, the journey to school is often difficult and sometimes dangerous. Many children walk long distances along narrow, unpaved roads. Others cycle, navigating crowded lanes where cars, buses, livestock and pedestrians all compete for space. In some regions, groups of children set off together for safety, with older siblings informally supervising younger ones. When school buses are available, they are often overcrowded and poorly maintained, with students packed into every available seat and standing in aisles.

Alternative transport methods are common. It’s not unusual to see motorcycles carrying three or four children in addition to the driver or auto-rickshaws crammed with a dozen students zigzagging through traffic. These solutions may raise serious safety concerns, but for many families they are the only affordable and practical means of getting children to school. In some remote areas, parents pool resources to hire small vans or jeeps, transforming them into improvised school shuttles.

The risks in India extend beyond traffic safety. Seasonal monsoons can flood roads, making routes treacherous. In certain rural districts, children face threats from wildlife or must cross rivers without bridges. The lack of consistent enforcement of regulations compounds the danger. Although rules for pupil transportation exist, compliance depends on local authorities and school budgets, leading to stark disparities between urban and rural systems.

Yet what stands out most to me in India is the resilience and determination of families and communities. Education is viewed as a vital pathway to opportunity, and parents will go to extraordinary lengths to ensure their children can attend school. I know of communities pooling funds to purchase a shared bus, parents rotating responsibility to escort groups of children on foot and entire villages organizing safe walking paths. This sense of collective responsibility and improvisation reflects the cultural emphasis on education as a shared priority, even when resources are scarce.

When comparing the two systems, the contrasts are sharp. The U.S. offers a regulated, resource-heavy model designed around prevention and consistency. Every component, from vehicle design to driver training, aims to reduce risk before it occurs. India’s model, however, is less a single system than a mosaic of solutions. Some children board modern school buses in cities, while others cling to the back of motorcycles or trek long distances through the countryside.

Both nations also reveal strengths. The U.S. demonstrates what is possible with planning, investment and regulation. India illustrates adaptability, community spirit and perseverance in the face of obstacles. The American system excels in uniform safety, while the Indian experience highlights resilience and the willingness to sacrifice for education.

---

Related: Paradise Lost, Paradise Gained
Related: Maine Student Struck by School Bus Dies from Injuries
Related: NHTSA Investigates Autonomous Waymo Rides After Illegal School Bus Passing

---

Despite the stark differences in execution, the underlying value is the same: Children must get to school safely. Parents in both countries share the same hopes of their children arriving ready to learn, protected along the way. Both also face the modern challenges of congestion, environmental concerns and the need for sustainable solutions.

In the U.S., conversations increasingly focus on electric school buses, emissions reduction, and the integration of technology. In India, the emphasis is on access, affordability and safety enforcement, particularly for rural and low-income families. Both nations are striving, in their own ways, to evolve pupil transportation systems that serve future generations.

Examining pupil transportation in the U.S. and India has deepened my appreciation for the many forms this work can take. America showcases the strength of regulation and logistics, while India reveals the determination of families and communities to overcome daily challenges.

In the end, whether it is a meticulously scheduled yellow school bus in Missouri or a child in rural India walking miles to class, the goal remains the same: Connecting students with education, and through that, with opportunity. That commitment to children’s futures unites both nations, even as their systems differ dramatically.

Next month, this series will turn to South America—specifically Colombia—where geography, safety, and social conditions shape pupil transportation in unique and challenging ways.

---

Bret E. Brooks is the chief operating officer for Gray Ram Tactical, LLC, a Missouri-based international training and consulting firm specializing in transportation safety and security issues. Bret is the author of several books and articles. He is also a keynote speaker and presents around the world. He can be reached directly at bretbrooks@grayramtacticaltraining.com.

The post Pupil Transportation Around the World: A Comparative Look at the U.S. and India appeared first on School Transportation News.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) proposed an emergency action to continue enforcing engine emissions regulations because it says federal government efforts to undo them could result in the sale of vehicles that are not certified to any standard.

As California’s lawsuit continues against the Trump administration, challenging the presidential executive order in January directing federal agencies to terminate state emissions waivers and a resulting revocation of those waivers through the Congressional Review Act (CRA) signed into law in June, CARB said it wants to provide regulatory certainty and flexibility to manufacturers. For school buses and trucks, manufacturers could meet the Omnibus Low-NOx regulation adopted in 2020 or the previous regulation that met the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency levels set in 2010. The CRA this spring revoked three waivers, one of which allowed CARB to set a new level of 0.05 g/bhp-hr of NOx.

The public had five business days from Monday’s announcement to weigh in on CARB’s intent to enact its Emergency Vehicle Emissions Regulations by filing comments with the state’s Office of Administrative Law.

The emergency regulations do not address the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which the CRA also revoked an EPA waiver for.

“The amendments would confirm that, until a court resolves the uncertainty created by the federal government’s actions, certain antecedent regulations (displaced by Advanced Clean Cars II and Omnibus) remain operative (as previously adopted) with the caveat that CARB may enforce Advanced Clean Cars II and Omnibus, to the extent permitted by law, in the event a court of law holds invalid the resolution purporting to disapprove those waivers,” the proposal reads.

In other words, manufacturers would be able to continue certifying engines under either the earlier-adopted emissions standards or the more stringent standards.

CARB noted that most engine and vehicle manufacturers have already planned on or achieved compliance with the more stringent emissions requirements. But CARB also warned that manufacturers choosing to certify to previous emissions levels assume the risk of having engines out of compliance with regulations, should current legal cases brought against the Trump administration go in California’s favor.

Cummins spokeswoman Drew Blair told School Transportation News that it was premature to respond in detail to CARB’s proposal, as it was not final. But she added Cummins is following the issue closely.

“Cummins is focused on delivering products with the power and performance our customers need to get their jobs done, while also meeting emissions requirements,” she commented. “We also will continue to advocate for national standards to bring clarity to our business and customers and ensure efficient and affordable products are available to power their needs.”

Earlier this month, a group of vehicle manufacturers led by Daimler Truck North America, the parent company to Thomas Built Buses, filed a suit against CARB, claiming the agency would need to re-enact previous legislation before it could enforce earlier emissions regulations.

“In the event the vehicle manufacturer’s claims were deemed correct … then CARB must take immediate action to maintain a stable vehicle market in the state and prevent the sale of vehicles into the state that would not be certified to either set of standards …,” CARB writes. “… Otherwise, in light of these unprecedented circumstances, there may remain questions — for the first time since CARB’s program began decades ago — as to whether any California standard is in effect.”

A Daimler Truck spokesperson said Wednesday the company could not comment on CARB’s proposal.

International, the parent to IC Bus, signed onto the Daimler Truck lawsuit. An International spokesman declined comment because the litigation is ongoing.

Meanwhile, CARB said Tuesday 23 percent of new medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales in 2024 were zero emissions, more than double the minimum statewide requirement. The data is based on 30,026 zero-emission trucks, buses and vans reported to CARB by manufacturers. School buses are included in the reporting.

It was the fourth year in a row that ZEV sales increased. More than 57,000 ZEVs have been sold in California since 2021.

---

Related: California Doubles Down on Zero-Emission Vehicles with Renewed Affordability, Adoption Priorities
Related: Despite Federal Funding in Peril, California State Funding for EVs Continues
Related: CARB Uses $33M in Funding to Target Other Zero-Emissions School Travel
Related: NASDPTS Revises Illegal School Bus Passing Count After California Fixes Error
Related: California School Bus Driver Teaches Lessons of Compassion Through Music

The post Amid ‘Unprecedented Degree of Uncertainty,’ CARB Proposes Two Pathways for Emissions Regulations appeared first on School Transportation News.

LISLE, Ill.– IC Bus, LLC (IC Bus), the leader in student transportation solutions, is pleased to announce the recipients of the 2025-2026 IC Bus Scholarship Program. This initiative, created in collaboration with the IC Bus® dealer network, underscores the company’s dedication to fostering a bright future in the communities where its employees live and work.

Each recipient of the program will receive a $5,000 scholarship to support their education expenses for the 2025-2026 school year.

This year, 14 exceptional students were selected to receive scholarships after a competitive application process. Among them, four students were recognized with special honors, exemplifying the values and legacy of the scholarship’s namesakes.

2025-2026 Scholarship Recipients

Harlow Hageness Scholarship:

· Isabelle Forde – Harlow’s Truck and Bus Sales, Bismarck, N.D.

Holly Hoglund Klein Scholarship:

· Livia Takanen – Ascendance Truck Center, Marshfield, Wis.

Richard Wolfington Sr. Scholarship:

· Damon Wright – Wolfington Body Co., Chester Springs, Pa.

Floyd Morris Scholarship:

· Christopher Shoemaker – White’s IC Bus, Greensboro, N.C.

General Scholarship Recipients:

· Ainsley Boyd – Southland Transportation Group, Birmingham, Ala.

· Aiden Herley – Midwest Transit Equipment, Whitestown, Ind.

· Loran Thieneman – Midwest Transit Equipment, Whitestown, Ind.

· Madison Ballard – Waters International Trucks, Columbus, Miss.

· Ava Lazzara – Leonard Bus Sales, Deposit, N.Y.

· Erica Wilson – Leonard Bus Sales, Deposit, N.Y.

· Max Clara – RWC Group, Huntington Park, Calif.

· Alex Rodriguez – Longhorn Bus Sales, Houston, Texas

· Sari Johnson – Rush Truck Centers, Salt Lake City, Utah

· Carter Reineke – Cornhusker International, Lincoln, Neb.

“We are incredibly proud to support these talented students through the IC Bus Scholarship Program,” said Charles Chilton, vice president and general manager of IC Bus. “Education is a powerful tool for shaping the future, and we are honored to play a role in the journeys of these exceptional young individuals. Congratulations to this year’s recipients—you represent the values, ambition, and potential that make our industry and our communities thrive.”

Since its inception, the IC Bus Scholarship Program has supported hundreds of students across the nation. By investing in education, the program has created a lasting impact on the lives of students, families, and communities.

The 2025-2026 scholarship cohort continues this proud tradition, paving the way for a new generation of leaders, innovators, and changemakers.

About International:
Based in Lisle, Illinois, International Motors, LLC* creates solutions that deliver greater uptime and productivity to our customers throughout the full operation of our commercial vehicles. We build International® trucks and engines and IC Bus school and commercial buses that are as tough and as smart as the people who drive them. We also develop Fleetrite® aftermarket parts. In everything we do, our vision is to accelerate the impact of sustainable mobility to create the cleaner, safer world we all deserve. As of 2021, we joined Scania AB, MAN Truck & Bus and Volkswagen Truck & Bus in the TRATON GROUP, a global champion of the truck and transport services industry. To learn more, visit www.International.com.

The post IC Bus Announces 2025-2026 Scholarship Recipients appeared first on School Transportation News.