Revised February 23, 2001

Unspent TANF Funds at the End of Federal Fiscal Year 2000
By Ed Lazere

View PDF version

If you cannot access the file through the link, right-click on the underlined text, click "Save Link As," download to your directory, and open the document in Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Spending on cash assistance for needy families with children has fallen dramatically since the early 1990s as a result of the declining number of families receiving such assistance. Available federal funding under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block grant has not dropped, however, because each state’s annual TANF allocation as established in the 1996 welfare law is based largely on the amount of federal welfare funding it received in the early 1990's. Many states have taken advantage of the TANF funds freed up by welfare caseload declines to invest in a wide range of benefits and services for needy families, such as transportation, child care, job training, and substance abuse treatment.

Many states also have left a portion of their TANF funds unspent. Under the 1996 welfare law, funds that a state leaves unspent in a given year are reserved by the federal government and can be accessed by the state in future years. TANF balances have become an important issue in many states because they present an opportunity to implement new investments that help needy families overcome barriers to work and to provide supports that help low-income working families remain employed. The issue of unspent TANF funds also is important because some federal policy makers have proposed reducing TANF funds and using the savings for other purposes. As a result, state officials have been urged by some federal policymakers and interest groups to invest a greater share of their TANF funds in benefits and services that help needy families, and many states have developed and implemented plans to expend their TANF reserves over the next few years.

This paper analyzes unspent TANF funds through the end of federal fiscal year 2000 — September 30, 2000 — based on expenditure data states have prepared for federal reporting purposes. (The federal fiscal year runs from October through September.) It also includes information on the amount of funds states have transferred from TANF to the Child Care Development Fund and the Social Services Block Grant, as well as the level of expenditures states have made from their own funds as part of the TANF maintenance-of-effort requirement. It is an update of earlier Center reports on unspent TANF funds.

While these new TANF financial data indicate that many states have a substantial amount of unspent funds, they also show that TANF spending has increased in many states.

These findings are presented in Table 4. A more detailed report on the use of TANF funds in fiscal year 2000 is forthcoming from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

 

Data Source

Each state is required to report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on its expenditures of TANF funds on a quarterly basis, using the "ACF-196" federal reporting form. These reports identify expenditures of TANF funds by major category, such as basic cash assistance, education and training, child care, and transportation. The reports also show the extent to which states transferred TANF funds to the social services block grant and the child care block grant, the amount of TANF funds that remain unspent, and expenditures states made from their own funds as a condition of receiving the TANF block grant — known as state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funds.

The ACF-196 reports for the quarter ending on September 30, 2000 were collected from November 2000 through January 2001 by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities from the state agencies responsible for preparing the ACF-196 reports — typically the budget, accounting, or federal reporting division of the state's welfare agency. These data have not been verified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and thus should be considered preliminary. In addition, some states may have revised their ACF-196 reports since the time they were obtained for this analysis. 

Unliquidated Obligations and Unobligated Funds
TANF funds that a state has not spent (or transferred to another block grant) are reported in two categories on the ACF-196 reports, following traditional budgeting methods: "unliquidated obligations" and "unobligated" funds.

Some funds reported as unliquidated obligations could be considered unobligated funds. The definition of unliquidated obligations has varied from state to state. The definitions appear to vary so widely that some states report all TANF funds that have not been expended as unliquidated obligations, while a number of other states report all unspent TANF funds as unobligated and report no unliquidated obligations. (This is illustrated in Table III.)

In states with substantial amounts of unliquidated obligations and little or no unobligated funds, it seems likely that at least a portion of unliquidated obligations reflect funds that generally would be considered unobligated funds. Some state officials have acknowledged in phone conversations with Center on Budget and Policy Priorities staff that all unspent TANF funds are reported as unliquidated obligations, whether the funds have been committed for a specific purpose or not.

The final TANF regulations have given states an incentive to report unspent funds as being obligated. The TANF regulations that went into effect on October 1, 1999 include a new provision that restricts a state's use of unspent funds from prior years. The regulations prohibit states from spending carryover funds on activities other than cash assistance or other forms of ongoing assistance intended to meet a family's basic needs, such as housing.(2) The federal regulations thus do not allow states to use unspent TANF funds from previous years on many otherwise allowable activities, such as work supports for employed families. These kinds of activities represent a growing share of the use of TANF funds.

The regulations provide one exception to the restriction on use of prior-year TANF funds. Funds that a state obligates from its current-year TANF allocation for activities other than ongoing basic assistance can be spent in that year or the following year. If, for example, a state obligated $10 million in TANF funds for transportation services in FY 2000, it would have until the end of FY 2001 to spend those funds on transportation. (Any of those funds not spent by the end of FY 2001 would have to be spent in future years on ongoing basic assistance.) By contrast, if the state did not obligate TANF funds in FY 2000, none of its funds carried forward could be spent on transportation for employed families in FY 2001. 

It is likely that this restriction on the use of carryover TANF funds does not greatly limit a state's ability to use TANF funds. States can retain flexibility by using carryover funds to provide cash assistance and using their current-year TANF allocation for other services and benefits. Nevertheless, it appears that some state officials believe this provision limits their flexibility, and this appears to have led a number of states to obligate a substantial amount of their unspent funds from the FY 2000 allocation before the end of fiscal year.(3)  

No systematic analysis of the large amount of TANF obligations has been conducted, but it is likely that at least a significant share of the obligated funds are or will become available for new uses. In some cases, TANF funds have been obligated by granting spending authority to counties or other local entities. In these cases, it is likely that the local entities have not committed all available funds, which means that at least some of the funds effectively remain unobligated at the local level. In other states that have obligated large amounts of TANF funds for specific activities, such as child care, it may take a long period to actually expend the large amount of newly obligated funds. In these states, policy makers may decide at a future date to alter the planned use of those funds. This means that a portion of the unliquidated obligations in some states, while reflecting a real obligation of funds, ultimately may be available for other uses.

TABLE I: Unobligated TANF Funds at the End of Federal Fiscal Year 2000
Table I identifies the level of unobligated TANF funds in each state as of September 30, 2000, the end of federal fiscal year 2000. These are the most recent data available. 

The first column identifies unobligated TANF amounts that remain unspent from each state's TANF allocations for fiscal years 1997 through 2000. The second column of Table I measures the accumulated unobligated TANF balance as a percentage of the cumulative amount of TANF funding available to each state from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2000. It thus reflects the portion of all TANF funds available to the state since the inception of the TANF block grant that have not been spent. (Each state's annual TANF allocation is included in Table VI of this report.) 

EXAMPLE: As of September 30, 2000, Mississippi had $62.9 million in unobligated TANF funds. This amount equals 17 percent of the TANF funds that have been available to Mississippi in the period from fiscal year 1997, when TANF was implemented, through fiscal year 2000.

TABLE I
Unobligated TANF Funds as of Sept. 30, 2000 (end of federal fiscal year 2000)

Unobligated TANF Funds as of September 30, 2000

Unobligated Funds as a Percent of TANF Funds Available*

($ figures in millions)

Alabama

$69.2

17%

Alaska

2.9

1

Arizona

35.1

4

Arkansas

21.1

11

California

0.0

0

Colorado

0.0

0

Connecticut

0.0

0

Delaware

1.1

1

District of Columbia

18.2

5

Florida

3.6

0

Georgia

96.8

7

Hawaii

14.3

4

Idaho

17.4

16

Illinois

0.0

0

Indiana

40.6

5

Iowa

12.0

2

Kansas

0.0

0

Kentucky

0.0

0

Louisiana

169.0

26

Maine

0.0

0

Maryland

49.5

6

Massachusetts

102.7

5

Michigan

124.8

4

Minnesota

95.5

10

Mississippi

62.9

17

Missouri

0.0

0

Montana

29.0

17

Nebraska

9.6

4

Nevada

0.0

0

New Hampshire

8.2

5

New Jersey

0.0

0

New Mexico

57.7

13

New York

761.0

8

North Carolina

6.0

1

North Dakota

11.5

13

Ohio

216.7

7

Oklahoma

94.4

16

Oregon

0.0

0

Pennsylvania

0.0

0

Rhode Island

4.9

1

South Carolina

0.0

0

South Dakota

14.3

17

Tennessee

100.0

12

Texas

141.2

7

Utah

33.4

10

Vermont

3.2

2

Virginia

0.0

0

Washington

88.0

6

West Virginia

135.2

33

Wisconsin

40.7

3

Wyoming

40.7

49

* Unobligated funds as a percent of TANF funds awarded from FY 1997 through FY 2000.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

TABLE II: States With Unliquidated Obligations of TANF Funds at the End of Federal Fiscal Year 2000
The figures in Table I do not reflect amounts reported as unliquidated obligations, because such funds generally are not available for new spending initiatives. Unliquidated obligations generally are amounts a state has committed to spend — through contracts that have been established or goods and services that have been received — but has not yet paid out.

Yet, as noted earlier, a number of states report substantial unliquidated obligations of TANF funds. In some states with substantial unliquidated obligations and little or no unobligated funds, at least some of the unliquidated obligations generally would be considered unobligated funds. Some of the states obligated a substantial amount of TANF funds by giving increased spending authority to local welfare agencies. In such states, at least some of these funds may remain unobligated at the local level. In other states where unliquidated obligations increased significantly in recent months, it may be difficult to spend such large amounts over the next year. As a result, policy makers may have the opportunity to re-direct some of those obligated funds to help low-income families in other ways. For both of these reasons, it is important to assess the amounts of TANF funds reported as unliquidated obligations.

Table II identifies the unliquidated TANF obligations in each state as of September 30, 2000. The table also calculates the amount of each state's unliquidated obligations as a percentage of the cumulative amount of TANF funds made available to each state through the end of fiscal year 2000.

EXAMPLE: At the end of federal fiscal year 2000, Virginia reported $36.8 million in federal TANF funds as unliquidated obligations. The amount of unliquidated obligations is equivalent to 6 percent of the TANF funds that have been available to the state from the inception of its TANF program.

TABLE II 
Unliquidated Obligations of TANF Funds as of September 30, 2000
(end of federal fiscal year 2000)

Unliquidated Obligations of TANF Funds as of September 30, 2000

Unliquidated Obligations as a Percent of TANF Funds Available*

($ figures in millions)

Alabama

$2.7

1%

Alaska

6.8

3

Arizona

65.5

7

Arkansas

0

0

California

1,636.5

11

Colorado

94.2

20

Connecticut

0

0

Delaware

0.1

0

District of Columbia

79.9

21

Florida

432.3

18

Georgia

100.4

8

Hawaii

5.8

2

Idaho

9.0

8

Illinois

0

0

Indiana

91.4

11

Iowa

5.2

1

Kansas

0

0

Kentucky

4.7

1

Louisiana

0

0

Maine

12.1

4

Maryland

54.2

6

Massachusetts

0

0

Michigan

0

0

Minnesota

83.5

9

Mississippi

58.2

16

Missouri

0

0

Montana

0

0

Nebraska

0

0

Nevada

27.7

16

New Hampshire

0

0

New Jersey

379.7

25

New Mexico

0

0

New York

546.7

6

North Carolina

80.1

7

North Dakota

0.1

0

Ohio

504.9

17

Oklahoma

0

0

Oregon

21.4

3

Pennsylvania

437.3

17

Rhode Island

0

0

South Carolina

33.8

9

South Dakota

2.4

3

Tennessee

27.6

3

Texas

41.6

2

Utah

0

0

Vermont

0

0

Virginia

36.8

6

Washington

141.2

9

West Virginia

25.6

6

Wisconsin

284.6

22

Wyoming

16.3

20

* Unliquidated obligations as a percent of TANF funds awarded from FY 1997 through FY 2000.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

TABLE III: Total Unspent TANF Funds at the End of Federal Fiscal Year 2000
As noted in Table II, an examination of unspent TANF funds in any state should include amounts of unliquidated obligations. To get a full picture of the amount of unspent TANF funds in a given state, it may be appropriate to examine the combined amounts of unobligated funds and unliquidated obligations, even though a portion of the obligated funds may be committed for a specific purpose and may soon be spent. 

Table III identifies the accumulated amount of unobligated TANF funds in each state as of September 30, 2000 as shown in Table I, and the accumulated amount of unliquidated obligations, as shown in Table II. This table then shows the combined amount of the two types of unspent TANF funds and presents the combined amount as a percentage of the cumulative amount of TANF funds made available to each state through the end of federal fiscal year 2000.

EXAMPLE: Idaho reported $17.4 million in unobligated federal TANF funds and $9.0 million in unliquidated obligations at the end of federal fiscal year 2000. The total amount of unspent TANF funds was $26.4 million, and this equaled 24 percent of the TANF funds that have been available to the state from the inception of its TANF program.

TABLE III 
Total Unspent TANF Funds as of September 30, 2000
(end of federal fiscal year 2000)

Unobligated TANF Funds as of September 30, 2000

Unliquidated Obligations of TANF Funds as of September 30, 2000

Total Unspent Funds as of September 30, 2000

Unspent Funds as a Percent of TANF Funds Available*

($ figures in millions)

Alabama

$69.2

$2.7

$71.9

17%

Alaska

2.9

6.8

9.8

5

Arizona

35.1

65.5

100.6

11

Arkansas

21.1

0

21.1

11

California

0

1636.5

1636.5

11

Colorado

0

94.2

94.2

20

Connecticut

0

0

0

0

Delaware

1.1

0.1

1.2

1

District of Columbia

18.2

79.9

98.1

26

Florida

3.6

432.3

435.8

19

Georgia

96.8

100.4

197.2

15

Hawaii

14.3

5.8

20.1

6

Idaho

17.4

9.0

26.4

24

Illinois

0

0

0

0

Indiana

40.6

91.4

132.0

16

Iowa

12.0

5.2

17.2

3

Kansas

0

0

0

0

Kentucky

0

4.7

4.7

1

Louisiana

169.0

0

169.0

26

Maine

0

12.1

12.1

4

Maryland

49.5

54.2

103.7

12

Massachusetts

102.7

0

102.7

5

Michigan

124.8

0

124.8

4

Minnesota

95.5

83.5

178.9

20

Mississippi

62.9

58.2

121.0

34

Missouri

0

0

0

0

Montana

29.0

0

29.0

17

Nebraska

9.6

0

9.6

4

Nevada

0

27.7

27.7

16

New Hampshire

8.2

0

8.2

5

New Jersey

0

379.7

379.7

25

New Mexico

57.7

0

57.7

13

New York

761.0

546.7

1307.7

14

North Carolina

6.0

80.1

86.1

7

North Dakota

11.5

0.1

11.6

13

Ohio

216.7

504.9

721.6

25

Oklahoma

94.4

0

94.4

16

Oregon

0

21.4

21.4

3

Pennsylvania

0

437.3

437.3

17

Rhode Island

4.9

0

4.9

1

South Carolina

0

33.8

33.8

9

South Dakota

14.3

2.4

16.8

20

Tennessee

100.0

27.6

127.6

16

Texas

141.2

41.6

182.8

9

Utah

33.4

0

33.4

10

Vermont

3.2

0

3.2

2

Virginia

0

36.8

36.8

6

Washington

88.0

141.2

229.3

15

West Virginia

135.2

25.6

160.8

39

Wisconsin

40.7

284.6

325.3

26

Wyoming

40.7

16.3

57.0

69

* Unspent funds as a percent of TANF funds awarded from FY 1997 through FY 2000.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

 

Table IV: Use of TANF Funds in FY 2000 as a Percent of FY 2000 TANF Grants
The new data for fiscal year 2000 reveal that states on average are now spending most of their annual TANF allocations. As a result, the balance of unspent TANF funds increased only modestly in fiscal year 2000. In some states, the use of TANF funds in FY 2000 exceeded their annual TANF grant, which means they drew from TANF reserves to fund their TANF program. 

Table IV compares the use of TANF funds — TANF expenditures and TANF funds transferred to either the Social Services Block Grant or the Child Care Development Fund — with the state's fiscal year 2000 TANF allocation. The table presents each state's use of TANF funds as a percent of their FY 2000 award.

The table also presents each state's use of TANF funds as a percent of its FY 2000 TANF award less any bonuses awarded during the fiscal year. During the year five states were awarded bonuses of $20 million each for reducing out-of-wedlock births, and 27 states received High Performance Bonus awards that totalled $200 million. Because states could not anticipate receiving these bonuses — and because there is no guarantee of future receipt of bonuses — comparing the use of TANF funds with the basic TANF allocation provides a useful indication of the extent to which states are using TANF funds they can expect to receive each year. 

EXAMPLE: In FY 2000, TANF expenditures and transfers in Arizona totalled $249.1 million. The state's TANF allocation for the year equaled $258.7 million — including a $236 million basic allocation and $22.7 million in bonuses awarded in the middle of the fiscal year. The state's use of TANF funds equaled 96 percent of its total TANF allocation. Arizona's use of TANF funds equaled 106 percent of its basic TANF allocation for FY 2000.

TABLE IV 
Use of TANF Funds in FY 2000 as a Percent of FY 2000 TANF Grants 

 

Use of TANF Funds, FY 2000* ($ figures in million)

FY 2000 TANF Grant

Use of Funds As Percent of Total Grant

FY 2000
Grant Less Bonuses

Use of Funds
As Percent of Grant Less Bonuses

Alabama

$85.8

$121.5

71%

$101.5

84%

Alaska

62.9

65.7

96

65.7

96

Arizona

249.1

258.7

96

236.0

106

Arkansas

79.7

61.3

130

61.3

130

California

3,809.7

3,775.6

101

3,730.2

102

Colorado

129.0

146.1

88

146.1

88

Connecticut

269.2

269.2

100

266.8

101

Delaware

35.6

33.9

105

32.3

110

District of Columbia

84.7

112.6

75

92.6

91

Florida

570.6

613.9

93

607.1

94

Georgia

297.1

358.4

83

358.4

83

Hawaii

85.1

99.8

85

98.9

86

Idaho

39.8

33.1

120

33.1

120

Illinois

626.6

626.6

100

585.1

107

Indiana

258.1

215.6

120

206.8

125

Iowa

142.5

132.7

107

131.5

108

Kansas

101.9

101.9

100

101.9

100

Kentucky

176.6

181.3

97

181.3

97

Louisiana

123.6

180.4

69

176.6

70

Maine

66.1

78.1

85

78.1

85

Maryland

210.6

229.1

92

229.1

92

Massachusetts

436.3

469.9

93

459.4

95

Michigan

819.2

797.9

103

775.4

106

Minnesota

224.2

276.6

81

267.2

84

Mississippi

66.2

93.5

71

93.5

71

Missouri

243.8

217.1

112

217.1

112

Montana

38.5

45.1

85

45.1

85

Nebraska

52.6

58.0

91

58.0

91

Nevada

36.9

48.9

75

46.7

79

New Hampshire

41.0

38.5

106

38.5

106

New Jersey

277.4

404.0

69

404.0

69

New Mexico

131.8

132.7

99

132.7

99

New York

2,170.9

2,450.9

89

2,442.9

89

North Carolina

344.6

329.0

105

329.0

105

North Dakota

24.0

27.3

88

26.4

91

Ohio

740.2

728.0

102

728.0

102

Oklahoma

118.0

151.0

78

147.6

80

Oregon

169.2

166.8

101

166.8

101

Pennsylvania

458.5

743.7

62

719.5

64

Rhode Island

92.6

97.5

95

95.0

97

South Carolina

99.4

101.2

98

100.0

99

South Dakota

19.1

21.8

88

21.3

90

Tennessee

190.8

213.9

89

207.5

92

Texas

534.4

541.6

99

525.3

102

Utah

70.3

85.9

82

83.3

84

Vermont

47.1

47.4

99

47.4

99

Virginia

137.1

158.3

87

158.3

87

Washington

383.0

413.9

93

403.3

95

West Virginia

106.1

112.7

94

110.2

96

Wisconsin

313.1

317.5

99

317.5

99

Wyoming

6.9

21.7

32

20.8

33

* This includes TANF expenditures in FY 2000 and TANF funds transferred to either the Social Services Block Grant or the Child Care Development Fund in FY 2000. Funds transferred to these block grants may be spent in the year received, but they also may be reserved for spending in the subsequent year (in the case of SSBG) or the subsequent two years (in the case of CCDF).
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

TABLE V: Transfers from TANF to the Child Care Development Fund and the Social Services Block Grant in Federal Fiscal Year 2000
States have the authority to transfer a portion of their annual TANF allocation to the Child Care Development Fund (also known as the child care block grant) and the Social Services Block Grant. The amount transferred to SSBG is limited to 10 percent of the annual block grant, and the combined CCDF/SSBG transfer amount is 30 percent. When TANF funds are transferred to CCDF or SSBG, the rules of those block grants, not TANF rules, govern the use of the funds.

Federal law enacted in 1999 would have limited transfers to SSBG to 4.25 percent of a state's TANF allocation starting in FY 2000, but federal appropriations legislation for FY 2000 and FY 2001 allowed the SSBG transfer amount to remain at 10 percent of the TANF grant. 

TANF funds transferred to CCDF can be used to strengthen a state's child care system and expand access to assistance. While states can spend TANF funds directly on child care, transferring these funds to CCDF may be advantageous because it can help states maintain a unified child care system. In addition, TANF funds spent on child care would have time limit and work requirement implications while for non-working families use of CCDF funds transferred from TANF does not carry these restrictions. Thus, it may be advantageous to use TANF funds transferred to CCDF to provide child care to some families, particularly families that are not employed but that also are not receiving a welfare check.

SSBG funds a wide array of social services for families with children as well as single individuals and childless couples, especially the elderly. TANF funds transferred to SSBG can be used for any allowable SSBG service, but only for families with children and incomes below 200 percent of the poverty threshold. Transferring TANF funds may be advantageous because use of SSBG funds does not have time limit or work requirement implications and because some services for needy families allowable under SSBG are not allowable under TANF. 

Table V identifies the amount of TANF funds transferred by each state to CCDF and SSBG in federal fiscal year 2000, and it presents those amounts as a share of the state's FY 2000 TANF allocation.

EXAMPLE: In fiscal year 2000, Illinois transferred $125 million of TANF funds — 20 percent of its FY 2000 TANF grant — to the Child Care and Development Fund. The state also transferred $63 million of TANF funds — 10 percent of its FY 2000 TANF grant — to the Social Services Block Grant.

TABLE V 
TANF Funds Transferred to the Child Care Development Fund and the Social Services Block Grant in Federal Fiscal Year 2000 

Transferred to CCDF*

Percent of FY 2000 TANF Grant

Transferred to SSBG*

Percent of FY 2000 TANF Grant

Total Transfer Amount

Percent of  FY 2000 TANF Grant

($ figures in millions)

Alabama

$20.3

16.7%

$12.2

10.0%

$32.5

26.7%

Alaska

13.1

20.0

6.5

9.9

19.7

29.9

Arizona

51.7

20.0

25.9

10.0

77.6

30.0

Arkansas

5.0

8.2

2.1

3.4

7.1

11.5

California

111.1

2.9

0

0

111.1

2.9

Colorado

29.2

20.0

14.6

10.0

44

30.0

Connecticut

0

0

24.4

9.1

24.4

9.1

Delaware

4.8

14.3

0

0

4.8

14.3

District of Columbia

18.5

16.4

9.3

8.2

27.8

24.7

Florida

117.6

19.2

60.3

9.8

177.9

29.0

Georgia

51.7

14.4

35.8

10.0

87.5

24.4

Hawaii

0.9

0.9

1.0

1.0

2

1.9

Idaho

6.6

20.0

3.3

10.0

9.9

30.0

Illinois

125.3

20.0

62.7

10.0

188.0

30.0

Indiana

41.4

19.2

20.7

9.6

62.0

28.8

Iowa

26.4

19.9

12.7

9.6

39.1

29.5

Kansas

15.3

15.0

10.2

10.0

25.5

25.0

Kentucky

36.2

20.0

18.1

10.0

54.4

30.0

Louisiana

54.1

30.0

0

0

54

30.0

Maine

7.3

9.4

3.0

3.9

10.4

13.3

Maryland

45.8

20.0

22.9

10.0

69

30.0

Massachusetts

91.9

19.6

47.0

10.0

138.9

29.6

Michigan

9.4

1.2

79.8

10.0

89.2

11.2

Minnesota

17.1

6.2

16.2

5.9

33.3

12.1

Mississippi

18.7

20.0

9.3

10.0

28.0

30.0

Missouri

20.7

9.5

21.7

10.0

42.4

19.5

Montana

7.6

16.9

4.3

9.4

12

26.3

Nebraska

4.0

6.9

0

0

4.0

6.9

Nevada

0

0

0.7

1.4

1

1.4

New Hampshire

0

0

0

0

0

0

New Jersey

79.8

19.7

40.4

10.0

120.2

29.7

New Mexico

19.5

14.7

0

0

19.5

14.7

New York

437.0

17.8

244.0

10.0

681.0

27.8

North Carolina

65.9

20.0

23.0

7.0

88.9

27.0

North Dakota

0.5

1.8

0

0

1

1.8

Ohio

77.5

10.6

72.8

10.0

150

20.6

Oklahoma

30.2

20.0

15.1

10.0

45

30.0

Oregon

0

0

0

0

0

0

Pennsylvania

67.1

9.0

54.9

7.4

122.0

16.4

Rhode Island

4.1

4.2

3.6

3.7

7.7

7.9

South Carolina

1.0

1.0

10.0

9.9

11

10.9

South Dakota

4.4

20.0

2.2

10.0

7

30.0

Tennessee

50.4

23.6

0

0

50.4

23.6

Texas

38.3

7.1

4.4

0.8

43

7.9

Utah

0

0

5.0

5.9

5.0

5.9

Vermont

7.7

16.3

4.7

10.0

12.5

26.3

Virginia

27.7

17.5

15.8

10.0

44

27.5

Washington

100.0

24.2

24.1

5.8

124

30.0

West Virginia

0

0

11.3

10.0

11

10.0

Wisconsin

63.5

20.0

31.8

10.0

95.3

30.0

Wyoming

0

0

2.2

10.0

2

10.0

* Funds transferred to these block grants may be spent in the year received, but they also may be reserved for spending in the subsequent year (in the case of SSBG) or the subsequent two years (in the case of CCDF).

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

TABLE VI: MOE Spending in Federal Fiscal Year 2000 
In order to receive federal TANF funds, states must spend specified amounts of their own funds on activities that meet one of the purposes of the welfare law. The maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement under TANF requires states to spend an amount equal to at least 80 percent of the amount spent on AFDC programs in federal fiscal year 1994. States that meet the work participation requirements in the federal law are allowed to reduce state MOE spending to as low as 75 percent of the fiscal year 1994 baseline.

Table VI presents each state's MOE spending level in fiscal year 2000 and measures the MOE spending as a percentage of the MOE baseline. The table shows that three states — Arizona, Idaho, and Montana — reported spending less than the minimum MOE requirement in fiscal year 2000. Because states face fiscal penalties for not meeting the MOE requirement and also must make up for any MOE shortfall through additional expenditures in the following year, state officials generally attempt to meet their MOE requirement each year. It is likely, therefore, that these states will revise their TANF financial reports when further documentation of FY 2000 expenditures is available to show that they did meet the FY 2000 MOE requirement.

EXAMPLE: Louisiana reported MOE spending in federal fiscal year 2000 totaled $55.4 million, which is equal to 75 percent of the MOE baseline.

TABLE VI 
State MOE Spending in Federal Fiscal Year 2000
Note: States must spend at least 80 percent of the MOE baseline (75 percent in some cases) 
during each fiscal year.

Annual MOE Baseline

FY 2000 MOE Expenditures as of September 30, 2000

Spending as a Percent of the MOE Baseline ("MOE Level")

($ figures in millions)

Alabama

$52.3

$39.2

75.0%

Alaska

65.3

50.2

77.0

Arizona

125.7

93.3

74.3

Arkansas

27.8

23.5

84.7

California

3,634.7

2,905.8

79.9

Colorado

110.5

119.5

108.1

Connecticut

244.6

191.1

78.2

Delaware

29.0

24.3

83.7

District of Columbia

93.9

77.5

82.5

Florida

491.2

372.3

75.8

Georgia

231.2

173.4

75.0

Hawaii

94.9

77.8

82.1

Idaho

18.2

13.0

71.4

Illinois

573.5

441.3

77.0

Indiana

151.4

121.1

80.0

Iowa

82.6

62.0

75.0

Kansas

82.3

74.8

90.8

Kentucky

89.9

72.5

80.7

Louisiana

73.9

55.4

75.0

Maine

50.0

50.7

101.3

Maryland

236.0

177.0

75.0

Massachusetts

478.6

358.9

75.0

Michigan

624.7

468.5

75.0

Minnesota

239.7

191.1

79.8

Mississippi

29.0

23.2

80.0

Missouri

160.2

145.9

91.1

Montana

21.0

15.6

74.3

Nebraska

38.2

28.6

75.0

Nevada

34.0

27.2

80.0

New Hampshire

42.8

32.3

75.5

New Jersey

400.2

300.2

75.0

New Mexico

49.8

40.2

80.6

New York

2,291.4

1,976.8

86.3

North Carolina

205.6

179.3

87.2

North Dakota

12.1

9.1

75.0

Ohio

521.1

392.9

75.4

Oklahoma

81.6

61.1

74.9

Oregon

122.2

91.6

75.0

Pennsylvania

542.8

407.1

75.0

Rhode Island

80.5

82.1

101.9

South Carolina

47.9

36.0

75.1

South Dakota

11.4

8.6

75.3

Tennessee

110.4

88.3

80.0

Texas

314.3

251.4

80.0

Utah

33.7

25.3

75.0

Vermont

34.1

27.4

80.3

Virginia

170.9

128.2

75.0

Washington

362.7

271.8

74.9

West Virginia

43.1

39.2

91.0

Wisconsin

225.2

168.9

75.0

Wyoming

14.1

11.4

80.9

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

Table VII: Basic Information on TANF and MOE Funds in Fiscal Year 2001
This table provides the amount of each state's fiscal year 2001 TANF allocation. This includes a basic grant in all states and one or more additional grants in other states. The additional grants include grants for states with historically low levels of spending per poor person or high rates of population growth and bonus grants to states with the highest rankings on various performance measures — such as the percentage of cash assistance recipients that go to work in a given year — which total $200 million a year nationally. (This table does not include the bonus grants to states with the greatest reductions in out-of-wedlock births, since they have not been announced for FY 2001 yet.) The total grant for each year equals the basic grant plus the additional grants if the state receives one.

Table VI also provides MOE spending amounts at the 75 percent, 80 percent, and 100 percent of the baseline level (state spending under AFDC in FY 1994). These figures are presented for background purposes.

EXAMPLE: Florida's basic annual TANF allocation equals $562.3 million. The state is eligible for a supplemental TANF grant, and the fiscal year 2001 supplement totals $60.4 million. The state also received a bonus for high performance of $20.9 million. That results in total TANF funding of $643.6 million in fiscal year 2001. The state would have to spend $368.4 million in state funds to meet the 75 percent MOE level, $392.9 million to meet the 80 percent MOE level, and $491.2 million to meet the 100% MOE level. The MOE baseline is the level of state spending under AFDC in fiscal year 1994.

TABLE VII 
FY 2001 TANF Allocations and MOE Requirements

FY 2001 Basic TANF Allocation

Supplemental TANF grant

High Performance Bonus*

Total FY 2001 TANF Grant

 

MOE Requirement

75% Level

80% Level

100% Level

($ figures in millions)

Alabama

$93.3

$11.1

$4.7

$109.1

 

$39.2

$41.8

$52.3

Alaska

58.8

6.9

65.7

 

48.9

52.2

65.3

Arizona

218.2

23.9

$6.3

248.5

 

94.3

100.6

125.7

Arkansas

56.7

6.2

$2.8

65.8

 

20.8

22.2

27.8

California

3,730.2

$36.1

3,766.3

 

2,726.1

2,907.8

3,634.7

Colorado

136.1

13.6

149.6

 

82.9

88.4

110.5

Connecticut

266.8

$2.6

269.4

 

183.4

195.6

244.6

Delaware

32.3

$0.6

32.9

 

21.8

23.2

29.0

District of Columbia

92.6

$1.7

94.4

 

70.4

75.1

93.9

Florida

562.3

60.4

$20.9

643.6

 

368.4

392.9

491.2

Georgia

330.7

37.3

368.0

 

173.4

184.9

231.2

Hawaii

98.9

$4.9

103.9

 

71.1

75.9

94.9

Idaho

30.6

3.5

$1.6

35.7

 

13.7

14.6

18.2

Illinois

585.1

$16.7

601.8

 

430.1

458.8

573.5

Indiana

206.8

$2.0

208.8

 

113.5

121.1

151.4

Iowa

131.5

131.5

 

62.0

66.1

82.6

Kansas

101.9

101.9

 

61.7

65.9

82.3

Kentucky

181.3

181.3

 

67.4

71.9

89.9

Louisiana

164.0

17.0

181.0

 

55.4

59.1

73.9

Maine

78.1

78.1

 

37.5

40.0

50.0

Maryland

229.1

229.1

 

177.0

188.8

236.0

Massachusetts

459.4

459.4

 

358.9

382.9

478.6

Michigan

775.4

775.4

 

468.5

499.8

624.7

Minnesota

267.2

$2.6

269.8

 

179.7

191.7

239.7

Mississippi

86.8

9.0

$2.4

98.2

 

21.7

23.2

29.0

Missouri

217.1

$5.9

223.0

 

120.1

128.1

160.2

Montana

43.9

1.1

$2.3

47.3

 

15.7

16.8

21.0

Nebraska

58.0

58.0

 

28.6

30.5

38.2

Nevada

44.0

3.7

$2.2

49.9

 

25.5

27.2

34.0

New Hampshire

38.5

38.5

 

32.1

34.3

42.8

New Jersey

404.0

$7.6

411.7

 

300.2

320.2

400.2

New Mexico

126.1

6.6

132.7

 

37.3

39.8

49.8

New York

2,442.9

2,442.9

 

1,718.6

1,833.2

2,291.4

North Carolina

302.2

36.1

$8.3

346.6

 

154.2

164.5

205.6

North Dakota

26.4

$1.3

27.7

 

9.1

9.7

12.1

Ohio

728.0

728.0

 

390.8

416.9

521.1

Oklahoma

147.6

$4.1

151.7

 

61.2

65.3

81.6

Oregon

166.8

166.8

 

91.6

97.7

122.2

Pennsylvania

719.5

719.5

 

407.1

434.3

542.8

Rhode Island

95.0

95.0

 

60.4

64.4

80.5

South Carolina

100.0

100.0

 

35.9

38.3

47.9

South Dakota

21.3

21.3

 

8.5

9.1

11.4

Tennessee

191.5

21.6

$9.6

222.7

 

82.8

88.3

110.4

Texas

486.3

52.7

$24.3

563.3

 

235.7

251.4

314.3

Utah

76.8

8.7

$1.4

87.0

 

25.3

27.0

33.7

Vermont

47.4

47.4

 

25.5

27.3

34.1

Virginia

158.3

$7.9

166.2

 

128.2

136.7

170.9

Washington

403.3

403.3

 

272.1

290.2

362.7

West Virginia

110.2

$2.1

112.3

 

32.3

34.4

43.1

Wisconsin

317.0

$15.9

333.0

 

168.9

180.1

225.2

Wyoming

20.8

$1.1

21.9

 

10.5

11.2

14.1

* These represent bonuses awarded for performance in FY 1999.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 


Endnotes

1. See, for example, Welfare Balances after Three Years of TANF Block Grants: Unspent TANF Funds at the end of Fiscal Year 1999, January 12, 2000. (/archiveSite/1-11-00wel.pdf), or Unspent TANF Funds in the Middle of Federal Fiscal Year 2000, August 2000 (/archiveSite/8-2-00wel.htm)

2. The preamble to the final TANF regulations indicates that states can spend funds carried forward from prior years only on activities considered "assistance." (64 FR 17840-41) The term "assistance" is defined in the regulations to include benefits and services that help families meet ongoing basic needs such as shelter or food, with some exceptions. The regulations specify that many uses of TANF funds are not considered "assistance, " including short-term assistance; child care, transportation, and other work supports for employed families; wage subsidies; state Earned Income Tax Credits; and services such as counseling that do not provide basic income support. (64 FR 17880)

3. In addition, a number of states obligated a substantial amount of unspent TANF funds prior to October 1, 1999 — when the new regulations went into effect — from their fiscal year 1997, 1998, and 1999 allocations. Because the restrictions were not applicable before October 1, 1999, states that obligated funds before then could spend those funds on non-assistance and were not required to spend them within a year.