|
|
|
States and TANF Balances
Billions of dollars available for investment in support services
State spending on cash assistance for needy families has fallen dramatically since the enactment of the 1996 Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families (TANF) law that replaced the
AFDC welfare program. TANF funds not used for cash assistance are available for states to invest in a
broad range of programs and services for needy
families, such as child care, transportation, housing,
job training, and substance abuse.
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has compiled
new data on states’ use of TANF funds through the end of federal FY 2000 (ending
September 30). The new information shows that while states have made progress in
obligating and spending their TANF funds in the past six months, billions of
dollars are still available for states to invest in support services for
families struggling to make ends meet. According to the latest figures, there
remains a total of $2.7 billion unobligated and $5.3 billion obligated but not
yet spent, for a total of $8 billion in unspent dollars available in the states.
The National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support recently released a report
that examines the resources available to the states to impact poverty rates,
particularly unspent TANF funds. The report includes model state programs, as
well as examples of states using TANF funds to supplant previously used state
dollars to address poverty, rather than using these dollars to supplement state
resources.
How to read the TANF Table
The first two columns of the TANF table represent
the amount and percentage of funds that each state
has not yet obligated from the total funds they
have been allocated by the federal government
since the TANF law went into effect (fiscal years 1997
through 2000). The next two columns show the
amount obligated but unspent of the total funds
each state has been allocated since FY 1997. The
last column provides the percentage of the population
in poverty for each state.
Figures compiled by the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities.
STATES’ UNUSED AND UNSPENT TANF FUNDS*
(* As of September 2000)
| State |
Obligated but unspent funds $ in millions |
As a % of total funds |
Unobligated but unspent funds $ in millions |
As a % of total available funds |
% of population in poverty |
| AL | $69.2 | 17% | $2.7 | 1% | 14.5% |
| AK | 2.9 | 14% | 6.8 | 3% | 9.4% |
| AZ | 35.1 | 4% | 65.5 | 7% | 16.6% |
| AR | 21.1 | 11% | 0 | 0 | 14.7% |
| CA | 0 | 0 | 1,636.5 | 11% | 15.4% |
| CO | 0 | 0 | 94.2 | 20% | 9.2% |
| CT | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.5% |
| DE | 1.1 | 9% | 0.1 | 10% | 10.3% |
| DC | 18.2 | 5% | 79.9 | 20% | 22.3% |
| FL | 3.6 | 15% | 432.3 | 18% | 13.1% |
| GA | 96.8 | 7% | 100.4 | 8% | 13.5% |
| HI | 14.3 | 4% | 5.8 | 18% | 10.9% |
| ID | 17.4 | 16% | 9 | 8% | 13% |
| IL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.1% |
| IN | 40.6 | 5% | 91.4 | 11% | 9.4% |
| IA | 12 | 2% | 5.2 | 10% | 9.1% |
| KS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.6% |
| KY | 0 | 0 | 4.7 | 7% | 13.5% |
| LA | 169 | 26% | 0 | 0 | 19.1% |
| ME | 0 | 0 | 12.1 | 4% | 10.4% |
| MD | 49.5 | 6% | 54.2 | 6% | 7.2% |
| MA | 102.7 | 6% | 0 | 0 | 8.7% |
| MI | 124.8 | 4% | 0 | 0 | 11% |
| MN | 95.5 | 10% | 83.5 | 9% | 10.3% |
| MS | 62.9 | 17% | 58.2 | 16% | 17.6% |
| MO | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.8% |
| MT | 29 | 18% | 0 | 0 | 16.6% |
| NE | 9.6 | 4% | 0 | 0 | 12.3% |
| NV | 0 | 0 | 27.7 | 16% | 10.6% |
| NH | 8.2 | 5% | 0 | 0 | 9.8% |
| NJ | 0 | 0 | 379.7 | 25% | 8.6% |
| NM | 57.7 | 13% | 0 | 0 | 20.4% |
| NY | 761 | 8% | 546.7 | 6% | 16.7% |
| NC | 6 | 50% | 80.1 | 7% | 14% |
| ND | 11.5 | 13% | 0.1 | 14% | 15.1% |
| OH | 216.7 | 7% | 504.9 | 17% | 11.2% |
| OK | 94.4 | 16% | 0 | 0 | 14.1% |
| OR | 0 | 0 | 21.4 | 3% | 15% |
| PA | 0 | 0 | 437.3 | 17% | 11.3% |
| RI | 4.9 | 15% | 0 | 0 | 11.6% |
| SC | 0 | 0 | 33.8 | 9% | 13.7% |
| SD | 14.3 | 17% | 2.4 | 3% | 10.8% |
| TN | 100 | 12% | 27.6 | 3% | 13.4% |
| TX | 141.2 | 7% | 41.6 | 2% | 15.1% |
| UT | 33.4 | 10% | 0 | 0 | 9% |
| VT | 3.2 | 17% | 0 | 0 | 9.9% |
| VA | 0 | 0 | 36.8 | 6% | 8.8% |
| WA | 88 | 6% | 141.2 | 9% | 8.9% |
| WV | 135.2 | 33% | 25.6 | 6% | 17.8% |
| WI | 40.7 | 3% | 284.6 | 22% | 8.8% |
| WY | 40.7 | 49% | 16.3 | 20% | 10.6% |
| TOTAL | $2.745 billion | | $5.35 billion | | 11.8% |
|
For more information on TANF funds and
investment opportunities, in addition to links to the
National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support and to the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, click here.
|
|
 |
| |
|
|
ALTERNATIVES
|
|
|
Alternatives is a publication of the Center for Policy Alternatives – a nonpartisan progressive public policy and leadership development center serving state legislators, state policy organizations, and state grassroots leaders. Alternatives is indexed in Urban Affairs Abstracts. ISSN #1070-3047
|
Tim McFeeley, Executive Director
Jane Gruenebaum, Chief Operating Officer
Linda Tarr-Whelan, Board Chair
|
STATE NETWORKS
Diallo Brooks, Southeast Director
Bettye Jo Pakulis, Northeast Director
Jesse Romero, Southwest Director
John Freeman, Midwest Consultant
Jewel James, State Networks Manager
|
POLICY/COMMUNICATIONS
Bernie Horn, Senior Director, Policy & Communications
Kirsten Lindquist, Assoc. Director, Policy
Liz Cattaneo, Assoc. Dir., Communications
Star Wilbraham, Communications Assistant
Rachel Balick, Intern
|
PROGRAM INITIATIVES
Jen Ray, Senior Director, Program Initiatives
Helen Gonzales, Senior Manager, Work and Family Investment
John Wilcox, Senior Manager, Technology Policy
Jennifer Woolley, Senior Manager, Women and the Economy Program
Christine Broderick, Intern, Women and the Economy
|
LEADERSHIP
Carolina Zumaran-Jones, Director, Eleanor Roosevelt Global Leadership Institute & Flemming Fellows Leadership Institute
Maura Hutchens, Manager, ERGLI & FFLI
Meredith Gurwith, Intern, ERGLI
Rebecca Valerin, Intern, FFLI
|
ADMINISTRATION/FINANCE
Maxine G. Somerville, Senior Director of Administration and Human Resources
Tom Gilmer, Chief Financial Officer
Chantel McCloud, Manager, Payroll & A/P
John Wilcox, General Counsel
Shawn Hayden, Office Manager
|
DEVELOPMENT
Chris Rutledge, Associate Director of Development
|
|
|
|