Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

FF 1202TRFF

Authors

FF 1202TRFF

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3711 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(15) "FF_1202TRFF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "714081" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(174853) "Public Policy Institute of California FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA TANF and Welfare Programs Tim Ransdell Shervin Boloorian The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Copyright © 2002 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. About This Series Federal Formula Grants and California The federal government uses formula grants to distribute nearly $300 billion annually to state and local governments to help them implement federal policies in such areas as health, transportation, and education. How much each government receives is determined by complex formulas that consist of many factors such as state population growth and per capita income. This series of reports provides detailed information on California’s current and historical funding under the major federal grants and on the formulas used to determine California’s share of funding under various specific grants. All reports are posted on the PPIC website at www.ppic.org. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA TANF and Welfare Programs Tim Ransdell and Shervin Boloorian December 2002 This report—the first in a series of in-depth examinations of individual federal formula grants—reviews the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, pending reauthorization issues, and a number of formula-related aspects of federal welfare laws, with a specific focus on California outcomes. Introduction Congress set September 30, 2002, as the expiration date for the law creating the TANF block grant, and both the House and Senate have initiated and moved reauthorization bills in 2002. Six years after the 1996 enactment of the landmark Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) welfare reform legislation (Public Law 104-193), the law is widely proclaimed a success in helping welfare recipients achieve independence and self-sustenance through work. In a sharp reversal from record-high recipient counts immediately before PRWORA’s implementation, states on average reduced caseloads by 40 percent between 1996 and 2001. Child poverty rates simultaneously declined by 4 percentage points to their lowest level in 20 years. Some critics view these statistics with skepticism, doubting the adequacy of indicators to assess recipients’ quality of life after moving off cash assistance and worrying that an inadequate cushion will leave governments unable to provide sufficient assistance in the event of a severe economic downturn. Moreover, many aver that the encouraging statistics are primarily a product of an improving and vibrant economy during these years. At any rate, PRWORA’s success may be attributed in part to its rigorous requirements. It established a five-year lifetime limit on the amount of assistance allowed per person and requires that recipients engage in a minimum number of work or work-related hours per week after two years of assistance. The law also expanded the role of the states in designing their own welfare laws. PRWORA, TANF, and the State Family Assistance Grant PRWORA transformed the public assistance system in a number of ways, most notably by substituting a flat-funded federal block grant—the state family assistance grant—for the open-ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) state entitlement system. AFDC was intended to aid children in lowincome households in which one or both parents were absent or in which a parent was unemployed, incapacitated, or deceased. The PRWORA welfare reform legislation altered federal cash assistance to the poor by prescribing systemic work-requirement guidelines for states and, in return, granting states greater flexibility to design their own programs. Under the law, direct recipients in single- and two-parent families must devote a minimum number of hours (30 and 35 hours per week, respectively) to work or work-related activities such as vocational education. Graduated welfare roll reductions were also ordered, with the aim of a 50 percent reduction by 2002; states not meeting this standard were subject to federal penalties of up to 5 percent of their annual block grant. With some exceptions, welfare reform imposed five-year time limits on cash assistance, drastically shifting welfare to a short-term experience from one that, for many, had become a way of life. When TANF was initiated in 1997, states were expected to design program parameters and to tailor policies as appropriate. The overhaul was lauded as an effort to maximize the use of funds while improving the effectiveness and performance level of welfare programs. The law provided block grant funding of $16.6 billion per year for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and additional funding rewards were slated for states that most reduced the number of illegitimate births (without increasing abortions) and for states that most reduced overall caseloads. Historically, states provide 46 percent of overall spending on welfare. Under PRWORA, individual federal TANF payments to states are pegged to the maximum level of federal welfare expenditures to the state in fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and funds are conditioned on the state spending a set maintenance of effort (MOE) minimum level of its own expenditures. To determine the TANF block grant amount, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administration for Children and Families compared total federal grant receipt amounts from three programs—AFDC, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) training program, and Emergency Assistance (EA)—in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 and in the three-year period from fiscal years 1992 to 1994. HHS determined the greatest total of funds for each state under these three periods, and then allocated funds to each state for each year from fiscal years 1997 through 2002 based on that historical high-water mark. The MOE is calculated for each state based on the state’s spending on AFDC and related programs in a single year—fiscal year 1994. Each state is held responsible for providing at least 75 or 80 percent of total funds used to finance AFDC and related programs, and the applicable percentage depends on whether 2 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California the state meets the minimum work participation rate requirements for that fiscal year.1 HHS indicates that every state is expending more than is required to meet MOE levels—$11.3 billion in fiscal year 1999 funds, whereas the mandatory MOE would have been between $10.4 billion and $11.1 billion. PRWORA permits states to carry forward unobligated TANF funds for use in future years. In 1999, approximately 6 percent of federal funds remained in the federal treasury until states had an immediate need to draw them down. Statutory objectives for TANF grants include: assisting needy families with children so that children can be cared for in their own homes; reducing dependency by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; reducing and preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Funds may be used in pursuance of these purposes, as well as in any manner authorized under the three predecessor programs—AFDC, JOBS, and EA. States, which determine beneficiary eligibility, may transfer a limited portion of TANF block grant funds to the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and Social Services Block Grant, and states may not spend more than 15 percent of any funds on administration. California and TANF At $16.6 billion annually, TANF is the third-largest federal formula grant program in the nation, after Grants to States for Medicaid and Highway Planning and Construction. The program’s $3.73 billion allotment to California makes TANF the second-largest federal grant for the state, far surpassing the $2.2 billion received for highway programs, which for the nation is the second-largest grant. California accounts for 22.6 percent of U.S. TANF grant expenditures, and the state spends $2.7 billion per year for MOE compliance from its own funds to remain eligible for the federal TANF grant. California’s high TANF receipts are due in part to generous benefit levels under TANF’s predecessor, AFDC, as well as to immigration, high out-ofwedlock birth rates, and the fact that the 1994 base year for TANF was near the peak of California’s unusually severe early 1990s recession, when welfare caseloads in California had increased far more than in other parts of the country. Because California had been tapping matching funds from the federal government under AFDC and related programs at unprecedented rates, the state 1If the state does not meet the work participation rates, it must spend 80 percent of the amount it spent for fiscal year 1994 on AFDC and AFDC-related programs. If the state does meet the work participation thresholds, the applicable MOE percentage is 75 percent of the amount it spent for fiscal year 1994 on AFDC and AFDC-related programs. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 3 became eligible for a proportionally large share of TANF dollars once the new program came online. When PRWORA created the state family assistance grant, California’s allocation was expressly delineated at $3,733,818,000. Although the 1997 level was somewhat less ($3.1 billion) because of simultaneous receipt of some legacy AFDC funding, California has received nearly that statutory level in each year since, and excess funds remain available for drawdown. Over the six-year life of the program, the state has received $21.8 billion in state family assistance grants, or 22.8 percent of the nation’s $95.6 billion in total TANF grant obligations. California titled its state welfare program the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS) program. The state’s welfare rolls have contracted significantly since the implementation of PRWORA, leading to corresponding reductions in state expenses. Although welfare cost the state an average of $4.8 billion per year before the law’s enactment, the level fell to $2.9 billion in 2000. Nonetheless, since the implementation of PRWORA, California’s caseload reductions have lagged those of the rest of the nation. From 1995 to 2001, the state’s family caseload declined by 50 percent, compared to a national decline of 58 percent; and its total recipient caseload fell by 56 percent, compared to a total national reduction of 62 percent. The result has been that, despite a declining caseload, the state’s share of the nation’s welfare recipients has risen considerably (Figure 3.1). California ranks 38th among states in the percentage of recipients and 40th in the percentage of families who have moved off welfare since 1993. California’s slower declines may in large part be due to generous state policies. In Does California’s Welfare Policy Explain the Slower Decline of Its Caseload? (Thomas E. MaCurdy, David C. Mancuso, and Margaret O’Brien-Strain, Public Policy Institute of California, 2002), the authors attribute the state’s slow reductions to liberal benefits (a high maximum grant and a low income cutoff for receiving aid) and less-severe sanction policies. According to PPIC research, the state’s caseload decline would have exceeded 60 percent if California had adopted the welfare policies of the average state. The state’s slower caseload reductions may adversely affect the state during reauthorization, should formula aid be linked to such reduction statistics during program revision. Shortly before passage of welfare reform, California had experienced the largest surge in the number of welfare recipients in state history. AFDC rolls climbed throughout the early 1990s recession—peaking in 1995—but the rolls have declined since then. The state experienced sharp declines between 1996 and 2000, but there is concern that a return to economic uncertainty over the past two years has brought an end to that positive trend. 4 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California 26 25 24 Percentage of United States 23 22 21 20 19 Beneficiaries 18 Families 17 16 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 3.1—California Share of U.S. Welfare Beneficiaries and Recipient Families, 1993–2001 The number of welfare families in California declined by 49.9 percent between 1995 and 2001, from a high of 925,585 in 1995 to 463,912 in December 2001 (Table 3.1). Nationwide, the family caseload decline was somewhat faster, at 57.7 percent, falling from 4.96 million to 2.01 million families. California was home to 18.7 percent of the nation’s welfare families in 1995 and 22.1 percent of the nation’s total in December 2001, after peaking at 23.4 percent in 1999. An examination of the number of beneficiaries, rather than families, presents similar results. California’s welfare rolls fell from 2.69 million beneficiaries (19.3 percent of the nation’s 13.9 million beneficiaries) in 1995 to 1.2 million (or 22.3 percent of the nation’s 5.3 million total) in December 2001 (Table 3.2). The state’s share had peaked in 1999 at 24.8 percent of U.S. total beneficiaries. Again, California’s reduction of 51.2 percent lagged the national reduction of 62.6 percent for the period. Statistics for both beneficiaries and families indicate that California’s share of the U.S. total caseloads is less than it has been, but the current 22 percent share is well above the state’s 17 percent share of a decade ago. Critics from states that receive lower federal TANF payment levels per recipient complain that the TANF program sends too many federal dollars to California and other high-benefit states. During debate regarding reauthorization of the programs, some have suggested focusing funds on number of beneficiaries, rather than on total dollars spent by the state, thereby equalizing federal funding per beneficiary across states. Such a shift might affect California, FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 5 Table 3.1 Number of Families Receiving Federal TANF Benefits, California and the United States, 1993–2001 Date 1/1/1993 1/1/1994 1/1/1995 1/1/1996 1/1/1997 1/1/1998 1/1/1999 6/1/2000 1/1/2001 12/1/2001 Change % FY93–01 FY95–01 California 844,494 902,900 925,585 904,940 839,860 727,695 639,059 489,054 481,207 463,912 –45.07 –49.88 United States 4,963,050 5,052,854 4,963,071 4,627,941 4,113,775 3,304,814 2,733,932 2,208,095 2,144,540 2,098,930 –57.71 –57.71 California as a % of the United States 17.02 17.87 18.65 19.55 20.42 22.02 23.38 22.15 22.44 22.10 Table 3.2 Number of Persons Receiving Federal TANF Benefits, California and the United States, 1993–2001 Date 1/1/1993 1/1/1994 1/1/1995 1/1/1996 1/1/1997 1/1/1998 1/1/1999 6/1/2000 1/1/2001 12/1/2001 Change % FY93–01 FY95–01 California 2,415,121 2,621,383 2,692,202 2,648,772 2,476,564 2,144,495 1,845,919 1,272,468 1,258,019 1,179,133 –51.18 –56.20 United States 14,114,992 14,275,877 13,930,953 12,876,661 11,423,007 9,131,716 7,455,297 5,780,543 5,563,832 5,284,711 –62.56 –62.06 California as a % of the United States 17.11 18.36 19.33 20.57 21.68 23.48 24.76 22.01 22.61 22.31 but the effect could be less than expected. Had TANF grants been based on 1994 beneficiaries rather than 1994 dollars, California would have received between 18 and 19 percent of the total. In fact, depending on the base year selected for such a formula change, the formula might actually increase rather than reduce California’s share of TANF grants. California has represented more than 22 percent of the nation’s TANF recipients and families since 1998. If the base period for a formula adjustment were based on the past three years for which complete data are available (1998, 1999, and 2000), California’s 23.4 percent of 6 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California beneficiaries and 22.5 percent of families would return even greater sums to the state. Whereas California once reaped far more federal funding per welfare recipient than the national average, rapidly declining national caseloads have raised the U.S. average for per-case receipts to nearly the levels seen in California. In fiscal year 1997, the state received $3.15 billion or $3,748 for each of its 839,860 TANF families, a per-recipient level that ranked the state 17th highest among all states. In fiscal year 2002, California’s $3.7 billion grant was used to serve 465,713 TANF families (as of December 2001), for a per-family level of $7,954, which ranked as 23rd highest among states for the year. Whereas California’s funding per family in fiscal year 1997 was 14 percent above the national rate ($3,748 for California compared to $3,289), the discrepancy between the rate for fiscal year 2002 had fallen to near parity, with the state’s $7,954 level exceeding the national rate of $7,919 by less than half a percentage point. California’s Implementation of TANF California’s experience with TANF has differed from that in other states in a number of ways. Its 32-hour weekly work requirement makes California one of only six states that set hourly work requirements for recipients above the minimal federal 30-hour level for single parents. California also differs from most states in that its high school completion rates and basic job skill levels lag the national average and in that incarceration rates are higher—all dynamics recognized as barriers to employment. TANF’s elimination of aid to legal immigrants in 1996 was to California a costly component of welfare reform. Under PRWORA, California could maintain benefits to legal immigrants but without federal support, although the state was permitted to include such state expenditures as part of its MOE spending share. Whereas most states opted to decrease or suspend aid to immigrants, California chose to continue to extend benefits to its large immigrant family population—shouldering the cost from its own state general fund. An Urban Institute review found that overall U.S. welfare assistance to immigrants fell by 62 percent between 1997 and 1999; California in the late 1990s actually increased its CalWORKS coverage of legal immigrants. In 1996, 26.3 percent of California’s legal immigrants received welfare benefits; in 2000, CalWORKS covered 26.7 percent. California’s large immigrant population accounts for much of its child-only cases—where a child is eligible for assistance although his or her parents are not. The state currently administers roughly the same proportion (34 percent) of child-only cases as the rest of the country, although it has a significantly higher FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 7 proportion of cases (39 percent) where parental disqualification is due to undocumented status. The only state with a higher rate of child-only cases due to parental noncitizen status is Texas (77 percent). The average federal percentage of such cases nationwide is 23 percent. Although welfare rolls have declined significantly as a result of welfare reform, child-only cases have grown steadily (although they did decline slightly in 1998), and child-only cases thus constitute a growing proportion of the nation’s total TANF caseload. In California, cases are converted to child-only status as parental time limits are reached. In fiscal year 2000, California was home to 501,000 (22 percent) of the nation’s 2.3 million TANF families, and the state had 139,000 (19.4 percent) of the nation’s 719,000 child-only cases. With time limits converting cases to child-only status, the California totals and share figures are expected to rise sharply. Child-only cash assistance tends to be lengthier and costlier because of exemptions from the time limits and work requirements of adult cases. In 2000, California spent nearly two-thirds of its federal and state TANF funds on basic assistance—or cash benefits. As for most states, the greatest single noncash TANF expenditure under the CalWORKS program (13 percent) was for child care. The next largest categories were administration and systems costs (7 percent), funds authorized under prior law (5 percent), other work activities and expenses (4 percent), transportation and supportive services (3 percent), and less than 3 percent for work subsidies, education and training, conditional shortterm benefits, pregnancy prevention, two-parent family formation, and other services. The federal government underwrote $1.4 billion of California’s 2000 child care budget, with 70 percent of the funds coming from the TANF program. In 2001, 46 percent of California’s child care funds provided access to care for families participating in the CalWORKS program, 39 percent assisted nonwelfare low-income earners and at-risk children, and 15 percent assisted families from all income levels. Welfare Reform Reauthorization and the TANF Block Grant President George W. Bush launched a welfare reform reauthorization plan in February 2002, entitling it “Working Toward Independence.” The proposal called for higher work standards from recipients and extra resources for programs designed to strengthen families. Tommy Thompson, Secretary of HHS, called work promotion the key to the Bush plan, which would shift the percentage of TANF families required to work from the current 50 percent (for single parents) 8 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California and 90 percent (for two-parent households) to a flat level of 70 percent for all families. An April 2002 report by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated an increased cost of $2.8 billion for the state over five years under the new welfare mandates proposed by the administration, because of increased child care and welfare-to-work program costs. Since that time, legislation has moved in both the House and the Senate. Each would reauthorize the TANF program, and each would set a fixed annual appropriation for the grant—$16.5 billion in the House, $17 billion in the Senate. By a vote of 229 to 197 on May 16, 2002, the House approved and sent to the Senate a welfare reauthorization bill. The measure, H.R. 4737, is based significantly on the president’s proposal and was crafted by Representative Walter Herger (Marysville), Chair of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, and Representative Buck McKeon (Santa Clarita), Chair of the Education and Workforce Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness. The bill requires that welfare recipients work 40 hours per week, rather than the 30 or 35 hours per week required by current law. As requested by the president, states would be required to guarantee a 70 percent engagement rate in employment activities by beneficiaries by 2007, up from what is primarily a 50 percent level at present. The bill would set funding for the TANF block grant at $16.5 billion per year, reauthorize child care funds at $4.8 billion per year over five years, and authorize an additional $2 billion over five years for working mothers’ child care costs. Some critics in the Democratic party charged that the bill unreasonably raises work demands without providing adequate child care to assist recipients in meeting those demands, and Republicans countered by comparing the dire prognosis of the bill’s future consequences to similar warnings about the 1996 welfare reform proposal’s potential for disaster before its approval. Despite the fact that California’s percentage reduction in caseload lags that of the nation, the state’s caseload has declined enough to allow it to take full advantage of the TANF program’s caseload reduction credit, which reduces each state’s work participation requirements by 1 percentage point for each point drop in caseloads since 1995. The House welfare bill would recalibrate the caseload reduction credit to provide credit for differences between caseloads in the current year and 1996 for fiscal year 2003, 1998 for fiscal year 2004, 2001 for fiscal year 2005, 2002 in fiscal year 2006, and 2003 in fiscal year 2007. Because California’s caseload reduction leveled off in 2000, the caseload reduction credit and thus the state’s MOE could be somewhat affected in fiscal year 2004 and significantly affected in fiscal year 2005. The change in base year for caseload reduction credits could result in California’s not achieving the proposed 70 percent work requirement, thus forcing the state to spend 80 percent of historical levels rather than the current 75 percent. In such a case, the state would be FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 9 required to spend an additional $280 million in state funds to continue receiving TANF grants. By a vote of 13 to 8 on June 26, 2002, the Senate Committee on Finance marked up and approved a $17 billion per year version of welfare reauthorization dubbed the Work, Opportunity, and Responsibility for Kids Act of 2002. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate measure would provide federal aid to certain legal immigrants, offer higher funding levels for child care, require recipients to work fewer hours (retaining the current law’s 30 or 35 hours per week rather than the 40 hours per week in the House bill), expand the list of activities qualifying as work to include more training options, and alter the existing caseload reduction credit system. The bill also proposes a change in the TANF grant formula, incorporating the supplemental grant into the state family assistance grant, and adding below-average state per capita income as a criterion for grant qualification. The Senate WORK Act would remain consistent with some of the White House priorities contained in the House bill, including increasing the current work participation rate of 50 percent to 70 percent by 2007, and raising weekly base work requirements for cash recipients from 20 hours to 24 hours per week. The Senate committee voted to increase mandatory federal child care funds to $5.5 billion over five years and to boost from one year to two years the maximum allowable period during which recipients may participate in vocational training while receiving cash aid. During Senate markup, much committee debate focused on an amendment by Senator Bob Graham (FL) to end the federal ban on welfare payments to legal noncitizens that was initiated in the 1996 welfare overhaul bill. The change would cost an additional $2.4 billion over five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, although Senator Graham estimated the cost at $660 million over the first five years and $2.25 billion over ten years. California’s Department of Social Services estimates that it would save the State of California $54 million per year—the amount the state pays to provide welfare and related costs to its noncitizens. The amendment would also, at a state’s discretion, allow pregnant women and children who are legal immigrants to acquire health insurance coverage under Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The Graham amendment passed by a vote of 12 to 9 after considerable debate regarding the source of offsetting spending reductions. Both the House and Senate bills would authorize new grant funds for promoting fatherhood by helping noncustodial parents find jobs, but the bills’ approaches differ. The House proposes $20 million per year for five years to be allocated on a competitive basis to nonprofit and tribal organizations; the Senate version proposes $25 million per year for four years to be allocated to states on the basis of the population of participating noncustodial parents, with allocation 10 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California criteria developed by the Departments of Labor and HHS. Both the House and Senate bills would repeal a federal loan fund for state welfare programs. Welfare-to-Work Block Grant In addition to receiving 22.6 percent of the TANF block grant, California during fiscal years 1998 and 1999 received more than 17 percent of the nation’s $2 billion per year allocation for the Welfare-to-Work block grant. The grant was authorized and appropriated for only two years. Its stated goals were to help hard-to-employ welfare recipients gain transitional employment; to provide a variety of activities that would prepare individuals for, and place them in, lasting unsubsidized employment; to provide for a variety of post-employment and job retention services that would help the hard-to-employ welfare recipient secure lasting unsubsidized employment; and to provide targeted funds to high-poverty areas with large numbers of hard-to-employ welfare recipients. To date, neither the House nor the Senate welfare reform reauthorization plan includes language to renew the Welfare-to-Work block grant. Nevertheless, the grant contained a politically vetted factor mix (50 percent based on persons living in poverty, 50 percent based on the number of adult welfare recipients) that might be replicated in other welfare component formulas in future legislative drafting. Whereas allocations based purely on welfare recipient counts result in a greater funding share for California, a poverty factor spreads funding more evenly across states and thus might broaden the support base for a future formula grant. Supplemental Grants for States with Rapid Population Growth or Low Welfare Spending per Recipient California receives no funding from what has grown to be a $319 million annual TANF supplemental grant aimed at 17 states with high population growth and low welfare expenditures. The grant was initially authorized and appropriated at $800 million to be spent over four years, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2001. A state that qualifies for a grant receives an extra 2.5 percent of the TANF grant for each year qualified. Total federal supplemental grant allocations to the 17 qualifying states were $79.4 million in 1998, $159.7 million in 1999, $238.6 million in 2000, and $319.4 million in 2001. In 2002, Congress renewed the program for one additional year, maintaining the same funding level as the 2001 grant. Under current law, a state can qualify for supplemental grant funds in three ways—two alternative thresholds result in automatic, permanent qualification (regardless of future statistical changes), and a third threshold (a combination of FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 11 two measures) is recalculated annually and qualifies a state for only one year of grant funding at a time. 1. A state automatically qualifies for indefinite annual supplemental grant funds if its 1994 welfare spending per person in poverty (as counted in the 1990 Census) was at or below 35 percent of the national average for the programs in question—AFDC, EA, JOBS, and child care related to AFDC. California’s welfare spending is well above average, and the state thus clearly does not qualify through this route, although five states do: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. 2. A state also automatically qualifies for indefinite annual supplemental grant funds if its overall population grew by more than 10 percent from 1990 to 1994. California’s population grew 5.1 percent during that period and thus did not qualify, but five very high-growth states did: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. Alaska also qualified under this criterion because population estimates at the time reflected a 10.2 percent increase in its population. More recent data showed that Alaska’s population actually grew by only 9.2 percent for the period, but the state nevertheless continued receiving TANF supplemental grants. 3. A state may also qualify for supplemental grants on an annual basis if it meets two tests: Its 1994 welfare spending must have been below the national average, and its population growth must have exceeded the national rate for the most recent year for which data are available. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee have qualified every year for supplemental grants, whereas Montana and New Mexico qualified under the annual measure in early years but not in subsequent years (meaning that they continue to receive grants at the same level as in the last year for which they qualified but do not receive increases). Over the five years of supplemental grants, the 17 recipient states have won $1.1 billion, none of which has been allocated to California. Although California has received 22.8 percent of TANF block grants, the state’s share drops to 21.7 percent of total funding when the TANF and supplemental grants are combined. The House version of the welfare bill would reauthorize the supplemental grant, freezing total U.S. supplemental grant funds at the current $319.4 million per year level. The Senate Finance Committee bill proposes to change the TANF formula by adding additional grant mechanisms to the state family assistance grant, setting overall funding at $17,044,348,000 for fiscal year 2003 and $2 million less than that amount for each year from 2004 through 2007. The Senate plan would incorporate the supplemental grant into the main state family assistance grant, freezing funding as well as state allocations at 2002 levels, and 12 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California the Senate’s plan would also introduce a new formula element within the grant—state per capita income. The Senate bill proposes that states with average per capita incomes of less than 80 percent of the national average for 1998 through 2000 should receive an increase of 10 percent in their state family assistance grant and that states with a per capita income of between 80 and 90 percent of the national average should receive a 5 percent increase. As shown in Appendix Table C.2, 17 states would qualify for additional funding under this provision. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and West Virginia would receive a 10 percent increase; Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee would receive a 5 percent increase. The Senate provision would increase to 24 the number of states receiving additional funding through either the supplemental grant or the per capita income addition. The per capita income addition would increase TANF costs by $118 million nationwide. With a per capita income just 7 percent above the national average, California would not receive an increase in its funding. Child Care and Development Block Grant In 2000, four million California children lived in families in which the parent(s) worked, and only one-quarter of these received child care services from licensed professionals. As is the case in a number of states, demand for child care services in California significantly outweighs affordable and quality care. At present, 250,000 children eligible for government-supported child care are on waiting lists to receive child care services. The CCDBG, also known as the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), federally subsidizes state child care expeditures on behalf of low-income and needy families (defined as families that earn below 85 percent of the state median income), including those who may not otherwise qualify for TANF cash assistance. Income eligibility, reimbursement rates, and copayment levels are all decided by states. Whether to extend child care to those in education or training programs is also left up to the states; if offered, however, it is often conditional on meeting work requirements, as is the case in California. CCDF funds may be used for a variety of purposes including infant care, before- and after-school programs, facilities construction, quality of care improvements, and training for providers. CCDF consists of three funding streams: Mandatory funds are calculated based on the amount of these funds a state received under AFDC in 1994; matching funds are based on the number of children under age 13 in each state and require state matching funds; and discretionary funds are provided and reauthorized annually by Congress with no required state matches. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 13 California’s population is relatively young and the size of the population is growing, although the growth rate has slowed somewhat since the 1980s. Projections indicate that the number of children ages 0–4 in California will increase substantially, both in absolute numbers and as a share of both the state and the nation’s population, during the next quarter century. In 2000, California’s preschool-age population was 2.49 million, or 7.34 percent of the state’s population. The Census Bureau projects that that figure will rise to a total of 2.78 million (8.08 percent of the state population) in 2005, to 3.62 million (8.75 percent) in 2015, and to 4.32 million (8.76 percent) in 2025. Issues facing the preschool-age population are likely to become increasingly important for California as compared to other states. The Census Bureau projects that California’s share of the nation’s population ages 0–4 will rise from 13.0 percent in 2000 to 14.5 percent in 2005, to 17.1 percent in 2015, and to 19.2 percent in 2025—growing faster than the state’s share of the total U.S. population. California’s overall population is projected to rise from 12.0 percent of the nation’s total population in 2005 to 13.3 percent in 2015 and to 14.7 percent in 2025. Federal funding for child care under TANF was authorized at $4.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. Approximately $270 million (4 percent) of the total is set aside for improvements in the quality of child care, and roughly $19 million is earmarked for activities for school-age children and resources and referral services. California will receive approximately $536 million of this total in fiscal year 2002, slightly more than 11 percent of the national total and a share that is less than half of the state’s 22.6 percent of TANF block grant funds. In this same fiscal year, discretionary funds for CCDF were authorized at $2.1 billion, of which California was slated to receive approximately $194 million. In 2000, California transferred $520.3 million, or 14 percent, of its TANF grant to CCDF. In addition, the state separately spent another $539.7 million from TANF on direct child care expenses, for a combined total of $1.1 billion, or 31 percent of the state’s total TANF grant. PRWORA appropriated mandatory entitlement funding for child care for fiscal years 1997 through 2002. By 2002, total federal welfare-related child care spending had grown to $2.7 billion. The House-passed reauthorization bill would mandatorily appropriate $2.9 billion per year in child care entitlement funding. In addition, the House proposal would authorize (without mandatory appropriation) child care funding of $2.3 billion for 2003, with the total rising by $200 million per year to reach $3.1 billion in 2007. The Senate Finance Committee proposal would maintain level funding through fiscal year 2005 and would appropriate 2006 and 2007 entitlement funding of $3.0 billion. In addition, the Senate plan would provide a separate mandatory appropriation of 14 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California $1 billion per year over five years for an additional general child care entitlement grant. Out-of-Wedlock Birth Rate Reduction Bonus PRWORA created a bonus of up to $100 million per year for states that substantially reduced rates of out-of-wedlock births and that did not increase abortion rates in the process. Such bonuses would be paid to as many as five states that most reduced out-of-wedlock births (measured as such births for the most recent two-year period for which data are available as compared to such data for the two-year period immediately before the qualifying period) provided those states can also show that their abortion rates compared to total births have declined since 1995. Winning states are eligible for a $20 million bonus in years during which there are five bonuses paid; if fewer than five are paid, each bonusearning state receives $25 million. In fiscal year 1999 (the first year of the bonus), California ranked 1st among states in its proportionate reduction of out-of-wedlock births, and the state won a $20 million bonus. Such births constituted 33.9 percent of all California births in 1994–1995, falling to 32.1 percent of births in 1996–1997. (Nationally, the rate stayed level at 32.4 percent for each period.) California’s ranking fell from 1st to 26th in 2000 and to 13th in 2001, meaning that the state was not awarded a bonus for either year. The state’s out-of-wedlock birth rate had increased to slightly below 32.8 percent in 2000, and it climbed slightly above 32.8 percent in 2001. Although HHS calculations and awards for 2002 have not been announced as of this writing, a recreation and running of the formula using current datasets indicate that California will rank 8th among states and will thus be ineligible for a bonus in 2002. Moreover, because the bonus rules require that states show a decline in out-of-wedlock births, the state would be ineligible for bonus funds even if it were among the top five states in terms of reducing such births. Whereas California’s performance in 2002 is considerably better than the nation’s as a whole, the state still experienced a slight increase in the ratio of outof-wedlock to total births. According to calculations shown in Appendix Table D.2, California’s out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 32.77 percent in 1997–1998 to 32.79 percent in 1999–2000. According to these calculations, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Texas, and the District of Columbia will each receive $20 million for the out-of-wedlock birthrate reduction bonus in 2002, assuming that they show that abortion rates have not increased. Texas would be new to the list of bonus winners; the other three states and the District of Columbia have won bonuses in the past. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 15 The House and Senate reauthorization proposals would repeal the out-ofwedlock birthrate reduction bonus, although each proposes a follow-up replacement program to be dubbed the Healthy Marriage Promotion Grant. The House bill would authorize and mandatorily appropriate $100 million per year for five years, and the Senate committee bill proposes a mandatory appropriation of $200 million per year for five years. HHS would develop criteria for distributing funds to states, tribes, and nonprofit entities for marriage promotion advertising, education and skills training, mentoring, teen pregnancy prevention, and best practices dissemination, as well as “broad-based income support and supplementation strategies … that provide increased assistance to low-income working families, such as housing, transportation, and transitional benefits, and that do not exclude families from participation based on the number of parents in the household”—language intended to reduce disincentives to marriage in means-tested aid programs. The House bill adds two eligible activities—divorce prevention and high school education on the value of marriage and relationship skills—and the Senate bill adds funding for sex and abstinence education programs. High-Performance Bonus PRWORA established a bonus grant to reward high-performance states—those that performed strongly in pursuing several stated goals of the TANF program. The law authorized $1 billion—an average of $200 million per year—for the five years from fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2003, and it required that HHS develop a formula for measuring state performance, in consultation with the National Governors Association and the American Public Welfare Association, now known as the American Public Human Services Association. Unable to finalize a formula immediately, HHS and the nongovernmental organizations devised an initial formula for the first three years of the bonus, then revised the formula for the last two. The rulemaking process based the fiscal years 1999 to 2001 formula on improvements in various work measures for the two preceding fiscal years. (Fiscal year 1999 awards were based on improvements in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, awards for fiscal year 2000 were based on fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and fiscal year 2001 awards used data from fiscal years 1999 and 2000.) Awards of $200 million per year for the first three years were based on four measures: the job entry rate, the success in the workforce rate (an equally weighted composite of job retention and earnings gain measures), and improvement in each of these two measures. For these first three years, HHS awarded grants to the ten states with the best scores on each of these four measures. It awarded 65 percent or $130 million of the $200 million to the ten 16 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California best-performing states on each performance measure, with the remaining 35 percent or $70 million allocated to the ten best states on each improvement measure (Table 3.3). Among the four measures, the allocation was further divided as follows: 40 percent or $80 million to the ten best-performing states on the job entry rate, 25 percent or $50 million to the ten best-performing states on the success in the workforce measure, 20 percent or $40 million to the ten bestperforming states on improvement in the job entry measure, and 15 percent or $30 million to the ten best-performing states on improvement in the success in the workforce measure. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, HHS developed a considerably more complex formula. It continues to award bonuses to the ten states with the highest scores in each of the four work measures used in fiscal years 1999–2001 (job entry rate, workforce success rate, and improvement in each) with minor modifications, but the new formula adds new measures in three new categories—Food Stamps, Medicaid/SCHIP, and child care and family formation/stability (Table 3. 4). Specifically, it awards bonuses to the three states with the highest overall scores and the seven states with the greatest improvement in participation by low-income working families in the Food Stamps program; it awards bonuses to the three states with the highest overall scores and the seven states with greatest improvement in participation of former TANF recipients in the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and it awards bonuses to the ten states with the highest scores on a new child care measure (accessibility, affordability, and reimbursement rates) and a family formation and stability measure (increase in the percentage of children in each state who reside in married-couple families). The formula allocates $140 million to the work measures, $20 million each to the Food Stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP measures, and $10 million each to the child care and family formation measures. The three new categories are discussed in greater detail below. Measures of participation by low-income working households in the Food Stamps program (and improvement therein) will be based on the number of lowincome working households with children (i.e., households with children under Table 3.3 High-Performance Bonuses, FY 1999–2001 Work Measures Job entry rate Success in the workforce Total Highest Score % of Bonuses $ Million 40 80 25 50 65 130 Most Improved % of Bonuses $ Millions 20 40 15 30 35 70 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 17 Table 3.4 High-Performance Bonuses, FY 2002–2003 Work and Program Measures Job entry rate Success in the workforce rate Food Stamps Medicaid/SCHIP Child care Family formation and stability Highest Score No. of Awards 10 10 3 3 10 10 Most Improved No. of Awards 10 10 7 7 – – age 18, with an income of less than 130 percent of poverty, and with earnings equal to at least half-time, full-year minimum wage) in the state receiving Food Stamps as a percentage of all low-income working households in the state. This measure provides an incentive for states to increase Food Stamps participation. The measures of participation by low-income families in the Medicaid program and SCHIP (and improvement therein) was set as the number of individuals receiving TANF benefits who are also enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP and who leave TANF in a calendar year but remain enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP compared to all TANF leavers. Again, the measure offers states an incentive to boost participation in these health programs. The measures for family formation and stability will be the increase in the percentage of children in each state who reside in married-couple families. For the child care subsidy measure, the formula is more complicated still, and many of the data are internal to HHS. For fiscal year 2002, the child care component of the bonus will be calculated using two measures, and a third will be added for fiscal year 2003. For fiscal year 2002, HHS will determine the affordability of CCDF services measured by a comparison of the reported assessed CCDF family copayment in the state to reported family income—an incentive for states to keep child care costs low. The affordability measure will count as 40 percent of the overall child care subsidy measure in fiscal year 2002. The remaining 60 percent of the child care measure for fiscal year 2002 will be based on access—funds will be allocated based on the percentage of CCDFeligible children in the state who are actually served by the program. For fiscal year 2003, the child care measure is expanded to include a third measure. The two measures introduced for fiscal year 2002 will be repeated—with affordability weighted 20 percent and coverage/access 50 percent—and the third measure of child care quality (weighted 30 percent) will be added based on state reimbursement rates, comparing actual rates paid by the state for subsidized child care to the market rates applicable for all child care in the state to the 18 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California performance year. The quality measure is added to encourage states to underwrite high-quality child care services for TANF recipients. Thus, for fiscal year 2002 and beyond, the high-performance bonus will be allocated as shown in Table 3.5. The ten states with the highest score on the job entry rate will split $56 million; the ten states with the greatest increase in score on job entry will divide $28 million; the ten states with the highest score on the success in the workforce measure (job retention and earnings gain) will split $35 million; the ten states with the greatest increase in success in the workforce will divide $21 million; the three states with the highest scores on the Food Stamps absolute measure will divide $6 million; the seven states with the highest scores on the Food Stamps improvement measure will split $14 million; the three states with the highest scores on the Medicaid/SCHIP absolute measure will divide $6 million; the seven states with the highest scores on the Medicaid/SCHIP improvement measure will divide $14 million; the ten states with the highest scores on the family formation and stability measure (those living in marriedcouple families) will divide $10 million; and the ten states with the highest scores on the child care subsidy measure will divide $10 million—or $6 million for access and $4 million for affordability in fiscal year 2002—and $5 million for access, $2 million for affordability, and $3 million for quality in fiscal year 2003. The law also says that no state may receive a bonus greater than 5 percent of its TANF State Family Assistance Grant—a restriction that sometimes requires recalculation and subsequent reallocation of bonuses. The House-passed welfare reform reauthorization bill proposes a further revision of the high-performance bonus, calling for a bonus to reward achievement of specified employment goals—a return to the job entry, retention, and earnings goals used to measure performance in fiscal years 1999–2001—with the formula again to be developed by HHS in consultation with specified parties. (It would allow HHS to allocate bonuses for fiscal year 2004 based on measures in place for fiscal year 2003, but it would require use of revised criteria for fiscal years 2005–2008.) The bill proposes $900 million in total authorization—$100 million for 2003 and $200 million per year thereafter—although the bill text elsewhere proposes an appropriation of $500 million—$100 million per year for fiscal years 2004–2008. California and the New High-Performance Bonus Measures California won a $45.5 million high-performance bonus in fiscal year 1999, a $36.1 million bonus in fiscal year 2000, and a $41.7 million bonus in fiscal year 2001. In all three instances, the amount was the largest of any state, with FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 19 Table 3.5 High-Performance Bonus Elements, with Relative Funding Weight, FY 1999–2003 Bonus Formula Element Job entry Job entry improvement Workforce (job retention/ earnings gain) Workforce (job retention/ earnings gain) improvement Food Stamps enrollment Food Stamps enrollment improvement Medicaid/SCHIP enrollment Medicaid/SCHIP enrollment improvement Family formation and stability (marriedcouple family) Child care access to services Child care affordability Child care quality $ Millions Weight, Weight, 1999–2001 2002 80 56 Weight, 2003 56 40 28 28 50 35 35 30 21 21 66 14 14 66 14 14 10 10 65 42 3 No. of States 10 10 10 10 3 7 3 7 10 10 Pennsylvania ($24.2 million) and Illinois ($21.6 million) coming in second and third, respectively, in 1999; Texas ($24.3 million) and Florida ($20.9 million) doing so in 2000; and Texas ($24.3 million) and Wisconsin ($14.3 million) doing so in 2001. California’s share of all allocated high-performance bonus funds was 22.8 percent in 1999, 18.1 percent in 2000, and 20.9 percent in 2001. California’s success in winning high-performance funding during the first three years of the bonus was due to its strength on the job retention measure, which is 50 percent of the success in the workforce measure. California’s 73.3 percent job retention rate in 2000 (the year on which performance is based for fiscal year 2001 awards) was 3rd highest in the nation and was enough to qualify the state for a bonus, despite the state’s 39th rank on the other half of the success in the workforce measure, earnings growth. In 2001, California was the 10th state out of the ten total to qualify for a bonus under the success in the workforce measure. The expansion to other formula factors for the high-performance bonus dilutes the allocation of the four work measures and thus may reduce California’s share of total bonus funds. The value of the workforce success measure, for which California ranks among the top ten, will be reduced from $50 million to $35 million for fiscal year 2002. If the identical mix of states were to remain 20 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California among the top ten bonus winners for this measure in 2002, the lowered value of the success in the workforce measure would reduce California’s funding level by $12.5 million to $29.2 million. Of course, California still could compete for and win high-performance bonus money in the new categories implemented in fiscal year 2002, but predicting such outcomes is difficult. Several data measures are partly or entirely internal to HHS and thus are unavailable for analysis. Moreover, many public datapoints have yet to be released. Nevertheless, this study has attempted to use several data proxies to estimate, with varying levels of reliability, state-by-state indicators of potential success on new bonus measures. Detailed tables for these proxies are included as Appendix F, and we discuss each of the new measures below. Food Stamps. For a measure of low-income working households receiving Food Stamps, we compared 1999 and 2000 levels of children living below 125 percent of poverty by state in households receiving Food Stamps. Although the actual regulatory language requires an examination of working families rather than all families, and those at 130 percent of poverty rather than at 125 percent, our measures may still be somewhat instructive. On the alternative measures, California ranked 48th in the absolute measure proxy (a ratio of children in poverty to Food Stamps households in 2000), and 36th in the change in that ratio from 1999 to 2000. In 2000, 3.8 children in California were in lowincome households for every household receiving Food Stamps, compared to a 0.66 ratio for the top-ranked District of Columbia; and California’s ratio grew by 8.8 percent, whereas top-ranked Missouri experienced a 40 percent decline. Although California’s Food Stamps participation rate is estimated to have declined 7.4 percent from 2000 to 2001, resisting a national upward trend (the U.S. average increase was 1.6 percent), the state ranked 50th out of 51 in Food Stamps enrollment growth for the two-year period. Medicaid and SCHIP. The bonus measure for Medicaid and SCHIP is based on the number of, and improvement in the number of, TANF recipients leaving the TANF program who continue to receive Medicaid or SCHIP benefits. Although a valid proxy is difficult to identify because of the need for detailed cross-tabulation and the fact that the data are at present internal to HHS, a comparison of current with past recipients of both Medicaid and SCHIP may be somewhat helpful. California’s Medicaid rolls have been declining somewhat—the state’s 2.8 percent reduction in Medicaid enrollment from 1997 to 1999 bucked the national trend of increasing enrollment and ranked the state 38th in enrollment growth for the period. Comparing SCHIP enrollment with numbers of uninsured children, California’s ratio of 3.7 uninsured children for every SCHIP child ranks the state 28th in the nation. From 2000 to 2001, total SCHIP enrollment in California grew by 45 percent, from 477,615 children to FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 21 693,048 children. In the nation as a whole, the growth rate was 38 percent, and California ranked 19th among the states in enrollment growth. In 2000, 4.3 percent of California children were enrolled in SCHIP, ranking the state 17th in the nation. Finally, comparing children enrolled in either Medicaid or SCHIP in 2000, California’s coverage rate of 24.2 percent of all children in the state was 15th highest in the nation. The top-ranking states for these proxies were Texas for SCHIP enrollment growth (283 percent), New York for SCHIP enrollment share (14.3 percent) and for the ratio of uninsured children to SCHIP enrollment (0.78 percent), Oklahoma for Medicaid enrollment growth (39.1 percent), and Vermont for combined Medicaid/SCHIP coverage (37.0 percent). Child Care. For the child care subsidy measure, the largest shares of funds ($6 million in fiscal year 2002 and $5 million in fiscal year 2003) are to be allocated based on access to services, or the portion of the eligible population that actually receives child care and development fund services. Whereas current-year data for actual allocations are unavailable, coverage rates for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 are presented in Appendix Table F.6. In 1998, California ranked 45th among states, covering just 100,000 or 5.81 percent of its 1.7 million potentially eligible children, according to the standards of this measure. The state leapt from 45th to 18th place in 1999, experiencing the fastest increase of any state in the percentage of both total CCDF children served (127 percent growth) and in total families participating in the CCDF program (131 percent growth). For the same time period, the national average growth rates were 16.4 percent for children and 15.7 percent for families. In general, children are eligible for CCDF if they live in a family that earns less than 85 percent of the state’s median income for a family of that size. California’s median household income (without regard to household size) in 1999 was $43,744, so the 85 percent threshold would be $37,182, or about 220 percent of the national poverty rate for a family of four for that year. California’s median income tends to exceed the national median by 5–10 percent, which increases the state’s relative number of eligible children and thus raises the bar for meeting the measure. The remainder of the $10 million distributed annually for the child care subsidy measure will be based on affordability and reimbursement rates, both of which rely on internal HHS data. Family Formation and Stability. For this element of the bonus formula, HHS will measure the percentage increase in the number of children living in married-couple families. Although this study does not present data on year-toyear change, it provides as a proxy state-level figures comparing the 1990 decennial Census with its 2000 counterpart. During the 1990s, every state experienced a decline in the number of children living in married-couple households, with the national rate dropping from 70.2 percent to 66.0 percent, or a change from 1990 to 2000 of –6.0 percent. For the same period, California’s rate declined from 67.9 percent to 65.1 percent, or a change through 22 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California the decade of –4.2 percent. With its relatively slow decline, California ranked 5th in the nation in the change in this measure. If California remains in the top ten for the years assessed for the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 high-performance bonus, the state would share in the $10 million allocated for each such year under the family formation and stability measure. Contingency Fund Funded at nearly $2 billion per year, the TANF Contingency Fund was devised to provide a pool of additional federal resources for states to use during severe economic contractions, reducing financial strains during those periods. Currently, only Louisiana has on one occasion applied for and successfully obtained support from the Contingency Fund. By the beginning of fiscal year 2001, unobligated surpluses available in the Contingency Fund stood at $3 billion and unliquidated obligations at $5 billion. A number of proposals for disposition of these surpluses have surfaced during TANF reauthorization. At present, annual federal contributions to the fund are $1.96 billion. The Contingency Fund has remained largely untapped for two reasons: A robust national economy through the late 1990s left states with TANF surpluses and thus no need to tap the fund; and stringent criteria set a high bar for qualifying for the fund’s reserves. After several years of sustained growth, the strong economy of the late 1990s reversed in 2000, and 12 states—California included—dipped into state reserves from block grant surpluses accumulated during prior years. By late 2001, California had all but depleted its unliquidated surpluses from previous years, and a sustained recession without surplus reserves may lead the state to discontinue or streamline some programs, including those providing child care assistance. Work requirements could be further increased to serve as an added obstacle if policymakers choose not to increase funds to help pay for likely increases in child care demands. The Contingency Fund also presents an awkward set of standards for fund eligibility, making it exceedingly difficult for any state to be realistically considered as a funding prospect. To qualify, for example, states are required to demonstrate average unemployment levels of at least 6.5 percent, as well as sustained increases of 10 percent per year in the unemployment level over the preceding two years. (In March 2002, California’s seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment was 6.4 percent, whereas the national rate was 5.7 percent; in 2001, California’s unemployment rate was 5.3 percent, and the nation’s was 4.8 percent.) Furthermore, to receive a Contingency Fund allocation, a state must also expend 100 percent of its MOE) expenditure level, rather than the 75 percent to 80 percent commonly required during other years, and such counterintuitive requirements have led some to question the wisdom of FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 23 increasing demands on state funds during economic downturns. Although states have left the fund almost entirely untapped to date, sharply reduced eligibility thresholds might call into question the adequacy of overall fund resources. States that do qualify to draw assistance from the Contingency Fund are reimbursed on a matching basis at the applicable Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate for expenditures in excess of the fund’s 100 percent MOE requirement. The FMAP sets Medicaid matching rates for reimbursement of state expenditures on health care services for the poor, and the federal matching share ranges from a low of 50 percent to a high of 83 percent. The FMAP’s use of per capita income (PCI) as a factor was intended in part as a rough approximation for poverty, on the (largely mistaken) assumption that states with high incomes would have low poverty, and in part as a loose measure of states’ capacity to fund services from internal sources. The current FMAP for California is 50 percent, meaning that the state would be reimbursed 50 cents for every dollar expended if the state were to tap the TANF Contingency Fund. During reauthorization, Congress is generally expected to retain the Contingency Fund at the $2 billion level. The House welfare reauthorization bill proposes to allow states to count child care spending and all spending in separate state programs toward meeting the MOE requirement. The Senate version would make broader changes. The Senate would raise—for Contingency Fund allocations only—the FMAP floor from 50 percent to 60 percent for all states (including California) with an FMAP below 60 percent. Moreover, it would render a state eligible for Contingency Funds if its unemployment rate rises by more than 1.5 points from one quarter to the next, if the rate in one three-month period is more than 50 percent greater than that in the same period in either of the two most recent years, or if the insured unemployment rate in the most recent three-month period is more than one point above that in the corresponding period in either of the prior two years. The Senate bill also would make states eligible for the fund if either welfare program or Food Stamps participation increased by more than 10 percent over one or two years, assuming that the growth was due to economic and not administrative reasons. The Senate version would also eliminate the 100 percent MOE requirement for fund access. Conclusion California wins the lion’s share of TANF block grant funding, although that share is reduced somewhat when subprogram grants and bonuses are examined. Neither the House nor the Senate proposal for TANF reauthorization would significantly change amounts or percentages of TANF block grant funds, and the state would continue to receive more than 21 percent of federal welfare expenditures. The version pending in the Senate would add state per capita 24 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California income as a factor, thereby slightly reducing California’s percentage share of the total TANF block grant. The state does not and will not receive funds from the TANF supplemental grant. Because state caseloads have fallen more slowly than those in the rest of the nation, California’s share of U.S. welfare rolls has increased since passage of PRWORA. Reauthorization proposals to move up the base year standard for caseload reduction would make it more difficult for the state to meet work participation thresholds. Whereas the state’s number of welfare receipts substantially exceeded the national average when TANF was implemented, California’s per beneficiary federal receipts are now no greater than the national norm. California has won a share of high-performance bonus funding in past years, but that share may decline with the implementation of new award criteria. A proposal to permit states to treat certain legal immigrant welfare recipients in the same fashion as citizen recipients would benefit California considerably. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 25 Appendix A TANF Caseloads, Grants, and Maintenance of Effort Requirements FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 27 Table A.1a TANF Caseload Families and TANF State Family Assistance Grants, by State, with Comparison to National Averages, FY 1997 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State totals Grant ($1000s) 81,313 18,759 222,420 19,936 3,147,716 45,628 266,788 14,565 61,049 562,340 254,340 28,631 10,601 134,005 206,799 105,169 101,931 170,006 139,757 72,477 183,018 459,371 775,353 111,836 86,768 187,839 31,784 49,341 34,008 38,521 293,108 31,992 1,982,294 225,973 11,066 727,968 148,014 167,808 418,343 46,026 93,873 18,760 191,524 431,611 76,829 47,353 114,734 289,298 82,155 318,159 19,216 13,358,173 Caseloads December 2001 37,972 12,224 56,250 21,549 839,860 31,288 56,095 10,104 24,752 182,075 115,490 21,469 7,922 206,316 46,215 28,931 21,732 67,679 60,226 19,037 61,730 80,675 156,077 54,608 40,919 75,459 9,644 13,492 11,742 8,293 102,378 29,984 393,424 103,300 4,416 192,747 32,942 25,874 170,831 20,112 37,342 5,324 74,820 228,882 12,864 8,451 56,018 95,982 36,805 45,586 3,825 4,061,732 Federal $/ Family 2,141 1,535 3,954 925 3,748 1,458 4,756 1,442 2,466 3,089 2,202 1,334 1,338 650 4,475 3,635 4,690 2,512 2,321 3,807 2,965 5,694 4,968 2,048 2,120 2,489 3,296 3,657 2,896 4,645 2,863 1,067 5,039 2,188 2,506 3,777 4,493 6,486 2,449 2,288 2,514 3,524 2,560 1,886 5,972 5,603 2,048 3,014 2,232 6,979 5,024 3,289 Rank 39 44 14 50 17 45 9 46 32 22 37 48 47 51 13 19 10 29 34 15 24 4 8 42 40 31 21 18 25 11 26 49 6 38 30 16 12 2 33 35 28 20 27 43 3 5 41 23 36 1 7 Rate as a % of Avg. 65.1 46.7 120.2 28.1 114.0 44.3 144.6 43.8 75.0 93.9 67.0 40.5 40.7 19.7 136.1 110.5 142.6 76.4 70.6 115.8 90.1 173.1 151.1 62.3 64.5 75.7 100.2 111.2 88.1 141.2 87.1 32.4 153.2 66.5 76.2 114.8 136.6 197.2 74.5 69.6 76.4 107.1 77.8 57.3 181.6 170.4 62.3 91.6 67.9 212.2 152.8 100.0 28 Table A.1b TANF Caseload Families and TANF State Family Assistance Grants, by State, with Comparison to National Averages, FY 2002 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State totals Grant ($1000s) 93,315 53,377 202,384 56,733 3,704,070 136,057 266,788 32,291 92,610 562,340 330,742 98,905 30,413 585,057 206,799 131,525 101,931 181,288 163,972 78,121 229,098 459,371 775,353 267,161 86,768 217,052 42,977 57,769 43,977 38,521 404,035 110,578 2,442,931 302,240 26,400 727,968 147,594 166,799 719,499 95,022 99,968 21,280 191,524 486,257 75,609 47,353 158,285 397,755 110,176 316,676 18,501 16,393,215 Caseloads, December 2001 18,564 5,902 38,572 12,224 465,713 11,677 24,751 5,504 16,412 61,060 54,493 11,899 1,351 53,911 47,781 20,512 13,655 35,107 24,941 9,505 28,523 46,790 76,756 35,131 17,778 46,269 5,681 10,098 9,996 5,934 42,739 17,433 180,981 44,200 3,202 84,567 14,631 17,838 82,345 14,762 20,047 2,882 61,984 131,439 7,796 5,201 30,015 55,939 16,197 18,900 474 2,070,062 Federal $/ Family 5,027 9,044 5,247 4,641 7,954 11,652 10,779 5,867 5,643 9,210 6,069 8,312 22,511 10,852 4,328 6,412 7,465 5,164 6,574 8,219 8,032 9,818 10,102 7,605 4,881 4,691 7,565 5,721 4,399 6,492 9,454 6,343 13,498 6,838 8,245 8,608 10,088 9,351 8,738 6,437 4,987 7,384 3,090 3,699 9,698 9,105 5,274 7,111 6,802 16,755 39,032 7,919 Rank 43 16 41 47 23 5 7 37 39 14 36 19 2 6 49 34 26 42 31 21 22 10 8 24 45 46 25 38 48 32 12 35 4 29 20 18 9 13 17 33 44 27 51 50 11 15 40 28 30 3 1 Rate as a % of Avg. 63.5 114.2 66.3 58.6 100.4 147.1 136.1 74.1 71.3 116.3 76.6 105.0 284.3 137.0 54.7 81.0 94.3 65.2 83.0 103.8 101.4 124.0 127.6 96.0 61.6 59.2 95.5 72.2 55.6 82.0 119.4 80.1 170.5 86.3 104.1 108.7 127.4 118.1 110.3 81.3 63.0 93.2 39.0 46.7 122.5 115.0 66.6 89.8 85.9 211.6 492.9 100.0 29 Table A.2 TANF Maintenance of Effort Levels, by State, FY 2000 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State totals FY 1994 Expenditures, $a 52,285,491 62,142,149 124,324,051 27,785,269 3,632,297,425 110,494,527 244,561,409 29,028,092 93,931,934 491,151,302 231,158,036 94,866,459 17,436,434 573,450,924 151,367,364 82,617,695 82,332,787 89,891,250 73,886,837 50,031,924 235,953,925 478,596,697 624,691,167 238,923,852 28,965,744 160,161,033 20,218,631 38,172,585 33,985,152 42,820,004 400,213,342 49,794,841 2,291,437,926 205,567,684 12,092,381 521,108,327 81,436,746 122,181,732 542,834,133 80,489,394 47,902,320 11,389,070 110,413,171 314,301,005 33,720,732 34,066,533 170,897,560 361,834,532 43,058,053 224,829,312 13,590,095 13,890,689,037 Maintenance of Effort, $ 75% Levelb 80% Levelc 39,214,118 41,828,393 46,606,612 49,713,719 93,243,038 99,459,241 20,838,952 22,228,215 2,724,223,068 2,905,837,940 82,870,895 88,395,622 183,421,057 195,649,127 21,771,069 23,222,474 70,448,951 75,145,547 368,363,477 392,921,042 173,368,527 184,926,429 71,149,844 75,893,167 13,077,326 13,949,148 430,088,193 458,760,739 113,525,523 121,093,891 61,963,271 66,094,156 61,749,590 65,866,230 67,418,438 71,913,000 55,415,128 59,109,470 37,523,943 40,025,539 176,965,444 188,763,140 358,947,523 382,877,358 468,518,375 499,752,934 179,192,889 191,139,081 21,724,308 23,172,595 120,120,775 128,128,826 15,163,973 16,174,905 28,629,439 30,538,068 25,488,864 27,188,122 32,115,003 34,256,003 300,160,007 320,170,674 37,346,131 39,835,873 1,718,578,445 1,833,150,341 154,175,763 164,454,147 9,069,286 9,673,905 390,831,245 416,886,662 61,077,559 65,149,397 91,636,299 97,745,386 407,125,600 434,267,306 60,367,046 64,391,515 35,926,740 38,321,856 8,541,802 9,111,256 82,809,878 88,330,537 235,725,754 251,440,804 25,290,549 26,976,586 25,549,900 27,253,226 128,173,170 136,718,048 271,375,899 289,467,625 32,293,540 34,446,442 168,621,984 179,863,450 10,192,571 10,872,076 10,418,016,778 11,112,551,230 aState share of expenditures for AFDC benefits, administration, EA, IV-A child care, and JOBS in fiscal year 1994. State expenditures may be revised to account for expenditures made by states on behalf of tribes. bStates must maintain a level of effort at 75 percent of fiscal year 1994 expenditures if they meet participation rate requirements. cStates must maintain a level of effort at 80 percent of fiscal year 1994 expenditures if they do not meet participation rate requirements. 30 Table A.3 TANF State Family Assistance Grants, by State, FY 1997–2002 % Share of 50 State or Territory Amount, $ + DC 1997 Alabama 93,315 0.57 81,313 Alaska 63,609 0.39 18,759 Arizona 222,420 1.35 222,420 Arkansas 56,733 0.34 19,936 California 3,733,818 22.64 3,147,716 Colorado 136,057 0.83 45,628 Connecticut 266,788 1.62 266,788 Delaware 32,291 0.20 14,565 District of Columbia 92,610 0.56 61,049 Florida 562,340 3.41 562,340 Georgia 330,742 2.01 254,340 Hawaii 98,905 0.60 28,631 Idaho 31,938 0.19 10,601 Illinois 585,057 3.55 134,005 Indiana 206,799 1.25 206,799 Iowa 131,525 0.80 105,169 Kansas 101,931 0.62 101,931 Kentucky 181,288 1.10 170,006 Louisiana 163,972 0.99 139,757 Maine 78,121 0.47 72,477 Maryland 229,098 1.39 183,018 Massachusetts 459,371 2.79 459,371 Michigan 775,353 4.70 775,353 Minnesota 267,985 1.63 111,836 Mississippi 86,768 0.53 86,768 Missouri 217,052 1.32 187,839 Montana 45,534 0.28 31,784 Nebraska 58,029 0.35 49,341 Nevada 43,977 0.27 34,008 New Hampshire 38,521 0.23 38,521 New Jersey 404,035 2.45 293,108 New Mexico 126,103 0.76 31,992 New York 2,442,931 14.82 1,982,294 North Carolina 302,240 1.83 225,973 North Dakota 26,400 0.16 11,066 Ohio 727,968 4.41 727,968 Oklahoma 148,014 0.90 148,014 Oregon 167,925 1.02 167,808 Pennsylvania 719,499 4.36 418,343 Rhode Island 95,022 0.58 46,026 South Carolina 99,968 0.61 93,873 South Dakota 21,798 0.13 18,760 Tennessee 191,524 1.16 191,524 Texas 486,257 2.95 431,611 Utah 76,829 0.47 76,829 Vermont 47,353 0.29 47,353 Virginia 158,285 0.96 114,734 Washington 404,332 2.45 289,298 West Virginia 110,176 0.67 82,155 Six-Year Budget Authority ($1000s) % of 50 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total + DC 93,315 93,315 93,315 93,315 93,315 547,888 0.57 63,609 61,165 60,573 53,377 53,377 310,860 0.33 220,637 218,953 218,243 202,750 202,384 1,285,387 1.34 56,733 56,733 56,733 56,733 56,733 303,601 0.32 3,732,668 3,731,149 3,730,164 3,728,516 3,704,070 21,774,283 22.78 136,057 136,057 136,057 136,057 136,057 725,913 0.76 266,788 266,788 266,788 266,788 266,788 1,600,728 1.67 32,291 32,291 32,291 32,291 32,291 176,020 0.18 92,610 92,610 92,610 92,607 92,610 524,096 0.55 562,340 562,340 562,340 562,340 562,340 3,374,040 3.53 330,742 330,742 330,742 330,742 330,742 1,908,050 2.00 98,905 98,905 98,905 98,905 98,905 523,156 0.55 31,938 31,345 30,534 30,413 30,413 165,244 0.17 585,057 585,057 585,057 585,057 585,057 3,059,290 3.20 206,799 206,799 206,799 206,799 206,799 1,240,794 1.30 131,525 131,525 131,496 131,525 131,525 762,765 0.80 101,931 101,931 101,931 101,931 101,931 611,586 0.64 181,288 181,288 181,288 181,288 181,288 1,076,446 1.13 163,972 163,972 163,972 163,972 163,972 959,617 1.00 78,121 78,121 78,121 78,121 78,121 463,082 0.48 229,098 229,098 229,098 229,098 229,098 1,328,508 1.39 459,371 459,371 459,371 459,371 459,371 2,756,226 2.88 775,353 775,353 775,353 775,353 775,353 4,652,118 4.87 267,985 267,367 267,161 267,161 267,161 1,448,671 1.52 86,768 86,768 86,768 86,768 86,768 520,608 0.54 217,052 217,052 217,052 217,052 217,052 1,273,099 1.33 45,534 44,335 43,935 42,977 42,977 251,542 0.26 58,029 58,029 58,029 57,891 57,769 339,088 0.35 43,977 43,977 43,977 43,977 43,977 253,893 0.27 38,521 38,521 38,521 38,521 38,521 231,126 0.24 404,035 404,035 403,980 404,035 404,035 2,313,228 2.42 126,103 126,103 126,103 125,903 110,578 646,782 0.68 2,442,931 2,442,931 2,442,931 2,442,931 2,442,931 14,196,949 14.85 302,240 302,240 302,227 302,236 302,240 1,737,156 1.82 26,400 26,400 26,400 26,400 26,400 143,066 0.15 727,968 727,968 727,968 727,968 727,968 4,367,808 4.57 147,842 147,596 147,596 147,594 147,594 886,236 0.93 166,799 166,799 166,799 166,799 166,799 1,001,803 1.05 719,499 719,499 719,499 719,499 719,499 4,015,838 4.20 95,022 95,022 95,022 95,022 95,022 521,136 0.55 99,968 99,968 99,968 99,968 99,968 593,713 0.62 21,313 21,313 21,313 21,280 21,280 125,259 0.13 191,524 191,524 191,524 191,524 191,524 1,149,144 1.20 486,257 486,257 486,257 486,257 486,257 2,862,896 2.99 76,829 76,829 76,829 75,609 75,609 458,534 0.48 47,353 47,353 47,353 47,353 47,353 284,118 0.30 158,285 158,285 158,285 158,285 158,285 906,159 0.95 404,332 403,314 403,314 402,154 397,755 2,300,167 2.41 110,176 110,176 110,176 110,049 110,176 632,908 0.66 31 Table A.3 (continued) State or Territory Wisconsin Wyoming State totals Guam Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Indian tribes Grand totals % Share Six-Year of 50 Budget Authority ($1000s) % of 50 Amount, $ + DC 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total + DC 318,188 1.93 318,159 317,505 317,505 317,048 316,895 316,676 1,903,788 1.99 21,781 0.13 19,216 21,538 20,816 20,816 19,009 18,501 119,896 0.13 16,488,575 100.00 13,358,173 16,472,890 16,472,890 16,468,632 16,438,466 16,393,215 95,604,266 100.00 44,016 503 145 3,465 71,563 2,847 10,043 3,465 71,563 2,847 15,234 3,465 71,562 2,804 19,941 3,465 66,929 2,890 50,061 3,465 71,563 2,847 95,452 17,325 397,196 14,738 190,876 13,402,837 16,566,542 16,565,999 16,566,404 16,561,811 16,566,542 96,230,132 32 Appendix B TANF Caseload Changes, 1993–2001 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 33 Table B.1 Total TANF Families and Change in TANF Family Enrollment, by State, with Ranking by Percentage Caseload Reduction, 1993–2001 34 State or Territory Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Jan 1993 51,910 11,626 68,982 26,897 844,494 42,445 56,759 11,315 24,628 256,145 142,040 1,406 17,869 7,838 229,308 73,115 36,515 29,818 83,320 89,931 23,903 80,256 113,571 228,377 63,995 60,520 88,744 11,793 16,637 12,892 10,805 126,179 31,103 428,191 128,946 6,577 257,665 Jan 1994 51,181 12,578 72,160 26,398 902,900 41,616 58,453 11,739 26,624 254,032 142,459 1,840 20,104 8,677 238,967 74,169 39,623 30,247 79,437 88,168 23,074 79,772 112,955 225,671 63,552 57,689 91,598 12,080 16,145 14,077 11,427 121,361 33,376 449,978 131,288 6,002 251,037 Jan 1995 47,376 12,518 71,110 24,930 925,585 39,115 60,927 11,306 26,624 241,193 141,284 2,124 21,523 9,097 240,013 68,195 37,298 28,770 76,471 81,587 22,010 81,115 104,956 207,089 61,373 53,104 91,378 11,732 14,968 16,039 11,018 120,099 34,789 461,006 127,069 5,374 232,574 Jan 1996 43,396 11,979 64,442 23,140 904,940 35,661 58,124 10,266 25,717 215,512 135,274 2,097 22,075 9,211 225,796 52,254 33,559 25,811 72,131 72,104 20,472 75,573 90,107 180,790 58,510 49,185 84,534 11,276 14,136 15,824 9,648 113,399 34,368 437,694 114,449 4,976 209,830 Jan 1997 37,972 12,224 56,250 21,549 839,860 31,288 56,095 10,104 24,752 182,075 115,490 2,349 21,469 7,922 206,316 46,215 28,931 21,732 67,679 60,226 19,037 61,730 80,675 156,077 54,608 40,919 75,459 9,644 13,492 11,742 8,293 102,378 29,984 393,424 103,300 4,416 192,747 Jan 1998 25,123 10,392 41,233 14,419 727,695 21,912 51,132 7,053 22,451 121,006 84,318 2,213 23,578 1,920 175,445 37,298 25,744 14,595 54,491 46,593 15,526 49,075 68,651 128,892 48,893 25,510 62,872 6,789 13,809 11,263 6,489 89,030 20,219 347,536 78,473 3,351 147,093 Jan 1999 20,505 8,756 34,055 12,057 639,059 14,988 35,481 6,390 19,548 89,674 66,070 2,423 16,247 1,468 130,393 35,544 22,322 13,082 43,799 41,510 13,984 36,142 56,163 97,398 43,094 17,954 52,831 5,497 11,830 8,538 6,153 64,475 25,752 297,016 63,234 3,099 121,142 Jun 2000 18,677 7,542 31,897 12,046 489,054 10,772 27,149 5,819 22,397 62,805 51,215 2,760 14,942 1,382 85,807 35,068 20,082 12,404 37,471 25,521 10,654 28,895 41,682 70,897 39,295 14,979 45,912 4,467 10,088 6,916 5,791 50,126 22,701 248,148 44,731 2,887 95,835 Jan 2001 18,623 5,910 32,227 11,084 481,207 10,618 25,787 5,486 16,409 60,673 51,516 2,763 13,185 1,302 63,523 39,413 20,027 12,878 36,637 25,953 9,812 27,873 42,849 70,468 38,087 15,192 46,679 4,754 9,441 6,983 5,616 46,327 19,598 232,682 43,408 2,958 86,483 Dec 2001 % Change 18,564 –64.2 5,902 –49.2 38,572 –44.1 12,224 –54.6 465,713 –44.9 11,677 –72.5 24,751 –56.4 5,504 –51.4 16,412 –33.4 61,060 –76.2 54,493 –61.6 3,072 118.5 11,899 –33.4 1,351 –82.8 53,911 –76.5 47,781 –34.6 20,512 –43.8 13,655 –54.2 35,107 –57.9 24,941 –72.3 9,505 –60.2 28,523 –64.5 46,790 –58.8 76,756 –66.4 35,131 –45.1 17,778 –70.6 46,269 –47.9 5,681 –51.8 10,098 –39.3 9,996 –22.5 5,934 –45.1 42,739 –66.1 17,433 –44.0 180,981 –57.7 44,200 –65.7 3,202 –51.3 84,567 –67.2 Rank 15 35 43 29 40 6 28 33 49 5 17 48 2 4 47 45 30 26 7 20 14 23 11 38 9 37 32 46 51 39 12 44 27 13 34 10 Table B.1 (continued) State or Territory Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Grand total Jan 1993 50,955 42,409 204,216 60,950 21,900 54,599 7,262 112,159 279,002 18,606 10,081 1,073 73,446 100,568 41,525 81,291 6,493 4,963,050 Jan 1994 Jan 1995 47,475 45,936 42,695 40,323 208,260 208,899 59,425 55,902 22,592 22,559 53,178 50,389 7,027 6,482 111,946 105,948 285,680 279,911 18,063 17,195 9,917 9,789 1,090 1,264 74,717 73,920 103,068 103,179 40,869 39,231 78,507 73,962 5,891 5,443 5,052,854 4,963,071 Jan 1996 40,692 35,421 192,952 51,370 21,775 46,772 6,189 100,884 265,233 15,072 9,210 1,437 66,244 99,395 36,674 65,386 4,975 4,627,941 Jan 1997 32,942 25,874 170,831 48,359 20,112 37,342 5,324 74,820 228,882 12,864 8,451 1,335 56,018 95,982 36,805 45,586 3,825 4,113,775 Jan 1998 25,860 19,249 140,446 43,474 19,242 27,514 3,956 53,837 158,252 10,931 7,591 1,167 44,247 82,852 18,914 13,860 1,340 3,304,814 Jan 1999 21,916 16,918 110,567 37,371 18,170 18,969 3,422 57,608 119,765 10,125 6,717 944 37,706 64,493 11,471 19,211 886 2,733,932 Jun 2000 7,251 17,121 87,972 31,273 16,324 15,496 2,789 55,491 128,289 8,157 5,858 778 30,078 54,768 10,661 16,410 565 2,208,095 Jan 2001 14,391 18,104 83,489 26,162 15,435 16,818 2,772 58,825 133,539 7,539 5,609 762 29,509 54,970 14,627 17,012 546 2,144,540 Dec 2001 % Change 14,631 –71.3 17,838 –57.9 82,345 –59.7 25,185 –58.7 14,762 –32.6 20,047 –63.3 2,882 –60.3 61,984 –44.7 131,439 –52.9 7,796 –58.1 5,201 –48.4 611 –43.1 30,015 –59.1 55,939 –44.4 16,197 –61.0 18,900 –76.8 474 –92.7 2,098,930 –57.7 Rank 8 25 21 50 16 19 41 31 24 36 22 42 18 3 1 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, http://www.acf/dhhs.gov/news/tables.htm. 35 Table B.2 Change in TANF Beneficiary Enrollment, by State, with Ranking by Percentage Caseload Reduction, 1993–2001 36 State or Territory Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Jan 1993 141,746 34,951 194,119 73,982 2,415,121 123,308 160,102 27,652 65,860 701,842 402,228 5,087 54,511 21,116 685,508 209,882 100,943 87,525 227,879 263,338 67,836 221,338 332,044 686,356 191,526 174,093 259,039 34,848 48,055 34,943 28,972 349,902 94,836 1,179,522 Jan 1994 135,096 37,505 202,350 70,563 2,621,383 118,081 164,265 29,286 72,330 689,135 396,736 6,651 60,975 23,342 709,969 218,061 110,639 87,433 208,710 252,860 65,006 219,863 311,732 672,760 189,615 161,724 262,073 35,415 46,034 37,908 30,386 334,780 101,676 1,241,639 Jan 1995 121,837 37,264 195,082 65,325 2,692,202 110,742 170,719 26,314 72,330 657,313 388,913 7,630 65,207 24,050 710,032 197,225 103,108 81,504 193,722 258,180 60,973 227,887 286,175 612,224 180,490 146,319 259,595 34,313 42,038 41,846 28,671 321,151 105,114 1,266,350 Jan 1996 108,269 35,432 171,617 59,223 2,648,772 99,739 161,736 23,153 70,082 575,553 367,656 7,634 66,690 23,547 663,212 147,083 91,727 70,758 176,601 239,247 56,319 207,800 242,572 535,704 171,916 133,029 238,052 32,557 38,653 40,491 24,519 293,833 102,648 1,200,847 Jan 1997 Jan 1998 Jan 1999 Jun 2000 Jan 2001 Dec 2001 % Change 91,723 61,809 48,459 55,168 55,478 44,372 –68.7 36,189 31,689 26,883 24,389 17,292 17,343 –50.4 151,526 113,209 88,456 82,851 80,143 106,592 –45.1 54,879 36,704 29,284 28,113 28,071 28,415 –61.6 2,476,564 2,144,495 1,845,919 1,272,468 1,258,019 1,179,133 –51.2 87,434 55,352 40,799 27,699 27,042 30,288 –75.4 155,701 138,666 88,304 63,589 59,977 56,390 –64.8 23,141 18,504 15,891 17,262 12,518 12,430 –55.0 67,871 56,128 52,957 44,487 43,932 43,514 –33.9 478,329 320,886 220,216 135,903 129,201 129,448 –81.6 306,625 220,070 167,400 135,381 124,019 129,935 –67.7 7,370 7,461 8,270 9,550 9,506 10,783 112.0 65,312 75,817 45,582 42,824 37,100 32,932 –39.6 19,812 4,446 3,061 1,382 2,309 2,360 –88.8 601,854 526,851 388,334 259,242 186,937 153,898 –77.5 121,974 95,665 105,069 96,854 110,216 134,229 –36.0 78,275 69,504 60,380 52,293 53,342 54,680 –45.8 57,528 38,462 33,376 36,557 32,624 34,859 –60.2 162,730 132,388 102,370 85,696 83,272 78,590 –65.5 206,582 118,404 115,791 79,745 68,014 64,585 –75.5 51,178 41,265 36,812 14,813 26,590 25,629 –62.2 169,723 130,196 92,711 70,910 68,147 69,852 –68.4 214,014 181,729 131,139 93,890 96,364 105,815 –68.1 462,231 376,985 267,749 195,101 192,115 210,282 –69.4 160,167 141,064 124,659 116,589 111,407 93,304 –51.3 109,097 66,030 42,651 33,781 34,539 41,054 –76.4 208,132 162,950 136,782 122,930 124,911 122,835 –52.6 28,138 20,137 16,152 14,001 14,891 16,003 –54.1 36,535 38,090 35,057 26,841 23,753 24,972 –48.0 28,973 29,262 21,753 16,478 18,032 25,589 –26.8 20,627 15,947 15,130 13,862 13,398 14,217 –50.9 256,064 217,320 164,815 125,258 116,688 105,687 –69.8 89,814 64,759 80,828 67,950 57,014 49,604 –47.7 1,074,189 941,714 822,970 693,012 641,129 443,344 –62.4 Rank 14 40 46 29 38 8 23 33 51 4 17 48 2 5 49 45 30 20 7 28 15 16 13 37 6 36 34 43 52 39 12 44 26 Table B.2 (continued) 37 State or Territory North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Grand total Jan 1993 Jan 1994 Jan 1995 Jan 1996 Jan 1997 Jan 1998 Jan 1999 Jun 2000 Jan 2001 Dec 2001 % Change 331,633 334,451 317,836 282,086 253,286 192,172 145,596 97,171 93,659 95,355 –71.2 18,774 16,785 14,920 13,652 11,964 8,884 8,260 7,734 8,818 8,340 –55.6 720,476 691,099 629,719 552,304 518,595 386,239 311,872 238,351 205,294 192,973 –73.2 146,454 133,152 127,336 110,498 87,312 69,630 61,894 13,606 35,300 35,981 –75.4 117,656 116,390 107,610 92,182 66,919 48,561 44,219 42,374 40,562 40,632 –65.5 604,701 615,581 611,215 553,148 484,321 395,107 313,821 232,976 218,969 216,900 –64.1 191,261 184,626 171,932 156,805 145,749 130,283 111,361 90,630 75,103 72,075 –62.3 61,116 62,737 62,407 60,654 54,809 54,537 50,632 44,826 42,286 40,057 –34.5 151,026 143,883 133,567 121,703 98,077 73,179 45,648 35,721 39,948 49,227 –67.4 20,254 19,413 17,652 16,821 14,091 10,514 8,759 6,702 6,529 6,738 –66.7 320,709 302,608 281,982 265,320 195,891 139,022 148,781 143,823 153,317 162,102 –49.5 785,271 796,348 765,460 714,523 626,617 439,824 325,766 343,464 358,094 337,258 –57.1 53,172 50,657 47,472 41,145 35,493 29,868 30,276 24,101 21,987 20,003 –62.4 28,961 28,095 27,716 25,865 23,570 21,013 18,324 15,528 14,942 13,661 –52.8 3,763 3,767 4,345 5,075 4,712 4,129 3,541 2,920 2,695 2,258 –40.0 194,212 194,959 189,493 166,012 136,053 107,192 91,544 67,388 65,713 67,156 –65.4 286,258 292,608 290,940 276,018 263,792 228,723 177,611 146,375 144,457 143,649 –49.8 119,916 115,376 107,668 98,439 98,690 51,348 32,161 31,500 38,929 42,927 –64.2 241,098 230,621 214,404 184,209 132,383 44,630 47,336 37,381 38,206 43,600 –81.9 18,271 16,740 15,434 13,531 10,322 2,903 1,886 1,103 1,034 856 –95.3 14,114,992 14,275,877 13,930,953 12,876,661 11,423,007 9,131,716 7,455,297 5,780,543 5,563,832 5,284,711 –62.6 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, http://www.acf/dhhs.gov/news/tables.htm. Rank 11 32 10 9 21 25 50 18 19 42 31 27 35 22 41 24 3 1 Appendix C Supplemental TANF Grants for States with Population Increases and Low Per Beneficiary Welfare Spending FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 39 Table C.1 Supplemental TANF Grants for States with Population Increases and Low Per Beneficiary Welfare Spending, FY 1998–2002 40 1994 Federal State $/State Alabama 106,858,153 Alaska 66,348,234 Arizona 230,461,527 Arkansas 59,899,837 California 3,701,668,768 Colorado 130,712,976 Connecticut 248,334,322 Delaware 30,239,405 District of Columbia 96,340,010 Florida 581,870,583 Georgia 359,138,710 Hawaii 95,041,485 Idaho 33,695,669 Illinois 584,642,624 Indiana 227,031,901 Iowa 133,938,152 Kansas 111,742,782 Kentucky 189,046,825 Louisiana 164,016,357 Maine 76,347,244 Maryland 246,947,211 Massachusetts 488,260,597 Michigan 789,446,816 Minnesota 287,137,302 Mississippi 87,038,072 Missouri 232,504,901 Montana 45,308,056 Nebraska 59,640,714 Nevada 35,964,062 New Hampshire 42,576,723 1998 2,671,454 1,658,706 5,761,538 1,497,496 3,267,824 14,546,765 8,978,468 842,392 4,100,409 2,175,952 1,132,701 899,102 Supplemental Additions, $ 1999 2000 2001 5,409,694 8,216,390 11,093,254 3,358,879 5,101,557 6,887,802 11,667,115 17,720,331 23,924,877 3,032,429 4,605,736 6,218,375 6,617,344 10,050,602 13,569,692 29,457,198 44,740,393 60,405,667 18,181,397 27,614,400 37,283,228 1,705,843 2,590,881 3,498,045 8,303,328 12,611,320 17,027,012 4,406,302 1,132,701 1,820,681 6,692,412 1,132,701 2,765,299 9,035,674 1,132,701 3,733,533 2002a 11,093,254 6,887,802 23,924,877 6,218,375 13,569,692 60,405,667 37,283,228 3,498,045 17,027,012 9,035,674 1,132,701 3,733,533 Total Supplements % of Received, $ Sup1998–2002 plements 38,484,045 3.45 23,894,746 2.14 82,998,738 7.43 21,572,412 1.93 47,075,155 4.22 209,555,690 18.77 129,340,720 11.58 12,135,206 1.09 59,069,081 5.29 31,346,014 2.81 5,663,507 0.51 12,952,148 1.16 Grants with Supplements $, 2000 117,951,407 73,236,036 254,386,404 66,118,212 3,701,668,768 144,282,668 248,334,322 30,239,405 96,340,010 642,276,250 396,421,938 95,041,485 37,193,714 584,642,624 227,031,901 133,938,152 111,742,782 189,046,825 181,043,369 76,347,244 246,947,211 488,260,597 789,446,816 287,137,302 96,073,746 232,504,901 46,440,757 59,640,714 39,697,595 42,576,723 % of Total Grants with Sup- plements 0.69 0.43 1.49 0.39 21.74 0.85 1.46 0.18 0.57 3.77 2.33 0.56 0.22 3.43 1.33 0.79 0.66 1.11 1.06 0.45 1.45 2.87 4.64 1.69 0.56 1.37 0.27 0.35 0.23 0.25 Table C.1 (continued) 41 Total % of Total Supplements % of Grants with Grants 1994 Federal Supplemental Additions, $ Received, $ Sup- Supple-ments with Sup- State $/State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002a 1998–2002 plements $, 2000 plements New Jersey 413,839,046 413,839,046 2.43 New Mexico New York 129,444,021 3,236,101 2,321,934,749 6,553,104 6,553,104 6,553,104 6,553,104 29,448,515 2.64 135,997,125 0.80 2,321,934,749 13.63 North Carolina North Dakota 347,836,837 8,695,921 17,609,240 26,745,392 36,109,948 36,109,948 125,270,448 25,978,157 11.22 383,946,785 25,978,157 2.25 0.15 Ohio Oklahoma 770,183,111 166,123,434 770,183,111 166,123,434 4.52 0.98 Oregon Pennsylvania 183,038,419 658,387,845 183,038,419 658,387,845 1.07 3.87 Rhode Island South Carolina 93,646,735 104,119,015 93,646,735 104,119,015 0.55 0.61 South Dakota Tennessee 23,018,798 207,730,863 5,193,272 10,516,375 15,972,556 21,565,141 21,565,141 74,812,485 6.70 23,018,798 229,296,004 0.14 1.35 Texas Utah 507,718,970 12,692,974 25,703,273 39,038,829 52,707,774 52,707,774 182,850,624 83,846,970 2,096,174 4,244,753 6,447,046 8,704,396 8,704,396 30,196,766 16.37 2.70 560,426,744 92,551,366 3.29 0.54 Vermont Virginia 49,162,214 175,259,517 49,162,214 175,259,517 0.29 1.03 Washington West Virginia 432,327,441 117,322,591 432,327,441 117,322,591 2.54 0.69 Wisconsin Wyoming 334,783,187 23,275,499 334,783,187 23,275,499 1.97 0.14 State totals 16,711,177,437 79,447,247 159,719,657 238,598,949 319,450,223 319,450,223 1,116,666,299 100.00 17,030,627,660 100.00 aThe supplemental grant had been scheduled to expire in fiscal year 2002. In March 2002, Congress extended the grant for one year at the fiscal year 2001 allocation levels. Table C.2a Supplemental Grants for States with Population Increases and Low Per Beneficiary Welfare Spending: Automatic Qualification Supporting Data, 1994 42 State State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico 4/1/90 Population 248,790,925 4,040,389 550,043 3,665,339 2,350,624 29,811,427 3,294,473 3,287,116 666,168 606,900 12,938,071 6,478,149 1,108,229 1,006,734 11,430,602 5,544,156 2,776,831 2,477,588 3,686,892 4,221,826 1,227,928 4,780,753 6,016,425 9,295,287 4,375,665 2,575,475 5,116,901 799,065 1,578,417 1,201,675 1,109,252 7,747,750 1,515,069 7/1/94 1990–94 Met 10% Population Growth, % Test? 260,327,021 4.6 4,232,965 4.8 600,624 9.2 4,147,561 13.2 Yes 2,450,605 4.3 31,317,179 5.1 3,653,910 10.9 Yes 3,268,346 –0.6 708,416 6.3 564,982 –6.9 13,961,798 7.9 7,045,900 8.8 1,173,903 5.9 1,135,459 12.8 Yes 11,804,986 3.3 5,745,626 3.6 2,829,422 1.9 2,569,118 3.7 3,823,215 3.7 4,306,500 2.0 1,237,687 0.8 4,985,411 4.3 6,031,352 0.2 9,584,481 3.1 4,566,028 4.4 2,663,450 3.4 5,281,206 3.2 854,923 7.0 1,621,551 2.7 1,456,388 21.2 Yes 1,133,054 2.1 7,918,796 2.2 1,653,329 9.1 Alaska Adjust. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes State 1994 Fed. Expend. 16,711,177,437 106,858,153 66,348,234 230,461,527 59,899,837 3,701,668,768 130,712,976 248,334,322 30,239,405 96,340,010 581,870,583 359,138,710 95,041,485 33,695,669 584,642,624 227,031,901 133,938,152 111,742,782 189,046,825 164,016,357 76,347,244 246,947,211 488,260,597 789,446,816 287,137,302 87,038,072 232,504,901 45,308,056 59,640,714 35,964,062 42,576,723 413,839,046 129,444,021 Poverty Count, 1990 Census 31,742,864 723,614 47,906 564,362 437,089 3,627,585 375,214 217,347 56,223 96,278 1,604,186 923,085 88,408 130,588 1,326,731 573,632 307,420 274,623 681,827 967,002 128,466 385,296 519,339 1,190,698 435,331 631,029 663,075 124,853 170,616 119,660 69,104 573,152 305,934 Spending per Poor 526.45 147.67 1384.97 408.36 137.04 1020.42 348.37 1142.57 537.85 1000.64 362.72 389.06 1075.03 258.03 440.66 395.78 435.68 406.90 277.27 169.61 594.30 640.93 940.16 663.01 659.58 137.93 350.65 362.89 349.56 300.55 616.13 722.04 423.11 35% of Av. Met 35% per Poor Test? 184.26 186.89 Yes 186.89 186.89 186.89 Yes 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 Yes 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 Yes 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 Table C.2a (continued) 43 State New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 4/1/90 Population 17,990,778 6,632,448 638,800 10,847,115 3,145,576 2,842,337 11,882,842 1,003,464 3,486,310 696,004 4,877,203 16,986,335 1,722,850 562,758 6,189,197 4,866,669 1,793,477 4,891,954 453,589 7/1/94 1990–94 Met 10% Population Growth, % Test? 18,156,652 0.9 7,060,959 6.5 639,762 0.2 11,111,451 2.4 3,246,119 3.2 3,087,142 8.6 12,042,545 1.3 993,412 –1.0 3,666,456 5.2 723,038 3.9 5,163,016 5.9 18,338,319 8.0 1,930,436 12.0 Yes 578,900 2.9 6,536,771 5.6 5,334,896 9.6 1,818,490 1.4 5,095,504 4.2 474,982 4.7 Alaska Adjust. Yes State 1994 Fed. Expend. 2,321,934,749 347,836,837 25,978,157 770,183,111 166,123,434 183,038,419 658,387,845 93,646,735 104,119,015 23,018,798 207,730,863 507,718,970 83,846,970 49,162,214 175,259,517 432,327,441 117,322,591 334,783,187 23,275,499 Poverty Count, 1990 Census 2,277,296 829,858 88,276 1,325,768 509,854 344,867 1,283,629 92,670 517,793 106,305 744,941 3,000,515 192,415 53,369 611,611 517,933 345,093 508,545 52,453 Spending per Poor 1019.60 419.15 294.28 580.93 325.83 530.75 512.91 1010.54 201.08 216.54 278.86 169.21 435.76 921.18 286.55 834.72 339.97 658.32 443.74 35% of Av. Met 35% per Poor Test? 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 Yes 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 NOTES: Boldface identifies states that automatically qualified based on 1994 spending and 1990–94 growth. At the time of grant calculations, Alaska was deemed to qualify as a 10%+ growth state, despite later Census revisions that would have disqualified it. The supplemental grant had been scheduled to expire in fiscal year 2002. In March 2002, Congress extended the grant for one year at fiscal year 2001 allocation levels. Table C.2b Supplemental Grants for States with Population Increases and Low Per Beneficiary Welfare Spending: Annual Qualification Supporting Data, 1994 44 State State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Below Avg. 1994 Welfare $/Poor? Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Growth Rate, 1995–1996 0.91 0.63 0.74 2.86 1.01 0.99 2.00 0.11 1.09 –2.04 1.52 2.01 0.38 1.98 0.48 0.75 0.31 0.33 0.70 0.29 0.38 0.65 0.35 0.59 0.93 0.74 0.74 1.04 0.79 4.54 1.24 0.48 1.39 Qualifies, 1996? Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Growth Rate, Qualifies, Growth Rate, Qualifies, Growth Rate, Qualifies, Growth Rate, Qualifies, 1996–1997 1997? 1997–1998 1998? 1998–1999 1999? 1999–2000 2000? 0.95 0.94 0.90 3.20 0.74 0.67 0.43 1.77 0.84 0.85 0.70 1.20 2.72 Q 2.51 Q 2.38 Q 7.37 Q 0.72 0.60 0.52 4.78 1.26 1.56 1.41 2.19 2.08 Q 1.98 Q 2.20 Q 6.04 Q 0.00 0.17 0.29 3.76 1.09 1.23 1.27 3.99 –1.54 –1.62 –0.47 10.22 1.73 Q 1.58 Q 1.36 Q 5.76 Q 2.15 Q 1.96 Q 1.99 Q 5.11 Q 0.64 –0.13 –0.42 2.20 1.79 Q 1.81 Q 1.69 Q 3.38 Q 0.30 0.67 0.49 2.40 0.52 0.73 0.60 2.32 0.19 0.25 0.29 1.98 0.11 1.45 0.58 1.29 0.75 0.62 0.67 2.04 0.35 0.20 0.21 2.22 0.05 0.45 0.44 1.75 0.75 0.69 0.81 2.41 0.47 0.50 0.50 2.82 0.42 0.41 0.44 0.76 0.85 0.84 1.04 3.01 0.81 0.71 0.63 2.75 0.75 0.55 0.57 2.32 0.27 0.06 0.37 2.20 0.57 0.23 0.32 2.72 5.17 Q 3.86 Q 3.76 Q 10.45 Q 0.97 1.18 1.29 2.88 0.60 0.47 0.59 3.33 1.05 Q 0.55 0.36 4.55 Table C.2b (continued) 45 State New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Below Avg. 1994 Welfare $/Poor? No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Growth Rate, 1995–1996 –0.03 1.67 0.32 0.35 0.79 1.74 –0.03 –0.15 0.87 0.40 1.39 1.74 2.15 0.66 0.91 1.56 0.03 0.74 0.46 Qualifies, 1996? Q Q Q Q Growth Rate, Qualifies, Growth Rate, Qualifies, Growth Rate, Qualifies, Growth Rate, Qualifies, 1996–1997 1997? 1997–1998 1998? 1998–1999 1999? 1999–2000 2000? 0.01 0.07 0.21 4.29 1.69 Q 1.55 Q 1.39 Q 5.21 Q –0.29 –0.50 –0.65 1.35 0.05 0.40 0.17 0.86 0.98 0.53 0.56 2.76 1.50 1.20 1.04 3.17 –0.22 –0.07 –0.07 2.39 –0.09 0.07 0.32 5.80 1.31 1.36 1.20 3.25 1.00 –0.98 0.32 2.96 1.10 Q 1.13 Q 0.94 Q 3.75 Q 2.00 Q 1.68 Q 1.68 Q 4.03 Q 2.11 Q 1.72 Q 1.39 Q 4.85 Q 0.45 0.27 0.54 2.54 1.07 0.78 1.23 2.99 1.89 1.32 1.20 2.39 –0.22 –0.18 –0.26 0.08 0.53 0.41 0.54 2.16 –0.02 0.01 –0.09 2.96 NOTES: Boldface identifies states that automatically qualified based on 1994 spending and 1990–94 growth. At the time of grant calculations, Alaska was deemed to qualify as a 10%+ growth state, despite later Census revisions that would have disqualified it. The supplemental grant had been scheduled to expire in fiscal year 2002. In March 2002, Congress extended the grant for one year at fiscal year 2001 allocation levels. Table C.3 Predicted TANF Block Grant Funding Under 2002 Senate Finance Committee–Approved Proposal, with Addition of Per Capita Income Grant to Replace Supplemental Grant, by State Location State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State Avg. PCI Avg., $, vs. U.S. Additions, 1998–2000 Avg. % Additions, $ 28,068 100.0 118,295,650 22,706 80.9 5 4,665,750 28,427 101.3 23,954 85.3 5 10,119,200 21,194 75.5 10 5,673,300 30,054 107.1 30,468 108.5 38,750 138.1 29,627 105.6 36,974 131.7 26,839 95.6 26,580 94.7 26,951 22,570 96.0 80.4 5 1,520,650 30,554 108.9 25,816 92.0 25,316 90.2 26,349 93.9 22,962 81.8 5 9,064,400 22,437 79.9 10 16,397,200 24,351 86.8 5 3,906,050 31,859 34,968 113.5 124.6 27,947 99.6 30,377 108.2 20,215 72.0 10 8,676,800 26,085 92.9 21,744 77.5 10 4,297,700 26,609 94.8 28,787 102.6 30,927 35,127 110.2 125.1 21,144 75.3 10 11,057,800 32,917 117.3 25,615 91.3 23,464 83.6 5 1,320,000 26,884 95.8 22,695 80.9 5 7,379,700 26,456 94.3 28,168 27,906 100.4 99.4 23,007 82.0 5 4,998,400 24,624 87.7 5 1,064,000 24,923 88.8 5 9,576,200 26,458 94.3 22,445 80.0 10 7,560,900 25,639 91.3 29,462 105.0 29,778 106.1 20,890 74.4 10 11,017,600 26,991 96.2 26,024 92.7 FY 2002 $ Incl. Supplemental Grants 17,030,627,660 117,951,407 73,236,036 254,386,404 66,118,212 3,701,668,768 144,282,668 248,334,322 30,239,405 96,340,010 642,276,250 396,421,938 95,041,485 37,193,714 584,642,624 227,031,901 133,938,152 111,742,782 189,046,825 181,043,369 76,347,244 246,947,211 488,260,597 789,446,816 287,137,302 96,073,746 232,504,901 46,440,757 59,640,714 39,697,595 42,576,723 413,839,046 135,997,125 2,321,934,749 383,946,785 25,978,157 770,183,111 166,123,434 183,038,419 658,387,845 93,646,735 104,119,015 23,018,798 229,296,004 560,426,744 92,551,366 49,162,214 175,259,517 432,327,441 117,322,591 334,783,187 23,275,499 Senate-Proposed FY 2003 Grant w/ FY 2003 PCI Addition, $ % Share 17,148,923,310 100.0 122,617,157 0.7 73,236,036 0.4 264,505,604 71,791,512 1.5 0.4 3,701,668,768 21.6 144,282,668 0.8 248,334,322 1.4 30,239,405 0.2 96,340,010 0.6 642,276,250 3.7 396,421,938 2.3 95,041,485 38,714,364 0.6 0.2 584,642,624 3.4 227,031,901 1.3 133,938,152 0.8 111,742,782 0.7 198,111,225 1.2 197,440,569 1.2 80,253,294 0.5 246,947,211 488,260,597 1.4 2.8 789,446,816 4.6 287,137,302 1.7 104,750,546 0.6 232,504,901 1.4 50,738,457 0.3 59,640,714 0.3 39,697,595 0.2 42,576,723 413,839,046 0.2 2.4 147,054,925 0.9 2,321,934,749 13.5 383,946,785 2.2 27,298,157 0.2 770,183,111 4.5 173,503,134 1.0 183,038,419 1.1 658,387,845 93,646,735 3.8 0.5 109,117,415 0.6 24,082,798 0.1 238,872,204 1.4 560,426,744 3.3 100,112,266 0.6 49,162,214 0.3 175,259,517 1.0 432,327,441 128,340,191 2.5 0.7 334,783,187 2.0 23,275,499 0.1 SOURCE: Per capita income data are from U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, May 2002. NOTE: The proposed Senate amount is the fiscal year 2002 grant (including supplemental grants) plus proposed PCI additions. 46 Appendix D Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonus FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 47 Table D.1 TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: Bonus Levels 1999–2002, by State State State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticutb Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New Yorkb North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 2002 Reduction Bonus Ranka Max., $a 100,000 5 20,000 49 35 28 8 4 20,000 2001 Reduction Bonus Rank Max., $ 75,000 2 25,000 37 4 27 13 10 2000 Reduction Bonus Rank Max., $ 100,000 4 20,000 11 2 20,000 31 26 18 1999 Reduction Bonus Rank Max., $ 100,000 4 20,000 34 11 32 1 20,000 14 48 44 35 1 20,000 1 25,000 1 45 25 10 32 29 16 47 46 28 11 35 32 20 8 5 44 39 23 37 38 34 40 33 38 31 11 17 25 19 30 36 43 44 26 31 12 18 12 14 2 20,000 3 25,000 3 17 32 36 19 5 7 23 23 25 39 42 46 16 24 42 27 (b) (b) 15 16 39 21 7 8 46 36 29 26 20,000 2 20,000 15 9 37 46 20,000 6 24 39 41 43 27 36 12 5 20,000 20,000 3 20,000 33 8 25 47 28 (b) 44 13 22 24 22 42 45 13 9 29 40 33 21 76 41 18 34 30 38 41 10 26 3 20,000 17 9 28 43 48 12 15 22 20 6 14 30 34 14 47 19 47 20 45 6 9 37 21 48 33 22 41 40 13 15 24 27 43 17 48 21 42 20 10 40 18 45 19 31 35 38 7 30 29 23 16 NOTE: States listed as eligible for bonuses for any given year must submit data to HHS showing that abortion rates for the most recent year are lower than those in fiscal year 1995. aFigures for 2002 are estimations based on available data; actual HHS awards have not been announced. bState changed datasets and totals are not comparable. 48 Table D.2a TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: Supporting Data—Total Live Registered Births, 1998–2000, and Births to Unmarried Women, 1998–2000, by State 2000 1999 1998 Location Unmarried % Total Births Unmarried % Total Births Unmarried % Total Births State totals 1,347,043 33.2 4,058,814 1,308,560 33 3,959,354 1,293,567 32.8 3,941,553 Alabama 21,696 34.3 63,299 20,693 33.3 62,122 21,147 34.1 62,074 Alaska 3,291 33 9,974 3,301 33.2 9,950 3,088 31.1 9,926 Arizona Arkansas 33,475 39.3 13,490 35.7 85,273 37,783 31,463 38.8 12,932 35.2 81,145 36,729 30,011 38.4 12,911 35 78,243 36,865 California 174,050 32.7 531,959 170,372 32.9 518,508 170,866 32.8 521,661 Colorado 16,369 25 65,438 15,818 25.4 62,167 15,227 25.6 59,577 Connecticut 12,591 29.3 43,026 12,562 29 43,310 13,676 31.2 43,820 Delaware 4,193 37.9 11,051 4,147 38.8 10,676 3,924 37.1 10,578 District of Columbia 4,626 60.3 7,666 4,642 61.7 7,522 4,834 62.9 7,686 Florida 78,068 38.2 204,125 73,824 37.5 197,023 71,626 36.6 195,637 Georgia 49,058 37 132,644 46,328 36.6 126,717 44,270 36.2 122,368 Hawaii Idaho 5,658 32.2 4,392 21.6 17,551 20,366 5,593 32.8 4,302 21.6 17,038 19,872 5,544 31.5 4,265 22 17,583 19,391 Illinois 63,852 34.5 185,036 62,088 34.1 182,068 62,211 34.1 182,588 Indiana 30,409 34.7 87,699 29,640 34.5 86,031 28,553 33.5 85,122 Iowa 10,711 28 38,266 10,330 27.5 37,558 10,155 27.2 37,282 Kansas 11,497 29 39,666 11,098 28.6 38,782 10,663 27.8 38,422 Kentucky 17,377 31 56,029 16,540 30.4 54,403 16,327 30.1 54,329 Louisiana 30,980 45.6 67,898 30,109 44.8 67,136 30,041 44.9 66,888 Maine 4,222 31 13,603 4,260 31.3 13,616 4,197 30.6 13,733 Maryland Massachusetts 25,726 34.6 21,654 26.5 74,316 81,614 25,083 34.9 21,476 26.5 71,967 80,939 24,734 34.4 21,210 26.1 71,972 81,411 Michigan 45,354 33.3 136,171 44,184 33.1 133,607 45,372 33.9 133,666 Minnesota 17,468 25.8 67,604 17,065 25.9 65,907 16,723 25.6 65,202 Mississippi 20,267 46 44,075 19,606 45.9 42,684 19,502 45.4 42,939 Missouri 26,436 34.6 76,463 25,737 34.1 75,432 25,668 34.1 75,358 Montana 3,378 30.8 10,957 3,232 30 10,785 3,230 29.9 10,795 Nebraska 6,692 27.2 24,646 6,181 25.9 23,907 6,168 26.2 23,534 Nevada 11,213 36.4 30,829 10,483 35.7 29,362 10,033 35 28,699 New Hampshire New Jersey 3,603 24.7 14,609 33,464 28.9 115,632 3,399 24.2 14,041 32,556 28.5 114,105 3,482 24.1 14,429 32,369 28.3 114,550 New Mexico 12,401 45.6 27,223 12,272 45.1 27,191 12,033 44 27,318 New York 94,594 36.6 258,737 93,613 36.6 255,612 90,089 34.9 258,207 North Carolina 40,118 33.3 120,311 37,814 33.2 113,795 36,614 32.8 111,688 North Dakota 2,173 28.3 7,676 2,099 27.5 7,639 2,143 27 7,932 Ohio 53,864 34.6 155,472 52,038 34.1 152,584 51,940 34 152,794 Oklahoma 17,054 34.3 49,782 16,252 33.2 49,010 16,433 33.2 49,461 Oregon 13,793 30.1 45,804 13,750 30.4 45,204 13,458 29.7 45,273 Pennsylvania Rhode Island 47,839 32.7 146,281 4,435 35.5 12,505 47,865 32.9 145,347 4,242 34.3 12,366 47,925 32.8 145,899 4,269 33.9 12,599 South Carolina 22,341 39.8 56,114 21,441 39 54,948 20,907 38.8 53,877 South Dakota 3,462 33.5 10,345 3,348 31.8 10,524 3,296 32 10,288 Tennessee 27,505 34.5 79,611 26,981 34.7 77,803 26,999 34.9 77,396 Texas 110,985 30.5 363,414 109,244 31.3 349,245 107,742 31.5 342,283 Utah 8,186 17.3 47,353 7,722 16.7 46,290 7,740 17.1 45,165 Vermont 1,827 28.1 6,500 1,901 28.9 6,567 1,841 28 6,582 Virginia 29,617 29.9 98,938 28,334 29.7 95,469 28,124 29.8 94,351 Washington West Virginia 22,852 28.2 6,608 31.7 81,036 20,865 22,335 28.1 6,581 31.7 79,586 20,728 22,211 27.9 6,715 32.4 79,663 20,747 Wisconsin 20,327 29.3 69,326 19,906 29.2 68,208 19,211 28.5 67,450 Wyoming 1,802 29 6,253 1,778 29 6,129 1,850 29.6 6,252 SOURCES: National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 5, February 12, 2002, p. 49; Vol. 49, No. 1, April 17, 2001, p. 47; Vol. 48, No. 3, March 28, 2000, p. 47; Vol. 47, No. 18, April 29, 1999, p. 45; Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 46, No. 11 (S), June 30, 1998; http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_05.pdf. 49 Table D.2b TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: Supporting Data—Total Live Registered Births, 1996 and 1997, and Births to Unmarried Women, 1996 and 1997, by State Location State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Unmarried 1,257,444 20,635 3,048 28,495 12,478 172,017 14,273 14,116 3,693 5,041 69,285 41,879 5,202 3,848 60,443 27,184 9,601 10,274 15,669 29,011 4,060 23,493 20,836 44,454 16,141 18,859 24,516 3,119 6,021 9,555 3,404 31,738 11,696 90,673 34,468 2,174 51,544 15,660 12,631 47,234 4,128 19,857 3,166 25,383 102,496 7,145 1,726 26,908 21,218 6,495 18,707 1,747 1997 % 32.4 33.9 30.6 37.6 34.2 32.8 25.2 32.7 36 63.6 36 35.4 29.9 20.7 33.4 32.6 26.2 27.6 29.5 43.9 29.7 33.5 25.9 33.2 25 45.4 33.1 28.7 25.8 35.5 23.8 28 43.5 35.2 32.2 26 33.9 32.4 28.8 32.8 33.1 38 31.1 34.1 30.7 16.6 26.1 29.3 27.1 31.3 28.1 27.4 Total Births 3,880,894 60,914 9,947 75,699 36,478 524,840 56,533 43,109 10,253 7,927 192,383 118,221 17,393 18,582 180,803 83,436 36,659 37,289 53,203 66,025 13,669 70,215 80,364 133,714 64,499 41,533 74,037 10,849 23,319 26,911 14,313 113,279 26,871 257,238 107,015 8,353 152,033 48,269 43,809 144,224 12,455 52,214 10,173 74,478 333,974 43,059 6,607 91,862 78,190 20,730 66,557 6,387 Unmarried 1,260,306 20,366 3,110 29,243 12,335 169,313 13,863 13,940 3,603 5,547 68,077 39,928 5,569 3,969 61,743 27,002 9,760 9,847 15,693 28,320 3,959 23,977 20,458 45,052 15,798 18,463 24,483 3,026 5,765 11,145 3,400 31,959 11,470 104,416 33,419 2,099 50,265 14,267 12,959 47,976 4,208 19,075 3,091 24,645 100,573 6,809 1,786 26,634 21,287 6,504 18,413 1,697 1996 % Total Births 32.4 3,891,494 33.7 60,488 31 10,037 38.8 75,322 33.9 36,371 31.4 539,433 24.8 55,807 31.3 44,469 35.5 10,155 66.1 8,390 35.9 189,392 35 114,043 30.3 18,401 21.3 18,625 33.7 183,180 32.3 83,513 26.3 37,139 26.9 36,651 29.8 52,706 43.4 65,204 28.7 13,774 33.5 71,533 25.5 80,276 33.8 133,387 24.8 63,700 45 40,987 33.2 73,832 27.9 10,856 24.8 23,286 42.7 26,125 23.4 14,520 28 114,306 42.1 27,228 39.6 263,963 32 104,470 25.1 8,347 33.1 151,692 30.9 46,193 29.7 43,658 32.3 148,338 33.3 12,652 37.3 51,117 29.5 10,473 33.4 73,754 30.4 330,406 16.2 42,087 26.4 6,767 28.8 92,354 27.3 77,945 31.3 20,750 27.4 67,106 27 6,286 SOURCES: National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 5, February 12, 2002, p. 49; Vol. 49, No. 1, April 17, 2001, p. 47; Vol. 48, No. 3, March 28, 2000, p. 47; Vol. 47, No. 18, April 29, 1999, p. 45; Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 46, No. 11 (S), June 30, 1998; http://www. cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_05.pdf. 50 Table D.2c TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: Supporting Data—Total Live Registered Births, 1994 and 1995, and Births to Unmarried Women, 1994 and 1995, by State Location State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Unmarried 1,253,976 20,798 3,061 27,709 11,589 177,131 13,502 13,575 3,586 5,935 67,474 39,474 5,428 3,590 62,829 26,456 9,267 9,619 14,935 27,863 3,859 24,124 20,880 46,211 15,099 18,747 23,421 2,950 5,650 10,513 3,259 31,711 11,459 102,791 31,923 1,996 50,852 13,927 12,365 49,228 3,975 19,071 2,932 24,185 96,816 6,224 1,689 27,090 20,635 6,463 18,457 1,653 1995 % 32.2 34.5 29.9 38.2 32.9 32.1 24.9 30.6 34.9 65.8 35.8 35.2 29.2 19.9 33.8 31.9 25.2 25.9 28.5 42.4 27.8 33.3 25.6 34.3 23.9 45.3 32.1 26.5 24.3 42.0 22.2 27.6 42.6 37.9 31.4 23.5 33.0 30.5 28.9 32.4 31.1 37.4 28.0 33.1 30.0 15.7 24.9 29.3 26.7 30.5 27.4 26.4 Total Births 3,899,589 60,329 10,244 72,463 35,175 552,045 54,332 44,334 10,266 9,014 188,723 112,282 18,595 18,035 185,812 82,835 36,810 37,201 52,377 65,641 13,896 72,396 81,648 134,642 63,263 41,344 73,028 11,142 23,243 25,056 14,665 114,828 26,920 271,369 101,592 8,476 154,064 45,672 42,811 151,850 12,776 50,926 10,475 73,173 322,753 39,577 6,783 92,578 77,228 21,162 67,479 6,261 Unmarried 1,289,592 21,003.0 3,125.0 27,162.0 11,310.0 202,803.0 13,510.0 13,914.0 3,614.0 6,831.0 68,127.0 39,429.0 5,533.0 3,273.0 64,933.0 26,044.0 9,211.0 9,709.0 14,646.0 28,918.0 4,067.0 24,943.0 22,291.0 48,339.0 15,430.0 19,067.0 23,913.0 2,822.0 5,739.0 8,359.0 3,338.0 33,043.0 11,496.0 104,732.0 32,321.0 1,971.0 51,363.0 13,616.0 12,012.0 51,518.0 4,327.0 19,172.0 2,914.0 24,480.0 92,721.0 6,005.0 1,864.0 27,760.0 20,090.0 6,454.0 18,565.0 1,765.0 1994 % Total Births 32.6 3,952,767 34.5 60,939 29.3 10,678 38.3 70,846 32.6 34,718 35.7 567,930 25.0 54,071 30.5 45,655 34.7 10,411 68.8 9,930 35.7 190,654 35.5 111,011 28.3 19,517 18.7 17,526 34.3 189,257 31.5 82,595 24.8 37,079 26.0 37,379 27.6 52,983 42.6 67,817 28.2 14,441 33.7 73,971 26.6 83,787 35.0 138,028 24.0 64,305 45.4 41,954 32.5 73,543 25.5 11,067 24.8 23,156 35.0 23,911 22.1 15,106 28.1 117,501 41.7 27,591 37.6 278,392 31.9 101,420 23.0 8,584 32.9 155,944 29.8 45,703 28.7 41,837 32.8 157,071 32.1 13,466 36.8 52,043 27.7 10,507 33.4 73,191 28.9 321,114 15.7 38,279 25.3 7,377 29.2 95,039 26.0 77,358 30.2 21,375 27.2 68,282 27.5 6,428 SOURCES: National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 5, February 12, 2002, p. 49; Vol. 49, No. 1, April 17, 2001, p. 47; Vol. 48, No. 3, March 28, 2000, p. 47; Vol. 47, No. 18, April 29, 1999, p. 45; Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 46, No. 11 (S), June 30, 1998; http://www. cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_05.pdf. 51 Table D.3a TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birth Rate Reduction Bonuses: State Allocation Formula Detail, FY 2002 % Allocations FY 2002 1999–2000 1997–1998 Difference State totals 33.120 32.611 1.559 Alabama 33.797 33.972 –0.515 Alaska 33.086 30.876 7.157 Arizona 39.021 38.005 2.673 Arkansas 35.460 34.617 2.436 California 32.788 32.765 0.070 Colorado 25.224 25.407 –0.720 Connecticut 29.134 31.971 –8.874 Delaware 38.385 36.566 4.977 District of Columbia 61.022 63.249 –3.521 Florida 37.864 36.315 4.265 Georgia 36.777 35.808 2.708 Hawaii 32.528 30.724 5.871 Idaho 21.606 21.365 1.129 Illinois 34.306 33.753 1.641 Indiana 34.565 33.067 4.529 Iowa 27.750 26.719 3.859 Kansas 28.803 27.654 4.154 Kentucky 30.713 29.755 3.220 Louisiana 45.240 44.429 1.825 Maine 31.162 30.133 3.416 Maryland 34.733 33.918 2.404 Massachusetts 26.533 25.990 2.087 Michigan 33.190 33.595 –1.207 Minnesota 25.865 25.338 2.080 Mississippi 45.958 45.413 1.202 Missouri 34.348 33.591 2.252 Montana 30.402 29.334 3.642 Nebraska 26.513 26.015 1.914 Nevada 36.045 35.224 2.332 New Hampshire 24.440 23.958 2.011 New Jersey 28.737 28.138 2.129 New Mexico 45.343 43.789 3.548 New York 36.591 35.069 4.341 North Carolina 33.289 32.502 2.423 North Dakota 27.894 26.509 5.225 Ohio 34.378 33.948 1.264 Oklahoma 33.713 32.838 2.664 Oregon 30.264 29.287 3.339 Pennsylvania 32.817 32.800 0.054 Rhode Island 34.888 33.516 4.095 South Carolina 39.421 38.424 2.596 South Dakota 32.632 31.582 3.325 Tennessee 34.613 34.490 0.356 Texas 30.902 31.088 –0.598 Utah 16.988 16.872 0.688 Vermont 28.530 27.045 5.489 Virginia 29.809 29.553 0.866 Washington 28.133 27.512 2.254 West Virginia 31.710 31.849 –0.437 Wisconsin 29.253 28.296 3.384 Wyoming 28.913 28.460 1.593 Total no. of eligible states: 5 aState changed method of counting and thus is not ranked. Reduction Rank, 2002 5 48 30 27 8 3 (a) 44 1 42 31 47 12 16 43 39 41 32 17 36 25 21 2 20 13 23 38 18 (a) 19 22 37 (a) 26 45 14 29 34 7 40 28 33 9 4 10 46 11 24 6 35 15 Bonus Eligible? Yes Bonus Maximum, $ 100,000 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 52 Table D.3b TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: State Allocation Formula Detail, FY 2001 % Allocations FY 2001 1998–1999 1996–1997 Difference State totals 32.935 32.394 1.670 Alabama 33.689 33.773 –0.249 Alaska 32.144 30.815 4.315 Arizona 38.569 38.232 0.881 Arkansas 35.116 34.061 3.097 California 32.806 32.072 2.290 Colorado 25.500 25.045 1.816 Connecticut 30.114 32.035 –5.999 Delaware 37.974 35.751 6.219 District of Columbia 62.309 64.889 –3.976 Florida 37.042 35.980 2.953 Georgia 36.372 35.222 3.267 Hawaii 32.168 30.092 6.901 Idaho 21.820 21.009 3.856 Illinois 34.087 33.569 1.542 Indiana 34.001 32.457 4.757 Iowa 27.372 26.235 4.332 Kansas 28.186 27.213 3.578 Kentucky 30.228 29.612 2.078 Louisiana 44.880 43.688 2.729 Maine 30.923 29.221 5.825 Maryland 34.610 33.489 3.347 Massachusetts 26.293 25.706 2.282 Michigan 33.507 33.510 –0.009 Minnesota 25.771 24.914 3.441 Mississippi 45.675 45.228 0.988 Missouri 34.090 33.137 2.878 Montana 29.944 28.311 5.768 Nebraska 26.030 25.289 2.930 Nevada 35.335 39.030 –9.467 New Hampshire 24.169 23.598 2.421 New Jersey 28.394 27.988 1.451 New Mexico 44.589 42.821 4.128 New York 35.752 37.431 –4.484 North Carolina 33.008 32.100 2.829 North Dakota 27.243 25.587 6.473 Ohio 34.049 33.520 1.578 Oklahoma 33.193 31.682 4.769 Oregon 30.072 29.257 2.786 Pennsylvania 32.890 32.544 1.064 Rhode Island 34.092 33.202 2.680 South Carolina 38.914 37.677 3.283 South Dakota 31.924 30.306 5.338 Tennessee 34.781 33.750 3.056 Texas 31.378 30.565 2.658 Utah 16.907 16.388 3.163 Vermont 28.458 26.260 8.372 Virginia 29.743 29.065 2.333 Washington 27.973 27.223 2.752 West Virginia 32.058 31.338 2.297 Wisconsin 28.835 27.771 3.830 Wyoming 29.303 27.176 7.827 Total no. of eligible states: 3 aState changed method of counting and thus is not ranked. Reduction Rank, 2001 2 37 4 27 13 10 (a) 44 1 25 29 46 35 8 39 38 33 11 19 43 31 12 3 32 5 23 42 24 (a) 16 7 36 (a) 22 45 9 40 21 6 18 30 41 26 17 28 48 15 20 14 34 47 Bonus Eligible? Yes (a) Yes Yes (a) (a) Bonus Maximum, $ 75,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 53 Table D.3c TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: State Allocation Formula Detail, FY 2000 % Allocations FY 2000 1998–1999 1996–1997 Difference State totals 32.611 32.271 1.054 Alabama 33.972 34.071 –0.290 Alaska 30.876 30.427 1.474 Arizona 38.005 38.537 –1.380 Arkansas 34.617 33.439 3.523 California 32.765 31.741 3.226 Colorado 25.407 24.846 2.258 Connecticut 31.971 30.984 3.184 Delaware 36.566 35.204 3.868 District of Columbia 63.249 65.973 –4.130 Florida 36.315 35.849 1.301 Georgia 35.808 35.083 2.065 Hawaii 30.724 29.725 3.361 Idaho 21.365 20.619 3.618 Illinois 33.753 33.760 –0.022 Indiana 33.067 32.136 2.896 Iowa 26.719 25.730 3.843 Kansas 27.654 26.358 4.916 Kentucky 29.755 29.146 2.087 Louisiana 44.429 42.939 3.471 Maine 30.133 28.254 6.648 Maryland 33.918 33.420 1.490 Massachusetts 25.990 25.529 1.806 Michigan 33.595 34.050 –1.336 Minnesota 25.338 24.335 4.121 Mississippi 45.413 45.196 0.480 Missouri 33.591 32.619 2.982 Montana 29.334 27.166 7.979 Nebraska 26.015 24.533 6.042 Nevada 35.224 42.316 –16.761 New Hampshire 23.958 22.817 5.003 New Jersey 28.138 27.787 1.263 New Mexico 43.789 42.345 3.411 New York 35.069 38.706 –9.397 North Carolina 32.502 31.710 2.497 North Dakota 26.509 24.342 8.904 Ohio 33.948 33.071 2.653 Oklahoma 32.838 30.691 6.998 Oregon 29.287 29.287 –0.001 Pennsylvania 32.800 32.381 1.292 Rhode Island 33.516 32.181 4.147 South Carolina 38.424 37.382 2.786 South Dakota 31.582 28.752 9.842 Tennessee 34.490 33.234 3.780 Texas 31.088 30.221 2.872 Utah 16.872 15.959 5.718 Vermont 27.045 25.646 5.457 Virginia 29.553 29.051 1.730 Washington 27.512 27.016 1.836 West Virginia 31.849 30.939 2.942 Wisconsin 28.296 27.395 3.286 Wyoming 28.460 26.700 6.592 Total number of eligible states: 5 aState changed method of counting and thus is not ranked. Reduction Rank, 2000 4 11 2 31 26 18 (a) 35 1 10 16 28 32 5 23 34 38 17 30 44 12 14 3 36 7 25 46 42 (a) 39 8 29 (a) 19 47 20 45 6 9 37 21 48 33 22 41 40 13 15 24 27 43 Bonus Eligible? Yes Bonus Maximum, $ 100,000 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 (a) (a) 54 Table D.3d TANF Out–of–Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: State Allocation Formula Detail, FY 1999 % Allocations FY 1999 1998–1999 1996–1997 Difference State totals 32.394 32.392 0.003 Alabama 33.773 34.470 –2.022 Alaska 30.815 29.567 4.220 Arizona 38.232 38.289 –0.148 Arkansas 34.061 32.763 3.962 California 32.072 33.923 –5.459 Colorado 25.045 24.918 0.511 Connecticut 32.035 30.547 4.872 Delaware 35.751 34.821 2.669 District of Columbia 64.889 67.388 –3.708 Florida 35.980 35.743 0.662 Georgia 35.222 35.336 –0.324 Hawaii 30.092 28.760 4.630 Idaho 21.009 19.299 8.862 Illinois 33.569 34.064 –1.452 Indiana 32.457 31.735 2.272 Iowa 26.235 25.008 4.908 Kansas 27.213 25.916 5.004 Kentucky 29.612 28.076 5.471 Louisiana 43.688 42.546 2.684 Maine 29.221 27.970 4.469 Maryland 33.489 33.523 –0.102 Massachusetts 25.706 26.095 –1.493 Michigan 33.510 34.676 –3.361 Minnesota 24.914 23.932 4.104 Mississippi 45.228 45.396 –0.371 Missouri 33.137 32.294 2.609 Montana 28.311 25.989 8.934 Nebraska 25.289 24.546 3.028 Nevada 39.030 38.540 1.271 New Hampshire 23.598 22.159 6.493 New Jersey 27.988 27.872 0.418 New Mexico 42.821 42.111 1.688 New York 37.431 37.748 –0.840 North Carolina 32.100 31.645 1.437 North Dakota 25.587 23.253 10.036 Ohio 33.520 32.972 1.663 Oklahoma 31.682 30.143 5.105 Oregon 29.257 28.798 1.593 Pennsylvania 32.544 32.612 –0.211 Rhode Island 33.202 31.636 4.949 South Carolina 37.677 37.140 1.445 South Dakota 30.306 27.862 8.772 Tennessee 33.750 33.249 1.505 Texas 30.565 29.437 3.832 Utah 16.388 15.707 4.336 Vermont 26.260 25.092 4.655 Virginia 29.065 29.235 –0.583 Washington 27.223 26.345 3.335 West Virginia 31.338 30.367 3.199 Wisconsin 27.771 27.270 1.838 Wyoming 27.176 26.937 0.888 Total number of eligible states: 5 aState changed method of counting and thus is not ranked. Reduction Rank, 1999 4 34 11 32 1 14 (a) 26 2 15 9 37 46 6 24 39 41 43 27 36 12 5 3 33 8 25 47 28 (a) 44 13 22 (a) 17 48 21 42 20 10 40 18 45 19 31 35 38 7 30 29 23 16 Bonus Eligible? Yes Bonus Maximum, $ 100,000 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 55 Appendix E High-Performance Bonus, Fiscal Years 1999–2001 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 57 Table E.1 High-Performance Bonuses, by State: Awards by Category Amount for Performance Year 2000, FY 2001 State Arizona California Connecticuta District of Columbiaa Hawaiia Idaho Indianaa Iowaa Kentuckya Louisianaa Minnesota Missouria Montanaa Nebraska Nevadaa New Hampshire New Mexicoa North Dakotaa Rhode Islanda South Dakota Texasa Utaha Vermonta Washington West Virginiaa Wisconsin Wyominga Totalb Amount, $ 2,484,131 41,701,720 13,339,405 4,630,491 4,945,239 1,080,734 10,339,955 6,576,248 9,064,383 8,198,599 2,993,030 10,852,587 2,276,700 648,101 2,198,838 430,231 6,305,158 1,319,990 4,751,079 740,843 24,312,838 3,841,461 2,367,659 13,681,956 5,508,816 14,320,736 1,089,072 200,000,000 Performance Bonus, $ Success in the Job Entry Workforce — 2,484,131 — 41,701,720 — 2,478,066 —— —— —— 8,870,878 1,469,077 — 931,213 —— 5,210,079 — — 2,993,030 10,852,587 — 1,136,128 — — 648,101 1,537,317 — — 430,231 6,305,158 — 922,871 — — 882,610 —— 24,312,838 — 3,841,461 — —— —— —— — 3,553,737 1,089,072 — 64,078,389 57,571,916 Improvement Bonus, $ Success in the Job Entry Workforce —— —— 10,861,339 — 4,630,491 — 2,825,552 2,119,687 — 1,080,734 —— 3,225,393 2,419,642 9,064,383 — 2,988,520 — —— —— 651,687 488,885 —— — 661,521 —— —— — 397,119 3,868,469 — — 740,843 —— —— 2,367,659 — — 13,681,956 3,147,562 2,361,254 — 10,766,999 —— 43,631,055 34,718,640 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. aBonus amounts are limited to 5 percent of this state’s family assistance grant for the year (see section 403(a) of the Social Security Act). bThese totals differ from the amounts allocated to each work measure because of the redistribution resulting from states exceeding the bonus cap. 58 Table E.2 High-Performance Bonuses, by State: Awards by Category Amount for Performance Year 1999, FY 2000 State Alabamaa Arizona Arkansasa California Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Hawaii Idahoa Illinois Indiana Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montanaa Nevadaa New Jersey North Carolina North Dakotaa Oklahoma Tennesseea Texasa Utah Virginiaa West Virginia Wisconsin Wyominga Totalb Amount, $ 4,665,760 6,346,332 2,836,643 36,118,534 2,580,735 609,000 1,746,598 20,853,991 4,945,239 1,596,903 16,693,489 2,000,440 2,592,312 2,378,382 5,949,594 2,276,700 2,198,838 7,619,995 8,284,674 1,319,990 4,057,192 9,576,190 24,312,838 1,448,980 7,914,259 2,077,898 15,909,421 1,089,072 200,000,000 Performance Bonus, $ Success in the Job Entry Workforce 3,590,269 — — 1,870,448 2,151,547 — — 36,118,534 — 2,580,735 —— —— — 5,439,714 — 881,280 1,596,903 — — 5,659,462 — 2,000,440 — 2,592,312 —— —— 1,751,905 — 2,198,838 — —— —— 1,319,990 — -— 9,576,190 — 24,312,838 — —— 7,914,259 — —— — 2,835,182 976,792 112,280 55,108,432 60,371,486 Improvement Bonus, $ Success in the Job Entry Workforce 1,075,491 — — 4,194,785 560,306 405,889 —— —— — 609,000 — 1,746,598 15,414,277 — 2,383,731 1,680,228 —— — 11,034,027 —— —— 2,378,382 — 5,949,594 — 524,795 — —— — 7,619,995 8,284,674 — —— 4,057,192 — —— —— — 1,448,980 —— — 2,077,898 7,668,747 5,405,492 —— 48,297,189 36,222,892 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. aBonus amounts are limited to 5 percent of this state’s family assistance grant for the year (see section 403(a) (4)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act). bThese totals differ from the amounts allocated to each work measure because of the redistribution resulting from states exceeding the bonus cap. 59 Appendix F Proxies for High-Performance Bonus Measures, Fiscal Years 2002–2003 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 61 Table F.1a High-Performance Bonus Measures: A Rough Proxy for the New Food Stamps Measure—Ratio and Change in Ratio of Children in Poverty to Housholds Receiving Food Stamps, 2000 State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Children in Homes at 125% of Poverty 15,588,000 290,000 31,000 354,000 239,000 2,561,000 171,000 98,000 43,000 24,000 729,000 387,000 48,000 90,000 732,000 249,000 90,000 116,000 183,000 345,000 45,000 141,000 306,000 430,000 160,000 205,000 204,000 59,000 67,000 121,000 32,000 336,000 159,000 1,104,000 455,000 29,000 686,000 245,000 211,000 509,000 30,000 182,000 25,000 325,000 1,662,000 136,000 50,000 197,000 303,000 103,000 265,000 27,000 Households Receiving Food Stamps 7,321,776 156,105 13,208 95,569 98,764 672,198 69,951 84,016 13,463 36,194 415,788 229,500 54,212 23,174 338,230 127,875 52,548 53,346 167,971 191,891 51,711 101,048 110,234 269,430 91,099 108,993 182,254 25,280 35,130 28,291 18,095 152,358 63,537 720,035 209,232 13,604 279,174 107,098 114,368 352,491 33,422 121,945 16,425 215,336 489,303 32,616 19,649 150,452 133,481 96,097 76,633 8,952 Ratio of Low-Income Children to Food Stamp Households 2.13 1.86 2.35 3.70 2.42 3.81 2.44 1.17 3.19 0.66 1.75 1.69 0.89 3.88 2.16 1.95 1.71 2.17 1.09 1.80 0.87 1.40 2.78 1.60 1.76 1.88 1.12 2.33 1.91 4.28 1.77 2.21 2.50 1.53 2.17 2.13 2.46 2.29 1.84 1.44 0.90 1.49 1.52 1.51 3.40 4.17 2.54 1.31 2.27 1.07 3.46 3.02 Ratio Rank 24 36 47 37 48 38 8 44 1 19 17 3 49 29 27 18 30 6 22 2 10 42 16 20 25 7 35 26 51 21 32 40 15 31 28 39 34 23 11 4 12 14 13 45 50 41 9 33 5 46 43 NOTE: High-performance bonus rules call for incomes below 130 percent of poverty. Census data were readily available at 125 percent of poverty and are used here. 62 Table F.1b High-Performance Bonus Measures: A Rough Proxy for the New Food Stamps Measure—Ratio and Change in Ratio of Children in Poverty to Housholds Receiving Food Stamps, 1999 State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Children in Homes at 125% of Poverty 16,147,000 350,000 25,000 339,000 164,000 2,612,000 169,000 114,000 45,000 32,000 843,000 569,000 67,000 103,000 634,000 215,000 103,000 150,000 214,000 364,000 67,000 135,000 386,000 547,000 137,000 209,000 323,000 73,000 66,000 143,000 45,000 271,000 204,000 1,318,000 440,000 36,000 681,000 171,000 201,000 519,000 48,000 207,000 26,000 301,000 1,533,000 88,000 25,000 233,000 233,000 108,000 233,000 29,000 Households Receiving Food Stamps 7,656,980 159,241 13,909 94,906 100,305 745,994 75,981 87,946 14,286 37,349 426,593 251,256 56,365 22,536 352,018 125,593 54,254 52,008 159,347 197,520 53,719 117,311 121,767 297,465 94,437 115,176 172,499 25,334 37,969 28,736 17,927 169,941 65,520 747,975 214,501 13,936 293,372 113,313 107,458 373,202 34,282 126,539 16,448 219,910 514,786 35,206 20,826 158,842 137,341 102,925 71,662 9,248 Ratio of Low-Income % Change Ratio Children to Food in Ratio, Change Stamp Households 1999–00 Rank 2.11 0.96 2.20 –15.48 13 1.80 30.58 45 3.57 3.70 31 1.64 48.01 48 3.50 8.81 36 2.22 9.91 38 1.30 –10.01 21 3.15 1.40 28 0.86 –22.61 8 1.98 –11.28 19 2.26 –25.54 5 1.19 –25.51 6 4.57 –15.03 14 1.80 20.16 42 1.71 13.75 40 1.90 –9.78 22 2.88 –24.61 7 1.34 –18.88 11 1.84 –2.44 26 1.25 –30.23 3 1.15 21.25 44 3.17 –12.43 18 1.84 –13.21 16 1.45 21.07 43 1.81 3.65 30 1.87 –40.22 1 2.88 –19.01 10 1.74 9.72 37 4.98 –14.05 15 2.51 –29.55 4 1.59 38.29 47 3.11 –19.63 9 1.76 –12.99 17 2.05 6.01 34 2.58 –17.48 12 2.32 5.86 33 1.51 51.59 49 1.87 –1.37 27 1.39 3.84 32 1.40 –35.89 2 1.64 –8.77 23 1.58 –3.71 25 1.37 10.27 39 2.98 14.06 41 2.50 66.82 50 1.20 111.98 51 1.47 –10.74 20 1.70 33.80 46 1.05 2.15 29 3.25 6.36 35 3.14 –3.82 24 NOTE: High-performance bonus rules call for incomes below 130 percent of poverty. Census data were readily available at 125 percent of poverty and are used here. 63 Table F.2a High-Performance Bonus Measures: Work Measures for High-Performance Bonus Allocation, by State, FY 2000 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraskaa Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexicoa New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Job Entry 66.08 51.64 47.46 75.63 36.48 35.00 29.29 61.50 20.78 35.65 38.40 27.28 78.02 53.16 61.46 17.55 45.03 40.20 50.18 35.42 36.01 41.99 54.68 43.93 54.73 63.03 65.43 FY 1999 Performance Rates Rank Retention Rank Earnings Gain 4 63.78 43 10.27 21 80.33 13 –3.66 26 83.52 5 50.54 2 80.00 16 38 84.48 2 23.24 19.28 42 74.75 34 45.77 43 83.94 4 26.35 12 77.92 23 29.82 46 71.03 39 34.43 40 79.98 17 41.62 37 66.29 42 40.22 45 88.56 1 17.91 1 77.39 26 18 84.10 3 78.06 22.20 13 82.77 8 26.49 49 81.21 11 25.46 28 76.70 29 49.73 35 55.59 48 23.69 23 62.80 44 14.88 41 67.94 41 24.39 39 73.35 36 50.87 32 72.76 38 17 78.37 21 49.63 42.94 30 83.16 7 32.49 16 77.18 27 26.94 11 76.61 30 38.23 6 61.48 47 44.27 Rank 45 46 6 38 41 9 31 26 23 14 15 43 1 39 30 33 7 35 44 34 5 8 11 24 29 20 10 66.05 5 77.57 25 42.19 31 78.56 19 40.29 34 78.09 22 30.16 41.70 23.66 25 13 37 27.52 52.77 63.28 48.81 56.08 18.49 50.72 46.94 44.88 41.82 65.01 64.57 58.51 48.14 63.27 40.12 19.82 53.16 71.58 44 62.79 45 20 76.94 28 9 72.78 37 24 76.46 31 15 67.96 40 48 80.54 12 22 78.56 20 27 83.34 6 29 80.05 15 33 74.20 35 7 80.30 14 8 76.34 32 14 74.96 33 25 77.86 24 10 (a) 36 79.36 18 47 61.92 46 19 81.79 9 3 81.28 10 26.00 34.93 27.23 38.65 –11.01 22.10 39.68 18.32 38.53 57.55 23.66 39.41 41.71 28.17 (a) 37.01 –14.28 58.89 53.92 32 22 28 18 47 40 16 42 19 3 36 17 12 27 21 48 2 4 SOURCE: Direct HHS ACF Breakout, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov. NOTE: These existing measures were used for selecting fiscal year 2000 high-performance bonuses. They will be elements of the fiscal year 2002–2003 high-performance bonuses. aState did not compete for fiscal year 2000 bonus on this measure. 64 Table F.2b High-Performance Bonus Measures: Work Measures for High-Performance Bonus Allocation, by State, FY 2000 FY 1999 Change in Rates from 1998 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraskaa Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexicoa New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginiaa Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Job Entry 58.40 5.86 –0.57 82.87 8.39 –4.98 20.05 –1.93 –11.91 24.46 0.72 44.99 4.69 1.52 –30.48 –56.56 0.70 8.02 1.76 –0.14 7.59 18.47 16.36 –3.25 49.07 74.00 52.73 7.43 17.14 8.14 –10.31 38.48 1.47 –4.49 31.77 –7.84 –13.70 12.97 0.75 5.57 4.13 17.75 3.88 –0.02 –21.75 –1.10 42.08 24.01 Rank 3 23 36 1 18 41 12 38 44 10 32 6 25 29 47 48 33 20 28 35 21 13 16 39 5 2 4 Retention –17.95 0.69 0.48 1.10 –0.16 –1.71 –1.32 2.92 1.92 0.78 –2.41 2.45 –0.15 1.58 –0.85 –2.04 0.15 –6.37 9.82 –7.03 –0.63 –0.62 –0.47 –0.41 –0.47 –0.87 –8.86 Rank 47 17 18 14 23 37 34 5 10 16 41 7 22 11 31 39 20 44 2 45 30 29 27 26 28 32 46 Earnings Gain –49.27 –121.59 17.41 13.18 –11.86 7.99 7.55 10.31 16.32 8.01 26.50 358.08 3.32 5.90 3.89 –7.52 –8.44 –3.31 –30.20 –19.87 18.42 11.57 29.52 –19.33 –10.50 12.60 –9.63 Rank 47 48 11 13 39 19 23 16 12 18 8 1 27 25 26 33 35 31 44 42 10 15 7 41 38 14 36 22 1.05 15 –7.64 34 15 4.79 3 –23.11 43 19 1.43 12 23.24 9 43 –24.58 8 –2.13 30 2.19 40 –3.80 9 –0.21 42 2.71 45 –0.94 17 1.43 31 –1.40 24 0.15 26 –0.27 14 –1.90 27 2.33 34 –1.66 48 40 9 42 24 6 33 13 35 19 25 38 8 36 66.89 –4.30 –31.99 –2.56 –2.04 –48.94 132.54 7.55 7.91 –15.35 –9.96 7.85 8.29 –3.29 5 32 45 29 28 46 3 24 20 40 37 21 17 30 46 –5.31 43 37 15.93 1 7 4.66 4 11 –0.05 21 201.75 7.67 70.06 48.40 2 22 4 6 SOURCE: Direct HHS ACF Breakout, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov. NOTE: These existing measures were used for selecting fiscal year 2000 high-performance bonuses. They will be elements of the fiscal year 2002–2003 high-performance bonuses. aState did not compete for fiscal year 2000 bonus on this measure. 65 Table F.3a High-Performance Bonus Measures: Children in Married-Couple Families and All Children, 2000 State State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total 72,293,812 1,123,422 190,717 1,366,947 680,369 9,249,829 1,100,795 841,688 194,587 114,992 3,646,340 2,169,234 295,767 369,030 3,245,451 1,574,396 733,638 712,993 994,818 1,219,799 301,238 1,356,172 1,500,064 2,595,767 1,286,894 775,187 1,427,692 230,062 450,242 511,799 309,562 2,087,558 508,574 4,690,107 1,964,047 160,849 2,888,339 892,360 846,526 2,922,221 247,822 1,009,641 202,649 1,398,521 5,886,759 718,698 147,523 1,738,262 1,513,843 402,393 1,368,756 128,873 Total in Married Family 47,682,383 697,207 129,913 875,833 433,809 6,021,830 776,014 579,852 122,291 37,532 2,235,598 1,345,412 183,073 277,669 2,173,057 1,074,310 541,078 515,694 669,954 692,274 208,362 862,681 1,039,492 1,711,883 957,881 424,417 947,052 162,502 331,814 328,097 227,455 1,459,095 309,976 2,934,656 1,266,526 121,868 1,920,229 587,134 576,611 1,987,380 160,413 601,655 143,910 890,916 3,899,047 565,755 105,097 1,174,869 1,051,117 274,249 975,905 91,939 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000. % in Married Family 65.96 62.06 68.12 64.07 63.76 65.10 70.50 68.89 62.85 32.64 61.31 62.02 61.90 75.24 66.96 68.24 73.75 72.33 67.34 56.75 69.17 63.61 69.30 65.95 74.43 54.75 66.33 70.63 73.70 64.11 73.48 69.89 60.95 62.57 64.49 75.77 66.48 65.80 68.11 68.01 64.73 59.59 71.01 63.70 66.23 78.72 71.24 67.59 69.43 68.15 71.30 71.34 66 Table F.3b High-Performance Bonus Measures: Children in Married-Couple Families and All Children, 1990 State State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total 63,604,432 1,058,788 172,344 981,119 621,131 7,750,725 861,266 749,581 163,341 117,092 2,866,237 1,727,303 280,126 308,405 2,946,366 1,455,964 718,880 661,614 954,094 1,227,269 309,002 1,162,241 1,353,075 2,458,765 1,166,783 746,761 1,314,826 222,104 429,012 296,948 278,755 1,799,462 446,741 4,259,549 1,606,149 175,385 2,799,744 837,007 724,130 2,794,810 225,690 920,207 198,462 1,216,604 4,835,839 627,444 143,083 1,504,738 1,261,387 443,577 1,288,982 135,525 Total in Married % in Married % Change, Change Family Family 1990–2000 Rank 44,642,569 70.19 –6.03 706,164 66.70 –6.95 30 127,423 73.94 –7.87 37 675,501 68.85 –6.94 29 431,365 69.45 –8.19 39 5,266,324 67.95 –4.19 5 631,124 73.28 –3.80 3 543,194 72.47 –4.93 9 112,970 69.16 –9.13 48 39,315 33.58 –2.79 2 1,884,554 65.75 –6.75 25 1,136,022 65.77 –5.70 13 194,497 69.43 –10.85 50 247,510 80.25 –6.25 20 2,061,819 69.98 –4.32 6 1,069,169 73.43 –7.08 33 568,765 79.12 –6.78 26 510,472 77.16 –6.26 21 694,509 72.79 –7.48 35 765,858 62.40 –9.05 46 232,895 75.37 –8.23 40 784,129 67.47 –5.71 14 975,997 72.13 –3.93 4 1,701,668 69.21 –4.71 7 925,445 79.32 –6.16 18 449,909 60.25 –9.13 47 947,928 72.10 –7.99 38 168,497 75.86 –6.89 28 340,104 79.28 –7.04 32 203,685 68.59 –6.54 23 220,226 79.00 –7.00 31 1,291,051 71.75 –2.58 1 305,996 68.50 –11.02 51 2,811,993 66.02 –5.22 11 1,097,629 68.34 –5.64 12 144,118 82.17 –7.80 36 2,006,482 71.67 –7.23 34 602,316 71.96 –8.57 42 524,472 72.43 –5.95 16 2,036,613 72.87 –6.67 24 162,693 72.09 –10.21 49 599,440 65.14 –8.52 41 154,811 78.01 –8.96 45 831,601 68.35 –6.80 27 3,402,873 70.37 –5.87 15 519,464 82.79 –4.92 8 108,616 75.91 –6.15 17 1,083,847 72.03 –6.16 19 922,085 73.10 –5.02 10 331,508 74.74 –8.81 43 981,770 76.17 –6.39 22 106,153 78.33 –8.92 44 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 1990. 67 Table F.4 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Proxy for Child Care and Development Fund Measure— Eligible Children Served, 1999 State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Parents Working or in Eligible for CCDF Education & Training (If State Limits at (No Income Limit) Federal Maximum) 30,394,000 22,673,300 494,700 233,300 99,400 46,700 516,700 348,100 283,800 180,600 3,481,700 1,732,500 486,600 226,300 397,900 187,700 89,300 50,700 51,100 31,500 1,434,200 705,300 913,200 485,200 134,500 139,000 81,200 68,200 1,408,100 676,000 713,000 299,800 415,600 199,200 348,400 172,800 427,100 170,200 450,800 219,700 128,800 60,900 610,000 632,100 259,900 301,700 1,136,900 545,100 637,500 297,400 364,600 185,500 654,000 305,600 108,500 60,800 234,500 115,000 193,900 97,000 146,100 798,900 71,600 350,500 235,000 126,900 1,733,000 8,800,900 819,600 411,400 91,000 37,700 1,257,100 577,300 374,500 191,100 371,300 188,500 1,232,300 105,900 533,900 42,500 466,400 231,000 98,800 46,200 671,000 346,000 2,309,600 1,161,700 271,000 134,400 74,400 33,400 685,200 348,100 667,100 117,400 310,500 52,700 758,500 365,800 59,700 31,600 Receiving CCDF Subsidies 1,759,450 24,500 6,260 36,590 11,250 226,750 23,790 9,790 5,920 1,040 58,630 38,170 7,110 7,560 92,030 20,230 15,720 11,570 26,220 38,980 8890 22,070 40,200 101,890 17,200 17,870 58,390 6,430 12,140 5,900 6,790 34,000 16,610 164,200 67,100 4,450 58,440 30,820 20,490 82,750 6,390 17,840 3,680 63,090 96,640 13,260 4,980 27,120 46,130 13,310 24,940 3,330 No. Served as % of Potential Eligibles 7.76 10.50 13.40 12.89 6.23 13.09 10.51 5.22 11.68 3.30 8.31 7.87 8.76 11.09 13.61 6.75 7.89 6.70 15.41 17.74 14.60 8.49 13.32 18.69 5.78 9.63 19.11 10.58 10.56 6.08 9.48 9.70 13.09 1.87 16.31 11.80 10.12 16.13 10.87 15.50 15.04 7.72 7.97 18.23 8.32 9.87 14.91 7.79 14.86 25.26 6.82 10.54 Rank 28 15 19 46 18 27 49 21 50 37 40 34 22 14 44 39 45 9 5 13 35 16 3 48 32 2 24 25 47 33 31 17 51 6 20 29 7 23 8 10 42 38 4 36 30 11 41 12 1 43 26 SOURCE: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Estimates of Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Eligibility and Receipt, 1998, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/press/2000/ccstudy2.htm. 68 Table F.5 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Proxy for Child Care and Development Fund Measure— Eligible Children Served, 1998 State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Parents Working or in Education & Training (No Income Limit) 30,394,000 494,700 99,400 516,700 348,100 3,481,700 486,600 397,900 89,300 51,100 1,434,200 913,200 134,500 139,000 1,408,100 713,000 415,600 348,400 427,100 450,800 128,800 610,000 632,100 1,136,900 637,500 364,600 654,000 108,500 234,500 193,900 146,100 798,900 235,000 1,733,000 819,600 91,000 1,257,100 374,500 371,300 1,232,300 105,900 466,400 98,800 671,000 2,309,600 271,000 74,400 685,200 667,100 117,400 758,500 59,700 Eligible for CCDF (If State Limits at Federal Maximum) 22,673,300 233,300 46,700 283,800 180,600 1,732,500 226,300 187,700 50,700 31,500 705,300 485,200 81,200 68,200 676,000 299,800 199,200 172,800 170,200 219,700 60,900 259,900 301,700 545,100 297,400 185,500 305,600 60,800 115,000 97,000 71,600 350,500 126,900 8,800,900 411,400 37,700 577,300 191,100 188,500 533,900 42,500 231,000 46,200 346,000 1,161,700 134,400 33,400 348,100 310,500 52,700 365,800 31,600 Eligible for CCDF Receiving No. Served as Rank of % of (Under State Rules in CCDF Subsidies % of Potential 1998 Eligibles Effect Oct 1997) in 1998 Eligibles Served 9,851,100 1,522,520 6.72 103,500 20,530 8.80 31 43,800 5,080 10.88 20 154,400 33,060 11.65 18 100,200 9,240 5.12 46 1,381,900 100,640 5.81 45 139,100 20,170 8.91 30 103,300 11,910 6.35 42 22,100 6,140 12.11 16 31,500 3,850 12.22 15 421,900 46,640 6.61 40 331,200 47,210 9.73 23 70,900 6,670 8.21 34 40,200 6,550 9.60 24 326,300 88,330 13.07 14 197,200 12,670 4.23 49 102,100 11,810 5.93 43 126,500 10,240 5.93 44 90,800 25,010 14.69 9 219,700 35,180 16.01 5 60,900 0.00 51 91,300 21,380 8.23 33 146,900 46,010 15.25 7 374,600 92,060 16.89 4 251,600 25,530 8.58 32 160,000 7,870 4.24 48 129,400 42,600 13.94 11 49,200 5,530 9.10 28 73,400 9,350 8.13 35 84,000 4,830 4.98 47 27,000 6,390 8.92 29 176,900 32,500 9.27 27 112,600 14,980 11.80 17 631,600 158,610 1.80 50 343,100 74,250 18.05 3 34,700 4,160 11.03 19 249,900 59,360 10.28 21 178,800 39,930 20.89 2 188,500 15,210 8.07 36 443,300 72,680 13.61 12 24,100 6,330 14.89 8 115,200 21,730 9.41 25 26,900 3,530 7.64 37 183,600 54,820 15.84 6 1,013,400 78,960 6.80 39 52,800 12,550 9.34 26 21,300 4,740 14.19 10 216,300 23,880 6.86 38 167,100 41,850 13.48 13 28,200 12,900 24.48 1 175,400 23,870 6.53 41 12,500 3,200 10.13 22 SOURCE: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Estimates of Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Eligibility and Receipt, 1998, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/ccreport/ccreport.htm. 69 Table F.6 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Proxy for Child Care and Development Fund Measure—Average Monthly Families and Children Served by CCDF, by State, FY 1999 70 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey 1999 Families % of No. U.S. 14,343 1.37 3,779 0.36 21,960 2.09 6,927 0.66 163,130 15.56 13,166 1.26 5,405 0.52 3,458 0.33 696 0.07 33,222 3.17 21,440 2.04 4,561 0.43 4,446 0.42 48,537 4.63 10,947 1.04 7,058 0.67 6,324 0.60 15,180 1.45 22,900 2.18 5,734 0.55 13,027 1.24 26,877 2.56 51,701 4.93 10,037 0.96 8,378 0.80 38,983 3.72 3,625 0.35 6,768 0.65 3,048 0.29 4,553 0.43 23,081 2.20 1999 Children % of No. U.S. 24,502 1.39 6,258 0.36 36,588 2.08 11,253 0.64 226,751 12.86 23,788 1.35 9,787 0.56 5,915 0.34 1,039 0.06 58,630 3.33 38,171 2.17 7,112 0.40 7,563 0.43 92,029 5.22 20,227 1.15 15,718 0.89 11,567 0.66 26,215 1.49 38,984 2.21 8,887 0.50 22,065 1.25 40,201 2.28 101,889 5.78 17,163 0.97 17,873 1.01 58,391 3.31 6,433 0.36 12,140 0.69 5,903 0.33 6,789 0.39 34,003 1.93 1998 Families % of No. U.S. 11,914 1.31 2,862 0.32 19,586 2.16 5,464 0.60 70,673 7.79 11,035 1.22 6,646 0.73 3,527 0.39 2,707 0.30 26,825 2.96 26,488 2.92 4,292 0.47 3,811 0.42 46,186 5.09 7,153 0.79 7,367 0.81 5,553 0.61 14,237 1.57 19,986 2.20 0.00 13,720 1.51 30,813 3.40 49,502 5.46 15,168 1.67 5,510 0.61 35,174 3.88 3,135 0.35 5,349 0.59 2,986 0.33 4,238 0.47 22,132 2.44 1998 Children % of No. U.S. 20,526 1.36 5,083 0.34 33,095 2.19 9,244 0.61 99,922 6.60 20,172 1.33 11,912 0.79 6,138 0.41 4,245 0.28 44,867 2.96 47,205 3.12 6,673 0.44 6,546 0.43 88,333 5.83 12,673 0.84 11,805 0.78 10,238 0.68 25,002 1.65 35,194 2.32 0.00 21,383 1.41 46,009 3.04 92,062 6.08 25,525 1.69 8,471 0.56 43,445 2.87 5,528 0.37 9,348 0.62 5,084 0.34 6,394 0.42 32,496 2.15 Families % Change 1998–99 Rank 20.39 9 32.04 5 12.12 18 26.78 6 130.82 1 19.31 10 –18.67 47 –1.96 39 –74.29 50 23.85 8 –19.06 48 6.27 25 16.66 12 5.09 28 53.04 2 –4.19 42 13.88 16 6.62 24 14.58 14 n/a –5.05 43 –12.77 45 4.44 30 –33.83 49 52.05 3 10.83 19 15.63 13 26.53 7 2.08 36 7.43 23 4.29 32 Children % Change 1998–99 Rank 19.37 13 23.12 10 10.55 25 21.73 12 126.93 1 17.93 14 –17.84 46 –3.63 42 –75.52 50 30.68 7 –19.14 48 6.58 28 15.54 17 4.18 36 59.61 3 33.15 6 12.98 21 4.85 32 10.77 23 n/a 3.19 38 –12.62 45 10.67 24 –32.76 49 110.99 2 34.40 5 16.37 15 29.87 8 16.11 16 6.18 29 4.64 33 Table F.6 (continued) State New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State totals 1999 Families % of No. U.S. 9,966 0.95 103,045 9.83 43,141 4.11 2,919 0.28 33,949 3.24 20,738 1.98 10,880 1.04 40,738 3.88 3,847 0.37 10,819 1.03 2,114 0.20 29,942 2.86 53,884 5.14 7,120 0.68 3,384 0.32 17,540 1.67 27,413 2.61 7,871 0.75 14,146 1.35 1,947 0.19 1,048,694 100.00 1999 Children % of No. U.S. 16,606 0.94 164,203 9.32 67,100 3.81 4,452 0.25 58,442 3.32 34,068 1.93 20,494 1.16 82,745 4.69 6,393 0.36 17,842 1.01 3,681 0.21 63,089 3.58 96,641 5.48 13,258 0.75 4,977 0.28 27,121 1.54 46,134 2.62 13,314 0.76 24,942 1.42 3,329 0.19 1,762,665 100.00 1998 Families % of No. U.S. 8,782 0.97 98,667 10.88 41,221 4.55 2,641 0.29 33,165 3.66 21,882 2.41 7,965 0.88 39,985 4.41 3,998 0.44 12,779 1.41 2,042 0.23 29,765 3.28 46,017 5.08 6,703 0.74 3,121 0.34 15,377 1.70 25,243 2.78 8,033 0.89 13,361 1.47 1,870 0.21 906,656 100.00 1998 Children % of No. U.S. 14,983 0.99 158,605 10.48 74,245 4.90 4,160 0.27 59,357 3.92 36,029 2.38 15,043 0.99 72,683 4.80 6,326 0.42 21,733 1.44 3,529 0.23 55,419 3.66 78,955 5.22 12,552 0.83 4,736 0.31 23,876 1.58 36,883 2.44 13,186 0.87 23,867 1.58 3,088 0.20 1,513,873 100.00 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Families % Change 1998–99 Rank 13.48 17 4.44 31 4.66 29 10.53 20 2.36 35 –5.23 44 36.60 4 1.88 37 –3.78 41 –15.34 46 3.53 34 0.59 38 17.10 11 6.22 26 8.43 22 14.07 15 8.60 21 –2.02 40 5.88 27 4.12 33 15.67 Children % Change 1998–99 Rank 10.83 22 3.53 37 –9.62 44 7.02 27 –1.54 41 –5.44 43 36.24 4 13.84 18 1.06 39 –17.90 47 4.31 35 13.84 19 22.40 11 5.62 30 5.09 31 13.59 20 25.08 9 0.97 40 4.50 34 7.80 26 16.43 71 Table F.7 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Rough Proxies for Medicaid/SCHIP Measure—SCHIP Enrollment by State, FY 1999–2001 72 State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi All Children, 2000 76,616,883 1,115,902 191,260 1,571,345 816,126 11,107,160 851,674 576,645 185,257 99,798 3,990,358 2,219,178 235,086 399,415 3,958,001 1,162,449 631,031 555,828 918,868 1,201,454 201,193 988,010 1,842,104 3,096,389 1,078,788 883,594 % of 2000 in SCHIP 4.35 3.37 7.01 3.87 0.23 4.30 4.10 3.26 2.42 2.27 5.70 5.44 0.96 3.12 1.58 3.82 3.16 4.73 6.05 4.16 11.30 9.42 6.14 1.20 0.00 2.31 % Rank in SCHIP 29 6 21 49 17 19 31 36 38 12 13 48 33 44 22 32 16 9 18 2 3 8 45 51 37 Ever Enrolled in SCHIP % of U.S. All 1999 All 2000 All 2001 Total, 2001 1,959,330 3,333,879 4,601,098 100.00 38,980 37,587 68,179 1.48 8,033 13,413 21,831 0.47 26,807 60,803 86,863 1.89 913 1,892 2,884 0.06 222,351 477,615 693,048 15.06 24,116 34,889 45,773 0.99 9,912 18,804 18,720 0.41 2,433 4,474 5,567 0.12 3,029 2,264 2,807 0.06 154,594 227,463 298,705 6.49 47,581 120,626 182,762 3.97 0 2,256 7,137 0.16 8,482 12,449 13,276 0.29 42,699 62,507 83,510 1.82 31,246 44,373 56,986 1.24 9,795 19,958 23,270 0.51 14,443 26,306 34,241 0.74 18,579 55,593 66,796 1.45 21,580 49,995 69,579 1.51 13,657 22,742 27,003 0.59 18,072 93,081 109,983 2.39 67,852 113,034 105,072 2.28 26,652 37,148 76,181 1.66 21 24 49 0.00 13,218 20,451 52,436 1.14 % Growth, 2000–2001 38.01 81.39 62.76 42.86 52.43 45.11 31.20 –0.45 24.43 23.98 31.32 51.51 216.36 6.64 33.60 28.42 16.59 30.16 20.15 39.17 18.74 18.16 –7.04 105.07 104.17 156.40 Growth Rank 9 12 21 15 19 29 46 32 33 28 17 2 45 26 31 40 30 36 24 37 38 48 5 6 4 Table F.7 (continued) 73 Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming All Children, 2000 1,232,511 240,698 406,355 468,546 213,493 2,505,910 581,171 5,386,175 2,156,816 136,011 3,767,919 852,943 685,104 3,517,707 135,892 723,664 160,276 1,430,505 6,632,818 770,842 119,822 1,701,306 1,210,525 368,174 1,206,239 128,550 % of 2000 in SCHIP 5.99 3.46 2.81 3.40 2.00 3.55 1.05 14.29 4.80 1.89 2.96 6.77 5.41 3.40 8.49 8.27 3.67 1.04 1.97 3.28 3.41 2.21 0.22 5.88 3.91 1.98 % Rank in SCHIP 10 25 35 27 40 24 46 1 15 43 34 7 14 28 4 5 23 47 42 30 26 39 50 11 20 41 Ever Enrolled in SCHIP % of U.S. All 1999 All 2000 All 2001 Total, 2001 49,529 73,825 106,594 2.32 1,019 8,317 13,518 0.29 9,713 11,400 13,933 0.30 7,802 15,946 28,026 0.61 4,554 4,272 5,982 0.13 75,652 89,034 99,847 2.17 4,500 6,106 10,347 0.22 521,301 769,457 872,949 18.97 57,300 103,567 98,650 2.14 266 2,573 3,404 0.07 83,688 111,436 158,265 3.44 40,196 57,719 38,858 0.84 27,285 37,092 41,468 0.90 81,758 119,710 141,163 3.07 7,288 11,539 17,398 0.38 45,737 59,853 66,183 1.44 3,191 5,888 8,937 0.19 9,732 14,861 8,615 0.19 50,878 130,519 500,950 10.89 13,040 25,294 34,655 0.75 2,055 4,081 2,996 0.07 16,895 37,681 73,102 1.59 0 2,616 7,621 0.17 7,957 21,659 33,144 0.72 12,949 47,140 57,183 1.24 0 2,547 4,652 0.10 SOURCE: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. NOTE: All years are federal fiscal years. % Growth, 2000–2001 44.39 62.53 22.22 75.76 40.03 12.14 69.46 13.45 –4.75 32.30 42.02 –32.68 11.80 17.92 50.78 10.58 51.78 –42.03 283.81 37.01 –26.59 94.00 191.32 53.03 21.30 82.65 Growth Rank 20 13 34 10 23 42 11 41 47 27 22 50 43 39 18 44 16 51 1 25 49 7 3 14 35 8 Table F.8 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Rough Proxies for Medicaid/SCHIP Measure—Medicaid Enrollments, by State, June 1997–December 1999 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut District of Columbia Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State totals 1997 June December 497.4 491.5 62.2 60 397.3 385.1 297.9 321.2 5,178.50 4,968.70 259.5 253.1 310.4 307 133.1 131.7 75.9 76.4 1,454.90 1,460.00 946.6 941.4 161 160.7 86.8 86.7 1,305.00 1,290.30 490.8 495.1 213.7 210.7 183.1 175.7 526.8 519 541.7 537.8 155.3 151 461.7 446.7 687 747.5 1,103.10 1,081.90 458.2 436.1 409.3 392.9 569.7 572.9 74 72.8 148.9 151.2 92.9 97.5 80.3 78.4 665.2 255.6 658.7 249.7 2,918.70 2,858.70 828.5 822 45.3 42.7 1,107.80 1,060.80 282.5 291.3 379.7 373.6 1,475.20 1,449.40 124 393.6 125 414.9 60.3 60.3 1,188.60 1,231.10 1,944.10 1,892.70 133.9 133.2 85.1 85.4 522.1 505.5 732 724.3 300.3 435.5 303.2 412.8 32.8 33.1 31,274 30,829 1998 June December 504.5 511.5 65.9 63.9 373.1 372.9 353.1 370.5 4,980.40 4,987.90 250.3 246.1 311 315.3 128.2 131.3 76 82.2 1,417.90 1,465.00 926 942.5 159.2 151.6 88.7 86.1 1,243.70 1,233.90 448.2 520.3 206 201.1 168.6 167.6 518.4 511 531.7 536.3 154 159.9 445.2 465.3 823.4 856.8 1,087.80 1,052.90 430.5 420.9 382.5 396.1 564.6 600.6 71.7 72.7 156.2 168.1 97.5 99.5 77.6 78 667.5 259.7 674.6 275 2,806.30 2,746.50 815.4 814.7 42.5 42.4 1,066.90 1,062.80 310.5 318.8 381 379.7 1,430.20 1,406.10 125 127 443 471.8 61.2 65.3 1,262.50 1,288.80 1,803.50 1,825.00 135.7 133.5 85 85.1 498.6 492.4 720 710.6 308.9 397.3 270.4 394.3 33.4 33 30,696 30,886 1999 June December 526.4 530 72.9 76.4 381.4 407.4 383.9 355.6 5,067.40 5,033.00 244.1 258.8 324.7 324.8 138.2 142 88.5 89.5 1,521.20 1,597.60 927.4 904.4 155.3 152.5 87.5 93 1,246.30 1,292.30 549.8 582.7 200.3 201 178.5 188.9 520.6 525.4 561.2 621.4 163.8 166.5 491.8 574.1 891.4 910.5 1,063.30 1,061.90 448.2 439.7 409.2 427.1 676.2 721.9 72.5 71.3 173.7 180.6 99.4 101.1 83.3 82.1 678.3 289.3 690.7 298.2 2,727.50 2,719.90 828.5 848 43.4 42.9 1,045.60 1,071.60 355.3 393.1 399 385.7 1,409.00 1,396.80 136 498.1 146 517.4 68.2 70 1,306.70 1,315.90 1,776.90 1,796.60 135.5 133.6 88 89.8 491.7 492.5 716.5 727.7 256.9 395.3 263.8 437.9 32.7 33.2 31,427 31,985 % Change, 1997–99 6.55 22.83 2.54 19.37 –2.81 –0.27 4.64 6.69 17.92 9.81 –4.46 –5.28 7.14 –0.97 18.72 –5.94 3.17 –0.27 14.71 7.21 24.34 32.53 –3.73 –4.04 4.35 26.72 –3.65 21.29 8.83 2.24 3.83 16.67 –6.81 2.35 –5.30 –3.27 39.15 1.58 –5.31 17.74 31.45 16.09 10.71 –7.59 –0.22 5.52 –5.67 –0.59 –12.15 0.55 1.22 2.27 Change Rank 21 6 27 8 38 35 23 20 10 16 43 44 19 37 9 48 26 34 14 18 5 2 41 42 24 4 40 7 17 29 25 12 49 28 45 39 1 30 46 11 3 13 15 50 33 22 47 36 51 32 31 SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Medicaid Enrollment in 50 States—June 1997 to December 1999, October 2000, http://www.kff.org/content/2000/2210/. 74 Table F.9 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Rough Proxies for Medicaid/SCHIP Measure—Children in Medicaid or SCHIP, 2000 No. in Medicaid or SCHIP State totals 15,751,071 Alabama 289,579 Alaska 66,175 Arizona Arkansas 373,551 214,372 California 2,687,185 Colorado 95,792 Connecticut 68,646 District of Columbia 39,890 Delaware 30,438 Florida 809,260 Georgia 384,452 Hawaii Idaho 46,017 88,812 Illinois 744,765 Indiana 143,281 Iowa 61,148 Kansas 65,000 Kentucky 176,046 Louisiana 348,751 Maine 40,986 Maryland Massachusetts 97,489 495,486 Michigan 638,592 Minnesota 145,906 Mississippi 258,437 Missouri 237,830 Montana 70,256 Nebraska 72,936 Nevada 82,933 New Hampshire New Jersey 37,516 395,251 New Mexico 200,337 New York 1,393,101 North Carolina 451,142 North Dakota 29,650 Ohio 646,931 Oklahoma 268,678 Oregon 130,012 Pennsylvania Rhode Island 597,928 23,256 South Carolina 147,887 South Dakota 27,953 Tennessee 432,066 Texas 1,140,531 Utah 126,473 Vermont 44,358 Virginia 147,799 Washington West Virginia 290,286 114,078 Wisconsin 208,116 Wyoming 23,709 % of U.S. Total Total 2000 Children 100.00 76,616,883 1.84 1,115,902 0.42 191,260 2.37 1,571,345 1.36 816,126 17.06 11,107,160 0.61 851,674 0.44 576,645 0.25 185,257 0.19 99,798 5.14 3,990,358 2.44 2,219,178 0.29 235,086 0.56 399,415 4.73 3,958,001 0.91 1,162,449 0.39 631,031 0.41 555,828 1.12 918,868 2.21 1,201,454 0.26 201,193 0.62 988,010 3.15 1,842,104 4.05 3,096,389 0.93 1,078,788 1.64 883,594 1.51 1,232,511 0.45 240,698 0.46 406,355 0.53 468,546 0.24 213,493 2.51 2,505,910 1.27 581,171 8.84 5,386,175 2.86 2,156,816 0.19 136,011 4.11 3,767,919 1.71 852,943 0.83 685,104 3.80 3,517,707 0.15 135,892 0.94 723,664 0.18 160,276 2.74 1,430,505 7.24 6,632,818 0.80 770,842 0.28 119,822 0.94 1,701,306 1.84 1,210,525 0.72 368,174 1.32 1,206,239 0.15 128,550 Medicaid/ SCHIP Ratio Ratio to Total Rank 20.56 25.95 13 34.60 2 23.77 26.27 17 12 24.19 15 11.25 48 11.90 46 21.53 20 30.50 6 20.28 25 17.32 36 19.57 22.24 26 18 18.82 30 12.33 45 9.69 50 11.69 47 19.16 28 29.03 10 20.37 24 9.87 26.90 49 11 20.62 22 13.52 44 29.25 8 19.30 27 29.19 9 17.95 32 17.70 33 17.57 15.77 34 43 34.47 3 25.86 14 20.92 21 21.80 19 17.17 39 31.50 4 18.98 29 17.00 17.11 41 40 20.44 23 17.44 35 30.20 7 17.20 38 16.41 42 37.02 1 8.69 51 23.98 30.98 16 5 17.25 37 18.44 31 Uninsured Children, 2000 9,938,249 132,818 25,077 281,145 100,144 1,758,502 142,196 61,913 22,149 15,284 624,001 280,511 30,279 64,156 444,752 171,650 46,552 67,751 108,046 225,143 23,869 137,251 133,877 265,100 108,709 118,562 105,409 40,672 32,987 106,732 22,691 234,379 113,619 603,741 229,204 15,983 297,351 133,693 101,554 216,303 12,718 131,159 17,875 119,513 1,395,009 78,475 11,042 216,641 143,666 41,791 108,186 18,419 Uninsured Children/ Ratio SCHIP Ratio Rank 2.98 3.53 27 1.87 8 4.62 52.93 32 49 3.68 28 4.08 30 3.29 26 4.95 34 6.75 41 2.74 22 2.33 15 13.42 5.15 47 35 7.12 42 3.87 29 2.33 16 2.58 17 1.94 10 4.50 31 1.05 2 1.47 6 1.18 4 7.14 43 4529.54 51 5.80 38 1.43 5 4.89 33 2.89 23 6.69 40 5.31 36 2.63 18 18.61 48 0.78 1 2.21 12 6.21 39 2.67 19 2.32 14 2.74 21 1.81 7 1.10 3 2.19 11 3.04 24 8.04 45 10.69 46 3.10 25 2.71 20 5.75 37 54.92 1.93 50 9 2.29 13 7.23 44 SOURCES: American Academy of Pediatrics, Children’s Health Insurance Status, Medicaid/SCHIP Eligibility and Enrollment by State, 2000, http://www.aap.org, and analysis of March 2001 CPS. 75 Table F.10 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Food Stamps Program Measure—Average Monthly Household Participation in Food Stamps Program, by State, with Ranking of Enrollment Change 2000–2001, FY 1997–2001 State State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming FY 1997 9,442,788 185,946 15,351 133,350 105,435 1,045,260 90,929 94,161 19,872 40,406 513,784 284,142 56,680 26,711 433,933 140,331 66,924 63,607 173,516 219,547 58,449 151,910 149,114 366,414 110,395 155,466 199,413 26,750 40,602 38,466 20,775 212,474 74,970 899,035 249,829 15,559 388,708 130,890 121,019 440,167 36,976 139,762 17,767 252,698 751,094 37,625 24,746 205,926 200,305 117,129 87,361 11,109 FY 1998 8,236,200 166,822 14,250 106,943 100,776 865,312 81,935 92,813 16,882 37,792 431,750 256,429 54,248 23,636 392,747 129,644 58,852 52,957 162,697 202,047 55,599 137,369 133,522 329,941 97,149 129,979 173,954 25,418 38,755 32,653 18,240 185,598 64,530 759,177 224,235 14,025 331,614 119,168 110,933 400,170 32,399 135,539 16,896 231,724 601,968 35,124 21,479 170,711 164,232 110,318 75,321 9,928 FY 1999 7,656,980 159,241 13,909 94,906 100,305 745,994 75,981 87,946 14,286 37,349 426,593 251,256 56,365 22,536 352,018 125,593 54,254 52,008 159,347 197,520 53,719 117,311 121,767 297,465 94,437 115,176 172,499 25,334 37,969 28,736 17,927 169,941 65,520 747,975 214,501 13,936 293,372 113,313 107,458 373,202 34,282 126,539 16,448 219,910 514,786 35,206 20,826 158,842 137,341 102,925 71,662 9,248 FY 2000 7,321,776 156,105 13,208 95,569 98,764 672,198 69,951 84,016 13,463 36,194 415,788 229,500 54,212 23,174 338,230 127,875 52,548 53,346 167,971 191,891 51,711 101,048 110,234 269,430 91,099 108,993 182,254 25,280 35,130 28,291 18,095 152,358 63,537 720,035 209,232 13,604 279,174 107,098 114,368 352,491 33,422 121,945 16,425 215,336 489,303 32,616 19,649 150,452 133,481 96,097 76,633 8,952 FY 2001a 7,439,719 161,372 13,184 107,799 102,633 622,602 69,408 81,857 13,602 33,344 425,955 235,633 50,983 24,034 363,570 146,509 54,437 56,500 173,102 198,152 53,151 97,026 104,838 285,277 93,086 115,994 195,480 26,481 34,729 31,970 17,951 144,067 64,539 683,969 213,420 15,921 292,221 113,374 137,199 342,814 32,632 130,055 17,160 226,224 502,235 32,647 19,090 149,595 141,387 94,794 86,588 9,129 % Change, 2000–01 1.61 3.37 –0.18 12.80 3.92 –7.38 –0.78 –2.57 1.03 –7.87 2.45 2.67 –5.96 3.71 7.49 14.57 3.59 5.91 3.05 3.26 2.78 –3.98 –4.90 5.88 2.18 6.42 7.26 4.75 –1.14 13.00 –0.80 –5.44 1.58 –5.01 2.00 17.03 4.67 5.86 19.96 –2.75 –2.36 6.65 4.47 5.06 2.64 0.10 –2.84 –0.57 5.92 –1.36 12.99 1.98 Change Rank 22 35 6 19 50 37 42 33 51 28 26 49 20 7 3 21 12 24 23 25 45 46 13 29 10 8 16 39 4 38 48 32 47 30 2 17 14 1 43 41 9 18 15 27 34 44 36 11 40 5 31 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture. NOTES: The following outlying areas receive Nutrition Assistance Grants, which provide benefits analogous to the Food Stamps Program: Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas. The number of households participating is reported monthly. Annual averages are the sums divided by 12. Fiscal year 2001 data are preliminary; all data are subject to revision. Data are current as of April 25, 2002. aPreliminary. 76 Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman and CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Clifford W. Graves Vice Chancellor, Physical Planning University of California, Merced Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director, California Policy Research Center University of California, Berkeley, Office of the President Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor of Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND California Institute for Federal Policy Research 419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Basement Level Washington, DC 20003 Tel: 202/546-3700 Fax: 202/546-2390 www.calinst.org Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415/291-4400 Fax: 415/291-4401 www.ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(108) "

FF 1202TRFF

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(94) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/federal-formula-grants-tanf-and-welfare-programs/ff_1202trff/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8363) ["ID"]=> int(8363) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:36:59" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3552) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(11) "FF 1202TRFF" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(11) "ff_1202trff" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(15) "FF_1202TRFF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "714081" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(174853) "Public Policy Institute of California FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA TANF and Welfare Programs Tim Ransdell Shervin Boloorian The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Copyright © 2002 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. About This Series Federal Formula Grants and California The federal government uses formula grants to distribute nearly $300 billion annually to state and local governments to help them implement federal policies in such areas as health, transportation, and education. How much each government receives is determined by complex formulas that consist of many factors such as state population growth and per capita income. This series of reports provides detailed information on California’s current and historical funding under the major federal grants and on the formulas used to determine California’s share of funding under various specific grants. All reports are posted on the PPIC website at www.ppic.org. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA TANF and Welfare Programs Tim Ransdell and Shervin Boloorian December 2002 This report—the first in a series of in-depth examinations of individual federal formula grants—reviews the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, pending reauthorization issues, and a number of formula-related aspects of federal welfare laws, with a specific focus on California outcomes. Introduction Congress set September 30, 2002, as the expiration date for the law creating the TANF block grant, and both the House and Senate have initiated and moved reauthorization bills in 2002. Six years after the 1996 enactment of the landmark Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) welfare reform legislation (Public Law 104-193), the law is widely proclaimed a success in helping welfare recipients achieve independence and self-sustenance through work. In a sharp reversal from record-high recipient counts immediately before PRWORA’s implementation, states on average reduced caseloads by 40 percent between 1996 and 2001. Child poverty rates simultaneously declined by 4 percentage points to their lowest level in 20 years. Some critics view these statistics with skepticism, doubting the adequacy of indicators to assess recipients’ quality of life after moving off cash assistance and worrying that an inadequate cushion will leave governments unable to provide sufficient assistance in the event of a severe economic downturn. Moreover, many aver that the encouraging statistics are primarily a product of an improving and vibrant economy during these years. At any rate, PRWORA’s success may be attributed in part to its rigorous requirements. It established a five-year lifetime limit on the amount of assistance allowed per person and requires that recipients engage in a minimum number of work or work-related hours per week after two years of assistance. The law also expanded the role of the states in designing their own welfare laws. PRWORA, TANF, and the State Family Assistance Grant PRWORA transformed the public assistance system in a number of ways, most notably by substituting a flat-funded federal block grant—the state family assistance grant—for the open-ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) state entitlement system. AFDC was intended to aid children in lowincome households in which one or both parents were absent or in which a parent was unemployed, incapacitated, or deceased. The PRWORA welfare reform legislation altered federal cash assistance to the poor by prescribing systemic work-requirement guidelines for states and, in return, granting states greater flexibility to design their own programs. Under the law, direct recipients in single- and two-parent families must devote a minimum number of hours (30 and 35 hours per week, respectively) to work or work-related activities such as vocational education. Graduated welfare roll reductions were also ordered, with the aim of a 50 percent reduction by 2002; states not meeting this standard were subject to federal penalties of up to 5 percent of their annual block grant. With some exceptions, welfare reform imposed five-year time limits on cash assistance, drastically shifting welfare to a short-term experience from one that, for many, had become a way of life. When TANF was initiated in 1997, states were expected to design program parameters and to tailor policies as appropriate. The overhaul was lauded as an effort to maximize the use of funds while improving the effectiveness and performance level of welfare programs. The law provided block grant funding of $16.6 billion per year for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and additional funding rewards were slated for states that most reduced the number of illegitimate births (without increasing abortions) and for states that most reduced overall caseloads. Historically, states provide 46 percent of overall spending on welfare. Under PRWORA, individual federal TANF payments to states are pegged to the maximum level of federal welfare expenditures to the state in fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and funds are conditioned on the state spending a set maintenance of effort (MOE) minimum level of its own expenditures. To determine the TANF block grant amount, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administration for Children and Families compared total federal grant receipt amounts from three programs—AFDC, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) training program, and Emergency Assistance (EA)—in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 and in the three-year period from fiscal years 1992 to 1994. HHS determined the greatest total of funds for each state under these three periods, and then allocated funds to each state for each year from fiscal years 1997 through 2002 based on that historical high-water mark. The MOE is calculated for each state based on the state’s spending on AFDC and related programs in a single year—fiscal year 1994. Each state is held responsible for providing at least 75 or 80 percent of total funds used to finance AFDC and related programs, and the applicable percentage depends on whether 2 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California the state meets the minimum work participation rate requirements for that fiscal year.1 HHS indicates that every state is expending more than is required to meet MOE levels—$11.3 billion in fiscal year 1999 funds, whereas the mandatory MOE would have been between $10.4 billion and $11.1 billion. PRWORA permits states to carry forward unobligated TANF funds for use in future years. In 1999, approximately 6 percent of federal funds remained in the federal treasury until states had an immediate need to draw them down. Statutory objectives for TANF grants include: assisting needy families with children so that children can be cared for in their own homes; reducing dependency by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; reducing and preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Funds may be used in pursuance of these purposes, as well as in any manner authorized under the three predecessor programs—AFDC, JOBS, and EA. States, which determine beneficiary eligibility, may transfer a limited portion of TANF block grant funds to the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and Social Services Block Grant, and states may not spend more than 15 percent of any funds on administration. California and TANF At $16.6 billion annually, TANF is the third-largest federal formula grant program in the nation, after Grants to States for Medicaid and Highway Planning and Construction. The program’s $3.73 billion allotment to California makes TANF the second-largest federal grant for the state, far surpassing the $2.2 billion received for highway programs, which for the nation is the second-largest grant. California accounts for 22.6 percent of U.S. TANF grant expenditures, and the state spends $2.7 billion per year for MOE compliance from its own funds to remain eligible for the federal TANF grant. California’s high TANF receipts are due in part to generous benefit levels under TANF’s predecessor, AFDC, as well as to immigration, high out-ofwedlock birth rates, and the fact that the 1994 base year for TANF was near the peak of California’s unusually severe early 1990s recession, when welfare caseloads in California had increased far more than in other parts of the country. Because California had been tapping matching funds from the federal government under AFDC and related programs at unprecedented rates, the state 1If the state does not meet the work participation rates, it must spend 80 percent of the amount it spent for fiscal year 1994 on AFDC and AFDC-related programs. If the state does meet the work participation thresholds, the applicable MOE percentage is 75 percent of the amount it spent for fiscal year 1994 on AFDC and AFDC-related programs. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 3 became eligible for a proportionally large share of TANF dollars once the new program came online. When PRWORA created the state family assistance grant, California’s allocation was expressly delineated at $3,733,818,000. Although the 1997 level was somewhat less ($3.1 billion) because of simultaneous receipt of some legacy AFDC funding, California has received nearly that statutory level in each year since, and excess funds remain available for drawdown. Over the six-year life of the program, the state has received $21.8 billion in state family assistance grants, or 22.8 percent of the nation’s $95.6 billion in total TANF grant obligations. California titled its state welfare program the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS) program. The state’s welfare rolls have contracted significantly since the implementation of PRWORA, leading to corresponding reductions in state expenses. Although welfare cost the state an average of $4.8 billion per year before the law’s enactment, the level fell to $2.9 billion in 2000. Nonetheless, since the implementation of PRWORA, California’s caseload reductions have lagged those of the rest of the nation. From 1995 to 2001, the state’s family caseload declined by 50 percent, compared to a national decline of 58 percent; and its total recipient caseload fell by 56 percent, compared to a total national reduction of 62 percent. The result has been that, despite a declining caseload, the state’s share of the nation’s welfare recipients has risen considerably (Figure 3.1). California ranks 38th among states in the percentage of recipients and 40th in the percentage of families who have moved off welfare since 1993. California’s slower declines may in large part be due to generous state policies. In Does California’s Welfare Policy Explain the Slower Decline of Its Caseload? (Thomas E. MaCurdy, David C. Mancuso, and Margaret O’Brien-Strain, Public Policy Institute of California, 2002), the authors attribute the state’s slow reductions to liberal benefits (a high maximum grant and a low income cutoff for receiving aid) and less-severe sanction policies. According to PPIC research, the state’s caseload decline would have exceeded 60 percent if California had adopted the welfare policies of the average state. The state’s slower caseload reductions may adversely affect the state during reauthorization, should formula aid be linked to such reduction statistics during program revision. Shortly before passage of welfare reform, California had experienced the largest surge in the number of welfare recipients in state history. AFDC rolls climbed throughout the early 1990s recession—peaking in 1995—but the rolls have declined since then. The state experienced sharp declines between 1996 and 2000, but there is concern that a return to economic uncertainty over the past two years has brought an end to that positive trend. 4 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California 26 25 24 Percentage of United States 23 22 21 20 19 Beneficiaries 18 Families 17 16 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 3.1—California Share of U.S. Welfare Beneficiaries and Recipient Families, 1993–2001 The number of welfare families in California declined by 49.9 percent between 1995 and 2001, from a high of 925,585 in 1995 to 463,912 in December 2001 (Table 3.1). Nationwide, the family caseload decline was somewhat faster, at 57.7 percent, falling from 4.96 million to 2.01 million families. California was home to 18.7 percent of the nation’s welfare families in 1995 and 22.1 percent of the nation’s total in December 2001, after peaking at 23.4 percent in 1999. An examination of the number of beneficiaries, rather than families, presents similar results. California’s welfare rolls fell from 2.69 million beneficiaries (19.3 percent of the nation’s 13.9 million beneficiaries) in 1995 to 1.2 million (or 22.3 percent of the nation’s 5.3 million total) in December 2001 (Table 3.2). The state’s share had peaked in 1999 at 24.8 percent of U.S. total beneficiaries. Again, California’s reduction of 51.2 percent lagged the national reduction of 62.6 percent for the period. Statistics for both beneficiaries and families indicate that California’s share of the U.S. total caseloads is less than it has been, but the current 22 percent share is well above the state’s 17 percent share of a decade ago. Critics from states that receive lower federal TANF payment levels per recipient complain that the TANF program sends too many federal dollars to California and other high-benefit states. During debate regarding reauthorization of the programs, some have suggested focusing funds on number of beneficiaries, rather than on total dollars spent by the state, thereby equalizing federal funding per beneficiary across states. Such a shift might affect California, FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 5 Table 3.1 Number of Families Receiving Federal TANF Benefits, California and the United States, 1993–2001 Date 1/1/1993 1/1/1994 1/1/1995 1/1/1996 1/1/1997 1/1/1998 1/1/1999 6/1/2000 1/1/2001 12/1/2001 Change % FY93–01 FY95–01 California 844,494 902,900 925,585 904,940 839,860 727,695 639,059 489,054 481,207 463,912 –45.07 –49.88 United States 4,963,050 5,052,854 4,963,071 4,627,941 4,113,775 3,304,814 2,733,932 2,208,095 2,144,540 2,098,930 –57.71 –57.71 California as a % of the United States 17.02 17.87 18.65 19.55 20.42 22.02 23.38 22.15 22.44 22.10 Table 3.2 Number of Persons Receiving Federal TANF Benefits, California and the United States, 1993–2001 Date 1/1/1993 1/1/1994 1/1/1995 1/1/1996 1/1/1997 1/1/1998 1/1/1999 6/1/2000 1/1/2001 12/1/2001 Change % FY93–01 FY95–01 California 2,415,121 2,621,383 2,692,202 2,648,772 2,476,564 2,144,495 1,845,919 1,272,468 1,258,019 1,179,133 –51.18 –56.20 United States 14,114,992 14,275,877 13,930,953 12,876,661 11,423,007 9,131,716 7,455,297 5,780,543 5,563,832 5,284,711 –62.56 –62.06 California as a % of the United States 17.11 18.36 19.33 20.57 21.68 23.48 24.76 22.01 22.61 22.31 but the effect could be less than expected. Had TANF grants been based on 1994 beneficiaries rather than 1994 dollars, California would have received between 18 and 19 percent of the total. In fact, depending on the base year selected for such a formula change, the formula might actually increase rather than reduce California’s share of TANF grants. California has represented more than 22 percent of the nation’s TANF recipients and families since 1998. If the base period for a formula adjustment were based on the past three years for which complete data are available (1998, 1999, and 2000), California’s 23.4 percent of 6 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California beneficiaries and 22.5 percent of families would return even greater sums to the state. Whereas California once reaped far more federal funding per welfare recipient than the national average, rapidly declining national caseloads have raised the U.S. average for per-case receipts to nearly the levels seen in California. In fiscal year 1997, the state received $3.15 billion or $3,748 for each of its 839,860 TANF families, a per-recipient level that ranked the state 17th highest among all states. In fiscal year 2002, California’s $3.7 billion grant was used to serve 465,713 TANF families (as of December 2001), for a per-family level of $7,954, which ranked as 23rd highest among states for the year. Whereas California’s funding per family in fiscal year 1997 was 14 percent above the national rate ($3,748 for California compared to $3,289), the discrepancy between the rate for fiscal year 2002 had fallen to near parity, with the state’s $7,954 level exceeding the national rate of $7,919 by less than half a percentage point. California’s Implementation of TANF California’s experience with TANF has differed from that in other states in a number of ways. Its 32-hour weekly work requirement makes California one of only six states that set hourly work requirements for recipients above the minimal federal 30-hour level for single parents. California also differs from most states in that its high school completion rates and basic job skill levels lag the national average and in that incarceration rates are higher—all dynamics recognized as barriers to employment. TANF’s elimination of aid to legal immigrants in 1996 was to California a costly component of welfare reform. Under PRWORA, California could maintain benefits to legal immigrants but without federal support, although the state was permitted to include such state expenditures as part of its MOE spending share. Whereas most states opted to decrease or suspend aid to immigrants, California chose to continue to extend benefits to its large immigrant family population—shouldering the cost from its own state general fund. An Urban Institute review found that overall U.S. welfare assistance to immigrants fell by 62 percent between 1997 and 1999; California in the late 1990s actually increased its CalWORKS coverage of legal immigrants. In 1996, 26.3 percent of California’s legal immigrants received welfare benefits; in 2000, CalWORKS covered 26.7 percent. California’s large immigrant population accounts for much of its child-only cases—where a child is eligible for assistance although his or her parents are not. The state currently administers roughly the same proportion (34 percent) of child-only cases as the rest of the country, although it has a significantly higher FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 7 proportion of cases (39 percent) where parental disqualification is due to undocumented status. The only state with a higher rate of child-only cases due to parental noncitizen status is Texas (77 percent). The average federal percentage of such cases nationwide is 23 percent. Although welfare rolls have declined significantly as a result of welfare reform, child-only cases have grown steadily (although they did decline slightly in 1998), and child-only cases thus constitute a growing proportion of the nation’s total TANF caseload. In California, cases are converted to child-only status as parental time limits are reached. In fiscal year 2000, California was home to 501,000 (22 percent) of the nation’s 2.3 million TANF families, and the state had 139,000 (19.4 percent) of the nation’s 719,000 child-only cases. With time limits converting cases to child-only status, the California totals and share figures are expected to rise sharply. Child-only cash assistance tends to be lengthier and costlier because of exemptions from the time limits and work requirements of adult cases. In 2000, California spent nearly two-thirds of its federal and state TANF funds on basic assistance—or cash benefits. As for most states, the greatest single noncash TANF expenditure under the CalWORKS program (13 percent) was for child care. The next largest categories were administration and systems costs (7 percent), funds authorized under prior law (5 percent), other work activities and expenses (4 percent), transportation and supportive services (3 percent), and less than 3 percent for work subsidies, education and training, conditional shortterm benefits, pregnancy prevention, two-parent family formation, and other services. The federal government underwrote $1.4 billion of California’s 2000 child care budget, with 70 percent of the funds coming from the TANF program. In 2001, 46 percent of California’s child care funds provided access to care for families participating in the CalWORKS program, 39 percent assisted nonwelfare low-income earners and at-risk children, and 15 percent assisted families from all income levels. Welfare Reform Reauthorization and the TANF Block Grant President George W. Bush launched a welfare reform reauthorization plan in February 2002, entitling it “Working Toward Independence.” The proposal called for higher work standards from recipients and extra resources for programs designed to strengthen families. Tommy Thompson, Secretary of HHS, called work promotion the key to the Bush plan, which would shift the percentage of TANF families required to work from the current 50 percent (for single parents) 8 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California and 90 percent (for two-parent households) to a flat level of 70 percent for all families. An April 2002 report by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated an increased cost of $2.8 billion for the state over five years under the new welfare mandates proposed by the administration, because of increased child care and welfare-to-work program costs. Since that time, legislation has moved in both the House and the Senate. Each would reauthorize the TANF program, and each would set a fixed annual appropriation for the grant—$16.5 billion in the House, $17 billion in the Senate. By a vote of 229 to 197 on May 16, 2002, the House approved and sent to the Senate a welfare reauthorization bill. The measure, H.R. 4737, is based significantly on the president’s proposal and was crafted by Representative Walter Herger (Marysville), Chair of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, and Representative Buck McKeon (Santa Clarita), Chair of the Education and Workforce Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness. The bill requires that welfare recipients work 40 hours per week, rather than the 30 or 35 hours per week required by current law. As requested by the president, states would be required to guarantee a 70 percent engagement rate in employment activities by beneficiaries by 2007, up from what is primarily a 50 percent level at present. The bill would set funding for the TANF block grant at $16.5 billion per year, reauthorize child care funds at $4.8 billion per year over five years, and authorize an additional $2 billion over five years for working mothers’ child care costs. Some critics in the Democratic party charged that the bill unreasonably raises work demands without providing adequate child care to assist recipients in meeting those demands, and Republicans countered by comparing the dire prognosis of the bill’s future consequences to similar warnings about the 1996 welfare reform proposal’s potential for disaster before its approval. Despite the fact that California’s percentage reduction in caseload lags that of the nation, the state’s caseload has declined enough to allow it to take full advantage of the TANF program’s caseload reduction credit, which reduces each state’s work participation requirements by 1 percentage point for each point drop in caseloads since 1995. The House welfare bill would recalibrate the caseload reduction credit to provide credit for differences between caseloads in the current year and 1996 for fiscal year 2003, 1998 for fiscal year 2004, 2001 for fiscal year 2005, 2002 in fiscal year 2006, and 2003 in fiscal year 2007. Because California’s caseload reduction leveled off in 2000, the caseload reduction credit and thus the state’s MOE could be somewhat affected in fiscal year 2004 and significantly affected in fiscal year 2005. The change in base year for caseload reduction credits could result in California’s not achieving the proposed 70 percent work requirement, thus forcing the state to spend 80 percent of historical levels rather than the current 75 percent. In such a case, the state would be FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 9 required to spend an additional $280 million in state funds to continue receiving TANF grants. By a vote of 13 to 8 on June 26, 2002, the Senate Committee on Finance marked up and approved a $17 billion per year version of welfare reauthorization dubbed the Work, Opportunity, and Responsibility for Kids Act of 2002. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate measure would provide federal aid to certain legal immigrants, offer higher funding levels for child care, require recipients to work fewer hours (retaining the current law’s 30 or 35 hours per week rather than the 40 hours per week in the House bill), expand the list of activities qualifying as work to include more training options, and alter the existing caseload reduction credit system. The bill also proposes a change in the TANF grant formula, incorporating the supplemental grant into the state family assistance grant, and adding below-average state per capita income as a criterion for grant qualification. The Senate WORK Act would remain consistent with some of the White House priorities contained in the House bill, including increasing the current work participation rate of 50 percent to 70 percent by 2007, and raising weekly base work requirements for cash recipients from 20 hours to 24 hours per week. The Senate committee voted to increase mandatory federal child care funds to $5.5 billion over five years and to boost from one year to two years the maximum allowable period during which recipients may participate in vocational training while receiving cash aid. During Senate markup, much committee debate focused on an amendment by Senator Bob Graham (FL) to end the federal ban on welfare payments to legal noncitizens that was initiated in the 1996 welfare overhaul bill. The change would cost an additional $2.4 billion over five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, although Senator Graham estimated the cost at $660 million over the first five years and $2.25 billion over ten years. California’s Department of Social Services estimates that it would save the State of California $54 million per year—the amount the state pays to provide welfare and related costs to its noncitizens. The amendment would also, at a state’s discretion, allow pregnant women and children who are legal immigrants to acquire health insurance coverage under Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The Graham amendment passed by a vote of 12 to 9 after considerable debate regarding the source of offsetting spending reductions. Both the House and Senate bills would authorize new grant funds for promoting fatherhood by helping noncustodial parents find jobs, but the bills’ approaches differ. The House proposes $20 million per year for five years to be allocated on a competitive basis to nonprofit and tribal organizations; the Senate version proposes $25 million per year for four years to be allocated to states on the basis of the population of participating noncustodial parents, with allocation 10 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California criteria developed by the Departments of Labor and HHS. Both the House and Senate bills would repeal a federal loan fund for state welfare programs. Welfare-to-Work Block Grant In addition to receiving 22.6 percent of the TANF block grant, California during fiscal years 1998 and 1999 received more than 17 percent of the nation’s $2 billion per year allocation for the Welfare-to-Work block grant. The grant was authorized and appropriated for only two years. Its stated goals were to help hard-to-employ welfare recipients gain transitional employment; to provide a variety of activities that would prepare individuals for, and place them in, lasting unsubsidized employment; to provide for a variety of post-employment and job retention services that would help the hard-to-employ welfare recipient secure lasting unsubsidized employment; and to provide targeted funds to high-poverty areas with large numbers of hard-to-employ welfare recipients. To date, neither the House nor the Senate welfare reform reauthorization plan includes language to renew the Welfare-to-Work block grant. Nevertheless, the grant contained a politically vetted factor mix (50 percent based on persons living in poverty, 50 percent based on the number of adult welfare recipients) that might be replicated in other welfare component formulas in future legislative drafting. Whereas allocations based purely on welfare recipient counts result in a greater funding share for California, a poverty factor spreads funding more evenly across states and thus might broaden the support base for a future formula grant. Supplemental Grants for States with Rapid Population Growth or Low Welfare Spending per Recipient California receives no funding from what has grown to be a $319 million annual TANF supplemental grant aimed at 17 states with high population growth and low welfare expenditures. The grant was initially authorized and appropriated at $800 million to be spent over four years, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2001. A state that qualifies for a grant receives an extra 2.5 percent of the TANF grant for each year qualified. Total federal supplemental grant allocations to the 17 qualifying states were $79.4 million in 1998, $159.7 million in 1999, $238.6 million in 2000, and $319.4 million in 2001. In 2002, Congress renewed the program for one additional year, maintaining the same funding level as the 2001 grant. Under current law, a state can qualify for supplemental grant funds in three ways—two alternative thresholds result in automatic, permanent qualification (regardless of future statistical changes), and a third threshold (a combination of FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 11 two measures) is recalculated annually and qualifies a state for only one year of grant funding at a time. 1. A state automatically qualifies for indefinite annual supplemental grant funds if its 1994 welfare spending per person in poverty (as counted in the 1990 Census) was at or below 35 percent of the national average for the programs in question—AFDC, EA, JOBS, and child care related to AFDC. California’s welfare spending is well above average, and the state thus clearly does not qualify through this route, although five states do: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. 2. A state also automatically qualifies for indefinite annual supplemental grant funds if its overall population grew by more than 10 percent from 1990 to 1994. California’s population grew 5.1 percent during that period and thus did not qualify, but five very high-growth states did: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. Alaska also qualified under this criterion because population estimates at the time reflected a 10.2 percent increase in its population. More recent data showed that Alaska’s population actually grew by only 9.2 percent for the period, but the state nevertheless continued receiving TANF supplemental grants. 3. A state may also qualify for supplemental grants on an annual basis if it meets two tests: Its 1994 welfare spending must have been below the national average, and its population growth must have exceeded the national rate for the most recent year for which data are available. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee have qualified every year for supplemental grants, whereas Montana and New Mexico qualified under the annual measure in early years but not in subsequent years (meaning that they continue to receive grants at the same level as in the last year for which they qualified but do not receive increases). Over the five years of supplemental grants, the 17 recipient states have won $1.1 billion, none of which has been allocated to California. Although California has received 22.8 percent of TANF block grants, the state’s share drops to 21.7 percent of total funding when the TANF and supplemental grants are combined. The House version of the welfare bill would reauthorize the supplemental grant, freezing total U.S. supplemental grant funds at the current $319.4 million per year level. The Senate Finance Committee bill proposes to change the TANF formula by adding additional grant mechanisms to the state family assistance grant, setting overall funding at $17,044,348,000 for fiscal year 2003 and $2 million less than that amount for each year from 2004 through 2007. The Senate plan would incorporate the supplemental grant into the main state family assistance grant, freezing funding as well as state allocations at 2002 levels, and 12 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California the Senate’s plan would also introduce a new formula element within the grant—state per capita income. The Senate bill proposes that states with average per capita incomes of less than 80 percent of the national average for 1998 through 2000 should receive an increase of 10 percent in their state family assistance grant and that states with a per capita income of between 80 and 90 percent of the national average should receive a 5 percent increase. As shown in Appendix Table C.2, 17 states would qualify for additional funding under this provision. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and West Virginia would receive a 10 percent increase; Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee would receive a 5 percent increase. The Senate provision would increase to 24 the number of states receiving additional funding through either the supplemental grant or the per capita income addition. The per capita income addition would increase TANF costs by $118 million nationwide. With a per capita income just 7 percent above the national average, California would not receive an increase in its funding. Child Care and Development Block Grant In 2000, four million California children lived in families in which the parent(s) worked, and only one-quarter of these received child care services from licensed professionals. As is the case in a number of states, demand for child care services in California significantly outweighs affordable and quality care. At present, 250,000 children eligible for government-supported child care are on waiting lists to receive child care services. The CCDBG, also known as the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), federally subsidizes state child care expeditures on behalf of low-income and needy families (defined as families that earn below 85 percent of the state median income), including those who may not otherwise qualify for TANF cash assistance. Income eligibility, reimbursement rates, and copayment levels are all decided by states. Whether to extend child care to those in education or training programs is also left up to the states; if offered, however, it is often conditional on meeting work requirements, as is the case in California. CCDF funds may be used for a variety of purposes including infant care, before- and after-school programs, facilities construction, quality of care improvements, and training for providers. CCDF consists of three funding streams: Mandatory funds are calculated based on the amount of these funds a state received under AFDC in 1994; matching funds are based on the number of children under age 13 in each state and require state matching funds; and discretionary funds are provided and reauthorized annually by Congress with no required state matches. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 13 California’s population is relatively young and the size of the population is growing, although the growth rate has slowed somewhat since the 1980s. Projections indicate that the number of children ages 0–4 in California will increase substantially, both in absolute numbers and as a share of both the state and the nation’s population, during the next quarter century. In 2000, California’s preschool-age population was 2.49 million, or 7.34 percent of the state’s population. The Census Bureau projects that that figure will rise to a total of 2.78 million (8.08 percent of the state population) in 2005, to 3.62 million (8.75 percent) in 2015, and to 4.32 million (8.76 percent) in 2025. Issues facing the preschool-age population are likely to become increasingly important for California as compared to other states. The Census Bureau projects that California’s share of the nation’s population ages 0–4 will rise from 13.0 percent in 2000 to 14.5 percent in 2005, to 17.1 percent in 2015, and to 19.2 percent in 2025—growing faster than the state’s share of the total U.S. population. California’s overall population is projected to rise from 12.0 percent of the nation’s total population in 2005 to 13.3 percent in 2015 and to 14.7 percent in 2025. Federal funding for child care under TANF was authorized at $4.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. Approximately $270 million (4 percent) of the total is set aside for improvements in the quality of child care, and roughly $19 million is earmarked for activities for school-age children and resources and referral services. California will receive approximately $536 million of this total in fiscal year 2002, slightly more than 11 percent of the national total and a share that is less than half of the state’s 22.6 percent of TANF block grant funds. In this same fiscal year, discretionary funds for CCDF were authorized at $2.1 billion, of which California was slated to receive approximately $194 million. In 2000, California transferred $520.3 million, or 14 percent, of its TANF grant to CCDF. In addition, the state separately spent another $539.7 million from TANF on direct child care expenses, for a combined total of $1.1 billion, or 31 percent of the state’s total TANF grant. PRWORA appropriated mandatory entitlement funding for child care for fiscal years 1997 through 2002. By 2002, total federal welfare-related child care spending had grown to $2.7 billion. The House-passed reauthorization bill would mandatorily appropriate $2.9 billion per year in child care entitlement funding. In addition, the House proposal would authorize (without mandatory appropriation) child care funding of $2.3 billion for 2003, with the total rising by $200 million per year to reach $3.1 billion in 2007. The Senate Finance Committee proposal would maintain level funding through fiscal year 2005 and would appropriate 2006 and 2007 entitlement funding of $3.0 billion. In addition, the Senate plan would provide a separate mandatory appropriation of 14 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California $1 billion per year over five years for an additional general child care entitlement grant. Out-of-Wedlock Birth Rate Reduction Bonus PRWORA created a bonus of up to $100 million per year for states that substantially reduced rates of out-of-wedlock births and that did not increase abortion rates in the process. Such bonuses would be paid to as many as five states that most reduced out-of-wedlock births (measured as such births for the most recent two-year period for which data are available as compared to such data for the two-year period immediately before the qualifying period) provided those states can also show that their abortion rates compared to total births have declined since 1995. Winning states are eligible for a $20 million bonus in years during which there are five bonuses paid; if fewer than five are paid, each bonusearning state receives $25 million. In fiscal year 1999 (the first year of the bonus), California ranked 1st among states in its proportionate reduction of out-of-wedlock births, and the state won a $20 million bonus. Such births constituted 33.9 percent of all California births in 1994–1995, falling to 32.1 percent of births in 1996–1997. (Nationally, the rate stayed level at 32.4 percent for each period.) California’s ranking fell from 1st to 26th in 2000 and to 13th in 2001, meaning that the state was not awarded a bonus for either year. The state’s out-of-wedlock birth rate had increased to slightly below 32.8 percent in 2000, and it climbed slightly above 32.8 percent in 2001. Although HHS calculations and awards for 2002 have not been announced as of this writing, a recreation and running of the formula using current datasets indicate that California will rank 8th among states and will thus be ineligible for a bonus in 2002. Moreover, because the bonus rules require that states show a decline in out-of-wedlock births, the state would be ineligible for bonus funds even if it were among the top five states in terms of reducing such births. Whereas California’s performance in 2002 is considerably better than the nation’s as a whole, the state still experienced a slight increase in the ratio of outof-wedlock to total births. According to calculations shown in Appendix Table D.2, California’s out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 32.77 percent in 1997–1998 to 32.79 percent in 1999–2000. According to these calculations, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Texas, and the District of Columbia will each receive $20 million for the out-of-wedlock birthrate reduction bonus in 2002, assuming that they show that abortion rates have not increased. Texas would be new to the list of bonus winners; the other three states and the District of Columbia have won bonuses in the past. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 15 The House and Senate reauthorization proposals would repeal the out-ofwedlock birthrate reduction bonus, although each proposes a follow-up replacement program to be dubbed the Healthy Marriage Promotion Grant. The House bill would authorize and mandatorily appropriate $100 million per year for five years, and the Senate committee bill proposes a mandatory appropriation of $200 million per year for five years. HHS would develop criteria for distributing funds to states, tribes, and nonprofit entities for marriage promotion advertising, education and skills training, mentoring, teen pregnancy prevention, and best practices dissemination, as well as “broad-based income support and supplementation strategies … that provide increased assistance to low-income working families, such as housing, transportation, and transitional benefits, and that do not exclude families from participation based on the number of parents in the household”—language intended to reduce disincentives to marriage in means-tested aid programs. The House bill adds two eligible activities—divorce prevention and high school education on the value of marriage and relationship skills—and the Senate bill adds funding for sex and abstinence education programs. High-Performance Bonus PRWORA established a bonus grant to reward high-performance states—those that performed strongly in pursuing several stated goals of the TANF program. The law authorized $1 billion—an average of $200 million per year—for the five years from fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2003, and it required that HHS develop a formula for measuring state performance, in consultation with the National Governors Association and the American Public Welfare Association, now known as the American Public Human Services Association. Unable to finalize a formula immediately, HHS and the nongovernmental organizations devised an initial formula for the first three years of the bonus, then revised the formula for the last two. The rulemaking process based the fiscal years 1999 to 2001 formula on improvements in various work measures for the two preceding fiscal years. (Fiscal year 1999 awards were based on improvements in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, awards for fiscal year 2000 were based on fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and fiscal year 2001 awards used data from fiscal years 1999 and 2000.) Awards of $200 million per year for the first three years were based on four measures: the job entry rate, the success in the workforce rate (an equally weighted composite of job retention and earnings gain measures), and improvement in each of these two measures. For these first three years, HHS awarded grants to the ten states with the best scores on each of these four measures. It awarded 65 percent or $130 million of the $200 million to the ten 16 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California best-performing states on each performance measure, with the remaining 35 percent or $70 million allocated to the ten best states on each improvement measure (Table 3.3). Among the four measures, the allocation was further divided as follows: 40 percent or $80 million to the ten best-performing states on the job entry rate, 25 percent or $50 million to the ten best-performing states on the success in the workforce measure, 20 percent or $40 million to the ten bestperforming states on improvement in the job entry measure, and 15 percent or $30 million to the ten best-performing states on improvement in the success in the workforce measure. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, HHS developed a considerably more complex formula. It continues to award bonuses to the ten states with the highest scores in each of the four work measures used in fiscal years 1999–2001 (job entry rate, workforce success rate, and improvement in each) with minor modifications, but the new formula adds new measures in three new categories—Food Stamps, Medicaid/SCHIP, and child care and family formation/stability (Table 3. 4). Specifically, it awards bonuses to the three states with the highest overall scores and the seven states with the greatest improvement in participation by low-income working families in the Food Stamps program; it awards bonuses to the three states with the highest overall scores and the seven states with greatest improvement in participation of former TANF recipients in the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and it awards bonuses to the ten states with the highest scores on a new child care measure (accessibility, affordability, and reimbursement rates) and a family formation and stability measure (increase in the percentage of children in each state who reside in married-couple families). The formula allocates $140 million to the work measures, $20 million each to the Food Stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP measures, and $10 million each to the child care and family formation measures. The three new categories are discussed in greater detail below. Measures of participation by low-income working households in the Food Stamps program (and improvement therein) will be based on the number of lowincome working households with children (i.e., households with children under Table 3.3 High-Performance Bonuses, FY 1999–2001 Work Measures Job entry rate Success in the workforce Total Highest Score % of Bonuses $ Million 40 80 25 50 65 130 Most Improved % of Bonuses $ Millions 20 40 15 30 35 70 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 17 Table 3.4 High-Performance Bonuses, FY 2002–2003 Work and Program Measures Job entry rate Success in the workforce rate Food Stamps Medicaid/SCHIP Child care Family formation and stability Highest Score No. of Awards 10 10 3 3 10 10 Most Improved No. of Awards 10 10 7 7 – – age 18, with an income of less than 130 percent of poverty, and with earnings equal to at least half-time, full-year minimum wage) in the state receiving Food Stamps as a percentage of all low-income working households in the state. This measure provides an incentive for states to increase Food Stamps participation. The measures of participation by low-income families in the Medicaid program and SCHIP (and improvement therein) was set as the number of individuals receiving TANF benefits who are also enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP and who leave TANF in a calendar year but remain enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP compared to all TANF leavers. Again, the measure offers states an incentive to boost participation in these health programs. The measures for family formation and stability will be the increase in the percentage of children in each state who reside in married-couple families. For the child care subsidy measure, the formula is more complicated still, and many of the data are internal to HHS. For fiscal year 2002, the child care component of the bonus will be calculated using two measures, and a third will be added for fiscal year 2003. For fiscal year 2002, HHS will determine the affordability of CCDF services measured by a comparison of the reported assessed CCDF family copayment in the state to reported family income—an incentive for states to keep child care costs low. The affordability measure will count as 40 percent of the overall child care subsidy measure in fiscal year 2002. The remaining 60 percent of the child care measure for fiscal year 2002 will be based on access—funds will be allocated based on the percentage of CCDFeligible children in the state who are actually served by the program. For fiscal year 2003, the child care measure is expanded to include a third measure. The two measures introduced for fiscal year 2002 will be repeated—with affordability weighted 20 percent and coverage/access 50 percent—and the third measure of child care quality (weighted 30 percent) will be added based on state reimbursement rates, comparing actual rates paid by the state for subsidized child care to the market rates applicable for all child care in the state to the 18 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California performance year. The quality measure is added to encourage states to underwrite high-quality child care services for TANF recipients. Thus, for fiscal year 2002 and beyond, the high-performance bonus will be allocated as shown in Table 3.5. The ten states with the highest score on the job entry rate will split $56 million; the ten states with the greatest increase in score on job entry will divide $28 million; the ten states with the highest score on the success in the workforce measure (job retention and earnings gain) will split $35 million; the ten states with the greatest increase in success in the workforce will divide $21 million; the three states with the highest scores on the Food Stamps absolute measure will divide $6 million; the seven states with the highest scores on the Food Stamps improvement measure will split $14 million; the three states with the highest scores on the Medicaid/SCHIP absolute measure will divide $6 million; the seven states with the highest scores on the Medicaid/SCHIP improvement measure will divide $14 million; the ten states with the highest scores on the family formation and stability measure (those living in marriedcouple families) will divide $10 million; and the ten states with the highest scores on the child care subsidy measure will divide $10 million—or $6 million for access and $4 million for affordability in fiscal year 2002—and $5 million for access, $2 million for affordability, and $3 million for quality in fiscal year 2003. The law also says that no state may receive a bonus greater than 5 percent of its TANF State Family Assistance Grant—a restriction that sometimes requires recalculation and subsequent reallocation of bonuses. The House-passed welfare reform reauthorization bill proposes a further revision of the high-performance bonus, calling for a bonus to reward achievement of specified employment goals—a return to the job entry, retention, and earnings goals used to measure performance in fiscal years 1999–2001—with the formula again to be developed by HHS in consultation with specified parties. (It would allow HHS to allocate bonuses for fiscal year 2004 based on measures in place for fiscal year 2003, but it would require use of revised criteria for fiscal years 2005–2008.) The bill proposes $900 million in total authorization—$100 million for 2003 and $200 million per year thereafter—although the bill text elsewhere proposes an appropriation of $500 million—$100 million per year for fiscal years 2004–2008. California and the New High-Performance Bonus Measures California won a $45.5 million high-performance bonus in fiscal year 1999, a $36.1 million bonus in fiscal year 2000, and a $41.7 million bonus in fiscal year 2001. In all three instances, the amount was the largest of any state, with FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 19 Table 3.5 High-Performance Bonus Elements, with Relative Funding Weight, FY 1999–2003 Bonus Formula Element Job entry Job entry improvement Workforce (job retention/ earnings gain) Workforce (job retention/ earnings gain) improvement Food Stamps enrollment Food Stamps enrollment improvement Medicaid/SCHIP enrollment Medicaid/SCHIP enrollment improvement Family formation and stability (marriedcouple family) Child care access to services Child care affordability Child care quality $ Millions Weight, Weight, 1999–2001 2002 80 56 Weight, 2003 56 40 28 28 50 35 35 30 21 21 66 14 14 66 14 14 10 10 65 42 3 No. of States 10 10 10 10 3 7 3 7 10 10 Pennsylvania ($24.2 million) and Illinois ($21.6 million) coming in second and third, respectively, in 1999; Texas ($24.3 million) and Florida ($20.9 million) doing so in 2000; and Texas ($24.3 million) and Wisconsin ($14.3 million) doing so in 2001. California’s share of all allocated high-performance bonus funds was 22.8 percent in 1999, 18.1 percent in 2000, and 20.9 percent in 2001. California’s success in winning high-performance funding during the first three years of the bonus was due to its strength on the job retention measure, which is 50 percent of the success in the workforce measure. California’s 73.3 percent job retention rate in 2000 (the year on which performance is based for fiscal year 2001 awards) was 3rd highest in the nation and was enough to qualify the state for a bonus, despite the state’s 39th rank on the other half of the success in the workforce measure, earnings growth. In 2001, California was the 10th state out of the ten total to qualify for a bonus under the success in the workforce measure. The expansion to other formula factors for the high-performance bonus dilutes the allocation of the four work measures and thus may reduce California’s share of total bonus funds. The value of the workforce success measure, for which California ranks among the top ten, will be reduced from $50 million to $35 million for fiscal year 2002. If the identical mix of states were to remain 20 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California among the top ten bonus winners for this measure in 2002, the lowered value of the success in the workforce measure would reduce California’s funding level by $12.5 million to $29.2 million. Of course, California still could compete for and win high-performance bonus money in the new categories implemented in fiscal year 2002, but predicting such outcomes is difficult. Several data measures are partly or entirely internal to HHS and thus are unavailable for analysis. Moreover, many public datapoints have yet to be released. Nevertheless, this study has attempted to use several data proxies to estimate, with varying levels of reliability, state-by-state indicators of potential success on new bonus measures. Detailed tables for these proxies are included as Appendix F, and we discuss each of the new measures below. Food Stamps. For a measure of low-income working households receiving Food Stamps, we compared 1999 and 2000 levels of children living below 125 percent of poverty by state in households receiving Food Stamps. Although the actual regulatory language requires an examination of working families rather than all families, and those at 130 percent of poverty rather than at 125 percent, our measures may still be somewhat instructive. On the alternative measures, California ranked 48th in the absolute measure proxy (a ratio of children in poverty to Food Stamps households in 2000), and 36th in the change in that ratio from 1999 to 2000. In 2000, 3.8 children in California were in lowincome households for every household receiving Food Stamps, compared to a 0.66 ratio for the top-ranked District of Columbia; and California’s ratio grew by 8.8 percent, whereas top-ranked Missouri experienced a 40 percent decline. Although California’s Food Stamps participation rate is estimated to have declined 7.4 percent from 2000 to 2001, resisting a national upward trend (the U.S. average increase was 1.6 percent), the state ranked 50th out of 51 in Food Stamps enrollment growth for the two-year period. Medicaid and SCHIP. The bonus measure for Medicaid and SCHIP is based on the number of, and improvement in the number of, TANF recipients leaving the TANF program who continue to receive Medicaid or SCHIP benefits. Although a valid proxy is difficult to identify because of the need for detailed cross-tabulation and the fact that the data are at present internal to HHS, a comparison of current with past recipients of both Medicaid and SCHIP may be somewhat helpful. California’s Medicaid rolls have been declining somewhat—the state’s 2.8 percent reduction in Medicaid enrollment from 1997 to 1999 bucked the national trend of increasing enrollment and ranked the state 38th in enrollment growth for the period. Comparing SCHIP enrollment with numbers of uninsured children, California’s ratio of 3.7 uninsured children for every SCHIP child ranks the state 28th in the nation. From 2000 to 2001, total SCHIP enrollment in California grew by 45 percent, from 477,615 children to FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 21 693,048 children. In the nation as a whole, the growth rate was 38 percent, and California ranked 19th among the states in enrollment growth. In 2000, 4.3 percent of California children were enrolled in SCHIP, ranking the state 17th in the nation. Finally, comparing children enrolled in either Medicaid or SCHIP in 2000, California’s coverage rate of 24.2 percent of all children in the state was 15th highest in the nation. The top-ranking states for these proxies were Texas for SCHIP enrollment growth (283 percent), New York for SCHIP enrollment share (14.3 percent) and for the ratio of uninsured children to SCHIP enrollment (0.78 percent), Oklahoma for Medicaid enrollment growth (39.1 percent), and Vermont for combined Medicaid/SCHIP coverage (37.0 percent). Child Care. For the child care subsidy measure, the largest shares of funds ($6 million in fiscal year 2002 and $5 million in fiscal year 2003) are to be allocated based on access to services, or the portion of the eligible population that actually receives child care and development fund services. Whereas current-year data for actual allocations are unavailable, coverage rates for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 are presented in Appendix Table F.6. In 1998, California ranked 45th among states, covering just 100,000 or 5.81 percent of its 1.7 million potentially eligible children, according to the standards of this measure. The state leapt from 45th to 18th place in 1999, experiencing the fastest increase of any state in the percentage of both total CCDF children served (127 percent growth) and in total families participating in the CCDF program (131 percent growth). For the same time period, the national average growth rates were 16.4 percent for children and 15.7 percent for families. In general, children are eligible for CCDF if they live in a family that earns less than 85 percent of the state’s median income for a family of that size. California’s median household income (without regard to household size) in 1999 was $43,744, so the 85 percent threshold would be $37,182, or about 220 percent of the national poverty rate for a family of four for that year. California’s median income tends to exceed the national median by 5–10 percent, which increases the state’s relative number of eligible children and thus raises the bar for meeting the measure. The remainder of the $10 million distributed annually for the child care subsidy measure will be based on affordability and reimbursement rates, both of which rely on internal HHS data. Family Formation and Stability. For this element of the bonus formula, HHS will measure the percentage increase in the number of children living in married-couple families. Although this study does not present data on year-toyear change, it provides as a proxy state-level figures comparing the 1990 decennial Census with its 2000 counterpart. During the 1990s, every state experienced a decline in the number of children living in married-couple households, with the national rate dropping from 70.2 percent to 66.0 percent, or a change from 1990 to 2000 of –6.0 percent. For the same period, California’s rate declined from 67.9 percent to 65.1 percent, or a change through 22 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California the decade of –4.2 percent. With its relatively slow decline, California ranked 5th in the nation in the change in this measure. If California remains in the top ten for the years assessed for the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 high-performance bonus, the state would share in the $10 million allocated for each such year under the family formation and stability measure. Contingency Fund Funded at nearly $2 billion per year, the TANF Contingency Fund was devised to provide a pool of additional federal resources for states to use during severe economic contractions, reducing financial strains during those periods. Currently, only Louisiana has on one occasion applied for and successfully obtained support from the Contingency Fund. By the beginning of fiscal year 2001, unobligated surpluses available in the Contingency Fund stood at $3 billion and unliquidated obligations at $5 billion. A number of proposals for disposition of these surpluses have surfaced during TANF reauthorization. At present, annual federal contributions to the fund are $1.96 billion. The Contingency Fund has remained largely untapped for two reasons: A robust national economy through the late 1990s left states with TANF surpluses and thus no need to tap the fund; and stringent criteria set a high bar for qualifying for the fund’s reserves. After several years of sustained growth, the strong economy of the late 1990s reversed in 2000, and 12 states—California included—dipped into state reserves from block grant surpluses accumulated during prior years. By late 2001, California had all but depleted its unliquidated surpluses from previous years, and a sustained recession without surplus reserves may lead the state to discontinue or streamline some programs, including those providing child care assistance. Work requirements could be further increased to serve as an added obstacle if policymakers choose not to increase funds to help pay for likely increases in child care demands. The Contingency Fund also presents an awkward set of standards for fund eligibility, making it exceedingly difficult for any state to be realistically considered as a funding prospect. To qualify, for example, states are required to demonstrate average unemployment levels of at least 6.5 percent, as well as sustained increases of 10 percent per year in the unemployment level over the preceding two years. (In March 2002, California’s seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment was 6.4 percent, whereas the national rate was 5.7 percent; in 2001, California’s unemployment rate was 5.3 percent, and the nation’s was 4.8 percent.) Furthermore, to receive a Contingency Fund allocation, a state must also expend 100 percent of its MOE) expenditure level, rather than the 75 percent to 80 percent commonly required during other years, and such counterintuitive requirements have led some to question the wisdom of FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 23 increasing demands on state funds during economic downturns. Although states have left the fund almost entirely untapped to date, sharply reduced eligibility thresholds might call into question the adequacy of overall fund resources. States that do qualify to draw assistance from the Contingency Fund are reimbursed on a matching basis at the applicable Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate for expenditures in excess of the fund’s 100 percent MOE requirement. The FMAP sets Medicaid matching rates for reimbursement of state expenditures on health care services for the poor, and the federal matching share ranges from a low of 50 percent to a high of 83 percent. The FMAP’s use of per capita income (PCI) as a factor was intended in part as a rough approximation for poverty, on the (largely mistaken) assumption that states with high incomes would have low poverty, and in part as a loose measure of states’ capacity to fund services from internal sources. The current FMAP for California is 50 percent, meaning that the state would be reimbursed 50 cents for every dollar expended if the state were to tap the TANF Contingency Fund. During reauthorization, Congress is generally expected to retain the Contingency Fund at the $2 billion level. The House welfare reauthorization bill proposes to allow states to count child care spending and all spending in separate state programs toward meeting the MOE requirement. The Senate version would make broader changes. The Senate would raise—for Contingency Fund allocations only—the FMAP floor from 50 percent to 60 percent for all states (including California) with an FMAP below 60 percent. Moreover, it would render a state eligible for Contingency Funds if its unemployment rate rises by more than 1.5 points from one quarter to the next, if the rate in one three-month period is more than 50 percent greater than that in the same period in either of the two most recent years, or if the insured unemployment rate in the most recent three-month period is more than one point above that in the corresponding period in either of the prior two years. The Senate bill also would make states eligible for the fund if either welfare program or Food Stamps participation increased by more than 10 percent over one or two years, assuming that the growth was due to economic and not administrative reasons. The Senate version would also eliminate the 100 percent MOE requirement for fund access. Conclusion California wins the lion’s share of TANF block grant funding, although that share is reduced somewhat when subprogram grants and bonuses are examined. Neither the House nor the Senate proposal for TANF reauthorization would significantly change amounts or percentages of TANF block grant funds, and the state would continue to receive more than 21 percent of federal welfare expenditures. The version pending in the Senate would add state per capita 24 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California income as a factor, thereby slightly reducing California’s percentage share of the total TANF block grant. The state does not and will not receive funds from the TANF supplemental grant. Because state caseloads have fallen more slowly than those in the rest of the nation, California’s share of U.S. welfare rolls has increased since passage of PRWORA. Reauthorization proposals to move up the base year standard for caseload reduction would make it more difficult for the state to meet work participation thresholds. Whereas the state’s number of welfare receipts substantially exceeded the national average when TANF was implemented, California’s per beneficiary federal receipts are now no greater than the national norm. California has won a share of high-performance bonus funding in past years, but that share may decline with the implementation of new award criteria. A proposal to permit states to treat certain legal immigrant welfare recipients in the same fashion as citizen recipients would benefit California considerably. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 25 Appendix A TANF Caseloads, Grants, and Maintenance of Effort Requirements FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 27 Table A.1a TANF Caseload Families and TANF State Family Assistance Grants, by State, with Comparison to National Averages, FY 1997 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State totals Grant ($1000s) 81,313 18,759 222,420 19,936 3,147,716 45,628 266,788 14,565 61,049 562,340 254,340 28,631 10,601 134,005 206,799 105,169 101,931 170,006 139,757 72,477 183,018 459,371 775,353 111,836 86,768 187,839 31,784 49,341 34,008 38,521 293,108 31,992 1,982,294 225,973 11,066 727,968 148,014 167,808 418,343 46,026 93,873 18,760 191,524 431,611 76,829 47,353 114,734 289,298 82,155 318,159 19,216 13,358,173 Caseloads December 2001 37,972 12,224 56,250 21,549 839,860 31,288 56,095 10,104 24,752 182,075 115,490 21,469 7,922 206,316 46,215 28,931 21,732 67,679 60,226 19,037 61,730 80,675 156,077 54,608 40,919 75,459 9,644 13,492 11,742 8,293 102,378 29,984 393,424 103,300 4,416 192,747 32,942 25,874 170,831 20,112 37,342 5,324 74,820 228,882 12,864 8,451 56,018 95,982 36,805 45,586 3,825 4,061,732 Federal $/ Family 2,141 1,535 3,954 925 3,748 1,458 4,756 1,442 2,466 3,089 2,202 1,334 1,338 650 4,475 3,635 4,690 2,512 2,321 3,807 2,965 5,694 4,968 2,048 2,120 2,489 3,296 3,657 2,896 4,645 2,863 1,067 5,039 2,188 2,506 3,777 4,493 6,486 2,449 2,288 2,514 3,524 2,560 1,886 5,972 5,603 2,048 3,014 2,232 6,979 5,024 3,289 Rank 39 44 14 50 17 45 9 46 32 22 37 48 47 51 13 19 10 29 34 15 24 4 8 42 40 31 21 18 25 11 26 49 6 38 30 16 12 2 33 35 28 20 27 43 3 5 41 23 36 1 7 Rate as a % of Avg. 65.1 46.7 120.2 28.1 114.0 44.3 144.6 43.8 75.0 93.9 67.0 40.5 40.7 19.7 136.1 110.5 142.6 76.4 70.6 115.8 90.1 173.1 151.1 62.3 64.5 75.7 100.2 111.2 88.1 141.2 87.1 32.4 153.2 66.5 76.2 114.8 136.6 197.2 74.5 69.6 76.4 107.1 77.8 57.3 181.6 170.4 62.3 91.6 67.9 212.2 152.8 100.0 28 Table A.1b TANF Caseload Families and TANF State Family Assistance Grants, by State, with Comparison to National Averages, FY 2002 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State totals Grant ($1000s) 93,315 53,377 202,384 56,733 3,704,070 136,057 266,788 32,291 92,610 562,340 330,742 98,905 30,413 585,057 206,799 131,525 101,931 181,288 163,972 78,121 229,098 459,371 775,353 267,161 86,768 217,052 42,977 57,769 43,977 38,521 404,035 110,578 2,442,931 302,240 26,400 727,968 147,594 166,799 719,499 95,022 99,968 21,280 191,524 486,257 75,609 47,353 158,285 397,755 110,176 316,676 18,501 16,393,215 Caseloads, December 2001 18,564 5,902 38,572 12,224 465,713 11,677 24,751 5,504 16,412 61,060 54,493 11,899 1,351 53,911 47,781 20,512 13,655 35,107 24,941 9,505 28,523 46,790 76,756 35,131 17,778 46,269 5,681 10,098 9,996 5,934 42,739 17,433 180,981 44,200 3,202 84,567 14,631 17,838 82,345 14,762 20,047 2,882 61,984 131,439 7,796 5,201 30,015 55,939 16,197 18,900 474 2,070,062 Federal $/ Family 5,027 9,044 5,247 4,641 7,954 11,652 10,779 5,867 5,643 9,210 6,069 8,312 22,511 10,852 4,328 6,412 7,465 5,164 6,574 8,219 8,032 9,818 10,102 7,605 4,881 4,691 7,565 5,721 4,399 6,492 9,454 6,343 13,498 6,838 8,245 8,608 10,088 9,351 8,738 6,437 4,987 7,384 3,090 3,699 9,698 9,105 5,274 7,111 6,802 16,755 39,032 7,919 Rank 43 16 41 47 23 5 7 37 39 14 36 19 2 6 49 34 26 42 31 21 22 10 8 24 45 46 25 38 48 32 12 35 4 29 20 18 9 13 17 33 44 27 51 50 11 15 40 28 30 3 1 Rate as a % of Avg. 63.5 114.2 66.3 58.6 100.4 147.1 136.1 74.1 71.3 116.3 76.6 105.0 284.3 137.0 54.7 81.0 94.3 65.2 83.0 103.8 101.4 124.0 127.6 96.0 61.6 59.2 95.5 72.2 55.6 82.0 119.4 80.1 170.5 86.3 104.1 108.7 127.4 118.1 110.3 81.3 63.0 93.2 39.0 46.7 122.5 115.0 66.6 89.8 85.9 211.6 492.9 100.0 29 Table A.2 TANF Maintenance of Effort Levels, by State, FY 2000 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State totals FY 1994 Expenditures, $a 52,285,491 62,142,149 124,324,051 27,785,269 3,632,297,425 110,494,527 244,561,409 29,028,092 93,931,934 491,151,302 231,158,036 94,866,459 17,436,434 573,450,924 151,367,364 82,617,695 82,332,787 89,891,250 73,886,837 50,031,924 235,953,925 478,596,697 624,691,167 238,923,852 28,965,744 160,161,033 20,218,631 38,172,585 33,985,152 42,820,004 400,213,342 49,794,841 2,291,437,926 205,567,684 12,092,381 521,108,327 81,436,746 122,181,732 542,834,133 80,489,394 47,902,320 11,389,070 110,413,171 314,301,005 33,720,732 34,066,533 170,897,560 361,834,532 43,058,053 224,829,312 13,590,095 13,890,689,037 Maintenance of Effort, $ 75% Levelb 80% Levelc 39,214,118 41,828,393 46,606,612 49,713,719 93,243,038 99,459,241 20,838,952 22,228,215 2,724,223,068 2,905,837,940 82,870,895 88,395,622 183,421,057 195,649,127 21,771,069 23,222,474 70,448,951 75,145,547 368,363,477 392,921,042 173,368,527 184,926,429 71,149,844 75,893,167 13,077,326 13,949,148 430,088,193 458,760,739 113,525,523 121,093,891 61,963,271 66,094,156 61,749,590 65,866,230 67,418,438 71,913,000 55,415,128 59,109,470 37,523,943 40,025,539 176,965,444 188,763,140 358,947,523 382,877,358 468,518,375 499,752,934 179,192,889 191,139,081 21,724,308 23,172,595 120,120,775 128,128,826 15,163,973 16,174,905 28,629,439 30,538,068 25,488,864 27,188,122 32,115,003 34,256,003 300,160,007 320,170,674 37,346,131 39,835,873 1,718,578,445 1,833,150,341 154,175,763 164,454,147 9,069,286 9,673,905 390,831,245 416,886,662 61,077,559 65,149,397 91,636,299 97,745,386 407,125,600 434,267,306 60,367,046 64,391,515 35,926,740 38,321,856 8,541,802 9,111,256 82,809,878 88,330,537 235,725,754 251,440,804 25,290,549 26,976,586 25,549,900 27,253,226 128,173,170 136,718,048 271,375,899 289,467,625 32,293,540 34,446,442 168,621,984 179,863,450 10,192,571 10,872,076 10,418,016,778 11,112,551,230 aState share of expenditures for AFDC benefits, administration, EA, IV-A child care, and JOBS in fiscal year 1994. State expenditures may be revised to account for expenditures made by states on behalf of tribes. bStates must maintain a level of effort at 75 percent of fiscal year 1994 expenditures if they meet participation rate requirements. cStates must maintain a level of effort at 80 percent of fiscal year 1994 expenditures if they do not meet participation rate requirements. 30 Table A.3 TANF State Family Assistance Grants, by State, FY 1997–2002 % Share of 50 State or Territory Amount, $ + DC 1997 Alabama 93,315 0.57 81,313 Alaska 63,609 0.39 18,759 Arizona 222,420 1.35 222,420 Arkansas 56,733 0.34 19,936 California 3,733,818 22.64 3,147,716 Colorado 136,057 0.83 45,628 Connecticut 266,788 1.62 266,788 Delaware 32,291 0.20 14,565 District of Columbia 92,610 0.56 61,049 Florida 562,340 3.41 562,340 Georgia 330,742 2.01 254,340 Hawaii 98,905 0.60 28,631 Idaho 31,938 0.19 10,601 Illinois 585,057 3.55 134,005 Indiana 206,799 1.25 206,799 Iowa 131,525 0.80 105,169 Kansas 101,931 0.62 101,931 Kentucky 181,288 1.10 170,006 Louisiana 163,972 0.99 139,757 Maine 78,121 0.47 72,477 Maryland 229,098 1.39 183,018 Massachusetts 459,371 2.79 459,371 Michigan 775,353 4.70 775,353 Minnesota 267,985 1.63 111,836 Mississippi 86,768 0.53 86,768 Missouri 217,052 1.32 187,839 Montana 45,534 0.28 31,784 Nebraska 58,029 0.35 49,341 Nevada 43,977 0.27 34,008 New Hampshire 38,521 0.23 38,521 New Jersey 404,035 2.45 293,108 New Mexico 126,103 0.76 31,992 New York 2,442,931 14.82 1,982,294 North Carolina 302,240 1.83 225,973 North Dakota 26,400 0.16 11,066 Ohio 727,968 4.41 727,968 Oklahoma 148,014 0.90 148,014 Oregon 167,925 1.02 167,808 Pennsylvania 719,499 4.36 418,343 Rhode Island 95,022 0.58 46,026 South Carolina 99,968 0.61 93,873 South Dakota 21,798 0.13 18,760 Tennessee 191,524 1.16 191,524 Texas 486,257 2.95 431,611 Utah 76,829 0.47 76,829 Vermont 47,353 0.29 47,353 Virginia 158,285 0.96 114,734 Washington 404,332 2.45 289,298 West Virginia 110,176 0.67 82,155 Six-Year Budget Authority ($1000s) % of 50 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total + DC 93,315 93,315 93,315 93,315 93,315 547,888 0.57 63,609 61,165 60,573 53,377 53,377 310,860 0.33 220,637 218,953 218,243 202,750 202,384 1,285,387 1.34 56,733 56,733 56,733 56,733 56,733 303,601 0.32 3,732,668 3,731,149 3,730,164 3,728,516 3,704,070 21,774,283 22.78 136,057 136,057 136,057 136,057 136,057 725,913 0.76 266,788 266,788 266,788 266,788 266,788 1,600,728 1.67 32,291 32,291 32,291 32,291 32,291 176,020 0.18 92,610 92,610 92,610 92,607 92,610 524,096 0.55 562,340 562,340 562,340 562,340 562,340 3,374,040 3.53 330,742 330,742 330,742 330,742 330,742 1,908,050 2.00 98,905 98,905 98,905 98,905 98,905 523,156 0.55 31,938 31,345 30,534 30,413 30,413 165,244 0.17 585,057 585,057 585,057 585,057 585,057 3,059,290 3.20 206,799 206,799 206,799 206,799 206,799 1,240,794 1.30 131,525 131,525 131,496 131,525 131,525 762,765 0.80 101,931 101,931 101,931 101,931 101,931 611,586 0.64 181,288 181,288 181,288 181,288 181,288 1,076,446 1.13 163,972 163,972 163,972 163,972 163,972 959,617 1.00 78,121 78,121 78,121 78,121 78,121 463,082 0.48 229,098 229,098 229,098 229,098 229,098 1,328,508 1.39 459,371 459,371 459,371 459,371 459,371 2,756,226 2.88 775,353 775,353 775,353 775,353 775,353 4,652,118 4.87 267,985 267,367 267,161 267,161 267,161 1,448,671 1.52 86,768 86,768 86,768 86,768 86,768 520,608 0.54 217,052 217,052 217,052 217,052 217,052 1,273,099 1.33 45,534 44,335 43,935 42,977 42,977 251,542 0.26 58,029 58,029 58,029 57,891 57,769 339,088 0.35 43,977 43,977 43,977 43,977 43,977 253,893 0.27 38,521 38,521 38,521 38,521 38,521 231,126 0.24 404,035 404,035 403,980 404,035 404,035 2,313,228 2.42 126,103 126,103 126,103 125,903 110,578 646,782 0.68 2,442,931 2,442,931 2,442,931 2,442,931 2,442,931 14,196,949 14.85 302,240 302,240 302,227 302,236 302,240 1,737,156 1.82 26,400 26,400 26,400 26,400 26,400 143,066 0.15 727,968 727,968 727,968 727,968 727,968 4,367,808 4.57 147,842 147,596 147,596 147,594 147,594 886,236 0.93 166,799 166,799 166,799 166,799 166,799 1,001,803 1.05 719,499 719,499 719,499 719,499 719,499 4,015,838 4.20 95,022 95,022 95,022 95,022 95,022 521,136 0.55 99,968 99,968 99,968 99,968 99,968 593,713 0.62 21,313 21,313 21,313 21,280 21,280 125,259 0.13 191,524 191,524 191,524 191,524 191,524 1,149,144 1.20 486,257 486,257 486,257 486,257 486,257 2,862,896 2.99 76,829 76,829 76,829 75,609 75,609 458,534 0.48 47,353 47,353 47,353 47,353 47,353 284,118 0.30 158,285 158,285 158,285 158,285 158,285 906,159 0.95 404,332 403,314 403,314 402,154 397,755 2,300,167 2.41 110,176 110,176 110,176 110,049 110,176 632,908 0.66 31 Table A.3 (continued) State or Territory Wisconsin Wyoming State totals Guam Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Indian tribes Grand totals % Share Six-Year of 50 Budget Authority ($1000s) % of 50 Amount, $ + DC 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total + DC 318,188 1.93 318,159 317,505 317,505 317,048 316,895 316,676 1,903,788 1.99 21,781 0.13 19,216 21,538 20,816 20,816 19,009 18,501 119,896 0.13 16,488,575 100.00 13,358,173 16,472,890 16,472,890 16,468,632 16,438,466 16,393,215 95,604,266 100.00 44,016 503 145 3,465 71,563 2,847 10,043 3,465 71,563 2,847 15,234 3,465 71,562 2,804 19,941 3,465 66,929 2,890 50,061 3,465 71,563 2,847 95,452 17,325 397,196 14,738 190,876 13,402,837 16,566,542 16,565,999 16,566,404 16,561,811 16,566,542 96,230,132 32 Appendix B TANF Caseload Changes, 1993–2001 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 33 Table B.1 Total TANF Families and Change in TANF Family Enrollment, by State, with Ranking by Percentage Caseload Reduction, 1993–2001 34 State or Territory Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Jan 1993 51,910 11,626 68,982 26,897 844,494 42,445 56,759 11,315 24,628 256,145 142,040 1,406 17,869 7,838 229,308 73,115 36,515 29,818 83,320 89,931 23,903 80,256 113,571 228,377 63,995 60,520 88,744 11,793 16,637 12,892 10,805 126,179 31,103 428,191 128,946 6,577 257,665 Jan 1994 51,181 12,578 72,160 26,398 902,900 41,616 58,453 11,739 26,624 254,032 142,459 1,840 20,104 8,677 238,967 74,169 39,623 30,247 79,437 88,168 23,074 79,772 112,955 225,671 63,552 57,689 91,598 12,080 16,145 14,077 11,427 121,361 33,376 449,978 131,288 6,002 251,037 Jan 1995 47,376 12,518 71,110 24,930 925,585 39,115 60,927 11,306 26,624 241,193 141,284 2,124 21,523 9,097 240,013 68,195 37,298 28,770 76,471 81,587 22,010 81,115 104,956 207,089 61,373 53,104 91,378 11,732 14,968 16,039 11,018 120,099 34,789 461,006 127,069 5,374 232,574 Jan 1996 43,396 11,979 64,442 23,140 904,940 35,661 58,124 10,266 25,717 215,512 135,274 2,097 22,075 9,211 225,796 52,254 33,559 25,811 72,131 72,104 20,472 75,573 90,107 180,790 58,510 49,185 84,534 11,276 14,136 15,824 9,648 113,399 34,368 437,694 114,449 4,976 209,830 Jan 1997 37,972 12,224 56,250 21,549 839,860 31,288 56,095 10,104 24,752 182,075 115,490 2,349 21,469 7,922 206,316 46,215 28,931 21,732 67,679 60,226 19,037 61,730 80,675 156,077 54,608 40,919 75,459 9,644 13,492 11,742 8,293 102,378 29,984 393,424 103,300 4,416 192,747 Jan 1998 25,123 10,392 41,233 14,419 727,695 21,912 51,132 7,053 22,451 121,006 84,318 2,213 23,578 1,920 175,445 37,298 25,744 14,595 54,491 46,593 15,526 49,075 68,651 128,892 48,893 25,510 62,872 6,789 13,809 11,263 6,489 89,030 20,219 347,536 78,473 3,351 147,093 Jan 1999 20,505 8,756 34,055 12,057 639,059 14,988 35,481 6,390 19,548 89,674 66,070 2,423 16,247 1,468 130,393 35,544 22,322 13,082 43,799 41,510 13,984 36,142 56,163 97,398 43,094 17,954 52,831 5,497 11,830 8,538 6,153 64,475 25,752 297,016 63,234 3,099 121,142 Jun 2000 18,677 7,542 31,897 12,046 489,054 10,772 27,149 5,819 22,397 62,805 51,215 2,760 14,942 1,382 85,807 35,068 20,082 12,404 37,471 25,521 10,654 28,895 41,682 70,897 39,295 14,979 45,912 4,467 10,088 6,916 5,791 50,126 22,701 248,148 44,731 2,887 95,835 Jan 2001 18,623 5,910 32,227 11,084 481,207 10,618 25,787 5,486 16,409 60,673 51,516 2,763 13,185 1,302 63,523 39,413 20,027 12,878 36,637 25,953 9,812 27,873 42,849 70,468 38,087 15,192 46,679 4,754 9,441 6,983 5,616 46,327 19,598 232,682 43,408 2,958 86,483 Dec 2001 % Change 18,564 –64.2 5,902 –49.2 38,572 –44.1 12,224 –54.6 465,713 –44.9 11,677 –72.5 24,751 –56.4 5,504 –51.4 16,412 –33.4 61,060 –76.2 54,493 –61.6 3,072 118.5 11,899 –33.4 1,351 –82.8 53,911 –76.5 47,781 –34.6 20,512 –43.8 13,655 –54.2 35,107 –57.9 24,941 –72.3 9,505 –60.2 28,523 –64.5 46,790 –58.8 76,756 –66.4 35,131 –45.1 17,778 –70.6 46,269 –47.9 5,681 –51.8 10,098 –39.3 9,996 –22.5 5,934 –45.1 42,739 –66.1 17,433 –44.0 180,981 –57.7 44,200 –65.7 3,202 –51.3 84,567 –67.2 Rank 15 35 43 29 40 6 28 33 49 5 17 48 2 4 47 45 30 26 7 20 14 23 11 38 9 37 32 46 51 39 12 44 27 13 34 10 Table B.1 (continued) State or Territory Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Grand total Jan 1993 50,955 42,409 204,216 60,950 21,900 54,599 7,262 112,159 279,002 18,606 10,081 1,073 73,446 100,568 41,525 81,291 6,493 4,963,050 Jan 1994 Jan 1995 47,475 45,936 42,695 40,323 208,260 208,899 59,425 55,902 22,592 22,559 53,178 50,389 7,027 6,482 111,946 105,948 285,680 279,911 18,063 17,195 9,917 9,789 1,090 1,264 74,717 73,920 103,068 103,179 40,869 39,231 78,507 73,962 5,891 5,443 5,052,854 4,963,071 Jan 1996 40,692 35,421 192,952 51,370 21,775 46,772 6,189 100,884 265,233 15,072 9,210 1,437 66,244 99,395 36,674 65,386 4,975 4,627,941 Jan 1997 32,942 25,874 170,831 48,359 20,112 37,342 5,324 74,820 228,882 12,864 8,451 1,335 56,018 95,982 36,805 45,586 3,825 4,113,775 Jan 1998 25,860 19,249 140,446 43,474 19,242 27,514 3,956 53,837 158,252 10,931 7,591 1,167 44,247 82,852 18,914 13,860 1,340 3,304,814 Jan 1999 21,916 16,918 110,567 37,371 18,170 18,969 3,422 57,608 119,765 10,125 6,717 944 37,706 64,493 11,471 19,211 886 2,733,932 Jun 2000 7,251 17,121 87,972 31,273 16,324 15,496 2,789 55,491 128,289 8,157 5,858 778 30,078 54,768 10,661 16,410 565 2,208,095 Jan 2001 14,391 18,104 83,489 26,162 15,435 16,818 2,772 58,825 133,539 7,539 5,609 762 29,509 54,970 14,627 17,012 546 2,144,540 Dec 2001 % Change 14,631 –71.3 17,838 –57.9 82,345 –59.7 25,185 –58.7 14,762 –32.6 20,047 –63.3 2,882 –60.3 61,984 –44.7 131,439 –52.9 7,796 –58.1 5,201 –48.4 611 –43.1 30,015 –59.1 55,939 –44.4 16,197 –61.0 18,900 –76.8 474 –92.7 2,098,930 –57.7 Rank 8 25 21 50 16 19 41 31 24 36 22 42 18 3 1 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, http://www.acf/dhhs.gov/news/tables.htm. 35 Table B.2 Change in TANF Beneficiary Enrollment, by State, with Ranking by Percentage Caseload Reduction, 1993–2001 36 State or Territory Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Jan 1993 141,746 34,951 194,119 73,982 2,415,121 123,308 160,102 27,652 65,860 701,842 402,228 5,087 54,511 21,116 685,508 209,882 100,943 87,525 227,879 263,338 67,836 221,338 332,044 686,356 191,526 174,093 259,039 34,848 48,055 34,943 28,972 349,902 94,836 1,179,522 Jan 1994 135,096 37,505 202,350 70,563 2,621,383 118,081 164,265 29,286 72,330 689,135 396,736 6,651 60,975 23,342 709,969 218,061 110,639 87,433 208,710 252,860 65,006 219,863 311,732 672,760 189,615 161,724 262,073 35,415 46,034 37,908 30,386 334,780 101,676 1,241,639 Jan 1995 121,837 37,264 195,082 65,325 2,692,202 110,742 170,719 26,314 72,330 657,313 388,913 7,630 65,207 24,050 710,032 197,225 103,108 81,504 193,722 258,180 60,973 227,887 286,175 612,224 180,490 146,319 259,595 34,313 42,038 41,846 28,671 321,151 105,114 1,266,350 Jan 1996 108,269 35,432 171,617 59,223 2,648,772 99,739 161,736 23,153 70,082 575,553 367,656 7,634 66,690 23,547 663,212 147,083 91,727 70,758 176,601 239,247 56,319 207,800 242,572 535,704 171,916 133,029 238,052 32,557 38,653 40,491 24,519 293,833 102,648 1,200,847 Jan 1997 Jan 1998 Jan 1999 Jun 2000 Jan 2001 Dec 2001 % Change 91,723 61,809 48,459 55,168 55,478 44,372 –68.7 36,189 31,689 26,883 24,389 17,292 17,343 –50.4 151,526 113,209 88,456 82,851 80,143 106,592 –45.1 54,879 36,704 29,284 28,113 28,071 28,415 –61.6 2,476,564 2,144,495 1,845,919 1,272,468 1,258,019 1,179,133 –51.2 87,434 55,352 40,799 27,699 27,042 30,288 –75.4 155,701 138,666 88,304 63,589 59,977 56,390 –64.8 23,141 18,504 15,891 17,262 12,518 12,430 –55.0 67,871 56,128 52,957 44,487 43,932 43,514 –33.9 478,329 320,886 220,216 135,903 129,201 129,448 –81.6 306,625 220,070 167,400 135,381 124,019 129,935 –67.7 7,370 7,461 8,270 9,550 9,506 10,783 112.0 65,312 75,817 45,582 42,824 37,100 32,932 –39.6 19,812 4,446 3,061 1,382 2,309 2,360 –88.8 601,854 526,851 388,334 259,242 186,937 153,898 –77.5 121,974 95,665 105,069 96,854 110,216 134,229 –36.0 78,275 69,504 60,380 52,293 53,342 54,680 –45.8 57,528 38,462 33,376 36,557 32,624 34,859 –60.2 162,730 132,388 102,370 85,696 83,272 78,590 –65.5 206,582 118,404 115,791 79,745 68,014 64,585 –75.5 51,178 41,265 36,812 14,813 26,590 25,629 –62.2 169,723 130,196 92,711 70,910 68,147 69,852 –68.4 214,014 181,729 131,139 93,890 96,364 105,815 –68.1 462,231 376,985 267,749 195,101 192,115 210,282 –69.4 160,167 141,064 124,659 116,589 111,407 93,304 –51.3 109,097 66,030 42,651 33,781 34,539 41,054 –76.4 208,132 162,950 136,782 122,930 124,911 122,835 –52.6 28,138 20,137 16,152 14,001 14,891 16,003 –54.1 36,535 38,090 35,057 26,841 23,753 24,972 –48.0 28,973 29,262 21,753 16,478 18,032 25,589 –26.8 20,627 15,947 15,130 13,862 13,398 14,217 –50.9 256,064 217,320 164,815 125,258 116,688 105,687 –69.8 89,814 64,759 80,828 67,950 57,014 49,604 –47.7 1,074,189 941,714 822,970 693,012 641,129 443,344 –62.4 Rank 14 40 46 29 38 8 23 33 51 4 17 48 2 5 49 45 30 20 7 28 15 16 13 37 6 36 34 43 52 39 12 44 26 Table B.2 (continued) 37 State or Territory North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Grand total Jan 1993 Jan 1994 Jan 1995 Jan 1996 Jan 1997 Jan 1998 Jan 1999 Jun 2000 Jan 2001 Dec 2001 % Change 331,633 334,451 317,836 282,086 253,286 192,172 145,596 97,171 93,659 95,355 –71.2 18,774 16,785 14,920 13,652 11,964 8,884 8,260 7,734 8,818 8,340 –55.6 720,476 691,099 629,719 552,304 518,595 386,239 311,872 238,351 205,294 192,973 –73.2 146,454 133,152 127,336 110,498 87,312 69,630 61,894 13,606 35,300 35,981 –75.4 117,656 116,390 107,610 92,182 66,919 48,561 44,219 42,374 40,562 40,632 –65.5 604,701 615,581 611,215 553,148 484,321 395,107 313,821 232,976 218,969 216,900 –64.1 191,261 184,626 171,932 156,805 145,749 130,283 111,361 90,630 75,103 72,075 –62.3 61,116 62,737 62,407 60,654 54,809 54,537 50,632 44,826 42,286 40,057 –34.5 151,026 143,883 133,567 121,703 98,077 73,179 45,648 35,721 39,948 49,227 –67.4 20,254 19,413 17,652 16,821 14,091 10,514 8,759 6,702 6,529 6,738 –66.7 320,709 302,608 281,982 265,320 195,891 139,022 148,781 143,823 153,317 162,102 –49.5 785,271 796,348 765,460 714,523 626,617 439,824 325,766 343,464 358,094 337,258 –57.1 53,172 50,657 47,472 41,145 35,493 29,868 30,276 24,101 21,987 20,003 –62.4 28,961 28,095 27,716 25,865 23,570 21,013 18,324 15,528 14,942 13,661 –52.8 3,763 3,767 4,345 5,075 4,712 4,129 3,541 2,920 2,695 2,258 –40.0 194,212 194,959 189,493 166,012 136,053 107,192 91,544 67,388 65,713 67,156 –65.4 286,258 292,608 290,940 276,018 263,792 228,723 177,611 146,375 144,457 143,649 –49.8 119,916 115,376 107,668 98,439 98,690 51,348 32,161 31,500 38,929 42,927 –64.2 241,098 230,621 214,404 184,209 132,383 44,630 47,336 37,381 38,206 43,600 –81.9 18,271 16,740 15,434 13,531 10,322 2,903 1,886 1,103 1,034 856 –95.3 14,114,992 14,275,877 13,930,953 12,876,661 11,423,007 9,131,716 7,455,297 5,780,543 5,563,832 5,284,711 –62.6 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, http://www.acf/dhhs.gov/news/tables.htm. Rank 11 32 10 9 21 25 50 18 19 42 31 27 35 22 41 24 3 1 Appendix C Supplemental TANF Grants for States with Population Increases and Low Per Beneficiary Welfare Spending FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 39 Table C.1 Supplemental TANF Grants for States with Population Increases and Low Per Beneficiary Welfare Spending, FY 1998–2002 40 1994 Federal State $/State Alabama 106,858,153 Alaska 66,348,234 Arizona 230,461,527 Arkansas 59,899,837 California 3,701,668,768 Colorado 130,712,976 Connecticut 248,334,322 Delaware 30,239,405 District of Columbia 96,340,010 Florida 581,870,583 Georgia 359,138,710 Hawaii 95,041,485 Idaho 33,695,669 Illinois 584,642,624 Indiana 227,031,901 Iowa 133,938,152 Kansas 111,742,782 Kentucky 189,046,825 Louisiana 164,016,357 Maine 76,347,244 Maryland 246,947,211 Massachusetts 488,260,597 Michigan 789,446,816 Minnesota 287,137,302 Mississippi 87,038,072 Missouri 232,504,901 Montana 45,308,056 Nebraska 59,640,714 Nevada 35,964,062 New Hampshire 42,576,723 1998 2,671,454 1,658,706 5,761,538 1,497,496 3,267,824 14,546,765 8,978,468 842,392 4,100,409 2,175,952 1,132,701 899,102 Supplemental Additions, $ 1999 2000 2001 5,409,694 8,216,390 11,093,254 3,358,879 5,101,557 6,887,802 11,667,115 17,720,331 23,924,877 3,032,429 4,605,736 6,218,375 6,617,344 10,050,602 13,569,692 29,457,198 44,740,393 60,405,667 18,181,397 27,614,400 37,283,228 1,705,843 2,590,881 3,498,045 8,303,328 12,611,320 17,027,012 4,406,302 1,132,701 1,820,681 6,692,412 1,132,701 2,765,299 9,035,674 1,132,701 3,733,533 2002a 11,093,254 6,887,802 23,924,877 6,218,375 13,569,692 60,405,667 37,283,228 3,498,045 17,027,012 9,035,674 1,132,701 3,733,533 Total Supplements % of Received, $ Sup1998–2002 plements 38,484,045 3.45 23,894,746 2.14 82,998,738 7.43 21,572,412 1.93 47,075,155 4.22 209,555,690 18.77 129,340,720 11.58 12,135,206 1.09 59,069,081 5.29 31,346,014 2.81 5,663,507 0.51 12,952,148 1.16 Grants with Supplements $, 2000 117,951,407 73,236,036 254,386,404 66,118,212 3,701,668,768 144,282,668 248,334,322 30,239,405 96,340,010 642,276,250 396,421,938 95,041,485 37,193,714 584,642,624 227,031,901 133,938,152 111,742,782 189,046,825 181,043,369 76,347,244 246,947,211 488,260,597 789,446,816 287,137,302 96,073,746 232,504,901 46,440,757 59,640,714 39,697,595 42,576,723 % of Total Grants with Sup- plements 0.69 0.43 1.49 0.39 21.74 0.85 1.46 0.18 0.57 3.77 2.33 0.56 0.22 3.43 1.33 0.79 0.66 1.11 1.06 0.45 1.45 2.87 4.64 1.69 0.56 1.37 0.27 0.35 0.23 0.25 Table C.1 (continued) 41 Total % of Total Supplements % of Grants with Grants 1994 Federal Supplemental Additions, $ Received, $ Sup- Supple-ments with Sup- State $/State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002a 1998–2002 plements $, 2000 plements New Jersey 413,839,046 413,839,046 2.43 New Mexico New York 129,444,021 3,236,101 2,321,934,749 6,553,104 6,553,104 6,553,104 6,553,104 29,448,515 2.64 135,997,125 0.80 2,321,934,749 13.63 North Carolina North Dakota 347,836,837 8,695,921 17,609,240 26,745,392 36,109,948 36,109,948 125,270,448 25,978,157 11.22 383,946,785 25,978,157 2.25 0.15 Ohio Oklahoma 770,183,111 166,123,434 770,183,111 166,123,434 4.52 0.98 Oregon Pennsylvania 183,038,419 658,387,845 183,038,419 658,387,845 1.07 3.87 Rhode Island South Carolina 93,646,735 104,119,015 93,646,735 104,119,015 0.55 0.61 South Dakota Tennessee 23,018,798 207,730,863 5,193,272 10,516,375 15,972,556 21,565,141 21,565,141 74,812,485 6.70 23,018,798 229,296,004 0.14 1.35 Texas Utah 507,718,970 12,692,974 25,703,273 39,038,829 52,707,774 52,707,774 182,850,624 83,846,970 2,096,174 4,244,753 6,447,046 8,704,396 8,704,396 30,196,766 16.37 2.70 560,426,744 92,551,366 3.29 0.54 Vermont Virginia 49,162,214 175,259,517 49,162,214 175,259,517 0.29 1.03 Washington West Virginia 432,327,441 117,322,591 432,327,441 117,322,591 2.54 0.69 Wisconsin Wyoming 334,783,187 23,275,499 334,783,187 23,275,499 1.97 0.14 State totals 16,711,177,437 79,447,247 159,719,657 238,598,949 319,450,223 319,450,223 1,116,666,299 100.00 17,030,627,660 100.00 aThe supplemental grant had been scheduled to expire in fiscal year 2002. In March 2002, Congress extended the grant for one year at the fiscal year 2001 allocation levels. Table C.2a Supplemental Grants for States with Population Increases and Low Per Beneficiary Welfare Spending: Automatic Qualification Supporting Data, 1994 42 State State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico 4/1/90 Population 248,790,925 4,040,389 550,043 3,665,339 2,350,624 29,811,427 3,294,473 3,287,116 666,168 606,900 12,938,071 6,478,149 1,108,229 1,006,734 11,430,602 5,544,156 2,776,831 2,477,588 3,686,892 4,221,826 1,227,928 4,780,753 6,016,425 9,295,287 4,375,665 2,575,475 5,116,901 799,065 1,578,417 1,201,675 1,109,252 7,747,750 1,515,069 7/1/94 1990–94 Met 10% Population Growth, % Test? 260,327,021 4.6 4,232,965 4.8 600,624 9.2 4,147,561 13.2 Yes 2,450,605 4.3 31,317,179 5.1 3,653,910 10.9 Yes 3,268,346 –0.6 708,416 6.3 564,982 –6.9 13,961,798 7.9 7,045,900 8.8 1,173,903 5.9 1,135,459 12.8 Yes 11,804,986 3.3 5,745,626 3.6 2,829,422 1.9 2,569,118 3.7 3,823,215 3.7 4,306,500 2.0 1,237,687 0.8 4,985,411 4.3 6,031,352 0.2 9,584,481 3.1 4,566,028 4.4 2,663,450 3.4 5,281,206 3.2 854,923 7.0 1,621,551 2.7 1,456,388 21.2 Yes 1,133,054 2.1 7,918,796 2.2 1,653,329 9.1 Alaska Adjust. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes State 1994 Fed. Expend. 16,711,177,437 106,858,153 66,348,234 230,461,527 59,899,837 3,701,668,768 130,712,976 248,334,322 30,239,405 96,340,010 581,870,583 359,138,710 95,041,485 33,695,669 584,642,624 227,031,901 133,938,152 111,742,782 189,046,825 164,016,357 76,347,244 246,947,211 488,260,597 789,446,816 287,137,302 87,038,072 232,504,901 45,308,056 59,640,714 35,964,062 42,576,723 413,839,046 129,444,021 Poverty Count, 1990 Census 31,742,864 723,614 47,906 564,362 437,089 3,627,585 375,214 217,347 56,223 96,278 1,604,186 923,085 88,408 130,588 1,326,731 573,632 307,420 274,623 681,827 967,002 128,466 385,296 519,339 1,190,698 435,331 631,029 663,075 124,853 170,616 119,660 69,104 573,152 305,934 Spending per Poor 526.45 147.67 1384.97 408.36 137.04 1020.42 348.37 1142.57 537.85 1000.64 362.72 389.06 1075.03 258.03 440.66 395.78 435.68 406.90 277.27 169.61 594.30 640.93 940.16 663.01 659.58 137.93 350.65 362.89 349.56 300.55 616.13 722.04 423.11 35% of Av. Met 35% per Poor Test? 184.26 186.89 Yes 186.89 186.89 186.89 Yes 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 Yes 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 Yes 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 Table C.2a (continued) 43 State New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 4/1/90 Population 17,990,778 6,632,448 638,800 10,847,115 3,145,576 2,842,337 11,882,842 1,003,464 3,486,310 696,004 4,877,203 16,986,335 1,722,850 562,758 6,189,197 4,866,669 1,793,477 4,891,954 453,589 7/1/94 1990–94 Met 10% Population Growth, % Test? 18,156,652 0.9 7,060,959 6.5 639,762 0.2 11,111,451 2.4 3,246,119 3.2 3,087,142 8.6 12,042,545 1.3 993,412 –1.0 3,666,456 5.2 723,038 3.9 5,163,016 5.9 18,338,319 8.0 1,930,436 12.0 Yes 578,900 2.9 6,536,771 5.6 5,334,896 9.6 1,818,490 1.4 5,095,504 4.2 474,982 4.7 Alaska Adjust. Yes State 1994 Fed. Expend. 2,321,934,749 347,836,837 25,978,157 770,183,111 166,123,434 183,038,419 658,387,845 93,646,735 104,119,015 23,018,798 207,730,863 507,718,970 83,846,970 49,162,214 175,259,517 432,327,441 117,322,591 334,783,187 23,275,499 Poverty Count, 1990 Census 2,277,296 829,858 88,276 1,325,768 509,854 344,867 1,283,629 92,670 517,793 106,305 744,941 3,000,515 192,415 53,369 611,611 517,933 345,093 508,545 52,453 Spending per Poor 1019.60 419.15 294.28 580.93 325.83 530.75 512.91 1010.54 201.08 216.54 278.86 169.21 435.76 921.18 286.55 834.72 339.97 658.32 443.74 35% of Av. Met 35% per Poor Test? 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 Yes 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 186.89 NOTES: Boldface identifies states that automatically qualified based on 1994 spending and 1990–94 growth. At the time of grant calculations, Alaska was deemed to qualify as a 10%+ growth state, despite later Census revisions that would have disqualified it. The supplemental grant had been scheduled to expire in fiscal year 2002. In March 2002, Congress extended the grant for one year at fiscal year 2001 allocation levels. Table C.2b Supplemental Grants for States with Population Increases and Low Per Beneficiary Welfare Spending: Annual Qualification Supporting Data, 1994 44 State State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Below Avg. 1994 Welfare $/Poor? Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Growth Rate, 1995–1996 0.91 0.63 0.74 2.86 1.01 0.99 2.00 0.11 1.09 –2.04 1.52 2.01 0.38 1.98 0.48 0.75 0.31 0.33 0.70 0.29 0.38 0.65 0.35 0.59 0.93 0.74 0.74 1.04 0.79 4.54 1.24 0.48 1.39 Qualifies, 1996? Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Growth Rate, Qualifies, Growth Rate, Qualifies, Growth Rate, Qualifies, Growth Rate, Qualifies, 1996–1997 1997? 1997–1998 1998? 1998–1999 1999? 1999–2000 2000? 0.95 0.94 0.90 3.20 0.74 0.67 0.43 1.77 0.84 0.85 0.70 1.20 2.72 Q 2.51 Q 2.38 Q 7.37 Q 0.72 0.60 0.52 4.78 1.26 1.56 1.41 2.19 2.08 Q 1.98 Q 2.20 Q 6.04 Q 0.00 0.17 0.29 3.76 1.09 1.23 1.27 3.99 –1.54 –1.62 –0.47 10.22 1.73 Q 1.58 Q 1.36 Q 5.76 Q 2.15 Q 1.96 Q 1.99 Q 5.11 Q 0.64 –0.13 –0.42 2.20 1.79 Q 1.81 Q 1.69 Q 3.38 Q 0.30 0.67 0.49 2.40 0.52 0.73 0.60 2.32 0.19 0.25 0.29 1.98 0.11 1.45 0.58 1.29 0.75 0.62 0.67 2.04 0.35 0.20 0.21 2.22 0.05 0.45 0.44 1.75 0.75 0.69 0.81 2.41 0.47 0.50 0.50 2.82 0.42 0.41 0.44 0.76 0.85 0.84 1.04 3.01 0.81 0.71 0.63 2.75 0.75 0.55 0.57 2.32 0.27 0.06 0.37 2.20 0.57 0.23 0.32 2.72 5.17 Q 3.86 Q 3.76 Q 10.45 Q 0.97 1.18 1.29 2.88 0.60 0.47 0.59 3.33 1.05 Q 0.55 0.36 4.55 Table C.2b (continued) 45 State New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Below Avg. 1994 Welfare $/Poor? No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Growth Rate, 1995–1996 –0.03 1.67 0.32 0.35 0.79 1.74 –0.03 –0.15 0.87 0.40 1.39 1.74 2.15 0.66 0.91 1.56 0.03 0.74 0.46 Qualifies, 1996? Q Q Q Q Growth Rate, Qualifies, Growth Rate, Qualifies, Growth Rate, Qualifies, Growth Rate, Qualifies, 1996–1997 1997? 1997–1998 1998? 1998–1999 1999? 1999–2000 2000? 0.01 0.07 0.21 4.29 1.69 Q 1.55 Q 1.39 Q 5.21 Q –0.29 –0.50 –0.65 1.35 0.05 0.40 0.17 0.86 0.98 0.53 0.56 2.76 1.50 1.20 1.04 3.17 –0.22 –0.07 –0.07 2.39 –0.09 0.07 0.32 5.80 1.31 1.36 1.20 3.25 1.00 –0.98 0.32 2.96 1.10 Q 1.13 Q 0.94 Q 3.75 Q 2.00 Q 1.68 Q 1.68 Q 4.03 Q 2.11 Q 1.72 Q 1.39 Q 4.85 Q 0.45 0.27 0.54 2.54 1.07 0.78 1.23 2.99 1.89 1.32 1.20 2.39 –0.22 –0.18 –0.26 0.08 0.53 0.41 0.54 2.16 –0.02 0.01 –0.09 2.96 NOTES: Boldface identifies states that automatically qualified based on 1994 spending and 1990–94 growth. At the time of grant calculations, Alaska was deemed to qualify as a 10%+ growth state, despite later Census revisions that would have disqualified it. The supplemental grant had been scheduled to expire in fiscal year 2002. In March 2002, Congress extended the grant for one year at fiscal year 2001 allocation levels. Table C.3 Predicted TANF Block Grant Funding Under 2002 Senate Finance Committee–Approved Proposal, with Addition of Per Capita Income Grant to Replace Supplemental Grant, by State Location State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State Avg. PCI Avg., $, vs. U.S. Additions, 1998–2000 Avg. % Additions, $ 28,068 100.0 118,295,650 22,706 80.9 5 4,665,750 28,427 101.3 23,954 85.3 5 10,119,200 21,194 75.5 10 5,673,300 30,054 107.1 30,468 108.5 38,750 138.1 29,627 105.6 36,974 131.7 26,839 95.6 26,580 94.7 26,951 22,570 96.0 80.4 5 1,520,650 30,554 108.9 25,816 92.0 25,316 90.2 26,349 93.9 22,962 81.8 5 9,064,400 22,437 79.9 10 16,397,200 24,351 86.8 5 3,906,050 31,859 34,968 113.5 124.6 27,947 99.6 30,377 108.2 20,215 72.0 10 8,676,800 26,085 92.9 21,744 77.5 10 4,297,700 26,609 94.8 28,787 102.6 30,927 35,127 110.2 125.1 21,144 75.3 10 11,057,800 32,917 117.3 25,615 91.3 23,464 83.6 5 1,320,000 26,884 95.8 22,695 80.9 5 7,379,700 26,456 94.3 28,168 27,906 100.4 99.4 23,007 82.0 5 4,998,400 24,624 87.7 5 1,064,000 24,923 88.8 5 9,576,200 26,458 94.3 22,445 80.0 10 7,560,900 25,639 91.3 29,462 105.0 29,778 106.1 20,890 74.4 10 11,017,600 26,991 96.2 26,024 92.7 FY 2002 $ Incl. Supplemental Grants 17,030,627,660 117,951,407 73,236,036 254,386,404 66,118,212 3,701,668,768 144,282,668 248,334,322 30,239,405 96,340,010 642,276,250 396,421,938 95,041,485 37,193,714 584,642,624 227,031,901 133,938,152 111,742,782 189,046,825 181,043,369 76,347,244 246,947,211 488,260,597 789,446,816 287,137,302 96,073,746 232,504,901 46,440,757 59,640,714 39,697,595 42,576,723 413,839,046 135,997,125 2,321,934,749 383,946,785 25,978,157 770,183,111 166,123,434 183,038,419 658,387,845 93,646,735 104,119,015 23,018,798 229,296,004 560,426,744 92,551,366 49,162,214 175,259,517 432,327,441 117,322,591 334,783,187 23,275,499 Senate-Proposed FY 2003 Grant w/ FY 2003 PCI Addition, $ % Share 17,148,923,310 100.0 122,617,157 0.7 73,236,036 0.4 264,505,604 71,791,512 1.5 0.4 3,701,668,768 21.6 144,282,668 0.8 248,334,322 1.4 30,239,405 0.2 96,340,010 0.6 642,276,250 3.7 396,421,938 2.3 95,041,485 38,714,364 0.6 0.2 584,642,624 3.4 227,031,901 1.3 133,938,152 0.8 111,742,782 0.7 198,111,225 1.2 197,440,569 1.2 80,253,294 0.5 246,947,211 488,260,597 1.4 2.8 789,446,816 4.6 287,137,302 1.7 104,750,546 0.6 232,504,901 1.4 50,738,457 0.3 59,640,714 0.3 39,697,595 0.2 42,576,723 413,839,046 0.2 2.4 147,054,925 0.9 2,321,934,749 13.5 383,946,785 2.2 27,298,157 0.2 770,183,111 4.5 173,503,134 1.0 183,038,419 1.1 658,387,845 93,646,735 3.8 0.5 109,117,415 0.6 24,082,798 0.1 238,872,204 1.4 560,426,744 3.3 100,112,266 0.6 49,162,214 0.3 175,259,517 1.0 432,327,441 128,340,191 2.5 0.7 334,783,187 2.0 23,275,499 0.1 SOURCE: Per capita income data are from U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, May 2002. NOTE: The proposed Senate amount is the fiscal year 2002 grant (including supplemental grants) plus proposed PCI additions. 46 Appendix D Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonus FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 47 Table D.1 TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: Bonus Levels 1999–2002, by State State State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticutb Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New Yorkb North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 2002 Reduction Bonus Ranka Max., $a 100,000 5 20,000 49 35 28 8 4 20,000 2001 Reduction Bonus Rank Max., $ 75,000 2 25,000 37 4 27 13 10 2000 Reduction Bonus Rank Max., $ 100,000 4 20,000 11 2 20,000 31 26 18 1999 Reduction Bonus Rank Max., $ 100,000 4 20,000 34 11 32 1 20,000 14 48 44 35 1 20,000 1 25,000 1 45 25 10 32 29 16 47 46 28 11 35 32 20 8 5 44 39 23 37 38 34 40 33 38 31 11 17 25 19 30 36 43 44 26 31 12 18 12 14 2 20,000 3 25,000 3 17 32 36 19 5 7 23 23 25 39 42 46 16 24 42 27 (b) (b) 15 16 39 21 7 8 46 36 29 26 20,000 2 20,000 15 9 37 46 20,000 6 24 39 41 43 27 36 12 5 20,000 20,000 3 20,000 33 8 25 47 28 (b) 44 13 22 24 22 42 45 13 9 29 40 33 21 76 41 18 34 30 38 41 10 26 3 20,000 17 9 28 43 48 12 15 22 20 6 14 30 34 14 47 19 47 20 45 6 9 37 21 48 33 22 41 40 13 15 24 27 43 17 48 21 42 20 10 40 18 45 19 31 35 38 7 30 29 23 16 NOTE: States listed as eligible for bonuses for any given year must submit data to HHS showing that abortion rates for the most recent year are lower than those in fiscal year 1995. aFigures for 2002 are estimations based on available data; actual HHS awards have not been announced. bState changed datasets and totals are not comparable. 48 Table D.2a TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: Supporting Data—Total Live Registered Births, 1998–2000, and Births to Unmarried Women, 1998–2000, by State 2000 1999 1998 Location Unmarried % Total Births Unmarried % Total Births Unmarried % Total Births State totals 1,347,043 33.2 4,058,814 1,308,560 33 3,959,354 1,293,567 32.8 3,941,553 Alabama 21,696 34.3 63,299 20,693 33.3 62,122 21,147 34.1 62,074 Alaska 3,291 33 9,974 3,301 33.2 9,950 3,088 31.1 9,926 Arizona Arkansas 33,475 39.3 13,490 35.7 85,273 37,783 31,463 38.8 12,932 35.2 81,145 36,729 30,011 38.4 12,911 35 78,243 36,865 California 174,050 32.7 531,959 170,372 32.9 518,508 170,866 32.8 521,661 Colorado 16,369 25 65,438 15,818 25.4 62,167 15,227 25.6 59,577 Connecticut 12,591 29.3 43,026 12,562 29 43,310 13,676 31.2 43,820 Delaware 4,193 37.9 11,051 4,147 38.8 10,676 3,924 37.1 10,578 District of Columbia 4,626 60.3 7,666 4,642 61.7 7,522 4,834 62.9 7,686 Florida 78,068 38.2 204,125 73,824 37.5 197,023 71,626 36.6 195,637 Georgia 49,058 37 132,644 46,328 36.6 126,717 44,270 36.2 122,368 Hawaii Idaho 5,658 32.2 4,392 21.6 17,551 20,366 5,593 32.8 4,302 21.6 17,038 19,872 5,544 31.5 4,265 22 17,583 19,391 Illinois 63,852 34.5 185,036 62,088 34.1 182,068 62,211 34.1 182,588 Indiana 30,409 34.7 87,699 29,640 34.5 86,031 28,553 33.5 85,122 Iowa 10,711 28 38,266 10,330 27.5 37,558 10,155 27.2 37,282 Kansas 11,497 29 39,666 11,098 28.6 38,782 10,663 27.8 38,422 Kentucky 17,377 31 56,029 16,540 30.4 54,403 16,327 30.1 54,329 Louisiana 30,980 45.6 67,898 30,109 44.8 67,136 30,041 44.9 66,888 Maine 4,222 31 13,603 4,260 31.3 13,616 4,197 30.6 13,733 Maryland Massachusetts 25,726 34.6 21,654 26.5 74,316 81,614 25,083 34.9 21,476 26.5 71,967 80,939 24,734 34.4 21,210 26.1 71,972 81,411 Michigan 45,354 33.3 136,171 44,184 33.1 133,607 45,372 33.9 133,666 Minnesota 17,468 25.8 67,604 17,065 25.9 65,907 16,723 25.6 65,202 Mississippi 20,267 46 44,075 19,606 45.9 42,684 19,502 45.4 42,939 Missouri 26,436 34.6 76,463 25,737 34.1 75,432 25,668 34.1 75,358 Montana 3,378 30.8 10,957 3,232 30 10,785 3,230 29.9 10,795 Nebraska 6,692 27.2 24,646 6,181 25.9 23,907 6,168 26.2 23,534 Nevada 11,213 36.4 30,829 10,483 35.7 29,362 10,033 35 28,699 New Hampshire New Jersey 3,603 24.7 14,609 33,464 28.9 115,632 3,399 24.2 14,041 32,556 28.5 114,105 3,482 24.1 14,429 32,369 28.3 114,550 New Mexico 12,401 45.6 27,223 12,272 45.1 27,191 12,033 44 27,318 New York 94,594 36.6 258,737 93,613 36.6 255,612 90,089 34.9 258,207 North Carolina 40,118 33.3 120,311 37,814 33.2 113,795 36,614 32.8 111,688 North Dakota 2,173 28.3 7,676 2,099 27.5 7,639 2,143 27 7,932 Ohio 53,864 34.6 155,472 52,038 34.1 152,584 51,940 34 152,794 Oklahoma 17,054 34.3 49,782 16,252 33.2 49,010 16,433 33.2 49,461 Oregon 13,793 30.1 45,804 13,750 30.4 45,204 13,458 29.7 45,273 Pennsylvania Rhode Island 47,839 32.7 146,281 4,435 35.5 12,505 47,865 32.9 145,347 4,242 34.3 12,366 47,925 32.8 145,899 4,269 33.9 12,599 South Carolina 22,341 39.8 56,114 21,441 39 54,948 20,907 38.8 53,877 South Dakota 3,462 33.5 10,345 3,348 31.8 10,524 3,296 32 10,288 Tennessee 27,505 34.5 79,611 26,981 34.7 77,803 26,999 34.9 77,396 Texas 110,985 30.5 363,414 109,244 31.3 349,245 107,742 31.5 342,283 Utah 8,186 17.3 47,353 7,722 16.7 46,290 7,740 17.1 45,165 Vermont 1,827 28.1 6,500 1,901 28.9 6,567 1,841 28 6,582 Virginia 29,617 29.9 98,938 28,334 29.7 95,469 28,124 29.8 94,351 Washington West Virginia 22,852 28.2 6,608 31.7 81,036 20,865 22,335 28.1 6,581 31.7 79,586 20,728 22,211 27.9 6,715 32.4 79,663 20,747 Wisconsin 20,327 29.3 69,326 19,906 29.2 68,208 19,211 28.5 67,450 Wyoming 1,802 29 6,253 1,778 29 6,129 1,850 29.6 6,252 SOURCES: National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 5, February 12, 2002, p. 49; Vol. 49, No. 1, April 17, 2001, p. 47; Vol. 48, No. 3, March 28, 2000, p. 47; Vol. 47, No. 18, April 29, 1999, p. 45; Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 46, No. 11 (S), June 30, 1998; http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_05.pdf. 49 Table D.2b TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: Supporting Data—Total Live Registered Births, 1996 and 1997, and Births to Unmarried Women, 1996 and 1997, by State Location State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Unmarried 1,257,444 20,635 3,048 28,495 12,478 172,017 14,273 14,116 3,693 5,041 69,285 41,879 5,202 3,848 60,443 27,184 9,601 10,274 15,669 29,011 4,060 23,493 20,836 44,454 16,141 18,859 24,516 3,119 6,021 9,555 3,404 31,738 11,696 90,673 34,468 2,174 51,544 15,660 12,631 47,234 4,128 19,857 3,166 25,383 102,496 7,145 1,726 26,908 21,218 6,495 18,707 1,747 1997 % 32.4 33.9 30.6 37.6 34.2 32.8 25.2 32.7 36 63.6 36 35.4 29.9 20.7 33.4 32.6 26.2 27.6 29.5 43.9 29.7 33.5 25.9 33.2 25 45.4 33.1 28.7 25.8 35.5 23.8 28 43.5 35.2 32.2 26 33.9 32.4 28.8 32.8 33.1 38 31.1 34.1 30.7 16.6 26.1 29.3 27.1 31.3 28.1 27.4 Total Births 3,880,894 60,914 9,947 75,699 36,478 524,840 56,533 43,109 10,253 7,927 192,383 118,221 17,393 18,582 180,803 83,436 36,659 37,289 53,203 66,025 13,669 70,215 80,364 133,714 64,499 41,533 74,037 10,849 23,319 26,911 14,313 113,279 26,871 257,238 107,015 8,353 152,033 48,269 43,809 144,224 12,455 52,214 10,173 74,478 333,974 43,059 6,607 91,862 78,190 20,730 66,557 6,387 Unmarried 1,260,306 20,366 3,110 29,243 12,335 169,313 13,863 13,940 3,603 5,547 68,077 39,928 5,569 3,969 61,743 27,002 9,760 9,847 15,693 28,320 3,959 23,977 20,458 45,052 15,798 18,463 24,483 3,026 5,765 11,145 3,400 31,959 11,470 104,416 33,419 2,099 50,265 14,267 12,959 47,976 4,208 19,075 3,091 24,645 100,573 6,809 1,786 26,634 21,287 6,504 18,413 1,697 1996 % Total Births 32.4 3,891,494 33.7 60,488 31 10,037 38.8 75,322 33.9 36,371 31.4 539,433 24.8 55,807 31.3 44,469 35.5 10,155 66.1 8,390 35.9 189,392 35 114,043 30.3 18,401 21.3 18,625 33.7 183,180 32.3 83,513 26.3 37,139 26.9 36,651 29.8 52,706 43.4 65,204 28.7 13,774 33.5 71,533 25.5 80,276 33.8 133,387 24.8 63,700 45 40,987 33.2 73,832 27.9 10,856 24.8 23,286 42.7 26,125 23.4 14,520 28 114,306 42.1 27,228 39.6 263,963 32 104,470 25.1 8,347 33.1 151,692 30.9 46,193 29.7 43,658 32.3 148,338 33.3 12,652 37.3 51,117 29.5 10,473 33.4 73,754 30.4 330,406 16.2 42,087 26.4 6,767 28.8 92,354 27.3 77,945 31.3 20,750 27.4 67,106 27 6,286 SOURCES: National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 5, February 12, 2002, p. 49; Vol. 49, No. 1, April 17, 2001, p. 47; Vol. 48, No. 3, March 28, 2000, p. 47; Vol. 47, No. 18, April 29, 1999, p. 45; Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 46, No. 11 (S), June 30, 1998; http://www. cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_05.pdf. 50 Table D.2c TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: Supporting Data—Total Live Registered Births, 1994 and 1995, and Births to Unmarried Women, 1994 and 1995, by State Location State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Unmarried 1,253,976 20,798 3,061 27,709 11,589 177,131 13,502 13,575 3,586 5,935 67,474 39,474 5,428 3,590 62,829 26,456 9,267 9,619 14,935 27,863 3,859 24,124 20,880 46,211 15,099 18,747 23,421 2,950 5,650 10,513 3,259 31,711 11,459 102,791 31,923 1,996 50,852 13,927 12,365 49,228 3,975 19,071 2,932 24,185 96,816 6,224 1,689 27,090 20,635 6,463 18,457 1,653 1995 % 32.2 34.5 29.9 38.2 32.9 32.1 24.9 30.6 34.9 65.8 35.8 35.2 29.2 19.9 33.8 31.9 25.2 25.9 28.5 42.4 27.8 33.3 25.6 34.3 23.9 45.3 32.1 26.5 24.3 42.0 22.2 27.6 42.6 37.9 31.4 23.5 33.0 30.5 28.9 32.4 31.1 37.4 28.0 33.1 30.0 15.7 24.9 29.3 26.7 30.5 27.4 26.4 Total Births 3,899,589 60,329 10,244 72,463 35,175 552,045 54,332 44,334 10,266 9,014 188,723 112,282 18,595 18,035 185,812 82,835 36,810 37,201 52,377 65,641 13,896 72,396 81,648 134,642 63,263 41,344 73,028 11,142 23,243 25,056 14,665 114,828 26,920 271,369 101,592 8,476 154,064 45,672 42,811 151,850 12,776 50,926 10,475 73,173 322,753 39,577 6,783 92,578 77,228 21,162 67,479 6,261 Unmarried 1,289,592 21,003.0 3,125.0 27,162.0 11,310.0 202,803.0 13,510.0 13,914.0 3,614.0 6,831.0 68,127.0 39,429.0 5,533.0 3,273.0 64,933.0 26,044.0 9,211.0 9,709.0 14,646.0 28,918.0 4,067.0 24,943.0 22,291.0 48,339.0 15,430.0 19,067.0 23,913.0 2,822.0 5,739.0 8,359.0 3,338.0 33,043.0 11,496.0 104,732.0 32,321.0 1,971.0 51,363.0 13,616.0 12,012.0 51,518.0 4,327.0 19,172.0 2,914.0 24,480.0 92,721.0 6,005.0 1,864.0 27,760.0 20,090.0 6,454.0 18,565.0 1,765.0 1994 % Total Births 32.6 3,952,767 34.5 60,939 29.3 10,678 38.3 70,846 32.6 34,718 35.7 567,930 25.0 54,071 30.5 45,655 34.7 10,411 68.8 9,930 35.7 190,654 35.5 111,011 28.3 19,517 18.7 17,526 34.3 189,257 31.5 82,595 24.8 37,079 26.0 37,379 27.6 52,983 42.6 67,817 28.2 14,441 33.7 73,971 26.6 83,787 35.0 138,028 24.0 64,305 45.4 41,954 32.5 73,543 25.5 11,067 24.8 23,156 35.0 23,911 22.1 15,106 28.1 117,501 41.7 27,591 37.6 278,392 31.9 101,420 23.0 8,584 32.9 155,944 29.8 45,703 28.7 41,837 32.8 157,071 32.1 13,466 36.8 52,043 27.7 10,507 33.4 73,191 28.9 321,114 15.7 38,279 25.3 7,377 29.2 95,039 26.0 77,358 30.2 21,375 27.2 68,282 27.5 6,428 SOURCES: National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 5, February 12, 2002, p. 49; Vol. 49, No. 1, April 17, 2001, p. 47; Vol. 48, No. 3, March 28, 2000, p. 47; Vol. 47, No. 18, April 29, 1999, p. 45; Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 46, No. 11 (S), June 30, 1998; http://www. cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_05.pdf. 51 Table D.3a TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birth Rate Reduction Bonuses: State Allocation Formula Detail, FY 2002 % Allocations FY 2002 1999–2000 1997–1998 Difference State totals 33.120 32.611 1.559 Alabama 33.797 33.972 –0.515 Alaska 33.086 30.876 7.157 Arizona 39.021 38.005 2.673 Arkansas 35.460 34.617 2.436 California 32.788 32.765 0.070 Colorado 25.224 25.407 –0.720 Connecticut 29.134 31.971 –8.874 Delaware 38.385 36.566 4.977 District of Columbia 61.022 63.249 –3.521 Florida 37.864 36.315 4.265 Georgia 36.777 35.808 2.708 Hawaii 32.528 30.724 5.871 Idaho 21.606 21.365 1.129 Illinois 34.306 33.753 1.641 Indiana 34.565 33.067 4.529 Iowa 27.750 26.719 3.859 Kansas 28.803 27.654 4.154 Kentucky 30.713 29.755 3.220 Louisiana 45.240 44.429 1.825 Maine 31.162 30.133 3.416 Maryland 34.733 33.918 2.404 Massachusetts 26.533 25.990 2.087 Michigan 33.190 33.595 –1.207 Minnesota 25.865 25.338 2.080 Mississippi 45.958 45.413 1.202 Missouri 34.348 33.591 2.252 Montana 30.402 29.334 3.642 Nebraska 26.513 26.015 1.914 Nevada 36.045 35.224 2.332 New Hampshire 24.440 23.958 2.011 New Jersey 28.737 28.138 2.129 New Mexico 45.343 43.789 3.548 New York 36.591 35.069 4.341 North Carolina 33.289 32.502 2.423 North Dakota 27.894 26.509 5.225 Ohio 34.378 33.948 1.264 Oklahoma 33.713 32.838 2.664 Oregon 30.264 29.287 3.339 Pennsylvania 32.817 32.800 0.054 Rhode Island 34.888 33.516 4.095 South Carolina 39.421 38.424 2.596 South Dakota 32.632 31.582 3.325 Tennessee 34.613 34.490 0.356 Texas 30.902 31.088 –0.598 Utah 16.988 16.872 0.688 Vermont 28.530 27.045 5.489 Virginia 29.809 29.553 0.866 Washington 28.133 27.512 2.254 West Virginia 31.710 31.849 –0.437 Wisconsin 29.253 28.296 3.384 Wyoming 28.913 28.460 1.593 Total no. of eligible states: 5 aState changed method of counting and thus is not ranked. Reduction Rank, 2002 5 48 30 27 8 3 (a) 44 1 42 31 47 12 16 43 39 41 32 17 36 25 21 2 20 13 23 38 18 (a) 19 22 37 (a) 26 45 14 29 34 7 40 28 33 9 4 10 46 11 24 6 35 15 Bonus Eligible? Yes Bonus Maximum, $ 100,000 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 52 Table D.3b TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: State Allocation Formula Detail, FY 2001 % Allocations FY 2001 1998–1999 1996–1997 Difference State totals 32.935 32.394 1.670 Alabama 33.689 33.773 –0.249 Alaska 32.144 30.815 4.315 Arizona 38.569 38.232 0.881 Arkansas 35.116 34.061 3.097 California 32.806 32.072 2.290 Colorado 25.500 25.045 1.816 Connecticut 30.114 32.035 –5.999 Delaware 37.974 35.751 6.219 District of Columbia 62.309 64.889 –3.976 Florida 37.042 35.980 2.953 Georgia 36.372 35.222 3.267 Hawaii 32.168 30.092 6.901 Idaho 21.820 21.009 3.856 Illinois 34.087 33.569 1.542 Indiana 34.001 32.457 4.757 Iowa 27.372 26.235 4.332 Kansas 28.186 27.213 3.578 Kentucky 30.228 29.612 2.078 Louisiana 44.880 43.688 2.729 Maine 30.923 29.221 5.825 Maryland 34.610 33.489 3.347 Massachusetts 26.293 25.706 2.282 Michigan 33.507 33.510 –0.009 Minnesota 25.771 24.914 3.441 Mississippi 45.675 45.228 0.988 Missouri 34.090 33.137 2.878 Montana 29.944 28.311 5.768 Nebraska 26.030 25.289 2.930 Nevada 35.335 39.030 –9.467 New Hampshire 24.169 23.598 2.421 New Jersey 28.394 27.988 1.451 New Mexico 44.589 42.821 4.128 New York 35.752 37.431 –4.484 North Carolina 33.008 32.100 2.829 North Dakota 27.243 25.587 6.473 Ohio 34.049 33.520 1.578 Oklahoma 33.193 31.682 4.769 Oregon 30.072 29.257 2.786 Pennsylvania 32.890 32.544 1.064 Rhode Island 34.092 33.202 2.680 South Carolina 38.914 37.677 3.283 South Dakota 31.924 30.306 5.338 Tennessee 34.781 33.750 3.056 Texas 31.378 30.565 2.658 Utah 16.907 16.388 3.163 Vermont 28.458 26.260 8.372 Virginia 29.743 29.065 2.333 Washington 27.973 27.223 2.752 West Virginia 32.058 31.338 2.297 Wisconsin 28.835 27.771 3.830 Wyoming 29.303 27.176 7.827 Total no. of eligible states: 3 aState changed method of counting and thus is not ranked. Reduction Rank, 2001 2 37 4 27 13 10 (a) 44 1 25 29 46 35 8 39 38 33 11 19 43 31 12 3 32 5 23 42 24 (a) 16 7 36 (a) 22 45 9 40 21 6 18 30 41 26 17 28 48 15 20 14 34 47 Bonus Eligible? Yes (a) Yes Yes (a) (a) Bonus Maximum, $ 75,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 53 Table D.3c TANF Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: State Allocation Formula Detail, FY 2000 % Allocations FY 2000 1998–1999 1996–1997 Difference State totals 32.611 32.271 1.054 Alabama 33.972 34.071 –0.290 Alaska 30.876 30.427 1.474 Arizona 38.005 38.537 –1.380 Arkansas 34.617 33.439 3.523 California 32.765 31.741 3.226 Colorado 25.407 24.846 2.258 Connecticut 31.971 30.984 3.184 Delaware 36.566 35.204 3.868 District of Columbia 63.249 65.973 –4.130 Florida 36.315 35.849 1.301 Georgia 35.808 35.083 2.065 Hawaii 30.724 29.725 3.361 Idaho 21.365 20.619 3.618 Illinois 33.753 33.760 –0.022 Indiana 33.067 32.136 2.896 Iowa 26.719 25.730 3.843 Kansas 27.654 26.358 4.916 Kentucky 29.755 29.146 2.087 Louisiana 44.429 42.939 3.471 Maine 30.133 28.254 6.648 Maryland 33.918 33.420 1.490 Massachusetts 25.990 25.529 1.806 Michigan 33.595 34.050 –1.336 Minnesota 25.338 24.335 4.121 Mississippi 45.413 45.196 0.480 Missouri 33.591 32.619 2.982 Montana 29.334 27.166 7.979 Nebraska 26.015 24.533 6.042 Nevada 35.224 42.316 –16.761 New Hampshire 23.958 22.817 5.003 New Jersey 28.138 27.787 1.263 New Mexico 43.789 42.345 3.411 New York 35.069 38.706 –9.397 North Carolina 32.502 31.710 2.497 North Dakota 26.509 24.342 8.904 Ohio 33.948 33.071 2.653 Oklahoma 32.838 30.691 6.998 Oregon 29.287 29.287 –0.001 Pennsylvania 32.800 32.381 1.292 Rhode Island 33.516 32.181 4.147 South Carolina 38.424 37.382 2.786 South Dakota 31.582 28.752 9.842 Tennessee 34.490 33.234 3.780 Texas 31.088 30.221 2.872 Utah 16.872 15.959 5.718 Vermont 27.045 25.646 5.457 Virginia 29.553 29.051 1.730 Washington 27.512 27.016 1.836 West Virginia 31.849 30.939 2.942 Wisconsin 28.296 27.395 3.286 Wyoming 28.460 26.700 6.592 Total number of eligible states: 5 aState changed method of counting and thus is not ranked. Reduction Rank, 2000 4 11 2 31 26 18 (a) 35 1 10 16 28 32 5 23 34 38 17 30 44 12 14 3 36 7 25 46 42 (a) 39 8 29 (a) 19 47 20 45 6 9 37 21 48 33 22 41 40 13 15 24 27 43 Bonus Eligible? Yes Bonus Maximum, $ 100,000 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 (a) (a) 54 Table D.3d TANF Out–of–Wedlock Birthrate Reduction Bonuses: State Allocation Formula Detail, FY 1999 % Allocations FY 1999 1998–1999 1996–1997 Difference State totals 32.394 32.392 0.003 Alabama 33.773 34.470 –2.022 Alaska 30.815 29.567 4.220 Arizona 38.232 38.289 –0.148 Arkansas 34.061 32.763 3.962 California 32.072 33.923 –5.459 Colorado 25.045 24.918 0.511 Connecticut 32.035 30.547 4.872 Delaware 35.751 34.821 2.669 District of Columbia 64.889 67.388 –3.708 Florida 35.980 35.743 0.662 Georgia 35.222 35.336 –0.324 Hawaii 30.092 28.760 4.630 Idaho 21.009 19.299 8.862 Illinois 33.569 34.064 –1.452 Indiana 32.457 31.735 2.272 Iowa 26.235 25.008 4.908 Kansas 27.213 25.916 5.004 Kentucky 29.612 28.076 5.471 Louisiana 43.688 42.546 2.684 Maine 29.221 27.970 4.469 Maryland 33.489 33.523 –0.102 Massachusetts 25.706 26.095 –1.493 Michigan 33.510 34.676 –3.361 Minnesota 24.914 23.932 4.104 Mississippi 45.228 45.396 –0.371 Missouri 33.137 32.294 2.609 Montana 28.311 25.989 8.934 Nebraska 25.289 24.546 3.028 Nevada 39.030 38.540 1.271 New Hampshire 23.598 22.159 6.493 New Jersey 27.988 27.872 0.418 New Mexico 42.821 42.111 1.688 New York 37.431 37.748 –0.840 North Carolina 32.100 31.645 1.437 North Dakota 25.587 23.253 10.036 Ohio 33.520 32.972 1.663 Oklahoma 31.682 30.143 5.105 Oregon 29.257 28.798 1.593 Pennsylvania 32.544 32.612 –0.211 Rhode Island 33.202 31.636 4.949 South Carolina 37.677 37.140 1.445 South Dakota 30.306 27.862 8.772 Tennessee 33.750 33.249 1.505 Texas 30.565 29.437 3.832 Utah 16.388 15.707 4.336 Vermont 26.260 25.092 4.655 Virginia 29.065 29.235 –0.583 Washington 27.223 26.345 3.335 West Virginia 31.338 30.367 3.199 Wisconsin 27.771 27.270 1.838 Wyoming 27.176 26.937 0.888 Total number of eligible states: 5 aState changed method of counting and thus is not ranked. Reduction Rank, 1999 4 34 11 32 1 14 (a) 26 2 15 9 37 46 6 24 39 41 43 27 36 12 5 3 33 8 25 47 28 (a) 44 13 22 (a) 17 48 21 42 20 10 40 18 45 19 31 35 38 7 30 29 23 16 Bonus Eligible? Yes Bonus Maximum, $ 100,000 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 Yes 20,000 55 Appendix E High-Performance Bonus, Fiscal Years 1999–2001 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 57 Table E.1 High-Performance Bonuses, by State: Awards by Category Amount for Performance Year 2000, FY 2001 State Arizona California Connecticuta District of Columbiaa Hawaiia Idaho Indianaa Iowaa Kentuckya Louisianaa Minnesota Missouria Montanaa Nebraska Nevadaa New Hampshire New Mexicoa North Dakotaa Rhode Islanda South Dakota Texasa Utaha Vermonta Washington West Virginiaa Wisconsin Wyominga Totalb Amount, $ 2,484,131 41,701,720 13,339,405 4,630,491 4,945,239 1,080,734 10,339,955 6,576,248 9,064,383 8,198,599 2,993,030 10,852,587 2,276,700 648,101 2,198,838 430,231 6,305,158 1,319,990 4,751,079 740,843 24,312,838 3,841,461 2,367,659 13,681,956 5,508,816 14,320,736 1,089,072 200,000,000 Performance Bonus, $ Success in the Job Entry Workforce — 2,484,131 — 41,701,720 — 2,478,066 —— —— —— 8,870,878 1,469,077 — 931,213 —— 5,210,079 — — 2,993,030 10,852,587 — 1,136,128 — — 648,101 1,537,317 — — 430,231 6,305,158 — 922,871 — — 882,610 —— 24,312,838 — 3,841,461 — —— —— —— — 3,553,737 1,089,072 — 64,078,389 57,571,916 Improvement Bonus, $ Success in the Job Entry Workforce —— —— 10,861,339 — 4,630,491 — 2,825,552 2,119,687 — 1,080,734 —— 3,225,393 2,419,642 9,064,383 — 2,988,520 — —— —— 651,687 488,885 —— — 661,521 —— —— — 397,119 3,868,469 — — 740,843 —— —— 2,367,659 — — 13,681,956 3,147,562 2,361,254 — 10,766,999 —— 43,631,055 34,718,640 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. aBonus amounts are limited to 5 percent of this state’s family assistance grant for the year (see section 403(a) of the Social Security Act). bThese totals differ from the amounts allocated to each work measure because of the redistribution resulting from states exceeding the bonus cap. 58 Table E.2 High-Performance Bonuses, by State: Awards by Category Amount for Performance Year 1999, FY 2000 State Alabamaa Arizona Arkansasa California Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Hawaii Idahoa Illinois Indiana Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montanaa Nevadaa New Jersey North Carolina North Dakotaa Oklahoma Tennesseea Texasa Utah Virginiaa West Virginia Wisconsin Wyominga Totalb Amount, $ 4,665,760 6,346,332 2,836,643 36,118,534 2,580,735 609,000 1,746,598 20,853,991 4,945,239 1,596,903 16,693,489 2,000,440 2,592,312 2,378,382 5,949,594 2,276,700 2,198,838 7,619,995 8,284,674 1,319,990 4,057,192 9,576,190 24,312,838 1,448,980 7,914,259 2,077,898 15,909,421 1,089,072 200,000,000 Performance Bonus, $ Success in the Job Entry Workforce 3,590,269 — — 1,870,448 2,151,547 — — 36,118,534 — 2,580,735 —— —— — 5,439,714 — 881,280 1,596,903 — — 5,659,462 — 2,000,440 — 2,592,312 —— —— 1,751,905 — 2,198,838 — —— —— 1,319,990 — -— 9,576,190 — 24,312,838 — —— 7,914,259 — —— — 2,835,182 976,792 112,280 55,108,432 60,371,486 Improvement Bonus, $ Success in the Job Entry Workforce 1,075,491 — — 4,194,785 560,306 405,889 —— —— — 609,000 — 1,746,598 15,414,277 — 2,383,731 1,680,228 —— — 11,034,027 —— —— 2,378,382 — 5,949,594 — 524,795 — —— — 7,619,995 8,284,674 — —— 4,057,192 — —— —— — 1,448,980 —— — 2,077,898 7,668,747 5,405,492 —— 48,297,189 36,222,892 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. aBonus amounts are limited to 5 percent of this state’s family assistance grant for the year (see section 403(a) (4)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act). bThese totals differ from the amounts allocated to each work measure because of the redistribution resulting from states exceeding the bonus cap. 59 Appendix F Proxies for High-Performance Bonus Measures, Fiscal Years 2002–2003 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 61 Table F.1a High-Performance Bonus Measures: A Rough Proxy for the New Food Stamps Measure—Ratio and Change in Ratio of Children in Poverty to Housholds Receiving Food Stamps, 2000 State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Children in Homes at 125% of Poverty 15,588,000 290,000 31,000 354,000 239,000 2,561,000 171,000 98,000 43,000 24,000 729,000 387,000 48,000 90,000 732,000 249,000 90,000 116,000 183,000 345,000 45,000 141,000 306,000 430,000 160,000 205,000 204,000 59,000 67,000 121,000 32,000 336,000 159,000 1,104,000 455,000 29,000 686,000 245,000 211,000 509,000 30,000 182,000 25,000 325,000 1,662,000 136,000 50,000 197,000 303,000 103,000 265,000 27,000 Households Receiving Food Stamps 7,321,776 156,105 13,208 95,569 98,764 672,198 69,951 84,016 13,463 36,194 415,788 229,500 54,212 23,174 338,230 127,875 52,548 53,346 167,971 191,891 51,711 101,048 110,234 269,430 91,099 108,993 182,254 25,280 35,130 28,291 18,095 152,358 63,537 720,035 209,232 13,604 279,174 107,098 114,368 352,491 33,422 121,945 16,425 215,336 489,303 32,616 19,649 150,452 133,481 96,097 76,633 8,952 Ratio of Low-Income Children to Food Stamp Households 2.13 1.86 2.35 3.70 2.42 3.81 2.44 1.17 3.19 0.66 1.75 1.69 0.89 3.88 2.16 1.95 1.71 2.17 1.09 1.80 0.87 1.40 2.78 1.60 1.76 1.88 1.12 2.33 1.91 4.28 1.77 2.21 2.50 1.53 2.17 2.13 2.46 2.29 1.84 1.44 0.90 1.49 1.52 1.51 3.40 4.17 2.54 1.31 2.27 1.07 3.46 3.02 Ratio Rank 24 36 47 37 48 38 8 44 1 19 17 3 49 29 27 18 30 6 22 2 10 42 16 20 25 7 35 26 51 21 32 40 15 31 28 39 34 23 11 4 12 14 13 45 50 41 9 33 5 46 43 NOTE: High-performance bonus rules call for incomes below 130 percent of poverty. Census data were readily available at 125 percent of poverty and are used here. 62 Table F.1b High-Performance Bonus Measures: A Rough Proxy for the New Food Stamps Measure—Ratio and Change in Ratio of Children in Poverty to Housholds Receiving Food Stamps, 1999 State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Children in Homes at 125% of Poverty 16,147,000 350,000 25,000 339,000 164,000 2,612,000 169,000 114,000 45,000 32,000 843,000 569,000 67,000 103,000 634,000 215,000 103,000 150,000 214,000 364,000 67,000 135,000 386,000 547,000 137,000 209,000 323,000 73,000 66,000 143,000 45,000 271,000 204,000 1,318,000 440,000 36,000 681,000 171,000 201,000 519,000 48,000 207,000 26,000 301,000 1,533,000 88,000 25,000 233,000 233,000 108,000 233,000 29,000 Households Receiving Food Stamps 7,656,980 159,241 13,909 94,906 100,305 745,994 75,981 87,946 14,286 37,349 426,593 251,256 56,365 22,536 352,018 125,593 54,254 52,008 159,347 197,520 53,719 117,311 121,767 297,465 94,437 115,176 172,499 25,334 37,969 28,736 17,927 169,941 65,520 747,975 214,501 13,936 293,372 113,313 107,458 373,202 34,282 126,539 16,448 219,910 514,786 35,206 20,826 158,842 137,341 102,925 71,662 9,248 Ratio of Low-Income % Change Ratio Children to Food in Ratio, Change Stamp Households 1999–00 Rank 2.11 0.96 2.20 –15.48 13 1.80 30.58 45 3.57 3.70 31 1.64 48.01 48 3.50 8.81 36 2.22 9.91 38 1.30 –10.01 21 3.15 1.40 28 0.86 –22.61 8 1.98 –11.28 19 2.26 –25.54 5 1.19 –25.51 6 4.57 –15.03 14 1.80 20.16 42 1.71 13.75 40 1.90 –9.78 22 2.88 –24.61 7 1.34 –18.88 11 1.84 –2.44 26 1.25 –30.23 3 1.15 21.25 44 3.17 –12.43 18 1.84 –13.21 16 1.45 21.07 43 1.81 3.65 30 1.87 –40.22 1 2.88 –19.01 10 1.74 9.72 37 4.98 –14.05 15 2.51 –29.55 4 1.59 38.29 47 3.11 –19.63 9 1.76 –12.99 17 2.05 6.01 34 2.58 –17.48 12 2.32 5.86 33 1.51 51.59 49 1.87 –1.37 27 1.39 3.84 32 1.40 –35.89 2 1.64 –8.77 23 1.58 –3.71 25 1.37 10.27 39 2.98 14.06 41 2.50 66.82 50 1.20 111.98 51 1.47 –10.74 20 1.70 33.80 46 1.05 2.15 29 3.25 6.36 35 3.14 –3.82 24 NOTE: High-performance bonus rules call for incomes below 130 percent of poverty. Census data were readily available at 125 percent of poverty and are used here. 63 Table F.2a High-Performance Bonus Measures: Work Measures for High-Performance Bonus Allocation, by State, FY 2000 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraskaa Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexicoa New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Job Entry 66.08 51.64 47.46 75.63 36.48 35.00 29.29 61.50 20.78 35.65 38.40 27.28 78.02 53.16 61.46 17.55 45.03 40.20 50.18 35.42 36.01 41.99 54.68 43.93 54.73 63.03 65.43 FY 1999 Performance Rates Rank Retention Rank Earnings Gain 4 63.78 43 10.27 21 80.33 13 –3.66 26 83.52 5 50.54 2 80.00 16 38 84.48 2 23.24 19.28 42 74.75 34 45.77 43 83.94 4 26.35 12 77.92 23 29.82 46 71.03 39 34.43 40 79.98 17 41.62 37 66.29 42 40.22 45 88.56 1 17.91 1 77.39 26 18 84.10 3 78.06 22.20 13 82.77 8 26.49 49 81.21 11 25.46 28 76.70 29 49.73 35 55.59 48 23.69 23 62.80 44 14.88 41 67.94 41 24.39 39 73.35 36 50.87 32 72.76 38 17 78.37 21 49.63 42.94 30 83.16 7 32.49 16 77.18 27 26.94 11 76.61 30 38.23 6 61.48 47 44.27 Rank 45 46 6 38 41 9 31 26 23 14 15 43 1 39 30 33 7 35 44 34 5 8 11 24 29 20 10 66.05 5 77.57 25 42.19 31 78.56 19 40.29 34 78.09 22 30.16 41.70 23.66 25 13 37 27.52 52.77 63.28 48.81 56.08 18.49 50.72 46.94 44.88 41.82 65.01 64.57 58.51 48.14 63.27 40.12 19.82 53.16 71.58 44 62.79 45 20 76.94 28 9 72.78 37 24 76.46 31 15 67.96 40 48 80.54 12 22 78.56 20 27 83.34 6 29 80.05 15 33 74.20 35 7 80.30 14 8 76.34 32 14 74.96 33 25 77.86 24 10 (a) 36 79.36 18 47 61.92 46 19 81.79 9 3 81.28 10 26.00 34.93 27.23 38.65 –11.01 22.10 39.68 18.32 38.53 57.55 23.66 39.41 41.71 28.17 (a) 37.01 –14.28 58.89 53.92 32 22 28 18 47 40 16 42 19 3 36 17 12 27 21 48 2 4 SOURCE: Direct HHS ACF Breakout, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov. NOTE: These existing measures were used for selecting fiscal year 2000 high-performance bonuses. They will be elements of the fiscal year 2002–2003 high-performance bonuses. aState did not compete for fiscal year 2000 bonus on this measure. 64 Table F.2b High-Performance Bonus Measures: Work Measures for High-Performance Bonus Allocation, by State, FY 2000 FY 1999 Change in Rates from 1998 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraskaa Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexicoa New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginiaa Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Job Entry 58.40 5.86 –0.57 82.87 8.39 –4.98 20.05 –1.93 –11.91 24.46 0.72 44.99 4.69 1.52 –30.48 –56.56 0.70 8.02 1.76 –0.14 7.59 18.47 16.36 –3.25 49.07 74.00 52.73 7.43 17.14 8.14 –10.31 38.48 1.47 –4.49 31.77 –7.84 –13.70 12.97 0.75 5.57 4.13 17.75 3.88 –0.02 –21.75 –1.10 42.08 24.01 Rank 3 23 36 1 18 41 12 38 44 10 32 6 25 29 47 48 33 20 28 35 21 13 16 39 5 2 4 Retention –17.95 0.69 0.48 1.10 –0.16 –1.71 –1.32 2.92 1.92 0.78 –2.41 2.45 –0.15 1.58 –0.85 –2.04 0.15 –6.37 9.82 –7.03 –0.63 –0.62 –0.47 –0.41 –0.47 –0.87 –8.86 Rank 47 17 18 14 23 37 34 5 10 16 41 7 22 11 31 39 20 44 2 45 30 29 27 26 28 32 46 Earnings Gain –49.27 –121.59 17.41 13.18 –11.86 7.99 7.55 10.31 16.32 8.01 26.50 358.08 3.32 5.90 3.89 –7.52 –8.44 –3.31 –30.20 –19.87 18.42 11.57 29.52 –19.33 –10.50 12.60 –9.63 Rank 47 48 11 13 39 19 23 16 12 18 8 1 27 25 26 33 35 31 44 42 10 15 7 41 38 14 36 22 1.05 15 –7.64 34 15 4.79 3 –23.11 43 19 1.43 12 23.24 9 43 –24.58 8 –2.13 30 2.19 40 –3.80 9 –0.21 42 2.71 45 –0.94 17 1.43 31 –1.40 24 0.15 26 –0.27 14 –1.90 27 2.33 34 –1.66 48 40 9 42 24 6 33 13 35 19 25 38 8 36 66.89 –4.30 –31.99 –2.56 –2.04 –48.94 132.54 7.55 7.91 –15.35 –9.96 7.85 8.29 –3.29 5 32 45 29 28 46 3 24 20 40 37 21 17 30 46 –5.31 43 37 15.93 1 7 4.66 4 11 –0.05 21 201.75 7.67 70.06 48.40 2 22 4 6 SOURCE: Direct HHS ACF Breakout, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov. NOTE: These existing measures were used for selecting fiscal year 2000 high-performance bonuses. They will be elements of the fiscal year 2002–2003 high-performance bonuses. aState did not compete for fiscal year 2000 bonus on this measure. 65 Table F.3a High-Performance Bonus Measures: Children in Married-Couple Families and All Children, 2000 State State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total 72,293,812 1,123,422 190,717 1,366,947 680,369 9,249,829 1,100,795 841,688 194,587 114,992 3,646,340 2,169,234 295,767 369,030 3,245,451 1,574,396 733,638 712,993 994,818 1,219,799 301,238 1,356,172 1,500,064 2,595,767 1,286,894 775,187 1,427,692 230,062 450,242 511,799 309,562 2,087,558 508,574 4,690,107 1,964,047 160,849 2,888,339 892,360 846,526 2,922,221 247,822 1,009,641 202,649 1,398,521 5,886,759 718,698 147,523 1,738,262 1,513,843 402,393 1,368,756 128,873 Total in Married Family 47,682,383 697,207 129,913 875,833 433,809 6,021,830 776,014 579,852 122,291 37,532 2,235,598 1,345,412 183,073 277,669 2,173,057 1,074,310 541,078 515,694 669,954 692,274 208,362 862,681 1,039,492 1,711,883 957,881 424,417 947,052 162,502 331,814 328,097 227,455 1,459,095 309,976 2,934,656 1,266,526 121,868 1,920,229 587,134 576,611 1,987,380 160,413 601,655 143,910 890,916 3,899,047 565,755 105,097 1,174,869 1,051,117 274,249 975,905 91,939 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000. % in Married Family 65.96 62.06 68.12 64.07 63.76 65.10 70.50 68.89 62.85 32.64 61.31 62.02 61.90 75.24 66.96 68.24 73.75 72.33 67.34 56.75 69.17 63.61 69.30 65.95 74.43 54.75 66.33 70.63 73.70 64.11 73.48 69.89 60.95 62.57 64.49 75.77 66.48 65.80 68.11 68.01 64.73 59.59 71.01 63.70 66.23 78.72 71.24 67.59 69.43 68.15 71.30 71.34 66 Table F.3b High-Performance Bonus Measures: Children in Married-Couple Families and All Children, 1990 State State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total 63,604,432 1,058,788 172,344 981,119 621,131 7,750,725 861,266 749,581 163,341 117,092 2,866,237 1,727,303 280,126 308,405 2,946,366 1,455,964 718,880 661,614 954,094 1,227,269 309,002 1,162,241 1,353,075 2,458,765 1,166,783 746,761 1,314,826 222,104 429,012 296,948 278,755 1,799,462 446,741 4,259,549 1,606,149 175,385 2,799,744 837,007 724,130 2,794,810 225,690 920,207 198,462 1,216,604 4,835,839 627,444 143,083 1,504,738 1,261,387 443,577 1,288,982 135,525 Total in Married % in Married % Change, Change Family Family 1990–2000 Rank 44,642,569 70.19 –6.03 706,164 66.70 –6.95 30 127,423 73.94 –7.87 37 675,501 68.85 –6.94 29 431,365 69.45 –8.19 39 5,266,324 67.95 –4.19 5 631,124 73.28 –3.80 3 543,194 72.47 –4.93 9 112,970 69.16 –9.13 48 39,315 33.58 –2.79 2 1,884,554 65.75 –6.75 25 1,136,022 65.77 –5.70 13 194,497 69.43 –10.85 50 247,510 80.25 –6.25 20 2,061,819 69.98 –4.32 6 1,069,169 73.43 –7.08 33 568,765 79.12 –6.78 26 510,472 77.16 –6.26 21 694,509 72.79 –7.48 35 765,858 62.40 –9.05 46 232,895 75.37 –8.23 40 784,129 67.47 –5.71 14 975,997 72.13 –3.93 4 1,701,668 69.21 –4.71 7 925,445 79.32 –6.16 18 449,909 60.25 –9.13 47 947,928 72.10 –7.99 38 168,497 75.86 –6.89 28 340,104 79.28 –7.04 32 203,685 68.59 –6.54 23 220,226 79.00 –7.00 31 1,291,051 71.75 –2.58 1 305,996 68.50 –11.02 51 2,811,993 66.02 –5.22 11 1,097,629 68.34 –5.64 12 144,118 82.17 –7.80 36 2,006,482 71.67 –7.23 34 602,316 71.96 –8.57 42 524,472 72.43 –5.95 16 2,036,613 72.87 –6.67 24 162,693 72.09 –10.21 49 599,440 65.14 –8.52 41 154,811 78.01 –8.96 45 831,601 68.35 –6.80 27 3,402,873 70.37 –5.87 15 519,464 82.79 –4.92 8 108,616 75.91 –6.15 17 1,083,847 72.03 –6.16 19 922,085 73.10 –5.02 10 331,508 74.74 –8.81 43 981,770 76.17 –6.39 22 106,153 78.33 –8.92 44 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 1990. 67 Table F.4 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Proxy for Child Care and Development Fund Measure— Eligible Children Served, 1999 State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Parents Working or in Eligible for CCDF Education & Training (If State Limits at (No Income Limit) Federal Maximum) 30,394,000 22,673,300 494,700 233,300 99,400 46,700 516,700 348,100 283,800 180,600 3,481,700 1,732,500 486,600 226,300 397,900 187,700 89,300 50,700 51,100 31,500 1,434,200 705,300 913,200 485,200 134,500 139,000 81,200 68,200 1,408,100 676,000 713,000 299,800 415,600 199,200 348,400 172,800 427,100 170,200 450,800 219,700 128,800 60,900 610,000 632,100 259,900 301,700 1,136,900 545,100 637,500 297,400 364,600 185,500 654,000 305,600 108,500 60,800 234,500 115,000 193,900 97,000 146,100 798,900 71,600 350,500 235,000 126,900 1,733,000 8,800,900 819,600 411,400 91,000 37,700 1,257,100 577,300 374,500 191,100 371,300 188,500 1,232,300 105,900 533,900 42,500 466,400 231,000 98,800 46,200 671,000 346,000 2,309,600 1,161,700 271,000 134,400 74,400 33,400 685,200 348,100 667,100 117,400 310,500 52,700 758,500 365,800 59,700 31,600 Receiving CCDF Subsidies 1,759,450 24,500 6,260 36,590 11,250 226,750 23,790 9,790 5,920 1,040 58,630 38,170 7,110 7,560 92,030 20,230 15,720 11,570 26,220 38,980 8890 22,070 40,200 101,890 17,200 17,870 58,390 6,430 12,140 5,900 6,790 34,000 16,610 164,200 67,100 4,450 58,440 30,820 20,490 82,750 6,390 17,840 3,680 63,090 96,640 13,260 4,980 27,120 46,130 13,310 24,940 3,330 No. Served as % of Potential Eligibles 7.76 10.50 13.40 12.89 6.23 13.09 10.51 5.22 11.68 3.30 8.31 7.87 8.76 11.09 13.61 6.75 7.89 6.70 15.41 17.74 14.60 8.49 13.32 18.69 5.78 9.63 19.11 10.58 10.56 6.08 9.48 9.70 13.09 1.87 16.31 11.80 10.12 16.13 10.87 15.50 15.04 7.72 7.97 18.23 8.32 9.87 14.91 7.79 14.86 25.26 6.82 10.54 Rank 28 15 19 46 18 27 49 21 50 37 40 34 22 14 44 39 45 9 5 13 35 16 3 48 32 2 24 25 47 33 31 17 51 6 20 29 7 23 8 10 42 38 4 36 30 11 41 12 1 43 26 SOURCE: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Estimates of Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Eligibility and Receipt, 1998, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/press/2000/ccstudy2.htm. 68 Table F.5 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Proxy for Child Care and Development Fund Measure— Eligible Children Served, 1998 State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Parents Working or in Education & Training (No Income Limit) 30,394,000 494,700 99,400 516,700 348,100 3,481,700 486,600 397,900 89,300 51,100 1,434,200 913,200 134,500 139,000 1,408,100 713,000 415,600 348,400 427,100 450,800 128,800 610,000 632,100 1,136,900 637,500 364,600 654,000 108,500 234,500 193,900 146,100 798,900 235,000 1,733,000 819,600 91,000 1,257,100 374,500 371,300 1,232,300 105,900 466,400 98,800 671,000 2,309,600 271,000 74,400 685,200 667,100 117,400 758,500 59,700 Eligible for CCDF (If State Limits at Federal Maximum) 22,673,300 233,300 46,700 283,800 180,600 1,732,500 226,300 187,700 50,700 31,500 705,300 485,200 81,200 68,200 676,000 299,800 199,200 172,800 170,200 219,700 60,900 259,900 301,700 545,100 297,400 185,500 305,600 60,800 115,000 97,000 71,600 350,500 126,900 8,800,900 411,400 37,700 577,300 191,100 188,500 533,900 42,500 231,000 46,200 346,000 1,161,700 134,400 33,400 348,100 310,500 52,700 365,800 31,600 Eligible for CCDF Receiving No. Served as Rank of % of (Under State Rules in CCDF Subsidies % of Potential 1998 Eligibles Effect Oct 1997) in 1998 Eligibles Served 9,851,100 1,522,520 6.72 103,500 20,530 8.80 31 43,800 5,080 10.88 20 154,400 33,060 11.65 18 100,200 9,240 5.12 46 1,381,900 100,640 5.81 45 139,100 20,170 8.91 30 103,300 11,910 6.35 42 22,100 6,140 12.11 16 31,500 3,850 12.22 15 421,900 46,640 6.61 40 331,200 47,210 9.73 23 70,900 6,670 8.21 34 40,200 6,550 9.60 24 326,300 88,330 13.07 14 197,200 12,670 4.23 49 102,100 11,810 5.93 43 126,500 10,240 5.93 44 90,800 25,010 14.69 9 219,700 35,180 16.01 5 60,900 0.00 51 91,300 21,380 8.23 33 146,900 46,010 15.25 7 374,600 92,060 16.89 4 251,600 25,530 8.58 32 160,000 7,870 4.24 48 129,400 42,600 13.94 11 49,200 5,530 9.10 28 73,400 9,350 8.13 35 84,000 4,830 4.98 47 27,000 6,390 8.92 29 176,900 32,500 9.27 27 112,600 14,980 11.80 17 631,600 158,610 1.80 50 343,100 74,250 18.05 3 34,700 4,160 11.03 19 249,900 59,360 10.28 21 178,800 39,930 20.89 2 188,500 15,210 8.07 36 443,300 72,680 13.61 12 24,100 6,330 14.89 8 115,200 21,730 9.41 25 26,900 3,530 7.64 37 183,600 54,820 15.84 6 1,013,400 78,960 6.80 39 52,800 12,550 9.34 26 21,300 4,740 14.19 10 216,300 23,880 6.86 38 167,100 41,850 13.48 13 28,200 12,900 24.48 1 175,400 23,870 6.53 41 12,500 3,200 10.13 22 SOURCE: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Estimates of Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Eligibility and Receipt, 1998, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/research/ccreport/ccreport.htm. 69 Table F.6 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Proxy for Child Care and Development Fund Measure—Average Monthly Families and Children Served by CCDF, by State, FY 1999 70 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey 1999 Families % of No. U.S. 14,343 1.37 3,779 0.36 21,960 2.09 6,927 0.66 163,130 15.56 13,166 1.26 5,405 0.52 3,458 0.33 696 0.07 33,222 3.17 21,440 2.04 4,561 0.43 4,446 0.42 48,537 4.63 10,947 1.04 7,058 0.67 6,324 0.60 15,180 1.45 22,900 2.18 5,734 0.55 13,027 1.24 26,877 2.56 51,701 4.93 10,037 0.96 8,378 0.80 38,983 3.72 3,625 0.35 6,768 0.65 3,048 0.29 4,553 0.43 23,081 2.20 1999 Children % of No. U.S. 24,502 1.39 6,258 0.36 36,588 2.08 11,253 0.64 226,751 12.86 23,788 1.35 9,787 0.56 5,915 0.34 1,039 0.06 58,630 3.33 38,171 2.17 7,112 0.40 7,563 0.43 92,029 5.22 20,227 1.15 15,718 0.89 11,567 0.66 26,215 1.49 38,984 2.21 8,887 0.50 22,065 1.25 40,201 2.28 101,889 5.78 17,163 0.97 17,873 1.01 58,391 3.31 6,433 0.36 12,140 0.69 5,903 0.33 6,789 0.39 34,003 1.93 1998 Families % of No. U.S. 11,914 1.31 2,862 0.32 19,586 2.16 5,464 0.60 70,673 7.79 11,035 1.22 6,646 0.73 3,527 0.39 2,707 0.30 26,825 2.96 26,488 2.92 4,292 0.47 3,811 0.42 46,186 5.09 7,153 0.79 7,367 0.81 5,553 0.61 14,237 1.57 19,986 2.20 0.00 13,720 1.51 30,813 3.40 49,502 5.46 15,168 1.67 5,510 0.61 35,174 3.88 3,135 0.35 5,349 0.59 2,986 0.33 4,238 0.47 22,132 2.44 1998 Children % of No. U.S. 20,526 1.36 5,083 0.34 33,095 2.19 9,244 0.61 99,922 6.60 20,172 1.33 11,912 0.79 6,138 0.41 4,245 0.28 44,867 2.96 47,205 3.12 6,673 0.44 6,546 0.43 88,333 5.83 12,673 0.84 11,805 0.78 10,238 0.68 25,002 1.65 35,194 2.32 0.00 21,383 1.41 46,009 3.04 92,062 6.08 25,525 1.69 8,471 0.56 43,445 2.87 5,528 0.37 9,348 0.62 5,084 0.34 6,394 0.42 32,496 2.15 Families % Change 1998–99 Rank 20.39 9 32.04 5 12.12 18 26.78 6 130.82 1 19.31 10 –18.67 47 –1.96 39 –74.29 50 23.85 8 –19.06 48 6.27 25 16.66 12 5.09 28 53.04 2 –4.19 42 13.88 16 6.62 24 14.58 14 n/a –5.05 43 –12.77 45 4.44 30 –33.83 49 52.05 3 10.83 19 15.63 13 26.53 7 2.08 36 7.43 23 4.29 32 Children % Change 1998–99 Rank 19.37 13 23.12 10 10.55 25 21.73 12 126.93 1 17.93 14 –17.84 46 –3.63 42 –75.52 50 30.68 7 –19.14 48 6.58 28 15.54 17 4.18 36 59.61 3 33.15 6 12.98 21 4.85 32 10.77 23 n/a 3.19 38 –12.62 45 10.67 24 –32.76 49 110.99 2 34.40 5 16.37 15 29.87 8 16.11 16 6.18 29 4.64 33 Table F.6 (continued) State New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State totals 1999 Families % of No. U.S. 9,966 0.95 103,045 9.83 43,141 4.11 2,919 0.28 33,949 3.24 20,738 1.98 10,880 1.04 40,738 3.88 3,847 0.37 10,819 1.03 2,114 0.20 29,942 2.86 53,884 5.14 7,120 0.68 3,384 0.32 17,540 1.67 27,413 2.61 7,871 0.75 14,146 1.35 1,947 0.19 1,048,694 100.00 1999 Children % of No. U.S. 16,606 0.94 164,203 9.32 67,100 3.81 4,452 0.25 58,442 3.32 34,068 1.93 20,494 1.16 82,745 4.69 6,393 0.36 17,842 1.01 3,681 0.21 63,089 3.58 96,641 5.48 13,258 0.75 4,977 0.28 27,121 1.54 46,134 2.62 13,314 0.76 24,942 1.42 3,329 0.19 1,762,665 100.00 1998 Families % of No. U.S. 8,782 0.97 98,667 10.88 41,221 4.55 2,641 0.29 33,165 3.66 21,882 2.41 7,965 0.88 39,985 4.41 3,998 0.44 12,779 1.41 2,042 0.23 29,765 3.28 46,017 5.08 6,703 0.74 3,121 0.34 15,377 1.70 25,243 2.78 8,033 0.89 13,361 1.47 1,870 0.21 906,656 100.00 1998 Children % of No. U.S. 14,983 0.99 158,605 10.48 74,245 4.90 4,160 0.27 59,357 3.92 36,029 2.38 15,043 0.99 72,683 4.80 6,326 0.42 21,733 1.44 3,529 0.23 55,419 3.66 78,955 5.22 12,552 0.83 4,736 0.31 23,876 1.58 36,883 2.44 13,186 0.87 23,867 1.58 3,088 0.20 1,513,873 100.00 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Families % Change 1998–99 Rank 13.48 17 4.44 31 4.66 29 10.53 20 2.36 35 –5.23 44 36.60 4 1.88 37 –3.78 41 –15.34 46 3.53 34 0.59 38 17.10 11 6.22 26 8.43 22 14.07 15 8.60 21 –2.02 40 5.88 27 4.12 33 15.67 Children % Change 1998–99 Rank 10.83 22 3.53 37 –9.62 44 7.02 27 –1.54 41 –5.44 43 36.24 4 13.84 18 1.06 39 –17.90 47 4.31 35 13.84 19 22.40 11 5.62 30 5.09 31 13.59 20 25.08 9 0.97 40 4.50 34 7.80 26 16.43 71 Table F.7 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Rough Proxies for Medicaid/SCHIP Measure—SCHIP Enrollment by State, FY 1999–2001 72 State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi All Children, 2000 76,616,883 1,115,902 191,260 1,571,345 816,126 11,107,160 851,674 576,645 185,257 99,798 3,990,358 2,219,178 235,086 399,415 3,958,001 1,162,449 631,031 555,828 918,868 1,201,454 201,193 988,010 1,842,104 3,096,389 1,078,788 883,594 % of 2000 in SCHIP 4.35 3.37 7.01 3.87 0.23 4.30 4.10 3.26 2.42 2.27 5.70 5.44 0.96 3.12 1.58 3.82 3.16 4.73 6.05 4.16 11.30 9.42 6.14 1.20 0.00 2.31 % Rank in SCHIP 29 6 21 49 17 19 31 36 38 12 13 48 33 44 22 32 16 9 18 2 3 8 45 51 37 Ever Enrolled in SCHIP % of U.S. All 1999 All 2000 All 2001 Total, 2001 1,959,330 3,333,879 4,601,098 100.00 38,980 37,587 68,179 1.48 8,033 13,413 21,831 0.47 26,807 60,803 86,863 1.89 913 1,892 2,884 0.06 222,351 477,615 693,048 15.06 24,116 34,889 45,773 0.99 9,912 18,804 18,720 0.41 2,433 4,474 5,567 0.12 3,029 2,264 2,807 0.06 154,594 227,463 298,705 6.49 47,581 120,626 182,762 3.97 0 2,256 7,137 0.16 8,482 12,449 13,276 0.29 42,699 62,507 83,510 1.82 31,246 44,373 56,986 1.24 9,795 19,958 23,270 0.51 14,443 26,306 34,241 0.74 18,579 55,593 66,796 1.45 21,580 49,995 69,579 1.51 13,657 22,742 27,003 0.59 18,072 93,081 109,983 2.39 67,852 113,034 105,072 2.28 26,652 37,148 76,181 1.66 21 24 49 0.00 13,218 20,451 52,436 1.14 % Growth, 2000–2001 38.01 81.39 62.76 42.86 52.43 45.11 31.20 –0.45 24.43 23.98 31.32 51.51 216.36 6.64 33.60 28.42 16.59 30.16 20.15 39.17 18.74 18.16 –7.04 105.07 104.17 156.40 Growth Rank 9 12 21 15 19 29 46 32 33 28 17 2 45 26 31 40 30 36 24 37 38 48 5 6 4 Table F.7 (continued) 73 Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming All Children, 2000 1,232,511 240,698 406,355 468,546 213,493 2,505,910 581,171 5,386,175 2,156,816 136,011 3,767,919 852,943 685,104 3,517,707 135,892 723,664 160,276 1,430,505 6,632,818 770,842 119,822 1,701,306 1,210,525 368,174 1,206,239 128,550 % of 2000 in SCHIP 5.99 3.46 2.81 3.40 2.00 3.55 1.05 14.29 4.80 1.89 2.96 6.77 5.41 3.40 8.49 8.27 3.67 1.04 1.97 3.28 3.41 2.21 0.22 5.88 3.91 1.98 % Rank in SCHIP 10 25 35 27 40 24 46 1 15 43 34 7 14 28 4 5 23 47 42 30 26 39 50 11 20 41 Ever Enrolled in SCHIP % of U.S. All 1999 All 2000 All 2001 Total, 2001 49,529 73,825 106,594 2.32 1,019 8,317 13,518 0.29 9,713 11,400 13,933 0.30 7,802 15,946 28,026 0.61 4,554 4,272 5,982 0.13 75,652 89,034 99,847 2.17 4,500 6,106 10,347 0.22 521,301 769,457 872,949 18.97 57,300 103,567 98,650 2.14 266 2,573 3,404 0.07 83,688 111,436 158,265 3.44 40,196 57,719 38,858 0.84 27,285 37,092 41,468 0.90 81,758 119,710 141,163 3.07 7,288 11,539 17,398 0.38 45,737 59,853 66,183 1.44 3,191 5,888 8,937 0.19 9,732 14,861 8,615 0.19 50,878 130,519 500,950 10.89 13,040 25,294 34,655 0.75 2,055 4,081 2,996 0.07 16,895 37,681 73,102 1.59 0 2,616 7,621 0.17 7,957 21,659 33,144 0.72 12,949 47,140 57,183 1.24 0 2,547 4,652 0.10 SOURCE: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. NOTE: All years are federal fiscal years. % Growth, 2000–2001 44.39 62.53 22.22 75.76 40.03 12.14 69.46 13.45 –4.75 32.30 42.02 –32.68 11.80 17.92 50.78 10.58 51.78 –42.03 283.81 37.01 –26.59 94.00 191.32 53.03 21.30 82.65 Growth Rank 20 13 34 10 23 42 11 41 47 27 22 50 43 39 18 44 16 51 1 25 49 7 3 14 35 8 Table F.8 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Rough Proxies for Medicaid/SCHIP Measure—Medicaid Enrollments, by State, June 1997–December 1999 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut District of Columbia Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming State totals 1997 June December 497.4 491.5 62.2 60 397.3 385.1 297.9 321.2 5,178.50 4,968.70 259.5 253.1 310.4 307 133.1 131.7 75.9 76.4 1,454.90 1,460.00 946.6 941.4 161 160.7 86.8 86.7 1,305.00 1,290.30 490.8 495.1 213.7 210.7 183.1 175.7 526.8 519 541.7 537.8 155.3 151 461.7 446.7 687 747.5 1,103.10 1,081.90 458.2 436.1 409.3 392.9 569.7 572.9 74 72.8 148.9 151.2 92.9 97.5 80.3 78.4 665.2 255.6 658.7 249.7 2,918.70 2,858.70 828.5 822 45.3 42.7 1,107.80 1,060.80 282.5 291.3 379.7 373.6 1,475.20 1,449.40 124 393.6 125 414.9 60.3 60.3 1,188.60 1,231.10 1,944.10 1,892.70 133.9 133.2 85.1 85.4 522.1 505.5 732 724.3 300.3 435.5 303.2 412.8 32.8 33.1 31,274 30,829 1998 June December 504.5 511.5 65.9 63.9 373.1 372.9 353.1 370.5 4,980.40 4,987.90 250.3 246.1 311 315.3 128.2 131.3 76 82.2 1,417.90 1,465.00 926 942.5 159.2 151.6 88.7 86.1 1,243.70 1,233.90 448.2 520.3 206 201.1 168.6 167.6 518.4 511 531.7 536.3 154 159.9 445.2 465.3 823.4 856.8 1,087.80 1,052.90 430.5 420.9 382.5 396.1 564.6 600.6 71.7 72.7 156.2 168.1 97.5 99.5 77.6 78 667.5 259.7 674.6 275 2,806.30 2,746.50 815.4 814.7 42.5 42.4 1,066.90 1,062.80 310.5 318.8 381 379.7 1,430.20 1,406.10 125 127 443 471.8 61.2 65.3 1,262.50 1,288.80 1,803.50 1,825.00 135.7 133.5 85 85.1 498.6 492.4 720 710.6 308.9 397.3 270.4 394.3 33.4 33 30,696 30,886 1999 June December 526.4 530 72.9 76.4 381.4 407.4 383.9 355.6 5,067.40 5,033.00 244.1 258.8 324.7 324.8 138.2 142 88.5 89.5 1,521.20 1,597.60 927.4 904.4 155.3 152.5 87.5 93 1,246.30 1,292.30 549.8 582.7 200.3 201 178.5 188.9 520.6 525.4 561.2 621.4 163.8 166.5 491.8 574.1 891.4 910.5 1,063.30 1,061.90 448.2 439.7 409.2 427.1 676.2 721.9 72.5 71.3 173.7 180.6 99.4 101.1 83.3 82.1 678.3 289.3 690.7 298.2 2,727.50 2,719.90 828.5 848 43.4 42.9 1,045.60 1,071.60 355.3 393.1 399 385.7 1,409.00 1,396.80 136 498.1 146 517.4 68.2 70 1,306.70 1,315.90 1,776.90 1,796.60 135.5 133.6 88 89.8 491.7 492.5 716.5 727.7 256.9 395.3 263.8 437.9 32.7 33.2 31,427 31,985 % Change, 1997–99 6.55 22.83 2.54 19.37 –2.81 –0.27 4.64 6.69 17.92 9.81 –4.46 –5.28 7.14 –0.97 18.72 –5.94 3.17 –0.27 14.71 7.21 24.34 32.53 –3.73 –4.04 4.35 26.72 –3.65 21.29 8.83 2.24 3.83 16.67 –6.81 2.35 –5.30 –3.27 39.15 1.58 –5.31 17.74 31.45 16.09 10.71 –7.59 –0.22 5.52 –5.67 –0.59 –12.15 0.55 1.22 2.27 Change Rank 21 6 27 8 38 35 23 20 10 16 43 44 19 37 9 48 26 34 14 18 5 2 41 42 24 4 40 7 17 29 25 12 49 28 45 39 1 30 46 11 3 13 15 50 33 22 47 36 51 32 31 SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Medicaid Enrollment in 50 States—June 1997 to December 1999, October 2000, http://www.kff.org/content/2000/2210/. 74 Table F.9 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Rough Proxies for Medicaid/SCHIP Measure—Children in Medicaid or SCHIP, 2000 No. in Medicaid or SCHIP State totals 15,751,071 Alabama 289,579 Alaska 66,175 Arizona Arkansas 373,551 214,372 California 2,687,185 Colorado 95,792 Connecticut 68,646 District of Columbia 39,890 Delaware 30,438 Florida 809,260 Georgia 384,452 Hawaii Idaho 46,017 88,812 Illinois 744,765 Indiana 143,281 Iowa 61,148 Kansas 65,000 Kentucky 176,046 Louisiana 348,751 Maine 40,986 Maryland Massachusetts 97,489 495,486 Michigan 638,592 Minnesota 145,906 Mississippi 258,437 Missouri 237,830 Montana 70,256 Nebraska 72,936 Nevada 82,933 New Hampshire New Jersey 37,516 395,251 New Mexico 200,337 New York 1,393,101 North Carolina 451,142 North Dakota 29,650 Ohio 646,931 Oklahoma 268,678 Oregon 130,012 Pennsylvania Rhode Island 597,928 23,256 South Carolina 147,887 South Dakota 27,953 Tennessee 432,066 Texas 1,140,531 Utah 126,473 Vermont 44,358 Virginia 147,799 Washington West Virginia 290,286 114,078 Wisconsin 208,116 Wyoming 23,709 % of U.S. Total Total 2000 Children 100.00 76,616,883 1.84 1,115,902 0.42 191,260 2.37 1,571,345 1.36 816,126 17.06 11,107,160 0.61 851,674 0.44 576,645 0.25 185,257 0.19 99,798 5.14 3,990,358 2.44 2,219,178 0.29 235,086 0.56 399,415 4.73 3,958,001 0.91 1,162,449 0.39 631,031 0.41 555,828 1.12 918,868 2.21 1,201,454 0.26 201,193 0.62 988,010 3.15 1,842,104 4.05 3,096,389 0.93 1,078,788 1.64 883,594 1.51 1,232,511 0.45 240,698 0.46 406,355 0.53 468,546 0.24 213,493 2.51 2,505,910 1.27 581,171 8.84 5,386,175 2.86 2,156,816 0.19 136,011 4.11 3,767,919 1.71 852,943 0.83 685,104 3.80 3,517,707 0.15 135,892 0.94 723,664 0.18 160,276 2.74 1,430,505 7.24 6,632,818 0.80 770,842 0.28 119,822 0.94 1,701,306 1.84 1,210,525 0.72 368,174 1.32 1,206,239 0.15 128,550 Medicaid/ SCHIP Ratio Ratio to Total Rank 20.56 25.95 13 34.60 2 23.77 26.27 17 12 24.19 15 11.25 48 11.90 46 21.53 20 30.50 6 20.28 25 17.32 36 19.57 22.24 26 18 18.82 30 12.33 45 9.69 50 11.69 47 19.16 28 29.03 10 20.37 24 9.87 26.90 49 11 20.62 22 13.52 44 29.25 8 19.30 27 29.19 9 17.95 32 17.70 33 17.57 15.77 34 43 34.47 3 25.86 14 20.92 21 21.80 19 17.17 39 31.50 4 18.98 29 17.00 17.11 41 40 20.44 23 17.44 35 30.20 7 17.20 38 16.41 42 37.02 1 8.69 51 23.98 30.98 16 5 17.25 37 18.44 31 Uninsured Children, 2000 9,938,249 132,818 25,077 281,145 100,144 1,758,502 142,196 61,913 22,149 15,284 624,001 280,511 30,279 64,156 444,752 171,650 46,552 67,751 108,046 225,143 23,869 137,251 133,877 265,100 108,709 118,562 105,409 40,672 32,987 106,732 22,691 234,379 113,619 603,741 229,204 15,983 297,351 133,693 101,554 216,303 12,718 131,159 17,875 119,513 1,395,009 78,475 11,042 216,641 143,666 41,791 108,186 18,419 Uninsured Children/ Ratio SCHIP Ratio Rank 2.98 3.53 27 1.87 8 4.62 52.93 32 49 3.68 28 4.08 30 3.29 26 4.95 34 6.75 41 2.74 22 2.33 15 13.42 5.15 47 35 7.12 42 3.87 29 2.33 16 2.58 17 1.94 10 4.50 31 1.05 2 1.47 6 1.18 4 7.14 43 4529.54 51 5.80 38 1.43 5 4.89 33 2.89 23 6.69 40 5.31 36 2.63 18 18.61 48 0.78 1 2.21 12 6.21 39 2.67 19 2.32 14 2.74 21 1.81 7 1.10 3 2.19 11 3.04 24 8.04 45 10.69 46 3.10 25 2.71 20 5.75 37 54.92 1.93 50 9 2.29 13 7.23 44 SOURCES: American Academy of Pediatrics, Children’s Health Insurance Status, Medicaid/SCHIP Eligibility and Enrollment by State, 2000, http://www.aap.org, and analysis of March 2001 CPS. 75 Table F.10 High-Performance Bonus Measures: Food Stamps Program Measure—Average Monthly Household Participation in Food Stamps Program, by State, with Ranking of Enrollment Change 2000–2001, FY 1997–2001 State State totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming FY 1997 9,442,788 185,946 15,351 133,350 105,435 1,045,260 90,929 94,161 19,872 40,406 513,784 284,142 56,680 26,711 433,933 140,331 66,924 63,607 173,516 219,547 58,449 151,910 149,114 366,414 110,395 155,466 199,413 26,750 40,602 38,466 20,775 212,474 74,970 899,035 249,829 15,559 388,708 130,890 121,019 440,167 36,976 139,762 17,767 252,698 751,094 37,625 24,746 205,926 200,305 117,129 87,361 11,109 FY 1998 8,236,200 166,822 14,250 106,943 100,776 865,312 81,935 92,813 16,882 37,792 431,750 256,429 54,248 23,636 392,747 129,644 58,852 52,957 162,697 202,047 55,599 137,369 133,522 329,941 97,149 129,979 173,954 25,418 38,755 32,653 18,240 185,598 64,530 759,177 224,235 14,025 331,614 119,168 110,933 400,170 32,399 135,539 16,896 231,724 601,968 35,124 21,479 170,711 164,232 110,318 75,321 9,928 FY 1999 7,656,980 159,241 13,909 94,906 100,305 745,994 75,981 87,946 14,286 37,349 426,593 251,256 56,365 22,536 352,018 125,593 54,254 52,008 159,347 197,520 53,719 117,311 121,767 297,465 94,437 115,176 172,499 25,334 37,969 28,736 17,927 169,941 65,520 747,975 214,501 13,936 293,372 113,313 107,458 373,202 34,282 126,539 16,448 219,910 514,786 35,206 20,826 158,842 137,341 102,925 71,662 9,248 FY 2000 7,321,776 156,105 13,208 95,569 98,764 672,198 69,951 84,016 13,463 36,194 415,788 229,500 54,212 23,174 338,230 127,875 52,548 53,346 167,971 191,891 51,711 101,048 110,234 269,430 91,099 108,993 182,254 25,280 35,130 28,291 18,095 152,358 63,537 720,035 209,232 13,604 279,174 107,098 114,368 352,491 33,422 121,945 16,425 215,336 489,303 32,616 19,649 150,452 133,481 96,097 76,633 8,952 FY 2001a 7,439,719 161,372 13,184 107,799 102,633 622,602 69,408 81,857 13,602 33,344 425,955 235,633 50,983 24,034 363,570 146,509 54,437 56,500 173,102 198,152 53,151 97,026 104,838 285,277 93,086 115,994 195,480 26,481 34,729 31,970 17,951 144,067 64,539 683,969 213,420 15,921 292,221 113,374 137,199 342,814 32,632 130,055 17,160 226,224 502,235 32,647 19,090 149,595 141,387 94,794 86,588 9,129 % Change, 2000–01 1.61 3.37 –0.18 12.80 3.92 –7.38 –0.78 –2.57 1.03 –7.87 2.45 2.67 –5.96 3.71 7.49 14.57 3.59 5.91 3.05 3.26 2.78 –3.98 –4.90 5.88 2.18 6.42 7.26 4.75 –1.14 13.00 –0.80 –5.44 1.58 –5.01 2.00 17.03 4.67 5.86 19.96 –2.75 –2.36 6.65 4.47 5.06 2.64 0.10 –2.84 –0.57 5.92 –1.36 12.99 1.98 Change Rank 22 35 6 19 50 37 42 33 51 28 26 49 20 7 3 21 12 24 23 25 45 46 13 29 10 8 16 39 4 38 48 32 47 30 2 17 14 1 43 41 9 18 15 27 34 44 36 11 40 5 31 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture. NOTES: The following outlying areas receive Nutrition Assistance Grants, which provide benefits analogous to the Food Stamps Program: Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas. The number of households participating is reported monthly. Annual averages are the sums divided by 12. Fiscal year 2001 data are preliminary; all data are subject to revision. Data are current as of April 25, 2002. aPreliminary. 76 Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman and CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Clifford W. Graves Vice Chancellor, Physical Planning University of California, Merced Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director, California Policy Research Center University of California, Berkeley, Office of the President Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor of Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND California Institute for Federal Policy Research 419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Basement Level Washington, DC 20003 Tel: 202/546-3700 Fax: 202/546-2390 www.calinst.org Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415/291-4400 Fax: 415/291-4401 www.ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:36:59" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(11) "ff_1202trff" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:36:59" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:36:59" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(53) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/FF_1202TRFF.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }