Child Care: States Increased Spending on Low-Income Families (Letter
Report, 02/02/2001, GAO/GAO-01-293).

Nationwide, states reported that federal and state expenditures for
child care under the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) block grant
and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant grew
from $4.1 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $6.9 billion in fiscal year
1999 and totaled over $16 billion in constant fiscal year 1997 dollars
for this 3-year period. More than half of the children whose child care
was subsidized with CCDF funds were cared for in centers, and CCDF
subsidies for all types of care were primarily provided through
vouchers. Eligible parents who were subsidized by CCDF were offered a
choice of receiving a voucher to pay a provider of their choosing or
using a provider who had a contract with the state. Over half of all the
states gave TANF and former TANF families transitioning to work first or
second priority for receiving child care subsidies while other eligible
low-income families were assigned lower priorities. Officials reported
that their states funded the child care needs of their TANF and former
TANF families transitioning to work, and were serving all of these
families who requested child care assistance. However, some of these
officials were concerned that their states' funding levels were not
sufficient to serve all other low-income families who were eligible for
aid.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GAO-01-293
     TITLE:  Child Care: States Increased Spending on Low-Income
	     Families
      DATE:  02/02/2001
   SUBJECT:  Welfare benefits
	     Child care programs
	     Workfare
	     State-administered programs
	     Funds management
	     Block grants
	     Federal aid to states
	     Disadvantaged persons
	     Grants to states
IDENTIFIER:  HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant
	     HHS Child Care and Development Fund
	     California
	     Social Services Block Grant
	     Connecticut
	     Maryland
	     Michigan
	     Oregon
	     Texas
	     Wisconsin

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-293

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2001 CHILD CARE States Increased Spending on Low- Income Families

GAO- 01- 293

Letter 3 Appendixes Appendix I: TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances 26

Appendix II: CCDF Expenditures 38 Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments 44

Tables Table 1: Total Child Care Expenditures by States of CCDF, TANF, and
State Funds, Fiscal Years 1997 to 1999 12

Table 2: Selected States' Child Care Expenditures of Federal and State
Funds, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2000 14 Table 3: TANF Funds Transferred to CCDF
During Fiscal Year 1997 26 Table 4: TANF Funds Transferred to CCDF During
Fiscal Year 1998 28 Table 5: TANF Funds Transferred to CCDF During Fiscal
Year 1999 30 Table 6: Unspent TANF Balances by State, Fiscal Year 1997 32
Table 7: Unspent TANF Balances by State, Fiscal Year 1998 34 Table 8:
Unspent TANF Balances by State, Fiscal Year 1999 36 Table 9: Percentage of
CCDF Funds Spent by Fiscal Year 1997 38 Table 10: Percentage of CCDF Funds
Spent by Fiscal Year 1998 40 Table 11: Percentage of CCDF Funds Spent by
Fiscal Year 1999 42

Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children and Families AFDC Aid to Families with
Dependent Children CCDBG Child Care and Development Block Grant CCDF Child
Care and Development Fund CCRR child care resource and referral agency MOE
maintenance of effort PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation

Act of 1996 SMI state median income SSBG Social Services Block Grant TANF
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Lett er

February 2, 2001 The Honorable Wally Herger Chairman, Subcommittee on Human
Resources Committee on Ways and Means House of Representatives

The Honorable Nancy Johnson House of Representatives

Since the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), child care has become one of several
important services provided by states to support low- income families in
their efforts to find and retain jobs. PRWORA created the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant which has, for the last 5
years, provided the states over $16 billion annually and the flexibility to
design programs and choose among various services that best support their
low- income families, particularly welfare recipients moving into the
workforce. In addition to help with child care, these services include work-
related activities such as job search and counseling, transportation
assistance, and cash assistance. PRWORA also created the Child Care and
Development Fund (CCDF) block grant, which will provide states over $20
billion for child care between fiscal years 1997 and 2002. PRWORA requires
states to use a portion of their CCDF funds to improve the quality and
availability of child care services for all families. Along with

specified amounts of state dollars that are required to be spent under the
TANF and CCDF block grants, these funds help states develop and pay for
child care programs for a broad population of low- income families,

including those on welfare and those who are not, in order to enable
lowincome parents to work.

The recognition of the link between child care and the success of welfare
reform has given rise to questions about how states are spending child care
funds provided through TANF and CCDF. We agreed to report on (1) child

care expenditures by states under the CCDF and TANF block grants; (2) the
type of care selected by families who receive subsidies with these funds and
the mechanisms by which states provide child care subsidies to eligible
families; and (3) states' priorities in providing child care subsidies to
lowincome families and their views about the adequacy of the current levels
of funding for child care.

To determine expenditures for child care, we analyzed data on TANF and CCDF
expenditures for fiscal years 1997 through 1999 reported by all states to
the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), 1 and conducted site visits to seven states to collect
more detailed expenditure data on child care spending for state fiscal years
1994– 95, 1998– 99, and 1999– 2000. (Expenditure figures
throughout the body of this report are expressed in fiscal year 1997
dollars. 2 ) The states we visited- California, Connecticut, Maryland,
Michigan, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin- were selected because they are

diverse geographically and demographically and differ in the ways in which
they operate their child care and TANF assistance programs, but they are not
representative of all states receiving TANF and CCDF funds. Except for the
expenditure data collected during our site visits, we did not independently
verify the states' reported expenditure data sent to HHS but did check a
sample of the states' financial reports on which these data are

based. To report on types of care and subsidy mechanisms, we used data the
states reported to HHS about the type of care used by children subsidized
with CCDF funds and states' payment mechanisms for providing parents a
subsidy, as well as past GAO work and other recent research. Similar data
are not available for care paid for with TANF funds, except for TANF dollars
that have been transferred to CCDF and are included in the

CCDF data, because states are not required to collect or report this
information for TANF families. To obtain more information about the selected
states' priorities for providing child care subsidies to low- income
families and their opinions regarding the adequacy of funding for child
care, we conducted telephone interviews with program officials in these
states. In addition, we reviewed portions of approved CCDF plans for the

50 states and the District of Columbia covering fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
Finally, we interviewed officials at HHS' Child Care Bureau, advocacy
organizations, and other research groups about child care funding issues

nationwide. We conducted our work between March and November 2000 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 1 States
periodically update the TANF and CCDF expenditure data they report to ACF
after the close of a fiscal year. Hence the expenditure figures in this
report are a snapshot of states' expenditure data at a particular point in
time. The date on which we obtained the ACF data is noted in each table in
the appendix. 2 Expenditure figures in the appendixes are expressed in
current dollars so that the actual amounts that states reported to HHS can
be easily identified. Also, the term “fiscal year” used
throughout the report refers to the federal fiscal year except where
otherwise noted.

Results in Brief States are exercising the flexibility provided under PRWORA
to design and fund programs and services for their low- income families and
in doing so

are committing increasing amounts of money for child care. Nationwide,
states reported that federal and state expenditures for child care under
CCDF and TANF grew from $4. 1 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $6.9 billion in
fiscal year 1999 and totaled over $16 billion in constant fiscal year 1997
dollars for this 3- year period. Reflecting this national trend, child care

spending increased between 20 and186 percent between state fiscal years
1994– 95 and state fiscal years 1999– 2000 for the seven states
we visited. In five of these states, federal funds financed a significant
amount of this growth in state fiscal year 1999– 2000, accounting for
54 to 70 percent of their total child care spending. States also retained
unspent CCDF and

TANF funds each year, with unspent TANF balances accounting for the largest
amount- approximately $8 billion at the end of fiscal year 1999 for all
states- although states report that some of these monies have already

been obligated. CCDF funds must be spent by states within various timeframes
prescribed by the regulations and it appears that most states will do this;
TANF funds, on the other hand, can be carried over from one fiscal year to
the next to be reserved for future needs. While CCDF funds must be spent on
child care, states are allowed to spend their TANF funds for many purposes
and have chosen to fund services such as job search

help, substance abuse counseling, and transportation assistance, as well as
child care. Nationwide, more than half of the children whose child care was
subsidized with CCDF funds were cared for in centers, and CCDF subsidies for
all types of care were primarily provided through vouchers. The type of care
used, however, varied by state. For example, three of the seven states

we visited reported to HHS that between 60 and 80 percent of the children
they subsidized with CCDF funds used center care. In the other four states,
more CCDF- subsidized children were cared for in their own homes or in
family child care homes than in centers; in these states, centers accounted
for between 19 and 37 percent of the care for CCDF- subsidized children. The
reasons families choose one type of care over another are numerous, and
include factors such as the availability of reliable transportation to get
children to and from care and whether care is available at times families
need to use it. Eligible parents who are subsidized by CCDF are offered a

choice of receiving a voucher to pay a provider of their choosing or using a
provider who has a contract with the state. Vouchers can be used by families
with any type of provider and document that the state will pay a specified
amount for the child's care. Contracts, which are agreements

between the state and a particular provider- typically a center- to pay for
care for a specified number of eligible children, assist about 10 percent of
the children subsidized by CCDF. Data are not available on the type of care
used by families subsidized with TANF funds or the extent to which vouchers
and contracts are used to pay for the care of these TANFsubsidized families
because states are not required to collect this information.

Over half of all the states gave TANF and former TANF families transitioning
to work first or second priority for receiving child care subsidies while
other eligible low- income families were assigned lower priorities. Program
officials in four of the seven states we visited reported priorities similar
to the nationwide trend, while program officials in the remaining three
states told us that they rely primarily on income, not

welfare status, for determining which families should receive child care
subsidies first. Officials in the seven states we reviewed also reported
that their states funded child care programs at sufficient levels to meet
the child

care needs of their TANF and former TANF families transitioning to work, and
were serving all of these families who requested child care assistance.
However, some of these officials were concerned that their states' funding
levels were not sufficient to serve all other low- income families who were
eligible. These officials noted that their states' eligibility is
established below the maximum federal eligibility of 85 percent of state
median income (SMI); yet even at these lower levels they do not serve
everyone.

Nationwide, only eight states set their income eligibility level at 85
percent of SMI. However, program officials in five of the seven states we
reviewed reported that all families eligible under the state's income
criteria who

applied were being served. While not all families who are eligible need or
want child care subsidies, there are a number of reasons that families who
are eligible do not apply. For example, some of these families may be
unaware that they are, in fact, eligible or may be deterred by the fact that

waiting lists for subsidies already exist. In California and Texas, state
funding has not been sufficient to provide subsidies to all families who
sought them, and these families have been placed on a waiting list. In
addition, child care program officials in four states reported that other

important child care initiatives were not funded to the extent needed. Such
initiatives included, for example, increasing the amount states pay child
care providers to encourage them to stay in the field and thus help to
stabilize the supply of child care. According to some state officials, one
reason that state governments have not funded their child care programs to a
greater extent is that they are concerned about expanding a program

when the level of continued federal funding is uncertain due to PRWORA's
upcoming reauthorization.

Background Federal funds for subsidizing child care for low- income
families, particularly those on welfare, are primarily provided to the
states through two block grants- CCDF and TANF. Within certain guidelines
established by the block grants, states have discretion in deciding how
these funds will support child care, including who will be eligible, the
payment mechanism to be used to pay providers, and the portion of TANF funds
to be used for child care versus other eligible support services. CCDF The
cost of child care can create a barrier to employment, especially for

low- income families. To help these families meet their child care needs,
PRWORA created CCDF by repealing three former child care programs and
modifying a fourth one; it also included in CCDF the target populations of
the programs it replaced. 3 Between fiscal years 1997 and 2002, CCDF will
provide states with a total of $20 billion in federal funds- ranging from
$2.9 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $3.7 billion in fiscal year 2002- to
subsidize

child care for both welfare and nonwelfare families. Each state's annual
federal allocation consists of separate discretionary, mandatory, and
matching funds. 4 A state does not have to obligate or spend any state funds
3 PRWORA repealed the Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)/ Job
Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) Training Child Care, Transitional
Child Care, and At- Risk Child programs and modified the former Child Care
and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). The

modified program is referred to as the Child Care and Development Fund by
HHS. The populations served include families currently on welfare and
involved in work or education activities; those who left welfare in the last
12 months; and low- income families who, because of their income level,
could be at risk of receiving welfare in the future. Also, CCDF funds can be
used for children in need of protective services. 4 A state's discretionary
fund is allotted according to formulas specified in the CCDBG Act while its
mandatory allocation is based on the federal share of its expenditures for
AFDC/ JOBS Child Care, Transitional Child Care, and At- Risk Child Care for
fiscal year 1994 or 1995 or the average of fiscal years 1992 through 1994.
The matching funds are distributed on the basis of the former At- Risk Child
Care formula.

to receive the discretionary and mandatory funds. 5 However, to receive
federal matching funds- and thus its full CCDF allocation- a state must
maintain its program spending at a specified level, referred to as a state's

maintenance of effort (MOE), and spend additional state funds above that
level. 6 Further, states may be spending more of their own funds on child
care than the amount actually accounted for under CCDF's MOE and match
requirements. States must also spend at least 4 percent of their total CCDF
expenditures for a given fiscal year on activities intended to improve the
quality and availability of child care. These activities can include but are
not limited to improving consumer education about child care, providing

grants or loans to providers to assist them in meeting applicable child care
standards, giving financial assistance to child care resource and referral
agencies, 7 improving monitoring and enforcement of child care standards,

improving provider compensation, and providing training and technical
assistance to providers. In addition to the 4 percent states must spend
improving the quality and availability of child care, the Congress
specifically earmarked money in CCDF's discretionary fund in fiscal years
1998 and 1999 for certain activities and age groups: $19 million for
schoolage care and resource and referral services, and $223 million for
qualityrelated activities. 8 States may provide child care assistance to
families whose income is as high as 85 percent of the SMI, thus including
families at both the lowest and

more moderate income levels. States may also establish a maximum 5 CCDF
funds must be obligated and expended within timeframes prescribed by the
regulations. Discretionary funds must be obligated within 2 years of the
fiscal year in which funds are awarded and expended within 3 years.
Mandatory funds must be obligated within 1 year of the grant award if a
state plans to use matching funds, otherwise there is no time limit on
obligating the funds. There is no time limit for expending mandatory funds.
Federal matching funds must be obligated within the year of the grant award
and expended within 2 years of the award. 6 To access federal matching
funds, a state must (1) obligate its entire amount of mandatory

funds by the end of the fiscal year; (2) maintain state child care
expenditures at its 1994 or 1995 level (whichever was higher) for its AFDC/
JOBS Child Care, Transitional Child Care, and At- Risk Child Care programs;
and (3) spend additional state funds. 7 Child care resource and referral
agencies (CCRRs) maintain a provider database for their local area in order
to help match parents looking for care with available providers. CCRRs,
which are supported with federal, state, local, and private funds, also
conduct other services such as training child care providers.

8 Of the amounts earmarked for quality- related activities, HHS has set
aside $50 million for states to use to increase the supply of quality care
for infants and toddlers.

income eligibility below this level. Looking across all states, 85 percent
of SMI for a family of four in calendar year 1998- the most recent year for
which data are available- ranged from a low of $36,753 per year to a high of
$64, 203 per year. In addition to establishing the maximum income level

at which a family is eligible for a child care subsidy, the states also
determine which groups of low- income families within that income
eligibility limit will have priority over others in receiving subsidies,
such as a family with a special needs child. Families who receive child care
subsidies under CCDF must be offered the choice of using a voucher, which is
a certificate assuring a provider that the state will pay a portion of the
child care fee, or using a provider who has a contract with the state to
provide care to subsidized families. Vouchers can

be used to pay any type of provider, including those providers who may also
have a contract with the state. 9 Information about a state's use of
vouchers and contracts, the income level of families to whom the state will
provide assistance, and its priorities for funding those families is
contained

in a state's CCDF plan, which must be submitted and approved by HHS every 2
years.

TANF TANF, which is currently authorized through fiscal year 2002, ended the
individual entitlement to welfare benefits afforded under the Aid to

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) established by the Social Security
Act in 1935. In its place, PRWORA created TANF block grants, which provide
an entitlement to eligible states of $16.5 billion annually. Federal funding
under the TANF grant is fixed, and states are required to maintain a
significant portion of their own historic financial commitment to their
welfare programs, discussed earlier as a state's MOE, as a condition of
receiving their TANF grant. 10 These two sources of funds- federal funds and
state funds for MOE- represent the bulk of resources available to

states as they design, finance, and implement their low- income assistance
programs under TANF.

9 Generally, there are three types of providers: center providers, who
typically care for 12 or more children in a nonresidential facility; group
home providers, who care for between 6 and 12 children in a private
residence with an assistant; and family child care providers, who typically
care for no more than 3 children in the provider's home. 10 PRWORA provided
$200 million per year for 5 years for bonuses to reward states with high
performance in achieving the goals of TANF. In addition, it provided $100
million per year for 4 years for bonuses to reward states that reduce the
ratio of out- of- wedlock births.

TANF includes provisions to ensure that cash assistance to eligible families
is temporary and that those receiving TANF assistance either work or prepare
to work. To support state efforts in helping welfare families make

this transition to work, PRWORA allowed states wide discretion over how to
design their TANF programs. Instead of prescribing in detail how programs
are to be structured, the new law authorizes states to use their block
grants in any manner reasonably calculated to accomplish the purposes of
TANF. For example, states are allowed to set their own criteria for defining
who will be eligible and what assistance and services will be

available. These services can include cash assistance, work- related
activities such as job search assistance, substance abuse counseling,
transportation assistance, and child care. In addition, states can choose to
use their TANF money to help a broader population of low- income families
through programs that, for example, provide refundable tax credits or job

retention and advancement services. To ensure the temporary nature of TANF
assistance and provide an impetus for moving recipients toward selfreliance,
the law established a 5- year lifetime limit on assistance to families and
required that states ensure that specified levels of recipients participate
in work activities. 11 States can incur financial penalties if these

levels are not met. These levels started at 25 percent of a state's welfare
caseload for fiscal year 1997 and will increase to 50 percent in fiscal year
2002. 12 In addition to giving states more flexibility to design their
welfare

programs, TANF also shifted much of the fiscal responsibility to the states.
In doing so, the importance of state fiscal planning was underscored as
states faced greater choices about how to allocate TANF dollars among the
competing needs and priorities of various low- income programs that help
families find and keep jobs and prevent them from returning to welfare. 13
Under AFDC, the federal government and the states shared any increased

welfare costs because welfare benefits were a matched, open- ended
entitlement to the states. But under TANF, states receive a fixed amount of
11 PRWORA also allows each state to reduce its annual mandated participation
rate by an amount equal to the percentage that the state's welfare caseload
has declined since fiscal year 1995. Given the significant declines in
welfare caseloads since that time, the actual rates some states must meet
are generally lower than those prescribed in the law. 12 A separate but
higher rate exists for two- parent families: 75 percent had to have been
working or in work activities in fiscal year 1997 and 90 percent in fiscal
year 1999.

13 For more information about the fiscal effects of TANF on states, see
Welfare Reform: Early Fiscal Effects of the TANF Block Grant (GAO/ AIMD- 98-
137, Aug. 18, 1998).

funds regardless of any changes in state spending or the number of people
the program serves. Because of a combination of declining welfare caseloads,
higher federal grant levels than would have been provided under AFDC, and
MOE requirements that states maintain a specified level of welfare spending
at 75 to 80 percent of their historical spending on welfare,

states currently have more total budgetary resources available for their
welfare programs than they would have had under AFDC. 14 These additional
resources presented states with numerous decisions to make about the
families they would serve, the mix of support services they would offer and
the extent to which these services would be funded, and the amount of TANF
funds they would reserve for use in later years, particularly in the event
of an economic downturn when welfare costs could rise. 15 In addition,
PRWORA allows states the flexibility to use TANF funds directly from the
block grant to pay for child care or transfer it to other

block grants. States may transfer up to 30 percent of their TANF funds to
CCDF or 10 percent to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), 16 which can
also be used by states to fund child care and other social services,
depending on their child care needs and priorities.

14 States' MOE requirements are based on their spending in federal fiscal
year 1994 for the programs replaced by the TANF block grant and combined in
the CCDBG. The level of the TANF grant is set based on the higher of federal
spending on the programs consolidated in TANF for federal fiscal year 1994,
fiscal year 1995, or the average for the years 1992 through 1994- periods
during which caseloads and federal spending were at historically high
levels.

15 Final regulations for TANF stipulate that the use of TANF carryover funds
can only be for activities defined as “assistance,” which are
cash and noncash benefits designed to meet a family's ongoing basic needs.
Child care services to employed parents are excluded from the definition of
assistance. 16 The 30 percent amount for transferring TANF funds is a
maximum; if 10 percent of TANF funds are transferred to SSBG, only 20
percent could be transferred to CCDF even though the ceiling level for CCDF
is 30 percent.

Federal and State Between fiscal years 1997 and 1999, states' reported
expenditures for child

care from CCDF, TANF, and their own funds increased annually. 17 For
Expenditures for Child example, CCDF expenditures almost doubled in this
time period- growing Care Increased, but

from $2.5 billion to $4. 5 billion- while funds spent from the TANF block
Unspent TANF and

grant for child care grew from $14 million to almost $600 million in these 3
CCDF Funds Remain

years. However, while states spent increased amounts from these sources and
their own funds, they still had unspent TANF and CCDF balances at the end of
fiscal year 1999.

States' Child Care Spending Nationwide, states spent increasingly larger
amounts of their CCDF, TANF, Grew to Over $16 Billion

and state money on child care between fiscal years 1997 and 1999- a total
Using CCDF, TANF, and

of more than $16 billion, as shown in table 1. State Funds

Table 1: Total Child Care Expenditures by States of CCDF, TANF, and State
Funds, Fiscal Years 1997 to 1999

1997 Constant Dollars in Millions

Fiscal year CCDF a TANF b State c Total

1997 $2, 537 $14 $1,569 $4,120 1998 3,504 243 1, 650 5, 397 1999 4,575 583
1, 807 6, 965

Total $10, 615 $840 $5, 026 $16, 482

a Includes funds transferred from TANF into CCDF. b Funds spent on child
care directly from the TANF block grant. c These amounts include state
dollars reported as CCDF MOE, state matching funds under CCDF, and MOE
reported for child care for separate state programs under TANF. The CCDF
matching amounts are overstated because a few states had not received their
maximum allocation. However, the total amount reported in this column may
underreport the amount of their own funds states are spending on

child care, given that they may be spending more than the amount they report
to HHS. 17 These and other expenditure figures throughout the body of this
report are expressed in constant fiscal year 1997 dollars.

CCDF expenditures made up almost two- thirds of the total amount spent on
child care from these sources. These expenditures included funds that states
transferred from TANF into CCDF, which more than tripled in 3 years-
increasing from $483 million in fiscal year 1997 to around $1.7 billion in
fiscal year 1999. 18 (See app. I, tables 3 through 5, for more detailed
information on TANF transfers for fiscal years 1997 through 1999 in current
dollars.) The CCDF expenditure figures also include federal matching dollars
for which states must spend a specified amount of state funds in order to
receive their maximum CCDF matching allocation. Forty- seven

states received the maximum fiscal year 1997 CCDF federal match while 49
received the maximum fiscal year 1998 match. By the end of fiscal year 1999,
almost two- thirds of the states had already spent the required amount of
state funds to receive their full fiscal year 1999 federal match even though
they had until the end of fiscal year 2000 to do so. 19 As with TANF
transfers, states reported spending increasingly more federal TANF dollars
on child care directly from the TANF block grant for fiscal years 1997
through 1999. These expenditures grew more than 40- fold, from $14 million

in fiscal year 1997 to around $583 million in fiscal year 1999. 20 Child
Care Spending in Spending on child care programs for low- income families
increased Selected States Also substantially in the seven states we reviewed
in more depth. As table 2 Increased shows, total spending on child care
programs in state fiscal year 1994– 95 ranged from $58 million in
Wisconsin to $661 million in California. By state fiscal year 1999–
2000, spending on these programs had grown, ranging from $77 million in
Oregon to around $1.8 billion in California. Thus, the percentage increase
for these seven states during this period ranged from 20 to 186 percent in
constant 1997 dollars.

18 Through fiscal year 1999, states were allowed to transfer prior- year
TANF funds into CCDF. Starting in fiscal year 2000, only current- year TANF
funds may be transferred. 19 HHS data for fiscal year 2000 were not yet
available at the time this report was issued. 20 The significant increase in
child care expenditures directly from the TANF block grant between fiscal
years 1997 and 1999 may be due, in part, to the fact that not all states had
received their full TANF grant in fiscal year 1997.

Table 2: Selected States' Child Care Expenditures of Federal and State
Funds, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2000

1997 Constant Dollars in Millions

Percent increase for State fiscal

State fiscal State fiscal

1994– 95 to State year 1994– 95 year 1998– 99 year
1999– 2000

1999– 2000

California $661 $1, 443 $1, 755 166 Connecticut 87 173 170 95 Maryland 87
117 122 40 Michigan 453 835 885 95 Oregon 64 79 77 20 Texas 396 544 692 75
Wisconsin $58 $169 $166 186

In state fiscal year 1999– 2000, five of the seven states relied on
significant amounts of federal funds- between 54 and 70 percent- to finance
their growing child care programs. Only Connecticut and Texas reported
spending more of their own funds than federal funds on these programs for
that year. 21 The amount of money states ultimately choose to spend on child
care is a result of their budget processes- which decide the extent to which
the competing needs of different programs and priorities statewide will be

supported- and the requirements imposed by the block grant. As part of these
decisions, the states we reviewed made choices about how to spend TANF,
CCDF, and other funds to provide many different support services to low-
income families. However, while CCDF funds have to be spent on child care,
TANF funds can be spent on a range of support services, including child
care, assuming these services meet the goals of PRWORA. 22 In addition,
these states attempted to strike a balance between spending TANF funds on
the current needs of their low- income families and reserving portions of
these funds for future spending. 21 In Texas, the state's prekindergarten
programs for low- income children represented most of the state's reported
expenditures for child care. 22 Starting in fiscal year 2000, TANF carryover
funds can only be spent on services defined as “assistance,”
which are cash and noncash benefits designed to meet a family's ongoing
basic needs. Child care services to employed parents are excluded from this
definition.

For example, both Maryland and Wisconsin plan to use a significant amount of
their TANF funds to expand their child care programs in addition to funding
other parts of their welfare programs for low- income families. Maryland
budget officials are projecting that the state will have

$160 million in federal TANF carryover balances to use in fiscal year 2001
in addition to their annual TANF block grant. Using these funds, the state
will finance more than 5,700 new child care spaces. Similarly, Wisconsin
budget officials assumed that almost $350 million in TANF carryover balances
in the fiscal year 1999– 2000 budget would be available in addition to
its $317 million annual TANF block grant. According to state budget
officials, these

resources will help pay for a number of new expansions to their child care
programs, including increasing the income eligibility of families who can
receive child care subsidies from 165 to 185 percent of the poverty level
and reducing copayment amounts for families. 23 California, Connecticut,
Michigan, Oregon, and Texas, also increased their

child care spending between state fiscal years 1994– 95 and
1999– 2000 to meet the increased need for child care as more families
made the transition from welfare to work, but these states were not planning
to use TANF funds for large expansions of their child care programs. For
example, Texas increased its child care funding for state fiscal year
2000– 1 to a level where it was able to serve about half the children
on its waiting list at a given point in time with child care subsidies, but
it also chose to leave about $107 million in TANF funds in reserve.
Connecticut had about $41 million in unspent TANF funds at the end of state
fiscal years 1998– 99 and

1999– 2000 but chose to use these funds to replace state funds already
allocated for other programs. Budget officials in Oregon told us that they
adjusted their budget twice in the last 2 years because the number of
applicants for child care subsidies was lower than expected. Some of the
state funds from these adjustments were reinvested into the program to
reduce the child care copayment amount; the rest- about $40 million- was
used for other state priorities. Finally, counties in California have
received more than $685 million in TANF funds from the state as a reward for
reducing welfare caseloads. These funds must be used for TANF- allowable
purposes, including child care, although the counties have wide discretion

over how to spend this money. However, at the time of our study, about 1
percent of it had been spent.

23 A copayment is a specified amount of money that parents receiving child
care subsidies are required to pay to the provider or state toward their
child's care.

States Retain Unspent While states are spending more federal and state funds
on child care,

CCDF and TANF Balances portions of their CCDF and TANF funds remain unspent.
CCDF funds, for

example, must be spent within certain timeframes prescribed by the
regulations. Our end- of- year analysis shows that, on average, states spent
about 70 percent of their CCDF funds and retained approximately 30 percent
in unspent funds for each of the three fiscal years, 1997 through 1999. It
appears that most states have met or will meet the prescribed timeframes for
spending these remaining monies. The amount of unspent CCDF funds varies by
state and fiscal year, however, and appendix II, tables 9 through 11,
provides detailed information by state for fiscal years 1997 through 1999,
in current dollars.

Along with unspent CCDF funds in a given fiscal year, states also reported
about $8 billion dollars in unspent TANF funds at the end of fiscal year
1999. This represented about 41 percent of the total TANF funds available to
the states for expenditure in fiscal year 1999 and included both fiscal year
1999 and prior year funds. States also reported that $5 billion of unspent
TANF funds have been obligated, although the lack of uniformity in the way
states report the status of these funds makes it difficult to determine
exactly how much has been obligated. As with CCDF funds, the amount of
unspent TANF funds varied by state. Appendix I, tables 6

through 8, provides information on TANF balances by state for fiscal years
1997 through 1999, in current dollars.

Center Care and To parents who receive child care subsidies under CCDF,
states must Vouchers Most provide flexibility and choice in selecting child
care providers. Parents receiving subsidized child care through CCDF most
often selected child

Frequently Used care centers to provide care to their children. The
subsidies parents receive are most often paid for through vouchers- a
payment mechanism many think provides the most flexibility to parents-
rather than contracts, although this can vary by state. Data on the type of
care used by children whose parents receive TANF and the payment mechanisms
states used to

pay for their care are not available. 24 24 While TANF does not require
states to collect this information, CCDF regulations require that states
report this information for CCDF money spent from the discretionary fund,
including TANF transfers, the federal mandatory and matching funds, and the
state matching and MOE. Hence, about 90 percent of the $16 billion states
spent on child care as discussed in table 1 are in CCDF funds for which
states are required to report these data.

Center Care Most Often Center care is the predominant type of child care
used by children

Used by Parents Who subsidized with CCDF funds as indicated by fiscal year
1998 data reported

Receive Child Care by states to HHS. Nationwide, 55 percent of children
whose care is paid for by CCDF are in centers, 30 percent are in family
child care homes, 11

Subsidies percent are in the child's own home, and 4 percent are in group
homes. 25 The use of center care varied by state, however. HHS data show
that the

use of center care by CCDF subsidized children ranged from 19 percent in
Michigan to 94 percent in the District of Columbia. Three of the seven
states we visited- California, Texas, and Wisconsin- reported that between
60 and 80 percent of the children subsidized with CCDF funds used center
care. On the other hand, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, and

Oregon reported much lower use of center care by CCDF- subsidized children,
ranging from 19 to 37 percent. While CCDF data can tell us what care parents
choose, they cannot provide information on why parents make their choices.
Many factors influence the choice of care selected by parents. Some factors
can affect the choice of a particular provider over another, while others
affect the choice of one provider type over another. For example, data show
that younger children- those under 3 years of age- tend to be cared for in
family child care homes or by relatives; older children are more often cared
for in

centers. For families subsidized with CCDF funds, the age of the child may
be a factor that explains their greater use of center care. CCDF data show
that over 70 percent of the CCDF- subsidized children are 3 to 12 years old,
37 percent are 3 to under 6 years old, and 35 percent are 6 to 12 years old.
Lacking accessible and reliable transportation between home, work, and the
child care provider can limit a family's child care options and affect the
type of care a family chooses. Over the years, states have reported to us
that TANF families lack reliable private transportation to get their
children to child care providers and themselves to work. Moreover, some
communities lack public transportation to get TANF participants where

they need to go, especially in rural areas. Even when public transportation
is available, families' child care options can be limited due to the
difficulty and time it takes to navigate trips with children to a particular
provider and

then to work. 25 CCDF data provide information on relative care only for
CCDF- subsidized children who are cared for by providers exempt from
regulation. Of those children, 53 percent are cared for by relatives while
47 percent are cared for by nonrelatives.

An inadequate supply of providers is another barrier to obtaining care and a
factor in selecting child care. In our previous work, we found that the
supply of infant care, care for special needs children, and care during
nonstandard hours has been much more limited than the overall supply. Low-
income neighborhoods tend to have less overall child care supply as well as
less supply for these particular care groups than do higher- income

neighborhoods. 26 The price of care can affect a low- income parent's choice
of a particular provider. In general, child care is less affordable to poor
families than nonpoor because it can consume a much larger percentage of
their budget. Forty percent of families with incomes at or below 200 percent
of poverty paid for child care and spent, on average, 16 percent of their
annual earnings; however, 27 percent of these families paid more than 20
percent

of their annual earnings for care. Nonpoor families- those with earnings
above 200 percent of poverty- paid, on average, 6 percent of their annual
earnings for child care with only 1 percent paying more than 20 percent of
earnings for care. 27 For families who receive a subsidy, affordability may

not be an issue if the full cost of the care selected is within the subsidy
amount. However, affordability can be affected by the amount of the
copayment, which most states require subsidized parents to pay, again
affecting parents' choice of a provider. For example, a recent HHS study
shows that state variation in the amount charged to subsidized parents for
copayments can represent 4 to 17 percent of their monthly income.

Vouchers Are the CCDF regulations require that a parent eligible for a CCDF
child care Predominant Payment

subsidy be offered the choice of receiving a voucher to pay a provider or
Mechanism enrolling the child with a provider that has a contract with or
grant from the state to serve eligible children. A voucher is a certificate
that documents that the state will pay a specified amount of the cost of
care for

an eligible child. The primary advantage of a voucher is that its
portability provides maximum parental choice- it can be used to pay any
available provider of the parent's choosing, including a relative. A
contract, which is an agreement the state usually has with centers, allows
the state to target funds to underserved areas, such as poorer parts of a
city, or to specific 26 Welfare Reform: Implications of Increased Work
Participation for Child Care (GAO/ HEHS97-

75, May 29, 1997). 27 L. Giannarelli and J. Barsimantov, Child Care Expenses
of America's Families (Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute, Dec. 2000),
pp. 6– 8.

populations, such as migrant farm children, and thus help stabilize the
supply of care in these areas. Contracts can also help improve the quality
of the child care by stipulating that certain requirements must be met, such
as providing staff training or health screenings to the children in care.

Vouchers are the most common method used by states to pay for child care
subsidized with CCDF funds. Fiscal year 1998 data reported by the states to
HHS, which are the most current data available, show that, nationwide,
parents of 84 percent of the children receiving CCDF subsidies used a
voucher to pay for child care while 10 percent used a provider that had a
contract with or grant from the state. For the remaining CCDF- subsidized
children, the states paid cash directly to the parent. However, the extent
to which one type of payment mechanism is used over another varies among the
states. For example, 21 states reported to HHS that they use contracts or
grants; the percent of CCDF- subsidized children served by this payment
method ranged from less than 1 percent in Vermont and Colorado to almost 73
percent in Florida. Six of the seven states we reviewed use vouchers as the
primary method to pay for child care. California uses vouchers to a

lesser extent than the other states we visited: 58 percent of California's
children subsidized with CCDF funds were with contracted providers, 34
percent used vouchers, and 8 percent were subsidized through cash payments
to parents. National data on the type of care used by children subsidized
with TANF funds are not available because TANF regulations do

not require states to collect and report this information to HHS. States
Assist TANF and

Officials in the seven states we reviewed reported that they currently have
Former TANF Families

adequate funding to meet the child care needs of families on TANF and those
who have recently left. In five of these states, other eligible families
With Child Care, but

who applied for child care subsidies were also served. However, some Other
Eligible Families officials raised concerns that their states' current
funding levels are not

Are Not Always Served sufficient to provide subsidies to all eligible low-
income families who may need them, such as those on waiting lists, or to
fully support important child care initiatives. State officials noted that
one reason that the funding

levels for these and other program goals are not higher is states'
uncertainty about the continued level of federal funding.

State Funding Sufficient for According to CCDF plans for fiscal years 2000
through 2001, more than half Child Care Subsidies to

the states list TANF and TANF- transitional families either first or second
on Highest- Priority Families-

their priority list of families who are eligible for receiving child care
Those on TANF

subsidies. Likewise, four of the states we reviewed- California, Texas,
Connecticut, and Maryland- also give priority for child care subsidies to
those on welfare and those transitioning from welfare to work. The three
remaining states- Michigan, Oregon, and Wisconsin- reported that they
primarily rely on income, not welfare status, as a means of giving priority
to certain families over others, with families earning the lowest incomes
receiving child care subsidies first. Child care officials in the seven
states we examined in more depth reported

that their states have allocated adequate funding to meet the child care
needs of families on TANF and those in the process of transitioning from
welfare to work. However, some of these officials expressed uncertainty
about their ability to continue to do this because, with the reauthorization

of TANF and CCDF scheduled for the next fiscal year, the future level of
federal funding for these block grants is unknown. Michigan and Wisconsin
program officials expressed concern that any funding reductions may make it
necessary for them to provide child care subsidies to TANF families first,
over non- TANF families. But, among the seven states we examined, no state
reported that it was currently unable to fund the child care needs of these
families who requested services. States Provided Child Care Nationwide, 22
states placed non- TANF families third or lower in priority Subsidies to
Non- TANF order for receiving child care subsidies according to CCDF plans
approved

Families, but Not All by HHS for fiscal years 2000 through 2001. According
to the CCDF plans of

Eligible Families Were the states that we reviewed, California, Maryland,
and Texas placed lowincome

families third or fourth after TANF and transitioning TANF families, Served

while Connecticut placed these families fifth after other groups such as
teen parents and children with special needs. As stated above, Michigan,
Oregon, and Wisconsin did not establish priorities based on welfare status,
but rather on income.

Notwithstanding these priorities, program officials in Connecticut,
Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, and Wisconsin reported that their states'
funding allocations have been adequate to serve all eligible families who
have applied. Further, data for state fiscal year 1999– 2000 show that
in four of these states non- TANF children represent the largest percentage
of

children in their subsidy program. 28 A similar finding is reported in a
recent HHS study that examined child care for low- income families in 25
communities nationwide. It found that, while states' funding policies favor
TANF families over non- TANF families for receiving child care subsidies,
children of non- TANF families represented the largest percentage of
children receiving child care subsidies in most of the states that were
examined. However, because many states do not track former TANF families for
an extended period after leaving TANF, it is not known how many of these
current non- TANF families are former TANF families who

began receiving their subsidies when they were on welfare. 29 While child
care program officials in most of the states we reviewed reported serving
all eligible low- income families who applied, California, Connecticut,
Texas, and Oregon expressed concern that their funding of child care was not
sufficient to provide child care subsidies for all eligible

families. These program officials noted that their states' eligibility
ceilings were established at levels below the maximum federal level of 85
percent of SMI, 30 yet even at these lower ceiling levels, they do not serve
all eligible families. For example, both Connecticut and California set
maximum eligibility for receiving child care subsidies at 75 percent of SMI,
but because their states did not allocate sufficient funding to serve
families up to these eligibility levels, their child care program serves
families mostly at or below 50 percent of SMI. In both California and Texas,
this has resulted in waiting lists for child care subsidies. 31 Nationwide,
most states have not established income eligibility levels at the maximum
level allowed under CCDF- 85 percent of SMI. According to states' CCDF plans
for fiscal year 2000 through 2001, eight states established eligibility at
this level. Of the remaining 42 states and the District of Columbia, half
set eligibility

between 58 and 84 percent of SMI while the other half set it below 58
percent. 28 Data were not available for California and Oregon. 29 Abt
Associates, Inc., National Study of Child Care for Low- Income Families:
State and Community Substudy Interim Report (Cambridge, Mass., Nov. 2000).

30 While Texas' eligibility is set at 85 percent of SMI, local workforce
boards are allowed to establish eligibility at lower levels, which many have
done. 31 The child care funding decisions made by these states, particularly
regarding the use of their TANF funds, were discussed earlier in the report.

A gap between the number of children eligible for child care subsidies under
states' income eligibility criteria and those who actually receive them
appears to exist nationwide. A 1998 HHS study shows that about one- fifth of
all states are serving less than 10 percent of the children eligible for
CCDF subsidies as defined by state income eligibility ceilings; three-
fifths

are serving between 10 and 25 percent; and one- fifth are serving 25 percent
or more. 32 While not all families who are eligible for child care subsidies
want or need them, there are many reasons why families who are eligible and
want child care subsidies do not apply for them. For example, they may
already know that waiting lists for subsidies exist in their community; they
may think they are not eligible; or the amount of the subsidy or the family
copayment required to be paid by subsidized families may not make it
worthwhile for a family to apply for them. 33 Program Officials

Although all seven states increased the amount of CCDF funds spent on
Concerned About Funding quality initiatives between fiscal years 1997
through 1999, child care

for Other Child Care program officials in four states were concerned about
funding levels for

Initiatives activities to improve the quality of child care. CCDF
expenditures for

quality reported to HHS by these seven states show that expenditures grew
from around $22 million in fiscal year 1997 to about $98 million in fiscal
year 1999, totaling over $180 million for this period. The states spent this
money on a range of activities to improve child care quality, most commonly
to support child care resource and referral agencies, for training and
technical assistance to providers, and on efforts to improve provider
compliance with state child care regulations by state licensing agencies.
Child care program officials in California, Connecticut, Oregon, and Texas
reported that their states did not sufficiently fund some child care

32 Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human
Services, Access to Child Care for Low- Income Working Families (Washington,
D. C., 1999). This report used state administrative data reported to HHS to
develop a monthly estimate of the number of children receiving CCDF
subsidies; it does not include children subsidized with TANF or SSBG funds.
The eligibility estimates were generated from the Urban Institute's TRIM3
microsimulation based on 3 years of Current Population Survey data. The
estimate for eligible children includes all children under age 13 in
families where the head of

household was in an education or training program and family income was
below the state's income eligibility for child care assistance, whether or
not child care assistance was actually needed.

33 National Study of Child Care for Low- Income Families: State and
Community Substudy Interim Report, p. 57.

initiatives that could improve both child care supply and quality in their
states. For example, child care program officials in California,
Connecticut, and Oregon mentioned the need for more funding to provide
higher wages

to providers- either through paying higher payment rates or other
compensation initiatives- in order to curtail the large numbers of providers
leaving the field, typically referred to as turnover. High turnover could
affect the adequacy of child care supply. It also disrupts the continuity of
care for children, which is important to their development, especially for
infants, and interferes with parents' job stability, particularly

welfare parents who are new to the workforce. Child care program officials
in Texas, Connecticut, and Oregon also discussed the need for funding to
build capacity for care that is more difficult to find, such as care for
infants and during nonstandard work hours, which is particularly important
to welfare families transitioning to work. Agency and Other

We received technical comments from program officials in the Comments
Administration for Children and Families' Child Care Bureau and Office of
Family Assistance in the course of completing our work. We incorporated

these comments where appropriate. We also received written comments from six
of the seven states discussed in the report- California, Connecticut,
Maryland, Michigan, Texas, and Wisconsin.

In general, state comments focused on the differences in the expenditure
data in the draft report compared with their own current expenditure
figures. Because our analysis provides a snapshot of expenditures at several
different points in time, the data we present vary from current year data or
data that subsequently may have been reconciled or corrected. We expressed
expenditure data in constant dollars in the report body to capture real
growth in spending over time, but also provided these data in current year
dollars in an appendix so that states would recognize the

expenditures they reported to HHS. Two states, California and Connecticut,
expressed concern with the way we characterized their budget decisions for
using TANF funds. California officials believed that our discussion of the
fiscal incentive payments that certain counties received for reducing TANF
caseloads implied that these

funds were for the purpose of increasing the counties' child care
expenditures. We clearly state why counties were given these funds and that
the counties have discretion about how the funds will be spent. Thus,

the California counties that received these funds could decide to spend them
on child care or any other activities consistent with TANF's goals and
allowable under the law. Officials in Connecticut raised concerns about two
issues. They thought that our statement that Connecticut was not planning to
use TANF funds

for a large expansion of child care implied that Connecticut had not
increased its child care funding. We think the report clearly states just
the opposite. Table 2 shows that Connecticut has significantly increased its
child care expenditures in the time periods on which we gathered data. The
report also states that Connecticut was one of only two states that we
reviewed that spent more of their own funds than federal funds on these
increases. Officials also wanted to make sure that we understood that they
do not have unspent TANF funds. We agree, and believe that the report

clearly states, that the $41 million Connecticut had in unspent TANF funds
at one point in time was spent to reimburse the state for previous state
expenditures on TANF- related purposes. Our reason for discussing this in
the report was to illustrate the competing choices states face in spending

TANF funds and that they do not always choose to spend them on child care.
As agreed to with your staff, unless you publicly release its contents
earlier, we will make no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
the Honorable William Thomas, Chairman, and the Honorable Charles Rangel,
Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Ways and Means; the Honorable
Benjamin Cardin, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Human

Resources, House Committee on Ways and Means; the Honorable Charles
Grassley, Chairman, and the Honorable Max Baucus, Ranking Member, Senate
Committee on Finance; and the Honorable Dr. David Satcher, Acting Secretary
of HHS; and the Honorable Diann Dawson, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Children and Families, HHS. We will also make copies available to others on
request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512- 7215, or Karen A. Whiten at (202) 512- 7291. Other GAO
contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix III. Marnie S.
Shaul Director, Education, Workforce,

and Income Security Issues

Appendi Appendi xes x I

TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances Table 3: TANF Funds Transferred to CCDF
During Fiscal Year 1997 Transferred to CCDF State Grant award

Amount Percentage

Alabama $81,313,004 $10, 000, 000 12 Alaska 18, 759, 063 4,834, 362 26
Arizona 222, 419, 998 12, 220, 532 5 Arkansas 19, 936, 461 0 0 California 3,
147,715,829 0 0 Colorado 45, 627, 939 10, 504, 738 23 Connecticut 266, 788,
107 0 0 Delaware 14, 564, 516 900, 000 6 District of 61, 048, 692 0 0
Columbia Florida 562, 340, 120 0 0

Georgia 254, 339, 628 9,000, 000 4 Hawaii 28, 631, 202 0 0 Idaho 10, 600,
557 0 0 Illinois 134, 004, 829 0 0 Indiana 206, 799, 109 42, 039, 000 20
Iowa 105,169,272 0 0 Kansas 101,931,061 0 0 Kentucky 170,006,205 7, 040, 032
4 Louisiana 139,757,495 0 0 Maine 72,476,874 3, 229, 010 4 Maryland
183,017,827 57, 117, 529 31 Massachusetts 459,371,116 108, 164, 411 24
Michigan 775,352,858 26, 688, 930 3 Minnesota 111, 835, 618 0 0 Mississippi
86,767,578 6, 600, 000 8 Missouri 187,838,524 0 0 Montana 34, 035, 612 5,
657, 669 17 Nebraska 49, 340, 853 0 0 Nevada 34, 008, 078 0 0 New Hampshire
38, 521, 261 0 0 New Jersey 293,107,925 60, 442, 764 21 New Mexico 31, 991,
934 0 0 New York 1, 982,294,198 45, 000, 000 2

(Continued From Previous Page)

Transferred to CCDF State Grant award

Amount Percentage

North Carolina 225,973,410 0 0 North Dakota 11, 066, 221 0 0 Ohio
727,968,260 0 0 Oklahoma 148,013,558 29, 602, 712 20 Oregon 167,808,448 0 0
Pennsylvania 418,343,381 0 0 Rhode Island 46, 025, 651 0 0 South Carolina
93, 872, 849 0 0 South Dakota 18, 759, 543 890, 026 5 Tennessee 191,523,797
16, 396, 912 9 Texas 431, 610, 973 0 0 Utah 76, 829, 219 0 0 Vermont
47,353,181 3, 500, 000 7 Virginia 114,733,567 8, 385, 000 7 Washington
289,298,269 0 0 West Virginia 82, 155, 212 0 0 Wisconsin 318, 159, 462 11,
485, 733 4 Wyoming 19,215,579 3, 600, 000 19

Total $13, 360, 423, 923 $483, 299, 360 4

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather
than constant) dollars. TANF is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
CCDF is the Child Care and Development Fund. The Administration for Children
and Families (ACF) data were provided to us in November 2000.

Table 4: TANF Funds Transferred to CCDF During Fiscal Year 1998 Transferred
to CCDF State Grant award

Amount Percentage

Alabama $95, 986, 661 $19,197,334 20 Alaska 65, 267, 778 1,600,000 2 Arizona
226, 398, 173 38, 260,000 17 Arkansas 58, 230, 354 0 0 California 3,732,
671, 378 100,000,000 3 Colorado 139, 324, 514 19, 433,798 14 Connecticut
266, 788, 107 0 0 Delaware 32, 290, 981 0 0 District of Columbia 92, 609,
815 11, 000,000 12 Florida 576, 886, 883 29, 403,486 5 Georgia 339, 720, 207
19, 285,000 6 Hawaii 98, 904, 788 12, 862,074 13 Idaho 32, 780, 444 0 0
Illinois 585, 056, 960 0 0 Indiana 206, 799, 109 56, 039,000 27 Iowa 131,
524, 959 1,214,089 1 Kansas 101, 931, 061 7,080,193 7 Kentucky 181, 287, 669
36, 240,000 20 Louisiana 168, 072, 394 50, 421,718 30 Maine 78, 120, 889
4,984,810 6 Maryland 229, 098, 032 34, 521,683 15 Massachusetts 459, 371,
116 79, 253,383 17 Michigan 775, 352, 858 149,464,937 19 Minnesota 267, 984,
886 10, 200,000 4 Mississippi 88, 943, 530 8,676,758 10 Missouri 217, 051,
740 0 0 Montana 46, 666, 707 7,000,000 15 Nebraska 58, 028, 579 0 0 Nevada
44, 875, 852 0 0 New Hampshire 38, 521, 260 0 0 New Jersey 404, 034, 823 80,
806,965 20 New Mexico 129, 339, 257 13, 304,750 10 New York 2,442, 930, 602
274,600,000 11 North Carolina 310, 935, 520 11, 699,518 4

(Continued From Previous Page)

Transferred to CCDF State Grant award

Amount Percentage

North Dakota 26, 399, 809 0 0 Ohio 727, 968, 260 0 0 Oklahoma 147, 842, 004
29, 568,401 20 Oregon 166, 798, 629 0 0 Pennsylvania 719, 499, 305 0 0 Rhode
Island 95, 021, 587 0 0 South Carolina 99, 967, 824 5,634,668 6 South Dakota
21, 313, 413 709,974 3 Tennessee 196, 717, 069 14, 834,051 8 Texas 498, 949,
726 99, 789,945 20 Utah 78, 925, 393 0 0 Vermont 47, 353, 181 6,480,552 14
Virginia 158, 285, 172 23, 742,776 15 Washington 404, 331, 754 28, 973,879 7
West Virginia 110, 176, 310 10, 000,000 9 Wisconsin 317, 505, 180 37,
943,787 12 Wyoming 21, 538, 089 4,300,000 20

Total $16,562, 380, 591 $1, 338, 527,529 8

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather
than constant) dollars. ACF data were provided to us in November 2000.

Table 5: TANF Funds Transferred to CCDF During Fiscal Year 1999 Transferred
to CCDF State Grant award

Amount Percentage

Alabama $118,724, 903 $23,744,979 20 Alaska 64,523, 979 13, 805,900 21
Arizona 230, 620,355 0 0 Arkansas 59,765, 287 0 0 California 3,751,148, 918
257,300,000 7 Colorado 142,674, 034 6,034,156 4 Connecticut 266, 788,107 0 0
Delaware 32,290, 981 100,000 0 District of Columbia 92,609, 815 18, 521,963
20 Florida 591,797, 320 117,613,943 20 Georgia 348,923, 135 15, 765,125 5
Hawaii 98,904, 788 5,595,000 6 Idaho 33,050, 458 6,610,092 20 Illinois
585,056, 960 117,011,392 20 Indiana 206,799, 109 56, 039,000 27 Iowa
131,524, 959 14, 415,393 11 Kansas 101,931, 061 6,073,462 6 Kentucky
181,287, 669 36, 240,000 20 Louisiana 172,275, 313 51, 682,593 30 Maine
78,120, 889 7,641,014 10 Maryland 229, 098,032 0 0 Massachusetts 479,
371,116 91, 874, 219 19 Michigan 795,353, 000 96, 052,255 12 Minnesota
267,367, 231 44, 994,267 17 Mississippi 91,173, 882 8,676,758 10 Missouri
217,051, 740 43, 410,348 20 Montana 45,467, 288 5,500,000 12 Nebraska
58,028, 579 5,000,000 9 Nevada 45, 797,430 0 0 New Hampshire 38, 521, 261 0
0 New Jersey 404,034, 823 80, 806,965 20 New Mexico 132,656, 260 13, 688,365
10 New York 2,442,930, 602 5,000,000 0 North Carolina 319,848, 839 80,
253,854 25

(Continued From Previous Page)

Transferred to CCDF State Grant award

Amount Percentage

North Dakota 26,399, 809 0 0 Ohio 727,968, 260 0 0 Oklahoma 147,596, 109 29,
519,222 20 Oregon 166,798, 629 0 0 Pennsylvania 719,499, 305 126,969,000 18
Rhode Island 95, 021,587 13, 645, 204 14 South Carolina 99,967, 824
3,493,964 3 South Dakota 21,313, 413 0 0 Tennessee 202,040, 173 51, 811,123
26 Texas 511,960, 024 30, 571,678 6 Utah 81,073, 971 3,740,480 5 Vermont
47,353, 181 7,709,876 16 Virginia 158,285, 172 29, 157,034 18 Washington
403,313, 831 120,994,149 30 West Virginia 110,176, 310 10, 000,000 9
Wisconsin 317,505, 180 63, 500,000 20 Wyoming 20,815, 954 4,100,000 20

Total $16,712,606, 855 $1, 724, 662,773 10

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather
than constant) dollars. ACF data were provided to us in November 2000.

Table 6: Unspent TANF Balances by State, Fiscal Year 1997 Unspent at end of
FY 97 Total available State during FY 97 a

Amount Percentage

Alabama $81, 313, 004 $21,200, 152 26 Alaska 18, 759, 063 4,863, 642 26
Arizona 222, 419, 998 33,663, 291 15 Arkansas 19, 936, 461 7,267, 101 36
California 3, 147, 715, 829 762,843, 217 24 Colorado 45, 627, 939 21,700,
972 48 Connecticut 260, 821, 819 29,049, 223 11 Delaware 14, 564, 516 0 0
District of Columbia 61, 048, 692 25,623, 708 42 Florida 562, 340, 120
206,830, 009 37 Georgia 254, 339, 628 50,778, 367 20 Hawaii 28, 631, 202
3,308, 558 12 Idaho 10, 600, 557 9,670, 135 91 Illinois 134, 004, 829 0 0
Indiana 206, 799, 109 127,918, 296 62 Iowa 100, 623, 241 22,512, 683 22
Kansas 91, 931, 061 0 0 Kentucky 159, 290, 629 17,801, 388 11 Louisiana 139,
757, 495 74,535, 689 53 Maine 67, 034,986 0 0 Maryland 183, 017, 827 77,809,
451 43 Massachusetts 321, 559, 781 0 0 Michigan 671, 853, 288 62,556, 388 9
Minnesota 111, 835, 618 63,855, 661 57 Mississippi 86, 767,578 19,024, 979
22 Missouri 187, 838, 524 53,057, 973 28 Montana 34, 035, 612 11,264, 994 33
Nebraska 49, 340, 853 20,289, 316 41 Nevada 34, 008, 078 3,966, 709 12 New
Hampshire 38, 521, 261 0 0 New Jersey 293, 107, 925 117,870, 014 40 New
Mexico 31, 991, 934 179, 609 1 New York 1, 813, 894, 198 83,780, 570 5 North
Carolina 225, 973, 410 33,336, 771 15

(Continued From Previous Page)

Unspent at end of FY 97 Total available State during FY 97 a

Amount Percentage

North Dakota 11, 066, 221 7,103, 367 64 Ohio 727, 968, 260 273,788, 340 38
Oklahoma 142, 813, 558 56,548, 265 40 Oregon 167, 808, 448 0 0 Pennsylvania
418, 343, 381 124,780, 707 30 Rhode Island 46, 025, 651 9,161, 666 20 South
Carolina 93, 872, 849 17,443, 093 19 South Dakota 18, 759, 543 6,958, 868 37
Tennessee 178, 849, 849 33,302, 361 19 Texas 431, 610, 973 84,059, 489 19
Utah 76, 829, 219 2,913, 038 4 Vermont 42, 153,181 5, 634, 136 13 Virginia
94, 875, 210 12,174, 690 13 Washington 289, 298, 269 67,367, 274 23 West
Virginia 78, 593, 212 26,046, 415 33 Wisconsin 318, 159, 462 132,556, 008 42
Wyoming 19, 215,579 15,981, 772 83

Total $12, 867, 548, 930 $2, 842,378, 355 22

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather
than constant) dollars. ACF data were provided to us in November 2000. a
Figures represent the total federal funds available for TANF from the
current year grant and after funds

have been transferred to CCDF and/ or the Social Services Block Grant
(SSBG). Unspent funds include obligated and unobligated funds from the
current year award.

Table 7: Unspent TANF Balances by State, Fiscal Year 1998 Unspent at end of
FY 98 Tot al avai l abl e State during FY 98 a

Amount Percentage

Alabama $115,719,447 $58, 577, 586 51 Alaska 65, 315,120 16, 684, 255 26
Arizona 237, 421,664 98, 658, 119 42 Arkansas 65, 497,455 36, 536, 395 56
California 4,212,514,595 1, 545, 590, 011 37 Colorado 158,873,399 102, 907,
203 65 Connecticut 272, 042,299 29, 049, 223 11 Delaware 28, 779,177 700,244
2 District of Columbia 118,233,523 58, 357, 764 49 Florida 696, 624,718 511,
300, 647 73 Georgia 340, 449,038 117, 706, 439 35 Hawaii 94, 813,346 9,
838,752 10 Idaho 39, 172,579 39, 172, 579 100 Illinois 526, 556,960 0 0
Indiana 328, 717,405 303, 238, 147 92 Iowa 145,421,961 57, 772, 197 40
Kansas 84, 361,026 21, 616, 607 26 Kentucky 171,889,057 61, 686, 405 36
Louisiana 242,608,083 198, 052, 591 82 Maine 70,636,079 0 0 Maryland
283,997,680 157, 666, 238 56 Massachusetts 337,720,443 28, 349, 619 8
Michigan 615,662,302 151, 817, 265 25 Minnesota 321, 540,547 200, 783, 187
62 Mississippi 107, 968,509 37, 705, 006 35 Missouri 248,404,539 116, 300,
303 47 Montana 57, 931,701 30, 520, 166 53 Nebraska 78, 317,895 44, 913, 712
57 Nevada 48, 842,561 12, 010, 312 25 New Hampshire 38,521,260 5, 953,212 15
New Jersey 465,151,371 288, 128, 400 62 New Mexico 116,214,116 35, 991, 024
31 New York 2,250,711,172 689, 661, 843 31 North Carolina 331,602,192 126,
485, 752 38

(Continued From Previous Page)

Unspent at end of FY 98 Tot al avai l abl e State during FY 98 a

Amount Percentage

North Dakota 33, 503,176 12, 866, 951 38 Ohio 928,959,774 743, 732, 865 80
Oklahoma 187,684,135 166, 786, 744 89 Oregon 166,798,629 51, 657, 218 31
Pennsylvania 791,276,486 407, 705, 131 52 Rhode Island 104,183,253 15, 688,
259 15 South Carolina 107,414,135 41, 254, 019 38 South Dakota 26, 140,940
14, 940, 504 57 Tennessee 214,405,256 94, 490, 266 44 Texas 547, 720,068
289, 325, 002 53 Utah 78, 722,008 16, 463, 469 21 Vermont 41,771,447 11,
205, 709 27 Virginia 134,845,698 44, 520, 343 33 Washington 442,725,179 209,
769, 384 47 West Virginia 118,822,725 106, 763, 847 90 Wisconsin 392,
289,770 328, 634, 171 84 Wyoming 37,519,861 37, 358, 459 100

Total $17, 673, 015,759 $7, 786, 893, 544 44

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather
than constant) dollars. ACF data were provided to us in November 2000. a
Figures represent the total federal funds available for TANF from current
and prior year grants and

after funds have been transferred to CCDF and/ or SSBG. Unspent funds
include obligated and unobligated funds from current and prior year awards.

Table 8: Unspent TANF Balances by State, Fiscal Year 1999 Unspent at end of
FY 99 Total available during State FY 99 a

Amount Percentage

Alabama $100, 717, 688 $49,049,085 49 Alaska 45, 166, 879 7,003,822 16
Arizona 266, 764, 847 124,610,521 47 Arkansas 84, 914, 581 39, 507,216 47
California 4,968, 486, 636 1, 622,991,970 33 Colorado 184, 908, 291
114,779,125 62 Connecticut 242, 683, 151 40, 730, 502 17 Delaware 37, 646,
361 4,916,485 13 District of Columbia 112, 347, 499 61, 127,647 54 Florida
779, 261, 783 666,344,023 86 Georgia 373, 505, 403 138,416,317 37 Hawaii 92,
749, 034 5,818,672 6 Idaho 55, 786, 246 43, 558,518 78 Illinois 409, 539,
872 0 0 Indiana 284, 040, 960 217,305,956 77 Iowa 139, 980, 754 26, 729,763
19 Kansas 107, 496, 981 0 0 Kentucky 144, 637, 093 18, 313,652 13 Louisiana
193, 174, 375 123,958,187 64 Maine 67, 979,875 0 0 Maryland 268, 830, 287
117,496,231 44 Massachusetts 339, 559, 785 69, 086, 307 20 Michigan 709,
026, 337 146,120,014 21 Minnesota 303, 568, 546 126,556,574 42 Mississippi
123, 560, 363 102,433,613 83 Missouri 215, 178, 548 26, 779,610 12 Montana
62, 641, 460 37, 761,409 60 Nebraska 94, 769, 208 9,155,486 10 Nevada 55,
067, 922 17, 529, 736 32 New Hampshire 44, 474,473 16,528,993 37 New Jersey
441, 465, 522 292,065,326 66 New Mexico 188, 745, 084 98, 925,524 52 New
York 2,618, 385, 932 1, 084,764,422 41 North Carolina 324, 484, 653
101,681,704 31

(Continued From Previous Page)

Unspent at end of FY 99 Total available during State FY 99 a

Amount Percentage

North Dakota 34, 484, 654 10, 586,334 31 Ohio 1,004, 798, 113 762,447,086 76
Oklahoma 146, 705, 222 61, 367,186 42 Oregon 218, 455, 847 23, 783,851 11
Pennsylvania 904, 324, 709 300,617,773 33 Rhode Island 94, 876, 294 0 0
South Carolina 101, 916, 315 30, 971,011 30 South Dakota 28, 053, 734 15,
633,907 56 Tennessee 241, 756, 012 121,304,523 50 Texas 614, 790, 387
275,636,017 45 Utah 85, 985, 922 31, 359, 407 36 Vermont 46,134, 660 8, 494,
289 18 Virginia 145, 645, 274 15, 700,416 11 Washington 424, 721, 793
212,406,431 50 West Virginia 173, 587, 727 158,992,155 92 Wisconsin 454,
899, 948 301,547,996 66 Wyoming 51, 636,662 48,205,043 93

Total $19,254, 319, 702 $7, 931, 099,835 41

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather
than constant) dollars. ACF data were provided to us in November 2000. a
Figures represent the total federal funds available for TANF from current
and prior year grants and

after funds have been transferred to CCDF and/ or SSBG. Unspent funds
include obligated and unobligated funds from current and prior year awards.

Appendi x II

CCDF Expenditures Table 9: Percentage of CCDF Funds Spent by Fiscal Year
1997 Total spent at end of FY 97 Total available during State FY 97 a

Amount Percentage

Alabama $44, 853, 839 $40, 778, 442 91 Alaska 10, 011, 642 8, 060,289 81
Arizona 58, 378,070 45, 496,590 78 Arkansas 33, 204, 890 18, 543, 053 56
California 364, 279, 615 197, 433, 395 54 Colorado 33, 492, 990 16, 515, 789
49 Connecticut 28, 013,490 27, 821,954 99 Delaware 9,382, 931 8, 436, 168 90
District of Columbia 8,454, 771 7, 821, 523 93 Florida 145, 787, 473 109,
012, 204 75 Georgia 109, 277, 572 83, 039, 853 76 Hawaii 14, 199, 040 11,
929, 277 84 Idaho 15, 558, 484 7, 069,613 45 Illinois 128, 246, 320 128,
037, 636 100 Indiana 115, 458, 735 53, 960, 519 47 Iowa 24, 966, 886 13,
454, 521 54 Kansas 26, 966, 598 24, 023, 169 89 Kentucky 54, 092, 026 41,
677, 679 77 Louisiana 91, 292, 076 41, 698, 254 46 Maine 13, 329,724 11,
838,765 89 Maryland 53, 930, 499 32, 008, 936 59 Massachusetts 195, 463, 681
181, 944, 066 93 Michigan 114, 659, 362 92, 581, 671 81 Minnesota 55,
214,882 37, 314,386 68 Mississippi 62, 811,989 46, 267,561 74 Missouri 56,
140, 977 54, 719, 308 97 Montana 9, 265,418 6, 180, 303 67 Nebraska 22, 503,
156 16, 279, 213 72 Nevada 14, 451, 312 10, 123, 213 70 New Hampshire
11,701, 346 8, 276, 554 71 New Jersey 73, 315, 764 56, 068, 767 76 New
Mexico 24, 401, 971 23, 886, 850 98 New York 247, 575, 443 125, 614, 429 51
North Carolina 143, 465, 545 120, 424, 018 84

(Continued From Previous Page)

Total spent at end of FY 97 Total available during State FY 97 a

Amount Percentage

North Dakota 7, 539,033 3, 481, 508 46 Ohio 146, 565, 448 126, 523, 798 86
Oklahoma 77, 894, 426 43, 057, 162 55 Oregon 40, 960, 425 36, 620, 049 89
Pennsylvania 129, 564, 674 111, 237, 839 86 Rhode Island 11, 869, 713 11,
366, 645 96 South Carolina 57, 035, 669 21, 508, 822 38 South Dakota 11,
531, 781 4, 860,565 42 Tennessee 104, 305, 318 82, 075, 661 79 Texas 229,
024, 680 155, 507, 378 68 Utah 30, 430, 020 19, 690, 968 65 Vermont 11,
255,521 11, 255,521 100 Virginia 81, 094, 993 56, 802, 062 70 Washington 71,
787, 990 66, 807, 736 93 West Virginia 28, 676, 642 19, 683, 923 69
Wisconsin 67, 508,372 51, 099,733 76 Wyoming 5, 933, 324 3, 386,396 57

Total $3,527, 126, 546 $2,533, 303, 734 72

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather
than constant) dollars. ACF provided data to us in May 2000. a Figures
represent the total federal funds available from current and prior year
grants.

Table 10: Percentage of CCDF Funds Spent by Fiscal Year 1998 Total spent at
end of FY 98 Total available State during FY 98 a

Amount Percentage

Alabama $63, 986, 078 $50,630,257 79 Alaska 12, 331, 257 10, 699, 802 87
Arizona 78, 781,620 62,803,139 80 Arkansas 39, 780, 851 13, 299, 642 33
California 588, 232, 385 376,153,928 64 Colorado 50, 272, 849 29, 397, 429
58 Connecticut 36, 172,237 36,102,530 100 Delaware 10, 229, 266 8,487,068 83
District of 8, 500,378 8, 500, 378 100 Columbia Florida 202, 416, 406
152,741,227 75

Georgia 147, 554, 243 121,689,740 82 Hawaii 22, 345, 872 21, 862, 754 98
Idaho 20, 601, 664 14, 157, 673 69 Illinois 133, 777, 727 133,569,043 100
Indiana 179, 922, 683 78, 168, 305 43 Iowa 38, 700, 246 27, 707, 239 72
Kansas 37, 083, 798 33, 264, 738 90 Kentucky 76, 557, 166 47, 573, 472 62
Louisiana 154, 570, 237 51, 087, 263 33 Maine 17, 001,394 15,183,257 89
Maryland 74, 700, 847 58, 075, 730 78 Massachusetts 181, 812, 290
154,780,001 85 Michigan 262, 131, 934 244,000,086 93 Minnesota 69, 279,332
56,466,645 82 Mississippi 48, 548,374 27,579,257 57 Missouri 61, 153, 486
61, 055, 188 100 Montana 12, 851, 044 11, 487, 643 89 Nebraska 27, 676, 043
26, 889, 452 97 Nevada 16, 726, 302 10, 862, 187 65 New Hampshire 14,
145,208 13,906,191 98 New Jersey 103, 630, 499 100,303,638 97 New Mexico 37,
633, 287 34, 394, 232 91 New York 398, 158, 245 193,641,418 49

(Continued From Previous Page)

Total spent at end of FY 98 Total available State during FY 98 a

Amount Percentage

North Carolina 155, 615, 606 145,960,014 94 North Dakota 10, 872, 920
5,727,146 53 Ohio 158, 128, 793 157,013,177 99 Oklahoma 114, 920, 289 56,
602, 134 49 Oregon 43, 590, 451 38, 573, 453 88 Pennsylvania 141, 548, 387
102,748,257 73 Rhode Island 12, 651, 526 12, 046, 998 95 South Carolina 74,
598, 206 57, 621, 063 77 South Dakota 13, 915, 743 8,426,622 61 Tennessee
113, 704, 190 108,552,819 95 Texas 394, 907, 988 213,506,682 54 Utah 40,
860, 822 32, 167, 061 79 Vermont 13, 765,457 13,765,421 100 Virginia 108,
966, 152 49, 185, 616 45 Washington 109, 850, 821 108,759,685 99 West
Virginia 39, 984, 746 36, 395, 458 91 Wisconsin 109, 643, 411 96, 229, 664
88 Wyoming 8, 569, 698 5,771,380 67

Total $4,893, 360, 454 $3, 535, 573, 202 72

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather
than constant) dollars. ACF provided data to us in May 2000. a Figures
represent the total federal funds available from current and prior year
grants.

Table 11: Percentage of CCDF Funds Spent by Fiscal Year 1999 Total spent at
end of FY 99 Total available State during FY 99 a

Amount Percentage

Alabama $107, 574, 571 $57,202,031 53 Alaska 39, 340, 198 27, 145, 709 69
Arizona 112, 193, 394 93, 143, 510 83 Arkansas 52, 602, 791 33, 457, 466 64
California 810, 679, 224 593,109,954 73 Colorado 65, 893, 305 52, 911, 968
80 Connecticut 36, 908,751 36,908,751 100 Delaware 11, 168, 141 10, 386, 443
93 District of 39, 052, 958 21, 153, 009 54 Columbia Florida 309, 105, 674
279,076,326 90

Georgia 137, 826, 571 105,706,327 77 Hawaii 25, 464, 183 25, 464, 183 100
Idaho 23, 147, 848 20, 897, 499 90 Illinois 254, 929, 806 254,863,806 100
Indiana 222, 063, 797 98, 805, 265 44 Iowa 52, 871, 342 36, 194, 995 68
Kansas 36, 847, 446 36, 184, 080 98 Kentucky 126, 736, 834 50, 154, 179 40
Louisiana 210, 254, 317 132,648,218 63 Maine 20, 207,404 20,207,404 100
Maryland 162, 163, 499 68, 283, 431 42 Massachusetts 197, 542, 286
178,420,148 90 Michigan 208, 106, 478 154,567,236 74 Minnesota 123, 227, 427
55, 812, 165 45 Mississippi 76, 000,298 39,502,736 52 Missouri 105, 248, 951
85, 802, 008 82 Montana 28, 135, 291 16, 419, 693 58 Nebraska 22, 851, 054
22, 851, 054 100 Nevada 19, 321, 241 10, 549, 509 55 New Hampshire 11,
022,087 8, 629, 598 78 New Jersey 281, 551, 136 53, 022, 914 19 New Mexico
41, 291, 385 41, 291, 335 100 New York 503, 181, 075 341,654,743 68

(Continued From Previous Page)

Total spent at end of FY 99 Total available State during FY 99 a

Amount Percentage

North Carolina 213, 415, 517 202,040,446 95 North Dakota 12, 068, 832
9,455,545 78 Ohio 142, 585, 786 142,585,786 100 Oklahoma 139, 383, 281
101,027,178 72 Oregon 45, 255, 053 41, 512, 044 92 Pennsylvania 291, 600,
001 213,746,647 73 Rhode Island 26, 657, 154 16, 840, 513 63 South Carolina
63, 274, 230 49, 297, 502 78 South Dakota 14, 505, 402 11, 995, 635 83
Tennessee 132, 754, 590 126,204,169 95 Texas 441, 882, 003 279,195,571 63
Utah 43, 874, 589 43, 874, 585 100 Vermont 15, 241,447 15,241,409 100
Virginia 151, 996, 948 92, 225, 485 61 Washington 199, 817, 414 159,999,861
80 West Virginia 30, 552, 672 12, 943, 624 42 Wisconsin 109, 856, 636
108,562,513 99 Wyoming 21, 322,463 5, 694, 597 27

Total $6,570, 554, 781 $4, 694, 870, 803 71

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather
than constant) dollars. ACF provided data to us in May 2000. a Figures
represent the total federal funds available from current and prior year
grants.

Appendi x II I GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contact Karen
Whiten, (202) 512- 7291 Staff

Key contributors to this report include Janet Mascia, Martha Elbaum,
Acknowledgments

Susan Higgins, and Bill Keller.

(116042) Lett er

Lett er

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional
copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013

Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the
Internet, send an e- mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

To Report Fraud,

Contact one:

Waste, or Abuse in

? Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm

Federal Programs

? e- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov ? 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering
system)

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page 1 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Contents

Page 2 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 3 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding United States General Accounting
Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 3 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 4 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 5 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 6 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 7 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 8 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 9 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 10 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 11 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 12 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 13 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 14 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 15 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 16 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 17 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 18 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 19 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 20 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 21 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 22 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 23 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 24 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 25 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 26 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix I

Appendix I TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 27 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix I TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 28 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix I TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 29 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix I TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 30 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix I TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 31 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix I TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 32 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix I TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 33 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix I TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 34 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix I TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 35 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix I TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 36 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix I TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 37 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 38 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix II

Appendix II CCDF Expenditures

Page 39 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix II CCDF Expenditures

Page 40 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix II CCDF Expenditures

Page 41 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix II CCDF Expenditures

Page 42 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix II CCDF Expenditures

Page 43 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Page 44 GAO- 01- 293 Child Care Funding

Appendix III

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***