National Association of State Budget Officers


taxes, gaming taxes, and other taxes and fees, are illustrated in. Chapter Nine. The Appendix contains Table ...... www.ecs.org. • National Education Association.

S

U M M E R

2 0 0 1

N

A T I O N A L

A

2000 S TAT E E X P E N D I T U R E R E P O RT

S S O C I A T I O N

O F

S

T A T E

B

U D G E T

O

F F I C E R S

S

U M M E R

2 0 0 1

N

A T I O N A L

A

2000 S TAT E E X P E N D I T U R E R E P O RT

S S O C I A T I O N

O F

S

T A T E

B

U D G E T

O

F F I C E R S

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BUDGET OFFICERS, founded in 1945, is the principal organization for the professional development of its members; for improving the capabilities of staff and information available to state budget officers; and for the development of the national fiscal and executive management policies of the National Governors’ Association. It is a self-governing affiliate of the National Governors’ Association.The National Association of State Budget Officers is composed of the heads of state finance departments, the states’ chief budget officers, and their deputies. All other state budget office staff are associate members. Association membership is organized into four standing committees: Health, Human Services, and Justice; Financial Management, Systems, and Data Reporting; Tax, Commerce, Physical Resources, and Transportation; and Training, Education, and Human Resources Management.

2000-2001 Executive Committee Robert Powell, North Carolina, President Gerry Oligmueller, Nebraska, President-Elect Sheila Peterson, North Dakota, Past President Bill Newton, Alabama, Member-at-Large Gary Brune, New Jersey, Eastern Regional Director R. Les Boles, South Carolina, Southern Regional Director Randy Bauer, Iowa, Midwestern Regional Director John P. Comeaux, Nevada, Western Regional Director Pamela Wheelock, MInnesota, Health, Human Services, and Justice Stephen P. McAllister, Rhode Island, Financial Management, Systems, and Data Reporting Mark D. Brown, Indiana,Tax, Commerce, Physical Resources, and Transportation Neil Bergsman, Maryland,Training, Education, and Human Resources Management Scott Pattison, Executive Director ISSN 1074-7710 ISBN 1-887253-07-6 Copyright © June 2001 by the National Association of State Budget Officers. Published in the United States of America. All Rights Reserved. National Association of State Budget Officers 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 642 Washington, DC 20001-1511 Tel: (202) 624-5382 Fax: (202) 624-7745 www.nasbo.org Price: $35.00

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 General Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Elementary & Secondary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Elementary & Secondary Education Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Higher Education Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Public Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Cash Assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Other Cash Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Public Assistance Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Medicaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Medicaid Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 Correction Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 Transportation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 All Other Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 All Other Expenditure Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 Capital Spending Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 Revenue Sources in the General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 Revenue Sources in the General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 Child Health Insurance Block Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

TABLES 1.

Total State Expenditures – Capital Inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

2.

Annual Percentage Change in Total State Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

3.

Comparison of Shares of State Spending With Fund Sources, Fiscal 1988 to 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

4.

Regional Percentage Change in Expenditures, Fiscal 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

5.

State Spending by Function As a Percent of Total State Expenditures, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

6. Regional Percentage Change in State Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures, Fiscal 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT [III]

TA B L E 7.

OF

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

8. Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 9.

Annual Percentage Change in Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

10.

Items Excluded from Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

11. Regional Percentage Change in State Higher Education Expenditures, Fiscal 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 12.

Higher Education Expenditures – Capital Inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

13.

Higher Education Expenditures As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

14.

Annual Percentage Change in Higher Education Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

15.

Items Excluded from Higher Education Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

16. Regional Percentage Change in State Total Public Assistance Expenditures, Fiscal 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 17.

Regional Percentage Change in State TANF Expenditures, Fiscal 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

18.

Total Public Assistance Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

19.

Total Public Assistance Expenditures As a Percent of Total State Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

20.

Annual Percentage Change in Total Public Assistance Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

21. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Expenditures (TANF) Expenditures For Cash Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 22.

TANF Cash Assistance Expenditures As a Percent of Total State Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

23.

Annual Percentage Change in TANF Cash Assistance Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

24.

Other Cash Assistance Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

25.

Other Cash Assistance Expenditures As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

26.

Annual Percentage Change in Other Cash Assistance Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

27.

Regional Percentage Change in State Medicaid Expenditures, Fiscal 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

28.

Medicaid Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

29.

Medicaid Expenditures As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

30.

Annual Percentage Change in Medicaid Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

31.

Regional Percentage Change in State Correction Expenditures, Fiscal 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

32.

Corrections Expenditures – Capital Inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

33.

Corrections Expenditures As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

34. Corrections General Fund Expenditures As a Percent of Total General Fund Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 35.

Annual Percentage Change in Correction Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

36.

Items Excluded from Correction Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

37.

Regional Percentage Change in State Transportation Expenditures, Fiscal 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

38.

Transportation Expenditures – Capital Inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

[IV] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

TA B L E

OF

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

39.

Transportation Expenditures As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

40.

Annual Percentage Change in Transportation Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

41.

Items Excluded from Transportation Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

42.

Regional Percentage Change in State All Other Expenditures, Fiscal 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

43.

All Other Expenditures – Capital Inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84

44.

All Other Expenditures As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

45.

Annual Percentage Change in All Other Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

46.

Items Excluded from All Other Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

47.

Total Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92

48.

Higher Education Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

49.

Corrections Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

50.

Transportation Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95

51.

Environmental Projects Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96

52.

Housing Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

53.

All Other Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

54.

Revenue Sources in the General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

55.

Items Excluded from Revenue Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104

A-1. Total State Expenditures By Fund Source (Excludes Bonds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108 A-2. Child Health Insurance Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

FIGURES 1.

Total State Spending by Fund Source, Fiscal 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

2. All Funds Percent Changes From Previous Fiscal Year For Major Spending Categories, Fiscal 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3.

Total State Expenditures By Funding Source, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

4.

Total State Expenditures By Function, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

5.

Composition of Total State Expenditures By Function, Fiscal 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

6.

General Fund Expenditures, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

7.

Percent Change in General Fund, Fiscal 1999 to 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

8.

Federal Fund Expenditures, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

9.

Regional Percent Change in State Funds, Fiscal 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

10. State Expenditures for Elementary and Secondary Education by Fund Source, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 11.

State Expenditures for Higher Education by Fund Source, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

12.

State Expenditures for Total Public Assistance by Fund Source, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

13. State Expenditures for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families by Fund Source, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT [V]

TA B L E

OF

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

14.

Actual and Projected Total Medicaid Spending, 1970 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

15.

Actual and Projected State Medicaid Spending, 1970 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

16.

State Expenditures for Medicaid by Fund Source, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

17.

State Expenditures For Corrections by Fund Source, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

18.

State Expenditures for Transportation by Fund Source, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

19.

State Expenditures for All Other Programs by Fund Source, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

20.

Capital Expenditures by Type, Fiscal 1991 to 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

21.

Total Capital Expenditures by Funding Source, Fiscal 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

22.

Revenue Sources in the General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

[VI] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

P R E FAC E Since its inception thirteen years ago, the State Expenditure Report has developed into a definitive baseline for the analysis of state spending. Expenditures reflected in this report represent over 99 percent of total state spending. Expenditure data are provided by program area so that trends in state spending can be evaluated. The funding sources for state expenditures also are identified. In addition to state data sources, data were drawn from other organizations to highlight emerging policy issues. Readers are cautioned that a more complete understanding of service levels within a given state would require comparisons of spending by both state and local government, which is not the purpose of this report. In addition, the data are self-reported by the states. Further information on report methodology is provided in the Appendix. Web sites that are related to each expenditure category can be found within appropriate sections of the report and provide a good starting point for finding further information. Some key sites are listed below: • National Association of State Budget Officers www.nasbo.org • National Governors Association www.nga.org • Library of Congress—“Thomas” http://thomas.loc.gov • Budget of the U.S. Government http://access.gpo.gov/su_docd/budget • Congressional Budget Office www.cbo.gov • Senate Budget Committee www.senate.gov/~budget • House Budget Committee www.house.gov/budget • The White House (links to all federal departments and agencies) www.whitehouse.gov • Supreme Court Decisions http://supct.law.cornell.edu:8080/supct/ • The Bureau of the Census www.census.gov

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT [VII]

A C K N OW L E D G E M E N T S The State Expenditure Report was produced by NASBO staff Nick Samuels, Paul Korfonta, Stacey Mazer, Jill Schaumberger and Greg Von Behren. In addition, the report represents substantial work by staff in state budget offices throughout the United States. NASBO would like to thank these individuals for their assistance in providing state data for this report:

Karen Wurtz (AL)

Sheila Peterson (ND)

Karen Elliot (AK)

Patrick McCormally (NE)

Kristine Ward (AZ)

Joseph Bouchard (NH)

Ted Moore (AR)

Patrick Mulligan (NJ)

Geoff Palmertree (CA)

Michael Spanier (NM)

Jennifer Oakes (CO)

Maud Naroll (NV)

Shelly Maynes (CT)

Dennis Quinn (NY)

Tom Kirkpatrick (DE)

Lezlee Thaeler (OH)

Janice Hatter (FL)

Bill Moore (OK)

John Brown (GA)

George Dunford (OR)

Keith Shimada (HI)

Greg Jeffrey (OR)

Lynn Barney (IA)

David Donley (PA)

Larry Schlicht (ID)

Ana Ortiz (PR)

Brenda Weist (IL)

Anne Marie Gaertner (RI)

David Dukes (IN)

Donna Williams (SC)

Louis Chabira (KS)

Jason Dilges (SD)

John Hicks (KY)

Susan Irby (TN)

Evelyn McWilliams (LA)

Wayne Roberts (TX)

Kate Gallivan (MA)

Scott Green (UT)

Jay Ladin (MD)

Steve Jardine (UT)

Keith Todd (ME)

Larry Masterson (VT)

Colleen Goosman (MI)

Otto Trautz (VT)

Nancy Rooney (MN)

Michael T. Barton (VA)

Mark R. Reading (MO)

Pam Davidson (WA)

Deborrah Biggers (MS)

Dawn Currier (WI)

Curtis Nichols (MT)

Bryan Michaels (WV)

Julie Mitchel (NC)

[VIII] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY

Economic Outlook, Summer 2001

fiscal 2001, states estimate that spending will increase 7.2 percent, to just more than $1 trillion, while federal funds are projected to

States ended fiscal year 2000 in increasingly difficult fiscal positions.

increase 9.2 percent. (See Tables 1 and 2). It should be noted that

Since then, fiscal deterioration has become more serious in some

23 states use a biennial budget cycle. In most cases, funds are not

states. According to NASBO’s most recent The Fiscal Survey of

expended evenly in the two-year cycle. This may affect total

States, a slowdown in state revenue growth and escalating

expenditures in some states from year to year.

expenditures, particularly state health care costs, will cause many state budgets to tighten. With health care spending accounting for 27 percent of all state expenditures, the resurgence of health care cost pressures significantly affect states’ fiscal health.

S t a t e S p e n d i n g Tr e n d s This report examines the functional areas of state spending:

In addition, a downturn in the financial markets and slower national

elementary and secondary education, higher education, public

economic growth lead analysts to predict deteriorating economic

assistance, Medicaid, corrections, and transportation. Since 1995,

growth for states in the near future as compared to recent years’

elementary and secondary education has gained a larger share of

robust growth. According to The Fiscal Survey of States, states

state expenditures. One of the largest state expenditures, Medicaid

completed fiscal year 2000 with general fund balances that will help

commands an increasingly significant share of state spending, 19.5

weather the present economic downturn, although fewer states

percent. Medicaid spending increases have leveled off the last few

reported budget surpluses than the previous year. States have built

years; however, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the

up rainy day funds to help prevent major disruptions in services to

program is expected to experience renewed growth over the next

citizens during periods of slower economic growth. However, few

few years. State expenditures for public assistance through cash

states have tapped into these funds.

payments continued to drop in fiscal 2000 due to welfare reform efforts and declining caseloads. It is important to note, however, that this function represents just 2.4 percent of total state spending.

State Expenditures

Another cost driver for states is construction and operating costs

Total state spending in fiscal 2000, which captures both operating

for new prison facilities.

and capital expenditures, was approximately $945.3 billion, up 7.4

Total state spending in fiscal year 2000 increased 7.4 percent.

percent from 1999. Federal funds reflect an 8.7 percent increase,

Details of state expenditures include:

while state funds reflect a 7.3 percent increase. From fiscal 2000 to • Figure 1 TOTAL STATE SPENDING BY FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 1987 TO 2000

The share of total state spending financed by federal funds was 25.2 percent in fiscal year 1999 and 26 percent in fiscal 2000. Figure 1 reflects fiscal 1987 through 2000 state spending by fund source.



1,000,000

Elementary and secondary education spending grew at 8.1 percent and higher education spending at 8.2 percent between

Bonds

fiscal years 1999 and 2000.The growth rate for elementary and secondary education and higher education is greater than the

Amount in Millions

800,000

Other State Funds

growth rate for total state spending in 2000. •

600,000

The share of state spending for Medicaid has grown from just less than 11 percent of state spending in 1988 to 19.5 percent in 2000.

Federal Funds

• 400,000

The percent change for public assistance expenditures between 1999 and 2000 reflects an increase of 2.2 percent. State welfare reform efforts, an improved economy, and decreased caseloads have caused public assistance expenditures to decrease 8.7

General Fund

200,000

percent from 1998 and 1999. •

0

2000. Corrections as a share of state spending is projected to

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Fiscal Year

[2] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Total corrections spending increased 6.1 percent from 1999 to

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

increase 6.5 percent between fiscal year 2000 and 2001.



Transportation spending in 2000 increased 4.1 percent. However,

F e d e r a l Po l i c y C h a n g e s

it is important to note that less than 1 percent of state spending on transportation comes from the general fund; the majority of

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created the State Children’s

transportation spending comes from other state funds.

Health Insurance Program for states to design comprehensive health insurance programs for uninsured, low-income children; by

Figure 2 ALL FUNDS PERCENT CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR FOR MAJOR SPENDING CATEGORIES, FISCAL 2000 AND 2001

2002, it will have provided more than $24 billion in federal grants. The law allows states to use these funds to expand insurance coverage under their existing Medicaid programs, or create new state children’s health insurance programs (S-CHIP), or a combination of both.

8.1

E & S Education

7.9

In 1996, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

8.2

Higher Education

Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) replaced the 60-year old Aid to

6.3

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and several related

2.2

Public Assistance

programs and replaced them with the Temporary Assistance for

1.1

Needy Families (TANF) block grant. It also moved state

7.5 7.8

Medicaid

6.1

Corrections

2000-2001

reimbursement from a system based on strict federal rules of

1999-2000

eligibility and entitlement to a single state block grant based on

5.2

historical funding levels.The new law gave states greater flexibility in creating programs that move welfare recipients into the workplace.

4.1

Transportation

9.5 8.1

All Other

A strong economy and aggressive state efforts to move recipients toward self sufficiency has brought about a decline in welfare

6.6

caseloads that has far exceeded expectations.

7.4 7.2

Total 0

2

4

6

8

10

Outlook for the States

To b a c c o S e t t l e m e n t S p e n d i n g Initiatives In 1998, 46 states, five commonwealths and territories, and the District of Columbia entered into a Master Settlement Agreement

With the national economy slowing considerably, many states are facing a widening gap between revenues and expenditures. According to an ad-hoc survey conducted in conjunction with The Fiscal Survey of the States, revenue growth for the next fiscal year is likely to fall below current-year levels for about one-half of the states. Lately, a number of states have had to make downward adjustments to their fiscal 2001 revenue estimates and fiscal 2002 forecasts. Medicaid growth, which represents almost 20 percent of

(MSA) with the five major tobacco companies to recoup medical costs of treating tobacco-related illnesses. Four states—Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Texas—settled separately from the MSA. Since that time, states have begun receiving funds and implementing plans for spending that money. Governors’ top use of tobacco settlement monies has been to fund health initiatives, including tobacco prevention and control programs, followed by education initiatives.

the average state budget, is growing faster than expected in more than half of the states.

All 46 states that have made spending decisions have allocated some portion of their tobacco settlement funds to health priorities.

Although the slowing national economy contributes most greatly to states’ fiscal conditions, other factors affect state budgets including federal budget uncertainty, federal mandates, court ordered expenditures, and federal policy changes.The appropriate sources of funding and balance of responsibilities between states and the federal

The top priorities are tobacco prevention and control, elderly health programs including prescription drug program, State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP), maternal and child health (MCH), Medicaid, biomedical and health research, and chronic disease prevention programs.

government continues to be debated. The federal budget and federal legislation affects states mainly in three areas: jointly funded

Twenty-two states are spending some portion of their tobacco

state-federal programs, federal entitlement programs administered

settlement on education initiatives. These include scholarships,

by states, and federal tax changes that affect state tax systems.

school construction, technology, and literacy. In addition, while

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[3]

receiving much less than health or education, welfare and social

Health Insurance Program), parks and recreation, natural resources,

service programs received a substantial amount of tobacco

air transportation, and water transport and terminals. Chapters

settlement funding to improve or implement social services. Ten

One through Seven discuss state expenditures in the following

states allocated money for substance abuse or mental health

categories, respectively: elementary and secondary education,

programs. Early childhood development or children’s social services

higher education, public assistance, Medicaid, corrections,

received tobacco settlement funds in 7 states.

transportation, and all other.Table 5 shows the proportion of each state’s budget spent on these categories.

Many states invested their tobacco settlement monies in trust funds and economic development systems to yield future financial

Capital spending is included with operating expenditures within

benefits. Twenty-two states allocated money to economic

each functional category, unless noted otherwise. Capital

development, commerce and information technology. Also,

expenditures also have been collected separately in the following

although tobacco growing states and tobacco companies entered

categories: corrections, environmental projects, higher education,

into a separate settlement, often called Phase II, six states allocate

housing, transportation and all other. Capital expenditure data can

MSA funds to assist tobacco growers and quota holders or to assist

be found in Chapter Eight. The major sources of state revenue,

the overall economies of tobacco dependent regions.

including sales taxes, personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, gaming taxes, and other taxes and fees, are illustrated in

To date, only four states—Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and South

Chapter Nine.

Carolina—have approved plans to securitize their tobacco settlement funds. In Alaska and Arkansas, tobacco settlement

The Appendix contains Table A-1, which details total state

money will be used primarily to fund school and university

expenditures by fund source, excluding bonds. In this table, general

construction and renovation.

funds and other state funds are combined into one total called “state funds.” The Appendix also contains Table A-2, detailing the

To t a l S t a t e E x p e n d i t u r e s While state balanced budget requirements are diverse, and governors are given significant powers to ensure a balanced budget, states operate within stricter revenue/expenditure limitations than the federal government. Governors in 45 states must submit a balanced budget; in 41 states, the legislature must pass a balanced budget. States are required to make spending choices within available resources and must reduce spending when revenues come in under estimates. For the most part, states cannot incur a

Child Health Insurance Block Grant, and further information on the report methodology. State governments have specific functional responsibilities that vary among states depending on the role of local governments in providing services. For example, elementary and secondary education often is considered a primarily local function with states’ financial support nearing, on average, half of total spending in this area. However, there are exceptions, such as Hawaii, where the state government fully funds elementary and secondary education.

deficit, and must monitor their debt financing in order to avoid

A more complete understanding of programs and service levels

jeopardizing their bond ratings.

within a given state would require comparisons of spending by both state and local government, which is not the purpose of this report.

Components of State Expenditures and Organization of Report

In addition, because the data are self-reported by the states, some may be incomplete. These omissions can affect aggregate and regional tables.

The 2000 State Expenditure Report reflects three years of data: actual fiscal year 1999, actual fiscal year 2000, and estimated fiscal year 2001. The text of this report focuses on actual fiscal year 2000 data.

Definitions General funds: Predominant fund for financing a state’s

For purposes of this report, the categories of state spending include elementary and secondary education, higher education, public assistance, Medicaid, corrections, and transportation. The “All

operations. Revenues are received from broad-based state taxes. There are differences in how specific functions are financed from state to state, however.

Other” category includes state functions not tracked individually in

Federal funds: Funds received directly from the federal

this report, such as hospitals, economic development, housing,

government.

environmental programs, health programs (including the State Child [4] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Other state funds: Expenditures from revenue sources that are restricted by law for particular governmental functions or activities.

Figure 4 TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION, FISCAL 2000

For example, a gasoline tax dedicated to a highway trust fund would appear in the “Other State Funds” column. For Medicaid,

Medicaid 19.5%

other state funds include provider taxes, fees, donations,

Public Assistance 2.4%

Corrections 3.8%

assessments, and local funds. Bonds: Expenditures from the sale of bonds, generally for capital

Transportation 8.8%

Higher Education 10.9%

projects. State funds: General fund plus other state fund spending, All Other 32.1%

excluding state spending from bonds.

Elementary & Secondary Education 22.5%

The fund source breakdown for fiscal 2000 state spending is provided in Figure 3. State general funds have remained stable, from 47.7 percent in 1998 and 1999 and 48.1 percent in 2000.The share of state spending from federal funds has increased slightly, from 25.2 percent in 1999 to 26.0 percent in 2000. Figure 3 TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES BY FUNDING SOURCE, FISCAL 2000

Figure 5 COMPOSITION OF TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION, FISCAL 1987 TO 2000

$1,000,000

Federal Funds 26.0% Bonds 1.9%

Amount In Millions

Other State Funds 24.0%

800,000

All Other

600,000

Transportation Corrections Medicaid

400,000

Public Assistance Higher Education

200,000 E & S Education

General Funds 48.1%

0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Fiscal Year

Figure 4 reflects total state expenditures by functional areas. For

The shares of state spending for functional areas have shifted since

fiscal 2000, state spending shares are as follows: 22.5 percent for

1987. For example, Medicaid surpassed higher education as the

elementary and secondary education, 19.5 percent for Medicaid,

second largest state program in 1990 and has remained in this

10.9 percent for higher education, 8.8 percent for transportation,

position throughout the 1990’s. Of all the functional areas, only

2.4 percent for public assistance, and 3.8 percent for corrections.

Medicaid and corrections represent a larger share of total state spending in fiscal 2000 than they represented in 1987, when this survey began. Figure 5 charts these changes. Table 3 reflects shares of state spending on functional areas, by fund source, from 1988 to 2001. Also,Table 5, at the end of the Executive Summary, highlights the share of each state’s budget represented by various programs in fiscal 2000 and shows the wide variation among states in their spending patterns. 2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[5]

Table 1 TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES—CAPITAL INCLUSIVE ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

General Fund

Actual Fiscal 1999 Other Federal State Funds Funds Bonds

Total

General Fund

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other Federal State Funds Funds Bonds

Total

General Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other Federal State Funds Funds Bonds

$10,251 2,154 16,214 941 1,863 772

$2,839 1,356 5,456 923 1,231 722

$1,525 897 1,488 625 806 488

$1,145 72 1,000 55 73 38

$15,760 4,479 24,158 2,544 3,973 2,020

$11,201 2,317 18,109 1,046 2,037 859

$2,985 1,495 5,721 974 1,291 831

$2,617 986 1,712 1,323 849 504

$1,293 48 990 52 94 37

$18,096 4,846 26,532 3,395 4,271 2,231

$11,281 2,696 17,709 1,078 2,215 866

$3,230 1,786 5,921 1,004 1,521 887

$2,361 1,405 1,886 1,351 914 582

$1,332 98 1,248 61 144 46

$18,204 5,985 26,764 3,494 4,794 2,381

2,153 8,544 18,070 33,717 18,263

682 3,533 5,372 20,680 10,679

1,733 4,596 2,669 15,037 7,261

133 443 843 1,906 660

4,701 17,116 26,954 71,340 36,863

2,246 9,032 19,459 34,281 19,295

749 3,780 5,597 23,470 11,024

1,849 5,055 3,748 14,296 7,584

171 449 868 1,526 562

5,015 18,316 29,672 73,573 38,465

2,482 10,110 20,768 37,063 19,892

780 4,278 6,888 24,724 12,504

1,850 5,147 3,043 16,136 8,675

156 472 1,070 1,543 1,035

5,268 20,007 31,769 79,466 42,106

15,701 6,585 9,273 18,017 9,846

6,830 3,773 7,320 4,414 4,349

8,330 4,654 16,797 12,714 8,602

515 123 316 1,066 0

31,376 15,135 33,706 36,211 22,797

17,163 7,437 9,360 19,244 11,270

7,405 4,091 7,965 4,800 5,035

9,576 5,117 17,222 13,548 9,880

940 236 400 1,224 0

35,084 16,881 34,947 38,816 26,185

18,087 7,526 9,741 21,477 11,076

7,954 4,312 9,777 5,832 4,700

10,797 4,664 17,433 15,610 5,028

1,466 35 323 1,215 0

38,304 16,537 37,274 44,134 20,804

4,529 4,196 11,177 7,063 2,235 776 730

2,516 2,089 3,433 3,899 1,355 810 706

3,604 1,907 2,658 4,202 1,768 534 499

35 115 307 64 0 3 2

10,684 8,307 17,575 15,228 5,358 2,123 1,937

4,763 4,368 11,689 7,350 2,345 773 764

2,770 2,169 3,738 4,421 1,503 917 783

4,086 1,498 2,707 4,162 1,953 527 558

33 381 313 82 0 39 4

11,652 8,416 18,447 16,015 5,801 2,256 2,109

4,882 4,429 13,216 7,812 2,459 826 794

2,865 2,530 4,337 4,871 1,574 835 910

3,707 1,814 3,485 4,062 1,659 584 596

33 357 335 342 0 22 4

11,487 9,130 21,373 17,087 5,692 2,267 2,304

4,919 2,982 17,627 13,540 6,337 5,818 3,147 12,962 5,128 6,506 9,565 2,155

4,501 2,037 9,298 8,774 4,221 4,204 2,824 6,122 5,184 5,229 3,504 1,955

4,255 4,374 16,438 968 4,136 4,857 2,519 4,162 3,090 2,812 7,463 1,789

0 97 2,192 955 0 363 330 450 85 245 369 167

13,675 9,490 45,555 24,237 14,694 15,242 8,820 23,696 13,487 14,792 20,901 6,066

5,220 3,119 18,452 14,960 6,549 5,811 3,450 14,094 5,636 6,807 10,533 2,242

4,406 2,224 10,737 9,328 4,633 4,295 3,092 6,942 5,987 5,780 3,721 2,187

5,104 4,671 18,307 1,012 1,471 5,312 2,855 4,601 4,949 3,098 7,823 1,797

0 79 1,312 565 0 218 258 200 320 124 287 256

14,730 10,093 48,808 25,865 12,653 15,636 9,655 25,837 16,892 15,809 22,364 6,482

5,248 3,261 20,049 14,472 7,040 6,134 3,596 14,050 5,759 7,568 10,850 2,240

5,545 2,480 10,749 9,710 4,953 4,782 3,514 6,134 6,672 6,719 3,726 2,537

6,487 5,015 18,604 892 1,790 5,593 3,094 4,017 5,012 3,430 8,179 1,642

0 99 1,815 664 0 109 507 650 705 185 242 291

17,280 10,855 51,217 25,738 13,783 16,618 10,711 24,851 18,148 17,902 22,997 6,710

5,906 3,028 4,394 24,883

3,444 2,091 2,933 13,394

4,798 1,739 2,622 7,001

224 0 53 0

14,372 6,858 10,002 45,278

6,012 3,526 4,454 27,329

3,545 2,269 2,822 14,400

5,116 2,474 3,093 7,736

251 0 226 0

14,924 8,269 10,595 49,465

6,385 3,810 5,065 29,232

3,788 2,837 3,407 15,113

5,398 2,463 3,190 8,117

287 0 218 0

15,858 9,110 11,880 52,462

4,681 1,611 1,037 3,248 0

2,790 1,018 955 1,480 0

4,034 738 625 1,388 0

0 5 0 289 0

11,505 3,372 2,617 6,405 0

5,035 1,681 1,101 3,364 0

3,105 1,099 1,027 1,539 0

4,127 851 655 1,535 0

0 5 0 123 0

12,267 3,636 2,783 6,561 0

5,285 1,844 1,249 3,792 0

3,132 1,364 1,252 1,625 0

4,516 1,008 645 1,723 0

439 5 0 15 0

13,372 4,221 3,146 7,155 0

2,314 57,827 3,251 1,583 4,125 9,826

1,489 34,375 1,015 959 2,457 4,738

1,174 14,736 1,911 4,405 2,999 5,190

200 2,697 319 228 359 666

5,177 109,635 6,496 7,175 9,940 20,420

2,262 66,494 3,201 1,573 5,286 10,210

1,844 37,303 1,017 1,029 2,419 5,295

1,139 15,787 2,275 1,992 2,348 5,374

0 2,583 291 0 602 602

5,245 122,167 6,784 4,594 10,655 21,481

2,300 78,816 3,391 1,629 4,841 10,627

1,928 41,199 1,066 1,182 2,972 5,656

1,355 15,560 2,553 2,502 4,234 3,737

167 5,048 513 100 434 765

5,750 140,623 7,523 5,413 12,481 20,785

$421,470 $225,958

$213,617

$19,207

$880,252

$454,809 $245,559

$226,859

$18,044

$945,271

$487,018

$268,062

$233,545

8,870

0

19,261

7,956

0

19,107

7,611

4,380

9,207

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington TOTAL

Puerto Rico

6,714

3,677

7,122

4,028

Note: See General Notes at the end of this chapter. Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[6] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

$24,595 $1,013,220

0

21,198

Table 2 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Region/State

Fiscal 2000 to 2001

State

Federal

All

State

Federal

All

Funds

Funds

Funds

Funds

Funds

Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

17.3% 8.3 12.0 51.3 8.1 8.2

5.1% 10.3 4.9 5.5 4.9 15.1

14.8% 8.2 9.8 33.5 7.5 10.4

-1.3% 24.2 -1.1 2.5 8.4 6.2

8.2% 19.5 3.5 3.1 17.8 6.7

0.6% 23.5 0.9 2.9 12.2 6.7

5.4 7.2 11.9 -0.4 5.3

9.8 7.0 4.2 13.5 3.2

6.7 7.0 10.1 3.1 4.3

5.8 8.3 2.6 9.5 6.3

4.1 13.2 23.1 5.3 13.4

5.0 9.2 7.1 8.0 9.5

11.3 11.7 2.0 6.7 14.6

8.4 8.4 8.8 8.7 15.8

11.8 11.5 3.7 7.2 14.9

8.0 -2.9 2.2 13.1 -23.9

7.4 5.4 22.7 21.5 -6.7

9.2 -2.0 6.7 13.7 -20.5

8.8 -3.9 4.1 2.2 7.4 -0.8 7.6

10.1 3.8 8.9 13.4 10.9 13.2 10.9

9.1 1.3 5.0 5.2 8.3 6.3 8.9

-2.9 6.4 16.0 3.1 -4.2 8.5 5.1

3.4 16.6 16.0 10.2 4.7 -8.9 16.2

-1.4 8.5 15.9 6.7 -1.9 0.5 9.2

12.5 5.9 7.9 10.1 -23.4 4.2 11.3 9.2 28.8 6.3 7.8 2.4

-2.1 9.2 15.5 6.3 9.8 2.2 9.5 13.4 15.5 10.5 6.2 11.9

7.7 6.4 7.1 6.7 -13.9 2.6 9.5 9.0 25.2 6.9 7.0 6.9

13.7 6.2 5.2 -3.8 10.1 5.4 6.1 -3.4 1.8 11.0 3.7 -3.9

25.9 11.5 0.1 4.1 6.9 11.3 13.6 -11.6 11.4 16.2 0.1 16.0

17.3 7.5 4.9 -0.5 8.9 6.3 10.9 -3.8 7.4 13.2 2.8 3.5

4.0 25.9 7.6 10.0

2.9 8.5 -3.8 7.5

3.8 20.6 5.9 9.2

5.9 4.6 9.4 6.5

6.9 25.0 20.7 5.0

6.3 10.2 12.1 6.1

5.1 7.8 5.7 5.7 —-

11.3 8.0 7.5 4.0 —-

6.6 7.8 6.3 2.4 —-

7.0 12.6 7.9 12.6 —-

0.9 24.1 21.9 5.6 —-

9.0 16.1 13.0 9.1 —-

-2.5 13.4 6.1 —7.2 3.8

23.8 8.5 0.2 —-1.5 11.8

1.3 11.4 4.4 —7.2 5.2

7.5 14.7 8.5 15.9 18.9 -7.8

4.6 10.4 4.8 14.9 22.9 6.8

9.6 15.1 10.9 17.8 17.1 -3.2

7.3%

8.7%

7.4%

5.7%

9.2%

7.2%

-3.2

9.5

-0.8

11.5

8.7

10.9

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington TOTAL

Puerto Rico

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded). *See General Notes for explanation. Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[7]

Table 3 COMPARISON OF SHARES OF STATE SPENDING WITH FUND SOURCES, FISCAL 1988 TO 2001

Fund Type & Year

Elementary & Secondary Education

Higher Education

Public Assistance

34.6 9.9 11.3 19.5 23.4

15.2 12.8 3.4 11.1 12.0

5.0 0.5 10.4 0.0 5.1

9.0 0.7 28.7 0.0 11.3

5.3 1.0 0.1 6.5 3.2

33.5 10.6 11.5 1.7 22.8

14.6 15.3 3.2 10.0 12.2

4.9 0.5 10.4 0.0 5.0

9.5 1.4 31.8 0.0 12.5

33.4 8.4 10.8 13.7 22.0

14.1 14.0 3.6 11.0 11.5

5.3 0.6 10.3 0.0 5.3

34.0 7.2 10.3 3.3 21.2

13.5 14.4 2.6 14.4 11.0

34.8 6.5 10.2 21.1 21.5

Medicaid Corrections Transportation

All Other

Total

1.3 26.9 12.8 21.0 10.1

29.7 48.2 33.4 41.9 35.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

5.5 0.8 0.1 14.5 3.4

1.3 25.7 12.8 30.1 9.9

30.8 45.7 30.2 43.7 34.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

10.5 2.5 34.7 0.0 14.2

5.7 0.7 0.1 13.9 3.5

1.1 26.0 10.2 28.7 9.4

29.9 47.7 30.4 32.6 34.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

5.1 0.5 8.9 0.0 4.9

12.1 6.5 40.9 0.0 17.8

5.6 0.6 0.1 11.9 3.2

0.8 23.9 9.5 34.6 9.1

28.8 47.0 27.7 35.8 32.9

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

13.1 15.1 2.6 14.6 10.8

5.1 0.5 7.3 0.0 4.5

13.3 7.1 40.8 0.0 18.8

5.7 0.6 0.1 9.4 3.1

0.9 23.1 9.5 22.3 8.7

27.2 47.2 29.6 32.6 32.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

33.9 6.7 9.8 5.7 20.4

13.0 14.3 2.7 26.7 10.8

4.9 0.4 6.7 0.0 4.2

14.2 6.5 42.5 0.0 19.7

6.2 0.7 0.1 12.1 3.4

0.9 23.8 9.5 20.6 9.0

27.0 47.6 28.6 34.9 32.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

33.4 9.5 9.8 4.9 21.0

12.9 13.3 2.7 20.8 10.4

4.4 0.5 6.5 0.0 4.0

14.4 6.9 42.7 0.0 19.8

6.7 0.8 0.1 10.2 3.6

0.7 23.8 9.8 26.3 9.1

27.4 45.2 28.3 37.7 32.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

34.4 9.2 9.9 15.2 21.5

12.9 13.7 2.9 21.4 10.7

3.9 0.4 5.9 0.0 3.5

14.7 6.8 43.5 0.0 19.9

6.9 0.8 0.2 6.5 3.7

0.9 22.9 9.5 26.1 8.8

27.3 46.2 28.0 30.8 31.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

34.5 10.1 9.8 12.5 21.7

13.0 13.8 2.9 20.2 10.7

3.6 0.4 5.1 0.0 3.1

14.6 6.4 44.1 0.0 20.0

6.8 0.9 0.4 6.6 3.7

0.8 23.0 8.8 26.5 9.0

26.7 44.6 28.9 34.2 31.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

35.2 9.4 10.5 12.4 22.0

13.1 11.3 3.4 18.4 10.3

3.0 1.0 5.0 0.0 2.9

14.8 6.3 43.3 0.0 19.6

6.9 0.8 0.4 6.0 3.7

0.7 22.2 8.7 33.4 8.8

26.4 49.1 28.8 29.8 32.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

35.7 9.0 10.2 21.0 22.3

12.4 13.0 5.2 17.2 10.8

2.7 0.6 4.3 0.0 2.6

14.4 6.5 42.9 0.0 19.5

7.1 1.0 0.4 6.5 3.9

0.9 23.4 9.3 25.6 9.1

26.7 46.5 27.7 29.8 31.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

35.7 9.9 10.5 18.0 22.5

12.2 13.9 5.2 19.1 10.9

2.5 0.8 4.0 0.0 2.4

14.4 6.3 42.6 0.0 19.5

7.0 0.9 0.4 7.3 3.8

0.9 22.8 9.3 26.0 8.8

27.3 46.3 28.0 28.0 32.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

35.7 9.9 10.5 18.0 22.6

12.2 14.0 5.0 16.1 10.8

2.4 0.8 3.7 0.0 2.3

14.7 6.6 41.7 0.0 19.6

6.9 0.9 0.4 4.0 3.7

1.3 22.2 9.7 28.0 9.0

26.9 45.6 29.0 33.9 31.9

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

34.5 8.9 10.4 12.8 21.9

12.3 12.7 3.3 15.0 10.2

4.1 0.6 6.8 0.0 3.8

13.1 5.4 40.0 0.0 17.9

6.3 0.8 0.2 8.9 3.5

0.9 23.8 10.0 26.9 9.1

27.9 46.7 29.1 34.3 32.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

FY 1989:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds FY 1990:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds FY 1991:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds FY 1992:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds FY 1993:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds FY 1994:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds FY 1995:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds FY 1996:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds FY 1997:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds FY 1998:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds FY 1999:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds FY 2000:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds FY 2001:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds FY 1988-00 Combined Total:

General Funds Other State Funds Federal Funds Bond Funds Total Funds

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[8] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

General Fund Expenditures

Other State Funds Expenditures

Elementary and secondary education absorb the largest portion of

Transportation accounted for the second largest portion of other

the general fund. As Figure 6 shows, 34.9 percent of fiscal 2000

state funds spending, 22.8 percent, second only to the “all other”

general fund spending was directed toward elementary and

functional area. For transportation, these funds largely represent

secondary education. Higher education accounted for 12.2 percent

receipts from gasoline taxes earmarked for highways. Both

of general fund spending while Medicaid accounted for 14.4

elementary and secondary and higher education functions also

percent of general fund spending. Figure 7 reflects the percentage

accounted for significant portions of the spending from other state

change for general fund spending in each of the functional

funds: elementary and secondary education at 9.9 percent, and

categories.

higher education at 13.9 percent.

Figure 6 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2000

Federal Fund Expenditures As reflected in Figure 8, Medicaid accounts for the largest portion

Public Assistance 2.5% Medicaid Higher Education 14.4% 12.2%

of state spending from federal funds at 42.6 percent. Elementary and secondary education and transportation, at 10.5 and 9.3 percent respectively, follow. Medicaid’s share of spending from

Corrections 7.0%

federal funds increased steadily from 1988 through 1992, when it began leveling off in the 40 to 44 percent range (see Table 3).

Transportation 0.9%

Expansions to the Medicaid program, increasing caseloads, and the increased use of provider taxes and voluntary contributions to secure matching federal funds all help to explain these increases.

All Other 27.3%

Elementary & Secondary Education 35.7%

Figure 8 FEDERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2000

Figure 7 PERCENT CHANGE IN GENERAL FUND, FISCAL 2000 AND 2001

Elementary & Secondary Education 10.5%

Transportation 9.3%

8.0 E & S Education

All Other 28.0%

Corrections 0.4%

6.9

Higher Education 5.2%

5.6 Higher Education

Public Assistance 4.0%

7.4 -0.9

Public Assistance

1999-2000

Medicaid 42.6%

1.7 2000-2001 7.9

Medicaid

9.0

R e g i o n a l S p e n d i n g Tr e n d s

6.7 Corrections

6.5

Table 4 shows growth rates for each region of the United States, 3.5

separated by state funds (general fund plus other state funds, not

Transportation

52.8

including bond funds) and federal funds.

10.3 All Other

-10

The 1999-2000 growth rates for all funds for Rocky Mountain,

5.3 0

10

Plains and Mid Atlantic states are below the national average, with 20

30

40

50

60

growth rates for the New England, Southeast, Southwest, and Great

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[9]

Lakes states exceeding the national average. Growth rates for the Far West states almost mirror the national average. For state funds, growth rates in most regions are similar to the trends for all funds. The growth and decline of federal funds by region varies considerably. Table 4 REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2000 AND 2001 Fiscal 1999 to 2000

Fiscal 2000 to 2001

Region

State Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

New England Mid-Atlantic Great Lakes Plains Southeast Southwest Rocky Mountain Far West

14.6% 4.3 8.4 3.6 7.0 9.9 5.7 7.9

6.1% 9.0 9.8 10.1 9.5 5.4 8.4 8.6

12.2% 5.1 9.1 5.7 6.7 8.8 5.6 7.6

1.8% 7.1 1.4 5.9 3.9 6.6 9.3 11.5

7.9% 10.2 11.2 9.9 6.6 9.2 8.9 10.4

3.8% 8.2 3.4 7.2 5.3 7.3 10.5 12.7

7.3%

8.7%

7.4%

5.7%

9.2%

7.2%

ALL STATES

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

Figure 9 shows the percentage change in state spending from state funds for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The New England region in particular experienced above average growth in 1999-2000. Total state expenditure data can be found on Tables 1-5, along with related footnotes at the end of this chapter. Chapter Eight contains tables reflecting total capital spending data reported by the states, and Chapter Nine contains the major general revenue sources reported by the states.

Percent Change From Previous Year

Figure 9 REGIONAL PERCENT CHANGE IN STATE FUNDS, FISCAL 2000 AND 2001 15

1999-2000 Increases 2000-2001 Increases

12

9

6

3

[10] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Region

Southwest

Southeast

Plains

Great Lakes

Mid-Atlantic

New England

0

Table 5 STATE SPENDING BY FUNCTION AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2000

Region/State

Elementary & Secondary Education

Higher Education

Public Assistance

13.8% 19.9 14.4 28.7 16.6 20.5

9.4% 4.3 5.3 4.4 10.4 3.1

3.0% 4.5 2.3 1.3 4.7 3.0

26.2% 24.8 19.3 24.2 25.8 23.5

2.7% 2.0 2.9 2.3 3.4 3.1

22.3 17.5 22.5 20.7 18.8

5.5 15.8 7.6 7.0 5.2

1.3 0.8 1.1 4.8 2.8

10.1 16.5 14.1 34.5 27.9

20.9 25.6 31.6 18.2 19.5

7.4 9.5 6.8 7.0 11.9

1.8 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.9

19.7 29.5 24.9 24.1 16.7 17.3 13.7

25.1 17.3 10.7 6.8 22.6 10.8 15.7

25.0 19.5 18.7 24.7 26.3 19.5 21.1 23.6 16.9 18.6 18.1 26.0

Medicaid Corrections Transportation

All Other

Total

6.2% 9.1 10.7 12.0 7.0 12.2

38.8% 35.5 45.1 27.2 32.2 34.6

100.0% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

4.0 4.6 3.5 4.0 3.9

8.1 13.2 7.1 6.0 10.0

48.8 31.6 44.2 22.9 31.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

21.5 17.6 19.4 18.9 11.0

3.8 3.7 5.3 4.8 3.3

9.3 9.6 8.2 8.4 7.3

35.3 33.5 27.4 41.7 46.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1.2 0.6 2.2 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.5

13.0 7.2 18.5 18.4 16.8 17.3 19.4

2.6 3.6 2.1 2.9 3.1 1.8 2.5

10.3 9.0 9.2 9.1 10.0 14.6 17.1

28.2 32.8 32.5 37.5 29.9 37.7 31.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

24.3 15.9 9.5 14.5 18.4 13.4 18.5 13.0 16.1 12.5 14.3 18.3

0.2 2.9 0.5 1.5 1.7 0.4 0.8 1.8 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.8

19.3 16.2 15.7 14.3 24.3 22.0 21.2 19.4 16.1 28.7 12.2 21.5

2.1 2.0 3.4 4.5 3.2 3.7 2.8 3.6 3.1 2.7 4.5 1.4

6.9 6.7 13.0 7.0 4.2 7.4 9.8 11.3 7.7 6.8 12.9 15.9

22.2 36.8 39.1 33.4 21.9 33.7 25.9 27.3 39.8 29.9 37.4 16.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

19.6 24.1 24.3 30.3

13.9 21.0 15.6 13.6

0.8 3.5 1.6 0.5

13.9 14.5 15.5 22.8

4.6 2.1 3.8 5.7

11.0 8.5 9.6 9.3

36.1 26.3 29.6 17.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

19.0 28.6 20.6 27.2 —-

11.5 9.4 10.5 12.2 —-

2.8 1.2 1.0 1.4 —-

17.1 16.6 15.9 11.8 —-

3.6 3.9 3.5 4.1 —-

16.3 10.3 16.2 11.9 —-

29.7 30.0 32.3 31.4 —-

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

17.8 27.4 17.1 17.0 29.5 23.9

8.2 9.5 8.3 9.4 9.8 16.3

2.5 7.3 2.6 0.8 2.7 2.7

9.3 16.5 8.5 12.6 21.4 20.0

3.6 4.1 2.1 3.6 8.1 3.4

23.9 5.9 11.6 11.4 6.8 6.6

34.8 29.4 49.7 45.2 23.2 27.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

ALL STATES

22.5%

10.9%

2.4%

19.5%

3.8%

8.8%

32.1%

100.0%

11.9

5.1

0.5

1.9

2.4

7.1

71.2

100.0

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Puerto Rico

Note: Percentages may not add to 100. Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[11]

General Notes

In fiscal 2000 the trust fund amounts included $28.6 million for K12 education, $207.5 million for higher education, $10.3 million for

In reviewing the tables, please note the following: •

Small dollar amounts, when rounded, cause an aberration in the percentage increase. In these instances, the actual dollar



corrections and $243.9 million for all other state agencies. For comparison purposes with prior years, the “Other Funds” figures should be increased by the trust fund amounts for fiscal 2000.

amounts should be consulted to determine the exact

Ohio: Certain federal reimbursements and block grants for certain

percentage increase.

human services programs (Medicaid,TANF, etc.) are deposited into

“State funds” refers to general funds plus other state fund spending. State spending from bonds is excluded.

the state’s General Revenue Fund. Expenditures of these federal funds are contained in the General Fund number in this report to be consistent with other portrayals of Ohio’s general fund. This



“Total funds” refers to funding from all sources-general fund,

amounts to $3,589.1 million fiscal 1999 and $3,830.2 million in fiscal

federal funds, other state funds, and bonds.

2000. This has an impact on percentage of total general fund expenditure calculations as well as on comparisons of Ohio’s



The report methodology is detailed in the Appendix.

All States: Medicaid reflects provider taxes, fees, assessments, donations, and local funds in Other State Funds.

federal funding levels. Also, inherent in Ohio’s budgetary accounting environment are significant overstatements of total spending due to two

Massachusetts: “General Funds” encompasses Massachusetts’s

phenomena. First, fiduciary fund expenditures represent the

three major funds-General, Highway and Local Aid Funds.

distribution of funds collected by the state on behalf of other

Massachusetts uses all three funds in the manner that most states,

entities.These are not operating, program, or subsidy expenditures

which typically have far fewer dedicated funds, use just their

for the state.These expenditures total $4,898 million in fiscal 1999

General Fund.

and $5,016 million in fiscal 2000.

Missouri: General revenue includes refunds required by the

Additionally,“double counting” of revenue and expenditures related

Missouri Constitution for revenues received in excess of the

to intrastate transactions overstates overall state expenditure

revenue limit: in fiscal 1999, this totaled $98.9 million. Federal and

activity.The overstatement is primarily found in general services and

other funds for fiscal 2001 represent appropriations available to

intergovernmental service funds. Expenditure activity from these

state agencies. These appropriations establish ceilings on what

funds totals $752.9 million in fiscal 1999 and $851.3 million in fiscal

agencies may spend. These appropriations are often established at

2000. This results in Ohio’s “All Other” expenditures as a

higher levels to provide agencies with appropriation authority in the

percentage of the total being overstated, and consequently other

event that revenues are available for various programs. Final

areas being understated.

expenditures will be substantially lower. Other funds include federal reimbursements received by the Department of Highways and Transportation and the Department of Conservation that have constitutionally created funds. With implementation of the state’s

Ohio appropriates capital appropriations on a biennial basis rather than an annual basis, therefore, the amounts shown for fiscal 2001 are estimates. Footnotes for fiscal 2000 are also applicable to fiscal 2001 estimates, but amounts cannot be provided at this time.

new financial management system substantial changes have been made to reclassify federal and other funds and eliminate double

Tennessee: Tennessee collects personal income tax on income

counting of expenditures.

from dividends on stocks and interest on certain bonds.

Nebraska: Fiscal 2001 “Other Funds” figures do not include trust

Tax revenue estimates do not include federal funds and other

funds because those funds are not appropriated.They are recorded

depar tmental revenues. However, federal funds and other

as expenditures in the state accounting system and the amounts

departmental revenues are included in the budget as funding

spent are included in the totals for both fiscal 1999 and fiscal 2000.

sources for the general fund, along with state tax revenues.

[12] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

CHAPTER ONE ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION 22.5% of State Expenditures

Elementary and secondary education constitute the largest state

and increase flexibility with flexible funding increased at the local

expenditure category with $212.7 billion in total expenditures for

level; and empower parents by giving students in persistently low-

2000. Its growth outpaced that of total state expenditures: overall

perfuming schools choice to attend other schools.

state expenditures between 1999 to 2000 increased 7.4 percent, while elementary and secondary education spending increased

This year, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act also will focus federal attention on education. The

8.1 percent.

law contains both formula and competitive programs to support On average, elementary and secondary education constitute 22.5

education activities at the state and local level. Through these

percent of total state spending and nearly 35 percent of state

programs, the federal contribution to education spending is an

general fund spending. Between 1999 and 2000, nine states had at

estimated 7 percent of the overall funding for education activities.

least double-digit percentage increases. Despite the current economic slowdown, governors in many states are making elementary and secondary education their highest priority, indicating continued growth in spending for fiscal year 2002.

The president’s proposed reform consolidates many of the education programs into several goal-oriented programs: Achieving Excellence through High Standards and Accountability; Improving Teacher Quality; Moving Limited English Proficient Students to

States’ focus on elementary and secondary education includes

English Fluency; Promoting Parental Options and Innovative

increased efforts to ensure accountability, provide teacher training,

Programs; Encouraging Safe Schools for the 21st Century; Providing

reduce classroom size and provide more technology instruction.

Impact; and Encouraging Freedom and Accountability.

States also are grappling with the need to provide adequate funds for school construction and renovation and the relative roles of state and local governments in providing the funds needed for

The President also has proposed to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The law was enacted in 1990 as amendments to the Education for All

school repairs.

Handicapped Children Act.This law provides states with funding as The following areas are the focus of many states’ efforts to improve

well as mandates to provide a free and appropriate education and

elementary and secondary education:

procedural safeguards for all children with disabilities without regard to costs incurred by states and localities. Although the



Establishing assessment and accountability standards to set clear expectations for learning;





federal government committed to provide funding for 40 percent of Part B services under IDEA, it currently contributes only 12.6 percent.

Creating or revising school finance structures, including funding for facilities;

School Litigation

Providing some opportunities for public school choice, often

Courts continue to play a role in setting funding policies for

through intra-district enrollment or charter schools;

education. Since 1971, most states have been subject to lawsuits



Improving teacher quality through professional development;



Expanding early childhood development education programs;



Expanding technology capacities;



Promoting extra learning opportunities such as summer

seeking to reform their funding systems for education.These cases are litigated on the basis of state rather than federal constitutional language and generally either seek greater equity in funding among school districts or a guaranteed level of “adequate” funding for

reading programs.

education. Eighteen state supreme courts have found the finance systems unconstitutional and many states are still actively involved in litigation. Even in states where litigation has not occurred or has not succeeded, the prospect of lawsuits has prompted revisions of

At the federal level, the President’s fiscal 2002 budget contains

state funding policy.

proposals to increase resources for elementary and secondary education. These funds would: increase accountability for student performance with annual state reading and math assessments in grades 3-8; focus on what works by using targeted funds to improve schools and enhance teacher quality; reduce bureaucracy

[14] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

In addition to challenges focusing on school operating budgets, in at least 37 states school construction and renovation of facilities are the focus of legal challenges. The listing on the next pages provide details regarding litigation.

Sources of Funding

Charter Schools

States fund almost 50 percent of total school costs, while local

More and more states are moving quickly to set up charter schools

governments contribute approximately 43 percent and the federal

while some states and school districts are debating their merits.The

government contributes the remaining 7 percent. Local

charter school movement developed out of a belief that schools

government contributions primarily are from local property taxes

formed by teachers, parents, school boards, and community

while state contributions primarily are raised through income and

members will provide new models of schooling and incentives that

sales taxes. State funds for education as a percentage of total

will improve the current system of public education.

funding range from nearly 89.1 percent in Hawaii to 8.2 percent in New Hampshire.

A contract specifies how each charter school will operate and what must be done in order for it to receive funding.The charter school

A number of states have moved toward increasing their share of

is accountable for improving student performance and achieving

funding for elementary and secondary education by substituting

the goals of the charter. In several states, charter schools are not

state funds for local funds, often in order to reduce the reliance on

subject to most regulations that otherwise apply to public schools;

local property taxes. Funds are distributed to schools as both

however, in other states, charter laws are more restrictive. Research

general funds on a per-pupil basis and as categorical grants to

on the impact of charter schools remains inconclusive, with some

support specific programs or needs.The federal share is a source of

researchers maintaining that it is difficult to measure the overall

supplemental funding for poor school districts and also helps pay

impact school choice has had on students or the education system.

the cost of educating handicapped children. Since the first charter school opened in St. Paul, Minnesota, in September 1992, the charter school movement has grown

Distributing State Funds to School Districts The average amount of state funds provided on a per pupil basis varies greatly from one state to another. States may use a variety of methods to provide aid to school districts. The most common methods are by flat grants, foundation programs, guaranteed tax

substantially. Currently, 36 states and the District of Columbia have charter schools, and the U.S. Department of Education estimates that over charter schools were in operation during the 2000-2001 school year. Charter schools face substantial challenges in financing and business operations as many state charter school laws do not provide start-up or capital funds and provide limited operational resources.

base programs, percentage equalization programs, full state funding, and pupil weights.

S e l e c t e d We b R e s o u r c e s

The National Governors Association, in “Financing America’s Public



U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov

Schools,” suggests that policymakers consider the following issues when redesigning a school finance system: • •

Education Commission of the States www.ecs.org

Guarantee districts a minimum level of funding per student supplemented by additional funds raised by the district; •



National Education Association www.nea.org

Use funding formulas to drive education reform rather than merely allocating money to school districts; •



U.S. Charter Schools Home Page www.uscharterschools.org

More closely link school funding formulas with school finance, governance and program reforms to improve student performance;



Council of Great City Schools www.cgcs.org



Provide local school districts with greater flexibility on how funds are spent and hold them accountability for the expenditure of the funds;



Provide financial assistance for school construction.

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[15]

Fund Shares

Elementary and Secondary Education— Expenditure Exclusions

Relative fund shares for 2000 are shown in the figure below. When comparing resources spent on elementary and secondary Figure 10 STATE EXPENDITURES FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION BY FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2000

education, it is important to understand the types of programs states include in these figures. For this report, 40 states wholly or partially included employer contributions for teacher pensions and 30 states wholly or partially included contributions for health

Federal Funds 12.2%

benefits. Among the states reporting, items that are excluded or partially excluded are: day care programs (40), school health care

Other State Funds 9.7%

(38), Head Start (30), and libraries (22). Summary expenditure data can be found on Tables 7-9,

Bonds 1.7%

accompanied by explanatory notes. Table 10 lists programs excluded from the expenditure data.

General Funds 76.4%

Regional Expenditures The following table shows percentage changes in expenditures for elementary and secondary education for fiscal 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. For 2000, states in the New England, Southwest and Far West are well above the national average, while the Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, Plains, Southeast and Rocky Mountain states are below the national average. Table 6 REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2000 AND 2001 Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Region

Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

19.3% 4.2 5.9 4.5 5.7 9.9 3.5 14.6 8.0%

12.4% 12.5 9.1 11.4 11.3 12.5 10.1 18.0 12.6%

18.8% 5.1 6.9 5.3 5.0 10.2 4.2 13.6 8.1%

6.0% 7.3 7.3 5.6 5.8 9.0 9.7 9.0 7.4%

4.1% 9.0 9.4 15.5 7.9 6.1 8.5 9.7 8.8%

5.6% 7.5 8.0 6.8 7.7 8.6 9.6 8.4 7.9%

New England Mid-Atlantic Great Lakes Plains Southeast Southwest Rocky Mountain Far West ALL STATES

[16] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Fiscal 2000 to 2001

State Funds

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 7 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

Actual Fiscal 1999 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts* New Hampshire* Rhode Island* Vermont

$1,684 813 3,159 58 563 255

$237 95 315 90 89 63

$15 1 11 65 1 84

$313 5 3 5 5 4

$2,249 914 3,488 218 658 406

$1,825 847 3,444 51 615 280

$259 112 363 96 94 75

$5 1 11 825 1 98

$404 2 5 4 1 5

$2,493 962 3,823 976 711 458

$1,840 956 3,741 55 670 270

$270 105 363 98 120 84

$5 1 11 825 2 109

$393 1 11 4 8 9

$2,508 1,063 4,126 982 800 472

654 2,630 5,940 10,975 6,134

70 441 407 1,814 889

271 1 12 1,584 2

36 0 0 0 0

1,031 3,072 6,359 14,373 7,025

698 2,709 6,202 11,851 6,194

80 492 448 2,001 1,053

301 2 15 1,408 2

38 0 0 0 0

1,117 3,203 6,665 15,260 7,249

720 2,774 6,759 12,908 6,490

90 537 546 1,963 1,303

330 78 17 1,456 2

35 0 0 0 0

1,175 3,389 7,322 16,327 7,795

5,177 2,473 462 4,722 4,333

1,139 380 862 852 357

121 1,249 9,137 940 139

91 0 0 141 0

6,528 4,102 10,461 6,655 4,829

5,582 2,613 460 5,050 4,648

1,346 401 887 899 384

102 1,300 9,685 936 62

297 0 0 164 0

7,327 4,314 11,032 7,049 5,094

5,832 2,730 422 5,539 4,959

1,382 380 1,090 1,047 385

205 1,417 10,439 1,058 58

400 0 0 257 0

7,819 4,527 11,951 7,901 5,402

1,825 2,178 3,738 2,214 753 268 286

260 227 449 481 168 68 0

84 46 28 967 45 30 0

0 0 17 0 0 0 0

2,169 2,451 4,232 3,662 966 366 286

1,929 2,221 4,019 2,250 760 283 287

288 245 534 533 165 77 0

75 20 30 1,076 43 31 1

0 0 19 0 0 0 0

2,292 2,486 4,602 3,859 968 391 288

1,990 2,274 4,391 2,378 739 285 300

303 259 621 681 178 85 0

82 37 34 1,183 26 29 3

0 0 20 0 0 0 0

2,375 2,570 5,066 4,242 943 399 303

2,694 1,431 6,749 4,829 2,822 2,250 1,213 5,038 1,552 2,405 3,577 1,351

458 215 948 815 406 552 370 510 326 422 263 196

334 217 355 321 28 225 228 54 489 12 12 30

0 0 674 86 0 0 0 450 0 0 0 75

3,486 1,863 8,726 6,051 3,256 3,027 1,811 6,052 2,367 2,839 3,852 1,652

2,817 1,494 7,087 5,112 2,850 2,300 1,352 5,451 1,742 2,467 3,763 1,381

504 251 1,116 905 446 587 375 587 367 464 283 213

359 220 476 268 28 166 307 57 631 13 5 40

0 0 455 93 0 0 5 0 121 0 0 52

3,680 1,965 9,134 6,378 3,324 3,053 2,039 6,095 2,861 2,944 4,051 1,686

2,952 1,549 7,598 5,499 2,976 2,351 1,426 5,836 1,846 2,567 3,906 1,425

654 273 1,152 914 487 694 431 490 395 499 301 289

384 239 494 420 31 191 371 41 564 22 3 48

0 0 712 106 0 0 0 395 250 0 0 74

3,990 2,061 9,956 6,939 3,494 3,236 2,228 6,762 3,055 3,088 4,210 1,836

2,242 1,647 1,716 10,989

410 143 294 1,921

87 62 458 448

0 0 0 0

2,739 1,852 2,468 13,358

2,401 1,761 1,771 12,218

447 158 316 2,192

78 76 488 597

0 0 0 0

2,926 1,995 2,575 15,007

2,507 1,785 1,990 13,305

459 174 341 2,329

88 192 587 672

0 0 0 0

3,054 2,151 2,918 16,306

1,914 816 469 1,488 0

222 94 73 212 0

84 68 2 49 0

0 0 0 0 0

2,220 978 544 1,749 0

2,036 841 486 1,535 0

242 109 85 226 0

51 89 2 21 0

0 0 0 0 0

2,329 1,039 573 1,782 0

2,156 897 513 1,722 0

266 131 85 236 0

115 86 3 60 0

0 0 0 0 0

2,537 1,114 601 2,018 0

744 23,528 939 507 1,852 4,508

111 3,511 127 68 212 337

35 56 28 197 175 250

0 1,849 125 0 150 3

890 28,944 1,219 772 2,389 5,098

770 27,638 903 553 2,437 4,604

119 4,132 120 113 296 372

44 51 28 117 303 168

0 1,655 111 0 112 0

933 33,476 1,162 783 3,148 5,144

764 30,603 1,181 571 2,068 4,829

133 4,570 125 128 293 405

41 46 39 140 453 273

0 1,707 28 0 15 0

938 36,926 1,373 839 2,829 5,507

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania* GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan* Ohio* Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico* Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii* Nevada* Oregon Washington TOTAL Puerto Rico

$150,564 $22,969 $19,137 1,494 570 10

$4,032 $196,702 0 2,074

$162,588 $25,857 $20,713 1,502 690 83

$3,543 $212,701 0 2,275

$173,844 $28,144 $23,010 1,635 743 5

$4,425 $229,423 0 2,383

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[17]

Table 8 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES Region/State

Fiscal 1999

Fiscal 2000

Fiscal 2001

14.3% 20.4 14.4 8.6 16.6 20.1

13.8% 19.9 14.4 28.7 16.6 20.5

13.8% 17.8 15.4 28.1 16.7 19.8

21.9 17.9 23.6 20.1 19.1

22.3 17.5 22.5 20.7 18.8

22.3 16.9 23.0 20.5 18.5

20.8 27.1 31.0 18.4 21.2

20.9 25.6 31.6 18.2 19.5

20.4 27.4 32.1 17.9 26.0

20.3 29.5 24.1 24.0 18.0 17.2 14.8

19.7 29.5 24.9 24.1 16.7 17.3 13.7

20.7 28.1 23.7 24.8 16.6 17.6 13.2

25.5 19.6 19.2 25.0 22.2 19.9 20.5 25.5 17.6 19.2 18.4 27.2

25.0 19.5 18.7 24.7 26.3 19.5 21.1 23.6 16.9 18.6 18.1 26.0

23.1 19.0 19.4 27.0 25.4 19.5 20.8 27.2 16.8 17.2 18.3 27.4

19.1 27.0 24.7 29.5

19.6 24.1 24.3 30.3

19.3 23.6 24.6 31.1

19.3 29.0 20.8 27.3 —-

19.0 28.6 20.6 27.2 —-

19.0 26.4 19.1 28.2 —-

17.2 26.4 18.8 10.8 24.0 25.0

17.8 27.4 17.1 17.0 29.5 23.9

16.3 26.3 18.3 15.5 22.7 26.5

22.3% 10.8

22.5% 11.9

22.6% 11.2

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico* Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[18] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 9 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENDITURES

Region/State

State Funds

Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Fiscal 2000 to 2001 Federal Funds

All Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

7.7% 4.2 9.0 612.2 9.2 11.5

9.3% 17.9 15.2 6.7 5.6 19.0

10.8% 5.3 9.6 347.7 8.1 12.8

0.8% 12.9 8.6 0.5 9.1 0.3

4.2% -6.3 0.0 2.1 27.7 12.0

0.6% 10.5 7.9 0.6 12.5 3.1

8.0 3.0 4.5 5.6 1.0

14.3 11.6 10.1 10.3 18.4

8.3 4.3 4.8 6.2 3.2

5.1 5.2 9.0 8.3 4.8

12.5 9.1 21.9 -1.9 23.7

5.2 5.8 9.9 7.0 7.5

7.3 5.1 5.7 5.7 5.3

18.2 5.5 2.9 5.5 7.6

12.2 5.2 5.5 5.9 5.5

6.2 6.0 7.1 10.2 6.5

2.7 -5.2 22.9 16.5 0.3

6.7 4.9 8.3 12.1 6.0

5.0 0.8 7.5 4.6 0.6 5.4 0.7

10.8 7.9 18.9 10.8 -1.8 13.2 —-

5.7 1.4 8.7 5.4 0.2 6.8 0.7

3.4 3.1 9.3 7.1 -4.7 0.0 5.2

5.2 5.7 16.3 27.8 7.9 10.4 —-

3.6 3.4 10.1 9.9 -2.6 2.0 5.2

4.9 4.0 6.5 4.5 1.0 -0.4 15.1 8.2 16.3 2.6 5.0 2.9

10.0 16.7 17.7 11.0 9.9 6.3 1.4 15.1 12.6 10.0 7.6 8.7

5.6 5.5 4.7 5.4 2.1 0.9 12.6 0.7 20.9 3.7 5.2 2.1

5.0 4.3 7.0 10.0 4.5 3.1 8.3 6.7 1.6 4.4 3.7 3.7

29.8 8.8 3.2 1.0 9.2 18.2 14.9 -16.5 7.6 7.5 6.4 35.7

8.4 4.9 9.0 8.8 5.1 6.0 9.3 10.9 6.8 4.9 3.9 8.9

6.4 7.5 3.9 12.0

9.0 10.5 7.5 14.1

6.8 7.7 4.3 12.3

4.7 7.6 14.1 9.1

2.7 10.1 7.9 6.3

4.4 7.8 13.3 8.7

4.5 5.2 3.6 1.2 —-

9.0 16.0 16.4 6.6 —-

4.9 6.2 5.3 1.9 —-

8.8 5.7 5.7 14.5 —-

9.9 20.2 0.0 4.4 —-

8.9 7.2 4.9 13.2 —-

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

4.5 17.4 -3.7 —35.2 0.3

7.2 17.7 -5.5 —39.6 10.4

4.8 15.7 -4.7 —31.8 0.9

-1.1 10.7 31.0 6.1 -8.0 6.9

11.8 10.6 4.2 13.3 -1.0 8.9

0.5 10.3 18.2 7.2 -10.1 7.1

ALL STATES Puerto Rico

8.0% 5.4

12.6% 21.1

8.1% 9.7

7.4% 3.5

8.8% 7.7

7.9% 4.7

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico* Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded). Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[19]

Table 10 ITEMS EXCLUDED FROM ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENDITURES

Region/State

Employer Contributions to Pensions

Employer Contributions to Health Benefits

X

X

X

X

Libraries

Day Care Programs

School Health Care/ Immunization

X

X

X

P P X X

P P X X

P P X X

P X X

X

X

X

X

X X X X

P P X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

P

X

X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X P X X X X

X X X

X

X X X X X X

X X X X

X

X X P

Head Start

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

X

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania

X

X P

GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin

P

P P

P X X

X X

PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota

X

X X X

X X

SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia

P P

P P X X

X

X P

X

X

X X

X

P X X

X

X

SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas

P

X X

X P

X P

X P

X

P

X

X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X X

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming

X

FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

P

ALL STATES Puerto Rico Excluded=X

X

X

X X

P

P

P

X

X X

X X

10

20

30 X

22

40

38

Partially Excluded=P

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[20] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Not Applicable=N/A

Elementary and Secondary Education Notes

New Mexico: Actual expenditure data for all funding sources are not available at this time. Therefore, rather than fiscal 1999 actual,

Small dollar amounts, when rounded, cause an aberration in the

fiscal 2000 budgeted is reported. Similarly in the fiscal 2000 column,

percentage increase. In these instances, the actual dollar amounts

fiscal 2001 budgeted is reported, and in the fiscal 2001 estimated

should be consulted to determine the exact percentage increase.

column, fiscal 2002 estimated is reported.

Hawaii: Employer contributions to pensions and employer

New Hampshire: The increase in fiscal 2000 expenditures

contributions to health benefits are excluded in fiscal 1999 and fiscal

reflects outlays from the state’s Education Trust Fund, which was

2000 figures but included in fiscal 2001.

established to provide adequacy grants to support statewide

Massachusetts: The state appropriation for school libraries is in

school funding.

the form of a recommended spending level that the localities may

Ohio: See General Notes for discussion of double counting issues

adopt or not and is included. The balance of funding for school

that affect percentage of total expenditure amounts.

libraries is from the localities and is excluded. Pennsylvania: Figures reflect funding in support of K-12 education Michigan: Figures reflect K-12 education, the Michigan Department

and the operation of the Pennsylvania Department of Education.

of Education, adult education and pre-school. Rhode Island: Local funds are excluded. Nevada: Vocational education is included, but reflects only private sector regulation.

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[21]

CHAPTER TWO HIGHER EDUCATION 10.9% of State Expenditures

Higher education spending generally reflects state support of

postsecondary institutions. To hold colleges and universities

community colleges, vocational education institutions, and state

accountable for the funds they receive from the state, thirty-seven

university systems. In 2000, states estimate they spent $103 billion

states now have programs that in part fund public campus based

on higher education. While higher education spending accounts for

on performance. Many public institutions are required to report on

10.9 percent of state budgets, it represents less than half of the

outcome and other measures, and two other methods which link

amount spent on elementary and secondary education. The

performance to budgeting are performance funding, with

primary funding source for higher education is general funds,

allocations linked directly to performance, and performance

providing nearly 54 percent to the total funding (See Figure 11).

budgeting, where performance is one of the factors considered in

Thirty-nine states include tuition and fees and thirty-two states

the allocation process. These methods are often added to the

include student loan programs in the state expenditures reported

traditional considerations of current costs, student enrollments, and

here (See Table 15).

inflationary increases.The increased use of these methods by states demonstrates a growing belief that performance and accountability

States report higher education spending growth between 1999 and

should play a role in allocating state resources to public education.

2000 to be 8.2 percent—slightly more than the growth in total state spending for the same period. Growth in higher education spending between 2000 and 2001 is estimated to increase by 6.3 percent—this reflects an anticipated 6.2 percent increase in state funds and a 5.2 percent increase in federal funds.

Community Colleges Policy makers are increasingly looking at two-year colleges with greater interest because of the variety of students they can serve and their relative low cost. Community colleges provide access to

Financing Issues

increasing numbers of students, retraining for displaced workers, training for those leaving the welfare rolls, and play pivotal roles in

Spending on higher education increased again this year. The caveat for higher education, however, is that the pattern continues to prove that state spending is closely tied to economic cycles and fluctuates widely as tax revenues rise or fall with changing economic conditions. Because higher education is one of the few remaining areas within state budgets for which spending is strictly discretionary, and because in most states higher education institutions have discretion to decide how reductions or

economic development efforts. Furthermore, community colleges often bear the responsibility for providing employment and language skills to growing immigrant communities, and for retraining current workers who must meet changing skill requirements in a more knowledge-based economy. Full-time tuition at community colleges, on average, is less than half of the average tuition at a public four-year institution, making it affordable to a wider population than four-year institutions.

adjustments will be implemented, funding remains vulnerable to these outside factors.

Enrollments in community colleges reached 10.5 million students in 1998 and, from all indications, enrollment will continue to grow.

As spending has increased for higher education, so have costs. The most common response to the increased costs has been, and continues to be, tuition increases. According to a survey by the Washington State Coordinating Board for Higher Education, tuition and fees for undergraduates at public four-year colleges and universities increased about 5 percent from 1999 to 2000. This increasing reliance on tuition as a revenue source could have significant financial implications for students in the future as states must manage their budgets during a cycle of falling revenues.

With this increased demand for community college services come questions regarding access and costs. In about half of the states, state funds provide the largest share of public two-year institutions’ total operating revenue; and every state community college system receives some level of state appropriations. Although state support has grown during the 1990s, community college leaders assert that these increases do not compensate for the enrollment growth that they have experienced. To compensate for the budget gaps, many states and community colleges have been forced to raise tuition. This, in turn, can price-out some students. States will be faced with

Pe r f o r m a n c e a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y

budgetary challenges in helping to accommodate the increased utilization of community colleges.

There is a growing trend by state policymakers and the public to ensure greater quality, productivity, and effectiveness among

[24] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Distance Learning

assistance to those who use the services, they will also have to answer other questions regarding equity of access to

Distance learning is becoming a common feature offered by a

postsecondary education, accreditation and quality assurance, and

growing number of post-secondary institutions, and research

pressures on existing organizational structures and arrangements.

indicates that it will become more common in the future.Through the use of many technologies, including Internet-based technologies and two-way interactive video, institutions are providing alternative opportunities to individuals with time and place constraints, such as working parents, students with disabilities, and workers seeking additional training for advancement.

Capital Spending In 2000 many states committed more spending to construction and renovation on public college and university campuses. The additional funds for capital spending are in large part due to strong

A National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) study reported

state economies and budget surpluses. Also contributing to the

that 34 percent of all higher education institutions offered distance

increase is the ability of states to obtain low interest rates on

education course during the 1997-1998 school year (most recent

construction related debt. While the additional funds for

year for which data is available) and enrolled more than 1.6 million

construction projects are welcomed, some college administrators

students. An estimated 54,000 different distance education courses

are concerned about the costs and available funding to maintain

were offered, most of which were college-level, credit granting

existing facilities. One state noted that 4 percent of their state

courses. Distance education is more likely to be conducted by

appropriation must be reserved for maintenance.

public institutions—78 percent of public four year institutions and 62 percent of public two year institutions offered distance

S e l e c t e d We b R e s o u r c e s

education courses. • The trend to increase distance learning opportunities, particularly

American Association of Community Colleges www.aacc.nche.edu

at public institutions, raises several fiscal questions for states, colleges and universities, and students. Some view distance learning



American Association of State Colleges and Universities www.aascu.org

as a cost savings approach to providing postsecondary education, but the costs in developing, implementing, and delivering the courses can also be substantial. Many institutions do not receive



www.acenet.edu

appropriations for these projects, rather, they reallocate funds within their existing budgets.



Education Commission of the States www.ecs.org

Students may also be impacted by the costs of developing distance education programs. The NCES study found that the additional

American Council on Education



costs or cost savings were not passed on to the students using this

The Institute for Higher Education Policy www.ihep.com

technology; about three-quarters of institutions charged the same tuition for the distance education courses as for comparable on-



National Association of State University and

campus courses. Furthermore, federal financial aid often is not

Land-Grant Colleges

available to students using distance learning opportunities because

www.nasulgc.org

of the nature of the institution offering the courses, the student being less than part-time, or both. Therefore, program costs and



www.ed.gov

financial aid regulations can limit access to those non-traditional students who can be best served through distance learning. States and institutions will face many questions and challenges as

U.S. Department of Education



Washington Higher Education Secretariat www.whes.org

the demand increases for distance learning opportunities. In addition to meeting the fiscal challenges of developing and implementing distance learning opportunities, and providing

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[25]

Figure 11 STATE EXPENDITURES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION BY FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2000 Other State Funds 30.6% Federal Funds 12.3% Bonds 3.3%

General Funds 53.8%

Table 11 REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2000 AND 2001 Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Region

Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

47.7% 5.5 6.8 4.4 10.2 13.3 5.1 -0.6 8.4%

42.5% -36.6 6.7 9.3 21.4 10.9 8.5 6.6 7.9%

45.6% 2.3 9.4 5.1 9.6 12.8 6.4 2.3 8.2%

4.6% 11.1 4.0 3.8 2.9 1.1 10.7 18.1 6.2%

3.0% 16.6 26.3 3.9 3.1 17.5 18.8 1.6 5.2%

5.4% 11.5 4.6 3.9 4.6 2.3 9.2 0.8 6.3%

New England Mid-Atlantic Great Lakes Plains Southeast Southwest Rocky Mountain Far West ALL STATES

[26] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Fiscal 2000 to 2001

State Funds

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 12 HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENDITURES—CAPITAL INCLUSIVE ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

Actual Fiscal 1999 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts* New Hampshire Rhode Island* Vermont

$499 187 1,002 91 161 59

$0 0 200 9 3 0

$0 1 71 33 251 0

$88 4 38 5 13 3

$587 192 1,311 138 428 62

$566 204 1,064 98 160 65

$80 0 209 8 5 0

$948 1 75 34 264 0

$98 4 47 8 15 4

$1,692 209 1,395 148 444 69

$550 242 1,090 101 170 67

$80 0 215 7 9 0

$1,018 1 77 34 288 0

$99 23 48 13 29 10

$1,747 266 1,430 155 496 77

197 953 1,560 2,635 1,642

17 373 14 123 416

34 1,222 532 2,017 117

18 88 14 171 102

266 2,636 2,120 4,946 2,277

212 1,068 1,663 2,531 1,739

19 403 15 117 44

39 1,305 568 2,246 137

4 113 2 241 61

274 2,889 2,248 5,135 1,981

225 1,369 1,975 2,760 1,867

20 462 20 131 64

35 1,422 616 2,370 142

10 155 0 175 149

290 3,408 2,611 5,436 2,222

2,231 1,321 1,923 2,301 1,106

6 3 3 5 561

169 4 0 4 1,264

102 26 46 264 0

2,508 1,354 1,972 2,574 2,931

2,345 1,396 2,038 2,432 1,145

5 3 4 5 600

139 7 153 1 1,367

115 191 195 268 0

2,604 1,597 2,390 2,706 3,112

2,473 1,470 2,107 2,559 1,193

131 4 4 8 632

85 14 188 2 1,369

179 35 130 399 0

2,868 1,523 2,429 2,968 3,194

861 533 1,746 965 455 160 117

253 240 42 1 120 0 44

1,634 599 12 141 614 90 145

0 6 87 0 0 3 2

2,748 1,378 1,887 1,107 1,189 253 308

901 638 1,793 927 480 159 125

269 241 39 2 166 1 47

1,752 567 24 161 666 80 156

0 6 117 0 0 3 4

2,922 1,452 1,973 1,090 1,312 243 332

930 673 1,893 1,067 536 174 126

274 241 40 5 185 1 49

1,781 597 38 186 509 86 157

0 6 115 0 0 15 4

2,985 1,517 2,086 1,258 1,230 276 336

1,035 492 2,746 1,908 1,057 863 610 2,209 746 973 1,321 373

525 1 145 1,096 269 120 80 37 21 90 318 236

1,821 1,003 1,132 234 1,417 910 845 900 103 802 1,152 461

0 53 493 174 0 103 51 0 58 196 171 36

3,381 1,549 4,516 3,412 2,743 1,996 1,586 3,146 928 2,061 2,962 1,106

1,100 526 3,022 1,933 910 916 694 2,365 804 992 1,540 393

567 1 150 1,277 297 128 87 37 350 76 343 254

1,913 1,049 1,168 333 1,119 975 905 949 1,510 877 1,165 505

0 31 307 202 0 71 99 0 57 27 149 32

3,580 1,607 4,647 3,745 2,326 2,090 1,785 3,351 2,721 1,972 3,197 1,184

1,159 543 3,207 2,082 1,059 974 703 2,353 781 1,062 1,445 409

519 2 157 1,331 308 144 108 33 356 116 343 262

1,818 1,101 1,369 321 1,503 923 957 939 1,122 907 1,206 520

0 34 402 271 0 48 119 250 217 67 116 33

3,496 1,680 5,135 4,005 2,870 2,089 1,887 3,575 2,476 2,152 3,110 1,224

890 517 887 3,997

293 196 134 105

776 857 273 1,833

0 0 48 0

1,959 1,570 1,342 5,935

892 544 813 4,512

341 221 136 109

845 975 690 2,091

0 0 17 0

2,078 1,740 1,656 6,712

918 569 941 4,466

349 346 140 113

886 764 777 2,165

0 0 27 0

2,153 1,679 1,885 6,744

666 246 116 527 0

15 3 36 5 0

667 87 124 172 0

0 0 0 11 0

1,348 336 276 715 0

711 259 125 546 0

15 2 37 10 0

687 81 130 199 0

0 1 0 43 0

1,413 343 292 798 0

743 273 132 690 0

16 3 52 5 0

749 120 130 195 0

0 1 0 0 0

1,508 397 314 890 0

169 5,142 306 316 518 1,135

50 4,711 19 9 49 734

197 678 214 150 917 1,052

54 295 44 132 0 301

470 10,826 583 607 1,484 3,222

176 5,469 281 306 612 1,222

56 5,016 10 5 51 799

198 686 196 122 293 1,173

0 435 75 0 93 315

430 11,606 562 433 1,049 3,509

186 6,587 392 315 610 1,323

78 5,006 10 7 65 865

281 685 223 137 619 1,322

62 366 28 0 29 298

607 12,644 653 459 1,323 3,808

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland* New Jersey New York Pennsylvania* GREAT LAKES

Illinois* Indiana* Michigan* Ohio* Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama* Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico* Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana* Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii* Nevada Oregon Washington TOTAL Puerto Rico

$52,470 $11,730 $27,731 520 169 317

$3,300 $95,231 0 1,006

$55,412 $12,657 $31,524 567 161 249

$3,450 $103,043 0 977

$59,539 $13,316 $32,754 634 169 252

$3,962 $109,571 0 1,055

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[27]

Table 13 HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES Region/State

Fiscal 1999

Fiscal 2000

Fiscal 2001

3.7% 4.3 5.4 5.4 10.8 3.1

9.4% 4.3 5.3 4.4 10.4 3.1

9.6% 4.4 5.3 4.4 10.3 3.2

5.7 15.4 7.9 6.9 6.2

5.5 15.8 7.6 7.0 5.2

5.5 17.0 8.2 6.8 5.3

8.0 8.9 5.9 7.1 12.9

7.4 9.5 6.8 7.0 11.9

7.5 9.2 6.5 6.7 15.4

25.7 16.6 10.7 7.3 22.2 11.9 15.9

25.1 17.3 10.7 6.8 22.6 10.8 15.7

26.0 16.6 9.8 7.4 21.6 12.2 14.6

24.7 16.3 9.9 14.1 18.7 13.1 18.0 13.3 6.9 13.9 14.2 18.2

24.3 15.9 9.5 14.5 18.4 13.4 18.5 13.0 16.1 12.5 14.3 18.3

20.2 15.5 10.0 15.6 20.8 12.6 17.6 14.4 13.6 12.0 13.5 18.2

13.6 22.9 13.4 13.1

13.9 21.0 15.6 13.6

13.6 18.4 15.9 12.9

11.7 10.0 10.5 11.2 —-

11.5 9.4 10.5 12. —-

11.3 9.4 10.0 12.4 —-

9.1 9.9 9.0 8.5 14.9 15.8

8.2 9.5 8.3 9.4 9.8 16.3

10.6 9.0 8.7 8.5 10.6 18.3

10.8% 5.2

10.9% 5.1

10.8% 5.0

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[28] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 14 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENDITURES

Region/State

State Funds

Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Fiscal 2000 to 2001 Federal Funds

All Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

203.4% 9.0 6.2 6.5 2.9 10.2

0.0% —4.5 -11.1 66.7 —-

188.2% 8.9 6.4 7.2 3.7 11.3

3.6% 18.5 2.5 2.3 8.0 3.1

0.0% —2.9 -12.5 80.0 —-

3.3% 27.3 2.5 4.7 11.7 11.6

8.7 9.1 6.6 2.7 6.7

11.8 8.0 7.1 -4.9 -89.4

3.0 9.6 6.0 3.8 -13.0

3.6 17.6 16.1 7.4 7.1

5.3 14.6 33.3 12.0 45.5

5.8 18.0 16.1 5.9 12.2

3.5 5.9 13.9 5.6 6.0

-16.7 0.0 33.3 0.0 7.0

3.8 17.9 21.2 5.1 6.2

3.0 5.8 4.7 5.3 2.0

2,520.0 33.3 0.0 60.0 5.3

10.1 -4.6 1.6 9.7 2.6

6.3 6.4 3.4 -1.6 7.2 -4.4 7.3

6.3 0.4 -7.1 100.0 38.3 —6.8

6.3 5.4 4.6 -1.5 10.3 -4.0 7.8

2.2 5.4 6.3 15.2 -8.8 8.8 0.7

1.9 0.0 2.6 150.0 11.4 0.0 4.3

2.2 4.5 5.7 15.4 -6.3 13.6 1.2

5.5 5.4 8.0 5.8 -18.0 6.7 9.9 6.6 172.6 5.3 9.4 7.7

8.0 0.0 3.4 16.5 10.4 6.7 8.8 0.0 1,566.7 -15.6 7.9 7.6

5.9 3.7 2.9 9.8 -15.2 4.7 12.5 6.5 193.2 -4.3 7.9 7.1

-1.2 4.4 9.2 6.0 26.3 0.3 3.8 -0.7 -17.8 5.4 -2.0 3.5

-8.5 100.0 4.7 4.2 3.7 12.5 24.1 -10.8 1.7 52.6 0.0 3.1

-2.3 4.5 10.5 6.9 23.4 0.0 5.7 6.7 -9.0 9.1 -2.7 3.4

4.3 10.6 29.6 13.3

16.4 12.8 1.5 3.8

6.1 10.8 23.4 13.1

3.9 -12.2 14.3 0.4

2.3 56.6 2.9 3.7

3.6 -3.5 13.8 0.5

4.9 2.1 6.3 6.6 —-

0.0 -33.3 2.8 100.0 —-

4.8 2.1 5.8 11.6 —-

6.7 15.6 2.7 18.8 —-

6.7 50.0 40.5 -50.0 —-

6.7 15.7 7.5 11.5 —-

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

2.2 5.8 -8.3 —-36.9 9.5

12.0 6.5 -47.4 -44.4 4.1 8.9

-8.5 7.2 -3.6 —-29.3 8.9

24.9 18.1 28.9 5.6 35.8 10.4

39.3 -0.2 0.0 40.0 27.5 8.3

41.2 8.9 16.2 6.0 26.1 8.5

ALL STATES Puerto Rico

8.4% -2.5

7.9% -4.7

8.2% -2.9

6.2% 8.6

5.2% 5.0

6.3% 8.0

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded). Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[29]

Table 15 ITEMS EXCLUDED FROM HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENDITURES

Region/State

Employer Contributions to Pensions

Employer Contributions to Health Benefits

Tuition and Fees

X P X P

X P X P

X X P P

X

X

Student Loan Programs

University Research Grants

Vocational Education

X P X P X

X

X

X X

X

Assistance To Private Colleges & Universities

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

X

X X

X X X

X X X P

X X X X X

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania

P

X

X

X X

P X X

P

X X P

P X

X

GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin

X X X X

P X P

X X P P

P X X X

PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota

X

X X

X X X X

P X X X

P

X

SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia

P

P P

P X X P

X P

X X X

P

X X X X

P

P

SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas

X

X P P

X

X X P

X X X X

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming

X

P X X X

FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico

X

X X X

X

X X

X 11

Excluded=X

18

11

Partially Excluded=P

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[30] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

X

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

18

30

Not Applicable=N/A

17 X

22 P

Higher Education Notes

Massachusetts: Federal fund expenditures are non-budgeted fund expenditures. Effective with fiscal 2001, each higher education

Small dollar amounts, when rounded, cause an aberration in the

campus is required to expend 5 percent-up from 4 percent-of its

percentage increase. In these instances, the actual dollar amounts

combined total state appropriation and student retained revenues

should be consulted to determine the exact percentage increase.

for maintenance.

Alabama: Capital expenditure figures for higher education are not

Michigan: Expenditure fluctuations are due to the inclusion of

captured at the state level.

bond funds and the cyclical nature of capital construction projects.

Hawaii: Employer contributions to pensions and employer

Montana: An accounting change in the guaranteed student loan

contributions to health plans are excluded in fiscal 1999 and fiscal

program increases the federal expenditure in fiscal 2001 by $12 million.

2000 but included in fiscal 2001. New Mexico: Assistance to private colleges and universities Illinois: Federal funds expenditures have increased due to a

includes student choice general fund scholarships only.

restructuring between federal and state funds. Ohio: See General Notes for discussion of double counting issues Indiana: Bond figures include project appropriations approved

that affect percentage of total expenditure amounts.

during the fiscal year. Pennsylvania: Figures include state funding for a student financial Maryland: Figures include all University System of Maryland

assistance program that helps students pay tuition and fees. Funding

campuses, Morgan State University, St. Mary’s College of Maryland,

for vocational education is also included in Elementary and

all community college campuses including Baltimore City

Secondary Education.

Community College, the Southern Maryland Higher Education Center, the Eastern Shore Higher Education Center, grants to the

Rhode Island: Sponsored research grants are completely excluded

Johns Hopkins University and grants to the state’s independent

from the survey. Sponsored research grants totaled $56.4 million in

colleges through the Maryland Independent Colleges and

fiscal 1999, $63.5 million in fiscal 2000, and are estimated to total

Universities Association grant program.

$56.9 million in fiscal 2001.

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[31]

CHAPTER THREE P U B L I C A S S I S TA N C E 2.4% of State Expenditures

This report contains data on cash assistance provided through the

declines.The nation’s unemployment rate for 2000 was 4.0 percent,

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and other

and in many parts of the country employers are finding it difficult

programs. Spending for these categories totaled $23 billion in 2000

to hire sufficient numbers of qualified low-skilled workers. Many

and represented 2.4 percent of total state expenditures. State

welfare recipients are able to take advantage of these increased job

spending for total cash assistance increased by 2.2 percent from

opportunities. States can use the flexibility of the TANF block grant

1999 to 2000.This slow growth reflects welfare reform efforts and

to provide work supports and incentives.

a strong economy, which have led to a decline in TANF cases and, subsequently, a decline in cash assistance payments.

The combination of falling caseloads and fixed funding presents states with increased options as well as planning challenges. The

The primary source of public assistance funding is general funds,

flexibility of TANF funds provides states with increased

providing 49.2 percent, followed by federal funds at 42.8 percent

opportunities to help needy families overcome barriers to work

(See Figure 13).

and remain employed. States are also faced with the challenge of serving persons who continue to receive time-limited cash

In general, states reported TANF expenditures for cash assistance. However, one state reported total TANF expenditures, and another state included costs for the food stamp program. The “other cash assistance” category, which includes optional state programs for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and General Assistance, are not funded in all states, and when funded, are relatively small programs.

We l f a r e R e f o r m The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

assistance, many of whom face multiple barriers to employment. In addition, states are challenged to establish appropriate levels for “rainy day” funds to address potential caseload increases if the economy falters. Expenditure data on total cash assistance, AFDC/TANF cash assistance, and other cash assistance can be found on Tables 18-26, accompanied by explanatory notes.

S e l e c t e d We b R e s o u r c e s •

Act (PRWORA) of 1996, signed on August 22, 1996, replaced the

Administration for Children and Families www.acf.dhhs.gov

60-year old Aid to Families with Depended Children with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.



American Public Human Services Association www.aphsa.org

PRWORA significantly reformed the nation’s welfare system into one that requires work in exchange for time-limited cash assistance. The new law shifted state reimbursement from a system based on



www.brookings.edu/wrb

strict federal rules of eligibility and entitlement to a single state block grant based on historical funding levels. PRWORA gives states

Brookings Institution



more flexibility and responsibility in the design and operation of

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities www.cbbp.org

welfare programs. Within limitations, states have the authority to decide how to best serve the needs and improve the employment



www.clasp.org

prospects of their needy citizens. Since the creation of the TANF program in 1996, welfare caseloads



rolls dropped 59 percent nationwide between August 1996 and



Strong national and state economies and state welfare reform efforts appear to have contributed to these significant caseload

[34] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

The Urban Institute’s New Federalism Project www.newfederalism.urban.org

June 2000. Further, caseloads in thirty-eight states declined by more than 50 percent in that timeframe.

National Governors Association www.nga.org

have declined in every state. According to the latest U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) figures, welfare

Center for Law and Social Policy



Welfare Information Network www.welfareinfo.org

Fund Shares The figure below provides fund shares for 2000. Figure 12 STATE EXPENDITURES FOR TOTAL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BY FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2000 Federal Funds 42.8%

Other State Funds 8.0%

General Funds 49.2%

Regional Expenditures The following table shows percentage changes in expenditures for total cash assistance for fiscal 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. TABLE 16 REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE TOTAL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2000 AND 2001 Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Region New England Mid-Atlantic Great Lakes Plains Southeast Southwest Rocky Mountain Far West ALL STATES

Fiscal 2000 to 2001

State Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

-2.7% 15.7 -5.9 -3.4 -13.9 8.5 0.6 3.7 3.3%

-9.5% -12.3 9.0 15.6 15.7 -2.6 1.5 2.6 0.7%

-5.5% 4.8 -2.2 7.2 0.4 1.2 1.2 3.2 2.2%

1.2% 0.1 -4.6 2.1 4.7 1.6 1.2 4.1 1.9%

-0.7% -16.2 -21.0 20.9 13.4 12.2 -20.3 2.6 0.0%

0.4% -5.2 -9.1 13.4 9.5 8.3 -13.2 3.5 1.1%

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[35]

C A S H A S S I S TA N C E U N D E R T H E T E M P O R A RY A S S I S TA N C E F O R N E E DY FA M I L I E S P RO G R A M 1.5% of State Expenditures

This section references cash assistance provided through the

In order for states to receive their full allotment of the TANF block

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

grant, they must meet a maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement

Welfare reform legislation passed in 1996 replaced the Aid to

and therefore do not realize proportionate savings from the

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with TANF.

declining caseloads. Under the MOE requirement, states must

Since that time, states have experienced significant drops in their

continue to spend state funds at a level equal to at least 80 percent

welfare caseloads and their spending on cash assistance. Funding

of state spending for AFDC-related programs in 1994. A state’s

levels, however, remain relatively constant because the block grant

MOE may be reduced to 75 percent if the state meets applicable

nature of the TANF program guarantees certain levels of federal

TANF participation rates, thus possibly lowering the amount of

funding. As the need for cash assistance expenditures declines,

state spending. In fiscal year 2000, all states met the 75 percent

states are free to use the TANF funds for other services to assist

MOE level, and twenty-five states reported spending at or above

families in making the transition from welfare to work and assist

the 80 percent level. Final fiscal 2000 MOE figures were not

low-income families in general.

available from HHS at the time this report was published.

The nation has experienced a significant decline in the number of

If states fail to meet their MOE requirements, the amount of that

cases receiving cash assistance since August 1996 when the

state’s block grant will be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation

Furthermore, the state must make up the MOE shortfall with state

Act of 1996 (PRWORA) was enacted. Prior to the enactment of

funds or suffer a penalty reduction. The replacement of federal

PRWORA, there were 12.8 million welfare recipients. As of June

TANF dollars with state dollars may further depress any savings on

2000, the caseload was 5.78 million recipients, a 55 percent

the part of the state from lower caseload levels.

decrease. Welfare caseloads have declined in every state, and in thirty-eight states the caseloads declined by more than 50 percent

Taking advantage of the financial resources available because of declining welfare caseloads, many states are expending federal

during that time.

TANF funds and their MOE funds on a variety of services and Spending on cash assistance has dropped with the declining

benefits. States have provided funding for programs to address child

caseloads. State and federal funds for TANF cash assistance

care services, training and education, transportation needs,

expenditures decreased by 1.5 percent from 1999 to 2000 after

transitional rental assistance, substance abuse, job readiness and job

having decreased 12 percent the previous year (see Table 23), and

retention training, and domestic violence.

data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) shows that the portion of TANF funds spent on cash and work-based assistance has dropped from 74 percent of all TANF/AFDC expenditures in 1997 to 52 percent of all TANF expenditures in 2000.

For example, HHS reports that states transferred a cumulative total of $2.43 billion in TANF funds to the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) during fiscal year 2000. In addition, states spent $1.99 billion of TANF funds on child care services—$1.38 billion in state MOE funds and $604 million in federal funds, bringing the

Furthermore, few states have increased their cash assistance benefit

total amount of state and federal funds available for child care to

levels. In fiscal year 2000, nine states increased cash benefit levels

$4.43 billion.

between 2.0 and 7 percent. States reported spending $1.75 billion in federal and state funds on Under AFDC, declining caseloads would have resulted in automatic

work activities in fiscal year 2000—an increase over fiscal year 1999.

declines in federal and state spending.Yet while caseloads and cash

According to HHS data, states also reported spending $3 billion for

assistance expenditures have declined, the amount of federal TANF

programs including emergency assistance, domestic violence

funding remains constant and the amount of state funding has

services, child welfare, staff training, and fraud control. For this

decreased only slightly. PRWORA specified that the annual TANF

report, states reported that total state spending for cash assistance

block grant allocations to states would be based on 1994 federal

under TANF was $14.8 billion in 2000, a decrease of 12 percent

funding levels. A total of $16.5 billion was authorized annually for

from 1999. TANF cash assistance represented 1.7 percent of total

TANF through federal fiscal year 2002.

state expenditures in 2000. Expenditure data for TANF cash assistance can be found on Tables 21-23.

[38] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Fund Shares The figure below provides fund shares for 2000. Figure 13 STATE EXPENDITURES FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES BY FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2000

Federal Funds 56.6%

Other State Funds 5.3%

General Funds 38.1%

Regional Expenditures The following table shows percentage changes in expenditures for TANF cash assistance for fiscal 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Table 17 REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE AFDC EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2000 AND 2001 Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Region New England Mid-Atlantic Great Lakes Plains Southeast Southwest Rocky Mountain Far West ALL STATES

Fiscal 2000 to 2001

State Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

-8.2% 4.9 -10.1 -13.4 -16.5 12.6 -5.1 -2.9 -4.9%

-11.0% -15.1 8.2 15.4 17.6 4.9 9.4 3.5 1.3%

-9.7% -6.7 -5.0 5.5 -0.2 7.9 4.8 1.0 -1.5%

-1.0% 1.9 -6.2 10.9 4.3 0.4 -5.3 3.6 1.5%

-1.5% -18.7 -24.4 21.2 13.8 2.1 31.0 0.5 -0.5%

-1.2% -8.9 -12.0 18.3 9.6 1.4 20.6 1.7 0.4%

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[39]

OT H E R C A S H A S S I S TA N C E 0.8% of State Expenditures

The second component of cash assistance for public welfare reported here is other cash assistance, including state participation in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, General Assistance (GA), and emergency assistance. For example, in 1999 twenty-eight states provided and administered supplemental payments to certain categories of SSI recipients. Each state determines the structure of its own program, resulting in significant variations in programs and funding. Thirty-five states, including the District of Columbia, have some form of GA program in which state government is involved. Some have statewide uniform eligibility rules while others simply require some form of county participation. Other cash assistance programs accounted for only 0.9 percent of total state spending in 2000. States spent $8.2 billion for other cash assistance, with 69.1 percent funded from state general funds. Two states (New York and California) accounted for nearly 65 percent of total general fund spending on other cash assistance. Expenditure data for other cash assistance can be found on Tables 24-26.

[42] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 18 TOTAL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

General Fund

Actual Fiscal 1999 Other Federal State Funds Funds

Total

General Fund

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other Federal State Funds Funds

Total

General Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other Federal State Funds Funds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts* New Hampshire Rhode Island* Vermont

$326 49 458 23 72 36

$267 71 218 26 130 32

$0 72 0 5 0 1

$593 192 676 54 202 69

$281 52 460 19 72 35

$267 77 151 19 127 32

$0 89 0 5 0 1

$548 218 611 43 199 68

254 59 495 22 55 36

267 87 120 22 138 34

0 98 0 6 0 1

521 244 615 50 193 71

29 67 263 1,426 387

32 85 166 1,030 597

1 25 0 777 27

62 177 429 3,233 1,011

32 68 179 1,352 442

35 60 133 850 597

0 21 0 1,352 27

67 149 312 3,554 1,066

35 65 132 1,388 426

39 45 176 617 527

0 16 0 1,388 27

74 126 308 3,393 980

302 36 360 438 173

276 42 95 0 41

0 13 61 0 0

578 91 516 438 214

378 44 242 393 178

242 62 146 0 45

0 13 53 0 0

620 119 441 393 223

315 43 267 376 179

176 64 107 0 44

0 13 48 0 0

491 120 422 376 223

32 36 149 61 25 0 6

67 10 187 130 31 12 6

23 4 0 15 0 1 0

122 50 336 206 56 13 12

55 34 131 56 20 5 6

65 13 268 122 34 6 4

16 0 0 15 0 2 0

136 47 399 193 54 13 10

56 35 137 53 23 3 5

72 14 362 121 42 3 5

13 0 0 16 0 6 0

141 49 499 190 65 12 10

2 112 278 181 75 58 31 63 29 28 67 34

24 146 0 213 112 23 39 284 25 77 78 7

9 5 34 0 0 0 0 93 0 4 0 0

35 263 312 394 187 81 70 440 54 109 145 41

2 116 242 173 74 6 38 62 23 10 53 34

22 170 0 224 142 51 36 321 22 102 81 18

8 5 0 0 5 0 0 93 0 6 0 0

32 291 242 397 221 57 74 476 45 118 134 52

4 119 245 173 73 48 38 62 23 0 49 34

22 207 0 341 123 68 36 321 22 112 76 20

6 19 0 0 3 0 0 93 0 6 0 0

32 345 245 514 199 116 74 476 45 118 125 54

43 16 89 134

86 288 57 108

0 0 0 0

129 304 146 242

66 20 89 131

53 271 77 124

0 0 0 0

119 291 166 255

66 21 90 134

59 332 78 120

0 0 0 0

125 353 168 254

15 13 10 26 0

232 19 21 68 0

105 0 0 0 0

352 32 31 94 0

17 13 9 29 0

230 31 19 65 0

102 0 0 0 0

349 44 28 94 0

17 13 9 27 0

140 31 28 76 0

106 0 0 0 0

263 44 37 103 0

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

87 4,718 114 20 83 368

28 3,811 79 13 165 245

28 0 0 0 17 0

143 8,529 193 33 265 613

87 4,993 104 19 104 297

19 3,887 74 18 180 274

26 0 0 0 8 0

132 8,880 178 37 292 571

89 5,265 99 19 89 274

23 3,926 71 18 167 363

27 0 0 0 9 0

139 9,191 170 37 265 637

TOTAL Puerto Rico

$11,448 16

$9,799 65

$1,320 0

$22,567 81

$11,345 16

$9,866 71

$1,847 0

$23,058 87

$11,539 18

$9,862 65

$1,901 0

$23,302 83

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania* GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan* Ohio* Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida* Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Note:This table reflects TANF and other cash assistance expenditures. Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[43]

Table 19 TOTAL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES Region/State

Fiscal 1999

Fiscal 2000

Fiscal 2001

3.8% 4.3 2.8 2.1 5.1 3.4

3.0% 4.5 2.3 1.3 4.7 3.0

2.9% 4.1 2.3 1.4 4.0 3.0

1.3 1.0 1.6 4.5 2.7

1.3 0.8 1.1 4.8 2.8

1.4 0.6 1.0 4.3 2.3

1.8 0.6 1.5 1.2 0.9

1.8 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.9

1.3 0.7 1.1 0.9 1.1

1.1 0.6 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.6

1.2 0.6 2.2 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.5

1.2 0.5 2.3 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.4

0.3 2.8 0.7 1.6 1.3 0.5 0.8 1.9 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7

0.2 2.9 0.5 1.5 1.7 0.4 0.8 1.8 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.8

0.2 3.2 0.5 2.0 1.4 0.7 0.7 1.9 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.8

0.9 4.4 1.5 0.5

0.8 3.5 1.6 0.5

0.8 3.9 1.4 0.5

3.1 0.9 1.2 1.5 —-

2.8 1.2 1.0 1.4 —-

2.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 —-

2.8 7.8 3.0 0.5 2.7 3.0

2.5 7.3 2.6 0.8 2.7 2.7

2.4 6.5 2.3 —2.1 3.1

2.6% 0.4

2.4% 0.5

2.3% 0.4

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico

Note: This table reflects TANF and other cash assistance expenditures.

[44] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 20 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TOTAL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES

Region/State

State Funds

Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Fiscal 2000 to 2001 Federal Funds

All Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

-13.8% 16.5 0.4 -14.3 0.0 -2.7

0.0% 8.5 -30.7 -26.9 -2.3 0.0

-7.6% 13.5 -9.6 -20.4 -1.5 -1.4

-9.6% 11.3 7.6 16.7 -23.6 2.8

0.0% 13.0 -20.5 15.8 8.7 6.3

-4.9% 11.9 0.7 16.3 -3.0 4.4

6.7 -3.3 -31.9 22.7 13.3

9.4 -29.4 -19.9 -17.5 0.0

8.1 -15.8 -27.3 9.9 5.4

9.4 -9.0 -26.3 2.7 -3.4

11.4 -25.0 32.3 -27.4 -11.7

10.4 -15.4 -1.3 -4.5 -8.1

25.2 16.3 -29.9 -10.3 2.9

-12.3 47.6 53.7 —9.8

7.3 30.8 -14.5 -10.3 4.2

-16.7 -1.8 6.8 -4.3 0.6

-27.3 3.2 -26.7 —-2.2

-20.8 0.8 -4.3 -4.3 0.0

29.1 -15.0 -12.1 -6.6 -20.0 600.0 0.0

-3.0 30.0 43.3 -6.2 9.7 -50.0 -33.3

11.5 -6.0 18.8 -6.3 -3.6 0.0 -16.7

-2.8 2.9 4.6 -2.8 15.0 28.6 -16.7

10.8 7.7 35.1 -0.8 23.5 -50.0 25.0

3.7 4.3 25.1 -1.6 20.4 -7.7 0.0

-9.1 3.4 -22.4 -4.4 5.3 -89.7 22.6 -0.6 -20.7 -50.0 -20.9 0.0

-8.3 16.4 —5.2 26.8 121.7 -7.7 13.0 -12.0 32.5 3.8 157.1

-8.6 10.6 -22.4 0.8 18.2 -29.6 5.7 8.2 -16.7 8.3 -7.6 26.8

0.0 14.0 1.2 0.0 -3.8 700.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -62.5 -7.5 0.0

0.0 21.8 —52.2 -13.4 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 -6.2 11.1

0.0 18.6 1.2 29.5 -10.0 103.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -6.7 3.8

53.5 25.0 0.0 -2.2

-38.4 -5.9 35.1 14.8

-7.8 -4.3 13.7 5.4

0.0 5.0 1.1 2.3

11.3 22.5 1.3 -3.2

5.0 21.3 1.2 -0.4

-0.8 0.0 -10.0 11.5 —-

-0.9 63.2 -9.5 -4.4 —-

-0.9 37.5 -9.7 0.0 —-

3.4 0.0 0.0 -6.9 —-

-39.1 0.0 47.4 16.9 —-

-24.6 0.0 32.1 9.6 —-

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

-1.7 5.8 -8.8 —12.0 -19.3

-32.1 2.0 -6.3 —9.1 11.8

-7.7 4.1 -7.8 —10.2 -6.9

2.7 5.4 -4.8 0.0 -12.5 -7.7

21.1 1.0 -4.1 0.0 -7.2 —-

5.3 3.5 -4.5 0.0 -9.2 11.6

ALL STATES Puerto Rico

3.3% 0.0

0.7% 9.2

2.2% 7.4

1.9% 12.5

2.9% -8.5

1.1% -4.6

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Notes: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded). This table reflects TANF and other cash assistance expenditures. Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[45]

Table 21 CASH EXPENDITURES UNDER TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY FAMILIES EXPENDITURES (TANF) ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

General Fund

Actual Fiscal 1999 Other Federal State Funds Funds

Total

General Fund

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other Federal State Funds Funds

Total

General Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other Federal State Funds Funds Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts* New Hampshire Rhode Island* Vermont

$213 21 187 17 42 19

$267 42 174 26 73 27

$0 70 0 0 0 1

$480 133 361 43 115 47

$168 23 172 13 41 19

$267 40 122 19 67 27

$0 86 0 0 0 1

$435 149 294 32 108 47

$146 23 196 16 22 19

$267 46 91 22 80 28

$0 95 0 0 0 1

$413 164 287 38 102 48

6 39 129 429 141

15 78 166 978 392

1 21 0 422 0

22 138 295 1,829 533

2 41 64 458 206

17 58 133 850 325

0 17 0 458 0

19 116 197 1,766 531

2 39 2 509 195

20 43 176 617 268

0 14 0 509 0

22 96 178 1,635 463

257 33 250 423 43

271 42 92 0 8

0 13 57 0 0

528 88 399 423 51

327 44 133 377 25

237 59 144 0 7

0 13 48 0 0

564 116 325 377 32

264 43 154 363 26

171 60 100 0 7

0 13 44 0 0

435 116 298 363 33

32 35 85 31 19 0 6

67 10 187 129 31 12 6

23 0 0 0 0 1 0

122 45 272 160 50 13 12

34 30 69 25 14 5 6

65 12 268 121 34 6 4

16 0 0 0 0 2 0

115 42 337 146 48 13 10

36 30 94 20 16 3 5

72 14 362 120 42 3 5

13 0 0 0 0 6 0

121 44 456 140 58 12 10

2 16 278 181 75 58 6 63 14 28 61 30

24 42 0 213 112 23 17 284 25 77 54 5

9 0 34 0 0 0 0 93 0 4 0 0

35 58 312 394 187 81 23 440 39 109 115 35

2 16 242 173 74 6 12 62 9 10 46 31

22 65 0 224 142 51 14 321 22 102 50 17

8 0 0 0 5 0 0 93 0 6 0 0

32 81 242 397 221 57 26 476 31 118 96 48

4 11 245 173 73 48 12 62 9 0 41 32

22 84 0 341 123 68 14 321 22 112 45 20

6 11 0 0 3 0 0 93 0 6 0 0

32 106 245 514 199 116 26 476 31 118 86 52

37 8 51 134

83 118 57 108

0 0 0 0

120 126 108 242

61 16 51 131

51 132 77 124

0 0 0 0

112 148 128 255

61 14 51 134

57 137 78 120

0 0 0 0

118 151 129 254

4 7 10 23 0

69 15 21 66 0

35 0 0 0 0

108 22 31 89 0

6 9 9 22 0

76 27 19 65 0

29 0 0 0 0

111 36 28 87 0

5 9 9 20 0

114 27 28 76 0

28 0 0 0 0

147 36 37 96 0

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon* Washington

40 2,022 19 5 66 273

27 3,250 79 13 165 242

7 0 0 0 12 0

74 5,272 98 18 243 515

37 1,991 13 13 98 216

18 3,353 74 10 180 272

5 0 0 0 0 0

60 5,344 87 23 278 488

37 2,105 12 14 88 197

22 3,295 71 10 167 360

6 0 0 0 0 0

65 5,400 83 24 255 557

TOTAL Puerto Rico

$5,968 12

$8,282 34

$803 0

$15,053 46

$5,652 12

$8,390 35

$787 0

$14,829 47

$5,689 12

$8,348 34

$848 0

$14,885 46

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania* GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan* Ohio* Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida* Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana* Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[46] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

TABLE 22 TANF EXPENDITURES FOR CASH ASSISTANCE AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES Region/State

Fiscal 1999

Fiscal 2000

Fiscal 2001

3.0% 3.0 1.5 1.7 2.9 2.3

2.4% 3.1 1.1 0.9 2.5 2.1

2.3% 2.7 1.1 1.1 2.1 2.0

0.5 0.8 1.1 2.6 1.4

0.4 0.6 0.7 2.4 1.4

0.4 0.5 0.6 2.1 1.1

1.7 0.6 1.2 1.2 0.2

1.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.1

1.1 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.2

1.1 0.5 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.6

1.0 0.5 1.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5

1.1 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.4

0.3 0.6 0.7 1.6 1.3 0.5 0.3 1.9 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.6

0.2 0.8 0.5 1.5 1.7 0.4 0.3 1.8 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.7

0.2 1.0 0.5 2.0 1.4 0.7 0.2 1.9 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.8

0.8 1.8 1.1 0.5

0.8 1.8 1.2 0.5

0.7 1.7 1.1 0.5

0.9 0.7 1.2 1.4 —-

0.9 1.0 1.0 1.3 —-

1.1 0.9 1.2 1.3 —-

1.4 4.8 1.5 0.3 2.4 2.5

1.1 4.4 1.3 0.5 2.6 2.3

1.1 3.8 1.1 0.4 2.0 2.7

1.7% 0.2

1.6% 0.2

1.5% 0.2

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[47]

Table 23 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TANF CASH ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES

State Funds

Region/State

Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Fiscal 2000 to 2001 Federal Funds

All Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

-21.1% 19.8 -8.0 -23.5 -2.4 0.0

0.0% -4.8 -29.9 -26.9 -8.2 0.0

-9.4% 12.0 -18.6 -25.6 -6.1 0.0

-13.1% 8.3 14.0 23.1 -46.3 0.0

0.0% 15.0 -25.4 15.8 19.4 3.7

-5.1% 10.1 -2.4 18.8 -5.6 2.1

-71.4 -3.3 -50.4 7.6 46.1

13.3 -25.6 -19.9 -13.1 -17.1

-13.6 -15.9 -33.2 -3.4 -0.4

0.0 -8.6 -96.9 11.1 -5.3

17.6 -25.9 32.3 -27.4 -17.5

15.8 -17.2 -9.6 -7.4 -12.8

27.2 23.9 -41.0 -10.9 -41.9

-12.5 40.5 56.5 —-12.5

6.8 31.8 -18.5 -10.9 -37.3

-19.3 -1.8 9.4 -3.7 4.0

-27.8 1.7 -30.6 —0.0

-22.9 0.0 -8.3 -3.7 3.1

-9.1 -14.3 -18.8 -19.4 -26.3 600.0 0.0

-3.0 20.0 43.3 -6.2 9.7 -50.0 -33.3

-5.7 -6.7 23.9 -8.8 -4.0 0.0 -16.7

-2.0 0.0 36.2 -20.0 14.3 28.6 -16.7

10.8 16.7 35.1 -0.8 23.5 -50.0 25.0

5.2 4.8 35.3 -4.1 20.8 -7.7 0.0

-9.1 0.0 -22.4 -4.4 5.3 -89.7 100.0 -0.6 -35.7 -50.0 -24.6 3.3

-8.3 54.8 —5.2 26.8 121.7 -17.6 13.0 -12.0 32.5 -7.4 240.0

-8.6 39.7 -22.4 0.8 18.2 -29.6 13.0 8.2 -20.5 8.3 -16.5 37.1

0.0 37.5 1.2 0.0 -3.8 700.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -62.5 -10.9 3.2

0.0 29.2 —52.2 -13.4 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 -10.0 17.6

0.0 30.9 1.2 29.5 -10.0 103.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -10.4 8.3

64.9 100.0 0.0 -2.2

-38.6 11.9 35.1 14.8

-6.7 17.5 18.5 5.4

0.0 -12.5 0.0 2.3

11.8 3.8 1.3 -3.2

5.4 2.0 0.8 -0.4

-10.3 28.6 -10.0 -4.3 —-

10.1 80.0 -9.5 -1.5 —-

2.8 63.6 -9.7 -2.2 —-

-5.7 0.0 0.0 -9.1 —-

50.0 0.0 47.4 16.9 —-

32.4 0.0 32.1 10.3 —-

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

-10.6 -1.5 -31.6 —25.6 -20.9

-33.3 3.2 -6.3 —9.1 12.4

-18.9 1.4 -11.2 —14.4 -5.2

2.4 5.7 -7.7 7.7 -10.2 -8.8

22.2 -1.7 -4.1 0.0 -7.2 32.4

8.3 1.0 -4.6 4.3 -8.3 14.1

ALL STATES Puerto Rico

-4.9% 0.0

1.3% 2.9

-1.5% 2.2

1.5% 0.0

-0.5% -2.9

0.4% -2.1

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded). Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[48] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 24 OTHER CASH ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

General Fund

Actual Fiscal 1999 Other Federal State Funds Funds

Total

General Fund

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other Federal State Funds Funds

Total

General Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other Federal State Funds Funds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts* New Hampshire Rhode Island* Vermont

$114 28 271 6 30 16

$0 30 44 0 57 5

$0 2 0 5 0 0

$114 60 315 11 87 21

$113 29 288 6 31 16

$0 37 29 0 60 5

$0 4 0 5 0 0

$113 70 317 11 91 21

$108 35 299 6 33 17

$0 42 29 0 58 6

$0 3 0 6 0 0

$108 80 328 12 91 23

24 28 134 997 246

17 7 0 52 205

0 4 0 355 27

41 39 134 1,404 478

30 27 115 894 236

18 1 0 0 272

0 5 0 894 27

48 33 115 1,788 535

33 26 130 879 231

19 2 0 0 260

0 2 0 879 27

52 30 130 1,758 518

45 3 110 15 130

5 1 3 0 33

0 0 5 0 0

50 4 118 15 163

51 1 109 16 153

5 3 2 0 39

0 0 5 0 0

56 4 116 16 192

52 0 113 14 153

5 4 7 0 37

0 0 4 0 0

57 4 124 14 190

0 1 64 31 6 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 4 0 15 0 0 0

0 5 64 47 6 0 0

20 4 62 31 6 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 15 0 0 0

20 4 62 47 6 0 0

20 5 43 32 7 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 16 0 0 0

20 5 43 49 7 0 0

0 96 0 0 0 0 26 0 15 0 6 4

0 105 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 24 2

0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 206 0 0 0 0 49 0 15 0 30 6

0 101 0 0 0 0 26 0 14 0 7 3

0 105 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 31 1

0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 211 0 0 0 0 48 0 14 0 38 4

0 108 0 0 0 0 26 0 14 0 8 2

0 123 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 32 0

0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 239 0 0 0 0 48 0 14 0 40 2

5 8 39 0

4 170 0 0

0 0 0 0

9 178 39 0

5 5 39 0

2 140 0 0

0 0 0 0

7 145 39 0

6 7 39 0

2 195 0 0

0 0 0 0

8 202 39 0

11 6 0 3 0

163 4 0 2 0

70 0 0 0 0

244 10 0 5 0

11 4 0 7 0

154 4 0 0 0

73 0 0 0 0

238 8 0 7 0

12 5 0 7 0

26 4 0 0 0

78 0 0 0 0

116 9 0 7 0

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

47 2,696 95 14 16 95

1 561 0 0 0 3

21 0 0 0 5 0

69 3,257 95 14 21 98

49 3,001 90 5 7 80

1 534 0 8 0 2

20 0 0 0 8 0

70 3,535 90 13 15 82

52 3,160 87 6 0 77

1 631 0 8 0 3

21 0 0 0 9 0

74 3,791 87 14 9 80

TOTAL Puerto Rico

$5,481 4

$1,522 30

$518 0

$7,521 34

$5,692 5

$1,476 36

$1,061 0

$8,229 41

$5,852 6

$1,517 30

$1,053 0

$8,422 36

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan* Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[49]

Table 25 OTHER CASH ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES Region/State

Fiscal 1999

Fiscal 2000

Fiscal 2001

0.7% 1.3 1.3 0.4 2.2 1.0

0.6% 1.4 1.2 0.3 2.1 0.9

0.6% 1.3 1.2 0.3 1.9 1.0

0.9 0.2 0.5 2.0 1.3

1.0 0.2 0.4 2.4 1.4

1.0 0.1 0.4 2.2 1.2

0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.7

0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7

0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.9

0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0

0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1

0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1

0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0

0.1 2.6 0.4 0.0

0.0 1.8 0.4 0.0

0.1 2.2 0.3 0.0

2.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 —-

1.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 —-

0.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 —-

1.3 3.0 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.5

1.3 2.9 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.4

1.3 2.7 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.4

0.9% 0.2

0.9% 0.2

0.8% 0.2

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[50] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 26 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN OTHER CASH ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES

Region/State

State Funds

Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Fiscal 2000 to 2001 Federal Funds

All Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

-0.9% 10.0 6.3 0.0 3.3 0.0

—% 23.3 -34.1 — 5.3 0.0

-0.9% 16.7 0.6 0.0 4.6 0.0

-4.4% 15.2 3.8 9.1 6.5 6.3

—% 13.5 0.0 — -3.3 20.0

-4.4% 14.3 3.5 9.1 0.0 9.5

25.0 0.0 -14.2 32.2 -3.7

5.9 -85.7 — -100.0 32.7

17.1 -15.4 -14.2 27.4 11.9

10.0 -12.5 13.0 -1.7 -1.9

5.6 100.0 — — -4.4

8.3 -9.1 13.0 -1.7 -3.2

13.3 -66.7 -0.9 6.7 17.7

0.0 200.0 -33.3 — 18.2

12.0 0.0 -1.7 6.7 17.8

2.0 -100.0 2.6 -12.5 0.0

0.0 33.3 250.0 — -5.1

1.8 0.0 6.9 -12.5 -1.0

— -20.0 -3.1 0.0 0.0 — —

— — — 0.0 — — —

— -20.0 -3.1 0.0 0.0 — —

0.0 25.0 -30.6 4.3 16.7 — —

— — — 0.0 — — —

0.0 25.0 -30.6 4.3 16.7 — —

— 5.0 — — — — 0.0 — -6.7 — 16.7 -25.0

— 0.0 — — — — -4.3 — — — 29.2 -50.0

— 2.4 — — — — -2.0 — -6.7 — 26.7 -33.3

— 9.4 — — — — 0.0 — 0.0 — 14.3 -33.3

— 17.1 — — — — 0.0 — — — 3.2 -100.0

— 13.3 — — — — 0.0 — 0.0 — 5.3 -50.0

0.0 -37.5 0.0 —

-50.0 -17.6 — —

-22.2 -18.5 0.0 —

20.0 40.0 0.0 —

0.0 39.3 — —

14.3 39.3 0.0 —

3.7 -33.3 — 133.3 —

-5.5 0.0 — -100.0 —

-2.5 -20.0 — 40.0 —

7.1 25.0 — 0.0 —

-83.1 0.0 — — —

-51.3 12.5 — 0.0 —

1.5 11.3 -5.3 — -28.6 -15.8

0.0 -4.8 — — — -33.3

1.4 8.5 -5.3 — -28.6 -16.3

5.8 5.3 -3.3 20.0 -40.0 -3.8

0.0 18.2 — 0.0 — 50.0

5.7 7.2 -3.3 7.7 -40.0 -2.4

12.6% 25.0

-3.0% 20.0

9.4% 20.6

2.3% 20.0

2.8% -16.7

2.3% -12.2

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded). Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[51]

Public Assistance Notes

remained the same, prompting Michigan to maintain most general fund spending on public assistance in order to draw down the

Small dollar amounts, when rounded, cause an aberration in the

entire TANF grant and to avoid other penalties.

percentage increase. In these instances, the actual dollar amounts should be consulted to determine the exact percentage increase.

“Other Cash Assistance” figures do not include expenditures for day care, a large part of Michigan’s public assistance program. Day

Florida: The overall reduction in expenditures over the three

care expenditures for the survey are estimated at the following

years reported in the survey is due to declining caseload. In fiscal

levels: $400 million for fiscal 1999; $427 million for fiscal 2000; and

1999 and thereafter, the Florida Legislature appropriated more

$461 for fiscal 2001.

funds in general revenue rather than federal funds so that the state could preserve its maintenance of effort. In fiscal 2000, the

Ohio: Federal funds deposited to the state General Fund and

Legislature directed that child support enforcement collections

shown as General Fund expenditures for TANF amount to $451.6

(“other funds”) be deposited in general revenue for use in cash

million in fiscal 1999 and $519.3 million in fiscal 2000. Amounts

assistance payments.

shown for TANF represent all TANF costs, not just cash assistance. TANF cash assistance was $423.3 million in fiscal 1999 and $377.2

Massachusetts: “Other Cash Assistance” includes EAEDC

million in fiscal 2000. Also, see General Notes for Ohio on this issue

benefits and SSI state supplement. Fiscal 1999 data have been

and for discussion of double counting issues that affect percentage

adjusted to include $8.7 million previously unreported for SSI for

of total expenditure amounts.

the blind. Pennsylvania: Fiscal 2000 and fiscal 2001 are based on 75 Michigan: TANF Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements

percent Maintenance of Effort (MOE) for TANF programs. The

specify that Michigan must spend down a specific amount in state

MOE was 80 percent at the beginning of fiscal 1999. It was reduced

funds in order to draw down the annual federal block grant

to 75 percent effective October 1, 1998.

amount. Therefore, despite a caseload reduction of more than 18,000 between fiscal 1999 and fiscal 2000 (more than 50,000

Rhode Island: Federal funds for Other Cash Assistance include

between fiscal 1998 and fiscal 2000) the MOE requirement has

federal food stamp grants.

[52] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

CHAPTER FOUR MEDICAID 19.5% of State Expenditures

Medicaid Continues to be an Important Budget Issue for States

most notably from prescription drugs. States have also seen greatly increased enrollment of children in Medicaid due to the extensive outreach campaigns conducted in the State Children’s

Medicaid, a means-tested entitlement program financed by the

Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) and also from efforts to

states and the federal government, provides medical care for

reenroll eligible individuals who had left the program following

about 40 million low-income individuals. Medicaid spending—

welfare reform.

approximately $184.4 billion in fiscal 2000—accounts for 19.5 percent of all state spending. Mirroring national health care trends,

Other factors affecting long-term Medicaid costs include wage

Medicaid expenditures have escalated and are consuming a greater

pressures in the health care industry, continued demand for

portion of states’ budgets. The pressure from escalating Medicaid

prescription drugs, and legal challenges under the Americans with

costs coincides with the revenue slowdown in the states.

Disabilities Act that may result in more individuals receiving longterm care services at home.

States must provide Medicaid coverage to certain population groups (members of families with children and pregnant women, and persons who are aged, blind, or disabled) and have the option of covering other populations. Certain basic medical services must be provided while additional services may be covered if the state chooses.These basic services include inpatient hospital care, nursing homes, state facilities for the mentally retarded, home health care, physician services, outpatient hospital care, and prescription drugs.

Medicaid Expenditures for Prescription Drugs Medicaid expenditures for prescription drugs rose by 50 percent between 1993 and 1998, rising from $8 billion to almost $12 billion. Prescription drugs expenditures represent the third largest component of the Medicaid budget—approximately 10 percent.

Total Medicaid spending in fiscal year 2000, excluding administrative

The growth rate of prescription drug prices—approximately 18

costs, totaled approximately $184.4 billion, or 7.5 percent more

percent per year—is almost double the rate of the Medicaid program.

than the 1999 level. Medicaid expenditures have increased as a percent of total state expenditures, rising from 10.8 percent in 1988 to 19.5 percent in 2000. Figures 14 and 15 provide actual and projected Medicaid costs for total spending and for state spending from 1970 to 2000. In addition to Medicaid, state spending on other health services accounts for another 8.3 percent of general fund spending.

Under Medicaid, coverage of prescription drugs is an optional service that all states have elected to provide. Prescription drugs prices have risen nationwide and, according to the National Institute of Health Care Management, escalating sales from 23 relatively new medications accounted for about half of the spending increase in prescription drugs in 2000. Growth in direct-toconsumer advertising by drug companies also has affected the demand for prescription drugs. The Health Care Financing

Medicaid Expenditures

Administration (HCFA) estimates that prescription drug spending will increase by 17.4 percent and 16 percent in fiscal 2001 and

The governors’ recommended budgets for fiscal 2002 contain an

2002, respectively.

estimated average annual increase of 7.8 percent for the Medicaid program. By comparison, states estimate a growth rate of 9.8

In the governors’ recommended budgets for fiscal 2002, the total

percent for fiscal 2001. A recent ad-hoc survey shows that about

amount for Medicaid prescription drugs is estimated at $25.1

two-thirds of the states estimate that Medicaid expenditures in the

billion, or about double the amount spent on prescription drugs

current fiscal year will exceed the budgeted amounts.While current

under Medicaid in fiscal 1998. Prescription drugs accounted for

growth rates in Medicaid are less than the double-digit rates that

about 10 percent of spending in fiscal 1998; estimates for fiscal

states experienced in the early 1990s, they far exceed the 3

2002 are about 14 percent.

percent to 4 percent rate of general fund revenue growth. Medicaid is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 8.6 percent from 2001 through 2011 according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This follows a 9 percent rate of growth in 2000 and 6.7 percent in 1999 (the year that the recent upward spiral in Medicaid costs began). According to CBO, factors affecting the program’s growth include the cost and use of medical services,

[54] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Medicaid Expenditures for L o n g - Te r m C a r e Another key component in Medicaid expenditures is the cost of long-term institutional care and the use of waivers for home- and community-based care. The estimated costs for long-term

institutional care are $42.1 billion in fiscal 2002, or 20 percent

Figure 14, based on projections by the Congressional Budget

above the fiscal 1998 level.Twenty percent growth in this expensive

Office (CBO) in January 2001, assumes a 57 percent federal share

component is in addition to the faster growth in home and

of total Medicaid costs. Figures for 1990 and prior years are from

community based alternatives to institutional care. In fiscal 2002,

the Federal Funds Information for States Issue Brief 94-14, Recent

estimated expenditures are $15.8 billion, or almost double the

Trends in Medicaid Spending.

expenditures in fiscal 1998. Figure 15 ACTUAL AND PROJECTED STATE MEDICAID SPENDING, 1970 TO 2000 (IN BILLIONS)

G ov e r n o r s ’ P r o p o s a l s t o Manage Medicaid Costs

$100

As Medicaid costs escalate, states are proposing various cost-

88

containing measures. These measures include prior approval of certain services, anti fraud and abuse efforts, implementing pharmacy

80

benefit management programs, and reducing optional benefits.

67

States are seeking larger discounts from manufacturers to purchase 60

prescription drugs and reductions in reimbursement rates for some health care providers, such as nursing homes and hospitals. States also are using buying pools to leverage lower prices.

40

32

Because of the large percentage of state budgets that Medicaid commands, Medicaid spending increases are felt throughout state government, affecting resources allocated for other key services,

18

20

such as education.

11 6 2

Figure 14 ACTUAL AND PROJECTED TOTAL MEDICAID SPENDING, 1970 TO 2000 (IN BILLIONS)

0 1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Figure 15, also based on projections by the CBO in January 2001, $250

assumes a 57 percent federal share of total Medicaid costs. Figures for 1990 and prior years are from the Federal Funds Information 205

for States Issue Brief 94-14, Recent Trends in Medicaid Spending.

200

S e l e c t e d We b R e s o u r c e s 156



150

Health Care Financing Administration www.hcfa.gov

• 100

Center for Health Care Strategies www.chcs.org

73



www.handsnet.org/medicaid

41

50

The Medicaid Clearinghouse

26



13

Kaiser Commission on the Future of Medicaid www.kff.org/medicaid

5 0 1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000



The Urban Institute www.urban.org

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[55]

Fund Share The figure below provides fund shares for 2000. Figure 16 STATE EXPENDITURES FOR MEDICAID BY FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2000

Federal Funds 56.7%

Other State Funds 7.8%

General Funds 35.5%

Regional Expenditures The following table shows percentage changes in expenditures for Medicaid for fiscal 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. For 2000, the Rocky Mountain, Great Lakes, Southeast, and Far West regions are well above the national average and the Plains and Southwest regions are well below the national average. Additional expenditure data on Medicaid can be found on Tables 28-30, accompanied by explanatory notes. Table 27 REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE MEDICAID EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2000 AND 2001 Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Region Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Federal Funds

All

6.6% 5.6 9.5 -0.1 6.4 3.3 8.6 12.2 7.1%

6.7% 6.1 8.5 7.6 10.3 2.8 8.9 9.4 7.8%

6.7% 5.9 9.0 4.4 8.9 3.0 8.8 10.5 7.5%

7.0% 5.9 11.0 10.2 6.4 11.5 9.4 12.8 8.8%

7.7% 5.2 6.5 11.9 6.3 6.6 8.9 8.9 7.0%

7.3% 5.5 9.0 11.3 6.3 8.4 9.1 10.5 7.8%

New England Mid-Atlantic Great Lakes Plains Southeast Southwest Rocky Mountain Far West ALL STATES

[56] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Fiscal 2000 to 2001

State Funds

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 28 MEDICAID EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

General Fund

Actual Fiscal 1999 Other Federal State Funds Funds

Total

General Fund

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other Federal State Funds Funds

Total

General Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other Federal State Funds Funds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts* New Hampshire Rhode Island* Vermont

$2,589 363 2,299 258 471 118

$1,488 744 2,436 411 549 272

$341 0 146 133 8 48

$4,418 1,107 4,881 802 1,028 438

$2,813 403 2,426 284 507 126

$1,616 797 2,552 418 585 327

$314 0 149 121 9 71

$4,743 1,200 5,127 823 1,101 524

$3,008 439 2,575 303 568 126

$1,763 902 2,650 447 666 353

$315 7 155 129 10 90

$5,086 1,348 5,380 879 1,244 569

205 1,417 2,010 5,645 3,788

226 1,431 1,941 13,612 5,437

16 25 0 4,811 860

447 2,873 3,951 24,068 10,085

233 1,506 2,133 5,783 4,032

256 1,515 2,053 14,532 5,669

16 9 0 5,093 1,023

505 3,030 4,186 25,408 10,724

243 1,633 2,245 5,693 4,383

289 1,638 2,150 15,073 6,128

16 15 0 5,653 1,126

548 3,286 4,395 26,419 11,637

2,457 993 1,842 5,655 928

3,431 1,687 3,309 1,049 1,663

728 52 1,104 289 29

6,616 2,732 6,255 6,993 2,620

3,017 1,070 1,764 6,026 989

3,630 1,845 3,741 1,033 1,837

888 48 1,269 288 52

7,535 2,963 6,774 7,347 2,878

3,257 1,112 1,919 7,059 1,045

3,989 1,971 3,949 1,024 1,944

992 50 1,343 270 58

8,238 3,133 7,211 8,353 3,047

389 176 1,548 560 304 106 116

849 336 1,586 1,875 601 250 274

166 318 0 368 0 0 0

1,404 830 3,134 2,803 905 356 390

422 211 1,697 615 317 113 121

909 375 1,709 1,994 658 277 289

184 22 0 342 2 0 0

1,515 608 3,406 2,951 977 390 410

407 216 2,008 620 362 120 124

1,039 401 1,933 2,362 616 292 309

205 40 0 356 2 0 0

1,651 657 3,941 3,338 980 412 433

206 314 2,365 1,218 599 818 178 1,302 371 1,190 1,190 213

1,775 1,109 3,916 2,076 1,933 2,316 1,419 2,989 1,716 2,718 1,268 989

600 99 643 112 207 144 246 644 374 71 0 129

2,581 1,522 6,924 3,406 2,739 3,278 1,843 4,935 2,461 3,979 2,458 1,331

245 349 2,534 1,350 626 755 171 1,430 445 1,415 1,323 216

1,981 1,187 4,475 2,260 2,178 2,428 1,572 3,325 1,892 2,983 1,409 1,039

622 95 663 100 271 250 302 264 377 141 0 136

2,848 1,631 7,672 3,710 3,075 3,433 2,045 5,019 2,714 4,539 2,732 1,391

236 365 2,803 1,259 696 879 188 1,658 419 1,684 1,247 234

1,941 1,281 4,762 2,130 2,182 2,492 1,641 3,857 2,239 3,416 1,350 1,117

609 113 766 128 220 150 300 273 444 176 0 139

2,786 1,759 8,331 3,517 3,098 3,521 2,129 5,788 3,102 5,276 2,597 1,490

462 232 434 3,783

1,378 795 937 6,883

255 50 112 382

2,095 1,077 1,483 11,048

463 242 338 4,047

1,360 890 1,140 6,886

258 64 162 324

2,081 1,196 1,640 11,257

520 235 436 4,535

1,517 1,015 947 7,478

284 103 112 354

2,321 1,353 1,495 12,367

890 153 97 134 0

962 357 290 526 0

67 23 10 89 0

1,919 533 397 749 0

955 163 108 145 0

1,036 406 326 557 0

103 34 9 72 0

2,094 603 443 774 0

1,003 205 116 153 0

1,097 486 355 595 0

129 20 8 104 0

2,229 711 479 852 0

133 7,471 311 229 660 1,505

269 11,023 299 290 1,241 2,059

3 0 3 15 145 0

405 18,494 613 534 2,046 3,564

148 8,065 287 247 767 2,049

320 12,064 287 313 1,369 2,255

18 0 2 17 148 0

486 20,129 576 577 2,284 4,304

146 9,254 287 269 860 2,230

332 13,250 308 347 1,525 2,319

24 0 8 20 153 0

502 22,504 603 636 2,538 4,549

$60,695 172

$96,990 172

$13,865 0

$171,550 344

$65,491 178

$104,555 178

$14,332 0

$184,378 356

$71,382 184

$111,867 184

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania* GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan* Ohio* Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida* Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee* Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico

$15,469 $198,718 0 368

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[57]

Table 29 MEDICAID EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES Region/State

Fiscal 1999

Fiscal 2000

Fiscal 2001

28.0% 24.7 20.2 31.5 25.9 21.7

26.2% 24.8 19.3 24.2 25.8 23.5

27.9% 22.5 20.1 25.2 25.9 23.9

9.5 16.8 14.7 33.7 27.4

10.1 16.5 14.1 34.5 27.9

10.4 16.4 13.8 33.2 27.6

21.1 18.1 18.6 19.3 11.5

21.5 17.6 19.4 18.9 11.0

21.5 18.9 19.3 18.9 14.6

13.1 10.0 17.8 18.4 16.9 16.8 20.1

13.0 7.2 18.5 18.4 16.8 17.3 19.4

14.4 7.2 18.4 19.5 17.2 18.2 18.8

18.9 16.0 15.2 14.1 18.6 21.5 20.9 20.8 18.2 26.9 11.8 21.9

19.3 16.2 15.7 14.3 24.3 22.0 21.2 19.4 16.1 28.7 12.2 21.5

16.1 16.2 16.3 13.7 22.5 21.2 19.9 23.3 17.1 29.5 11.3 22.2

14.6 15.7 14.8 24.4

13.9 14.5 15.5 22.8

14.6 14.9 12.6 23.6

16.7 15.8 15.2 11.7 —-

17.1 16.6 15.9 11.8 —-

16.7 16.8 15.2 11.9 —-

7.8 16.9 9.4 7.4 20.6 17.5

9.3 16.5 8.5 12.6 21.4 20.0

8.7 16.0 8.0 11.7 20.3 21.9

19.5% 1.8

19.5% 1.9

19.6% 1.7

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[58] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 30 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN MEDICAID EXPENDITURES

Region/State

State Funds

Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Fiscal 2000 to 2001 Federal Funds

All Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

6.7% 11.0 5.3 3.6 7.7 18.7

8.6% 7.1 4.8 1.7 6.6 20.2

7.4% 8.4 5.0 2.6 7.1 19.6

6.3% 10.7 6.0 6.7 12.0 9.6

9.1% 13.2 3.8 6.9 13.8 8.0

7.2% 12.3 4.9 6.8 13.0 8.6

12.7 5.1 6.1 4.0 8.8

13.3 5.9 5.8 6.8 4.3

13.0 5.5 5.9 5.6 6.3

4.0 8.8 5.3 4.3 9.0

12.9 8.1 4.7 3.7 8.1

8.5 8.4 5.0 4.0 8.5

22.6 7.0 3.0 6.2 8.8

5.8 9.4 13.1 -1.5 10.5

13.9 8.5 8.3 5.1 9.8

8.8 3.9 7.6 16.1 6.0

9.9 6.8 5.6 -0.9 5.8

9.3 5.7 6.5 13.7 5.9

9.2 -52.8 9.6 3.1 4.9 6.6 4.3

7.1 11.6 7.8 6.3 9.5 10.8 5.5

7.9 -26.7 8.7 5.3 8.0 9.6 5.1

1.0 9.9 18.3 2.0 14.1 6.2 2.5

14.3 6.9 13.1 18.5 -6.4 5.4 6.9

9.0 8.1 15.7 13.1 0.3 5.6 5.6

7.6 7.5 6.3 9.0 11.3 4.5 11.6 -12.9 10.3 23.4 11.2 2.9

11.6 7.0 14.3 8.9 12.7 4.8 10.8 11.2 10.3 9.7 11.1 5.1

10.3 7.2 10.8 8.9 12.3 4.7 11.0 1.7 10.3 14.1 11.1 4.5

-2.5 7.7 11.6 -4.3 2.1 2.4 3.2 14.0 5.0 19.5 -5.7 6.0

-2.0 7.9 6.4 -5.8 0.2 2.6 4.4 16.0 18.3 14.5 -4.2 7.5

-2.2 7.8 8.6 -5.2 0.7 2.6 4.1 15.3 14.3 16.2 -4.9 7.1

0.6 8.5 -8.4 4.9

-1.3 11.9 21.7 0.0

-0.7 11.0 10.6 1.9

11.5 10.5 9.6 11.9

11.5 14.0 -16.9 8.6

11.5 13.1 -8.8 9.9

10.6 11.9 9.3 -2.7 —-

7.7 13.7 12.4 5.9 —-

9.1 13.1 11.6 3.3 —-

7.0 14.2 6.0 18.4 —-

5.9 19.7 8.9 6.8 —-

6.4 17.9 8.1 10.1 —-

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

22.1 8.0 -8.0 8.2 13.7 36.1

19.0 9.4 -4.0 7.9 10.3 9.5

20.0 8.8 -6.0 8.1 11.6 20.8

2.4 14.7 2.1 9.5 10.7 8.8

3.8 9.8 7.3 10.9 11.4 2.8

3.3 11.8 4.7 10.2 11.1 5.7

ALL STATES Puerto Rico

7.1% 3.5

7.8% 3.5

7.5% 3.5

8.8% 3.4

7.0% 3.4

7.8% 3.4

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded) Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[59]

Medicaid Notes

Ohio: Federal funds deposited to the state General Fund and shown as General Fund expenditures for Medicaid amount to

States were asked to report Medicaid expenditures as follows:

$3,083.2 million in fiscal 1999 and $3,279.5 million in fiscal 2000.

General funds: all general funds appropriated to the Medicaid

See General Notes for Ohio on this issue. Also, interagency

agency and any other agency which are used for direct Medicaid

transfers of $579.9 million in fiscal 1999 and $604.0 fiscal 2000 tend

matching purposes under Title XIX. Other state funds: other funds

to overstate the size of Ohio’s Medicaid program. Also see General

and revenue sources used as Medicaid match, such as local funds

Notes for discussion of double counting issues that affect

and provider taxes, fees, donations, assessments (as defined by the

percentage of total expenditure amounts.

Health Care Finance Administration). Federal Funds: all federal matching funds provided pursuant to Title XIX.

Dollars that are generated at the local level that are then used to draw down federal match are not included in Ohio’s numbers for

As noted above, the figures reported as Other State Funds reflect

purposes of making the numbers reported here consistent with

the amounts reported as provider taxes, fees, donations, assessments

other reports for Ohio General Fund and All Fund spending.

and local funds by states. State Medicaid agencies report these amounts to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) on

Pennsylvania: Intergovernmental transfer (IGT) funds are

form 37, as defined by the Medicaid Voluntary Contribution and

included in the Other State Funds category and total $833 million

Provider-specific Tax Amendments of 1991 (P.L. 102-234). However,

in fiscal 1999, $997 million in fiscal 2000 and $1,089 million in fiscal

some state budget offices are unable to align their financial reporting

2001. State expenditures for Medicaid match are not accounted for

to separate these costs for the NASBO State Expenditure Report.

separately from the state’s overall medical assistance program.

Thus this report does not capture 100 percent of state provider

Therefore, the state match has been derived based upon federal

taxes, fees, donations, assessments and local funds. Small dollar

reimbursement rates for individual programs. These figures include

amounts, when rounded, cause an aberration in the percentage

some payments on behalf of general assistance clients who do not

increase. In these instances, the actual dollar amounts should be

qualify under Title XIX. A portion of the IGT funds provide the 10

consulted to determine the exact percentage increase.

percent local match required by Pennsylvania law for Medicaid clients in nursing homes. Other local funds used as match are not

The states were asked to separately detail the amount of provider

included in this report.

taxes, fees, donations, assessments and local funds reported as Rhode Island: Other State Funds include local match for

other state funds.

education only. Provider taxes totaled $24.0 million in fiscal 1999, Florida: For fiscal 1999, Other State Funds include the following:

$24.6 million in fiscal 2000, and are estimated to total $27.3 million

provider assessments $400.9 million, estate recovery $3.5 million,

in fiscal 2001. Provider taxes are not reported discretely in the

local county funds $92.4 million, pharmacy rebates $74.3 million,

survey and are not used for state match. Local funds are used for

tobacco settlement, $53.8 million, and state fraud recoupment

state match, and are reported as Other State Funds. They are the

$17.6 million. For fiscal 2000, Other State Funds include: provider

only expenditure in that category.

assessments $379.9 million, estate recovery $0.1 million, local county funds $94.1 million, pharmacy rebates $114.2 million, tobacco

Tennessee: Regarding premium revenue: fiscal 1999 totals $43.7

settlement, $67.9 million, and state fraud recoupment $7.2 million.

million, fiscal 2000 totals $52.7 million, and fiscal 2001 totals $50.0

For fiscal 2001, Other State Funds include: provider assessments

million. Regarding Certified Public Expenditures—Local funds from

$380.3 million, estate recovery $0.1 million, local county funds

hospitals: fiscal 1999 totals $184.8 million, fiscal 2000 totals $192.9

$181.8 million, pharmacy rebates $113.4 million, tobacco settlement,

million, and fiscal 2001 totals $171.5 million. Regarding the Nursing

$69.6 million, and state fraud recoupment $21.1 million.

Home Tax: fiscal 1999 totals $102.6 million, fiscal 2000 totals 102.8 million, and fiscal 2001 totals $102.8 million. Regarding the ICF/MR

Massachusetts: Fiscal 2000 data are estimates only. Michigan: Other state funds include local funds in the following amounts: $905.9 million for fiscal 1999; $1,219.6 million for fiscal 2000; $1,261.0 million for fiscal 2001. Public health and community and institutional care for mentally and developmentally disabled persons are partially reported in the Medicaid totals.

[60] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

6 percent Gross Receipts Tax: fiscal 1999 totals $14.8 million, fiscal 2000 totals $13.4 million, and fiscal 2001 totals $13.4 million. Regarding intergovernmental transfers: fiscal 1999 totals $0, fiscal 2000 totals $105.9 million, and fiscal 2001 totals $104.0 million.

CHAPTER FIVE S TAT E C O R R E C T I O N S EXPENDITURES 3.8% of State Expenditures

Total fiscal 2000 state spending for corrections is estimated to total

Nineteen states wholly or partially excluded spending on drug

$36.1 billion, a 6.1 percent increase from last year, but not nearly as

abuse rehabilitation centers, nineteen states excluded spending for

large as 1995 when spending increased by more than 17 percent.

local jails, and thirty-three excluded spending for institutions for the

Between fiscal 1992, the first year NASBO collected corrections

criminally insane.

expenditure data, and fiscal 2000, corrections spending increased an average of 8.4 percent. State corrections spending reflect the costs to build and operate prison systems and may include spending on juvenile justice programs and alternatives to incarceration such as probation and parole. Overall, spending for corrections has remained relatively constant over the years. For fiscal 2000, spending for corrections was 3.8 percent of total expenditures and 7.0 percent of all state general

Corrections expenditure data and a table listing programs excluded from the expenditure figures can be found on Tables 32-36, accompanied by explanatory notes. Also see Chapter Eight for details on corrections capital expenditure data.

I n m a t e Po p u l a t i o n C o n t i n u e s t o Rise as Crime Decreases

fund spending. State spending for corrections primarily has been in

While violent and property crime rates have decreased over the

the form of general fund dollars, averaging 87.1 percent of all

past seven years, state prison populations have continued to climb

corrections spending since fiscal 1992. State general fund shares for

and each year states continue to spend more on prisons.The FBI’s

corrections in fiscal 2000 are 88 percent, or $31.7 billion. Since

preliminary 2000 uniform crime statistics show that the crime rate

1992, the federal shares of state’s corrections spending has

overall was relatively unchanged in 2000 from 1999. Index crime

averaged less than 1.4 percent, and totaled $1.1 billion in state

rate consist of violent crimes and property crimes. Violent crimes,

corrections spending in fiscal 1999.

consisting of murders, rapes, aggravated assaults and robberies

Many states also face major demands for increased construction and operating costs for existing facilities. State capital expenditure data for corrections can be found in Chapter Eight and indicate that in fiscal 2000 over $2 billion will be spent on capital construction for corrections, most of it (over $1.3 billion) financed by bond proceeds.

were up 0.1 percent. Property crimes, consisting of burglaries, thefts, motor vehicle thefts and arsons were unchanged. Index crime rates dropped by 2.4 percent in the Northeast, 1.1 percent in the Midwest, and increased in the south by 1 percent, and 1.1 percent in the West.

Capital spending for corrections decreased by 2.9 percent in 2000,

The crime rate has stabilized, yet the number of inmates in custody

it is expected to decrease by 4.4 percent in fiscal 2001.

continues to increase, but at a much slower rate than seen in previous years. In the year ending June 30, 2000, the nation’s state

Regional Expenditures

prison population grew by the smallest percentage in 29 years at 1.5 percent. During this period, the number of inmates held in local

The following table shows percentage changes in expenditures for

jails rose by 15,206, in state jails by 27,953, and in Federal prisons

corrections for fiscal 1999 to 2000 and 2000 to 2001. Between fiscal

by 13,501. Between 1990 and 2000, the rate of incarceration

1999 and fiscal 2000, the Great Lakes and Far West regions showed

increased from 1 in every 218 U.S. residents to 1 in every 142.

the largest increases of 12.6 percent and 7.1 percent, respectively. At midyear 2000, 1,931,859 persons were incarcerated in the In contrast, the Rocky Mountain region experienced a decrease in

nations prisons and jails, a 3 percent increase from 1999. Between

state corrections expenditures of 5.2 percent, while the Southeast

1999 and 2000, the number of persons held in state prisons grew

and Plains regions had the lowest increases in corrections spending

from 1,151,261, to 1,179,214, a 2.4 percent rise. That increase is

(3.3 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively) and were well below the

considerably less than the ten-year average increase of 5.9 percent.

national average in fiscal 2000.

Inmates held in local jails increased by 2.5 percent from last year, totaling 621,149 in 2000.

Corrections Expenditures Exclusions For this report, twenty states wholly or partially excluded juvenile delinquency counseling from their corrections figures and twelve states wholly or partially excluded spending on juvenile institutions.

[62] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

States with the highest incarceration rate per 100,000 residents in 2000 include: Louisiana (793, a 3.8 percent increase from 1999); Texas (779, a 0.5 percent increase); Oklahoma (681, a 4.5 percent increase); and Mississippi (630, a 2.9 percent increase). States with the lowest incarceration rate per 100,000 residents include

Minnesota (129, a 6.9 percent increase from 1999); Maine (130, a 0.5 percent increase); North Dakota (146, a 10.5 percent increase); and New Hampshire (185, -0.1 percent increase). Midwestern (2.6 percent) and Southern states (2.1 percent) led the nation in percentage growth in incarceration rates between 1999 and 2000. Twelve states realized declines in incarceration rates ranging from -0.1 to -10.8.

Figure 17 STATE EXPENDITURES FOR CORRECTIONS BY FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2000

Federal Funds 3.1% Other State Funds 5.4% Bonds 3.7%

Adult Corrections Health Care Expenditures According to NASBO’s 1998-1999 State Health Care Expenditure Report—-state health care spending for adult corrections in fiscal

General Funds 87.8%

1998 totaled $2.62 billion, with states contributing $2.54 billion. In fiscal 1999, spending totaled $2.84 billion, with states contributing $2.54 billion. In both years, states absorbed 97 percent of total costs. In terms of total amounts spent in fiscal 1998 and 1999 on adult corrections health care, state spending ranged from a high of $504 million in California, to a low of 1.4 million in North Dakota. States spending the greatest amounts were California ($504 million),Texas ($359 million), Florida ($229.7 million), and Michigan ($173 million).

Table 31 REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE CORRECTIONS EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2000 AND 2001 Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Region New England Mid-Atlantic Great Lakes Plains Southeast Southwest Rocky Mountain Far West ALL STATES

Fiscal 2000 to 2001

State Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Federal Funds

Funds

5.6% 4.0 10.9 5.3 4.3 5.4 -5.0 5.6 5.6%

66.7% 88.0 35.7 14.6 -17.6 -13.4 33.3 4.7 22.5%

6.2% 5.0 12.6 4.5 3.3 4.9 -5.2 7.1 6.1%

12.6% 10.4 6.5 6.1 2.4 4.7 10.4 6.9 6.5%

40.0% -26.4 9.5 20.0 27.3 36.9 0.0 19.3 4.1%

12.3% 6.8 3.9 5.7 3.7 5.3 10.1 4.2 5.2%

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[63]

Table 32 CORRECTIONS EXPENDITURES—CAPITAL INCLUSIVE ($ IN MILLIONS) Actual Fiscal 1999 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts* New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

$415 80 712 49 148 59

$3 2 1 1 5 0

$0 3 11 4 2 1

$1 0 37 16 0 1

$419 85 761 70 155 61

$471 84 723 57 138 67

$2 11 1 1 5 0

$2 2 15 5 2 1

$10 0 34 15 0 1

$485 97 773 78 145 69

$499 100 798 63 146 70

$1 10 9 1 7 0

$0 60 12 5 11 1

$20 0 28 4 0 4

$520 170 847 73 164 75

142 648 948 2,401 1,227

6 16 19 139 36

2 48 0 23 49

30 71 1 336 67

180 783 968 2,899 1,379

169 696 1,010 2,367 1,323

6 29 31 273 67

2 66 0 24 52

24 53 7 268 52

201 844 1,048 2,932 1,494

179 796 1,066 2,735 1,372

5 19 17 165 93

2 59 0 36 56

16 48 1 210 86

202 922 1,084 3,146 1,607

1,038 443 1,408 1,377 620

0 0 30 33 7

61 52 93 151 137

50 97 86 109 0

1,149 592 1,617 1,670 764

1,113 522 1,596 1,512 710

0 0 62 32 1

74 50 88 161 141

151 45 105 159 0

1,338 617 1,851 1,864 852

1,175 568 1,729 1,610 713

0 0 58 43 3

78 47 102 193 139

145 0 36 135 0

1,398 615 1,925 1,981 855

219 248 345 429 102 24 41

5 10 9 3 10 7 4

45 26 12 32 21 5 5

10 0 45 0 0 0 0

279 284 411 464 133 36 50

238 263 342 423 144 28 44

6 11 7 4 18 5 4

51 32 11 30 20 5 5

9 0 21 8 0 2 0

304 306 381 465 182 40 53

251 267 395 428 133 35 48

7 23 15 9 1 6 5

47 40 14 49 12 11 6

8 0 20 0 0 0 0

313 330 444 486 146 52 59

249 149 1,554 1,002 307 459 216 888 399 375 850 77

7 2 54 27 17 4 12 4 18 11 19 7

49 37 45 32 96 84 9 26 75 29 42 6

0 0 0 35 0 19 0 0 2 0 17 0

305 188 1,653 1,096 420 566 237 918 494 415 928 90

258 161 1,554 1,091 338 517 245 900 431 395 899 79

4 7 27 22 17 8 8 4 13 13 26 1

52 34 66 31 48 46 10 27 80 21 69 9

0 0 0 18 0 12 3 0 4 0 4 0

314 202 1,647 1,162 403 583 266 931 528 429 998 89

266 166 1,562 1,152 364 565 243 876 420 454 904 86

5 4 36 29 21 7 0 0 32 30 26 1

65 45 83 0 35 50 13 7 82 28 62 9

0 0 0 29 0 2 22 0 27 21 3 0

336 215 1,681 1,210 420 624 278 883 561 533 995 96

586 148 322 2,364

22 1 5 69

97 18 38 240

0 0 0 0

705 167 365 2,673

622 154 365 2,629

15 2 5 62

52 16 31 150

0 0 0 0

689 172 401 2,841

658 165 366 2,754

23 1 8 83

63 18 36 147

0 0 0 0

744 184 410 2,984

339 108 82 219 0

7 6 1 4 0

180 22 6 17 0

0 3 0 9 0

526 139 89 249 0

382 110 90 230 0

7 7 1 9 0

50 23 6 33 0

0 3 0 0 0

439 143 97 272 0

419 125 96 249 0

5 10 1 8 0

69 28 6 28 0

0 3 0 0 0

493 166 103 285 0

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada* Oregon Washington

161 4,547 145 161 390 513

7 201 2 16 15 17

7 16 7 33 145 23

1 12 3 52 0 131

176 4,776 157 262 550 684

165 4,748 132 147 484 548

7 220 1 0 17 25

16 16 8 19 178 31

0 9 3 0 184 119

188 4,993 144 166 863 723

166 5,179 135 157 487 580

8 257 0 0 19 38

20 18 17 41 100 40

0 0 1 0 25 85

194 5,454 153 198 631 743

TOTAL Puerto Rico

$29,733 380

$901 5

$2,162 28

$1,241 $34,037 0 413

$31,714 413

$1,104 9

$1,961 28

$1,323 $36,102 0 450

$33,770 402

$1,149 10

$2,090 78

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland* New Jersey* New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan* Ohio* Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico* Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[64] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

$979 $37,988 0 490

Table 33 CORRECTIONS EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES Region/State

Fiscal 1999

Fiscal 2000

Fiscal 2001

2.7% 1.9 3.2 2.8 3.9 3.0

2.7% 2.0 2.9 2.3 3.4 3.1

2.9% 2.8 3.2 2.1 3.4 3.1

3.8 4.6 3.6 4.1 3.7

4.0 4.6 3.5 4.0 3.9

3.8 4.6 3.4 4.0 3.8

3.7 3.9 4.8 4.6 3.4

3.8 3.7 5.3 4.8 3.3

3.6 3.7 5.2 4.5 4.1

2.6 3.4 2.3 3.0 2.5 1.7 2.6

2.6 3.6 2.1 2.9 3.1 1.8 2.5

2.7 3.6 2.1 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.6

2.2 2.0 3.6 4.5 2.9 3.7 2.7 3.9 3.7 2.8 4.4 1.5

2.1 2.0 3.4 4.5 3.2 3.7 2.8 3.6 3.1 2.7 4.5 1.4

1.9 2.0 3.3 4.7 3.0 3.8 2.6 3.6 3.1 3.0 4.3 1.4

4.9 2.4 3.6 5.9

4.6 2.1 3.8 5.7

4.7 2.0 3.5 5.7

4.6 4.1 3.4 3.9 —-

3.6 3.9 3.5 4.1 —-

3.7 3.9 3.3 4.0 —-

3.4 4.4 2.4 3.7 5.5 3.3

3.6 4.1 2.1 3.6 8.1 3.4

3.4 3.9 2.0 3.7 5.1 3.6

3.9% 2.1

3.8% 2.4

3.7% 2.3

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[65]

Table 34 CORRECTIONS GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Fiscal 1999

Fiscal 2000

Fiscal 2001

4.0% 3.7 4.4 5.2 7.9 7.6

4.2% 3.6 4.0 5.4 6.8 7.8

4.4% 3.7 4.5 5.8 6.6 8.1

6.6 7.6 5.2 7.1 6.7

7.5 7.7 5.2 6.9 6.9

7.2 7.9 5.1 7.4 6.9

6.6 6.7 15.2 7.6 6.3

6.5 7.0 17.1 7.9 6.3

6.5 7.5 17.7 7.5 6.4

4.8 5.9 3.1 6.1 4.6 3.1 5.6

5.0 6.0 2.9 5.8 6.1 3.6 5.8

5.1 6.0 3.0 5.5 5.4 4.2 6.0

5.1 5.0 8.8 7.4 4.8 7.9 6.9 6.9 7.8 5.8 8.9 3.6

4.9 5.2 8.4 7.3 5.2 8.9 7.1 6.4 7.6 5.8 8.5 3.5

5.1 5.1 7.8 8.0 5.2 9.2 6.8 6.2 7.3 6.0 8.3 3.8

9.9 4.9 7.3 9.5

10.3 4.4 8.2 9.6

10.3 4.3 7.2 9.4

7.2 6.7 7.9 6.7 —-

7.6 6.5 8.2 6.8 —-

7.9 6.8 7.7 6.6 —-

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

7.0 7.9 4.5 10.2 9.5 5.2

7.3 7.1 4.1 9.3 9.2 5.4

7.2 6.6 4.0 9.6 10.1 5.5

ALL STATES Puerto Rico

7.1% 5.7

7.0% 5.8

6.9% 5.3

Region/State NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[66] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 35 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN CORRECTION EXPENDITURES

State Funds

Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

14.0% 3.6 2.1 17.0 -6.7 13.3

-33.3% 450.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 —-

15.8% 14.1 1.6 11.4 -6.5 13.1

5.5% 86.0 9.8 9.7 12.1 4.4

-50.0% -9.1 800.0 0.0 40.0 —-

7.2% 75.3 9.6 -6.4 13.1 8.7

18.8 9.5 6.5 -1.4 7.8

0.0 81.3 63.2 96.4 86.1

11.7 7.8 8.3 1.1 8.3

5.8 12.2 5.5 15.9 3.9

-16.7 -34.5 -45.2 -39.6 38.8

0.5 9.2 3.4 7.3 7.6

8.0 15.6 12.2 9.5 12.4

——106.7 -3.0 -85.7

16.4 4.2 14.5 11.6 11.5

5.6 7.5 8.7 7.8 0.1

——-6.5 34.4 200.0

4.5 -0.3 4.0 6.3 0.4

9.5 7.7 -1.1 -1.7 33.3 13.8 6.5

20.0 10.0 -22.2 33.3 80.0 -28.6 0.0

9.0 7.7 -7.3 0.2 36.8 11.1 6.0

3.1 4.1 15.9 5.3 -11.6 39.4 10.2

16.7 109.1 114.3 125.0 -94.4 20.0 25.0

3.0 7.8 16.5 4.5 -19.8 30.0 11.3

4.0 4.8 1.3 8.5 -4.2 3.7 13.3 1.4 7.8 3.0 8.5 6.0

-42.9 250.0 -50.0 -18.5 0.0 100.0 -33.3 0.0 -27.8 18.2 36.8 -85.7

3.0 7.4 -0.4 6.0 -4.0 3.0 12.2 1.4 6.9 3.4 7.5 -1.1

6.8 8.2 1.5 2.7 3.4 9.2 0.4 -4.7 -1.8 15.9 -0.2 8.0

25.0 -42.9 33.3 31.8 23.5 -12.5 -100.0 -100.0 146.2 130.8 0.0 0.0

7.0 6.4 2.1 4.1 4.2 7.0 4.5 -5.2 6.3 24.2 -0.3 7.9

-1.3 2.4 10.0 6.7

-31.8 100.0 0.0 -10.1

-2.3 3.0 9.9 6.3

7.0 7.6 1.5 4.4

53.3 -50.0 60.0 33.9

8.0 7.0 2.2 5.0

-16.8 2.3 9.1 11.4 —-

0.0 16.7 0.0 125.0 —-

-16.5 2.9 9.0 9.2 —-

13.0 15.0 6.3 5.3 —-

-28.6 42.9 0.0 -11.1 —-

12.3 16.1 6.2 4.8 —-

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

7.7 4.4 -7.9 —23.7 8.0

0.0 9.5 -50.0 —13.3 47.1

6.8 4.5 -8.3 —56.9 5.7

2.8 9.1 8.6 19.3 -11.3 7.1

14.3 16.8 -100.0 —11.8 52.0

3.2 9.2 6.3 19.3 -26.9 2.8

ALL STATES Puerto Rico

5.6% 8.1

22.5% 80.0

6.1% 9.0

6.5% 8.8

4.1% 11.1

5.2% 8.9

Region/State

Fiscal 2000 to 2001 Federal Funds

All Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho* Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded). Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[67]

Table 36 ITEMS EXCLUDED FROM CORRECTIONS EXPENDITURES

Region/State

Employer Contributions to Pensions

Employer Contributions to Health Benefits

Juvenile Delinquency Counseling

Juvenile Institutions

Aid to Local Govts. for Jails

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

P X X X

Drug Abuse Rehab. Centers

Institutions for the Criminally Insane

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

X X

X X P

X

X

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X

GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin

P

P X P

P X P

X

P P X P X

PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota

X

X

X X X

P X X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X

P

X X X X X

SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia

X X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X P

X

X

P X

SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas

X X X

X

X

X

X

X P X

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming

X X

P

X X

X X

FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

P P

ALL STATES Puerto Rico

5

Excluded=X

P

13

X

20

Partially Excluded=P

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[68] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

P

12

X

X

19

19 P

Not Applicable=N/A

X X X X X 33

Corrections Notes

New Jersey: The State purchases jail space from the counties.This is included in Department of Corrections expenditures. Institutes

Small dollar amounts, when rounded, cause an aberration in the

for the criminally insane are funded through the Department of

percentage increase. In these instances, the actual dollar amounts

Human Services.The care and treatment of civilly committed sexual

should be consulted to determine the exact percentage increase.

offenders are included in Department of Corrections expenditures.

Maryland: Figures include capital expenditures for the Department of Public Safety, state police, juvenile justice, and local jails. Fiscal 1998 and fiscal1999 figures do not include the public safety training center.

Juvenile institutions and programs are not included as part of the Department of Corrections.The Juvenile Justice Commission funds these institutions, which is included in the Department of Law and Public Safety.

Massachusetts: Corrections expenditures are inclusive of state spending for county corrections, of which the state pays approximately 96 percent or, typically, $300 million or more annually. Michigan: Figures include adult inmate and juvenile justice expenditures.

New Mexico: Includes the federal violent offender incarceration truth in sentencing grant of $5.4 million. Ohio: See General Notes for discussion of double counting issues that affect percentage of total expenditure amounts.

Nevada: Juvenile programs and institutions are excluded from fiscal 2000 and fiscal 2001 figures. For fiscal 1999, juvenile corrections reflected $11.4 million in general funds, $1.0 million in federal funds, and $1.3 million in other state funds.

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[69]

CHAPTER SIX T R A N S P O RTAT I O N 8.8% of State Expenditures

Transportation represents 8.8 percent of total state expenditures.

Although it continues to be a stable source of revenue, motor fuel

In 2000, states spent $83.1 billion on transportation, a 4.1 percent

taxes are not anticipated to increase, unless drastic changes in

increase from the 1999 level of $79.8 billion. Figures for capital

federal motor fuel tax rates occur as part of Transportation Equity

spending on transportation by states show actual 2000

Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). An example of a drastic change

expenditures of $37 billion.

to the federal motor fuel tax rate that may increase state gas tax rates would be a substantial reduction or repeal of all or a portion

State transportation expenditures are primarily funded from earmarked revenues placed in special transportation (highway) trust funds, captured in the “Other State Funds” category.The major earmarked revenue source is the gasoline tax. Listed below are state gasoline excise tax rates. It is important to note that some states also apply sales tax for the purchase of gasoline; the two should be considered in combination when assessing the tax

of the federal gas tax rate. Currently, eleven states have variable rate motor fuel taxes and are adjusted at specific intervals to sustain funding levels. Also, if the federal tax rate should decrease, four states (California, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Tennessee) have provisions in their statutes that will automatically trigger an increase in the state motor fuel tax rate. Other states require a change in legislation to adjust fuel tax rates.

burden by state. Also, many gas tax rates change frequently.The tax rates below are as of January of 2001.

TEA-21 In June 1998, President Clinton signed into law the Transportation

STATE GASOLINE TAX RATES (as of January 2001)

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). In July 1998, the TEA-21 Restoration Act was enacted to provide technical corrections to the original law.

Alabama

18.0

Montana

27.0

Alaska

8.0

Nebraska

24.8

TEA-21 authorized $215 billion in budget authority for highway,

Arizona

18.0

Nevada

24.0

transit, research and motor carrier programs over six years

Arkansas

20.7

New Hampshire

19.0

(1998-2003). This includes $175 billion in highway programs, of

California

18.0

New Jersey

10.54

which $165 billion is guaranteed funding, and provides $2.2

Colorado

22.0

New Mexico

18.0

billion for highway safety and $650 million for motor carrier

Connecticut

25.0

New York

Delaware

23.0

North Carolina

24.55

Florida

13.3

North Dakota

21.0

Georgia

7.5

Ohio

22.0

Hawaii

16.0

Oklahoma

17.0

Idaho

26.0

Oregon

29.0

Illinois

19.3

Pennsylvania

25.9

Indiana

15.0

Rhode Island

29.0

Iowa

20.0

South Carolina

16.0

Kansas

20.0

South Dakota

22.0

Kentucky

16.4

Tennessee

21.4

Louisiana

20.0

Texas

20.0

Maine

22.0

Utah

24.75

Maryland

23.5

Vermont

20.0

Massachusetts

21.0

Virginia

17.5

Michigan

19.0

Washington

23.0

Minnesota

20.0

West Virginia

25.35

Mississippi

18.4

Wisconsin

26.4

17.05

Wyoming

14.0

Missouri

Source: Federation of Tax Administrators-February 2001

8.0

safety grants. TEA-21 is a major revision of the former Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and is the result of months of negotiations and compromises between Congress, the executive branch and the states. Prior to TEA-21, transportation funds were appropriated annually as part of the federal discretionary budget. Also, payments from the federal highway trust fund to the states were determined by separate formulas under individual programs and administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Under this funding scheme, the disparity between those states that collected more in motor fuel taxes than they received in federal funding, dubbed “donor” states, and states that receive more federal funding than they collected in fuel taxes, termed “donee” states, was considerable. This created criticism because many states received as little as 63 percent of what they contributed to federal gas taxes in federal transportation funding. To address this issue, a new provision of TEA-21 was created to establish a 90 percent minimum level of transportation funding for each state. This was designed to eliminate the wide disparity between the “donor” and “donee” states under ISTEA. It

[72] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

guaranteed “donor” states a minimum level of transportation

Aviation Reauthorization

funding by establishing budgetary “firewalls” between highway and transit programs and other discretionary programs. In addition to

In April 2000, President Clinton signed into law the Wendell H. Ford

the “firewalls,” TEA-21 also removed the ability of Congress to shift

Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21),

reductions in total transportation spending to other federal

that will increase authorizations by more than $10 billion to a level

discretionary programs. The result of these changes is an average

of $40 billion over the three-year period from 2001-2003. The

increase or more than 40 percent in transportation funding.

funds will be used for airport improvement programs to enhance facilities and equipment, airport operations and research. Of the

In addition to higher overall funding levels, TEA-21 provides a

funding, $33 billion is guaranteed from the Aviation Trust Fund. A total

guaranteed funding “floor” of $198 billion for future highway

of $6.7 billion is subject to appropriations from the general fund.

spending ($162.7 billion) and transit programs ($36 billion). The $36 billion funding guarantee for transit is fixed and will not vary

The bill also authorizes airports to increase maximum passenger

over time. Actual funding levels may ultimately exceed $36 billion,

facility charges from $3.00 to $4.50 to be used for airport

as they will be directly tied to actual federal gas tax receipts.There

improvements that benefit passengers and communities. Examples

will still be “non-guaranteed” programs, such as AMTRAK, that will

of improvements consist of noise mitigation, security, safety, and

compete for funding in the federal budget.

building terminal and landside infrastructure to meet the growing need for air transportation.

TIFIA

Recently, the Federal Aviation Administration Office of Airports announced that 30 U.S. airports are approved to increase their

The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of

passenger facility charge to $4.50.

1998 (TIFIA), a new federal innovative finance program, was authorized under TEA-21.The program is under the direction of the

Total funding levels are listed below including a state-by-state

Department of Transportation (DOT) and provides three forms of

breakdown for airport improvement programs.

credit assistance for surface transportation projects of national or regional significance. TIFIA awards federal credit assistance rather

AIR 21 FUNDING LEVELS ($ IN BILLIONS)

than grants in the form of secured loans, loan guarantees, and

FY 2000

FY 2001

FY 2002

FY 2003

1.9 2 5.89 0.156

3.2 2.66 6.59 0.237

3.3 2.91 6.88 0.249

3.4 2.98 7.36 0.255

transportation, private entities, transit operators, local governments,

Airport Improvement Program Facilities and Equipment Operations Research

and special authorities.

Source: American Association of State Highway And Transportation Officials, April 7, 2000.

standby lines of credit to public and private sponsors of major transportation projects. Sponsors consist of state departments of

Since the inception of TIFIA, the DOT has selected 10 projects at a federal government budgetary cost of $194 million and has provided $3.14 billion in credit assistance supporting transportation

S e l e c t e d We b R e s o u r c e s •

investments worth nearly $12 billion. Fiscal 2000 projects selected for funding include:

U.S. Department of Transportation www.dot.gov



Federal Highway Administration www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21



Staten Island Ferries and Terminals, New York City.



Cooper River Bridge, Charleston, S.C.



Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Pierce County, WA.



American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials www.aashto.org/main

Fiscal 2001 projects selected for funding include: •



www.house.gov/transportation •

National Transportation Library www.bts.gov/smart

Central Texas Turnpike Project,TX.This is a $3.2 billion project supported by an $800 million TIFIA loan.

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure



Federation of Tax Administrators www.taxadmin.org



Reno Transportation Rail Access Corridor Project, NV. This is a $242 million project, supported by a $79.5 million TIFIA loan.



Federal Aviation Administration www.faa.gov 2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[73]

TEA-21 VS. FY 1999 PAYMENTS BY STATES TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND AND FEDERAL-AID APPORTIONMENTS AND ALLOCATIONS FROM THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND ($ IN THOUSANDS) FY 1999

FY 1999

Payments into the

Apportionments

Highway Account

And Allocations

FY 1999

Donor/Donee

TEA-21

of the Fund

from the fund

Ratio

Apportionment*

1998-2003 Average

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California

612,260 64,697 536,227 406,822 2,886,124

558,522 367,961 462,675 362,686 2,677,356

0.91 5.69 0.86 0.89 0.93

Donor Donee Donor Donor Donor

537,675 314,599 441,347 352,232 2,446,496

Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida

369,498 290,176 79,908 32,621 1,490,090

365,751 406,538 128,857 113,325 1,239,478

0.99 1.4 1.61 3.47 0.83

Donor Donee Donee Donee Donor

311,089 400,966 116,811 104,452 1,250,768

Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana

1,122,619 69,542 160,970 923,365 773,522

968,038 140,302 225,039 919,637 668,621

0.86 2.02 1.4 1 0.86

Donor Donee Donee Donor Donor

945,752 136,692 204,616 892,944 646,610

339,027 328,532 563,865 508,607 146,102

323,708 312,517 486,403 455,011 146,530

0.95 0.95 0.86 0.89 1

Donor Donor Donor Donor Donee

317,369 309,372 470,793 430,165 140,630

505,207 529,496 1,012,709 377,623 403,791

432,942 501,766 859,394 410,220 346,421

0.86 0.95 0.85 1.09 0.86

Donor Donor Donor Donee Donor

422,710 496,277 853,937 395,867 333,535

755,878 129,785 234,422 199,698 133,486

686,292 286,689 207,740 214,887 143,089

0.91 2.21 0.89 1.08 1.07

Donor Donee Donor Donee Donee

642,585 262,162 205,101 191,374 136,747

New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota

836,696 253,446 1,167,635 883,278 98,759

685,089 272,217 1,384,001 778,511 176,955

0.82 1.07 1.19 0.88 1.79

Donor Donee Donee Donor Donee

699,672 260,975 1,363,167 747,272 173,025

Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island

1,065,646 470,398 366,268 1,188,016 78,077

1,012,846 412,674 361,540 1,341,275 163,192

0.95 0.88 0.99 1.13 2.09

Donor Donor Donor Donee Donee

921,081 408,359 327,570 1,333,863 158,146

South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah

527,432 99,070 721,040 2,397,981 241,886

431,620 199,363 628,841 2,020,415 316,237

0.82 2.01 0.87 0.84 1.31

Donor Donee Donor Donor Donee

440,374 192,720 607,825 2,003,809 208,004

Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin

75,296 810,684 534,299 222,846 581,319

124,470 710,904 526,347 307,096 535,470

1.65 0.88 0.99 1.38 0.92

Donee Donor Donor Donee Donor

120,742 684,309 473,546 298,861 525,854

Wyoming Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Territories

163,936 -

202,830 150,289 15,291 21,000

1.24 -

Donee Donee Donee Donee

184,365

$28,770,677

$28,196,868

0.98

STATE

Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire

Total

FY 1999

26,845,212

Note:These numbers do not include tax receipts transferred to the Mass Transit account. Source: Highway Statistics 1999, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. * Represents the average estimated allocation as per TEA-21 for 1998 thru 2003. FY 1998 to FY2001 apportionments reflect actual apportionments. Apportionment estimates for FY 2002 and FY 2003 are based on factors used for FY 2000 apportionments.

[74] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Fund Shares

Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n — E x p e n d i t u r e Exclusions

The figure below provides fund shares for 1999. Of the states reporting in this survey, sixteen wholly or partially Figure 18 STATE EXPENDITURES FOR TRANSPORTATION BY FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2000

excluded gas tax and fee collections from their transportation expenditure figures. Thirty-five states wholly or partially excluded port authority operations, twenty wholly or partially excluded motor vehicle licensing, and forty wholly or partially excluded state

Federal Funds 27.4%

police/highway patrol.

General Funds 4.8%

Expenditure data on transportation can be found on Tables 37-41,

Bonds 5.6%

excluded from the expenditure figures. Details on capital

accompanied by explanatory notes. Table 41 lists programs expenditures for transportation can be found in Chapter Eight.

Other State Funds 62.2%

Regional Expenditures The following table shows percentage change in transportation expenditures for fiscal 1999-2000 and fiscal 2000-2001. For fiscal 2000, the Southwest and Great Lakes states were well above the national average of 4.1 percent at 12.1 and 11.6 percent, respectively. Also, the percentage change in the Plains states was strikingly well above the national average for fiscal 2000 at 8.5 percent.The state of Illinois has included funds that will be used for a major highway improvement program that extends from 19992003. The Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states were well below national average.

Table 37 REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2000 AND 2001 Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Region New England Mid-Atlantic Great Lakes Plains Southeast Southwest Rocky Mountain Far West ALL STATES

Fiscal 2000 to 2001

State Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

11.7% -2.6 8.8 3.1 1.2 9.5 6.8 0.1 3.3%

-5.1% 3.9 20.6 8.8 2.6 16.4 9.6 15.7 8.3%

4.8% 1.0 11.6 8.5 -0.9 12.1 2.5 2.8 4.1%

-12.7% 10.8 5.8 16.2 -14.4 6.0 4.0 26.7 4.2%

30.8% 18.2 9.4 7.8 11.9 5.8 -2.5 31.3 14.9%

5.3% 12.6 6.7 18.0 -4.5 6.2 11.9 33.7 9.5%

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[75]

Table 38 TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES—CAPITAL INCLUSIVE ($ IN MILLIONS) Actual Fiscal 1999 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

$0 2 729 2 0 0

$505 130 580 125 185 113

$440 243 850 231 112 127

$166 41 508 7 32 1

$1,111 416 2,667 365 329 241

$0 8 884 2 0 0

$473 146 485 145 176 129

$460 268 947 257 89 142

$188 19 521 3 32 1

$1,121 441 2,837 407 297 272

$35 14 288 3 0 0

$561 205 740 143 232 152

$416 385 965 275 138 149

$181 26 708 9 34 0

$1,193 630 2,701 430 404 301

0 0 925 383 288

107 420 580 1,107 892

242 1,901 0 2,168 2,579

29 0 531 780 142

378 2,321 2,036 4,438 3,901

0 0 930 365 302

116 473 554 1,166 917

205 1,936 0 2,018 2,506

84 0 613 890 128

405 2,409 2,097 4,439 3,853

0 0 1,245 428 317

120 707 643 1,181 1,163

235 2,173 0 2,030 2,727

70 0 736 931 155

425 2,880 2,624 4,570 4,362

49 90 18 37 0

97 257 741 570 547

2,385 1,155 1,938 2,015 1,294

40 0 36 335 0

2,571 1,502 2,733 2,957 1,841

42 103 15 45 0

88 345 1,024 638 572

3,009 1,170 1,838 2,204 1,345

129 0 5 373 0

3,268 1,618 2,882 3,260 1,917

67 103 0 51 0

121 447 925 869 556

3,496 1,094 1,976 2,172 1,381

354 0 5 189 0

4,038 1,644 2,906 3,281 1,937

14 99 76 18 1 0 0

283 291 128 32 2 158 160

682 477 1,438 1,143 510 125 141

0 74 13 0 0 0 0

979 941 1,655 1,193 513 283 301

14 73 76 17 1 0 0

383 191 157 27 2 201 186

802 167 1,437 1,406 575 129 175

0 325 19 0 0 0 0

1,199 756 1,689 1,450 578 330 361

14 62 454 23 1 0 1

282 290 247 31 3 158 226

771 474 1,841 1,137 547 162 174

0 305 45 260 0 0 0

1,067 1,131 2,587 1,451 551 320 401

0 1 0 670 6 10 25 11 17 0 3 2

1,400 0 695 739 386 388 253 739 296 457 548 274

775 618 4,152 269 1,166 633 598 1,701 479 459 2,312 507

0 0 697 325 0 33 125 0 15 0 90 56

2,175 619 5,544 2,003 1,558 1,064 1,001 2,451 807 916 2,953 839

0 1 0 618 7 2 10 21 1 0 0 3

538 0 1,015 788 526 445 316 939 296 625 508 339

472 680 5,125 280 0 696 625 1,954 888 368 2,321 514

0 0 218 137 0 16 0 0 123 84 65 172

1,010 681 6,358 1,823 533 1,159 951 2,914 1,308 1,077 2,894 1,028

0 1 200 663 7 0 0 15 1 0 39 9

935 0 1,074 860 505 446 351 775 458 648 500 536

481 741 2,936 23 0 652 574 1,846 977 364 2,434 524

0 0 369 92 0 10 223 0 175 88 52 184

1,416 742 4,579 1,638 512 1,108 1,148 2,636 1,611 1,100 3,025 1,253

1 0 49 17

384 359 281 1,513

873 352 633 2,423

224 0 1 0

1,482 711 964 3,953

0 4 50 37

431 360 314 1,849

967 337 654 2,713

251 0 0 0

1,649 701 1,018 4,599

20 10 55 22

437 289 546 1,854

1,299 370 447 2,825

287 0 0 0

2,043 669 1,048 4,701

0 0 8 111 0

660 141 221 244 0

1,112 250 178 361 0

0 0 0 240 0

1,772 391 407 956 0

0 0 8 124 0

747 166 244 231 0

1,258 209 200 359 0

0 0 0 68 0

2,005 375 452 782 0

1 0 8 135 0

584 237 305 227 0

1,284 242 166 409 0

439 0 0 6 0

2,308 479 479 777 0

182 27 0 0 0 5

487 1,962 80 166 12 278

414 4,727 654 261 859 1,128

34 278 29 0 0 28

1,117 6,994 763 427 871 1,439

197 42 0 1 4 6

767 2,095 87 152 14 338

291 4,922 669 371 707 1,052

0 159 33 0 0 27

1,255 7,218 789 524 725 1,423

185 1,635 0 0 16 5

645 3,086 105 186 77 436

271 4,892 721 371 1,287 1,088

6 331 113 100 58 343

1,107 9,944 939 657 1,438 1,872

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania* GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio* Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida* Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee* Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico* Oklahoma Texas* ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada* Oregon Washington TOTAL Puerto Rico

$3,876 $20,973 $50,090 64 227 1,107

$4,910 $79,849 0 1,398

$4,013 $22,724 $51,717 81 341 932

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[76] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

$4,683 $83,137 0 1,354

$6,133 $26,104 $51,942 72 558 664

$6,884 $91,063 0 1,294

Table 39 TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES Fiscal 1999

Fiscal 2000

Fiscal 2001

7.0% 9.3 11.0 14.3 8.3 11.9

6.2% 9.1 10.7 12.0 7.0 12.2

6.6% 10.5 10.1 12.3 8.4 12.6

8.0 13.6 7.6 6.2 10.6

8.1 13.2 7.1 6.0 10.0

8.1 14.4 8.3 5.8 10.4

8.2 9.9 8.1 8.2 8.1

9.3 9.6 8.2 8.4 7.3

10.5 9.9 7.8 7.4 9.3

9.2 11.3 9.4 7.8 9.6 13.3 15.5

10.3 9.0 9.2 9.1 10.0 14.6 17.1

9.3 12.4 12.1 8.5 9.7 14.1 17.4

15.9 6.5 12.2 8.3 10.6 7.0 11.3 10.3 6.0 6.2 14.1 13.8

6.9 6.7 13.0 7.0 4.2 7.4 9.8 11.3 7.7 6.8 12.9 15.9

8.2 6.8 8.9 6.4 3.7 6.7 10.7 10.6 8.9 6.1 13.2 18.7

10.3 10.4 9.6 8.7

11.0 8.5 9.6 9.3

12.9 7.3 8.8 9.0

15.4 11.6 15.6 14.9 —-

16.3 10.3 16.2 11.9 —-

17.3 11.3 15.2 10.9 —-

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

21.6 6.4 11.7 6.0 8.8 7.0

23.9 5.9 11.6 11.4 6.8 6.6

19.3 7.1 12.5 12.1 11.5 9.0

ALL STATES Puerto Rico

9.1% 7.3

8.8% 7.1

9.0% 6.1

Region/State NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[77]

Table 40 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES

State Funds

Region/State

Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Fiscal 2000 to 2001 Federal Funds

All Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

4.5% 12.7 16.0 11.2 -20.5 11.8

-6.3% 12.3 -16.4 16.0 -4.9 14.2

0.9% 6.0 6.4 11.5 -9.7 12.9

-2.0% 44.6 -31.6 7.3 55.1 4.9

18.6% 40.4 52.6 -1.4 31.8 17.8

6.4% 42.9 -4.8 5.7 36.0 10.7

-15.3 1.8 0.5 -6.6 -2.1

8.4 12.6 -4.5 5.3 2.8

7.1 3.8 3.0 0.0 -1.2

14.6 12.2 33.9 3.1 8.4

3.4 49.5 16.1 1.3 26.8

4.9 19.6 25.1 3.0 13.2

25.3 2.2 -5.3 9.6 3.9

-9.3 34.2 38.2 11.9 4.6

27.1 7.7 5.5 10.2 4.1

16.8 -6.0 6.6 -1.2 2.7

37.5 29.6 -9.7 36.2 -2.8

23.6 1.6 0.8 0.6 1.0

17.2 -58.3 -0.1 22.6 12.7 3.2 24.1

35.3 -34.4 22.7 -15.6 0.0 27.2 16.3

22.5 -19.7 2.1 21.5 12.7 16.6 19.9

-3.8 123.3 51.7 -18.5 -4.9 25.6 0.0

-26.4 51.8 57.3 14.8 50.0 -21.4 21.5

-11.0 49.6 53.2 0.1 -4.7 -3.0 11.1

-39.1 10.0 23.4 -4.4 -99.4 8.6 1.9 15.4 79.2 -19.8 0.3 1.6

-61.6 —46.0 6.6 36.3 14.7 24.9 27.1 0.0 36.8 -7.3 23.7

-53.6 10.0 14.7 -9.0 -65.8 8.9 -5.0 18.9 62.1 17.6 -2.0 22.5

1.9 9.0 -38.8 -23.6 0.0 -6.6 -9.6 -5.8 10.0 -1.1 6.5 3.1

73.8 —5.8 9.1 -4.0 0.2 11.1 -17.5 54.7 3.7 -1.6 58.1

40.2 9.0 -28.0 -10.1 -3.9 -4.4 20.7 -9.5 23.2 2.1 4.5 21.9

10.6 -3.1 3.2 12.7

12.2 0.3 11.7 22.2

11.3 -1.4 5.6 16.3

36.4 11.4 -28.7 3.5

1.4 -19.7 73.9 0.3

23.9 -4.6 2.9 2.2

13.1 -16.4 11.8 2.3 —-

13.2 17.7 10.4 -5.3 —-

13.1 -4.1 11.1 -18.2 —-

2.1 15.8 -16.3 12.6 —-

-21.8 42.8 25.0 -1.7 —-

15.1 27.7 6.0 -0.6 —-

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

-18.1 4.4 2.3 —-17.2 -6.6

57.5 6.8 8.8 —16.7 21.6

12.4 3.2 3.4 —-16.8 -1.1

-6.6 31.5 7.8 -0.3 83.3 3.3

-15.9 47.3 20.7 22.4 450.0 29.0

-11.8 37.8 19.0 25.4 98.3 31.6

ALL STATES Puerto Rico

3.3% -13.5

8.3% 50.2

4.1% -3.1

4.2% -27.3

14.9% 63.6

9.5% -4.4

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded). Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[78] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 41 ITEMS EXCLUDED FROM TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES

Region/State

Employer Contributions to Pensions

Employer Contributions to Health Benefits

Port Authority Operations

X

P P

Gasoline Tax & Fee Collections

Truck Train/Railroad Road Assist. Enforcement Subsidy Subsidy Prog. Reg. Programs Programs for Local Govts.

Motor State Police/ Vehicle Highway Licensing Patrol

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

X

X

S X

P X

P

X X

X

X

X

X P

X X X X

X X X

X

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania

X N/A X

X

X X X X X

P

X

X X X

X

X

P

X

X X X X

X P

GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin

P

X X X

PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota

X X

X X P X X X

X X X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia

X

X X X P X X

P X

X X X

P P

P

X

X X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X X X X

X

X X X X X X X

X X

X X

X

X

SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas

X

X X

P X

X

X

X

X

X

P

X X

X P

P

X

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming

X

X

X X X X

X X

X X

P

P

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico

X X X

X X X

X X 2

Excluded=X

11

35

X X 16

Partially Excluded=P

16

13

8

20

40

Not Applicable=N/A

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[79]

Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n N o t e s

Nevada: Nevada has no ports, and thus no port authority operations. There are also no train or railroad subsidies.

Small dollar amounts, when rounded, cause an aberration in the percentage increase. In these instances, the actual dollar amounts

New Mexico: Does not include federal funds.

should be consulted to determine the exact percentage increase. Pennsylvania: Gasoline taxes are collected by the Department of Florida: The Florida Legislature provided $200.2 million in general

Revenue.

revenue to the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) in fiscal 2000 for projects related to the Mobility 2000 (Building Roads for the 21st Century) initiative.The funds were transferred to DOT

Ohio: See General Notes for discussion of double counting issues that affect percentage of total expenditure amounts.

and then placed in the State Transportation Trust Fund to be used

Tennessee: Bond estimates represent bond authorizations, while

for capital projects.

actual bond figures represent bond proceeds utilized.

Massachusetts: Train/railroad subsidies are mostly excluded

Texas: The gasoline tax is the major fund source for the Texas

effective fiscal 2001.

constitutionally dedicated state highway fund, from which expenditures are made.

[80] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

CHAPTER SEVEN A L L OT H E R E X P E N D I T U R E S 32.1% of State Expenditures

To capture total state expenditures, NASBO collected data on state

Under S-CHIP, states receive an enhanced federal matching rate that

expenditures not included in the functional areas covered in the

exceeds their federal Medicaid match by about 30 percent, with the

previous chapters. Depending on the state, this category could

federal share capped at 85 percent. States have up to three years to

include spending for the State Child Health Insurance Program (S-

use their yearly federal allotment. Although states are eligible to

CHIP), institutional and community care for mentally ill and

receive additional S-CHIP funds each year, they cannot use the new

developmentally disabled persons, public health programs,

funds until the funds from the previous year are expended.

employer contributions to pensions and health benefits, economic development, environmental projects, state police, parks and recreation, housing, and general aid to local government. A list of items excluded from All Other Expenditures is shown in Table 46.

Nearly two million children were enrolled in S-CHIP during federal fiscal year 1999 (October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999). During this time more than 1.2 million children were served by separate programs, and almost 700,000 children were served by Medicaid

In the aggregate, such spending accounts for an estimated 32.1

expansion programs. S-CHIP enrollment is expected to increase as

percent of all state expenditures in 2000, totaling $303.1 billion. For

states expand their programs, conduct effective outreach,

these types of functions, state spending increased 8.1 percent from

streamline their application processes, and improve procedures to

1999 to 2000. Data for All Other expenditures can be found on

assure that eligible children retain coverage. In addition, S-CHIP

Tables 43 accompanied by explanatory notes.

programs help states identify and enroll children already eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled.

State Child Health Insurance Program The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), enacted in 1997, provides coverage to uninsured children in low-income families.The program was designed to reach children from working

Of the states tracking S-CHIP-related Medicaid enrollment activities, most anticipate enrollment due to grow by 14.8 percent in fiscal 2001. On average, estimated S-CHIP-related Medicaid enrollment growth in fiscal 2000 was 26.5 percent.

families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low

Expenditures for S-CHIP programs totaled $127 million in fiscal 1998,

to afford private insurance. States may develop S-CHIP programs in

representing 0.1 percent of total state health spending and a negligible

one of three ways to serve the individual needs of their population:

percent of all state spending in fiscal 1998. In fiscal 1999, these

expand its Medicaid program, develop an alternative state program,

expenditures increased to $989 million, representing 0.4 percent of

or create a program that is a combination of the two options.With

total state health spending and 0.1 percent of all state spending.These

federal guidelines, each state determines its specific program design,

amounts represent the combined expenditures for Medicaid

eligibility categories, benefits covered, provider payments, and

expansion programs, stand-alone programs, and combination

administrative and operating procedures.

programs. State S-CHIP expenditures are detailed in Table A-2.

[82] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Fund Shares The figure below provides fund shares for 2000. Figure 19 STATE EXPENDITURES FOR ALL OTHER PROGRAMS BY FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2000

Other State Funds 34.6%

Federal Funds 22.7%

Bonds 1.7%

General Funds 41.0%

Regional Expenditures The following table shows percentage changes for all other expenditures for fiscal 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. For 2000, the New England, Great Lakes, and Southwest states are well above the national average and the Plains and Far West states are well below the national average.

Table 42 REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2000 AND 2001 Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Region New England Mid-Atlantic Great Lakes Plains Southeast Southwest Rocky Mountain Far West ALL STATES

Fiscal 2000 to 2001

State Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

Federal Funds

All Funds

13.5% 4.0 10.3 3.6 9.2 11.7 8.9 6.3 8.1%

10.4% 24.9 9.0 12.3 8.0 1.5 7.6 5.7 9.9%

12.4% 6.4 9.9 6.0 8.5 9.9 8.3 5.6 8.1%

-0.9% 5.7 -7.9 2.8 7.5 6.4 10.4 9.8 3.5%

1.0% 24.7 19.2 6.2 5.0 15.7 21.8 13.6 12.8%

0.1% 10.6 -2.9 3.5 6.5 8.8 13.3 15.8 6.6%

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[83]

Table 43 ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES—CAPITAL INCLUSIVE ($ IN MILLIONS) Actual Fiscal 1999 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island* Vermont

$4,738 660 7,857 461 447 246

$339 314 1,706 261 271 242

$730 578 399 154 433 227

$577 22 414 22 23 30

$6,384 1,574 10,376 898 1,174 745

$5,245 719 9,108 535 545 286

$288 352 1,961 288 300 269

$888 626 515 77 484 191

$594 23 384 22 46 26

$7,015 1,720 11,968 922 1,375 772

$5,095 887 8,721 530 606 298

$289 477 1,825 287 350 264

$608 852 666 79 465 233

$640 48 454 31 73 23

$6,632 2,264 11,666 927 1,494 818

926 2,829 6,424 10,252 4,799

224 767 2,245 2,855 2,412

1,168 1,375 2,125 3,657 3,627

21 285 298 619 349

2,339 5,256 11,092 17,383 11,187

902 2,985 7,341 10,033 5,264

237 808 2,364 4,532 2,678

1,287 1,716 3,165 2,155 3,838

22 282 247 127 321

2,448 5,791 13,117 16,847 12,101

1,080 3,473 7,346 11,152 5,038

217 871 3,336 5,595 3,225

1,232 1,383 2,410 3,202 4,594

25 268 333 227 645

2,554 5,995 13,425 20,176 13,502

4,447 1,229 3,261 3,487 2,685

1,881 1,403 2,281 1,905 1,173

4,866 2,131 4,464 9,317 5,738

232 0 148 217 0

11,426 4,763 10,154 14,926 9,596

4,687 1,689 3,244 3,785 3,600

2,093 1,435 2,100 2,193 1,597

5,364 2,530 4,136 9,958 6,912

248 0 94 259 0

12,392 5,654 9,574 16,195 12,109

4,968 1,499 3,298 4,284 2,987

2,156 1,446 3,644 2,842 1,137

5,942 2,030 3,337 11,915 2,023

389 0 152 235 0

13,455 4,975 10,431 19,276 6,147

1,191 926 3,575 2,816 597 219 164

800 975 1,032 1,377 424 313 219

971 437 1,168 1,536 578 282 208

25 35 145 64 0 0 0

2,987 2,373 5,920 5,793 1,599 814 591

1,204 928 3,631 3,061 624 185 181

850 1,095 1,024 1,739 460 351 253

1,205 691 1,205 1,132 648 280 222

24 49 137 74 0 35 0

3,283 2,763 5,997 6,006 1,732 851 656

1,235 901 3,938 3,244 666 209 192

889 1,302 1,119 1,661 549 291 316

808 627 1,558 1,135 565 290 255

25 45 135 82 0 6 0

2,957 2,875 6,750 6,122 1,780 796 763

734 483 3,935 3,732 1,470 1,361 873 3,451 2,016 1,535 2,558 106

313 564 3,539 3,809 1,099 801 651 1,559 2,782 1,455 1,010 247

666 2,395 10,078 0 1,222 2,861 594 745 1,570 1,435 3,945 656

0 43 328 335 0 208 154 0 10 48 92 0

1,713 3,485 17,880 7,876 3,791 5,231 2,272 5,755 6,378 4,473 7,605 1,009

798 472 4,013 4,683 1,744 1,315 941 3,866 2,191 1,529 2,955 136

790 607 3,954 3,852 1,027 648 698 1,728 3,047 1,517 1,071 323

1,680 2,589 10,808 0 0 3,179 706 1,257 1,464 1,672 4,263 594

0 48 331 116 0 120 151 200 15 13 69 0

3,268 3,716 19,106 8,651 2,771 5,262 2,496 7,051 6,717 4,731 8,358 1,053

631 520 4,433 3,644 1,866 1,317 999 3,250 2,269 1,801 3,261 43

1,470 712 3,568 4,105 1,328 930 947 658 3,172 1,896 1,129 312

3,125 2,757 12,956 0 0 3,627 880 818 1,823 1,927 4,473 402

0 65 332 167 0 49 143 5 36 10 71 0

5,226 4,054 21,289 7,916 3,194 5,923 2,969 4,731 7,300 5,634 8,934 757

1,683 467 896 3,600

872 309 1,225 2,795

2,710 400 1,108 1,675

0 0 4 0

5,265 1,176 3,233 8,070

1,568 802 1,029 3,754

899 367 834 3,178

2,917 1,007 1,069 1,861

0 0 209 0

5,384 2,176 3,141 8,793

1,695 1,025 1,187 4,017

943 681 1,347 3,136

2,778 1,016 1,232 1,953

0 0 191 0

5,416 2,722 3,957 9,106

856 275 255 743 0

691 399 313 423 0

1,819 289 305 701 0

0 2 0 29 0

3,366 965 873 1,896 0

935 294 275 756 0

828 379 315 442 0

1,877 414 308 851 0

0 2 0 12 0

3,640 1,089 898 2,061 0

946 331 375 816 0

1,024 465 426 478 0

2,064 512 332 928 0

0 2 0 9 0

4,034 1,310 1,133 2,231 0

838 12,393 1,436 350 622 1,793

536 9,156 408 397 763 1,068

491 9,259 1,005 3,749 742 2,737

111 264 119 44 209 203

1,976 31,072 2,968 4,540 2,336 5,801

720 15,540 1,494 301 878 1,485

557 9,890 438 428 492 1,231

547 10,113 1,373 1,347 889 2,950

0 324 69 0 213 142

1,824 35,867 3,374 2,076 2,472 5,808

764 20,294 1,298 299 712 1,385

709 11,105 448 496 825 1,229

691 9,918 1,546 1,794 1,612 1,014

99 2,644 343 0 306 39

2,263 43,961 3,635 2,589 3,455 3,667

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland* New Jersey New York* Pennsylvania* GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan* Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri* Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky* Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana* Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii* Nevada Oregon Washington TOTAL Puerto Rico

$112,697 $62,603 $99,326 4,069 2,470 7,408

$5,729 $280,355 0 13,947

$124,256 $68,807 $104,960 4,367 2,579 6,664

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[84] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

$5,048 $303,071 0 13,610

$130,825 $77,627 $106,387 4,665 2,652 8,208

$8,347 $323,186 0 15,525

Table 44 ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES Region/State

Fiscal 1999

Fiscal 2000

Fiscal 2001

40.5% 35.1 43.0 35.3 29.5 36.9

38.8% 35.5 45.1 27.2 32.2 34.6

36.4% 37.8 43.6 26.5 31.2 34.4

49.8 30.7 41.2 24.4 30.3

48.8 31.6 44.2 22.9 31.5

48.5 30.0 42.3 25.4 32.1

36.4 31.5 30.1 41.2 42.1

35.3 33.5 27.4 41.7 46.2

35.1 30.1 28.0 43.7 29.5

28.0 28.6 33.7 38.0 29.8 38.3 30.5

28.2 32.8 32.5 37.5 29.9 37.7 31.1

25.7 31.5 31.6 35.8 31.3 35.1 33.1

12.5 36.7 39.2 32.5 25.8 34.3 25.8 24.3 47.3 30.2 36.4 16.6

22.2 36.8 39.1 33.4 21.9 33.7 25.9 27.3 39.8 29.9 37.4 16.2

30.2 37.3 41.6 30.8 23.2 35.6 27.7 19.0 40.2 31.5 38.8 11.3

36.6 17.1 32.3 17.8

36.1 26.3 29.6 17.8

34.2 29.9 33.3 17.4

29.3 28.6 33.4 29.6 —-

29.7 30.0 32.3 31.4 —-

30.2 31.0 36.0 31.2 —-

38.2 28.3 45.7 63.3 23.5 28.4

34.8 29.4 49.7 45.2 23.2 27.0

39.4 31.3 48.3 47.8 27.7 17.6

31.8% 72.4

32.1% 71.2

31.9% 73.2

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[85]

Table 45 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES

State Funds

Fiscal 1999 to 2000 Federal Funds

12.2% 8.6 16.6 -0.5 16.9 0.8

Fiscal 2000 to 2001 Federal Funds

All Funds

State Funds

-15.0% 12.1 14.9 10.3 10.7 11.2

9.9% 9.3 15.3 2.7 17.1 3.6

-7.0% 29.3 -2.5 -0.5 4.1 11.3

0.3% 35.5 -6.9 -0.3 16.7 -1.9

-5.5% 31.6 -2.5 0.5 8.7 6.0

4.5 11.8 22.9 -12.4 8.0

5.8 5.3 5.3 58.7 11.0

4.7 10.2 18.3 -3.1 8.2

5.6 3.3 -7.1 17.8 5.8

-8.4 7.8 41.1 23.5 20.4

4.3 3.5 2.3 19.8 11.6

7.9 25.6 -4.5 7.3 24.8

11.3 2.3 -7.9 15.1 36.1

8.5 18.7 -5.7 8.5 26.2

8.5 -16.4 -10.1 17.9 -52.3

3.0 0.8 73.5 29.6 -28.8

8.6 -12.0 9.0 19.0 -49.2

11.4 18.8 2.0 -3.7 8.3 -7.2 8.3

6.3 12.3 -0.8 26.3 8.5 12.1 15.5

9.9 16.4 1.3 3.7 8.3 4.5 11.0

-15.2 -5.6 13.6 4.4 -3.2 7.3 10.9

4.6 18.9 9.3 -4.5 19.3 -17.1 24.9

-9.9 4.1 12.6 1.9 2.8 -6.5 16.3

77.0 6.4 5.8 25.5 -35.2 6.4 12.3 22.1 1.9 7.8 11.0 -4.2

152.4 7.6 11.7 1.1 -6.6 -19.1 7.2 10.8 9.5 4.3 6.0 30.8

90.8 6.6 6.9 9.8 -26.9 0.6 9.9 22.5 5.3 5.8 9.9 4.4

51.6 7.1 17.3 -22.2 7.0 10.0 14.1 -20.6 12.0 16.5 7.1 -39.0

86.1 17.3 -9.8 6.6 29.3 43.5 35.7 -61.9 4.1 25.0 5.4 -3.4

59.9 9.1 11.4 -8.5 15.3 12.6 19.0 -32.9 8.7 19.1 6.9 -28.1

2.1 108.7 4.7 6.4

3.1 18.8 -31.9 13.7

2.3 85.0 -2.8 9.0

-0.3 12.8 15.3 6.3

4.9 85.6 61.5 -1.3

0.6 25.1 26.0 3.6

5.1 25.5 4.1 11.3 —-

19.8 -5.0 0.6 4.5 —-

8.1 12.8 2.9 8.7 —-

7.0 19.1 21.3 8.5 —-

23.7 22.7 35.2 8.1 —-

10.8 20.3 26.2 8.2 —-

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

-4.7 18.5 17.5 —29.5 -2.1

3.9 8.0 7.4 —-35.5 15.3

-7.7 15.4 13.7 —5.8 0.1

14.8 17.8 -0.8 27.0 31.5 -45.9

27.3 12.3 2.3 15.9 67.7 -0.2

24.1 22.6 7.7 24.7 39.8 -36.9

ALL STATES Puerto Rico

8.1 -3.9

9.9 4.4

8.1 -2.4

3.5 16.7

12.8 2.8

6.6 14.1

Region/State

All Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded). Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[86] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 46 ITEMS EXCLUDED FROM ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES

Region/State

Employers Contribution to Pensions

Employer Contributions to Health Benefits

Child Health Insurance Program

Public Health

Community and Institutional for Mental Health

Community and Institutional for Dev. Disabled

Environmental Programs

Parks and Recreation

Housing

P

P

P

General Aid to Local Government

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

X

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York* Pennsylvania

P

P P

GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan* Ohio Wisconsin

P

P X

X

P

X

PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota

X X X X

SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas* Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia

P

P

X X X

X X X P

X

X X

SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas

X X

X X

X

X

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming

X

X

X

FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii* Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico Excluded=X

X P

P

X

X

P 2

12

Partially Excluded=P

4

2

1

1

2

1

12

7

Not Applicable=N/A

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[87]

All Other Expenditure Notes

Michigan: Public health and community and institutional care for mentally and developmentally disabled persons are partially

Small dollar amounts, when rounded, cause an aberration in the

reported in the Medicaid totals.

percentage increase. In these instances, the actual dollar amounts should be consulted to determine the exact percentage increase.

Missouri: Except for higher education institutions and the Department of Transportation, all fringe benefits are appropriated

Hawaii: Employer contributions to pensions and employer

and paid centrally and are therefore included in all other expenditures.

contributions to health benefits are excluded in fiscal 1999 and fiscal 2000 but included in fiscal 2001.

Montana: State general fund reimbursements to local governments for property tax were $12 million fiscal 1999, $25 million fiscal 2000,

Kentucky: Capital expenditures are made from a separate capital

and $67 million fiscal 2001. Fire costs in fiscal 2001 are anticipated

fund. Once the originating funds are transferred into it, they lose

at $60 million in general funds and $24 million in federal funds.

their original fund source identity.Therefore, all capital expenditures are reported here as “all other.”

New York: While the state budgets most employer contributions to employees’ benefits centrally, contributions have been estimated

Maryland: Figures include academic revenue bonds issued by the

for each expenditure category and distributed accordingly. The

University System of Maryland, and bonds issued by the Maryland

portion of employer contributions to employees’ benefits not

Environmental Service for the local government infrastructure

distributed by expenditure category have been included in the “All

program.They also include all appropriations in the Board of Public

Other Expenditures” category.

Works, the Departments of Aging, Business and Economic Development, Education, and Health and Mental Hygiene, Maryland

Pennsylvania: Housing excludes the activities of the Pennsylvania

Public Television, Maryland Historical Trust grants, Department of

Housing Finance Agency.

Housing and Community Development museum projects, and miscellaneous grants to local governments.

[88] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Rhode Island: Figures include child care.

CHAPTER EIGHT C A P I TA L E X P E N D I T U R E S

Capital expenditures are expenditures made for new construction,

Because of the nature of capital spending, such as long construction

major repairs and improvements, land purchases and the acquisition

timetables and unforeseen or delayed project costs, increases in

of major equipment and existing structures. Minor repairs and

state spending on capital projects are generally followed by a

routine maintenance are reported as operating expenses. States

significant slowdown or decrease.

often find it difficult to report capital expenditures. Given the longterm nature of capital projects, the amount of money appropriated when a project is undertaken will usually not be the amount spent

Capital Fund Sources

in a single year. For additional information, see Capital Budgeting in

State spending on capital projects traditionally has come from non-

the States in the publications section of the NASBO website at

general fund sources, namely bonds (25.7 percent in fiscal 2000)

www.nasbo.org.

and other state funds such as fees and fund surpluses (43.9 percent

This chapter includes capital expenditures for higher education, corrections, transportation, environmental projects, and housing. Capital expenditures not included in these categories due to differences in states’ reporting capabilities, or expenditures for items

in fiscal 2000). Since 1991, bonds and other state funds have comprised 69 percent of capital fund sources, while federal funds average 25.3 percent. State general funds account for only 5.8 percent of capital spending during the same period.

not easily classified are included in the “All Other” category. Tables

Capital Funds by Use

47-53 display capital expenditure data.

The single largest state capital expenditure categor y is

To t a l C a p i t a l E x p e n d i t u r e s

transportation, comprising 60.3 percent ($36.9 billion) of all

Between fiscal 1999 and fiscal 2000, state capital spending increased by 4.8 percent. From 1991 to 2000, capital spending has increased by an average of 5.3 percent. Fiscal 2001 estimates reflecting capital

capital expenditures in fiscal 2000. If estimated fiscal 2001 figures hold true, transportation-related capital spending will increase by 9.6 percent.

spending on infrastructure are $70.7 billion, which would represent an 15.4 percent increase.

Figure 20 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY TYPE, FISCAL 1991 TO 2001

Higher Ed Corrections Transportation Environment Housing All Other

45,000 40,000 35,000

Millions $

30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

[90] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

1991

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Higher education grew 3.4 percent from fiscal 1999 levels,

Housing capital expenditures account for just 1.2 percent of total

totaling approximately $6 billion, or 9.8 percent of fiscal 2000 total

fiscal 2000 capital spending, at $716 million, an 11.6 percent

capital spending. It is estimated to grow 32.2 percent in fiscal 2001.

decrease from the previous year.

Corrections capital expenditures shrank slightly in fiscal 2000,

State spending for all other purposes totaled $11.2 billion,

totaling $2 billion, a 2.9 percent decrease compared to fiscal 1999.

amounting to 18.4 percent of total capital spending, and reflecting a 2.7 percent decrease from fiscal 1999.

State capital spending for environmental purposes in fiscal 2000 is $4 billion, 6.7 percent of total capital spending and a 17.4 percent increase over fiscal 1999.

Figure 21 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FUNDING SOURCE, FISCAL 2000

Bonds 25.7% Other State Funds 43.9% General Funds 6.8%

Federal Funds 23.6%

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[91]

Table 47 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS) Actual Fiscal 1999 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts* New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

$0 6 109 0 80 0

$505 100 586 12 108 0

$10 38 993 130 95 0

$1,145 31 1,000 55 73 38

$1,660 174 2,687 197 356 38

$0 22 80 0 99 0

$473 116 487 9 103 0

$47 37 1,049 157 108 1

$1,293 15 990 52 94 37

$1,813 191 2,606 217 403 38

$35 25 52 0 118 0

$561 164 781 9 141 0

$12 196 1,117 158 192 2

$1,332 37 1,248 61 144 46

$1,940 422 3,198 228 595 47

77 210 680 0 0

112 402 558 1,232 0

197 717 0 924 0

133 491 843 1,905 660

519 1,820 2,081 4,061 660

81 321 741 0 0

119 460 533 1,438 0

148 832 0 925 0

171 504 868 1,861 562

519 2,118 2,141 4,224 562

83 593 1,186 0 0

128 680 621 1,394 0

148 796 0 1,082 0

156 529 1,070 1,863 1,035

515 2,598 2,876 4,339 1,035

42 191 443 18 0

0 251 890 581 0

1,052 1,087 1,588 446 0

482 123 316 1,109 0

1,577 1,652 3,237 2,154 0

35 200 442 24 0

0 337 1,182 659 0

1,479 1,192 1,467 560 0

830 195 400 1,174 0

2,343 1,924 3,491 2,417 0

32 269 336 65 0

0 440 1,103 903 0

1,502 510 1,604 507 0

1,259 35 323 1,249 0

2,793 1,253 3,366 2,723 0

0 102 299 202 35 16 7

0 222 106 37 1 146 158

123 108 573 1,234 531 72 114

35 80 307 64 0 3 2

158 512 1,285 1,537 568 238 280

0 78 153 101 74 16 11

0 161 90 25 9 182 185

136 108 536 1,736 618 72 125

33 29 313 90 0 39 4

170 375 1,092 1,952 701 308 325

0 63 408 167 46 17 7

0 308 254 1 0 191 224

244 125 741 1,183 554 75 111

33 251 335 342 0 22 4

277 747 1,738 1,693 601 305 345

1 2 276 22 0 17 41 337 37 18 80 27

NA 4 963 658 0 429 204 0 41 469 4 301

560 89 5,092 269 393 529 463 4 610 489 105 309

0 53 2,192 955 0 363 230 450 85 245 255 92

561 148 8,522 1,904 393 1,339 939 791 774 1,221 444 730

1 0 277 13 0 52 48 167 19 15 137 16

NA 8 1,218 648 0 451 228 0 50 636 5 362

670 144 6,515 280 330 643 417 11 546 376 100 321

0 31 1,312 565 0 218 253 200 199 124 186 204

671 182 9,322 1,506 330 1,363 946 378 814 1,150 428 903

0 0 642 2 0 31 44 83 55 26 117 14

NA 3 1,262 713 0 424 273 0 43 679 3 559

2,179 175 3,669 23 2,110 578 416 9 745 374 131 280

0 34 1,815 664 0 109 420 650 455 185 146 217

2,179 212 7,388 1,402 2,110 1,143 1,153 742 1,299 1,264 397 1,070

414 0 67 NA

341 0 309 NA

278 279 654 NA

224 0 53 NA

1,257 279 1,083 690

220 4 44 NA

383 6 369 NA

280 12 559 NA

251 0 175 NA

1,133 22 1,146 758

506 10 70

346 4 590 NA

320 25 429 NA

287 0 151 NA

1,459 39 1,240 NA550

0 0 0 301 0

340 113 0 219 0

1,131 65 0 278 0

0 5 0 289 0

1,470 183 0 1,086 0

0 0 0 306 0

440 141 0 204 0

1,241 109 0 271 0

0 5 0 123 0

1,680 254 0 903 0

0 0 0 429 0

335 211 0 209 0

1,063 128 0 340 0

439 5 0 15 0

1,836 343 0 992 0

86 169 0 6 0 0

586 1,195 89 170 0 322

305 514 202 177 0 1,043

226 575 319 156 359 666

1,203 2,453 610 510 359 2,031

83 244 0 0 0 0

849 1,099 84 152 0 371

205 796 220 186 0 997

0 681 291 0 602 602

1,136 2,820 595 338 602 1,970

77 2,248 0 0 0 0

811 1,744 142 186 0 509

165 -607 206 200 0 1,056

172 1,592 513 100 434 765

1,225 4,977 861 486 434 2,330

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland* New Jersey New York Pennsylvania* GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana* Michigan* Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama* Arkansas Florida* Georgia Kentucky* Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee* Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico* Oklahoma Texas* ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada* Oregon Washington TOTAL Puerto Rico

$4,420 $12,766 $23,868 $16,686 $58,430 36 425 3,128 0 3,590

$4,122 $14,269 $26,557 87 593 2,833

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[92] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

$15,575 $61,281 0 3,513

$7,852 $16,948 $24,872 $20,539 $70,760 25 845 4,304 0 5,174

Table 48 HIGHER EDUCATION CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

Actual Fiscal 1999 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

$0 0 0 0 11 0

$0 0 0 0 0 0

$0 0 69 0 5 0

$88 0 38 5 13 3

$88 0 107 5 29 3

$0 0 0 0 0 0

$0 0 0 0 0 0

$0 0 73 0 13 0

$98 0 47 8 15 4

$98 0 120 8 28 4

$0 0 0 0 0 0

$0 0 0 0 0 0

$0 0 75 0 22 0

$182 0 48 13 29 10

$182 0 123 13 51 10

6 12 9 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

1 32 0 60 0

18 88 14 171 102

25 132 23 231 102

10 25 3 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

5 25 0 75 0

4 113 2 241 61

19 163 5 316 61

15 194 11 0 0

5 0 0 0 0

4 25 0 108 0

10 155 0 175 149

34 374 11 283 149

5 73 40 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

102 26 46 264 0

107 99 86 264 0

2 69 56 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0

112 191 195 268 0

114 261 251 268 0

0 80 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 5 0 0 0

175 35 130 399 0

175 120 130 399 0

0 1 35 129 15 10 2

0 0 5 0 0 0 1

47 34 0 11 41 5 35

0 6 87 0 0 3 2

47 41 127 140 56 18 40

0 1 39 48 12 12 6

0 0 1 0 0 0 2

20 25 0 38 57 0 18

0 6 117 0 0 3 4

20 32 157 86 69 15 30

0 0 35 134 11 13 2

0 0 5 0 0 0 1

41 44 0 6 10 0 11

0 6 115 0 0 15 4

41 50 155 140 21 28 18

0 0 21 0 0 4 17 189 2 6 49 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17 0 0 0

0 14 66 0 117 220 85 0 146 10 73 51

0 53 493 174 0 103 51 0 58 196 169 36

0 67 580 174 117 327 154 189 223 212 291 87

0 0 66 0 0 2 21 104 1 7 99 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0

0 28 32 0 134 257 42 0 101 0 62 63

0 31 307 202 0 71 99 0 57 27 147 32

0 59 405 202 134 330 164 104 160 34 309 95

0 0 58 0 0 20 22 46 17 16 84 0

0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 10 0 1 0

0 57 16 0 1,192 108 93 0 85 0 97 65

0 34 402 271 0 48 119 250 217 67 116 33

0 91 476 271 1,192 178 238 296 329 83 298 98

40 0 3 224

0 0 0 0

0 0 59 0

0 0 48 0

40 0 110 224

10 0 0 224

0 0 0 0

0 0 41 0

0 0 17 0

10 0 58 224

10 0 0 224

0 0 0 0

0 0 106 0

0 0 27 0

10 0 133 224

0 0 0 20 0

2 0 0 0 0

296 16 0 0 0

0 0 0 11 0

298 16 0 31 0

0 0 0 18 0

11 0 0 5 0

499 14 0 1 0

0 1 0 43 0

510 15 0 67 0

0 0 0 122 0

7 0 0 0 0

267 20 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0

274 21 0 122 0

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

1 16 0 6 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 1

7 0 0 34 0 25

54 295 44 86 0 301

62 311 44 127 0 327

1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 3

4 0 1 0 0 44

0 435 75 0 93 315

5 435 76 0 93 362

0 156 0 0 0 0

5 0 1 0 0 3

16 0 0 0 0 94

62 366 28 0 29 298

83 522 29 0 29 395

TOTAL Puerto Rico

$946 0

$28 0

$1,559 96

$3,248 0

$5,781 96

$836 0

$26 0

$1,673 71

$3,441 0

$5,976 71

$1,270 0

$44 0

$2,567 52

$4,018 0

$7,899 52

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan* Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[93]

Table 49 CORRECTIONS CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS) Actual Fiscal 1999 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut

$0

$0

$0

$1

$1

$0

$0

$0

$10

$10

$0

$0

$0

$20

$20

Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

0 0 0 13 0

0 0 0 0 0

2 2 0 2 0

0 37 16 0 1

2 39 16 15 1

0 0 0 1 0

4 0 0 0 0

0 2 0 1 0

0 34 15 0 1

4 36 15 2 1

0 0 0 2 0

0 0 0 1 0

57 4 0 7 0

0 28 4 0 4

57 32 4 10 4

13 0 9 0 0

6 0 0 30 0

1 0 0 3 0

30 71 1 336 67

50 71 10 369 67

11 5 10 0 0

4 11 0 77 0

0 10 0 2 0

24 53 7 268 52

39 79 17 347 52

6 19 33 0 0

4 0 0 34 0

1 0 0 6 0

16 48 1 210 86

27 67 34 250 86

11 19 6 0 0

0 0 9 0 0

0 23 0 0 0

50 97 86 109 0

61 139 101 109 0

7 28 8 0 0

0 0 10 0 0

0 19 0 0 0

151 45 105 159 0

158 92 123 159 0

3 58 9 0 0

0 0 1 0 0

0 13 0 0 0

145 0 36 135 0

148 71 46 135 0

0 7 14 31 7 0 0

0 1 3 0 0 2 0

8 7 1 0 2 0 0

10 0 45 0 0 0 0

18 15 63 31 9 2 0

0 7 5 5 40 0 0

0 0 4 0 5 0 0

12 10 0 1 0 0 0

9 0 21 8 0 2 0

21 17 30 14 45 2 0

0 7 5 1 27 1 0

0 13 13 0 0 2 0

11 12 0 4 0 2 0

8 0 20 0 0 0 0

19 32 38 5 27 5 0

0 0 62 1 0 0 4 3 13 0 2 0

4 2 54 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 0 6

2 12 2 0 30 50 1 0 1 12 9 1

0 0 0 35 0 19 0 0 2 0 17 0

6 14 118 36 30 69 5 3 28 22 28 7

1 0 30 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 13 0

2 7 29 0 0 5 0 0 5 8 2 0

0 12 13 0 19 11 1 0 2 6 1 2

0 0 0 18 0 12 3 0 4 0 4 0

3 19 72 19 19 28 7 0 14 14 20 2

0 0 37 1 0 0 2 0 10 0 9 1

3 3 61 0 0 0 0 0 12 15 2 0

3 15 8 0 140 9 2 0 3 10 2 0

0 0 0 29 0 2 22 0 27 21 3 0

6 18 106 30 140 11 26 0 52 46 16 1

12 0 0 42

2 0 0 0

47 5 0 0

0 0 0 0

61 5 0 42

1 0 0 64

0 6 0 15

18 3 0 22

0 0 0 0

19 9 0 101

0 0 0 25

0 4 0 11

22 10 0 0

0 0 0 0

22 14 0 36

0 0 0 9 0

0 0 0 0 0

143 2 0 4 0

0 3 0 9 0

143 5 0 22 0

0 0 0 4 0

0 0 0 4 0

8 2 0 0 0

0 3 0 0 0

8 5 0 8 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 4 0

17 1 0 0 0

0 3 0 0 0

17 4 0 4 0

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

0 38 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 11 0 7

0 0 0 0 0 2

1 7 3 37 0 131

2 45 4 48 0 140

1 61 0 0 0 0

1 4 -1 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 2

0 6 3 0 184 119

2 71 2 0 184 122

0 131 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 11

1 0 0 0 0 2

0 0 1 0 25 85

2 131 1 0 25 98

TOTAL Puerto Rico

$316 0

$161 0

$374 26

$1,221 0

$2,072 26

$309 0

$203 0

$179 25

$1,320 0

$2,011 25

$387 0

$195 0

$362 75

$979 0

$1,923 75

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[94] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 50 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

Actual Fiscal 1999 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

$0 0 91 0 0 0

$505 94 580 12 105 0

$10 27 850 130 58 0

$166 27 508 7 32 1

$681 148 2,029 149 195 1

$0 6 53 0 0 0

$473 109 485 9 100 0

$47 26 947 157 18 1

$188 14 521 3 32 1

$708 155 2,006 169 150 2

$35 8 50 0 0 0

$561 155 740 9 128 0

$12 97 965 158 70 2

$181 18 708 9 34 0

$789 278 2,463 176 232 2

0 0 465 0 0

107 399 553 1,085 0

127 513 0 619 0

29 0 531 780 142

263 912 1,549 2,484 142

0 0 478 0 0

115 448 524 1,137 0

76 472 0 525 0

84 0 613 890 128

275 920 1,615 2,552 128

0 0 701 0 0

119 678 609 1,151 0

91 512 0 527 0

70 0 736 931 155

280 1,190 2,046 2,609 155

0 38 18 8 0

0 251 723 569 0

1,042 486 1,406 428 0

40 0 36 335 0

1,082 775 2,183 1,340 0

0 1 15 7 0

0 337 1,007 638 0

1,472 469 1,288 536 0

124 0 5 373 0

1,596 807 2,315 1,554 0

0 2 0 8 0

0 440 925 868 0

1,494 397 1,461 445 0

354 0 5 189 0

1,848 839 2,391 1,510 0

0 88 3 0 0 0 0

0 207 80 0 0 133 151

4 48 528 1,143 480 58 63

0 74 13 0 0 0 0

4 417 624 1,143 480 191 214

0 62 62 0 0 0 0

0 159 77 0 0 175 175

7 52 501 1,406 547 57 92

0 23 19 0 0 0 0

7 296 659 1,406 547 232 267

0 52 330 6 0 0 0

0 290 208 0 0 183 214

7 50 685 1,137 513 60 85

0 245 45 260 0 0 0

7 637 1,268 1,403 513 243 299

0 0 0 21 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0

0 0 695 658 0 357 187 0 0 457 0 271

400 0 3,478 269 10 252 342 4 427 459 16 211

0 0 697 325 0 33 125 0 15 0 34 56

400 0 4,870 1,273 10 643 654 4 446 916 50 538

0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1

0 0 1,015 648 0 409 210 0 0 625 0 332

538 0 4,470 280 11 308 329 11 406 368 21 198

0 0 218 137 0 16 0 0 123 84 24 172

538 0 5,703 1,076 11 733 539 11 534 1,077 45 703

0 0 200 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 5

0 0 1,074 713 0 406 228 0 0 648 0 527

935 0 2,035 23 45 240 241 9 592 364 18 179

0 0 369 92 0 10 223 0 175 88 17 184

935 0 3,678 829 45 656 692 9 774 1,100 35 895

0 0 42 0

339 0 281 0

218 274 409 136

224 0 1 0

781 274 733 136

0 4 42 0

383 0 314 0

246 9 409 78

251 0 0 0

880 13 765 78

20 10 46 0

346 0 546 0

269 15 222 128

287 0 0 0

922 25 814 128

0 0 0 110 0

328 113 0 212 0

498 41 0 208 0

0 0 0 240 0

826 154 0 770 0

0 0 0 122 0

372 141 0 189 0

590 85 0 197 0

0 0 0 68 0

962 226 0 576 0

0 0 0 134 0

292 211 0 198 0

619 97 0 242 0

439 0 0 6 0

1,350 308 0 580 0

53 0 0 0 0 0

486 1,167 77 150 0 263

211 504 62 129 0 583

34 111 29 0 0 28

784 1,782 168 279 0 874

68 18 0 0 0 0

766 1,026 83 152 0 326

82 779 63 186 0 506

0 5 33 0 0 27

916 1,828 179 338 0 859

60 1,550 0 0 0 0

643 1,649 104 186 0 419

47 -663 122 200 0 514

6 102 113 100 58 343

756 2,638 339 486 58 1,276

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania* GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas* ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington TOTAL Puerto Rico

$942 $11,595 $17,161 0 226 807

$4,673 $34,371 0 1,033

$955 $12,959 $18,866 0 339 627

$4,176 $36,956 0 966

$3,225 $15,468 $15,261 0 548 347

$6,552 $40,506 0 895

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[95]

Table 51 ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS) Actual Fiscal 1999 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

$0 0 19 0 3 0

$0 0 0 0 2 0

$0 0 13 0 30 0

$138 0 125 6 11 9

$138 0 157 6 46 9

$0 0 27 0 0 0

$0 0 0 0 2 0

$0 0 12 0 11 0

$147 0 131 8 31 11

$147 0 170 8 44 11

$0 1 2 0 0 0

$0 0 0 0 6 0

$0 1 15 0 31 0

$148 0 88 6 44 8

$148 2 105 6 81 8

2 25 77 0 0

0 0 6 72 0

39 114 0 128 0

3 32 262 225 19

44 171 345 425 19

1 26 71 0 0

0 0 9 183 0

29 283 0 135 0

0 40 211 244 28

30 349 291 562 28

1 25 103 0 0

0 1 12 141 0

30 184 0 172 0

0 44 303 222 39

31 254 418 535 39

1 0 37 1 0

0 0 102 0 0

0 0 158 3 0

50 0 147 98 0

51 0 444 102 0

1 0 37 1 0

0 0 99 0 0

0 0 159 2 0

27 0 93 105 0

28 0 388 108 0

4 0 37 2 0

0 0 105 0 0

0 0 120 14 0

40 0 151 115 0

44 0 413 131 0

0 0 62 0 0 0 0

0 0 3 0 0 2 0

14 0 16 0 0 0 0

0 0 16 64 0 0 0

14 0 97 64 0 2 0

0 0 13 0 0 0 0

0 0 2 0 0 0 0

28 0 17 0 0 0 0

0 0 23 82 0 35 0

28 0 55 82 0 35 0

0 0 9 0 0 0 0

0 0 10 0 0 0 0

44 0 27 0 0 0 0

0 0 25 82 0 1 0

44 0 71 82 0 1 0

0 0 80 0 0 0 2 36 2 0 1 0

0 0 214 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 18

0 0 302 0 2 0 10 0 6 0 6 8

0 0 300 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 20 0

0 0 896 0 2 0 16 36 9 0 29 26

0 0 56 0 0 0 5 28 0 0 1 0

0 0 174 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 21

0 0 442 0 2 0 9 0 6 0 2 9

0 0 300 0 0 0 24 175 0 0 4 0

0 0 972 0 2 0 40 203 6 0 9 30

0 0 98 0 0 0 3 13 0 0 1 0

0 0 127 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 26

0 0 740 0 21 0 7 0 6 0 1 8

0 0 300 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 3 0

0 0 1,265 0 21 0 16 13 9 0 6 34

0 0 4 52

0 0 5 NA

0 0 48 NA

0 0 1 NA

0 0 58 52

0 0 1 68

0 0 6 NA

0 0 50 NA

0 0 0 NA

0 0 57 68

0 0 5 96

0 0 26 NA

0 0 22 NA

0 0 0 NA

0 0 53 96

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 6 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 6 0

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

0 72 0 0 0 0

13 0 0 0 0 39

42 9 0 0 0 7

12 6 10 2 0 5

67 87 10 2 0 51

4 141 0 0 0 0

37 2 0 0 0 27

46 12 0 0 0 7

0 17 10 0 16 11

87 172 10 0 16 45

4 260 0 0 0 0

37 2 20 0 0 51

46 48 0 0 0 32

0 698 6 0 10 5

87 1,008 26 0 10 88

TOTAL Puerto Rico

$476 0

$484 0

$955 57

$1,563 0

$3,478 57

$481 0

$568 0

$1,261 30

$1,773 0

$4,083 30

$664 0

$574 0

$1,569 17

$2,344 0

$5,151 17

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[96] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 52 HOUSING CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

Actual Fiscal 1999 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

$0 0 0 0 0 0

$0 0 0 0 0 0

$0 0 11 0 0 0

$14 0 72 0 0 3

$14 0 83 0 0 3

$0 0 0 0 0 0

$0 0 0 0 0 0

$0 0 1 0 0 0

$13 0 79 0 0 2

$13 0 80 0 0 2

$0 0 0 0 0 0

$0 0 0 0 0 0

$0 0 0 0 0 0

$14 0 75 0 0 1

$14 0 75 0 0 1

0 18 0 0 0

0 0 0 6 0

0 15 0 0 0

0 15 0 105 0

0 48 0 111 0

0 18 0 0 0

0 0 0 2 0

0 15 0 4 0

0 16 0 91 0

0 49 0 97 0

0 25 0 0 0

0 0 0 10 0

0 16 0 3 0

0 14 0 98 0

0 55 0 111 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 54 12 0

0 0 14 14 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 68 26 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 60 21 0

0 0 14 21 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 74 42 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 65 35 0

0 0 15 30 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 80 65 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2 0

0 0 0 3 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 5 0

0 0 0 2 0

0 0 0 4 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 6 0

0 0 0 5 0

0 0 0 4 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 9 0

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington

0 0 0 0 0 0

13 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

15 0 10 0 209 27

28 0 10 0 209 27

0 0 0 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 0 0

23 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 1 0 107 27

33 0 1 0 107 28

1 0 0 0 0 0

14 0 15 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 0 5

4 0 27 0 138 34

36 0 42 0 138 39

TOTAL Puerto Rico

$20 0

$88 100

$221 60

$470 0

$799 160

$20 0

$97 175

$263 103

$336 0

$716 278

$31 0

$143 211

$257 71

$405 0

$836 282

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[97]

Table 53 ALL OTHER CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS) Actual Fiscal 1999 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

$0 6 0 0 53 0

$0 5 6 0 1 0

$0 10 48 0 1 0

$738 4 220 22 17 22

$738 25 274 22 72 22

$0 16 0 0 98 0

$0 3 3 0 1 0

$0 11 14 0 65 0

$838 1 178 18 16 18

$838 31 195 18 180 18

$0 16 0 0 116 0

$0 9 41 0 6 0

$0 42 59 0 62 0

$789 19 303 29 37 23

$789 86 403 29 221 23

56 155 120 0 0

0 3 0 39 0

29 44 0 114 0

54 285 36 288 330

139 487 156 441 330

58 247 178 0 0

0 1 0 38 0

39 28 0 185 0

60 282 36 127 293

157 558 214 350 293

61 330 338 0 0

0 2 0 58 0

22 60 0 266 0

60 268 30 227 606

143 660 368 551 606

25 61 342 10 0

0 0 2 0 0

10 579 10 1 0

241 0 0 304 0

276 640 354 315 0

25 101 326 17 0

0 0 7 0 0

6 703 6 1 0

415 0 0 269 0

446 804 339 287 0

26 129 289 55 0

0 0 7 0 0

8 95 9 17 0

545 0 0 411 0

579 224 305 483 0

0 7 185 42 13 6 4

0 14 15 37 1 9 6

52 18 28 80 9 8 15

25 0 146 0 0 0 0

77 39 374 159 23 23 25

0 8 34 47 21 3 5

0 2 6 25 5 7 8

69 22 18 291 14 14 16

24 0 133 0 0 0 0

93 32 191 363 40 24 29

0 4 29 26 9 3 5

0 4 18 1 0 6 8

141 20 29 36 32 14 16

25 0 130 0 0 5 0

166 28 206 63 41 28 29

1 2 113 0 0 13 19 110 18 12 28 27

1 2 0 0 0 72 15 0 12 2 2 6

0 62 1,077 0 234 7 25 0 32 8 1 39

0 0 702 421 0 208 52 450 10 48 15 0

2 66 1,892 421 234 300 111 560 72 70 46 72

0 0 125 0 0 49 20 36 10 8 25 15

66 1 0 0 0 36 14 0 43 3 0 9

0 104 1,374 0 164 68 36 0 31 2 13 49

0 0 486 209 0 120 127 25 15 13 6 0

66 105 1,985 209 164 273 197 61 99 26 44 73

0 0 248 0 0 11 17 24 22 9 24 8

1,025 0 0 0 0 16 41 0 19 16 0 6

0 103 700 0 712 222 74 0 60 0 14 27

0 0 744 273 0 49 52 400 35 10 7 0

1,025 103 1,692 273 712 298 184 424 136 35 45 41

363 0 18 NA

0 0 22 NA

14 0 138 NA

0 0 4 NA

377 0 182 NA

209 0 1 NA

0 0 49 NA

16 0 58 NA

0 0 158 NA

225 0 266 NA

476 0 19 NA

0 0 18 NA

29 0 79 NA

0 0 124 NA

505 0 240 NA

0 0 0 162 0

10 0 0 1 0

193 6 0 66 0

0 2 0 29 0

203 8 0 258 0

0 0 0 160 0

57 0 0 1 0

144 8 0 72 0

0 2 0 12 0

201 10 0 245 0

0 0 0 169 0

36 0 0 -1 0

159 10 0 97 0

0 2 0 9 0

195 12 0 274 0

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon* Washington

31 44 0 0 0 0

74 27 11 8 0 12

45 1 140 14 0 426

111 155 223 32 150 174

261 227 374 54 150 612

9 24 0 0 0 0

35 67 2 0 0 15

50 5 156 0 0 438

0 219 170 0 202 105

94 315 328 0 202 558

12 151 0 0 0 0

112 92 3 0 0 27

39 8 84 0 0 409

99 426 339 0 173 0

262 677 426 0 173 436

TOTAL Puerto Rico

$2,046 36

$415 99

$3,584 2,083

$5,518 $11,563 0 2,218

$1,875 87

$504 79

$4,290 1,977

$4,577 $11,246 0 2,143

$2,626 25

$1,570 86

$3,754 3,742

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[98] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

$6,247 $14,197 0 3,853

Capital Spending Notes

Massachusetts: The Commonwealth maintains an administrative annual limit on general obligation debt; it is $1 billion for fiscal 1999

Alabama: Capital expenditures from federal funds and other state

through fiscal 2001. Fiscal 2001 includes $248 million in special

funds cannot be broken out separately.

obligation bonds for proposed convention center construction.

Florida: The Florida Legislature provided $200.2 million in general revenue to the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) in

Federal funds disbursed directly to local housing authorities for capital housing projects are not included.

fiscal 2000 for projects related to the Mobility 2000 (Building Roads

Michigan: Higher education capital expenditures made from non-

for the 21st Century) initiative.The funds were transferred to DOT

state funds are excluded.

and then placed in the State Transportation Trust Fund to be used for capital projects.

Nevada: Transportation data reflect funds by year spent. Other capital spending is tracked by project, and by year authorized by the

Indiana: Bond figures include project appropriations approved

biennial legislature. Except for transportation, figures for fiscal 1999

during the fiscal year.

were authorized by the 1999 legislature, spending began in fiscal

Kentucky: Capital expenditures are made from a separate capital fund. Once the originating funds are transferred into it, they lose

2000, and authority lasts four years. The next capital improvement program will be authorized this spring by the 2001 legislature.

their original fund source identity.Therefore, all capital expenditures

New Mexico: Environmental spending includes direct appropriations

are reported here as “all other.”

only; federal loans are excluded.

Maryland: Figures include programs funded though the

Pennsylvania: While federal funds for transportation capital

Department of Housing and Community Development, excluding

expenditures are anticipated, they are not included due to the

the Maryland Historical Trust programs and museum projects.

difficulty in estimating the varying reimbursement and match

Revenue bonds issued for the Local Government Infrastructure

requirements.

Program are excluded. Environmental spending includes programs and projects funded in the Departments of Agriculture,

Tennessee: Bond estimates represent bond authorizations, while

Environment, and Natural Resources. It also includes the Maryland

actual bond figures represent bond proceeds utilized.

Energy Administration, the Maryland Environmental Service (including the local government infrastructure program), and the Asbestos Abatement, CFC Mitigation, and Underground Storage Tank Upgrade/Replacement programs funded in the Board of Public Works.

Texas: Separate figures by fund category cannot easily be identified. Figures in all fund categories reflect appropriated, not expended, amounts only. Totals include the Higher Education Fund, which excludes capital expenditures from formula appropriations to institutions of higher education.

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[99]

CHAPTER NINE REVENUE SOURCES IN THE GENERAL FUND

States’ general fund revenue is estimated to total $453.4 billion in

Revenue Collections. Throughout 2000, as the stock market

fiscal 2000. The major sources of states’ general fund revenues are

surged and consumer confidence rose, states enjoyed especially

shown in Table 54. Sales and compensating use taxes represent 33.3

healthy revenue collections, benefiting from large capital gains

percent of total general fund revenue, personal income taxes

realizations, growth in partnership income, large bonuses, and

account for 41.6 percent, and corporate income taxes equal 7.6

strong retail sales. However, the more recent economic slowdown

percent. Combined, these sources represent 82.5 percent of

has caused the hefty rate of revenue growth that surprised many

general fund revenues. Also displayed in the table are gaming taxes,

states during the past few fiscal years to become less certain.

which represent 0.8 percent of the total, and other taxes and fees, amounting to 16.7 percent. Although sales, personal income, and corporate income taxes are

Figure 22 REVENUE SOURCES IN THE GENERAL FUND

the most significant sources of general fund revenues, states use a variety of taxes and fees to finance their general funds. These Other Taxes & Fees 16.7%

include gaming taxes, lottery funds, and motor vehicle taxes, all of which often are earmarked for special purposes or specific funds. What is referred to as “other taxes and fees” in the general fund may include cigarette and tobacco taxes, alcoholic beverage taxes, insurance premiums, severance taxes, licenses and fees for permits, inheritances taxes, and charges for state-provided services.

Sales Tax 33.3%

Gaming Tax 0.8% Corporate Income Tax 7.6%

Table 55 illustrates the major items that are excluded from general fund revenue sources. For example, property taxes are a mainstay of local government finance and the majority of states exclude them from both their general funds and their revenue bases. However, many states use aid to local governments or other subsidies to help reduce the amount of property taxes local governments require. Trends in State Tax Actions. States enjoyed overall fiscal health throughout 2000. As a result, governors enacted $5.8 billion in tax and fee reductions in their fiscal 2001 budgets. This marked the seventh consecutive year that states cut taxes, totaling $33.8 billion over that period. By contrast, net state tax reductions occurred only twice during the 1980s, equaling just more than $3 billion. Most of the fiscal 2000 tax cuts focus on reducing personal income and sales taxes. Presently, nine states do not have broad-based personal income taxes: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota,Tennessee,Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.

[102] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Personal Income Tax 41.6%

Table 54 REVENUE SOURCES IN THE GENERAL FUND ($ IN MILLIONS) Actual Fiscal 1999

Actual Fiscal 2000

Other Sales Income Income Gaming Taxes & Tax Tax Tax Tax Fees

Region/State

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001

Other Sales Income Income Gaming Taxes & Tax Tax Tax Tax Fees

Total

Other Sales Income Income Gaming Taxes & Tax Tax Tax Tax Fees

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts* New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

2,932 814 3,269 0 565 206

3,821 1,005 8,037 0 758 384

620 145 1,009 258 67 46

569 1 8 3 139 0

2,675 272 2,762 778 520 206

10,616 2,237 15,084 1,039 2,048 841

3,097 847 3,562 0 631 217

4,238 1,075 9,042 0 817 432

588 150 1,131 317 69 41

579 1 12 3 156 0

2,712 322 1,647 1,455 602 196

11,214 2,395 15,394 1,776 2,274 886

4,681 833 3,740 0 741 221

3,191 1,121 9,364 0 864 437

590 114 1,089 360 74 41

595 1 13 3 183 0

2,886 292 1,729 1,455 662 188

11,943 2,361 15,935 1,818 2,524 886

0 2,299 5,054 5,697 6,606

771 4,296 6,324 20,080 6,684

93 306 1,465 4,857 1,725

0 352 668 37 0

1,327 1,271 4,653 2,648 4,212

2,191 8,524 18,164 33,319 19,227

0 2,478 5,508 6,141 7,018

733 4,746 7,205 20,339 7,066

106 319 1,486 4,561 1,860

0 368 737 36 0

1,440 1,308 4,944 2,534 4,312

2,279 9,219 19,880 33,611 20,257

0 2,592 5,839 6,296 7,256

732 4,884 8,310 23,791 7,560

106 336 1,463 4,463 1,867

0 373 731 32 0

1,487 1,199 4,711 1,875 3,998

2,326 9,384 21,054 36,457 20,681

5,609 3,396 988 5,545 3,285

7,226 3,699 5,056 6,417 5,162

1,121 1,044 2,284 1,084 635

787 0 7 0 0

3,213 744 1,128 2,591 866

17,956 8,883 9,463 15,637 9,948

6,027 3,651 1,048 5,914 3,502

7,686 3,753 5,166 7,232 5,962

1,237 985 2,324 969 645

852 0 7 0 0

3,557 753 1,242 2,206 838

19,359 9,143 9,788 16,321 10,946

6,150 3,701 1,043 6,075 3,698

8,000 4,016 5,123 7,450 5,072

1,120 950 2,247 950 601

937 0 7 0 0

3,833 724 1,202 2,530 811

20,040 9,390 9,622 17,005 10,182

1,620 1,599 3,432 1,619 745 345 406

2,234 1,695 5,321 3,670 1,079 181 0

322 227 777 188 135 58 0

97 0 66 0 0 11 91

649 458 271 652 166 146 254

4,922 3,978 9,867 6,128 2,124 740 751

1,663 1,650 3,754 1,715 900 355 432

2,376 1,855 5,556 3,658 1,180 197 0

326 250 800 254 140 48 0

96 0 65 0 0 13 91

679 448 1,083 507 183 158 259

5,140 4,203 11,258 6,134 2,404 771 782

1,722 1,705 3,952 1,797 936 381 459

2,524 1,990 5,885 3,964 1,264 202 0

320 232 862 260 150 47 0

93 0 62 0 0 14 91

719 559 1,879 467 180 162 268

5,377 4,486 12,640 6,487 2,530 805 818

1,530 1,532 12,707 4,297 2,264 2,269 1,481 3,376 1,890 4,124 2,065 829

1,855 1,665 0 6,514 2,532 1,536 974 6,607 1,986 105 6,088 920

213 254 1,472 0 312 583 298 849 215 447 420 168

4 6 14 0 0 349 142 0 0 0 N/A 0

1,338 235 3,676 2,729 1,085 978 386 1,903 840 1,494 1,129 701

4,940 3,692 17,869 13,540 6,193 5,714 3,281 12,734 4,931 6,169 9,703 2,618

1,558 1,632 13,784 4,568 2,171 2,314 1,530 3,355 1,981 4,366 2,202 846

2,010 1,712 0 7,102 2,702 1,595 1,005 7,080 2,099 118 6,829 966

221 253 1,407 0 306 491 296 903 174 445 566 117

4 6 13 0 0 316 158 0 0 0 N/A 0

1,453 247 3,614 3,291 1,299 1,142 384 1,797 745 1,791 1,125 710

5,245 3,851 18,817 14,960 6,478 5,858 3,373 13,135 4,999 6,720 10,721 2,638

1,566 1,714 14,014 4,541 2,375 2,484 1,575 3,579 2,098 4,512 2,298 873

2,069 1,801 0 7,023 2,833 1,696 1,059 7,505 2,645 122 7,258 996

95 237 1,506 0 324 496 282 682 231 543 477 153

4 6 16 0 0 322 169 0 0 0 N/A 0

1,430 234 3,826 2,908 1,281 1,174 420 1,887 741 1,660 1,098 688

5,164 3,993 19,362 14,472 6,813 6,172 3,506 13,653 5,714 6,838 11,130 2,710

2,577 1,362 0 13,041

2,097 803 0 0

545 161 0 2,078

0 416 2 191 0 0 0 12,758

5,635 2,519 0 27,876

2,829 1,415 0 13,947

2,289 870 0 0

523 161 0 2,065

0 19 0 0

319 243 0 10,920

5,960 2,709 0 26,932

3,013 1,504 0 14,590

2,453 930 0 0

550 165 0 1,914

0 24 0 0

279 362 0 11,821

6,295 2,985 0 28,325

1,887 589 0 1,316 0

3,718 842 483 1,464 0

289 95 80 184 0

29 0 13 0 0

380 98 494 226 0

6,304 1,624 1,070 3,191 0

1,961 628 0 1,370 0

4,051 960 516 1,655 0

289 125 91 180 0

29 0 14 0 0

365 108 543 301 0

6,694 1,821 1,164 3,505 0

2,052 658 0 1,435 0

4,314 1,024 548 1,772 0

290 170 75 190 0

32 0 14 0 0

363 148 565 278 0

7,050 2,000 1,202 3,675 0

N/A 18,957 1,442 0 0 5,322

N/A 30,891 1,069 0 3,702 0

199 5,724 43 0 314 0

2 24 0 0 0 0

1,090 3,019 733 0 312 4,659

1,291 58,615 3,286 0 4,328 9,980

N/A 21,137 1,529 0 0 5,800

N/A 39,575 1,064 0 4,197 0

197 6,639 68 0 405 0

2 6 0 0 0 0

1,785 4,572 623 0 345 4,460

1,984 71,929 3,284 0 4,948 10,259

N/A 21,980 1,600 0 0 5,970

N/A 43,305 1,134 0 4,505 0

235 6,865 73 0 424 0

2 1 0 0 0 0

1,650 4,748 636 0 359 4,756

1,887 76,899 3,444 0 5,287 10,726

140,884 169,746

33,408

151,031 188,709

34,527

3,583

158,246 200,736

34,218

3,724

1,753

136

1,767

121

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania* GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan* Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri* Nebraska* North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas* ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada* Oregon Washington ALL STATES

Puerto Rico

520

2,310

1,545

3,422 73,330 420,790

112

2,379

6,866

529

2,507

75,565 453,415

2,305

7,228

599

2,729

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[103]

77,126 474,050

2,395

7,611

Table 55 ITEMS EXCLUDED FROM REVENUE SOURCES Sales and Personal Compensating Use income Taxes Taxes

Region/State

Corporate Income Taxes

Gaming Taxes

Cigarette and Tobacco Taxes

Motor Fuel Taxes

X

P

X P P

N/A

X

P

X

X X

P

X P P P X

X X X P

Lottery Funds

Alcoholic Beverage Taxes

Insurance Premium Taxes

Property Taxes

Utility Taxes

Severance Taxes

Federal Funds

Licenses and Fees Other

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

P X

X

X X N/A X X

X X

P X

X

P

X X

P

P

P

P

P

X P

P

P

P P P

P

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania

P

P

P

P

X X

P X P X X

P X X X X

P

X X X X

P

X

P

P

X X NA

X X X

P X

X X

P P

X X

X P P P X

GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin

P

P

P

P P

P P

P

P P

X X X X X

P P P

P

X X X X X

P

PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota

X

X

X X

X

P

X X X X

X P X X X X X

X X X X

P P X X X

P X X X X

P X P

P

SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia

P

X

P X

P

P

X X X

P

X

X

X

X X

X X P

X

P X

X P

X

X P

P

X P

X X P

P

X X

P

X X

X X X X

X

P

X

P

P

P

P

X P X

P X

P

X

X

X X

X

X X

P

X X

P

P P

P

X

P

P

X X P

X X X

X X P

P

P

SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas

X

X

P

P X

P

P

X

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming

P X

X X

X

X

P X

X X X

P

X X

P P

X

X X X

P P

X X P P

X X

X X

X

X

X

P

X

X

P X

X X

P P

36 X

19 X

27

33 X

24

P

FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington ALL STATES Puerto Rico

X P

X

X

14

Excluded=X

P

X

P

X

X X

X

X 9

5

24

30

14

35 P

7

Partially Excluded=P

Not Applicable=N/A

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[104] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

5

17

Revenue Sources in the General Fund

Michigan: Actual fiscal 1999 and fiscal 2000 amounts reflect general fund non-dedicated revenue as contained in the respective

Massachusetts: For the purposes of this survey, general fund

State of Michigan Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.

revenues include those in the highway and local aid funds as well as

Revenue figures have been adjusted to put them on a basis

the general fund.

comparable to the consensus estimates. Fiscal 2001 estimates are

Effective in fiscal 2001, most of one percentage point of the 5 percent sales tax is dedicated to funding the operations of the state’s primary mass transit authority. Although these revenues,

the January 2001 consensus revenue estimates. Revenue totals are affected by phased-in rate cuts in personal income tax and in single business tax (corporate tax).

estimated at $645 million in fiscal 2001, are not budgetary receipts

Missouri: General revenue resources include other taxes and fees

(they are deposited in a trust fund), they are included to facilitate

and local use tax funds sent to the state for refund for fiscal 1999

revenue comparisons across fiscal years.

($79.1 million).

Fiscal 2001 personal income taxes incorporate two changes: the

Nebraska: The sales tax amount for fiscal 1999 reflects a

first year of a three-year phase-in of the reduction in the tax rate

reduction in the state sales tax from 5.0 percent to 4.5 percent for

to 5 percent approved in a voters’ initiative referendum and a

one year only.The amount shown for the personal income tax for

deduction for charitable contributions.The revenue impact in fiscal

fiscal 1999 reflects the impact of changes passed in the prior year,

2001 for the two tax cuts is estimated at $135 million and at $70-

including an across-the-board rate reduction, an increase in the

$90 million, respectively.

personal credit, and a deduction for health insurance premiums for

Severance taxes are not levied in Massachusetts and property taxes are levied and expended by the state’s 341 cities and towns only.

self-employed individuals. Nevada: Nevada has no personal or corporate income tax, or lottery.

About 70 percent of the cigarette tax is dedicated to health carerelated minor funds. Small percentages of motor fuels and certain

Pennsylvania: Other taxes and fees include non-tax revenues such

sales taxes are dedicated to environmental minor funds and to

as interest earnings, transfers from other funds and miscellaneous

certain convention center development, respectively. Gaming taxes

revenues.

are those on racing, raffles/bazaars, two discrete lottery games and boxing, and are general fund revenue. Most lottery revenue is allocated to the cities and towns.

Texas: Sales and competing use taxes exclude the motor vehicle sales tax, which is included in other taxes and fees. Corporate income taxes include the corporate franchise tax.

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[105]

APPENDIX

Table A-1 TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES BY FUND SOURCE (EXCLUDES BONDS) ($ IN MILLIONS)

State Funds

Region/State

Actual Fiscal 1999 State & Federal Federal Funds Funds

Actual Fiscal 2000 State Funds

Federal Funds

State & Federal Funds

Estimated Fiscal 2001 State & State Federal Federal Funds Funds Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

$11,776 3,051 17,702 1,566 2,669 1,260

$2,839 1,356 5,456 923 1,231 722

$14,615 4,407 23,158 2,489 3,900 1,982

$13,818 3,303 19,821 2,369 2,886 1,363

$2,985 1,495 5,721 974 1,291 831

$16,803 4,798 25,542 3,343 4,177 2,194

$13,642 4,101 19,595 2,429 3,129 1,448

$3,230 1,786 5,921 1,004 1,521 887

$16,872 5,887 25,516 3,433 4,650 2,335

3,886 13,140 20,739 48,754 25,524

682 3,533 5,372 20,680 10,679

4,568 16,673 26,111 69,434 36,203

4,095 14,087 23,207 48,577 26,879

749 3,780 5,597 23,470 11,024

4,844 17,867 28,804 72,047 37,903

4,332 15,257 23,811 53,199 28,567

780 4,278 6,888 24,724 12,504

5,112 19,535 30,699 77,923 41,071

24,031 11,239 26,070 30,731 18,448

6,830 3,773 7,320 4,414 4,349

30,861 15,012 33,390 35,145 22,797

26,739 12,554 26,582 32,792 21,150

7,405 4,091 7,965 4,800 5,035

34,144 16,645 34,547 37,592 26,185

28,884 12,190 27,174 37,087 16,104

7,954 4,312 9,777 5,832 4,700

36,838 16,502 36,951 42,919 20,804

8,133 6,103 13,835 11,265 4,003 1,310 1,229

2,516 2,089 3,433 3,899 1,355 810 706

10,649 8,192 17,268 15,164 5,358 2,120 1,935

8,849 5,866 14,396 11,512 4,298 1,300 1,322

2,770 2,169 3,738 4,421 1,503 917 783

11,619 8,035 18,134 15,933 5,801 2,217 2,105

8,589 6,243 16,701 11,874 4,118 1,410 1,390

2,865 2,530 4,337 4,871 1,574 835 910

11,454 8,773 21,038 16,745 5,692 2,245 2,300

9,174 7,356 34,065 14,508 10,473 10,675 5,666 17,124 8,218 9,318 17,028 3,944

4,501 2,037 9,298 8,774 4,221 4,204 2,824 6,122 5,184 5,229 3,504 1,955

13,675 9,393 43,363 23,282 14,694 14,879 8,490 23,246 13,402 14,547 20,532 5,899

10,324 7,790 36,759 15,972 8,020 11,123 6,305 18,695 10,585 9,905 18,356 4,039

4,406 2,224 10,737 9,328 4,633 4,295 3,092 6,942 5,987 5,780 3,721 2,187

14,730 10,014 47,496 25,300 12,653 15,418 9,397 25,637 16,572 15,685 22,077 6,226

11,735 8,276 38,653 15,364 8,830 11,727 6,690 18,067 10,771 10,998 19,029 3,882

5,545 2,480 10,749 9,710 4,953 4,782 3,514 6,134 6,672 6,719 3,726 2,537

17,280 10,756 49,402 25,074 13,783 16,509 10,204 24,201 17,443 17,717 22,755 6,419

10,704 4,767 7,016 31,884

3,444 2,091 2,933 13,394

14,148 6,858 9,949 45,278

11,128 6,000 7,547 35,065

3,545 2,269 2,822 14,400

14,673 8,269 10,369 49,465

11,783 6,273 8,255 37,349

3,788 2,837 3,407 15,113

15,571 9,110 11,662 52,462

8,715 2,349 1,662 4,636 0

2,790 1,018 955 1,480 0

11,505 3,367 2,617 6,116 0

9,162 2,532 1,756 4,899 0

3,105 1,099 1,027 1,539 0

12,267 3,631 2,783 6,438 0

9,801 2,852 1,894 5,515 0

3,132 1,364 1,252 1,625 0

12,933 4,216 3,146 7,140 0

3,488 72,563 5,162 5,988 7,124 15,016

1,489 34,375 1,015 959 2,457 4,738

4,977 106,938 6,177 6,947 9,581 19,754

3,401 82,281 5,476 3,565 7,634 15,584

1,844 37,303 1,017 1,029 2,419 5,295

5,245 119,584 6,493 4,594 10,053 20,879

3,655 94,376 5,944 4,131 9,075 14,364

1,928 41,199 1,066 1,182 2,972 5,656

5,583 135,575 7,010 5,313 12,047 20,020

$635,087

$225,958

$861,045

$681,668

$245,559

$927,227

$720,563

$268,062

$988,625

15,584

3,677

19,261

15,078

4,028

19,106

16,818

4,380

21,198

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington TOTAL

Puerto Rico

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded). Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2000 State Expenditure Report, Summer 2001

[108] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table A-2 CHILD HEALTH INSURANCE BLOCK GRANTS ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

General Fund

Actual Fiscal 1999 Other Federal State Funds Funds

Total

General Fund

Actual Fiscal 2000 Other Federal State Funds Funds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2001 Other General Federal State Fund Funds Funds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut* Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont

12.3 1.3 0 0.0 1.1 0.1

— 0.0 19.1 0.4 0.0 0.0

— 5.5 12.4 0.0 2.3 0.3

12.3 6.8 31.5 0.4 3.4 0.4

13.3 2.9 0 0.7 2.5 0.2

— 0.0 23.4 0.7 0.0 0.0

— 12.4 43.4 2.7 5.2 0.6

13.3 15.3 66.8 4.1 7.7 0.8

14.8 3.8 0.0 0.3 6.3 0.2

— 0.8 25.8 1.5 0.0 0.0

— 19.3 48.0 3.5 13.2 0.6

14.8 23.9 73.8 5.3 19.5 0.8

1.7 5.3 13.0 0.0 0.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 83.0 21.9

0.5 9.9 24.0 151.0 36.8

2.2 15.2 37.0 234.0 59.0

1.4 20.7 23.0 0.0 1.1

0.3 0.0 0.0 163.0 31.6

1.4 48.8 43.0 298.0 70.5

3.1 69.5 66.0 461.0 103.2

1.4 35.1 32.0 0.0 3.7

0.3 0.0 0.0 269.0 46.7

2.0 65.1 59.0 449.0 92.3

3.7 100.2 91.0 718.0 142.7

8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.5 12.4 3.2 13.4 0.0

16.0 34.9 6.5 32.5 0.0

24.7 47.3 9.7 45.9 0.0

12.2 0.0 0.0 * 3.4

1.1 24.3 6.2 18.5 0.2

23.5 66.5 13.2 45.3 8.9

36.8 90.8 19.4 63.8 12.5

15.7 0.0 0.0 * 8.3

0.5 26.7 7.1 36.9 0.9

29.0 75.6 16.0 91.6 20.4

45.2 102.3 23.1 128.5 29.6

0.0 1.6 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0

0.0 4.1 0.0 12.2 1.9 0.0 1.0

0.0 5.7 0.0 16.9 2.5 0.0 1.3

0.0 6.9 0.0 9.2 2.1 0.0 0.6

0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 17.7 0.0 36.5 5.5 0.0 2.6

0.0 24.6 0.0 50.4 7.6 0.0 3.2

0.0 7.9 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.0 1.2

0.0 1.0 0.0 14.5 6.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 23.1 0.0 71.7 15.9 0.0 4.2

0.0 32.0 0.0 99.4 21.9 0.0 5.4

3.6 0.1 16.0 1.1 13.9 1.3 0.0 8.3 2.0 0.0 1.3 0.1

0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

16.7 0.4 21.6 2.8 9.8 4.8 5.2 19.4 24.0 0.0 2.7 0.4

20.3 0.5 47.5 3.9 26.2 6.1 6.2 27.7 30.4 0.0 4.0 0.5

9.0 0.3 16.0 14.8 13.9 4.1 0.0 20.6 7.5 0.0 2.1 1.9

0.0 0.0 52.3 0.0 12.3 1.6 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.6 0.0

23.6 1.3 80.0 38.7 47.3 21.9 15.5 56.7 28.9 0.0 14.2 6.9

32.6 1.6 148.3 53.5 73.5 27.6 18.5 77.3 36.6 0.0 18.9 8.8

12.4 0.4 2.5 17.1 12.5 2.8 0.0 25.5 8.5 0.0 3.2 3.2

0.0 0.0 81.4 2.8 6.9 13.0 7.3 1.6 0.2 0.0 11.7 0.0

41.1 1.5 192.5 51.5 74.4 48.8 37.7 72.0 32.3 0.0 26.2 15.3

53.5 1.9 276.4 71.4 93.8 64.6 45.0 99.1 41.0 0.0 41.1 18.5

0.0 0.1 — 12.3

4.9 0.0 — 0.0

5.1 0.4 — 34.7

10.0 0.5 — 47.0

0.0 0.7 — 38.4

8.9 0.0 — 0.0

26.7 2.8 — 34.0

35.6 3.5 — 72.4

0.0 2.2 — 133.9

19.9 0.0 — 0.0

59.8 9.7 — 263.3

79.7 11.9 — 397.2

N/A 1.1 0.0 0.0 —

3.6 0.0 0.1 1.4 —

6.9 3.9 0.4 5.5 —

10.5 5.0 0.5 6.9 —

N/A 2.4 0.7 0.0 —

6.5 0.0 0.0 3.2 —

12.1 7.5 3.1 12.4 —

18.6 9.9 3.8 15.6 —

N/A 3.4 4.1 0.0 —

10.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 —

18.2 13.1 11.7 14.8 —

28.2 16.5 15.8 20.3 —

0.3 75.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.1 0.0

0.9 137.3 0.0 2.5 5.5 0.0

1.2 213.2 0.0 4.1 7.6 0.0

6.3 149.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 4.5 0.6

14.4 297.0 0.0 7.5 11.5 1.2

20.7 446.0 0.0 11.6 16.0 1.8

9.6 194.0 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 5.2 3.5

16.9 384.0 4.1 13.8 12.9 6.5

26.5 578.0 6.0 21.0 18.1 10.0

187.3

186.0

662.7

2072.0

387.9

373.8

1510.9

2272.6

581.5

613.5

2521.6

3716.6

39.1

0.0

39.1

78.2

41.1

0.0

41.1

82.2

41.1

0.0

41.1

82.2

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania GREAT LAKES

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio* Wisconsin PLAINS

Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota SOUTHEAST

Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee* Virginia West Virginia SOUTHWEST

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado* Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming FAR WEST

Alaska California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington TOTAL Puerto Rico

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[109]

Child Health Insurance Block Grants

Ohio: Other State Funds are an offset to general fund spending for Medicaid; therefore, were other funds not available, general funds would have been used.

Colorado: Each year the General Assembly makes an appropriation from the General Fund for CBHP, and puts those funds in the

Tennessee: Tennessee received approval for the Child Health

CBHP Trust. Moneys are then expended from the Trust.

Insurance Block Grant on September 3, 1999. Insurance for Tennessee children is included in our TennCare waiver. Tennessee can only

Connecticut: SCHIP reimbursement is set at 65 percent. This

access these Child Health Insurance Block Grant funds if our waiver

amounted to $8 million, $8.6 million, and $9.6 million in fiscal years

expires or we revert back to the Medicaid program.

1999, 2000, and 2001, respectively.The state spends all general fund dollars first, and then claims the federal reimbursement, which then goes to the state’s revenues. Federal aid comes in the form of an after-the-fact reimbursement after upfront spending by the state.

[110] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Methodology

For corrections, states were asked to include, where applicable, expenditures for capital construction, aid to local governments for

The 2000 State Expenditure Report reflects three years of data:

jails, parole programs, prison industries, and community corrections,

actual fiscal year 1999, actual fiscal year 2000, and estimated fiscal year

as well as expenditures made for juvenile correction programs.

2001.The text of this report focuses on actual fiscal year 2000 data.

States were asked to exclude expenditures for drug abuse

This survey reports state expenditures in six functional categories:

rehabilitation programs and institutions for the criminally insane.

elementary and secondary education, higher education, public

Transportation figures include capital and operating expenditures

assistance

Dependent

for highways, mass transit, and airports. States were also asked to

Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid,

include expenditures for road assistance for local governments, the

corrections, and transportation. All other expenditures make up a

administration of the department of transportation, truck and

seventh category.The report includes expenditures from four fund

train/railroad programs, motor vehicle licensing, and gas tax and fee

sources, including general funds, federal funds, other state funds,

collection. The data excludes spending for port authorities, state

and bonds. Data for each categor y includes employer

police and highway patrol.

including

Aid

to

Families

with

contributions to current employees’ pensions and to employee health benefits for employees.

The “all other” expenditure category includes all remaining programs not captured in the functional categories previously

Elementary and secondary education spending includes state and

described, including the State Children’s Health Insurance Program

federal fund expenditures only, and excludes local funds raised for

and any debt service for other state programs (i.e., environmental

education purposes. States were also asked to include, where

projects, housing). States with lotteries were asked to exclude

applicable, state expenditures that support the state’s Department

prizes paid to lottery winners. States were also asked to exclude

of Education, transportation of school children, adult literacy

expenditures for state-owned utilities and liquor stores.

programs, handicapped education programs, programs for other special populations (i.e., gifted and talented programs), anti-drug

Capital spending is included with operating expenditures within

programs, and vocational education. States were asked to exclude

each functional category, unless otherwise noted. Capital

spending for day care programs in the school system and spending

expenditures have also been collected separately in the following

for school health and immunization programs.

categories: corrections, environmental projects, higher education, housing, and transportation. Capital expenditure data can be found

For higher education, states were requested to include

in Chapter Eight.

expenditures made for capital construction, community colleges, vocational education, law, medical, veterinary, nursing and technical

Chapter Nine illustrates the major sources of state revenue

schools, and assistance to private colleges and universities, as well as

including sales taxes, personal income taxes, corporate income

tuition and fees and student loan programs. Higher education

taxes, gaming taxes, and other taxes and fees.

expenditures exclude federal research grants and endowments to universities.

Readers are cautioned against comparing federal fund figures presented here with those on Federal aid which may be referred

Spending for public assistance includes expenditures for cash

to in other documents, particularly those from the U.S. Bureau of

assistance under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children

the Census; many states have not established comprehensive

(AFDC) program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

statewide reporting of Federal funds and as a result the numbers in

(TANF) programs, and other cash assistance (i.e., state supplements

this report may understate Federal funds for any one function.

to the Supplemental Security Income program, general or emergency assistance). States were asked to exclude administrative costs from reported expenditures. Medicaid spending amounts also exclude administrative costs, while including spending from state funds, federal matching funds and other funds and revenue sources used as Medicaid match such as provider taxes, fees, assessments, donations, and local funds.

An important part of the report are tables included in four of the functional categories which reflect expenditures that states have excluded from their reported data. Each table underscores the observation that state-to-state expenditure comparisons in any functional category can be misleading. For example, one state may have included its juvenile institutions in its corrections budget, while another state may have included them in its human resources

2000 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[111]

budget. Comparisons for one state over time, however, should

Federal Funds: Funds received directly from the Federal

prove accurate.

government.

All years reported are state fiscal years unless otherwise indicated.

Other State Funds: Expenditures from revenue sources, which

In forty-six states, the fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June

are restricted by law for particular governmental functions or

30. The exceptions are as follows: in Alabama and Michigan the

activities. For example, a gasoline tax dedicated to a highway trust

fiscal year begins on October 1; in Texas, the fiscal year begins on

fund would appear in the “Other State Funds” column. (Note: For

September 1; and in New York, the fiscal year begins on April 1.

Medicaid, other state funds include provider taxes, fees, donations,

Additionally, the length of budget cycles vary among states, with

assessments and local funds.)

more than half of the states budgeting annually and the remainder Bonds: Expenditures from the sale of bonds, generally for capital

enacting biennial budgets.

projects. State Funds: General fund plus other state fund spending,

Definitions

excluding state spending from bonds. General Fund: Predominant fund for financing a state’s operations. Revenues are received from broad-based state taxes. There are differences in how specific functions are financed from state to state, however.

[112] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N

OF

S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S

444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 642 Washington, DC 20001-1511 202.624.5382 Fax 202.624.7745 www.nasbo.org

Recommend Documents
6:45 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.. Mummy Mountain 2. NETWORKING DINNER. FRIDAY, MARCH 30. 7:15 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.. Lincoln Restaurant. REGIONAL BREAKFASTS. Members will meet to network and discuss issues specific to their region and elect two representatives t

Welcome Reception & Policy Area Networking Dinner ... Break. 10:15 – 11:45 a.m.. Gateway East. Build Your Network: Connect & Explore Ideas with Other ...

The George A. Bell Award recognizes an Associate Member of our organization for outstanding contributions and service to public budgeting and management ...

INTRODUCTION TO STATE BUDGETING SEMINAR. AUGUST 24-25, 2017 ... Networking Excursion – DC Monuments at Night. Forge relationships with state ...

staff in state budget offices throughout the United States. NASBO ... years; however, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the program is expected ...... 1,829. 458. 850. 458. 1,766. 509. 617. 509. 1,635. Pennsylvania*. 141. 392. 0. 533. 206

Dinner is on your own prior to the tour. THURSDAY, AUGUST ... Michael Maul, Associate Director, Virginia Department of Planning & Budget. Goals. • Examine ...

Gateway West. Key Communication Skills. Pam Kilpatrick, former Assistant State Budget Officer, North Carolina Office of. State Budget & Management. Goals.

Paris East & Central. NATIONAL ECONOMIC OUTLOOK. Dan White, Director & Senior Economist, Moody's Analytics. 9:45 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.. BREAK. 10:00 a.m. ...

Matt Fabian, Partner, Municipal Marketing Analytics, Inc. Jason Dilges, Chief Financial Officer, South Dakota Bureau of Finance and. Management. 12:00 p.m. ...

Lori Anderson, North Dakota. Sheila Peterson, North Dakota. Jeff Newman, Ohio ...... the increased use of lottery funds to finance education local aid. Michigan: ...