GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2001 CHILD CARE

States Increased 

Spending on 

Low-Income Families

GAO-01-293

Page 1 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances 26

Appendix II: CCDF Expenditures 38

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 44

Tables Table 1: Total Child Care Expenditures by States of CCDF, TANF, 

and State Funds, Fiscal Years 1997 to 1999 12

Table 2: Selected States’ Child Care Expenditures of Federal and 

State Funds, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2000 14

Table 3: TANF Funds Transferred to CCDF During Fiscal Year 1997 26

Table 4: TANF Funds Transferred to CCDF During Fiscal Year 1998 28

Table 5: TANF Funds Transferred to CCDF During Fiscal Year 1999 30

Table 6: Unspent TANF Balances by State, Fiscal Year 1997 32

Table 7: Unspent TANF Balances by State, Fiscal Year 1998 34

Table 8: Unspent TANF Balances by State, Fiscal Year 1999 36

Table 9: Percentage of CCDF Funds Spent by Fiscal Year 1997 38

Table 10: Percentage of CCDF Funds Spent by Fiscal Year 1998 40

Table 11: Percentage of CCDF Funds Spent by Fiscal Year 1999 42

Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children and Families

AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children

CCDBG Child Care and Development Block Grant

CCDF Child Care and Development Fund

CCRR child care resource and referral agency

MOE maintenance of effort

PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 

Act of 1996

SMI state median income

SSBG Social Services Block Grant

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Page 2 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding
Page 3 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548 Letr

February 2, 2001

The Honorable Wally Herger

Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources

Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives

The Honorable Nancy Johnson

House of Representatives

Since the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), child care has become one of 

several important services provided by states to support low-income 

families in their efforts to find and retain jobs. PRWORA created the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant which has, 

for the last 5 years, provided the states over $16 billion annually and the 

flexibility to design programs and choose among various services that best 

support their low-income families, particularly welfare recipients moving 

into the workforce. In addition to help with child care, these services 

include work-related activities such as job search and counseling, 

transportation assistance, and cash assistance. PRWORA also created the 

Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) block grant, which will provide 

states over $20 billion for child care between fiscal years 1997 and 2002. 

PRWORA requires states to use a portion of their CCDF funds to improve 

the quality and availability of child care services for all families. Along with 

specified amounts of state dollars that are required to be spent under the 

TANF and CCDF block grants, these funds help states develop and pay for 

child care programs for a broad population of low-income families, 

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

The recognition of the link between child care and the success of welfare 

reform has given rise to questions about how states are spending child care 

funds provided through TANF and CCDF. We agreed to report on (1) child 

care expenditures by states under the CCDF and TANF block grants; (2) 

the type of care selected by families who receive subsidies with these funds 

and the mechanisms by which states provide child care subsidies to eligible 

families; and (3) states’ priorities in providing child care subsidies to lowincome families and their views about the adequacy of the current levels of 

funding for child care.
Page 4 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

To determine expenditures for child care, we analyzed data on TANF and 

CCDF expenditures for fiscal years 1997 through 1999 reported by all states 

to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS),1

 and conducted site visits to seven 

states to collect more detailed expenditure data on child care spending for 

state fiscal years 1994–95, 1998–99, and 1999–2000. (Expenditure figures 

throughout the body of this report are expressed in fiscal year 1997 

dollars.2

) The states we visited—California, Connecticut, Maryland, 

Michigan, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin—were selected because they are 

diverse geographically and demographically and differ in the ways in which 

they operate their child care and TANF assistance programs, but they are 

not representative of all states receiving TANF and CCDF funds. Except for 

the expenditure data collected during our site visits, we did not 

independently verify the states’ reported expenditure data sent to HHS but 

did check a sample of the states’ financial reports on which these data are 

based. To report on types of care and subsidy mechanisms, we used data 

the states reported to HHS about the type of care used by children 

subsidized with CCDF funds and states’ payment mechanisms for providing 

parents a subsidy, as well as past GAO work and other recent research. 

Similar data are not available for care paid for with TANF funds, except for 

TANF dollars that have been transferred to CCDF and are included in the 

CCDF data, because states are not required to collect or report this 

information for TANF families. To obtain more information about the 

selected states’ priorities for providing child care subsidies to low-income 

families and their opinions regarding the adequacy of funding for child 

care, we conducted telephone interviews with program officials in these 

states. In addition, we reviewed portions of approved CCDF plans for the 

50 states and the District of Columbia covering fiscal years 2000 and 2001. 

Finally, we interviewed officials at HHS’ Child Care Bureau, advocacy 

organizations, and other research groups about child care funding issues 

nationwide. We conducted our work between March and November 2000 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

1

States periodically update the TANF and CCDF expenditure data they report to ACF after 

the close of a fiscal year. Hence the expenditure figures in this report are a snapshot of 

states’ expenditure data at a particular point in time. The date on which we obtained the 

ACF data is noted in each table in the appendix. 

2

Expenditure figures in the appendixes are expressed in current dollars so that the actual 

amounts that states reported to HHS can be easily identified. Also, the term “fiscal year”

used throughout the report refers to the federal fiscal year except where otherwise noted.
Page 5 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Results in Brief States are exercising the flexibility provided under PRWORA to design and 

fund programs and services for their low-income families and in doing so 

are committing increasing amounts of money for child care. Nationwide, 

states reported that federal and state expenditures for child care under 

CCDF and TANF grew from $4.1 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $6.9 billion in 

fiscal year 1999 and totaled over $16 billion in constant fiscal year 1997 

dollars for this 3-year period. Reflecting this national trend, child care 

spending increased between 20 and186 percent between state fiscal years 

1994–95 and state fiscal years 1999–2000 for the seven states we visited. In 

five of these states, federal funds financed a significant amount of this 

growth in state fiscal year 1999–2000, accounting for 54 to 70 percent of 

their total child care spending. States also retained unspent CCDF and 

TANF funds each year, with unspent TANF balances accounting for the 

largest amount—approximately $8 billion at the end of fiscal year 1999 for 

all states—although states report that some of these monies have already 

been obligated. CCDF funds must be spent by states within various 

timeframes prescribed by the regulations and it appears that most states 

will do this; TANF funds, on the other hand, can be carried over from one 

fiscal year to the next to be reserved for future needs. While CCDF funds 

must be spent on child care, states are allowed to spend their TANF funds 

for many purposes and have chosen to fund services such as job search 

help, substance abuse counseling, and transportation assistance, as well as 

child care. 

Nationwide, more than half of the children whose child care was 

subsidized with CCDF funds were cared for in centers, and CCDF subsidies 

for all types of care were primarily provided through vouchers. The type of 

care used, however, varied by state. For example, three of the seven states 

we visited reported to HHS that between 60 and 80 percent of the children 

they subsidized with CCDF funds used center care. In the other four states, 

more CCDF-subsidized children were cared for in their own homes or in 

family child care homes than in centers; in these states, centers accounted 

for between 19 and 37 percent of the care for CCDF-subsidized children. 

The reasons families choose one type of care over another are numerous, 

and include factors such as the availability of reliable transportation to get 

children to and from care and whether care is available at times families 

need to use it. Eligible parents who are subsidized by CCDF are offered a 

choice of receiving a voucher to pay a provider of their choosing or using a 

provider who has a contract with the state. Vouchers can be used by 

families with any type of provider and document that the state will pay a 

specified amount for the child’s care. Contracts, which are agreements 
Page 6 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

between the state and a particular provider—typically a center—to pay for 

care for a specified number of eligible children, assist about 10 percent of 

the children subsidized by CCDF. Data are not available on the type of care 

used by families subsidized with TANF funds or the extent to which 

vouchers and contracts are used to pay for the care of these TANFsubsidized families because states are not required to collect this 

information.

Over half of all the states gave TANF and former TANF families 

transitioning to work first or second priority for receiving child care 

subsidies while other eligible low-income families were assigned lower 

priorities. Program officials in four of the seven states we visited reported 

priorities similar to the nationwide trend, while program officials in the 

remaining three states told us that they rely primarily on income, not 

welfare status, for determining which families should receive child care 

subsidies first. Officials in the seven states we reviewed also reported that 

their states funded child care programs at sufficient levels to meet the child 

care needs of their TANF and former TANF families transitioning to work, 

and were serving all of these families who requested child care assistance. 

However, some of these officials were concerned that their states’ funding 

levels were not sufficient to serve all other low-income families who were 

eligible. These officials noted that their states’ eligibility is established 

below the maximum federal eligibility of 85 percent of state median income 

(SMI); yet even at these lower levels they do not serve everyone. 

Nationwide, only eight states set their income eligibility level at 85 percent 

of SMI. However, program officials in five of the seven states we reviewed 

reported that all families eligible under the state’s income criteria who 

applied were being served. While not all families who are eligible need or 

want child care subsidies, there are a number of reasons that families who 

are eligible do not apply. For example, some of these families may be 

unaware that they are, in fact, eligible or may be deterred by the fact that 

waiting lists for subsidies already exist. In California and Texas, state 

funding has not been sufficient to provide subsidies to all families who 

sought them, and these families have been placed on a waiting list. In 

addition, child care program officials in four states reported that other 

important child care initiatives were not funded to the extent needed. Such 

initiatives included, for example, increasing the amount states pay child 

care providers to encourage them to stay in the field and thus help to 

stabilize the supply of child care. According to some state officials, one 

reason that state governments have not funded their child care programs to 

a greater extent is that they are concerned about expanding a program 
Page 7 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

when the level of continued federal funding is uncertain due to PRWORA’s 

upcoming reauthorization. 

Background Federal funds for subsidizing child care for low-income families, 

particularly those on welfare, are primarily provided to the states through 

two block grants—CCDF and TANF. Within certain guidelines established 

by the block grants, states have discretion in deciding how these funds will 

support child care, including who will be eligible, the payment mechanism 

to be used to pay providers, and the portion of TANF funds to be used for 

child care versus other eligible support services. 

CCDF The cost of child care can create a barrier to employment, especially for 

low-income families. To help these families meet their child care needs, 

PRWORA created CCDF by repealing three former child care programs and 

modifying a fourth one; it also included in CCDF the target populations of 

the programs it replaced.3

 Between fiscal years 1997 and 2002, CCDF will 

provide states with a total of $20 billion in federal funds—ranging from $2.9 

billion in fiscal year 1997 to $3.7 billion in fiscal year 2002—to subsidize 

child care for both welfare and nonwelfare families. Each state’s annual 

federal allocation consists of separate discretionary, mandatory, and 

matching funds.4 A state does not have to obligate or spend any state funds 

3

PRWORA repealed the Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)/Job Opportunities 

and Basic Skills (JOBS) Training Child Care, Transitional Child Care, and At-Risk Child 

programs and modified the former Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). The 

modified program is referred to as the Child Care and Development Fund by HHS. The 

populations served include families currently on welfare and involved in work or education 

activities; those who left welfare in the last 12 months; and low-income families who, 

because of their income level, could be at risk of receiving welfare in the future. Also, CCDF 

funds can be used for children in need of protective services.

4

A state’s discretionary fund is allotted according to formulas specified in the CCDBG Act 

while its mandatory allocation is based on the federal share of its expenditures for 

AFDC/JOBS Child Care, Transitional Child Care, and At-Risk Child Care for fiscal year 1994 

or 1995 or the average of fiscal years 1992 through 1994. The matching funds are distributed 

on the basis of the former At-Risk Child Care formula. 
Page 8 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

to receive the discretionary and mandatory funds.5 However, to receive 

federal matching funds—and thus its full CCDF allocation—a state must 

maintain its program spending at a specified level, referred to as a state’s 

maintenance of effort (MOE), and spend additional state funds above that 

level.6

 Further, states may be spending more of their own funds on child 

care than the amount actually accounted for under CCDF’s MOE and match 

requirements. States must also spend at least 4 percent of their total CCDF 

expenditures for a given fiscal year on activities intended to improve the 

quality and availability of child care. These activities can include but are 

not limited to improving consumer education about child care, providing 

grants or loans to providers to assist them in meeting applicable child care 

standards, giving financial assistance to child care resource and referral 

agencies,7

 improving monitoring and enforcement of child care standards, 

improving provider compensation, and providing training and technical 

assistance to providers. In addition to the 4 percent states must spend 

improving the quality and availability of child care, the Congress 

specifically earmarked money in CCDF’s discretionary fund in fiscal years 

1998 and 1999 for certain activities and age groups: $19 million for schoolage care and resource and referral services, and $223 million for qualityrelated activities.8

States may provide child care assistance to families whose income is as 

high as 85 percent of the SMI, thus including families at both the lowest and 

more moderate income levels. States may also establish a maximum 

5

CCDF funds must be obligated and expended within timeframes prescribed by the 

regulations. Discretionary funds must be obligated within 2 years of the fiscal year in which 

funds are awarded and expended within 3 years. Mandatory funds must be obligated within 

1 year of the grant award if a state plans to use matching funds, otherwise there is no time 

limit on obligating the funds. There is no time limit for expending mandatory funds. Federal 

matching funds must be obligated within the year of the grant award and expended within 2 

years of the award. 

6

To access federal matching funds, a state must (1) obligate its entire amount of mandatory 

funds by the end of the fiscal year; (2) maintain state child care expenditures at its 1994 or 

1995 level (whichever was higher) for its AFDC/JOBS Child Care, Transitional Child Care, 

and At-Risk Child Care programs; and (3) spend additional state funds.

7

Child care resource and referral agencies (CCRRs) maintain a provider database for their 

local area in order to help match parents looking for care with available providers. CCRRs, 

which are supported with federal, state, local, and private funds, also conduct other services 

such as training child care providers.

8

Of the amounts earmarked for quality-related activities, HHS has set aside $50 million for 

states to use to increase the supply of quality care for infants and toddlers.
Page 9 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

income eligibility below this level. Looking across all states, 85 percent of 

SMI for a family of four in calendar year 1998—the most recent year for 

which data are available—ranged from a low of $36,753 per year to a high 

of $64,203 per year. In addition to establishing the maximum income level 

at which a family is eligible for a child care subsidy, the states also 

determine which groups of low-income families within that income 

eligibility limit will have priority over others in receiving subsidies, such as 

a family with a special needs child.

Families who receive child care subsidies under CCDF must be offered the 

choice of using a voucher, which is a certificate assuring a provider that the 

state will pay a portion of the child care fee, or using a provider who has a 

contract with the state to provide care to subsidized families. Vouchers can 

be used to pay any type of provider, including those providers who may 

also have a contract with the state.9

 Information about a state’s use of 

vouchers and contracts, the income level of families to whom the state will 

provide assistance, and its priorities for funding those families is contained 

in a state’s CCDF plan, which must be submitted and approved by HHS 

every 2 years. 

TANF TANF, which is currently authorized through fiscal year 2002, ended the 

individual entitlement to welfare benefits afforded under the Aid to 

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) established by the Social 

Security Act in 1935. In its place, PRWORA created TANF block grants, 

which provide an entitlement to eligible states of $16.5 billion annually. 

Federal funding under the TANF grant is fixed, and states are required to 

maintain a significant portion of their own historic financial commitment to 

their welfare programs, discussed earlier as a state’s MOE, as a condition of 

receiving their TANF grant.10 These two sources of funds—federal funds 

and state funds for MOE—represent the bulk of resources available to 

states as they design, finance, and implement their low-income assistance 

programs under TANF.

9

Generally, there are three types of providers: center providers, who typically care for 12 or 

more children in a nonresidential facility; group home providers, who care for between 6 

and 12 children in a private residence with an assistant; and family child care providers, who 

typically care for no more than 3 children in the provider’s home. 

10PRWORA provided $200 million per year for 5 years for bonuses to reward states with high 

performance in achieving the goals of TANF. In addition, it provided $100 million per year 

for 4 years for bonuses to reward states that reduce the ratio of out-of-wedlock births.
Page 10 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

TANF includes provisions to ensure that cash assistance to eligible families 

is temporary and that those receiving TANF assistance either work or 

prepare to work. To support state efforts in helping welfare families make 

this transition to work, PRWORA allowed states wide discretion over how 

to design their TANF programs. Instead of prescribing in detail how 

programs are to be structured, the new law authorizes states to use their 

block grants in any manner reasonably calculated to accomplish the 

purposes of TANF. For example, states are allowed to set their own criteria 

for defining who will be eligible and what assistance and services will be 

available. These services can include cash assistance, work-related 

activities such as job search assistance, substance abuse counseling, 

transportation assistance, and child care. In addition, states can choose to 

use their TANF money to help a broader population of low-income families 

through programs that, for example, provide refundable tax credits or job 

retention and advancement services. To ensure the temporary nature of 

TANF assistance and provide an impetus for moving recipients toward selfreliance, the law established a 5-year lifetime limit on assistance to families 

and required that states ensure that specified levels of recipients 

participate in work activities.11 States can incur financial penalties if these 

levels are not met. These levels started at 25 percent of a state’s welfare 

caseload for fiscal year 1997 and will increase to 50 percent in fiscal year 

2002.12

In addition to giving states more flexibility to design their welfare 

programs, TANF also shifted much of the fiscal responsibility to the states. 

In doing so, the importance of state fiscal planning was underscored as 

states faced greater choices about how to allocate TANF dollars among the 

competing needs and priorities of various low-income programs that help 

families find and keep jobs and prevent them from returning to welfare.13

Under AFDC, the federal government and the states shared any increased 

welfare costs because welfare benefits were a matched, open-ended 

entitlement to the states. But under TANF, states receive a fixed amount of 

11PRWORA also allows each state to reduce its annual mandated participation rate by an 

amount equal to the percentage that the state’s welfare caseload has declined since fiscal 

year 1995. Given the significant declines in welfare caseloads since that time, the actual 

rates some states must meet are generally lower than those prescribed in the law. 

12A separate but higher rate exists for two-parent families: 75 percent had to have been 

working or in work activities in fiscal year 1997 and 90 percent in fiscal year 1999.

13For more information about the fiscal effects of TANF on states, see Welfare Reform: Early 

Fiscal Effects of the TANF Block Grant (GAO/AIMD-98-137, Aug. 18, 1998).
Page 11 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

funds regardless of any changes in state spending or the number of people 

the program serves. Because of a combination of declining welfare 

caseloads, higher federal grant levels than would have been provided under 

AFDC, and MOE requirements that states maintain a specified level of 

welfare spending at 75 to 80 percent of their historical spending on welfare, 

states currently have more total budgetary resources available for their 

welfare programs than they would have had under AFDC.14 These 

additional resources presented states with numerous decisions to make 

about the families they would serve, the mix of support services they would 

offer and the extent to which these services would be funded, and the 

amount of TANF funds they would reserve for use in later years, 

particularly in the event of an economic downturn when welfare costs 

could rise.15

In addition, PRWORA allows states the flexibility to use TANF funds 

directly from the block grant to pay for child care or transfer it to other 

block grants. States may transfer up to 30 percent of their TANF funds to 

CCDF or 10 percent to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG),16 which can 

also be used by states to fund child care and other social services, 

depending on their child care needs and priorities. 

14States’ MOE requirements are based on their spending in federal fiscal year 1994 for the 

programs replaced by the TANF block grant and combined in the CCDBG. The level of the 

TANF grant is set based on the higher of federal spending on the programs consolidated in 

TANF for federal fiscal year 1994, fiscal year 1995, or the average for the years 1992 through 

1994—periods during which caseloads and federal spending were at historically high levels. 

15Final regulations for TANF stipulate that the use of TANF carryover funds can only be for 

activities defined as “assistance,” which are cash and noncash benefits designed to meet a 

family’s ongoing basic needs. Child care services to employed parents are excluded from the 

definition of assistance. 

16The 30 percent amount for transferring TANF funds is a maximum; if 10 percent of TANF 

funds are transferred to SSBG, only 20 percent could be transferred to CCDF even though 

the ceiling level for CCDF is 30 percent. 
Page 12 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Federal and State 

Expenditures for Child 

Care Increased, but 

Unspent TANF and 

CCDF Funds Remain

Between fiscal years 1997 and 1999, states’ reported expenditures for child 

care from CCDF, TANF, and their own funds increased annually.17 For 

example, CCDF expenditures almost doubled in this time period—growing 

from $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion—while funds spent from the TANF block 

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

years. However, while states spent increased amounts from these sources 

and their own funds, they still had unspent TANF and CCDF balances at the 

end of fiscal year 1999. 

States’ Child Care Spending 

Grew to Over $16 Billion 

Using CCDF, TANF, and 

State Funds

Nationwide, states spent increasingly larger amounts of their CCDF, TANF, 

and state money on child care between fiscal years 1997 and 1999—a total 

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

Table 1: Total Child Care Expenditures by States of CCDF, TANF, and State Funds, 

Fiscal Years 1997 to 1999

1997 Constant Dollars in Millions

a

Includes funds transferred from TANF into CCDF.

b

Funds spent on child care directly from the TANF block grant.

c

These amounts include state dollars reported as CCDF MOE, state matching funds under CCDF, and 

MOE reported for child care for separate state programs under TANF. The CCDF matching amounts 

are overstated because a few states had not received their maximum allocation. However, the total 

amount reported in this column may underreport the amount of their own funds states are spending on 

child care, given that they may be spending more than the amount they report to HHS. 

17These and other expenditure figures throughout the body of this report are expressed in 

constant fiscal year 1997 dollars.

Fiscal year CCDFa TANFb Statec Total

1997 $2,537 $14 $1,569 $4,120

1998 3,504 243 1,650 5,397

1999 4,575 583 1,807 6,965

Total $10,615 $840 $5,026 $16,482
Page 13 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

CCDF expenditures made up almost two-thirds of the total amount spent 

on child care from these sources. These expenditures included funds that 

states transferred from TANF into CCDF, which more than tripled in 3 

years—increasing from $483 million in fiscal year 1997 to around $1.7 

billion in fiscal year 1999.18 (See app. I, tables 3 through 5, for more detailed 

information on TANF transfers for fiscal years 1997 through 1999 in current 

dollars.) The CCDF expenditure figures also include federal matching 

dollars for which states must spend a specified amount of state funds in 

order to receive their maximum CCDF matching allocation. Forty-seven 

states received the maximum fiscal year 1997 CCDF federal match while 49 

received the maximum fiscal year 1998 match. By the end of fiscal year 

1999, almost two-thirds of the states had already spent the required amount 

of state funds to receive their full fiscal year 1999 federal match even 

though they had until the end of fiscal year 2000 to do so.19 As with TANF 

transfers, states reported spending increasingly more federal TANF dollars 

on child care directly from the TANF block grant for fiscal years 1997 

through 1999. These expenditures grew more than 40-fold, from $14 million 

in fiscal year 1997 to around $583 million in fiscal year 1999.20

Child Care Spending in 

Selected States Also 

Increased

Spending on child care programs for low-income families increased 

substantially in the seven states we reviewed in more depth. As table 2 

shows, total spending on child care programs in state fiscal year 1994–95 

ranged from $58 million in Wisconsin to $661 million in California. By state 

fiscal year 1999–2000, spending on these programs had grown, ranging 

from $77 million in Oregon to around $1.8 billion in California. Thus, the 

percentage increase for these seven states during this period ranged from 

20 to 186 percent in constant 1997 dollars. 

18Through fiscal year 1999, states were allowed to transfer prior-year TANF funds into CCDF. 

Starting in fiscal year 2000, only current-year TANF funds may be transferred. 

19HHS data for fiscal year 2000 were not yet available at the time this report was issued.

20The significant increase in child care expenditures directly from the TANF block grant 

between fiscal years 1997 and 1999 may be due, in part, to the fact that not all states had 

received their full TANF grant in fiscal year 1997.
Page 14 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Table 2: Selected States’ Child Care Expenditures of Federal and State Funds, Fiscal 

Years 1995 to 2000

1997 Constant Dollars in Millions

In state fiscal year 1999–2000, five of the seven states relied on significant 

amounts of federal funds—between 54 and 70 percent—to finance their 

growing child care programs. Only Connecticut and Texas reported 

spending more of their own funds than federal funds on these programs for 

that year.21

The amount of money states ultimately choose to spend on child care is a 

result of their budget processes—which decide the extent to which the 

competing needs of different programs and priorities statewide will be 

supported—and the requirements imposed by the block grant. As part of 

these decisions, the states we reviewed made choices about how to spend 

TANF, CCDF, and other funds to provide many different support services to 

low-income families. However, while CCDF funds have to be spent on child 

care, TANF funds can be spent on a range of support services, including 

child care, assuming these services meet the goals of PRWORA.22 In 

addition, these states attempted to strike a balance between spending 

TANF funds on the current needs of their low-income families and 

reserving portions of these funds for future spending. 

State

State fiscal

year 1994–95

State fiscal

year 1998–99

State fiscal

year 1999–2000

Percent

increase for

1994–95 to

1999–2000

California $661 $1,443 $1,755 166

Connecticut 87 173 170 95

Maryland 87 117 122 40

Michigan 453 835 885 95

Oregon 64 79 77 20

Texas 396 544 692 75

Wisconsin $58 $169 $166 186

21In Texas, the state’s prekindergarten programs for low-income children represented most 

of the state’s reported expenditures for child care.

22Starting in fiscal year 2000, TANF carryover funds can only be spent on services defined as 

“assistance,” which are cash and noncash benefits designed to meet a family’s ongoing basic 

needs. Child care services to employed parents are excluded from this definition. 
Page 15 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

For example, both Maryland and Wisconsin plan to use a significant 

amount of their TANF funds to expand their child care programs in 

addition to funding other parts of their welfare programs for low-income 

families. Maryland budget officials are projecting that the state will have 

$160 million in federal TANF carryover balances to use in fiscal year 2001 in 

addition to their annual TANF block grant. Using these funds, the state will 

finance more than 5,700 new child care spaces. Similarly, Wisconsin budget 

officials assumed that almost $350 million in TANF carryover balances in 

the fiscal year 1999–2000 budget would be available in addition to its $317 

million annual TANF block grant. According to state budget officials, these 

resources will help pay for a number of new expansions to their child care 

programs, including increasing the income eligibility of families who can 

receive child care subsidies from 165 to 185 percent of the poverty level 

and reducing copayment amounts for families.23

California, Connecticut, Michigan, Oregon, and Texas, also increased their 

child care spending between state fiscal years 1994–95 and 1999–2000 to 

meet the increased need for child care as more families made the transition 

from welfare to work, but these states were not planning to use TANF 

funds for large expansions of their child care programs. For example, 

Texas increased its child care funding for state fiscal year 2000–1 to a level 

where it was able to serve about half the children on its waiting list at a 

given point in time with child care subsidies, but it also chose to leave 

about $107 million in TANF funds in reserve. Connecticut had about $41 

million in unspent TANF funds at the end of state fiscal years 1998–99 and 

1999–2000 but chose to use these funds to replace state funds already 

allocated for other programs. Budget officials in Oregon told us that they 

adjusted their budget twice in the last 2 years because the number of 

applicants for child care subsidies was lower than expected. Some of the 

state funds from these adjustments were reinvested into the program to 

reduce the child care copayment amount; the rest—about $40 million—was 

used for other state priorities. Finally, counties in California have received 

more than $685 million in TANF funds from the state as a reward for 

reducing welfare caseloads. These funds must be used for TANF-allowable 

purposes, including child care, although the counties have wide discretion 

over how to spend this money. However, at the time of our study, about 1 

percent of it had been spent.

23A copayment is a specified amount of money that parents receiving child care subsidies 

are required to pay to the provider or state toward their child’s care.
Page 16 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

States Retain Unspent 

CCDF and TANF Balances

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

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

example, must be spent within certain timeframes prescribed by the 

regulations. Our end-of-year analysis shows that, on average, states spent 

about 70 percent of their CCDF funds and retained approximately 30 

percent in unspent funds for each of the three fiscal years, 1997 through 

1999. It appears that most states have met or will meet the prescribed 

timeframes for spending these remaining monies. The amount of unspent 

CCDF funds varies by state and fiscal year, however, and appendix II, 

tables 9 through 11, provides detailed information by state for fiscal years 

1997 through 1999, in current dollars. 

Along with unspent CCDF funds in a given fiscal year, states also reported 

about $8 billion dollars in unspent TANF funds at the end of fiscal year 

1999. This represented about 41 percent of the total TANF funds available 

to the states for expenditure in fiscal year 1999 and included both fiscal 

year 1999 and prior year funds. States also reported that $5 billion of 

unspent TANF funds have been obligated, although the lack of uniformity 

in the way states report the status of these funds makes it difficult to 

determine exactly how much has been obligated. As with CCDF funds, the 

amount of unspent TANF funds varied by state. Appendix I, tables 6 

through 8, provides information on TANF balances by state for fiscal years 

1997 through 1999, in current dollars.

Center Care and 

Vouchers Most 

Frequently Used

To parents who receive child care subsidies under CCDF, states must 

provide flexibility and choice in selecting child care providers. Parents 

receiving subsidized child care through CCDF most often selected child 

care centers to provide care to their children. The subsidies parents receive 

are most often paid for through vouchers—a payment mechanism many 

think provides the most flexibility to parents—rather than contracts, 

although this can vary by state. Data on the type of care used by children 

whose parents receive TANF and the payment mechanisms states used to 

pay for their care are not available.24

24While TANF does not require states to collect this information, CCDF regulations require 

that states report this information for CCDF money spent from the discretionary fund, 

including TANF transfers, the federal mandatory and matching funds, and the state 

matching and MOE. Hence, about 90 percent of the $16 billion states spent on child care as 

discussed in table 1 are in CCDF funds for which states are required to report these data. 
Page 17 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Center Care Most Often 

Used by Parents Who 

Receive Child Care 

Subsidies

Center care is the predominant type of child care used by children 

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

by states to HHS. Nationwide, 55 percent of children whose care is paid for 

by CCDF are in centers, 30 percent are in family child care homes, 11 

percent are in the child’s own home, and 4 percent are in group homes.25

The use of center care varied by state, however. HHS data show that the 

use of center care by CCDF subsidized children ranged from 19 percent in 

Michigan to 94 percent in the District of Columbia. Three of the seven 

states we visited—California, Texas, and Wisconsin—reported that 

between 60 and 80 percent of the children subsidized with CCDF funds 

used center care. On the other hand, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, and 

Oregon reported much lower use of center care by CCDF-subsidized 

children, ranging from 19 to 37 percent. 

While CCDF data can tell us what care parents choose, they cannot provide 

information on why parents make their choices. Many factors influence the 

choice of care selected by parents. Some factors can affect the choice of a 

particular provider over another, while others affect the choice of one 

provider type over another. For example, data show that younger 

children—those under 3 years of age—tend to be cared for in family child 

care homes or by relatives; older children are more often cared for in 

centers. For families subsidized with CCDF funds, the age of the child may 

be a factor that explains their greater use of center care. CCDF data show 

that over 70 percent of the CCDF-subsidized children are 3 to 12 years old, 

37 percent are 3 to under 6 years old, and 35 percent are 6 to 12 years old.

Lacking accessible and reliable transportation between home, work, and 

the child care provider can limit a family’s child care options and affect the 

type of care a family chooses. Over the years, states have reported to us 

that TANF families lack reliable private transportation to get their children 

to child care providers and themselves to work. Moreover, some 

communities lack public transportation to get TANF participants where 

they need to go, especially in rural areas. Even when public transportation 

is available, families’ child care options can be limited due to the difficulty 

and time it takes to navigate trips with children to a particular provider and 

then to work.

25CCDF data provide information on relative care only for CCDF-subsidized children who 

are cared for by providers exempt from regulation. Of those children, 53 percent are cared 

for by relatives while 47 percent are cared for by nonrelatives. 
Page 18 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

An inadequate supply of providers is another barrier to obtaining care and a 

factor in selecting child care. In our previous work, we found that the 

supply of infant care, care for special needs children, and care during 

nonstandard hours has been much more limited than the overall supply. 

Low-income neighborhoods tend to have less overall child care supply as 

well as less supply for these particular care groups than do higher-income 

neighborhoods.26

The price of care can affect a low-income parent’s choice of a particular 

provider. In general, child care is less affordable to poor families than 

nonpoor because it can consume a much larger percentage of their budget. 

Forty percent of families with incomes at or below 200 percent of poverty 

paid for child care and spent, on average, 16 percent of their annual 

earnings; however, 27 percent of these families paid more than 20 percent 

of their annual earnings for care. Nonpoor families—those with earnings 

above 200 percent of poverty—paid, on average, 6 percent of their annual 

earnings for child care with only 1 percent paying more than 20 percent of 

earnings for care.27 For families who receive a subsidy, affordability may 

not be an issue if the full cost of the care selected is within the subsidy 

amount. However, affordability can be affected by the amount of the 

copayment, which most states require subsidized parents to pay, again 

affecting parents’ choice of a provider. For example, a recent HHS study 

shows that state variation in the amount charged to subsidized parents for 

copayments can represent 4 to 17 percent of their monthly income. 

Vouchers Are the 

Predominant Payment 

Mechanism

CCDF regulations require that a parent eligible for a CCDF child care 

subsidy be offered the choice of receiving a voucher to pay a provider or 

enrolling the child with a provider that has a contract with or grant from 

the state to serve eligible children. A voucher is a certificate that 

documents that the state will pay a specified amount of the cost of care for 

an eligible child. The primary advantage of a voucher is that its portability 

provides maximum parental choice—it can be used to pay any available 

provider of the parent’s choosing, including a relative. A contract, which is 

an agreement the state usually has with centers, allows the state to target 

funds to underserved areas, such as poorer parts of a city, or to specific 

26Welfare Reform: Implications of Increased Work Participation for Child Care (GAO/HEHS97-75, May 29, 1997).

27L. Giannarelli and J. Barsimantov, Child Care Expenses of America’s Families (Washington, 

D.C.: The Urban Institute, Dec. 2000), pp. 6–8.
Page 19 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

populations, such as migrant farm children, and thus help stabilize the 

supply of care in these areas. Contracts can also help improve the quality of 

the child care by stipulating that certain requirements must be met, such as 

providing staff training or health screenings to the children in care.

Vouchers are the most common method used by states to pay for child care 

subsidized with CCDF funds. Fiscal year 1998 data reported by the states to 

HHS, which are the most current data available, show that, nationwide, 

parents of 84 percent of the children receiving CCDF subsidies used a 

voucher to pay for child care while 10 percent used a provider that had a 

contract with or grant from the state. For the remaining CCDF-subsidized 

children, the states paid cash directly to the parent. However, the extent to 

which one type of payment mechanism is used over another varies among 

the states. For example, 21 states reported to HHS that they use contracts 

or grants; the percent of CCDF-subsidized children served by this payment 

method ranged from less than 1 percent in Vermont and Colorado to almost 

73 percent in Florida. Six of the seven states we reviewed use vouchers as 

the primary method to pay for child care. California uses vouchers to a 

lesser extent than the other states we visited: 58 percent of California’s 

children subsidized with CCDF funds were with contracted providers, 34 

percent used vouchers, and 8 percent were subsidized through cash 

payments to parents. National data on the type of care used by children 

subsidized with TANF funds are not available because TANF regulations do 

not require states to collect and report this information to HHS. 

States Assist TANF and 

Former TANF Families 

With Child Care, but 

Other Eligible Families 

Are Not Always Served 

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

adequate funding to meet the child care needs of families on TANF and 

those who have recently left. In five of these states, other eligible families 

who applied for child care subsidies were also served. However, some 

officials raised concerns that their states’ current funding levels are not 

sufficient to provide subsidies to all eligible low-income families who may 

need them, such as those on waiting lists, or to fully support important 

child care initiatives. State officials noted that one reason that the funding 

levels for these and other program goals are not higher is states’

uncertainty about the continued level of federal funding. 
Page 20 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

State Funding Sufficient for 

Child Care Subsidies to 

Highest-Priority Families—

Those on TANF 

According to CCDF plans for fiscal years 2000 through 2001, more than half 

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

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

subsidies. Likewise, four of the states we reviewed—California, Texas, 

Connecticut, and Maryland—also give priority for child care subsidies to 

those on welfare and those transitioning from welfare to work. The three 

remaining states—Michigan, Oregon, and Wisconsin—reported that they 

primarily rely on income, not welfare status, as a means of giving priority to 

certain families over others, with families earning the lowest incomes 

receiving child care subsidies first. 

Child care officials in the seven states we examined in more depth reported 

that their states have allocated adequate funding to meet the child care 

needs of families on TANF and those in the process of transitioning from 

welfare to work. However, some of these officials expressed uncertainty 

about their ability to continue to do this because, with the reauthorization 

of TANF and CCDF scheduled for the next fiscal year, the future level of 

federal funding for these block grants is unknown. Michigan and Wisconsin 

program officials expressed concern that any funding reductions may make 

it necessary for them to provide child care subsidies to TANF families first, 

over non-TANF families. But, among the seven states we examined, no 

state reported that it was currently unable to fund the child care needs of 

these families who requested services. 

States Provided Child Care 

Subsidies to Non-TANF 

Families, but Not All 

Eligible Families Were 

Served

Nationwide, 22 states placed non-TANF families third or lower in priority 

order for receiving child care subsidies according to CCDF plans approved 

by HHS for fiscal years 2000 through 2001. According to the CCDF plans of 

the states that we reviewed, California, Maryland, and Texas placed lowincome families third or fourth after TANF and transitioning TANF families, 

while Connecticut placed these families fifth after other groups such as 

teen parents and children with special needs. As stated above, Michigan, 

Oregon, and Wisconsin did not establish priorities based on welfare status, 

but rather on income. 

Notwithstanding these priorities, program officials in Connecticut, 

Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, and Wisconsin reported that their states’

funding allocations have been adequate to serve all eligible families who 

have applied. Further, data for state fiscal year 1999–2000 show that in four 

of these states non-TANF children represent the largest percentage of 
Page 21 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

children in their subsidy program.28 A similar finding is reported in a recent 

HHS study that examined child care for low-income families in 25 

communities nationwide. It found that, while states’ funding policies favor 

TANF families over non-TANF families for receiving child care subsidies, 

children of non-TANF families represented the largest percentage of 

children receiving child care subsidies in most of the states that were 

examined. However, because many states do not track former TANF 

families for an extended period after leaving TANF, it is not known how 

many of these current non-TANF families are former TANF families who 

began receiving their subsidies when they were on welfare.29

While child care program officials in most of the states we reviewed 

reported serving all eligible low-income families who applied, California, 

Connecticut, Texas, and Oregon expressed concern that their funding of 

child care was not sufficient to provide child care subsidies for all eligible 

families. These program officials noted that their states’ eligibility ceilings 

were established at levels below the maximum federal level of 85 percent 

of SMI,30 yet even at these lower ceiling levels, they do not serve all eligible 

families. For example, both Connecticut and California set maximum 

eligibility for receiving child care subsidies at 75 percent of SMI, but 

because their states did not allocate sufficient funding to serve families up 

to these eligibility levels, their child care program serves families mostly at 

or below 50 percent of SMI. In both California and Texas, this has resulted 

in waiting lists for child care subsidies.31 Nationwide, most states have not 

established income eligibility levels at the maximum level allowed under 

CCDF—85 percent of SMI. According to states’ CCDF plans for fiscal year 

2000 through 2001, eight states established eligibility at this level. Of the 

remaining 42 states and the District of Columbia, half set eligibility 

between 58 and 84 percent of SMI while the other half set it below 58 

percent.

28Data were not available for California and Oregon.

29Abt Associates, Inc., National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families: State and 

Community Substudy Interim Report (Cambridge, Mass., Nov. 2000).

30While Texas’ eligibility is set at 85 percent of SMI, local workforce boards are allowed to 

establish eligibility at lower levels, which many have done.

31The child care funding decisions made by these states, particularly regarding the use of 

their TANF funds, were discussed earlier in the report. 
Page 22 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

A gap between the number of children eligible for child care subsidies 

under states’ income eligibility criteria and those who actually receive them 

appears to exist nationwide. A 1998 HHS study shows that about one-fifth 

of all states are serving less than 10 percent of the children eligible for 

CCDF subsidies as defined by state income eligibility ceilings; three-fifths 

are serving between 10 and 25 percent; and one-fifth are serving 25 percent 

or more.32 While not all families who are eligible for child care subsidies 

want or need them, there are many reasons why families who are eligible 

and want child care subsidies do not apply for them. For example, they may 

already know that waiting lists for subsidies exist in their community; they 

may think they are not eligible; or the amount of the subsidy or the family 

copayment required to be paid by subsidized families may not make it 

worthwhile for a family to apply for them.33

Program Officials 

Concerned About Funding 

for Other Child Care 

Initiatives

Although all seven states increased the amount of CCDF funds spent on 

quality initiatives between fiscal years 1997 through 1999, child care 

program officials in four states were concerned about funding levels for 

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

quality reported to HHS by these seven states show that expenditures grew 

from around $22 million in fiscal year 1997 to about $98 million in fiscal 

year 1999, totaling over $180 million for this period. The states spent this 

money on a range of activities to improve child care quality, most 

commonly to support child care resource and referral agencies, for training 

and technical assistance to providers, and on efforts to improve provider 

compliance with state child care regulations by state licensing agencies. 

Child care program officials in California, Connecticut, Oregon, and Texas 

reported that their states did not sufficiently fund some child care 

32Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, 

Access to Child Care for Low-Income Working Families (Washington, D.C., 1999). This 

report used state administrative data reported to HHS to develop a monthly estimate of the 

number of children receiving CCDF subsidies; it does not include children subsidized with 

TANF or SSBG funds. The eligibility estimates were generated from the Urban Institute’s 

TRIM3 microsimulation based on 3 years of Current Population Survey data. The estimate 

for eligible children includes all children under age 13 in families where the head of 

household was in an education or training program and family income was below the state’s 

income eligibility for child care assistance, whether or not child care assistance was actually 

needed.

33National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families: State and Community Substudy 

Interim Report, p. 57.
Page 23 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

initiatives that could improve both child care supply and quality in their 

states. For example, child care program officials in California, Connecticut, 

and Oregon mentioned the need for more funding to provide higher wages 

to providers—either through paying higher payment rates or other 

compensation initiatives—in order to curtail the large numbers of 

providers leaving the field, typically referred to as turnover. High turnover 

could affect the adequacy of child care supply. It also disrupts the 

continuity of care for children, which is important to their development, 

especially for infants, and interferes with parents’ job stability, particularly 

welfare parents who are new to the workforce. Child care program officials 

in Texas, Connecticut, and Oregon also discussed the need for funding to 

build capacity for care that is more difficult to find, such as care for infants 

and during nonstandard work hours, which is particularly important to 

welfare families transitioning to work. 

Agency and Other 

Comments

We received technical comments from program officials in the 

Administration for Children and Families’ Child Care Bureau and Office of 

Family Assistance in the course of completing our work. We incorporated 

these comments where appropriate.

We also received written comments from six of the seven states discussed 

in the report—California, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, Texas, and 

Wisconsin.

In general, state comments focused on the differences in the expenditure 

data in the draft report compared with their own current expenditure 

figures. Because our analysis provides a snapshot of expenditures at 

several different points in time, the data we present vary from current year 

data or data that subsequently may have been reconciled or corrected. We 

expressed expenditure data in constant dollars in the report body to 

capture real growth in spending over time, but also provided these data in 

current year dollars in an appendix so that states would recognize the 

expenditures they reported to HHS. 

Two states, California and Connecticut, expressed concern with the way 

we characterized their budget decisions for using TANF funds. California 

officials believed that our discussion of the fiscal incentive payments that 

certain counties received for reducing TANF caseloads implied that these 

funds were for the purpose of increasing the counties’ child care 

expenditures. We clearly state why counties were given these funds and 

that the counties have discretion about how the funds will be spent. Thus, 
Page 24 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

the California counties that received these funds could decide to spend 

them on child care or any other activities consistent with TANF’s goals and 

allowable under the law. 

Officials in Connecticut raised concerns about two issues. They thought 

that our statement that Connecticut was not planning to use TANF funds 

for a large expansion of child care implied that Connecticut had not 

increased its child care funding. We think the report clearly states just the 

opposite. Table 2 shows that Connecticut has significantly increased its 

child care expenditures in the time periods on which we gathered data. The 

report also states that Connecticut was one of only two states that we 

reviewed that spent more of their own funds than federal funds on these 

increases. Officials also wanted to make sure that we understood that they 

do not have unspent TANF funds. We agree, and believe that the report 

clearly states, that the $41 million Connecticut had in unspent TANF funds 

at one point in time was spent to reimburse the state for previous state 

expenditures on TANF-related purposes. Our reason for discussing this in 

the report was to illustrate the competing choices states face in spending 

TANF funds and that they do not always choose to spend them on child 

care. 

As agreed to with your staff, unless you publicly release its contents earlier, 

we will make no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Honorable 

William Thomas, Chairman, and the Honorable Charles Rangel, Ranking 

Minority Member, House Committee on Ways and Means; the Honorable 

Benjamin Cardin, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Human 

Resources, House Committee on Ways and Means; the Honorable Charles 

Grassley, Chairman, and the Honorable Max Baucus, Ranking Member, 

Senate Committee on Finance; and the Honorable Dr. David Satcher, Acting 

Secretary of HHS; and the Honorable Diann Dawson, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Children and Families, HHS. We will also make copies 

available to others on request.
Page 25 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-7215, or Karen A. Whiten at (202) 512-7291. Other GAO 

contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix III. 

Marnie S. Shaul

Director, Education, Workforce,

and Income Security Issues
Page 26 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Appendix I

TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances ApApenednxidxeiIs

Table 3: TANF Funds Transferred to CCDF During Fiscal Year 1997

State Grant award

Transferred to CCDF

Amount Percentage

Alabama $81,313,004 $10,000,000 12

Alaska 18,759,063 4,834,362 26

Arizona 222,419,998 12,220,532 5

Arkansas 19,936,461 0 0

California 3,147,715,829 0 0

Colorado 45,627,939 10,504,738 23

Connecticut 266,788,107 0 0

Delaware 14,564,516 900,000 6

District of 

Columbia

61,048,692 0 0

Florida 562,340,120 0 0

Georgia 254,339,628 9,000,000 4

Hawaii 28,631,202 0 0

Idaho 10,600,557 0 0

Illinois 134,004,829 0 0

Indiana 206,799,109 42,039,000 20

Iowa 105,169,272 0 0

Kansas 101,931,061 0 0

Kentucky 170,006,205 7,040,032 4

Louisiana 139,757,495 0 0

Maine 72,476,874 3,229,010 4

Maryland 183,017,827 57,117,529 31

Massachusetts 459,371,116 108,164,411 24

Michigan 775,352,858 26,688,930 3

Minnesota 111,835,618 0 0

Mississippi 86,767,578 6,600,000 8

Missouri 187,838,524 0 0

Montana 34,035,612 5,657,669 17

Nebraska 49,340,853 0 0

Nevada 34,008,078 0 0

New Hampshire 38,521,261 0 0

New Jersey 293,107,925 60,442,764 21

New Mexico 31,991,934 0 0

New York 1,982,294,198 45,000,000 2
Appendix I

TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 27 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather than constant) dollars. TANF is 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. CCDF is the Child Care and Development Fund. The 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) data were provided to us in November 2000.

North Carolina 225,973,410 0 0

North Dakota 11,066,221 0 0

Ohio 727,968,260 0 0

Oklahoma 148,013,558 29,602,712 20

Oregon 167,808,448 0 0

Pennsylvania 418,343,381 0 0

Rhode Island 46,025,651 0 0

South Carolina 93,872,849 0 0

South Dakota 18,759,543 890,026 5

Tennessee 191,523,797 16,396,912 9

Texas 431,610,973 0 0

Utah 76,829,219 0 0

Vermont 47,353,181 3,500,000 7

Virginia 114,733,567 8,385,000 7

Washington 289,298,269 0 0

West Virginia 82,155,212 0 0

Wisconsin 318,159,462 11,485,733 4

Wyoming 19,215,579 3,600,000 19

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

State Grant award

Transferred to CCDF

Amount Percentage
Appendix I

TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 28 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

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

State Grant award

Transferred to CCDF

Amount Percentage

Alabama $95,986,661 $19,197,334 20

Alaska 65,267,778 1,600,000 2

Arizona 226,398,173 38,260,000 17

Arkansas 58,230,354 0 0

California 3,732,671,378 100,000,000 3

Colorado 139,324,514 19,433,798 14

Connecticut 266,788,107 0 0

Delaware 32,290,981 0 0

District of Columbia 92,609,815 11,000,000 12

Florida 576,886,883 29,403,486 5

Georgia 339,720,207 19,285,000 6

Hawaii 98,904,788 12,862,074 13

Idaho 32,780,444 0 0

Illinois 585,056,960 0 0

Indiana 206,799,109 56,039,000 27

Iowa 131,524,959 1,214,089 1

Kansas 101,931,061 7,080,193 7

Kentucky 181,287,669 36,240,000 20

Louisiana 168,072,394 50,421,718 30

Maine 78,120,889 4,984,810 6

Maryland 229,098,032 34,521,683 15

Massachusetts 459,371,116 79,253,383 17

Michigan 775,352,858 149,464,937 19

Minnesota 267,984,886 10,200,000 4

Mississippi 88,943,530 8,676,758 10

Missouri 217,051,740 0 0

Montana 46,666,707 7,000,000 15

Nebraska 58,028,579 0 0

Nevada 44,875,852 0 0

New Hampshire 38,521,260 0 0

New Jersey 404,034,823 80,806,965 20

New Mexico 129,339,257 13,304,750 10

New York 2,442,930,602 274,600,000 11

North Carolina 310,935,520 11,699,518 4
Appendix I

TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 29 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather than constant) dollars. ACF 

data were provided to us in November 2000.

North Dakota 26,399,809 0 0

Ohio 727,968,260 0 0

Oklahoma 147,842,004 29,568,401 20

Oregon 166,798,629 0 0

Pennsylvania 719,499,305 0 0

Rhode Island 95,021,587 0 0

South Carolina 99,967,824 5,634,668 6

South Dakota 21,313,413 709,974 3

Tennessee 196,717,069 14,834,051 8

Texas 498,949,726 99,789,945 20

Utah 78,925,393 0 0

Vermont 47,353,181 6,480,552 14

Virginia 158,285,172 23,742,776 15

Washington 404,331,754 28,973,879 7

West Virginia 110,176,310 10,000,000 9

Wisconsin 317,505,180 37,943,787 12

Wyoming 21,538,089 4,300,000 20

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

State Grant award

Transferred to CCDF

Amount Percentage
Appendix I

TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 30 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

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

State Grant award

Transferred to CCDF

Amount Percentage

Alabama $118,724,903 $23,744,979 20

Alaska 64,523,979 13,805,900 21

Arizona 230,620,355 0 0

Arkansas 59,765,287 0 0

California 3,751,148,918 257,300,000 7

Colorado 142,674,034 6,034,156 4

Connecticut 266,788,107 0 0

Delaware 32,290,981 100,000 0

District of Columbia 92,609,815 18,521,963 20

Florida 591,797,320 117,613,943 20

Georgia 348,923,135 15,765,125 5

Hawaii 98,904,788 5,595,000 6

Idaho 33,050,458 6,610,092 20

Illinois 585,056,960 117,011,392 20

Indiana 206,799,109 56,039,000 27

Iowa 131,524,959 14,415,393 11

Kansas 101,931,061 6,073,462 6

Kentucky 181,287,669 36,240,000 20

Louisiana 172,275,313 51,682,593 30

Maine 78,120,889 7,641,014 10

Maryland 229,098,032 0 0

Massachusetts 479,371,116 91,874,219 19

Michigan 795,353,000 96,052,255 12

Minnesota 267,367,231 44,994,267 17

Mississippi 91,173,882 8,676,758 10

Missouri 217,051,740 43,410,348 20

Montana 45,467,288 5,500,000 12

Nebraska 58,028,579 5,000,000 9

Nevada 45,797,430 0 0

New Hampshire 38,521,261 0 0

New Jersey 404,034,823 80,806,965 20

New Mexico 132,656,260 13,688,365 10

New York 2,442,930,602 5,000,000 0

North Carolina 319,848,839 80,253,854 25
Appendix I

TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 31 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather than constant) dollars. ACF 

data were provided to us in November 2000.

North Dakota 26,399,809 0 0

Ohio 727,968,260 0 0

Oklahoma 147,596,109 29,519,222 20

Oregon 166,798,629 0 0

Pennsylvania 719,499,305 126,969,000 18

Rhode Island 95,021,587 13,645,204 14

South Carolina 99,967,824 3,493,964 3

South Dakota 21,313,413 0 0

Tennessee 202,040,173 51,811,123 26

Texas 511,960,024 30,571,678 6

Utah 81,073,971 3,740,480 5

Vermont 47,353,181 7,709,876 16

Virginia 158,285,172 29,157,034 18

Washington 403,313,831 120,994,149 30

West Virginia 110,176,310 10,000,000 9

Wisconsin 317,505,180 63,500,000 20

Wyoming 20,815,954 4,100,000 20

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

State Grant award

Transferred to CCDF

Amount Percentage
Appendix I

TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 32 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Table 6: Unspent TANF Balances by State, Fiscal Year 1997

State

Total available

during FY 97a

Unspent at end of FY 97

Amount Percentage

Alabama $81,313,004 $21,200,152 26

Alaska 18,759,063 4,863,642 26

Arizona 222,419,998 33,663,291 15

Arkansas 19,936,461 7,267,101 36

California 3,147,715,829 762,843,217 24

Colorado 45,627,939 21,700,972 48

Connecticut 260,821,819 29,049,223 11

Delaware 14,564,516 0 0

District of Columbia 61,048,692 25,623,708 42

Florida 562,340,120 206,830,009 37

Georgia 254,339,628 50,778,367 20

Hawaii 28,631,202 3,308,558 12

Idaho 10,600,557 9,670,135 91

Illinois 134,004,829 0 0

Indiana 206,799,109 127,918,296 62

Iowa 100,623,241 22,512,683 22

Kansas 91,931,061 0 0

Kentucky 159,290,629 17,801,388 11

Louisiana 139,757,495 74,535,689 53

Maine 67,034,986 0 0

Maryland 183,017,827 77,809,451 43

Massachusetts 321,559,781 0 0

Michigan 671,853,288 62,556,388 9

Minnesota 111,835,618 63,855,661 57

Mississippi 86,767,578 19,024,979 22

Missouri 187,838,524 53,057,973 28

Montana 34,035,612 11,264,994 33

Nebraska 49,340,853 20,289,316 41

Nevada 34,008,078 3,966,709 12

New Hampshire 38,521,261 0 0

New Jersey 293,107,925 117,870,014 40

New Mexico 31,991,934 179,609 1

New York 1,813,894,198 83,780,570 5

North Carolina 225,973,410 33,336,771 15
Appendix I

TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 33 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather than constant) dollars. ACF 

data were provided to us in November 2000. 

a

Figures represent the total federal funds available for TANF from the current year grant and after funds 

have been transferred to CCDF and/or the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Unspent funds 

include obligated and unobligated funds from the current year award.

North Dakota 11,066,221 7,103,367 64

Ohio 727,968,260 273,788,340 38

Oklahoma 142,813,558 56,548,265 40

Oregon 167,808,448 0 0

Pennsylvania 418,343,381 124,780,707 30

Rhode Island 46,025,651 9,161,666 20

South Carolina 93,872,849 17,443,093 19

South Dakota 18,759,543 6,958,868 37

Tennessee 178,849,849 33,302,361 19

Texas 431,610,973 84,059,489 19

Utah 76,829,219 2,913,038 4

Vermont 42,153,181 5,634,136 13

Virginia 94,875,210 12,174,690 13

Washington 289,298,269 67,367,274 23

West Virginia 78,593,212 26,046,415 33

Wisconsin 318,159,462 132,556,008 42

Wyoming 19,215,579 15,981,772 83

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

Total available

during FY 97a

Unspent at end of FY 97

Amount Percentage
Appendix I

TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 34 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Table 7: Unspent TANF Balances by State, Fiscal Year 1998

State

Total available

during FY 98a

Unspent at end of FY 98

Amount Percentage

Alabama $115,719,447 $58,577,586 51

Alaska 65,315,120 16,684,255 26

Arizona 237,421,664 98,658,119 42

Arkansas 65,497,455 36,536,395 56

California 4,212,514,595 1,545,590,011 37

Colorado 158,873,399 102,907,203 65

Connecticut 272,042,299 29,049,223 11

Delaware 28,779,177 700,244 2

District of Columbia 118,233,523 58,357,764 49

Florida 696,624,718 511,300,647 73

Georgia 340,449,038 117,706,439 35

Hawaii 94,813,346 9,838,752 10

Idaho 39,172,579 39,172,579 100

Illinois 526,556,960 0 0

Indiana 328,717,405 303,238,147 92

Iowa 145,421,961 57,772,197 40

Kansas 84,361,026 21,616,607 26

Kentucky 171,889,057 61,686,405 36

Louisiana 242,608,083 198,052,591 82

Maine 70,636,079 0 0

Maryland 283,997,680 157,666,238 56

Massachusetts 337,720,443 28,349,619 8

Michigan 615,662,302 151,817,265 25

Minnesota 321,540,547 200,783,187 62

Mississippi 107,968,509 37,705,006 35

Missouri 248,404,539 116,300,303 47

Montana 57,931,701 30,520,166 53

Nebraska 78,317,895 44,913,712 57

Nevada 48,842,561 12,010,312 25

New Hampshire 38,521,260 5,953,212 15

New Jersey 465,151,371 288,128,400 62

New Mexico 116,214,116 35,991,024 31

New York 2,250,711,172 689,661,843 31

North Carolina 331,602,192 126,485,752 38
Appendix I

TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 35 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather than constant) dollars. ACF 

data were provided to us in November 2000. 

a

Figures represent the total federal funds available for TANF from current and prior year grants and 

after funds have been transferred to CCDF and/or SSBG. Unspent funds include obligated and 

unobligated funds from current and prior year awards.

North Dakota 33,503,176 12,866,951 38

Ohio 928,959,774 743,732,865 80

Oklahoma 187,684,135 166,786,744 89

Oregon 166,798,629 51,657,218 31

Pennsylvania 791,276,486 407,705,131 52

Rhode Island 104,183,253 15,688,259 15

South Carolina 107,414,135 41,254,019 38

South Dakota 26,140,940 14,940,504 57

Tennessee 214,405,256 94,490,266 44

Texas 547,720,068 289,325,002 53

Utah 78,722,008 16,463,469 21

Vermont 41,771,447 11,205,709 27

Virginia 134,845,698 44,520,343 33

Washington 442,725,179 209,769,384 47

West Virginia 118,822,725 106,763,847 90

Wisconsin 392,289,770 328,634,171 84

Wyoming 37,519,861 37,358,459 100

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

Total available

during FY 98a

Unspent at end of FY 98

Amount Percentage
Appendix I

TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 36 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Table 8: Unspent TANF Balances by State, Fiscal Year 1999

State

Total available during

FY 99a

Unspent at end of FY 99

Amount Percentage

Alabama $100,717,688 $49,049,085 49

Alaska 45,166,879 7,003,822 16

Arizona 266,764,847 124,610,521 47

Arkansas 84,914,581 39,507,216 47

California 4,968,486,636 1,622,991,970 33

Colorado 184,908,291 114,779,125 62

Connecticut 242,683,151 40,730,502 17

Delaware 37,646,361 4,916,485 13

District of Columbia 112,347,499 61,127,647 54

Florida 779,261,783 666,344,023 86

Georgia 373,505,403 138,416,317 37

Hawaii 92,749,034 5,818,672 6

Idaho 55,786,246 43,558,518 78

Illinois 409,539,872 0 0

Indiana 284,040,960 217,305,956 77

Iowa 139,980,754 26,729,763 19

Kansas 107,496,981 0 0

Kentucky 144,637,093 18,313,652 13

Louisiana 193,174,375 123,958,187 64

Maine 67,979,875 0 0

Maryland 268,830,287 117,496,231 44

Massachusetts 339,559,785 69,086,307 20

Michigan 709,026,337 146,120,014 21

Minnesota 303,568,546 126,556,574 42

Mississippi 123,560,363 102,433,613 83

Missouri 215,178,548 26,779,610 12

Montana 62,641,460 37,761,409 60

Nebraska 94,769,208 9,155,486 10

Nevada 55,067,922 17,529,736 32

New Hampshire 44,474,473 16,528,993 37

New Jersey 441,465,522 292,065,326 66

New Mexico 188,745,084 98,925,524 52

New York 2,618,385,932 1,084,764,422 41

North Carolina 324,484,653 101,681,704 31
Appendix I

TANF Transfers and Unspent Balances

Page 37 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather than constant) dollars. ACF 

data were provided to us in November 2000. 

a

Figures represent the total federal funds available for TANF from current and prior year grants and 

after funds have been transferred to CCDF and/or SSBG. Unspent funds include obligated and 

unobligated funds from current and prior year awards.

North Dakota 34,484,654 10,586,334 31

Ohio 1,004,798,113 762,447,086 76

Oklahoma 146,705,222 61,367,186 42

Oregon 218,455,847 23,783,851 11

Pennsylvania 904,324,709 300,617,773 33

Rhode Island 94,876,294 0 0

South Carolina 101,916,315 30,971,011 30

South Dakota 28,053,734 15,633,907 56

Tennessee 241,756,012 121,304,523 50

Texas 614,790,387 275,636,017 45

Utah 85,985,922 31,359,407 36

Vermont 46,134,660 8,494,289 18

Virginia 145,645,274 15,700,416 11

Washington 424,721,793 212,406,431 50

West Virginia 173,587,727 158,992,155 92

Wisconsin 454,899,948 301,547,996 66

Wyoming 51,636,662 48,205,043 93

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

Total available during

FY 99a

Unspent at end of FY 99

Amount Percentage
Page 38 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Appendix II

CCDF Expenditures ApendxiI

Table 9: Percentage of CCDF Funds Spent by Fiscal Year 1997

State

Total available during

FY 97a

Total spent at end of FY 97

Amount Percentage

Alabama $44,853,839 $40,778,442 91

Alaska 10,011,642 8,060,289 81

Arizona 58,378,070 45,496,590 78

Arkansas 33,204,890 18,543,053 56

California 364,279,615 197,433,395 54

Colorado 33,492,990 16,515,789 49

Connecticut 28,013,490 27,821,954 99

Delaware 9,382,931 8,436,168 90

District of Columbia 8,454,771 7,821,523 93

Florida 145,787,473 109,012,204 75

Georgia 109,277,572 83,039,853 76

Hawaii 14,199,040 11,929,277 84

Idaho 15,558,484 7,069,613 45

Illinois 128,246,320 128,037,636 100

Indiana 115,458,735 53,960,519 47

Iowa 24,966,886 13,454,521 54

Kansas 26,966,598 24,023,169 89

Kentucky 54,092,026 41,677,679 77

Louisiana 91,292,076 41,698,254 46

Maine 13,329,724 11,838,765 89

Maryland 53,930,499 32,008,936 59

Massachusetts 195,463,681 181,944,066 93

Michigan 114,659,362 92,581,671 81

Minnesota 55,214,882 37,314,386 68

Mississippi 62,811,989 46,267,561 74

Missouri 56,140,977 54,719,308 97

Montana 9,265,418 6,180,303 67

Nebraska 22,503,156 16,279,213 72

Nevada 14,451,312 10,123,213 70

New Hampshire 11,701,346 8,276,554 71

New Jersey 73,315,764 56,068,767 76

New Mexico 24,401,971 23,886,850 98

New York 247,575,443 125,614,429 51

North Carolina 143,465,545 120,424,018 84
Appendix II

CCDF Expenditures

Page 39 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather than constant) dollars. ACF 

provided data to us in May 2000. 

a

Figures represent the total federal funds available from current and prior year grants.

North Dakota 7,539,033 3,481,508 46

Ohio 146,565,448 126,523,798 86

Oklahoma 77,894,426 43,057,162 55

Oregon 40,960,425 36,620,049 89

Pennsylvania 129,564,674 111,237,839 86

Rhode Island 11,869,713 11,366,645 96

South Carolina 57,035,669 21,508,822 38

South Dakota 11,531,781 4,860,565 42

Tennessee 104,305,318 82,075,661 79

Texas 229,024,680 155,507,378 68

Utah 30,430,020 19,690,968 65

Vermont 11,255,521 11,255,521 100

Virginia 81,094,993 56,802,062 70

Washington 71,787,990 66,807,736 93

West Virginia 28,676,642 19,683,923 69

Wisconsin 67,508,372 51,099,733 76

Wyoming 5,933,324 3,386,396 57

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

Total available during

FY 97a

Total spent at end of FY 97

Amount Percentage
Appendix II

CCDF Expenditures

Page 40 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Table 10: Percentage of CCDF Funds Spent by Fiscal Year 1998

State

Total available

during FY 98a

Total spent at end of FY 98

Amount Percentage

Alabama $63,986,078 $50,630,257 79

Alaska 12,331,257 10,699,802 87

Arizona 78,781,620 62,803,139 80

Arkansas 39,780,851 13,299,642 33

California 588,232,385 376,153,928 64

Colorado 50,272,849 29,397,429 58

Connecticut 36,172,237 36,102,530 100

Delaware 10,229,266 8,487,068 83

District of 

Columbia

8,500,378 8,500,378 100

Florida 202,416,406 152,741,227 75

Georgia 147,554,243 121,689,740 82

Hawaii 22,345,872 21,862,754 98

Idaho 20,601,664 14,157,673 69

Illinois 133,777,727 133,569,043 100

Indiana 179,922,683 78,168,305 43

Iowa 38,700,246 27,707,239 72

Kansas 37,083,798 33,264,738 90

Kentucky 76,557,166 47,573,472 62

Louisiana 154,570,237 51,087,263 33

Maine 17,001,394 15,183,257 89

Maryland 74,700,847 58,075,730 78

Massachusetts 181,812,290 154,780,001 85

Michigan 262,131,934 244,000,086 93

Minnesota 69,279,332 56,466,645 82

Mississippi 48,548,374 27,579,257 57

Missouri 61,153,486 61,055,188 100

Montana 12,851,044 11,487,643 89

Nebraska 27,676,043 26,889,452 97

Nevada 16,726,302 10,862,187 65

New Hampshire 14,145,208 13,906,191 98

New Jersey 103,630,499 100,303,638 97

New Mexico 37,633,287 34,394,232 91

New York 398,158,245 193,641,418 49
Appendix II

CCDF Expenditures

Page 41 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather than constant) dollars. ACF 

provided data to us in May 2000. 

a

Figures represent the total federal funds available from current and prior year grants.

North Carolina 155,615,606 145,960,014 94

North Dakota 10,872,920 5,727,146 53

Ohio 158,128,793 157,013,177 99

Oklahoma 114,920,289 56,602,134 49

Oregon 43,590,451 38,573,453 88

Pennsylvania 141,548,387 102,748,257 73

Rhode Island 12,651,526 12,046,998 95

South Carolina 74,598,206 57,621,063 77

South Dakota 13,915,743 8,426,622 61

Tennessee 113,704,190 108,552,819 95

Texas 394,907,988 213,506,682 54

Utah 40,860,822 32,167,061 79

Vermont 13,765,457 13,765,421 100

Virginia 108,966,152 49,185,616 45

Washington 109,850,821 108,759,685 99

West Virginia 39,984,746 36,395,458 91

Wisconsin 109,643,411 96,229,664 88

Wyoming 8,569,698 5,771,380 67

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

Total available

during FY 98a

Total spent at end of FY 98

Amount Percentage
Appendix II

CCDF Expenditures

Page 42 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Table 11: Percentage of CCDF Funds Spent by Fiscal Year 1999

State

Total available

during FY 99a

Total spent at end of FY 99

Amount Percentage

Alabama $107,574,571 $57,202,031 53

Alaska 39,340,198 27,145,709 69

Arizona 112,193,394 93,143,510 83

Arkansas 52,602,791 33,457,466 64

California 810,679,224 593,109,954 73

Colorado 65,893,305 52,911,968 80

Connecticut 36,908,751 36,908,751 100

Delaware 11,168,141 10,386,443 93

District of 

Columbia

39,052,958 21,153,009 54

Florida 309,105,674 279,076,326 90

Georgia 137,826,571 105,706,327 77

Hawaii 25,464,183 25,464,183 100

Idaho 23,147,848 20,897,499 90

Illinois 254,929,806 254,863,806 100

Indiana 222,063,797 98,805,265 44

Iowa 52,871,342 36,194,995 68

Kansas 36,847,446 36,184,080 98

Kentucky 126,736,834 50,154,179 40

Louisiana 210,254,317 132,648,218 63

Maine 20,207,404 20,207,404 100

Maryland 162,163,499 68,283,431 42

Massachusetts 197,542,286 178,420,148 90

Michigan 208,106,478 154,567,236 74

Minnesota 123,227,427 55,812,165 45

Mississippi 76,000,298 39,502,736 52

Missouri 105,248,951 85,802,008 82

Montana 28,135,291 16,419,693 58

Nebraska 22,851,054 22,851,054 100

Nevada 19,321,241 10,549,509 55

New Hampshire 11,022,087 8,629,598 78

New Jersey 281,551,136 53,022,914 19

New Mexico 41,291,385 41,291,335 100

New York 503,181,075 341,654,743 68
Appendix II

CCDF Expenditures

Page 43 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Notes: Expenditure figures in this table are expressed in current (rather than constant) dollars. ACF 

provided data to us in May 2000. 

a

Figures represent the total federal funds available from current and prior year grants.

North Carolina 213,415,517 202,040,446 95

North Dakota 12,068,832 9,455,545 78

Ohio 142,585,786 142,585,786 100

Oklahoma 139,383,281 101,027,178 72

Oregon 45,255,053 41,512,044 92

Pennsylvania 291,600,001 213,746,647 73

Rhode Island 26,657,154 16,840,513 63

South Carolina 63,274,230 49,297,502 78

South Dakota 14,505,402 11,995,635 83

Tennessee 132,754,590 126,204,169 95

Texas 441,882,003 279,195,571 63

Utah 43,874,589 43,874,585 100

Vermont 15,241,447 15,241,409 100

Virginia 151,996,948 92,225,485 61

Washington 199,817,414 159,999,861 80

West Virginia 30,552,672 12,943,624 42

Wisconsin 109,856,636 108,562,513 99

Wyoming 21,322,463 5,694,597 27

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

Total available

during FY 99a

Total spent at end of FY 99

Amount Percentage
Page 44 GAO-01-293 Child Care Funding

Appendix III

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

GAO Contact Karen Whiten, (202) 512-7291

Staff 

Acknowledgments

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

Susan Higgins, and Bill Keller. 

(116042) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

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

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Letr

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00