Ask the Scholar
Page 70 of 104
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
A Preliminary Report
unspent balances. As noted earlier, unobligated balances may understate the amount of money that
states have not yet programmed, and total unspent balances probably overstate the amount not yet
programmed or committed.
Table 10
How Large Are Unspent TANF Balances?
Amount As % of Single-Year TANF Grant
Amounts Per Poor Person:
Compare To:
Child Care and
Unobligated
Unobligated
Employment
Balances
Unspent Balances
Balances
Unspent Balances
Spending
California
15%
50%
101
330
431
Georgia
26%
39%
71
106
191
Missouri
0%
57%
-
219
320
Wisconsin
91%
155%
539
916
658
United States
28%
51%
121
218
n/a
Sources:
Unspent balances (3/31/99) - Administration on Children and Families
Child care and employment spending - Rockefeller Institute of Government
Poverty population estimated based on U.S. Bureau of the Census data.
The first column shows unobligated balances as a percentage of the available TANF grant in
each state, and the second column shows the same for total unspent balances. 18 By these measures,
Wisconsin has the largest uncommitted balance by far. Whether an unspent amount is a lot depends,
of course, on many other factors. For example, if a state faced program start-up lags and is spending
down its balance, the unspent amount may stabilize or diminish over time. On the other hand, if it
not only has a large unspent balance, but continues to spend below its annual grant amount, the
balance will grow over time.
The third and fourth columns show the unobligated and unspent balances per poor person, and
the last column shows state spending on child care and employment-related programs - the areas
most likely to benefit from spending of unspent balances. Comparing the uncommitted amount to
current child care and employment-related spending also gives a sense of how large the unspent
balance is. Again Wisconsin has the largest uncommitted amounts.
It is too soon to know whether the balances will stabilize, be drawn down, or continue to grow -
although unspent balances apparently declined slightly between March and September of 1999,
according to analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which gathered data for the
July-September quarter of 1999 directly from states. Another way of thinking about the Wisconsin
unspent balance is that it could double its spending on child care and employment and training fora
full year and still not fully use up the balance. However, Wisconsin's spending in these areas
already is far higher than the other study states and has nearly doubled in the last four years.
The way one views these numbers of course may depend on their attitudes about social services
programs. For example, some people might view these numbers as evidence that states can do
more. They might argue that Georgia, with the lowest spending per-poor-person on child care and
employment and training of the four states, has room to increase spending without being
extravagant. Even if Georgia spent its current unspent balance all in one year, and even if it
confined the spending to these two categories, it would only reach the level of California (and just
for one year, until the funds are gone), and it would be far below Wisconsin.
18 The "available" TANF grant is the grant after subtracting amounts that states transfer to the Social Services Block
Grant and to the Child Care Development Fund.
21
Page data
- Page
- 70
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 45977e865ea6639c
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 565376738
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "565376738",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] Supplantation",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Margy Waller's Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 104,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "565376738",
"label": "TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] Supplantation",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "565376738",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] Supplantation",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Margy Waller's Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 104,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"naId": 565376738,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"otherTitles": [
"7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025"
],
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 70,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-070.jpg",
"mediaId": "45977e865ea6639c",
"ocrText": "A Preliminary Report\nunspent balances. As noted earlier, unobligated balances may understate the amount of money that\nstates have not yet programmed, and total unspent balances probably overstate the amount not yet\nprogrammed or committed.\nTable 10\nHow Large Are Unspent TANF Balances?\nAmount As % of Single-Year TANF Grant\nAmounts Per Poor Person:\nCompare To:\nChild Care and\nUnobligated\nUnobligated\nEmployment\nBalances\nUnspent Balances\nBalances\nUnspent Balances\nSpending\nCalifornia\n15%\n50%\n101\n330\n431\nGeorgia\n26%\n39%\n71\n106\n191\nMissouri\n0%\n57%\n-\n219\n320\nWisconsin\n91%\n155%\n539\n916\n658\nUnited States\n28%\n51%\n121\n218\nn/a\nSources:\nUnspent balances (3/31/99) - Administration on Children and Families\nChild care and employment spending - Rockefeller Institute of Government\nPoverty population estimated based on U.S. Bureau of the Census data.\nThe first column shows unobligated balances as a percentage of the available TANF grant in\neach state, and the second column shows the same for total unspent balances. 18 By these measures,\nWisconsin has the largest uncommitted balance by far. Whether an unspent amount is a lot depends,\nof course, on many other factors. For example, if a state faced program start-up lags and is spending\ndown its balance, the unspent amount may stabilize or diminish over time. On the other hand, if it\nnot only has a large unspent balance, but continues to spend below its annual grant amount, the\nbalance will grow over time.\nThe third and fourth columns show the unobligated and unspent balances per poor person, and\nthe last column shows state spending on child care and employment-related programs - the areas\nmost likely to benefit from spending of unspent balances. Comparing the uncommitted amount to\ncurrent child care and employment-related spending also gives a sense of how large the unspent\nbalance is. Again Wisconsin has the largest uncommitted amounts.\nIt is too soon to know whether the balances will stabilize, be drawn down, or continue to grow -\nalthough unspent balances apparently declined slightly between March and September of 1999,\naccording to analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which gathered data for the\nJuly-September quarter of 1999 directly from states. Another way of thinking about the Wisconsin\nunspent balance is that it could double its spending on child care and employment and training fora\nfull year and still not fully use up the balance. However, Wisconsin's spending in these areas\nalready is far higher than the other study states and has nearly doubled in the last four years.\nThe way one views these numbers of course may depend on their attitudes about social services\nprograms. For example, some people might view these numbers as evidence that states can do\nmore. They might argue that Georgia, with the lowest spending per-poor-person on child care and\nemployment and training of the four states, has room to increase spending without being\nextravagant. Even if Georgia spent its current unspent balance all in one year, and even if it\nconfined the spending to these two categories, it would only reach the level of California (and just\nfor one year, until the funds are gone), and it would be far below Wisconsin.\n18 The \"available\" TANF grant is the grant after subtracting amounts that states transfer to the Social Services Block\nGrant and to the Child Care Development Fund.\n21"
}