2
0
0
2

OF

S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S

444 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 642
Washington, DC 20001-1511
202.624.5382
Fax 202.624.7745
www.nasbo.org

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

N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N

2002
S TAT E E X P E N D I T U R E R E P O RT

N

A T I O N A L

A

S S O C I A T I O N

O F

S

T A T E

B

U D G E T

O

F F I C E R S

2002
S TAT E E X P E N D I T U R E R E P O RT

N

A T I O N A L

A

S S O C I A T I O N

O F

S

T A T E

B

U D G E T

O

F F I C E R S

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

2002-2003 Executive Committee

2003-2004 Executive Committee

Neil Bergsman, Maryland, President

Wayne Roberts,Texas, President

Wayne Roberts, Texas, President-elect

Rosemary Booth Gallogly, Rhode Island, President-elect

Gerry Oligmueller, Nebraska, Past President

Neil Bergsman, Maryland, Past President

Don Hill, New Hampshire, Member-at-Large

Rollo Redburn, Oklahoma, Member-at-large

Rollo Redburn, Oklahoma, Member-at-Large

Keith Todd, Maine, Member-at-Large

Rosemary Booth Gallogly, Rhode Island, Eastern Regional Director

Donald Hill, New Hampshire, Eastern Regional Director

Wayne Roberts, Texas, Southern Regional Director

Rollo Redburn, Oklahoma, Southern Regional Director

Tim Keen, Ohio, Midwestern Regional Director

Duane Goosen, Kansas, Midwestern Regional Director

Theresa McHugh, Oregon, Western Regional Director

David Jankofsky, Arizona, Western Regional Director

Nancy McCallin, Colorado, Health, Human Services, and Justice

Nancy McCallin, Colorado, Health, Human Services, and Justice

Sandy Sartin, Florida, Financial Management, Systems,

Roger Smith, West Virginia, Financial Management, Systems,

and Data Reporting
Cynthia Eisenhauer, Iowa, Tax, Commerce, Physical Resources,
and Transportation
Kathy Gaither, California, Training, Education,
and Human Resources Management
Scott Pattison, Executive Director

Copyright © 2003 by the National Association of State Budget Officers.
National Association of State Budget Officers
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 642
Washington, DC 20001-1511
Tel: (202) 624-5382 Fax: (202) 624-7745
www.nasbo.org
Price: $35.00

and Data Reporting
Ray Stockstill, Louisiana,Tax, Commerce, Physical Resources,
and Transportation
Rosemary Booth Gallogly, Rhode Island,Training, Education,
and Human Resources

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
General Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Elementary & Secondary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Elementary & Secondary Education Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Higher Education Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Public Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Other Cash Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Public Assistance Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Medicaid Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Medicaid Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Corrections Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Corrections Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Transportation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
All Other Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
All Other Expenditure Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Capital Spending Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Revenue Sources in the General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
Revenue Sources in the General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
Child Health Insurance Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

TABLES
1.

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

2.

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

3.

Comparison of Shares of State Spending With Fund Sources, Fiscal 1993 to 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

4.

Regional Percentage Change in Expenditures, Fiscal 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

5.

State Spending by Function As a Percent of Total State Expenditures, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

6. Regional Percentage Change in State Elementary and
Secondary Education Expenditures, Fiscal 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
7.

Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT [III]

TA B L E

OF

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

8. Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures As
a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
9.

Annual Percentage Change in Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

10.

Items Excluded from Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

11. Regional Percentage Change in State Higher Education
Expenditures, Fiscal 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
12.

Higher Education Expenditures – Capital Inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

13.

Higher Education Expenditures As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

14.

Annual Percentage Change in Higher Education Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

15.

Items Excluded from Higher Education Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

16. Regional Percentage Change in State Total Public Assistance
Expenditures, Fiscal 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
17.

Regional Percentage Change in State TANF Expenditures, Fiscal 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

18.

Total Public Assistance Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

19.

Total Public Assistance Expenditures As a Percent of Total State Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

20.

Annual Percentage Change in Total Public Assistance Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

21. Cash Expenditures under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
Expenditures (TANF)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

22.

TANF Expenditures for Cash Assistance As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

23.

Annual Percentage Change in TANF Cash Assistance Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

24.

Other Cash Assistance Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

25.

Other Cash Assistance Expenditures As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

26.

Annual Percentage Change in Other Cash Assistance Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

27.

Regional Percentage Change in State Medicaid Expenditures, Fiscal 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

28.

Medicaid Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

29.

Medicaid Expenditures As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

30.

Annual Percentage Change in Medicaid Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

31.

Regional Percentage Change in State Corrections Expenditures, Fiscal 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

32.

Corrections Expenditures – Capital Inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

33.

Corrections Expenditures As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

34. Corrections General Fund Expenditures As a Percent of
Total General Fund Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
35.

Annual Percentage Change in Corrections Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

36.

Items Excluded from Corrections Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

37.

Regional Percentage Change in State Transportation Expenditures, Fiscal 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

38.

Transportation Expenditures – Capital Inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

39.

Transportation Expenditures As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

[IV] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

TA B L E

OF

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

40.

Annual Percentage Change in Transportation Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

41.

Items Excluded from Transportation Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

42.

Regional Percentage Change in State All Other Expenditures, Fiscal 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

43.

All Other Expenditures – Capital Inclusive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

44.

All Other Expenditures As a Percent of Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

45.

Annual Percentage Change in All Other Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

46.

Items Excluded from All Other Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

47.

Total Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84

48.

Higher Education Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

49.

Corrections Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

50.

Transportation Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

51.

Environmental Projects Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

52.

Housing Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

53.

All Other Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

54.

Revenue Sources in the General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95

55.

Items Excluded from Revenue Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96

A-1. Total State Expenditures By Fund Source (Excludes Bonds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
A-2. Child Health Insurance Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

FIGURES
1.

Total State Spending by Fund Source, Fiscal 1987 to 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

2. All Funds Percent Changes From Previous Fiscal Year For Major Spending
Categories, Fiscal 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
3.

Total State Expenditures By Funding Source, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

4.

Total State Expenditures By Function, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

5.

Composition of Total State Expenditures By Function, Fiscal 1987 to 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

6.

General Fund Expenditures, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

7.

Percent Change in General Fund, Fiscal 2002 to 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

8.

Federal Fund Expenditures, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

9.

Regional Percent Change in State Funds, Fiscal 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

10. State Expenditures for Elementary and Secondary Education
by Fund Source, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
11.

State Expenditures for Higher Education by Fund Source, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

12.

State Expenditures for Total Public Assistance by Fund Source, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

13. State Expenditures for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
by Fund Source, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
14.

Actual and Projected Total Medicaid Spending, 1970 to 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT [V]

TA B L E

OF

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

15.

Actual and Projected State Medicaid Spending, 1970 to 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

16.

State Expenditures for Medicaid by Fund Source, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

17.

State Expenditures For Corrections by Fund Source, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

18.

State Expenditures for Transportation by Fund Source, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

19.

State Expenditures for All Other Programs by Fund Source, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

20.

Capital Expenditures by Type, Fiscal 1991 to 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

21.

Annual Percentage Change in Total Capital Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

22.

Total Capital Expenditures by Funding Source, Fiscal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

23.

Revenue Sources in the General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

[VI] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

P R E FAC E
Since its inception 15 years ago, the State Expenditure Report has
developed into a definitive baseline for the analysis of state
spending. Expenditures reflected in this report represent over 99
percent of total state spending.
Expenditure data are provided by program area so that trends in
state spending can be evaluated. The funding sources for state
expenditures also are identified. In addition to state data sources,
data were drawn from other organizations to highlight emerging
policy issues.
Readers are cautioned that a more complete understanding of
service levels within a given state would require comparisons of
spending by both state and local government, which is not the
purpose of this report. In addition, the data are self-reported by the
states. Further information on report methodology is provided in
the Appendix.

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT [VII]

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

Julie Mitchel (NC)

Monica Seymour (AZ)

Sheila Peterson (ND)

Ted Moore (AR)

Lyn Heaton (NE)

Geoff Palmertree (CA)

Joseph Bouchard (NH)

Julie Hart (CO)

Gary Brune (NJ)

Shelly Maynes (CT)

Michael Spanier (NM)

Tom Kirkpatrick (DE)

Julie Butler (NV)

Janice Hatter (FL)

Chris Warner (NY)

John Brown (GA)

Lezlee Thaeler (OH)

Keith Shimada (HI)

William C. Moore (OK)

Joel Lundy (IA)

Daron Hill (OR)

Larry Schlicht (ID)

Dave Donley (PA)

Brenda Weist (IL)

Elizabeth Leach (RI)

David Dukes (IN)

Tom Covar (SC)

Sandy Russell (KS)

Tamara Darnall (SD)

John Hicks (KY)

Susan Irby (TN)

Rachel Broussard (LA)

Terri Wegner (TX)

David Westervelt (MA)

Stephen Jardine (UT)

Jay Ladin (MD)

Brad Ferland (VT)

David M. Lachance (ME)

Michael T. Barton (VA)

Colleen Gossman (MI)

Pam Davidson (WA)

Nancy Rooney (MN)

Jon Kranz (WI)

Renee Godsey (MO)

Bryan Hoffman and

Deborrah Collier (MS)

Jane Shinn (WV)

Curtis Nichols (MT)

Folbert Ware, Jr. (WY)

[VIII] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

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

S t a t e S p e n d i n g Tr e n d s , F i s c a l 2 0 0 2

severe fiscal strain in nearly every state, budgets were slashed and
many programs scaled back. At least partly reflecting that trend,

Total state spending in fiscal 2002 was just more than $1 trillion.

total state transportation spending decreased in fiscal 2002 by 1.8

Reflecting both operating and capital expenditures, that figure is a

percent, the net decline attributed entirely to a drop off in state

5.7 percent increase over fiscal 2001. Of the components of total

funds. Other details of state expenditures include:

state spending, state funds increased by 3.8 percent, while federal
funds increased by 10.7 percent. The estimates of fiscal 2003

•

General funds accounted for 46.2 percent of total state spending

spending in this report indicate that between fiscal 2002 and fiscal

in fiscal 2002, federal funds for 26.9 percent, other state funds for

2003, state spending increased by 4.8 percent, to just more than

24.7 percent, and bonds for 2.3 percent. Figure 1 reflects fiscal

$1.1 trillion (see Tables 1 and 2). However, those figures largely do

1987 through 2002 state spending by fund source.

not reflect the sweeping rounds of budget cuts states made
throughout the 2003 fiscal year. Based on trends in state general

•

and fiscal 2002, twice the rate of total state spending.

funds, from which states finance most broad-based services, growth
in total state spending is not expected to be that high when it is

Medicaid spending grew by 11.4 percent between fiscal 2001

•

Elementary and secondary education spending grew at 3.1

calculated in the next edition of the State Expenditure Report. It

percent and higher education spending at 4.3 percent between

should be noted that 23 states use a biennial budget cycle, and that

fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Expenditures for elementary and

in most cases, funds are not expended evenly in the two-year cycle.

secondary education are more than one-third of all general fund

This may affect total expenditures in some states from year to year.

spending.
•

Figure 1
TOTAL STATE SPENDING BY FUND SOURCE,
FISCAL 1987 TO 2002

After decreasing between fiscal 2000 and fiscal 2001, state
public assistance expenditures increased by 1.7 percent in fiscal
2002. Reflecting the economic climate, states estimate that it will
increase by another 5.2 percent in fiscal 2003.

$1,200,000
Bonds

•

Total corrections spending increased by 2.6 percent in fiscal
2002, while its share of the general fund decreased slightly to

1,000,000
Amount in Millions

6.9 percent.
Other
State Funds

800,000

600,000
Federal Funds

400,000

Figure 2
ALL FUNDS PERCENT CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR
FOR MAJOR SPENDING CATEGORIES, FISCAL 2002 AND 2003
3.1

E & S Education

General Fund

200,000

7.6
4.3

Higher Education

0.7

Public Assistance

0

2001-2002

1.7

2002-2003

5.2

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal Year

11.4

Medicaid

6.7
2.6

Corrections

Elementary and secondary education is the largest state

Transportation

1.0
-1.8
4.1

expenditure, accounting for 21.6 percent of total state spending
and 35.4 of general fund spending in fiscal 2002. Medicaid continues

7.2

All Other

3.8

to dominate growth in state spending. In fiscal 2002, it grew by 11.4
percent over the previous year and accounts for 20.8 percent of all

5.7
4.8

Total

state expenditures, and as it becomes a larger share of state
spending, other categories necessarily are forced decrease. Amid
[2] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

•

Transportation spending decreased by 1.8 percent in fiscal 2002.

Definitions

State spending for transportation comes mostly from “other state
funds,” which comprise 58.2 percent of the total. General funds,

General funds: The predominant fund for financing a state’s

which reflect only 3.7 percent of state transportation

operations. Revenues are received from broad-based state taxes.

expenditures, decreased by 42.5 percent between fiscal 2001

There are differences in how specific functions are financed from

and fiscal 2002.

state to state, however.
Federal funds: Funds received directly from the federal

Components of State Expenditures

government.

This report reflects three years of data: actual fiscal 2001, actual

Other state funds: Expenditures from revenue sources that are

fiscal 2002, and estimated fiscal 2003.The text of this report focuses

restricted by law for particular governmental functions or activities.

on actual fiscal 2002 and examines the seven main functional

For example, a gasoline tax dedicated to a highway trust fund

categories of state spending: elementary and secondary education,

would appear in the “Other State Funds” column. For Medicaid,

higher education, public assistance, Medicaid, corrections,

other state funds include provider taxes, fees, donations,

transportation, and all other—which includes state functions not

assessments, and local funds.

tracked individually in this report, such as hospitals, economic
development, housing, environmental programs, health programs
(including the State Child Health Insurance Program), parks and

Bonds: Expenditures from the sale of bonds, generally for capital
projects.

recreation, natural resources, air transportation, and water

State funds: General funds plus other state fund spending,

transport and terminals. Capital spending is included with operating

excluding state spending from bonds.

expenditures within each functional category, unless noted
otherwise. Capital expenditures also have been collected separately

Fiscal 2002 spending by fund source is broken down in Figure 3.

in the following categories: corrections, environmental projects,

Spending sourced from state general ranges from 48.1 percent of

higher education, housing, transportation and all other.

total in fiscal 2001 to 46.2 percent in fiscal 2002, and is estimated
to be 44.2 percent of total in fiscal 2003. The share of state

State governments have specific functional responsibilities that vary

spending from federal funds ranges from 25.7 percent, 26.9 percent

among states depending on the role of local governments in

and 28.6 percent of total in fiscal 2001, fiscal 2002, and estimated

providing services. For example, elementary and secondary

fiscal 2003, respectively.

education often is considered a primarily local function with states’
financial support nearing, on average, half of total spending in this
area. However, there are exceptions, such as Hawaii, where the
state government fully funds elementary and secondary education.

Figure 3
TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES BY FUNDING SOURCE,
FISCAL 2002

A more complete understanding of programs and service levels
within a given state would require comparisons of spending by both
state and local government, which is beyond the scope of this

Other State Funds
24.7%

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

Federal Funds
26.9%

regional tables.
While state balanced budget requirements are diverse, and

Bonds
2.3%

governors are given significant powers to ensure a balanced budget,
states operate within stricter revenue/expenditure limitations than
the federal government. Governors in 45 states must submit a
balanced budget; in 41 states, the legislature must pass a balanced
budget. States are required to make spending choices within
available resources and must reduce spending when revenues

General Funds 46.2%

come in under estimates. For the most part, states cannot incur a
long-term operating deficit, and must monitor their debt financing
in order to avoid jeopardizing their bond ratings.
2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[3]

Figure 4 reflects total state expenditures by functional areas. For

The shares of state spending for functional areas have shifted since

fiscal 2002, state spending shares are as follows: 21.6 percent for

1987, when this report was initiated. For example, Medicaid

elementary and secondary education, 20.8 percent for Medicaid,

surpassed higher education as the second largest state program in

11.2 percent for higher education, 8.1 percent for transportation,

1990 and has remained in this position throughout the 1990s. Of

3.6 percent for corrections and 2.1 percent for public assistance.

the functional areas of state spending, Medicaid, elementary and
secondary education and corrections represent a larger share of

Figure 4
TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION,
FISCAL 2002

total state spending in fiscal 2002 than they represented in 1987.
Figure 5 charts these changes. Table 3 reflects shares of state
spending on functional areas, by fund source, from 1992 to 2003.
Also, Table 5, at the end of the Executive Summary, highlights the

Medicaid
20.8%
Corrections
3.6%

share of each state’s budget represented by various programs in

Public Assistance
2.1%

fiscal 2002 and shows the wide variation among states in their

Higher Education
11.2%

Transportation
8.1%

spending patterns.

General Fund Expenditures

Elementary
& Secondary Education
21.6%

All Other
32.6%

Figure 6
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES,
FISCAL 2002

Public Assistance
2.3%
Medicaid
Higher Education
16.0%
12.6%

Figure 5
COMPOSITION OF TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION,
FISCAL 1987 TO 2002

$1,200,000

Amount In Millions

Transportation
0.7%

All Other
26.1%

1,000,000

All Other

800,000
Transportation
Corrections

600,000

Medicaid

400,000

Public Assistance
Higher Education

200,000
E & S Education

0
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal Year

[4] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Corrections
6.9%

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Elementary
& Secondary Education
35.4%

Elementary and secondary education constitute the largest share of
the general fund. As Figure 6 shows, in fiscal 2002 35.4 percent of
the general fund spending went to elementary and secondary

Figure 7
PERCENT CHANGE IN GENERAL FUND,
FISCAL 2002 AND 2003

education. Higher education accounted for 12.6 percent and
Medicaid accounted for 16 percent of general fund spending. Figure
7 reflects the percentage change for general fund spending in each

2.1

E & S Education

2.0

of the functional categories.

0.6

Higher Education
-1.5

Other State Funds Expenditures
At 19.2 percent, transportation accounts for the second largest

2001-2002
Public Assistance

1.3

2002-2003

2.5

portion of other state funds spending, second only to the “all other”
category. For transportation, these funds largely represent receipts

6.8

Medicaid
4.0

from gasoline taxes earmarked for highways. Both elementary and
secondary and higher education functions also accounted for

2.3

Corrections

1.0

significant portions of the spending from other state funds:
elementary and secondary education at 9 percent, and higher
Transportation

education at 14.7 percent.

-42.5
-6.7
-0.3

All Other

Federal Fund Expenditures

-3.0

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

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

of state spending from federal funds at 43.1 percent. Elementary
and secondary education and transportation, at 10.3 and 8.9
percent respectively, follow. Since 1993, Medicaid’s share of
spending from federal funds has been fairly level in the 40 to 43
percent range (see Table 3). Expansions to the Medicaid program,
increasing caseloads, and the increased use of provider taxes and
voluntary contributions to secure matching federal funds all help to
explain these increases.
Figure 8
FEDERAL FUND EXPENDITURES,
FISCAL 2002
All Other
28.9%
Elementary &
Secondary Education
10.3%

Transportation
8.9%
Corrections
0.3%

Higher Education
4.9%
Public Assistance
3.6%

Medicaid
43.1%

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[5]

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

General
Fund

Region/State

Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds Bonds

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds Bonds

Total

General
Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$11,883
2,571
22,133
1,070
2,483
867

$3,338
1,540
1,024
1,000
1,429
866

$2,861
1,158
137
1,318
833
891

$1,196
54
2,679
38
128
40

$19,278
5,323
25,973
3,426
4,873
2,664

$12,187
2,584
22,800
1,174
2,650
881

$3,427
1,685
1,119
1,104
1,477
960

$3,101
1,384
127
1,427
986
1,008

$1,714
64
2,732
46
151
40

$20,429
5,717
26,778
3,751
5,264
2,889

$12,092
2,546
22,411
1,211
2,701
N/A

$3,637
1,905
1,106
1,177
1,708
N/A

$3,515
1,155
126
1,486
974
N/A

$1,697
113
2,950
68
153
N/A

$20,941
5,719
26,593
3,942
5,536
N/A

2,429
10,238
20,811
36,840
19,862

810
4,344
6,609
25,570
12,000

2,077
5,483
3,931
15,417
8,057

100
0
918
1,927
775

5,416
20,065
32,269
79,754
40,694

2,454
10,572
21,997
38,324
20,429

867
4,838
7,138
28,065
13,320

2,111
6,033
4,565
16,894
9,223

252
0
1,243
1,760
756

5,684
21,443
34,943
85,043
43,728

2,503
10,478
22,913
37,444
20,714

907
5,680
8,357
31,985
15,334

2,115
7,001
3,498
19,042
10,272

175
0
1,042
2,424
960

5,700
23,159
35,810
90,895
47,280

17,961
10,018
9,859
21,143
11,078

8,188
4,840
8,950
5,400
5,050

10,294
2,297
18,469
14,649
11,964

1,574
128
683
1,104
0

38,017
17,283
37,961
42,296
28,092

17,831
9,708
9,298
21,627
11,259

8,418
5,649
9,548
6,286
5,797

11,082
2,693
20,232
16,102
14,121

2,206
264
662
1,183
0

39,537
18,314
39,740
45,198
31,177

18,145
10,316
8,800
22,805
11,092

8,329
6,164
11,276
7,825
5,688

12,037
2,665
19,240
16,645
6,723

1,949
151
485
1,205
0

40,460
19,296
39,801
48,480
23,503

4,887
4,429
12,755
6,610
2,479
819
793

2,982
2,585
4,157
4,675
1,586
888
923

4,450
1,695
3,242
4,046
1,993
576
620

0
140
308
322
0
14
0

12,319
8,849
20,462
15,653
6,058
2,297
2,336

4,605
4,466
12,333
6,626
2,599
862
848

3,556
2,849
4,708
5,261
1,754
960
965

4,864
2,339
3,044
4,663
2,214
607
631

129
149
524
263
0
10
0

13,154
9,803
20,609
16,813
6,567
2,439
2,444

4,468
4,358
13,930
6,640
2,622
893
868

3,441
3,086
5,433
5,947
1,830
1,027
1,011

5,110
2,579
4,030
4,955
2,330
783
605

175
159
495
339
0
28
6

13,194
10,182
23,888
17,881
6,782
2,731
2,490

5,213
3,242
19,779
14,644
6,969
6,280
3,398
13,446
5,422
7,293
11,270
2,547

4,868
3,155
13,351
8,401
5,118
4,714
2,947
7,574
4,455
6,338
4,131
2,650

5,336
4,678
18,312
1,132
4,568
5,450
2,956
5,250
4,031
3,553
8,764
1,967

73
81
1,064
713
0
116
296
689
549
98
276
349

15,490
11,156
52,506
24,890
16,655
16,560
9,597
26,959
14,457
17,282
24,441
7,513

5,325
3,213
19,044
15,014
7,082
6,484
3,304
13,741
5,179
7,779
11,129
2,817

5,296
3,460
14,282
9,143
5,730
5,422
3,498
8,141
5,085
6,941
4,892
2,585

5,994
5,346
12,675
1,847
4,411
5,573
3,306
3,942
4,182
3,808
10,230
2,494

130
49
1,437
1,332
0
129
413
605
448
21
324
254

16,745
12,068
47,438
27,336
17,223
17,608
10,521
26,429
14,894
18,549
26,575
8,150

5,476
3,317
20,645
15,481
7,179
6,649
3,547
13,833
5,437
8,239
11,043
3,111

6,906
3,926
15,535
11,398
5,897
6,057
4,034
7,676
4,978
7,732
5,100
2,881

7,926
6,239
12,791
1,102
4,545
6,146
3,552
4,271
4,645
3,862
10,243
2,259

34
75
1,356
667
0
48
0
712
0
127
462
298

20,342
13,557
50,327
28,648
17,621
18,900
11,133
26,492
15,060
19,960
26,848
8,549

6,372
3,595
4,770
28,427

3,751
2,989
3,257
15,580

5,936
2,478
3,769
8,239

293
231
181
101

16,352
9,293
11,977
52,347

6,339
3,918
4,882
29,890

4,691
2,606
3,883
17,826

7,616
2,079
4,083
8,926

337
378
205
72

18,983
8,981
13,053
56,714

6,031
3,920
4,647
29,920

5,565
2,955
4,385
19,176

7,656
1,813
4,521
9,767

279
269
259
186

19,531
8,957
13,812
59,049

5,641
1,829
1,268
3,906
368

2,601
1,279
1,141
1,847
265

4,345
872
658
1,945
911

161
5
0
0
0

12,748
3,985
3,067
7,698
1,544

5,742
1,980
1,353
3,625
390

2,791
1,414
1,278
1,723
295

4,770
842
605
1,704
919

357
5
0
196
0

13,660
4,241
3,236
7,248
1,604

6,104
1,952
1,283
3,436
414

3,051
1,659
1,441
1,829
332

4,699
1,010
784
1,754
925

191
4
0
343
0

14,045
4,625
3,508
7,362
1,671

—
78,053
3,365
1,691
4,825
10,827

—
41,273
1,087
1,143
3,006
4,892

—
13,972
2,756
1,876
7,087
6,619

—
4,357
313
70
0
726

—
137,655
7,521
4,780
14,918
23,064

—
76,752
3,656
1,817
5,822
11,214

—
46,623
1,160
1,136
3,473
5,371

—
19,448
2,630
1,081
9,594
7,214

—
3,020
412
100
0
573

—
145,843
7,858
4,134
18,889
24,372

—
75,461
3,806
1,899
3,804
11,198

—
54,566
1,351
1,501
4,073
4,935

—
19,203
2,617
2,216
10,527
7,750

—
14,725
856
276
0
599

—
163,955
8,630
5,892
18,404
24,482

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL*

$488,458 $260,567 $243,918 $22,870 $1,015,813

Note: See General Notes at the end of this chapter.
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[6] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

$495,605 $288,496 $264,770 $24,945 $1,073,816

$497,782 $321,792 $269,709

$36,340 $1,125,623

Table 2
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES
Fiscal 2001 to 2002
Region/State

State
Funds

Federal
Funds

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
All
Funds

State
Funds

Federal
Funds

All
Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

3.7 %
6.4
3.0
8.9
9.7
7.5

2.7 %
9.4
9.3
10.4
3.4
10.9

6.0 %
7.4
3.1
9.5
8.0
8.4

2.1 %
-6.7
-1.7
3.7
1.1
N/A

6.1 %
13.1
-1.2
6.6
15.6
N/A

2.5 %
0.0
-0.7
5.1
5.2
N/A

1.3
5.6
7.4
5.7
6.2

7.0
11.4
8.0
9.8
11.0

4.9
6.9
8.3
6.6
7.5

1.2
5.3
-0.6
2.3
4.5

4.6
17.4
17.1
14.0
15.1

0.3
8.0
2.5
6.9
8.1

2.3
0.7
4.2
5.4
10.1

2.8
16.7
6.7
16.4
14.8

4.0
6.0
4.7
6.9
11.0

4.4
4.7
-5.0
4.6
-29.8

-1.1
9.1
18.1
24.5
-1.9

2.3
5.4
0.2
7.3
-24.6

1.4
11.1
-3.9
5.9
7.6
5.3
4.7

19.2
10.2
13.3
12.5
10.6
8.1
4.6

6.8
10.8
0.7
7.4
8.4
6.2
4.6

1.2
1.9
16.8
2.7
2.9
14.1
-0.4

-3.2
8.3
15.4
13.0
4.3
7.0
4.8

0.3
3.9
15.9
6.4
3.3
12.0
1.9

7.3
8.1
-16.7
6.9
-0.4
2.8
4.0
-5.4
-1.0
6.8
6.6
17.7

8.8
9.7
7.0
8.8
12.0
15.0
18.7
7.5
14.1
9.5
18.4
-2.5

8.1
8.2
-9.7
9.8
3.4
6.3
9.6
-2.0
3.0
7.3
8.7
8.5

18.4
11.6
5.4
-1.6
2.0
6.1
7.4
2.4
7.7
4.4
-0.3
1.1

30.4
13.5
8.8
24.7
2.9
11.7
15.3
-5.7
-2.1
11.4
4.3
11.5

21.5
12.3
6.1
4.8
2.3
7.3
5.8
0.2
1.1
7.6
1.0
4.9

13.4
-1.3
5.0
5.9

25.1
-12.8
19.2
14.4

16.1
-3.4
9.0
8.3

-1.9
-4.4
2.3
2.2

18.6
13.4
12.9
7.6

2.9
-0.3
5.8
4.1

5.3
4.5
1.7
-8.9
2.3

7.3
10.6
12.0
-6.7
11.3

7.2
6.4
5.5
-5.8
3.9

2.8
5.0
5.6
-2.6
2.3

9.3
17.3
12.8
6.2
12.5

2.8
9.1
8.4
1.6
4.2

—
4.5
2.7
-18.8
29.4
5.6

—
13.0
6.7
-0.6
15.5
9.8

—
5.9
4.5
-13.5
26.6
5.7

—
-1.6
2.2
42.0
-7.0
2.8

—
17.0
16.5
32.1
17.3
-8.1

—
12.4
9.8
42.5
-2.6
0.5

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL*

3.8 %

10.7 %

5.7 %

0.9 %

11.5 %

4.8 %

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded).
*See General Notes for explanation.
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[7]

Table 3
COMPARISON OF SHARES OF STATE SPENDING WITH FUND SOURCES, FISCAL 1993 TO 2003
Elementary
& Secondary
Fund Type & Year
Education

Higher
Education

Public
Assistance

Medicaid

All
Other

Total

34.8
6.5
10.2
21.1
21.5

13.1
15.1
2.6
14.6
10.8

5.1
0.5
7.3
0.0
4.5

13.3
7.1
40.8
0.0
18.8

5.7
0.6
0.1
9.4
3.1

0.9
23.1
9.5
22.3
8.7

27.2
47.2
29.6
32.6
32.5

100
100
100
100
100

33.9
6.7
9.8
5.7
20.4

13.0
14.3
2.7
26.7
10.8

4.9
0.4
6.7
0.0
4.2

14.2
6.5
42.5
0.0
19.7

6.2
0.7
0.1
12.1
3.4

0.9
23.8
9.5
20.6
9.0

27.0
47.6
28.6
34.9
32.4

100
100
100
100
100

33.4
9.5
9.8
4.9
21.0

12.9
13.3
2.7
20.8
10.4

4.4
0.5
6.5
0.0
4.0

14.4
6.9
42.7
0.0
19.8

6.7
0.8
0.1
10.2
3.6

0.7
23.8
9.8
26.3
9.1

27.4
45.2
28.3
37.7
32.1

100
100
100
100
100

34.4
9.2
9.9
15.2
21.5

12.9
13.7
2.9
21.4
10.7

3.9
0.4
5.9
0.0
3.5

14.7
6.8
43.5
0.0
19.9

6.9
0.8
0.2
6.5
3.7

0.7
22.9
9.5
26.1
8.1

26.1
46.2
28.0
30.8
31.8

100
100
100
100
100

34.5
10.1
9.8
12.5
21.7

13
13.8
2.9
20.2
10.7

3.6
0.4
5.1
0.0
3.1

14.6
6.4
44.1
0.0
20.0

6.8
0.9
0.4
6.6
3.7

0.8
23.0
8.8
26.5
9.0

26.7
44.6
28.9
34.2
31.8

100
100
100
100
100

35.2
9.4
10.5
12.4
22.0

13.1
11.3
3.4
18.4
10.3

3.0
1.0
5.0
0.0
2.9

14.8
6.3
43.3
0.0
19.6

6.9
0.8
0.4
6.0
3.7

0.7
22.2
8.7
33.4
8.8

26.4
49.1
28.8
29.8
32.8

100
100
100
100
100

35.7
9.0
10.2
21.0
22.3

12.4
13.0
5.2
17.2
10.8

2.7
0.6
4.3
0.0
2.6

14.4
6.5
42.9
0.0
19.5

7.0
1.0
0.4
6.5
3.9

0.9
23.4
9.3
25.6
9.1

26.7
46.5
27.7
29.8
31.8

100
100
100
100
100

35.7
8.6
10.3
20.2
22.3

12.8
14.2
5.3
18.1
11.4

2.7
0.8
4.2
0.0
2.6

14.4
4.2
42.8
0.0
19.5

7.0
0.9
0.4
5.7
3.9

0.9
22.9
9.3
26.2
9.1

26.7
48.4
27.7
29.8
31.8

100
100
100
100
100

35.2
9.2
10.3
18.9
22.2

12.7
15.0
4.8
17.5
11.3

2.3
0.2
4.0
0.0
2.2

15.2
5.9
42.7
0.0
19.7

6.9
0.9
0.3
4.0
3.7

1.2
21.1
9.5
31.3
8.8

26.6
47.0
28.3
28.4
32.1

100
100
100
100
100

35.4
9.0
10.3
13.6
21.6

12.6
14.7
4.9
18.4
11.2

2.3
0.2
3.6
0.0
2.1

16
7.3
43.1
0.0
20.8

6.9
0.9
0.3
3.6
3.6

0.7
19.2
8.9
30.6
8.1

26.1
48.6
28.9
33.7
32.6

100
100
100
100
100

36.0
9.3
11.0
29.0
22.2

12.4
14.8
4.6
12.7
10.7

2.3
0.2
3.5
0.0
2.1

16.5
7.9
41.7
0.0
21.1

7.0
1.0
0.3
1.9
3.5

0.6
19.6
8.6
21.4
8.1

25.2
47.1
30.4
35.0
32.3

100
100
100
100
100

34.9
8.8
10.2
15.9
21.7

12.8
13.9
3.8
18.7
10.8

3.4
0.5
5.1
0.0
3.1

14.8
6.5
42.7
0.0
19.9

6.7
0.8
0.3
6.6
3.6

0.8
22.3
9.2
26.4
8.7

26.6
47.1
28.7
32.4
32.2

100
100
100
100
100

Corrections Transportation

FY 1993:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Funds
Other State Funds
Federal Funds
Bond Funds
Total Funds
FY 2002:

General Funds
Other State Funds
Federal Funds
Bond Funds
Total Funds
FY 2003:

General Funds
Other State Funds
Federal Funds
Bond Funds
Total Funds
FY 1993-03 Combined Total:

General Funds
Other State Funds
Federal Funds
Bond Funds
Total Funds

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[8] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

R e g i o n a l S p e n d i n g Tr e n d s
Table 4 shows growth rates for each region of the United States,
separated by state funds (general fund plus other state funds, not
including bond funds) and federal funds. The 2001-2002 growth
rates for all funds for the Southeast and Rocky Mountain states were
below the national average, the Plains were on par with it, while
spending in all other regions grew at a higher-than-average rate.
Table 4
REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES,
FISCAL 2002 AND 2003
Fiscal 2001 to 2002
State
Funds

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

4.4 %
6.0
4.9
2.6
-1.0
6.5
0.9
6.2
3.8 %

ALL STATES

Federal
Funds

Fiscal 2002 to 2003

All
Funds

6.3 %
9.9
10.1
12.7
10.0
13.4
5.2
12.4
10.7 %

State
Funds

5.3 %
7.1
6.3
5.7
2.5
8.6
3.3
7.0
5.7 %

Federal
Funds

-4.2 %
2.5
-4.1
6.8
4.6
0.8
2.0
-0.5
0.9 %

-2.4 %
14.8
10.0
8.6
10.3
10.6
10.8
15.0
11.5 %

All
Funds
-3.2 %
6.3
-1.4
7.4
5.7
3.7
4.1
10.1
4.8 %

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

Figure 9 shows the percentage change in state spending from state
funds for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. The Rocky Mountain states
experienced below average growth between 2001-2002, while
state funds declined in the Southeast. Total state expenditure data
can be found in Tables 1-5, along with related footnotes at the end
of this chapter.
Figure 9
REGIONAL PERCENT CHANGE IN STATE FUNDS,
FISCAL 2002 AND 2003

2002-2003 Increases

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3

Far West

Rocky Mountain

Region

Southwest

Southeast

Plains

Great Lakes

-5

Mid-Atlantic

-4

New England

Percent Change From Previous Year

2001-2002 Increases

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[9]

Table 5
STATE SPENDING BY FUNCTION AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2002
Elementary
& Secondary
Fund Type & Year
Education

Higher
Education

Public
Assistance

Medicaid

Corrections Transportation

All
Other

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

13.2 %
18.5
17.9
28.3
15.6
30.9

9.5 %
3.9
4.3
4.3
11.2
2.8

2.5 %
2.7
4.8
1.3
4.8
2.2

24.1 %
25.2
19.6
26.3
26.1
22.6

2.9 %
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.6
2.9

6.4 %
8.1
7.5
12.2
4.7
12.5

41.4 %
39.5
43.6
25.5
34.9
26.2

100 %
100
100
100
100
100

24.0
17.9
22.3
20.3
18.4

5.1
15.8
7.1
6.8
5.1

1.3
0.6
0.8
2.2
2.2

11.3
17.9
20.5
25.7
28.5

3.4
5.0
3.6
3.1
3.7

8.4
13.2
7.9
5.2
10.6

46.6
29.6
37.8
36.8
31.6

100
100
100
100
100

20.2
24.2
31.1
18.9
17.9

7.6
8.0
6.3
6.2
11.2

0.5
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.9

22.5
21.6
19.1
21.4
11.7

3.6
4.5
4.8
4.0
3.1

10.4
8.4
8.3
7.7
6.8

35.2
32.6
29.2
41.1
48.5

100
100
100
100
100

18.6
27.0
24.7
25.4
16.4
16.7
18.0

24.5
17.4
7.7
5.6
21.9
11.7
15.5

1.0
0.6
2.0
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.5

18.9
15.0
20.4
31.1
18.9
18.1
22.9

2.3
3.4
2.0
3.0
2.8
1.9
2.8

8.8
11.8
9.9
10.7
8.5
14.6
16.7

25.9
24.9
33.4
23.1
30.8
36.5
23.6

100
100
100
100
100
100
100

23.3
17.3
18.8
28.6
20.1
20.0
20.9
25.1
20.2
16.9
18.0
22.0

24.0
16.0
11.4
16.0
17.9
13.5
17.3
14.2
17.1
12.2
13.5
16.0

0.2
2.3
0.5
0.0
1.1
0.8
0.7
2.1
0.3
0.7
0.5
2.6

19.6
19.0
20.0
22.5
21.5
26.8
26.0
24.9
22.6
32.9
13.8
19.8

2.1
1.8
3.5
3.6
2.7
3.6
2.5
3.4
3.3
2.5
4.1
1.3

7.4
8.6
12.2
6.5
10.9
5.7
9.1
12.6
6.9
7.0
9.3
12.7

23.5
35.0
33.6
22.9
25.8
29.6
23.6
17.6
29.6
27.7
40.7
25.7

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

18.0
24.1
22.0
27.8

12.5
14.6
17.6
14.2

0.7
1.8
1.1
1.5

19.0
19.4
17.9
22.0

3.6
2.3
3.4
6.2

10.4
9.0
8.4
9.2

35.8
28.8
29.6
19.2

100
100
100
100

20.9
26.8
20.4
27.4
35.3

13.6
9.4
10.1
12.4
14.9

0.9
0.3
1.0
1.5
1.2

17.0
17.7
16.7
13.7
18.0

4.0
4.2
3.3
3.7
4.7

9.9
11.8
14.2
12.1
25.9

33.7
29.9
34.4
29.2
0.0

100
100
100
100
100

—
23.0
21.7
23.1
16.2
22.9

—
11.9
11.4
13.0
10.6
16.1

—
6.4
1.8
1.4
1.3
4.8

—
18.5
8.9
17.6
13.3
13.1

—
4.1
2.0
4.8
4.1
2.9

—
4.4
9.2
6.5
4.4
7.6

—
31.8
45.0
33.6
50.0
32.5

—
100
100
100
100
100

21.6 %

11.2 %

2.1 %

20.8 %

3.6 %

8.1 %

32.6 %

100 %

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

Note: Percentages may not add to 100.
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[10] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

General Notes

Ohio: Certain federal reimbursements and block grants for certain
human services programs (Medicaid, etc.) are deposited into the

In reviewing the tables, please note the following:
•

Small dollar amounts, when rounded, cause an aberration in the
percentage increase. In these instances, the actual dollar amounts
should be consulted to determine the exact percentage increase.

state’s General Revenue Fund. Expenditures of these federal funds
are contained in the General Fund number in this report to be
consistent with other portrayals of Ohio’s general fund. This
amounts to $4,550.7 million fiscal 2001 and $4,334.2 million in fiscal
2002. This has an impact on percentage of total general fund

•

•

“State funds” refers to general funds plus other state fund

expenditure calculations as well as on comparisons of Ohio’s

spending. State spending from bonds is excluded.

federal funding levels.

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

Also, inherent in Ohio’s budgetary accounting environment are

federal funds, other state funds, and bonds.

significant overstatements of total spending due to two
phenomena. First, fiduciary fund expenditures represent the

•

The report methodology is detailed in the Appendix.

distribution of funds collected by the state on behalf of other

All States: Medicaid reflects provider taxes, fees, assessments,

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

donations, and local funds in Other State Funds.

for the state.These expenditures total $5,441.7 million in fiscal 2001
and $5,362.1 million in fiscal 2002.

Indiana: In 2002, there was a major restructuring of the tax
system that increased the sales tax by 1 percent, the cigarette tax

Additionally,“double counting” of revenue and expenditures related

by 40 cents a pack and the gas tax by 3 cents per gallon. Revenue

to intrastate transactions overstates overall state expenditure

also was enhanced through an increase in the tax imposed on

activity.The overstatement is primarily found in general services and

riverboats. In all, a total of $1.5 billion in taxes was raised, and $1

intergovernmental service funds. Expenditure activity from these

billion of that was earmarked for property tax relief. In response,

funds totals $840.0 million in fiscal 2001 and $1,081.3 million in

lawmakers reduced schools’ reliance on local property taxes. With

fiscal 2002. This results in Ohio’s “All Other” expenditures as a

the restructuring, 67 percent of the property taxes levied for a

percentage of the total being overstated, and consequently other

school’s general fund will be paid through a state property tax

areas being understated.

replacement credit.This will result in the state being responsible for
85 percent of the funding of the school general fund.Therefore, the
increase in the property tax relief appropriation for fiscal 2003

Ohio appropriates capital appropriations on a biennial basis rather
than an annual basis, therefore, the amounts shown for fiscal 2003
are estimates.

caused the total General Fund estimate for that year to increase by
6.3 percent over fiscal 2002.

Rhode Island: Other State Funds includes other funds and
restricted receipts. All fiscal 2003 values reflect the fiscal 2003

Kentucky: Unemployment Insurance benefit expenditures are
included in the Federal Funds information.
Montana: Principal and interest payments on bonds are included
in total expenditures.

enacted budget. All fiscal 2001 data reflect the previous edition of
the State Expenditure Report.
South Carolina: The state no longer prepares an Annual Projects
Improvement Plan. South Carolina has adopted a five-year Capital

New Jersey: Figures include pension, post retirement medical,

Project Improvement Plan with annual updates for new projects

debt service on pension bonds, payroll taxes, and health benefits

only. As result of moving to this new system, the state no longer

expenditures which total $712 million in General Funds in fiscal

collects estimated expenditure data on existing projects. However,

2002 and $837 million in fiscal 2003 spread across Education,

actual data is still available and is reported.

Transportation, Corrections and All Other.
New York: While New York budgets most employer contributions
to employees’ benefits centrally, contributions have been estimated
for each expenditure category and distributed accordingly. The
portion of employer contributions to employees’ benefits not
distributed by expenditure category have been included in the All

Tennessee: Tennessee collects personal income tax on income
from dividends on stocks and interest on certain bonds.
Tax revenue estimates do not include federal funds and other
departmental revenues. However, federal funds and other
departmental revenues are included in the budget as funding
sources for the general fund, along with state tax revenues.

Other Expenditures category.
2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[11]

Texas: Total fiscal 2003 general fund expenditures include budget

West Virginia: West Virginia has the following appropriated fund

reductions of $1.267 billion adopted by the Legislature and exclude

types: General Revenue, Federal Revenue, State Road, and

$503 million in supplemental appropriations made from the Rainy

Appropriated Special Revenue Funds. The state also has a non-

Day Fund.These supplemental appropriations are included in Other

appropriated special revenue budgetary fund type. In determining

Funds. Bond funds include expenditures made from bond proceeds,

the state’s total expenditures, all appropriated expenditures are

to the extent that agencies reported bond proceeds as a method

included; however, only the governmental fund types and higher

of finance.

education’s non-appropriated special revenue expenditures are
included in the capital inclusive tables.

[12] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

CHAPTER ONE
ELEMENTARY &
SECONDARY EDUCATION
21.6% of State Expenditures

Elementary and secondary education is the largest functional

web-based tool for parents and teachers also was introduced this

category of state spending—21.6 percent of the total—amounting

year, created through a public-private partnership between the U.S.

to $232.5 billion in fiscal 2002. Total elementary and secondary

Department of Education, Broad Foundation, National Center for

education spending increased by 3.1 percent between fiscal 2001

Education Accountability, and Standard & Poor’s School Evaluation

and fiscal 2002, accounting for 35.4 percent of state general fund

Services.This will aid parents, states and schools with the Act’s basic

spending. Ten states had double-digit increases in their total

data analysis and reporting requirements. The initiative will invest

elementary and secondary education spending between fiscal 2001

more than $50 million to provide data analysis and reporting

and fiscal 2002, while six states had decreases. Even amid the

services to state education agencies, state officials, parents, and

budgetary pain endemic among states currently, elementary and

teachers. The U.S. Department of Education also is releasing a

secondary education largely has been exempt from budget cuts.

teacher “tool kit” that provides information on the No Child Left

Estimates for fiscal 2003 show substantial increases in federal funds,

Behind Act, information on loan forgiveness programs for teachers;

largely reflecting the funds available under the No Child Left

tax credits and liability protection for teachers, links to web sites,

Behind Act.

and information for understanding federal, state, and local roles
within the Act.

Besides maintaining basic educational services, states dedicate
substantial funds to teacher training, reduction of classroom size,
technology training, and toward ensuring accountability. Physical
infrastructure also is a major issue for states: they must provide
adequate funds for school construction, renovation and repairs.

Sources of Funding
As a percentage of total funding, in fiscal 2002 state funds for
education range from 92.7 percent in New Jersey to 74.1 percent
in Connecticut. A number of states have moved toward increasing

No Child Left Behind Act

their share of funding for elementary and secondary education by
substituting state funds for local funds, often in order to reduce the

The No Child Left Behind Act, enacted in January 2002, reflects
new federal interaction with states’ elementary and secondary
education efforts. Among its requirements are that states provide
public school choice and supplemental services for students in
failing schools; integrate scientifically-based reading research into

reliance on local property taxes. Funds are distributed to schools as
both general funds on a per-pupil basis and as categorical grants to
support specific programs or needs.The federal share is a source of
supplemental funding for poor school districts and also helps pay
the cost of educating handicapped children.

comprehensive reading instruction for young children; set and
monitor annual progress based on baseline 2001-2002 data; issue
annual report cards on school performance and statewide test
results by 2002-2003; implement annual standards-based
assessments in reading and math for grades 3-8 by 2005-2006; and
assure that all classes are taught by qualified teachers by 2005-2006.
By July 2003, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico

Fund Shares
Relative fund shares for 2002 are shown in the figure below.
Figure 10
STATE EXPENDITURES FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION BY FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2002

had established plans to improve student achievement, test reading
and math skills from grades 3-8, use public school choice, as well as

Federal Funds
12.7%

tutoring and supplemental services to increase children’s skills. The
Teacher Assistance Corps also was introduced, a voluntary program
designed to assist states and educators to meet the Act’s teacher
requirements. The Teacher Assistance Corps consists of education
experts, researchers, and practitioners who perform onsite reviews

Other State Funds
10.2%
Bonds
1.5%

for state officials.Their goals include guidance and feedback for state
efforts, addressing specific state challenges, and useful information
from other states about promising practices in the field. A new
General Funds
75.5%

[14] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Regional Expenditures
The following table shows percentage changes in expenditures for
elementary and secondary education for fiscal 2001-2002 and
2002-2003. For 2002, states in the Rocky Mountain states and New
England were substantially above the national average, while the
Great Lakes and the Southwest were below the national average.
The Far West states recorded no increase in total elementary and
secondary education spending between 2001 and 2002.
Table 6
REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2002 AND 2003
Fiscal 2001 to 2002
Region
New England
Mid-Atlantic
Great Lakes
Plains
Southeast
Southwest
Rocky Mountain
Far West
ALL STATES

State
Funds
2.4 %
5.8
0.9
2.8
1.6
1.2
7.8
2.6
2.6 %

Federal
Funds
11.6 %
8.1
4.6
11.7
12.7
8.8
13.6
14.7
10.4 %

All
Funds
6.1 %
5.9
2.3
4.3
3.1
2.3
8.4
0.0
3.1 %

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
State
Funds

Federal
Funds

-7.9 %
4.9
3.9
9.4
3.2
3.6
3.2
-2.7
2.4 %

4.8 %
12.0
17.6
24.5
19.4
25.6
17.7
24.9
19.3 %

All
Funds
-5.3 %
6.1
5.0
11.4
4.2
7.3
5.0
17.5
7.6 %

Elementary and Secondary Education—
Expenditure Exclusions
When comparing resources spent on elementary and secondary
education, it is important to understand the types of programs
states include in these figures. For this report, 47 states wholly or
partially included employer contributions for teacher pensions and
40 states wholly or partially included contributions for health
benefits. Among the states reporting, items that are excluded or
partially excluded are: day care programs (40), school health care
(38), Head Start (31), and libraries (23). Summary expenditure data
can be found in Tables 7-9, accompanied by explanatory notes.Table
10 lists programs excluded from the expenditure data.

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[15]

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

Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

General
Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$2,170
953
3,884
57
669
273

$272
118
551
107
101
83

$3
1
0
826
1
462

$134
1
0
6
1
9

$2,579
1,073
4,435
996
772
827

$1,996
924
4,155
66
707
287

$295
126
642
108
108
96

$6
2
0
883
1
497

$405
5
0
6
7
12

$2,702
1,057
4,797
1,063
823
892

$1,991
948
4,085
83
744
N/A

$368
110
675
121
167
N/A

$3
8
0
905
2
N/A

$500
7
0
6
13
N/A

$2,862
1,073
4,760
1,115
926
N/A

807
2,947
6,770
12,765
6,480

87
597
496
2,118
1,155

323
79
17
1,454
2

52
0
0
66
0

1,269
3,623
7,283
16,403
7,637

853
3,081
7,208
13,516
6,711

97
670
572
2,158
1,316

349
91
26
1,629
3

64
0
0
0
0

1,363
3,842
7,806
17,303
8,030

875
3,261
7,803
13,694
6,991

105
734
739
2,156
1,656

370
134
29
1,932
4

55
0
0
160
0

1,405
4,129
8,571
17,942
8,651

5,842
4,161
428
5,495
4,891

1,374
472
956
998
419

193
49
10,869
1,174
57

361
0
0
265
0

7,770
4,682
12,253
7,932
5,367

5,908
3,878
232
6,064
5,061

1,323
533
1,098
1,018
441

117
13
11,036
1,100
64

647
0
0
353
0

7,995
4,424
12,366
8,535
5,566

6,255
4,166
230
6,286
5,287

1,365
651
1,443
1,313
418

142
65
11,169
1,092
72

400
0
0
462
0

8,162
4,882
12,842
9,153
5,777

1,997
2,268
4,347
2,373
735
281
325

298
261
547
537
179
80
92

51
39
35
1,149
46
32
2

0
0
15
0
0
0
0

2,346
2,568
4,944
4,059
960
393
419

1,888
2,333
4,440
2,440
826
287
341

329
289
569
649
208
86
97

194
28
38
1,174
40
34
2

34
0
39
0
0
0
0

2,445
2,650
5,086
4,263
1,074
407
440

1,934
2,332
5,610
2,547
840
301
340

390
320
736
895
223
98
111

195
31
37
1,152
30
42
2

32
0
30
0
0
0
0

2,551
2,683
6,413
4,594
1,093
441
453

2,762
1,549
7,462
5,639
2,940
2,379
1,398
5,672
1,875
2,537
4,015
1,415

524
258
1,240
795
412
585
390
618
357
498
283
247

393
221
482
395
12
179
358
60
584
20
348
33

0
0
0
104
0
0
0
395
250
0
0
58

3,679
2,028
9,184
6,933
3,364
3,143
2,146
6,745
3,066
3,055
4,646
1,753

2,847
1,576
7,099
5,964
2,979
2,437
1,402
5,815
1,847
2,591
3,926
1,444

580
301
1,286
953
468
741
423
701
425
530
342
248

467
214
555
274
11
347
370
65
585
16
521
47

0
0
0
633
0
0
0
55
150
0
0
52

3,894
2,091
8,940
7,824
3,458
3,525
2,195
6,636
3,007
3,137
4,789
1,791

2,918
1,625
7,644
6,086
3,044
2,515
1,503
5,870
1,919
2,713
4,005
1,523

942
348
1,921
1,105
480
794
512
607
406
667
245
327

473
269
585
245
17
350
388
34
586
20
394
64

0
0
0
201
0
0
0
0
N/A
0
0
108

4,333
2,242
10,150
7,637
3,541
3,659
2,403
6,511
2,911
3,400
4,644
2,022

2,463
1,661
1,942
12,790

459
247
342
2,326

94
7
562
718

0
49
0
0

3,016
1,964
2,846
15,834

2,646
1,866
1,929
12,372

465
246
388
2,572

309
4
553
794

0
51
0
1

3,420
2,167
2,870
15,739

2,628
1,809
1,853
13,042

667
346
511
3,085

374
12
578
924

0
120
0
11

3,669
2,287
2,942
17,062

2,140
896
513
1,626
52

241
121
83
236
68

138
78
2
11
441

0
0
0
0
0

2,519
1,095
598
1,873
561

2,269
933
564
1,706
54

302
132
94
253
70

284
72
2
29
443

0
0
0
0
0

2,855
1,137
660
1,988
567

2,353
943
521
1,648
56

372
163
134
261
72

410
77
58
51
445

0
0
0
0
0

3,135
1,183
713
1,960
573

—
28,489
1,282
590
2,137
4,843

—
3,610
129
129
283
441

—
59
28
129
156
2

—
2,547
0
0
0
0

—
34,705
1,439
848
2,576
5,286

—
28,455
1,514
662
2,623
4,902

—
4,139
160
139
332
499

—
60
31
154
114
175

—
886
0
0
0
0

—
33,540
1,705
955
3,069
5,576

—
27,685
1,425
694
1,470
4,967

—
5,348
127
120
394
594

—
59
42
189
903
230

—
8,440
0
0
0
0

—
41,532
1,594
1,003
2,767
5,791

$171,985

$26,820

$22,374

$4,313 $225,492

$175,624

$3,400 $232,464

$179,062

$35,342

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania*
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana*
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California*
Hawaii*
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[16] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

$29,617 $23,823

$25,193 $10,545 $250,142

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

Fiscal
2001

Fiscal
2002

Fiscal
2003

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

13.4 %
20.2
17.1
29.1
15.8
31.0

13.2 %
18.5
17.9
28.3
15.6
30.9

13.7 %
18.8
17.9
28.3
16.7
N/A

23.4
18.1
22.6
20.6
18.8

24.0
17.9
22.3
20.3
18.4

24.6
17.8
23.9
19.7
18.3

20.4
27.1
32.3
18.8
19.1

20.2
24.2
31.1
18.9
17.9

20.2
25.3
32.3
18.9
24.6

19.0
29.0
24.2
25.9
15.8
17.1
17.9

18.6
27.0
24.7
25.4
16.4
16.7
18.0

19.3
26.4
26.8
25.7
16.1
16.1
18.2

23.8
18.2
17.5
27.9
20.2
19.0
22.4
25.0
21.2
17.7
19.0
23.3

23.3
17.3
18.8
28.6
20.1
20.0
20.9
25.1
20.2
6.9
18.0
22.0

21.3
16.5
20.2
26.7
20.1
19.4
21.6
24.6
19.3
17.0
17.3
23.7

18.4
21.1
23.8
30.2

18.0
24.1
22.0
27.8

18.8
25.5
21.3
28.9

19.8
27.5
19.5
24.3
36.3

20.9
26.8
20.4
27.4
35.3

22.3
25.6
20.3
26.6
34.3

—
25.2
19.1
17.7
17.3
22.9

—
23.0
21.7
23.1
16.2
22.9

—
25.3
18.5
17.0
15.0
23.7

22.2 %

21.6 %

22.2 %

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[17]

Table 9
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENDITURES

Region/State

State
Funds

Fiscal 20001 to 2002
Federal
Funds

All
Funds

State
Funds

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
Federal
Funds

All
Funds

-7.9 %
-2.9
7.0
7.5
5.7
6.7

8.5 %
6.8
16.5
0.9
6.9
15.7

4.8 %
-1.5
8.2
6.7
6.6
7.9

0.4 %
3.2
-1.7
4.1
5.4
N/A

24.7 %
-12.7
5.1
12.0
54.6
N/A

5.9 %
1.5
-0.8
4.9
12.5
N/A

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania

6.4
4.8
6.6
6.5
3.6

11.5
12.2
15.3
1.9
13.9

7.4
6.0
7.2
5.5
5.1

3.6
7.0
8.3
3.2
4.2

8.2
9.6
29.2
-0.1
25.8

3.1
7.5
9.8
3.7
7.7

-0.2
-7.6
-0.3
7.4
3.6

-3.7
12.9
14.9
2.0
5.3

2.9
-5.5
0.9
7.6
3.7

6.2
8.7
1.2
3.0
4.6

3.2
22.1
31.4
29.0
-5.2

2.1
10.4
3.8
7.2
3.8

1.7
2.3
2.2
2.6
10.9
2.6
4.9

10.4
10.7
4.0
20.9
16.2
7.5
5.4

4.2
3.2
2.9
5.0
11.9
3.6
5.0

2.3
0.1
26.1
2.4
0.5
6.9
-0.3

18.5
10.7
29.3
37.9
7.2
14.0
14.4

4.3
1.2
26.1
7.8
1.8
8.4
3.0

5.0
1.1
-3.7
3.4
1.3
8.8
0.9
2.6
-1.1
2.0
1.9
3.0

10.7
16.7
3.7
19.9
13.6
26.7
8.5
13.4
19.0
6.4
20.8
0.4

5.8
3.1
-2.7
12.9
2.8
12.2
2.3
-1.6
-1.9
2.7
3.1
2.2

2.3
5.8
7.5
1.5
2.4
2.9
6.7
0.4
3.0
4.8
-1.1
6.4

62.4
15.6
49.4
15.9
2.6
7.2
21.0
-13.4
-4.5
25.8
-28.4
31.9

11.3
7.2
13.5
-2.4
2.4
3.8
9.5
-1.9
-3.2
8.4
-3.0
12.9

15.6
12.1
-0.9
-2.5

1.3
-0.4
13.5
10.6

13.4
10.3
0.8
-0.6

1.6
-2.6
-2.1
6.1

43.4
40.7
31.7
19.9

7.3
5.5
2.5
8.4

12.1
3.2
9.9
6.0
0.8

25.3
9.1
13.3
7.2
2.9

13.3
3.8
10.4
6.1
1.1

8.2
1.5
2.3
-2.1
0.8

23.2
23.5
42.6
3.2
2.9

9.8
4.0
8.0
-1.4
1.1

—
-0.1
17.9
13.5
19.4
4.8

—
14.7
24.0
7.8
17.3
13.2

—
-3.4
18.5
12.6
19.1
5.5

—
-2.7
-5.0
8.2
-13.3
2.4

—
29.2
-20.6
-13.7
18.7
19.0

—
23.8
-6.5
5.0
-9.8
3.9

GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California*
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington

2.6 %

ALL STATES

10.4 %

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded).
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[18] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

3.1 %

2.4 %

19.3 %

7.6 %

Table 10
ITEMS EXCLUDED FROM ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY
EDUCATION EXPENDITURES

Region/State

Employer
Employer
Contributions to Contributions to
Pensions
Health Benefits

Libraries

Day Care
Programs

School
Health Care/
Immunization

X

X

P

P
X
X
X

P
X
X
X

P

X

X

X
X
X

P
X
X

P

X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X
X
P

Head
Start

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

X

X

X

X

P
X
X
X

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania

P

X
X

GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin

P
P

P
P
P

X

P
X
X

P
P

P
P

X
X

PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

X

X
X

X

X

X
X

X

P
X
X

X

X

SOUTHWEST

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas

X

X

X

X
P

X
P

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

P
X
X
X
P

P
P
X

X
X
P
P
X

X
X
P
X
X

23

40

38

X
X

P

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming

P
P

P
P

P

FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

Excluded=X

P

P

X
X
X
X
X

10

14

31

Partially Excluded=P

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[19]

Elementary and Secondary
Education Notes

benefits are reported for Department of Education employees but
excluded for employees of K-12 schools. Expenditure fluctuations
are due to the anticipated increase of federal funding for fiscal 2003.

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

Montana: In fiscal 2002, state general fund aid to schools increases

should be consulted to determine the exact percentage increase.

by $66 million as school district shares of vehicle fees and taxes,
corporate income taxes, video gaming taxes, and alcoholic beverage

California: The large variance in federal funds between actual

taxes are replaced with direct payments from the state.

fiscal 2002 and estimated fiscal 2003 reflects No Child Left Behind
Act funding. The recent passage of the Kindergarten-University

In fiscal 2003, $52 million of state aid to schools is shifted from the

Public Facilities Bond Act of 2002, a $13.1 billion general obligation

general fund to other state funds as state lands revenues are

bond proposal, results in increased expenditures in the 2003

earmarked.

estimated fiscal year.

Ohio: See General Notes for Ohio for discussion of double

Connecticut: In fiscal 2001, approximately $296 million of school

counting issues that affect percentage of total expenditure

construction projects were funded from surplus funds, rather than

amounts.

through general obligation bonds.

Pennsylvania: Figures reflect funding in support of K-12

Florida: All state bond expenditures are for fixed capital outlay

education and the operation of the Pennsylvania Department of

projects and therefore not included in this section. Previous surveys

Education.

inadvertently included bond expenditures in this section.

South Carolina: The state no longer prepares an Annual Projects

Hawaii: Beginning in fiscal 2001, elementary and secondary

Improvement Plan. South Carolina has adopted a five-year Capital

education expenditures include employer contributions to current

Project Improvement Plan with annual updates for new projects

employees’ pension plans and employer contributions to employee

only. As result of moving to this new system, the state no longer

health benefits.

collects estimated expenditure data on existing projects. However,
actual data is still available and is reported.

Michigan: Figures reflect K-12 education, the Michigan
Department of Education, adult education and pre-school.
Employer contributions to current employees’ pensions and health

[20] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

South Dakota: Includes vocational education.

CHAPTER TWO
HIGHER EDUCATION
11.2% of State Expenditures

Capital Spending

Higher education expenditures reflect state support of state
university systems, community colleges, and vocational education
institutions. In 2002 states spent $120 billion on higher education,

States’ spending on construction, renovation, and other capital

accounting for 11.2 percent of total state spending. General funds

projects continued to increase dramatically in fiscal 2002, topping

account for 52.1 percent of total state higher education spending,

fiscal 2001 levels by 20.5 percent. Much of the funding is from an

other state funds 32.4 percent, federal funds 11.7 percent, and

increase in the issuance of state debt for capital. The increase in

bonds 3.8 percent (see Table 12 and Figure 11). Forty-two states

capital expenditures is attributable to several factors, including

include tuition and fees and 39 states include student loan

historically low interest rates, and cash-strapped states turning to

programs in the state expenditures reported here (see Table 15).

debt for projects that in recent years they might have financed on
a pay-as-you-go basis.

Figure 11
STATE EXPENDITURES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION BY
FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2002

Financing Issues
Higher education spending is tied closely to the economy. As one

Other State Funds
32.4%

of the only functional categories within state budgets that still is
discretionary, higher education is vulnerable to funding cuts during

Federal Funds
11.7%

an economic downturn. Because in many states higher education
institutions have the discretion to decide on what reductions or

Bonds
3.8%

adjustments to make, and because they have the ability to raise
tuition when state funding goes down, higher education is often the
first category of state spending to be cut when the fiscal picture
dims. With states making widespread cuts to their fiscal 2002
budgets, including funds for higher education, publicly supported
colleges and universities in many states raised tuition and fees again.
General Funds
52.1%

Indeed, amidst the current state fiscal crisis, average tuition and fees
at four year public institutions of higher education increased by 14.1
percent, according to The College Board. In constant dollar terms,

Between fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002, total state spending on higher

those figures indicate that since 1976 average tuition and fees have

education grew 4.3 percent, roughly 1 percent less than the growth

increased by 142.8 percent, at an average annual rate of 3.3

in total state spending for the same period. State funds for higher

percent.The average tuition increase between 2001 and 2002 may

education grew by 2.9 percent from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2002 and

be extraordinary.

federal funds increased by 11.6 percent. States estimate that between
fiscal 2002 and fiscal 2003, growth in higher education expenditures
slowed dramatically to only 0.7 percent, with growth in state funds
of only 0.1 percent and federal funds increasing by 4.9 percent.
Table 11
REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE HIGHER EDUCATION
EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2002 AND 2003
Fiscal 2001 to 2002
State
Funds

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

3.7 %
4.6
0.4
-4.8
3.4
3.8
0.8
6.2
2.9 %

ALL STATES

[22] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Federal
Funds

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

31.7 %
19.6
7.3
-1.1
8.2
21.3
0.0
14.1
11.6 %

All
Funds
5.9 %
5.1
1.7
-3.8
4.4
5.5
2.0
7.8
4.3 %

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
State
Funds
-1.4 %
2.4
-0.4
4.4
-2.0
0.8
-1.6
0.5
0.1 %

Federal
Funds
2.3 %
51.1
-4.6
-4.0
-1.0
1.2
22.2
5.7
4.9 %

All
Funds
0.0 %
5.0
-2.5
3.8
-1.9
0.8
0.9
2.6
0.7 %

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

Region/State

Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

General
Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$580
239
1,102
102
173
70

$81
0
8
6
6
0

$1,026
1
0
35
299
0

$87
0
57
12
19
5

$1,774
240
1,167
155
497
75

$601
222
1,030
108
174
71

$97
0
8
16
12
0

$1,123
1
0
35
396
0

$118
0
106
4
9
9

$1,939
223
1,144
163
591
80

$577
222
968
110
170
N/A

$104
0
8
19
5
N/A

$1,198
2
0
35
428
N/A

$178
0
60
27
29
N/A

$2,057
224
1,036
191
632
N/A

219
1,177
1,761
2,747
1,860

18
433
16
137
80

42
1,440
624
2,350
157

3
0
0
341
96

282
3,050
2,401
5,575
2,193

214
1,283
1,782
2,963
1,875

21
530
21
161
85

43
1,575
681
2,404
128

11
0
0
263
153

289
3,388
2,484
5,791
2,241

217
1,217
1,891
2,725
1,887

20
569
22
531
94

45
1,725
762
2,656
129

10
0
2
215
179

292
3,511
2,677
6,127
2,289

2,473
1,405
2,100
2,518
1,264

191
2
17
6
673

33
12
142
2
1,477

160
61
188
294
0

2,857
1,480
2,447
2,820
3,414

2,586
1,318
2,133
2,456
1,201

185
2
20
7
740

58
1
175
2
1,541

193
136
171
320
0

3,022
1,457
2,499
2,785
3,482

2,496
1,400
2,049
2,422
1,244

206
4
21
10
669

75
13
124
3
1,597

185
56
166
175
0

2,962
1,473
2,360
2,610
3,510

930
673
1,888
955
540
176
127

290
241
42
2
176
0
53

1,904
630
28
137
721
81
166

0
26
137
0
0
11
0

3,124
1,570
2,095
1,094
1,437
268
346

851
704
1,395
799
532
185
132

299
293
4
3
132
0
64

2,047
675
13
144
771
95
183

30
29
169
0
0
5
0

3,227
1,701
1,581
946
1,435
285
379

791
671
1,411
854
530
186
138

313
215
4
7
151
0
73

2,281
750
21
214
770
101
185

45
28
165
0
0
3
6

3,430
1,664
1,601
1,075
1,451
290
402

1,095
542
3,195
2,075
1,175
980
695
2,392
845
1,061
1,657
372

644
2
69
1,348
375
126
103
38
345
117
381
274

2,065
1,148
1,553
319
1,725
852
935
1,022
1,185
919
1,249
584

0
24
402
308
0
48
0
250
129
67
135
99

3,804
1,716
5,219
4,050
3,275
2,006
1,733
3,702
2,504
2,164
3,422
1,329

1,124
548
2,940
2,072
1,123
1,016
599
2,251
871
1,104
1,673
377

656
3
109
1,570
398
159
118
38
357
134
435
158

2,243
1,373
1,758
389
1,563
1,167
1,099
1,162
1,229
1,018
1,289
652

0
9
606
342
0
29
0
300
90
9
188
116

4,023
1,933
5,413
4,373
3,084
2,371
1,816
3,751
2,547
2,265
3,585
1,303

1,154
559
3,216
2,062
1,128
1,024
586
2,326
851
1,162
1,368
377

645
3
105
1,442
410
120
123
40
383
142
516
163

2,277
1,510
628
380
1,612
940
1,150
1,162
1,315
1,051
1,512
678

0
7
401
220
0
9
0
565
N/A
41
277
120

4,076
2,079
4,350
4,104
3,150
2,093
1,859
4,093
2,549
2,396
3,673
1,338

917
565
842
4,657

349
1
145
121

890
1,125
1,018
2,603

0
25
45
0

2,156
1,716
2,050
7,381

919
600
872
5,175

388
1
225
133

1,060
610
1,107
2,749

0
100
91
0

2,367
1,311
2,295
8,057

875
616
835
5,053

396
1
226
133

1,143
619
1,310
2,749

0
6
184
0

2,414
1,242
2,555
7,935

901
273
133
598
171

24
2
42
9
4

904
100
131
288
58

0
1
0
0
0

1,829
376
306
895
233

855
299
139
646
173

21
2
45
7
6

978
96
142
198
60

0
1
0
45
0

1,854
398
326
896
239

804
283
135
617
175

20
3
60
8
8

894
127
164
269
60

0
0
0
118
0

1,718
413
359
1,012
243

—
9,149
478
320
590
1,322

—
5,467
11
18
58
11

—
727
210
145
1,185
2,225

—
593
82
43
0
246

—
15,936
781
526
1,833
3,804

—
9,645
510
355
599
1,364

—
6,251
11
2
73
13

—
773
253
154
1,335
2,382

—
624
121
26
0
177

—
17,293
895
537
2,007
3,936

—
9,447
437
364
535
1,370

—
6,613
11
2
75
10

—
807
270
182
1,543
2,501

—
717
178
45
0
209

—
17,584
896
593
2,153
4,090

$62,079

$12,562

$36,472

$3,994 $115,107

$62,464

$4,600 $120,007

$61,535

$14,703

$39,967

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania*
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana*
Michigan*
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota*
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado*
Idaho
Montana
Utah*
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii*
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

$14,013 $38,930

$4,626 $120,831

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[23]

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

Fiscal
2001

Fiscal
2002

Fiscal
2003

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

9.2 %
4.5
4.5
4.5
10.2
2.8

9.5 %
3.9
4.3
4.3
11.2
2.8

9.8 %
3.9
3.9
4.8
11.4
N/A

5.2
15.2
7.4
7.0
5.4

5.1
15.8
7.1
6.8
5.1

5.1
15.2
7.5
6.7
4.8

7.5
8.6
6.4
6.7
12.2

7.6
8.0
6.3
6.2
11.2

7.3
7.6
5.9
5.4
14.9

25.4
17.7
10.2
7.0
23.7
11.7
14.8

24.5
17.4
7.7
5.6
21.9
11.7
15.5

26.0
16.3
6.7
6.0
21.4
10.6
16.1

24.6
15.4
9.9
16.3
19.7
12.1
18.1
13.7
17.3
12.5
14.0
17.7

24.0
16.0
11.4
16.0
17.9
13.5
17.3
14.2
17.1
12.2
13.5
16.0

20.0
15.3
8.6
14.3
17.9
11.1
16.7
15.4
16.9
12.0
13.7
15.7

13.2
18.5
17.1
14.1

12.5
14.6
17.6
14.2

12.4
13.9
18.5
13.4

14.3
9.4
10.0
11.6
15.1

13.6
9.4
10.1
12.4
14.9

12.2
8.9
10.2
13.7
14.5

—
11.6
10.4
11.0
12.3
16.5

—
11.9
11.4
13.0
10.6
16.1

—
10.7
10.4
10.1
11.7
16.7

11.3 %

11.2 %

10.7 %

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[24] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 14
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENDITURES

Region/State

State
Funds

Fiscal 2001 to 2002
Federal
Funds

All
Funds

State
Funds

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
Federal
Funds

All
Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

7.3 %
-7.1
-6.5
4.4
20.8
1.4

19.8 %
—
0.0
166.7
100.0
—

9.3 %
-7.1
-2.0
5.2
18.9
6.7

3.0 %
0.4
-6.0
1.4
4.9
N/A

7.2 %
—
0.0
18.8
-58.3
N/A

6.1 %
0.4
-9.4
17.2
6.9
N/A

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania

-1.5
9.2
3.3
5.3
-0.7

16.7
22.4
31.3
17.5
6.3

2.5
11.1
3.5
3.9
2.2

1.9
2.9
7.7
0.3
0.6

-4.8
7.4
4.8
229.8
10.6

1.0
3.6
7.8
5.8
2.1

5.5
-6.9
2.9
-2.5
0.0

-3.1
0.0
17.6
16.7
10.0

5.8
-1.6
2.1
-1.2
2.0

-2.8
7.1
-5.8
-1.3
3.6

11.4
100
5.0
42.9
-9.6

-2.0
1.1
-5.6
-6.3
0.8

2.3
5.8
-26.5
-13.6
3.3
8.9
7.5

3.1
21.6
-90.5
50.0
-25.0
—
20.8

3.3
8.3
-24.5
-13.5
-0.1
6.3
9.5

6.0
3.0
1.7
13.3
-0.2
2.5
2.5

4.7
-26.6
0.0
133.3
14.4
—
14.1

6.3
-2.2
1.3
13.6
1.1
1.8
6.1

6.6
13.7
-1.1
2.8
-7.4
19.2
4.2
0.0
3.4
7.2
1.9
7.6

1.9
50.0
58.0
16.5
6.1
26.2
14.6
0.0
3.5
14.5
14.2
-42.3

5.8
12.6
3.7
8.0
-5.8
18.2
4.8
1.3
1.7
4.7
4.8
-2.0

1.9
7.7
-18.2
-0.8
2.0
-10.0
2.2
2.2
3.1
4.3
-2.8
2.5

-1.7
0.0
-3.7
-8.2
3.0
-24.5
4.2
5.3
7.3
6.0
18.6
3.2

1.3
7.6
-19.6
-6.2
2.1
-11.7
2.4
9.1
0.1
5.8
2.5
2.7

9.5
-28.4
6.4
9.1

11.2
0.0
55.2
9.9

9.8
-23.6
12.0
9.2

2.0
2.1
8.4
-1.5

2.1
0.0
0.4
0.0

2.0
-5.3
11.3
-1.5

1.6
5.9
6.4
-4.7
1.7

-12.5
0.0
7.1
-22.2
50.0

1.4
5.9
6.5
0.1
2.6

-7.4
3.8
6.4
5.0
0.9

-4.8
50.0
33.3
14.3
33.3

-7.3
3.8
10.1
12.9
1.7

—
5.5
10.9
9.5
9.0
5.6

—
14.3
0.0
-88.9
25.9
18.2

—
8.5
14.6
2.1
9.5
3.5

—
-1.6
-7.3
7.3
7.4
3.3

—
5.8
0.0
0.0
2.7
-23.1

—
1.7
0.1
10.4
7.3
3.9

GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

2.9 %

11.6 %

4.3 %

0.1 %

4.9 %

0.7 %

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded).
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[25]

Table 15
ITEMS EXCLUDED FROM HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENDITURES

Region/State

Employer
Contributions to
Pensions

Employer
Contributions to
Health Benefits

X
P
X
P

X
P
X
P

X

X

Tuition
and Fees

Student
Loan
Programs

X
P
P
X

P
X
P
X

University
Research
Grants

Vocational
Education

Assistance
To Private Colleges
& Universities

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

X
X
X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania

P

X

X

X
X

P
X
X

P

X
X
X
X

X
X
P

GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin

X
X
X
X

P
X
P

X
X
P
P

X

P
X
X
X

P
X
X

PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota

P

X
X
P

X
X

P
X
X
X

P

X

SOUTHEAST

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

P

P
P

P

X
P
P

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

P

P

P

X

P

P

SOUTHWEST

Arizona
New Mexico*
Oklahoma
Texas

P

X
X
X

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming

X
X

X
X
X
X

P
X
X
X

X

FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

X
X
X

10

Excluded=X

13
Partially Excluded=P

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[26] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

12

16

X

29
Not Applicable=N/A

17

X
X
X
X
22

Higher Education Notes

South Carolina: The state no longer prepares an Annual Projects
Improvement Plan. South Carolina has adopted a five-year Capital

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

Project Improvement Plan with annual updates for new projects

percentage increase. In these instances, the actual dollar amounts

only. As result of moving to this new system, the state no longer

should be consulted to determine the exact percentage increase.

collects estimated expenditure data on existing projects. However,

Alabama: Capital expenditures are not tracked at the state level.
Colorado: Employer contributions to current employees’
pensions are included as part of block grants. Assistance to private
colleges and universities includes only financial aid.
Florida: Beginning in fiscal 2003, institutions in the State University
System became local entities; therefore trust funds and student fees
are no longer appropriated through the state legislature.

actual data is still available and is reported.
Utah: Included in general funds are school funds (income tax
revenue) which in Utah is restricted by the state constitution for
the sole use of public and higher education.
Not included in the fiscal 2001 numbers are two items funded
through authorized revenue bonds for a Board of Regents Office
building ($8 million) and a Student Center Addition at Utah Valley
State College ($13.5 million).

Hawaii: Beginning in fiscal 2001, higher education expenditures
include employer contributions to current employees’ pension
plans and employer contributions to employee health benefits.

Not included in the fiscal 2002 numbers are four items funded
through authorized revenue bonds including: $100 million for a
University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute expansion; $1.5

Indiana: Bond figures include project appropriations approved

million for a student center expansion at Dixie State College; $6

during the fiscal year.

million for a cafeteria remodel at Salt Lake Community College; and
$25 million for a hospital expansion at the University of Utah.

Michigan: Higher education capital expenditures made from nonstate funds are excluded.

Not included in the fiscal 2003 numbers are four items funded
through authorized revenue bonds including: $2.5 million for a

Minnesota: Beginning in fiscal 2002, tuition is excluded and is
reported as an enterprise fund.

multi-event center at Snow College (Richfield campus); $9 million
for a student housing complex at Southern Utah University; $33

Ohio: See General Notes for Ohio for discussion of double

million for an east campus central plant at the University of Utah;

counting issues that affect percentage of total expenditure

and $19 million for research park facilities at Utah State University.

amounts.

West Virginia: Fiscal 2001 amounts are $61 million higher than

Pennsylvania: Figures include state funding for a student financial

reported in the 2001 State Expenditure Report. Those figures

assistance program that helps students pay tuition and fees. Funding

included only capital expenditures; figures in this report include

for vocational education is also included in Elementary and

both capital expenditures and other expenditures related to bond

Secondary Education.

funds.

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[27]

CHAPTER THREE
P U B L I C A S S I S TA N C E
2.1% of State Expenditures

This report contains data on cash assistance provided through the

Expenditure data on total cash assistance,TANF cash assistance, and

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and other

other cash assistance can be found on Tables 18-26, accompanied

programs. Spending for these categories totaled $22.1 billion in

by explanatory notes.

2002 and represented 2.1 percent of total state expenditures. State
spending for total cash assistance increased by 1.7 percent from

FUND SHARES

2001 to 2002.

The figure below provides fund shares for 2002.
The primary source of public assistance funding is general funds,
providing 50.6 percent, followed by federal funds at 46.7 percent
(See Figure 12).
In general, states reported TANF expenditures for cash assistance.

Figure 12
STATE EXPENDITURES FOR TOTAL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BY
FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2002

However, one state reported total TANF expenditures.
Federal Funds
46.7%

The “other cash assistance” category, which includes optional state
programs for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and General
Assistance, are not funded in all states, and when funded, are
relatively small programs.

Other State Funds
2.8%

We l f a r e R e f o r m
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program expired on
September 30, 2002. The program has been extended through
General Funds
50.6%

continuing resolutions until September 30, 2003. Major issues that
have been debated during efforts to reauthorize the program
center around work requirements, the level of funding for the block
grant, and the amount of child care funding.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Regional Expenditures

(HHS) figures, the average monthly number of TANF recipients fell

The following table shows regional percentage changes in

from 12.8 million prior to the enactment of TANF to 5.0 million at

expenditures for total cash assistance for fiscal 2001-2002 and

the end of fiscal 2002, a decrease of 59 percent.

2002-2003.

Table 16
REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE TOTAL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
EXPENDITURES, FISCAL 2002 AND 2003
Fiscal 2001 to 2002
Region
New England
Mid-Atlantic
Great Lakes
Plains
Southeast
Southwest
Rocky Mountain
Far West
ALL STATES

[30] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

State
Funds
5.3 %
3.7
-16.8
-8.5
-3.3
-2.1
-1.4
5.6
2.0 %

Federal
Funds
1.1 %
-12.4
42.5
2.0
2.4
-4.0
13.9
1.5
1.3 %

All
Funds
3.5 %
-2.6
1.1
-2.1
0.1
-3.4
9.8
3.7
1.7 %

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
State
Funds
-2.1 %
1.9
0.6
-5.0
2.6
0.5
8.2
5.1
2.8 %

Federal
Funds
-4.7 %
4.6
3.8
12.5
10.0
9.0
31.9
9.5
8.0 %

All
Funds
-3.2 %
2.8
2.0
6.0
7.1
6.1
26.2
7.1
5.2 %

E x p e n d i t u re s f o r C a s h A s s i s t a n c e
u n d e r t h e Te m p o r a r y A s s i s t a n c e
f o r N e e d y Fa m i l i e s P rog r a m

TANF funds and their MOE funds on a variety of services and
benefits. States have provided funding for programs to address
childcare services, training and education, transportation needs,
transitional rental assistance, substance abuse, job readiness and job

State and federal funds for TANF cash assistance expenditures

retention training, and domestic violence. As cash assistance has

totaled $14.3 billion in fiscal 2002, a decrease of 0.3 percent from

declined, these supportive services have gained greater importance

2001 to 2002 (see Table 23). According to the most recent data,

in the program.

cash assistance expenditures from state and federal funds
accounted for about 38 percent of total TANF spending in fiscal

Expenditure data for TANF cash assistance can be found on Tables

2001 while child care and other supportive services accounted for

21-23.

about 30 percent of total spending.
Even in light of difficult fiscal conditions, some states continue to
increase the cash assistance benefit level under TANF. Six states

Fund Shares
The figure below provides fund shares for 2002.

proposed to increase cash assistance benefit levels in fiscal 2004,
with increases ranging from 1.3 to 5 percent, while seven states
increased cash assistance benefit levels under TANF in fiscal 2003.

Figure 13
STATE EXPENDITURES FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR
NEEDY FAMILIES BY FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2002

Under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program that
Federal Funds
60.7%

TANF replaced, declining caseloads would have resulted in automatic
declines in federal and state spending.Yet while caseloads and cash
assistance expenditures have declined, the amount of federal TANF
funding remains constant. The authorizing legislation specified that
the annual TANF block grant allocations to states would be based

Other State Funds
3.4%

on 1994 federal funding levels. A total of $16.5 billion was
authorized annually for TANF through federal fiscal year 2002.
In order for states to receive their full allotment of the TANF block
grant, they must meet a maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement
and therefore do not realize proportionate savings from the

General Funds
35.9%

declining caseloads. Under the MOE requirement, states must
continue to spend state funds at a level equal to at least 80 percent
of state spending for AFDC-related programs in 1994.

Regional Expenditures

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

The following table shows percentage changes in expenditures for
TANF cash assistance for fiscal 2001-2002 and 2002-2003.

Table 17
REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE TANF EXPENDITURES,
FISCAL 2002 AND 2003
Fiscal 2001 to 2002
Region
New England
Mid-Atlantic
Great Lakes
Plains
Southeast
Southwest
Rocky Mountain
Far West
ALL STATES

State
Funds
7.8 %
0.1
-26.1
-16.9
-2.7
-2.8
-3.4
-1.0
-3.4 %

Federal
Funds
0.6 %
-11.0
50.6
1.8
5.8
-3.8
13.9
0.4
1.7 %

All
Funds
4.0 %
-6.5
0.7
-3.8
2.4
-3.5
10.0
-0.1
-0.3 %

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
State
Funds

Federal
Funds

-1.3 %
3.9
-1.7
-13.5
2.0
0.8
14.3
2.9
1.3 %

-5.6 %
-2.9
5.2
12.5
10.0
9.0
31.9
13.0
8.6 %

All
Funds
-3.5 %
0.0
1.9
5.8
7.0
6.4
28.4
9.1
5.7 %

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[31]

OT H E R C A S H A S S I S TA N C E

The second component of cash assistance for public welfare

Other cash assistance programs accounted for only 0.8 percent of

reported is other cash assistance, including state participation in the

total state spending in 2002. States spent $8.2 billion for other cash

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, General Assistance

assistance, with 76.2 percent funded from state general funds. Two

(GA), and emergency assistance. Each state determines the

states (New York and California) accounted for more than two-

structure of its own program, resulting in significant variations in

thirds of total general fund spending on other cash assistance.

programs and funding. Some have statewide uniform eligibility rules
while others simply require some form of county participation.
Thirty-one states spend some amount on this category of other
cash assistance.

[34] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Expenditure data for other cash assistance can be found on Tables
24-26.

Table 18
TOTAL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

General
Fund

Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds

Total

General
Fund

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
General
Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$253
36
643
17
100
29

$267
32
463
18
151
30

$0
76
125
8
0
2

$520
144
1,231
43
251
61

$241
28
703
11
103
29

$267
26
467
28
152
32

$0
103
127
9
0
3

$508
157
1,297
48
255
64

218
29
720
11
97
N/A

267
48
423
30
158
N/A

0
118
126
9
0
N/A

485
195
1,269
50
255
N/A

34
45
145
1,350
423

35
100
148
514
529

1
10
0
0
27

70
155
293
1,864
979

35
80
134
1,391
432

39
49
138
439
497

1
10
0
0
28

75
139
272
1,830
957

35
74
141
1,406
454

40
85
129
466
495

1
12
0
0
28

76
171
270
1,872
977

99
20
286
315
177

145
86
129
0
64

0
13
32
39
1

244
119
447
354
242

99
18
273
165
165

99
119
151
135
100

0
8
48
40
1

198
145
472
340
266

100
15
262
163
171

89
113
183
139
103

0
12
56
42
1

189
140
501
344
275

56
35
140
51
25
1
6

63
27
292
122
32
4
3

15
0
0
16
0
8
0

134
62
432
189
57
13
9

54
36
106
53
20
4
6

61
19
306
121
37
5
5

22
0
0
17
0
5
0

137
55
412
191
57
14
11

55
37
96
47
20
0
5

71
25
351
118
43
9
6

17
0
0
24
0
6
0

143
62
447
189
63
15
11

0
108
220
0
69
25
35
108
24
0
69
34

31
179
0
0
125
121
40
360
29
116
62
158

1
11
1
0
5
0
0
93
1
6
0
0

32
298
221
0
199
146
75
561
54
122
131
192

0
99
200
0
66
10
36
108
24
0
58
32

32
168
0
0
126
129
41
360
22
123
73
176

1
15
27
0
6
0
0
93
1
7
0
0

33
282
227
0
198
139
77
561
47
130
131
208

0
112
197
0
72
6
36
108
24
0
51
30

48
204
0
0
110
255
41
360
34
120
84
119

1
7
59
0
0
0
0
93
1
6
0
0

49
323
256
0
182
261
77
561
59
126
135
149

62
36
87
251

59
146
62
605

0
0
0
0

121
182
149
856

56
32
88
251

80
129
54
574

0
0
0
0

136
161
142
825

57
33
88
251

104
131
54
623

0
0
0
0

161
164
142
874

0
10
9
28
0

93
5
24
61
18

27
0
0
0
0

120
15
33
89
18

0
9
9
28
0

98
5
23
83
20

27
0
0
0
0

125
14
32
111
20

0
8
9
27
0

139
7
24
110
22

35
0
0
0
0

174
15
33
137
22

—
5,033
100
19
110
472

—
3,860
71
18
183
647

—
0
0
0
0
16

—
8,893
171
37
293
1,135

—
5,405
92
31
75
449

—
3,896
52
25
169
709

—
0
0
0
0
18

—
9,301
144
56
244
1,176

—
5,736
87
33
96
411

—
4,423
55
27
132
677

—
0
0
0
0
17

—
10,159
142
60
228
1,105

$11,195

$10,327

$534

$22,056

$11,344

$10,459

$617

$22,420

$11,628

$11,294

$671

$23,593

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan*
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas*
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

Note: This table reflects TANF and other cash assistance expenditures.
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[35]

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

Fiscal
2001

Fiscal
2002

Fiscal
2003

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

2.7 %
2.7
4.7
1.3
5.2
2.3

2.5 %
2.7
4.8
1.3
4.8
2.2

2.3 %
3.4
4.8
1.3
4.6
N/A

1.3
0.8
0.9
2.3
2.4

1.3
0.6
0.8
2.2
2.2

1.3
0.7
0.8
2.1
2.1

0.6
0.7
1.2
0.8
0.9

0.5
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.9

0.5
0.7
1.3
0.7
1.2

1.1
0.7
2.1
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.4

1.0
0.6
2.0
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.5

1.1
0.6
1.9
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.4

0.2
2.7
0.4
0.0
1.2
0.9
0.8
2.1
0.4
0.7
0.5
2.6

0.2
2.3
0.5
0.0
1.1
0.8
0.7
2.1
0.3
0.7
0.5
2.6

0.2
2.4
0.5
0.0
1.0
1.4
0.7
2.1
0.4
0.6
0.5
1.7

0.7
2.0
1.2
1.6

0.7
1.8
1.1
1.5

0.8
1.8
1.0
1.5

0.9
0.4
1.1
1.2
1.2

0.9
0.3
1.0
1.5
1.2

1.2
0.3
0.9
1.9
1.3

—
6.5
2.3
0.8
2.0
4.9

—
6.4
1.8
1.4
1.3
4.8

—
6.2
1.6
1.0
1.2
4.5

2.2 %

2.1 %

2.1 %

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

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

[36] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 20
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TOTAL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES

Region/State

State
Funds

Fiscal 2001 to 2002
Federal
Funds

All
Funds

State
Funds

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
Federal
Funds

All
Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

-4.7 %
17.0
8.1
-20.0
3.0
3.2

0.0 %
-18.8
0.9
55.6
0.7
6.7

-2.3 %
9.0
5.4
11.6
1.6
4.9

-9.5 %
12.2
1.9
0.0
-5.8
N/A

0.0 %
84.6
-9.4
7.1
3.9
N/A

-4.5 %
24.2
-2.2
4.2
0.0
N/A

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania

2.9
63.6
-7.6
3.0
2.2

11.4
-51.0
-6.8
-14.6
-6.0

7.1
-10.3
-7.2
-1.8
-2.2

0.0
-4.4
5.2
1.1
4.8

2.6
73.5
-6.5
6.2
-0.4

1.3
23.0
-0.7
2.3
2.1

0.0
-21.2
0.9
-42.1
-6.7

-31.7
38.4
17.1
—
56.3

-18.9
21.8
5.6
-4.0
9.9

1.0
3.8
-0.9
0.0
3.6

-10.1
-5.0
21.2
3.0
3.0

-4.5
-3.4
6.1
1.2
3.4

7.0
2.9
-24.3
4.5
-20.0
0.0
0.0

-3.2
-29.6
4.8
-0.8
15.6
25.0
66.7

2.2
-11.3
-4.6
1.1
0.0
7.7
22.2

-5.3
2.8
9.4
1.4
0.0
-33.3
-16.7

16.4
31.6
14.7
-2.5
16.2
80.0
20.0

4.4
12.7
8.5
-1.0
10.5
7.1
0.0

0.0
-4.2
2.7
—
-2.7
-60.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
16.7
-15.9
-5.9

3.2
-6.1
—
—
0.8
6.6
2.5
0.0
-24.1
6.0
17.7
11.4

3.1
-5.4
2.7
—
-0.5
-4.8
2.7
0.0
-13.0
6.6
0.0
8.3

0.0
4.4
12.8
—
0.0
-40.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-14.3
-12.1
-6.3

50.0
21.4
—
—
-12.7
97.7
0.0
0.0
54.5
-2.4
15.1
-32.4

48.5
14.5
12.8
—
-8.1
87.8
0.0
0.0
25.5
-3.1
3.1
-28.4

-9.7
-11.1
1.1
0.0

35.6
-11.6
-12.9
-5.1

12.4
-11.5
-4.7
-3.6

1.8
3.1
0.0
0.0

30.0
1.6
0.0
8.5

18.4
1.9
0.0
5.9

0.0
-10.0
0.0
0.0
—

5.4
0.0
-4.2
36.1
11.1

4.2
-6.7
-3.0
24.7
11.1

29.6
-11.1
0.0
-3.6
—

41.8
40.0
4.3
32.5
10.0

39.2
7.1
3.1
23.4
10.0

—
7.4
-8.0
63.2
-31.8
-4.3

—
0.9
-26.8
38.9
-7.7
9.6

—
4.6
-15.8
51.4
-16.7
3.6

—
6.1
-5.4
6.5
28.0
-8.4

—
13.5
5.8
8.0
-21.9
-5.6

—
9.2
-1.4
7.1
-6.6
-6.0

GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

2.0 %

1.3 %

1.7 %

2.8 %

8.0 %

5.2 %

Notes: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded).
This table reflects TANF and other cash assistance expenditures.
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[37]

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

Region/State

General
Fund

Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds

Total

General
Fund

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
General
Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$148
23
384
11
17
16

$267
32
463
18
76
24

$0
76
125
3
0
2

$415
131
972
32
93
42

$138
15
442
5
16
16

$267
26
467
28
72
25

$0
103
127
3
0
3

$405
144
1,036
36
88
44

$113
15
463
5
14
N/A

$267
47
423
30
68
N/A

$0
118
126
3
0
N/A

$380
180
1,012
38
82
N/A

2
20
1
471
197

16
96
148
514
255

1
5
0
0
0

19
121
149
985
452

2
48
0
463
178

15
45
138
439
279

1
5
0
0
1

18
98
138
902
458

2
43
3
459
210

15
80
129
466
199

1
6
0
0
1

18
129
132
925
410

62
20
181
298
37

140
86
114
0
4

0
13
28
0
0

202
119
323
298
41

62
18
173
146
23

94
119
136
135
34

0
8
42
0
0

156
145
351
281
57

62
15
158
138
29

84
113
168
139
41

0
12
50
0
0

146
140
376
277
70

36
30
96
20
19
1
6

63
27
292
121
32
4
3

15
0
0
0
0
8
0

114
57
388
141
51
13
9

35
30
57
20
14
4
6

61
19
306
120
36
5
5

21
0
0
0
0
5
0

117
49
363
140
50
14
11

35
30
41
18
14
0
5

71
25
351
117
42
9
6

17
0
0
0
0
6
0

123
55
392
135
56
15
11

0
11
220
0
69
25
35
108
9
0
62
31

31
70
0
0
125
121
40
360
29
116
30
116

0
4
1
0
5
0
0
93
0
6
0
0

31
85
221
0
199
146
75
561
38
122
92
147

8
200
0
66
10
36
108
9
0
49
31

032
45
0
0
126
129
41
360
22
123
44
176

1
10
27
0
6
0
0
93
0
7
0
0

33
63
227
0
198
139
77
561
31
130
93
207

0
14
197
0
72
6
36
108
9
0
42
29

48
71
0
0
110
255
41
360
34
120
50
119

1
2
59
0
0
0
0
93
0
6
0
0

49
87
256
0
182
261
77
561
43
126
92
148

56
36
49
251

57
146
62
605

0
0
0
0

113
182
111
856

49
32
49
251

80
129
54
574

0
0
0
0

129
161
103
825

51
33
49
251

104
131
54
623

0
0
0
0

155
164
103
874

0
1
9
21
0

93
5
24
61
18

27
0
0
0
0

120
6
33
82
18

0
1
9
19
0

98
5
23
83
20

27
0
0
0
0

125
6
32
102
20

0
0
9
20
0

139
7
24
110
22

35
0
0
0
0

174
7
33
130
22

—
1,966
12
13
110
204

—
3,250
71
10
183
82

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
5,216
83
23
293
286

—
2,016
18
21
75
152

—
3,229
52
21
169
141

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
5,245
70
42
244
293

—
2,082
13
23
96
134

—
3,725
55
23
132
146

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
5,807
68
46
228
280

$5,394

$8,500

$412

$14,306

$5,120

$8,647

$490

$14,257

$5,146

$9,393

$536

$15,075

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas*
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[38] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

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

Fiscal
2001

Fiscal
2002

Fiscal
2003

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

2.2 %
2.5
3.7
0.9
1.9
1.6

2.0 %
2.5
3.9
1.0
1.7
1.5

1.8 %
3.1
3.8
1.0
1.5
N/A

0.4
0.6
0.5
1.2
1.1

0.3
0.5
0.4
1.1
1.0

0.3
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.9

0.5
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.1

0.4
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.2

0.4
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.3

0.9
0.6
1.9
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.4

0.9
0.5
1.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5

0.9
0.5
1.6
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.4

0.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
1.2
0.9
0.8
2.1
0.3
0.7
0.4
2.0

0.2
0.5
0.5
0.0
1.1
0.8
0.7
2.1
0.2
0.7
0.3
2.5

0.2
0.6
0.5
0.0
1.0
1.4
0.7
2.1
0.3
0.6
0.3
1.7

0.7
2.0
0.9
1.6

0.7
1.8
0.8
1.5

0.8
1.8
0.7
1.5

0.9
0.2
1.1
1.1
1.2

0.9
0.1
1.0
1.4
1.2

1.2
0.2
0.9
1.8
1.3

—
3.8
1.1
0.5
2.0
1.2

—
3.6
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.2

—
3.5
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.1

1.4 %

1.3 %

1.3 %

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State
Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[39]

Table 23
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TANF CASH ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES

Fiscal 2001 to 2002
State
Funds

Region/State

Federal
Funds

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
All
Funds

State
Funds

Federal
Funds

All
Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

-6.8 %
19.2
11.8
-42.9
-5.9
5.6

0.0 %
-18.8
0.9
55.6
-5.3
4.2

-2.4 %
9.9
6.6
12.5
-5.4
4.8

-18.1 %
12.7
3.5
0.0
-12.5
N/A

0.0 %
80.8
-9.4
7.1
-5.6
N/A

-6.2 %
25.0
-2.3
5.6
-6.8
N/A

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania

0.0
112.0
-100.0
-1.7
-9.1

-6.3
-53.1
-6.8
-14.6
9.4

-5.3
-19.0
-7.4
-8.4
1.3

0.0
-7.5
—
-0.9
17.9

0.0
77.8
-6.5
6.2
-28.7

0.0
31.6
-4.3
2.5
-10.5

0.0
-21.2
2.9
-51.0
-37.8

-32.9
38.4
19.3
—
750.0

-22.8
21.8
8.7
-5.7
39.0

0.0
3.8
-3.3
-5.5
26.1

-10.6
-5.0
23.5
3.0
20.6

-6.4
-3.4
7.1
-1.4
22.8

9.8
0.0
-40.6
0.0
-26.3
0.0
0.0

-3.2
-29.6
4.8
-0.8
12.5
25.0
66.7

2.6
-14.0
-6.4
-0.7
-2.0
7.7
22.2

-7.1
0.0
-28.1
-10.0
0.0
-33.3
-16.7

16.4
31.6
14.7
-2.5
16.7
80.0
20.0

5.1
12.2
8.0
-3.6
12.0
7.1
0.0

—
20.0
2.7
—
-2.7
-60.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
16.7
-21.0
0.0

3.2
-35.7
—
—
0.8
6.6
2.5
0.0
-24.1
6.0
46.7
51.7

6.5
-25.9
2.7
—
-0.5
-4.8
2.7
0.0
-18.4
6.6
1.1
40.8

0.0
-11.1
12.8
—
0.0
-40.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-14.3
-14.3
-6.5

50.0
57.8
—
—
-12.7
97.7
0.0
0.0
54.5
-2.4
13.6
-32.4

48.5
38.1
12.8
—
-8.1
87.8
0.0
0.0
38.7
-3.1
-1.1
-28.5

-12.5
-11.1
0.0
0.0

40.4
-11.6
-12.9
-5.1

14.2
-11.5
-7.2
-3.6

4.1
3.1
0.0
0.0

30.0
1.6
0.0
8.5

20.2
1.9
0.0
5.9

0.0
0.0
0.0
-9.5
—

5.4
0.0
-4.2
36.1
11.1

4.2
0.0
-3.0
24.4
11.1

29.6
-100.0
0.0
5.3
—

41.8
40.0
4.3
32.5
10.0

39.2
16.7
3.1
27.5
10.0

—
2.5
50.0
61.5
-31.8
-25.5

—
-0.6
-26.8
110.0
-7.7
72.0

—
0.6
-15.7
82.6
-16.7
2.4

—
3.3
-27.8
9.5
28.0
-11.8

—
15.4
5.8
9.5
-21.9
3.5

—
10.7
-2.9
9.5
-6.6
-4.4

GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington

-3.4 %

ALL STATES

1.7 %

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded).
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[40] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

-0.3 %

1.3 %

8.6 %

5.7 %

Table 24
OTHER CASH ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

General
Fund

Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds

Total

Fund

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General
Federal
Funds
Funds

State
Total

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
General
Federal
Fund
Funds
Funds

State
Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$105
13
259
6
83
13

$0
0
0
0
75
6

$0
0
0
5
0
0

$105
13
259
11
158
19

$103
13
261
6
87
13

$0
1
0
0
80
7

$0
0
0
6
0
0

$103
14
261
12
167
20

$105
15
257
6
83
N/A

$0
1
0
0
89
N/A

$0
0
0
6
0
N/A

$105
16
257
12
172
N/A

32
25
144
879
226

19
4
0
0
274

0
5
0
0
27

51
34
144
879
527

33
32
134
928
254

24
4
0
0
218

0
5
0
0
27

57
41
134
928
499

33
31
138
947
244

25
5
0
0
296

0
6
0
0
27

58
42
138
947
567

37
0
105
17
140

5
0
15
0
60

0
0
4
39
1

42
0
124
56
201

37
0
100
19
142

5
0
15
0
66

0
0
5
40
1

42
0
120
59
209

38
0
104
25
142

5
0
15
0
62

0
0
5
42
1

43
0
124
67
205

20
5
44
31
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
0
0
0

0
0
0
16
0
0
0

20
5
44
48
6
0
0

19
6
49
33
6
0
0

0
0
0
1
1
0
0

1
0
0
17
0
0
0

20
6
49
51
7
0
0

20
7
55
29
6
0
0

0
0
0
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
24
0
0
0

20
7
55
54
7
0
0

0
97
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
8
3

0
109
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
42

1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

1
213
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
40
45

0
91
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
9
1

0
123
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
0

0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
38
1

0
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
9
1

0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0

0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

0
236
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
44
1

6
0
38
0

2
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

8
0
38
0

7
0
39
0

1
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

8
0
39
0

5
0
39
0

1
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

6
0
39
0

0
9
0
7
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
9
0
7
0

0
8
0
9
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
8
0
9
0

0
8
0
7
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
8
0
7
0

—
3,067
88
6
0
268

—
610
0
8
0
565

—
0
0
0
0
16

—
3,677
88
14
0
849

—
3,389
74
10
0
297

—
667
0
4
0
568

—
0
0
0
0
18

—
4,056
74
14
0
883

—
3,654
74
10
0
277

—
698
0
4
0
531

—
0
0
0
0
17

—
4,352
74
14
0
825

$5,802

$1,827

$122

$7,751

$6,224

$1,814

$126

$8,164

$6,482

$1,902

$134

$8,518

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan*
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[41]

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

Fiscal
2001

Fiscal
2002

Fiscal
2003

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

0.5 %
0.2
1.0
0.3
3.2
0.7

0.5 %
0.2
1.0
0.3
3.2
0.7

0.5 %
0.3
1.0
0.3
3.1
N/A

0.9
0.2
0.4
1.1
1.3

1.0
0.2
0.4
1.1
1.1

1.0
0.2
0.4
1.0
1.2

0.1
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.7

0.1
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.7

0.1
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.9

0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.6

0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0

0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0

0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0

0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0

0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0

—
2.7
1.2
0.3
0.0
3.7

—
2.8
0.9
0.3
0.0
3.6

—
2.7
0.9
0.2
0.0
3.4

0.8 %

0.8 %

0.8 %

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State
Expenditure Report

[42] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 26
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN OTHER CASH ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES

Fiscal 2001 to 2002
Region/State

State
Funds

Federal
Funds

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
All
Funds

State
Funds

Federal
Funds

All
Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

-1.9 %
0.0
0.8
9.1
4.8
0.0

—%
—
—
—
6.7
16.7

-1.9 %
7.7
0.8
9.1
5.7
5.3

1.9 %
15.4
-1.5
0.0
-4.6
N/A

—%
0.0
—
—
11.3
N/A

1.9 %
14.3
-1.5
0.0
3.0
N/A

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania

3.1
23.3
-6.9
5.6
11.1

26.3
0.0
—
—
-20.4

11.8
20.6
-6.9
5.6
-5.3

0.0
0.0
3.0
2.0
-3.6

4.2
25.0
—
—
35.8

1.8
2.4
3.0
2.0
13.6

0.0
—
-3.7
5.4
1.4

0.0
—
0.0
—
10.0

0.0
—
-3.2
5.4
4.0

2.7
—
3.8
13.6
0.0

0.0
—
0.0
—
-6.1

2.4
—
3.3
13.6
-1.9

0.0
20.0
11.4
6.4
0.0
—
—

—
—
—
0.0
—
—
—

0.0
20.0
11.4
6.3
16.7
—
—

0.0
16.7
12.2
6.0
0.0
—
—

—
—
—
0.0
0.0
—
—

0.0
16.7
12.2
5.9
0.0
—
—

-100.0
-7.7
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.0
—
12.5
-66.7

—
12.8
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-9.4
-100.0

-100.0
2.8
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.0
—
-5.0
-97.8

—
7.3
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.0
—
0.0
0.0

—
8.1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
20.7
0.0

—
7.8
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.0
—
15.8
0.0

16.7
—
2.6
—

-50.0
—
—
—

0.0
—
2.6
—

-28.6
—
0.0
—

0.0
—
—
—

-25.0
—
0.0
—

—
-11.1
—
28.6
—

—
—
—
—
—

—
-11.1
—
28.6
—

—
0.0
—
-22.2
—

—
—
—
—
—

—
0.0
—
-22.2
—

—
10.5
-15.9
66.7
—
10.9

—
9.3
—
-50.0
—
0.5

—
10.3
-15.9
0.0
—
4.0

—
7.8
0.0
0.0
—
-6.7

—
4.6
—
0.0
—
-6.5

—
7.3
0.0
0.0
—
-6.6

4.2 %

4.9 %

4.3 %

GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

7.2 %

-0.7 %

5.3 %

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded).
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[43]

Public Assistance Notes

million in fiscal 2001. Amounts shown for TANF represent all TANF
costs, not just cash assistance. TANF cash assistance was $337.3

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

million in fiscal 2001 and $320.7 million in fiscal 2002. Also, see

percentage increase. In these instances, the actual dollar amounts

General Notes for Ohio on this issue and for discussion of double

should be consulted to determine the exact percentage increase.

counting issues that affect percentage of total expenditure

Michigan: Other cash assistance figures do not include
expenditures for day care, a large part of Michigan’s public
assistance program. Day care expenditures for the survey are

amounts. Beginning in FY 2002, the appropriation for the federal
TANF Block Grant is moved from General Fund to a federal
revenue fund.

estimated at the following levels: $436 million for fiscal 2001; $477

Texas: General fund expenditures represent TANF maintenance of

million for fiscal 2002; and $487 million for fiscal 2003.

effort. Federal funds include all TANF federal fund expenditures

Ohio: Federal funds deposited to the state General Fund and
shown as General Fund expenditures for TANF amount to $579.4

[44] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

including administration.

CHAPTER FOUR
MEDICAID EXPENDITURES
20.8% of State Expenditures

Total Medicaid spending in fiscal 2002 excluding administrative

spending is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 8.7

costs was $222.9 billion, or 11.4 percent more than fiscal 2001.

percent, according to HHS.

Based on those amounts, in fiscal 2002 Medicaid accounted for 20.8
percent of total state spending.

As the costs have increased, states have experienced Medicaid
expenditures exceeding the amount that had been originally

Growth in Medicaid expenditures, coupled with the downturn in

budgeted for the program.Twenty-five states experienced Medicaid

state revenue collections, continues to place severe strain on state

shortfalls in fiscal 2002 and 28 states anticipated shortfalls in fiscal

budgets. Medicaid is a means-tested entitlement program financed

2003.The shortfalls as a percentage of the total Medicaid program

by the states and the federal government that provides medical

in fiscal 2002 ranged from less than one percent to 23 percent of

care for about 47 million low-income individuals.

the program costs, averaging 5.9 percent.The combined amount of
the shortfalls in fiscal 2002 and fiscal 2003 totals about $6.6 billion.

Of all Medicaid beneficiaries, approximately one-quarter are elderly
and disabled and three-quarters are children and non-disabled

After Medicaid, spending for employees’ health is the next major

adults, while the costs of Medicaid services are approximately

category of health care spending by state governments. According

three-quarters for the elderly and the disabled and one-quarter for

to an analysis by the Center for Studying Health System Change,

children and non-disabled adults.

employer-sponsored health insurance increased by 15 percent in
2002. State governments are experiencing similar cost pressures in

Figures 14 and 15 provide actual and projected Medicaid costs for

providing health benefits to employees.

total spending and for state spending from 1970 to 2003. In
addition to Medicaid, state spending on other health services

Medicaid Cost Containment Actions. With the escalating

accounts for another 9.0 percent of general fund spending. For

growth in Medicaid expenditures coupled with the dramatic

details on other state health care spending, see NASBO’s 2000-

revenue slowdown in states, states have been forced to seriously

2001 State Health Care Expenditure Report.

review cost containment options. Every state has either
implemented changes or is considering changes in their Medicaid

Growth in Medicaid Spending. Growth rates for the state
share of Medicaid were estimated to be 4.9 percent in governors’
proposed budgets for fiscal 2004. The decline in the growth rate
from fiscal 2002 is indicative of the extensive cost containment
measures states are undertaking in Medicaid.

programs.The majority of the changes are centered on prescription
drug costs followed by reductions in reimbursement rates and
elimination and reductions in optional services and populations.
States also are reducing eligibility often through such practices as
limiting continuous eligibility or increasing asset tests. The following

Medicaid cost increases stem primarily from increased spending for

are examples of cost containment measures underway as well as

health care services, especially pharmaceuticals, according to the

governors’ proposed cost containment proposals for fiscal 2004.

Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured report,
Medicaid Spending Growth: Results from a 2002 Survey. Spending on
outpatient prescription drugs, which increased an average of 18
percent annually over the past three years, is continuing to be a
significant component in rising Medicaid costs. Enrollment,

Pharmacy reduction. States are continuing to pursue cost
containment in pharmaceuticals by a variety of methods. Examples
include:
•

Requiring prior authorization of additional classes of
pharmaceuticals;

estimated to rise by 6.2 percent in fiscal 2003 after increasing by 8.6
percent in fiscal 2002, is the second most cited reason by states for

•

Developing and/or expanding preferred drug lists;

increased Medicaid costs, according to the Kaiser Commission

•

Instituting co-payments;

report.

•

Reducing reimbursements to pharmacies by increasing the
discount from the average wholesale price;

According to the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), prescription drug spending, nursing home, community-

•

Reducing dispensing fees paid to pharmacists;

based long-term care costs and payments to health plans have been

•

Limiting the number of prescriptions;

•

Developing a maximum allowable cost pricing system;

•

Seeking additional rebates for drugs; and

•

Promoting the use of generics.

significant contributors to the recent expenditure growth and are
expected to continue to do so in the future. The federal share of
Medicaid spending is expected to increase 8.9 percent over the
estimated fiscal 2003 level. Over the next five years, Medicaid

[46] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Freezing or reducing reimbursements to providers.

•

Adding a quality assurance fee for nursing facilities;

Reimbursements include payments to hospitals, home health

•

Using the Medicare upper payment limit;

•

Implementing a tax on nursing home providers;

centers, durable medical equipment suppliers, and payments for

•

Increasing a casino revenue tax;

uncompensated care.

•

Implementing participation fees for intermediate care

services, nursing homes, mental health services, medical
transportation, managed care organizations, ambulatory surgical

facilities for persons with mental retardation;
Eliminating or reducing benefits. Examples of these actions
include:

•

Implementing a pharmacy provider tax; and

•

Implementing Medicaid managed care provider fees and

•

Eliminating medical coverage for certain adults;

•

Eliminating coverage for non-custodial parents; and

•

Eliminating dental, chiropractic, optometry, and podiatry

Escalating Medicaid costs coupled with states dire fiscal conditions

services.

continues to place Medicaid in the forefront of state budget issues.

using a supplemental drug rebate.

The Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act, enacted in May 2003,
Reducing or eliminating eligibility. Examples include:

which includes state fiscal relief, has helped states by providing a

•

Eliminating coverage for caretaker relatives;

temporary increase in the federal Medicaid matching rate, which is

•

Increasing asset tests;

•

Modifying “spend-down” provisions to restrict eligibility; and

•

Changing continuous eligibility.

Program management. Examples of improved program
management include:
•

Increasing fraud and abuse efforts;

•

Contracting for services;

•

Using cost recovery initiatives including third-party liability;

•

Encouraging the use of public transportation;

•

Reviewing high cost clients; and

•

Using a primary care case management system.

expected to provide $10 billion in fiscal relief to states during fiscal
2003 and fiscal 2004.This relief, however, will not change the need
to rein in soaring health care costs.

Figure 14
ACTUAL AND PROJECTED TOTAL MEDICAID SPENDING,
1970 TO 2003 (IN BILLIONS)

$300

284
260

250

228
207

200

Other reductions include eliminating payments for graduate
156

medical education and downsizing facilities, such as centers for the
developmentally disabled. In addition to the cutbacks, many states

150

are also delaying or rescinding plans for expansions of services.
Generating Additional Revenues for Medicaid. While

100

73

virtually every state is implementing or proposing some type of
cost-containment measure, about one-half of the states proposed
to generate additional revenues for Medicaid. Most of the measures

26

that rely on additional resources involve fees or taxes placed on
health care providers. States that are seeking additional revenues to
fund the Medicaid program are using some of the following
proposed strategies:
•

Reallocating tobacco settlement funds;

•

Increasing a hospital tax;

•

Increasing cigarette taxes;

41

50

5
0

13

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003

Source: Congressional Budget Office and Federal Funds Information for States

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[47]

Figure 14, based on projections by the Congressional Budget Office

Figure 15, also based on projections by the CBO in August 2003,

(CBO) in August 2003, assumes a 57 percent federal share of total

assumes a 57 percent federal share of total Medicaid costs. Figures

Medicaid costs. Figures for 1990 and prior years are from the

for 1990 and prior years are from the Federal Funds Information

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

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

Trends in Medicaid Spending.

Fund Shares

Figure 15
ACTUAL AND PROJECTED STATE MEDICAID SPENDING,
1970 TO 2003 (IN BILLIONS)

The figure below provides fund shares for 2002.

$140

122
120

Figure 16
STATE EXPENDITURES FOR MEDICAID BY
FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2002

112
Federal Funds
55.8%

98

100

89
Other State Funds
8.7%

80

67
60

40

32
18

20

General Funds
35.5%

11
2

6

0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003
Source: Congressional Budget Office and Federal Funds Information for States

Regional Expenditures
The following table shows percentage changes in expenditures for
Medicaid for fiscal 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. For 2002, the
Southwest region is well above the national average and New
England is well below the national average.
Additional expenditure data on Medicaid can be found on Tables
28-30, accompanied by explanatory notes.
Table 27
REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE MEDICAID EXPENDITURES,
FISCAL 2002 AND 2003
Fiscal 2001 to 2002
Region
New England
Mid-Atlantic
Great Lakes
Plains
Southeast
Southwest
Rocky Mountain
Far West
ALL STATES

[48] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

State
Funds
1.0 %
6.2
11.6
15.3
19.9
23.0
10.4
8.1
11.2 %

Federal
Funds
3.2 %
9.1
7.3
15.2
12.7
18.7
10.1
12.8
11.6 %

All
Funds
1.6 %
7.9
9.7
15.2
15.2
20.2
10.2
10.7
11.4 %

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
State
Funds
2.0 %
10.2
7.9
3.3
0.8
-2.3
8.4
7.1
5.1 %

Federal
Funds
0.7 %
7.8
7.7
5.0
4.8
16.1
9.6
11.5
8.0 %

All
Funds
1.6 %
8.8
7.8
4.3
3.4
9.4
9.1
9.6
6.7 %

Table 28
MEDICAID EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

General
Fund

Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds

Total

General
Fund

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$2,373
443
5,642
318
568
124

$1,747
867
0
466
669
359

$599
4
0
139
0
91

$4,719
1,314
5,642
923
1,237
574

$2,601
476
5,259
302
639
133

$1,656
948
0
494
733
410

$671
18
0
190
0
110

$4,928
1,442
5,259
986
1,372
653

$2,705
476
5,496
312
633
N/A

$1,866
1,040
0
540
823
N/A

$740
26
0
222
0
N/A

$5,311
1,542
5,496
1,074
1,456
N/A

255
1,787
3,599
5,722
4,184

291
1,720
3,509
13,347
5,925

21
0
23
1,134
1,073

567
3,507
7,131
20,203
11,182

295
1,899
3,618
6,204
4,215

322
1,932
3,533
14,505
6,767

23
0
23
1,157
1,468

640
3,831
7,174
21,866
12,450

306
2,121
3,741
5,946
4,123

340
2,002
3,636
15,808
7,374

23
0
23
2,505
2,049

669
4,123
7,400
24,259
13,546

3,221
1,099
2,033
6,931
1,057

4,161
2,158
4,081
1,178
2,030

1,011
256
1,135
361
53

8,393
3,513
7,249
8,470
3,140

3,372
1,132
1,716
7,625
1,341

4,268
2,441
4,286
1,351
2,249

1,242
388
1,586
685
60

8,882
3,961
7,588
9,661
3,650

3,222
1,240
1,612
8,604
1,429

4,622
2,569
4,383
1,771
2,370

1,583
334
1,765
802
60

9,427
4,143
7,760
11,177
3,859

401
432
1,872
762
418
120
122

1,097
808
1,915
2,840
686
290
347

338
61
0
1,023
7
0
15

1,836
1,301
3,787
4,625
1,111
410
484

404
411
2,005
862
446
130
139

1,408
903
2,196
3,208
765
311
405

670
155
0
1,156
27
0
16

2,482
1,469
4,201
5,226
1,238
441
560

387
485
2,319
948
453
153
158

1,181
957
2,465
3,529
823
329
374

313
122
0
1,272
13
0
8

1,881
1,564
4,784
5,749
1,289
482
540

305
368
2,768
1,494
696
861
192
1,520
405
1,624
1,465
183

2,145
1,351
4,776
2,829
2,346
2,891
1,674
4,006
2,090
3,530
1,568
1,206

628
134
865
418
292
292
317
420
482
277
0
199

3,078
1,853
8,409
4,741
3,334
4,044
2,183
5,946
2,977
5,431
3,033
1,588

297
370
3,099
1,322
736
898
207
1,968
427
1,902
1,517
193

2,299
1,663
5,385
3,636
2,593
3,348
2,047
4,239
2,332
3,865
1,660
1,212

683
256
1,012
1,184
369
478
480
382
602
339
501
210

3,279
2,289
9,496
6,142
3,698
4,724
2,734
6,589
3,361
6,106
3,678
1,615

281
383
3,850
1,779
732
851
245
2,027
470
1,901
1,788
175

2,373
1,778
6,468
3,323
2,691
3,088
2,246
4,412
2,563
3,780
1,879
1,338

716
241
877
477
392
346
427
391
654
290
53
232

3,370
2,402
11,195
5,579
3,815
4,285
2,918
6,830
3,687
5,971
3,720
1,745

536
320
375
4,113

1,888
1,077
1,402
6,419

328
53
224
33

2,752
1,450
2,001
10,565

692
403
519
4,929

2,382
1,289
1,630
7,504

536
50
192
36

3,610
1,742
2,341
12,469

545
434
488
4,031

3,026
1,462
1,681
8,698

598
54
317
722

4,169
1,950
2,486
13,451

969
200
116
153
87

1,073
489
355
589
165

109
0
8
123
0

2,151
689
479
865
252

1,023
215
132
180
103

1,151
535
401
668
185

143
0
8
144
0

2,317
750
541
992
288

1,106
239
127
198
121

1,266
594
423
728
212

168
0
11
141
0

2,540
833
561
1,067
333

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington

—
9,191
311
351
820
1,216

—
13,447
299
365
1,511
1,409

—
1,708
10
22
212
0

—
24,346
620
738
2,543
2,625

—
9,769
293
208
1,021
1,499

—
15,408
393
402
1,303
1,705

—
1,853
10
118
196
0

—
27,030
696
728
2,520
3,204

—
10,597
335
258
845
1,600

—
16,677
472
559
1,910
1,800

—
1,892
10
120
376
0

—
29,166
817
937
3,131
3,400

ALL STATES

$74,122

$111,391

$14,498

$200,011

$79,146

$124,326

$19,427

$222,899

$82,275 $134,249

$21,365

$237,889

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania*
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan*
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa*
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri*
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas*
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[49]

Table 29
MEDICAID EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Region/State

Fiscal
2001

Fiscal
2002

Fiscal
2003

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

24.5 %
24.7
21.7
26.9
25.4
21.5

24.1 %
25.2
19.6
26.3
26.1
22.6

25.4 %
27.0
20.7
27.2
26.3
N/A

10.5
17.5
22.1
25.3
27.5

11.3
17.9
20.5
25.7
28.5

11.7
17.8
20.7
26.7
28.7

22.1
20.3
19.1
20.0
11.2

22.5
21.6
19.1
21.4
11.7

23.3
21.5
19.5
23.1
16.4

14.9
14.7
18.5
29.5
18.3
17.8
20.7

18.9
15.0
20.4
31.1
18.9
18.1
22.9

14.3
15.4
20.0
32.2
19.0
17.6
21.7

19.9
16.6
16.0
19.0
20.0
24.4
22.7
22.1
20.6
31.4
12.4
21.1

19.6
19.0
20.0
22.5
21.5
26.8
26.0
24.9
22.6
32.9
13.8
19.8

16.6
17.7
22.2
19.5
21.7
22.7
26.2
25.8
24.5
29.9
13.9
20.4

16.8
15.6
16.7
20.2

19.0
19.4
17.9
22.0

21.3
21.8
18.0
22.8

16.9
17.3
15.6
11.2
16.3

17.0
17.7
16.7
13.7
18.0

18.1
18.0
16.0
14.5
19.9

—
17.7
8.2
15.4
17.0
11.4

—
18.5
8.9
17.6
13.3
13.1

—
17.8
9.5
15.9
17.0
13.9

19.7 %

20.8 %

21.1 %

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State
Expenditure Report

[50] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 30
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN MEDICAID EXPENDITURES

Fiscal 2001 to 2002
Region/State

State
Funds

Federal
Funds

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
All
Funds

State
Funds

Federal
Funds

All
Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

10.1 %
10.5
-6.8
7.7
12.5
13.0

-5.2 %
9.3
—
6.0
9.6
14.2

4.4 %
9.7
-6.8
6.8
10.9
13.8

5.3 %
1.6
4.5
8.5
-0.9
N/A

12.7 %
9.7
—
9.3
12.3
N/A

7.8 %
6.9
4.5
8.9
6.1
N/A

15.2
6.3
0.5
7.4
8.1

10.7
12.3
0.7
8.7
14.2

12.9
9.2
0.6
8.2
11.3

3.5
11.7
3.4
14.8
8.6

5.6
3.6
2.9
9.0
9.0

4.5
7.6
3.2
10.9
8.8

9.0
12.2
4.2
14.0
26.2

2.6
13.1
5.0
14.7
10.8

5.8
12.8
4.7
14.1
16.2

4.1
3.6
2.3
13.2
6.3

8.3
5.2
2.3
31.1
5.4

6.1
4.6
2.3
15.7
5.7

45.3
14.8
7.1
13.1
11.3
8.3
13.1

28.4
11.8
14.7
13.0
11.5
7.2
16.7

35.2
12.9
10.9
13.0
11.4
7.6
15.7

-34.8
7.2
15.7
10.0
-1.5
17.7
7.1

-16.1
6.0
12.2
10.0
7.6
5.8
-7.7

-24.2
6.5
13.9
10.0
4.1
9.3
-3.6

5.0
24.7
13.2
31.1
11.8
19.3
35.0
21.1
16.0
17.9
37.7
5.5

7.2
23.1
12.8
28.5
10.5
15.8
22.3
5.8
11.6
9.5
5.9
0.5

6.5
23.5
12.9
29.6
10.9
16.8
25.2
10.8
12.9
12.4
21.3
1.7

1.7
-0.3
15.0
-10
1.7
-13
-2.2
2.9
9.2
-2.2
-8.8
1.0

3.2
6.9
20.1
-8.6
3.8
-7.8
9.7
4.1
9.9
-2.2
13.2
10.4

2.8
4.9
17.9
-9.2
3.2
-9.3
6.7
3.7
9.7
-2.2
1.1
8.0

42.1
21.4
18.7
19.8

26.2
19.7
16.3
16.9

31.2
20.1
17.0
18.0

-6.9
7.7
13.2
-4.3

27.0
13.4
3.1
15.9

15.5
11.9
6.2
7.9

8.2
7.5
12.9
17.4
18.4

7.3
9.4
13.0
13.4
12.1

7.7
8.9
12.9
14.7
14.3

9.3
11.2
-1.4
4.6
17.5

10.0
11.0
5.5
9.0
14.6

9.6
11.1
3.7
7.6
15.6

—
6.6
-5.6
-12.6
17.9
23.3

—
14.6
31.4
10.1
-13.8
21.0

—
11.0
12.3
-1.4
-0.9
22.1

—
7.5
13.9
16.0
0.3
6.7

—
8.2
20.1
39.1
46.6
5.6

—
7.9
17.4
28.7
24.2
6.1

11.2 %

11.6 %

11.4 %

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

5.1 %

8.0 %

6.7 %

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded).
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[51]

Medicaid Notes

funding opportunities utilized by the Florida Legislature in the
Federal Upper Payment Limit and Disproportionate Share for

States were asked to report Medicaid expenditures as follows:

Hospitals programs. For fiscal 2003, Other State Funds include

General funds: all general funds appropriated to the Medicaid

provider assessments of $254 million, cigarette taxes of $111

agency and any other agency which are used for direct Medicaid

million, tobacco settlement funds of $74 million, state fraud

matching purposes under Title XIX.

recoupments of $22 million, and local county funds of $416 million.

Other state funds: other funds and revenue sources used as

The overall decrease in fiscal 2002 Other State Funds is due to

Medicaid match, such as local funds and provider taxes, fees,

reductions in tobacco appropriations and decreased projections in

donations, assessments (as defined by the Health Care Finance

provider assessments.

Administration).

Georgia: Fiscal 2002 figures reflect the beginning of the state’s

Federal Funds: all federal matching funds provided pursuant to

effort to maximize Medicaid funding. The state received additional

Title XIX.

Medicaid funding by ensuring that state agencies were claiming

As noted above, the figures reported as Other State Funds reflect
the amounts reported as provider taxes, fees, donations,
assessments and local funds by states. State Medicaid agencies
report these amounts to the Health Care Financing Administration
(HCFA) on form 37, as defined by the Medicaid Voluntary
Contribution and Provider-specific Tax Amendments of 1991 (P.L.
102-234). However, some state budget offices are unable to align
their financial reporting to separate these costs for the NASBO
State Expenditure Report. Thus this report does not capture 100
percent of state provider taxes, fees, donations, assessments and

Medicaid-eligible expenditures for all Medicaid eligible recipients, or
by converting previously 100 percent state funded programs to
Medicaid programs. In fiscal 2002, federal regulation changes
allowed the state to earn a significant amount of additional federal
funding through upper payment limit credits for nursing homes and
hospitals. This was reflected in fiscal 2002 benefit payments. The
state matching fund source was intergovernmental transfers from
non-state, public facilities (reflected as other funds). For fiscal 2003,
additional federal regulation changes have reduced the amount the
state expects to earn.

local funds. Small dollar amounts, when rounded, cause an

Iowa: Other State Funds includes $71 million of local funds in fiscal

aberration in the percentage increase. In these instances, the actual

2001, and $83 million in fiscal 2002. In fiscal 2003, Other State

dollar amounts should be consulted to determine the exact

Funds includes $77 million in local funds and $3.7 million in

percentage increase.

provider taxes.

The states were asked to separately detail the amount of provider

Michigan: Other state funds include local funds in the following

taxes, fees, donations, assessments and local funds reported as

amounts: $1,471.5 million for fiscal 2001; $1,378.2 million for fiscal

other state funds.

2002 and $1,103.8 million for fiscal 2003. Public health and

Connecticut: Medicaid appropriations are “gross funded”: federal
funds are deposited directly into the state treasury.
Florida: For fiscal 2001, Other State Funds include provider
assessments of $257 million, cigarette taxes of $113 million,
tobacco settlement funds of $269 million, tobacco non-general
funds transferred as matching funds of $23 million, other nongeneral funds transferred as matching funds of $8 million, state

community and institutional care for mentally and developmentally
disabled persons are partially reported in the Medicaid totals.
Missouri: Data are from the CMS 64 report used for federal
reporting of Medicaid expenditures.The split between the General
Revenue Fund and Other State Funds is an estimate. Medicaid does
not track the General Revenue Fund versus Other State Funds in
its reporting.

fraud recoupments of $22 million, and local county funds of $173

Ohio: Federal funds deposited to the state General Fund and

million. For fiscal 2002, Other State Funds include provider

shown as General Fund expenditures for Medicaid amount to

assessments of $283 million, cigarette taxes of $110 million,

$4,200.4 million in fiscal 2002 and $4,807.9 million in fiscal 2003.

tobacco settlement funds of $131 million, tobacco non-general

See General Notes for Ohio on this issue.

funds transferred as matching funds of $26 million, other nongeneral funds transferred as matching funds of $4 million, state

Local dollars are used as state match for Medicaid services and

fraud recoupments of $22 million, and local county funds of $436

administration. Dollars that are generated at the local level that are

million.The large increase in local county funds is due to increased

then used to draw down federal match are not included in Ohio’s

[52] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

numbers for purposes of making the numbers reported here

million. Regarding Certified Public Expenditures-Local fund from

consistent with other reports for Ohio General Fund and All Fund

Hospitals: fiscal 2001 totals $199 million, fiscal 2002 totals $155

spending.

million and fiscal 2003 totals $179 million. Regarding Nursing Home
Tax: fiscal 2001 totals $102 million, fiscal 2002 totals $87 million and

Pennsylvania: Intergovernmental transfer (IGT) funds are
included in the Other State Funds category and total $1,049 million
in fiscal 2001, $1,416 million in fiscal 2002 and $1,993 million in
fiscal 2003. State expenditures for Medicaid match are not
accounted for separately from the state’s overall medical assistance

fiscal 2003 totals $88 million. Regarding the ICF/MR 6 percent
Gross Receipts Tax: fiscal 2001 totals $14 million, fiscal 2002 totals
$14 million and fiscal 2003 totals $15 million. Regarding
Intergovernmental Transfers: fiscal 2001 totals $147 million, fiscal
2002 totals $119 million and fiscal 2003 totals $60 million.

program.Therefore, the state match has been derived based upon
federal reimbursement rates for individual programs. These figures

Texas: Other Funds include: Early Childhood Intervention

include some payments on behalf of general assistance clients who

Medicaid, with eligible local provider services used as match,

do not qualify under Title XIX. A portion of the IGT funds provide

equaling $3 million in fiscal 2001, $7 million in fiscal 2002, and $7

the 10 percent local match required by Pennsylvania law for

million in fiscal 2003; $224 million in hospital contributions in fiscal

Medicaid clients in nursing homes. Other local funds used as match

2003 used to match Medicaid, including $49 million in Upper

are not included in this report.

Payment Limit funds; and third-party fees for mental health patients
of $19 million in fiscal 2001, $18 million in fiscal 2002, and $17

Tennessee: Regarding premium revenue: fiscal 2001 totals $53

million in fiscal 2003.

million, fiscal 2002 totals $53 million and fiscal 2003 totals $53

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[53]

CHAPTER FIVE
CORRECTIONS EXPENDITURES
3.6% of State Expenditures

State spending for corrections in fiscal 2002 totaled nearly $38.5

Figure 17
STATE EXPENDITURES FOR CORRECTIONS BY
FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2002

billion, a 2.6 percent increase from the prior year—the lowest
increase since 1993 when spending grew at the same annual rate.
The largest increase in state corrections spending was in 1990

Federal Funds
2.4%
Other State Funds
6.1%

when it grew by nearly 19 percent. Since 1990, state corrections
spending has increased an average of 7.5 percent annually. State
corrections spending reflects the costs to build and operate prison

Bonds
2.3%

systems and may include spending on juvenile justice programs and
alternatives to incarceration such as probation and parole.
Spending for corrections as a percentage of total state
expenditures and general fund expenditures has remained relatively
constant over the years. In fiscal 2002, corrections spending

General Funds
89.1%

represented 3.6 percent of total expenditures and 7 percent of
general fund spending. State spending for corrections primarily has
been in the form of general fund dollars, averaging 88 percent of all
corrections spending since fiscal 1990. State general fund shares for

2002.The increase in prison populations can be attributed partly to

corrections in fiscal 2002 are 89.1 percent, or $34.3 billion. Since

tough mandatory sentencing laws for nonviolent drug offenders and

1990, the federal share of states’ corrections spending has averaged

the “three strikes” laws that can put repeat offenders behind bars for

about 1.5 percent, and totaled $937 billion in state corrections

life.As pressures mount, some states have diverted drug offenders to

spending in fiscal 2002.

treatment programs and have instituted a variety other innovations.

The growth in state corrections expenditures is expected to

Also according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, state prisons

continue to decline fiscal 2003, increasing only 1 percent over the

continued to operate over capacity by between 1 percent and 16

prior year—the lowest rate of corrections growth since the State

percent at the end of 2002, causing further stress to state

Expenditure Report first was published in 1987.The low rate can be

corrections budgets. State capital expenditure data for corrections

attributed to slow economic growth that continues to pressure states

can be found in Chapter Eight and indicate that in fiscal 2001 about

to reduce program budgets. Additionally, while the pressure to

$1.7 billion was spent, most of it ($941 million) financed by bond

control expenditures has increased, state prison populations have

proceeds. Corrections capital spending decreased by 12.1 percent

continued to grow—further straining corrections spending.

in fiscal 2002 and is expected to decrease by 24.1 percent in fiscal

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 17 states reported

2003—the largest decrease in capital expenditures for corrections

increases of at least 5 percent in their prison populations during

since 1993 when capital spending decreased by 53.8 percent.

Table 31
REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE CORRECTIONS EXPENDITURES,
FISCAL 2002 AND 2003
Fiscal 2001 to 2002
State
Funds

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

3.1 %
-0.8
1.3
0.8
0.3
4.3
6.1
7.9
2.6 %

ALL STATES

[56] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Federal
Funds

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

0.0 %
-16.1
-2.1
108.1
36.4
-3.2
25.0
30.8
8.3 %

All
Funds
4.3 %
-0.6
0.6
3.2
0.6
4.2
6.6
7.6
2.6 %

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
State
Funds
2.3 %
2.7
-0.8
5.4
3.5
0.0
3.7
1.3
1.8 %

Federal
Funds
12.5 %
-8.9
75.3
-2.6
-17.0
-27.5
11.4
-29.4
-5.7 %

All
Funds
1.3 %
-0.1
-1.6
5.3
3.4
-0.3
4.4
1.2
1.0 %

Regional Expenditures
The following table shows percentage changes in expenditures for
corrections for fiscal 2001 to 2002 and 2002 to 2003. Between
fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002, the Far West and Rocky Mountain
regions showed the largest increases, of 7.6 percent and 6.6
percent, respectively.
By comparison, both the Great Lakes and Southeast regions had
the lowest increase—.6 percent—while the Mid-Atlantic decreased
corrections expenditures by .6 percent.

Corrections Expenditures Exclusions
Eighteen states wholly or partially excluded juvenile delinquency
counseling from their corrections figures and 14 states wholly or
partially excluded spending on juvenile institutions. Twenty states
wholly or partially excluded spending on drug abuse rehabilitation
centers, 23 states excluded spending for local jails, and 36 excluded
spending for institutions for the criminally insane.
Corrections expenditure data and a table listing programs excluded
from the expenditure figures can be found on Tables 32-36,
accompanied by explanatory notes. Also see Chapter Eight for
details on corrections capital expenditure data.

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[57]

Table 32
CORRECTIONS EXPENDITURES—CAPITAL INCLUSIVE ($ IN MILLIONS)

Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

General
Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$522
95
529
67
149
70

$2
5
2
1
6
0

$0
2
12
5
6
1

$19
0
21
3
0
1

$543
102
564
76
161
72

$548
109
558
72
128
76

$3
6
2
0
5
0

$1
2
0
4
4
1

$35
0
23
0
0
6

$587
117
583
76
137
83

$576
108
625
74
136
N/A

$3
6
0
0
9
N/A

$1
6
0
4
8
N/A

$27
0
20
0
0
N/A

$607
120
645
78
153
N/A

189
878
1,146
2,275
1,354

5
24
32
183
79

2
103
89
30
51

7
0
2
213
92

203
1,005
1,269
2,701
1,576

179
929
1,122
2,196
1,357

5
26
41
160
39

2
111
83
36
51

6
0
2
206
164

192
1,066
1,248
2,598
1,611

180
959
1,154
2,161
1,476

3
23
29
151
41

2
113
85
41
57

5
0
3
188
38

190
1,095
1,271
2,541
1,612

1,178
605
1,758
1,574
804

0
1
60
29
5

81
60
82
169
153

159
67
49
81
0

1,418
733
1,949
1,853
962

1,221
644
1,752
1,576
819

0
1
60
21
11

96
55
82
154
151

96
128
17
74
0

1,413
828
1,911
1,825
981

1,150
631
1,717
1,612
829

0
1
96
63
3

80
57
91
175
157

90
0
3
90
0

1,320
689
1,907
1,940
989

253
267
390
429
137
33
49

3
8
5
4
4
7
6

44
55
13
31
24
5
6

0
2
6
8
0
0
0

300
332
414
472
165
45
61

242
271
373
471
141
36
52

10
13
15
7
16
5
11

40
47
16
25
26
5
5

7
1
11
0
0
0
0

299
332
415
503
183
46
68

236
281
405
506
148
41
54

2
15
12
11
18
6
11

50
31
17
43
21
6
5

10
1
10
0
0
3
0

298
328
444
560
187
56
70

266
165
1,564
883
357
552
231
900
445
406
974
95

5
3
38
9
21
3
0
1
18
15
31
7

66
39
73
0
63
44
28
28
78
26
89
10

0
0
0
29
0
2
0
0
22
21
3
0

337
207
1,675
921
441
601
259
929
563
468
1,097
112

276
180
1,562
925
393
578
230
878
377
434
971
86

2
4
84
27
20
10
2
7
11
1
31
7

71
36
18
0
60
42
30
25
91
37
90
11

0
0
0
24
0
3
0
0
15
0
2
1

349
220
1,664
976
473
633
262
910
494
472
1,094
105

285
183
1,616
957
372
610
238
858
372
491
939
88

3
3
20
8
17
12
0
0
32
37
33
6

77
49
131
0
114
68
15
11
92
24
62
10

4
0
0
62
0
2
0
0
N/A
0
5
6

369
235
1,767
1,027
503
692
253
869
496
552
1,039
110

645
172
370
3,050

23
1
1
99

43
17
56
151

0
0
0
36

711
190
427
3,336

603
186
393
3,175

38
0
1
81

51
17
47
227

0
0
0
40

692
203
441
3,523

644
197
384
3,114

5
1
1
80

74
21
42
225

0
0
0
54

723
219
427
3,473

435
125
95
247
58

5
9
1
7
6

52
26
6
19
5

0
3
0
0
0

492
163
102
273
69

453
141
98
245
60

15
8
2
2
8

74
25
7
23
7

0
3
0
0
0

542
177
107
270
75

497
138
97
242
62

5
10
3
11
10

64
30
9
27
9

0
3
0
5
0

566
181
109
285
81

—
5,499
133
160
500
493

—
41
2
1
19
28

—
18
9
16
102
126

—
1
2
0
0
55

—
5,559
146
177
621
702

—
5,827
145
173
548
536

—
78
1
2
16
22

—
18
10
24
210
119

—
0
2
1
0
24

—
5,923
158
200
774
701

—
5,907
141
173
468
568

—
37
1
4
21
21

—
20
17
35
269
112

—
0
23
3
0
28

—
5,964
182
215
758
729

$33,571

$865

$2,214

$904

$37,554

$34,345

$937

$2,367

$891 $38,540

$34,700

$884

$2,657

$683

$38,924

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana*
Michigan*
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah*
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[58] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 33
CORRECTIONS EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Region/State

Fiscal
2001

Fiscal
2002

Fiscal
2003

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

2.8 %
1.9
2.2
2.2
3.3
2.7

2.9 %
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.6
2.9

2.9 %
2.1
2.4
2.0
2.8
N/A

3.7
5.0
3.9
3.4
3.9

3.4
5.0
3.6
3.1
3.7

3.3
4.7
3.5
2.8
3.4

3.7
4.2
5.1
4.4
3.4

3.6
4.5
4.8
4.0
3.1

3.3
3.6
4.8
4.0
4.2

2.4
3.8
2.0
3.0
2.7
2.0
2.6

2.3
3.4
2.0
3.0
2.8
1.9
2.8

2.3
3.2
1.9
3.1
2.8
2.1
2.8

2.2
1.9
3.2
3.7
2.6
3.6
2.7
3.4
3.9
2.7
4.5
1.5

2.1
1.8
3.5
3.6
2.7
3.6
2.5
3.4
3.3
2.5
4.1
1.3

1.8
1.7
3.5
3.6
2.9
3.7
2.3
3.3
3.3
2.8
3.9
1.3

4.3
2.0
3.6
6.4

3.6
2.3
3.4
6.2

3.7
2.4
3.1
5.9

3.9
4.1
3.3
3.5
4.5

4.0
4.2
3.3
3.7
4.7

4.0
3.9
3.1
3.9
4.8

—
4.0
1.9
3.7
4.2
3.0

—
4.1
2.0
4.8
4.1
2.9

—
3.6
2.1
3.6
4.1
3.0

3.7 %

3.6 %

3.5 %

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State
Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[59]

Table 34
CORRECTIONS GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES AS A
PERCENT OF TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Region/State

Fiscal
2001

Fiscal
2002

Fiscal
2003

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

4.4 %
3.7
2.4
6.3
6.0
8.1

4.5 %
4.2
2.4
6.1
4.8
8.6

4.8 %
4.2
2.8
6.1
5.0
N/A

7.8
8.6
5.5
6.2
6.8

7.3
8.8
5.1
5.7
6.6

7.2
9.2
5.0
5.8
7.1

6.6
6.0
17.8
7.4
7.3

6.8
6.6
18.8
7.3
7.3

6.3
6.1
19.5
7.1
7.5

5.2
6.0
3.1
6.5
5.5
4.0
6.2

5.3
6.1
3.0
7.1
5.4
4.2
6.1

5.3
6.4
2.9
7.6
5.6
4.6
6.2

5.1
5.1
7.9
6.0
5.1
8.8
6.8
6.7
8.2
5.6
8.6
3.7

5.2
5.6
8.2
6.2
5.5
8.9
7.0
6.4
7.3
5.6
8.7
3.1

5.2
5.5
7.8
6.2
5.2
9.2
6.7
6.2
6.8
6.0
8.5
2.8

10.1
4.8
7.8
10.7

9.5
4.7
8.0
10.6

10.7
5.0
8.3
10.4

7.7
6.8
7.5
6.3
15.8

7.9
7.1
7.2
6.8
15.4

8.1
7.1
7.6
7.0
15.0

—
7.0
4.0
9.5
10.4
4.6

—
7.6
4.0
9.5
9.4
4.8

—
7.8
3.7
9.1
12.3
5.1

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

6.9 %

6.9 %

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State
Expenditure Report

[60] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

7.0 %

Table 35
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN CORRECTIONS EXPENDITURES

Fiscal 2001 to 2002
Region/State

State
Funds

Federal
Funds

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
All
Funds

State
Funds

Federal
Funds

All
Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

5.2 %
14.4
3.1
5.6
-14.8
8.5

50.0 %
20.0
0.0
-100.0
-16.7
—

8.1 %
14.7
3.4
0.0
-14.9
15.3

5.1 %
2.7
12.0
2.6
9.1
N/A

0.0 %
0.0
-100.0
—
80.0
N/A

3.4 %
2.6
10.6
2.6
11.7
N/A

-5.2
6.0
-2.4
-3.2
0.2

0.0
8.3
28.1
-12.6
-50.6

-5.4
6.1
-1.7
-3.8
2.2

0.6
3.1
2.8
-1.3
8.9

-40.0
-11.5
-29.3
-5.6
5.1

-1.0
2.7
1.8
-2.2
0.1

4.6
5.1
-0.3
-0.7
1.4

—
0.0
0.0
-27.6
120.0

-0.4
13.0
-1.9
-1.5
2.0

-6.6
-1.6
-1.4
3.3
1.6

—
0.0
60.0
200.0
-72.7

-6.6
-16.8
-0.2
6.3
0.8

-5.1
-1.2
-3.5
7.8
3.7
7.9
3.6

233.3
62.5
200.0
75.0
300.0
-28.6
83.3

-0.3
0.0
0.2
6.6
10.9
2.2
11.5

1.4
-1.9
8.5
10.7
1.2
14.6
3.5

-80.0
15.4
-20.0
57.1
12.5
20.0
0.0

-0.3
-1.2
7.0
11.3
2.2
21.7
2.9

4.5
5.9
-3.5
4.8
7.9
4.0
0.4
-2.7
-10.5
9.0
-0.2
-7.6

-60.0
33.3
121.1
200.0
-4.8
233.3
—
600.0
-38.9
-93.3
0.0
0.0

3.6
6.3
-0.7
6.0
7.3
5.3
1.2
-2.0
-12.3
0.9
-0.3
-6.3

4.3
7.4
10.6
3.5
7.3
9.4
-2.7
-3.8
-0.9
9.3
-5.7
1.0

50.0
-25.0
-76.2
-70.4
-15.0
20.0
-100.0
-100.0
190.9
3,600.0
6.5
-14.3

5.7
6.8
6.2
5.2
6.3
9.3
-3.4
-4.5
0.4
16.9
-5.0
4.8

-4.9
7.4
3.3
6.3

65.2
-100.0
0.0
-18.2

-2.7
6.8
3.3
5.6

9.8
7.4
-3.2
-1.9

-86.8
—
0.0
-1.2

4.5
7.9
-3.2
-1.4

8.2
9.9
4.0
0.8
6.3

200.0
-11.1
100.0
-71.4
33.3

10.2
8.6
4.9
-1.1
8.7

6.5
1.2
1.0
0.4
6.0

-66.7
25.0
50.0
450.0
25.0

4.4
2.3
1.9
5.6
8.0

—
5.9
9.2
11.9
25.9
5.8

—
90.2
-50.0
100.0
-15.8
-21.4

—
6.5
8.2
13.0
24.6
-0.1

—
1.4
1.9
5.6
-2.8
3.8

—
-52.6
0.0
100.0
31.3
-4.5

—
0.7
15.2
7.5
-2.1
4.0

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

2.6 %

8.3 %

2.6 %

1.8 %

-5.7 %

1.0 %

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded).
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[61]

Table 36
ITEMS EXCLUDED FROM CORRECTIONS EXPENDITURES

Region/State

Employer
Contributions to
Pensions

Employer
Contributions to
Health Benefits

Juvenile
Delinquency
Counseling

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

Juvenile
Institutions

Aid to
Local Govts.
for Jails

Drug Abuse
Rehab.
Centers

Institutions for
the Criminally
Insane

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

X
X
X
X

X

P
X
X
X

X
X
P

X

X
X

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin

P

P
X
P

P
X
P

X

P
X
X
P
X

PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota

X

X

X
X

P
X

P
X

X
X

P

X

X
X
X

X

X

X

P

X
X
X
X

SOUTHEAST

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

X
X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X

X

X
N/A

X
P
N/A

SOUTHWEST

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas

X
X

X
X

X

P

X
X

P
X

P
X
X

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming

P
X

X
X
X
P

X
N/A

X

X

X

X
X
N/A
P
X

23

20

36

X

FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington

P

P
N/A

4

ALL STATES

Excluded=X

6
Partially Excluded=P

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[62] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

18

N/A

14

Not Applicable=N/A

Corrections Notes

South Carolina: The state no longer prepares an Annual Projects
Improvement Plan. South Carolina has adopted a five-year Capital

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

Project Improvement Plan with annual updates for new projects

percentage increase. In these instances, the actual dollar amounts

only. As result of moving to this new system, the state no longer

should be consulted to determine the exact percentage increase.

collects estimated expenditure data on existing projects. However,

Indiana: Bond figures include project appropriations approved
during the fiscal year.
Michigan: Figures include adult inmate and juvenile justice
expenditures. Expenditure fluctuations are due to anticipated
increase of federal funding in fiscal 2003 for juvenile justice
programs.

actual data is still available and is reported.
Utah: Expenditure amounts for corrections do not include any
amounts for prison industries. In Utah, prison industries are
operated as an enterprise fund and do not receive support from
state appropriations. The prison industry program has been selfsufficient for the last 10 to 15 years. The bond figures for
corrections for fiscal 2000 do not include a $6.5 million revenue

Ohio: See General Notes for Ohio for discussion of double

bond issued for the construction of an administrative building for

counting issues that affect percentage of total expenditure

the Utah Department of Corrections. This bond will be financed

amounts.

from the revenue of current leases within the Department of
Corrections.

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[63]

CHAPTER SIX
T R A N S P O RTAT I O N
8.1% of State Expenditures

In fiscal 2002, transportation expenditures represented 8.1 percent

taxes than they received in federal funding, dubbed “donor” states, and

of total state expenditures, totaling $87.5 billion, a decline of 1.8

states that receive more federal funding than they collected in fuel

percent from fiscal 2001 levels. Capital spending for transportation

taxes, termed “donee” states, was considerable.This created criticism

was $40.8 billion in fiscal 2002, 2 percent less than the previous

because many states received as little as 63 percent of what they

year. Based on estimates for fiscal 2003, total transportation

contributed to federal gas taxes in federal transportation funding.

spending will increase by 4.1 percent, and transportation capital
spending will grow by 1.6 percent. Following the plodding economy,
budget shortfalls in most states have weighed heavily on
transportation expenditures. Capital projects continue to be
delayed or scaled back and new projects have been put on hold—
freeing up resources for states to supplement current operations.

To address this issue,TEA-21 was altered to establish a 90 percent
minimum level of transportation funding for each state. This was
designed to eliminate the wide disparity between the “donor” and
“donee” states under ISTEA. It guaranteed “donor” states a
minimum level of transportation funding by establishing budgetary
“firewalls” between highway and transit programs and other

State transportation expenditures are funded primarily from

discretionary programs. In addition to the “firewalls,” TEA-21 also

earmarked revenues placed in special transportation trust funds,

removed the ability of Congress to shift reductions in total

captured in the “Other State Funds” category.The major earmarked

transportation spending to other federal discretionary programs.

revenue source is the gasoline tax. Additionally, some states apply a

The result of these changes is an average increase or more than 40

sales tax to the purchase of gasoline.

percent in transportation funding. TEA-21 was set to expire in
September 2003, when Congress extended it until February 2004,

A stable source of revenue, state motor fuel tax collections are not

when it will consider a six-year reauthorization.

anticipated to increase dramatically, unless drastic changes in federal
motor fuel tax rates occur as part of the reauthorization of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). If the
federal tax rate decreases, four states (California, Nevada,
Oklahoma, and Tennessee) have statutory provisions that
automatically will trigger increases in their motor fuel tax rates,
while other states require legislation to adjust them. Currently, 11
states have variable rate motor fuel taxes that are adjusted at
specific intervals to sustain funding levels.

TIFIA
A new federal finance program, the Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), also was authorized under TEA21 in 1998. Under the direction of the Department of
Transportation (DOT), the program provides three forms of credit
assistance for surface transportation projects of national or regional
significance.TIFIA awards federal credit assistance rather than grants
in the form of secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of

TEA-21

credit to public and private sponsors of major transportation
projects. Sponsors consist of state departments of transportation,

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),
enacted in 1998, authorized $215 billion in budget authority for

private entities, transit operators, local governments, and special
authorities.

highway, transit, research and motor carrier programs over six years
(1998-2003). The funding included $175 billion in highway

Since TIFIA’s inception, the DOT has selected 11 projects at a

programs, of which $165 billion is guaranteed funding, and provides

federal government budgetary cost of $183 million and has

$2.2 billion for highway safety and $650 million for motor carrier

provided $3.5 billion in credit assistance supporting transportation

safety grants. TEA-21 is a major revision of the former Intermodal

investments worth nearly $15.4 billion.

Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and is
the result of months of negotiations and compromises between
Congress, the executive branch and the states. Prior to TEA-21,

AIR-21

transportation funds were appropriated annually as part of the

The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the

federal discretionary budget. Also, payments from the federal

21st Century (AIR-21) was enacted in 2000, increasing to $40

highway trust fund to the states were determined by separate

billion funding for airport improvement programs to enhance

formulas under individual programs and administered by the U.S.

facilities and equipment, airport operations, and research between

Department of Transportation. Under this funding scheme, the

2001 and 2003. Of that funding, $33 billion is guaranteed from the

disparity between those states that collected more in motor fuel

Aviation Trust Fund.

[66] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Fund Shares

Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n — E x p e n d i t u r e E x c l u s i o n s

The figure below provides fund shares for 2002.

Of the states reporting in this survey, 14 wholly or partially
excluded gas tax and fee collections from their transportation

Figure 18
STATE EXPENDITURES FOR TRANSPORTATION BY
FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2002

expenditure figures. Thirty-five states wholly or partially excluded
port authority operations, 21 wholly or partially excluded motor
vehicle licensing, and 42 wholly or partially excluded state
police/highway patrol.

Federal Funds
29.4%

Expenditure data on transportation can be found on Tables 37-41,

General Funds
3.7%

accompanied by explanatory notes. Table 41 lists programs
excluded from the expenditure figures. Details on capital

Bonds
8.7%

expenditures for transportation can be found in Chapter Eight.

Other State Funds
58.2%

Regional Expenditures
The following table shows percentage changes in expenditures for
transportation from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2002 and from fiscal 2002
to fiscal 2003. While state transportation spending decreased
overall in fiscal 2002 by 1.8 percent, it grew in the Southwest and
the Plains by 8.9 and 7.9 percent, respectively. In the Far West,
transportation spending decreased by 25.6 percent, while in the
Southeast, it declined by 3 percent.
Table 37
REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES,
FISCAL 2002 AND 2003
Fiscal 2001 to 2002
Region
New England
Mid-Atlantic
Great Lakes
Plains
Southeast
Southwest
Rocky Mountain
Far West
ALL STATES

State
Funds
-12.1 %
2.4
4.8
5.1
-9.6
5.5
-7.4
-26.7
-5.1 %

Federal
Funds
6.4 %
3.9
4.3
23.1
12.7
8.5
0.9
-22.2
3.5 %

All
Funds
-2.8 %
3.4
5.8
7.9
-3.0
8.9
4.7
-25.6
-1.8 %

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
State
Funds
-12.0 %
6.3
0.4
26.7
-1.8
-10.5
-8.0
10.9
3.1 %

Federal
Funds
-12.7 %
15.6
10.5
-3.5
6.0
5.2
9.3
9.3
7.1 %

All
Funds
-4.0 %
8.8
3.0
20.2
0.4
-4.8
-5.8
10.8
4.1 %

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[67]

Table 38
TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES—CAPITAL INCLUSIVE ($ IN MILLIONS)
Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

General
Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$35
6
288
3
0
0

$561
143
0
145
211
153

$431
276
0
261
95
139

$184
31
1,990
10
32
0

$1,211
456
2,278
419
338
292

$38
12
108
2
3
0

$581
158
0
193
182
177

$447
281
0
263
11
183

$242
12
1,908
1
53
0

$1,308
463
2,016
459
249
360

$9
4
113
2
0
N/A

$524
207
0
200
196
N/A

$482
275
0
264
37
N/A

$207
37
2,028
2
75
N/A

$1,222
523
2,141
468
308
N/A

0
0
1,081
404
307

127
622
796
1,133
1,334

323
2,008
195
1,983
2,652

0
0
601
880
138

450
2,630
2,673
4,400
4,431

0
0
1,109
156
307

111
753
694
1,136
1,474

280
2,079
172
2,383
2,683

87
0
782
716
157

478
2,832
2,757
4,391
4,621

0
0
1,183
164
320

115
744
808
1,273
1,877

310
2,295
243
2,466
2,770

50
0
693
947
149

475
3,039
2,927
4,850
5,116

64
2
17
45
0

113
390
989
803
664

3,010
1,209
1,924
2,179
1,444

363
0
222
264
0

3,550
1,601
3,152
3,291
2,108

64
3
12
50
0

158
425
945
913
644

3,432
1,102
2,009
2,235
1,462

463
0
321
263
0

4,117
1,530
3,287
3,461
2,106

55
3
0
42
0

113
480
1,117
983
716

3,845
1,198
1,273
2,489
1,501

576
0
254
296
0

4,589
1,681
2,644
3,810
2,217

18
62
204
17
1
0
0

280
286
183
28
3
163
227

839
378
1,782
1,185
500
135
215

0
111
38
260
0
0
0

1,137
837
2,207
1,490
504
298
442

12
94
204
16
1
0
0

378
351
242
23
3
215
228

764
598
1,500
1,546
552
140
180

3
114
86
209
0
0
0

1,157
1,157
2,032
1,794
556
355
408

8
0
234
11
1
0
0

307
275
266
40
3
272
227

838
1,099
2,164
1,829
573
185
161

4
124
90
255
0
0
0

1,157
1,498
2,754
2,135
577
457
388

0
0
200
678
5
0
0
15
1
0
32
7

688
358
1,119
953
525
412
322
775
400
485
563
438

417
499
5,714
0
1,223
669
564
1,846
499
777
2,041
499

0
0
325
89
0
10
0
9
119
0
61
192

1,105
857
7,358
1,720
1,753
1,091
886
2,645
1,019
1,262
2,697
1,136

0
0
25
664
8
4
19
8
2
0
16
3

761
302
1,149
960
536
403
406
1,101
437
515
938
423

479
730
4,335
0
1,331
593
534
2,216
425
784
1,479
520

0
0
269
143
0
10
0
0
160
0
48
85

1,240
1,032
5,778
1,767
1,875
1,010
959
3,325
1,024
1,299
2,481
1,031

0
0
0
657
7
4
20
11
1
0
0
10

1,070
338
1,309
960
509
408
459
825
475
773
716
564

502
803
3,683
0
1,493
698
639
1,762
607
675
1,864
486

0
0
250
105
0
2
0
0
N/A
77
92
64

1,572
1,141
5,242
1,722
2,009
1,112
1,118
2,598
1,083
1,525
2,672
1,124

37
2
55
25

401
621
305
1,888

897
320
693
2,818

293
7
0
0

1,628
950
1,053
4,731

4
1
39
27

532
337
350
2,268

1,094
311
710
2,930

337
163
0
1

1,967
812
1,099
5,226

0
0
39
24

502
432
421
2,312

886
233
660
2,737

279
111
0
33

1,667
776
1,120
5,106

197
0
9
138
0

314
187
253
243
4

647
299
169
415
407

161
0
0
0
0

1,319
486
431
796
411

35
0
8
159
0

329
181
285
209
6

637
318
165
381
409

357
0
0
126
0

1,358
499
458
875
415

0
0
2
61
0

303
309
296
188
8

520
385
190
374
411

191
0
0
159
0

1,014
694
488
782
419

—
1,659
0
0
15
27

—
3,517
123
167
17
406

—
3,595
1,013
269
789
1,146

—
486
37
27
0
225

—
9,257
1,173
463
821
1,804

—
1
0
0
10
28

—
2,703
103
77
25
382

—
3,500
570
136
792
1,200

—
171
48
55
0
250

—
6,375
721
268
827
1,860

—
0
0
0
7
41

—
2,888
182
123
45
357

—
3,660
645
218
1,122
1,225

—
93
121
217
0
189

—
6,641
948
558
1,174
1,812

$5,656 $24,838

$51,388

$7,165

$89,047

$3,252 $25,702

$50,881

$7,640 $87,475

$3,033

$27,515

$52,775

$7,770

$91,093

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania*
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[68] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 39
TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT
OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Region/State

Fiscal
2001

Fiscal
2002

Fiscal
2003

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

6.3 %
8.6
8.8
12.2
6.9
11.0

6.4 %
8.1
7.5
12.2
4.7
12.5

5.8 %
9.1
8.1
11.9
5.6
N/A

8.3
13.1
8.3
5.5
10.9

8.4
13.2
7.9
5.2
10.6

8.3
13.1
8.2
5.3
10.8

9.3
9.3
8.3
7.8
7.5

10.4
8.4
8.3
7.7
6.8

11.3
8.7
6.6
7.9
9.4

9.2
9.5
10.8
9.5
8.3
13.0
18.9

8.8
11.8
9.9
10.7
8.5
14.6
16.7

8.8
14.7
11.5
11.9
8.5
16.7
15.6

7.1
7.7
14.0
6.9
10.5
6.6
9.2
9.8
7.0
7.3
11.0
15.1

7.4
8.6
12.2
6.5
10.9
5.7
9.1
12.6
6.9
7.0
9.3
12.7

7.7
8.4
10.4
6.0
11.4
5.9
10.0
9.8
7.2
7.6
10.0
13.1

10.0
10.2
8.8
9.0

10.4
9.0
8.4
9.2

8.5
8.7
8.1
8.6

10.3
12.2
14.1
10.3
26.6

9.9
11.8
14.2
12.1
25.9

7.2
15.0
13.9
10.6
25.1

—
6.7
15.6
9.7
5.5
7.8

—
4.4
9.2
6.5
4.4
7.6

—
4.1
11.0
9.5
6.4
7.4

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

8.8 %

8.1 %

8.1 %

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State
Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[69]

Table 40
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES
Fiscal 2001 to 2002
State
Funds

Region/State

Federal
Funds

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
All
Funds

State
Funds

Federal
Funds

All
Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

4.1 %
3.9
-62.5
0.4
-85.3
31.7

3.6 %
10.5
—
33.1
-13.7
15.7

8.0 %
1.5
-11.5
9.5
-26.3
23.3

1.2 %
-4.8
4.6
0.4
164.3
N/A

-9.8 %
31.0
—
3.6
7.7
N/A

-6.6 %
13.0
6.2
2.0
23.7
N/A

-13.3
3.5
0.4
6.4
1.0

-12.6
21.1
-12.8
0.3
10.5

6.2
7.7
3.1
-0.2
4.3

10.7
10.4
11.3
3.6
3.3

3.6
-1.2
16.4
12.1
27.3

-0.6
7.3
6.2
10.5
10.7

13.7
-8.8
4.1
2.7
1.2

39.8
9.0
-4.4
13.7
-3.0

16.0
-4.4
4.3
5.2
-0.1

11.6
8.7
-37
10.8
2.7

-28.5
12.9
18.2
7.7
11.2

11.5
9.9
-19.6
10.1
5.3

-9.5
57.3
-14.2
30.0
10.4
3.7
-16.3

35.0
22.7
32.2
-17.9
0.0
31.9
0.4

1.8
38.2
-7.9
20.4
10.3
19.1
-7.7

9.0
58.8
40.7
17.8
3.8
32.1
-10.6

-18.8
-21.7
9.9
73.9
0.0
26.5
-0.4

0.0
29.5
35.5
19.0
3.8
28.7
-4.9

14.9
46.3
-26.3
-2.1
9.0
-10.8
-2.0
19.5
-14.6
0.9
-27.9
3.4

10.6
-15.6
2.7
0.7
2.1
-2.2
26.1
42.1
9.3
6.2
66.6
-3.4

12.2
20.4
-21.5
2.7
7.0
-7.4
8.2
25.7
0.5
2.9
-8.0
-9.2

4.8
10.0
-15.5
-1.1
12.0
17.6
19.2
-20.3
42.4
-13.9
24.7
-5.2

40.6
11.9
13.9
0.0
-5.0
1.2
13.1
-25.1
8.7
50.1
-23.7
33.3

26.8
10.6
-9.3
-2.5
7.1
10.1
16.6
-21.9
5.8
17.4
7.7
9.0

17.6
-3.1
0.1
4.0

32.7
-45.7
14.8
20.1

20.8
-14.5
4.4
10.5

-19.3
-25.3
-6.7
-6.6

-5.6
28.2
20.3
1.9

-15.3
-4.4
1.9
-2.3

-20.4
6.4
-2.8
-2.4
0.5

4.8
-3.2
12.6
-14.0
50.0

3.0
2.7
6.3
9.9
1.0

-22.6
21.1
11.0
-19.4
0.5

-7.9
70.7
3.9
-10.0
33.3

-25.3
39.1
6.6
-10.6
1.0

—
-33.4
-43.7
-49.4
-0.2
4.7

—
-23.1
-16.3
-53.9
47.1
-5.9

—
-31.1
-38.5
-42.1
0.7
3.1

—
4.5
13.2
60.3
40.8
3.1

—
6.8
76.7
59.7
80.0
-6.5

—
4.2
31.5
108.2
42.0
-2.6

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington

-5.1 %

ALL STATES

3.5 %

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded).
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[70] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

-1.8 %

3.1 %

7.1 %

4.1 %

Table 41
ITEMS EXCLUDED FROM TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES

Region/State

Employer
Contributions to
Pensions

Employer
Contributions to
Health Benefits

Port
Authority
Operations

X

X
P

Gasoline
Tax & Fee
Collections

Truck
Train/Railroad
Road Assist.
Enforcement
Subsidy
Subsidy Prog.
Reg. Programs
Programs
for Local Govts.

Motor
Vehicle
Licensing

State Police/
Highway
Patrol

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

X

X
P

X
X

X
X

P
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania

X
X
X
N/A
P

X
P

X

X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X

X
P

GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin

P

X
X
X

P

PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X

X

SOUTHEAST

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

X
X
X
P
X
X

P

X
X
X

P

P

X

X
X

X

X

X

N/A

N/A

X

X
X

P

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

SOUTHWEST

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas

P
P
X

X

X
X

X

X
X
X
X

X

P

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming

X

X

X
X
X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X
P

X
X

P

P

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

15

11

21

42

FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

Excluded=X

X
X
N/A
X
X
2

4
Partially Excluded=P

35

X

14

16
Not Applicable=N/A

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[71]

Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n N o t e s

South Carolina: The state no longer prepares an Annual Projects
Improvement Plan. South Carolina has adopted a five-year Capital

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

Project Improvement Plan with annual updates for new projects

percentage increase. In these instances, the actual dollar amounts

only. As result of moving to this new system, the state no longer

should be consulted to determine the exact percentage increase.

collects estimated expenditure data on existing projects. However,

Pennsylvania: Gasoline taxes are collected by the Department of
Revenue.

actual data is still available and is reported.
Tennessee: Bond estimates represent bond authorizations, while

Ohio: See General Notes for Ohio for discussion of double

actual bonds represent bond proceeds utilized.

counting issues that affect percentage of total expenditure

Virginia: Transportation accounts for less than 3 percent of state

amounts.

police funds: most comes from public safety.

[72] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

CHAPTER SEVEN
A L L OT H E R E X P E N D I T U R E S
32.6% of State Expenditures

Fund Shares

While most state spending can be tracked neatly by functional area,
a considerable amount of state spending occurs in categories other

The figure below illustrates fund shares for 2002.

than the ones discussed in the previous chapters. In some states,
such spending might include the State Children’s Health Insurance

Figure 19
STATE EXPENDITURES FOR ALL OTHER PROGRAMS BY
FUND SOURCE, FISCAL 2002

Program (SCHIP), institutional and community care for mentally ill
and developmentally disable persons, public health programs,
employer contributions to pensions and health benefits, economic
development, environmental projects, state police, parks and

Other State Funds
37.0%

recreation, housing, and general aid to local government. A list of
items excluded from All Other Expenditures is shown in Table 46.
Spending on the items included in the All Other category was $350

Federal Funds
23.8%

Bonds
2.4%

billion in fiscal 2002, or 32.6 percent of total state expenditures.
Based on fiscal 2001 All Other expenditures of $326.6 billion, fiscal
2002 spending increased by 7.2 percent. See Tables 43-45 and the
accompanying notes for more details of the All Other category.

S t a t e C h i l d r e n ’s H e a l t h I n s u r a n c e
Program

General Funds
36.8%

The enactment of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP) as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has increased
health coverage for previously uninsured children. SCHIP is targeted
to children whose families have income too high to qualify for

Regional Expenditures

Medicaid but too low to afford private insurance. States receive a
federal match for their SCHIP programs ranging from 65 percent to

The following table shows percentage changes for all other

85 percent within a capped allotment. During fiscal 2002,

expenditures for fiscal 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. For 2002, the Far

approximately 5.3 million children enrolled in SCHIP, representing a

West and Southwest states are well above the national average and

38 percent increase over fiscal 2000 levels. In fiscal 2002 state SCHIP

the Southeast and Rocky Mountain states are well below the

spending totaled $4.5 billion. For more details, see Table A-2. A

national average.

special NASBO report, Medicaid and Other State Healthcare Issues:
The Current Situation, also contains details of state SCHIP actions.
Table 42
REGIONAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN STATE ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES,
FISCAL 2002 AND 2003
Fiscal 2001 to 2002
State
Funds

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

8.3 %
8.0
7.1
1.8
-9.4
10.7
-5.3
15.4
4.8 %

ALL STATES

[74] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Federal
Funds

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

11.4 %
16.0
16.8
9.5
4.4
11.3
-1.9
23.5
13.1 %

All
Funds
9.1 %
9.9
9.0
4.8
-4.8
10.1
-4.2
18.2
7.2 %

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
State
Funds
-6.0 %
-2.5
-15.8
-0.1
13.9
2.3
3.6
-4.1
-2.1 %

Federal
Funds
-7.2 %
26.7
11.0
12.7
20.9
-2.1
7.9
21.7
17.2 %

All
Funds
-5.7 %
5.2
-10.7
3.8
14.6
0.9
5.1
9.6
3.8 %

Table 43
ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES - CAPITAL INCLUSIVE ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds Bonds

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds Bonds

Total

General
Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$5,950
800
10,045
506
824
301

$408
375
0
257
285
241

$802
800
0
44
432
196

$772
23
611
7
76
25

$7,932
1,998
10,656
814
1,617
763

$6,162
813
10,987
613
896
285

$528
421
0
265
285
245

$853
976
0
43
574
214

$914
47
695
35
82
13

$8,457
2,257
11,682
956
1,837
757

$6,016
760
10,404
619
922
N/A

$505
495
0
267
351
N/A

$1,091
720
0
47
499
N/A

$785
69
842
33
36
N/A

$8,397
2,044
11,246
966
1,808
N/A

925
3,404
6,309
11,577
5,254

247
848
1,612
8,138
2,898

1,365
1,843
2,983
8,466
4,095

38
0
315
427
449

2,575
6,095
11,219
28,608
12,696

878
3,300
7,024
11,898
5,532

272
878
2,139
9,506
3,142

1,413
2,167
3,580
9,285
4,862

84
0
459
575
282

2,647
6,345
13,202
31,264
13,818

890
2,846
7,000
11,348
5,463

284
1,523
2,994
11,600
3,797

1,364
2,722
2,356
9,442
5,235

55
0
344
914
594

2,593
7,091
12,694
33,304
15,089

5,084
2,726
3,237
4,265
2,885

2,205
1,731
2,718
2,386
1,195

5,967
698
4,285
10,725
8,779

531
0
224
200
0

13,787
5,155
10,464
17,576
12,859

4,581
2,715
3,180
3,691
2,672

2,385
2,128
2,989
2,841
1,612

6,138
1,126
5,296
11,886
10,842

807
0
153
173
0

13,911
5,969
11,618
18,591
15,126

4,867
2,861
2,930
3,676
2,132

1,934
2,346
4,033
3,546
1,409

6,312
986
4,763
12,042
3,335

698
95
62
182
0

13,811
6,288
11,788
19,446
6,876

1,232
692
3,914
2,023
623
208
164

951
954
1,173
1,142
506
344
194

1,259
532
1,384
505
695
315
216

0
1
112
54
0
3
0

3,442
2,179
6,583
3,724
1,824
870
574

1,154
617
3,810
1,985
633
220
176

1,071
981
1,376
1,250
593
338
155

1,127
836
1,477
601
798
328
245

55
5
219
54
0
5
0

3,407
2,439
6,882
3,890
2,024
891
576

1,057
552
3,855
1,727
630
212
172

1,177
1,279
1,599
1,347
569
313
210

1,416
546
1,791
421
923
443
244

84
6
200
84
0
22
0

3,734
2,383
7,445
3,579
2,122
990
626

786
510
4,370
3,875
1,727
1,483
847
2,839
1,827
1,665
3,058
441

831
1,004
6,109
2,467
1,314
576
418
1,776
1,216
1,577
1,244
320

1,767
2,626
9,624
0
1,248
3,414
754
1,781
1,202
1,528
5,038
642

73
57
337
183
0
56
296
35
29
10
76
0

3,457
4,197
20,440
6,525
4,289
5,529
2,315
6,431
4,274
4,780
9,416
1,403

782
440
4,119
4,067
1,777
1,541
811
2,712
1,631
1,748
2,968
682

965
1,019
6,269
1,997
1,589
632
461
1,695
1,501
1,773
1,414
361

2,051
2,722
4,970
0
1,071
2,946
793
0
1,249
1,607
6,350
1,054

130
40
562
190
0
87
413
250
33
12
86
0

3,928
4,221
15,920
6,254
4,437
5,206
2,478
4,657
4,414
5,140
10,818
2,097

837
455
4,122
3,940
1,824
1,639
919
2,634
1,800
1,972
2,891
908

1,826
1,252
5,712
4,560
1,680
1,380
653
1,433
1,085
2,213
1,627
364

3,879
3,360
6,828
0
917
3,744
933
819
1,390
1,796
6,359
789

30
68
705
79
0
35
0
147
N/A
9
88
0

6,572
5,135
17,367
8,579
4,421
6,798
2,505
5,033
4,275
5,990
10,965
2,061

1,712
839
1,099
3,540

572
896
1,000
4,123

3,684
956
1,216
1,916

0
150
136
65

5,968
2,841
3,451
9,644

1,418
830
1,042
3,960

806
604
1,235
4,693

4,567
1,087
1,474
2,191

0
64
114
30

6,791
2,585
3,865
10,874

1,283
831
960
4,405

863
582
1,491
4,245

4,581
874
1,614
2,410

0
32
75
88

6,727
2,319
4,140
11,148

999
325
393
1,116
0

851
466
383
702
0

2,467
369
342
1,089
0

0
1
0
0
0

4,317
1,161
1,118
2,907
0

1,107
383
403
661
0

876
551
428
501
0

2,627
331
281
929
0

0
1
0
25
0

4,610
1,266
1,112
2,116
0

1,344
341
392
643
0

946
573
501
523
0

2,608
391
352
892
0

0
1
0
61
0

4,898
1,306
1,245
2,119
0

—
19,033
1,061
251
654
2,454

—
11,331
452
445
936
1,950

—
7,865
1,486
1,295
4,643
3,104

—
730
192
0
0
200

—
38,959
3,191
1,991
6,233
7,708

—
17,650
1,102
388
946
2,436

—
14,148
440
489
1,555
2,041

—
13,244
1,756
495
6,946
3,320

—
1,339
241
18
0
122

—
46,381
3,539
1,390
9,447
7,919

—
16,089
1,381
378
383
2,241

—
18,580
503
666
1,496
1,476

—
12,765
1,633
1,472
6,315
3,665

—
5,475
534
11
0
173

—
52,909
4,051
2,527
8,194
7,555

$8,414 $350,011

$125,551

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania*
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri*
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana*
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California*
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

$129,852 $73,767 $116,442

$6,494 $326,555

$129,426 $83,443 $128,728

$97,808 $127,084 $12,716 $363,159

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[75]

Table 44
ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Region/State

Fiscal
2001

Fiscal
2002

Fiscal
2003

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

41.1 %
37.5
41.0
23.8
33.2
28.6

41.4 %
39.5
43.6
25.5
34.9
26.2

40.1 %
35.7
42.3
24.5
32.7
N/A

47.5
30.4
34.8
35.9
31.2

46.6
29.6
37.8
36.8
31.6

45.5
30.6
35.4
36.6
31.9

36.3
29.8
27.6
41.6
45.8

35.2
32.6
29.2
41.1
48.5

34.1
32.6
29.6
40.1
29.3

27.9
24.6
32.2
23.8
30.1
37.9
24.6

25.9
24.9
33.4
23.1
30.8
36.5
23.6

28.3
23.4
31.2
20.0
31.3
36.3
25.1

22.3
37.6
38.9
26.2
25.8
33.4
24.1
23.9
29.6
27.7
38.5
18.7

23.5
35.0
33.6
22.9
25.8
29.6
23.6
17.6
29.6
27.7
40.7
25.7

32.3
37.9
34.5
29.9
25.1
36.0
22.5
19.0
28.4
30.0
40.8
24.1

36.5
30.6
28.8
18.4

35.8
28.8
29.6
19.2

34.4
25.9
30.0
18.9

33.9
29.1
36.5
37.8
0.0

33.7
29.9
34.4
29.2
0.0

34.9
28.2
35.5
28.8
0.0

—
28.3
42.4
41.7
41.8
33.4

—
31.8
45.0
33.6
50.0
32.5

—
32.3
46.9
42.9
44.5
30.9

32.1 %

32.6 %

32.3 %

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State
Expenditure Report

[76] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 45
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES
Fiscal 2001 to 2002
Region/State

State
Funds

Federal
Funds

Fiscal 2002 to 2003
All
Funds

State
Funds

Federal
Funds

All
Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

3.9 %
11.8
9.4
19.3
17.0
0.4

29.4 %
12.3
—
3.1
0.0
1.7

6.6 %
13.0
9.6
17.4
13.6
-0.8

1.3 %
-17.3
-5.3
1.5
-3.3
N/A

-4.4 %
17.6
—
0.8
23.2
N/A

-0.7 %
-9.4
-3.7
1.0
-1.6
N/A

0.0
4.2
14.1
5.7
11.2

10.1
3.5
32.7
16.8
8.4

2.8
4.1
17.7
9.3
8.8

-1.6
1.8
-11.8
-1.9
2.9

4.4
73.5
40.0
22.0
20.8

-2.0
11.8
-3.8
6.5
9.2

-3.0
12.2
12.7
3.9
15.9

8.2
22.9
10.0
19.1
34.9

0.9
15.8
11.0
5.8
17.6

4.3
0.2
-9.2
0.9
-59.5

-18.9
10.2
34.9
24.8
-12.6

-0.7
5.3
1.5
4.6
-54.5

-8.4
18.7
-0.2
2.3
8.6
4.8
10.8

12.6
2.8
17.3
9.5
17.2
-1.7
-20.1

-1.0
11.9
4.5
4.5
11.0
2.4
0.3

8.4
-24.4
6.8
-16.9
8.5
19.5
-1.2

9.9
30.4
16.2
7.8
-4.0
-7.4
35.5

9.6
-2.3
8.2
-8.0
4.8
11.1
8.7

11.0
0.8
-35.1
5.0
-4.3
-8.4
0.2
-41.3
-4.9
5.1
15.1
60.3

16.1
1.5
2.6
-19.1
20.9
9.7
10.3
-4.6
23.4
12.4
13.7
12.8

13.6
0.6
-22.1
-4.2
3.5
-5.8
7.0
-27.6
3.3
7.5
14.9
49.5

66.5
20.7
20.5
-3.1
-3.8
20.0
15.5
27.3
10.8
12.3
-0.7
-2.2

89.2
22.9
-8.9
128.3
5.7
118.4
41.6
-15.5
-27.7
24.8
15.1
0.8

67.3
21.7
9.1
37.2
-0.4
30.6
1.1
8.1
-3.1
16.5
1.4
-1.7

10.9
6.8
8.7
12.7

40.9
-32.6
23.5
13.8

13.8
-9.0
12.0
12.8

-2.0
-11.1
2.3
10.8

7.1
-3.6
20.7
-9.5

-0.9
-10.3
7.1
2.5

7.7
2.9
-6.9
-27.9
—

2.9
18.2
11.7
-28.6
—

6.8
9.0
-0.5
-27.2
—

5.8
2.5
8.8
-3.5
—

8.0
4.0
17.1
4.4
—

6.2
3.2
12.0
0.1
—

—
14.9
12.2
-42.9
49.0
3.6

—
24.9
-2.7
9.9
66.1
4.7

—
19.1
10.9
-30.2
51.6
2.7

—
-6.6
5.5
109.5
-15.1
2.6

—
31.3
14.3
36.2
-3.8
-27.7

—
14.1
14.5
81.8
-13.3
-4.6

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

4.8 %

13.1 %

7.2 %

-2.1 %

17.2 %

3.8 %

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded).
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[77]

Table 46
ITEMS EXCLUDED FROM ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES

Employers
Employer
Child
Community and Community and
Parks
General Aid
Contribution to Contributions to Health Insurance Public Institutional for
Institutional
Environmental
and
to
Pensions
Health Benefits
Program
Health Mental Health for Dev. Disabled
Programs
Recreation Housing Local Government

Region/State
NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

P

P

P

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York*
Pennsylvania

P

P
P

GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan*
Ohio
Wisconsin

P

P
P

P

P

P

P

P

PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota

N/A
X

N/A

X
X

SOUTHEAST

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

X
X

X

X

X
P
P
X

X

SOUTHWEST

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas

X

X

X

X

X

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming

X

P

FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii*
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

P

P
X
P

2

Excluded=X

4

4

Partially Excluded=P

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[78] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

3

2
Not Applicable=N/A

1

2

2

11

8

All Other Expenditure Notes

Michigan: Public health and community and institutional care for
mentally and developmentally disabled persons are partially

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

reported in the Medicaid totals.

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

Missouri: Figures exclude refunds.

Alabama: Capital expenditures made from Federal and Other

Montana: State general fund reimbursements to local governments

State Funds are not reported separately.

for property tax reductions were $68 million fiscal 2001. In fiscal
2002, state reimbursements excluding schools increase to $94

California: A large portion of the variance from actual 2001 to

million, as local shares of vehicle fees and taxes, corporate income

actual 2002 to estimate 2003 is in the Employment Development

taxes, video gaming taxes, and alcoholic beverage taxes are

Department, which oversees the Unemployment and Disability

replaced with entitlement payments from the state.

Insurance Programs. As a result of the downturn in the economy,
unemployment claims have risen dramatically.The recent passage of

Fire and emergency costs in fiscal 2001 were $64 million in general

two Environmental and one Housing general obligation bonds

funds and $24 million in federal funds. In fiscal 2002, general funds

results in increased expenditures in the 2003 estimated fiscal year.

for fire and emergency costs fall to $17 million, then to $3 million
in fiscal 2003.

Florida: This category decreased from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2002
due to budget “rebasing.” This process included the removal of

Pennsylvania: Housing excludes the activities of the Pennsylvania

certain expenditures from the state’s operating budget that could

Housing Finance Agency.

be managed through the nonoperating budget.The largest of these
items included payments to retirees from the Florida Retirement
System, distribution of taxes collected by the state and shared with
cities and counties, and unemployment compensation benefit
payments.
Kentucky: Includes adult literacy programs.

South Carolina: The state no longer prepares an Annual Projects
Improvement Plan. South Carolina has adopted a five-year Capital
Project Improvement Plan with annual updates for new projects
only. As result of moving to this new system, the state no longer
collects estimated expenditure data on existing projects. However,
actual data is still available and is reported.

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[79]

CHAPTER EIGHT
C A P I TA L E X P E N D I T U R E S

Capital expenditures are expenditures made for new construction,

Fiscal 2003 estimates reflecting capital spending on infrastructure

major repairs and improvements, land purchases and the acquisition

are $68.5 billion, a 0.8 percent decrease, in part indicative of states

of major equipment and existing structures. Minor repairs and

putting off capital projects amidst the fiscal crunch.

routine maintenance are reported as operating expenses. States
often find it difficult to report capital expenditures. Given the longterm nature of capital projects, states often find it difficult to report
capital expenditures: the amount of money appropriated when a
project is undertaken usually will not be the amount spent in a

Because of the nature of capital spending, such as long construction
timetables and unforeseen or delayed project costs, increases in
state spending on capital projects are generally followed by a
significant slowdown or decrease.

single year. For greater detail on states’ capital spending practices,
see Capital Budgeting in the States, available in the publications

Capital Fund Sources

section of NASBO’s website at www.nasbo.org.
State spending on capital projects traditionally has come from nonThis chapter includes capital expenditures for higher education,

general fund sources, namely bonds (33 percent in fiscal 2002) and

corrections, transportation, environmental projects, and housing.

other state funds such as fees and fund surpluses (36.9 percent in

Capital expenditures not included in these categories due to

fiscal 2002). Federal funds (23.8 percent) and state general funds

differences in states’ reporting capabilities, or expenditures for items

(6.3 percent) also contribute to capital spending.

not easily classified are included in the “All Other” category. Tables
47-53 display capital expenditure data.

Capital Funds by Use
The single largest state capital expenditure category is

To t a l C a p i t a l E x p e n d i t u r e s

transportation, comprising 59.2 percent ($40.8 billion) of all
State capital spending totaled $69 billion in fiscal 2002, an increase

capital expenditures in fiscal 2002. Based on estimated fiscal 2003

of 2.3 percent from the previous year. From 1992 to 2002, capital

figures, transportation-related capital spending will increase by 1.6

spending has increased at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent.

percent.

Figure 20
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY TYPE, FISCAL 1991 TO 2002

Higher Ed
Corrections
Transportation
Environment
Housing
All Other

45,000
40,000
35,000

Millions $

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0

[82] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

1991

OF STATE

1992

BUDGET OFFICERS

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Higher education capital spending continued to increase rapidly,
growing 20.4 percent over fiscal 2001 levels, totaling approximately
$7.8 billion, or 11.3 percent of fiscal 2002 total capital spending. In

Figure 22
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FUNDING SOURCE,
FISCAL 2002

fiscal 2003, it is estimated to decrease by 10.5 percent.

Bonds
33.0%

State capital spending for environmental purposes in fiscal 2002

Other State Funds
36.9%

is $4.8 billion, 7 percent of total capital spending and a 1.6 percent
increase over fiscal 2001.
Housing capital expenditures account for just 1.2 percent of total

General Funds
6.3%

fiscal 2002 capital spending.
State spending for all other purposes totaled $13.3 billion,
amounting to 19.2 percent of total capital spending.
Federal Funds
23.8%

Figure 21
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0
1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[83]

Table 47
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)
Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

General
Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island*
Vermont

$0
8
141
0
2
0

$561
111
460
10
219
0

$12
85
82
147
43
0

$1,193
28
1,996
38
128
41

$1,766
232
2,679
195
392
41

$0
15
195
0
3
0

$581
122
490
32
60
0

$12
80
52
177
78
0

$1,657
17
1,995
46
151
40

$2,250
234
2,732
255
292
40

$2
3
171
0
1
N/A

$524
159
694
32
256
N/A

$12
41
99
180
119
N/A

$1,678
33
1,823
69
153
N/A

$2,216
236
2,787
281
529
N/A

120
469
1,183
0
0

129
152
772
1,457
0

255
549
0
1,076
0

100
595
918
1,927
775

604
1,765
2,873
4,460
775

107
443
1,179
0
0

114
181
688
1,374
0

200
594
0
1,180
0

252
715
1,243
1,759
756

673
1,932
3,110
4,313
756

100
50
1,088
0
0

118
230
760
1,472
0

195
634
0
1,135
0

175
403
1,043
2,424
960

588
1,316
2,891
5,031
960

26
313
338
64
0

0
780
1,086
825
0

1,407
516
1,344
587
0

1,269
128
683
1,105
0

2,703
1,737
3,450
2,581
0

27
237
354
18
0

0
830
780
917
0

1,747
464
347
605
0

1,729
264
662
1,184
0

3,503
1,795
2,142
2,724
0

28
233
327
15
0

0
940
892
986
0

1,582
555
462
694
0

1,801
151
485
1,204
0

3,410
1,879
2,167
2,899
0

0
64
108
81
57
23
4

0
172
78
3
6
142
216

117
69
768
1,239
588
74
155

0
140
309
322
0
14
0

117
445
1,263
1,645
651
253
375

0
106
110
36
39
17
1

4
350
96
10
5
192
216

68
289
708
1,586
622
73
123

129
149
348
263
0
10
0

201
894
1,262
1,895
666
292
340

0
11
166
41
30
17
2

6
277
156
10
11
246
208

59
755
1,123
1,863
628
77
95

175
159
348
339
0
28
0

240
1,202
1,793
2,253
669
368
305

1
0
633
2
0
31
34
76
26
25
136
29

691
3
1,245
1,275
0
450
229
0
14
515
6
465

312
119
7,849
164
524
579
354
0
405
512
150
314

73
24
1,064
713
0
116
202
200
549
98
159
367

1,077
146
10,791
2,154
524
1,176
819
276
994
1,150
451
1,175

0
0
185
1
0
8
18
33
14
16
119
22

761
3
1,313
1,670
0
424
316
0
35
522
4
462

434
112
6,574
211
587
618
391
0
573
526
141
405

130
9
1,437
1,332
0
129
379
605
448
21
202
307

1,326
124
9,509
3,214
587
1,179
1,104
638
1,070
1,085
466
1,196

0
0
151
0
0
132
25
31
N/A
28
22
25

1,070
7
1,599
985
0
479
369
0
N/A
824
17
568

261
171
5,295
124
523
572
449
0
N/A
381
127
395

34
7
1,356
667
0
48
0
712
N/A
124
343
295

1,366
185
8,401
1,776
523
1,231
843
743
N/A
1,357
508
1,283

515
105
71
N/A

410
0
438
N/A

348
11
558
N/A

293
175
181
N/A

1,566
291
1,248
3,610

26
58
51
N/A

0
0
579
N/A

388
181
799
N/A

399
173
205
N/A

814
412
1,634
4,120

3
42
62
N/A

0
0
529
N/A

305
26
714
N/A

328
45
259
N/A

635
113
1,564
3,979

293
0
0
195
21

43
160
0
203
13

234
80
0
379
353

0
5
0
0
0

570
245
0
777
387

156
0
0
174
24

18
159
0
160
18

210
82
0
268
356

0
5
0
196
0

384
246
0
798
398

23
0
0
98
27

17
283
0
170
23

174
132
0
211
359

0
4
0
343
0

214
419
0
822
409

—
2,041
0
7
3
0

—
1,948
117
13
8
432

—
-997
125
9
171
956

—
1,147
313
52
0
726

—
4,139
555
82
182
2,114

—
284
0
6
2
0

—
1,448
104
5
8
427

—
625
114
5
218
1,111

—
1,066
412
46
0
573

—
3,423
630
61
228
2,111

—
169
0
3
0
0

—
1,123
187
6
0
396

—
1,019
170
21
131
1,185

—
2,155
856
60
0
599

—
4,466
1,213
90
131
2,180

$7,245 $15,858

$22,622

$18,166

$67,502

$4,083 $15,477

$23,933

$21,443 $69,057

$3,126

$16,629

$23,051

$21,686

$68,472

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania*
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana*
Michigan*
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas*
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana*
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California*
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL*

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[84] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 48
HIGHER EDUCATION CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

General
Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$0
0
0
0
1
0

$0
0
0
0
10
0

$0
0
0
0
12
0

$87
0
57
12
19
6

$87
0
57
12
42
6

$0
0
0
0
0
0

$0
0
0
0
10
0

$0
0
0
0
50
0

$118
0
106
4
9
9

$118
0
106
4
69
9

$0
0
0
0
0
N/A

$0
0
0
0
2
N/A

$0
0
0
0
52
N/A

$178
0
60
27
29
N/A

$178
0
60
27
83
N/A

9
140
11
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

5
25
0
72
0

3
209
0
341
96

17
374
11
413
96

10
167
12
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

5
25
0
58
0

11
234
0
263
153

26
426
12
321
153

6
0
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

5
30
0
100
0

10
77
2
215
179

21
107
3
315
179

0
74
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

2
10
0
0
0

155
61
188
294
0

157
145
188
294
0

0
23
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

178
136
171
320
0

178
159
171
320
0

0
35
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
0
0

180
56
166
175
0

182
91
166
175
0

0
2
32
30
13
10
3

0
0
2
0
0
0
0

18
28
6
6
89
5
18

0
26
137
0
0
11
0

18
56
177
36
102
26
21

0
2
0
0
16
7
1

0
0
0
0
1
0
0

8
74
0
0
77
0
22

30
29
125
0
0
5
0

38
105
125
0
94
12
23

0
0
0
0
9
7
2

0
0
0
0
1
0
0

8
38
0
0
56
0
18

45
28
125
0
0
3
0

53
66
125
0
66
10
20

0
0
57
0
0
20
20
0
4
16
101
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
0

0
17
43
141
192
108
68
0
120
0
107
89

0
24
402
308
0
48
0
0
129
67
133
60

0
41
502
449
192
176
90
0
255
83
342
149

0
0
53
0
0
0
13
0
3
8
91
0

0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
3
0
0
0

0
23
46
211
269
268
76
0
124
0
107
135

0
9
606
342
0
29
0
300
90
9
183
68

0
32
705
553
269
299
91
300
220
17
381
203

0
0
46
0
0
62
16
0
N/A
8
15
0

0
0
0
0
0
22
5
0
N/A
0
1
0

0
38
40
124
226
295
41
0
N/A
2
83
139

0
7
401
220
0
9
0
565
N/A
41
273
70

0
45
487
344
226
388
62
565
N/A
51
372
209

9
0
0
N/A

0
0
3
N/A

0
0
47
N/A

0
25
45
N/A

9
25
95
118

22
1
0
N/A

0
0
10
N/A

22
0
243
N/A

62
100
91
N/A

106
101
344
150

0
1
11
N/A

0
0
2
N/A

20
1
134
N/A

49
6
184
N/A

69
8
331
144

155
0
0
2
16

7
0
0
0
8

167
19
0
91
1

0
1
0
0
0

329
20
0
93
25

105
0
0
0
18

3
0
0
0
10

130
11
0
-35
2

0
1
0
45
0

238
12
0
10
30

7
0
0
0
20

1
0
0
0
12

86
8
0
-2
3

0
0
0
118
0

94
8
0
116
35

—
23
0
3
0
0

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
0
0
8
77
108

—
592
82
22
0
246

—
615
82
33
77
354

—
55
0
3
0
0

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
0
0
4
130
147

—
623
121
26
0
177

—
678
121
33
130
324

—
42
0
1
0
0

—
0
1
0
0
0

—
0
2
21
131
163

—
716
178
45
0
209

—
758
181
67
131
372

$751

$35

$1,699

$3,886

$6,489

$610

$41

$2,232

$4,783

$7,816

$289

$47

$1,864

$4,646

$6,990

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan*
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[85]

Table 49
CORRECTIONS CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)
Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

General
Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$0
0
0
0
1
0

$0
0
0
0
0
0

$0
0
0
0
2
0

$19
0
21
3
0
1

$19
0
21
3
3
1

$0
0
0
0
0
0

$0
0
0
0
0
0

$0
0
0
0
3
0

$35
0
23
0
0
6

$35
0
23
0
3
6

$0
0
0
0
0
N/A

$0
0
0
0
0
N/A

$0
0
0
0
8
N/A

$27
0
20
0
0
N/A

$27
0
20
0
8
N/A

9
13
32
0
0

4
0
0
47
0

0
0
0
3
0

7
55
2
213
92

20
68
34
263
92

4
3
20
0
0

3
5
0
1
0

1
6
0
4
0

6
55
2
206
164

14
69
22
211
164

4
0
30
0
0

3
0
0
0
0

1
3
0
6
0

5
17
3
188
38

13
20
33
194
38

4
57
9
0
0

0
0
6
0
0

0
18
0
0
0

159
67
49
81
0

163
142
64
81
0

3
62
14
0
0

0
0
1
0
0

0
15
0
0
0

96
128
17
74
0

99
205
32
74
0

3
63
4
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
15
0
0
0

90
0
3
90
0

93
78
7
90
0

0
7
14
9
24
1
1

0
0
2
0
0
2
0

10
9
1
0
0
0
0

0
2
6
8
0
0
0

10
18
23
17
24
3
1

0
7
5
10
10
2
0

0
0
10
0
0
0
0

0
17
1
0
0
0
0

7
1
8
0
0
0
0

7
25
24
10
10
2
0

0
7
7
9
6
2
0

0
0
11
1
0
0
0

2
7
0
0
0
1
0

10
1
8
0
0
3
0

12
15
26
10
6
6
0

0
0
19
1
0
0
2
0
4
0
9
0

3
3
0
5
0
5
0
0
9
15
3
0

2
5
5
0
28
9
1
0
3
10
2
1

0
0
0
29
0
2
0
0
22
21
3
0

5
8
24
35
28
16
3
0
38
46
17
1

0
0
18
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
7
0

0
3
0
20
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
0

2
1
0
0
29
0
1
0
2
22
3
0

0
0
0
24
0
3
0
0
15
0
2
1

2
4
18
45
29
3
2
0
22
22
14
1

0
0
21
0
0
3
1
0
N/A
0
3
0

0
2
0
0
0
5
0
0
N/A
21
4
0

1
4
4
0
70
5
1
0
N/A
9
2
0

4
0
0
62
0
2
0
0
N/A
0
5
6

5
6
25
62
70
15
2
0
N/A
30
14
6

1
0
0
N/A

9
0
0
N/A

3
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

13
0
0
89

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
68

0
3
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
3
0
59

14
0
0
0
5

0
0
0
4
1

0
1
0
0
0

0
3
0
0
0

14
4
0
4
6

11
0
0
0
6

6
0
0
0
2

7
4
0
0
0

0
3
0
0
0

24
7
0
0
8

1
0
0
0
7

0
0
0
8
3

1
2
0
0
0

0
3
0
5
0

2
5
0
13
10

—
73
0
0
2
0

—
0
0
3
0
8

—
0
0
0
80
2

—
2
2
17
0
55

—
75
2
20
82
65

—
74
0
1
1
0

—
0
0
0
0
5

—
0
0
0
49
1

—
1
2
1
0
24

—
75
2
2
50
30

—
26
0
1
0
0

—
0
0
0
0
2

—
0
0
-1
0
1

—
4
23
3
0
28

—
30
23
3
0
31

$311

$129

$195

$941

$1,665

$262

$61

$168

$904

$1,463

$201

$60

$142

$648

$1,110

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[86] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 50
TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds Bonds

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds Bonds

Total

General
Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$0
0
141
0
0
0

$561
104
460
10
209
0

$12
36
82
147
22
0

$181
25
1,307
10
32
1

$754
165
1,990
167
263
1

$0
7
195
0
3
0

$581
115
490
32
49
0

$12
43
52
177
11
0

$185
7
1,171
1
53
0

$778
172
1,908
210
116
0

$2
0
171
0
0
N/A

$524
156
694
32
196
N/A

$12
33
99
180
37
N/A

$188
22
901
2
75
N/A

$726
211
1,865
214
308
N/A

0
0
701
0
0

125
150
761
1,102
0

176
264
0
518
0

0
0
601
880
138

301
414
2,063
2,500
138

0
0
685
0
0

111
157
680
1,100
0

130
260
0
850
0

87
0
782
716
157

328
417
2,147
2,666
157

0
0
745
0
0

115
200
750
1,236
0

145
386
0
742
0

50
0
693
947
149

310
586
2,188
2,925
149

0
1
17
13
0

0
390
905
803
0

1,399
449
1,242
565
0

363
0
217
264
0

1,762
840
2,381
1,645
0

0
2
12
8
0

0
415
594
913
0

1,739
411
248
577
0

463
0
315
263
0

2,202
828
1,169
1,761
0

0
2
0
7
0

0
470
663
983
0

1,575
441
326
658
0

576
0
254
296
0

2,151
913
1,243
1,944
0

0
52
8
0
0
0
0

0
171
61
0
0
137
216

3
18
706
1,185
484
53
137

0
111
38
260
0
0
0

3
352
813
1,445
484
190
353

0
94
84
0
0
0
0

0
341
73
0
0
175
216

0
194
666
1,546
519
38
101

3
114
70
209
0
0
0

3
743
893
1,755
519
213
317

0
0
132
0
0
0
0

0
267
119
0
0
229
208

4
687
1,065
1,829
543
64
77

4
124
70
255
0
0
0

8
1,078
1,386
2,084
543
293
285

0
0
200
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
4

688
0
1,119
1,270
0
409
205
0
0
485
0
433

181
0
5,029
23
13
240
234
0
248
502
33
176

0
0
325
89
0
10
0
0
119
0
15
192

869
0
6,673
1,383
13
659
439
0
373
987
48
805

0
0
25
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3

761
0
1,149
1,650
0
406
298
0
0
515
0
419

238
0
3,680
0
20
292
246
0
412
504
21
219

0
0
269
143
0
10
0
0
160
0
3
85

999
0
5,123
1,793
20
709
544
0
572
1,019
24
726

0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
N/A
0
0
7

1,070
0
1,309
985
0
336
313
0
N/A
773
0
554

224
3
2,982
0
90
227
285
0
N/A
370
29
235

0
0
250
105
0
2
0
0
N/A
77
56
64

1,294
3
4,541
1,090
90
574
598
0
N/A
1,220
85
860

20
0
46
N/A

401
0
305
N/A

321
0
430
N/A

293
0
0
N/A

1,035
0
781
3,153

0
0
30
N/A

0
0
350
N/A

354
0
468
N/A

337
9
0
N/A

691
9
848
3,560

0
6
31
N/A

0
0
421
N/A

252
5
417
N/A

279
7
0
N/A

531
18
869
3,340

59
0
0
137
0

0
160
0
197
4

0
50
0
239
352

0
0
0
0
0

59
210
0
573
356

0
0
0
146
0

0
159
0
158
6

0
61
0
199
354

0
0
0
126
0

0
220
0
629
360

0
0
0
60
0

0
283
0
158
8

0
115
0
190
356

0
0
0
159
0

0
398
0
567
364

—
1,530
0
0
0
0

—
1,935
116
2
0
375

—
-1,014
58
0
2
652

—
348
37
0
0
225

—
2,799
211
2
2
1,252

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
1,418
98
1
0
354

—
593
52
0
2
764

—
144
48
0
0
250

—
2,155
198
1
2
1,368

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
1,057
165
1
0
342

—
932
51
0
0
759

—
66
121
0
0
189

—
2,055
337
1
0
1,290

$2,936 $14,269

$15,267

$6,081

$41,706

$1,295 $13,784

$16,053

$6,180

$40,872

$1,172

$14,617

$16,425

$5,981

$41,535

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[87]

Table 51
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)
Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds Bonds

Total

General
Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$0
0
0
0
0
0

$0
0
0
0
0
0

$0
0
0
0
5
0

$141
0
140
7
12
9

$141
0
140
7
17
9

$0
0
0
0
0
0

$0
0
0
0
1
0

$0
0
0
0
2
0

$209
0
156
7
71
6

$209
0
156
7
74
6

$0
0
0
0
1
N/A

$0
0
0
0
20
N/A

$0
0
0
0
6
N/A

$141
0
123
6
47
N/A

$141
0
123
6
74
N/A

1
25
77
0
0

0
1
11
258
0

28
184
0
182
0

1
44
285
296
17

30
254
373
736
17

6
41
97
0
0

0
3
8
157
0

26
249
0
147
0

0
71
432
263
20

32
364
537
567
20

4
11
81
0
0

0
2
10
145
0

24
124
0
151
0

0
71
320
365
20

28
208
411
661
20

1
0
43
2
0

0
0
93
0
0

0
0
75
1
0

30
0
48
107
0

31
0
259
110
0

2
0
26
0
0

0
0
91
0
0

0
0
79
3
0

37
0
8
119
0

39
0
204
122
0

3
0
19
1
0

0
0
105
0
0

0
0
112
9
0

55
0
3
121
0

58
0
239
131
0

0
0
15
0
0
0
0

0
0
5
0
0
0
0

29
0
35
0
0
4
0

0
0
22
54
0
3
0

29
0
77
54
0
7
0

0
0
8
0
0
0
0

0
0
5
0
0
3
0

25
0
26
0
0
6
0

4
0
25
54
0
0
0

29
0
64
54
0
9
0

0
0
7
0
0
0
0

3
0
3
0
0
5
0

17
0
34
0
0
9
0

4
0
25
54
0
0
0

24
0
69
54
0
14
0

0
0
98
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0

0
0
126
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
19

0
0
749
0
5
0
7
0
9
0
6
9

0
0
278
0
0
0
0
175
0
0
3
0

0
0
1,251
0
5
0
11
175
12
0
12
28

0
0
21
0
0
0
0
33
1
0
0
0

0
0
164
0
0
0
1
0
27
0
1
19

0
0
644
0
7
0
7
0
11
0
3
12

0
0
275
0
0
0
0
250
0
0
2
0

0
0
1,104
0
7
0
8
283
39
0
6
31

0
0
37
0
0
0
1
31
N/A
0
0
0

0
0
290
0
0
0
2
0
N/A
0
3
1

0
0
603
0
1
0
8
0
N/A
0
5
0

0
0
392
0
0
0
0
147
N/A
0
0
0

0
0
1,322
0
1
0
11
178
N/A
0
8
1

0
41
6
N/A

0
0
4
N/A

0
1
40
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
42
50
28

1
0
5
N/A

0
0
32
N/A

1
7
25
N/A

0
26
0
N/A

2
33
62
71

0
8
4
N/A

0
0
10
N/A

2
0
60
N/A

0
14
0
N/A

2
22
74
116

3
0
0
0
0

15
0
0
0
0

35
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

53
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0

36
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

37
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

5
0
0
0
0

41
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

46
0
0
0
0

—
341
0
0
0
0

—
2
0
0
0
25

—
7
0
0
0
163

—
197
6
0
0
66

—
547
6
0
0
254

—
99
0
0
0
0

—
5
0
0
0
38

—
26
0
1
0
165

—
289
6
1
0
33

—
419
6
2
0
236

—
70
0
0
0
0

—
7
0
0
0
36

—
48
0
1
0
193

—
1,333
8
1
0
51

—
1,458
8
2
0
280

$657

$565

$1,574

$1,941

$4,765

$340

$556

$1,508

$2,364

$4,839

$278

$647

$1,448

$3,301

$5,790

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[88] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 52
HOUSING CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/State

Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds Bonds

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds Bonds

Total

General
Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$0
0
0
0
N/A
0

$0
0
0
0
N/A
0

$0
0
0
0
N/A
0

$8
0
57
0
N/A
0

$8
0
57
0
N/A
0

$0
0
0
0
N/A
0

$0
0
0
0
N/A
0

$0
0
0
0
N/A
0

$18
0
106
0
N/A
3

$18
0
106
0
N/A
3

$0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A

$0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A

$0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A

$15
0
60
0
N/A
N/A

$15
0
60
0
N/A
N/A

0
25
0
0
0

0
0
0
3
0

0
16
0
1
0

0
14
0
60
0

0
55
0
64
0

0
35
0
0
0

0
14
0
3
0

0
17
0
3
0

0
3
0
95
0

0
69
0
101
0

0
15
0
0
0

0
15
0
3
0

0
17
0
4
0

0
15
0
99
0

0
62
0
106
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
77
22
0

0
0
14
18
0

0
0
1
0
0

0
0
92
40
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
91
4
0

0
0
14
22
0

0
0
2
0
0

0
0
107
26
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
110
3
0

0
0
14
22
0

0
0
2
0
0

0
0
126
25
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4

0
0
187
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
115

0
0
187
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
126

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18

0
0
208
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
153

0
0
208
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
178

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13

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

0
0
247
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
155

0
0
247
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
176

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
1

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
N/A

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
0
2
0
0
0

—
0
2
0
0
0

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
0
1
0
0
0

—
0
1
0
0
0

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
0
16
0
0
0

—
0
0
0
0
0

—
0
14
0
0
0

—
0
30
0
0
0

$32

$106

$236

$257

$631

$42

$130

$264

$381

$818

$28

$155

$304

$360

$847

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[89]

Table 53
ALL OTHER CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($ IN MILLIONS)
Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds Bonds

Region/State

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
General Federal
State
Fund
Funds
Funds Bonds

Total

General
Fund

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
Federal
State
Funds
Funds
Bonds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$0
8
0
0
0
0

$0
7
0
0
0
0

$0
49
0
0
2
0

$757
3
414
6
65
24

$757
67
414
6
67
24

$0
8
0
0
0
0

$0
7
0
0
0
0

$0
37
0
0
12
0

$1,092
10
433
34
18
16

$1,092
62
433
34
30
16

$0
3
0
0
0
N/A

$0
3
0
0
38
N/A

$0
8
0
0
16
N/A

$1,129
11
659
34
2
N/A

$1,129
25
659
34
56
N/A

101
267
362
0
0

0
2
0
47
0

46
60
0
300
0

89
274
30
137
432

236
603
392
484
432

87
196
365
0
0

0
2
0
113
0

38
37
0
118
0

148
351
27
216
262

273
586
392
447
262

86
25
231
0
0

0
13
0
88
0

20
73
0
132
0

110
223
25
610
574

216
334
256
830
574

21
181
268
49
0

0
390
4
0
0

7
39
13
3
0

563
0
181
359
0

591
610
466
411
0

22
150
301
10
0

0
415
3
0
0

8
38
6
3
0

955
0
149
408
0

985
603
459
421
0

22
133
305
7
0

0
470
15
0
0

5
99
9
5
0

900
95
57
522
0

927
797
386
534
0

0
3
39
42
20
12
0

0
1
8
3
6
3
0

57
14
20
48
15
12
0

0
1
106
0
0
0
0

57
19
173
93
41
27
0

0
3
13
26
13
8
0

4
9
8
10
4
14
0

35
4
15
40
26
29
0

85
5
120
0
0
5
0

124
21
156
76
43
56
0

0
4
20
32
15
8
0

3
10
23
9
10
12
0

28
23
24
34
29
3
0

112
6
120
30
0
22
0

143
43
187
105
54
45
0

0
0
259
0
0
11
10
76
11
9
26
18

0
0
0
0
0
36
20
0
1
15
1
9

129
97
1,836
0
286
222
44
0
25
0
2
39

73
0
59
287
0
56
202
25
279
10
5
0

202
97
2,154
287
286
325
276
101
316
34
34
66

0
0
68
0
0
7
4
0
8
8
21
12

0
0
0
0
0
16
15
0
2
7
2
6

194
88
1,996
0
262
58
61
0
24
0
6
39

130
0
287
823
0
87
379
55
183
12
12
0

324
88
2,351
823
262
168
459
55
217
27
41
57

0
0
47
0
0
58
7
0
N/A
20
4
5

0
5
0
0
0
116
49
0
N/A
30
9
5

36
126
1,419
0
136
45
114
0
N/A
0
7
21

30
0
313
280
0
35
0
0
N/A
6
8
0

66
131
1,779
280
136
254
170
0
N/A
56
28
31

485
64
19
N/A

0
0
126
N/A

24
10
41
N/A

0
150
136
N/A

509
224
322
221

3
57
16
N/A

0
0
187
N/A

12
174
63
N/A

0
38
114
N/A

15
269
380
271

3
24
16
N/A

0
0
96
N/A

30
20
103
N/A

0
18
75
N/A

33
62
290
320

62
0
0
56
0

21
0
0
2
0

32
10
0
49
0

0
1
0
0
0

115
11
0
107
0

40
0
0
28
0

8
0
0
2
0

37
6
0
104
0

0
1
0
25
0

85
7
0
159
0

15
0
0
38
0

11
0
0
4
0

46
7
0
23
0

0
1
0
61
0

72
8
0
126
0

—
74
0
4
1
0

—
11
1
8
8
24

—
10
67
1
12
31

—
8
184
13
0
134

—
103
252
26
21
189

—
56
0
2
1
0

—
25
6
4
8
30

—
6
62
0
37
34

—
9
234
18
0
89

—
96
302
24
46
153

—
31
0
2
0
0

—
59
5
5
0
16

—
39
117
0
0
69

—
36
512
11
0
122

—
165
634
18
0
207

$2,558

$754

$3,652

$5,063

$12,248

$1,533

$907

$3,709

$6,830

$13,250

$1,161

$1,104

$2,866

$6,750

$12,201

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL*

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[90] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Capital Spending Notes

Juvenile, drug programs and criminally insane programs are
generally part of other state agency operating budgets. Private

The totals for Total Capital Expenditures and All Other Capital

funding for higher education totaling $10 million in fiscal 2002 and

Expenditures do not reflect Alabama’s Federal or Other State

$13 million in fiscal 2003 is used for projects but is not included as

Funds expenditures for the All Other Capital expenditure category.

either general, federal, other state funds or bond funds.

See the note below for greater detail.

Environmental capital spending includes the Department of

Alabama: Capital expenditures for higher education are not
tracked at the state level. For All Other Expenditures, capital
expenditures made from Federal and Other State Funds are not
reported separately.

Environmental Management, the Coastal Resource Management
Council, the Rhode Island Water Resources Board and the general
obligation portion of Rhode Island Clean Water Finance Agency
finance capitalization funding. The Narragansett Bay Commission is
not included, along with the remainder of CWFA financing. The

California: The recent passage of two Environmental general

Rhode Island Health and Educational Building Corporation is

obligation bonds results in increased expenditures in the 2003

included in the “other” category.

estimated fiscal year.
South Carolina: The state no longer prepares an Annual Projects
Connecticut: Fiscal 2002 includes a one-time open space land

Improvement Plan. South Carolina has adopted a five-year Capital

purchase of 15,300 acres of watershed land for $80 million.

Project Improvement Plan with annual updates for new projects
only. As result of moving to this new system, the state no longer

Florida: Environmental capital spending increased in fiscal 2003 by
$100 million due to an appropriation for the Save Our Everglades

collects estimated expenditure data on existing projects. However,
actual data is still available and is reported.

program.
Tennessee: Bond estimates represent bond authorizations, while
Indiana: Bond figures include project appropriations approved

actual bonds represent bond proceeds utilized.

during the fiscal year.
Texas: Bond funds include expenditures made from bond
Kentucky: Capital expenditures are included in “Other State
Funds.” All fund source appropriations for capital expenditures are
by law transferred to the Capital Projects Fund. Expenditures for
road and bridge construction and maintenance are included in the
Total Transportation expenditures category, but not reflected in the
Capital only section.

proceeds, to the extent that agencies reported bond proceeds as
a method of finance.The method of finance for capital expenditures
is not available. Housing capital expenditures do not include Private
Activity Bonds and bonds issued by the Texas State Affordable
Housing Corporation. Environmental totals do not include parks
and wildlife. Transportation totals include highway construction

Michigan: Higher education capital expenditures made from non-

contracts, which were not included as a capital expenditure in

state funds are excluded.

previous surveys.

Montana: Capital expenditures are not reported separately but

Utah: Included in general funds are school funds (income tax

are included in Total Expenditures.

revenue) which in Utah is restricted by the state constitution for
the sole use of public and higher education.

Pennsylvania: While federal funds for transportation capital
expenditures are anticipated, they are not included due to the

Not included in the fiscal 2001 numbers are two items funded

difficulty in estimating the varying reimbursement and match

through authorized revenue bonds for a Board of Regents Office

requirements.

building ($8 million) and a Student Center Addition at Utah Valley
State College ($13.5 million).

Rhode Island: Third party funding totaling $7 million in fiscal 2002
and $5 million in fiscal 2003 is used for capital transportation

Not included in the fiscal 2002 numbers are four items funded

projects. Transportation includes airports and the Rhode Island

through authorized revenue bonds including: $100 million for a

Public Transit Agency but is not included as either general, federal,

University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute expansion; $1.5

other state funds or bond funds. Corrections include judicial

million for a student center expansion at Dixie State College; $6

functions and in fiscal 2004 will include $1 million within the

million for a cafeteria remodel at Salt Lake Community College; and

Attorney General’s office for a fingerprint identification system.The

$25 million for a hospital expansion at the University of Utah.

state does not provide aid to local governments for corrections.
2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[91]

Not included in the fiscal 2003 numbers are four items funded

loan funds are typically provided startup General Fund

through authorized revenue bonds including: $2.5 million for a

appropriations when established. Some loan funds receive periodic

multi-event center at Snow College (Richfield campus); $9 million

General Fund appropriations to enhance the loan programs. Once

for a student housing complex at Southern Utah University; $33

established, loan repayments generally remain within the loan

million for an east campus central plant at the University of Utah;

programs in order to provide additional monies for future loans.

and $19 million for research park facilities at Utah State University.

Several revolving loan programs provide low-interest loans to local
governments, such as cities and counties, to provide water and

Regarding housing capital expenditures, numerous revolving loan
programs have been established by the State of Utah. These loan
funds are typically provided startup General Fund appropriations
when established. Some loan funds receive periodic General Fund
appropriations to enhance the loan programs. Once established,
loan repayments generally remain within the loan programs in
order to provide additional monies for future loans. One revolving
loan program provides low-interest loans and grants to Utah
residents for low-income housing. This loan fund is the Olene
Walker Housing Trust Fund ($4 million available in 2001, $4 million
available in 2002, and $4 million projected available for 2003).These
funds were shown under capital for housing in previous years, but

sewer systems. These loan funds include: 1) Water Resources
Construction Fund ($8 million available in 2001, $7 million available
in 2002, and $9 million projected available for 2003); 2) Water
Resources Cities Water Loan Fund ($2 million available in 2001, $1
million available in 2002, and $2 million projected available for
2003); 3) Water Resources Conservation and Development Fund
($20 million available in 2001, $13 million available in 2002, and $16
million projected available for 2003); 4) Water Quality Loan Fund
($17 million available in 2001, $22 million available in 2002, and $14
million projected available for 2003); and 5) Drinking Water Loan
Fund ($10 million available in 2001, $13 million available in 2002,
and $9 million projected available for 2003).

have been reclassified this year to a footnote.
West Virginia: Higher education bond fund information not
Regarding environmental capital expenditures, numerous revolving
loan programs have been established by the State of Utah. These

[92] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

available for the 201 State Expenditure Report has increased this
amount by $27 million.

CHAPTER NINE
REVENUE SOURCES
IN THE GENERAL FUND

Revenue in state general funds—the main source for state

of local government finance and the majority of states exclude

expenditures—totals $468.7 billion in fiscal 2002. Indicative of the

them from both their general funds and their revenue bases.

grueling fiscal conditions states have experienced, that amount is

However, many states use aid to local governments or other

$10 billion less than the general fund revenues collected in fiscal

subsidies to help reduce the amount of property taxes local

2001. General fund revenue collections in fiscal 2003 are estimated

governments require.

to be below fiscal 2001 levels as well.The major sources of general
fund revenue are displayed in Table 54.
The three main sources of general fund revenue—sales and
compensating use taxes, personal income taxes, and corporate
income taxes—account for 78.2 percent of general fund revenues.
Specifically, sales and use taxes represent 33.5 percent of the total,
personal income taxes account for 39.4 percent, and corporate
income taxes are 5.3 percent. Other taxes and fees equal 20.8
percent of general fund revenues, while gaming taxes represent 1
percent.

S t a t e Ta x Tr e n d s
Fiscal 2002 continued to be a painful one for state general fund
revenues. As economic recovery crawled forward, state coffers
continued to be pinched. During the late 1990s and into 2000,
states benefited from the booming stock market, and as capital
gains surged, state personal income tax collections in particular
swelled. But capital gains peaked in 2000 at $574 billion, falling to
$134.1 billion in 2001 and $71.5 billion in fiscal 2002.The impact on
personal income tax collections was palpable: personal income tax

Depending on the state, “other taxes and fees” in the general fund

collections fell by 14.3 percent in the first quarter of 2002, 22.3

may include cigarette and tobacco taxes, alcoholic beverage taxes,

percent in the second quarter, 1.6 percent in the third quarter and

insurance premiums, severance taxes, licenses and fees for permits,

0.7 percent in the fourth.

inheritances taxes, and charges for state-provided services.

To bolster their hemorrhaging revenue systems, states raised taxes

States use a variety of taxes and fees to finance programs, not all of

and fees by $8 billion in fiscal 2003—mostly in cigarette and

which are reflected in the general fund.These include some gaming

tobacco taxes and sales taxes—after cutting taxes by $33.4 billion

taxes and lottery proceeds, and motor vehicle taxes fees, which

during the previous eight years. By comparison, during the 1980s

often are earmarked for special purposes or specific funds, such as

net state tax reductions occurred only twice, totaling just more

education or roads.

than $3 billon. Presently, nine states do not have broad-based
personal income taxes: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire,

Table 55 illustrates the major items that are excluded from general

South Dakota,Tennessee,Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.

fund revenue sources. For example, property taxes are a mainstay
Figure 23
REVENUE SOURCES IN THE GENERAL FUND

Other
Taxes & Fees
20.8%
Sales Tax
33.5%

Gaming Tax
1.0%
Corporate
Income Tax
5.3%

Personal Income Tax
39.4%

[94] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table 54
REVENUE SOURCES IN THE GENERAL FUND ($ IN MILLIONS)
Actual Fiscal 2001
Personal Corp.
Other
Sales Income Income Gaming Taxes &
Tax
Tax
Tax
Tax
Fees

Region/state

Total

Actual Fiscal 2002
Personal Corp.
Other
Sales Income Income Gaming Taxes &
Tax
Tax
Tax
Tax
Fees

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Personal Corp.
Other
Sales Income Income GamingTaxes &
Tax
Tax
Tax
Tax
Fees

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island*
Vermont

3,125
818
3,755
N/A
713
215

4,744
1,168
9,903
N/A
914
450

551
96
945
354
69
41

591
N/A
0
4
186
0

2,976
309
2,125
1,468
683
190

11,986
2,391
16,728
1,826
2,564
896

2,998
836
3,696
N/A
746
208

4,266
1,070
7,913
N/A
808
435

381
77
586
383
33
36

647
N/A
0
4
220
0

2,554
349
2,093
1,570
796
188

10,845
2,332
14,288
1,957
2,602
867

3,062
868
3,708
N/A
778
N/A

4,333
1,070
8,026
N/A
809
N/A

561
93
799
393
64
N/A

656
N/A
0
4
244
N/A

3,502 12,115
351 2,382
2,320 14,853
1,633 2,030
855 2,750
N/A
N/A

N/A
2,626
5,759
6,272
7,204

718
5,134
7,989
23,566
7,492

62
374
1,441
4,328
1,603

N/A
385
713
29
0

1,549
1,282
5,083
1,898
4,263

2,329
9,801
20,985
36,093
20,562

N/A
2,642
5,997
6,131
7,292

714
4,772
6,837
25,854
7,139

133
273
1,213
3,616
1,418

N/A
414
776
30
0

1,579
1,255
5,726
1,740
4,211

2,426
9,356
20,549
37,371
20,060

N/A
2,709
6,000
6,303
7,519

695
4,731
6,966
21,460
7,090

54
323
2,066
3,522
1,422

N/A
432
806
30
0

1,576 2,325
1,222 9,417
6,918 22,756
1,480 32,795
5,175 21,206

5,958
3,687
966
5,936
3,610

7,996
3,780
4,792
7,263
5,157

1,036
855
2,022
915
537

969
0
0
0
0

3,827
730
1,209
7,195
759

19,786
9,052
8,989
21,309
10,063

6,052
3,761
956
6,038
3,696

7,471
3,541
4,234
7,304
4,980

803
709
1,983
712
503

1,029
0
0
0
0

3,766
697
1,254
6,874
841

19,121
8,708
8,427
20,928
10,020

6,400
4,303
918
6,362
3,760

7,760
3,698
4,100
7,501
5,120

830
550
1,896
725
490

1,175
428
0
0
0

3,945 20,110
947 9,926
1,170 8,084
8,072 22,660
853 10,223

1,691
1,659
3,802
1,754
905
367
452

2,427
1,977
5,915
3,976
1,233
206
NA

285
212
729
226
138
52
0

94
0
60
0
0
8
0

726
567
1,176
483
181
192
372

5,223
4,415
11,682
6,439
2,457
825
825

1,692
1,704
3,773
1,758
919
369
458

2,372
1,830
5,443
3,754
1,160
197
NA

239
94
529
290
108
41
0

100
0
59
0
0
14
0

910
480
2,373
409
179
174
409

5,313
4,108
12,177
6,211
2,366
795
867

1,690
1,830
3,892
1,730
1,029
397
476

2,444
1,845
5,570
3,658
1,130
192
NA

226
125
542
179
111
44
0

94
0
59
0
0
13
0

698 5,152
352 4,152
2,409 12,472
449 6,016
186 2,456
207
853
415
891

1,544
1,678
13,946
4,862
2,248
2,406
1,458
3,436
2,000
4,402
2,273
852

2,037
1,805
0
7,643
2,779
1,763
1,120
7,391
2,127
130
7,226
1,021

125
235
1,345
N/A
290
542
322
460
180
521
364
113

3
6
17
N/A
0
417
170
0
0
0
NA
0

1,469
254
3,871
3,264
1,443
1,402
619
2,165
773
1,802
1,242
732

5,178
3,978
19,179
15,769
6,760
6,530
3,689
13,452
5,080
6,855
11,105
2,718

1,620
1,682
14,136
4,418
2,300
2,320
1,473
3,706
2,027
4,400
2,430
1,035

1,970
1,790
0
7,350
2,703
1,770
1,131
7,135
1,920
93
6,711
886

193
219
1,218
N/A
207
438
293
409
111
424
290
87

3
4
19
N/A
0
407
181
0
0
0
NA
0

1,491
248
3,956
3,358
1,483
1,529
556
2,260
872
1,747
1,248
816

5,277
3,943
19,329
15,126
6,693
6,464
3,634
13,510
4,930
6,664
10,679
2,824

1,608
1,708
14,485
4,397
2,364
2,196
1,437
3,916
2,168
5,140
2,342
907

1,991
1,833
0
7,252
2,746
1,911
1,141
7,089
2,307
92
6,798
1,089

196
232
1,085
N/A
278
400
261
841
168
545
292
75

3
4
21
N/A
0
412
171
0
0
0
NA
0

2,984
1,290
1,326
14,632

2,360
906
1,955
N/A

549
220
156
N/A

0
23
11
0

289
1,555
1,257
14,731

6,181
3,994
4,705
29,363

3,001
1,310
1,315
14,476

2,113
1,025
1,988
N/A

353
142
137
N/A

0
136
13
0

715
1,322
960
13,923

6,182
3,935
4,413
28,400

3,010
1,358
1,253
14,541

2,070
970
1,894
N/A

310
120
62
N/A

0
697 6,087
73 1,376 3,897
8
994 4,211
0 13,783 28,324

1,909
647
N/A
1,431
296

4,018
1,024
556
1,713
0

330
142
104
175
0

31
0
21
0
0

429
172
588
296
354

6,717
1,985
1,269
3,615
650

1,868
657
N/A
1,441
313

3,345
836
518
1,610
0

178
76
68
119
0

34
0
44
0
0

419
131
633
252
325

5,844
1,700
1,263
3,422
638

1,826
697
N/A
1,445
308

3,290
886
521
1,599
0

220
86
47
122
0

39
0
45
0
0

—
21,277
1,625
646
N/A
5,903

—
44,614
1,105
N/A
4,540
N/A

—
6,899
61
N/A
373
N/A

—
4
N/A
673
N/A
0

—
-1,366
651
415
325
4,926

—
71,428
3,442
1,734
5,238
10,829

—
21,355
1,603
655
N/A
5,812

—
33,047
1,071
N/A
3,678
N/A

—
5,333
45
N/A
195
N/A

—
3
N/A
660
N/A
0

—
12,501
722
437
456
4,639

—
72,239
3,441
1,752
4,329
10,451

—
22,349
1,755
689
N/A
5,969

—
32,880
1,031
N/A
4,143
N/A

—
6,452
2
N/A
202
N/A

—
—
—
4 11,459 73,144
N/A
847 3,635
679
446 1,814
N/A
304 4,649
0 4,707 10,676

161,602 181,730 27,011

5,400 100,661 476,405

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania*
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan*
Ohio
Wisconsin*
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri*
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

1,538
258
4,020
3,179
1,526
1,476
565
2,246
802
1,825
1,333
859

5,336
4,035
19,611
14,828
6,914
6,396
3,575
14,091
5,445
7,602
10,765
2,930

SOUTHWEST

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas*
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming

377
122
615
276
297

5,752
1,791
1,228
3,442
605

FAR WEST

Alaska
California*
Hawaii
Nevada*
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

156,344 204,634 30,376

4,416 82,901 478,670

157,074 184,784 24,696

4,796 97,427 468,777

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[95]

Table 55
ITEMS EXCLUDED FROM REVENUE SOURCES

Sales and
Personal
Compensating Use income
Taxes
Taxes

Region/State

Corporate
Income
Taxes

Gaming
Taxes

Lottery
Funds

Cigarette and
Tobacco
Taxes

Motor
Fuel
Taxes

Alcoholic
Beverage
Taxes

Insurance
Premium
Taxes

Property
Taxes

Utility
Taxes

Severance
Taxes

Federal
Funds

Licenses
and
Fees
Other

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

X
P
X

N/A

X

X

X

X
N/A
X

P

X

X
X
N/A
X
X

N/A

X
X

X
X

X

P
X
X
X

P

P

N/A
N/A
X
X
N/A

X
X
X
X
X

X
P
X
P

X

P
P

X
X
X
X

P
P
P
P
X

P
P
P

P

X
X
P
P
X

X

X
X

P

P

P
X
P

P
X

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania

X
P
P

P
P

P

P

X
P
P

X
X

P

X
X

P

X
X
X
X
P

P

X
P

GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin

P

P

P
P

P
P

P

P

P
P
X
X
X

P

P
P
P

P
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

P
P
P

P
P
P

X
X
X
X
X

PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota

P
P
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X

P
P

X
P
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

P
X
X

P
X
X
X

SOUTHEAST

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

P

X

X
X
X

P

X

P

X

P

X
X
P

X

X
X
X
X
P

P
X

P

X
X
N/A

P

X

P

X
P

P

X
P

X

P

X
X

P

P

P

X

P

P

X
X

P
X

P

X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X

X

X
X

P

X
X

SOUTHWEST

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas

X
X
N/A
X

X

X

X
X
X

X

P

X
X
X
P

ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming

P
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

P
X

X
X
N/A
X

P
P

N/A
X

X

X
X
X

P
P

X
X
P
P

X
X
X

X
X
P

X
X
X

X
X
P

P

X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X

P
P

P
P

X

X
P
X
X
X

P

29

38

25

P

FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
ALL STATES

P
P
N/A

N/A

X

15

Excluded=X

X

X

X
X

9

8

31

Partially Excluded=P

P

32

13
Not Applicable=N/A

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2001 State Expenditure Report, June 2002

[96] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

X
X
X
X
X
34

6

8

39

X
X

21

17

Revenue Sources in the General Fund

fund sources and/or are distributed to local governments.The dollar
amounts shown for the survey are the state general fund portion

Arizona: Figures do not include transfers to the general fund.

only.

California: In fiscal 2001, the General Fund made a large loan for

Pennsylvania: Other taxes and fees include non-tax revenues

the purpose of buying electricity during the energy crisis. This is

such as interest earnings, transfers from other funds and

reflected in the negative amount for Other Taxes and Fees. The

miscellaneous revenues.

General Fund was repaid in fiscal 2002 when the state sold energy
revenue bonds.

Rhode Island: In previous years, lottery revenues were included
in “other taxes and fees.” This year’s submission includes lottery

Michigan: Actual fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 amounts reflect

revenues in “gaming taxes.”

general fund non-dedicated revenue as contained in the respective

“corporate income taxes.” Previously, they were included in “other

State of Michigan Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.

taxes and fees.” Fiscal 2001 data reflect the previous edition of the

Revenue figures have been adjusted to put them on a basis

State Expenditure Report, fiscal 2002 figures are preliminary, and

comparable to the consensus estimates. Fiscal 2003 estimates are

fiscal 2003 data reflect the enacted budget.

Franchise taxes are included in

the May 2003 consensus revenue estimates. Revenue totals are
affected by phased-in rate cuts in personal income tax and in single

Texas: The Comptroller’s 2003 base revenue estimate is adjusted

business tax (corporate tax).

for legislative changes and federal flexible grant funds received in
July 2003. Total revenues do not include beginning balances and

Missouri: In fiscal 2002, corporate income taxes include corporate

adjustments. Property taxes are excluded because Texas does not

franchise taxes that corporations paid on their corporate income

have a state property tax. The corporate franchise tax is included.

tax form with their corporate income tax. Fiscal 2003 amounts

Although the formula for calculating this tax has an income

reflect revised estimates as of January 2003.

component, the tax itself is not considered a corporate income tax.

Nevada: Nevada does not have a personal income tax, a

Wisconsin: Amounts include General Purpose Revenues (GPR)

corporate income tax, or a lottery. Portions of the sales and

only. GPR-earned, departmental revenues, and transfers are not

compensating use taxes, gaming taxes, cigarette and tobacco taxes,

included.

alcoholic beverage taxes, and licenses and fees go to non-general

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[97]

APPENDIX

Table A-1
TOTAL STATE EXPENDITURES BY FUND SOURCE (EXCLUDES BONDS) ($ IN MILLIONS)

State
Funds

Region/State

Actual Fiscal 2001
State &
Federal
Federal
Funds
Funds

State
Funds

Actual Fiscal 2002
State &
Federal
Federal
Funds
Funds

Estimated Fiscal 2003
State &
State
Federal
Federal
Funds
Funds
Funds

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

$14,744
3,729
22,270
2,388
3,316
1,758

$3,338
1,540
1,024
1,000
1,429
866

$18,082
5,269
23,294
3,388
4,745
2,624

$15,288
3,968
22,927
2,601
3,636
1,889

$3,427
1,685
1,119
1,104
1,477
960

$18,715
5,653
24,046
3,705
5,113
2,849

$15,607
3,701
22,537
2,697
3,675
N/A

$3,637
1,905
1,106
1,177
1,708
N/A

$19,244
5,606
23,643
3,874
5,383
N/A

4,506
15,721
24,742
52,257
27,919

810
4,344
6,609
25,570
12,000

5,316
20,065
31,351
77,827
39,919

4,565
16,605
26,562
55,218
29,652

867
4,838
7,138
28,065
13,320

5,432

21,443
33,700
83,283
42,972

4,618
17,479
26,411
56,486
30,986

907
5,680
8,357
31,985
15,334

5,525
23,159
34,768
88,471
46,320

28,255
12,315
28,328
35,792
23,042

8,188
4,840
8,950
5,400
5,050

36,443
17,155
37,278
41,192
28,092

28,913
12,401
29,530
37,729
25,380

8,418
5,649
9,548
6,286
5,797

37,331
18,050
39,078
44,015
31,177

30,182
12,981
28,040
39,450
17,815

8,329
6,164
11,276
7,825
5,688

38,511
19,145
39,316
47,275
23,503

9,337
6,124
15,997
10,656
4,472
1,395
1,413

2,982
2,585
4,157
4,675
1,586
888
923

12,319
8,709
20,154
15,331
6,058
2,283
2,336

9,469
6,805
15,377
11,289
4,813
1,469
1,479

3,556
2,849
4,708
5,261
1,754
960
965

13,025
9,654
20,085
16,550
6,567
2,429
2,444

9,578
6,937
17,960
11,595
4,952
1,676
1,473

3,441
3,086
5,433
5,947
1,830
1,027
1,011

13,019
10,023
23,393
17,542
6,782
2,703
2,484

10,549
7,920
38,091
15,776
11,537
11,730
6,354
18,696
9,453
10,846
20,034
4,514

4,868
3,155
13,351
8,401
5,118
4,714
2,947
7,574
4,455
6,338
4,131
2,650

15,417
11,075
51,442
24,177
16,655
16,444
9,301
26,270
13,908
17,184
24,165
7,164

11,319
8,559
31,719
16,861
11,493
12,057
6,610
17,683
9,361
11,587
21,359
5,311

5,296
3,460
14,282
9,143
5,730
5,422
3,498
8,141
5,085
6,941
4,892
2,585

16,615
12,019
46,001
26,004
17,223
17,479
10,108
25,824
14,446
18,528
26,251
7,896

13,402
9,556
33,436
16,583
11,724
12,795
7,099
18,104
10,082
12,101
21,286
5,370

6,906
3,926
15,535
11,398
5,897
6,057
4,034
7,676
4,978
7,732
5,100
2,881

20,308
13,482
48,971
27,981
17,621
18,852
11,133
25,780
15,060
19,833
26,386
8,251

12,308
6,073
8,539
36,666

3,751
2,989
3,257
15,580

16,059
9,062
11,796
52,246

13,955
5,997
8,965
38,816

4,691
2,606
3,883
17,826

18,646
8,603
12,848
56,642

13,687
5,733
9,168
39,687

5,565
2,955
4,385
19,176

19,252
8,688
13,553
58,863

9,986
2,701
1,926
5,851
1,279

2,601
1,279
1,141
1,847
265

12,587
3,980
3,067
7,698
1,544

10,512
2,822
1,958
5,329
1,309

2,791
1,414
1,278
1,723
295

13,303
4,236
3,236
7,052
1,604

10,803
2,962
2,067
5,190
1,339

3,051
1,659
1,441
1,829
332

13,854
4,621
3,508
7,019
1,671

—
92,025
6,121
3,567
11,912
17,446

—
41,273
1,087
1,143
3,006
4,892

—
133,298
7,208
4,710
14,918
22,338

—
96,200
6,286
2,898
15,416
18,428

—
46,623
1,160
1,136
3,473
5,371

—
142,823
7,446
4,034
18,889
23,799

—
94,664
6,423
4,115
14,331
18,948

—
54,566
1,351
1,501
4,073
4,935

—
149,230
7,774
5,616
18,404
23,883

$732,376

$260,567

$992,943

$760,375

$288,496

$1,048,871

$767,491

$321,792

$1,089,283

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

Note: State funds are defined as general funds and other state funds (bonds are excluded).
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 2002 State Expenditure Report

[100] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Table A-2
CHILD HEALTH INSURANCE BLOCK GRANTS ($ IN MILLIONS)

Region/state

General
Fund

Actual Fiscal 2001
Other
State
Federal
Funds
Funds

Total

General
Fund

Actual Fiscal 2002
Other
State
Federal
Funds
Funds

Total

Estimated Fiscal 2003
Other
General
State
Federal
Fund
Funds
Funds

Total

NEW ENGLAND

Connecticut*
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

11
3

0
0

7
13

18
5

0
0

12
13

3
15
1

18
16
0
5
2
1

24
5

0
0

16
15

3
33
1

30
18
0
5
48
1

0
15
N/A

2
0
N/A

4
23
N/A

40
20
0
6
38
N/A

1
7
0

1
0
0

0
15
0

2
0
0

2
47
0
0
2

0
0
29
267
45

2
86
78
449
105

4
133
107
716
152

2
61
0
0
26

1
0
36
334
32

2
113
62
360
111

5
174
98
694
169

2
71
0
0
35

1
0
45
397
31

2
131
84
402
121

5
202
129
799
187

9
21
0
112
8

2
59
8
0
1

37
0
17
15
20

58
80
25
127
29

15
22
0
134
10

2
60
9
0
1

30
0
20
25
24

47
82
29
159
35

15
22
0
176
14

3
61
11
0
1

32
0
24
27
28

50
83
35
203
43

4
7
0
4
0
1
1

2
0
0
5
4
0
0

9
22
0
50
7
2
5

15
29
0
69
11
3
6

8
11
0
15
0
1
2

0
1
20
7
4
0
0

12
31
38
57
12
3
7

20
43
58
79
16
4
9

11
11
0
12
0
1
3

0
1
29
16
8
0
0

17
34
53
75
20
3
9

28
46
82
103
28
4
12

6
1
16
25
12
7
0
23
2
0
11
4

5
0
46
3
5
2
9
2
7
0
7
0

44
2
143
69
66
32
49
71
34
0
33
17

55
3
205
97
83
41
58
96
43
0
51
21

10
0
0
40
13
10
0
27
6
0
3
6

5
0
104
0
7
6
14
0
5
0
17
0

58
2
236
100
70
58
70
73
41
0
38
26

73
2
340
140
90
74
84
100
52
0
58
32

17
1
34
61
20
17
0
43
7
0
9
6

5
0
93
5
0
0
16
0
5
0
17
0

84
2
313
165
69
68
84
125
45
0
50
29

106
3
440
231
89
85
100
168
57
0
76
35

0

15

45

0

19

52

20

67

0
0

29
243

8
217

0
7

29
486

71
0
37
710

0

7
122

60
0
36
365

11
214

0
26

43
468

87
0
54
708

0
3
3
0
1

12
0
0
4
0

20
11
10
20
2

32
14
13
24
3

0
3
3
0
1

16
0
0
6
0

27
13
11
24
3

43
16
14
30
4

0
3
3
0
1

27
0
0
8
0

49
13
12
22
2

76
16
15
30
3

—
161
1
7
0
0

—
0
0
0
4
1

—
312
3
13
11
4

—
473
4
20
15
5

—
234
2
9
0
0

—
0
0
0
5
4

—
454
3
20
12
6

—
688
5
29
16
10

—
291
2
12
0
0

—
0
0
0
5
4

—
541
4
24
13
7

—
832
6
36
18
11

$672

$546

$2,225

$3,443

$937

$723

$2,881

$4,540

$1,169

$837

$3,419

$5,425

MID-ATLANTIC

Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
GREAT LAKES

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin*
PLAINS

Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri*
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHEAST

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

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
ROCKY MOUNTAIN

Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
FAR WEST

Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL

Puerto Rico

0

0

0

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[101]

Child Health Insurance Block Grants

Tennessee children is included in our TennCare waiver. Tennessee
can only access these Child Health Insurance Block Grant funds if

Connecticut: The SCHIP appropriation is “gross funded”: federal

our waiver expires or we revert back to the Medicaid program.

funds are deposited directly into the state treasury.
Wisconsin: Wisconsin received a waiver for fiscal 2002 to cover
Missouri: Data are from the CMS 64 report used for federal

adults with incomes greater than 100 percent of the federal

reporting of Medicaid expenditures.The split between the General

poverty level (FPL) with the S-CHIP match.The fiscal 2002 increase

Revenue Fund and Other State Funds is an estimate. Medicaid does

represents both program/caseload growth and shifting some adults

not track the General Revenue Fund versus Other State Funds in

from the medical assistance (MA) budget to the S-CHIP budget.

its reporting.
Tennessee: Tennessee received approval for the Child Health
Insurance Block Grant on September 3, 1999. Insurance for

[102] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

Methodology

as well as expenditures made for juvenile correction programs.
States were asked to exclude expenditures for drug abuse

The 2002 State Expenditure Report reflects three years of data:

rehabilitation programs and institutions for the criminally insane.

actual fiscal year 2001 actual fiscal year 2002, and estimated fiscal
year 2003.The text of this report focuses on actual fiscal year 2002

Transportation figures include capital and operating expenditures

data.

for highways, mass transit, and airports. States were also asked to
include expenditures for road assistance for local governments, the

This survey reports state expenditures in six functional categories:

administration of the department of transportation, truck and

elementary and secondary education, higher education, public

train/railroad programs, motor vehicle licensing, and gas tax and fee

assistance including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and

collection. The data exclude spending for port authorities, state

other cash assistance, Medicaid, corrections, and transportation. All

police and highway patrol.

other expenditures make up a seventh category. The report
includes expenditures from four fund sources, including general

The “all other” expenditure category includes all remaining

funds, federal funds, other state funds, and bonds. Data for each

programs not captured in the functional categories previously

category include employer contributions to current employees’

described, including the State Children’s Health Insurance Program

pensions and to employee health benefits for employees.

and any debt service for other state programs (i.e., environmental
projects, housing). States with lotteries were asked to exclude

Elementary and secondary education spending includes state and

prizes paid to lottery winners. States were also asked to exclude

federal fund expenditures only, and excludes local funds raised for

expenditures for state-owned utilities and liquor stores.

education purposes. States also were asked to include, where
applicable, state expenditures that support the state’s Department

Capital spending is included with operating expenditures within

of Education, transportation of school children, adult literacy

each functional category, unless otherwise noted. Capital

programs, handicapped education programs, programs for other

expenditures have also been collected separately in the following

special populations (i.e., gifted and talented programs), anti-drug

categories: corrections, environmental projects, higher education,

programs, and vocational education. States were asked to exclude

housing, and transportation. Capital expenditure data can be found

spending for day care programs in the school system and spending

in Chapter Eight.

for school health and immunization programs.

Chapter Nine illustrates the major sources of state revenue

For higher education, states were requested to include

including sales taxes, personal income taxes, corporate income

expenditures made for capital construction, community colleges,

taxes, gaming taxes, and other taxes and fees. Readers are

vocational education, law, medical, veterinary, nursing and technical

cautioned against comparing federal fund figures presented here

schools, and assistance to private colleges and universities, as well as

with those on Federal aid which may be referred to in other

tuition and fees and student loan programs. Higher education

documents, particularly those from the U.S. Bureau of the Census;

expenditures exclude federal research grants and endowments to

many states have not established comprehensive statewide

universities.

reporting of Federal funds and as a result the numbers in this
report may understate Federal funds for any one function.

Spending for public assistance includes expenditures for cash
assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

An important part of the report is tables included in four of the

(TANF) programs, and other cash assistance (i.e., state supplements

functional categories that reflect expenditures that states have

to the Supplemental Security Income program, general or

excluded from their reported data. Each table underscores the

emergency assistance). States were asked to exclude administrative

observation that state-to-state expenditure comparisons in any

costs from reported expenditures. Medicaid spending amounts also

functional category can be misleading. For example, one state may

exclude administrative costs, while including spending from state

have included its juvenile institutions in its corrections budget, while

funds, federal matching funds and other funds and revenue sources

another state may have included them in its human resources

used as Medicaid match such as provider taxes, fees, assessments,

budget. Comparisons for one state over time, however, should

donations, and local funds

prove accurate.

For corrections, states were asked to include, where applicable,

All years reported are state fiscal years unless otherwise indicated.

expenditures for capital construction, aid to local governments for

In 46 states the fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30.The

jails, parole programs, prison industries, and community corrections,

exceptions are as follows: in Alabama and Michigan the fiscal year

2002 STATE EXPENDITURE REPORT

[103]

begins on October 1; in Texas, the fiscal year begins on September

Other State Funds: expenditures from revenue sources, which

1; and in New York, the fiscal year begins on April 1. Additionally, the

are restricted by law for particular governmental functions or

length of budget cycles vary among states, with more than half of

activities. For example, a gasoline tax dedicated to a highway trust

the states budgeting annually and the remainder enacting biennial

fund would appear in the “Other State Funds” column. (Note: For

budgets.

Medicaid, other state funds include provider taxes, fees, donations,
assessments and local funds.)

Definitions

Bonds: expenditures from the sale of bonds, generally for capital

General fund: predominant fund for financing a state’s

projects.

operations. Revenues are received from broad-based state taxes.

State funds: general fund plus other state fund spending,

There are differences in how specific functions are financed from

excluding state spending from bonds.

state to state, however. Federal funds: funds received directly from
the Federal government.

[104] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE

BUDGET OFFICERS

2
0
0
2

OF

S TAT E B U D G E T O F F I C E R S

444 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 642
Washington, DC 20001-1511
202.624.5382
Fax 202.624.7745
www.nasbo.org

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

N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N

2002
S TAT E E X P E N D I T U R E R E P O RT

N

A T I O N A L

A

S S O C I A T I O N

O F

S

T A T E

B

U D G E T

O

F F I C E R S