0209 Fed Report on State Estimates for FMAP

8/14/2019 0209 Fed Report on State Estimates for FMAP

1/28


2/28

Temporary Increase in State FMAP House Proposal

The House-passed economic recovery bill would provide a temporary increase in the share of theMedicaid program paid by the federal government (known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage orFMAP). The provision would take effect immediately and would provide states with approximately $88billion in assistance over nine calendar quarters (October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010).

Rising unemployment and falling state tax revenues have put Medicaid programs across the country in abind. Just as more people are becoming eligible for Medicaid and other publicly funded health programs,states are having increased difficulty meeting the surging need while also balancing their budgets. Formore information see: State Budget Troubles Worsen at http://www.cbpp.org/9-8-08sfp.htm Thetemporary FMAP increase is designed to avoid steep increases in the ranks of the uninsured in the coming years by helping cash-strapped states.

There are three components to the House policy. First, each state would receive a base4.9 percentagepoint FMAP increase. Second, states that are experiencing particularly poor economic conditions, asindicated by a significant increase in unemployment, would receive a larger FMAP increase, that wouldreduce the states share of Medicaid costs by 8 percent, 12 percent, or 14 percent. Each states eligibility for a higher FMAP rate would be evaluated each quarter based on unemployment data, with statesqualifying for a greater level of assistance if their economic situation worsens. (No state would have theirhigher FMAP reduced if its unemployment dropped before July 1, 2010.) Third, each state would be heldharmless from any drop in its FMAP rate that would otherwise occur under the regular FMAP formula asa result of an increase in its per capita income relative to the national average in years prior to therecession. (States with higher incomes have lower FMAP rates than states with lower incomes.)

To receive an increased FMAP under this proposal, a state may not have Medicaid eligibility levels thatare more restrictive than were in effect on July 1, 2008. States whose current eligibility levels do not meetthis test would still be eligible to qualify for an increased FMAP if they take action to restore eligibility to

July 2008 levels. More detail on the proposal is available athttp://www.cbpp.org/1-22-09sfp.htm .

The Senate has a similar proposal, however the Senate proposal is less well-targeted to the states that arefacing the worst economic conditions. Only 20 percent of the funding provided under the Senate istargeted on the states with the largest increases in unemployment, which tend to have the largest budgetdeficits, while in the House version, about half of the funding reflects the additional increase in the FMAPprovided to states with the largest increases in unemployment. The Senate proposal may direct moremoney to some states with lesser need and not enough money to states facing the largest budget gaps.

This could mean that the states with the greatest needs have to make larger cuts in services or raise taxes both of which are a drag on the economy and undermines the goals of the recovery package overall because they received inadequate assistance.

The tables below provide estimates of the amount of assistance that each state would potentially receiveunder the House proposal, based on projections of future economic conditions. These estimates do notinclude the impact of the FMAP boost on foster care IV-E payments (which also use FMAP to allocateprogram costs between the federal and state governments), which will increase each states allocation by asmall amount. (The FMAP increase would not apply to Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH)payments and to SCHIP and other programs that set federal payments based on the FMAP.)


3/28

(Millions of dollars, total over States' FY2009-FY2011)

Additional Funding

U.S. Total $83,359.5

Alabama $820.0Alaska $246.3Arizona $1,879.8Arkansas $614.9California $11,069.2Colorado $855.6Connecticut $1,281.7Delaware $314.1District of Columbia $288.2Florida $4,255.1Georgia $1,635.8Hawaii $357.0Idaho $276.9Illinois $2,879.0Indiana $1,257.7Iowa $441.1Kansas $388.4Kentucky $920.9Louisiana $1,552.1Maine $434.0Maryland $1,406.5Massachusetts $2,824.6Michigan $2,219.2Minnesota $2,002.5Mississippi $724.3Missouri $1,491.2Montana $174.1Nebraska $243.5Nevada $440.9New Hampshire $231.7New Jersey $2,135.1New Mexico $528.3New York $12,452.0North Carolina $2,265.1North Dakota $90.5Ohio $2,820.8Oklahoma $860.0Oregon $802.2Pennsylvania $3,973.1Rhode Island $454.1South Carolina $766.9

South Dakota $96.6Tennessee $1,552.5Texas $5,371.5Utah $293.4Vermont $254.1Virginia $1,423.2Washington $1,985.6West Virginia $382.3Wisconsin $1,092.0Wyoming $102.3Puerto Rico $120.0

Fiscal Relief for State Medicaid CostsState by State Impact of the House Recovery Package


4/28

Temporary Increase in State FMAP Senate Proposal

The economic recovery bill reported out of the Senate Finance Committee would provide a temporary increase in the share of the Medicaid program paid by the federal government (known as the FederalMedical Assistance Percentage or FMAP). The provision would take effect immediately and wouldprovide states with approximately $87 billion in assistance over nine calendar quarters (October 1, 2008through December 31, 2010).

Rising unemployment and falling state tax revenues have put Medicaid programs across the country in abind. Just as more people are becoming eligible for Medicaid and other publicly funded health programs,states are having increased difficulty meeting the surging need while also balancing their budgets. Formore information see: State Budget Troubles Worsen at http://www.cbpp.org/9-8-08sfp.htm Thetemporary FMAP increase is designed to avoid steep increases in the ranks of the uninsured in the coming years by helping cash-strapped states.

There are three components to the policy. First, each state would receive a base 7.6 percentage pointFMAP increase. Second, states that are experiencing particularly poor economic conditions, as indicatedby a significant increase in unemployment, would receive a larger FMAP increase, that would reduce thestates share of Medicaid costs by 2.5 percent, 4.5 percent, or 6.5 percent. Each states eligibility for ahigher FMAP rate would be evaluated each quarter based on unemployment data, with states qualifying fora greater level of assistance if their economic situation worsens. (No state would see their higher FMAPreduced if its unemployment dropped before July 1, 2010.) Third, each state would be held harmlessfrom any drop in its FMAP rate that would otherwise occur under the regular FMAP formula as a result of an increase in its per capita income relative to the United States in years prior to the recession. (States withhigher incomes have lower FMAP rates than states with lower incomes.)

Increases in unemployment, the measure used to target the FMAP assistance, is a reliable way tomeasure the level of need for this type of assistance. The Senate provision, however, is significantly lesstargeted than the House-passed FMAP provision because the Senate provides a smaller share (about 20

percent) of the total amount of assistance to states with large unemployment rate increases (as comparedto about 50 percent under the House provision). With less targeting, more funding goes to states withlesser need and thus less funding goes to the states that need it the most. As a result, such states couldbe forced to make larger budget cuts and/or more tax increases to meet their balanced budgetrequirements. This would create a greater drag on the economy and threaten to counteract part of theintended federal economic stimulus.

To receive an increased FMAP under both the House and Senate FMAP proposal, a state may not haveMedicaid eligibility levels that are more restrictive than were in effect on July 1, 2008. States whose currenteligibility levels do not meet this test would still be eligible to qualify for an increased FMAP if they takeaction to restore eligibility to July 2008 levels. Detail on the proposal is available at:http://www.cbpp.org/1-26-09bud.htm .

The table below provides estimates of the amount of assistance that each state would potentially receive,based on projections of future economic conditions. These estimates do not include the impact of theFMAP boost on foster care IV-E payments (which also use FMAP to allocate program costs between thefederal and state governments), which will increase each states allocation by a small amount. (The FMAPincrease would not apply to Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments and to SCHIPand other programs that set federal payments based on the FMAP.)


5/28

(Millions of dollars, total over States' FY2009-FY2011)

Additional Funding

U.S. Total $78,642.0

Alabama $807.0Alaska $246.6Arizona $1,829.0Arkansas $713.2California $9,633.0Colorado $775.3Connecticut $1,116.8Delaware $284.3District of Columbia $299.7Florida $3,906.8Georgia $1,570.6Hawaii $328.7Idaho $276.7Illinois $2,513.9Indiana $1,211.0Iowa $563.1Kansas $433.2Kentucky $981.0Louisiana $1,611.6Maine $441.7Maryland $1,337.7Massachusetts $2,627.4Michigan $2,083.1Minnesota $1,743.9Mississippi $799.4Missouri $1,476.2Montana $181.1Nebraska $304.6Nevada $398.8New Hampshire $236.1New Jersey $1,933.2New Mexico $621.9New York $11,277.6North Carolina $2,172.7North Dakota $115.0Ohio $2,774.1Oklahoma $913.3Oregon $757.7Pennsylvania $3,700.4Rhode Island $401.0South Carolina $770.3

South Dakota $122.3Tennessee $1,492.7Texas $5,322.0Utah $330.1Vermont $249.5Virginia $1,315.7Washington $1,829.2West Virginia $464.6Wisconsin $1,136.2Wyoming $106.5Puerto Rico $91.2

Fiscal Relief for State Medicaid CostsState by State Impact of the Senate Recovery Package


6/28

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund House and Senate Proposals

Both the House and Senate economic recovery bills would create a $79-billion State FiscalStabilization Fund to help state and local governments fund education and other key services.

When states cut spending, they lay off employees, cancel contracts with vendors, reduce payments to

businesses and nonprofits that provide services, and cut benefit payments to individuals. All

of these steps remove demand from the economy, which only worsens a downturn. Federal assistancecan lessen the extent to which states take these harmful, pro-cyclical actions and the extent to

which vulnerable populations are hurt by state budget cuts.

The House and Senate version of State Fiscal Stabilization Fund are similar but have some key differences that give states more flexibility under the Senate version. Under both versions, about$64 billion of the Fund would be distributed through two block grants allocated by populationformulas. The larger block grant would provide about $38.8 billion, allocated by each statespopulation of individuals between the ages of 5 and 24. Funds in this block grant would beearmarked for education. Under the House bill, the money would first be used to restore stateeducation funding up to at least the FY 2008 funding level with any remainder sent to local schooldistricts. Under the Senate version, the money first would be used to restore state education funding to at least the FY 2008 level. Any remaining funding would funding would be used to increasefunding up to existing State formula levels and to allow the phase-in of previously enacted equity and adequacy adjustments. Any funding remaining after these uses must be sent to local schooldistricts. Under both versions, the smaller block grant would provide $24.8 billion over 2 years,allocated based on each states total population, to support other state services. In order to receiveeither block grant, states would be required to fund education at no less than the FY06 level in bothFY09 and FY10, though under the Senate version this requirement would be subject to a waiver atthe discretion of the Secretary of Education

In the House bill, both block grants would be provided in two equal installments, the first

beginning in July 2009 and the second beginning in July 2010. The Senate bill provides the money in one installment available through September 30, 2010.

While they are not included in the table, the House and Senate packages also would provide $15billion for State Incentive Grants and small amounts for territories and administration. States

would have to apply for the incentive grants and show they have made progress on initiatives suchas improving the distribution of teachers between high poverty and low-poverty schools orestablishing longitudinal data systems; half of any incentive grant would have to be passed throughto local governments.

The table below provides an estimate of the state-by-state allocations of the two block grants.


7/28

Portion Allocated Based onSchool-Age (5-24) Population

Portion Allocated Based onTotal Population

U.S. Total $38,783.8 $24,796.2

Alabama $584.0 $375.3Alaska $94.4 $55.2Arizona $814.9 $523.3Arkansas $354.2 $229.9California $4,883.9 $2,959.0Colorado $602.7 $397.6Connecticut $431.2 $281.9Delaware $107.2 $70.3District of Columbia $70.0 $47.6Florida $2,077.7 $1,475.5Georgia $1,248.4 $779.7Hawaii $149.2 $103.7Idaho $201.8 $122.7Illinois $1,665.7 $1,038.6

Indiana $811.6 $513.4Iowa $379.8 $241.7Kansas $365.5 $225.6Kentucky $513.4 $343.7Louisiana $577.3 $355.1Maine $148.6 $106.0Maryland $704.2 $453.5Massachusetts $785.2 $523.1Michigan $1,289.7 $805.3Minnesota $654.1 $420.3Mississippi $394.1 $236.6Missouri $735.7 $475.9Montana $117.8 $77.9

Nebraska $232.8 $143.6Nevada $312.5 $209.3New Hampshire $158.3 $105.9New Jersey $1,051.8 $699.0New Mexico $259.2 $159.7New York $2,402.0 $1,569.0North Carolina $1,126.7 $742.4North Dakota $86.1 $51.6Ohio $1,429.9 $924.7Oklahoma $467.4 $293.2Oregon $445.3 $305.1Pennsylvania $1,505.4 $1,002.1Rhode Island $132.4 $84.6

South Carolina $552.7 $360.6South Dakota $103.0 $64.7Tennessee $746.6 $500.3Texas $3,270.1 $1,958.4Utah $411.2 $220.3Vermont $74.1 $50.0Virginia $957.2 $625.4Washington $791.8 $527.2West Virginia $204.6 $146.1Wisconsin $700.9 $453.1Wyoming $65.9 $42.9Puerto Rico $533.8 $318.3

State Fiscal Stabilization FundState by State Impact of the House and Senate Recovery Packages

(Millions of dollars, total allocated over FY2009-FY2010)


8/28

Education House Proposal

The House economic recovery package provides $42.9 billion for elementary, secondary and specialeducation. The table below provides the state-by-state distribution of $40 billion of this funding including:

Title I ($13 billion): Title I grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) provide supplementaleducation funding, especially in high-poverty areas, for programs that provide extra academic supportto help raise student achievement.

IDEA ($13 billion): The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) grants provide funding to assist states and school districts with the costs of special education for the estimated 6.8 millionstudents with disabilities.

School Modernization ($14 billion): State educational agencies would distribute these funds toschool districts for school facility projects such as health and safety repairs, educational technology infrastructure upgrades, and projects to improve energy efficiency.

The remaining $2.9 billion not shown in the table includes $100 million for Impact Aid Construction, $1billion for Education Technology, $66 million for Education for Homeless Children and Youth, $25million for Credit Enhancement for Charter Schools Facilities, $200 million for the Teacher IncentiveFund, $600 million for IDEA Infants and Families, $500 million for Vocational Rehabilitation StateGrants, $200 million for Centers for Independent Living, and $250 million for Statewide Data Systems.

In addition, the House economic recovery package provides $23.7 billion for postsecondary education. The table below provides the state-by-state distribution of the $6 billion provided for Higher EducationRepair and Modernization.

The remaining $17.7 billion not shown in the table includes $17.1 billion for Pell Grants (need-basedscholarships for undergraduate students), $490 million for College Work-Study, $50 million for the

Student Aid Administration, and $100 million for Teacher Quality Enhancement State Grants.

The estimates in the table are from the Congressional Research Service using data supplied by theDepartment of Education.


9/28

Title I IDEASchool

ModernizationHigher Education

Modernization

U.S. Total $13,000.0 $13,000.0 $14,000.0 $6,000.0

Alabama $198.4 $210.7 $216.3 $138.9Alaska $41.1 $42.5 $39.2 $9.1Arizona $248.2 $209.7 $277.3 $113.2Arkansas $133.8 $125.6 $146.5 $54.1California $1,591.0 $1,422.5 $1,693.6 $736.4Colorado $126.2 $174.7 $136.3 $90.7Connecticut $97.2 $146.3 $117.2 $58.4Delaware $39.7 $38.4 $39.1 $18.1District of Columbia $47.6 $19.3 $48.1 $22.0Florida $654.2 $729.4 $654.9 $306.2Georgia $420.4 $368.6 $454.1 $160.0Hawaii $44.9 $43.9 $45.1 $20.9Idaho $45.2 $62.6 $46.9 $28.8

Illinois $526.3 $572.4 $603.4 $256.0Indiana $223.9 $291.8 $248.0 $132.1Iowa $65.3 $134.3 $72.3 $79.0Kansas $88.6 $123.8 $94.6 $67.6Kentucky $195.3 $182.9 $209.5 $77.1Louisiana $269.0 $217.5 $297.7 $85.2Maine $48.6 $60.2 $52.4 $22.6Maryland $179.7 $230.2 $194.8 $99.0Massachusetts $208.3 $312.4 $236.2 $145.6Michigan $500.7 $464.2 $526.6 $211.5Minnesota $113.6 $220.0 $125.7 $115.2Mississippi $172.2 $139.3 $189.8 $58.8Missouri $201.5 $262.3 $227.6 $116.6

Montana $44.4 $43.0 $44.1 $19.2Nebraska $58.2 $82.2 $60.8 $43.7Nevada $81.4 $78.8 $81.2 $32.2New Hampshire $39.9 $52.2 $38.4 $24.0New Jersey $251.9 $397.7 $289.9 $129.7New Mexico $106.4 $100.3 $114.7 $39.6New York $1,159.4 $835.3 $1,234.0 $398.8North Carolina $338.7 $369.3 $363.7 $187.5North Dakota $34.7 $31.2 $34.0 $18.9Ohio $472.2 $510.4 $516.0 $224.0Oklahoma $136.1 $171.9 $149.9 $77.8Oregon $130.6 $149.5 $141.7 $68.2Pennsylvania $524.2 $495.0 $564.5 $257.4Rhode Island $48.1 $48.1 $53.9 $31.4South Carolina $191.3 $200.8 $208.7 $82.7South Dakota $43.9 $37.2 $40.7 $17.5Tennessee $225.0 $268.8 $242.4 $105.2Texas $1,235.0 $1,110.9 $1,315.8 $408.4Utah $56.6 $124.0 $61.1 $73.3Vermont $33.8 $30.1 $33.4 $15.2Virginia $202.8 $326.4 $228.5 $146.9Washington $175.2 $256.7 $191.4 $124.9West Virginia $91.7 $83.6 $101.0 $40.3Wisconsin $180.7 $231.7 $201.1 $116.2Wyoming $32.8 $31.6 $30.5 $11.3

State by State Impact of the House Recovery PackageAdditional Funding for Education



10/28

Education Senate Proposal

The Senate economic recovery package provides $44.2 billion for elementary, secondary and specialeducation. The table below provides the state-by-state distribution of $42 billion of this funding including:

Title I ($13 billion): Title I grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) provide supplementaleducation funding, especially in high-poverty areas, for programs that provide extra academic supportto help raise student achievement.

IDEA ($13 billion): The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) grants provide funding to assist states and school districts with the costs of special education for the estimated 6.8 millionstudents with disabilities.

School Modernization ($16 billion): State educational agencies would distribute these funds toschool districts for school facility projects such as health and safety repairs, educational technology infrastructure upgrades, and projects to improve energy efficiency.

The remaining $2.2 billion not shown in the table includes $1 billion for Education Technology, $70million for Education for Homeless Children and Youth, $500 million for IDEA Infants and Families,$500 million for Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants, $110 million for independent living services.

In addition, the Senate economic recovery package provides $17.5 billion for postsecondary education. The table below provides the state-by-state distribution of the $3.5 billion provided for Higher EducationRepair and Modernization.

The remaining $14.0 billion not shown in the table includes $13.9 billion for Pell Grants (need-basedscholarships for undergraduate students), and $100 million for Teacher Quality Partnership Grants.

The estimates in the table are based on data from the Congressional Research Service.


11/28

Title I IDEASchool

ModernizationHigher Education

Modernization

U.S. Total $13,000.0 $13,000.0 $16,000.0 $3,500.0

Alabama $198.4 $210.7 $247.2 $81.0Alaska $41.1 $42.5 $44.8 $5.3Arizona $248.2 $209.7 $316.9 $66.0Arkansas $133.8 $125.6 $167.4 $31.6California $1,591.0 $1,422.5 $1,935.6 $429.6Colorado $126.2 $174.7 $155.7 $52.9Connecticut $97.2 $146.3 $134.0 $34.1Delaware $39.7 $38.4 $44.6 $10.6District of Columbia $47.6 $19.3 $55.0 $12.8Florida $654.2 $729.4 $748.4 $178.6Georgia $420.4 $368.6 $519.0 $93.3Hawaii $44.9 $43.9 $51.6 $12.2Idaho $45.2 $62.6 $53.6 $16.8

Illinois $526.3 $572.4 $689.6 $149.4Indiana $223.9 $291.8 $283.5 $77.1Iowa $65.3 $134.3 $82.6 $46.1Kansas $88.6 $123.8 $108.1 $39.4Kentucky $195.3 $182.9 $239.4 $45.0Louisiana $269.0 $217.5 $340.3 $49.7Maine $48.6 $60.2 $59.9 $13.2Maryland $179.7 $230.2 $222.6 $57.7Massachusetts $208.3 $312.4 $269.9 $84.9Michigan $500.7 $464.2 $601.8 $123.3Minnesota $113.6 $220.0 $143.6 $67.2Mississippi $172.2 $139.3 $216.9 $34.3Missouri $201.5 $262.3 $260.1 $68.0

Montana $44.4 $43.0 $50.4 $11.2Nebraska $58.2 $82.2 $69.5 $25.5Nevada $81.4 $78.8 $92.8 $18.8New Hampshire $39.9 $52.2 $43.9 $14.0New Jersey $251.9 $397.7 $331.4 $75.7New Mexico $106.4 $100.3 $131.1 $23.1New York $1,159.4 $835.3 $1,410.3 $232.6North Carolina $338.7 $369.3 $415.7 $109.3North Dakota $34.7 $31.2 $38.8 $11.0Ohio $472.2 $510.4 $589.7 $130.7Oklahoma $136.1 $171.9 $171.3 $45.4Oregon $130.6 $149.5 $162.0 $39.8Pennsylvania $524.2 $495.0 $645.1 $150.1Rhode Island $48.1 $48.1 $61.6 $18.3South Carolina $191.3 $200.8 $238.5 $48.2South Dakota $43.9 $37.2 $46.5 $10.2Tennessee $225.0 $268.8 $277.0 $61.4Texas $1,235.0 $1,110.9 $1,503.8 $238.2Utah $56.6 $124.0 $69.8 $42.7Vermont $33.8 $30.1 $38.2 $8.9Virginia $202.8 $326.4 $261.2 $85.7Washington $175.2 $256.7 $218.8 $72.9West Virginia $91.7 $83.6 $115.4 $23.5Wisconsin $180.7 $231.7 $229.8 $67.8Wyoming $32.8 $31.6 $34.8 $6.6

State by State Impact of the Senate Recovery PackageAdditional Funding for Education



12/28

Unemployment Insurance House and Senate Proposals

The House and Senate recovery packages include federal funding for a $25 per week increase inunemployment benefits. The packages also would extend the deadline to qualify for the Emergency Unemployment Compensation extensions through December 31, 2009.

The National Employment Law Project (NELP) has estimated the number of people that will benefitfrom these two provisions. These estimates can be found here:http://www.nelp.org/page/-/UI/RecoveryPlanEstimates.pdf

The recovery packages also include the provisions in the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act(UIMA). Those provisions would provide financial incentives to states to adopt reforms to theirUnemployment Insurance programs that would make the program accessible to more low-wage workersand part-time workers. (The recovery package also includes $500 million in new funding to help statesaddress the administrative demands of fielding claims from the growing number of workers applying forbenefits.) NELPs estimates of the state by state distribution of additional unemployment benefits andadministrative funds can be found here:http://www.nelp.org/page/-/UI/UIMAFactSheet2008.pdf?nocdn=1 .


13/28

Child Care House and Senate Proposals

The House and Senate packages would provide an additional $2 billion in child care funding under theChild Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). CCDBG provides funding to states to subsidizechild care for children in low-income working families and low-income families in which parents areengaged in education or training.

Due to funding constraints, only a minority of children eligible for child care assistance currently receiveany help paying for child care. Moreover, need for child care assistance will remain high despite therecession. Some employed parents who previously could afford child care will need help when theirearnings fall. Parents who are out of work but are going to school or are engaged in training programs toretool their skills will also need help paying for child care. And many parents who are unaffected by therecession will continue working for low or moderate pay and will still struggle to pay the high cost of childcare.

The Center for Law and Social Policy has estimated the funding each state would receive from theHouse and Senate bills and the average monthly number of children the state would be able to serve withthose additional resources. While both bills provide the same amount of overall funding, the Houseprovides $1 billion in 2009 and $1 billion in 2010 while the Senate provides $2 billion in 2009. While theSenate provides all of the funding in 2009, it can be spent in 2010 as well.

The analysis of the House provision can be found at:http://www.clasp.org/ChildCareAndEarlyEducation/2DollarBillHouseAppropsCtte.pdf .

The analysis of the Senate provision can be found at:http://www.clasp.org/ChildCareAndEarlyEducation/2DollarBillSenateAppropsCtte.pdf

Child Support House and Senate Proposals

The House and Senate packages include $1.1 billion to temporarily suspend a provision in the DeficitReduction Act of 2006 that reduced federal child support funding by 20 percent. The DRA eliminated thelongstanding federal match on incentive payments that states earn and reinvest in the program based ontheir performance rates. The funding provision in the economic recovery legislation will allow families tocontinue to receive child support payments and prevent imminent public sector layoffs and servicecutbacks in the child support program.

The Center for Law and Social Policy has estimated the amount of additional federal matching fundsthat each state could now draw down during the next two years thanks to the provision in the House andSenate bills. Their analysis can be found here:http://www.clasp.org/publications/state_by_state_match_012709.pdf


14/28

Training and Employment Services House and Senate Proposal

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) provides funds to localities for job training and employmentservices for dislocated workers, youth, and adults.

The House recovery package would provide $4.0 billion for WIA training and employment services. The Senate bill would provide $3.25 billion.

A portion of the funding $2.7 billion in both bills would be distributed to states using standard WIA grant formulas. Both bills would provide $1.2 billion for youth activities, $1 billion for dislocated workers, and $500 million for adult activities.

In addition to the $2.7 billion in formula grants, the House provides $1.3 billion in WIA-related funding that is not distributed based on standard formulas. The Senate provides $550 million in non-formulafunding.

The House's $1.3 billion includes: $50 million for YouthBuild, $750 million for a new program of competitive grants for worker training and placement in high growth and emerging industries, and $500million for the dislocated workers assistance national reserve.

The Senate's $550 million includes: $100 million for Youth Build and $450 million for the dislocated workers assistance national reserve, $250 million of which will fund a program of competitive grants for workers in high growth and emerging industries.

The table shows estimates of how both bills would distribute the $2.7 billion in WIA formula funding for adult, dislocated worker, and youth services grants. These estimates are from the CongressionalResearch Service using data supplied by the Department of Labor. The non-formula funds are notincluded in this table.


15/28

Youth Services Dislocated Workers Adult Activities

U.S. Total $1,200.0 $1,000.0 $500.0

Alabama $11.8 $8.3 $5.2Alaska $4.0 $2.6 $1.7Arizona $18.0 $14.8 $7.7

Arkansas $12.2 $6.1 $5.1California $188.5 $180.0 $80.9Colorado $12.0 $8.4 $4.8Connecticut $11.1 $10.8 $4.4Delaware $2.9 $1.4 $1.2District of Columbia $4.0 $3.3 $1.6Florida $43.3 $62.7 $19.6Georgia $31.7 $33.0 $13.3Hawaii $2.9 $1.7 $1.2Idaho $2.9 $1.6 $1.2Illinois $62.8 $52.2 $26.1Indiana $23.9 $17.1 $9.5Iowa $5.2 $5.0 $1.6

Kansas $7.2 $5.0 $2.7Kentucky $17.9 $15.4 $8.3Louisiana $20.2 $7.8 $8.8Maine $4.3 $3.1 $1.8Maryland $11.7 $9.8 $5.0Massachusetts $25.1 $14.9 $10.2Michigan $74.7 $72.6 $31.2Minnesota $18.0 $14.0 $7.0Mississippi $18.9 $14.6 $7.9Missouri $25.7 $23.5 $10.6Montana $2.9 $1.4 $1.2Nebraska $3.0 $2.3 $1.2Nevada $7.6 $11.3 $3.4New Hampshire $2.9 $2.0 $1.2New Jersey $21.0 $21.2 $9.5New Mexico $6.3 $2.8 $2.7New York $72.2 $56.2 $31.8North Carolina $25.3 $31.9 $10.4North Dakota $2.9 $0.8 $1.2Ohio $56.7 $54.4 $23.6Oklahoma $8.8 $5.9 $3.7Oregon $15.2 $11.8 $6.4Pennsylvania $41.1 $27.5 $16.7Rhode Island $5.7 $5.6 $2.1South Carolina $25.0 $23.0 $10.5

South Dakota $2.9 $0.9 $1.2Tennessee $25.4 $23.2 $10.9Texas $82.8 $46.0 $34.7Utah $5.1 $2.7 $1.8Vermont $2.9 $1.2 $1.2Virginia $13.1 $10.9 $5.3Washington $23.7 $13.4 $9.8West Virginia $5.4 $2.8 $2.4Wisconsin $13.9 $13.4 $5.2Wyomin g $2.9 $0.4 $1.2Puerto Rico $42.9 $34.6 $20.3

State by State Impact of the House and Senate Recovery PackagesAdditional Funding in Worker Training & Employment Services

(Millions of dollars, total allocated in FY2009)


16/28

7

Food Stamp (or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance) Program House Proposal

The House economic recovery package includes $20 billion for the Food Stamp Program (recentlyrenamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Most of this amount (about $19 billion) wouldbe used to fund a 13.6 percent increase to maximum food stamp benefits, which would go into effect inApril 2009 if the bill is enacted in February. (There would be smaller increases in subsequent years as theprovision phases out.) All food stamp households currently about 14 million households containingmore than 30 million individuals would benefit from the increase.

Food stamps are one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus because low-income individualsgenerally spend their available resources on meeting their daily needs, such as shelter, food, andtransportation. Therefore, every dollar in food stamps that a low-income family receives enables thefamily to spend an additional dollar on food or other items. USDA research has found that $1 in foodstamps generates $1.84 in total economic activity. Mark Zandi of Moodys Economy.com estimates asimilar multiplier ($1.73 for every additional $1 in food stamp expenditures), the highest of the variousspending and tax measures he evaluated. For more information see: New Zandi Analysis Finds RebatesMore Effective as Stimulus if They Include Lower-Income Workers at http:/ / www.cbpp.org/ 1-22-08bud.htm.

The package also would provide $296 million in administrative funds to states to implement the changeand help manage rising caseloads during the recession (another $4.5 million would go to USDA foradministrative costs), suspend for 18 months the three-month time limit on assistance that manyunemployed childless adults face, and provide a comparable increase for the food assistance block grantfor Puerto Rico and American Samoa.

The attached tables present the estimated state-by-state impacts of three of the House provisions: the13.6 percent benefit increase, the increase for the Puerto Rico/ American Samoa block grant, and the stateadministrative funds. Because all food stamp recipients would benefit from the increase, the number of individuals is based on food stamp participation for October 2008, the most recent month for which data

are available (with downward adjustments to remove disaster benefits in Texas from Hurricane Ike). If food stamp participation continues to rise, the number of people helped also will grow. The distributionof dollars is based on Congressional Budget Office cost estimates and 2006 food stamp administrativedata. We assume that the bill will help households that receive the minimum benefit or participate inCombined Application Projects (CAPs). Administrative funds are allocated, as the House bill requires,based on food stamp caseloads over the July 2007 to June 2008 period.

Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service, Effects of Changes in Food Stamp Expenditures Across the U.S.Economy by Kenneth Hanson and Elise Golan, August 2002. Mark Zandi, The Economic Impact of theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act, January 21, 2009.


17/28

Increase in Food StampBenefits

Participants ReceivingStimulus

Food StampAdministration

U.S. Total $19,259 30,700,000 $295.5Alabama $389 614,000 $5.4Alaska $36 50,000 $0.5Arizona $381 707,000 $5.9Arkansas $269 381,000 $3.8California $1,466 2,399,000 $21.2Colorado $181 273,000 $2.6Connecticut $152 238,000 $2.8Delaware $46 81,000 $0.8District of Columbia $63 98,000 $1.1Florida $879 1,676,000 $17.0Georgia $666 1,139,000 $9.6Hawaii $66 105,000 $1.1Idaho $65 112,000 $0.9Illinois $890 1,424,000 $14.1Indiana $409 740,000 $6.3Iowa $161 276,000 $2.7Kansas $127 196,000 $2.0Kentucky $427 664,000 $6.7Louisiana $461 702,000 $6.5Maine $114 184,000 $2.0Maryland $219 403,000 $3.9Massachusetts $317 563,000 $6.1Michigan $800 1,304,000 $13.9Minnesota $175 306,000 $3.3Mississippi $296 472,000 $4.5Missouri $562 949,000 $7.4Montana $57 82,000 $0.8Nebraska $83 121,000 $1.2Nevada $84 163,000 $1.5New Hampshire $38 68,000 $0.7New Jersey $297 462,000 $5.0New Mexico $172 258,000 $2.2New York $1,289 2,114,000 $23.7North Carolina $616 1,031,000 $9.8North Dakota $30 49,000 $0.5Ohio $756 1,209,000 $12.3Oklahoma $302 435,000 $4.2Oregon $307 507,000 $5.7Pennsylvania $779 1,235,000 $13.2Rhode Island $52 90,000 $1.0South Carolina $383 637,000 $5.9South Dakota $42 65,000 $0.6

Tennessee $608 977,000 $9.6Texas $1,812 2,867,000 $23.1Utah $94 154,000 $1.2Vermont $34 60,000 $0.6Virginia $355 582,000 $5.8Washington $392 634,000 $6.8West Virginia $187 285,000 $2.9Wisconsin $246 469,000 $4.2Wyoming $17 23,000 $0.2Guam $18 29,000 $0.2Virgin Islands $9 14,000 $0.1Puerto Rico/ Am. Samoa $579 N/A N/A

State by State Impact of the House Recovery PackageFood Stamps

(Millions of dollars, total over FY2009-FY2013)


18/28

Food Stamp (or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance) Program Senate Proposal

The Senate economic recovery package includes $16.6 billion for the Food Stamp Program (recently renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Most of this amount (about $15 billion) wouldbe used to fund food stamp benefit increases, primarily in 2009 and 2010. If enacted in February, theSenate approach would, in April, provide food stamp households with a one-time benefit increase equal to85 percent of the maximum food stamp benefit. In subsequent months of fiscal year 2009 food stamphouseholds would receive a 12 percent increase to maximum food stamp benefits. There would be smallerincreases (relative to current law) in 2010 and 2011, because the higher level of benefits would bemaintained in those years. All food stamp households currently about 14 million householdscontaining more than 30 million individuals would benefit from the increases.

Food stamps are one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus because low-incomeindividuals generally spend their available resources on meeting their daily needs, such as shelter, food, andtransportation. Therefore, every dollar in food stamps that a low-income family receives enables thefamily to spend an additional dollar on food or other items.USDA research has found that $1 in food stamps generates $1.84 in total economic activity. Mark Zandiof Moodys Economy.com estimates a similar multiplier ($1.73 for every additional $1 in food stampexpenditures), the highest of the various spending and tax measures he evaluated. For more informationsee: New Zandi Analysis Finds Rebates More Effective as Stimulus if They Include Lower-Income

Workers at http://www.cbpp.org/1-22-08bud.htm .

The package also would provide $296 million in administrative funds to states to implement the changeand help manage rising caseloads during the recession (another $4.5 million would go to USDA foradministrative costs), suspend for 30 months the three-month time limit on assistance that many unemployed childless adults face, and provide a comparable increase for the food assistance block grantfor Puerto Rico and American Samoa.

The attached tables present the estimated state-by-state impacts of three of the Senate provisions: the

food stamp maximum benefit increases, the increase for the Puerto Rico/American Samoa block grant,and the state administrative funds. Because all food stamp recipients would benefit from the increase, thenumber of individuals is based on food stamp participation for October 2008, the most recent month for

which data are available (with downward adjustments to remove disaster benefits in Texas from HurricaneIke). If food stamp participation continues to rise, the number of people helped also will grow. Thedistribution of dollars is based on Congressional Budget Office cost estimates and 2006 food stampadministrative data. We assume that the bill will help households that receive the minimum benefit orparticipate in Combined Application Projects (CAPs). Administrative funds are allocated, as the Senatebill requires: 75 percent is allocated based on food stamp caseloads over the past year and 25 percent isallocated based on the growth in the number of households that receive food stamps.

Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service, Effects of Changes in Food Stamp Expenditures Across the U.S.Economy by Kenneth Hanson and Elise Golan, August 2002. Mark Zandi, The Economic Impact of the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, January 21, 2009.


19/28

Increase in Food StampBenefits

Participants ReceivingStimulus

Food StampAdministration

U.S. Total $15,455 30,700,000 $295.5Alabama $313 614,000 $5.0Alaska $30 50,000 $0.4Arizona $306 707,000 $6.5Arkansas $217 381,000 $2.8California $1,170 2,399,000 $21.1Colorado $146 273,000 $2.4Connecticut $123 238,000 $2.5Delaware $37 81,000 $0.8District of Columbia $51 98,000 $1.1Florida $708 1,676,000 $19.6Georgia $534 1,139,000 $10.0Hawaii $53 105,000 $1.1Idaho $52 112,000 $1.0Illinois $715 1,424,000 $12.5Indiana $330 740,000 $6.6Iowa $130 276,000 $2.6Kansas $103 196,000 $1.7Kentucky $343 664,000 $5.7Louisiana $369 702,000 $6.4Maine $93 184,000 $1.8Maryland $177 403,000 $4.0Massachusetts $257 563,000 $6.3Michigan $649 1,304,000 $12.3Minnesota $144 306,000 $2.9Mississippi $238 472,000 $3.7Missouri $455 949,000 $6.4Montana $46 82,000 $0.7Nebraska $68 121,000 $0.9Nevada $68 163,000 $1.7New Hampshire $32 68,000 $0.7New Jersey $239 462,000 $4.3New Mexico $139 258,000 $2.2New York $1,046 2,114,000 $33.6North Carolina $498 1,031,000 $9.1North Dakota $24 49,000 $0.4Ohio $609 1,209,000 $10.9Oklahoma $246 435,000 $3.3Oregon $250 507,000 $5.5Pennsylvania $629 1,235,000 $11.1Rhode Island $42 90,000 $0.9South Carolina $308 637,000 $5.7South Dakota $34 65,000 $0.5

Tennessee $494 977,000 $8.7Texas $1,457 2,867,000 $27.1Utah $76 154,000 $1.3Vermont $28 60,000 $0.8Virginia $288 582,000 $5.2Washington $316 634,000 $6.5West Virginia $151 285,000 $2.4Wisconsin $203 469,000 $4.4Wyoming $14 23,000 $0.2Guam $14 29,000 $0.2Virgin Islands $8 14,000 $0.1Puerto Rico/ Am. Samoa $385 N/A N/A

State by State Impact of the Senate Recovery PackageFood Stamps

(Millions of dollars, total over FY2009-FY2013)


20/28

Supplemental Security Income House Proposal

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides basic income support to poor elderlyindividuals and people with disabilities. The maximum monthly benefit for individuals receiving SSI is$674, about three-quarters of the poverty line.

Under the House package, SSI recipients would receive a one-time payment equal to the average SSIbenefit, about $450 for individuals and $630 for married couples. The payment would be provided in2009.

Because the beneficiaries of this payment have very low incomes, they are likely to spend the additionalpayment quickly, thereby providing effective stimulus. The payment also would help individuals who maybe facing hard times during the recession due to a decline in the value of their savings, a loss in state-funded services (such as adult day care and meal programs) due to state budget cuts, and a decline infinancial support and in-kind assistance from family members who themselves are facing difficulteconomic times.

This table shows the number of SSI recipients in each state in December 2007, the latest year for whichdata are available. Since all SSI recipients would receive the additional payment, this represents the bestavailable estimate of the number of individuals who would be affected by this provision in each state. Thetable also provides an estimate of the state-by-state distribution of the total additional benefits received bySSI recipients under the House recovery package.

The level of SSI benefits received by residents in each state is computed by distributing the total cost of the provision (as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office) across states in proportion to thedistribution of SSI recipients. For example, if a state had 3 percent of total SSI recipients in December2007, this analysis assumes that the state would receive 3 percent of the total estimated additional SSIbenefits provided under in the recovery package.

The Senate package does not provide the same payment to SSI recipients as the House proposal.Instead, the Senate package provides a one-time payment of $300 for a broader group of people, includingbeneficiaries of SSI, Social Security, veterans benefits, and railroad retirement. This payment is subtractedfrom any Making Work Pay credit for which the individual would otherwise qualify. The table below onlyshows the state by state impact for the House package's SSI provision.


21/28

Additional FundingNumber of People that Will

Benefit from Additional Funding

U.S. Total $4,200.0 7,359,000

Alabama $94.4 165,400

Alaska $6.5 11,500Arizona $57.6 101,000Arkansas $54.6 95,600California $710.7 1,245,400Colorado $33.4 58,600Connecticut $31.0 54,300Delaware $8.3 14,500District of Columbia $12.5 22,000Florida $246.4 431,800Georgia $118.8 208,200Hawaii $13.3 23,300Idaho $13.5 23,700Illinois $149.5 262,000

Indiana $59.6 104,500Iowa $25.5 44,700Kansas $23.1 40,400Kentucky $105.1 184,200Louisiana $92.9 162,800Maine $19.0 33,300Maryland $55.9 98,000Massachusetts $101.9 178,600Michigan $130.1 228,000Minnesota $44.7 78,400Mississippi $70.0 122,700Missouri $69.6 121,900Montana $8.9 15,600Nebraska $13.1 23,000Nevada $20.5 35,900New Hampshire $8.6 15,200New Jersey $89.1 156,200New Mexico $32.2 56,400New York $369.5 647,500North Carolina $117.4 205,700North Dakota $4.6 8,000Ohio $147.2 257,900Oklahoma $48.6 85,200Oregon $36.6 64,200Pennsylvania $190.5 333,800

Rhode Island $17.7 31,100South Carolina $60.3 105,700South Dakota $7.4 13,000Tennessee $93.2 163,300Texas $310.9 544,800Utah $14.0 24,500Vermont $7.9 13,900Virginia $80.3 140,700Washington $69.4 121,700West Virginia $45.1 79,000Wisconsin $54.8 96,100Wyoming $3.3 5,800

State by State Impact of the House Recovery PackageSupplemental Security Income (SSI)(Millions of dollars, total over FY2009)


22/28

Emergency Shelter Grant Program House and Senate Proposals

The Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) program, administered by HUD, provides formula grants to statesand localities that may be used for homelessness prevention, emergency shelters, and street outreach.

Twenty-five percent of the funds go to states; the rest of the funds go to localities.

The House and Senate recovery packages would provide an additional $1.5 billion for ESG for use only for homelessness prevention activities (not for emergency shelters). The funds could be used for short-term or medium-term rental assistance, housing stabilization services, and housing relocation assistance,including security or utility deposits and moving costs.

The funding could help some families avert homelessness by providing them with help to pay for a few months of overdue rent or utility bills or the costs of moving into a new apartment. Relocation fundscould help families meet the one-time costs associated with getting settled in new housing after being displaced by foreclosure, including many renters who are left without housing when the property in whichthey live is foreclosed upon. These funds would be spent quickly, boosting local economies andimproving cash-flow for rental property owners, which are typically small businesses.

This table shows the estimated amount of additional ESG funds each state (including localities within astate) would receive under the House and Senate packages and the estimated number of families assisted

with such funds. Using the 2008 ESG awards as provided on the HUD website, we calculated thepercentage of total 2008 funds allocated to each state. We then applied those percentages to the $1.5billion provided in the House and Senate packages to get the dollar figures. To estimate the number of households assisted, we assumed that the national average ESG cost per household assisted would be$5,000, and weighted this estimate by the average HUD Fair Market Rent for the state.

2008 ESG awards: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/budget/budget08/index.cfm FMRs: NLIHCs Out-of-Reach 2007-2008 http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2008/


23/28

Additional FundingU.S. Total $1,500.0 299,400Alabama $20.1 5,600Alaska $1.9 300

Arizona $22.1 4,400Arkansas $11.2 3,100California $190.7 25,200Colorado $15.6 3,100Connecticut $17.0 2,600Delaware $2.9 600District of Columbia $7.6 900Florida $65.7 11,500Georgia $33.6 7,600Hawaii $6.2 700Idaho $5.0 1,300Illinois $71.5 14,000Indiana $28.7 7,000Iowa $16.8 4,500Kansas $11.4 3,000Kentucky $18.6 5,000Louisiana $25.4 5,600Maine $8.1 1,700Maryland $22.7 3,400Massachusetts $44.8 6,200Michigan $53.8 12,000Minnesota $23.7 5,100Mississippi $14.4 3,800Missouri $27.5 7,000Montana $3.8 1,000Nebraska $7.9 2,100Nevada $8.3 1,400New Hampshire $5.4 900New Jersey $41.2 5,900New Mexico $8.6 2,200New York $142.6 19,600North Carolina $29.1 7,000North Dakota $2.6 800Ohio $66.1 16,000Oklahoma $12.4 3,400Oregon $15.0 3,400Pennsylvania $90.6 19,800Rhode Island $7.0 1,100

South Carolina $15.9 3,900South Dakota $3.3 900Tennessee $20.4 5,200Texas $104.1 22,000Utah $8.4 2,000Vermont $3.4 700Virginia $25.0 4,400Washington $25.1 5,000West Virginia $10.2 3,000Wisconsin $27.3 6,300Wyomin g $1.7 500Puerto Rico $45.2 15,800

Emergency Shelter Grant ProgramState by State Impact of the House and Senate Recovery Packages

(Millions of dollars, total allocated in FY2009)

Estimated number ofhouseholds assisted by new

funds


24/28

Child Tax Credit House Proposal

The Child Tax Credit provides a partially-refundable federal income tax credit of up to $1,000 perchild (under 17) to help offset the costs of raising a child. The House recovery package temporarilyexpands the Child Tax Credit by lowering the eligibility level, called the "refundability threshold," tomake the credit available to all working tax filers with children. Families without earnings would notqualify for a credit, even a partial credit, under the House provision.

Under current law, the credit is available only to those with earnings of $8,500 or more in tax year2008 and $12,550 in tax year 2009. Families with earnings just above the threshold qualify for avery small credit, because the credit "phases in" as earnings rise above the threshold level. Underthe House package, the threshold would be set to $0. Even under this provision a family with twochildren would not qualify for the full Child Tax Credit unless it had earnings equal to atleast $13,333. (A family with earnings at this level would only qualify for a $117 credit if thethreshold were set at $12,550.)

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the 2-year Child Tax Credit provision would cost$18.3 billion as compared to current law (in which the threshold would equal $12,550 and slightlymore than that in 2010).

The assistance provided under this provision can be expected to provide especially effective stimulusbecause it is exceptionally well targeted to the lowest-income families who are most likely to spendthe money. The Tax Policy Center has estimated that more than 73 percent of the benefits of theprovision would go to the bottom one-fifth of Americans, and 97 percent would go to the bottomtwo-fifths.

Two sets of state figures are shown here. The first column represents the number of childrenyounger than 17 expected to receive help under the House provision that is, to become newlyeligible for the credit because the threshold is set to $0 or to receive more help from the credit than

they would have received had the threshold remained at $8,500. The third column shows thenumber of children expected to receive help under this provision as compared to the credit theywould receive if the threshold were set at $12,550. In both cases, the majority of children helped bythe provision are children who would be eligible for the credit if the threshold were set at $8,500 or$12,550 but receive a larger credit if the threshold is reduced to $0.

The margins of error shown in the table reflect the fact that the data are based on a sample of households. There is approximately a 90 percent likelihood that an estimate based on all householdsin the state, rather than a sample, would equal the number shown plus or minus the margin of error.


25/28

Number Helped byLowering Thresholdfrom $8,500 to $0

Margin ofError

Number Helped byLowering Thresholdfrom $12,550 to $0

Margin ofError

U.S. Total 14,000,000 261,000 16,700,000 279,000

Alabama 234,000 37,000 273,000 40,000

Alaska 30,000 5,000 35,000 6,000

Arizona 341,000 49,000 416,000 53,000

Arkansas 175,000 25,000 208,000 27,000

California 1,884,000 114,000 2,310,000 126,000

Colorado 197,000 37,000 236,000 40,000

Connecticut 108,000 23,000 128,000 25,000

Delaware 31,000 6,000 38,000 7,000

District of Columbia 33,000 6,000 36,000 6,000

Florida 741,000 68,000 905,000 75,000

Georgia 481,000 54,000 559,000 57,000

Hawaii 45,000 9,000 54,000 9,000

Idaho 77,000 12,000 96,000 14,000

Illinois 579,000 60,000 674,000 65,000

Indiana 289,000 42,000 331,000 45,000

Iowa 144,000 25,000 169,000 27,000

Kansas 137,000 24,000 158,000 25,000

Kentucky 238,000 37,000 272,000 39,000

Louisiana 277,000 40,000 318,000 43,000

Maine 46,000 10,000 54,000 11,000

Maryland 169,000 33,000 198,000 36,000

Massachusetts 167,000 32,000 201,000 35,000

Michigan 451,000 52,000 518,000 56,000

Minnesota 164,000 32,000 189,000 34,000

Mississippi 190,000 27,000 228,000 30,000

Missouri 296,000 43,000 340,000 45,000

Montana 47,000 8,000 55,000 9,000

Nebraska 67,000 13,000 84,000 15,000

Nevada 96,000 19,000 128,000 22,000

New Hampshire 30,000 8,000 37,000 8,000

New Jersey 253,000 40,000 312,000 45,000

New Mexico 131,000 20,000 154,000 22,000

New York 845,000 74,000 995,000 80,000

North Carolina 439,000 52,000 518,000 56,000

North Dakota 25,000 5,000 30,000 5,000

Ohio 566,000 58,000 645,000 62,000

Oklahoma 168,000 29,000 209,000 32,000

Oregon 173,000 31,000 203,000 34,000

Pennsylvania 515,000 56,000 598,000 60,000

Rhode Island 44,000 9,000 50,000 9,000

South Carolina 221,000 36,000 281,000 40,000

South Dakota 32,000 5,000 39,000 6,000

Tennessee 320,000 44,000 375,000 47,000

Texas 1,544,000 104,000 1,871,000 114,000

Utah 139,000 20,000 162,000 22,000

Vermont 17,000 4,000 22,000 5,000

Virginia 244,000 38,000 288,000 41,000

Washington 223,000 38,000 289,000 43,000

West Virginia 83,000 13,000 99,000 15,000

Wisconsin 260,000 40,000 296,000 42,000

Wyoming 21,000 4,000 25,000 5,000

Number of Children Benefiting from House Child Tax Credit Provision(For tax year 2009)


26/28

Child Tax Credit Senate Proposal

The Child Tax Credit provides a partially-refundable federal income tax credit of up to $1,000 perchild (under 17) to help offset the costs of raising a child. The Senate recovery package temporarilyexpands the Child Tax Credit by lowering the eligibility level, called the "refundability threshold," tomake the credit available to tax filers with at least $6,000 of earnings.

Under current law, the credit is available only to those with earnings of $8,500 or more in tax year

2008 and $12,550 in tax year 2009. Families with earnings just above the threshold qualify for avery small credit, because the credit "phases in" as earnings rise above the threshold level. Underthe Senate package, the threshold would be set to $6,000. Under this provision a family with twochildren would not qualify for the full Child Tax Credit unless it had earnings of at least $19,333. (Afamily with earnings at this level would only qualify for a $1,017 credit roughly half of the $2,000maximum credit for two children if the threshold were set at $12,550.)

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the 2-year Child Tax Credit provision would cost$10.5 billion as compared to current law (in which the threshold would equal $12,550 in 2009 andslightly more than that in 2010).

The assistance provided under this provision can be expected to provide especially effective stimulusbecause it is well targeted to the lowest-income families who are most likely to spend the money.The Tax Policy Center has estimated that 97 percent of the benefits of the provision would go to thebottom two-fifth of Americans.

Two sets of state figures are shown here. The first column represents the number of childrenyounger than 17 expected to receive help under the provision that is, to become newly eligiblefor the credit because of the lower threshold or to receive more help from the credit than theywould have received had the threshold remained at $8,500. The third column shows the number of children expected to receive help under this provision as compared to the credit they would receiveif the threshold were set at $12,550. In both cases, the majority of children helped by the provisionare children who would be eligible for the credit if the threshold were set at $8,500 or $12,550 butreceive a larger credit if the threshold is reduced to $6,000.

The figures are national estimates from the Tax Policy Center, allocated by state by the Center usingCensus Bureau data. To allocate the TPC figures, the Center used data from the March 2005, March2006, and March 2007 Current Population Survey to simulate families' taxes, first assuming arefundability threshold of $8,500 and $12,550 for the Child Tax Credit and then lowering thethreshold to $6,000. We used these figures to estimate each state's share of children benefiting fromthe CTC provision. Three years of Census data were used to improve the reliability of the stateestimates.

The margin of error shown in the table reflects the fact that the data are based on a sample of households. There is approximately a 90 percent likelihood that an estimate based on all householdsin the state, rather than a sample, would equal the number shown plus or minus the margin of error.


27/28

Number Helped byLowering Threshold

from $8,500 to $6,000Margin of

Error

Number Helped byLowering Threshold from

$12,550 to $6,000Margin of

ErrorU.S. Total 11,800,000 243,000 14,500,000 264,000

Alabama 204,000 35,000 242,000 38,000

Alaska 25,000 5,000 30,000 5,000

Arizona 292,000 45,000 368,000 50,000

Arkansas 153,000 24,000 186,000 26,000

California 1,627,000 107,000 2,055,000 119,000

Colorado 179,000 35,000 217,000 38,000

Connecticut 85,000 21,000 105,000 23,000

Delaware 24,000 6,000 31,000 6,000

District of Columbia 27,000 5,000 30,000 5,000

Florida 638,000 64,000 803,000 71,000

Georgia 410,000 50,000 488,000 54,000

Hawaii 37,000 8,000 47,000 9,000

Idaho 69,000 12,000 88,000 13,000

Illinois 473,000 54,000 568,000 60,000

Indiana 230,000 38,000 272,000 41,000Iowa 121,000 23,000 146,000 25,000

Kansas 118,000 22,000 138,000 23,000

Kentucky 176,000 32,000 210,000 35,000

Louisiana 233,000 37,000 273,000 40,000

Maine 34,000 9,000 43,000 10,000

Maryland 128,000 29,000 157,000 32,000

Massachusetts 143,000 29,000 177,000 33,000

Michigan 381,000 48,000 447,000 52,000

Minnesota 137,000 29,000 162,000 31,000

Mississippi 149,000 24,000 187,000 27,000

Missouri 256,000 40,000 300,000 43,000

Montana 43,000 8,000 51,000 8,000

Nebraska 62,000 13,000 78,000 14,000

Nevada 80,000 17,000 112,000 20,000

New Hampshire 25,000 7,000 32,000 8,000

New Jersey 220,000 38,000 279,000 42,000

New Mexico 116,000 19,000 138,000 21,000

New York 709,000 68,000 859,000 75,000

North Carolina 349,000 46,000 428,000 51,000

North Dakota 21,000 4,000 25,000 5,000

Ohio 445,000 52,000 525,000 57,000

Oklahoma 141,000 27,000 182,000 30,000

Oregon 148,000 29,000 178,000 32,000

Pennsylvania 400,000 50,000 483,000 54,000

Rhode Island 34,000 8,000 41,000 8,000

South Carolina 173,000 32,000 233,000 37,000

South Dakota 23,000 5,000 30,000 5,000

Tennessee 284,000 41,000 338,000 45,000

Texas 1,354,000 98,000 1,680,000 108,000

Utah 125,000 19,000 148,000 21,000

Vermont 14,000 4,000 18,000 4,000

Virginia 220,000 37,000 263,000 40,000

Washington 177,000 34,000 243,000 39,000

West Virginia 64,000 12,000 81,000 13,000

Wisconsin 218,000 36,000 254,000 39,000

Wyoming 16,000 4,000 20,000 4,000

Number of Children Benefiting from Senate Child Tax Credit Provision, by State(For tax year 2009)


28/28

Making Work Pay Tax Credit House and Senate Proposals

The centerpiece of the tax relief in both the House and Senate economic recovery packages is a newMaking Work Pay Credit of up to $500 per worker. The credit would phase in at the same rate as SocialSecurity taxes and be available to all workers not claimed as another taxpayers dependent. The Center hasestimated the number of people that will benefit from the Making Work Pay credit here:http:/ / www.cbpp.org/ 1-21-09tax3.htm .

Some families helped by the Making Work Pay Credit those with children and low or moderateincomes would receive additional help through expansions in the Earned Income Tax Credit and ChildTax Credit. The Center has estimated the number of people that will benefit from the Child Tax Creditprovisions in the House ( http:/ / www.cbpp.org/ 1-22-09bud-ctc.pdf ) and Senate ( http:/ / www.cbpp.org/ 1-22-09bud-ctc-sen.pdf ) packages.

0209 Fed Report on State Estimates for FMAP

Documents

Transcript of 0209 Fed Report on State Estimates for FMAP