State Spending in the 1990s

Ronald K. Snell, Corina Eckl and Graham Williams
National Conference of State Legislatures
July 14, 2003

The states' ongoing fiscal difficulties and the possibility that states irresponsibly spent themselves into their own crisis raise important questions: How fast did state budgets grow in the 1990s? Was their growth out of line with the past? Where did the money go? This report reviews the growth of state spending in the 1990s, puts it into the context of the remarkable national economic growth of that decade, and discusses some of the major changes that occurred in state spending.

A Quick Look at the Past

Per capita state spending grew by almost one-third in the 1990s (by NIPA measurement), an impressive figure, but less than its growth in the 1980s, and far less than in the 1960s. State government in the United States assumed its present form in the 1960s, the decade of greatest institutional change for the states in this century. The principle of one person, one vote transformed representation in state legislatures. Civil rights legislation expanded the actual franchise in some states. States expanded their taxing capacity to fund public elementary, secondary and higher education, and, finally, the Great Society vastly expanded state administrative responsibility for federal-state social programs.

State spending tracked these changes, as shown by the changes in per capita spending in current state expenditures shown in table 1:

Table 1. Per Capita State Spending, Current Expenditures, 1961 - 2001 (note 1)
Year	Per Capita Expenditure, Current Dollars	Per Capita Expenditure, Constant 1996 Dollars	Change from Previous Entry
1961	$ 131	$ 638
1971	381	1,333	109.1%
1981	1,000	1.685	26.4%
1991	1,992	2,258	34.0%
2001	3,282	2,983	32.1%

The substantial growth in state per capita spending in the 1970s consumed a larger share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at the end of the decade than had been the case in the past, as shown in table 2:

Table 2. State Own Source Revenues and Federal Grants to States As a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product, 1961 - 2001 (note 2)
Year	Own Source Revenues	Federal Grants	Total
1961	3.87%	0.75%	4.63%
1971	5.26%	1.79%	7.06%
1981	5.46%	1.88%	7.34%
1991	5.88%	2.10%	7.98%
2001	6.01%	2.57%	8.58%
Note: Columns may not add to total because of rounding.

State own-source revenues--basically taxes, charges and fees--grew by 1.39 percentage points of GDP in the course of the 1960s as states adopted new income taxes and expanded sales taxes. So great a jump in state tax collections has not been repeated. States' own-source revenues have continued to grow as a share of GDP to the present, but at a declining rate of growth. In the decade of the 1990s, the increase amounted to 0.13 percent of GDP, or an increase of 2 percent on the 1991 base.

Federal grants showed greater growth, accelerating faster than state own-source revenues in the Great Society days of the 1960s and continuing a higher pace of growth to the present. They more than doubled as a percent of GDP in the 1960s, much of which was due to the creation of Medicaid in 1965 (note 3). After relatively moderate growth in the 1970s and 1980s, federal grants again accelerated to surpass the growth rate of state own-source revenues, as a percent of GDP, in the 1990s

Back to the 1990s

State and local government spending grew roughly in proportion to the national economy in the 1990s. The president’s proposed federal budget for 2004, for example, reports that state and local government spending from their own sources (that is, excluding federal grants-in-aid) made up 9.8 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 1991 and 10 percent in 2001 (note 4). Within the combined state and local share of GDP, the state share increased while the local share fell, as state aid to local governments replaced local revenue raising (note 5). The total actually fell from 1993 to 1998, to a low of 9.4 percent of GDP.

U.S. GDP grew impressively from $5.9 trillion in 1991 to $10 trillion in 2001. This growth was echoed in state tax collections, which are highly responsive to changes in the national economy. As a result, state governments were able simultaneously to cut taxes, rebuild the reserves that had been depleted by the recession of 1990, and expand spending on priority programs.

Figure 1. Effect on State Tax Collections of Changes in State Tax Laws, 1991 -2001

Source: NCSL, State Tax Actions, 2002.

State tax cuts amounted to $35.7 billion from 1995 through 2001, as measured by the impact in the year of enactment, which reverses tax increases enacted earlier in the decade.

While states reduced taxes, revenue growth allowed states to rebuild the reserves that had been depleted as a result of the recession of 1990. By the end of FY 1992, state reserves (general fund reserves plus budget stabilization funds) fell below 1 percent of general fund expenditures. By the end of FY 2000, states had rebuilt reserves to 10.4 percent of general fund expenditures, amounting to a record $47 billion.

Figure 2. State Year-end Balances as a Percentage of General Fund Expenditures
FY 1978 - FY 2003 Projected

Source: NCSL, State Budget Actions, 2002.

State spending also grew during the 1990s (table 3). Annual growth rates were high in the early 1990s largely in response to recession-driven demands for safety-net programs and double-digit increases in Medicaid costs. Economic recovery set in by FY 1993 bringing a lessened demand for welfare benefits. At the same time, successful efforts to contain Medicaid costs also reduced the overall rate of spending growth.

From 1991 through 2001, total spending grew by about $556 billion, an 88 percent increase over FY 1991 spending. The average annual growth rate for the period was 6.57 percent, with substantial variation from year to year (note 6). State spending is driven by three circumstances: changes in inflation, changes in population, and changes in the nature and scale of programs. Inflation means, for state governments as well as individuals, that it costs more to get the same amount of goods and services. Population growth puts pressures on spending for elementary or higher education as enrollments grow, on long-term care for an increasingly aged population, and on roads and rail as more people put pressure on transportation systems, for example.

Table 3. Total State Spending, FY 1991 - FY 2001
Fiscal Year	Total Expenditure (millions)	Growth over Previous Fiscal Year
1991	628,634	9.84%
1992	701,931	11.66%
1993	743,262	5.89%
1994	775,040	4.28%
1995	837,032	8.00%
1996	859,958	2.74%
1997	893,392	3.89%
1998	929,952	4.09%
1999	998,365	7.36%
2000	1,084,097	8.59%
2001	1,184,146	9.23%
Source: Bureau of the Census, State Government Finances

In the 1990s, inflation was 2.2 percent for government purchases, and the population grew by about 1 percent a year. Together, inflation and population growth account for nearly half the average annual growth in state spending: 3.2 percentage points of a 6.57 percent increase. (note 7) Assuming that inflation and population growth account for about half the growth in state government spending in the 1990s, where did the rest of the money go?

Spending on Specific Programs

State spending priorities were much the same at the beginning and the end of the 1990s. Education, health, welfare, corrections and trust fund benefits made up about 72 percent of state spending in 1991 and about 73.5 percent in 2001. Among them, they absorbed more than three-quarters of the growth in spending in the 1990s. The increases are shown in table 4.

Table 4: Changes in Total State Spending, FY 1991--FY 2001 Selected Programs, Millions of Dollars
	FY 1991	FY 2001	Change	% Increase
Medicaid	$91,519	$228,039	$136,520	149.17%
Health & Welfare less Medicaid	$79,218	$110,525	$31,702	39.52%
Education	$197,157	$374,539	$177,382	89.97%
Corrections	$19,240	$38,165	$18,924	98.36%
Trust Funds	$64,360	118,833	$54,473	84.64%
Subtotal	$451,494	$870,102	$418,607	92.71%
Total State Expenditures	628,634	1,184,146	$555,512	88.37%
Listed Programs' Share of Total Expenditures	71.82%	73.48%
Source: NCSL compilation based on Census Bureau data and Medicaid spending data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Medicaid

Spending on Medicaid represented the single largest increase in state expenditures in the 1990s, growing nearly 150 percent from $91.5 billion to $228 billion. In addition to serving low-income mothers and children, Medicaid is the primary source of long-term care and medical services for the low-income elderly and people with disabilities. Over the course of the 1990s, Medicaid spending increased significantly for three reasons: growth in enrollment, demographic changes and health care inflation.

Medicaid enrollment grew dramatically in the 1990s. In 1988, 1989 and 1990, Congress required states to extend Medicaid coverage to more low-income pregnant women and children. Furthermore, because Medicaid eligibility is need-based, the recession in the early 1990s increased the eligible population. When the newly mandated populations were covered and the economy rebounded, growth in enrollees tapered off in the second half of the decade. As the economy improved by the mid-90s, a number of states seized the opportunity to leverage matching funds from the federal government to extend Medicaid programs to cover more uninsured, working poor people. In total, from 1991 to 2001, Medicaid enrollees increased by 12.8 million, or 51 percent. (note 8)

Trends in the relative costs to cover specific groups and changes in the demographic profile of the program constituted the next important factor in higher Medicaid spending. First, the costs of Medicaid coverage for long-term care for the elderly increased by a greater amount than for any other groups in the 1990s, due in part to enrollees living longer (note 9). In 1990 the average Medicaid expenditure for elderly enrollees was $6,902. By 1998 the average expenditure had risen dramatically to $11,235 (note 10). Second, the number of disabled enrollees increased as a percentage of total enrollees. In 2001, blind and disabled beneficiaries represented 17 percent of all Medicaid enrollees, up from 14 percent in 1990 (note 11). By 1998 the average annual payment for disabled enrollees was $9,558, compared with $1,892 for other adults and $1,225 for other children. The relative increase in numbers of more costly disabled enrollees drove total costs up. The combination of these two trends contributed to a 59 percent increase in overall spending per Medicaid enrollee between 1990 and 1998 (note 12).

The third reason for increased Medicaid expenditures in the 1990s was relatively high cost increases for medical services. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, medical care inflation was higher than general inflation each year in the 1990s, with the exception of 1996 (note 13). A significant factor has been the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. State Medicaid programs have been especially vulnerable to these cost hikes, as every state provides some form of prescription drug benefit through Medicaid. In FY 1991, states spent $5.4 billion on prescription drugs through Medicaid. Ten years later the cost of drug coverage had risen to $24.7 billion, an increase of 457 percent, nearly nine times greater than the increase in enrollees over the same period (note 14).

Because table 4 shows total state expenditures, the Medicaid amounts include the money the federal government provided the states for Medicaid. The sources of funding were about 47 percent state and 53 percent federal throughout the decade.

Other Health and Welfare

Other health and welfare expenditures grew at a far less rapid rate than did Medicaid. This category includes mental health services and health benefits for state employees as well as programs supporting low-income families, currently known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The growth in state spending in this category was influenced by three factors: health care inflation (for state health programs other than Medicaid), new welfare benefits for child care, and increased case loads for certain social services. Health care inflation contributed to higher health care costs for non-Medicaid recipients and state employees. Because health care cost increases were discussed in the previous section, the remainder of this section will focus on spending on social services.

State welfare spending grew rapidly in the early 1990s as a result of the recession, reaching its peak in terms of expenditures in 1995. From 1991 to 1995, state welfare expenditures grew from $24.1 billion to $30.1 billion. The federal enactment of welfare reform and the improving economy helped reduce the numbers on the rolls and state spending decreased to $26 billion by 2001 (note 15). Though the total number of recipients dropped dramatically below 1991 levels by 2001, state spending decreased proportionately less because the federal welfare reform package set minimum spending levels for states wishing to qualify for TANF block grants.

State lawmakers made policy decisions that led to some increased spending in this category. Federal welfare reform in 1996 gave states greater discretion on how to spend federal grants within the TANF program or transfer money to other program areas. States took advantage of this flexibility to cover a larger portion of childcare costs for low-income parents pursuing jobs by eliminating waiting lists for existing programs and extending eligibility. In 1991 the costs to states of child care benefits under welfare were $2 billion. By 2001 the expenditures for child care benefits through TANF and other programs had grown to $8.5 billion (note 16).

Finally, spending for some state social programs grew primarily as a result of an increase in caseloads. Spending for foster care programs represented one of the largest increases in expenditures. Foster care is an open-ended entitlement for which the federal government provides matching funds for state spending according to the proportion of each state's Medicaid match. Through the 1990s the number of children in foster care increased relative to the total population, growing from 414,000 to 542,000 (note 17). As a result, state spending, including the federal match for foster care, is estimated to have increased at least $7 billion from 1991 to 2001 without significant changes in the standards for eligibility (note 18).

Corrections

State spending on corrections, which includes the costs of operating and maintaining state-owned correctional facilities, was the second fastest growing component of state spending in the 1990s. High crime rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s generated extensive public discussion that led to tougher state sentencing policies and consequently more prisoners. States spent more money to expand prisons systems to support these policies.

Two relatively new types of sentencing laws surfaced in the 1990s that reflected the public sentiment. In 1993, voters in Washington state approved the nation's first "three strikes" law, triggering mandatory life sentences for third-time serious and violent offenders. By the end of 1995, 23 states had enacted similar legislation. Similarly, state "truth in sentencing laws," which generally require that violent offenders serve at least 85 percent of their sentence, were widely adopted in the 1990s. Both three-strikes and truth in sentencing laws lengthened sentences and increased prison populations.

Federal policy reflected the state sentiment for tougher sentences. In 1994, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which provided $8 billion in conditional grants for construction and improvement of correctional facilities aimed at encouraging states to adopt strict truth in sentencing laws. Just one year after the federal law passed, 11 states enacted truth in sentencing laws, and by the end of 1998, 27 states and the District of Columbia had qualified for the federal grants (note 19).

State and federal policies produced a significant increase in state prison populations through the 1990s. On Dec. 31, 1990, state prisons held 708,000 inmates, collectively running at 116 percent capacity. By Dec. 31, 2000, the population of state prisons had increased by 537,000 inmates, an increase of more than 76 percent (note 20). States accommodated the growth in the prison population by adding 742,000 prison beds between 1992 and 2002 (note 21). By the end of 2001, state prisons were filled to 101 percent of capacity.

The significant increases in state spending on corrections as a percentage of state general funds in the first half of the 1990s leveled off and actually decreased slightly from 1996 to 2001 as prison expansion projects were completed (note 22). Even as the spending increases leveled off and crime rates dropped, many have contended that the on-going costs for tough-on-crime policies are too high and a number of states have considered new policies to use drug treatments and community punishments as alternatives to prison for non-violent offenders.

Education

Education spending makes up the largest component of state spending -- about 31 percent of the total. Education spending includes state funding for K-12 education, higher education, vocational and technical education, state departments of education and libraries. In the 1990s, state education expenditures increased 0.4 percentage points to 3.7 percent of the GDP (note 23), primarily the result of funding increases for K-12 and higher education.

State aid to K-12 education grew from $106 billion in FY 1991 to $201 billion in FY 2001, an increase of $95 billion or 90 percent over the decade (note 24). Enrollment increases were one reason for higher K-12 costs. From 1991 to 2001, enrollment in K-12 education increased 14.5 percent, outpacing the growth in the general population, which grew at 12.9 percent (note 25). As the student population crests, K-12 enrollment is expected to continue to rise to record highs through 2005 (note 26).

Special education for students with disabilities was a second factor for higher spending. Special education expenditures grew to more than 21 percent of all K-12 spending by FY 2000. The average cost to educate a special education student is nearly double the cost of a regular education student. From 1991 to 2001 the number of special education pupils increased 32 percent, well over the general enrollment increase of 14.5 percent (note 27). This demographic shift clearly increased overall costs. Expansions of the definition of disabilities, and the number of students being classified as disabled in order to be exempt from high stakes standards-based testing requirements have also been cited as causing higher special education costs.

As the total costs of K-12 education rose in the 1990s, so too did the states' relative responsibility to cover those costs. Due in part to legal challenges to funding adequacy and new accountability systems, the state share of education spending rose from 47.3 percent in 1991 to 49.9 percent in 2001 (note 28).

Increased spending on higher education was the second significant factor influencing state education spending. In the early 1990s, state funding for higher education remained relatively constant at around $40 billion a year. After the recession ended, state spending began to increase in 1994. In total, spending on higher education increased 52 percent to $60.6 billion between 1991 and 2001 (note 29). Higher spending was the result of a number of trends. From 1990 to 2000, the number of full-time college students rose 15 percent. In addition, higher student populations required capital renovation and expansion projects (note 30). Like any business, higher education generally undertakes investments in capital projects in times of fiscal surpluses, and states reinvested larger amounts of money on capital improvements in the late 1990s. The skyrocketing cost of attending college also contributed to higher state spending as a number of state legislatures instituted tuition freezes or provided funding to mitigate the increases in costs (note 31). Finally, states increased financial aid grants by 65 percent over the course of the decade (note 32).

Table 4 displays total state education spending from all sources -- federal grants as well as the taxes, fees and charges that state government collects.

Trust Funds

The state trust funds reported in table 4 principally comprise state employee and state teacher retirement funds (including some other local government employees in some states), unemployment compensation funds and state-administered workers' compensation funds (note 33). Retirement benefits made up 50 percent of trust fund expenditures in 1991, unemployment compensation made up 34 percent, and workers' compensation accounted for 11.4 percent, together accounting for more than 95 percent of trust fund expenditures.

Growth in trust fund expenditures from 1991 to 2001 was almost entirely due to an increase in retirement benefits, which grew from $32.4 billion in 1991 to $90 billion in 2001 (note 34). At the same time, payments for unemployment benefits fell from $22 billion in 1991 to $18.6 billion in 2000 (no figure is available for 2001) (note 35). Spending on state workers' compensation grew from $7.3 billion to $8.3 billion in 2000 (again, no 2001 figure is available) (note 36).

Retirement benefit costs grew partly because of a sharp increase in the number of retired state employees and teachers and partly because of real increases in the value of retirement benefits. The number of state pension beneficiaries increased from 3.6 million in 1991 to 4.9 million in 2001, a 47 percent increase. This increase was much more rapid than the increase in state employment, which was 22 percent over the same 10 years.

In part, the growth in the number of pension beneficiaries was due to an aging workforce and in part to state policies that permitted or encouraged earlier retirements. Many states enacted early retirement incentive programs at the beginning and the end of the decade to reduce or slow the increase in the number of state employees in response to fiscal conditions. States also tended to lower retirement ages throughout the decade, especially for teachers and public safety personnel. Gradually increasing longevity has also figured into long-term spending increases.

Benefits increases independent of retirement age were also significant. The average monthly state pension benefit grew from $747 in 1991 to $1,365 in 2001, an 83 percent nominal increase in benefits, and the equivalent of a 40 percent increase in real benefits.

Changes in Program Spending Relative to Total Spending

As discussed in previous sections, state policymakers faced unique funding challenges in each category of state spending. Such challenges included demographic shifts, increased costs of services and public demand for new policies. Since own-source spending increased by only 0.2 percent of GDP, policymakers had to balance funding increases in some areas with decreases in others relative to total spending. Indeed, lawmakers made difficult decisions to reallocate funds based on priorities throughout the 1990s.

The most significant change in state spending has occurred in Medicaid. This appears clearly in Figure 3, which shows the change in the way total state spending has been allocated among all state programs from 1991 to 2001.

Figure 3: Allocation of State Spending, FY 1991 And FY 2001

Source: NCSL compilation based on Census Bureau data.

Figure 3 shows the percentages of total state spending for each broad category of spending, including those listed in table 4. Among program areas, only Medicaid shows a significant proportionate change; its share of total state spending grew from 14.5 percent in 1991 to 19.3 percent in 2001. Probably no area of public finance has shown such rapid change since states initiated their programs of massive aid to K-12 education in the 1950s and 1960s. The chart clearly shows that the demand for Medicaid spending has resulted in a relatively level share of funding for education and reduced percentage allocations for almost every other category.

The two other categories that show increases are not what commonly are considered state programs. "Other and unallocable" is a catch-all that includes state spending for purposes that cannot be allocated to a single program, such as statewide data processing systems or capital projects; it also includes Colorado's hundreds of millions of dollars in tax rebates as a result of its constitutional requirements and Alaska's payments to individual residents from its Permanent Fund. "Enterprise" reflects the self-funded expenditures of state-owned utilities and liquor stores.

Conclusion

State own-source spending throughout the 1990s remained virtually flat as a proportion of the GDP. Medicaid spending accounts fully for the increase in state and local spending from 9.8 percent of GDP to 10 percent from 1991 to 2001, and represents a significant shift in state spending priorities. The 1990s also saw a reversal of the tax increases states enacted in response to the recession of 1990, as well as reserves that grew to more than 10 percent of state spending. These efforts at prudent management were overwhelmed by the impact that changes in the economy and population have had on state tax collections.

Notes

Bruce E. Baker, "Receipts and Expenditures of State Governments and of Local Governments," Survey of Current Business 83, No. 6 (June 2003), 36-53. Population figures used in this report are from U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001, Table 1. The deflator used is for non-defense spending, U.S. Budget for Fiscal Year 2004, Historical Tables, Table 10.1.
Bruce E. Baker, "Receipts and Expenditures of State Governments and of Local Governments, Survey of Current Business 83, No. 6 (June 2003), 36-53. Population figures used in this report are from U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001, Table 1. The deflator used is for non-defense spending, U.S. Budget for Fiscal Year 2004, Historical Tables, Table 10.1.
See Rudolph G. Penner, "A Brief History of State and Local Fiscal Policy," Number A-27 in Series, "New Federalism: Issues and Options for States," Washington: The Urban Institute, October 1998.
Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2004, Historical Tables, table 15.3.
Baker, "Receipts and Expenditures."
An average annual rate of growth of 6.57 percent can produce total growth of 88 percent over 10 years because of compounding. Each year's increase occurs on a larger base than the increase of the year before. Compounding of return on expenditures works the same way as compounding of return on an investment.
Budget of the U.S. Government, Historical Tables, table 10.1.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: http://cms.hhs.gov/statistics/hne/state-estimates-residence/medicaid-enrollment120.asp
"An Overview of the U.S. Health Care System." Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: http://cms.hhs.gov/charts/healthcaresystem/chapter3.asp
Estimates by the Urban Institute
"An Overview of the U.S. Health Care System." Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: http://cms.hhs.gov/charts/healthcaresystem/chapter3.asp
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/publications/overview-medicare-medicaid/default4.asp and The Kaiser Family Foundation: http://www.kff.org/content/2001/2113b/2113b.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2003/apr/wk2/art03.htm and http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2001/may/wk4/art01.htm.
NCSL Calculations, Data from "Pharmaceutical Benefits Under State Medicaid Assistance Programs." National Pharmaceutical Council, 1992 and 2002 Editions.
"The Green Book, 2000." United States House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, and "2002 TANF Annual Report to Congress." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
"2002 TANF Annual Report to Congress." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
U.S. House of Representatives 2000 and "The AFCARS Report" March 2003. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/afcars/report8.pdf
NCSL Calculations from "The Green Book, 2000." United States House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, and "2002 TANF Annual Report to Congress." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
"Truth in Sentencing State Prisons." Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs. Washington, DC., January 1999, NCJ #170032. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/tssp.pdf
NCSL Calcuations based on data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics
"Corrections Yearbook 2000." Criminal Justice Institute.
National Conference of State Legislatures, State Budget Actions, compiled
National Center for Education Statistics, "Digest of Education Statistics, 2002."
Census Bureau, "Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data," and Public Education Finances.

Census Bureau, "Annual Survey of Local Government Finances."
National Center for Education Statistics, "Digest of Education Statistics, 2002."
Center for Special Education Finance, "What Are We Spending on Special Education Services in the United States, 1999-2000?" and National Center for Education Statistics, "Digest of Education Statistics, 2002."
NCSL Calculations, data from the Census Bureau.
Gillilan, Sandra L. and Palmer, James C. "State Tax Appropriations to Higher Education, Fiscal Year 2001." Center for the Study of Education Policy: March 2001.
National Center for Education Statistics, "Digest of Education Statistics, 2002."
McKeown-Moak, Mary P. "Financing Higher Education in the New Century: The Third Annual Reportfrom the States." State Higher Education Executive Officers: June 2001.
Ibid.
This category of trust funds consists of funds accumulated over time plus their investment earnings, designated for entitlement benefits to specified categories of individuals. It does not include state highway trust funds or other so-called trust funds that are intended to segregate revenues for agency operations or capital expenditures.
State Government Finances, 1991, Table 1; Census Bureau, State and Local Government Public Employee Retirement Systems, table 1 (http://www.census.gov/govs/retire/ret01t3.xls).
State Government Finances: 1991, Table 1; State and Local Government Finances by Level of Government and by State: 1999-2000, Table 1 (http://www.census.gov/govs/estimate/00sl00us.html).
Ibid.

Posted July 2003, reviewed December 2003.
Email statebudget-info@ncsl.org for more information.
Visitor counts for this page.