General State and Local Fiscal Assistance and COVID-19: Background and Available Data

The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title
August 25, 2020
V): Background and State and LocalGeneral State and Local Fiscal Assistance and February 8, 2021 COVID-19: Background and Available Data
Grant A. Driessen
The sudden decline in economic output following the Coronavirus The sudden decline in economic output following the Coronavirus diseaseDisease 2019 (COVID-19) 2019 (COVID-19)
AnalystSpecialist in Public Finance in Public Finance
outbreak has significantly altered the fiscal outlook for state and local governments. A outbreak has significantly altered the fiscal outlook for state and local governments. A sizable sizable

share of economic output derives from state and local government activity. These governments share of economic output derives from state and local government activity. These governments
are generally required to balance their operating budgets every one or two years. Available are generally required to balance their operating budgets every one or two years. Available

evidence suggests that the COVID-19 economic shock will have a notable impact on state and evidence suggests that the COVID-19 economic shock will have a notable impact on state and
local budgets. local budgets.
This report summarizes the general fiscal assistance provided to state and local governments during the COVID-19 crisis. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136), signed into law The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136), signed into law onin March March 27, 2020, 2020,
created the Coronavirus Relief Fundcreated the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which , which providesprovided $150 billion in $150 billion in directgeneral assistance for domestic governments. assistance for domestic governments. The CARES
Act stipulates that Of the $150 billion provided to the the $150 billion provided to the Coronavirus Relief Fund is allocated to governments in states, territories,
and tribal areas as follows:CRF through the CARES Act, (1) $139 billion (1) $139 billion iswas allocated to allocated to state governments in the 50 states, with allocations based on their governments in the 50 states, with allocations based on their
populations and with no state receiving less than $1.25 billion; (2) $8 billion populations and with no state receiving less than $1.25 billion; (2) $8 billion iswas set aside for governments in tribal areas; and set aside for governments in tribal areas; and
(3) $3 billion (3) $3 billion iswas allotted to governments in territories, including the District of Columbia allotted to governments in territories, including the District of Columbia (DC) and Puerto Rico. and Puerto Rico.
Coronavirus Relief Fund assistance is providedThe deadline for spending CRF funds provided through the CARES Act was initially December 30, 2020, but was extended through December 31, 2021, by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260). CRF assistance provided through the CARES Act was generally transferred to state governments. Local governments serving a population of at least to state governments. Local governments serving a population of at least
500,000, as measured in the most recent census data, may elect500,000 had the option to receive assistance directly from Treasury. Such direct local to receive assistance directly from Treasury. Such direct local
assistance allocations assistance allocations reducereduced the allocation that the allocation that iswas made to the state government (keeping the state allocation constant), made to the state government (keeping the state allocation constant), an d
are equal to and equaled the product of (1) the state or territory allocation amount, (2) the share of the state or territory population served the product of (1) the state or territory allocation amount, (2) the share of the state or territory population served
by the local government, and (3) 45%. by the local government, and (3) 45%.
Treasury data indicate that roughly $36 billion in fund costs were incurred as of June 30, 2020, representing roughly 25% of
the $142 billion in funds allocated to eligible state and local governments (excluding eligible tribal governments).

As of September 30, 2020, $78 billion in CRF payments had been awarded to projects by state, territorial, tribal, and local governments. Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

---

link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 9 link to page 108 link to page link to page 119 link to page link to page 116 link to page link to page 68 link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 18 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

Contents
Background .............................................................................................................. 1
Eligible Purposes....................................................................................................... 2
Allocations Across States, Territories, and Tribal Areas ................................................... 2
Allocations to Governments Within States and Territories ................................................ 6

Figures
Figure 1. Costs Incurred as a Percentage of Initial Allocations to State Governments ................. 7
Figure 2. Costs Incurred as a Percentage of Direct Al ocations to Local Governments, by
State 5 Award Information.............................................................................................................................................. 8 6

Tables
Table 1. Total Allocations and Costs Incurred (as of June 30, 2020) by State Table 1. Total CRF CARES Act Allocations by State and Government Type............................. 3
Table 2. Total Allocations and Costs Incurred (as of June 30, 2020)CRF CARES Act Allocations by Territory ....................... 6
Table 3. Al ocations and Costs Incurred by Government Recipient........................................... 8

Contacts
5 Table 3. Recipient Awards as a Share of Total Allocations, by State and Government Type ......... 6 Contacts Author Information ......................................................................................................... 8 15


Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

---

link to page 6 link to page link to page 6 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 118 link to page 9 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

he sudden decline in economic output following the Coronavirus he sudden decline in economic output following the Coronavirus diseaseDisease 2019 (COVID- 2019 (COVID-
19) outbreak has significantly altered the fiscal outlook for state and local governments. 19) outbreak has significantly altered the fiscal outlook for state and local governments.
T T This report briefly summarizes the background, purpose, and alocation of general fiscal assistance provided to state and local governments during the COVID-19 crisis. Information on more targeted, policy-specific assistance during the COVID-19 outbreak can be found in other CRS products. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136), The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136),
signed into law on March 27, 2020, created the Coronavirus Relief Fundsigned into law on March 27, 2020, created the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which , which providesprovided $150 $150
bil ionbil ion in direct assistance for state and local governments.in direct assistance for state and local governments. This report briefly summarizes the
background, purpose, and al ocation details of the Coronavirus Relief Fund.
Table 1 provides total Coronavirus Relief Fund al ocations and costs incurred by states, and Table 1 provides total CRF al ocations for the 50 states, and
Table 2 provides al ocations provides al ocations and costs incurred for for the territories. A total of $149.5 bil ionterritories. A total of $149.5 bil ion was was
al ocated to eligible governments as of al ocated to eligible governments as of August 12, 2020.1 As of June 30, 2020, eligible state and
local governments (excluding tribal governments) reported $35.6 bil ion (or 25%) in costs
incurred from al ocated funds.2 Figure 1 and Figure 2 show state-level percentages of al ocations
incurred (through June 30, 2020) to state and local governments, respectively. Individual
government al ocations and costs incurred are provided inFebruary 4, 2021.1 As of September 30, 2020, $78.4 bil ion in CRF payments had been awarded to projects by state, territorial, tribal, and local governments.2 CRF award data by state and government type are provided in Table 3.
Background
A sizable share of economic output derives from state and local government activity. State and A sizable share of economic output derives from state and local government activity. State and
local governments spent $3.local governments spent $3.78 tril ion in tril ion in 20172018, 19% of gross domestic product (GDP), , 19% of gross domestic product (GDP), divided
about equal y across state governments (with 55% of 55% of combined expenditures from state governments and 45% from local governmentscombined state and local expenditures) and local
governments (45% of combined state and local expenditures).3 These .3 These governments are general y governments are general y
required to balance their operating budgets every one or two years. For more on how economic required to balance their operating budgets every one or two years. For more on how economic
shocks affect state and local government activity, see CRS Insight shocks affect state and local government activity, see CRS Insight IN11258, IN11258, State and Local
Fiscal Conditions and Economic Shocks. .
Available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 economic shock wil have a notable impact on Available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 economic shock wil have a notable impact on
state and local budgets. Consumption declines following nonessential business closures and social state and local budgets. Consumption declines following nonessential business closures and social
distancing efforts are likely to produce a sharp drop in sales tax revenues (35% of state and local distancing efforts are likely to produce a sharp drop in sales tax revenues (35% of state and local
own-sourcetax revenues in revenues in 20172018). Spikes in unemployment and decreased firm profitability are ). Spikes in unemployment and decreased firm profitability are
expected to have a similar effect on individual and corporate income tax receipts (expected to have a similar effect on individual and corporate income tax receipts (2627% of tax% of own-
source revenues).4 Use revenues).4 Use of state and local spending programs is likely to increase, particularly for of state and local spending programs is likely to increase, particularly for
public welfare programs public welfare programs (19% of (19% of 20172018 expenditures) as wel as hospital and expenditures) as wel as hospital and public health health
expenses (8% of expenses (8% of 20172018 expenditures). expenditures).
The The Coronavirus Relief FundCRF, established through Section 5001 of the CARES Act, offers a , established through Section 5001 of the CARES Act, offers a
means of assistance for means of assistance for state and local governments. The state and local governments. The Coronavirus Relief Fund provides a
CARES Act provided a total of $150 bil ion in federal fiscal support for state and local governmentstotal of $150 bil ion in federal fiscal support for state and local governments through the CRF, with eligibility, with eligibility
dependent upon the location, level of government, and use of potential funds. A similar fund, the dependent upon the location, level of government, and use of potential funds. A similar fund, the
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, was created during the 2007-2009 recession by the American State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, was created during the 2007-2009 recession by the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
provided $54 bil ion to state and local governments, most of which was targeted to certain types of spending for
1 U.S. T reasury, “Daily T reasury Statement for 1 U.S. T reasury, “Daily T reasury Statement for August 12, 2020February 4, 2021,” available at https://fsapps.fiscal.treasury.gov/dts/,” available at https://fsapps.fiscal.treasury.gov/dts/
files/files/20081200.pdf.
2 U.S. T reasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by State and Local Recipients through June 30,” July 23, 2020; and
U.S. T reasury, “ Interim Report of Costs Incurred by the District of Columbia and T erritories through June 30,” July 23,
2020; both available at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments.
21020400.pdf. 2 Pandemic Oversight, “Coronavirus Relief Fund,” data downloaded on February 7, 2021, available at https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/track-the-money/funding-charts-graphs/coronavirus-relief-fund. Of the $150 billion total, $148.1 billion was provided to recipients required to report quarterly payments. 3 All state and local government finance data used in this report draw from U.S. Census Bureau, “ 3 All state and local government finance data used in this report draw from U.S. Census Bureau, “20172018 Survey of State Survey of State
& Local Government Finances,” October & Local Government Finances,” October 20192020, available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/gov-, available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/gov-
finances.html. finances.html.
4 T here are no indications as yet of a comparable effect on the base for property taxes ( 4 T here are no indications as yet of a comparable effect on the base for property taxes (32% of 2017 own -source
31% of 2018 tax revenues), revenues), which which are predominantly collected by local governments. are predominantly collected by local governments.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1 1

---

The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

provided $54 bil ion to state and local governments, most of which was targeted to certain types
of spending for education programs.5 Separately, Section 4003 of the CARES Act authorized use education programs.5 Separately, Section 4003 of the CARES Act authorized use
of Federal Reserve capacity to support up to $454 bil ion in debt issued by state governments, of Federal Reserve capacity to support up to $454 bil ion in debt issued by state governments,
local local governments, and eligible businessesgovernments, and eligible businesses. Eligible Purposes CRF payments received through the CARES Act al ow
Eligible Purposes
Section 5001(d) of the CARES Act provides the eligible purposes for which Coronavirus Relief
Fund payments may be used. Specifical y, it al ows state and local governments to make state and local governments to make
payments for programs that payments for programs that
(1) are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to (1) are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19); Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19);
(2) were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of the date of enactment (2) were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of the date of enactment
[March 27, 2020] of this section for the State or government; and [March 27, 2020] of this section for the State or government; and
(3) were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020 and ends on December (3) were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020 and ends on December
30, 202031, 2021.6 .6
Per Section 5001(f) of the CARES Act, the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury Per Section 5001(f) of the CARES Act, the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury
determines whether determines whether Coronavirus Relief FundCRF payments are used for eligible purposes. Fund payments are used for eligible purposes. Fund
payments that are deemed for ineligible purposes are treated as a debt owed by the implementing payments that are deemed for ineligible purposes are treated as a debt owed by the implementing
government to government to Treasury. Treasury.
As clarified in Treasury guidance, As clarified in Treasury guidance, Coronavirus Relief FundCRF payments may not be used to payments may not be used to directly
account for revenue account for revenue shortfal s related to the COVID-19 outbreak.7 Such funds, however, may shortfal s related to the COVID-19 outbreak.7 Such funds, however, may
indirectly assist with revenue shortfal s in cases where expenses paid for by the assist with revenue shortfal s in cases where expenses paid for by the Coronavirus
Relief FundCRF would otherwise widen the gap between government outlays and receipts. For would otherwise widen the gap between government outlays and receipts. For
example, if $3 bil ionexample, if $3 bil ion in Coronavirus Relief Fund in CRF assistance is sent to a government with assistance is sent to a government with
revenues that are $10 bil ionrevenues that are $10 bil ion lower than expected and $5 bil ion in new COVID-19-related lower than expected and $5 bil ion in new COVID-19-related
expenses, that assistance wil reduce the fiscal gap (from $15 bil ion to $12 bil ion) by the same expenses, that assistance wil reduce the fiscal gap (from $15 bil ion to $12 bil ion) by the same
amount regardless of whether it applies to revenues or spending. Only in cases where amount regardless of whether it applies to revenues or spending. Only in cases where
governments have revenue shortfal s and less related spending than the program provides are governments have revenue shortfal s and less related spending than the program provides are
governments limited by the eligible purpose restrictions. For instance, in that same example but governments limited by the eligible purpose restrictions. For instance, in that same example but
with no new COVID-19-related expenses, the government could not use with no new COVID-19-related expenses, the government could not use Coronavirus Relief Fund
assistance despite CRF assistance despite its decrease in revenues. its decrease in revenues.
Allocations Across States, Territories, and Tribal Areas
The CARES Act stipulates that the $150 bil ion provided to the The CARES Act stipulates that the $150 bil ion provided to the Coronavirus Relief FundCRF is is
al ocated to governments al ocated to governments in states, territories, and tribal areas as follows:8 in states, territories, and tribal areas as follows:8
 $139 bil ion is al ocated for governments in the 50 states based on their populations (as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2019), with no state receiving less than $1.25 bil ion.
5 For more information about this program, see U.S. Department of Education, “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund,” March 5 For more information about this program, see U.S. Department of Education, “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund,” March
7, 2009, available at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html. 7, 2009, available at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html.
6 Section 5001(d) of the CARES Act, p. 603.
7 U.S. T reasury, “Coronavirus Relief Fund Frequently Asked Questions,” August 10, 20206 T he Coronavirus Relief Fund was also used by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 to allocate $25 billion in payments to state and local governments for emergency rental assistance. T hose more targeted allocations are not explored further in this report. 7 U.S. T reasury, “Coronavirus Relief Fund Guidance as published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021,” January 15, 2021, available at , available at
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments.
8 T his allocation methodology differs from what was implemented by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 8 T his allocation methodology differs from what was implemented by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which treated the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 2009 for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which treated the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
uniformly when implementing allocation procedures. uniformly when implementing allocation procedures.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2 2

---

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

  $139 bil ion is al ocated for governments in the 50 states based on their
populations (as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2019), with no state
receiving less than $1.25 bil ion.
 $8 bil ion is set aside for governments in tribal areas, with each tribal area’s $8 bil ion is set aside for governments in tribal areas, with each tribal area’s
al ocation based on its share of aggregate tribal expenditures in FY2019, as al ocation based on its share of aggregate tribal expenditures in FY2019, as
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of determined by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of
the Interior. the Interior.
 $3 bil ion is al ocated to the territories of the District of Columbia (DC), Puerto  $3 bil ion is al ocated to the territories of the District of Columbia (DC), Puerto
Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American
Samoa, with each territory receiving an amount based on its share of the total Samoa, with each territory receiving an amount based on its share of the total
population across al territories, with populations determined by the Secretary of population across al territories, with populations determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury. the Treasury.
Table 1 shows state al ocations for shows state al ocations for Coronavirus Relief Fund paymentsCRF payments made through the CARES Act. Due to the $1.25 bil ion. Due to the $1.25 bil ion
minimum al ocation for states, every state with an al ocation greater than the minimum amount minimum al ocation for states, every state with an al ocation greater than the minimum amount
receives a smal er al ocation share (excluding amounts provided to tribal areas) receives a smal er al ocation share (excluding amounts provided to tribal areas) than its share of than its share of
the population. Most states with a minimum al ocation amount, in contrast, have a larger the population. Most states with a minimum al ocation amount, in contrast, have a larger
al ocation share than their population share. Treasury has al ocated al amounts al ocation share than their population share. Treasury has al ocated al amounts designated for designated for
nontribal governments.9 nontribal governments.9
Information on Coronavirus Relief Fund amounts incurred by state is also provided in Table 1.
State and local governments (exclusive of territorial and tribal governments) incurred $34.7
bil ion in fund costs through June 30, 2020, or 25% of amounts al ocated to those governments.
Table 1. Total Allocations and Costs Incurred (as of June 30, 2020) by State
(combined amounts to al direct recipients)
Allocation
Costs Incurred
Costs Incurred as a %
State
($ Billions)
($ Billions)
of Allocation
Alabama
1.90
<0.01
0%
Alaska
1.25
0.35
28%
Arizona
2.82
0.56
20%
Arkansas
1.25
0.26
21%
California
15.32
11.42
75%
Colorado
2.23
1.26
56%
Connecticut
1.38
0.63
46%
Delaware
1.25
0.08
6%
Florida
8.33
0.97
12%
Georgia
4.12
0.94
23%
Hawai
1.25
0.15
12%
Idaho
1.25
0.06
5%
Il inois
4.91
0.75
15%
Indiana
2.61
0.93
36%. Total CRF CARES Act Allocations by State and Government Type (combined amounts to al direct recipients, in bil ions of dol ars) State State Allocation Local Allocation Tribal Allocation Total Allocation Alabama 1.786 0.115 0.057 1.958 Alaska 1.250 - 0.845 2.095 Arizona 1.857 0.965 1.266 4.088 Arkansas 1.250 - - 1.250 California 9.526 5.795 0.776 16.097 Colorado 1.674 0.560 0.028 2.262 Connecticut 1.382 - 0.121 1.503 Delaware 0.927 0.323 - 1.250 Florida 5.856 2.473 0.158 8.487 Georgia 3.503 0.614 - 4.117 Hawai 0.863 0.387 - 1.250 Idaho 1.250 - 0.056 1.306 Il inois 3.519 1.395 - 4.914 Indiana 2.442 0.168 - 2.610 Iowa 1.250 - 0.011 1.261 Kansas 1.034 0.216 0.018 1.268 Kentucky 1.599 0.133 - 1.732 Louisiana 1.803 - 0.040 1.843 Maine 1.250 - 0.025 1.275 Maryland 1.653 0.691 - 2.344

9 U.S. T reasury, “Payments to States and Eligible Units of Local Government,” May 11, 2020, available at 9 U.S. T reasury, “Payments to States and Eligible Units of Local Government,” May 11, 2020, available at
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
3 3

---

The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

Allocation
Costs Incurred
Costs Incurred as a %State
State
Allocation Local Allocation Tribal Allocation Total Allocation Massachusetts 2.461 0.212 0.009 2.682 Michigan 3.081 0.792 0.242 4.115 Minnesota 1.870 0.317 0.267 2.454 Mississippi 1.250 - 0.062 1.312 Missouri 2.084 0.296 - 2.380 Montana 1.250 - 0.219 1.469 Nebraska 1.084 0.166 0.066 1.316 Nevada 0.836 0.414 0.122 1.372 New Hampshire 1.250 - - 1.250 New Jersey 2.394 1.050 - 3.444 New Mexico 1.068 0.182 0.253 1.503 New York 5.136 2.408 0.114 7.658 North Carolina 3.585 0.482 0.063 4.130 North Dakota 1.250 - 0.146 1.396 Ohio 3.754 0.779 - 4.533 Oklahoma 1.259 0.275 1.647 3.181 Oregon 1.389 0.247 0.201 1.837 Pennsylvania 3.935 1.029 - 4.964 Rhode Island 1.250 - 0.006 1.256 South Carolina 1.905 0.091 0.022 2.018 South Dakota 1.250 - 0.201 1.451 Tennessee 2.363 0.285 - 2.648 Texas 8.038 3.205 0.054 11.297 Utah 0.935 0.315 0.030 1.280 Vermont 1.250 - - 1.250 Virginia 3.110 0.200 0.019 3.329 Washington 2.167 0.786 0.565 3.518 West Virginia 1.250 - - 1.250 Wisconsin 1.997 0.260 0.251 2.508 Wyoming 1.250 - 0.039 1.289 Total 111.375 27.625 8.00 147.000 Source: Pandemic Oversight, “Coronavirus Relief Fund,” data downloaded on February 8, 2021 ($ Billions)
($ Billions)
of Allocation
Iowa
1.25
0.58
46%
Kansas
1.25
0.02
1%
Kentucky
1.73
0.11
6%
Louisiana
1.80
0.56
31%
Maine
1.25
0.30
24%
Maryland
2.34
1.01
43%
Massachusetts
2.67
0.96
36%
Michigan
3.87
0.31
8%
Minnesota
2.19
0.03
1%
Mississippi
1.25
0.02
2%
Missouri
2.38
0.63
26%
Montana
1.25
0.08
6%
Nebraska
1.25
0.05
4%
Nevada
1.25
0.22
18%
New Hampshire
1.25
0.43
34%
New Jersey
3.44
0.16
5%
New Mexico
1.25
0.09
8%
New York
7.54
4.02
53%
North Carolina
4.07
0.36
9%
North Dakota
1.25
0.12
9%
Ohio
4.53
0.55
12%
Oklahoma
1.53
0.07
5%
Oregon
1.64
0.14
8%
Pennsylvania
4.96
1.32
27%
Rhode Island
1.25
0.25
20%
South Carolina
2.00
<0.01
0%
South Dakota
1.25
0.08
6%
Tennessee
2.65
0.45
17%
Texas
11.24
1.37
12%
Utah
1.25
0.24
19%
Vermont
1.25
0.12
10%
Virginia
3.31
0.82
25%
Washington
2.95
0.13
4%
West Virginia
1.25
0.61
49%
Wisconsin
2.26
0.13
6%
Wyoming
1.25
0.04
4%
Congressional Research Service
4

---

link to page 9 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

Allocation
Costs Incurred
Costs Incurred as a %
State
($ Billions)
($ Billions)
of Allocation
Total
139.00
34.73
25%
Source: U.S. Treasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by State and Local Recipients through June 30 ,” July
24, 2020, available at , available at https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/track-the-money/funding-charts-graphs/coronavirus-relief-fund. Note: Alaska tribal al ocation total includes $0.5 bil ion intended for Alaska Native Corporations that are currently withheld by the federal government due to ongoing litigation. Amounts may not sum to totals due to rounding. The CARES Act provided a total of $8 bil ion to be distributed to tribal governments through the CRF. The CARES Act further stipulated that fund al ocations to individual tribal governments were to be based on increases in government expenditures from FY2019 to FY2020, through a Congressional Research Service 4 link to page 8 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data process established by the Department of the Treasury and Department of the Interior.10 That process resulted in two rounds of payments.11 The first round of payments distributed 60% of the tribal total, with al ocations based on tribal population data. The second-round payments were distributed based on tribal employment and expenditure data after such data were provided. Treasury has provided al fund al ocations to tribal governments except those designated for governments of Alaska Native Corporations, whose participation is the subject of ongoing litigation.12 Table 2 provides estimated CRF al ocations made through the CARES Act to areas designated for https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments.
Note: Al ocation and population percentages do not include the $8 bil ion in assistance provided to tribal
governments. Cost incurred entries of “<0.01” indicate positive costs of less than $0.005 bil ion.
There are several reasons why governments facing budgetary pressures may not have
immediately incurred costs equal to their fund al ocations. There is typical y a lag between when
new, unexpected funds are distributed to state and local governments (which in this case general y
occurred in April 2020) and when that money can be spent, as state and local governments need
time to plan and approve use of the new budget authority. A subsequent lag can occur between the
issuance of such authority and when costs are incurred. Governments may also be responding to
evolving federal guidance on eligible fund programs, with the latest Treasury update provided in
August 2020.10 Final y, following enactment of the CARES Act, there have been multiple
proposals to expand the eligible uses of Coronavirus Relief Fund payments, including in the
HEROES Act (H.R. 6800) and the American Workers, Families, and Employers Assistance Act
(S. 4318).
Table 2 provides Coronavirus Relief Fund estimated al ocations made to areas designated for
fund purposes as territories, including the District of Columbia. Territory al ocations are made in fund purposes as territories, including the District of Columbia. Territory al ocations are made in
direct proportion to the relevant population estimate, with no minimum amount provided. direct proportion to the relevant population estimate, with no minimum amount provided.
Al ocation shares for al territories except Puerto Rico are smal er than the state minimum Al ocation shares for al territories except Puerto Rico are smal er than the state minimum
amount. Treasury has al ocated al amounts designated for territorial governments. amount. Treasury has al ocated al amounts designated for territorial governments.11

10 U.S. T reasury, “Coronavirus Relief Fund Frequently Asked Questions,” August 10, 2020, available at
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments.
11 U.S. T reasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by the District of Columbia and T erritories through June 30,” July
23, 2020, available at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

Table 2. Total Allocations and Costs Incurred (as of June 30, 2020) by Territory
Allocation
Costs Incurred
Costs Incurred as a
Territory
($ Billions)
($ Billions)
% of Allocation
American Samoa
0.04
0.01
25%
District of Columbia
0.50
0.14
29%
Guam
0.12
0.03
25%
Northern Mariana Islands
0.04
0.01
14%
Puerto Rico
2.24
0.63
28%
U.S. Virgin Islands
0.07
0.02
27%
Total
3.00
0.83
28%
Source: U.S. Treasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by the District of Columbia and Territories through
June 30,” July 24, 202013 Table 2. Total CRF CARES Act Allocations by Territory Allocation Territory ($ Billions) American Samoa 0.035 District of Columbia 0.495 Guam 0.118 Northern Mariana Islands 0.036 Puerto Rico 2.241 U.S. Virgin Islands 0.075 Total 3.000 Source: Pandemic Oversight, “Coronavirus Relief Fund,” data downloaded on February 8, 2021, available at , available at https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/track-the-money/funding-charts-graphs/coronavirus-relief-fund. Note: Territorial al ocations were provided exclusively to territorial governments. Allocations to Governments Within States and Territories CRFhttps://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments.
Note: Al ocation and population percentages do not include the $8 bil ion in assistance provided to tribal
governments.
The CARES Act provided a total of $8 bil ion to be distributed to tribal governments through the
Coronavirus Relief Fund. The CARES Act further stipulated that fund al ocations to individual
tribal governments were to be based on increases in government expenditures from FY2019 to
FY2020, through a process established by the Department of the Treasury and Department of the
Interior.12 That process resulted in two rounds of payments.13 The first round of payments
distributed 60% of the tribal total, with al ocations based on tribal population data. The second-
round payments were distributed based on tribal employment and expenditure data after such data
were provided. Treasury has provided al fund al ocations to tribal governments except those
designated for governments of Alaska Native Corporations, whose participation is the subject of
ongoing litigation.14
Allocations to Governments Within States and Territories
Coronavirus Relief Fund assistance is general y provided to state governments. Local
assistance is general y provided to state governments. Local governments serving a population of at least 500,000 (as measured in the most recent census governments serving a population of at least 500,000 (as measured in the most recent census
data), however, may elect to receive assistance directly from Treasury. Such direct local data), however, may elect to receive assistance directly from Treasury. Such direct local
assistance al ocations reduce the al ocation made to the state government (keeping the state assistance al ocations reduce the al ocation made to the state government (keeping the state
al ocation constant) and are equal to al ocation constant) and are equal to the product of the product of
 the state or territory al ocation amount;  the state or territory al ocation amount;
 the percentage of the state or territory population attributed to the local
government; and
 45%.15
The CARES Act does not explicitly prevent local governments (regardless of their eligibility for
direct assistance) from receiving Coronavirus Relief Fund payments from state governments, so

1210 Section 5001(c)(7) of the CARES Act. Section 5001(c)(7) of the CARES Act.
1311 U.S. T reasury, “Coronavirus Relief Fund T ribal Allocation Methodology,” August 11, 2020, available at U.S. T reasury, “Coronavirus Relief Fund T ribal Allocation Methodology,” August 11, 2020, available at
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments.
1412 U.S. T reasury, “T ribal Allocation Methodology for Second Distribution,” June 17, 2020, available at U.S. T reasury, “T ribal Allocation Methodology for Second Distribution,” June 17, 2020, available at
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments.
15 Section 5001(c)(5) of the CARES Act.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 10 link to page 11
13 U.S. T reasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by the District of Columbia and T erritories through June 30, 2020,” August 24, 2020, available at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments. Congressional Research Service 5 link to page 9 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

 the percentage of the state or territory population attributed to the local government; and  45%.14 The CARES Act does not explicitly prevent local governments (regardless of their eligibility for direct assistance) from receiving CRF payments from state governments, so long as the funds are used for eligiblelong as the funds are used for eligible purposes. State governments transferred $purposes. State governments transferred $534543 bil ion to bil ion to
local governments in local governments in 2017 2018, or , or 2827% of al local government revenues. % of al local government revenues.
In many cases, populations are served by more than one local government that is eligible for In many cases, populations are served by more than one local government that is eligible for
direct assistance from the direct assistance from the Coronavirus Relief FundCRF (e.g., a city with a population of 700,000 (e.g., a city with a population of 700,000
located in a county with 200,000 other people, and thus with a county population of 900,000). located in a county with 200,000 other people, and thus with a county population of 900,000).
Guidance from the Guidance from the Secretary of the Treasury clarified that in such cases, al overlapping Secretary of the Treasury clarified that in such cases, al overlapping
governments are eligiblegovernments are eligible for assistance. However, direct assistance payments to larger localities for assistance. However, direct assistance payments to larger localities
wil be calculated using only their unique population, or wil be reduced by any amounts also wil be calculated using only their unique population, or wil be reduced by any amounts also
attributable to smal er localities receiving assistance (i.e., in the above example the county attributable to smal er localities receiving assistance (i.e., in the above example the county
government only uses a population of government only uses a population of 200,000 for its direct payment calculation). Award Information Table 3 shows the percentage of the total al ocation that has been awarded to projects for each state and type of government as of September 30, 2020. Just over half of al CRF Funds ($78.4 bil ion, or 52%) have been awarded to projects. State and territorial governments ($62.9 bil ion, or 55%) have awarded a slightly higher percentage of their al ocations to projects than local governments ($12.6 bil ion, 46%) and tribal governments ($2.9 bil ion, 36%), with the delayed and withheld transmission of funding one possible explanation for the lower tribal government total.15 Table 3. Recipient Awards as a Share of Total Allocations, by State and Government Type (Award Data as of September 30, 2020) State or State Territory Local Tribal Total Alabama 41% 18% <1% 39% Alaska 80% - 7% 51% American Samoa 51% - - 51% Arizona 48% 80% 31% 50% Arkansas 62% - - 62% California 91% 55% 58% 77% Colorado 74% 43% 43% 66% Connecticut 36% - 44% 37% Delaware 18% 11% - 17% District of Columbia 56% - - 56% 14 Section 5001(c)(5) of the CARES Act. 15 U.S. T reasury, “T ribal Allocation Methodology for Second Distribution,” June 17, 2020, available at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments. Congressional Research Service 6 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data State or State Territory Local Tribal Total Florida 86% 49% 44% 75% Georgia 29% 42% - 31% Guam >99% - - >99% Hawai 10% 17% - 12% Idaho 27% - 29% 27% Il inois 23% 55% - 32% Indiana 57% 48% - 56% Iowa 60% - 55% 60% Kansas 51% 25% 56% 47% Kentucky 32% 13% - 30% Louisiana 77% - 55% 76% Maine 43% - 20% 42% Maryland >99% 30% - 88% Massachusetts 54% 12% 78% 51% Michigan 74% 33% 84% 66% Minnesota 67% 56% 46% 63% Mississippi 57% - 48% 56% Missouri 43% 29% - 42% Montana 36% - 32% 36% Nebraska 57% 33% 11% 52% Nevada 65% 55% 12% 57% New Hampshire 63% - - 63% New Jersey 2% 33% - 11% New Mexico 76% 61% 39% 68% New York 56% 57% 39% 56% North Carolina 76% 34% 70% 71% North Dakota 46% - 18% 43% Northern Mariana Islands <1% - - <1% Ohio 43% 59% - 46% Oklahoma 56% 33% 32% 41% Oregon 46% 49% 42% 46% Pennsylvania 58% 32% - 52% Puerto Rico 43% - - 43% Rhode Island 29% - 33% 29% South Carolina 31% 1% 5% 30% South Dakota 22% - 22% 22% Congressional Research Service 7 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data State or State Territory Local Tribal Total Tennessee 73% 43% - 70% Texas 45% 41% 15% 44% U.S. Virgin Islands 48% - - 48% Utah 54% 26% 63% 47% Vermont 51% - - 51% Virginia 28% 39% 11% 29% Washington 69% 27% 40% 55% West Virginia 52% - - 52% Wisconsin 42% 30% 63% 43% Wyoming 41% - 69% 42% Total 55% 46% 36% 52% Source: Pandemic Oversight, “Coronavirus Relief Fund,” available at https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/track-the-money/funding-charts-graphs/coronavirus-relief-fund. CRS calculations. Notes: Calculations do not account for $1.9 bil ion in payments to governments without quarterly reporting requirements, which are not identifiable by state and government level. Alaska tribal al ocation total includes $0.5 bil ion intended for Alaska Native Corporations that are currently withheld by the federal government due to ongoing litigation. Recipients may choose to transfer funds to governments within their jurisdiction, but are not obligated to do so. The data includes activity from such transfers. There are several reasons why governments facing budgetary pressures may not have immediately incurred costs equal to their fund al ocations. There is typical y a lag between when new, unexpected funds are distributed to state and local governments (which in this case general y occurred in April 2020) and when that money can be spent, as state and local governments need time to plan and approve use of the new budget authority. A subsequent lag can occur between the issuance of such authority and when costs are incurred. Governments may also be responding to evolving federal guidance on eligible fund programs, with the latest Treasury update provided in August 2020.16 Following enactment of the CARES Act, there have been multiple proposals to expand the eligible uses of CRF payments, including two pieces of legislation that passed the House in 2020 (H.R. 6800 and H.R. 925, both of which were titled “The Heroes Act”), which may have also influenced state and local budgetary planning. Author Information Grant A. Driessen Specialist in Public Finance 16 U.S. T reasury, “Coronavirus Relief Fund Frequently Asked Questions,” August 10, 2020. Congressional Research Service 8 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data Acknowledgments 200,000 for its direct payment calculation).
Figure 1 and Figure 2 il ustrate the percentage of al ocated funds incurred through June 30,
2020, by state, for state and local governments, respectively. Total costs incurred represent 25%
of the initial amount al ocated to both state governments and local governments, with most cost
activity confined to a smal group of states. (Recipients may transfer funds to other governments
within their jurisdiction, which is reflected in the data.) As seen in Figure 1, only three states had
incurred more than half of their initial state al ocation as of June 30, while 30 states had incurred
less than 20% of their al ocation. The only state with more than half of its direct local al ocations
incurred through June 30 was New York, while 24 of the 34 states with local recipients reported
under 20% of costs incurred over the same time frame (Figure 2).
Figure 1. Costs Incurred as a Percentage of Initial Allocations to State Governments
(Costs Incurred Data as of June 30, 2020)

Source: U.S. Treasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by State and Local Recipients through June 30,” July
23, 2020.
Notes: The figure captures information for al al ocations to state governments. Recipients may choose to
transfer funds to governments within their jurisdiction, but are not obligated to do so. The data reflect incurred
Congressional Research Service
7

---

link to page 11
The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

costs from those governments. The data do not include information on the $8 bil ion provided to tribal
governments.
Figure 2. Costs Incurred as a Percentage of Direct Allocations to Local
Governments, by State
(Cost Incurred Data as of June 30, 2020)

Source: U.S. Treasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by State and Local Recipients through June 30,” July
23, 2020.
Notes: The figure captures information for al local governments that received al ocations directly from
Treasury. Many states have multiple recipients. Recipients may choose to transfer funds to governments within
their jurisdiction, but are not obligated to do so. The data reflect incurred costs from those governments. The
data do not include information on the $8 bil ion provided to tribal governmen ts.
Table 3 lists the al ocation and incurred cost amount for each direct recipient of a Coronavirus
Relief Fund al ocation. Five recipients reported more than 90% of their costs incurred as of June
30: (1) California state; (2) Detroit city, Michigan; (3) Las Vegas city, Nevada; (4) Nassau
County, New York; and (5) New York City, New York. Of the 206 direct recipients, 84 reported
less than 10% of their al ocation incurred over that time period.
Table 3. Allocations and Costs Incurred by Government Recipient
(Costs Incurred Data as of June 30, 2020)
State or
Allocation
Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as
Government
Territory
($ Billions)
($ Billions)
a % of Allocation
Alabama state
Alabama
1.79
0.00
0%
Jefferson County
Alabama
0.12
0.00
2%
Alaska state
Alaska
1.25
0.35
28%
Congressional Research Service
8

---

The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

State or
Allocation
Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as
Government
Territory
($ Billions)
($ Billions)
a % of Allocation
American Samoa
American Samoa
0.04
0.01
25%
territory
Arizona state
Arizona
1.86
0.29
15%
Maricopa County
Arizona
0.40
0.01
3%
Pima County
Arizona
0.09
0.01
13%
Mesa city
Arizona
0.09
0.04
48%
Phoenix city
Arizona
0.29
0.17
58%
Tucson city
Arizona
0.10
0.04
38%
Arkansas state
Arkansas
1.25
0.26
21%
California state
California
9.53
9.53
100%
Alameda County
California
0.29
0.13
43%
Contra Costa
California
0.20
0.06
28%
County
Fresno County
California
0.08
0.03
33%
Kern County
California
0.16
0.05
32%
Los Angeles County
California
1.06
0.30
28%
Orange County
California
0.55
0.10
18%
Riverside County
California
0.43
0.08
18%
Sacramento County
California
0.18
0.15
82%
San Bernardino
California
0.38
0.08
21%
County
San Diego County
California
0.33
0.13
39%
San Joaquin County
California
0.13
0.02
12%
San Mateo County
California
0.13
0.03
19%
Santa Clara County
California
0.16
0.10
60%
Stanislaus County
California
0.10
0.01
13%
Ventura County
California
0.15
0.03
18%
Fresno city
California
0.09
0.01
13%
Los Angeles city
California
0.69
0.35
50%
Sacramento city
California
0.09
0.01
8%
San Diego city
California
0.25
0.09
38%
San Francisco city
California
0.15
0.10
65%
San Jose city
California
0.18
0.06
35%
Colorado state
Colorado
1.67
1.17
70%
Adams County
Colorado
0.09
0.02
17%
Arapahoe County
Colorado
0.12
0.00
2%
El Paso County
Colorado
0.13
0.05
36%
Jefferson County
Colorado
0.10
0.02
24%
Congressional Research Service
9

---

The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

State or
Allocation
Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as
Government
Territory
($ Billions)
($ Billions)
a % of Allocation
Denver city
Colorado
0.13
0.00
2%
Connecticut state
Connecticut
1.38
0.63
46%
Delaware state
Delaware
0.93
0.08
8%
New Castle County
Delaware
0.32
0.00
1%
District of Columbia
District of
0.50
0.14
29%
city
Columbia
Florida state
Florida
5.86
0.57
10%
Brevard County
Florida
0.11
0.00
2%
Broward County
Florida
0.34
0.13
38%
Hil sborough County
Florida
0.26
0.00
1%
Jacksonvil e city/
Florida
0.17
0.05
31%
Duval County
Lee County
Florida
0.13
0.02
16%
Miami-Dade County
Florida
0.47
0.05
11%
Orange County
Florida
0.24
0.01
4%
Palm Beach County
Florida
0.26
0.04
15%
Pasco County
Florida
0.10
0.03
31%
Pinel as County
Florida
0.17
0.02
9%
Polk County
Florida
0.13
0.04
33%
Volusia County
Florida
0.10
0.01
8%
Georgia state
Georgia
3.50
0.88
25%
Cobb County
Georgia
0.13
0.00
0%
DeKalb County
Georgia
0.13
0.02
15%
Fulton County
Georgia
0.10
0.02
20%
Gwinnett County
Georgia
0.16
0.01
5%
Atlanta city
Georgia
0.09
0.01
15%
Guam territory
Guam
0.12
0.03
25%
Hawai state
Hawai
0.86
0.09
10%
Honolulu County
Hawai
0.39
0.06
16%
Idaho state
Idaho
1.25
0.06
5%
Il inois state
Il inois
3.52
0.51
14%
Cook County
Il inois
0.43
0.02
5%
DuPage County
Il inois
0.16
0.00
2%
Kane County
Il inois
0.09
0.01
11%
Lake County
Il inois
0.12
0.00
0%
Wil County
Il inois
0.12
0.00
0%
Chicago city
Il inois
0.47
0.21
45%
Congressional Research Service
10

---

The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

State or
Allocation
Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as
Government
Territory
($ Billions)
($ Billions)
a % of Allocation
Indiana state
Indiana
2.44
0.93
38%
Indianapolis
Indiana
0.17
0.01
3%
city/Marion County
Iowa state
Iowa
1.25
0.58
46%
Kansas state
Kansas
1.03
0.01
1%
Johnson County
Kansas
0.12
0.01
9%
Sedgwick County
Kansas
0.10
0.00
1%
Kentucky state
Kentucky
1.60
0.10
6%
Louisvil e/Jefferson
Kentucky
0.13
0.01
6%
County metro
government
Louisiana state
Louisiana
1.80
0.56
31%
Maine state
Maine
1.25
0.30
24%
Maryland state
Maryland
1.65
0.83
50%
Anne Arundel
Maryland
0.10
0.04
43%
County
Baltimore County
Maryland
0.14
0.02
15%
Montgomery County
Maryland
0.18
0.04
24%
Prince George’s
Maryland
0.16
0.02
13%
County
Baltimore city
Maryland
0.10
0.05
49%
Massachusetts state
Massachusetts
2.46
0.94
38%
Plymouth County
Massachusetts
0.09
0.00
1%
Boston city
Massachusetts
0.12
0.01
8%
Michigan state
Michigan
3.08
0.09
3%
Kent County
Michigan
0.12
0.01
6%
Macomb County
Michigan
0.15
0.01
8%
Oakland County
Michigan
0.22
0.05
21%
Wayne County
Michigan
0.19
0.05
26%
Detroit city
Michigan
0.12
0.11
91%
Minnesota state
Minnesota
1.87
0.00
0%
Hennepin County
Minnesota
0.22
0.02
11%
Ramsey County
Minnesota
0.10
0.00
4%
Mississippi state
Mississippi
1.25
0.02
2%
Missouri state
Missouri
2.08
0.61
29%
Jackson County
Missouri
0.12
0.01
5%
St. Louis County
Missouri
0.17
0.01
6%
Montana state
Montana
1.25
0.08
6%
Congressional Research Service
11

---

The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

State or
Allocation
Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as
Government
Territory
($ Billions)
($ Billions)
a % of Allocation
Nebraska state
Nebraska
1.08
0.05
5%
Douglas County
Nebraska
0.17
0.00
2%
Nevada state
Nevada
0.84
0.09
11%
Clark County
Nevada
0.30
0.02
6%
Las Vegas city
Nevada
0.12
0.11
93%
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
1.25
0.43
34%
state
New Jersey state
New Jersey
2.39
0.05
2%
Bergen County
New Jersey
0.16
0.01
4%
Camden County
New Jersey
0.09
0.01
7%
Essex County
New Jersey
0.14
0.01
9%
Hudson County
New Jersey
0.12
0.01
5%
Middlesex County
New Jersey
0.14
0.01
4%
Monmouth County
New Jersey
0.11
0.02
18%
Ocean County
New Jersey
0.11
0.00
0%
Passaic County
New Jersey
0.09
0.05
60%
Union County
New Jersey
0.10
0.00
1%
New Mexico state
New Mexico
1.07
0.02
2%
Bernalil o County
New Mexico
0.03
0.00
13%
Albuquerque city
New Mexico
0.15
0.07
45%
New York state
New York
5.14
2.17
42%
Erie County
New York
0.16
0.03
16%
Monroe County
New York
0.13
0.04
28%
Nassau County
New York
0.10
0.10
100%
Suffolk County
New York
0.26
0.19
73%
Westchester County
New York
0.17
0.05
27%
Hempstead town
New York
0.13
0.01
5%
New York city
New York
1.46
1.45
99%
North Carolina state
North Carolina
3.59
0.30
8%
Guilford County
North Carolina
0.09
0.02
22%
Mecklenburg County
North Carolina
0.04
0.00
5%
Wake County
North Carolina
0.19
0.01
7%
Charlotte city
North Carolina
0.16
0.02
12%
North Dakota state
North Dakota
1.25
0.12
9%
Northern Mariana
Northern Mariana
0.04
0.01
14%
Islands territory
Islands
Ohio state
Ohio
3.75
0.44
12%
Congressional Research Service
12

---

The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

State or
Allocation
Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as
Government
Territory
($ Billions)
($ Billions)
a % of Allocation
Cuyahoga County
Ohio
0.22
0.03
13%
Franklin County
Ohio
0.08
0.03
36%
Hamilton County
Ohio
0.14
0.00
1%
Montgomery County
Ohio
0.09
0.04
43%
Summit County
Ohio
0.09
0.01
13%
Columbus city
Ohio
0.16
0.00
1%
Oklahoma state
Oklahoma
1.26
0.07
5%
Oklahoma County
Oklahoma
0.05
0.00
0%
Tulsa County
Oklahoma
0.11
0.00
1%
Oklahoma City city
Oklahoma
0.11
0.00
3%
Oregon state
Oregon
1.39
0.12
8%
Multnomah County
Oregon
0.03
0.01
25%
Washington County
Oregon
0.11
0.01
8%
Portland city
Oregon
0.11
0.00
3%
Pennsylvania state
Pennsylvania
3.94
1.13
29%
Al egheny County
Pennsylvania
0.21
0.01
6%
Bucks County
Pennsylvania
0.11
0.00
0%
Chester County
Pennsylvania
0.09
0.03
34%
Delaware County
Pennsylvania
0.10
0.03
25%
Lancaster County
Pennsylvania
0.10
0.01
5%
Montgomery County
Pennsylvania
0.15
0.01
3%
Philadelphia city
Pennsylvania
0.28
0.12
42%
Puerto Rico territory
Puerto Rico
2.24
0.63
28%
Rhode Island state
Rhode Island
1.25
0.25
20%
South Carolina state
South Carolina
1.91
0.00
0%
Greenvil e County
South Carolina
0.09
0.00
1%
South Dakota state
South Dakota
1.25
0.08
6%
Tennessee state
Tennessee
2.36
0.38
16%
Nashvil e-Davidson
Tennessee
0.12
0.03
28%
metropolitan
government
Shelby County
Tennessee
0.05
0.01
16%
Memphis city
Tennessee
0.11
0.03
25%
Texas state
Texas
8.04
0.83
10%
Bexar County
Texas
0.08
0.01
10%
Col in County
Texas
0.17
0.10
57%
Dal as County
Texas
0.24
0.01
6%
Congressional Research Service
13

---

The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

State or
Allocation
Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as
Government
Territory
($ Billions)
($ Billions)
a % of Allocation
Denton County
Texas
0.15
0.03
20%
El Paso County
Texas
0.03
0.00
4%
Fort Bend County
Texas
0.13
0.00
1%
Harris County
Texas
0.43
0.01
3%
Hidalgo County
Texas
0.15
0.02
10%
Montgomery County
Texas
0.11
0.02
20%
Tarrant County
Texas
0.21
0.05
25%
Travis County
Texas
0.06
0.01
11%
Wil iamson County
Texas
0.09
0.04
38%
Austin city
Texas
0.17
0.08
45%
Dal as city
Texas
0.23
0.04
18%
El Paso city
Texas
0.12
0.00
0%
Fort Worth city
Texas
0.16
0.02
12%
Houston city
Texas
0.41
0.04
9%
San Antonio city
Texas
0.27
0.06
24%
U.S. Virgin Islands
U.S. Virgin Islands
0.07
0.02
27%
territory
Utah state
Utah
0.94
0.20
21%
Salt Lake County
Utah
0.20
0.03
17%
Utah County
Utah
0.11
0.01
6%
Vermont state
Vermont
1.25
0.12
10%
Virginia state
Virginia
3.11
0.77
25%
Fairfax County
Virginia
0.20
0.05
26%
Washington state
Washington
2.17
0.01
0%
King County
Washington
0.26
0.05
21%
Pierce County
Washington
0.16
0.01
8%
Snohomish County
Washington
0.14
0.02
15%
Spokane County
Washington
0.09
0.00
1%
Seattle city
Washington
0.13
0.03
23%
West Virginia state
West Virginia
1.25
0.61
49%
Wisconsin state
Wisconsin
2.00
0.08
4%
Dane County
Wisconsin
0.10
0.03
33%
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
0.06
0.01
21%
Milwaukee city
Wisconsin
0.10
0.01
6%
Wyoming state
Wyoming
1.25
0.04
4%
Source: U.S. Treasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by State and Local Recipients through June 30,” July
23, 2020; and U.S. Treasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by the District of Columbia and Territories
through June 30,” July 23, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data

Notes: Recipients may choose to transfer funds to governments within their jurisdiction, but are not obligated
to do so. The data reflect incurred costs from those governments. The data do not include information on the
$8 bil ion provided to tribal governments. Cost incurred entries of “<0.01” indicate positive costs of less than
$0.005 bil ion.


Author Information

Grant A. Driessen

Analyst in Public Finance


Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Jameson Carter, Gene Falk, and Maggie McCarty for their helpful contributions The author wishes to thank Jameson Carter, Gene Falk, and Maggie McCarty for their helpful contributions
to this report. to this report.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
R46298 R46298 · VERSION 45 · UPDATED
159

---