Full text
The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act,
Title V): Background and State and Local Data
Updated August 25, 2020
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R46298
SUMMARY
R46298
The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title
August 25, 2020
V): Background and State and Local Data
Grant A. Driessen
The sudden decline in economic output following the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Analyst in Public Finance
outbreak has significantly altered the fiscal outlook for state and local governments. A sizable
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
evidence suggests that the COVID-19 economic shock will have a notable impact on state and
local budgets.
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 Fund, which provides $150 billion in direct assistance for domestic governments. The CARES
Act stipulates that the $150 billion provided to the Coronavirus Relief Fund is allocated to governments in states, territories,
and tribal areas as follows: (1) $139 billion is allocated to state governments in the 50 states, with allocations based on their
populations and with no state receiving less than $1.25 billion; (2) $8 billion is set aside for governments in tribal areas; and
(3) $3 billion is allotted to governments in territories, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Coronavirus Relief Fund assistance is provided to state governments. Local governments serving a population of at least
500,000, as measured in the most recent census data, may elect to receive assistance directly from Treasury. Such direct local
assistance allocations reduce the allocation that is made to the state government (keeping the state allocation constant), an d
are equal to 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%.
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).
Congressional Research Service
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 Allocations to Local Governments, by
State........................................................................................................................... 8
Tables
Table 1. Total Allocations and Costs Incurred (as of June 30, 2020) by State ............................ 3
Table 2. Total Allocations and Costs Incurred (as of June 30, 2020) by Territory ....................... 6
Table 3. Allocations and Costs Incurred by Government Recipient.......................................... 8
Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 15
Congressional Research Service
The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data
he sudden decline in economic output following the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-
T 19) outbreak has significantly altered the fiscal outlook for state and local governments.
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 Fund, which provides $150
billion in direct assistance for state and local governments. This report briefly summarizes the
background, purpose, and allocation details of the Coronavirus Relief Fund.
Table 1 provides total Coronavirus Relief Fund allocations and costs incurred by states, and
Table 2 provides allocations and costs incurred for territories. A total of $149.5 billion was
allocated 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 billion (or 25%) in costs
incurred from allocated funds. 2 Figure 1 and Figure 2 show state-level percentages of allocations
incurred (through June 30, 2020) to state and local governments, respectively. Individual
government allocations and costs incurred are provided in Table 3.
Background
A sizable share of economic output derives from state and local government activity. State and
local governments spent $3.7 trillion in 2017, 19% of gross domestic product (GDP), divided
about equally across state governments (55% of combined state and local expenditures) and local
governments (45% of combined state and local expenditures). 3 These governments are generally
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 IN11258, State and Local
Fiscal Conditions and Economic Shocks.
Available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 economic shock will have a notable impact on
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
own-source revenues in 2017). Spikes in unemployment and decreased firm profitability are
expected to have a similar effect on individual and corporate income tax receipts (26% of own-
source revenues).4 Use of state and local spending programs is likely to increase, particularly for
public welfare programs (19% of 2017 expenditures) as well as hospital and public health
expenses (8% of 2017 expenditures).
The Coronavirus Relief Fund, established through Section 5001 of the CARES Act, offers a
means of assistance for state and local governments. The Coronavirus Relief Fund provides a
total of $150 billion in federal fiscal support for state and local governments, with eligibility
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
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
1 U.S. T reasury, “Daily T reasury Statement for August 12, 2020,” available at https://fsapps.fiscal.treasury.gov/dts/
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.
3 All state and local government finance data used in this report draw from U.S. Census Bureau, “2017 Survey of State
& Local Government Finances,” October 2019, available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/gov-
finances.html.
4 T here are no indications as yet of a comparable effect on the base for property taxes (32% of 2017 own -source
revenues), which are predominantly collected by local governments.
Congressional Research Service 1
The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data
provided $54 billion 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
of Federal Reserve capacity to support up to $454 billion in debt issued by state governments,
local governments, and eligible businesses
Eligible Purposes
Section 5001(d) of the CARES Act provides the eligible purposes for which Coronavirus Relief
Fund payments may be used. Specifically, it allows state and local governments to make
payments for programs that
(1) are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19);
(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
(3) were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020 and ends on December
30, 2020.6
Per Section 5001(f) of the CARES Act, the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury
determines whether Coronavirus Relief Fund payments are used for eligible purposes. Fund
payments that are deemed for ineligible purposes are treated as a debt owed by the implementing
government to Treasury.
As clarified in Treasury guidance, Coronavirus Relief Fund payments may not be used to directly
account for revenue shortfalls related to the COVID-19 outbreak. 7 Such funds, however, may
indirectly assist with revenue shortfalls in cases where expenses paid for by the Coronavirus
Relief Fund would otherwise widen the gap between government outlays and receipts. For
example, if $3 billion in Coronavirus Relief Fund assistance is sent to a government with
revenues that are $10 billion lower than expected and $5 billion in new COVID-19-related
expenses, that assistance will reduce the fiscal gap (from $15 billion to $12 billion) by the same
amount regardless of whether it applies to revenues or spending. Only in cases where
governments have revenue shortfalls and less related spending than the program provides are
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 Coronavirus Relief Fund
assistance despite its decrease in revenues.
Allocations Across States, Territories, and Tribal Areas
The CARES Act stipulates that the $150 billion provided to the Coronavirus Relief Fund is
allocated to governments in states, territories, and tribal areas as follows:8
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.
6 Section 5001(d) of the CARES Act, p. 603.
7 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.
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
uniformly when implementing allocation procedures.
Congressional Research Service 2
The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data
$139 billion is allocated 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 billion.
$8 billion is set aside for governments in tribal areas, with each tribal area’s
allocation based on its share of aggregate tribal expenditures in FY2019, as
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of
the Interior.
$3 billion is allocated to the territories of the District of Columbia (DC), Puerto
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
population across all territories, with populations determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury.
Table 1 shows state allocations for Coronavirus Relief Fund payments. Due to the $1.25 billion
minimum allocation for states, every state with an allocation greater than the minimum amount
receives a smaller allocation share (excluding amounts provided to tribal areas) than its share of
the population. Most states with a minimum allocation amount, in contrast, have a larger
allocation share than their population share. Treasury has allocated all amounts designated for
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 $34.7
billion in fund costs through June 30, 2020, or 25% of amounts allocated to those governments.
Table 1. Total Allocations and Costs Incurred (as of June 30, 2020) by State
(combined amounts to all direct recipients)
Allocation Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as a %
State
($ 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%
Hawaii 1.25 0.15 12%
Idaho 1.25 0.06 5%
Illinois 4.91 0.75 15%
Indiana 2.61 0.93 36%
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.
Congressional Research Service 3
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
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
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 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments.
Note: Allocation and population percentages do not include the $8 billion in assistance provided to tribal
governments. Cost incurred entries of “<0.01” indicate positive costs of less than $0.005 billion.
There are several reasons why governments facing budgetary pressures may not have
immediately incurred costs equal to their fund allocations. There is typically a lag between when
new, unexpected funds are distributed to state and local governments (which in this case generally
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 Finally, 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 allocations made to areas designated for
fund purposes as territories, including the District of Columbia. Territory allocations are made in
direct proportion to the relevant population estimate, with no minimum amount provided.
Allocation shares for all territories except Puerto Rico are smaller than the state minimum
amount. Treasury has allocated all 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, 2020, available at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments.
Note: Allocation and population percentages do not include the $8 billion in assistance provided to tribal
governments.
The CARES Act provided a total of $8 billion to be distributed to tribal governments through the
Coronavirus Relief Fund. The CARES Act further stipulated that fund allocations 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 allocations 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 all fund allocations 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 generally provided to state governments. Local
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 direc t local
assistance allocations reduce the allocation made to the state government (keeping the state
allocation constant) and are equal to the product of
the state or territory allocation 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
12 Section 5001(c)(7) of the CARES Act.
13
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.
14 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.
15 Section 5001(c)(5) of the CARES Act.
Congressional Research Service 6
The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data
long as the funds are used for eligible purposes. State governments transferred $534 billion to
local governments in 2017, or 28% of all local government revenues.
In many cases, populations are served by more than one local government that is eligible for
direct assistance from the Coronavirus Relief Fund (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).
Guidance from the Secretary of the Treasury clarified that in such cases, all overlapping
governments are eligible for assistance. However, direct assistance payments to larger localities
will be calculated using only their unique population, or will be reduced by any amounts also
attributable to smaller localities receiving assistance (i.e., in the above example the county
government only uses a population of 200,000 for its direct payment calculation).
Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the percentage of allocated funds incurred through June 30,
2020, by state, for state and local governments, respectively. Total costs incurred represent 25%
of the initial amount allocated to both state governments and local governments, with most cost
activity confined to a small 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 allocation as of June 30, while 30 states had incurred
less than 20% of their allocation. The only state with more than half of its direct local allocations
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 all allocations 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
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 billion 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 all local governments that received allocations 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 $8 billion provided to tribal governmen ts.
Table 3 lists the allocation and incurred cost amount for each direct recipient of a Coronavirus
Relief Fund allocation. Five recipients reported more than 90% of their costs incurred as of June
30: (1) California state; (2) Detroit city, Michigan; (3) Las Vegas city, Nevada; (4) Nassau
County, New York; and (5) New York City, New York. Of the 206 direct recipients, 84 reported
less than 10% of their allocation incurred over that time period.
Table 3. Allocations and Costs Incurred by Government Recipient
(Costs Incurred Data as of June 30, 2020)
State or Allocation Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as
Government Territory ($ 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%
Hillsborough County Florida 0.26 0.00 1%
Jacksonville 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%
Pinellas 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%
Hawaii state Hawaii 0.86 0.09 10%
Honolulu County Hawaii 0.39 0.06 16%
Idaho state Idaho 1.25 0.06 5%
Illinois state Illinois 3.52 0.51 14%
Cook County Illinois 0.43 0.02 5%
DuPage County Illinois 0.16 0.00 2%
Kane County Illinois 0.09 0.01 11%
Lake County Illinois 0.12 0.00 0%
Will County Illinois 0.12 0.00 0%
Chicago city Illinois 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%
Louisville/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%
Bernalillo 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%
Allegheny 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%
Greenville 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%
Nashville-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%
Collin County Texas 0.17 0.10 57%
Dallas 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%
Williamson County Texas 0.09 0.04 38%
Austin city Texas 0.17 0.08 45%
Dallas 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 billion provided to tribal governments. Cost incurred entries of “<0.01” indicate positive costs of less than
$0.005 billion.
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
to this report.
Disclaimer
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
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
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
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
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.
Congressional Research Service R46298 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED 15