Formula Grants:

Effects of Adjusted Population Counts on Federal Funding to States

HEHS-99-69: Published: Feb 26, 1999. Publicly Released: Mar 2, 1999.

Additional Materials:

Contact:

William J. Scanlon
(202) 512-7114
contact@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the potential effect of using adjusted population counts on the distribution of federal grant funding, focusing on: (1) 25 large formula grant programs; (2) identifying those programs that rely, at least in part, on census data to apportion funding; and (3) for selected programs, analyzing the extent to which funding would shift among states if adjusted population counts were used to apportion funds.

GAO noted that: (1) 22 of the 25 large formula grant programs rely, at least in part, on data derived from the decennial census to apportion funding among states and units of local government; (2) Medicaid was the single largest program, representing 63 percent of the $167 billion in fiscal year 1998 obligations under the 25 programs GAO reviewed; (3) for the 15 programs included in GAO's detailed analysis, using adjusted population counts would reallocate a total of $449 million among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 0.33 percent of the $138 billion in funds apportioned by formula in GAO's detailed analysis; and (4) specifically, reallocating funding would result in the following: (a) California accounted for about 20 percent of the adjusted population and would receive nearly half of the total reallocated, or $223 million; (b) the four states that border Mexico (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) accounted for over one-third of the adjusted population and would receive nearly 75 percent of the total reallocated, or $336 million; (c) the largest dollar reduction would occur in Pennsylvania ($110 million), and the largest percentage reduction would occur in Rhode Island (1.8 percent); (d) Medicaid accounted for 90 percent of all funds reallocated; and (e) funding would generally shift from northeastern and midwestern states to the southern and western states.

Sep 6, 2016

Aug 24, 2016

May 26, 2016

Apr 18, 2016

Mar 24, 2016

Mar 10, 2016

Feb 4, 2016

Sep 29, 2015

Mar 25, 2015

Feb 19, 2015

Looking for more? Browse all our products here