Formula Grants: Effects of Adjusted Population Counts on Federal Funding
to States (Letter Report, 02/26/99, GAO/HEHS-99-69).

Twenty-two of the 25 large grant programs rely partly on decennial
census data to apportion federal funding among state and local
governments. In fiscal year 1998, $167 billion was obligated for them.
By comparing statistical sampling results to the actual 1990 census
count, the Census Bureau estimated that it had undercounted the U.S.
population by 4 million persons. GAO recalculated current funding
amounts for 15 of the 22 programs, assuming the same proportional net
undercount. These 15 represented $147 billion, or 79 percent, of
population-based programs. Using the adjusted population counts would
have reallocated $449 million among the 50 states and the District of
Columbia. California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas--the four states
bordering Mexico--accounted for more than one-third of the adjusted
populations and would have received nearly 75 percent of the total
reallocated, or $336 million. California accounted for about 20 percent
and would have received $223 million. Pennsylvania would have received
the largest dollar reduction ($110 million); Rhode Island the largest
percentage reduction (1.8 percent). Medicaid accounted for 90 percent of
all reallocated funds. Funding would have generally shifted from
northeastern and midwestern states to southern and western states. The
Bureau proposes to use statistical sampling techniques to estimate the
population for the 2000 census. Although the Supreme Court has ruled
that the Census Act prohibits using sampling techniques for
reapportioning seats in the House of Representatives, the ruling did not
address the use of adjusted counts for apportioning federal grant
funding.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-99-69
     TITLE:  Formula Grants: Effects of Adjusted Population Counts on
	     Federal Funding to States
      DATE:  02/26/99
   SUBJECT:  Population statistics
	     Census
	     Surveys
	     Formula grants
	     Grants to states
	     Grants to local governments
IDENTIFIER:  Census Bureau Post Enumeration Survey
	     1990 Decennial Census
	     2000 Decennial Census
	     Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
	     Children
	     Dept. of Education Vocational Education Program
	     Social Services Block Grant Program
	     Pennsylvania
	     New Mexico
	     Medicaid Program
	     Title IV-E Foster Care Program
	     ACYF Adoption Assistance Program
	     Texas
	     California
	     Rhode Island
	     Arizona

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************
He99069.book GAO United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 1999 FORMULA GRANTS Effects of Adjusted Population Counts
on Federal Funding to States

GAO/HEHS-99-69

  GAO/HEHS-99-69

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548
Lett er

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

GAO

Health, Education, and Human Services Division

B-281364 Letter February 26, 1999 The Honorable Dan Miller
Chairman Subcommittee on the Census

Committee on Government Reform House of Representatives

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Government Reform House of Representatives

To estimate the extent to which the 1990 decennial census fully
counted the U. S. population, the Bureau of the Census used a Post
Enumeration Survey (PES). For the PES, the Bureau interviewed a
sample of households several months after the 1990 census and
compared the results to census questionnaires to determine if each
sampled person was correctly counted, missed, or double counted in
the census. 1 The Bureau estimated that the

net undercount (those missed less those double counted) came to
4.0 million persons, for an adjusted U. S. population of 252.7
million people.

In the interest of reducing costs and improving accuracy, the
Census Bureau has proposed the use of statistical sampling
techniques to estimate the actual population counts for the 2000
census. Although the Supreme

Court ruled in a recent decision 2 that the Census Act prohibits
the use of sampling techniques for the purposes of reapportioning
seats in the House of Representatives, the ruling did not address
the use of adjusted counts for other purposes, including
apportioning federal grant funding.

Population counts, as derived from the decennial census, are
frequently used to apportion federal grants to states and units of
local government. 3 Of the $185 billion in population- based grant
funding for fiscal year 1998,

formula grants composed 95 percent of the amount and discretionary
1 See 1990 Census Adjustment: Estimating Census Accuracy  A
Complex Task (GAO/GGD-91-42, Mar. 11, 1991) for more background on
the methods and procedures used for the 1990 PES. 2 Dept. of
Commerce v. U. S. House of Representatives, No. 98- 404 (Sup. Ct.,
Jan. 25, 1999). 3 Most formula grants apportion funding among
states; however, several, such as Community Development Block
Grants and Federal Mass Transit Grants, apportion funding to units
of local government as well.

B-281364 Page 2 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

grants accounted for the rest. Because of formula grant programs'
reliance on population counts, adjusting these counts based on a
PES could potentially redistribute federal funding among states
and localities. This report responds to your request for
information on the potential effect of using adjusted population
counts on the distribution of federal grant funding, using
information from the 1990 census and the PES. Specifically, you
asked that we review 25 large formula grant programs (see table 1)
and (1) identify those that rely, at least in part, on census data
to apportion funding and (2) for selected programs, analyze the
extent to which funding would shift among states if adjusted
population counts were used to apportion funds.

As agreed with your offices, we recalculated current formula grant
funding amounts assuming the same proportional net undercount for
each state as estimated from the 1990 PES. We selected for
detailed analysis 15 programs that represented $147 billion, or 79
percent, of population- based grant programs, as reported by the
Congressional Research Service. 4 We did not

analyze formulas for the nine programs that used counts of people
below the poverty level to apportion funds because adjusted
poverty counts from the PES are not available. In addition, we did
not analyze formula programs that apportion funding directly to
units of local government.

Table 1: Large Formula Grant Programs, Fiscal Year 1998
Obligations

4 Congressional Research Service memorandum regarding federal
programs using some aspect of population as a qualifying or
limiting factor to dispense program funds or services, April 9,
1998.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number Program

Estimated obligations

(billions)

Selected for detailed analysis 93. 778 Medicaid $104. 0 20. 205
Highway Planning and Construction 19. 7 93. 658 Foster Care 3.7
84. 027 Special Education 3.2 10. 557 Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (Food) 3.
0

(continued)

B-281364 Page 3 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

a Total may not add because of rounding.

We conducted our work between September 1998 and February 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
See appendix I for a more detailed description of our methods.
Because we did not evaluate the policies or operations of any
federal agency to develop the information presented in this
report, we did not seek comments from any agency.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number Program

Estimated obligations

(billions)

93. 667 Social Services Block Grant 2. 4 84. 126 Rehabilitation
Services: Basic Support 2. 2 17. 246 Employment and Training
Dislocated

Workers 1. 4 93. 959 Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse
1. 4 93. 575 Child Care and Development Block Grant 1. 0 93. 568
Low Income Home Energy Assistance 1.0 84. 048 Vocational
Education: Basic Grants 1. 0 10. 557 Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (Admin.)
1. 0

93. 659 Adoption Assistance 0. 8 17. 207 Employment Services 0.8
Subtotal $146. 9 Excluded from detailed analysis

84. 010 Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies 7.5 20. 507
Federal Mass Transit Grants 3.1 14. 218 Community Development
Block Grant 3. 0 14. 239 HOME Investment Partnerships Program 1.3
14. 228 Community Development, State Program 1.2 17. 250a Job
Training Partnership Act, Title II- A 1.1 17. 250b Job Training
Partnership Act, Title II- B 0.9 84. 276 Goals 2000- State and
Local Education 0.6 93. 994 Maternal and Child Health Services 0.6
84. 186 Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities 0.6 Subtotal
$19.9

Total $166. 8 a

B-281364 Page 4 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Results in Brief Twenty- two 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. Medicaid was the single largest
program, representing 63 percent of the $167 billion in fiscal
year 1998 obligations under the 25 programs we reviewed.

For the 15 programs included in our 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 our
detailed analysis. Specifically, reallocating funding would result
in the following:

 California accounted for about 20 percent of the adjusted
population and would receive nearly half of the total reallocated,
or $223 million.  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 $336
million.  The largest dollar reduction would occur in Pennsylvania
($ 110 million),

and the largest percentage reduction would occur in Rhode Island
(1. 8 percent).  Medicaid accounted for 90 percent of all funds
reallocated.  Funding would generally shift from northeastern and
midwestern states to the southern and western states.

Most Formula Grant Programs Rely on Census Data to Apportion
Federal

Funds We found that 22 of the 25 large programs use decennial
census data, at

least in part, to apportion grant funding (see table 2). These 22
programs represent 97 percent of fiscal year 1998 obligations for
the largest 25 programs included in our analysis. The remaining
three programs accounted for $5. 2 billion.

Table 2: Large Formula Grant Programs, by Use of Census Data CFDA
number Program

Estimated obligations

(billions) Percentage of total

Formulas that use census data 93. 778 Medicaid $104. 4 63 20. 205
Highway Planning and Construction 19. 7 12

(continued)

B-281364 Page 5 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

a Totals may not add because of rounding.

Adjusting Population Counts Would Redistribute a Small Fraction of
Formula Grant Funding

Using adjusted population counts based on the 1990 PES in the 15
formula grant programs we analyzed would result in 23 states
receiving less funding and 27 states and the District of Columbia
receiving more. The gaining states would receive an additional
$449 million, or 0.33 percent of the $138 billion subject to
apportionment by formula. About $390 million would be reallocated
from states with undercounts below the national average, and

the federal government would contribute an additional $60 million
in the

CFDA number Program Estimated

obligations (billions) Percentage

of total

84. 010 Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies 7. 5 5 93. 658
Foster Care 3.7 2 20. 507 Federal Mass Transit Grants 3.1 2 14.
218 Community Development Block Grant 3. 0 2 10. 557 WIC (Food) 3.
0 2 93. 667 Social Services Block Grant 2. 4 1 84. 126
Rehabilitation Services: Basic Support 2. 2 1 17. 246 Employment
and Training Dislocated Workers 1. 4 1 93. 959 Prevention and
Treatment of Substance Abuse 1. 4 1 14. 239 HOME Investment
Partnerships Program 1.3 1 14. 228 Community Development, State
Program 1. 2 1 17. 250 Job Training Partnership Act, Title II- A
1. 1 1 93. 575 Child Care and Development Block Grant 1. 0 1 84.
048 Vocational Education: Basic Grants 1. 0 1 17. 250 Job Training
Partnership Act, Title II- B 0. 9 1 93. 659 Adoption Assistance
0.8 0 17. 207 Employment Services 0.8 0 84. 276 Goals 2000- State
and Local Education 0. 6 0 93. 994 Maternal and Child Health
Services 0.6 0 84. 186 Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
0. 6 0 Subtotal $161. 6 97 Formulas that do not use census data
84. 027 Special Education 3.2 2 10. 557 WIC (Admin.) 1. 0 1 93.
568 Low Income Home Energy Assistance 1. 0 1 Subtotal $5. 2 3

Total $166.8 a 100

B-281364 Page 6 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

three entitlement programs: Medicaid, Foster Care, and Adoption
Assistance.

Based on our simulations of formula funding in the 15 programs
analyzed, two states would account for the largest adjusted
population and reallocation of funds. California had an estimated
net undercount of about 838,000 and would gain $223 million in
grant funding. Texas had an estimated net undercount of about
486,000 and would gain $93 million. The four states that border
Mexico (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) accounted for
1. 5 million of the 4.0 million net undercount. Combined, they
would account for $336 million, or nearly 75 percent of the total
reallocated.

Rhode Island had the smallest estimated net undercount of about
1,400, or 0.1 percent of its official count. The PES added roughly
another 35,000 people in Pennsylvania, or 0.3 percent of its
official count, the second smallest net undercount. As a
consequence, Rhode Island formula funding would decline the most
in percentage terms (1. 8 percent), and

Pennsylvania's would decline the most in dollar terms ($ 110
million).

B-281364 Page 7 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Figure 1: Percentage Change in Grant Funding by State, When
Population Counts Are Adjusted for Net Undercount

The shift in funding that would result from the use of adjusted
population counts in the 15 programs included in our detailed
analysis is shown in

B-281364 Page 8 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

figure 1. The magnitude of the net undercount and the
corresponding funding shifts for each state are shown in appendix
II. Shifts in funding by state and by program are shown in
appendix III, and appendixes V through XXIX provide detailed
information on each of the 25 formula programs reviewed.

Medicaid Accounts for Most of the Reallocated Funding Medicaid is
the largest program, representing 68 percent of the formula

funding we analyzed, and it accounted for 90 percent of the
funding that would be reallocated. Using state population data
adjusted for the undercount would reallocate $402.4 million, or 0.
43 percent of the $93. 8 billion in total Medicaid funding (see
table 3).

Table 3: Funding Shifts in 15 Formula Grant Programs

Dollars in millions

Formula funding Change in formula funding Formula grant programs
Total Percentage

of total Total Percentage of program Percentage

of total

Medicaid $93,789 67. 89 $402.4 0. 43 89.63 Other grant programs
Rehab. Services 2,166 1. 57 12.7 0. 59 2. 82 Foster Care 3,106 2.
25 11.1 0. 36 2. 47 Social Services 2,286 1. 65 8. 5 0.37 1.90
Substance Abuse 1, 483 1. 07 6.0 0. 40 1. 34 Child Care 949 0. 69
5. 5 0.58 1.22 Adoption Assistance 590 0. 43 1. 6 0. 27 0. 36
Vocational Education 994 0.72 1. 2 0. 12 0. 27 Employment Services
742 0. 54 0 0. 00 0. 00 Employment Training 1,031 0. 75 0 0.00
0.00 Highways 22,517 16. 30 0 0. 00 0. 00 Low Income Energy 973 0.
70 0 0.00 0.00 Special Education 3, 690 2. 67 0 0. 00 0. 00 WIC
(Admin.) 1, 026 0. 74 0 0. 00 0. 00 WIC (Food) 2, 799 2. 03 0 0.
00 0. 00 Subtotal $44,353 33. 11 $46.5 0. 10 10.37

Total $138,142 100. 00 $449.0 0. 33 100. 00

B-281364 Page 9 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Reallocation in Other Programs Was Comparatively Small

While the other 14 programs represented 32 percent of the funds
analyzed, they accounted for just 10 percent of those that would
be reallocated. About $47 million was redistributed, representing
0.10 percent of total funding allocated by formula in these
programs.

There were several reasons other programs would reallocate a
smaller fraction of funding. First, some programs do not use
census data to apportion funds. For example, Special Education
uses the number of

children with disabilities as reported to the Department of
Education by the states, and administrative expenses for the
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children are allocated on the basis of the clients served. Second,
only a fraction of formula funding may be apportioned on the basis
of census data. For example, the largest nonentitlement program,
Highway Construction and Planning Grants, allocated $22.6 billion
to states in fiscal year 1998. However, only $1. 7 billion, or 8
percent, was apportioned on the

basis of census data. 5 Third, programs such as Employment
Services and Employment Training, which use formulas that rely on
labor force statistics, already use adjusted population counts to
develop civilian labor force and unemployment statistics that are
used in several employment and training programs. Consequently,
programs whose formulas rely on these data are reported as having
no effect in our analysis.

Finally, many programs contain a so- called hold- harmless
provision whereby states are guaranteed they will receive at least
as much as in some previous year. As a consequence, formulas only
apportion funding not subject to the hold- harmless provisions.
For example, under provisions

adopted in fiscal year 1999 for the Vocational Education Program,
states are guaranteed to receive no less than the amount received
in fiscal year 1998. Because appropriations increased only 0.32
percent, the undercount adjustment would reallocate just 0. 12
percent of the available funding. In

contrast, the Social Services Block Grant program allocated all
available funding on the basis of population with no hold-
harmless provision, resulting in 0.37 percent of its funding being
reallocated, or three times as much.

5 However, because of other provisions of the law, the population
data have no effect on the distribution of highway funds.

B-281364 Page 10 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

The Undercount Adjustment Would Shift Funding Among Regions

The largest net undercounts based on the PES tended to occur in
the southern and western sections of the country. Consequently,
adjusting for the undercount would tend to benefit states located
in these regions. The regional pattern in funding shifts is shown
in figure 2.

B-281364 Page 11 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Figure 2: Change in Grant Funding Using Adjusted Population Counts
Based on the 1990 Post Enumeration Survey

B-281364 Page 12 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Using adjusted population counts in the 15 programs whose formulas
we analyzed would result in $384 million being reallocated from
states in the Northeast and Midwest to states in the South and
West.

As agreed with your offices, we will make no further distribution
of this report until 6 days after its issue date. At that time, we
will send copies of this report to appropriate congressional
committees. We will also make

copies available to others on request. If you have questions
regarding this report, or if we can be of further assistance,
please call Jerry Fastrup, Assistant Director, at (202) 512- 7211
or me at (202) 512- 7114.

Kathryn G. Allen Associate Director Health Financing and

Public Health Issues

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Contents Letter 1 Appendix I Scope and Methodology

22 Appendix II Adjusted Population Count and Shifts in

Grant Funding in 15 Formula Grant Programs

24 Appendix III Shifts in State Funding in 15 Formula Grant
Programs

28 Appendix IV Guide to Formula Grant Program Profiles

32 Appendix V Adoption Assistance

33

Contents Page 15 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix VI Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance
Abuse

36 Appendix VII Child Care and Development Block Grant

40 Appendix VIII Community Development Block Grant (Entitlement
Grants)

44 Appendix IX Community Development Block Grant (State Program)

46 Appendix X Employment and Training Assistance, Dislocated
Workers

48 Appendix XI Employment Services 51

Contents Page 16 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XII Federal Transit Capital and Operating Assistance
Formula

54 Appendix XIII Foster Care 57

Appendix XIV Goals 2000- State and Local Education Systemic
Improvement

Program 60

Appendix XV Highway Planning and Construction

62 Appendix XVI HOME Investment Partnerships Program

66 Appendix XVII Job Training Partnership Act,

Title II- A 69

Contents Page 17 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XVIII Job Training Partnership Act, Title

II- B 71

Appendix XIX Low Income Home Energy Assistance

73 Appendix XX Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant

76 Appendix XXI Medicaid 77

Appendix XXII Rehabilitation Services 82

Appendix XXIII Safe and Drug Free Schools and

Communities State Grants 86

Appendix XXIV Social Services Block Grant

88

Contents Page 18 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XXV Special Education 91

Appendix XXVI Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (Food)

94 Appendix XXVII Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (Nutrition Services and
Administration)

97 Appendix XXVIII Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies

100 Appendix XXIX Vocational Education 102

Appendix XXX Major Contributors to This Report

107 Tables Table 1: Large Formula Grant Programs, Fiscal Year 1998
Obligations 2

Table 2: Large Formula Grant Programs, by Use of Census Data 4

Contents Page 19 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Table 3: Funding Shifts in 15 Formula Grant Programs 8 Table II.
1: Comparison of Official Count With Undercount- Adjusted

Population Count, by State 24 Table II. 2: Comparison of Formula
Grant Funding Using Population

Counts Before and After Adjustment for the Undercount, by State 26
Table V. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1997 Adoption Assistance

Allocations Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted Population
Counts 34 Table VI. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1999 Substance
Abuse Allocations

Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted Population Counts 38
Table VII. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1998 Child Care and

Development Block Grant Allocations Based on Actual and
Undercount- Adjusted Population Counts 41 Table X. 1: JTPA Title
III, Dislocated Worker Assistance Program, Fiscal Year 1998 49

Table XI. 1: Employment Service (Wagner- Peyser Act) Allotments
for Program Year 1998 52 Table XIII. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year
1997 Foster Care Allotments

Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted Population 58 Table XV.
1: Highway Planning and Construction Allotments for

FY 1998 64 Table XIX. 1: Allotments for Low Income Home Energy
Assistance,

FY 1998 74 Table XXI. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1997 Federal
Medical Assistance

Percentages Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted Population 78
Table XXI. 2: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1997 Medicaid Grant
Amounts Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted Population 80

Table XXII. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1998 Rehabilitation
Services Allotments Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted
Population Counts 83 Table XXIV. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1998
Social Services Block

Grant Allotments Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted
Population Counts 89 Table XXV. 1: Allotments for Special
Education in Fiscal Year 1998 92 Table XXVI. 1: Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(Food) Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 1998 95

Table XXVII. 1: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants and Children (Nutrition Services and Administration),
Fiscal Year 1998 98 Table XXIX. 1: Vocational and Technical
Education Assistance to the

States, Comparison of Actual Allocations to Simulated Allocations
103

Contents Page 20 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Table XXIX. 2: Percentage Change in Vocational Education
Population Counts Unadjusted and Adjusted for the Undercount 105
Figures Figure 1: Percentage Change in Grant Funding by State,
When Population

Counts Are Adjusted for Net Undercount 7 Figure 2: Change in Grant
Funding Using Adjusted Population Counts

Based on the 1990 Post Enumeration Survey 11

Contents Page 21 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding
Abbreviations

APF allotment proportion factor CDBG Community Development Block
Grant CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance CLF civilian
labor force FMAP Federal Medical Assistance Percentage PES Post
Enumeration Survey WIC Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants,

and Children

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix I Scope and Methodology Appendi x I

As agreed with your offices, we reviewed 25 large federal formula
grants identified by the Congressional Research Service as using
population data as a qualifying or limiting factor to dispense
program funds. We selected 15 programs for detailed analysis to
determine the extent to which formula funds would be reallocated
among the states if adjusted population counts, based on the Post
Enumeration Survey (PES), were used to apportion funds. We
selected the 15 programs by taking into account whether estimates
of the undercount were available for the population factors used
in the apportionment formula, the complexity of the formula, and
the availability of information necessary to simulate the formula.

The 15 programs included in our detailed analysis represented
$146.9 billion in obligations in fiscal year 1998, approximately
79 percent of all population- based grant funding for states and
units of local government (see table 1). Of the 10 programs not
included in our analysis, 9 relied on counts of people below the
poverty line for which estimates of the undercount from the 1990
census are not available. The remaining program, Federal Mass
Transit Grants, was not included because it apportions funding
directly to local transit authorities. This added

complexity would have significantly extended the time required to
complete the analysis and would not have significantly affected
the overall results because its funding was small in relation to
the total analyzed. To analyze the effect of using adjusted
population counts, we spoke with agency officials about the
procedure they used to calculate formula funding amounts. For
those programs that rely on census data we obtained the data
agencies used in their apportionment calculations. In most cases,
we developed our own formula simulation programs and verified our

calculations against those made by the responsible agency. We then
adjusted the population data used in each formula, assuming the
same proportional net undercount for each state, as determined by
the Bureau of the Census for the 1990 census. To the extent that a
PES for 2000 yields different proportionate net undercount
estimates, the results reported would differ from what would
result from using adjusted counts from the 2000 census.

Formula amounts were calculated using fiscal year 1998 data with
the following exceptions. The three entitlement programs
(Medicaid, Foster Care, and Adoption Assistance) all use the same
matching formula. Since the most recently available data for
Medicaid were for fiscal year 1997, we used fiscal year 1997 data
for all three programs. We used fiscal year 1999 data for Block
Grants for the Prevention and Treatment of Substance

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Abuse, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and Vocational
Education so that new formulas adopted by the Congress for fiscal
year 1999 would be reflected in our analysis.

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix II Adjusted Population Count and Shifts in Grant Funding
in 15 Formula Grant Programs Appendi x I I

According to the Census Bureau the 1990 census net undercount came
to 4 million people. The following table shows the estimated net
undercount for each state and the District of Columbia.

Table II. 1: Comparison of Official Count With Undercount-
Adjusted Population Count, by State Difference

States Official Adjusted Number Percent difference

Alabama 4,040, 587 4,113, 810 73, 223 1.81 Alaska 550, 043 561,
276 11, 233 2.04 Arizona 3, 665, 228 3,754, 666 89, 438 2.44
Arkansas 2,350, 725 2,392, 596 41, 871 1.78 California 29,760, 021
30,597, 578 837, 557 2.81 Colorado 3,294, 394 3,363, 637 69, 243
2.10 Connecticut 3, 287, 116 3,308, 343 21, 227 0.65 Delaware 666,
168 678, 385 12, 217 1.83 District of Columbia 606, 900 628, 309
21, 409 3. 53 Florida 12,937, 926 13,197, 755 259, 829 2.01
Georgia 6, 478, 216 6,620, 641 142, 425 2.20 Hawaii 1,108, 229
1,129, 170 20, 941 1.89 Idaho 1,006, 749 1,029, 283 22, 534 2.24
Illinois 11,430, 602 11,544, 319 113, 717 0.99 Indiana 5, 544, 159
5,572, 057 27, 898 0.50 Iowa 2,776, 755 2,788, 332 11, 577 0.42
Kansas 2,477, 574 2,495, 014 17, 440 0.70 Kentucky 3,685, 296
3,746, 044 60, 748 1.65 Louisiana 4,219, 973 4,314, 085 94, 112
2.23 Maine 1, 227, 928 1,237, 130 9, 202 0. 75 Maryland 4,781, 468
4,882, 452 100, 984 2.11 Massachusetts 6,016, 425 6,045, 224 28,
799 0.48 Michigan 9,295, 297 9,361, 308 66, 011 0.71 Minnesota 4,
375, 099 4,394, 610 19, 511 0.45 Mississippi 2, 573, 216 2,629,
548 56, 332 2.19 Missouri 5,117, 073 5,148, 974 31, 901 0.62
Montana 799, 065 818, 348 19, 283 2.41 Nebraska 1,578, 385 1,588,
712 10, 327 0.65

(continued)

Appendix II Adjusted Population Count and Shifts in Grant Funding
in 15 Formula Grant Programs

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Formula grant funds would be reallocated if adjusted population
counts were used to apportion funding in formula grant programs.
Table II. 2 shows the shift in funding for the 50 states and the
District of Columbia for the 15 programs included in our detailed
analysis.

Difference States Official Adjusted Number Percent

difference

Nevada 1,201, 833 1,230, 709 28, 876 2.40 New Hampshire 1, 109,
252 1,118, 632 9, 380 0. 85 New Jersey 7,730, 188 7,774, 461 44,
273 0.57 New Mexico 1,515, 069 1,563, 579 48, 510 3.20 New York
17,990, 455 18,262, 491 272, 036 1.51 North Carolina 6,628, 637
6,754, 567 125, 930 1.90 North Dakota 638, 800 643, 033 4, 233 0.
66 Ohio 10,847, 115 10,921, 741 74, 626 0.69 Oklahoma 3,145, 585
3,202, 963 57, 378 1.82 Oregon 2,842, 321 2,896, 472 54, 151 1.91
Pennsylvania 11,881, 643 11,916, 783 35, 140 0.30 Rhode Island 1,
003, 464 1, 004, 815 1,351 0. 13 South Carolina 3,486, 703 3,559,
547 72, 844 2.09 South Dakota 696, 004 702, 864 6, 860 0. 99
Tennessee 4,877, 185 4,964, 261 87, 076 1.79 Texas 16,986, 510
17,472, 538 486, 028 2.86 Utah 1,722, 850 1,753, 188 30, 338 1.76
Vermont 562, 758 569, 100 6,342 1. 13 Virginia 6,187, 358 6,313,
836 126, 478 2.04 Washington 4,866, 692 4,958, 320 91, 628 1.88
West Virginia 1,793, 477 1,819, 363 25, 886 1.44 Wisconsin 4, 891,
769 4,921, 871 30, 102 0.62 Wyoming 453, 588 463, 629 10, 041 2.21

Total 248,709, 873 252,730, 369 4, 020, 496 1.62

Appendix II Adjusted Population Count and Shifts in Grant Funding
in 15 Formula Grant Programs

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Table II. 2: Comparison of Formula Grant Funding Using Population
Counts Before and After Adjustment for the Undercount, by State

Dollars in thousands

Difference State Unadjusted Adjusted Amount Percent

Alabama $2, 325, 048 $2, 327,455 $2,407 0.10 Alaska 572,515
572,530 16 0.00 Arizona 1, 918, 112 1,928,998 10,887 0.57 Arkansas
1, 521,832 1, 522,898 1,066 0.07 California 13, 738, 620 13,
961,454 222,833 1.62 Colorado 1, 342,104 1, 349,345 7,242 0.54
Connecticut 2, 011, 927 2,011,043 -884 -0.04 Delaware 376,549
376,571 21 0.01 District of Columbia 610,499 610,702 203 0.03
Florida 5, 662, 500 5,685,147 22,647 0.40 Georgia 3, 557, 627
3,573,747 16,119 0.45 Hawaii 504,828 504,918 89 0.02 Idaho 570,893
572,541 1,648 0.29 Illinois 5, 367, 787 5,364,874 -2,912 -0.05
Indiana 2, 549, 080 2,525,413 -23,667 -0.93 Iowa 1, 288,155 1,
276,196 -11,959 -0.93 Kansas 1, 073,394 1, 064,708 -8,686 -0.81
Kentucky 2, 535,605 2, 535,044 -561 -0.02 Louisiana 3, 214,604 3,
226,341 11,737 0.37 Maine 933, 583 926,366 -7,217 -0.77 Maryland
2, 176,714 2, 177,329 616 0.03 Massachusetts 3, 446,163 3, 444,373
-1,790 -0.05 Michigan 4, 885,848 4, 835,245 -50,602 -1.04
Minnesota 2, 234, 073 2,202,148 -31,925 -1.43 Mississippi 1, 834,
067 1,837,837 3,769 0.21 Missouri 2, 870,331 2, 843,334 -26,997 -
0.94 Montana 577,660 579,536 1,876 0.32 Nebraska 773,851 767,099 -
6,752 -0.87 Nevada 518,670 519,104 433 0.08 New Hampshire 580, 608
580,359 -249 -0.04 New Jersey 3, 988,732 3, 985,779 -2,953 -0.07

(continued)

Appendix II Adjusted Population Count and Shifts in Grant Funding
in 15 Formula Grant Programs

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Difference States Official Adjusted Number Percent

New Mexico 1, 100,329 1, 108,883 8,554 0.78 New York 15, 581, 117
15, 579,854 -1,262 -0.01 North Carolina 4, 034,963 4, 041,793
6,830 0.17 North Dakota 441,570 439,483 -2,087 -0.47 Ohio 5,
639,835 5, 586,605 -53,230 -0.94 Oklahoma 1, 498,208 1, 499,588
1,380 0.09 Oregon 1, 499,544 1, 503,078 3,534 0.24 Pennsylvania 6,
557,921 6, 447,525 -110,396 -1.68 Rhode Island 723,138 710,126 -
13,012 -1.80 South Carolina 2, 187,328 2, 193,238 5,910 0.27 South
Dakota 447,761 446,200 -1,561 -0.35 Tennessee 3, 300,273 3,
304,297 4,024 0.12 Texas 9, 337, 774 9,431,222 93,448 1.00 Utah
824,047 824,390 343 0.04 Vermont 402, 683 401,151 -1,532 -0.38
Virginia 2, 248,870 2, 257,883 9,013 0.40 Washington 2, 528,490 2,
536,956 8,466 0.33 West Virginia 1, 354,095 1, 352,663 -1,432 -
0.11 Wisconsin 2, 526, 600 2,502,481 -24,119 -0.95 Wyoming 335,
333 336,367 1,034 0.31

Total $138, 131, 854 $138,192,215 $60,360 0.04

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix III Shifts in State Funding in 15 Formula Grant Programs
Appendi x I I I

Dollars in thousands

State Adoption

Assistance Prevention and

Treatment of Substance

Abuse Child Care

and Development

Employment and Training

Assistance Employment Services Foster

Care Highway

Planning and Construction

FY 1997 FY 1999 FY 1999 FY 1998 PY 1998 FY 1997 FY 1998

Alabama $1 -$ 319 $33 0 0 $4 0 Alaska 0 -3 -3 0 0 0 0 Arizona 54
346 213 0 0 159 0 Arkansas 3 -132 23 0 0 10 0 California 995 3,632
1, 883 0 0 9,353 0 Colorado 35 0 35 0 0 72 0 Connecticut 0 -422 -
84 0 0 0 0 Delaware 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 District of Columbia 0 0 18 0 0
0 0 Florida 96 194 431 0 0 174 0 Georgia 32 -280 308 0 0 121 0
Hawaii 0 17 9 0 0 0 0 Idaho 4 0 2 0 0 5 0 Illinois 0 -809 -471 0 0
0 0 Indiana -129 0 -405 0 0 -445 0 Iowa -114 0 -226 0 0 -168 0
Kansas -93 0 -164 0 0 -136 0 Kentucky 0 -235 2 0 0 -3 0 Louisiana
20 -221 79 0 0 109 0 Maine -29 0 -70 0 0 -211 0 Maryland 0 -24 123
0 0 0 0 Massachusetts 0 0 -330 0 0 0 0 Michigan -640 0 -482 0 0 -
1,097 0 Minnesota -91 0 -312 0 0 -487 0 Mississippi 2 -165 47 0 0
14 0 Missouri -67 -653 -340 0 0 -366 0 Montana 3 0 11 0 0 29 0
Nebraska -30 -163 -114 0 0 -116 0 Nevada 0 122 42 0 0 0 0 New
Hampshire 0 0 -52 0 0 0 0 New Jersey 0 -1, 047 -204 0 0 0 0 New
Mexico 31 170 32 0 0 41 0

Appendix III Shifts in State Funding in 15 Formula Grant Programs

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Low Income Home Energy Medicaid Rehabilitation

Services Social Services Special

Education WIC

Vocational Education

Total Food

Nutrition Services and Admin.

FY 1998 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1998 FY 1998 FY 1998 FY 1998 FY 1999

0 $2,537 $84 $67 0 0 0 0 $2, 407

0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 16

0 9, 304 466 290 0 0 0 $54 10, 887

0 1, 091 40 33 0 0 0 0 1,066

0 197, 912 4,719 3, 213 0 0 0 1, 128 222, 833

0 6, 730 220 150 0 0 0 0 7,242

0 0 -101 -277 0 0 0 0 -884

0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 21

0 0 95 90 0 0 0 0 203

0 20, 880 661 454 0 0 0 -243 22, 647

0 15,067 523 349 0 0 0 0 16, 119

0 0 37 26 0 0 0 0 89

0 1, 508 91 60 0 0 0 -22 1,648

0 0 -986 -646 0 0 0 0 -2, 912

0 -21, 220 -907 -561 0 0 0 0 -23, 667

0 -10, 675 -479 -296 0 0 0 0 -11, 959

0 -7,682 -328 -204 0 0 0 80 -8, 686

0 -300 -13 -9 0 0 0 0 -561

0 11,194 335 220 0 0 0 0 11, 737

0 -6,658 -155 -94 0 0 0 0 -7, 217

0 0 303 214 0 0 0 0 616

0 0 -860 -600 0 0 0 0 -1, 790

0 -45, 819 -1, 183 -754 0 0 0 -626 -50, 602

0 -29, 830 -732 -473 0 0 0 0 -31, 925

0 3, 567 196 108 0 0 0 0 3,769

0 -24, 373 -739 -458 0 0 0 0 -26, 997

0 1, 685 90 58 0 0 0 0 1,876

0 -5,968 -224 -137 0 0 0 0 -6, 752

0 0 149 103 0 0 0 18 433

0 0 -120 -77 0 0 0 0 -249

0 0 -981 -721 0 0 0 0 -2, 953

0 7, 683 368 226 0 0 0 1 8,554

(continued)

Appendix III Shifts in State Funding in 15 Formula Grant Programs

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

State Adoption

Assistance Prevention and

Treatment of Substance

Abuse Child Care

and Development

Employment and Training

Assistance Employment Services Foster

Care Highway

Planning and Construction

FY 1997 FY 1999 FY 1999 FY 1998 PY 1998 FY 1997 FY 1998

New York 0 -392 -349 0 0 0 0 North Carolina 15 -399 159 0 0 68 0
North Dakota -5 0 -22 0 0 -30 0 Ohio -304 0 -596 0 0 -1, 029 0
Oklahoma 8 -108 30 0 0 19 0 Oregon 22 0 13 0 0 45 0 Pennsylvania -
252 0 -742 0 0 -3, 551 0 Rhode Island -63 0 -77 0 0 -111 0 South
Carolina 10 -214 57 0 0 28 0 South Dakota -4 0 -38 0 0 -9 0
Tennessee 7 -244 86 0 0 31 0 Texas 206 1,367 1, 642 0 0 690 0 Utah
2 60 -67 0 0 5 0 Vermont -11 0 -23 0 0 -38 0 Virginia 30 -162 166
0 0 70 0 Washington 24 86 17 0 0 32 0 West Virginia -1 0 -8 0 0 -
12 0 Wisconsin -147 0 -298 0 0 -380 0 Wyoming 1 0 10 0 0 9 0

Total -$ 380 -0 0 0 0 $2, 899 0

Appendix III Shifts in State Funding in 15 Formula Grant Programs

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Low Income Home Energy Medicaid Rehabilitation

Services Social Services Special

Education WIC

Vocational Education

Total Food

Nutrition Services and Admin.

FY 1998 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1998 FY 1998 FY 1998 FY 1998 FY 1999

0 0 -332 -190 0 0 0 0 -1, 262

0 6, 626 232 128 0 0 0 0 6,830

0 -1,977 0 -53 0 0 0 0 -2, 087

0 -48, 957 -1, 442 -902 0 0 0 0 -53, 230

0 1, 351 71 54 0 0 0 -45 1,380

0 3, 278 103 73 0 0 0 0 3,534

0 -102,338 -2, 121 -1,392 0 0 0 0 -110, 396

0 -12, 441 -193 -127 0 0 0 0 -13, 012

0 5, 666 214 147 0 0 0 0 5,910

0 -1,468 -1 -40 0 0 0 0 -1, 561

0 3, 995 82 69 0 0 0 0 4,024

0 84,489 3, 083 1,971 0 0 0 0 93, 448

0 443 25 21 0 0 0 -144 343

0 -1,434 0 -25 0 0 0 0 -1, 532

0 8, 365 329 216 0 0 0 0 9,013

0 8, 073 157 117 0 0 0 -41 8,446

0 -1,320 -62 -30 0 0 0 0 -1, 432

0 -22, 133 -715 -446 0 0 0 0 -24, 119

0 990 0 24 0 0 0 0 1,034 0 $57, 841 -0 -0 0 0 0 0 $60, 360

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix IV Guide to Formula Grant Program Profiles Appe ndi x I V

Appendixes V to XXIX contain profiles of the 25 large formula
grant programs included in our analysis. Each profile identifies
the program by its Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
identification number and summarizes the following information:

 the objective of the program,  the administering federal agency,
its fiscal year 1998 budget obligation (estimate),  a narrative
describing the formula used to apportion funds,  a mathematical
statement of the funding formula, 1  definitions of the
statistical factors used in the formula,  identification of the
data sources for each of the statistical factors,  a description
of minimum funding provisions that may limit the

application of the funding formula,  the amount of formula funding
that was reallocated by adjusting for the 1990 undercount, and

 comments on any unique characteristics or circumstances
encountered in analyzing the formula.

1 In several instances, the mathematical statement of the formula
algorithm has been simplified or expressed in mathematically
equivalent forms in the interest of conveying the general effect
of highly complex algorithms.

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix V Adoption Assistance Appe ndi x V

CFDA Number: 93. 659

Program Objectives: To provide assistance to states in promoting
the adoption of children with special needs. Federal Agency:
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of

Human Development Services, Administration for Children, Youth,
and Families.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $0.8 billion. Formula
Narrative: Eligible program expenditures are reimbursed using the
Medicaid matching percentage, known as the Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage (FMAP). The FMAP varies on a sliding scale
with state per capita income and ranges from 50 to 83 percent of
eligible expenditures. Administrative, training, and related
expenses are

reimbursed at a flat percentage rate.

Mathematical Structure:

Where:

Formula Constraints: No state may receive a matching percentage
below 50 percent or in excess of 83 percent. Definitions:

FMAP = Federal Medical Assistance Percentage. PCI = Per capita
personal income. PI = Personal income. Pop = State population.

2 US State

PCI PCI 0.45 1.00 FMAP

    - =

    =

State State

State Pop PI PCI

Appendix V Adoption Assistance

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Data Sources: PI:
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Pop: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and the
Bureau of the Census.

Amount Reallocated: $1. 601 million, 0.27 percent of total
allocated.

Comment: See table XXI. 1 under Medicaid for a comparison of FMAPs
based on actual and adjusted population data. The accompanying
table shows the total grant amount and the amount subject to the
FMAP. The differences between the two amounts are administrative
and training expenditures that are subject to uniform
reimbursement percentages.

Table V. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1997 Adoption Assistance
Allocations Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted Population
Counts

Dollars in thousands

Grant amount determined by the FMAP Difference State Total grant
Actual Adjusted Amount Percent a

Alabama $2, 401 $621 $622 $1 0.04 Alaska 1, 995 1, 869 1,869 0
0.00 Arizona 8, 374 6, 504 6, 558 54 0. 64 Arkansas 3, 204 2, 359
2,362 3 0.08 California 60, 429 43,333 44, 327 995 1.65 Colorado
5,392 4, 061 4, 096 35 0. 65 Connecticut 5, 023 3, 670 3, 670 0 0.
00 Delaware 596 523 523 0 0.00 District of Columbia 2,350 1, 218
1, 218 0 0. 00 Florida 27, 911 16,149 16, 245 96 0.35 Georgia 6,
258 4,494 4,525 32 0. 50 Hawaii 1,172 912 912 0 0. 00 Idaho 1, 055
639 642 4 0.33 Illinois 24, 652 19,626 19, 626 0 0. 00 Indiana 10,
128 9, 164 9,035 -129 -1.27 Iowa 9, 116 8, 007 7,893 -114 -1.26
Kansas 7, 736 7, 238 7,146 -93 -1.20 Kentucky 3, 720 2, 743 2,742
0 -0.01

(continued)

Appendix V Adoption Assistance

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

a Percentage of total.

Grant amount determined by the FMAP Difference State Total grant
Actual Adjusted Amount Percent a

Louisiana 12, 772 4,366 4,386 20 0. 16 Maine 3, 915 2,940 2,910 -
29 -0.75 Maryland 5, 210 5, 179 5,179 0 0.00 Massachusetts 12, 276
10,604 10, 604 0 0. 00 Michigan 43, 529 43,353 42, 713 -640 -1.47
Minnesota 6, 668 4,379 4,289 -91 -1.36 Mississippi 874 856 858 2
0. 27 Missouri 7, 311 5, 051 4,984 -67 -0.92 Montana 892 493 497 3
0.37 Nebraska 2, 298 2, 225 2,195 -30 -1.30 Nevada 1,742 541 541 0
0. 00 New Hampshire 779 537 537 0 0. 00 New Jersey 8, 981 6, 379
6,379 0 0.00 New Mexico 3, 199 2, 728 2,759 31 0. 98 New York 111,
667 104,150 104,150 0 0.00 North Carolina 6, 684 6, 374 6,389 15
0. 22 North Dakota 623 499 494 -5 -0.74 Ohio 88, 926 23,689 23,
385 -304 -0.34 Oklahoma 6,808 5, 022 5, 031 8 0. 12 Oregon 6, 040
5, 818 5,839 22 0. 36 Pennsylvania 17, 084 10,458 10, 207 -252 -
1.47 Rhode Island 2,838 2, 486 2, 422 -63 -2. 23 South Carolina 5,
727 2, 657 2,668 10 0. 18 South Dakota 762 600 596 -4 -0.57
Tennessee 5, 397 4, 334 4,341 7 0.13 Texas 16, 987 14,366 14, 572
206 1.21 Utah 2, 769 1, 852 1,854 2 0.06 Vermont 2, 583 1,734
1,723 -11 -0.43 Virginia 4, 555 4, 090 4,120 30 0. 65 Washington
5, 060 4, 812 4,836 24 0. 48 West Virginia 628 444 443 -1 -0.10
Wisconsin 12, 507 10,443 10, 296 -147 -1.17 Wyoming 137 118 119 1
0.69

Total $589, 740 $426,704 $426,324 -$ 380 -0.06

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix VI Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance
Abuse Appe ndi x VI

CFDA Number: 93. 959

Program Objectives: To provide financial assistance for the
development and implementation of prevention, treatment, and
rehabilitation activities directed to the disease of alcohol and
drug abuse. Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human
Services, Substance

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $1.4 billion.

Formula Narrative: Each state's share of the available funding is
based on a federal percentage share of its population in need (FP)
adjusted for crossstate differences in the cost of services. The
population in need is based on weighted shares of population aged
18 to 24 (50 percent) with urban residents 18 to 24 double
counted, and population aged 25 to 64 (50 percent). The cost- of-
services factor is a weighted average of the cost of health care
workers (75 percent); a proxy for the cost of capital facilities
(15 percent); and other factors, which do not vary across states
(10

percent). The federal percentage varies on a sliding scale, with
states' total taxable resources per person in need adjusted for
cross- state differences in the cost of services.

Mathematical Structure:

Where: ,and

( ( FP Cost Pop Need FP Cost Pop Need Amt Grant Federal

States )All )State

* * * * =

+       + + =

US State

US US State State 64 Pop25

64 Pop25 * 0.50 UPop18-24 Pop18-24 UPop18-24 Pop18-24 * 0.50 Pop
Need

State State Rent 0.15 Wage 0.75 0.10 Cost * + * + =

AdjTTR TTR Adj 0.35 - 1.0 FP

States All State

    =

Appendix VI Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance
Abuse

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Formula Constraints:
The cost factor cannot exceed 110 percent of the

U. S. average or be below 90 percent of the average. The federal
percentage must be at least 40 percent. States were guaranteed a
minimum increase equal to 30. 65 percent of the increase in
appropriation from fiscal year 1998. In addition, no state may
receive less than 0.375 percent of the appropriation amount (small
state minimum) except that the allotment of such states may
increase by no more than 3 times the increase in the appropriation
from fiscal year 1998.

Definitions:

Amt = Funds available for allocation to states. Need Pop =
Population in need of services. Pop18- 24 = Population aged 18
through 24. UPop18- 24 = Population in urbanized areas aged 18
through 24. Pop25- 64 = Population aged 25 through 64. Cost = An
index of the cost of services. Wages = An index of wages paid to
workers in the health care industry (U. S. average = 1.0). Rent =
An index of the cost of 4- bedroom housing rental units (proxy for
office space costs) (U. S. average = 1. 0).

FP = A state's federal percentage. TTR = A state's Total Taxable
Resources. Adj TTR = A state's TTR per person in need, adjusted
for the cost of services.

Data Sources:

Pop: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Wages:
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Rent: Calculated by
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
using data from the Department of Housing and Urban

Development. TTR: Department of the Treasury.

Amount Reallocated: $6 million, 0.40 percent of formula funds.

Comments: None.

* =

State State State

State Cost Pop) (Need TTR TTR Adj

Appendix VI Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance
Abuse

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Table VI. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1999 Substance Abuse
Allocations Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted Population
Counts

Dollars in thousands

Allotment Difference State Unadjusted Adjusted Amount Percent

Alabama $21,667 $21, 348 -$ 319 -1.47 Alaska 3,441 3, 437 -3 -0.09
Arizona 27, 127 27, 473 346 1. 28 Arkansas 11,280 11,148 -132 -
1.17 California 216,995 220, 628 3,632 1. 67 Colorado 20,297
20,297 0 0.00 Connecticut 16, 406 15, 983 -422 -2. 57 Delaware
5,554 5, 554 0 0. 00 District of Columbia 4, 953 4, 953 0 0. 00
Florida 80,256 80,450 194 0.24 Georgia 40, 711 40, 431 -280 -0. 69
Hawaii 6,810 6, 827 17 0.25 Idaho 5,944 5, 944 0 0. 00 Illinois
61,138 60,329 -809 -1.32 Indiana 32,509 32,509 0 0.00 Iowa 12,542
12,542 0 0.00 Kansas 10,996 10,996 0 0.00 Kentucky 19,105 18,870 -
235 -1.23 Louisiana 24,828 24,607 -221 -0.89 Maine 5,944 5, 944 0
0. 00 Maryland 29,389 29,365 -24 -0.08 Massachusetts 33, 214 33,
214 0 0. 00 Michigan 56,510 56,510 0 0.00 Minnesota 21,392 21,392
0 0.00 Mississippi 13, 142 12, 977 -165 -1. 26 Missouri 24,121
23,468 -653 -2.71 Montana 5,584 5, 584 0 0. 00 Nebraska 7,473 7,
310 -163 -2.18 Nevada 9,442 9, 564 122 1. 29 New Hampshire 5,944
5, 944 0 0. 00 New Jersey 45, 116 44, 068 -1, 047 -2. 32 New
Mexico 8,262 8, 432 170 2. 06

(continued)

Appendix VI Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance
Abuse

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Allotment Difference State Unadjusted Adjusted Amount Percent

New York 104,711 104, 319 -392 -0.37 North Carolina 33,405 33,006
-399 -1.19 North Dakota 3,817 3, 817 0 0. 00 Ohio 65,062 65,062 0
0.00 Oklahoma 16, 186 16, 077 -108 -0. 67 Oregon 15,115 15,115 0
0.00 Pennsylvania 57, 670 57, 670 0 0. 00 Rhode Island 5,944 5,
944 0 0. 00 South Carolina 18,527 18,314 -214 -1.15 South Dakota
3,530 3, 530 0 0. 00 Tennessee 25,625 25,381 -244 -0.95 Texas
122,544 123, 910 1,367 1. 12 Utah 13,730 13,789 60 0. 43 Vermont
3,774 3, 774 0 0. 00 Virginia 39,245 39,083 -162 -0.41 Washington
30,769 30,855 86 0. 28 West Virginia 8,435 8, 435 0 0. 00
Wisconsin 24,530 24,530 0 0.00 Wyoming 2,452 2, 452 0 0. 00

Total $1,483,164 $1, 483,164 $0 0. 00

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix VII Child Care and Development Block Grant Appe ndi x VI
I

CFDA Number: 93. 575

Program Objectives: To make funds available to states to increase
the availability, affordability, and quality of child care and to
increase the availability of early childhood development before-
and after- school programs.

Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $1. 0 billion.

Formula Narrative: A state's allocation is determined by a formula
based on (1) the number of children under age 5, (2) the number of
children receiving assistance through the school lunch program,
and (3) the state's 3- year average per capita income. The per
capita income is used to compute an allotment proportion factor
(APF), defined as the ratio of the

U. S. per capita income to the state's per capita income.

Mathematical Structure:

Where:

Where: Formula Constraints: The APF may not exceed 1.20 or be less
than 0.80.

( ) ( )

    +

 =

Numerator of Sum *APF /SLPop SLPop 0.5*Amt

Numerator of Sum *APF 5 /Pop 5 Pop 0.5*Amt Grant Federal

State US State State US State % %

    =

State US

State PCI PCI APF , and

    =

State State

State Pop PI PCI

Appendix VII Child Care and Development Block Grant

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Definitions:

Amt = Funds available for allocation to states. Pop< 5 =
Population count of those younger than age 5. SLPop = Children
receiving assistance through the school lunch program. APF = A
state's allotment proportion factor. PCI = Per capita income. PI =
Total personal income. Pop = Population.

Data Sources: SLPop: Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer
Service. Pop< 5: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. PI:
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census
Bureau. Pop: Bureau of the Census.

Amount Reallocated: $5.5 million, 0.58 percent of formula funding.

Comments: None.

Table VII. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1998 Child Care and
Development Block Grant Allocations Based on Actual and
Undercount- Adjusted Population Counts Dollars in thousands

Allocations based on Difference State Actual Adjusted Amount
Percent

Alabama $20,599 $20, 631 $33 0. 16 Alaska 2,102 2, 099 -3 -0.12
Arizona 20, 527 20,740 213 1. 04 Arkansas 12, 080 12, 103 23 0.19
California 121,428 123, 311 1,883 1. 55 Colorado 10, 754 10, 789
35 0.33 Connecticut 7,186 7, 102 -84 -1.16 Delaware 1,959 1, 968 9
0. 47 District of Columbia 1, 891 1, 909 18 0. 95 Florida 51, 407
51, 838 431 0. 84 Georgia 32, 701 33, 009 308 0. 94 Hawaii 3,939
3, 948 9 0. 22

(continued)

Appendix VII Child Care and Development Block Grant

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Allocations based on Difference State Actual Adjusted Amount
Percent

Idaho 5,263 5, 265 2 0. 05 Illinois 37, 509 37, 038 -471 -1.26
Indiana 18, 175 17, 769 -405 -2.23 Iowa 9,246 9, 020 -226 -2.44
Kansas 8,914 8, 751 -164 -1.83 Kentucky 17, 841 17, 843 2 0. 01
Louisiana 25, 648 25, 727 79 0.31 Maine 3,870 3, 800 -70 -1.80
Maryland 13, 194 13, 316 123 0. 93 Massachusetts 13, 664 13, 334 -
330 -2.42 Michigan 28, 171 27, 688 -482 -1.71 Minnesota 13, 103
12, 791 -312 -2.38 Mississippi 16, 974 17, 021 47 0.27 Missouri
18, 445 18, 105 -340 -1.84 Montana 3,156 3, 166 11 0.35 Nebraska
5,657 5, 543 -114 -2.02 Nevada 4,735 4, 777 42 0.88 New Hampshire
2, 475 2, 423 -52 -2. 11 New Jersey 18, 725 18, 522 -204 -1.09 New
Mexico 9,416 9, 448 32 0.34 New York 56, 950 56, 601 -349 -0.61
North Carolina 28, 292 28, 450 159 0. 56 North Dakota 2,302 2, 280
-22 -0.95 Ohio 33, 614 33, 018 -596 -1.77 Oklahoma 15, 158 15, 188
30 0.20 Oregon 10, 084 10, 097 13 0.13 Pennsylvania 32, 299 31,
557 -742 -2.30 Rhode Island 2, 600 2, 523 -77 -2. 95 South
Carolina 18, 012 18, 069 57 0.32 South Dakota 3,163 3, 124 -38 -
1.21 Tennessee 20, 445 20, 531 86 0.42 Texas 94, 368 96, 010 1,642
1. 74 Utah 9,759 9, 692 -67 -0.69 Vermont 1,683 1, 661 -23 -1.36
Virginia 19, 405 19, 572 166 0. 86 Washington 16, 423 16, 440 17
0.10

(continued)

Appendix VII Child Care and Development Block Grant

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Allocations based on Difference State Actual Adjusted Amount
Percent

West Virginia 7,624 7, 616 -8 -0.11 Wisconsin 14, 801 14, 502 -298
-2.02 Wyoming 1,667 1, 677 10 0.57

Total $949,402 $949, 402 $0 0.00

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix VIII Community Development Block Grant (Entitlement
Grants) Appendi x VI I I

CFDA Number: 14. 218

Program Objectives: To develop viable urban communities by
providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by
expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low
and moderate income.

Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Community Planning and Development.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $2. 9 billion.

Formula Narrative: Grant amounts are computed for units of local
government meeting the eligibility criteria. Called entitlement
communities, these include metropolitan cities and counties. A
separate program (CFDA number 14. 228) provides funding to states
for

nonentitlement communities. Entitlement communities receive the
larger of the amount computed under two formulas. The first
formula (formula A) uses population, poverty, and overcrowded
housing units as formula factors with weights of 25, 50, and 25
percent, respectively. The second formula (formula B) uses
population growth lag, poverty, and aging housing units weighted
20 percent, 30 percent, and 50 percent, respectively.

Mathematical Structure: Mathematical Structure: Where:

Formula Constraints: None.

 = Numerator the of Sum B Formula or A Formula of Larger * Amt
Grant

    +

   +

    =

M e

M e

ec e

Age Age * .50 Pov

Pov * .3 GLag GLag * .2 B Formula

    +

   +

    =

M e

M e

M e

Ocrowd Ocrowd * .25 Pov

Pov * .50 Pop Pop * .25 A Formula

Appendix VIII Community Development Block Grant (Entitlement
Grants)

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Definitions:

Subscripts: e is the value for the jurisdiction. M is the value
for all Metropolitan Statistical Areas. ec is the value for all
entitlement cities.

Variables:

Amt = Funds available for allocation to entitlement communities.
Pop = Population. Pov = Poverty. Ocrowd = Number of overcrowded
housing units defined as those with 1.01 or more persons per room.
GLag = A jurisdiction's growth lag defined as the difference
between its projected population from 1960 to its current
population (assuming it had

grown at the average growth rate of all entitlement jurisdictions)
and its actual population growth over that period. If the unit's
population growth rate did not lag behind the average, this factor
is set to zero. Age = Number of year- round housing units built
prior to 1940.

Data Sources:

Pop: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Pov: Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Ocrowd: Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. Age: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census. Glag: Computed by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development from data supplied by Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census.

Amount Reallocated: Not applicable.

Comment: This formula was not analyzed because undercount
estimates for the poverty population are not available.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix IX Community Development Block Grant (State Program) Appe
ndi x I X

CFDA Number: 14. 228

Program Objectives: To develop viable urban communities by
providing decent housing and suitable living environment, and by
expanding economic opportunities, principally for people of low
and moderate income.

Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Community Planning and Development.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $1. 2 billion.

Formula Narrative: Grant amounts are computed for states. More
precisely, funding is computed for the balance of state because
both the formula data factors and the localities that are eligible
for the funds exclude entitlement communities, which receive
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding under the CDBG
Entitlement Communities program (CFDA number 14. 218).

States receive the larger of the amount computed under two
formulas. The first formula (formula A) uses population, poverty,
and overcrowded housing units as formula factors with weights of
25, 50, and 25 percent, respectively. The second formula (formula
B) uses population, poverty, and aging housing units weighted 20
percent, 30 percent, and 50 percent, respectively.

Mathematical Structure:

Where:

 = Numerator the of Sum B Formula or A Formula of Larger * Amt
Grant

    +

    +

    =    n

n n n

n n

Ocrowd Ocrowd * .25 Pov

Pov * .50 Pop Pop * .25 A Formula

    +

    +

    =    n

n n n

n n

Age Age * .50 Pov

Pov * .30 Pop Pop * .20 B Formula

Appendix IX Community Development Block Grant (State Program)

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Formula Constraints:
None.

Definitions:

Amt = Funds available for allocation to entitlement communities.
Pop = Population count of the nonentitlement part of the state.
Pov = Poverty count of the nonentitlement part of the state.
Ocrowd = Overcrowded housing units (defined as those with 1. 01 or
more persons per room) in the nonentitlement part of the state.
Age = The number of year- round housing units built prior to 1940
in the nonentitlement part of the state.

Data Sources:

Pop: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Pov: Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Ocrowd: Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. Age: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.

Amount Reallocated: Not applicable.

Comments: This formula was not analyzed because adjusted estimates
for the poverty population are not available.

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix X Employment and Training Assistance, Dislocated Workers
Appe ndi x X

CFDA Number: 17. 246

Program Objectives: To assist dislocated workers to obtain
unsubsidized employment through training and related employment
services using a decentralized system of state and local programs.

Federal Agency: Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $1.4 billion.

Formula Narrative: One- third of available funds are allotted to
states in proportion to the number of unemployed, one- third in
proportion to the number of unemployed in excess of 4.5 percent of
the state's labor force, and one- third in proportion to the
number of people unemployed for 15 weeks or more. Mathematical
Structure:

Formula Constraints: None.

Definitions:

Amt = Funds available for allocation to states. UN = The number
unemployed. EXC = The number unemployed in excess of 4.5 percent
of the state labor force.

LT = The number of people unemployed 15 weeks or longer.

Data Sources: UN: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
EXC: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. LT:
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Amount Reallocated: $0. 0.

    *

+

   * +

   * =

US State

US State

US State

LT LT Amt 1/ 3 EXC

EXC Amt 3 / 1 UN UN

Amt 1/ 3 Grant Federal

Appendix X Employment and Training Assistance, Dislocated Workers

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Comment: The Bureau
of Labor Statistics has adjusted civilian labor force

statistics for the census undercount. Consequently, there is no
effect on state allocations.

Table X. 1: JTPA Title III, Dislocated Worker Assistance Program,
Fiscal Year 1998

Dollars in thousands

State Allotment

Alabama $10, 405 Alaska 5,570 Arizona 13, 481 Arkansas 9,331
California 228, 452 Colorado 6,965 Connecticut 13,972 Delaware
1,963 District of Columbia 5,711 Florida 43, 088 Georgia 16, 437
Hawaii 7,124 Idaho 4,218 Illinois 38, 162 Indiana 10, 888 Iowa
5,193 Kansas 5,047 Kentucky 16, 465 Louisiana 24, 468 Maine 3,812
Maryland 14, 535 Massachusetts 14, 048 Michigan 20, 754 Minnesota
8,656 Mississippi 11, 852 Missouri 12, 289 Montana 2,893 Nebraska
1,965 Nevada 4,649

(continued)

Appendix X Employment and Training Assistance, Dislocated Workers

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

State Allotment

New Hampshire 2, 272 New Jersey 43, 262 New Mexico 12, 174 New
York 113, 708 North Carolina 13, 314 North Dakota 813 Ohio 30, 143
Oklahoma 5,531 Oregon 15, 100 Pennsylvania 45, 003 Rhode Island
3,589 South Carolina 16, 723 South Dakota 891 Tennessee 18, 581
Texas 81, 010 Utah 2,447 Vermont 1,298 Virginia 14, 527 Washington
24, 729 West Virginia 13, 036 Wisconsin 9,028 Wyoming 1,299

Total $1, 030, 874

Page 51 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XI Employment Services Appe ndi x XI

CFDA Number: 17. 207

Program Objectives: To place persons in jobs by providing a
variety of placement- related services without charge to job
seekers and to employers seeking qualified individuals to fill job
openings.

Federal Agency: Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $0.8 billion.

Formula Narrative: Allocations are made to each state program,
twothirds based on the state's civilian labor count and one- third
based on the state's unemployment count.

Mathematical Structure: Formula Constraints: States are guaranteed
at least 90 percent of the share of available funds received in
the prior year (hold- harmless provision). No state may receive
less than 0. 28 percent of available funds

(small state minimum).

Definitions:

Amt = Funds available for allocation to states. LF = The number of
people in the labor force. UN = The number of people unemployed.

Data Sources: LF: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
UN: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Amount Reallocated: $0.0.

Comment: The Bureau of Labor Statistics has adjusted civilian
labor force statistics for the census undercount. Consequently,
there is no effect on state allocations.

 +

=

US State

US State

UN UN Amt * 3 1 LF LF Amt * 3 2 Grant Federal

Appendix XI Employment Services

Page 52 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Table XI. 1: Employment Service (Wagner- Peyser Act) Allotments
for Program Year 1998

Dollars in thousands

State Allotment

Alabama $10, 905 Alaska 8,085 Arizona 11, 229 Arkansas 6,227
California 88, 905 Colorado 9,785 Connecticut 8,930 Delaware 2,077
District of Columbia 3,643 Florida 35, 300 Georgia 18, 914 Hawaii
3,236 Idaho 6,736 Illinois 31, 010 Indiana 14, 696 Iowa 7,193
Kansas 6,432 Kentucky 9,884 Louisiana 10, 954 Maine 4,006 Maryland
14, 019 Massachusetts 16, 120 Michigan 24, 466 Minnesota 11, 944
Mississippi 6,665 Missouri 13, 842 Montana 5,505 Nebraska 6,616
Nevada 5,351 New Hampshire 3, 027 New Jersey 21, 660 New Mexico
6,177 New York 48, 090

(continued)

Appendix XI Employment Services

Page 53 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

State Allotment

North Carolina 17, 828 North Dakota 5, 605 Ohio 27, 977 Oklahoma
8,582 Oregon 9,130 Pennsylvania 30, 592 Rhode Island 2,694 South
Carolina 9, 573 South Dakota 5, 181 Tennessee 13, 880 Texas 50,
590 Utah 10, 971 Vermont 2,427 Virginia 16, 405 Washington 15, 355
West Virginia 5, 930 Wisconsin 13, 360 Wyoming 4,019

Total $741, 922

Page 54 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XII Federal Transit Capital and Operating Assistance
Formula Appe ndi x XI I

CFDA Number: 20. 507

Program Objectives: To assist in financing the acquisition,
construction, cost- effective leasing, planning, and improvement
of facilities and equipment for use in mass transportation
service.

Federal Agency: Department of Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $3.1 billion.

Formula Narrative: Approximately 5 percent of available funding is
apportioned to states for nonurbanized areas. Approximately 9
percent is apportioned among states for small urbanized areas
(those between 50,000 and 200,000 population). The remaining 86
percent is apportioned directly to local transit authorities in
large urbanized areas (those whose populations are 200, 000 or
more).

Funding for nonurbanized areas is apportioned among the states
based on state population living in nonurbanized areas.

Funding for small urbanized areas is apportioned among states
based on population (50 percent), and population weighted by
population density (50 percent).

Approximately one- third of funding for large urbanized areas is
apportioned for fixed guideway transit modes 1 and two- thirds for
bus transit. Approximately 4 percent of the funding for fixed
guideway systems and approximately 9 percent of funding for bus
transit is set aside for incentive grants. Remaining fixed
guideway funding is apportioned to local transit authorities based
on revenue vehicle miles traveled (60 percent) and route miles (40
percent).

Remaining bus transit funding is divided between areas with
populations above 1 million (73 percent) and populations below 1
million (27 percent). Bus transit funding is then apportioned to
local transit authorities based on revenue vehicle miles traveled
(50 percent), population (25 percent), and population weighted by
population density (25 percent).

1 Includes all fixed guideway modes, such as heavy rail, commuter
rail, light rail, trolleybus, aerial tramway, inclined plane,
cable car, automated transit, ferryboats, exclusive busways, and
HOV lanes.

Appendix XII Federal Transit Capital and Operating Assistance
Formula

Page 55 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Mathematical
Structure:

(1) Nonurbanized Areas (approximately 5 percent): (2) Small
Urbanized Areas (approximately 9 percent):

Where: (3) Large Urbanized Areas (approximately 86 percent): Fixed
Guideway Transit (approximately 33 percent):

Bus Transit (approximately 67 percent subdivided into 73 percent
for areas above 1,000,000 and 27 percent for areas below 1,000,
000):

    =

States All State

Pop Nonurban Pop Nonurban Amt Grant Federal

Numerator of Sum Density UPop Amt 1/ 2 UPop UPop Amt 1/ 2 Grant
Federal

Area Area Areas All

Area

 * +

    =

    =

Areas Area

Area Area Land UPop Density

    * *

+

    * * =

Areas All Area Areas All

Area VMT

VMT Amt 0.60 RM RM Amt 0.40 Grant Federal

Appendix XII Federal Transit Capital and Operating Assistance
Formula

Page 56 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Formula Constraints:
None.

Definitions:

Amt = Amount of funding available for apportionment of each
formula respectively. Nonurban Pop = Population in nonurbanized
areas of a state. UPop = Population in an urbanized area. Density
= Population divided by land area. RM = Fixed guideway route
miles. VMT = revenue miles traveled.

Data Sources:

Nonurban Pop: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. UPop:
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Pop: Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census. RM: Department of Transportation
Administrative Records. VMT: Department of Transportation
Administrative Records.

Amount Reallocated: Not applicable.

Comments: Formulas were not analyzed because adjusted population
counts for urbanized areas were not readily available and most
funding is allocated to substate areas.

 * +

+

    =

Numerator of Sum Density UPop Amt 1/ 4 UPop UPop Amt 1/ 4 VMT

VMT Amt 1/ 2 Grant Federal Area Area Areas All

Area Areas All

Area

Page 57 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XIII Foster Care Appendi x XI I I

CFDA Number: 93. 658

Program Objectives: To provide assistance on behalf of eligible
children needing care away from families and who are in the care
of the state agency administering the program.

Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $3.7 billion.

Formula Narrative: Eligible program expenditures are reimbursed
using the Medicaid matching percentage, known as the Federal
Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). The FMAP varies on a sliding
scale with state per capita income and ranges from 50 to 83
percent of eligible expenditures. Administrative, training, and
related expenses are

reimbursed at a flat percentage rate.

Mathematical Structure:

Where:

Formula Constraints: No state may receive a matching percentage
below 50 percent or in excess of 83 percent.

Definitions:

FMAP = Federal Medical Assistance Percentage. PCI = Per capita
personal income. PI = Personal income. Pop = State population.

Data Sources: PI: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis.

2 US State

PCI PCI 0.45 1.00 FMAP

    - =

    =

State State

State Pop PI PCI

Appendix XIII Foster Care

Page 58 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Pop: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and the
Bureau of the Census.

Amount Reallocated: $11.1 million, 0.36 percent of total
allocated.

Comments: See table XXI. 1 under Medicaid for a comparison of
FMAPs based on actual and adjusted population data. Table XIII. 1
shows the grant amount and the amount subject to the FMAP. The
differences between the

two amounts are administrative and training expenditures that are
subject to uniform reimbursement percentages.

Table XIII. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1997 Foster Care
Allotments Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted Population
Dollars in thousands

Grant amount determined by the FMAP Difference State Total grant
Actual Adjusted Amount Percent a

Alabama $7,909 $2, 468 $2,472 $4 0.05 Alaska 8,821 3,081 3, 081 0
0. 00 Arizona 36,338 19, 318 19,477 159 0. 44 Arkansas 27,163
9,036 9, 046 10 0.04 California 759,908 407,513 416,865 9, 353 1.
23 Colorado 21,756 8,361 8, 433 72 0.33 Connecticut 69,336 20, 238
20,238 0 0. 00 Delaware 6,118 1,314 1, 314 0 0. 00 District of
Columbia 24,567 12, 273 12,273 0 0. 00 Florida 83,677 29, 119
29,293 174 0. 21 Georgia 28,623 17, 169 17,290 121 0. 42 Hawaii
12,285 3,447 3, 447 0 0. 00 Idaho 4,247 892 897 5 0. 12 Illinois
270,140 152,956 152,956 0 0. 00 Indiana 43,770 31, 625 31,180 -445
-1.02 Iowa 17,424 11, 779 11,610 -168 -0.97 Kansas 22,064 10, 574
10,438 -136 -0.61 Kentucky 34,205 20, 245 20,241 -3 -0.01
Louisiana 39,820 23, 467 23,576 109 0. 27

(continued)

Appendix XIII Foster Care

Page 59 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

a Percentage of total funding.

Grant amount determined by the FMAP Difference State Total grant
Actual Adjusted Amount Percent a

Maine 23,268 21, 204 20,993 -211 -0.91 Maryland 85,464 37, 780
37,780 0 0. 00 Massachusetts 77,315 33, 934 33,934 0 0. 00
Michigan 116,721 74, 297 73,199 -1, 097 -0.94 Minnesota 41,894 23,
451 22,964 -487 -1.16 Mississippi 11,428 5,007 5, 021 14 0.12
Missouri 50,762 27, 577 27,211 -366 -0.72 Montana 5,859 4,354 4,
383 29 0.50 Nebraska 19,440 8,595 8, 479 -116 -0.60 Nevada 6,774
3,157 3, 157 0 0. 00 New Hampshire 8, 859 3,640 3, 640 0 0. 00 New
Jersey 39,417 23, 130 23,130 0 0. 00 New Mexico 11,533 3,563 3,
604 41 0.36 New York 328,060 189,576 189,576 0 0. 00 North
Carolina 39,815 28, 924 28,993 68 0.17 North Dakota 9,971 3,267 3,
237 -30 -0.30 Ohio 148,890 80, 174 79,145 -1, 029 -0.69 Oklahoma
23,048 11, 090 11,109 19 0.08 Oregon 21,615 12, 131 12,176 45 0.21
Pennsylvania 214,373 147,588 144,037 -3, 551 -1.66 Rhode Island 9,
494 4, 378 4, 267 -111 -1. 17 South Carolina 14,818 7,232 7, 261
28 0.19 South Dakota 2,676 1,258 1, 249 -9 -0.34 Tennessee 34,543
18, 477 18,508 31 0.09 Texas 64,884 48, 213 48,903 690 1. 06 Utah
16,401 4,962 4, 966 5 0. 03 Vermont 8, 925 5,935 5, 897 -38 -0.43
Virginia 45,087 9,657 9, 727 70 0.16 Washington 13,167 6,268 6,
299 32 0.24 West Virginia 10,549 8,231 8, 219 -12 -0.11 Wisconsin
81,111 27, 020 26,640 -380 -0.47 Wyoming 1, 666 1,133 1, 142 9 0.
54

Total $3,106,000 $1, 670, 079 $1, 672,977 $2, 899 0.09

Page 60 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XIV Goals 2000- State and Local Education Systemic
Improvement Program Appendi x XI V

CFDA Number: 84. 276

Program Objectives: To support the implementation of comprehensive
reform plans to improve the teaching of and learning by all
children.

Federal Agency: Department of Education, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $. 6 billion.

Formula Narrative: Fifty percent of the funds will be allocated to
state education agencies in accordance with the amount each state
receives under part A, title I, of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, and 50 percent will be allocated in accordance with
the amount each state receives under part A, title VI, of the
Elementary and Secondary Education

Act.

Mathematical Structure: Formula Constraints: None.

Definitions: Amt = Funds available for allocation to states. Title
I Allocation = State allotment under title I, part A. Title VI
Allocation = State allotment under title VI, part A.

Data Sources:

Title I Allocation: Department of Education. Title VI Allocation:
Department of Education.

Amount Reallocated: Not applicable.

    *

+

    * =

Allocation VI Title Allocation VI Title Amt 0.5 Allocation I Title
Allocation I Title Amt 0.5 Grant Federal

Appendix XIV Goals 2000- State and Local Education Systemic
Improvement Program

Page 61 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Comments: The formula
was not simulated because title I allocations depend on poverty
population counts, and undercount estimates for poverty counts are
not available.

Page 62 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XV Highway Planning and Construction Appendi x XV

CFDA Number: 20. 205

Program Objectives: To assist state transportation agencies in the
planning and development of an integrated, interconnected
transportation system important to interstate commerce and travel
by constructing and rehabilitating the National Highway System,
including the Interstate System; and for transportation
improvements to all public roads except those classified as local
or rural minor collectors; to provide aid for the repair of
federal- aid roads following disasters; to foster safe highway
design; to replace or rehabilitate deficient or obsolete bridges;
and to provide for other special purposes.

Federal Agency: Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $19. 7 billion.

Formula Narrative: The state share of available funding is
specified by law (section 105, title 23 U. S. C.). In addition,
the law stipulates that no state's share of available funding may
be less than 90. 5 percent of its share of payments into the
Highway Trust Fund.

The highway program includes 10 component programs. The following
nine are apportioned by a formula:

 Interstate Maintenance,  National Highway System,  Surface
Transportation Program,  Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program,  Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality,
Appalachian Development Highway System,

 Recreational Trails,  Metropolitan Planning, and  Minimum
Guarantee. The last component, High Priority Projects, is
apportioned on a nonformula

basis as specified in law. Eight formula components of the program
are apportioned by their respective formulas, and funding for High
Priority Projects is then included in the total. Additional funds,
provided under the Minimum Guarantee component of the program, are
then taken from the Highway Trust Fund.

Appendix XV Highway Planning and Construction

Page 63 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Minimum Guarantee funds are determined to ensure that each state
receives the share of available funding specified in law, taking
into consideration that no state share of available funding may be
less than 90.5 percent of its share of payments into the Highway
Trust Fund. Thus, the formulas used for the other eight component
formula programs have only the effect of determining how much of a
state's apportionment must be used for the purposes specified in
each program category. They do not affect any state's share of
available funding. 1 Mathematical Structure:

Formula Constraints: No state share may be less than 90. 5 percent
of its share of payments in the Highway Trust Fund. Definitions:

Amt = Sum of amounts authorized for each of the eight formula
components and for High Priority Projects plus the amount
necessary to satisfy the Minimum Guarantee component.

State Share = A state's specified percentage of available funding.

Data Sources: Amt = Funds available for allocation to states.
State Share: Title 23 U. S. C., as amended, and Department of
Transportation calculations. Highway Trust Fund Payments:
Department of Transportation.

Amount Reallocated: $0.0.

Comments: Census population data are used to apportion funding
authorized for three of the eight formula- based components of the
highway program: the National Highway System, the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Program, and the Metropolitan Planning
Program. However, because of the way the Minimum Guarantee
component is designed, these

data have no effect on how funding is apportioned among the
states. 1 Under certain circumstances, increases in funding under
the formulas for the eight formula components could have an effect
on the amount of funding required for the Minimum Guarantee
component. They would not, however, affect the distribution of
funding among the states. Share State Amt Grant Federal State * =

Appendix XV Highway Planning and Construction

Page 64 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Table XV. 1: Highway Planning and Construction Allotments for FY
1998

Dollars in thousands

State Allotment

Alabama $457, 357 Alaska 267, 884 Arizona 350, 307 Arkansas 299,
289 California 2,070, 435 Colorado 262, 993 Connecticut 341, 426
Delaware 99, 464 District of Columbia 88, 942 Florida 1,038, 172
Georgia 789, 241 Hawaii 116, 394 Idaho 174, 073 Illinois 760, 350
Indiana 530, 327 Iowa 270, 245 Kansas 263, 432 Kentucky 390, 416
Louisiana 357, 479 Maine 119, 428 Maryland 339, 200 Massachusetts
421, 787 Michigan 708, 999 Minnesota 337, 087 Mississippi 273, 977
Missouri 532, 034 Montana 223, 233 Nebraska 174, 647 Nevada 162,
956 New Hampshire 114, 186 New Jersey 580, 419 New Mexico 222, 221
New York 1, 160, 749 North Carolina 636, 222

(continued)

Appendix XV Highway Planning and Construction

Page 65 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

State Allotment

North Dakota 147, 331 Ohio 770, 198 Oklahoma 347, 214 Oregon 277,
210 Pennsylvania 1,132, 606 Rhode Island 134, 503 South Carolina
359, 903 South Dakota 163, 345 Tennessee 509, 148 Texas 1,623, 366
Utah 176, 064 Vermont 102, 814 Virginia 576, 720 Washington 401,
882 West Virginia 254, 484 Wisconsin 447, 770 Wyoming 156, 829

Total $22,516, 762

Page 66 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XVI HOME Investment Partnerships Program Appendi x XVI

CFDA Number: 14. 239

Program Objectives: To increase the number of families served with
decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing and to expand the
long- term supply of affordable housing.

Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Community Planning and Development.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $1.4 billion.

Formula Narrative: Under the HOME Investment Partnership Act,
funds are allocated to jurisdictions and states based on a formula
that is the weighted sum of six factors:

 10 percent weight on vacancy- adjusted rental units where the
household head is at or below the poverty level.  20 percent
weight on occupied rental units with at least one of four

problems.  20 percent weight on rental units built before 1950
occupied by poor families.

 20 percent weight on occupied rental units with at least one of
four problems and adjusted for the cost of producing housing in a
jurisdiction relative to the national average.  20 percent weight
on the number of families at or below the poverty level.

 10 percent weight on population adjusted by net per capita income
in relation to the U. S. net per capita income.

Mathematical Structure:

    +

+

    +

+

    +

=

l l

l l

l l

l l

PopPCI PopPCI 0.1 Pov

Pov 0.2 Cost Cost 0.2 LIF

LIF 0.2 SSR SSR 0.2 LVPR

LVPR 0.1 * Amt l l l l

FederalGrant

Appendix XVI HOME Investment Partnerships Program

Page 67 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Where: , and

Formula Constraints: In the computation process, communities with
the smallest allocation amounts are successively removed until the
remaining recipients all receive a minimum apportionment of
$500,000.

Definitions:

Amt = The total amount to be distributed by formula among
recipients. LVR = Low- vacancy and poor renters factor. VRR = The
vacancy rate for rental units. RPOV = Number of rental units
occupied by the poor. SSR = The number of rental housing units
with at least one of four problems: overcrowding, incomplete
kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing, and/ or high rent- to-
income ratio.

LIF = The number of rental units that were built before 1950 that
are occupied by low- income families. Cost = The rehabilitation
cost for substandard rental units factor is defined as the number
of occupied substandard rental units (SSR) multiplied by an index
that measures the cost of producing housing. Pov = The local
unit's number of families in poverty. PopPCI = Population weighted
by net per capita income. Pop = Population. PCI3 = Per capita
income of a three- person family. POV3 = National per capita
income of a three- person family at the poverty income threshold.

Data Sources: Cost: Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Population, income, poverty, and housing unit characteristics are
derived from data supplied by Bureau of the Census.

Amount Reallocated: Not applicable.

l l US RPOV * VRR

VRR

    = l LVR

   * =

US l US US l l POV3 - PCI3

POV3 - PCI3 Pop PopPCI

Appendix XVI HOME Investment Partnerships Program

Page 68 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Comment: The formula
was not analyzed because undercount estimates for the poverty
population are not available.

Page 69 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XVII Job Training Partnership Act, Title II- A Appe ndi
XVI xI

CFDA Number: 17. 250

Program Objectives: To establish programs to prepare adults facing
serious barriers to employment for participation in the labor
force by providing job training and other services that will
result in increased

employment and earnings, increased educational and occupational
skills, and decreased welfare dependency.

Federal Agency: Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $1. 1 billion.

Formula Narrative: The formula is based on three equally weighted
factors measuring unemployment in a state. The factors are (1) the
relative number of unemployed individuals residing in Areas of
Substantial

Unemployment, (2) the relative excess number of unemployed
individuals residing in each state, and (3) the relative number of
economically disadvantaged adults within each state.

Mathematical Structure: Formula Constraints: States are guaranteed
at least 90 percent of the share of available funds received in
the prior fiscal year (hold- harmless provision). No state may
receive less than  of 1 percent of available funds (small state
minimum).

Definitions:

Amt = Funds available to allocate to states. ASU = Number of
unemployed individuals residing in Areas of Substantial
Unemployment in each state. Such areas are contiguous areas within
a state with populations of at least 10,000 and having
unemployment rates equal to or greater than 6. 5 percent. These
areas are designated annually by the states.

+

    +

    =

States All State

States All State

State All State

ED ED Amt 1/ 3 EU

EU Amt 1/ 3 ASU ASU Amt 1/ 3 Grant Federal

Appendix XVII Job Training Partnership Act, Title II- A

Page 70 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

EU = The higher of the number of unemployed individuals in excess
of 4.5 percent of the civilian labor force (CLF) in the state or
the number of unemployed individuals in excess of 4.5 percent of
the CLF in areas of substantial unemployment in the state. Excess
unemployment is calculated using average monthly CLF and
unemployment data from the states and from Bureau of Labor
Statistics for the most recent 12 months ending June 30. ED = The
number of economically disadvantaged adults: individuals aged 22
through 72 who have, or who are members of families with, total
family income not in excess of the higher of the official Office
of Management and

Budget poverty line or 70 percent of the lower living standard
income level.

Data Sources:

ASU: Bureau of Labor Statistics. EU: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
ED: Bureau of the Census, from the 1990 census data.

Amount Reallocated: Not applicable. Comment: This formula was not
analyzed because data on the population adjusted for the
undercount are not available for economically disadvantaged
individuals.

Page 71 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XVIII Job Training Partnership Act, Title II- B Appe ndi
XVI I xI

CFDA Number: 17. 250

Program Objectives: To establish programs to prepare youths facing
serious barriers to summer employment for participation in the
labor force by providing job training and other services that will
result in increased employment and earnings, increased educational
and occupational skills, and decreased welfare dependency.

Federal Agency: Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $. 9 billion.

Formula Narrative: The formula is based on three equally weighted
factors measuring unemployment in a state. The factors are (1) the
relative number of unemployed individuals residing in Areas of
Substantial Unemployment, (2) the relative excess number of
unemployed individuals residing in each state, and (3) the
relative number of economically disadvantaged adults within each
state.

Mathematical Structure: Formula Constraints: States are guaranteed
at least 90 percent of the share of available funds received in
the prior fiscal year (hold- harmless provision). No state may
receive less than  of 1 percent of available funds (small state
minimum).

Definitions:

Amt = Funds available to allocate to states. ASU = Number of
unemployed individuals residing in Areas of Substantial
Unemployment in each state. Such areas are contiguous areas within
a state with populations of at least 10,000 and having
unemployment rates equal to or greater than 6. 5 percent. These
areas are designated annually by the states.

+

    +

    =

States All State

States All State

State All State

ED ED Amt 1/ 3 EU

EU Amt 1/ 3 ASU ASU Amt 1/ 3 Grant Federal

Appendix XVIII Job Training Partnership Act, Title II- B

Page 72 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

EU = The higher of the number of unemployed individuals in excess
of 4.5 percent of the civilian labor force (CLF) in the state or
the number of unemployed individuals in excess of 4.5 percent of
the CLF in areas of substantial unemployment in the state. Excess
unemployment is calculated using average monthly CLF and
unemployment data from the states and from Bureau of Labor
Statistics for the most recent 12 months ending June 30. ED = The
number of economically disadvantaged adults: individuals aged 22
through 72 who have, or who are members of families with, total
family income not in excess of the higher of the official Office
of Management and

Budget poverty line or 70 percent of the lower living standard
income level.

Data Sources:

ASU: Bureau of Labor Statistics. EU: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
ED: Bureau of the Census, from the 1990 census data.

Amount Reallocated: Not applicable. Comment: This formula was not
analyzed because data on population adjusted for the undercount
are not available for economically disadvantaged individuals.

Page 73 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XIX Low Income Home Energy Assistance Appendi x XI X

CFDA Number: 93. 568

Program Objectives: To make funds available to states to assist
eligible low- income households to meet the cost of home energy.

Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $1.0 billion.

Formula Narrative: The allocations of available funds are based on
the statutory percentage factors used in fiscal year 1984.

Mathematical Structure:

Federal Grant = Amt * Statutory Percentages

Formula Constraints: None.

Definitions:

Amt = Total grant funding available to the states. Statutory
Percentages = Percentages established in law.

Data Sources: Amt: Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families. Statutory Percentages:
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families.

Amount Reallocated: $0.0.

Comments: If appropriations ever exceed $1.975 billion, an
alternative formula described in law would apply. States would
then be guaranteed no less than they would have received in fiscal
year 1984 if appropriations were set at $1.975 billion.

Appendix XIX Low Income Home Energy Assistance

Page 74 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Table XIX. 1: Allotments for Low Income Home Energy Assistance, FY
1998

Dollars in thousands

State Allotment

Alabama $8, 372 Alaska 5,344 Arizona 4,049 Arkansas 6,388
California 44, 913 Colorado 15, 660 Connecticut 20,429 Delaware
2,712 District of Columbia 3,173 Florida 13, 247 Georgia 10, 474
Hawaii 1,055 Idaho 6,108 Illinois 56, 543 Indiana 25, 601 Iowa 18,
144 Kansas 8,332 Kentucky 13, 323 Louisiana 8,559 Maine 13, 235
Maryland 15, 642 Massachusetts 40, 864 Michigan 53, 683 Minnesota
38, 675 Mississippi 7,178 Missouri 22, 586 Montana 7,165 Nebraska
8,973 Nevada 1,902 New Hampshire 7, 735 New Jersey 37, 936 New
Mexico 5, 069 New York 123, 867 North Carolina 18, 460

(continued)

Appendix XIX Low Income Home Energy Assistance

Page 75 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

State Allotment

North Dakota 7, 783 Ohio 50, 021 Oklahoma 7,696 Oregon 12, 137
Pennsylvania 66, 535 Rhode Island 6,726 South Carolina 6, 649
South Dakota 6, 321 Tennessee 13, 496 Texas 22, 038 Utah 7,277
Vermont 5,797 Virginia 19, 054 Washington 19, 964 West Virginia 8,
817 Wisconsin 34, 813 Wyoming 2,914

Total $973, 430

Page 76 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XX Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant Appendi
x XX

CFDA Number: 93. 994

Program Objectives: To enable states to maintain and strengthen
their leadership in planning, promoting, coordinating, and
evaluating health care for pregnant women, mothers, infants, and
children and children with special health care needs by providing
health services for mothers and children who do not have access to
adequate health care.

Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services, Health
Resources and Services Administration.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $0.6 billion.

Formula Narrative: States first receive their fiscal year 1983
grant as a base funding amount. Remaining funds are then
apportioned among the states based on their respective shares of
children in poverty.

Mathematical Description: Formula Constraints: None.

Definitions: Grant83 = Amount allocated to the states in fiscal
year 1983. Amt = Funds remaining in excess of fiscal year 1983
amount. Pov = Number of children under age 18 living below the
official poverty line.

Data Sources: Pov: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Amount Reallocated: Not applicable.

Comment: We did not analyze this formula because undercount
estimates are not available for children in poverty.

    + =

States All State

Pov Pov Amt Grant83 Grant Federal

Page 77 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XXI Medicaid Appendi x XXI

CFDA Number: 93. 778

Program Objectives: To provide financial assistance to states for
payment of medical care on behalf of cash assistance recipients,
children, pregnant women, and the aged who meet income and
resource requirements and other categorically eligible groups.

Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services, Health
Care Financing Administration.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $104 billion. Formula
Narrative: Eligible medical expenses are reimbursed on a sliding
scale based on the per capita income of the state. The federal
reimbursement rate, known as the Federal Medical Assistance
Percentage (FMAP), ranges from a minimum of 50 percent to a
maximum of 83 percent. Most administrative expenses are reimbursed
at a flat rate of 50 percent but may be as high as 100 percent as
is the case with immigration

status verification.

Mathematical Structure:

Where:

Formula Constraints: No state may receive a matching percentage
below 50 percent or in excess of 83 percent. Definitions:

FMAP = Federal Medical Assistance Percentage. PCI = Per capita
personal income. PI = Personal income. Pop = State population.

2 US State

PCI PCI 0.45 1.00 FMAP

    - =

    =

State State

State Pop PI PCI

Appendix XXI Medicaid

Page 78 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Data Sources:

PI: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Pop:
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau
of the Census.

Amount Reallocated: $402.4 million, 0.43 percent of the total
allocated.

Comments: Allotment amounts were calculated for fiscal year 1997,
the latest year for which data were available. Total federal
allotment includes some amounts for Family Planning and Indian
Health Services that are not subject to the FMAP. Allotments for
the two programs were not available

from the Health Care Financing Administration for fiscal year
1997. We adjusted the total federal allotment by subtracting the
fiscal year 1996 amounts for Family Planning and Indian Health
Services from the 1997 total federal allotment.

Table XXI. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1997 Federal Medical
Assistance Percentages Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted
Population

FMAP State

Actual (Percent) Adjusted

(Percent) Difference

Alabama 69. 54 69.66 0.12 Alaska 50. 00 50.00 0.00 Arizona 65. 53
66.07 0.54 Arkansas 73. 29 73.37 0.08 California 50. 23 51.38 1.15
Colorado 52. 32 52.77 0.45 Connecticut 50. 00 50.00 0.00 Delaware
50. 00 50.00 0.00 District of Columbia 50. 00 50.00 0.00 Florida
55. 79 56.12 0.33 Georgia 61. 52 61.95 0.43 Hawaii 50. 00 50.00
0.00 Idaho 67. 97 68.34 0.37 Illinois 50. 00 50.00 0.00 Indiana
61. 58 60.71 -0.86 Iowa 62. 94 62.04 -0.90

(continued)

Appendix XXI Medicaid

Page 79 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

FMAP State

Actual (Percent) Adjusted

(Percent) Difference

Kansas 58. 87 58.11 -0.76 Kentucky 70. 09 70.08 -0.01 Louisiana
71. 36 71.69 0.33 Maine 63. 72 63.09 -0.64 Maryland 50. 00 50.00
0.00 Massachusetts 50. 00 50.00 0.00 Michigan 55. 20 54.38 -0.82
Minnesota 53. 60 52.49 -1.11 Mississippi 77. 22 77.43 0.21
Missouri 60. 04 59.24 -0.80 Montana 69. 01 69.48 0.47 Nebraska 59.
13 58.33 -0.80 Nevada 50. 00 50.00 0.00 New Hampshire 50. 00 50.00
0.00 New Jersey 50. 00 50.00 0.00 New Mexico 72. 66 73.50 0.84 New
York 50. 00 50.00 0.00 North Carolina 63. 89 64.04 0.15 North
Dakota 67. 73 67.11 -0.62 Ohio 59. 28 58.52 -0.76 Oklahoma 70. 01
70.13 0.12 Oregon 60. 52 60.75 0.22 Pennsylvania 52. 85 51.58 -
1.27 Rhode Island 53. 90 52. 53 -1. 38 South Carolina 70. 43 70.71
0.27 South Dakota 64. 89 64.42 -0.47 Tennessee 64. 58 64.69 0.11
Texas 62. 56 63.45 0.89 Utah 72. 33 72.40 0.07 Vermont 61. 05
60.66 -0.40 Virginia 51. 45 51.82 0.37 Washington 50. 52 50.78
0.26 West Virginia 72. 60 72.50 -0.10 Wisconsin 59. 00 58.17 -0.83
Wyoming 59. 88 60.36 0.48

Appendix XXI Medicaid

Page 80 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Table XXI. 2: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1997 Medicaid Grant
Amounts Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted Population
Dollars in thousands

Allotments subject to FMAP Difference

States Total allotment Actual Adjusted Amount Percent a

Alabama $1,555, 179 $1,521, 873 $1, 524, 410 $2, 537 0.16 Alaska
223, 234 166, 528 166, 528 0 0. 00 Arizona 1, 238, 187 1, 119, 270
1,128, 573 9,304 0. 75 Arkansas 1,002, 155 960, 736 961, 826 1,
091 0. 11 California 8, 480, 765 8,624, 367 8, 822, 279 197, 912
2.33 Colorado 829, 265 789, 232 795, 962 6, 730 0. 81 Connecticut
1,391, 632 1,352, 982 1, 352, 982 0 0. 00 Delaware 219, 935 203,
397 203, 397 0 0. 00 District of Columbia 440, 684 419, 100 419,
100 0 0. 00 Florida 3, 615, 568 3,494, 419 3, 515, 299 20, 880
0.58 Georgia 2, 250, 117 2,142, 366 2, 157, 433 15, 067 0.67
Hawaii 290, 868 279, 351 279, 351 0 0. 00 Idaho 302, 524 274, 802
276, 309 1, 508 0. 50 Illinois 3, 546, 780 3,286, 678 3, 286, 678
0 0. 00 Indiana 1,579, 160 1,517, 185 1, 495, 965 -21, 220 -1.34
Iowa 798, 420 743, 363 732, 688 -10, 675 -1.34 Kansas 623, 254
596, 381 588, 699 -7, 682 -1.23 Kentucky 1,818, 784 1,785, 765 1,
785, 465 -300 -0.02 Louisiana 2,465, 575 2,400, 090 2, 411, 284
11, 194 0.45 Maine 694, 045 667, 694 661, 036 -6, 658 -0. 96
Maryland 1,451, 377 1,344, 632 1, 344, 632 0 0. 00 Massachusetts
2,547, 305 2,465, 863 2, 465, 863 0 0. 00 Michigan 3,397, 271
3,093, 964 3, 048, 145 -45, 819 -1.35 Minnesota 1, 547, 365 1,434,
601 1, 404, 771 -29, 830 -1.93 Mississippi 1, 324, 471 1, 296, 220
1,299, 787 3,567 0. 27 Missouri 1,922, 779 1,840, 145 1, 815, 772
-24, 373 -1.27 Montana 276, 909 247, 382 249, 067 1, 685 0. 61
Nebraska 465, 459 442, 216 436, 248 -5, 968 -1.28 Nevada 253, 552
237, 073 237, 073 0 0. 00 New Hampshire 385, 138 363, 248 363, 248
0 0. 00

(continued)

Appendix XXI Medicaid

Page 81 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

a Percentage of total funding.

Allotments subject to FMAP Difference

States Total allotment Actual Adjusted Amount Percent a

New Jersey 2,853, 312 2,714, 268 2, 714, 268 0 0. 00 New Mexico
722, 174 665, 489 673, 172 7, 683 1. 06 New York 12,666, 611
12,310, 085 12, 310, 085 0 0. 00 North Carolina 2,884, 565 2,784,
269 2, 790, 896 6, 626 0. 23 North Dakota 228, 915 215, 369 213,
392 -1, 977 -0.86 Ohio 3,921, 778 3,815, 948 3, 766, 990 -48, 957
-1.25 Oklahoma 896, 973 818, 975 820, 326 1, 351 0. 15 Oregon 977,
099 894, 043 897, 321 3, 278 0. 34 Pennsylvania 4,439, 581 4,266,
244 4, 163, 906 -102, 338 -2.31 Rhode Island 504, 982 487, 532
475, 091 -12, 441 -2.46 South Carolina 1,530, 198 1,458, 451 1,
464, 118 5, 666 0. 37 South Dakota 223, 333 202, 825 201, 357 -1,
468 -0.66 Tennessee 2, 378, 511 2,318, 131 2, 322, 125 3, 995 0.
17 Texas 6, 225, 546 5,907, 424 5, 991, 913 84, 489 1.36 Utah 471,
894 442, 829 443, 272 443 0. 09 Vermont 239, 744 221, 579 220, 145
-1, 434 -0. 60 Virginia 1,215, 252 1,154, 912 1, 163, 277 8, 365
0. 69 Washington 1,744, 384 1,594, 707 1, 602, 781 8, 073 0. 46
West Virginia 941, 195 915, 214 913, 894 -1, 320 -0.14 Wisconsin
1, 651, 196 1,579, 076 1, 556, 943 -22, 133 -1.34 Wyoming 134, 284
124, 410 125, 401 990 0. 74

Total $93,789, 286 $90,002, 703 $90, 060, 544 $57, 841 0.06

Page 82 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XXII Rehabilitation Services Appe ndi XXI xI

CFDA Number: 84. 126

Program Objectives: To provide vocational rehabilitation services
to people with disabilities so they may prepare for and engage in
competitive employment.

Federal Agency: Department of Education, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitation Services.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $2.2 billion. Formula
Narrative: Initially, states receive the amount they received in
fiscal year 1978. Half of the remaining funds are apportioned to
states in proportion to population adjusted by an allotment
percentage and half in proportion to population adjusted by the
square of the allotment percentage. The allotment percentage
varies on a sliding scale with state per capita income.

Mathematical Structure:

Where: , and

Formula Constraints: The allotment percentage (AP) has a value of
50 percent for the state with average per capita income and may
not exceed 75 Numerator of Sum AP Pop Amt 1/ 2 Numerator of Sum

AP Pop Amt 1/ 2 Grant78 Grant Federal 2 State

State State State

    *

+

 * + =

    - =

US State

PCI PCI 0.50 1.00 AP

    =

State State

State Pop PI PCI

Appendix XXII Rehabilitation Services

Page 83 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

percent or be less than 33 percent. In addition, states are
guaranteed an allotment equal to at least one- third of 1 percent
of the appropriation (small state minimum).

Definitions:

Amt = Funds remaining in excess of fiscal year 1978 amounts. Pop =
Population. PCI = Per capita personal income. AP = A state's
allotment percentage. PI = Personal income.

Data Sources: Pop: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
PCI: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Amount Reallocated: $12.674 million, 0. 59 percent of total
allocated.

Comments: None.

Table XXII. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1998 Rehabilitation
Services Allotments Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted
Population Counts

Dollars in thousands

Allotment Difference State Actual Adjusted Amount Percent

Alabama $46, 996 $47, 080 $84 0. 18 Alaska 7, 438 7, 438 -0 0. 00
Arizona 36,184 36, 650 466 1.29 Arkansas 28, 683 28, 723 40 0.14
California 215, 833 220, 552 4, 719 2. 19 Colorado 27, 612 27, 831
220 0. 80 Connecticut 16,665 16, 563 -101 -0.61 Delaware 7, 438
7,438 -0 0. 00 District of Columbia 10, 790 10, 885 95 0.88
Florida 105, 301 105, 962 661 0. 63 Georgia 64,234 64, 756 523
0.81 Hawaii 7,607 7, 644 37 0.49 Idaho 11, 140 11,232 91 0. 82

(continued)

Appendix XXII Rehabilitation Services

Page 84 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Allotment Difference State Actual Adjusted Amount Percent

Illinois 82, 411 81, 425 -986 -1. 20 Indiana 53, 269 52,362 -907 -
1. 70 Iowa 26, 158 25, 679 -479 -1.83 Kansas 21, 712 21, 384 -328
-1. 51 Kentucky 42, 479 42, 466 -13 -0.03 Louisiana 47,977 48, 313
335 0.70 Maine 12, 569 12,414 -155 -1. 24 Maryland 32, 789 33, 092
303 0. 92 Massachusetts 42,311 41, 452 -860 -2.03 Michigan 76, 487
75, 304 -1,183 -1.55 Minnesota 37,404 36, 672 -732 -1.96
Mississippi 34,327 34, 524 196 0.57 Missouri 48, 941 48, 202 -739
-1.51 Montana 8, 820 8, 909 90 1. 02 Nebraska 14, 404 14, 180 -224
-1. 55 Nevada 9, 318 9, 467 149 1. 60 New Hampshire 8, 634 8, 515
-120 -1. 38 New Jersey 44, 717 43, 735 -981 -2.19 New Mexico 17,
809 18, 177 368 2. 07 New York 119,020 118, 688 -332 -0.28 North
Carolina 69,078 69, 310 232 0.34 North Dakota 7, 438 7, 438 -0 0.
00 Ohio 99, 399 97, 958 -1,442 -1.45 Oklahoma 34, 318 34, 388 71
0.21 Oregon 26,484 26, 587 103 0.39 Pennsylvania 101, 574 99, 453
-2,121 -2.09 Rhode Island 8,361 8, 168 -193 -2.31 South Carolina
39, 142 39, 356 214 0. 55 South Dakota 7,439 7, 438 -1 -0.01
Tennessee 52, 095 52,177 82 0. 16 Texas 162, 149 165, 232 3,083 1.
90 Utah 19, 660 19, 684 25 0.13 Vermont 7, 438 7, 438 -0 0. 00
Virginia 50, 878 51, 207 329 0. 65 Washington 38, 588 38, 745 157
0. 41 West Virginia 21, 526 21, 464 -62 -0. 29

(continued)

Appendix XXII Rehabilitation Services

Page 85 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Allotment Difference State Actual Adjusted Amount Percent

Wisconsin 45, 835 45, 120 -715 -1.56 Wyoming 7, 438 7, 438 -0 0.
00

Total $2,166,318 $2,166, 318 0 0. 00

Page 86 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XXIII Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities State
Grants Appe ndi XXI I xI

CFDA Number: 84. 186

Program Objectives: To establish state and local programs of drug
and violence prevention coordinated with related community efforts
and resources.

Federal Agency: Department of Education, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations: $0.6 billion.

Formula Narrative: Allocations are made to each state based
equally upon the state's school- age population and its relative
share of Title I allocations.

Mathematical Structure: Formula Constraints: No state may receive
less than 0.5 percent of the amount appropriated.

Definitions:

Amt = Funds available for allocation to states. Pop5- 17 =
Population aged 5 to 17. Title I Allocation = Amount allocated
under part A of title I for the preceding year (see app. XXVIII).

Data Sources: Pop5- 17: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census. Title I Allocation: Department of Education, Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education.

Amount Reallocated: $0.0.

     +

   =

US State

US State

Allocation I Title Allocation I Title Amt * 0.5 17 Pop5 17 Pop5
Amt * 0.5 Grant Federal

-

Appendix XXIII Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities State
Grants

Page 87 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Comment: This formula
was not analyzed because title I grants depend

upon counts of children in poverty for which adjusted counts are
not available.

Page 88 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XXIV Social Services Block Grant Appendi XXI xV

CFDA Number: 93. 667

Program Objectives: To enable states to provide social services
directed toward the following goals: (1) reducing dependency; (2)
promoting selfsufficiency; (3) preventing neglect, abuse, or
exploitation of children and adults; (4) preventing or reducing
inappropriate institutional care; and (5) securing admission or
referral for institutional care when other forms of care are not
appropriate.

Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $2.4 billion.

Formula Narrative: State funding is allocated in proportion to
each state's share of the national population.

Mathematical Structure: Formula Constraints: None.

Definitions:

Amt = Funds available for allocation to states. Pop = A state's
population count.

Data Sources: Amt: Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families. Pop: Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Amount Reallocated: $8. 5 million, 0.37 percent of total
allocated.

Comment: None.

    =

States All State

Pop Pop Amt Grant Federal

Appendix XXIV Social Services Block Grant

Page 89 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Table XXIV. 1: Comparison of Fiscal Year 1998 Social Services
Block Grant Allotments Based on Actual and Undercount- Adjusted
Population Counts

Dollars in thousands

Difference States Actual Adjusted Amount Percent

Alabama $37, 004 $37,071 $67 0.18 Alaska 5, 255 5, 276 21 0.40
Arizona 36,700 36, 990 290 0. 79 Arkansas 21, 613 21, 645 33 0.15
California 274, 846 278,059 3, 213 1.17 Colorado 32, 602 32, 751
150 0. 46 Connecticut 28,495 28, 218 -277 -0. 97 Delaware 6, 238
6, 251 12 0.20 District of Columbia 4, 820 4, 910 90 1.86 Florida
123, 254 123,708 454 0.37 Georgia 62, 654 63,003 349 0.56 Hawaii
10, 328 10, 354 26 0.25 Idaho 10, 119 10, 179 60 0.60 Illinois
102, 929 102,283 -646 -0.63 Indiana 50, 490 49,929 -561 -1.11 Iowa
24, 727 24, 431 -296 -1.20 Kansas 22, 317 22, 113 -204 -0.91
Kentucky 33, 585 33, 575 -9 -0.03 Louisiana 37, 778 37, 999 220
0.58 Maine 10,798 10, 704 -94 -0. 87 Maryland 43, 878 44, 091 214
0.49 Massachusetts 52, 848 52, 248 -600 -1.14 Michigan 83, 083 82,
329 -754 -0.91 Minnesota 40, 110 39,637 -473 -1.18 Mississippi 23,
466 23,574 108 0.46 Missouri 46, 322 45, 864 -458 -0.99 Montana 7,
570 7, 628 58 0.77 Nebraska 14, 243 14, 106 -137 -0.96 Nevada 13,
312 13, 415 103 0.77 New Hampshire 9, 988 9, 911 -77 -0. 77 New
Jersey 69, 127 68, 406 -721 -1.04 New Mexico 14, 661 14, 887 226
1.54

(continued)

Appendix XXIV Social Services Block Grant

Page 90 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Difference States Actual Adjusted Amount Percent

New York 157, 796 157,606 -190 -0.12 North Carolina 62, 601 62,
730 128 0.21 North Dakota 5, 577 5, 524 -53 -0.95 Ohio 97, 021 96,
120 -902 -0.93 Oklahoma 28, 521 28, 575 54 0. 19 Oregon 27, 329
27, 402 73 0.27 Pennsylvania 105, 035 103,643 -1,392 -1.33 Rhode
Island 8,614 8, 487 -127 -1. 47 South Carolina 31, 958 32, 105 147
0.46 South Dakota 6, 343 6, 302 -40 -0.64 Tennessee 45, 731 45,
799 69 0.15 Texas 162, 912 164,883 1, 971 1.21 Utah 16, 975 16,
996 21 0.13 Vermont 5, 090 5, 065 -25 -0. 50 Virginia 57, 581 57,
797 216 0.38 Washington 47, 253 47, 370 117 0.25 West Virginia 15,
905 15, 875 -30 -0.19 Wisconsin 44, 574 44,127 -446 -1.00 Wyoming
4, 176 4,200 24 0. 57

Total $2,286, 151 $2, 286, 151 0 0. 00

Page 91 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XXV Special Education Appendi x XXV

CFDA Number: 84. 027

Program Objectives: To provide grants to states to assist them in
providing a free appropriate public education to all children with
disabilities.

Federal Agency: Department of Education, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $3.2 billion.

Formula Narrative: Funds are allotted on the basis of a certified
count of the number of children with disabilities aged 3 to 21
years receiving special education and related services. The
formula contains a maximum state grant. The entitlement is equal
to the number of children with disabilities aged 3 to 21 in the
state who are receiving special education and related services,
multiplied by 40 percent of the average per- pupil expenditure in
public elementary and secondary schools in the United States.

Mathematical Structure: Formula Constraints: The number of
children with disabilities aged 3 to 17 cannot exceed 12 percent
of a state's population aged 3 to 17. There are additional
constraints written in the law that had no effect on fiscal year
1998 allotments.

Definitions:

Amt = Funds available for allocation to states. DPop = State's
count of children with disabilities. Exp = U. S. average
elementary and secondary education expenditure per pupil.

Data Sources: DPop: Department of Education. Exp: Department of
Education. Pop3- 17: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Numerator of Sum Exp * 0.40 * DPop Amt Grant Federal US state

    =

Appendix XXV Special Education

Page 92 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Comments: The number
of children with disabilities exceeds 12 percent of

the population ages 3 to 17 in four states (Maine, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and West Virginia). Using the adjusted census
counts, these four states would have their allocations raised
slightly, and the remaining 47 states and the District of Columbia
would have theirs lowered by very small

amounts. Since the amounts reallocated would be very small, we
have not simulated the effect of the adjusted population on
program allotments.

Table XXV. 1: Allotments for Special Education in Fiscal Year 1998

Dollars in thousands

State Allotment

Alabama $62, 010 Alaska 11, 152 Arizona 52, 380 Arkansas 35, 772
California 377, 999 Colorado 45, 775 Connecticut 50,294 Delaware
10, 111 District of Columbia 4,797 Florida 209, 303 Georgia 92,
295 Hawaii 11, 556 Idaho 16, 395 Illinois 173, 370 Indiana 89, 258
Iowa 43, 578 Kansas 35, 409 Kentucky 53, 898 Louisiana 58, 900
Maine 20, 366 Maryland 68, 175 Massachusetts 100, 626 Michigan
125, 280 Minnesota 65, 046 Mississippi 39, 744 Missouri 80, 669

(continued)

Appendix XXV Special Education

Page 93 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

State Allotment

Montana 11, 710 Nebraska 25, 817 Nevada 19, 849 New Hampshire 16,
829 New Jersey 128, 848 New Mexico 31, 431 New York 264, 134 North
Carolina 99, 750 North Dakota 8, 063 Ohio 142, 257 Oklahoma 48,
361 Oregon 42, 068 Pennsylvania 139, 852 Rhode Island 15, 711
South Carolina 59, 469 South Dakota 9, 633 Tennessee 80, 819 Texas
298, 576 Utah 34, 157 Vermont 7,650 Virginia 94, 262 Washington
69, 083 West Virginia 28, 402 Wisconsin 71, 081 Wyoming 8,173

Total $3, 690, 144

Page 94 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XXVI Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (Food) Appendi x XXVI

CFDA Number: 10. 557

Program Objectives: The objective of this program is to provide,
at no cost, supplemental nutritious foods, nutrition education,
and referrals to health care services for low- income pregnant,
breast- feeding, and

postpartum women, and infants and children to age 5 determined to
be at nutritional risk.

Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer
Service.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $3.0 billion.

Formula Narrative: States are guaranteed the funding they received
in the previous year adjusted for inflation, called a stability
allotment. If total funding is not sufficient to provide stability
amounts for each state, the initial allotments are reduced on a
pro rata basis. If additional funding is available, it is
allocated in proportion to each state's share of children below
185 percent of the official poverty level. If states do not use
their entire allotment, it is returned to the Department of
Agriculture and reallocated to other eligible states under the
formula.

Mathematical Structure: Formula Constraints: None (see Comments).

Definitions:

Amt = Remaining funds after stability allotments. Child = Count of
children in families below 185 percent of the poverty level.

Data Sources: Child: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Comments: Since the appropriation for this grant was not
sufficient to fund the stability allotment for fiscal year 1998,
initial state allotments were based on the prior year's allotment
after being adjusted for inflation.

Subsequently, some states returned portions of the formula
allotment. After being able to fund stability allotments for the
remaining states, $43.5

+

    =

US State

Child Child Amt Allotment

Stability Grant Federal

Appendix XXVI Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (Food)

Page 95 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

million, or 1.5 percent of the total, was allocated based on
census poverty data. We did not simulate this formula because
undercount estimates for poverty populations are not available.
However, we included this program among those we analyzed because
the amount of funds that would be shifted due to the undercount
for any individual state would be small enough that it would not
significantly affect the overall results.

Table XXVI. 1: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (Food) Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 1998
Dollars in thousands

State Allotment

Alabama $48, 013 Alaska 11, 939 Arizona 47, 217 Arkansas 34, 640
California 513, 840 Colorado 28, 413 Connecticut 24,563 Delaware
5,819 District of Columbia 6,964 Florida 142, 070 Georgia 84, 345
Hawaii 20, 079 Idaho 10, 976 Illinois 105, 800 Indiana 48, 543
Iowa 24, 885 Kansas 19, 744 Kentucky 47, 284 Louisiana 60, 304
Maine 9,150 Maryland 35, 998 Massachusetts 40, 007 Michigan 85,
074 Minnesota 34, 814 Mississippi 39, 845 Missouri 52, 108

(continued)

Appendix XXVI Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (Food)

Page 96 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

State Allotment

Montana 9,189 Nebraska 14, 161 Nevada 13, 853 New Hampshire 6, 267
New Jersey 55, 430 New Mexico 19, 995 New York 207, 892 North
Carolina 69, 613 North Dakota 6, 507 Ohio 84, 827 Oklahoma 32, 417
Oregon 33, 778 Pennsylvania 99, 769 Rhode Island 8,436 South
Carolina 42, 902 South Dakota 6, 843 Tennessee 60, 722 Texas 236,
670 Utah 21, 233 Vermont 6,662 Virginia 53, 651 Washington 60, 700
West Virginia 19, 985 Wisconsin 40, 880 Wyoming 3,822

Total $2, 798, 640

Page 97 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XXVII Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (Nutrition Services and Administration)
Appendi x XXVI I

CFDA Number: 10. 557

Program Objectives: To provide, at no cost, supplemental
nutritious foods, nutrition education, and referrals to health
care to low- income pregnant, breast- feeding, and postpartum
women, and infants, and children to age 5 determined to be at
nutritional risk.

Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer
Service.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $1.0 billion. Formula
Narrative: States receive a fixed amount per adjusted program
participant for administrative expenses and other nutrition
services. The number of program participants in a state are
adjusted to take account of the higher cost of small participation
levels, differential salary levels, and

differences in service to priority 1 participants. Mathematical
Structure: Formula Constraints: No state may receive less than it
received in the previous fiscal year.

Definitions:

Rate = Amount per participant. Participants = Number of program
participants adjusted to account for differences in (1) the higher
cost of small participation levels, (2) salary levels, and (3)
service to priority 1 participants.

Data Sources: Rate: Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer
Service. Participants: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Consumer Service.

Amount Reallocated: None.

Comment: The allocations for Nutrition Services and Administration
do not depend on census data; consequently, there is no effect
from the undercount of the population.

State us ts Participan Rate Grant Federal * =

Appendix XXVII Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (Nutrition Services and Administration)

Page 98 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Table XXVII. 1: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants and Children (Nutrition Services and Administration),
Fiscal Year 1998

Dollars in thousands

State Allotment

Alabama $17, 056 Alaska 6,039 Arizona 17, 672 Arkansas 12, 602
California 174, 760 Colorado 11, 436 Connecticut 9,216 Delaware
2,349 District of Columbia 2,999 Florida 47, 016 Georgia 31, 063
Hawaii 7,311 Idaho 6,029 Illinois 38, 057 Indiana 18, 577 Iowa
9,321 Kansas 7,678 Kentucky 16, 710 Louisiana 18, 501 Maine 4,112
Maryland 13, 032 Massachusetts 16, 453 Michigan 30, 177 Minnesota
13, 231 Mississippi 16, 762 Missouri 17, 180 Montana 4,217
Nebraska 5,881 Nevada 5,993 New Hampshire 3, 409 New Jersey 20,
751 New Mexico 8,127 New York 66, 501

(continued)

Appendix XXVII Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (Nutrition Services and Administration)

Page 99 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

State Allotment

North Carolina 26, 555 North Dakota 2, 609 Ohio 36, 969 Oklahoma
12, 258 Oregon 13, 948 Pennsylvania 35, 225 Rhode Island 3,581
South Carolina 17, 091 South Dakota 4, 086 Tennessee 19, 822 Texas
95, 449 Utah 8,950 Vermont 2,581 Virginia 19, 000 Washington 21,
507 West Virginia 9, 150 Wisconsin 14, 872 Wyoming 2,240

Total $1, 026, 111

Page 100 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XXVIII Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies Appe
ndi x XXVI I I

CFDA Number: 84. 010

Program Objectives: To help local education agencies and schools
improve the teaching of and learning by children failing, or most
at risk of failing, to meet challenging state academic standards.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $7.5 billion.

Formula Narrative: Funding is allocated to local education
agencies under three separate formulas: Basic Grants,
Concentration Grants, and Targeted Grants. Basic and Concentration
Grants are funded at their fiscal year 1995 appropriations amounts
and the excess is allocated under the Targeted Grant formula. The
Basic Grant formula allocates funding in proportion to the number
of children in poverty times 40 percent of the state per- pupil
expenditure. Concentration Grants are limited to counties whose
counts of children in poverty either exceed 6, 500 or whose
poverty rates exceed 15 percent. Concentration Grants are
allocated in proportion to Basic Grant funding

amounts. Targeted Grants use the Basic Grant formula, except
weighted counts of children in poverty are used to target a larger
share of available funds to counties with larger numbers or higher
percentages of poor children.

Mathematical Structure:

and

Formula Constraints: State per- pupil expenditures cannot exceed
the national average per- pupil expenditure by more than 20
percent or be

    * * = Numerator of Sum

Exp 0.40 Pov Amt95 Grants Basic State County Basic

 * = Numerator of Sum GBasic Pov Amt95 Grants Concentration County
County

Con

    * * = Numerator of Sum

Exp 0.40 WPov Amt Grants Targeted State County Targ

Appendix XXVIII Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies

Page 101 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

below 80 percent of the average. Hold- harmless provisions apply
to Basic Grants and Targeted Grants but not to Concentration
Grants. Counties are guaranteed to receive at least 95 percent of
their previous year's allotment if their child poverty rate
exceeds 30 percent, 90 percent if the county poverty rate is
between 15 and 30 percent, and 85 percent if the county poverty
rate is below 15 percent. For Basic Grants, no state area can

receive less than the smaller of (1)  of 1 percent of the funding
allocated among states or (2) an average of  of 1 percent of the
amount appropriated and 150 percent of the national average per-
pupil grant times the number of children counted in the Basic
Grant formula.

Definitions:

Amt95 = Funds available for allocation among local education
agencies in fiscal year 1995. Amt = Funds in excess of fiscal year
1995 available for allocation among local education agencies. Pov
= Number of children aged 5 to 17 living in poverty and children
above poverty in families receiving Aid to Families With Dependent
Children,

foster homes, and institutions for delinquents ( formula
children). Exp = Elementary and secondary school expenditures per
pupil. GBasic = Grant amount per pupil under the Basic Grant
formula. WPov = Weighted counts of school- aged children in
poverty.

Data Sources:

Pov: Bureau of the Census. Exp: Department of Education. Gbasic:
Department of Education. WPov: Weights specified in law, counts
derived from poverty counts from the Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census.

Amount Reallocated: Not applicable.

Comments: This formula was not analyzed because poverty counts
adjusted for the undercount are not available.

Page 102 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XXIX Vocational Education Appendi XXI xX

CFDA Number: 84. 048

Program Objectives: To assist states to expand and improve their
programs of vocational education and provide equal access in
vocational education to special needs populations. The populations
assisted by the

grants range from secondary students in prevocational courses to
adults who need retraining to adapt to changing technological and
labor market conditions.

Federal Agency: Department of Education, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.

Fiscal Year 1998 Obligations (estimate): $1.0 billion.

Formula Narrative: Fifty- five percent of available funds are
allocated to states in proportion to the population aged 15 to 19,
adjusted by a per capita income factor (called an allotment
percentage). Twenty- five percent of available funds are allocated
in proportion to the population aged 20 to 24, adjusted by the
allotment percentage, and 20 percent in proportion to the
population aged 25 to 65, adjusted by the allotment percentage.

Mathematical Structure:

Where: , and

 * * +

    * *

+

 * * =

Numerator of Sum AP 65 Pop25 Amt 0.20 Numerator of Sum AP 24 Pop20
Amt 0.25 Numerator of Sum

AP 19 Pop15 Amt 0.55 Grant Federal State State State State

State State

   - =

US State

PCI PCI 0.50 1.00 AP

    =

State State

State Pop PI PCI

Appendix XXIX Vocational Education

Page 103 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding Formula Constraints:
The allotment percentage cannot exceed 60

percent or be less than 40 percent. Formula allocations for each
state cannot fall below the fiscal year 1998 allocation. No state
may receive less than 0.5 percent of the total funds distributed
(small state minimum).

Definitions:

Amt = Funds available for allocation to states. Pop15- 19 =
Population count between ages 15 and 19. Pop20- 24 = Population
count between ages 20 and 24. Pop25- 65 = Population count between
ages 25 and 65 AP = Allotment percentage. PI = State's personal
income. Pop = State population.

Data Sources: Pop: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
PI: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Amount Reallocated: $1. 202 million, 0.12 percent of total
funding.

Comments: The formula as written in law contains four terms. The
three shown above have weights of .50, .20, and .15, respectively.
The fourth term is the sum of these three terms and also receives
a .15 weight. This is equivalent to adding .05 to each weight as
shown in the above mathematical statement of the formula. The
formula constraint restricts the changes in allotment. We show the
percentage in populations for the formula and the resulting change
in state allotment in table XXIX. 2. Most states have no change in
allocation from the undercount adjustment.

Table XXIX. 1: Vocational and Technical Education Assistance to
the States, Comparison of Actual Allocations to Simulated
Allocations

Dollars in thousands

Difference State Unadjusted Adjusted Amount Percent

Alabama $19,175 $19,175. 06 0 0.00 Alaska 4,215 4, 215 0 0. 00
Arizona 18,342 18,396 $54 0.29 Arkansas 11,404 11,404 0 0.00

(continued)

Appendix XXIX Vocational Education

Page 104 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Difference State Unadjusted Adjusted Amount Percent

California 109,111 110,238 1, 128 1.03 Colorado 13, 400 13, 400 0
0. 00 Connecticut 8, 355 8, 355 0 0. 00 Delaware 4, 215 4, 215 0
0. 00 District of Columbia 4, 215 4, 215 0 0. 00 Florida 46,929
46,686 -243 -0.52 Georgia 29,560 29,560 0 0.00 Hawaii 5, 066 5,
066 0 0. 00 Idaho 6,066 6, 044 -22 -0.37 Illinois 38,934 38,934 0
0.00 Indiana 23,688 23,688 0 0.00 Iowa 11,964 11,964 0 0.00 Kansas
10,326 10,245 -80 -0.78 Kentucky 17,906 17,906 0 0.00 Louisiana
21,042 21,042 0 0.00 Maine 5, 066 5,066 0 0.00 Maryland 14,812
14,812 0 0.00 Massachusetts 17, 324 17, 324 0 0. 00 Michigan
35,641 35,015 -626 -1.76 Minnesota 16,685 16,685 0 0.00
Mississippi 13,364 13,364 0 0.00 Missouri 20,940 20,940 0 0.00
Montana 4,959 4, 959 0 0. 00 Nebraska 6,817 6, 817 0 0. 00 Nevada
5,243 5, 261 18 0.35 New Hampshire 5, 066 5, 066 0 0. 00 New
Jersey 21,030 21,030 0 0.00 New Mexico 8, 079 8, 080 1 0. 02 New
York 51,362 51,362 0 0.00 North Carolina 28,781 28,781 0 0.00
North Dakota 4,215 4, 215 0 0. 00 Ohio 42,750 42,750 0 0.00
Oklahoma 15, 139 15, 094 -45 -0. 29 Oregon 12,410 12,410 0 0.00
Pennsylvania 40,723 40,723 0 0.00 Rhode Island 5, 066 5, 066 0 0.
00

(continued)

Appendix XXIX Vocational Education

Page 105 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Table XXIX. 2: Percentage Change in Vocational Education
Population Counts Unadjusted and Adjusted for the Undercount
Difference

State Unadjusted Adjusted Amount Percent

South Carolina 16,635 16,635 0 0.00 South Dakota 4,215 4, 215 0 0.
00 Tennessee 21,457 21,457 0 0.00 Texas 80,684 80,684 0 0.00 Utah
11, 760 11, 616 -144 -1. 23 Vermont 4, 215 4,215 0 0.00 Virginia
23,247 23,247 0 0.00 Washington 19,625 19,584 -41 -0.21 West
Virginia 8,429 8, 429 0 0. 00 Wisconsin 20,242 20,242 0 0.00
Wyoming 4, 215 4,215 0 0.00

Total $994,103 $994,103 0 0.00 Percentage change in population by
age State 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 65 Percent change

in allocation

Alabama 2.95 2.24 1.08 0.00 Alaska 2.98 3.89 1.36 0.00 Arizona 4.
38 5. 60 1. 61 0. 29 Arkansas 2.97 2.76 1.06 0.00 California 4. 59
5. 63 2. 06 1. 03 Colorado 3. 76 5. 06 1. 32 0. 00 Connecticut 1.
38 1. 66 0. 46 0. 00 Delaware 3. 65 3. 57 1. 00 0. 00 District of
Columbia 5. 98 5. 78 2. 72 0. 00 Florida 4. 00 4. 40 1. 35 -0.52
Georgia 3. 40 3. 11 1. 36 0. 00 Hawaii 3. 28 4. 49 1. 26 0. 00
Idaho 3.78 5.18 1.21 -0.37 Illinois 1. 83 2. 07 0. 58 0. 00
Indiana 0. 98 1. 20 0. 16 0. 00 Iowa 0.87 2.04 0.16 0.00 Kansas
1.34 2.20 0.34 -0.78

(continued)

Appendix XXIX Vocational Education

Page 106 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Percentage change in population by age State 15 to 19 20 to 24 25
to 65 Percent change

in allocation

Kentucky 2.82 2.78 0.93 0.00 Louisiana 3.47 2.90 1.28 0.00 Maine
0. 76 1. 05 0. 58 0. 00 Maryland 3. 76 3. 93 1. 30 0. 00
Massachusetts 1. 36 1. 95 0. 30 0. 00 Michigan 1.30 1.31 0.32 -
1.76 Minnesota 0. 87 1. 51 0. 16 0. 00 Mississippi 3. 37 2. 18 1.
33 0. 00 Missouri 1. 26 1. 61 0. 28 0. 00 Montana 4.29 5.38 1.36
0.00 Nebraska 1.21 2.42 0.34 0.00 Nevada 4. 03 5. 57 1. 72 0. 35
New Hampshire 0. 90 1. 33 0. 71 0. 00 New Jersey 1. 73 1. 95 0. 37
0. 00 New Mexico 4.62 5.86 2.41 0.02 New York 2.78 3.40 1.35 0.00
North Carolina 2.95 2.46 1.25 0.00 North Dakota 1.57 2.20 0.26
0.00 Ohio 1. 29 1. 57 0. 30 0. 00 Oklahoma 3. 32 3. 62 0. 93 -0.
29 Oregon 3.61 5.09 1.14 0.00 Pennsylvania 1. 26 1. 41 -0. 04 0.
00 Rhode Island 1. 28 1. 91 -0. 06 0. 00 South Carolina 3.15 2.41
1.32 0.00 South Dakota 2.10 2.72 0.46 0.00 Tennessee 3.26 3.08
1.00 0.00 Texas 4. 22 5. 19 1. 94 0. 00 Utah 3. 10 5. 04 0. 77 -1.
23 Vermont 1. 50 2. 19 0. 85 0. 00 Virginia 3.47 3.63 1.21 0.00
Washington 3.42 4.87 1.09 -0.21 West Virginia 2.55 2.46 0.89 0.00
Wisconsin 1. 15 1. 68 0. 26 0. 00 Wyoming 3. 75 5. 44 1. 23 0. 00

Total 2. 82 3. 31 1. 05 0. 00

Page 107 GAO/HEHS-99-69 Formula Grant Funding

Appendix XXX Major Contributors to This Report Appendi x XXX

Jerry C. Fastrup, Assistant Director, (202) 512- 7211 Greg
Dybalski, Senior Economist and Evaluator- in- Charge Robert
Dinkelmeyer, Senior Economist Richard Horte, Evaluator Teresa
Renner, Evaluator

(101777) Let t er

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be
sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money
order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary,
VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using
fax number (202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how
to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send
an e- mail message with info in the body to: info@ www. gao. gov
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http:// www. gao. gov

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548-
0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00

PAGE110 GAO/ XXXX- 98-??? NAME OF DOCUMENT

PAGE 111 GAO/ XXXX- 98-??? NAME OF DOCUMENT

*** End of document. ***