Federal Assistance
Illustrative Simulations of Using Statistical Population Estimates for Reallocating Certain Federal Funding Gao ID: GAO-06-567 June 23, 2006Decennial census data need to be as accurate as possible because the population counts are used for, among other purposes, allocating federal grants to states and local governments. The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) used statistical methods to estimate the accuracy of 1990 and 2000 Census data. Because the Bureau considered the estimates unreliable due to methodological uncertainties, they were not used to adjust the census results. Still, a key question is how sensitive are federal formula grants to alternative population estimates, such as those derived from statistical methods? GAO was asked to identify (1) the top 20 formula grant programs based on the amount of funds targeted by any means, and (2) the amount of money allocated for Medicaid and Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), and the prospective impact of estimated population counts from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses on state allocations for these two programs. Importantly, as agreed, GAO's analysis only simulates the formula grant reallocations. We used fiscal year 2004 Medicaid state expenditure and 2005 SSBG state allocation data, the most recent data available.
In fiscal year 2004, the top 20 formula grant programs together had $308 billion in obligations, or 67 percent of the total $460.2 billion obligated by the 1,172 federal grant programs. Medicaid was the largest formula grant program, with obligations of $183.2 billion, or nearly 40 percent of all grant obligations. The federal government allocated $159.7 billion to states in Medicaid funds (not including administrative costs such as processing and making payments to service providers) and $1.7 billion in SSBG funds. Recalculating these allocations using statistical population estimates from the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation and the Post Enumeration Survey--independent sample surveys designed to estimate the number of people that were over- and undercounted in the 2000 and 1990 Censuses--would have produced the following results. First, a total of 0.23 percent ($368 million) of federal Medicaid funds would have been shifted overall among the states in fiscal year 2004 and 0.25 percent ($4.2 million) of SSBG funds would have shifted among the states in fiscal year 2005 as a result of the simulations using statistical population estimates from the 2000 Census. Second, with respect to Medicaid, 22 states would have received additional funding, 17 states would have received less funding, and 11 states and the District of Columbia would have received the same amount of funding using statistical population estimates from the 2000 Census. Based on a fiscal year 2004 federal Medicaid allocation to the states of $159.7 billion, Nevada would have been the largest percentage gainer, with an additional 1.47 percent in funding, and Wisconsin would have lost the greatest percentage--1.46 percent. Third, with respect to SSBG, 27 states and the District of Columbia would have gained funding, and 23 states would have lost funding using statistical population estimates from the 2000 Census. Based on a fiscal year 2005 SSBG allocation of $1.7 billion, Washington, D.C. would have been the biggest percentage gainer, receiving an additional 2.05 percent in funding, while Minnesota would have lost the greatest percentage funding--1.17 percent. Fourth, statistical population estimates from the 2000 Census would have shifted a smaller percentage of funding compared to those using the 1990 Census because the difference between the actual and estimated population counts was smaller in 2000 compared to 1990.
GAO-06-567, Federal Assistance: Illustrative Simulations of Using Statistical Population Estimates for Reallocating Certain Federal Funding
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-567
entitled 'Federal Assistance: Illustrative Simulations of Using
Statistical Population Estimates for Reallocating Certain Federal
Funding' which was released on July 25, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
June 2006:
Federal Assistance:
Illustrative Simulations of Using Statistical Population Estimates for
Reallocating Certain Federal Funding:
GAO-06-567:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-567, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
Decennial census data need to be as accurate as possible because the
population counts are used for, among other purposes, allocating
federal grants to states and local governments. The U.S. Census Bureau
(Bureau) used statistical methods to estimate the accuracy of 1990 and
2000 Census data. Because the Bureau considered the estimates
unreliable due to methodological uncertainties, they were not used to
adjust the census results. Still, a key question is how sensitive are
federal formula grants to alternative population estimates, such as
those derived from statistical methods?
GAO was asked to identify (1) the top 20 formula grant programs based
on the amount of funds targeted by any means, and (2) the amount of
money allocated for Medicaid and Social Services Block Grant (SSBG),
and the prospective impact of estimated population counts from the 1990
and 2000 Censuses on state allocations for these two programs.
Importantly, as agreed, GAO‘s analysis only simulates the formula grant
reallocations. We used fiscal year 2004 Medicaid state expenditure and
2005 SSBG state allocation data, the most recent data available.
What GAO Found:
In fiscal year 2004, the top 20 formula grant programs together had
$308 billion in obligations, or 67 percent of the total $460.2 billion
obligated by the 1,172 federal grant programs. Medicaid was the largest
formula grant program, with obligations of $183.2 billion, or nearly 40
percent of all grant obligations. The federal government allocated
$159.7 billion to states in Medicaid funds (not including
administrative costs such as processing and making payments to service
providers) and $1.7 billion in SSBG funds. Recalculating these
allocations using statistical population estimates from the Accuracy
and Coverage Evaluation and the Post Enumeration Survey”independent
sample surveys designed to estimate the number of people that were
over- and undercounted in the 2000 and 1990 Censuses”would have
produced the following results:
* A total of 0.23 percent ($368 million) of federal Medicaid funds
would have been shifted overall among the states in fiscal year 2004
and 0.25 percent ($4.2 million) of SSBG funds would have shifted among
the states in fiscal year 2005 as a result of the simulations using
statistical population estimates from the 2000 Census.
* With respect to Medicaid, 22 states would have received additional
funding, 17 states would have received less funding, and 11 states and
the District of Columbia would have received the same amount of funding
using statistical population estimates from the 2000 Census. Based on a
fiscal year 2004 federal Medicaid allocation to the states of $159.7
billion, Nevada would have been the largest percentage gainer, with an
additional 1.47 percent in funding, and Wisconsin would have lost the
greatest percentage–1.46 percent.
* With respect to SSBG, 27 states and the District of Columbia would
have gained funding, and 23 states would have lost funding using
statistical population estimates from the 2000 Census. Based on a
fiscal year 2005 SSBG allocation of $1.7 billion, Washington, D.C.
would have been the biggest percentage gainer, receiving an additional
2.05 percent in funding, while Minnesota would have lost the greatest
percentage funding”1.17 percent.
* Statistical population estimates from the 2000 Census would have
shifted a smaller percentage of funding compared to those using the
1990 Census because the difference between the actual and estimated
population counts was smaller in 2000 compared to 1990.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-567].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at
(202) 512-6806 or farrellb@gao.gov
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Top 20 Formula Grant Programs Represented Two Thirds of All Federal
Grant Programs:
Prospective Impact of Statistical Population Estimates on Medicaid and
SSBG Allocations:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Medicaid:
Appendix III: Social Services Block Grant:
Appendix IV: Estimated Reallocations Using Statistical Population
Estimates Based on the 1990 and 2000 Censuses:
Appendix V: Estimated Percentage Changes in State Funding Using
Statistical Population Estimates:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: The Top 20 Formula Grant Programs and Their Fiscal Year 2004
Federal Obligations:
Table 2: Comparison of the Changes in Medicaid and SSBG Allocations
Using Statistical Population Estimates Based on the 1990 and 2000
Censuses:
Table 3: Census 2000 and 1990 Population Counts and Statistical
Population Estimates:
Table 4: Medicaid Allocations and Recalculated Allocations Using
Revised Population Estimates:
Table 5: Social Services Block Grant Allocations and Recalculated
Allocations Using Revised Population Estimates:
Table 6: Percentage Difference between 1990 and 2000 Medicaid
Allocations and Recalculated Allocations Using Statistical Population
Estimates:
Table 7: Percentage Difference between 1990 and 2000 Social Services
Block Grant Allocations and Recalculated Allocations Using Statistical
Population Estimates:
Figures:
Figure 1: Estimated Change in Federal Medicaid Grant Funding Using
Statistical Population Estimates for States:
Figure 2: Estimated Medicaid Percentage Change in Grant Funding Using
Statistical Population Estimates for States:
Figure 3: Estimated Change in Social Services Block Grant Funding Using
Statistical Population Estimates for States:
Figure 4: Estimated Social Services Block Grant Percentage Change in
Grant Funding Using Statistical Population Estimates for States:
Abbreviations:
A.C.E.: Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation:
CFDA: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance:
CFFR: Consolidated Federal Funds Domestic Assistance:
FMAP: Federal Medical Assistance Percentage:
PCI: Per Capita Income:
PES: Post-Enumeration Survey:
SSBG: Social Services Block Grant:
June 22, 2006:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Michael Turner:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census Committee on Government
Reform:
House of Representatives:
Data from the decennial census are used to apportion congressional
seats, redraw congressional districts, and allocate federal assistance
to state and local governments through certain formula grant programs,
as well as for a number of other public-and private-sector purposes. As
a result, it is essential that census data be as complete and accurate
as practicable. Although the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) puts forth
tremendous effort to conduct a complete and accurate population count,
some amount of error is inevitable because of the nation's size and
demographic complexity, and the inherent limitations of census-taking
methods.
To estimate the accuracy of the 2000 Census and possibly adjust for any
errors, the Bureau conducted the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation
(A.C.E.), which was an independent sample survey designed to estimate
the number of people that were over-and undercounted in the census, a
problem the Bureau refers to as "coverage error."
In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that the Census Act prohibited the use
of statistical sampling for purposes of apportioning seats in the House
of Representatives, but the Supreme Court's decision did not
specifically address the use of statistical sampling for other
purposes, including adjusting the data used to allocate federal
assistance via formula grants.[Footnote 1] However, after conducting a
number of evaluations of the A.C.E. samples and methodology, the Bureau
concluded that the A.C.E. population estimates were flawed and that all
potential uses of these data would be inappropriate. As a result, the
Bureau's parent agency, the Department of Commerce, determined that the
A.C.E. estimates should not be used for any purpose that legally
requires data from the decennial census. We have also stated that the
A.C.E. statistical population estimates are unreliable.[Footnote 2]
Still, a key question that arises is how sensitive are federal formula
grants to alternative population estimates, such as those derived by
statistical methods? With that in mind, you asked us to examine how
statistical population estimates might have redistributed federal
assistance among the states had they been used to calculate formula
grants rather than the actual population counts. In response, and as
requested, we recalculated certain federal assistance to the states
using the A.C.E. population estimates from the 2000 Census, as well as
the population estimates derived from the Post-Enumeration Survey
(PES)--the independent sample survey the Bureau administered to
evaluate the accuracy of the 1990 Census. While only the actual census
numbers should be used for official purposes, our analysis shows the
extent to which alternative population counts would impact the
distribution of federal grant funds and can help inform congressional
decision making on the design of future censuses. As agreed with your
offices, we identified (1) the top 20 formula grant programs based on
the amount of funds targeted by any means, and (2) how much money would
have been allocated using census data for certain formula grant
programs, and the prospective impact of using estimated population
counts from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses to recalculate state allocations
for these grant programs.
To address the first objective, we used expenditure and obligations
data from the fiscal year 2004 Consolidated Federal Funds Report
(CFFR), the most recent year for which data were available. For the
second objective, we recalculated the amount of federal funding
allocated to the states for Medicaid using the 2005 fiscal year Federal
Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) with 2004 state expenditure data,
and recalculated the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) state
allocations using 2005 fiscal year allocation data.[Footnote 3] In both
cases we used the most recent year for which data were available. We
based our calculation on the official population counts from the 1990
and 2000 Censuses. We then recalculated the allocations using the PES
population estimates from the 1990 Census, and the A.C.E. population
estimates from the 2000 Census.
The federal share of total Medicaid program costs is determined using a
statutory formula that calculates each state's FMAP. SSBG receives an
annual appropriation that is distributed in proportion to each state's
population. We selected these programs for our analysis because they
would be particularly sensitive to alternative population estimates.
Medicaid is the largest formula grant program; thus any changes would
redistribute more money compared to other programs. Further, any
changes in SSBG would have a proportional impact on the distribution of
state funds.
Importantly, our analysis only simulates the formula grant
reallocations using A.C.E. data and was done for illustrative purposes-
-to show the sensitivity of these two formula grant programs to
alternative population estimates. (See app. I for a more detailed
description of our methodology.) We use the term "allocation" to
include Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reimbursement to
states of Medicaid expenditures subject to the FMAP formula (net of
administrative costs) and SSBG state allotments. (Appendix II has
additional details on Medicaid and the formula used to allocate money;
app. III has the same information for SSBG.) We use the term
"statistical population estimates" to refer to the results of the
coverage measurement programs that the Bureau conducted following the
1990 and 2000 Censuses (but were not used to adjust the actual census
counts).
We conducted our work between November 2005 and May 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Because we did
not evaluate the policies or operations of any federal agency to
develop the information presented in this report, and because we are
not making any recommendations, we did not seek agency comments.
However, we discussed a statement of facts for this report with Census
Bureau officials, who provided us with technical comments that we have
incorporated where appropriate.
Results in Brief:
In fiscal year 2004, the top 20 formula grant programs together had
$307.9 billion in obligations, or 67 percent of the total $460.2
billion obligated by the 1,172 federal grant programs. Medicaid was the
largest formula grant program, with obligations of $183.2 billion, or
nearly 40 percent of all grant obligations.
The federal government allocated $159.7 billion to states in Medicaid
funds (not including such administrative costs as processing and making
payments to service providers) based on fiscal year 2004 state
expenditures and $1.7 billion in SSBG funds based on fiscal year 2005
state allocations.[Footnote 4] Recalculating these allocations using
the A.C.E. and the 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey statistical population
estimates would have produced the following results:
* A total of 0.23 percent ($368 million) of federal Medicaid funds
would have been shifted overall among the states in fiscal year 2004
and 0.25 percent ($4.2 million) of SSBG funds would have shifted among
the states in fiscal year 2005 as a result of the simulations using
statistical population estimates from the 2000 Census.[Footnote 5]
* With respect to Medicaid, 22 states would have received additional
funding, 17 states would have received less funding, and 11 states and
the District of Columbia would have received the same amount of funding
using statistical population estimates from the 2000 Census. Based on a
fiscal year 2004 federal Medicaid allocation to the states of $159.7
billion, Nevada would have been the largest percentage gainer, with an
additional 1.47 percent in funding, and Wisconsin would have lost the
greatest percentage--1.46 percent.
* With respect to SSBG, 27 states and the District of Columbia would
have gained funding, and 23 states would have lost funding using
statistical population estimates from the 2000 Census. Based on a
fiscal year 2005 SSBG allocation of $1.7 billion, Washington, D.C.
would have been the biggest percentage gainer, receiving an additional
2.05 percent in funding, while Minnesota would have lost the greatest
percentage funding--1.17 percent.
* Statistical population estimates from the 2000 Census would have
shifted a smaller percentage of funding compared to those from the 1990
Census because the difference between the actual and estimated
population counts was smaller in 2000 compared to 1990. For example,
using statistical estimates of the population following the 1990
Census, a total of 0.45 percent of Medicaid funds would have been
gained overall by the states in fiscal year 1997, and 0.37 percent of
SSBG funds would have shifted among the states in fiscal year 1998.
Background:
To help measure the quality of the 2000 Census and to possibly adjust
for any over-or undercounts of various demographic groups, the Bureau
designed the A.C.E. program, a separate and independent sample survey
conducted as part of the 2000 Census. When matched to the census data,
A.C.E. data were to enable the Bureau to use statistical estimates of
net coverage errors to adjust final census tabulations. However, in
March 2003, after much research and deliberation, the Bureau decided
against using any A.C.E. estimates of coverage error to adjust the 2000
Census, because of several methodological concerns.
The Bureau measured the accuracy of the 1990 Census as well, and
recommended statistically adjusting the results. However, the Secretary
of Commerce determined that the evidence to support an adjustment was
inconclusive and decided not to adjust the 1990 Census. In 1999 we
examined how these statistical population estimates might have
redistributed federal assistance among the states had they been used to
calculate formula grants.[Footnote 6]
Looking toward the 2010 Census, the Bureau plans to use statistical
population estimates to (1) produce estimates of components of census
net and gross coverage error (the latter includes misses and erroneous
enumerations) in order to assess accuracy, (2) determine whether the
strategic goals of the census are met, and (3) identify ways to improve
the design of future censuses. The Bureau does not plan to use
statistical estimates of the population for adjusting census data based
on its belief that the 2000 Census demonstrated "that the science is
insufficiently advanced to allow making statistical adjustment to
population counts of a successful decennial census in which the
percentage of error is presumed to be so small that adjustment would
introduce as much or more error than it was designed to correct."
The Top 20 Formula Grant Programs Represented Two Thirds of All Federal
Grant Programs:
In fiscal year 2004, the federal government administered 1,172 grant
programs, with $460.2 billion in combined obligations. However, as
shown in table 1, most of these obligations were concentrated in a
small number of grants. For example, Medicaid was the largest formula
grant program, with federal obligations of $183.2 billion, or nearly 40
percent of all grant obligations, in fiscal year 2004. The top 20 grant
programs comprised around two-thirds of all federal grant programs,
with $307.9 billion in obligations for fiscal year 2004 (SSBG is not
included in table 1, because with obligations of $1.7 billion, it is
not among the top 20 formula grant programs).
Table 1: The Top 20 Formula Grant Programs and Their Fiscal Year 2004
Federal Obligations:
Rank: 1;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 93.778;
Program: Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid);
Federal amount in billions: $183.2[A];
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 59.5%.
Rank: 2;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 20.205;
Program: Highway Planning and Construction;
Federal amount in billions: 31.9;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 10.4.
Rank: 3;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 93.558;
Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families;
Federal amount in billions: 17.2;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 5.6.
Rank: 4;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 84.027;
Program: Special Education Grants to States;
Federal amount in billions: 10.1;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 3.3.
Rank: 5;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 84.010;
Program: Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies;
Federal amount in billions: 8.3;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 2.7.
Rank: 6;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 10.555;
Program: National School Lunch Program;
Federal amount in billions: 7.4;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 2.4.
Rank: 7;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 93.600;
Program: Head Start;
Federal amount in billions: 6.6;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 2.1.
Rank: 8;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 10.557;
Program: Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
Children;
Federal amount in billions: 5.0;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 1.6.
Rank: 9;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 93.767;
Program: State Children's Health Insurance Program;
Federal amount in billions: 4.9;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 1.6.
Rank: 10;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 93.658;
Program: Foster Care Title IV E;
Federal amount in billions: 4.7;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 1.5.
Rank: 11;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 20.507;
Program: Federal Transit Formula Grants;
Federal amount in billions: 3.7;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 1.2.
Rank: 12;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 20.106;
Program: Airport Improvement Program;
Federal amount in billions: 3.4;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 1.1.
Rank: 13;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 14.218;
Program: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants;
Federal amount in billions: 3.0;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 1.0.
Rank: 14;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 93.563;
Program: Child Support Enforcement;
Federal amount in billions: 2.9;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 0.9.
Rank: 15;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 84.367;
Program: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants;
Federal amount in billions: 2.9;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 0.9.
Rank: 16;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 93.596;
Program: Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and
Development Fund;
Federal amount in billions: 2.7;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 0.9.
Rank: 17;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 84.126;
Program: Rehabilitation Services-Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to
States;
Federal amount in billions: 2.6;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 0.8.
Rank: 18;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 10.561;
Program: State Administrative Matching Grants for Food Stamp Program;
Federal amount in billions: 2.5;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 0.8.
Rank: 19;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 14.872;
Program: Public Housing Capital Funds;
Federal amount in billions: 2.5;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 0.8.
Rank: 20;
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) #: 17.225;
Program: Unemployment Insurance;
Federal amount in billions: 2.4;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 0.8.
Rank: Subtotal, top 20 programs;
Federal amount in billions: $307.9;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: 100.0%.
Rank: Total all 1,172 programs grant programs;
Federal amount in billions: $460.2;
Percentage: of top 20 formula grants: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of CFFR data.
[A] CFFR uses direct expenditures or obligations, whereas in the rest
of the report, for our analysis of Medicaid allocations, we use state
Medicaid expenditures subject to the FMAP formula excluding
administrative costs.
[End of table]
Prospective Impact of Statistical Population Estimates on Medicaid and
SSBG Allocations:
Based on our simulations, recalculating allocations of key programs
using statistical population estimates, states would have shifted less
than 0.25 percent of $161.4 billion in Medicaid and SSBG formula grant
funding. The two key programs analyzed--Medicaid and SSBG--together
received federal allocations of $161.4 billion in fiscal year 2004.
Federal allocations for Medicaid (excluding such administrative costs
as processing, making payments to service providers, and monitoring the
quality of services to beneficiaries) were $159.7 billion, by far the
highest federal allocation in fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 7] Using
statistical population estimates to recalculate federal Medicaid
allocations to states, states would have shifted 0.23 percent of $159.7
billion in federal Medicaid funds in fiscal year 2004 and 0.25 percent
of $1.7 billion in SSBG funds would have shifted as a result of the
simulations in fiscal year 2005. (Appendix IV contains tables showing
the difference between using estimated and actual population data from
the 1990 and 2000 Censuses for Medicaid and SSBG.)
Because the two programs allocate state funding using different
formulas, funding reallocations for the two programs may produce
results that are different from one another for a particular state. For
example, using the 2000 statistical population estimates, which were
lower for Minnesota than the official census population count,
Minnesota's Medicaid allocation would have remained the same. This is
because Medicaid allocations are subject to a floor, and Minnesota was
already receiving the minimum required reimbursement. However, it would
have lost funding under SSBG, because the statistical population
estimates from the 2000 Census, and the subsequent recalculations,
would have reduced funding. In another example, the District of
Columbia allocation would have remained the same for 2000 under
Medicaid, because the District of Columbia receives a special rate that
is higher than its calculated rate, but it would have gained funding
under SSBG because its population, as measured by the 2000 Census, was
originally lower than the census population estimates. (For information
on how these formulas are calculated, see app. I.)
States Would Have Shifted 0.23 Percent of Medicaid Funds Using
Statistical Population Estimates Based on the 2000 Census to
Recalculate State Medicaid Allocations:
Using statistical population estimates to recalculate federal Medicaid
allocations, states would have shifted 0.23 percent of $159.7 billion
of federal Medicaid funds overall in fiscal year 2004 as a result of
the simulation. If statistical population estimates had been used, of
the overall allocation of $159.7 billion of federal funds, 22 states
would have received more Medicaid funding, 17 states would have
received less, while 11 states and the District of Columbia would have
received the same. The gaining states would have received an additional
$208.5 million, and the losing states would have received $368 million
less in funding. Based on our simulation of the formula funding for
Medicaid---Nevada would have gained 1.47 percent in grant funding and
Wisconsin would have lost 1.46 percent. (Appendix IV contains tables
showing the difference between using estimated and actual population
data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses to recalculate Medicaid
allocations.)
Figure 1 shows the state-by-state result--gain or loss--of recalculated
Medicaid grant funding using the statistical population estimates. Most
of the estimated increases in state allocations would have tended to
congregate in the northwestern, southwestern, and southeastern regions
of the country and Hawaii and Alaska. Most of the estimated decreases
in state allocations would have tended to congregate in the
northcentral region of the country. The southeastern and northeastern
regions would have experienced both increases and decreases in funding
and all southeastern states except Florida would have experienced
increases.
Figure 1: Estimated Change in Federal Medicaid Grant Funding Using
Statistical Population Estimates for States:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.
Note: Percentage changes are based on a fiscal year 2004 federal
Medicaid allocation of $159.7 billion. These percentages are the result
of a simulation using alternative population estimates and are
presented for illustrative purposes only. Kentucky's percentage change
in grant funding would have been -0.0045 percent.
[End of figure]
Figure 2 shows how much (as a percentage) and where Medicaid funding
would have shifted as a result of using statistical population
estimates for recalculating formula grant funding by state. We estimate
that 20 states would have received an increase in allocations from more
than 0 to less than 1 percent, while 2 states would have increased by
more than 1 percent. Conversely, 7 states would have experienced a
decrease in allocations of greater than one to less than 1.5 percent;
10 states' allocations would have decreased by more than 0 to less than
1 percent; and 11 states and the District of Columbia would have
experienced no change because the shift would have fallen below the
floor and above the ceiling that are built into the FMAP formula.
Figure 2: Estimated Medicaid Percentage Change in Grant Funding Using
Statistical Population Estimates for States:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.
Note: Percentage changes are based on a fiscal year 2004 federal
Medicaid allocation of $159.7 billion. These percentages are the result
of a simulation using alternative population estimates and are
presented for illustrative purposes only. Kentucky's percentage change
in grant funding would have been -0.0045 percent.
[End of figure]
Statistical Population Estimates from the 2000 Census Would Have
Reallocated 0.25 Percent of SSBG Funds Among the States:
Using statistical population estimates to recalculate federal SSBG
allocations, 0.25 percent of $1.7 billion in SSBG funds would have
shifted in fiscal year 2005 as a result of the simulation. The total
$1.7 billion SSBG allocation would not have changed, because SSBG
receives a fixed annual appropriation. In other words, those states
receiving additional funds would have reduced the funds of other
states. In short, 27 states and the District of Columbia would have
gained $4.2 million and 23 states would have lost a total of $4.2
million. Based on our simulation of the formula funding for SSBG,
Washington, D.C. would have gained 2.05 percent in grant funding and
Minnesota would have lost 1.17 percent. (Appendix IV contains tables
showing the difference between using estimated and actual population
data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses for SSBG funding.)
Figure 3 shows the state-by-state result--gain or loss--of recalculated
SSBG grant funding using statistical population estimates. Because the
reallocations are based on the same census statistical population
estimates as the Medicaid estimated reallocations, most of the
estimated increases in state allocations would have tended to
congregate in the southeastern, southwestern, and northwestern regions
of the country, as they did in our Medicaid simulation. The estimated
decreases would have been grouped in the northcentral region and
several states of the northeastern region of the country. The
northeastern region would also have experienced both increases and
decreases in funding.
Figure 3: Estimated Change in Social Services Block Grant Funding Using
Statistical Population Estimates for States:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.
Note: Percentage changes are based on a fiscal year 2004 SSBG
allocation of $1.7 billion. These percentages are the result of a
simulation using alternative population estimates and are presented for
illustrative purposes only.
[End of figure]
Figure 4 shows how much (as a percentage) and where SSBG funding would
have shifted as a result of using statistical population estimates for
recalculating formula grant funding by state. By recalculating SSBG
state allocations using the statistical population estimates for states
based on 2003 Census population numbers, we estimate that 27 states
would have experienced an increase from more than 0 to less than 1
percent; the District of Columbia would have increased by more than 2
percent; 2 states' allocations would have decreased by more than one
percent; and 21 states' allocations would have decreased by more than 0
to less than 1 percent.
Figure 4: Estimated Social Services Block Grant Percentage Change in
Grant Funding Using Statistical Population Estimates for States:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.
Note: Percentage changes are based on a fiscal year 2004 SSBG
allocation of $1.7 billion. These percentages are the result of a
simulation using alternative population estimates and are presented for
illustrative purposes only.
[End of figure]
Statistical Population Estimates from the 2000 Census Would Have
Shifted a Smaller Percentage of Funding Compared to Those from the 1990
Census:
For the Medicaid program, recalculating state allocations using
statistical population estimates based on the 2000 Census would have
changed the funding for 39 states in fiscal year 2004. In particular,
22 states would have increased their allocations by $208.5 million, 17
states would have decreased them by $368.0 million, and 11 states and
the District of Columbia would have had no change. By contrast,
recalculating state allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 1990 Census, the number of changing states would have
remained the same but the amounts shifting among the states would have
changed in fiscal year 1997. Table 2 presents the comparative
information from the two analyses. The allocations for the gaining
states would have decreased by almost 50 percent, from $402.4 million
for the 1990 Census to $208.5 million for the 2000 Census, while the
allocations for the losing states would have increased by 7 percent,
from $344.6 million to $368.0 million. While total allocations under
the Medicaid program increased by over 75 percent from fiscal year 1997
to fiscal year 2004, the relative or percentage change in state funding
would have decreased in our simulation of recalculations of state
allocations using statistical population estimates.
Table 2: Comparison of the Changes in Medicaid and SSBG Allocations
Using Statistical Population Estimates Based on the 1990 and 2000
Censuses:
Dollars in thousands.
Census year statistical Population estimates: Medicaid Program: 2000
Census;
Total allocations: $159,703,910;
Gaining states: Number: 22;
Gaining states: Amount: $208,486;
Losing states: Number: 17;
Losing states: Amount: $368,035;
Percentage shift in funding for program[A]: -0.23.
Census year statistical Population estimates: Medicaid Program: 1990
Census;
Total allocations: 90,002,703;
Gaining states: Number: 22;
Gaining states: Amount: 402,434;
Losing states: Number: 17;
Losing states: Amount: 344,593;
Percentage shift in funding for program[A]: 0.45.
Census year statistical Population estimates: SSBG Program: 2000
Census;
Total allocations: 1,690,512;
Gaining states: Number: 28;
Gaining states: Amount: 4,158;
Losing states: Number: 23;
Losing states: Amount: 4,158;
Percentage shift in funding for program[A]: 0.25.
Census year statistical Population estimates: SSBG Program: 1990
Census;
Total allocations: 2,286,151;
Gaining states: Number: 28;
Gaining states: Amount: 8,514;
Losing states: Number: 23;
Losing states: Amount: 8,514;
Percentage shift in funding for program[A]: 0.37.
Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.
[A] The percentage shift in Medicaid funding was calculated by dividing
the larger of the gaining or losing amounts by total Medicaid
allocations in their respective years. The percentage in SSBG funding
was calculated by dividing the gaining amount by total SSBG
allocations. GAO/HEHS-99-69 shows a percentage shift in funding of 0.43
percent, because it divided the total amount for gaining states by the
total Medicaid allotment, whereas in this report we divided the total
amount for gaining states by the recalculated Medicaid allocation.
[End of table]
We have a similar finding for the SSBG program. Our recalculation of
state allocations would have resulted in a smaller change in
allocations when we compare the results of our recalculation using
statistical population estimates based on the 2000 Census to the
results based on the 1990 Census. The change in funding would have been
reduced by half using the statistical population estimates based on the
2000 Census. Total SSBG state allocations decreased by 26 percent
between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2005, and the percentage shift
in funding would also have been reduced, from 0.37 percent to 0.25,
using the statistical population estimates based on the 2000 Census.
In summary, using the statistical population estimates based on the
2000 Census to recalculate Medicaid and SSBG allocations would have
resulted in a smaller shift in program funding than using the
statistical population estimates based on the 1990 Census. This is
because the difference between the actual and estimated population
counts was smaller for the 2000 Census compared to the 1990 Census. As
mentioned earlier, the recalculated allocations are the result of
simulations using statistical population estimates and were done for
the purpose of illustrating the sensitivity of these two formula grant
programs to alternative population estimates.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from its issuance date. At that time we will send copies of the report
to other interested congressional committees, the Secretary of
Commerce, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Director of
the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget. We will make copies available to others upon request. This
report will also be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me on (202) 512-6806 or by email at f [Hyperlink,
farrellb@gao.gov] arrellb@gao.gov. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report.
Signed by:
Brenda S. Farrel:
Acting Director:
Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
As agreed with your offices, we identified (1) the top 20 formula grant
programs based on the amount of funds targeted by any means, and (2)
how much money would have been allocated using census data for certain
formula grant programs, and the prospective impact of using estimated
population counts from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses to recalculate state
allocations for these grant programs. We use the term "allocation" to
include Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reimbursement to
states of Medicaid expenditures subject to the Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage (FMAP) formula and Social Services Block Grant
(SSBG) state allotments. We use the term "statistical population
estimates" to refer to the results of the coverage measurement programs
that the Census Bureau (Bureau) conducted following the 1990 and 2000
Censuses.
To identify the top 20 formula grant programs based on the amount of
funds targeted by any means, we used fiscal year 2004 grants
expenditure and obligations data from the Bureau's Consolidated Federal
Funds Report (CFFR), the most recent data available at the time of our
review. While we recently reported on inaccuracies in the
CFFR,[Footnote 8] we determined that the CFFR is adequate for purposes
of identifying the top 20 federal formula grant programs because it
shows the overall magnitude of these programs. Because the CFFR lists
direct expenditures or obligations, the amount shown for Medicaid in
table 1 is different from the Medicaid allocations shown in the rest of
the report, where we use state expenditure data subject to the FMAP
formula, which exclude administrative costs. Administrative costs for
which Medicaid reimburses states include nine broad tasks: (1) inform
potentially eligible individuals and enroll those who are eligible, (2)
determine what benefits it will cover in what settings, (3) determine
how much it will pay for the benefits it covers and from whom to buy
those services, (4) set standards for providers and managed care plans
from which it will buy covered benefits and contract with those who
meet the standards, (5) process and make payments to service providers,
(6) monitor the quality of services to beneficiaries, (7) ensure that
state and federal health care funds are not spent improperly or
fraudulently, (8) have a process for resolving grievances, and (9)
collect and report information for effective administration and program
accountability.[Footnote 9]
To determine how much money was allocated using census population
counts for Medicaid and SSBG, we obtained population and income data
from the Department of Commerce (Commerce). Additionally, we obtained
Medicaid expenditures, SSBG allocations, and certain other information
from HHS. Table 3 displays the census population counts for 1990 and
2000 and their statistical estimates. We obtained state per capita
income--the ratio of personal income to population--for 2000, 2001, and
2002 from Commerce and replicated the actual FMAP for 2005 using fiscal
year 2004 state expenditure data. For the SSBG state allocation
formula, we obtained state population estimates for 2003 and replicated
the SSBG allocations for 2005. The official 1990 Census population
counts and statistical population estimates from the 1990 coverage
measurement program known as the Post-Enumeration Survey (PES) come
from our earlier report.[Footnote 10]
Table 3: Census 2000 and 1990 Population Counts and Statistical
Population Estimates:
States: Alabama;
1990 Census official counts: 4,040,587;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 4,113,810;
2000 Census official counts: 4,447,100;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 4,432,192.
States: Alaska;
1990 Census official counts: 550,043;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 561,276;
2000 Census official counts: 626,932; 2000 A.C.E. statistical
estimates: 628,774.
States: Arizona;
1990 Census official counts: 3,665,228;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 3,754,666;
2000 Census official counts: 5,130,632;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 5,114,152.
States: Arkansas;
1990 Census official counts: 2,350,725;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 2,392,596;
2000 Census official counts: 2,673,400;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 2,670,915.
States: California;
1990 Census official counts: 29,760,021;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 30,597,578;
2000 Census official counts: 33,871,648;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 33,915,728.
States: Colorado;
1990 Census official counts: 3,294,394;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 3,363,637;
2000 Census official counts: 4,301,261;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 4,300,930.
States: Connecticut;
1990 Census official counts: 3,287,116;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 3,308,343;
2000 Census official counts: 3,405,565;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 3,380,307.
States: Delaware;
1990 Census official counts: 666,168;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 678,385;
2000 Census official counts: 783,600;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 781,132.
States: District of Columbia;
1990 Census official counts: 606,900;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 628,309;
2000 Census official counts: 572,059;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 580,982.
States: Florida;
1990 Census official counts: 12,937,926;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 13,197,755;
2000 Census official counts: 15,982,378;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 15,880,398.
States: Georgia;
1990 Census official counts: 6,478,216;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 6,620,641;
2000 Census official counts: 8,186,453;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 8,208,427.
States: Hawaii;
1990 Census official counts: 1,108,229;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 1,129,170;
2000 Census official counts: 1,211,537;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 1,214,225.
States: Idaho;
1990 Census official counts: 1,006,749;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 1,029,283;
2000 Census official counts: 1,293,953;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 1,288,683.
States: Illinois;
1990 Census official counts: 11,430,602;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 11,544,319;
2000 Census official counts: 12,419,293;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 12,245,193.
States: Indiana;
1990 Census official counts: 5,544,159;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 5,572,057;
2000 Census official counts: 6,080,485;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 5,981,091.
States: Iowa;
1990 Census official counts: 2,776,755;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 2,788,332;
2000 Census official counts: 2,926,324;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 2,884,712.
States: Kansas;
1990 Census official counts: 2,477,574;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 2,495,014;
2000 Census official counts: 2,688,418;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 2,654,471.
States: Kentucky;
1990 Census official counts: 3,685,296;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 3,746,044;
2000 Census official counts: 4,041,769;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 4,022,526.
States: Louisiana;
1990 Census official counts: 4,219,973;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 4,314,085;
2000 Census official counts: 4,468,976;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 4,465,176.
States: Maine;
1990 Census official counts: 1,227,928;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 1,237,130;
2000 Census official counts: 1,274,923;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 1,259,856.
States: Maryland;
1990 Census official counts: 4,781,468;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 4,882,452;
2000 Census official counts: 5,296,486;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 5,309,521.
States: Massachusetts;
1990 Census official counts: 6,016,425;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 6,045,224;
2000 Census official counts: 6,349,097;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 6,285,987.
States: Michigan;
1990 Census official counts: 9,295,297;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 9,361,308;
2000 Census official counts: 9,938,444;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 9,845,028.
States: Minnesota;
1990 Census official counts: 4,375,099;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 4,394,610;
2000 Census official counts: 4,919,479;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 4,837,392.
States: Mississippi;
1990 Census official counts: 2,573,216;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 2,629,548;
2000 Census official counts: 2,844,658;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 2,832,958.
States: Missouri;
1990 Census official counts: 5,117,073;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 5,148,974;
2000 Census official counts: 5,595,211;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 5,520,892.
States: Montana;
1990 Census official counts: 799,065;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 818,348;
2000 Census official counts: 902,195;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 906,595.
States: Nebraska;
1990 Census official counts: 1,578,385;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 1,588,712;
2000 Census official counts: 1,711,263;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 1,697,592.
States: Nevada;
1990 Census official counts: 1,201,833;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 1,230,709;
2000 Census official counts: 1,998,257;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 2,008,216.
States: New Hampshire;
1990 Census official counts: 1,109,252;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 1,118,632;
2000 Census official counts: 1,235,786;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 1,221,757.
States: New Jersey;
1990 Census official counts: 7,730,188;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 7,774,461;
2000 Census official counts: 8,414,350;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 8,370,927.
States: New Mexico;
1990 Census official counts: 1,515,069;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 1,563,579;
2000 Census official counts: 1,819,046;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 1,819,367.
States: New York;
1990 Census official counts: 17,990,455;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 18,262,491;
2000 Census official counts: 18,976,457;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 18,928,895.
States: North Carolina;
1990 Census official counts: 6,628,637;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 6,754,567;
2000 Census official counts: 8,049,313;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 8,037,253.
States: North Dakota;
1990 Census official counts: 638,800;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 643,033;
2000 Census official counts: 642,200;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 633,176.
States: Ohio;
1990 Census official counts: 10,847,115;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 10,921,741;
2000 Census official counts: 11,353,140;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 11,210,356.
States: Oklahoma;
1990 Census official counts: 3,145,585;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 3,202,963;
2000 Census official counts: 3,450,654;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 3,443,913.
States: Oregon;
1990 Census official counts: 2,842,321;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 2,896,472;
2000 Census official counts: 3,421,399;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 3,409,373.
States: Pennsylvania;
1990 Census official counts: 11,881,643;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 11,916,783;
2000 Census official counts: 12,281,054;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 12,169,921.
States: Rhode Island;
1990 Census official counts: 1,003,464;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 1,004,815;
2000 Census official counts: 1,048,319;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 1,036,531.
States: South Carolina;
1990 Census official counts: 3,486,703;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 3,559,547;
2000 Census official counts: 4,012,012;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 3,997,436.
States: South Dakota;
1990 Census official counts: 696,004;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 702,864;
2000 Census official counts: 754,844;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 745,278.
States: Tennessee;
1990 Census official counts: 4,877,185;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 4,964,261;
2000 Census official counts: 5,689,283;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 5,666,047.
States: Texas;
1990 Census official counts: 16,986,510;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 17,472,538;
2000 Census official counts: 20,851,820;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 20,862,065.
States: Utah;
1990 Census official counts: 1,722,850;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 1,753,188;
2000 Census official counts: 2,233,169;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 2,230,962.
States: Vermont;
1990 Census official counts: 562,758;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 569,100;
2000 Census official counts: 608,827;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 602,066.
States: Virginia;
1990 Census official counts: 6,187,358;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 6,313,836;
2000 Census official counts: 7,078,515;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 7,098,004.
States: Washington;
1990 Census official counts: 4,866,692;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 4,958,320;
2000 Census official counts: 5,894,121;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 5,881,537.
States: West Virginia;
1990 Census official counts: 1,793,477;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 1,819,363;
2000 Census official counts: 1,808,344;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 1,795,195.
States: Wisconsin;
1990 Census official counts: 4,891,769;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 4,921,871;
2000 Census official counts: 5,363,675;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 5,284,299.
States: Wyoming;
1990 Census official counts: 453,588;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 463,629;
2000 Census official counts: 493,782;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 491,841.
States: United States;
1990 Census official counts: 248,709,873;
1990 PES statistical estimates: 252,730,369;
2000 Census official counts: 281,421,906;
2000 A.C.E. statistical estimates: 280,090,250.
Source: Census Bureau.
[End of table]
To analyze the prospective impact of estimated population counts on the
money allocated to the states through these two grant programs, we
recalculated the state allocations using statistical estimates of the
population that were developed for the 1990 and 2000 Censuses in lieu
of the actual census numbers. We used the population estimates, which
are based on the 2000 Census counts, and then adjusted these population
estimates by the difference between the 2000 official population counts
and the statistical estimates of the population (A.C.E.) Our procedure
to simulate the formula allocations using adjusted counts was to (a)
obtain the population estimates used to calculate the Medicaid FMAP and
SSBG allocations, (b) subtract the A.C.E. population estimates from the
official 2000 Census population counts, and (c) add the difference from
(b) to the population estimates from (a). We included the 50 states and
the District of Columbia in our calculations, but did not include the
territories: American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands, because their allocations use formulas
that are different from those used by the 50 states we analyzed.
To verify our approach, we spoke with Department of Commerce and
Department of Health and Human Services officials who administer these
grant programs about the procedures they use to calculate the formula
funding amounts. Importantly, our analyses of Medicaid and SSBG are
simulations and were conducted only to illustrate the sensitivity of
these two grant programs to alternative population estimates. Both the
Census Bureau and GAO deem the 1990 and 2000 statistical population
estimates as unreliable and they should not be used for any purposes
that legally require data from the decennial census.
Medicaid is an entitlement program. The federal share of total Medicaid
program costs is determined using the FMAP, a statutory formula that
calculates the portion of each state's Medicaid expenditures that the
federal government will pay. Our Medicaid simulation uses the fiscal
year 2005 FMAP, which applies 2001 through 2002 personal income and
population data, and fiscal year 2004 expenditure data. The formula
calculates the federal matching rate for each state on the basis of its
per capita income (PCI) in relation to national PCI. States with a low
PCI receive a higher federal matching rate, and states with a high PCI
receive a lower rate. If applying the formula renders a state's
reimbursement less than 50 percent of its allowable expenditures, the
state is still entitled to be reimbursed for a minimum of 50 percent--
or "floor"--of what it spent. Conversely, a state cannot be reimbursed
for more than 83 percent of allowable expenditures--the
"ceiling."[Footnote 11] Thus, if one used the A.C.E. statistical
estimates to recalculate state Medicaid allocations, states'
reimbursements for allowable expenditures would not be less than 50
percent, the "floor," or more than the "ceiling." Our calculations do
not include administrative costs, because they are not subject to the
FMAP formula. The Medicaid data we used in our calculations include the
Indian Health and the Family Planning programs, which are not subject
to the allocation formula. Agency officials told us that the
expenditures for these two programs are so small in relation to the
total Medicaid expenditures that they do not materially affect the
calculations of state allocations subject to the FMAP formula.
The SSBG federal grant is for a fixed amount determined in an annual
appropriation, and its formula is set up so that an increase in funding
to any state is offset by a decrease to others. To estimate the
prospective impact of using statistical population estimates to
recalculate allocations for SSBG, we used 2003 population data adjusted
by the difference between the 2000 Census and the A.C.E. estimates and
fiscal year 2005 allocations to the states for our analysis--the data
HHS used in its fiscal year 2005 grant allocations to the states.
Unlike Medicaid, SSBG includes administrative costs in its population-
based formula to calculate state allocations.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Medicaid:
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 (HHS), Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Fiscal Year 2004 Obligations: $183.2 billion. (Federal allocations
excluding administrative costs: $159.7 billion.)
Formula Calculation: Eligible medical expenses are reimbursed 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:
FMAP = 1.00 - 0.45[PCI(state)/PCI(us)]squared
Where:
PCI(state) = [PI(state)/Pop(state)]
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.
Pop: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and Census
Bureau.
Amount Shifted: $368 million, or a 0.23 percent overall loss of the
total $159.7 billion allocated among the states as a result of the
simulation.
Comments: Allotment amounts were calculated for fiscal year 2004, 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. We use the term "allocation" to
include HHS reimbursement to states of Medicaid expenditures subject to
the federal FMAP formula (net of administrative costs).
[End of section]
Appendix III: Social Services Block Grant:
CFDA Number: 93.667:
Program Objectives: To enable states to provide social services
directed toward the following goals: (1) reducing dependency; (2)
promoting self-sufficiency; (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 2004 Obligations: $1.7 billion.
Formula Calculation: State funding is allocated in proportion to each
state's share of the national population.
Mathematical Structure:
Federal Grant = Amt.[Pop(state)/Pop(all states)]
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, Census Bureau.
Amount Shifted: $4.2 million, or 0.25 percent of the total $1.7 billion
allocated. The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) federal grant is for
a fixed amount determined in an annual appropriation; an increase in
funding to any state is offset by a decrease in others.
Comment: We use the term "allocation" to include SSBG state allotments.
SSBG state allotments are based on each state's population in
proportion to the total U.S. population.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Estimated Reallocations Using Statistical Population
Estimates Based on the 1990 and 2000 Censuses:
Table 4: Medicaid Allocations and Recalculated Allocations Using
Revised Population Estimates:
The recalculated allocations are the result of a simulation using
statistical population estimates and are presented for illustrative
purposes only.
Dollars in thousands.
Alabama;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: $1,521,873;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: $1,524,410;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: $2,537;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: $2,576,051;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: $2,578,843;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: $2,793.
Alaska;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 166,528;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 166,528;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 0;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 508,992;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 514,621;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 5,628.
Arizona;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 1,119,270;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 1,128,573;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 9,304;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 3,327,460;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 3,332,507;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 5,047.
Arkansas;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 960,736;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 961,826;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 1,091;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 1,932,404;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 1,937,276;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 4,872.
California;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 8,624,367;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 8,822,279;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 197,912;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 15,338,669;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 15,338,669;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 0.
Colorado;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 789,232;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 795,962;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 6,730;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 1,324,289;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 1,324,289;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 0.
Connecticut;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 1,352,982;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 1,352,982;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 0;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 1,937,874;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 1,937,874;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 0.
Delaware;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 203,397;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 203,397;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 0;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 399,003;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 400,233;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 1,230.
District of Columbia;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 419,100;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 419,100;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 0;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 558,019;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 558,019;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 0.
Florida;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 3,494,419;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 3,515,299;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 20,880;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 7,533,162;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 7,516,439;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -16,723.
Georgia;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 2,142,366;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 2,157,433;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 15,067;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 4,257,302;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 4,297,557;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 40,255.
Hawaii;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 279,351;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 279,351;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 0;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 530,865;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 536,010;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 5,145.
Idaho;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 274,802;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 276,309;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 1,508;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 662,877;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 663,252;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 375.
Illinois;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 3,286,678;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 3,286,678;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 0;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 4,995,655;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 4,995,655;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 0.
Indiana;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 1,517,185;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 1,495,965;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -21,220;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 3,069,569;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 3,026,529;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -43,040.
Iowa;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 743,363;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 732,688;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -10,675;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 1,423,034;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 1,407,174;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -15,860.
Kansas;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 596,381;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 588,699;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -7,682;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 1,087,500;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 1,076,293;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -11,207.
Kentucky;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 1,785,765;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 1,785,465;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -300;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 2,844,337;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 2,844,208;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -129.
Louisiana;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 2,400,090;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 2,411,284;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 11,194;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 3,504,345;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 3,515,184;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 10,838.
Maine;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 667,694;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 661,036;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -6,658;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 1,311,498;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 1,301,309;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -10,189.
Maryland;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 1,344,632;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 1,344,632;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 0;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 2,293,215;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 2,293,215;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 0.
Massachusetts;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 2,465,863;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 2,465,863;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 0;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 4,362,534;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 4,362,534;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 0.
Michigan;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 3,093,964;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 3,048,145;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -45,819;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 4,664,376;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 4,630,534;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -33,843.
Minnesota;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 1,434,601;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 1,404,771;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -29,830;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 2,775,105;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 2,775,105;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 0.
Mississippi;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 1,296,220;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 1,299,787;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 3,567;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 2,531,960;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 2,532,883;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 923.
Missouri;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 1,840,145;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 1,815,772;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -24,373;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 3,719,600;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 3,678,525;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -41,075.
Montana;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 247,382;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 249,067;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 1,685;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 479,307;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 482,825;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 3,517.
Nebraska;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 442,216;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 436,248;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -5,968;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 853,310;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 849,522;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -3,788.
Nevada;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 237,073;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 237,073;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 0;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 580,205;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 588,739;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 8,534.
New Hampshire;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 363,248;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 363,248;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 0;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 574,313;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 574,313;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 0.
New Jersey;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 2,714,268;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 2,714,268;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 0;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 3,964,212;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 3,964,212;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 0.
New Mexico;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 665,489;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 673,172;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 7,683;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 1,644,055;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 1,649,539;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 5,484.
New York;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 12,310,085;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 12,310,085;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 0;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 20,489,233;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 20,489,233;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 0.
North Carolina;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 2,784,269;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 2,790,896;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 6,626;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 5,055,887;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 5,074,348;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 18,461.
North Dakota;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 215,369;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 213,392;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -1,977;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 323,719;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 320,691;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -3,028.
Ohio;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 3,815,948;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 3,766,990;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -48,957;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 6,893,102;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 6,818,354;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -74,747.
Oklahoma;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 818,975;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 820,326;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 1,351;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 1,754,743;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 1,758,801;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 4,058.
Oregon;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 894,043;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 897,321;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 3,278;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 1,586,849;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 1,589,270;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 2,421.
Pennsylvania;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 4,266,244;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 4,163,906;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -102,338;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 7,584,585;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 7,527,076;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -57,509.
Rhode Island;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 487,532;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 475,091;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -12,441;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 911,728;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 902,131;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -9,597.
South Carolina;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 1,458,451;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 1,464,118;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 5,666;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 2,689,550;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 2,692,074;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 2,524.
South Dakota;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 202,825;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 201,357;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -1,468;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 370,776;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 367,686;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -3,090.
Tennessee;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 2,318,131;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 2,322,125;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 3,995;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 4,556,105;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 4,559,146;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 3,041.
Texas;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 5,907,424;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 5,991,913;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 84,489;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 9,786,215;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 9,850,434;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 64,218.
Utah;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 442,829;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 443,272;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 443;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 891,376;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 893,918;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 2,542.
Vermont;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 221,579;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 220,145;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -1,434;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 480,106;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 476,000;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -4,106.
Virginia;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 1,154,912;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 1,163,277;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 8,365;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 1,912,608;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 1,928,955;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 16,347.
Washington;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 1,594,707;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 1,602,781;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 8,073;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 2,621,780;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 2,621,780;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 0.
West Virginia;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 915,214;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 913,894;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -1,320;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 1,446,112;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 1,443,471;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -2,641.
Wisconsin;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 1,579,076;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 1,556,943;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: -22,133;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 2,572,515;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 2,535,052;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -37,463.
Wyoming;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 124,410;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: 125,401;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: 990;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 211,820;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: 212,053;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: 233.
Total;
Medicaid allocations using 1990 Census population counts: $90,002,703;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates: based on the 1990 Census: $90,060,544;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 1990 Census[A]: $57,841;
Medicaid allocations using 2000 Census population counts: $159,703,910;
Recalculated Medicaid allocations using statistical population
estimates based on the 2000 Census: $159,544,361;
Difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated allocations
based on the 2000 Census[B]: -$159,549.
Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.
[A] The total amount gained recalculating allocations using statistical
population estimates based on the 1990 Census would have been $402.4
million, the total amount lost would have been $208.5 million, and the
percentage change would have been 0.43 percent.
[B] The total amount gained recalculating allocations using statistical
population estimates based on the 2000 Census would have been $208.5
million, the total amount lost would have been $368 million, and the
percentage change would have been -0.23 percent.
[End of table]
Table 5: Social Services Block Grant Allocations and Recalculated
Allocations Using Revised Population Estimates:
The recalculated allocations are the result of a simulation using
statistical population estimates and are presented for illustrative
purposes only.
Dollars in thousands.
Alabama;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: $37,004;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: $37,071;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: $67;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: $26,163;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: $26,197;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: $33.
Alaska;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 5,255;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 5,276;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 21;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 3,772;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 3,800;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 28.
Arizona;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 36,700;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 36,990;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 290;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 32,442;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 32,495;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 53.
Arkansas;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 21,613;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 21,645;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 33;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 15,845;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 15,903;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 58.
California;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 274,846;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 278,059;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 3,213;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 206,276;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 207,482;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 1,206.
Colorado;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 32,602;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 32,751;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 150;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 26,454;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 26,573;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 120.
Connecticut;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 28,495;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 28,218;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -277;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 20,249;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 20,195;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -54.
Delaware;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 6,238;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 6,251;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 12;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 4,752;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 4,760;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 7.
District of Columbia;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 4,820;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 4,910;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 90;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 3,275;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 3,342;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 67.
Florida;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 123,254;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 123,708;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 454;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 98,934;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 98,794;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -140.
Georgia;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 62,654;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 63,003;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 349;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 50,485;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 50,846;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 361.
Hawaii;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 10,328;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 10,354;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 26;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 7,311;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 7,360;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 49.
Idaho;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 10,119;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 10,179;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 60;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 7,943;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 7,948;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 6.
Illinois;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 102,929;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 102,283;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -646;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 73,557;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 72,878;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -678.
Indiana;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 50,490;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 49,929;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -561;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 36,016;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 35,601;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -415.
Iowa;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 24,727;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 24,431;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -296;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 17,114;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 16,950;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -164.
Kansas;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 22,317;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 22,113;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -204;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 15,832;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 15,707;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -125.
Kentucky;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 33,585;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 33,575;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -9;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 23,937;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 23,935;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -2.
Louisiana;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 37,778;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 37,999;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 220;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 26,138;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 26,236;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 98.
Maine;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 10,798;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 10,704;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -94;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 7,590;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 7,537;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -53.
Maryland;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 43,878;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 44,091;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 214;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 32,024;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 32,247;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 223.
Massachusetts;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 52,848;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 52,248;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -600;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 37,398;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 37,202;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -197.
Michigan;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 83,083;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 82,329;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -754;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 58,596;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 58,320;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -276.
Minnesota;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 40,110;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 39,637;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -473;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 29,411;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 29,067;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -344.
Mississippi;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 23,466;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 23,574;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 108;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 16,749;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 16,758;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 9.
Missouri;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 46,322;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 45,864;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -458;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 33,161;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 32,879;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -281.
Montana;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 7,570;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 7,628;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 58;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 5,334;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 5,384;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 50.
Nebraska;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 14,243;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 14,106;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -137;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 10,111;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 10,077;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -33.
Nevada;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 13,312;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 13,415;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 103;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 13,028;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 13,146;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 118.
New Hampshire;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 9,988;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 9,911;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -77;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 7,485;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 7,438;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -47.
New Jersey;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 69,127;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 68,406;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -721;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 50,216;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 50,193;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -23.
New Mexico;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 14,661;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 14,887;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 226;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 10,897;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 10,949;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 52.
New York;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 157,796;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 157,606;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -190;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 111,555;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 111,790;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 235.
North Carolina;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 62,601;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 62,730;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 128;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 48,872;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 49,027;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 154.
North Dakota;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 5,577;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 5,524;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -53;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 3,685;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 3,649;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -36.
Ohio;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 97,021;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 96,120;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -902;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 66,478;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 65,950;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -528.
Oklahoma;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 28,521;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 28,575;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 54;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 20,413;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 20,468;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 55.
Oregon;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 27,329;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 27,402;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 73;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 20,692;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 20,717;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 25.
Pennsylvania;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 105,035;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 103,643;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -1,392;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 71,882;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 71,564;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -318.
Rhode Island;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 8,614;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 8,487;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -127;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 6,256;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 6,216;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -40.
South Carolina;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 31,958;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 32,105;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 147;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 24,108;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 24,134;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 26.
South Dakota;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 6,343;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 6,302;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -40;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 4,443;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 4,408;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -35.
Tennessee;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 45,731;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 45,799;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 69;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 33,959;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 33,979;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 21.
Texas;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 162,912;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 164,883;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 1,971;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 128,578;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 129,229;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 651.
Utah;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 16,975;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 16,996;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 21;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 13,669;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 13,719;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 50.
Vermont;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 5,090;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 5,065;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -25;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 3,599;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 3,576;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -23.
Virginia;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 57,581;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 57,797;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 216;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 42,938;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 43,249;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 311.
Washington;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 47,253;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 47,370;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 117;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 35,643;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 35,733;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 90.
West Virginia;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 15,905;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 15,875;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -30;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 10,524;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 10,495;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -28.
Wisconsin;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 44,574;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 44,127;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: -446;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 31,811;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 31,494;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: -317.
Wyoming;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: 4,176;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: 4,200;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: 24;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: 2,914;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: 2,916;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: 2.
Total;
SSBG allocations using 1990 Census population counts: $2,286,151;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates:
based on the 1990 Census: $2,286,151;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 1990 Census[A]: $0;
SSBG allocations using 2000 Census population counts: $1,690,514;
Recalculated SSBG allocations using statistical population estimates
based on the 2000 Census: $1,690,514;
Difference between SSBG allocations and recalculated allocations based
on the 2000 Census[B]: $0[C].
Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.
[A] Because SSBG has a fixed allocation, the total amount gained and
the total amount lost recalculating allocations using statistical
population estimates based on the 1990 Census would have been the same:
$8.5 million, and the percentage change or shift in funding would have
been 0.37 percent.
[B] Because SSBG has a fixed allocation, the total amount gained and
the total amount lost recalculating allocations using statistical
population estimates based on the 2000 Census would have been the same:
$4.2 million, and the percentage change or shift in funding would have
been 0.25 percent.
[C] Column total adds to greater than zero due to rounding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Estimated Percentage Changes in State Funding Using
Statistical Population Estimates:
Table 6: Percentage Difference between 1990 and 2000 Medicaid
Allocations and Recalculated Allocations Using Statistical Population
Estimates:
States: Alabama;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.16;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.11.
States: Alaska;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.00;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 1.11.
States: Arizona;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.75;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.15.
States: Arkansas;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.11;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.25.
States: California;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 2.33;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00.
States: Colorado;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.81;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00.
States: Connecticut;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.00;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00.
States: Delaware;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.00;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.31.
States: District of Columbia;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.00;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00.
States: Florida;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.58;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.22.
States: Georgia;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.67;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.95.
States: Hawaii;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.00;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.97.
States: Idaho;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.50;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.06.
States: Illinois;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.00;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00.
States: Indiana;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.34;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -1.40.
States: Iowa;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.34;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -1.11.
States: Kansas;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.23;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -1.03.
States: Kentucky;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.02;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00[A].
States: Louisiana;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.45;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.31.
States: Maine;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.96;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.78.
States: Maryland;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.00;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00.
States: Massachusetts;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.00;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00.
States: Michigan;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.35;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.73.
States: Minnesota;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.93;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00.
States: Mississippi;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.27;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.04.
States: Missouri;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.27;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -1.10.
States: Montana;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.61;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.73.
States: Nebraska;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.28;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.44.
States: Nevada;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.00;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 1.47.
States: New Hampshire;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.00;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00.
States: New Jersey;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.00;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00.
States: New Mexico;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 1.06;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.33.
States: New York;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.00;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00.
States: North Carolina;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.23;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.37.
States: North Dakota;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: - 0.86;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.94.
States: Ohio;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.25;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -1.08.
States: Oklahoma;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.15;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.23.
States: Oregon;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.34;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.15.
States: Pennsylvania;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: - 2.31;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.76.
States: Rhode Island;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: - 2.46;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -1.05.
States: South Carolina;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.37;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.09.
States: South Dakota;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: - 0.66;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.83.
States: Tennessee;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.17;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.07.
States: Texas;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 1.36;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.66.
States: Utah;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.09;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.29.
States: Vermont;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.60;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.86.
States: Virginia;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.69;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.85.
States: Washington;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.46;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00.
States: West Virginia;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: - 0.14;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.18.
States: Wisconsin;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.34;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -1.46.
States: Wyoming;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.74;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.11.
States: All states;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.06;
Percentage difference between Medicaid allocations and recalculated
allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.10.
Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.
[A] Kentucky's percentage change in funding would have been -0.0045
percent.
[End of table]
Table 7: Percentage Difference between 1990 and 2000 Social Services
Block Grant Allocations and Recalculated Allocations Using Statistical
Population Estimates:
States: Alabama;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.18;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.13.
States: Alaska;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.40;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.75.
States: Arizona;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.79;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.16.
States: Arkansas;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.15;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.37.
States: California;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 1.17;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.58.
States: Colorado;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.46;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.45.
States: Connecticut;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.97;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.27.
States: Delaware;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.20;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.16.
States: District of Columbia;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 1.86;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 2.05.
States: Florida;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.37;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: - 0.14.
States: Georgia;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.56;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.71.
States: Hawaii;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.25;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.67.
States: Idaho;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.60;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.07.
States: Illinois;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.63;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.92.
States: Indiana;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.11;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -1.15.
States: Iowa;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: - 1.20;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: - 0.96.
States: Kansas;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.91;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.79.
States: Kentucky;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.03;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.01.
States: Louisiana;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.58;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.38.
States: Maine;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.87;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.70.
States: Maryland;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.49;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.70.
States: Massachusetts;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.14;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.53.
States: Michigan;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.91;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.47.
States: Minnesota;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.18;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -1.17.
States: Mississippi;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.46;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.05.
States: Missouri;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.99;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.85.
States: Montana;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.77;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.94.
States: Nebraska;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.96;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.33.
States: Nevada;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.77;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.91.
States: New Hampshire;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.77;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.63.
States: New Jersey;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.04;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.04.
States: New Mexico;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 1.54;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.48.
States: New York;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.12;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.21.
States: North Carolina;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.21;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.32.
States: North Dakota;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.95;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.97.
States: Ohio;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: - 0.93;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: - 0.79.
States: Oklahoma;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.19;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.27.
States: Oregon;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.27;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.12.
States: Pennsylvania;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.33;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.44.
States: Rhode Island;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.47;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.64.
States: South Carolina;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.46;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.11.
States: South Dakota;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.64;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.80.
States: Tennessee;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.15;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.06.
States: Texas;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 1.21;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.51.
States: Utah;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.13;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.37.
States: Vermont;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.50;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.64.
States: Virginia;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.38;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.73.
States: Washington;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.25;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.25.
States: West Virginia;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -0.19;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -0.27.
States: Wisconsin;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: -1.00;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: -1.00.
States: Wyoming;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.57;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.07.
States: Total;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 1990 Census: 0.00;
Percentage difference between Social Services Block Grant allocations
and recalculated allocations based on the 2000 Census: 0.00.
Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-6806:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Robert Goldenkoff, Assistant
Director, as well as Faisal Amin, Robert Dinkelmeyer, Carlos Diz,
Gregory Dybalski, Amy Friedlander, and Sonya Phillips made key
contributions to this report.
(450449):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives,
525 U.S. 316 (1999).
[2] GAO, Census 2000: Design Choices Contributed to Inaccuracy of
Coverage Evaluation Estimates, GAO-05-71 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12,
2004).
[3] Medicaid is a joint federal-state program that finances health care
for certain low-income individuals. SSBG is a federal program that
provides funds to assist states in delivering social services to adults
and children.
[4] We subtracted administrative costs from Medicaid, because state
allocations for administrative costs are not based on population
counts, but did not subtract these costs from SSBG calculations,
because its population-based formula is applied to the entire federal
allocation.
[5] The percentage shift in Medicaid funding was calculated by dividing
the larger of the gaining or losing amounts by total Medicaid
allocations in their respective years. The percentage in SSBG funding
was calculated by dividing the gaining amount by total SSBG
allocations. The SSBG federal grant is for a fixed amount determined in
an annual appropriation; an increase in funding to any state is offset
by a decrease in others.
[6] GAO, Formula Grants: Effects of Adjusted Population Counts on
Federal Funding to States, GAO/HEHS-99-69 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26,
1999).
[7] We used allowable medical expenses subject to the FMAP formula--
Medicaid state expenditures net of administrative costs--for our
analysis. By contrast, the obligations shown in table 1 are CFFR fiscal
year 2004 federal government obligations and expenditures as of
December 2005. These include administrative costs.
[8] GAO, Rural Economic Development: More Assurance Is Needed That
Grant Funding Information Is Accurately Reported, GAO-06-294
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 2006).
[9] Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, The Medicaid
Resource Book. (Washington, D.C.: July 2002) p. 138.
[10] GAO, Formula Grants: Effects of Adjusted Population Counts on
Federal Funding to States, GAO/HEHS-99-69 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26,
1999), pp. 24-25.
[11] Alaska and the District of Columbia have federal matching
percentages that are higher than what would be calculated under the
FMAP formula. Alaska's higher matching percentage, which was about 58
percent during the relevant period for this report, was the result of a
legislative adjustment applicable to that state for fiscal years 2001
through 2005. Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-554, App. F, § 706, 114 Stat.
2763, 2763A-577. The District of Columbia's 70 percent matching rate is
prescribed by the statute detailing computation of the FMAP. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1396d(b).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
