Special Analysis

This document follows regulatory actions of interest to states, including key dates and links to published rules and notices.

This analysis uses the Census Bureau’s most recent state population estimates and the FFIS grants database to rank states on their per capita receipt of federal grants in a host of areas.

• The District of Columbia is an outlier in federal grants per capita due to its unique status and relationship with the federal government. Among states, Alaska, New Mexico, and Wyoming hold the top rankings for fiscal year (FY) 2017.

• Virginia received the lowest grants per capita, about 27% of the amount Alaska received. Other low-ranking states include Utah, Florida, Nebraska, and Kansas.

• Medicaid drives the results. While average Medicaid grants per capita grew 49% between FY 2012 and FY 2017, non-Medicaid grants grew 6.6%. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has increased Medicaid’s impact as states that expand Medicaid see an influx of federal funds.

• Puerto Rico ranks near the top of many grants allocated by income and poverty, but ranks last in Medicaid because of a federal cap.

• Health is the largest category, averaging $1,289 per capita. Federal grants average more than $100 per capita for income security and social services, education, and transportation.

• Mineral leasing payments drive the results for a few states. While the average state received less than $10 per capita, Wyoming received $1,155, and New Mexico received $218.

The FY 2018 omnibus authorized and/or funded several new grants. The tracker monitors developments related to dispersing these funds.

Most of the roughly $675 billion in grants that the federal government provided to state and local governments in fiscal year (FY) 2017 followed a similar legislative path: Congress created programs through authorizing legislation, and either provided mandatory funding in the same legislation, or appropriated funding through the annual budget.

But federal funding for highways works a little bit differently. This Special Analysis provides a short but comprehensive introduction to federal highway funding, addressing some of our most frequently asked questions on the subject.

FFIS demystifies the flow of federal funds to their many recipients using charts, graphs, and words. Grants 101 begins with the big picture and slowly works its way down to a more nuanced description of federal grants and how they work.

The Census Bureau released state population estimates for July 1, 2016, at the end of December 2016. Using those estimates and the FFIS grants database, states were ranked on their fiscal year (FY) 2016 per capita receipt of federal funds in a host of areas. Among the major findings:

• Due to its unique relationship with the federal government, the District of Columbia ranked first in federal grants per capita, followed by Alaska, New Mexico, and Vermont. 
  
  

• Virginia received the lowest federal grants per capita, about 29% of the amount received by the highest-ranking state. Other states ranking low included Utah, Florida, Nebraska, and Kansas.

• Medicaid drives most results. Medicaid grew 44% per capita between FY 2011 and FY 2016; non-Medicaid grants grew 2.3%.

• The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has increased Medicaid’s impact, as states that expand Medicaid see an influx of federal funds.

• Puerto Rico ranks near the top of many grants allocated by income and poverty, but ranks last in Medicaid because of a federal cap.

• Income security and social services, education, and transportation are the other categories where federal grants average more than $100 per capita.

• General government is a small category, but one program drives results for a few states: mineral leasing payments. While the average state received less than $10 per capita, Wyoming received more than $1,100, and New Mexico received $177.

This analysis is accompanied by detailed spreadsheets available to full database subscribers.

The 115^th Congress convened earlier this month with an ambitious agenda that could upend the status quo in federal-state fiscal relations. Among the possibilities:

• Repeal or replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would have a significant impact on health programs generally, and Medicaid specifically.
  
  

• Federal tax reform could affect states through specific policies, or through state linkages to the federal tax code.

• Other significant changes to mandatory programs have been proposed in recent years, including converting Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to block grants.

• Completion of the fiscal year (FY) 2017 budget process might bring changes in discretionary programs, as may appropriations in FY 2018 and ensuing years.

• Reinstatement of the federal debt limit later this year will provide an opening for significant policy changes. In the past, the debt limit debate has been associated with budgetary, economic, and policy upheaval.

• Certain regulations may be targeted for reform or elimination, with various tools available to pursue such actions.

This inventory identifies selected 50-state data sources covering a variety of topics. For each source, it includes a description, link, key features (such as update frequency and whether the data can be exported or customized), and FFIS’s assessment of its timeliness and ease of use. 

Note: If you are having problems accessing the links, please use the excel file below.

Last month, FFIS hosted a workshop on building blocks for better federal funds management. Laurie Petrone—director of Rhode Island’s Grants Management Office—shared her state’s approach to managing federal funds. Rhode Island maintains a federal award catalog that tracks every federal dollar the state receives. This Special Analysis provides insights into Rhode Island’s Grants Management Office and its federal award catalog.

The federal government is providing state and local governments with nearly $729 billion in federal funds in fiscal year (FY) 2016. However, most of these funds come with strings attached. Many federal grant programs require states to contribute their own funds to the cost of a program, through matching or maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirements. This Special Analysis provides a summary of programs with state matching or MOE requirements, based on the FFIS grants database.

The Census Bureau released state population estimates for July 1, 2015, at the end of December 2015. Using those estimates and FFIS grants database figures, states were ranked on their fiscal year (FY) 2015 per capita receipt of federal funds in a host of areas. Among the major findings are the following:

•  Due to its unique relationship with the federal government, the District of Columbia ranked #1 in federal grants per capita. It was followed by Alaska, Wyoming, and New Mexico.

• Virginia received the lowest federal grants per capita, about one-third the amount received by the highest-ranking state. Other states ranking low included Utah, Florida, Kansas, and New Hampshire.

• Medicaid drives most results. Outside of Medicaid, federal grants declined between FY 2010 and FY 2015.

• The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has increased Medicaid’s role, as states that expand Medicaid see an influx of new federal funds.

• Puerto Rico ranks near the top of many grants allocated by income and poverty, but ranks last in Medicaid because of a federal cap.

The following areas also play an important role in state results:

• Income security and social services, education, and transportation are the only other categories where federal grants average more than $100 per capita.
• General government is a small category, but one program drives results for a few states: mineral leasing payments. While the average state received less than $10 per capita, Wyoming received more than $1,500, and New Mexico received $260.

This analysis is accompanied by detailed spreadsheets available to full database subscribers.

In testimony offered to the Senate Budget Committee, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified a host of areas where federal financial management falls short. While most of them are specific to the federal government, some involve, have implications for, or will be of interest to state fiscal managers.