a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

June 2006 FEDERAL 

ASSISTANCE

Illustrative 

Simulations of Using 

Statistical Population 

Estimates for 

Reallocating Certain 

Federal Funding

GAO-06-567
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2006

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Illustrative Simulations of Using 

Statistical Population Estimates for 

Reallocating Certain Federal Funding 

Highlights of GAO-06-567, a report to 

congressional requesters 

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 Recommends

GAO is not making any 

recommendations in this report. 

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. 

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. 
Page i GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

The Top 20 Formula Grant Programs Represented Two Thirds of All 

Federal Grant Programs 6

Prospective Impact of Statistical Population Estimates on Medicaid 

and SSBG Allocations 8

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 20

Appendix II: Medicaid 25

Appendix III: Social Services Block Grant 27

Appendix IV: Estimated Reallocations Using Statistical Population 

Estimates Based on the 1990 and 2000 Censuses 29

Appendix V: Estimated Percentage Changes in State Funding Using 

Statistical Population Estimates 33

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments 37

Tables Table 1: The Top 20 Formula Grant Programs and Their Fiscal Year 

2004 Federal Obligations 7

Table 2: Comparison of the Changes in Medicaid and SSBG 

Allocations Using Statistical Population Estimates Based 

on the 1990 and 2000 Censuses 17

Table 3: Census 2000 and 1990 Population Counts and Statistical 

Population Estimates 21

Table 4: Medicaid Allocations and Recalculated Allocations Using 

Revised Population Estimates 29

Table 5: Social Services Block Grant Allocations and Recalculated 

Allocations Using Revised Population Estimates 31

Table 6: Percentage Difference between 1990 and 2000 Medicaid 

Allocations and Recalculated Allocations Using Statistical 

Population Estimates 33

Table 7: Percentage Difference between 1990 and 2000 Social 

Services Block Grant Allocations and Recalculated 

Allocations Using Statistical Population Estimates 35
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Figures Figure 1: Estimated Change in Federal Medicaid Grant Funding 

Using Statistical Population Estimates for States 10

Figure 2: Estimated Medicaid Percentage Change in Grant Funding 

Using Statistical Population Estimates for States 12

Figure 3: Estimated Change in Social Services Block Grant 

Funding Using Statistical Population Estimates for 

States 14

Figure 4: Estimated Social Services Block Grant Percentage 

Change in Grant Funding Using Statistical Population 

Estimates for States 16

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. However, 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.

Abbreviations

A.C.E. Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation

CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

CFFR Consolidated Federal Funds Report

FMAP Federal Medical Assistance Percentage

PCI Per Capita Income

PES Post-Enumeration Survey

SSBG Social Services Block Grant
Page 1 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

June 22, 2006 Letr

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.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 

1 Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999).
Page 2 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

any purpose that legally requires data from the decennial census. We have 

also stated that the A.C.E. statistical population estimates are unreliable.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.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 

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. 
Page 3 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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. 
Page 4 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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.4

 

Recalculating these allocations using the A.C.E. and the 1990 PostEnumeration 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.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. 

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.
Page 5 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

• 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.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 

6

 GAO, Formula Grants: Effects of Adjusted Population Counts on Federal Funding to 

States, GAO/HEHS-99-69 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 1999).
Page 6 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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).
Page 7 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Table 1: The Top 20 Formula Grant Programs and Their Fiscal Year 2004 Federal Obligations

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. 

Rank

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

(CFDA) # Program

Federal 

amount in 

billions

Percentage

of top 20 

formula grants

1 93.778 Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid) $183.2a 59.5%

2 20.205 Highway Planning and Construction 31.9 10.4

3 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 17.2 5.6

4 84.027 Special Education Grants to States 10.1 3.3

5 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies 8.3 2.7

6 10.555 National School Lunch Program 7.4 2.4

7 93.600 Head Start 6.6 2.1

8 10.557 Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children 5.0 1.6

9 93.767 State Children's Health Insurance Program 4.9 1.6

10 93.658 Foster Care Title IV E 4.7 1.5

11 20.507 Federal Transit Formula Grants 3.7 1.2

12 20.106 Airport Improvement Program 3.4 1.1

13 14.218 Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 3.0 1.0

14 93.563 Child Support Enforcement 2.9 0.9

15 84.367 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 2.9 0.9

16 93.596 Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and 

Development Fund

2.7 0.9

17 84.126 Rehabilitation Services-Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States 2.6 0.8

18 10.561 State Administrative Matching Grants for Food Stamp Program 2.5 0.8

19 14.872 Public Housing Capital Funds 2.5 0.8

20 17.225 Unemployment Insurance 2.4 0.8

Subtotal, top 20 programs $307.9 100.0%

Total all 1,172 programs grant programs $460.2 
Page 8 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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 2004.7

 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.)

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.
Page 9 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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.
Page 10 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Figure 1: Estimated Change in Federal Medicaid Grant Funding Using Statistical Population Estimates for States 

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.

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ariz.

Ark.

Calif.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mo.

Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak.

Oreg.

Pa.

Tex.

Wis.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Okla.

S.Dak.

Wyo.

Alaska

Idaho

Mont.

Wash.

Nev.

Utah

Colo.

Mich.

Minn.

W.Va. Va.

Ky.

S.C.

Tenn.

Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.

Decrease of >1 to <1.5% Increase of >0 to <1%

No change

Decrease of >0 to <1% Increase of >1%
Page 11 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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. 
Page 12 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Figure 2: Estimated Medicaid Percentage Change in Grant Funding Using Statistical 

Population Estimates for States

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.

State

Percentage change

Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.

Wisconsin

Indiana

Iowa

Missouri

Ohio

Rhode Island

Kansas

North Dakota

Vermont

South Dakota

Maine

Pennsylvania

Michigan

Nebraska

Florida

West Virginia

Kentucky

Washington

New York

New Jersey

New Hampshire

Minnesota

Massachusetts

Maryland

Illinois

District of Columbia

Connecticut

Colorado

California

Mississippi

Idaho

Tennessee

South Carolina

Alabama

Wyoming

Arizona

Oregon

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Utah

Delaware

Louisiana

New Mexico

North Carolina

Texas

Montana

Virginia

Georgia

Hawaii

Alaska

Nevada 1.47 

1.11

0.97

0.95

0.85

0.73

0.66

0.37

0.33

0.31

0.31

0.29

0.25 

0.23

0.15

0.15

0.11

0.11

0.09

0.07

0.06

0.04

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00a

-0.18

-0.22

-0.44

-0.73

-0.76

-0.78

-0.83

-0.86

-0.94

-1.03

-1.05

-1.08

-1.10

-1.11

-1.40

-1.46

-1.75 -1.25 -0.75 0.25 0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 -0.25 0
Page 13 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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.
Page 14 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Figure 3: Estimated Change in Social Services Block Grant Funding Using Statistical Population Estimates for States

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.

N.H. 

Mass. 

R.I. 

Conn. 

N.J. 

Del. 

Md. 

D.C. 

Hawaii 

Vt. 

Ala. 

Ariz. 

Ark. 

Calif. 

Ga. 

Ill. Ind. 

Iowa 

Kans. 

La. 

Maine 

Mo. 

Nebr. 

N.Mex. 

N.Y. 

N.Dak. 

Oreg. 

Pa. 

Tex. 

Wis. 

Fla. 

Miss. 

N.C. 

Ohio 

Okla. 

S.Dak. 

Wyo. 

Alaska 

Idaho 

Mont. 

Wash. 

Nev. 

Utah 

Colo. 

Mich. 

Minn. 

W.Va. Va. 

Ky. 

Decrease of >1% Increase of >0 to <1%

S.C. 

Tenn. 

Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.

Decrease of >0 to <1% Increase of >2%
Page 15 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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. 
Page 16 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Figure 4: Estimated Social Services Block Grant Percentage Change in Grant 

Funding Using Statistical Population Estimates for States

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.

State

Percentage change

Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.

Minnesota

Indiana

Wisconsin

North Dakota

Iowa

Illinois

Missouri

South Dakota

Ohio

Kansas

Maine

Rhode Island

Vermont

New Hampshire

Massachusetts

Michigan

Pennsylvania

Nebraska

West Virginia

Connecticut

Florida

New Jersey

Kentucky

Mississippi

Tennessee

Wyoming

Idaho

South Carolina

Oregon

Alabama

Delaware

Arizona

New York

Washington

Oklahoma

North Carolina

Utah

Arkansas

Louisiana

Colorado

New Mexico

Texas

California

Hawaii

Maryland

Georgia

Virginia

Alaska

Nevada

Montana

2.05

0.94

0.91

0.75

0.73

0.71

0.70

0.67

0.58

0.51

0.48

0.45

0.38

0.37

0.37

0.32

0.27

0.25

0.21

0.16

0.16

0.13

0.12

0.11

0.07

0.07

0.06

0.05

-0.01

-0.04

-0.14

-0.27

-0.27

-0.33

-0.44

-0.47

-0.53

-0.63

-0.64

-0.64

-0.70

-0.79

-0.79

-0.80

-0.85

-0.92

-0.96

-0.97

-1.00

-1.15

-1.17

District of Columbia

-1.75 -1.25 -0.75 0.25 0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 -0.25 0
Page 17 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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

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.

Dollars in thousands

Gaining states Losing states

Census year 

statistical 

population 

estimates Total allocations Number Amount Number Amount

Percentage shift 

in funding for 

programa

Medicaid Program

2000 Census $159,703,910 22 $208,486 17 $368,035 -0.23

1990 Census 90,002,703 22 402,434 17 344,593 0.45

SSBG Program

2000 Census 1,690,512 28 4,158 23 4,158 0.25

1990 Census 2,286,151 28 8,514 23 8,514 0.37
Page 18 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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 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 farrellb@gao.gov. GAO staff 

who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. 
Page 19 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

Brenda S. Farrel 

Acting Director

Strategic Issues
Page 20 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

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,1

 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.2

1

 GAO, Rural Economic Development: More Assurance Is Needed That Grant Funding 

Information Is Accurately Reported, GAO-06-294 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 2006).

2

 Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, The Medicaid Resource Book. 

(Washington, D.C.: July 2002) p. 138.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 21 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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.3

Table 3: Census 2000 and 1990 Population Counts and Statistical Population 

Estimates

3

 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. 

States

1990 Census 

official counts

1990 PES 

statistical 

estimates

2000 Census 

official counts

2000 A.C.E. 

statistical 

estimates

Alabama 4,040,587 4,113,810 4,447,100 4,432,192

Alaska 550,043 561,276 626,932 628,774

Arizona 3,665,228 3,754,666 5,130,632 5,114,152

Arkansas 2,350,725 2,392,596 2,673,400 2,670,915

California 29,760,021 30,597,578 33,871,648 33,915,728

Colorado 3,294,394 3,363,637 4,301,261 4,300,930

Connecticut 3,287,116 3,308,343 3,405,565 3,380,307

Delaware 666,168 678,385 783,600 781,132

District of Columbia 606,900 628,309 572,059 580,982

Florida 12,937,926 13,197,755 15,982,378 15,880,398

Georgia 6,478,216 6,620,641 8,186,453 8,208,427

Hawaii 1,108,229 1,129,170 1,211,537 1,214,225

Idaho 1,006,749 1,029,283 1,293,953 1,288,683

Illinois 11,430,602 11,544,319 12,419,293 12,245,193
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 22 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Indiana 5,544,159 5,572,057 6,080,485 5,981,091

Iowa 2,776,755 2,788,332 2,926,324 2,884,712

Kansas 2,477,574 2,495,014 2,688,418 2,654,471

Kentucky 3,685,296 3,746,044 4,041,769 4,022,526

Louisiana 4,219,973 4,314,085 4,468,976 4,465,176

Maine 1,227,928 1,237,130 1,274,923 1,259,856

Maryland 4,781,468 4,882,452 5,296,486 5,309,521

Massachusetts 6,016,425 6,045,224 6,349,097 6,285,987

Michigan 9,295,297 9,361,308 9,938,444 9,845,028

Minnesota 4,375,099 4,394,610 4,919,479 4,837,392

Mississippi 2,573,216 2,629,548 2,844,658 2,832,958

Missouri 5,117,073 5,148,974 5,595,211 5,520,892

Montana 799,065 818,348 902,195 906,595

Nebraska 1,578,385 1,588,712 1,711,263 1,697,592

Nevada 1,201,833 1,230,709 1,998,257 2,008,216

New Hampshire 1,109,252 1,118,632 1,235,786 1,221,757

New Jersey 7,730,188 7,774,461 8,414,350 8,370,927

New Mexico 1,515,069 1,563,579 1,819,046 1,819,367

New York 17,990,455 18,262,491 18,976,457 18,928,895

North Carolina 6,628,637 6,754,567 8,049,313 8,037,253

North Dakota 638,800 643,033 642,200 633,176

Ohio 10,847,115 10,921,741 11,353,140 11,210,356

Oklahoma 3,145,585 3,202,963 3,450,654 3,443,913

Oregon 2,842,321 2,896,472 3,421,399 3,409,373

Pennsylvania 11,881,643 11,916,783 12,281,054 12,169,921

Rhode Island 1,003,464 1,004,815 1,048,319 1,036,531

South Carolina 3,486,703 3,559,547 4,012,012 3,997,436

South Dakota 696,004 702,864 754,844 745,278

Tennessee 4,877,185 4,964,261 5,689,283 5,666,047

Texas 16,986,510 17,472,538 20,851,820 20,862,065

Utah 1,722,850 1,753,188 2,233,169 2,230,962

Vermont 562,758 569,100 608,827 602,066

Virginia 6,187,358 6,313,836 7,078,515 7,098,004

Washington 4,866,692 4,958,320 5,894,121 5,881,537

West Virginia 1,793,477 1,819,363 1,808,344 1,795,195

(Continued From Previous Page)

States

1990 Census 

official counts

1990 PES 

statistical 

estimates

2000 Census 

official counts

2000 A.C.E. 

statistical 

estimates
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 23 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Source: Census Bureau.

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 

Wisconsin 4,891,769 4,921,871 5,363,675 5,284,299

Wyoming 453,588 463,629 493,782 491,841

United States 248,709,873 252,730,369 281,421,906 280,090,250

(Continued From Previous Page)

States

1990 Census 

official counts

1990 PES 

statistical 

estimates

2000 Census 

official counts

2000 A.C.E. 

statistical 

estimates
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 24 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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.”4

 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.

4

 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).
Page 25 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Appendix II

Medicaid ApendxiI

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:

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.
Appendix II

Medicaid

Page 26 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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).
Page 27 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Appendix III

Social Services Block Grant ApendxiI

CFDA Number: 93.667

Program Objectives: To enable states to provide social services directed 

toward the following goals: (1) reducing dependency; (2) promoting selfsufficiency; (3) preventing neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and 

adults; (4) preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care; and (5) 

securing admission or referral for institutional care when other forms of 

care are not appropriate.

Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families.

Fiscal Year 2004 Obligations: $1.7 billion.

Formula Calculation: State funding is allocated in proportion to each 

state’s share of the national population.

Mathematical Structure: 

Formula Constraints: None.

Definitions:

Amt = Funds available for allocation to states.

Pop = A state’s population count.

Data Sources:

Amt: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and Families.

Pop: Department of Commerce, 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 
Appendix III

Social Services Block Grant

Page 28 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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.
Page 29 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Appendix IV

Estimated Reallocations Using Statistical 

Population Estimates Based on the 1990 and 

2000 Censuses ApendxiIV

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

States

Medicaid 

allocations 

using 1990 

Census 

population 

counts

Recalculated 

Medicaid 

allocations using 

statistical 

population 

estimates

based on the 1990 

Census

Difference 

between Medicaid 

allocations and 

recalculated 

allocations based 

on the 1990 

Censusa

Medicaid 

allocations 

using 2000 

Census 

population 

counts

Recalculated 

Medicaid 

allocations using 

statistical 

population 

estimates based 

on the 2000 

Census

Difference 

between Medicaid 

allocations and 

recalculated 

allocations based 

on the 2000 

Censusb

Alabama $1,521,873 $1,524,410 $2,537 $2,576,051 $2,578,843 $2,793

Alaska 166,528 166,528 0 508,992 514,621 5,628

Arizona 1,119,270 1,128,573 9,304 3,327,460 3,332,507 5,047

Arkansas 960,736 961,826 1,091 1,932,404 1,937,276 4,872

California 8,624,367 8,822,279 197,912 15,338,669 15,338,669 0

Colorado 789,232 795,962 6,730 1,324,289 1,324,289 0

Connecticut 1,352,982 1,352,982 0 1,937,874 1,937,874 0

Delaware 203,397 203,397 0 399,003 400,233 1,230

District of Columbia 419,100 419,100 0 558,019 558,019 0

Florida 3,494,419 3,515,299 20,880 7,533,162 7,516,439 -16,723

Georgia 2,142,366 2,157,433 15,067 4,257,302 4,297,557 40,255

Hawaii 279,351 279,351 0 530,865 536,010 5,145

Idaho 274,802 276,309 1,508 662,877 663,252 375

Illinois 3,286,678 3,286,678 0 4,995,655 4,995,655 0

Indiana 1,517,185 1,495,965 -21,220 3,069,569 3,026,529 -43,040

Iowa 743,363 732,688 -10,675 1,423,034 1,407,174 -15,860

Kansas 596,381 588,699 -7,682 1,087,500 1,076,293 -11,207

Kentucky 1,785,765 1,785,465 -300 2,844,337 2,844,208 -129

Louisiana 2,400,090 2,411,284 11,194 3,504,345 3,515,184 10,838

Maine 667,694 661,036 -6,658 1,311,498 1,301,309 -10,189

Maryland 1,344,632 1,344,632 0 2,293,215 2,293,215 0

Massachusetts 2,465,863 2,465,863 0 4,362,534 4,362,534 0

Michigan 3,093,964 3,048,145 -45,819 4,664,376 4,630,534 -33,843

Minnesota 1,434,601 1,404,771 -29,830 2,775,105 2,775,105 0

Mississippi 1,296,220 1,299,787 3,567 2,531,960 2,532,883 923

Missouri 1,840,145 1,815,772 -24,373 3,719,600 3,678,525 -41,075
Appendix IV

Estimated Reallocations Using Statistical 

Population Estimates Based on the 1990 and 

2000 Censuses

Page 30 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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.

Montana 247,382 249,067 1,685 479,307 482,825 3,517

Nebraska 442,216 436,248 -5,968 853,310 849,522 -3,788

Nevada 237,073 237,073 0 580,205 588,739 8,534

New Hampshire 363,248 363,248 0 574,313 574,313 0

New Jersey 2,714,268 2,714,268 0 3,964,212 3,964,212 0

New Mexico 665,489 673,172 7,683 1,644,055 1,649,539 5,484

New York 12,310,085 12,310,085 0 20,489,233 20,489,233 0

North Carolina 2,784,269 2,790,896 6,626 5,055,887 5,074,348 18,461

North Dakota 215,369 213,392 -1,977 323,719 320,691 -3,028

Ohio 3,815,948 3,766,990 -48,957 6,893,102 6,818,354 -74,747

Oklahoma 818,975 820,326 1,351 1,754,743 1,758,801 4,058

Oregon 894,043 897,321 3,278 1,586,849 1,589,270 2,421

Pennsylvania 4,266,244 4,163,906 -102,338 7,584,585 7,527,076 -57,509

Rhode Island 487,532 475,091 -12,441 911,728 902,131 -9,597

South Carolina 1,458,451 1,464,118 5,666 2,689,550 2,692,074 2,524

South Dakota 202,825 201,357 -1,468 370,776 367,686 -3,090

Tennessee 2,318,131 2,322,125 3,995 4,556,105 4,559,146 3,041

Texas 5,907,424 5,991,913 84,489 9,786,215 9,850,434 64,218

Utah 442,829 443,272 443 891,376 893,918 2,542

Vermont 221,579 220,145 -1,434 480,106 476,000 -4,106

Virginia 1,154,912 1,163,277 8,365 1,912,608 1,928,955 16,347

Washington 1,594,707 1,602,781 8,073 2,621,780 2,621,780 0

West Virginia 915,214 913,894 -1,320 1,446,112 1,443,471 -2,641

Wisconsin 1,579,076 1,556,943 -22,133 2,572,515 2,535,052 -37,463

Wyoming 124,410 125,401 990 211,820 212,053 233

Total $90,002,703 $90,060,544 $57,841 $159,703,910 $159,544,361 -$159,549

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

States

Medicaid 

allocations 

using 1990 

Census 

population 

counts

Recalculated 

Medicaid 

allocations using 

statistical 

population 

estimates

based on the 1990 

Census

Difference 

between Medicaid 

allocations and 

recalculated 

allocations based 

on the 1990 

Censusa

Medicaid 

allocations 

using 2000 

Census 

population 

counts

Recalculated 

Medicaid 

allocations using 

statistical 

population 

estimates based 

on the 2000 

Census

Difference 

between Medicaid 

allocations and 

recalculated 

allocations based 

on the 2000 

Censusb
Appendix IV

Estimated Reallocations Using Statistical 

Population Estimates Based on the 1990 and 

2000 Censuses

Page 31 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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

States

SSBG 

allocations 

using 1990 

Census 

population 

counts

Recalculated 

SSBG allocations 

using statistical 

population 

estimates

based on the 1990 

Census

Difference 

between SSBG 

allocations and 

recalculated 

allocations 

based on the 

1990 Censusa

SSBG 

allocations 

using 2000 

Census 

population 

counts

Recalculated 

SSBG allocations 

using statistical 

population 

estimates based 

on the 2000 

Census

Difference 

between SSBG 

allocations and 

recalculated 

allocations 

based on the 

2000 Censusb

Alabama $37,004 $37,071 $67 $26,163 $26,197 $33 

Alaska 5,255 5,276 21 3,772 3,800 28

Arizona 36,700 36,990 290 32,442 32,495 53

Arkansas 21,613 21,645 33 15,845 15,903 58

California 274,846 278,059 3,213 206,276 207,482 1,206

Colorado 32,602 32,751 150 26,454 26,573 120

Connecticut 28,495 28,218 -277 20,249 20,195 -54

Delaware 6,238 6,251 12 4,752 4,760 7

District of Columbia 4,820 4,910 90 3,275 3,342 67

Florida 123,254 123,708 454 98,934 98,794 -140

Georgia 62,654 63,003 349 50,485 50,846 361

Hawaii 10,328 10,354 26 7,311 7,360 49

Idaho 10,119 10,179 60 7,943 7,948 6

Illinois 102,929 102,283 -646 73,557 72,878 -678

Indiana 50,490 49,929 -561 36,016 35,601 -415

Iowa 24,727 24,431 -296 17,114 16,950 -164

Kansas 22,317 22,113 -204 15,832 15,707 -125

Kentucky 33,585 33,575 -9 23,937 23,935 -2

Louisiana 37,778 37,999 220 26,138 26,236 98

Maine 10,798 10,704 -94 7,590 7,537 -53

Maryland 43,878 44,091 214 32,024 32,247 223

Massachusetts 52,848 52,248 -600 37,398 37,202 -197

Michigan 83,083 82,329 -754 58,596 58,320 -276

Minnesota 40,110 39,637 -473 29,411 29,067 -344

Mississippi 23,466 23,574 108 16,749 16,758 9

Missouri 46,322 45,864 -458 33,161 32,879 -281

Montana 7,570 7,628 58 5,334 5,384 50
Appendix IV

Estimated Reallocations Using Statistical 

Population Estimates Based on the 1990 and 

2000 Censuses

Page 32 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

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.

Nebraska 14,243 14,106 -137 10,111 10,077 -33

Nevada 13,312 13,415 103 13,028 13,146 118

New Hampshire 9,988 9,911 -77 7,485 7,438 -47

New Jersey 69,127 68,406 -721 50,216 50,193 -23

New Mexico 14,661 14,887 226 10,897 10,949 52

New York 157,796 157,606 -190 111,555 111,790 235

North Carolina 62,601 62,730 128 48,872 49,027 154

North Dakota 5,577 5,524 -53 3,685 3,649 -36

Ohio 97,021 96,120 -902 66,478 65,950 -528

Oklahoma 28,521 28,575 54 20,413 20,468 55

Oregon 27,329 27,402 73 20,692 20,717 25

Pennsylvania 105,035 103,643 -1,392 71,882 71,564 -318

Rhode Island 8,614 8,487 -127 6,256 6,216 -40

South Carolina 31,958 32,105 147 24,108 24,134 26

South Dakota 6,343 6,302 -40 4,443 4,408 -35

Tennessee 45,731 45,799 69 33,959 33,979 21

Texas 162,912 164,883 1,971 128,578 129,229 651

Utah 16,975 16,996 21 13,669 13,719 50

Vermont 5,090 5,065 -25 3,599 3,576 -23

Virginia 57,581 57,797 216 42,938 43,249 311

Washington 47,253 47,370 117 35,643 35,733 90

West Virginia 15,905 15,875 -30 10,524 10,495 -28

Wisconsin 44,574 44,127 -446 31,811 31,494 -317

Wyoming 4,176 4,200 24 2,914 2,916 2

Total $2,286,151 $2,286,151 $0 $1,690,514 $1,690,514 $0c

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

States

SSBG 

allocations 

using 1990 

Census 

population 

counts

Recalculated 

SSBG allocations 

using statistical 

population 

estimates

based on the 1990 

Census

Difference 

between SSBG 

allocations and 

recalculated 

allocations 

based on the 

1990 Censusa

SSBG 

allocations 

using 2000 

Census 

population 

counts

Recalculated 

SSBG allocations 

using statistical 

population 

estimates based 

on the 2000 

Census

Difference 

between SSBG 

allocations and 

recalculated 

allocations 

based on the 

2000 Censusb
Page 33 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Appendix V

Estimated Percentage Changes in State 

Funding Using Statistical Population 

Estimates ApendxiV

Table 6: Percentage Difference between 1990 and 2000 Medicaid Allocations and 

Recalculated Allocations Using Statistical Population Estimates

States

Percentage difference 

between Medicaid 

allocations and recalculated 

allocations based on the 

1990 Census

Percentage difference 

between Medicaid 

allocations and 

recalculated allocations 

based on the 2000 Census

Alabama 0.16 0.11

Alaska 0.00 1.11

Arizona 0.75 0.15

Arkansas 0.11 0.25

California 2.33 0.00

Colorado 0.81 0.00

Connecticut 0.00 0.00

Delaware 0.00 0.31

District of Columbia 0.00 0.00

Florida 0.58 -0.22

Georgia 0.67 0.95

Hawaii 0.00 0.97

Idaho 0.50 0.06

Illinois 0.00 0.00

Indiana -1.34 -1.40

Iowa -1.34 -1.11

Kansas -1.23 -1.03

Kentucky -0.02 0.00a

Louisiana 0.45 0.31

Maine -0.96 -0.78

Maryland 0.00 0.00

Massachusetts 0.00 0.00

Michigan -1.35 -0.73

Minnesota -1.93 0.00

Mississippi 0.27 0.04

Missouri -1.27 -1.10

Montana 0.61 0.73

Nebraska -1.28 -0.44

Nevada 0.00 1.47

New Hampshire 0.00 0.00

New Jersey 0.00 0.00

New Mexico 1.06 0.33
Appendix V

Estimated Percentage Changes in State 

Funding Using Statistical Population 

Estimates

Page 34 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.

a Kentucky’s percentage change in funding would have been -0.0045 percent.

New York 0.00 0.00

North Carolina 0.23 0.37

North Dakota -0.86 -0.94

Ohio -1.25 -1.08

Oklahoma 0.15 0.23

Oregon 0.34 0.15

Pennsylvania -2.31 -0.76

Rhode Island -2.46 -1.05

South Carolina 0.37 0.09

South Dakota -0.66 -0.83

Tennessee 0.17 0.07

Texas 1.36 0.66

Utah 0.09 0.29

Vermont -0.60 -0.86

Virginia 0.69 0.85

Washington 0.46 0.00

West Virginia -0.14 -0.18

Wisconsin -1.34 -1.46

Wyoming 0.74 0.11

All states 0.06 -0.10

(Continued From Previous Page)

States

Percentage difference 

between Medicaid 

allocations and recalculated 

allocations based on the 

1990 Census

Percentage difference 

between Medicaid 

allocations and 

recalculated allocations 

based on the 2000 Census
Appendix V

Estimated Percentage Changes in State 

Funding Using Statistical Population 

Estimates

Page 35 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Table 7: Percentage Difference between 1990 and 2000 Social Services Block Grant 

Allocations and Recalculated Allocations Using Statistical Population Estimates

States

Percentage difference 

between Social Services 

Block Grant allocations and 

recalculated allocations 

based on the 1990 Census

Percentage difference 

between Social Services 

Block Grant allocations and 

recalculated allocations 

based on the 2000 Census

Alabama 0.18 0.13

Alaska 0.40 0.75

Arizona 0.79 0.16

Arkansas 0.15 0.37

California 1.17 0.58

Colorado 0.46 0.45

Connecticut -0.97 -0.27

Delaware 0.20 0.16

District of Columbia 1.86 2.05

Florida 0.37 -0.14

Georgia 0.56 0.71

Hawaii 0.25 0.67

Idaho 0.60 0.07

Illinois -0.63 -0.92

Indiana -1.11 -1.15

Iowa -1.20 -0.96

Kansas -0.91 -0.79

Kentucky -0.03 -0.01

Louisiana 0.58 0.38

Maine -0.87 -0.70

Maryland 0.49 0.70

Massachusetts -1.14 -0.53

Michigan -0.91 -0.47

Minnesota -1.18 -1.17

Mississippi 0.46 0.05

Missouri -0.99 -0.85

Montana 0.77 0.94

Nebraska -0.96 -0.33

Nevada 0.77 0.91

New Hampshire -0.77 -0.63

New Jersey -1.04 -0.04

New Mexico 1.54 0.48
Appendix V

Estimated Percentage Changes in State 

Funding Using Statistical Population 

Estimates

Page 36 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Source: GAO analysis of HHS and Commerce data.

New York -0.12 0.21

North Carolina 0.21 0.32

North Dakota -0.95 -0.97

Ohio -0.93 -0.79

Oklahoma 0.19 0.27

Oregon 0.27 0.12

Pennsylvania -1.33 -0.44

Rhode Island -1.47 -0.64

South Carolina 0.46 0.11

South Dakota -0.64 -0.80

Tennessee 0.15 0.06

Texas 1.21 0.51

Utah 0.13 0.37

Vermont -0.50 -0.64

Virginia 0.38 0.73

Washington 0.25 0.25

West Virginia -0.19 -0.27

Wisconsin -1.00 -1.00

Wyoming 0.57 0.07

Total 0.00 0.00

(Continued From Previous Page)

States

Percentage difference 

between Social Services 

Block Grant allocations and 

recalculated allocations 

based on the 1990 Census

Percentage difference 

between Social Services 

Block Grant allocations and 

recalculated allocations 

based on the 2000 Census
Page 37 GAO-06-567 Federal Assistance

Appendix VI

GAO Contact and Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

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)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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 GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548