Formula Grants: Funding for the Largest Federal Assistance Programs Is Based on Census-Related Data and Other Factors
Published: 2009-12-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Many federal assistance programs are funded by formula grants that have historically relied at least in part on population data from the decennial census and related data to allocate funds. In June 2009, the Census Bureau reported that in fiscal year 2007 the federal government obligated over $446 billion through funding formulas that rely at least in part on census and related data. Funding for federal assistance programs continues to increase. Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to determine (1) how much the federal government obligates to the largest federal assistance programs based on the decennial census and related data, and how the Recovery Act changed that amount; and (2) what factors could affect the role of population in grant funding formulas. To answer these objectives, GAO identified the 10 largest federal assistance programs in each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009 based on data from the President's fiscal year 2010 budget. GAO reviewed statutes, agency reports, and other sources to obtain illustrative examples of how different factors could affect the role of population data in grant funding.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO's analysis showed that each of the 10 largest federal assistance programs in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 relied at least in part on the decennial census and related data--that is, data from surveys with designs that depend on the decennial census, or statistics, such as per capita income, that are derived from these data. For fiscal year 2008, this totaled about $334.9 billion, representing about 73 percent of total federal assistance. For fiscal year 2009, the estimated obligations of the 10 largest federal assistance programs totaled about $478.3 billion, representing about 84 percent of total federal assistance. This amount included about $122.7 billion funded by the Recovery Act and about $355.6 billion funded by other means. Several factors can affect the role of population in grant funding formulas. When a formula includes variables in addition to total population, the role of population in the grant funding formula is less than if the formula relies solely on total population. All of the programs in GAO's review included one or more grants with formulas containing variables other than total population, such as the level of transit service provided. In addition, other factors can modify the amount that a state or local entity would have otherwise received under the formula. These factors include (1) hold harmless provisions and caps; (2) small state minimums; and (3) funding floors and ceilings. With the application of these factors, grant funding may be affected less or entirely unaffected by changes in population.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The federal government uses formula grants to determine funding  amounts for many of the largest federal assistance programs. These  programs provide funding for a variety of purposes, including health  insurance for low income families and individuals, improvement of  highway and public transportation systems, and special education  programs. To determine funding amounts, grant formulas have historically  relied at least in part on data from the decennial census and related data— that is, data from surveys with designs that depend on the decennial  census, or statistics derived from these data sources. More than 10 years  ago, we reported that in fiscal year 1998 the federal government obligated  about $162 billion through 22 of the largest federal assistance programs  using formulas based at least in part on decennial census and related data.  In June 2009, the Census Bureau reported that in fiscal year 2007 the  federal government obligated over $446 billion through funding formulas  that rely at least in part on census and related data. Funding for federal  assistance programs continues to increase. Of the $580 billion in additional  federal spending associated with the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), the federal government  obligated an estimated $161 billion through federal grant programs for  fiscal year 2009.
This report responds to your request that we determine (1) how much the  federal government obligates to the largest federal assistance programs  based on the decennial census and related data, and how the Recovery Act  changed that amount; and (2) what factors could affect the role of  population in grant funding formulas. To answer our objectives, we  identified 11 federal assistance programs representing the 10 largest  programs in each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009 based on the dollar  amounts obligated reported in the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget,  issued in May 2009, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Analytical  Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2010  (Fiscal Year 2010 budget). We included the following programs in our  review:    Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP);    Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Neighborhood    Education State Grants, State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (State Fiscal    Federal Transit Formula Grants Programs;    Head Start;    Highway Planning and Construction;  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B;    Medicaid;    Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers;    Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF); and    Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies (Title I).
For a description of each of these programs, see appendix II. To determine  whether the programs’ funding relied on census and related data, we  reviewed statutes, our prior work, the Catalog of Federal Domestic  Assistance Programs (CFDA), Congressional Research Service reports,  and agency Web pages and reports related to each of the programs. We  considered funding to be based on census or related data if any part of the  funding formula(s) or eligibility requirements relied on these data sources.  To determine what factors could affect the role of population in grant  funding formulas, we reviewed our prior work (see the list of related GAO  products at the end of this report) and other research on formula grants.  (See appendix I for a more detailed discussion of our scope and  methodology.)
We conducted our work from June 2009 to December 2009 in accordance  with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant  to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the  engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our  stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe  that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted,  provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Congress appropriates federal assistance grant funds to executive branch  agencies that then use funding formulas to distribute federal assistance to  states or local entities. These funding formulas are typically established  through statute and expressed as one or more equations containing one or  more variables. Executive branch agencies also use formulas to determine  the amount of federal matching grants for jointly funded federal assistance  programs where the amount of the federal match varies among the states  based upon the formula calculation. For example, Medicaid’s Federal  Matching Assistance Percentage (FMAP) is determined through a statutory  formula based on each state’s per capita income relative to U.S. per capita  income. Various statutory or administrative provisions can also modify  the amount that would otherwise be determined under the formula. These  provisions may be included to avoid disruptions that could be caused by  year-to-year changes in funding, to cover fixed costs of a program, or for  other reasons.
Congress can use formula grants to target funds to achieve federal  assistance program objectives by including specific variables in the  formulas that relate to the programs’ objectives. For example, for a  program intended to serve a specific segment of the population, the  formula may contain variables that measure or identify the subset of the  population. Therefore, the formula for a program designed to provide  services for children in low income areas may contain variables that  identify the total number of children living in poverty in a certain area.
Historically, many formulas have relied at least in part on decennial census  and related data as a source of these variables. The decennial census  collects, among other things, information on whether a residence is owned  or rented, as well as respondents’ sex, age, and race. To update decennial  population counts, the Bureau’s Population Estimates Program produces  population estimates for each year following the last published decennial  census, as well as for past decennials, using administrative records such as  birth and death certificates and federal tax returns. Census-related data  stem from the decennial census and the Bureau’s population estimates and  include (1) surveys with statistical samples designed to represent the  entire population using data from the decennial census or its annual  updates, and (2) statistics derived from decennial census data, its annual  updates, or census-related surveys.
Two of the census-related surveys produced by the Bureau include the  American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey  (CPS). The ACS is an annual survey of about 3 million housing units that  collects information about people and housing, including information  previously collected during the decennial census. The CPS is a monthly  survey of about 50,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau for  the Bureau of Labor Statistics and provides data on the labor force  characteristics of the U.S. population. Supplemental questions also  produce estimates on a variety of topics including school enrollment,  income, previous work experience, health, employee benefits, and work  schedules.
Federal agencies use census data, annual updates, and surveys based on  these data to produce other statistics used in federal assistance grant  formulas. For example, the Bureau of Economic Analysis produces per  capita income data—a derivative of decennial census data—by dividing  personal income by population obtained from census population  estimates. Per capita income is used to calculate Medicaid’s FMAP.  Another derivative is Fair Market Rent (FMR) that the Department of  Housing and Urban Development calculates and uses to determine  payment standard amounts for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher  Program. The FMR for a particular area is based on decennial census data  or other surveys such as the ACS for the years between censuses.
section_title: The Federal Government Obligated an Estimated $478 Billion in Fiscal Year 2009 at Least in Part Based on Census and Related Data
paragraphs: Our analysis showed that each of the 10 largest federal assistance  programs in fiscal year 2008 and 2009 relied at least in part on decennial  census and related data to determine funding. For fiscal year 2008, this  totaled about $334.9 billion, representing about 73 percent of total federal  assistance. We considered funding based on decennial census and related  data if any part of the funding formula or eligibility requirements relied on  these data sources. Table 1 shows the fiscal year 2008 obligations for the  10 largest federal assistance programs in that year.
For fiscal year 2009, the estimated obligations of the 10 largest federal  assistance programs totaled about $478.3 billion, representing about 84  percent of total federal assistance. This amount included about $122.7  billion funded by the Recovery Act and about $355.6 billion funded by  other means. The 10 largest federal assistance programs in fiscal year 2009  included a new program added by the Recovery Act—the State Fiscal  Stabilization Fund. Table 2 shows the fiscal year 2009 estimated  obligations for the 10 largest federal assistance programs and how much  the Recovery Act increased that amount.
section_title: Several Factors Could Affect the Role of Population in Grant Funding Formulas
paragraphs: Decennial census and related data play an important role in funding for  the largest federal assistance programs. However, changes in population  do not necessarily result in an increase or decrease in funding. Based on  our prior work and related research on formula grants, we identified some  of the factors that could affect the role of population grant formulas. We  found that factors related to the formula equation(s) and those that modify  the amount that a state or local entity would otherwise receive under the  formula could affect the role of population in grant funding formulas.  Further, the extent to which one particular factor can affect the role of  population in grant funding varied across programs. Although at least one  factor that could affect the role of population in grant funding formulas  was present in each program in our review, the number and combination  of factors varied across programs. To illustrate how these factors can be  used in formula grant funding, we selected examples from the federal  assistance programs in our review. The examples presented below are  illustrative and do not necessarily indicate the relative importance of a  factor compared to the other factors present.
subsections: section_title: Variables Other Than Total Population Can Affect Role of Population in Grant Funding Formulas
paragraphs: All of the programs in our review included one or more grants with  formulas containing variables other than total population. Obviously,  absent other factors, funding based on these formulas will be affected less  by changes in population than those that rely solely on total population.  The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund formula is based on total population  and a subset of total population—states’ shares of individuals aged 5 to 24  relative to total population. The Federal Transit Program grants for  urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 are based on total population  and variables related to the level of transit service provided. TANF  supplemental grants are awarded based on a formula with multiple  variables. According to the Department of Health and Human Services’s  Administration of Children and Families (ACF), which administers the  program, supplemental grants are awarded to states with exceptionally  high population growth in the early 1990s, historic welfare grants per poor  person lower than 35 percent of the national average, or a combination of  above average population growth and below average historic welfare  grants per poor person. Medicaid’s FMAP is based on a 3-year average of a  state’s per capita income relative to U.S. per capita income with per capita  income defined as personal income divided by total population. The  FMAP is affected by both changes in population and personal income.  Because changes in population and personal income are not correlated,  the affect of a population change may be diminished or increased by a  change in personal income. Finally, because per capita is squared—that is,  multiplied by itself—in the formula, the affect of a population change may  be greater than if per capita income were not squared.
In addition to the number of variables, the number of equations can also  affect the role of population in grant funding formulas. Under CDBG,  metropolitan counties and cites are eligible for the greater of the amounts  calculated under two different equations. The variables in the first  equation are population, extent of poverty, and extent of overcrowded  housing. The variables in the second equation are population growth lag,  extent of poverty, and age of housing. The use of the dual equation  structure and the variables other than population in each equation reduce  the effect of population changes on grant funding.
Some formulas also have base amounts that are set at the amount of  funding in a specified prior year and the remainder for funding is  calculated according to a formula. For programs with set base amounts,  only a portion of the funding might be affected by a change in population.  Because appropriation amounts can change from year to year, the base  amount portion of the grant will represent less of the total grant amount if  appropriations increase, making total grant funding affected more by a  change in population. When appropriations decrease, the share of the  overall funding subject to the formula is lower, lessening the effect of a  change in population on total funding.
Some programs we reviewed contained such base amounts in their  funding formula. Under IDEA Part B, generally each state first receives the  same amount it received for fiscal year 1999 for the program for children  aged 3 through 21, and, for the program for children aged 3 through 5, the  amount the state received in fiscal year 1997. For the remainder of the  state’s funding in a given year, (1) 85 percent is based on the state’s share  of the 3 through 21 year old population for the school-aged program, and  the 3 through 5 year old population for the preschool program and (2) 15  percent is based on the state’s share of those children living in poverty. In  another example, the Head Start program guarantees the same base  amount as in the prior year. The remainder of the funding is allocated to  cost of living increases and Indian and migrant and seasonal Head Start  programs depending upon the amount remaining. According to ACF,  which administers Head Start, when the increase in appropriation is large  enough to allow for expansion of Head Start, those funds are calculated  based on the relative share of children aged 3 and 4 living in poverty in  each state.
section_title: Factors That Modify the Formula Amount Could Affect the Role of Population in Grant Funding
paragraphs: Some factors modify the amount that a state would otherwise receive  under the funding formula and could affect the role of population in grant  funding formulas. The factors include the following: (1) hold harmless  provisions and caps; (2) small state minimums; and (3) funding floors and  ceilings.
Hold Harmless Provisions/Caps: Hold harmless provisions and caps limit  the amount of a decrease or increase from a prior year’s funding. Hold  harmless provisions guarantee that the grantee will receive no less than a  specified proportion of a previous year’s funding. If a population change  resulted in a decrease in funding below a designated amount, the hold  harmless provision would raise the amount of funding above what the  grantee would otherwise have received under the formula and the amount  of the increase would be deducted from the funding amounts of grantees  not affected by the hold-harmless provision. Title I includes a hold  harmless provision guaranteeing the amount made available to each local  educational agency (LEA) not be less than from 85 to 95 percent of the  previous fiscal year’s funding, depending on the LEA school age child  poverty rate.
Similarly, caps—also known as “stop gains”—limit the size of an annual  increase as a proportion of a previous year’s funding amount or federal  share. If a population change resulted in an increase in funding above a  certain amount, the cap would limit the effect of the population change.  Under IDEA Part B, no state’s allocation is to exceed the amount the state  received under this section for the preceding fiscal year multiplied by the  sum of 1.5 percent and the percentage increase in the amount  appropriated under this section from the preceding fiscal year.
Small-State Minimums: Small-state minimums guarantee that each state  will receive at least a specified amount or percentage of total funding.
These minimums can typically benefit smaller states that would otherwise  receive allocations below the minimum. However, whether a state is  considered “small” depends upon the program and is not necessarily based  directly on a state’s population or geographic size. Several components  within the federal-aid highway program contain such state minimums. For  example, there is a statutory 0.5 percent state minimum on the annual  apportionment from the Highway Trust Fund to the Surface  Transportation Program for states having less than a specified threshold of  qualifying roads, vehicle miles traveled on those roads, and taxes paid into  the fund. When states’ minimums are applied, grant funding formulas may  be affected less by changes in population.
Floors/Ceilings: Floors and ceilings are lower and upper limits placed on  the amount a state can receive under a formula. If a change in population  results in funding under the formula falling below the floor, the state  would be guaranteed the amount of the floor. If a population change  results in the state exceeding the ceiling, the state could not receive more  than the ceiling amount. The federal government’s share of Medicaid  expenditures ranges from 50 percent (floor) to 83 percent (ceiling).  Although 1973 was the most recent year that any state was affected by the  ceiling, states often benefit from the FMAP floor. In fiscal year 2009, 13  states received the minimum 50 percent matching rate. In our 2003 report  on federal formula grant funding, we found that in 2002, under the  statutory formula, which is based on the ratio of a state’s per capita  income relative to U.S. per capita income, Connecticut would have  received a 15 percent federal matching rate. Despite Connecticut’s  relatively high per capita income—a calculation based in part on  population—Connecticut received a 50 percent federal match. For  Connecticut, in this particular year, the floor affected the role of  population in the amount of the federal match. Similarly, because CHIP’s  matching formula is based on the Medicaid FMAP, CHIP’s enhanced FMAP  is also affected by Medicaid’s floor and ceiling. For example, if a state  was affected by the 50 percent floor, the state would receive a matching  percentage of 65 percent. As a result, funding for states benefiting from the  floor would be affected less by changes in population.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 7 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested parties. The  report also will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report please contact me at (202) 512- 2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to determine (1) how much the federal government  obligates to the largest federal assistance programs based on the decennial  census and related data and how the Recovery Act changed that amount,  and (2) what factors could affect the role of population in grant funding  formulas.
To answer our objectives, we identified 11 federal assistance programs  representing the 10 largest programs in each of the fiscal years 2008 and  2009 based on the dollar amounts obligated reported in the President’s  budget, issued in May 2009, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),  Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal  Year 2010 (Fiscal Year 2010 budget), Table 8-4, Summary of Programs by  Agency, Bureau, and Program. We believe that these data are sufficiently  reliable for purposes of our review. We included the following programs in  our review:    Children’s Health Insurance Program;    Community Development Block Grants and Neighborhood Stabilization    Education State Grants, State Fiscal Stabilization Fund;    Federal Transit Formula Grants Programs;    Head Start;    Highway Planning and Construction;   Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B;    Medicaid;    Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers;    Temporary Aid for Needy Families; and    Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies.
To determine whether the program’s funding relied on decennial census  and related census data, we reviewed statutes, GAO reports, the Catalog of  Federal Domestic Assistance Programs (CFDA), Congressional Research  Service (CRS) reports, and agency Web pages and reports related to each  of the programs. For purposes of our analysis, we defined census and  related data as (1) data obtained from the decennial census and annual  updates, (2) census-related surveys—that is, those surveys that base their  samples on the decennial census; or (3) their derivatives—that is, statistics  produced from data contained in the decennial census or a census-related  survey. We considered funding to be based on census or related data if any  part of the funding formula or eligibility requirements relied on these data  sources. For the programs that relied at least in part on census and related  data, we summed the total obligation amounts reported in the Fiscal Year  2010 budget, Table 8-4, Summary of Programs by Agency, Bureau, and  Program, as well as Table 8-6, Summary of Recovery Act Grants by  Agency, Bureau, and Program. Because the actual obligations for fiscal  year 2009 for each of these programs are not yet available from OMB, we  are reporting the estimated fiscal year 2009 obligations reported in the  Fiscal Year 2010 budget. We did not independently verify or assess the  extent to which an agency actually distributes funds according to the  statutory formula. We did not identify all possible uses of decennial census  and related data to fund the selected programs. We did not conduct any  simulations to determine the extent to which any particular variable relied  on the funding formula.
To determine what factors could affect the role of population in grant  funding formulas, from our prior work related to formula grants (see the  list of related GAO products at the end of this report) and other research  on formula grants, we first identified factors that illustrate the different  ways that such factors could affect the amount of grant funding. To obtain  illustrative examples of how the factors are used in the selected programs,  we reviewed statutes, GAO reports, the CFDA, CRS reports, and agency  Web pages and reports related to each of the programs. We asked the  responsible agencies to confirm the accuracy of information being  reported on the existence of the factors in and descriptions of each  program. We received responses on each of the 11 programs. We did not  identify all possible factors that could affect the amount of grant funding.  The presentation of these factors is not intended to suggest that they are  the most important either generally, or to the specific programs listed  here. The number of times a factor or a program is cited in reported  examples does not indicate anything judgmental about the feature or the  program. The presence of a factor in statute does not indicate that a factor  is either significant or relevant to actual funding for the program.
We conducted our work from June 2009 to December 2009, in accordance  with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant  to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the  engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our  stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe  that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted,  provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions.
section_title: Appendix II: Descriptions of the Largest Federal Assistance Programs
paragraphs: Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP): CHIP is a federal-state  matching grant program administered by the Department of Health and  Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The  program provides funding for states to cover children (and in some states  pregnant women) who lack health insurance and whose families’ low to  moderate income exceeds Medicaid eligibility levels. Each state has a  different federal match level based on the Medicaid Federal Medical  Assistance Percentage (FMAP), called the enhanced FMAP.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program: The  Department of Housing and Urban Development provides CDBG funding  to communities to develop decent housing, suitable living environments,  and economic opportunities for people of low and moderate income.  Funds are distributed among communities using a formula based on  indicators of community development need.
Education State Grants, State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (State  Fiscal Stabilization Fund): The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund program  is a new one-time appropriation under the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act of 2009. It is administered by the U.S. Department of  Education. The funds are intended to help (1) stabilize state and local  government budgets in order to minimize and avoid reductions in  education and other essential public services; (2) ensure that local  educational agencies and public institutions of higher education have the  resources to avert cuts and retain teachers and professors; and (3) support  the modernization, renovation, and repair of school and college facilities.  According to the Department of Education, states participating in the  program must provide a commitment to advance essential education  reforms to benefit students from early learning through post-secondary  education.
Federal Transit Formula Grants Programs: Administered by the  Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration, these  grant programs provide capital and operating assistance for public transit  systems. Three of the major formula federal assistance programs include  the following: (1) the Urbanized Area Formula Program, which makes  federal resources available to areas with populations of 50,000 or more  and to governors for transit capital and operating assistance and for  transportation related planning; (2) the Nonurbanized Area Formula  Program, which provides formula funding to states for the purpose of  supporting public transportation in areas with populations of less than  50,000; and (3) Capital Investment—Fixed Guideway Modernization  Program, which may be used for capital projects to maintain, modernize,  or improve fixed guideway systems.
Head Start: Head Start is administered by the Department of Health and  Human Services’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and  provides grants directly to over 1,600 local agencies. Head Start provides  funds for early childhood development services to low-income children  and their families. These services include education, health, nutrition, and  social services to prepare children to enter kindergarten and to improve  the conditions necessary for their success later in school and life.
Highway Planning and Construction: The Department of  Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers the  Highway Planning and Construction Program, also known as the federal- aid highway program. According to FHWA, the federal-aid highway  program provides federal financial resources and technical assistance to  state and local governments for planning, constructing, preserving, and  improving federal-aid eligible highways. The federal-aid eligible highway  system includes the National Highway System (NHS), a network of about  163,000 miles of roads that comprises only 4 percent of the nation’s total  public road mileage, but carries approximately 45 percent of the nation’s  highway traffic as well as an additional 1.1 million miles of roads that are  not on the NHS, but that are eligible for federal-aid.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B: The  Department of Education has responsibility for oversight of IDEA and for  ensuring that states are complying with the law. IDEA Part B grants  provide funding for special education and related services for children and  youth ages 3 to 21. IDEA Part B governs how states and public agencies  provide special education and related services to more than 6.5 million  eligible children and youth with disabilities. To receive IDEA Part B  funding, states agree to comply with certain requirements regarding  appropriate special education and related services for children with  disabilities.
Medicaid: CMS provides federal oversight of state Medicaid programs.  Medicaid is a health insurance program jointly funded by the federal  government and the states. Generally, eligibility for Medicaid is limited to  low-income children, pregnant women, parents of dependent children, the  elderly, and people with disabilities. The federal government’s share of a  state’s expenditures for most Medicaid services is called the Federal  Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). Federal Medicaid funding to  states is not limited, provided the states contribute their share of program  expenditures.
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: The Section 8 Housing Choice  Voucher Program is one of three key rental subsidy programs of the  Department of Housing and Urban Development. The program is  administered by local public housing agencies and provides rental  vouchers to very low-income families to obtain decent, safe, and  affordable housing. Following the discontinuation of funds for new  construction of public housing and project-based Section 8, the Section 8  Housing Choice Voucher program has been the primary means of  providing new rental assistance on a large scale. The program currently  serves over 2 million families.
Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF): TANF is administered by  ACF and provides funding to states through four grants—basic block,  supplemental, and two contingency (recession-related). These grants are  intended to: (1) provide assistance to needy families with children so they  can live in their own homes or relatives’ homes; (2) end parents’  dependence on government benefits through work, job preparation, and  marriage; (3) reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and (4) promote the  formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies (LEA): Title I is  administered by the Department of Education and provides financial  assistance to LEAs that target funds to the schools with the highest  percentage of low-income families. Schools use Title I funds to provide  additional academic support and learning opportunities to help low- achieving children master challenging curricula and meet state standards  in core academic subjects. Federal funds are currently allocated through  four statutory formulas that are based primarily on census poverty  estimates and the cost of education in each state, as measured by each  state’s expenditure per elementary and secondary student.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Ty Mitchell, Assistant Director;  Robert Dinkelmeyer; Gregory Dybalski; Amber G. Edwards; Robert L.  Gebhart; Lois Hanshaw; Andrea J. Levine; Victor J. Miller; Melanie H.  Papasian; and Tamara F. Stenzel made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Formula Grants: Census Data Are among Several Factors That Can  Affect Funding Allocations. GAO-09-832T. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2009.  2010 Census: Population Measures Are Important for Federal Funding  Allocations. GAO-08-230T. Washington, D.C.: October 27, 2007.
Community Development Block Grant Formula: Options for Improving  the Targeting of Funds. GAO-06-904T. Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2006.
Federal Assistance: Illustrative Simulations of Using Statistical  Population Estimates for Reallocating Certain Federal Funding.  GAO-06-567. Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2006.
Community Development Block Grant Formula: Targeting Assistance to  High-Need Communities Could Be Enhanced. GAO-05-622T. Washington,  D.C.: April 26, 2005.
Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and Options  for Future Program Design. GAO-04-802. Washington, D.C.: August 31,  2004.
Medicaid Formula: Differences in Funding Ability among States Often  Are Widened. GAO-03-620. Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2003.
Formula Grants: 2000 Census Redistributes Federal Funding Among  States. GAO-03-178. Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2003.
Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit Though Funding Per Poor Child  Differs. GAO-02-242. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2002.
Formula Grants: Effects of Adjusted Population Counts on Federal  Funding to States. GAO/HEHS-99-69. Washington, D.C.: February 26, 1999.
Federal Grants: Design Improvements Could Help Federal Resources Go  Further.GAO/AMID-97-7. Washington, D.C.: December 18, 1996.
Block Grants: Characteristics, Experience, and Lessons Learned.  GAO/HEHS-95-74. Washington, D.C.: February 9, 1995.
Formula Programs: Adjusted Census Data Would Redistribute Small  Percentage of Funds to States. GAO/GGD-92-12. Washington, D.C.:  November 7, 1991.