The intergovernmental grant system as seen by local, State, and Federal officials : Page: 90
This book is part of the collection entitled: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and was provided to Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
tained for state use. A varying number of states
supplied data for the several functions, ranging
from 24 states for the "All Other" category to 2 7 for
public welfare, health and hospitals, and criminal
justice. The total amounts passed-through and retained
for state use are shown by function in Table
Among the states reporting, the proportions
passed through to local recipients were, in descending
order, for criminal justice (66%),
education (57%), public welfare (53%), and housing
and community development (49%). The lowest
percentages were for highways (14%), and
manpower (16%), which were primarily stateadministered
functions. Also only 33 percent of
Federal health and hospitals funds were channeled
to local recipients.
Some notion of the shares of pass-through funds
distributed to the various types of local recipients
is provided by Table III-5. These figures may be
less representative of all the states than those
shown heretofore because of the smaller number of
states that reported this kind of breakdown, but
they probably give a generally correct picture. The
possible exception is the manpower function
wherein the percentage retained by the state for the
19 states represented (94%) is notably different
from the proportion retained for the 25 states included
in Table 111-4 (84%). The table generally
confirms the conventional wisdom about the functional
distribution of Federal funds to political
subdivisions, e.g., the bulk of education funds go
to school districts, counties dominate in receipt of
public welfare grants, the largest share of criminal
justice money ends up in municipalities, and a
large portion of housing and community development
funds goes to special housing and community
In an effort to find out more about the passthrough,
the questionnaire survey asked state
budget officers to indicate what percentage of
channeled funds was distributed via formula or
project grants. Again, there was a wide range in the
number of states reporting the method of
from 26 who reported the type of
grant they used to channel Federal criminal justice
funds to 14 who reported the method for public
Table III-6 shows the percentage distribution
between formula and project grants by the median
state in each functional group. These figures must
be used with caution, for they conceal the wide
Federal Grant Funds Passed Through
by Selected States' to Local Recipients:
the Percentage Distribution Between
Formula and Project Grants for the
Median State (est.)
Number of Percentages for
States in Median State
Group Formula Project
252 90% 10%
177 0 100
168 3 96
'As many as 26 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey/
North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and
2All states in footnote 1 except Hawaii.
3All states in footnote 1 except Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware,
Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, and Vermont.
4All states in footnote 1 except Alaska, California, Colorado
Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, and Vermont.
'All states in footnote 1 except Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Vermont.
6All states in footnote 1 except Alaska, Connecticut, Iowa, Mary,
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. The intergovernmental grant system as seen by local, State, and Federal officials :, book, March 1977; Washington, D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1368/m1/98/: accessed April 25, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.