|
Energy Assistance Falls as Prices
Rise
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
OUT IN THE COLD:
How Much LIHEAP Funding Will Be Needed to
Protect Beneficiaries from Rising Energy Prices?
By Richard Kogan and Aviva Aron-Dine
October 6, 2005
Last year, Congress provided nearly $2.2 billion for the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP helps very poor households, many of
whom are elderly, pay their home heating (and cooling) bills. Most of the
assistance prevents heat from being turned off in northern states in the dead
of winter, but some also keeps air conditioning running during southern heat
waves. LIHEAP funding covers just a fraction of the poor households eligible
for assistance and is distributed by local officials on the basis of greatest
need. In almost all cases, LIHEAP pays only part of the monthly energy bill of
poor households. The $2.2 billion appropriated for 2005 - which constitutes the
starting point for our calculations - is itself unusually low by historical
standards; taking into account the price of home heating, the 2005 level of
funding was the lowest since 1998.
KEY FINDINGS: |
- The Department of Energy projects that home heating prices will average
47.5 percent more this winter than last winter, the largest such increase in
more than 30 years.
- Because the spike in prices will increase the number of low-income
households in need of assistance, LIHEAP participation is likely to grow by
five percent or more.
- Suppose LIHEAP funding grows to $3.2 billion, the amount needed to raise
LIHEAP benefit levels by 47.5 percent (and to cover the expected five percent
increase in participation). Even so, poor LIHEAP beneficiaries would still see
their own share of their heating bills rise by 47.5 percent, as well.
- To hold LIHEAP beneficiaries harmless for rising home heating prices would
require LIHEAP funding of $5.2 billion.
|
The price of fuel (principally home natural gas, heating oil, and propane)
has risen significantly over the last year. The disruption in energy supply
caused by the Gulf Coast hurricanes will make the situation worse. On September
7 (after Hurricane Katrina but before Hurricane Rita), the Department of Energy
issued new projections of monthly energy prices by energy source and by
geographic region. If these projections prove accurate, the cost of heating the
homes of LIHEAP beneficiaries will rise 47.5 percent between last winter and
this winter (see Appendix 2 for a description of our calculation). This is the
steepest one-year increase in these costs since 1974, before LIHEAP was
created. Some analysts have recently suggested that prices may rise more than
the Department of Energy projects, in which case even our estimated 47.5
percent increase may be conservative. Research indicates that, without funding
increases to protect poor households from these price increases, many LIHEAP
beneficiaries will reduce their food consumptions this winter to pay for the
rise in heating costs.
Because of the expected 47.5 percent increase in the cost of home heating
(and more normal increases in the cost of weatherization and administration),
simple arithmetic shows that LIHEAP funding for this winter, fiscal year 2006,
needs to increase from last year's level of $2.182 billion by a minimum
of $842 million, to a level of $3.025 billion.[1] (See Table 1)
Table 1:
Minimum LIHEAP funding required due to increases in home energy prices,
general inflation, and caseload
(dollars in billions) |
|
benefits |
weatherization* |
total |
LIHEAP funding, FY 2005 |
1.746 |
.436 |
2.182 |
|
Additional funding needed because home energy prices are expected to
increase by 47.5% and general inflation by 3.1%. |
.829 |
.014 |
.843 |
LIHEAP funding for 2006, adjusted only for expected price
increases. |
2.575 |
.450 |
3.025 |
|
Additional funding to cover a 5% increase in the number of
beneficiaries. |
.129 |
.022 |
.151 |
LIHEAP funding for 2006, adjusted for price increases and 5%
more beneficiaries. |
2.704 |
.472 |
3.176 |
However, this calculation assumes that the number of LIHEAP beneficiaries
will not change between last winter and this winter. In fact, the number of
LIHEAP beneficiaries has increased by an average of six percent per year from
2002 through 2005, in part because energy prices have risen by an average of 17
percent per year during the same period.[2] Given this history, a conservative
assumption is that the number of LIHEAP beneficiaries will grow by at least
another five percent this year. A five percent increase in beneficiaries will
require another $151 million, bringing necessary total funding $3.176
billion.
Table 2:
LIHEAP funding required to hold beneficiaries harmless for fuel price
increases
(dollars in millions) |
|
benefits |
weatherization* |
total |
LIHEAP funding for 2006, adjusted to cover increased home
energy prices and a 5% increase in the number of beneficiaries (See Table
1). |
.704 |
.472 |
3.176 |
|
Additional funding needed to hold beneficiaries harmless for expected fuel
price increases (i.e., for LIHEAP to fully cover price increases). |
2.033 |
0 |
2.033 |
LIHEAP funding for 2006, adjusted to hold beneficiaries
harmless (and cover 5% more beneficiaries). |
4.737 |
.472 |
5.209 |
* also includes amounts for program administration. |
A 47.5 Percent Funding Increase to Reflect Price Inflation Will Not Hold
Beneficiaries Harmless
Almost every household that receives LIHEAP assistance pays a share of its
monthly heating bill out of its own income: LIHEAP pays part of the monthly
bill, and the household pays the rest. If the price of heating rises and LIHEAP
funding rises proportionally, the amount that the household must pay to avoid
having its heat turned off would also rise proportionally. Thus, if the price
of home heating is 47.5 percent higher this winter than last, a 47.5 percent
increase in LIHEAP benefits would still require a 47.5 percent increase in
out-of-pocket heating payments by poor LIHEAP beneficiaries. This phenomenon is
explained more fully in the next section. The bottom line, though, is that to
protect LIHEAP beneficiaries fully from the expected 47.5 percent increase in
the cost of heating their homes - to ensure that their monthly out-of-pocket
heating bill is not higher than it was last winter - Congress will need to
provide LIHEAP funding of $4.961 billion, or $5.209 billion if caseload
increases by five percent. The state-by-state distribution of LIHEAP funding
for 2005 - and the approximate amount each state will need in 2006 to keep
low-income LIHEAP beneficiaries from paying more out-of-pocket for their heat
this winter - is displayed in Appendix 3.
Why does a "hold harmless' policy require a greater increase?
Below, we use a hypothetical example to explain why increasing funding for
LIHEAP benefits by the same percentage that energy prices increase (i.e.,
increasing LIHEAP benefits for inflation as measured by home energy prices)
does not shield poor LIHEAP beneficiaries from those price increases.[3]
The graph below explains this phenomenon. The first bar - the left-most bar
- shows a hypothetical bill for home heating for January 2005. The bill is
$300, of which LIHEAP paid $100 and the household paid $200. Both last winter
and the winter before, LIHEAP paid about one-third of the cost of home heating
for its beneficiaries on average, so this distribution of costs is
typical.[4]
The second bar shows what happens if the price of energy rises 50 percent
from January 2005 to January 2006. The total heating bill rises 50 percent,
from $300 to $450. Now suppose that Congress freezes LIHEAP funding at 2005
levels. As the second bar shows, LIHEAP will continue to be able to cover only
$100 of the January heating bill. Therefore, the amount owed by the household
will necessarily rise by $150, from $200 to $350, an increase of 75
percent.
The third bar shows what happens if, rather than freezing funding, Congress
increases funding for LIHEAP benefits by 50 percent to match the 50 percent
increase in home heating prices. As can be seen, the amount of the monthly
heating bill covered by LIHEAP would grow from $100 to $150, an increase of 50
percent. But the remainder of the bill must still be covered by the household.
And the remainder of the bill would grow from $200 to $300, also an increase of
50 percent. Together, LIHEAP and the household would cover the $450 bill. In
this case, LIHEAP would continue to cover one-third of the heating bill and the
beneficiary would continue to cover two-thirds. The key point is simple: even
with a 50 percent increase in LIHEAP benefit funding, the household would
suffer a 50 percent increase in its out-of-pocket costs for home heating. Yet
the typical very poor household is unlikely to have significantly more income
or resources this winter than it had last winter.
The final bar illustrates what it would take to hold the household harmless
for the increase in fuel prices. To do so means that the household would pay
the same $200 for heat in January 2006 that it did in January 2005. To
accomplish this result, LIHEAP would have to pay the remaining portion of the
$450 bill, i.e., LIHEAP would have to pay $250 rather than the $100 it paid
last year. In short, in this hypothetical example, LIHEAP funding would need to
increase by 150 percent (that is, it would need to be 2½ times as large)
in order to hold beneficiaries harmless for inflation in home heating prices.
(See Appendix 1 for the math this example illustrates.)
Conclusion
Home heating prices are expected to rise by 47.5 percent this winter, and
may rise by more. The LIHEAP caseload is likely to rise by at least five
percent. These facts by themselves justify increasing LIHEAP funding from its
2005 level of $2.2 billion to almost $3.2 billion for 2006. (When the price of
heating is accounted for, the 2005 level of LIHEAP funding is itself shown to
be the lowest since 1998.)
But such a funding increase will not protect individual LIHEAP households
from harsh price increases. Even with such a funding increase, individual
households will need to increase their own out-of-pocket heating payments by an
average of 47.5 percent as well. Poor households could find such increased
costs difficult or impossible to meet unless they fail to pay the rent, cut
back substantially on food purchases, or fail to secure other necessities. The
choice of whether to "heat or eat' is a real one for many poor households. A
recent study by researchers from Stanford University, the University of
Chicago, the RAND Corporation, and UCLA found that when poor families'
heating bills go up during cold winter months, they reduce their spending on
food by roughly the same amount as the increase in fuel expenditures.[5]
Another recent study found that children in families that receive LIHEAP
assistance are less likely to be underweight than children in families that are
eligible for LIHEAP but do not receive it because of program funding
limitations.[6]
To protect those who rely on LIHEAP for heat in the dead of winter (or air
conditioning during Southern summer heat waves), many of whom are elderly
people living in poverty, would require a funding level of slightly more than
$5.2 billion. (It should also be noted that even at a funding level of $5.2
billion, LIHEAP would be able to serve only about one-seventh of the roughly 35
million households that have incomes low enough to qualify for assistance. The
millions of eligible households that will receive no LIHEAP assistance could
face serious difficulties this winter.)
The President requested only $2.0 billion for LIHEAP in his budget, and the
congressional budget plan adopted in April incorporated the President's
recommendations when setting its overall appropriations limit. These budget
plans were designed at a time when energy prices were expected to be
dramatically lower. Congress might best provide the necessary increase above
the President's $2.0 billion request as an emergency supplemental
appropriation. Such an emergency supplemental appropriation would be an
appropriate component of legislation providing relief from Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita.
APPENDIX 1:
Calculating the amount needed to hold beneficiaries harmless
for increases in the price of heating their homes
In 2005, LIHEAP paid an estimated $1.746 billion or more in benefits to
households in poverty to assist them with their heating (or cooling) bills.
This appendix shows the math that explains how much Congress needs to increase
that $1.746 billion if it intends to hold LIHEAP beneficiaries harmless from
this projected 47.5 percent increase in home heating prices. As shown in the
hypothetical example on pages 3 and 4, holding beneficiaries harmless cannot be
accomplished simply by increasing $1.746 billion by 47.5 percent -
substantially more is required. But how much more?
Weatherization and administrative costs are treated
separately
This appendix discusses the needed adjustment to the cost of LIHEAP
benefits, that is, the grants to households to help them pay their heating
bills. Of the $2.182 billion in 2005 LIHEAP funding, we conservatively assume
that 80 percent, or $1.746 billion, was for these benefits. (The actual figure
may be higher, in which case the $5.2 billion total in our analysis would also
be higher.)
The remaining 20 percent, or $436 million, covered weatherization and state
administrative costs. We assume that this $436 million should increase from
2005 to 2006 by 3.1 percent to cover inflation as measured by the CPI and by
another five percent to cover a conservative estimate of the increase in LIHEAP
caseload. As a result, we estimate that at least $472 million will be needed in
2006 for these purposes.
|
The math is straightforward. First, we need to calculate how much LIHEAP
households paid out of pocket for heat in 2005 - which is also the amount they
would pay out of pocket in 2006 if they were held harmless for the recent
increase in energy prices. Then we need to calculate the total cost of heating
LIHEAP households in 2006. That total cost, minus the amount that LIHEAP
households should pay out of pocket in 2006, will equal the amount of LIHEAP
benefits that are needed for 2006. We proceed in three steps:
- The total cost of heat for LIHEAP households in 2005 was $5.820 billion.
This is the amount paid by LIHEAP divided by the share paid by LIHEAP, or
$1.746 billion divided by 30 percent.[7] Thus, the amount paid by LIHEAP
households in 2005 from their own resources is estimated to be $4.074 billion.
This is the total cost just calculated minus the amount paid by LIHEAP, or
$5.820 billion minus $1.746 billion.
- Meanwhile, the total cost of heat for LIHEAP households will increase from
$5.820 billion in 2005 to $8.585 billion in 2006. This is the 2005 total cost
increased by the 47.5 percent projected increase in heating prices, or $5.820
billion times 147.5 percent.
- Finally, the amount of benefits needed for 2006 to hold LIHEAP households
harmless is $4.511 billion. This is the 2006 total cost just calculated minus
the amount that LIHEAP households can pay from their own resources, assumed to
be the same in 2006 as in 2005, or $8.585 billion minus $4.074 billion.
Our conservative assumption that participation will rise five percent brings
the required benefit level from $4.511 billion to $4.737 billion, the figure we
show in Table 2. Combined with $472 million for weatherization and
administrative costs (see the box on the previous page), the needed total
reaches $5.209 billion.
Holding beneficiaries almost harmless. Suppose that instead of holding
beneficiaries fully harmless for the rising cost of fuel prices, Congress
assumes the amount that LIHEAP beneficiaries should pay out of their own
pockets should rise with general inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price
Index. (This assumption would itself rest on the assumption that the disposable
incomes of LIHEAP represents are fully keeping pace with inflation, which may
not be the case due to erosion in real wages and increases in health care
costs.) CBO expects the consumer price index to increase by 3.1 percent from
the first quarter of 2005 to the first quarter of 2006.
This approach would require only one new step. We make the initial
calculations exactly as shown on the previous page, so that we estimate that
LIHEAP households paid $4.074 billion in 2005 and we estimate that the total
costs of heating LIHEAP households in 2006 will be $8.585 billion. We then add
a new step.
The amount that LIHEAP households are assumed to be able to pay from their
own resources in 2006 is increased to $4.200 billion. This is the
households' 2005 out-of-pocket payments increased by CPI inflation (or
$4.074 billion times 103.1 percent).
The last step remains the same as shown on the previous page.
- The amount of LIHEAP benefits needed for 2006 to hold LIHEAP households
harmless except for general inflation is $4.385 billion. This is the 2006 total
cost minus the amount that LIHEAP households are assumed to pay from their own
resources (which is assumed to be 3.1 percent higher in 2006 than in 2005), or
$8.585 billion minus $4.200 billion.[8]
Our conservative assumption that participation will rise five percent brings
the required benefit funding level from $4.385 billion to $4.604 billion.
Combined with $472 million for administrative costs and weatherization, the
needed total reaches $5.076 billion. As can be seen, this figure is only
slightly less than the $5.2 billion total needed to fully protect LIHEAP
beneficiaries from rising heating prices.
APPENDIX 2:
Calculating the price increase for heating homes
This analysis uses price projections issued by the Department of Energy on
September 7, 2005, to calculate the average increase in home heating costs that
LIHEAP beneficiaries can expect to face this winter.
The Energy Department issues month-by-month data that both go back
historically and are projected into the future. The data are broken down by
type of fuel and by region of the country. We used the following data: the
retail price of natural gas in the east north central region and the west north
central region (averaged); the retail price of home heating oil in the
northeast; and the price of propane in the Midwest.[9]
We then combined the prices of these three fuels in two steps. First, we
averaged the price for each fuel separately over the months of December,
January, and February 2005 and (as projected for) December, January, and
February 2006.[10]
We then weighted the winter prices of the three fuels in proportion to their
use by LIHEAP households to produce a "market basket' of heating fuel for
LIHEAP households. To do so, we combined data on which fuels are used by LIHEAP
households, and how much of each fuel per household is used by LIHEAP
households. The winter-to-winter increase in these market-basket prices
constitutes a price index for LIHEAP fuel. It is this price index that shows a
47.5 percent increase from last winter to this winter.[11] There is some
possibility that the next Department of Energy price projections will be even
more unfavorable.
APPENDIX 3:
LIHEAP funding by state
The table below shows an approximation of the state-by-state implications of
increasing funding to the $5.2 billion level needed to hold LIHEAP
beneficiaries harmless for the increases in home heating prices that are
projected for the coming winter, based on the Department of Energy's most
recent price forecast. In this table, we assume that all of the $5.2 billion
will be distributed. We also assume that funding will be distributed among
states in the same proportions as it was in fiscal year 2005. In fact, the
distribution of funding is likely to differ in fiscal 2006; under the law, the
distribution of "regular' LIHEAP funds is based on a complex formula that
includes low temperatures, changes in fuel prices, and poverty. Changes in fuel
prices are most significant in changing the distribution of LIHEAP funds from
2005 to 2006. Specifically, natural gas prices are expected to rise even more
than home heating oil or propane prices. Therefore, states that are even more
reliant on natural gas than the typical state will suffer from price increases
that are above the 47.5 percent average we calculate, while others will be
subject to somewhat smaller price increases. As a result, the distribution of
LIHEAP funds will (and should) change from 2005 to 2006. However, the data do
not exist for us to redistribute LIHEAP funds relative to the 2005
distribution. This table should therefore be thought of as generally
illustrative rather than precise.
In addition, if any portion of the $5.2 billion is designated by Congress as
"contingency' funding, that amount is released only to the extent the President
feels it is needed, and to the extent it is distributed, the President has can
choose where the funding goes.
The table shows the distribution of LIHEAP funds in 2005 according to the
Department of Health and Human Services, which administers LIHEAP at the
federal level. Assuming that 2006 funding is distributed proportionally to 2005
funding, the table also shows the distribution of the $2.0 billion in funding
President Bush requested for LIHEAP last February, the distribution of the
additional $3.2 billion we calculate will be needed to hold LIHEAP households
harmless for the spike in energy costs, and the distribution of the total
suggested funding of $5.2 billion. As noted in the conclusion of our analysis
on page 5, we assume that the requested $2.0 billion will be provided in the
regular appropriation bills for 2006 and suggest the additional $3.2 billion be
provided in the next supplemental appropriations bill related to Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, which are responsible to a significant degree for the spike
in energy costs.
End Notes:
[1] The National Energy Assistance Directors' Administration (NEADA)
estimates that up to 20 percent of the LIHEAP funds granted to states are used
to help weatherize the homes of poor people and to cover administrative costs.
This leaves 80 percent or more to be used as direct benefits that help to pay
monthly fuel bills. In our calculations, we therefore assume that one-fifth of
existing funding is used for weatherization and administrative costs and that
this amount will grow with inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index
rather than with the much more rapid growth of fuel costs. Because the amount
of LIHEAP funding actually used for benefits may exceed 80 percent - and
therefore the amount of LIHEAP funding that needs to respond to the very rapid
increase in fuel prices may exceed 80 percent - our assumption produces a
conservative estimate of needed LIHEAP funding for 2006.
[2] While some 35 million households are poor enough to be eligible for
LIHEAP, only about 5 million households received LIHEAP assistance in 2005;
rising prices could easily induce those who are poor and eligible to apply for
the first time. Local officials try but are not required to accommodate all
eligible households that apply. When funds are tight, local officials can
reduce the average LIHEAP grant per household, turn away eligible applicants,
or both.
[3] This hypothetical example assumes that there is no increase in the
number of households served by LIHEAP; as noted, participation has been growing
by an average of six percent per year since 2002.
[4] Calculated from data in the National Energy Assistance survey of LIHEAP
recipients, NEADA, April 2005.
[5] Jayanta Bhattacharya, Thomas DeLeire, Steven Haider, and Janet Currie,
Heat or Eat? Cold-Weather Shocks and Nutrition in Poor American Families
American Journal of Public Health, v. 93, no. 7, Jul. 2003, p. 1149-1154.
[6] Children's Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program, The Safety Net
In Action, July 2004.
[7] We can calculate the average share of beneficiary heating costs paid by
LIHEAP from data supplied by the National Energy Assistance Directors'
Association (NEADA), which consists of the state officials in charge of
administering the LIHEAP program.
[8] Some analysts may be interested in the equations associated with the
calculations in this appendix. They are as follows. Let L be the amount of 2005
LIHEAP funding for benefits, or $1.746 billion in this case (administrative
costs and weatherization are addressed separately). Let P be the percentage
increase in heating prices, 47.5% in this case. Let S be the share of the
winter heating bill paid by LIHEAP on average, 30.0% in this case. The three
steps taken on the first page of the appendix are thus: First, T05 (total cost
of heating in 2005) = L/S. And, H05 (household heating costs in 2005) = T05 -
L. Second, T06 (total cost of heating in 2005) = T05 * (1+P). Finally, L06
(needed 2006 LIHEAP benefits) = T06 - H05. Substituting, we see that L06 =
[T05*(1+P)] - [T05-L]. Substituting again, we see that L06 = [L/S*(1+P)] - [L/S
- L]. Combining like terms, this equation becomes L06 = L * (P/S + 1).
If, on the other hand, beneficiaries could afford to increase their
out-of-pocket payments by the percentage growth of the CPI, which we denote by
C, we take an additional step, as described above on this page. The additional
step is that H06 (household heating costs in 2006) = H05 * (1+C). The new final
step becomes L06 = T06 - H06. Substituting, we see that L06 = [T05*(1+P)] -
[H05*(1+C)]. Substituting again, we see that L06 = [L/S*(1+P)] -
[(T05-L)*(1+C)]. Substituting a final time, we see that L06 = [L/S*(1+P)] -
[(L/S - L)*(1+C)]. Combining like terms, the equation becomes L06 = L * (P/S -
C/S + C + 1).
In fact, we assume that poor beneficiaries cannot afford to pay more for
their fuel this year than last. This assumption is equivalent to setting C
equal to zero. When C equals zero, the second equation is obviously identical
to the first.
[9] The prices of each fuel can differ from region to region. We used the
prices in these particular regions because they represent the most typical
areas and products used by LIHEAP beneficiaries.
[10] The Monthly Energy Review, published by the Department of Energy,
defines winter as those three months for purposes of its published "winter
energy prices.'
[11] Data showing the distribution of these three fuels among LIHEAP
households is available for 2005 from a survey conducted by NEADA. However,
while this survey tells us the percentage of LIHEAP households using natural
gas, heating oil, or propane, the survey does not tell us how much of each fuel
such a household typically uses. The latter data are available from the
Residential Energy Consumption Survey of the Department of Energy. That survey
was last conducted in 2001. We combined the two data sources to produce our
market basket and our price index.
The 2001 Department of Energy Survey also included comparable data on the
share of LIHEAP households using each of the three fuels, which we could have
used instead of the NEADA data. We prefer the NEADA data on the distribution of
fuel use among LIHEAP households because it is more recent and therefore is
less likely to be distorted by a substitution effect. Moreover, if we had used
the Department of Energy data rather than the more current NEADA data, the
price index would have shown a 54.2 percent increase from 2005 to 2006 rather
than the 47.5 percent increase we used; employing a 54.2 percent estimate of
heating fuel inflation would have increased our bottom-line LIHEAP funding
figure from $5.2 billion to $5.6 billion.
TABLE 3:
ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF LIHEAP FUNDS, 2005 AND 2006 (in millions of dollars)
|
State
|
Funding for 2005
|
Funding for
2006
(assuming amounts are distributed as in 2005)*
|
Bush request,
February 2005
|
Additional funding needed
to hold LIHEAP
beneficiaries harmless
|
Suggested Total
|
Alabama
|
$18.0
|
$16.9
|
$27.1
|
$43.9
|
Alaska
|
11.9
|
11.1
|
17.9
|
29.0
|
Arizona
|
8.4
|
7.9
|
12.6
|
20.5
|
Arkansas
|
13.5
|
12.7
|
20.3
|
33.0
|
California
|
92.4
|
86.6
|
138.9
|
225.4
|
Colorado
|
32.4
|
30.4
|
48.7
|
79.1
|
Connecticut
|
46.8
|
43.9
|
70.4
|
114.3
|
Delaware
|
6.2
|
5.9
|
9.4
|
15.2
|
Dist. of Col.
|
6.7
|
6.2
|
10.0
|
16.3
|
Florida
|
28.1
|
26.3
|
42.2
|
68.6
|
Georgia
|
22.5
|
21.1
|
33.8
|
54.9
|
Hawaii
|
2.2
|
2.0
|
3.3
|
5.3
|
Idaho
|
12.8
|
12.0
|
19.3
|
31.3
|
Illinois
|
117.2
|
109.8
|
176.2
|
286.1
|
Indiana
|
53.9
|
50.5
|
81.0
|
131.5
|
Iowa
|
38.9
|
36.4
|
58.5
|
94.9
|
Kansas
|
17.4
|
16.3
|
26.1
|
42.4
|
Kentucky
|
28.1
|
26.4
|
42.3
|
68.6
|
Louisiana
|
17.8
|
16.7
|
26.8
|
43.5
|
Maine
|
31.8
|
29.8
|
47.8
|
77.6
|
Maryland
|
34.2
|
32.1
|
51.5
|
83.5
|
Massachusetts
|
92.0
|
86.2
|
138.2
|
224.4
|
Michigan
|
113.2
|
106.1
|
170.2
|
276.3
|
Minnesota
|
84.0
|
78.7
|
126.3
|
205.1
|
Mississippi
|
15.6
|
14.6
|
23.4
|
38.0
|
Missouri
|
48.1
|
45.0
|
72.3
|
117.3
|
Montana
|
15.1
|
14.1
|
22.6
|
36.8
|
Nebraska
|
19.0
|
17.8
|
28.6
|
46.4
|
Nevada
|
4.0
|
3.7
|
6.0
|
9.7
|
New Hampshire
|
18.3
|
17.1
|
27.5
|
44.6
|
New Jersey
|
84.1
|
78.8
|
126.5
|
205.4
|
New Mexico
|
10.7
|
10.0
|
16.1
|
26.2
|
New York
|
278.4
|
260.8
|
418.5
|
679.4
|
North Carolina
|
41.3
|
38.7
|
62.2
|
100.9
|
North Dakota
|
17.2
|
16.1
|
25.9
|
42.0
|
Ohio
|
104.7
|
98.1
|
157.4
|
255.5
|
Oklahoma
|
16.2
|
15.1
|
24.3
|
39.4
|
Oregon
|
25.5
|
23.8
|
38.3
|
62.1
|
Pennsylvania
|
145.5
|
136.3
|
218.7
|
355.0
|
Rhode Island
|
15.2
|
14.2
|
22.8
|
37.1
|
South Carolina
|
14.6
|
13.7
|
22.0
|
35.7
|
South Dakota
|
14.2
|
13.3
|
21.3
|
34.6
|
Tennessee
|
28.3
|
26.5
|
42.5
|
69.0
|
Texas
|
46.2
|
43.3
|
69.4
|
112.7
|
Utah
|
15.0
|
14.1
|
22.6
|
36.6
|
Vermont
|
13.8
|
12.9
|
20.7
|
33.6
|
Virginia
|
41.7
|
39.1
|
62.7
|
101.8
|
Washington
|
41.6
|
39.0
|
62.5
|
101.5
|
West Virginia
|
18.5
|
17.3
|
27.8
|
45.1
|
Wisconsin
|
75.3
|
70.6
|
113.2
|
183.8
|
Wyoming
|
6.1
|
5.7
|
9.2
|
14.9
|
Outreach, etc.
|
30.0
|
28.1
|
45.2
|
73.3
|
TOTAL
|
2,134.4**
|
2,000.0
|
3,209.0
|
5,209.0
|
* 2006 funding is likely to be
distributed in different proportions than shown in this illustrative chart; see
text.
**The Administration has not distributed about 2 percent of the 2005 funding;
"contingent" funding is distributed only to the extent the Administration
believes appropriate. |
|