Finding data on federal grants and contracts awarded to states and congressional districts, local governments, nonprofit organizations, contractors, and other eligible entities may present challenges. The official website, USAspending.gov, at http://www.usaspending.gov, collects data on grants, loans, insurance, assistance, and contracts, and it presents various searching and downloading options to Congress and the public. Because of continued data quality problems identified by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), researchers need to be aware that search results may be incomplete or have inaccuracies.
USAspending.gov was created under P.L. 109-282, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), and is to be enhanced by requirements of P.L. 113-101, the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act).
Other related sources reviewed in this report include the following:
USAspending.gov, http://www.usaspending.gov, is the official database collecting data on federal contracts, grants, loans, insurance, and other financial assistance. The website enables searching of federal funding awards and sub-awards from FY2008 to the present (with data downloads of prime awards back to FY2000). Grants and other financial outlays include money the federal government awards or lends for projects in states, local jurisdictions, regions, territories, and tribal reservations, as well as payments for eligible needs to help individuals and families. The President's FY2016 budget provides $651.7 billion in outlays for aid to state and local governments, an increase of 3.8% from FY2015.1 Contracts refer to bids and agreements the federal government makes for specific goods and services. Federal government prime contract spending totaled $444.9 billion in FY2014 (latest complete year for which data are available).2
For Congress, being able to track these federal outlays and expenditures is necessary to accurately inform oversight of federal spending. In recent years, Congress has passed laws to create and improve systems for government departments and agencies to report and input data on federal awards for contracts, grants, and other financial assistance.
However, finding accurate and complete data on federal funds received by states and congressional districts continues to present challenges. Because of ongoing data quality problems identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) as recently as June 2014,4 researchers should be aware that search results may be incomplete or have inaccuracies. According to the GAO report, data on contracts spending appear to be more accurate than data on grants and other awards. The DATA Act requires the Treasury Department and OMB to develop government-wide data standardization to consolidate, automate, and simplify reports on grant awards and contracts to improve USAspending.gov underreporting and inconsistencies.
FFATA required OMB to create a public database of all federal funds awarded to the final recipient level. The current USAspending.gov database, redesigned by the Treasury Department, was launched on March 31, 2015. The website enables searching of federal funding awards and sub-awards from FY2008 to the present (with data downloads of prime awards back to FY2000). Current records are added as soon as they become available from federal agencies.
The website enables policy staff and the public to view funding summary data by state, congressional district, and other geographic entities and allows them to search by the name of a contractor or grant recipient. When searching data in USAspending.gov, the following might be taken into consideration:
The DATA Act requires the Treasury Department and OMB to develop government-wide data standardization to consolidate, automate, and simplify reports on grant awards and contracts to improve underreporting and inconsistencies as identified by GAO.5 The law amends FFATA in a number of ways, to be implemented over several years, including by stipulating the following:
In addition, no later than four years after enactment (by spring 2018), Treasury and OMB must ensure that all information published on USASpending.gov conforms to government-wide data standards. OMB is also to issue guidance so that all agencies can follow government-wide data standards when reporting on grantee and contractor awards.
As recipients of federal grant funding, state and local governments may provide services directly to beneficiaries. Alternatively, a state may act as a pass through, re-disbursing federal grant funding to localities using a formula or a competitive process6 through sub-grants or subcontracts. Both federal grant and procurement awards thus may have a where awarded versus where spent component that is not always fully identified in grant or procurement records. Most federal funding is awarded to states (see Figure 1), which then sub-award or subcontract to eligible recipients elsewhere in the state (see Figure 2). A project's place of performance may therefore differ from the initial recipient location.
Figure 2. State Administering Agencies (SAAs) Sub-award Federal Funds |
Source: Jerry Brito, George Washington University, 2009; and CRS, 2014. |
A funding award may pass through different jurisdictions (in different congressional districts) before reaching the final place of performance. For example,
As mentioned earlier, because of continued data quality problems in USAspending.gov, information for some CDs may be incomplete or inaccurate.7 In addition, for data prior to FY2007, CDs were not always identified for recipients of grant or procurement awards. P.L. 109-282 (FFATA), however, required departments and agencies to identify recipients' CDs when they awarded grants or contracts.
The USAspending.gov "Advanced Data Search" and "Spending Map" enable filtering by state and congressional district.
The General Services Administration (GSA) maintains the Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation (FPDS–NG), which contains statistical information on federal contracts. The FPDS–NG
For more refined searching, such as by CD, the FPDS Help Desk can guide congressional staff and the public through filtering for data needed (called ad hoc reports).
States, local governments, and nonprofits (including universities) spending $750,000 or more in federal grants during a fiscal year are required to submit an audit detailing expenditures. Data from the audits are posted on the Census Bureau's Federal Audit Clearinghouse, at https://harvester.census.gov/facweb/Default.aspx. No printed documents are produced.
Census Bureau reports published from FY1983 to FY2010, available at https://www.census.gov/govs/pubs/topic.html#federal_programs, were the federal government's primary documents summarizing the geographic distribution of federal monies to states and counties, whether grants, contracts, or appropriations. The FY2010 Federal Aid to states (FAS) and Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR) were the last reports issued due to the termination of the Census Bureau's Federal Financial Statistics program. Federal obligations data continue to be posted on USAspending.gov, now the official source collecting federal awards data.
The President's budget in the annual Analytical Perspectives of the U.S. Government volume covers various topics, including "Aid to State and Local Governments" (Title 15 in the FY2016 report).9 Federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments, U.S. territories, and American Indian tribal governments are intended to support government operations or the provision of services to the public. Federal grants help state and local governments finance programs covering most areas of domestic public spending, including infrastructure, education, social services, and public safety. Grants are most often awarded as direct cash assistance, but federal grants-in-aid also can include payments for grants-in-kind—nonmonetary aid such as commodities purchased for the National School Lunch Program. Federal revenues shared with state and local governments also are considered grants-in-aid.10
The FY2016 budget provides $651.7 billion in outlays for aid to state and local governments, an increase of 3.8% from FY2015.11 Of total proposed grant spending in FY2016, 57.4% is for health programs, with most of the funding going to Medicaid, a program that makes health insurance accessible for low-income Americans. Beyond health programs, 17.2% of federal aid is estimated to go to income-security programs; 10.5% to transportation; 9.5% to education, training, and social services; 2.1% to community and regional development; and 3.4% to all other functions.
Appendix tables in FY2016 Title 15 display state-by-state spending for grants-in-aid programs to state and local governments. The first two tables give summary figures:12
Individual program tables with state-by-state obligation data may be found on the OMB website. Appendix tables 15-5 through 15-41 give state-by-state obligations for the 37 largest federal grants-in-aid programs, which comprise more than 90% of total federal grant spending.13
Federal grants generally fall into one of two broad categories—categorical grants or block grants—depending on the requirements of the grant program. In addition, grants may be characterized by how the funding is awarded, such as by formula, by project, or by matching state and local funds. As recipients of federal grant funding, state and local governments may provide services directly to beneficiaries or states may act as a pass through, disbursing grant funding to localities using a formula or a competitive process.14 As discussed above, this pass through, or sub-awarding, at the state level makes tracking federally originated funds to the final recipient a challenge.
The federal budget also classifies grant spending by Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) categories mandatory and discretionary. Table 15-1, section B, in the FY2016 budget shows the distribution of grants spending between mandatory and discretionary.15
The following projects, by three organizations, analyze government-issued data, comparing federal funds received by states and federal taxes paid. Although the organizations publish their methodologies and sources, CRS cannot validate their conclusions, but includes these projects as sources frequently cited in policy papers and the media.
Sources of data include USAspending.gov, the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For notes on methodology, see https://www.nationalpriorities.org/smart/resources/notes-and-sources/.
Through this project's interactive website, users can follow the flow of federal dollars to each state and the District of Columbia through spending on government personnel, contracts, aid to individuals (such as food stamps and Medicare), and public assistance programs. It also provides information on how much individuals and businesses in each state pay in federal taxes. Available data can be used to answer questions such as
Sources of data include USAspending.gov, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, OPM, and the Department of Defense; see Appendix Methodology at http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/12/Federal_Spending_in_the_States_methodology_web_final.pdf.
For nearly three decades, through FY2010, the Census Bureau produced the CFFR, an annual look at the geographic distribution of federal spending. When the CFFR was discontinued, the Pew Charitable Trust Fiscal Federalism Initiative prepared analysis and companion methodology to fill the gap. Data are divided into the five major categories used by the CFFR: (1) retirement benefits, (2) nonretirement benefits, (3) grants, (4) contracts, and (5) salaries and wages for federal employees.
Sources of data are the 2005 CFFR and Tax Foundation data. The report is still often cited.
USAspending.gov collects brief data on all federal grants and contracts awarded. However, some agencies, in particular those awarding research grants, also continue to post information on their own websites.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Education (ED)
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Grants, loans, insurance, and other assistance awards in USAspending.gov include references to Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) program names and numbers, which may be used to look up full program descriptions on CFDA.gov. In addition, grants and contracts applications may have been submitted originally to the Grants.gov or FedBizOps.gov systems, where additional information about the funding opportunities may be found.
CFDA, available to the public at http://www.cfda.gov, provides official, continuously updated descriptions of all grants and other federal financial and nonfinancial assistance programs available to state and local governments, including the District of Columbia; tribal governments; territories of the United States; domestic public, quasi-public, private profit and nonprofit organizations and institutions.
Grants.gov, at http://www.grants.gov, is an e-government initiative operating under the governance of OMB. The website provides information and a centralized location for grant seekers to find and apply directly to the federal government for grants and other domestic assistance that is not administered by the states.
FedBizOpps (FBO), at https://www.fbo.gov, is the single government point of entry for federal government contracts and procurement opportunities of more than $25,000.
Author Contact Information
Acknowledgments
With special thanks to Ronda Mason, editor in CRS Publishing and Editorial Resources Section, for guidance and review.
1. |
See Office of Management and Budget (OMB), "Title 15: Aid to State and Local Governments," Fiscal Year 2016: Analytical Perspectives of the U.S. Government, February 2015, p. 266, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives. |
2. |
Search generated from USAspending.gov, Prime Award Spending Data, FY2014, February 3, 2015. |
3. |
Congress subsequently defunded the Census office that issued these reports in FY2012, with FY2010 Federal Aid to States (FAS) report and Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR) being the last. |
4. |
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) "estimates with 95 percent confidence that between 2 percent and 7 percent of the awards contained information that was fully consistent with agencies' records for all 21 data elements examined." See Highlights page, Data Transparency: Oversight Needed to Address Underreporting and Inconsistencies on Federal Award Website, GAO 14-476, June 2014, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-476. |
5. |
Ibid. |
6. |
See CRS Report R42769, Federal Grants-in-Aid Administration: A Primer, by [author name scrubbed]. |
7. |
For examples of the data quality problems GAO has identified in USAspending.gov, see the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov, particularly the search term USAspending.gov and the header Data Transparency. |
8. |
See search options at https://harvester.census.gov/fac/dissem/accessoptions.html. |
9. |
OMB, "Title 15: Aid to State and Local Governments," Analytical Perspectives Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2016, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives. Note that Chapter 15 is variously numbered in earlier budgets. |
10. |
Ibid., p. 263. |
11. |
Ibid., p. 266. |
12. |
Ibid., Appendix: Selected Grant Data by State, pp. 273 -274. |
13. |
See Supplemental Materials as Spreadsheets, Tables 15-5 through 15-41, State-by-State Tables, Analytical Perspectives, at http://www.budget.gov/budget/Analytical_Perspectives. |
14. |
See CRS Report R42769, Federal Grants-in-Aid Administration: A Primer, by [author name scrubbed]. |
15. |
OMB, "Title 15: Aid to State and Local Governments," Analytical Perspectives, p. 267, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives. |
16. |
Ibid., p. 266. |
17. |
Ibid. |