Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

December 27, 2005

New state-by-state spending data for DHS in 2004

Filed under: Budgets and Spending,State and Local HLS — by Christian Beckner on December 27, 2005

The U.S. Census released the Consolidated Federal Funds Report for FY 2004 today. This report provides a detailed breakdown of federal government spending each year, down to the agency and county level. As the press release notes today:

Fiscal Year 2004 is the first full year for which data are included for the Department of Homeland Security.

There’s a lot to be learned from a detailed analysis of the data. I have copied the state-level data for the Department of Homeland Security (broken down by grants, procurement, and salaries) and created a spreadsheet that ranks homeland security spending by state in each category. You can download the spreadsheet here.

One of the most interesting results is the ranking of states for homeland security grants in FY 2004 on a per capita basis. The top ten states (plus DC and Puerto Rico) on the list:

1. West Virginia ($53.83)
2. Florida ($48.91)
3. Alabama ($43.42)
4. Virginia ($31.33)
5. Washington, DC ($29.24)
6. North Dakota ($26.91)
7. Puerto Rico ($25.47)
8. Alaska ($20.58)
9. Arkansas ($18.76)
10. Kentucky ($16.59)

Other than DC, VA and FL, not exactly a high-risk bunch. And the one state that is usually cited (Wyoming) is nowhere to be found (it’s at #26). And the bottom ten:

43. Utah ($5.14)
44. Missouri ($4.82)
45. Colorado ($3.80)
46. Nevada ($3.47)
47. California ($3.09)
48. Hawaii ($3.02)
49. Illinois ($2.97)
50. Rhode Island ($2.89)
51. Arizona ($2.82)
52. Georgia ($2.30)

I haven’t yet looked deeper into the state data to figure out why there is such a large variance. No doubt part of it is due to the small-state bias in the original homeland security grant formulas, but that can’t explain all of it, since there are large states near the top and small states near the bottom. Perhaps some of the variance is the result of funding for disaster relief – that could explain Florida’s high per capita ranking. For what it’s worth, the average unweighted ranking of a “blue state” is 29.5 (out of 51) and the average unweighted ranking of a “red state” is 23.8, although this is likely a function, at least partially, of the small-state bias. Or perhaps the fact that some states have spent appropriated grant funds faster than others has an impact on the data.

The spreadsheet (Excel format) contains the full list as well as similar rankings for DHS procurement, salaries, and total spending on a state-by-state basis.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print

2 Comments »

34

Pingback by Homeland Security Watch » Blog Archive » DHS procurement: state-by-state rankings

December 30, 2005 @ 9:27 pm

[...] On Tuesday I posted an analysis of federal homeland security spending in FY 2004 on a state-by-state basis, using new data that was released on that day from the US Census Bureau’s annual Consolidated Federal Funds Report. [...]

Comment by konferansjerki

June 22, 2010 @ 12:27 am

Also, there is a [i]edinburgh uk viagra pages search news[/i] of of disease, since zenpep, as porcine-derived enzymes, is from from for consumption.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>