More fed money per capita than SD

The City Beat got some e-mail about the Census today, which led to this handy compilation of which states got the most Census-based aid from the feds.* I expected to see that North Dakota would be tops in per capita aid, but we’re not No. 1, that’s Washington, D.C.

The list is from FY 2007. Here’s a synopsis (Top 5s on each list are in the other list for cross-referencing as is North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota.):

Total amount

• 1. California: $41,852,815,348.
• 2. New York: $38,211,064,767.
• 3. Texas: $23,148,081,490.
• 4. Florida: $17,402,265,204.
• 5. Pennsylvania: $16,208,396,459.
• 8. Louisiana: $11,570,415,837.
• 20. Minnesota: $6,260,395,988.
• 38. Washington, D.C.: $2,074,938,749.
• 41. Alaska: $1,877,408,247.
• 47. North Dakota: $1,314,769,899.
• 48. South Dakota: $1,270,822,940.

Per capita

• 1. Washington, D.C.: $3,527.06. (Wait a minute, they don’t have any Congressional representation. What gives? Must be all the law enforcement.)
• 2. Alaska: $2,746.45. (Nice job, Ted Stevens.)
• 3. Louisiana: $2,695.05.
• 4. North Dakota: $2,055.24. (Smooth, very smooth….)
• 5. New York: $1,980.08. (Good one, New York!)
• 14. South Dakota: $1,596.08. (Booya, South Dakota!)
• 20. Pennsylvania: $1,303.68.
• 31. Minnesota: $1,204.47.
• 35. California: $1,144.98.
• 46. Texas: $968.36. (Don’t need nobody’s help!)
• 48. Florida: $953.48. (One better than Texas.)

All of this is leading up to the need to make sure everybody is counted, including so-called "hard to count" populations. I remember this was a big deal around here in 2000, mostly because we have such a small population that every person is more important.

Here’s a table of which states has the most hard-to-count populations as a percentage of their total population:

• 1. Washington, D.C.: 36.8%.
• 2. New York: 18.7%.
• 3. Arizona: 16.1%.
• 4. California: 15.7%.
• 5. Rhode Island: 14.9%.
• 21. South Dakota: 5.4%.
• 38. Minnesota: 3.4%.
• 48. North Dakota: 1.6%.

By hard to count, the Census doesn’t just mean illegal immigrants:

Throughout the history of the decennial census, it has been easier to achieve a more accurate count of certain population groups than others. Since 1940, scientific evaluations have confirmed that the census misses higher proportions of racial and ethnic minorities, low income households, and children than of other population segments, such as non-Hispanic Whites, affluent households, and older Americans. Some of the latter groups are even subject to overcounting, due to factors such as ownership of more than one home and a higher percentage of children attending college away from home. (This gap in accuracy is often referred to as the "differential undercount.")

Bear in mind that the Census requires physical surveys of individuals, not estimates so, please, no alarmist BS about illegal immigrants or reverse racism or anything like that. I know how some of you smarty pants like to jump to conclusions.