Earmarks and Charities: Where the Money Goes
June 21, 2005 | Read Time: 2 minutes
Geography makes a big difference in the distribution of federal earmarks. Charities located in states represented by a senator who serves on the Appropriations Committee are far more likely than those in other states to get earmarks, according to The Chronicle‘s analysis of the $2.4-billion that went to nonprofit groups in the 2005 fiscal year. The Appropriations Committee is in charge of allocating money to specific federal programs.
In fact, 16 of the 17 states that had received the most per capita innonprofit earmarks are represented by senators who served on the Committee on Appropriations during the time the earmarks were approved. By contrast, only four of the17 states at the bottom of the ranking had a senator on the Appropriations Committee. Alaska — which is represented by Sen. Ted Stevens, who served as chairman of the Appropriations Committee for seven years before giving up the post in 2004 — topped the list, with $81.87 per capita in earmarks for nonprofit groups.
|
Per capita spending
|
Senator on appropriations committee?
|
|
|
Alaska
|
$81.87
|
Yes
|
|
North Dakota
|
64.93
|
Yes
|
|
West Virginia
|
63.91
|
Yes
|
|
Hawaii
|
57.52
|
Yes
|
|
Montana
|
33.66
|
Yes
|
|
New Mexico
|
32.97
|
Yes
|
|
South Dakota
|
32.84
|
Yes
|
|
Nevada
|
32.14
|
Yes
|
|
Rhode Island
|
29.88
|
No
|
|
Mississippi
|
25.09
|
Yes
|
|
Alabama
|
20.16
|
Yes
|
|
Idaho
|
19.49
|
Yes
|
|
Vermont
|
17.04
|
Yes
|
|
New Hampshire
|
15.64
|
Yes
|
|
Kentucky
|
13.84
|
Yes
|
|
South Carolina
|
13.53
|
Yes
|
|
Iowa
|
12.00
|
Yes
|
|
Per capita spending
|
Senator on appropriations committee?
|
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
$11.50
|
Yes
|
|
Delaware
|
11.31
|
No
|
|
Maine
|
10.26
|
No
|
|
Nebraska
|
9.32
|
No
|
|
Kansas
|
9.24
|
Yes
|
|
Missouri
|
8.14
|
Yes
|
|
Minnesota
|
7.93
|
No
|
|
Utah
|
7.91
|
Yes
|
|
Ohio
|
7.41
|
Yes
|
|
Maryland
|
6.81
|
Yes
|
|
Massachusetts
|
6.57
|
No
|
|
Wisconsin
|
6.39
|
Yes
|
|
Texas
|
6.32
|
Yes
|
|
Florida
|
6.27
|
No
|
|
Illinois
|
6.00
|
Yes
|
|
Connecticut
|
5.94
|
No
|
|
Per capita spending
|
Senator on appropriations committee?
|
|
|
New York
|
$5.81
|
No
|
|
Tennessee
|
5.73
|
No
|
|
Wyoming
|
5.40
|
No
|
|
Arkansas
|
5.26
|
No
|
|
Michigan
|
5.16
|
No
|
|
Colorado
|
4.83
|
Yes
|
|
Oklahoma
|
4.81
|
No
|
|
Virginia
|
4.62
|
No
|
|
Indiana
|
4.03
|
No
|
|
New Jersey
|
3.81
|
No
|
|
Arizona
|
3.71
|
No
|
|
California
|
3.63
|
Yes
|
|
Washington
|
3.21
|
Yes
|
|
North Carolina
|
2.84
|
No
|
|
Louisiana
|
2.82
|
Yes
|
|
Oregon
|
2.44
|
No
|
|
Georgia
|
2.12
|
No
|
|
SOURCE: Chronicle analysis of data compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste
|
||
|
Number
|
Amount in 2005 dollars
|
Average grant in 2005 dollars
|
|
|
1995
|
1,439
|
$12.7-billion
|
$8,825,573
|
|
1996
|
958
|
15.4-billion
|
16,075,157
|
|
1997
|
1,596
|
17.5-billion
|
10,964,912
|
|
1998
|
2,100
|
15.7-billion
|
7,476,190
|
|
1999
|
2,838
|
13.9-billion
|
4,897,815
|
|
2000
|
4,326
|
19.9-billion
|
4,600,092
|
|
2001
|
6,333
|
20.3-billion
|
3,205,432
|
|
2002
|
8,341
|
21.6-billion
|
2,589,618
|
|
2003
|
9,362
|
23.6-billion
|
2,520,829
|
|
2004
|
10,656
|
23.4-billion
|
2,198,761
|
|
2005
|
13,997
|
27.3-billion
|
1,950,418
|
|
Note: Figures reflect earmarks for all types of organizations, not just charities.
Source: Citizens Against Government Waste
|
|||
|
Number
of earmarks |
How much received
|
|
|
Project GRAD USA (Houston)
|
1
|
$20,000,000
|
|
Institute for Scientific Research (Fairmont, W.Va.)
|
2
|
18,810,000
|
|
Syracuse University (N.Y.)
|
4
|
13,700,000
|
|
Drexel University (Philadelphia)
|
4
|
12,699,999
|
|
Canaan Valley Institute (Davis, W.Va.)
|
5
|
10,840,000
|
|
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute (Tampa, Fla.)
|
2
|
10,500,000
|
|
Marshfield Clinic (Wis.)
|
2
|
10,000,000
|
|
Education Leaders Council (Washington)
|
6
|
9,672,000
|
|
Alaska SeaLife Center (Seward)
|
4
|
9,550,000
|
|
Junior Achievement (Colorado Springs)
|
2
|
6,500,000
|
