Politics: States (like Alaska) with lots of per capita Federal Aid ... stats can be deceiving ...

Alaska has come under fire for receiving lots of Federal Aid.

Upon closer examination, the numbers are somewhat skewed by (1) the small population of Alaska and (2) some unique geographic and ethnic features of the state.

To see the amounts various agencies receive go to the Federal Aid to States page at the US Census.

No doubt, Senator Ted Stevens who died in a plane crash recently was effective at bringing Federal dollars to the state. Thus, that part of the story can't be denied.

But per capita statistics are tricky things.

A "pork project" going to a small state skews the numbers dramatically. Imagine a $70 million project's impact on per capita stats. For California, with over 35 million people, that project brings in a mere $2 per capita. But for Alaska with 700,000 people, that same project would bring in a whopping $100 per capita! California Senator Boxer would have to bring in 50 such projects to match the impact of just 1 such project brought to Alaska.

Thus, not surprisingly, at the top of the list of Federal Aid to the States are mostly small states. The 10 smallest states by population are all above the US average in per capita Federal aid.

However, are there other elements besides a low population that drives Alaska's per capita numbers?

There are three unique features to Alaska that appear to skew their stats: the high percentage of Native Alaskans in their population, the large area of wilderness and natural resources under Federal jurisdiction and the large land mass that impact transportation spending.

Native Alaskans

Alaska's native population (about 1 in 6 Alaskans) are assisted by three Federal programs: the Indian Health Service (IHS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and educational programs for native populations (Education).
IHS $867 million
BIA $101 million
Education $32.9 million

Thus, about $1 billion in assistance is in programs for the native peoples of Alaska or $1430 per capita.

Many states have little or no funding in these categories because they have little to no native Americans.

Wilderness and natural resources

Alaska is well known for its natural wonders and resources which are administered by the Forest Service (FS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Dept of Interior's Fish and Wildlife service (FWS), Bureau of Land Managment (BLM), Minerals Management Service (MMS) and National Park Service (NPS).
FS $24.6 million
NRCS $4.5 million
FWS $41 million
BLM $26.7 million
MMS $42.6 million
NPS $1.5 million

Total: $140.9 million
Per capita: $201

How does that compare to California?

California received $282 million through these six agencies. Thus, $7.62 per capita.

Transportation

With a large land mass and corresponding airspace, Alaska received considerably funding through Dept of Transportation and in particular Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding.

Alaska received $720 million in DOT funds. $251 million of it through the FAA.

That comes out to $1029 per capita.

How does that compare with another small state?

Delaware, small in population (900,000) and land area, received $235 million in total DOT aid and $14.7 million in FAA funds. That comes out to $261 per capita.

How does Alaska's numbers compare to a big state in both land area and population like Texas (25 million)?

Texas received $3.6 billion in DOT funds with $281 million of it in FAA funds. Per capita: $144.

Thus, the greater than $5000 per capita in Federal Aid Alaska received which initially seems shockingly high becomes more understandable when one recognizes that Federal spending in the three areas described above ($2660 per capita) account for about one-half of the $5000 per capita figure.

One can debate whether those are Federal responsibilities or state ones. However, as it is, they are under Federal control. Thus, the news/opinion pieces highlighting the aggregate numbers which put Alaska in a bad light which upon further examination is not entirely justified.