Which states received the lowest federal funding per capita in 2024?
Executive summary
Two separate concepts are conflated in public discussion: “federal funding per capita” (the dollars a state receives from federal grants and programs per resident) and the “balance of payments” or net fiscal balance (what a state receives minus what its residents pay in federal taxes). The lowest raw federal funding per capita in recent federal-grant tallies is Florida, while the states with the most negative net balances include Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington — different results because the measures track different flows [1] [2] [3].
1. What the question actually asks: funding per person vs. net balance
The phrase “received the lowest federal funding per capita” can mean at least two things: the amount of federal grants and direct support per resident, or the net flow after subtracting federal taxes paid by residents; the sources supplied mix both measures, so results depend on which metric is used [1] [4] [5].
2. Direct answer — lowest federal funding per capita (grants and aid received)
On the per-capita grant side, federal formula and grant tallies show Florida near the bottom: FFIS’s FY2023 per-capita grants list Florida at about $1,647 per person (the lowest of the states in that dataset) and a 2021 House compilation likewise named Florida as receiving the least federal funding per person ($2,693 in that analysis) — both point to Florida as the low outlier for federal grants per resident in the recent period covered by those datasets [1] [2].
3. Direct answer — lowest net balance per capita (received minus paid)
If the question is interpreted as net fiscal balance — how much more a state’s residents pay into the Treasury than they get back — several analyses point to Northeastern states as the biggest net contributors. Rockefeller/coverage cited by Axios highlights Massachusetts (-$4,846), New Jersey (-$4,344) and Washington (-$3,494) as having the lowest balance per person in the 2022 baseline used in that report (reported in a 2024 Rockefeller Institute dataset) [3]. WorldPopulationReview and other compilations likewise list New Jersey and Massachusetts among the largest negative net per-capita positions in recent reporting [4].
4. Why the two lists diverge — grants vs. net flows and drivers of variation
The divergence is structural: per-capita grant tallies count direct federal outlays for programs, contracts and grants (FFIS covers roughly 90% of grant funding), which emphasize formulas for Medicaid, education, transportation, and disaster aid and therefore favor states with higher program participation, big military or IHS investments, or recent disaster payouts [1] [6]. Net-balance measures subtract payroll and income taxes paid by residents and businesses — high-income, high-tax states can therefore show large negative balances even if they receive substantial grants in absolute terms [6] [4]. Reporting and methodology differences — years covered (FY2023, calendar 2021–2024 snapshots), inclusion or exclusion of COVID-era relief, and whether competitive grants or contracts are counted — also change rankings [1] [4] [5].
5. Limits, context and final takeaway
The sources supplied do not deliver a single definitive “2024 federal funding per capita” table that standardizes year, scope (grants-only versus total disbursements), and netting methodology; available public datasets show Florida as receiving the least in per-capita grant tallies in recent federal-grant analyses (FFIS and House summaries) while the most negative net per-capita positions belong to Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington in Rockefeller-backed reporting — both statements are true within their respective measures [1] [2] [3]. Any firm ranking for 2024 should specify the metric used and rely on a single source such as USAspending.gov, FFIS, or the Rockefeller balance-of-payments portal to avoid comparing apples to oranges [1] [5] [7].