Research Area · Transparency
A county-level analysis of federal funding distributed to the nine states formerly covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act — tracking where dollars flow, which programs receive them, and which communities benefit from transportation, infrastructure, and public services investment.
Why Section 5 States
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia — plus parts of several others to obtain federal "preclearance" before changing any voting law or procedure. The Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder effectively suspended preclearance by invalidating the coverage formula.
These states share a documented history of voting rights suppression and, in many cases, persistent disparities in public investment at the county level. NCRRRI tracks federal funding flows into these jurisdictions not only as a measure of civic equity, but because federal infrastructure investment — roads, transit, broadband, water systems — directly shapes whether citizens can access polling places, government offices, and economic opportunity.
This tracker covers federal fiscal years 2020–2025 and draws on USASpending.gov, the Federal Procurement Data System, and state-level FHWA and FTA reports.
Formerly Covered States
Funding Overview · FY 2020–2025
All figures are federal obligations reported to USASpending.gov. Per-capita figures use 2020 Census county population data. Figures are in billions USD unless noted.
Where the Money Goes
Six categories account for the majority of federal obligations in Section 5 states. Each directly affects citizens' ability to access services, employment, and civic participation.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) — IIJA Formula Funds
$117.2B
28% of total
Program Description
Surface Transportation Program, National Highway Performance Program, and Bridge Formula Program funds distributed by formula to state DOTs. Covers interstate maintenance, bridge repair, rural road upgrades, and safety improvements.
Citizen Benefit
Reduced commute times, safer rural roads, improved access to employment centers and polling locations in rural counties.
Disparity Finding
Majority-Black counties in Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia receive 34% less per-lane-mile than majority-white counties in the same states, controlling for road classification.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) — Section 5307 & 5311
$46.1B
11% of total
Program Description
Urbanized Area Formula Grants (5307) and Rural Area Formula Grants (5311) fund bus, rail, and paratransit operations. Section 5311 specifically targets non-urbanized areas with populations under 50,000.
Citizen Benefit
Bus and paratransit service for low-income, elderly, and disabled residents; access to medical appointments, employment, and government offices.
Disparity Finding
Rural counties in Mississippi and Alabama with majority-Black populations receive 5311 allocations averaging $41 per resident, compared to $68 per resident in comparable majority-white rural counties nationally.
EPA — Clean Water State Revolving Fund & Drinking Water SRF
$37.7B
9% of total
Program Description
State Revolving Fund capitalization grants for drinking water system upgrades, wastewater treatment, and lead service line replacement. IIJA added $15B nationally for lead pipe replacement.
Citizen Benefit
Safe drinking water, reduced lead exposure, functional sewage systems — foundational public health infrastructure.
Disparity Finding
The EPA's Environmental Justice Mapping Tool identifies 312 counties in Section 5 states as high-burden water infrastructure communities; 71% are majority-minority.
NTIA — BEAD Program & ReConnect (USDA)
$25.1B
6% of total
Program Description
Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program allocations and USDA ReConnect grants targeting unserved and underserved areas. Section 5 states collectively received $18.4B in BEAD allocations.
Citizen Benefit
High-speed internet access for remote work, telehealth, online government services, and digital civic participation.
Disparity Finding
Despite large BEAD allocations, deployment timelines in rural Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana lag the national average by 18–24 months due to state administrative capacity constraints.
HUD — CDBG, HOME, and Choice Neighborhoods
$29.3B
7% of total
Program Description
Community Development Block Grants, HOME Investment Partnerships, and Choice Neighborhoods Initiative grants for affordable housing, neighborhood revitalization, and public facility improvements.
Citizen Benefit
Affordable housing units, neighborhood infrastructure, public facility upgrades in low-income communities.
Disparity Finding
CDBG formula allocations to entitlement communities in Section 5 states have declined 28% in real terms since 2010 due to flat congressional appropriations and population-based formula adjustments.
Dept. of Education — Title I, IDEA, and Workforce Innovation
$58.6B
14% of total
Program Description
Title I grants for high-poverty schools, IDEA special education funding, and Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) grants for job training and employment services.
Citizen Benefit
Supplemental instruction for low-income students, special education services, job training and placement for displaced workers.
Disparity Finding
Title I funding per eligible student in Section 5 states averages $1,240, compared to $1,580 nationally, reflecting lower state matching contributions required by the formula.
County-Level Disparities
Federal funding allocations to Section 5 states do not automatically translate into equitable service delivery at the county level. NCRRRI's analysis identifies three structural mechanisms that produce persistent disparities between federal dollars obligated and benefits received by residents in majority-minority counties.
Many federal formula programs weight allocations toward population density, lane-miles of existing infrastructure, or existing tax base — metrics that systematically disadvantage rural, low-income, majority-minority counties that have historically received less investment. A county with fewer lane-miles receives less highway formula funding, even if its roads are in worse condition.
For programs where federal funds flow to states before reaching counties (FHWA, FTA 5311, CDBG), state agencies exercise significant discretion in sub-allocation. NCRRRI's analysis of FHWA sub-allocations in Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia finds that majority-Black counties receive a statistically significant lower share of discretionary state transportation funds than formula-based allocations would predict.
Federal programs requiring local matching funds (typically 10–20% of project cost) effectively exclude counties with low tax bases and limited bonding capacity. In Mississippi, 31 of 82 counties have not applied for a single competitive federal infrastructure grant in the past five years, citing inability to meet match requirements.
A comprehensive county-level analysis of federal infrastructure obligations in the nine formerly covered Section 5 states from FY 2020–2025, with per-capita comparisons, disparity indices, and program-area breakdowns.
Dr. Amara Osei & NCRRRI Research Division
Examines how state DOT sub-allocation decisions in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas concentrate federal transportation dollars in majority-white counties, and proposes federal oversight reforms.
NCRRRI Policy Analysis Unit
Documents how federal matching fund requirements exclude low-capacity counties in Section 5 states from competitive grant programs, with case studies from Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana.
NCRRRI Election Law & Finance Unit
Data Sources & Methodology
Primary source for federal obligation data by recipient, county, and program. NCRRRI downloads and geocodes all obligations to Section 5 state counties quarterly.
www.usaspending.gov →State-level highway fund obligation and expenditure data, including sub-allocation to metropolitan planning organizations and rural counties.
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/olsp/fundingfederalaid/ →Annual transit agency financial and operating data, including Section 5307 and 5311 grant awards by urbanized and rural area.
www.transit.dot.gov/ntd →Environmental compliance and enforcement data combined with Environmental Justice screening tool for water infrastructure and environmental burden analysis.
echo.epa.gov →Annual CDBG Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs) filed by entitlement communities, tracking expenditures by activity type and census tract.
www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/cdbg →NCRRRI's county-level federal funding database for Section 5 states is available to researchers, journalists, and advocates. The dataset includes all federal obligations geocoded to county, program area, recipient type, and fiscal year from 2015–2025.