California 50th District

The California 50th District (CA-50) filter on DOE Science

CFDA 81.049 and congressional district CA-50 meet here. $1,457,761,693.98 is the USAspending.gov obligation sum on awards that carry both tags. It is not Office Of Science Financial Assistance Program’s nationwide total, not every federal dollar coded to California 50th District (CA-50), and not an outlay register. The packet does not split Office of Science programs by office and does not name national labs. 93 is an action count: modifications and repeat awards add rows. Unique recipients are unpublished. It is not a laboratory roster, a user-facility census, or a named-grantee file.

Dividing $1,457,761,693.98 by 93 yields about $15,674,856.92 per award on average. That ratio is two packet facts. It is not a typical DOE grant size or a posted per-facility figure. 93 awards is a compact science-assistance file. Do not invent national-lab names or principal investigators. Do not treat CA-50’s 81.049 cell as a synonym for every DOE Science account nationwide. Open California 50th District for the district table without this program filter, CFDA 81.049 for CFDA 81.049 without the CA-50 filter, California federal spending for every program in the California extract, and All spending ties for the rest of the join list. Quote those hubs as parents, not as addends to $1,457,761,693.98.

The DOE Science catalog line

USAspending labels CFDA 81.049 as Office Of Science Financial Assistance Program. That catalog number produced $1,457,761,693.98 when crossed with California 50th District (CA-50) place of performance. The program-wide 81.049 hub does not require CA-50 geography. The district hub does not require DOE Science. Only this tie applies both filters, which is why it cites 93 awards. The packet does not split Office of Science programs by office and does not name national labs.

Correlation is not causation: California 50th District (CA-50) did not “cause” $1,457,761,693.98 by existing as a large or small place. Population, outcome scores, and named facilities are not packet facts. The join is 81.049 × CA-50 only. It is not a laboratory roster, a user-facility census, or a named-grantee file. Do not invent contractors or award recipients to fill the gap. Campaign donations on FEC tables do not fund this USAspending cell; the datasets are separate.

Questions

How much DOE Science spending is coded to California 50th District (CA-50)?

USAspending.gov lists $1,457,761,693.98 in Office Of Science Financial Assistance Program obligations across 93 awards with place of performance in California 50th District (CA-50). CFDA 81.049 × CA-50 is an obligation join, not an outlay and not California’s complete federal ledger. The cell is 4.0% of the district’s published total ($36,686,940,294.44). Unique recipients are unpublished. Average obligation is about $15,674,856.92, a ratio of those two facts only.

Does $1,457,761,693.98 include every DOE Science project in CA-50?

The packet publishes one CFDA rollup. The packet does not split Office of Science programs by office and does not name national labs. $1,457,761,693.98 is the combined obligation sum for CFDA 81.049 inside CA-50 coding. This page will not invent a project pie or name contractors. Open CFDA 81.049 and California 50th District to inspect parent tables. 93 remains an action count, not a count of labs, beamlines, or investigators.

Is $1,457,761,693.98 cash already paid in California 50th District (CA-50)?

No. Obligations are commitments recorded on USAspending.gov awards. Outlays — money that actually left the Treasury — are a different concept and are not this packet’s headline. Treating $1,457,761,693.98 as checks already cleared in California 50th District (CA-50) confuses those terms. Later ingests can revise 93 awards. Prefer the live district and program hubs if the tables moved.

Why is the implied average $15,674,856.92 not a typical award?

The average is $1,457,761,693.98 divided by 93 awards, about $15,674,856.92. Thick files pull the mean down; thin files pull it up. Neither case publishes a typical instrument. Modifications add rows. Recipients are unpublished. Use the ratio only as a concentration statistic.