English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In 1989, programs that use population counts to determine the distribution of their funds transferred $236 per capita to state and local governments. If the 1990 census were adjusted to reflect undercounting, about 40% of state and local governments would receive increased grants averaging $56 per miscounted person; other jurisdictions would lose an almost equal amount of grant money. The surprisingly small reallocations arise because 1) total funds allocated by population are essentially fixed; 2) allocations depend on other factors in addition to population; and 3) programs vary as to whether they allocate funds in direct or inverse proportion to population.

Census adjustment and the distribution of federal spending