Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding

March 14, 2016 (94-953) Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

• Introduction
• Use of Funds
• Goals
• Services
• Prohibited Uses
• Eligibility
• Transfer of TANF Funds to SSBG
• FY2017 Funding
• Obama Administration Request
• FY2016 Funding
• Final Appropriations
• Preliminary Congressional Action
• Budget Resolution
• Obama Administration Request
• FY2015 Funding
• Final Appropriations
• Preliminary Congressional Action
• Obama Administration Budget Request
• FY2014 Funding
• Final Appropriations
• Funding Gap and Continuing Resolutions
• Preliminary Congressional Action
• Budget Resolution
• Obama Administration Budget Request
• FY2013 Funding
• Final Appropriations
• Disaster Supplemental
• Preliminary Congressional Action
• House Budget Resolution and Reconciliation
• Senate Budget Resolution
• Obama Administration Budget Request
• Additional Appropriations History
• Allocation of Funds
• State Reporting Requirements
• Recent Expenditures
• Recent Legislative Action
• Proposal to Repeal the SSBG in the 112^th Congress
• How Did Health Reform Affect the SSBG?
• New Subtitle on Elder Justice
• New Programs Authorized within the SSBG Subtitle of Title XX

Figures

• Figure B-1. HHS Allocation Methodology for the FY2008 SSBG Supplemental Funding

Tables

• Table 1. SSBG Funding, FY1985-FY2016
• Table 2. FY2014-FY2016 SSBG Allotments to States and Territories
• Table 3. Total SSBG Expenditures by Service Category, FY2012
• Table A-1. TANF Transfers to the SSBG in FY2014
• Table B-1. State Allocations and Spending from the FY2013 Supplemental
• Table B-2. State Allocations and Spending from the FY2008 SSBG Supplemental
• Table B-3. State Spending from the FY2006 SSBG Supplemental

Appendixes

• Appendix A. TANF Transfers to SSBG in FY2014
• Appendix B. Recent Supplemental Appropriations

Summary

Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Karen E. Lynch Specialist in Social Policy January 14, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 94-953 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Summary The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) is a flexible source of funds that states use to support a wide variety of social services activities. States have broad discretion over the use of these funds. In FY2010, the most recent year for which expenditure data are available, the largest expenditures for services under the SSBG were for child care, foster care, and special services for the disabled. Since FY2002, annual appropriations laws have funded the SSBG at its authorized level of $1.700 billion. However, SSBG appropriations for each of FY2013-FY2015FY2016 have been subject to sequestration, a spending reduction process by which budgetary resources are canceled to enforce budget policy goals. The FY2015FY2016 operating level for the SSBG is roughly $1.576584 billion postsequesterpost-sequester. This is $124roughly $116 million (7.3%) less than the SSBG’s FY2015's FY2016 pre-sequester funding level of $1.700 billion and $29 million (0.1%) less5%) more than the SSBG’s FY2014's FY2015 post-sequester operating level of $1.578576 billion. In addition to annual appropriations, the SSBG occasionally receives supplemental appropriations to assist states and territories in responding to natural disasters. Most recently, the SSBG received supplemental funding of $474.5 million (post-sequester) in FY2013 to support states affected by Hurricane Sandy. (These funds were in addition to the $1.613 billion, post-sequester, appropriated in the FY2013 annual appropriations law.) Annual appropriations laws since FY2001 have included a provision allowing states to transfer up to 10% of their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants to the SSBG. The SSBG is permanently authorized in Title XX-A, Subtitle A, of the Social Security Act (SSA). The 111th 111^th Congress amended Title XX of the SSA in the health care reform legislation signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148). This law inserted a new subtitle on elder justice into Title XX, which was itself re-titled as Block Grants to States for Social Services and Elder Justice. The health reform law also amended Title XX by establishing two demonstration projects to address the workforce needs of health care professionals and a new competitive grant program to support the early detection of medical conditions related to environmental health hazards. The purpose of this report is to provide background and funding information about the SSBG; the report does not provide detailed information on other programs authorized within Title XX of the SSA. Congressional Research Service Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 Use of Funds .................................................................................................................................... 1 Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Services ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Prohibited Uses.......................................................................................................................... 2 Eligibility ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Transfer of TANF Funds to SSBG ................................................................................................... 3 FY2015 Funding .............................................................................................................................. 4 Final Appropriations .................................................................................................................. 4 Preliminary Congressional Action ............................................................................................. 4 Obama Administration Budget Request .................................................................................... 4 FY2014 Funding .............................................................................................................................. 5 Final Appropriations .................................................................................................................. 5 Funding Gap and Continuing Resolutions................................................................................. 5 Preliminary Congressional Action ............................................................................................. 5 Budget Resolution ..................................................................................................................... 6 Obama Administration Budget Request .................................................................................... 6 FY2013 Funding .............................................................................................................................. 6 Final Appropriations .................................................................................................................. 6 Disaster Supplemental ............................................................................................................... 7 Preliminary Congressional Action ............................................................................................. 8 House Budget Resolution and Reconciliation ........................................................................... 8 Senate Budget Resolution.......................................................................................................... 9 Obama Administration Budget Request .................................................................................... 9 Additional Appropriations History .................................................................................................. 9 Allocation of Funds ....................................................................................................................... 11 State Reporting Requirements ....................................................................................................... 13 Recent Expenditures ...................................................................................................................... 14 Recent Legislative Action .............................................................................................................. 16 Proposal to Repeal the SSBG in the 112th Congress ............................................................... 16 How Did Health Reform Affect the SSBG? ............................................................................ 17 New Subtitle on Elder Justice ........................................................................................... 17 New Programs Authorized within the SSBG Subtitle of Title XX ................................... 18 Figures Figure B-1. HHS Allocation Methodology for the FY2008 SSBG Supplemental Funding .......... 23 Tables Table 1. SSBG Funding, FY1985-FY2015 .................................................................................... 10 Congressional Research Service Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Table 2. FY2013 and FY2014 SSBG Allotments to States and Territories ................................... 11 Table 3. Total SSBG Expenditures by Service Category, FY2010 ................................................ 14 Table A-1. TANF Transfers to the SSBG in FY2013..................................................................... 19 Table B-1. State Allocations from the FY2013 Supplemental ....................................................... 21 Table B-2. State Allocations and Spending from the FY2008 SSBG Supplemental ..................... 24 Table B-3. State Spending from the FY2006 SSBG Supplemental ............................................... 26 Appendixes Appendix A. TANF Transfers to SSBG in FY2013 ....................................................................... 19 Appendix B. Recent Supplemental Appropriations ....................................................................... 21 Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 28 Congressional Research Service Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Introduction detailed information on other programs authorized within Title XX of the SSA.

Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding

Introduction

The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) is permanently authorized by Title XX, Subtitle A, of the Social Security Act as a “capped”"capped" entitlement to states. This means that states (and territories) are entitled to their share of funds, as determined by formula, out of an amount that is capped in statute at a specific level (also known as a funding ceiling). Although social services for certain welfare recipients have been authorized under various titles of the Social Security Act since 1956, the SSBG in its current form was created in 1981 (P.L. 97-35). Block grant funds are given to states to achieve a wide range of social policy goals, which include promoting self-sufficiency, preventing child abuse, and supporting community-based care for the elderly and disabled. The FY2015 The FY2016 appropriations law (P.L. 113-235114-113) appropriated $1.700 billion for the SSBG. However, this amount was reduced to $1.576584 billion due to budget sequestration. The FY2015 FY2016 appropriations law also maintained a provision, included in annual appropriations laws since FY2001, allowing states to transfer up to 10% of their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants to the SSBG. In addition to annual appropriations, the SSBG occasionally receives supplemental appropriations to assist states and territories in responding to natural disasters, including in FY2006, FY2008, and FY2013 (for more information, see Appendix B). ). Health reform legislation enacted into law (P.L. 111-148) in March 2010 amended Title XX of the Social Security Act to include a subtitle on elder justice and to establish several other programs. Although these changes, briefly reviewed later, have technical importance for the statutory citations of the SSBG, they did not substantively amend the provisions within Title XX that govern the SSBG itself and they are not discussed at length in this report. Likewise, this report does not discuss the special SSBG program for enterprise communities and empowerment zones that was authorized in 1993 (P.L. 103-66), but is not currently funded. At the federal level, the SSBG is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Legislation amending Title XX is typically reported by the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. Use of Funds Goals Goals Federal law establishes the five broad goals for the SSBG. Social services funded by states must be linked to one or more of these goals. The five goals are • achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency; • achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency, including reduction or prevention of dependency; • preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and adults unable to protect their own interests, or preserving, rehabilitating, or reuniting families; Congressional Research Service 1 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding • families; preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care by providing for community-based care, home-based care, or other forms of less intensive care; and • and securing referral or admission for institutional care when other forms of care are not appropriate, or providing services to individuals in institutions. Services Services States have broad discretion in spending SSBG funds to support these broad goals. The following are examples of social services, as specified in law, that relate to the SSBG’'s broad goals: child care, protective services for children and adults, services for children and adults in foster care, services related to the management and maintenance of the home, adult day care, transportation, family planning, training and related services, employment services, referral and counseling services, meal preparation delivery, health support services, and services to meet the special needs of children, the aged, the mentally retarded, the blind, the emotionally disturbed, the physically handicapped, and alcoholics and drug addicts. In 1993, HHS issued a regulation establishing uniform definitions for 28 SSBG service categories. State spending is not limited to these services; instead, these service categories are used as guidelines for reporting purposes. (Spending on an activity that falls outside the scope of services defined in regulation is characterized under “"other services”" on annual reports.) In addition to supporting social services, SSBG funds may be used for administration, planning, evaluation, and training. (See Table 3 for a full list of the service categories reported on by states.) States may also transfer up to 10% of their SSBG allotments to block grants for health activities and low-income home energy assistance. Prohibited Uses Prohibited Uses Although SSBG funds can be used for a broad array of activities, some restrictions are placed on the use of these funds. Funds cannot be used for the following: (1) purchase of land, construction, or major capital improvements; (2) cash payments as a service or for costs of subsistence or room and board (other than costs of subsistence during rehabilitation, temporary emergency shelter provided as a protective service, or in the case of vouchers for certain families as allowed under welfare reform); (3) payment of wages as a social service (except wages of welfare recipients employed in child day care); (4) most medical care (except family planning, rehabilitation services, initial detoxification of certain individuals, or medical care provided as an “"integral but subordinate component of a social service”"); (5) social services for residents of institutions (including hospitals, nursing homes, and prisons); (6) educational services generally provided by public schools; (7) child care that does not meet applicable state or local standards; (8) services provided by anyone excluded from participation in Medicare or certain other Social Security Act programs; or (9) items or services related to assisted suicide (this provision was added in 1997, under P.L. 105-12).¹).1 Under extraordinary circumstances, the law does allow HHS to waive two of these prohibitions (use of the SSBG for the purchase of land or capital improvements, or for the provision of medical care). 1 See Section 2005(a) of the Social Security Act. Congressional Research Service 2 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Eligibility provision of medical care). Eligibility There are no federal eligibility criteria for SSBG participants. Thus, states have total discretion to set their own eligibility criteria. One exception is that welfare reform established an income limit of 200% of poverty for recipients of services funded by TANF allotments that are transferred to the SSBG. Transfer of TANF Funds to SSBG The 1996 welfare reform law replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a block grant to states, called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act. The law allowed states to transfer up to 10% of their annual TANF allotments into the SSBG. Under provisions of the Transportation Equity Act of 1998 (P.L. 105178105-178), the amount that states could transfer into SSBG was reduced to 4.25% of their annual TANF allotments, beginning in FY2001. However, this provision was superseded in FY2001 by the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which maintained the 10% transfer authority level. Likewise, the FY2002 appropriations bill presented to the President maintained the 10% transfer authority for FY2002. Earlier, the House had passed its version of a Labor/HHS/Ed , HHS, Education appropriations bill (H.R. 3061) proposing to maintain the 10% transfer authority, while the Senate’ Senate's amended version proposed a 5.7% transfer level. Ultimately, appropriations acts maintained the transfer authority at 10% in FY2003-FY2012FY2016 as well. There has been some confusion about whether or not the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA, P.L. 109171109-171) permanently reinstated the 10% transfer authority. This law reauthorized TANFextended the TANF program, through the end of FY2010, in the manner authorized for FY2004.2.² In that fiscal year, the Social Security Act capped states’' authority to transfer TANF funds to the SSBG at 4.25%, but this law was superseded by the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199), which maintained the practice of allowing 10% transfers from TANF to the SSBG. In the wake of the DRA, Congress has continued to ensure that the transfer ceiling stays at 10% by including language to that effect in appropriations legislation. Over the course of FY1998-FY2013FY2014, states annually transferred roughly $1 billion of their TANF funds to the SSBG. In FY2013FY2014 alone, 39roughly 38 states (including the District of Columbia) transferred a combined $1.12 billion to the SSBG, with roughlyabout 30 of those states taking advantage of the higher transfer ceiling by moving more than 4.25% of their TANF funds to the SSBG (see Table A-1 in Appendix A for FY2013 state-by-state data).33 Funds transferred from TANF to the SSBG can be used only for children and families whose income is less than 200% of the federal poverty guidelines. Under welfare reform law, states also may use SSBG funds for vouchers for families that are not eligible for cash assistance because of time limits under the welfare reform program, 2 The conference report for the DRA notes that the House version of the bill increased the maximum transfer to SSBG to 10%, while the Senate bill had no provision. The conference report recedes to the Senate with regard to the transfer authority. 3 FY2013 TANF financial data are available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/data-reports. Calculation is based on FY2013 dollars spent in FY2013; it does not include prior year funds. Congressional Research Service 3 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding or for children who are denied cash assistance because they were born into families already receiving benefits for another child. FY2015 Funding Final Appropriations On December 16, 2014, the President signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing or for children who are denied cash assistance because they were born into families already receiving benefits for another child. FY2017 Funding Obama Administration Request

On February 9, 2016, the Obama Administration released the FY2017 President's budget, which requested $1.7 billion in basic funding for the SSBG. The FY2017 President's budget proposed new language to give HHS the authority to reserve up to 1.5% of SSBG funds for research, evaluation, and demonstration activities. Under the President's proposal, a share of these funds ($10 million) would be reserved for a pilot project to provide low-income families with access to an adequate supply of diapers. The President's budget also included a new legislative proposal that, if enacted, would require all SSBG funds used for child care services to meet the minimum health and safety standards (including monitoring and background checks) required by the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, as amended.

In addition, the President's budget once again proposed funding for an Upward Mobility Project, which would allow up to 10 communities, states, or consortia to combine funds from up to four existing block grants: SSBG, Community Services Block Grant, Community Development Block Grant, and the HOME program. Participating jurisdictions would be eligible to apply for new competitive grant funds to assist with project implementation and cross-program community planning. The President's budget requested $300 million for FY2017 and $1.5 billion over five years for these new competitive grants, which would be funded through the SSBG account and awarded jointly by HHS and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Upward Mobility Project was first proposed in the FY2016 President's budget submission.

A Note on Sequestration Readers should note that starting in FY2013, SSBG appropriations have been affected by automatic budget reduction procedures known as "sequestration." These procedures are authorized by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25) and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177), as amended. The BCA, which was signed into law on August 2, 2011, established a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, charged with the task of achieving at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.4 The Joint Committee did not achieve this goal, triggering an automatic budget reduction process consisting of a combination of sequestration and lower discretionary spending limits.5 For FY2013, the BCA called for sequestration of both mandatory and discretionary spending programs. For FY2014-FY2025, the law calls for continued sequestration for mandatory programs and lower spending limits for discretionary programs. Annual SSBG appropriations consist of mandatory funding and thus, in the absence of congressional action, are expected to be subject to sequestration through FY2025.

FY2016 Funding Final Appropriations On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235114-113). This law appropriated $1.7 billion for the SSBG. However, SSBG funds are subject to sequestration in FY2015FY2016 (see text box). The sequester reduced SSBG funding by 7.3% in FY20156.8% in FY2016, resulting in an estimated operating level of $1.576 billion.4 The FY2015584 billion.⁶ The FY2016 appropriations law maintained a provision, included in annual appropriations laws since FY2001, allowing states to transfer up to 10% of their TANF block grants to the SSBG. Preliminary Congressional Action Prior to the enactment of the FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-113), temporary funding for the SSBG had been provided by three short-term continuing resolutions (P.L. 113-203, P.L. 113-202, P.L. 113-164). 114-100, P.L. 114-96, P.L. 114-53). Before the passage of the first continuing resolution, on June 10, 2014, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for the Departments of Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies (L-HHSED) approved an FY2015 appropriations bill by voice vote. The bill was not marked up by the full committee. However, on July 23, the Senate Appropriations Committee released a copy of the subcommittee-approved bill and draft subcommittee report. These materials indicate that the subcommittee-approved bill would have funded the SSBG at a pre-sequester level of $1.7 billion (for more information on sequestration, see text box). The House Appropriations Committee did not take action on an FY2015 L-HHS-ED appropriations bill. Obama Administration Budget Request On March 4, 2014, the Obama Administration released its initial FY2015 budget materials, requesting $1.7 billion for the SSBG. 4 OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2015, March 10, 2014, p. 7, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/ sequestration_order_report_march2014.pdf Congressional Research Service 4 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding A Note on Sequestration Readers should note that starting in FY2013, SSBG appropriations have been affected by automatic budget reduction procedures (known as “sequestration”) authorized by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25) and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177), as amended. The BCA, which was signed into law on August 2, 2011, established a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, charged with the task of achieving at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.5 The Joint Committee did not achieve this goal, triggering an automatic budget reduction process consisting of a combination of sequestration and lower discretionary spending limits.6 For FY2013, the BCA called for sequestration of both mandatory and discretionary spending programs. For FY2014-FY2024, the BCA (as amended) calls for continued sequestration for mandatory programs and lower spending limits for discretionary programs. Annual SSBG appropriations consist of mandatory funding and thus, in the absence of congressional action, are expected to be subject to sequestration through FY2024. FY2014 Funding Final Appropriations On January 17, 2014, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), providing omnibus appropriations for FY2014. This law appropriated $1.7 billion for the SSBG. However, SSBG appropriations were subject to sequestration in FY2014 both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees initiated action on full-year funding bills for the Departments of Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies (L-HHS-ED). On June 25, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its FY2016 LHHS appropriations bill by a vote of 16-14 (S. 1695; S.Rept. 114-74). On June 24, the House Appropriations Committee approved its FY2016 LHHS bill by a vote of 30-21 (H.R. 3020; H.Rept. 114-195). Both bills included $1.700 billion for the SSBG, pre-sequester. Budget Resolution

Final action on the FY2016 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 11, H.Rept. 114-96) occurred on May 5, 2015. None of the materials associated with the conference version of the FY2016 budget resolution make specific reference to the SSBG. However, the report (H.Rept. 114-47) accompanying an earlier version of the FY2016 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 27) adopted in the House, specifically recommended eliminating funding for the SSBG.⁷ In its critique of the SSBG, the committee report noted that states are not required to match federal SSBG allotments or to demonstrate outcomes ("evidence of effectiveness") from their SSBG spending. The report called the SSBG a "duplicative" funding stream, noting that many services supported by the SSBG may also be supported by other federal programs.

Obama Administration Request

On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration released the FY2016 President's budget, which requested $1.7 billion in basic funding for the SSBG. The President's budget further proposed new language to give HHS the authority to reserve a share ($8.5 million) of the total SSBG appropriation for research and evaluation activities.

In addition, the President's budget proposed a new Upward Mobility Project that would allow up to 10 communities, states, or consortia to combine funds from up to four existing block grants: SSBG, Community Services Block Grant, Community Development Block Grant, and the HOME program. Participating jurisdictions would also be eligible to apply for new competitive grant funds to assist with project implementation and cross-program community planning. The President's budget requested $300 million for FY2016 and $1.5 billion over five years for these new competitive grants, which would be funded through the SSBG account and awarded jointly by HHS and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

FY2015 Funding Final Appropriations

On December 16, 2014, the President signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235). This law appropriated $1.7 billion for the SSBG. However, SSBG funds are subject to sequestration in FY2015 (see text box). The sequester reduced SSBG funding by 7.3% in FY2015, resulting in an estimated operating level of $1.576 billion.⁸ The FY2015 appropriations law maintained a provision, included in annual appropriations laws since FY2001, allowing states to transfer up to 10% of their TANF block grants to the SSBG.

Preliminary Congressional Action

Prior to the enactment of the FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235), temporary funding for the SSBG had been provided by three short-term continuing resolutions (P.L. 113-203, P.L. 113-202, P.L. 113-164).

Before the passage of the first continuing resolution, on June 10, 2014, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for the Departments of Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies (L-HHS-ED) approved an FY2015 appropriations bill by voice vote. The bill was not marked up by the full committee. However, on July 23, the Senate Appropriations Committee released a copy of the subcommittee-approved bill and draft subcommittee report. These materials indicate that the subcommittee-approved bill would have funded the SSBG at a pre-sequester level of $1.7 billion (for more information on sequestration, see text box). The House Appropriations Committee did not take action on an FY2015 L-HHS-ED appropriations bill.

Obama Administration Budget Request

On March 4, 2014, the Obama Administration released its initial FY2015 budget materials, requesting $1.7 billion for the SSBG.

FY2014 Funding Final Appropriations On January 17, 2014, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), providing omnibus appropriations for FY2014. This law appropriated $1.7 billion for the SSBG. However, SSBG appropriations were subject to sequestration in FY2014 (see text box). The sequester reduced SSBG funding from the $1.7 billion appropriated by P.L. 113-76, to an operating level of $1.578 billion in FY2014. The FY2014 omnibus maintained a provision, included in annual appropriations laws since FY2001, allowing states to transfer up to 10% of their TANF block grants to the SSBG. Funding Gap and Continuing Resolutions Congress and the President did not enact FY2014 appropriations prior to the start of the fiscal year, October 1, 2013.79 This resulted in a funding gap and government shutdown that lasted 16 days until a short-term continuing resolution (CR) was signed into law on October 17, 2013. That CR (P.L. 113-46) lasted through January 15, 2014. A second FY2014 CR was enacted on January 15 (P.L. 113-73), and maintained temporary government-wide funding until the FY2014 omnibus was signed by the President on January 17 (P.L. 113-76). ). Preliminary Congressional Action Prior to the start of the fiscal year, on July 11, 2013, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an FY2014 L-HHS-ED appropriations bill (S. 1284, , S.Rept. 113-71). The Senate Committee-reported bill would have funded the SSBG at the pre-sequester level of $1.7 billion. 5 For a comprehensive discussion of the BCA, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011, by Bill Heniff Jr., Elizabeth Rybicki, and Shannon M. Mahan. 6 The discretionary limits were later modified by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA, P.L. 112-250) and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA, Division A of P.L. 113-6). 7 An exception is that on September 30, an automatic continuing resolution was enacted to cover FY2014 pay and allowances for (1) certain members of the Armed Forces, (2) certain Department of Defense (DOD) civilian personnel, and (3) other specified DOD and Department of Homeland Security contractors (P.L. 113-39). Congressional Research Service 5 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding The House Appropriations Committee did not take action on an FY2014 L-HHS-ED appropriations bill. Budget Resolution Budget Resolution On December 26, 2013, the President signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA, Division A of P.L. 113-67). The BBA includes a section titled “"Establishing a Congressional Budget” Budget" (Title I, Subtitle B), which provided an alternative mechanism for budget enforcement that could serve as a substitute to a traditional congressional budget resolution for FY2014. In January 2014, the House and Senate Budget Committees filed committee spending levels that became enforceable on the House and Senate floor. Prior to this, both the House and Senate had taken action on their own budget resolutions. On March 21, 2013, the House agreed to a budget resolution for FY2014 (H.Con.Res. 25) by a vote of 221-207. The committee report (H.Rept. 113-17) accompanying H.Con.Res. 25 included a recommendation that the SSBG be eliminated.810 In its critique of the SSBG, the committee report noted that states are not required to match federal SSBG allotments or to demonstrate outcomes (“ ("evidence of effectiveness”") from their SSBG spending. The report called the SSBG a “duplicative” "duplicative" funding stream, noting that many services supported by the SSBG may also be supported by other federal programs. On March 23, 2013, the Senate agreed to an FY2014 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 8) by a vote of 50-49. The committee print (S.Prt. 113-12) accompanying S.Con.Res. 8 did not call for the SSBG to be eliminated, but would have established a deficit neutral reserve fund for legislation related to the SSBG and other programs deemed as providing a “"critical safety net.”9 "¹¹ Obama Administration Budget Request On April 10, 2013, the Obama Administration released its FY2014 budget, which requested $1.7 billion for the SSBG. FY2013 Funding Final Appropriations FY2013 Funding Final Appropriations Congress and the President did not enact full-year FY2013 appropriations prior to the start of the fiscal year. Instead, following a six-month government-wide continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175), ), Congress agreed to a full-year appropriations bill in March 2013. President Obama signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) on March 26, 2013. Division F of P.L. 113-6 appropriated $1.700 billion for the SSBG, but this amount was reduced to $1.613 billion by the sequester order issued by the President on March 1, 2013 (see 8 9 H.Rept. 113-17, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget—Fiscal Year 2014, March 15, 2013, p. 78. S.Prt. 113-12, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2014, March 2013, p. 146. Congressional Research Service 6 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding text box). The full-year bill maintained a provision, included in annual appropriations laws since FY2001, allowing states to transfer up to 10% of their TANF block grants to the SSBG. Disaster Supplemental Disaster Supplemental On January 29, 2013, the President signed into law the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 ( (P.L. 113-2), in response to Hurricane Sandy. This law reserved roughly $500 million ($474.5 million when accounting for sequestration) for the SSBG.1012 The supplemental included language stipulating that these funds be used to address necessary expenses resulting from Hurricane Sandy, including social, health, and mental health services for individuals; and for repair, renovation, and rebuilding of health care facilities (including mental health facilities), child care facilities, and other social services facilities. The supplemental also included a provision giving states up to three years to expend these funds, one year longer than the SSBG’'s standard two-year expenditure period. On March 28, 2013, HHS issued an information memorandum regarding the availability of these supplemental funds.1113 According to this memorandum, five states were allocated supplemental funds based on their relative share of Hurricane Sandy Individual Assistance registrants, as reported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on of March 18, 2013. These states were Connecticut ($10.6 million), Maryland ($1.2 million), New Jersey ($226.8 million), New York ($235.4 million), and Rhode Island ($0.5 million). HHS subsequently released a number of additional SSBG resources related to Hurricane Sandy, including two rounds of Questions and Answers and additional information on reporting requirements.12 14 Prior to the enactment of P.L. 113-2, the Obama Administration had submitted a request to Congress on December 7, 2012, for disaster relief to support states affected by Hurricane Sandy. As part of this request, the Administration called for Congress to provide $500 million in supplemental funding for the SSBG.1315 On December 28, 2012, the Senate approved this request as part of a disaster supplemental package (introduced as an amendment to H.R. 1), with some special provisions not included in the President’'s request. However, the House took no action on this bill, as amended by the Senate, prior to the end of the 112th Congress. 10 This law did not appropriate the $500 million directly to the SSBG. Rather, the law appropriated $800 million to the HHS Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund and required that, of this amount, the Secretary of HHS transfer $500 million to the SSBG. For additional information, see CRS Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief, coordinated by William L. Painter and Jared T. Brown. 11 See SSBG Information Memorandum Transmittal Number 01-2013, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/ ssbg_im_hurricane_sandy_approved_3_27_signed_2_0.pdf. 12 These resources are available on the HHS website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resourcelibrary/search?area[2129]=2129#?keyword[0]=sandy&area[2129]=2129&ajax=1. 13 Office of Management and Budget, Hurricane Sandy Funding Needs, Washington, DC, December 7, 2012, p. 15, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ supplemental__december_7_2012_hurricane_sandy_funding_needs.pdf.pdf. Congressional Research Service 7 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding this bill, as amended by the Senate, prior to the end of the 112^th Congress. Preliminary Congressional Action On July 18, 2012, the House Appropriations L-HHS-ED Subcommittee approved a bill that would have provided $1.7 billion (pre-sequester) for the SSBG in FY2013.1416 The full committee did not take action on this bill. On June 14, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported a bill to provide full-year FY2013 L-HHS-ED appropriations (S. 3295, , S.Rept. 112-176). This bill also called for funding the SSBG funding at $1.7 billion (pre-sequester) in FY2013. In the report accompanying the bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee called the SSBG a “"critical source of funding for services that protect children from neglect and abuse, including providing foster and respite care, as well as related services for children and families, persons with disabilities, and older adults.”" The report went on to state, “"The Committee recognizes the importance of this program, especially in providing mental health and counseling services to underserved populations, and recommends continued usage and flexibility of these funds for such purposes.” " House Budget Resolution and Reconciliation On March 29, 2012, the House agreed to a budget resolution for FY2013 (H.Con.Res. 112), ), which was later deemed enforceable in the House by H.Res. 614, as amended by H.Res. 643. The committee report (H.Rept. 112-421) accompanying the House budget resolution for FY2013 included a recommendation that the SSBG be eliminated.1517 In its critique of the SSBG, the committee report noted that states are not required to match federal SSBG allotments or to demonstrate outcomes (“"evidence of effectiveness”") from their SSBG spending. The report called the SSBG a “duplicative”"duplicative" funding stream, noting that many services supported by the SSBG may also be supported by other federal programs. The House budget resolution for FY2013 also included a reconciliation directive requiring certain House authorizing committees to submit deficit reduction recommendations to the House Budget Committee no later than April 27, 2012.1618 On April 18, 2012, the House Ways and Means Committee marked up legislation to comply with the reconciliation directive. The legislation included a proposal, which was agreed to by the committee (22-14), to repeal the SSBG.1719 The legislation was transmitted to the House Budget Committee for inclusion in a larger reconciliation bill.1820 On May 9, 2012, the House Budget Committee reported out the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 (H.R. 5652, , H.Rept. 112-470), which is the reconciliation package that includes the proposal to repeal the SSBG. This bill was passed by the House (218-199) the 14 Press releases and a draft of the bill released by the subcommittee prior to markup can be found on the House Appropriations Committee website: http://appropriations.house.gov/subcommittees/subcommittee/?IssueID=34777. 15 H.Rept. 112-421, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2013, March 23, 2012, pp. 89-90. 16 See Section 201 of H.Con.Res. 112. 17 For the text of this legislation, visit http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/041812_3.pdf. Note that the legislation would repeal Title XX-A, Sections 2001-2007, but would not repeal Title XX-B (the subtitle on Elder Justice enacted in health reform legislation) or Sections 2008-2009 of Title XX-A (enacted by health reform legislation to create demonstration projects related to the health care workforce and a competitive grant program for the early detection of medical conditions related to environmental health hazards). For a record of the vote, see http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Social_Services_Block_Grant_Roll_Call.pdf. 18 See reconciliation submissions by committee online at http://budget.house.gov/BudgetAnalysis/Reconciliation.htm. Congressional Research Service 8 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding that includes the proposal to repeal the SSBG. This bill was passed by the House (218-199) the following day. (For additional information, see related discussion in the section on the “Proposal "Proposal to Repeal the SSBG”.) ".) Senate Budget Resolution The Senate has not agreed to a budget resolution for FY2013. However, on March 20, 2012, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad filed in the Congressional Record aggregate spending levels, aggregate revenue levels, and committee spending levels enforceable in the Senate, which have been referred to as a “"deeming resolution.”19 "²¹ Obama Administration Budget Request The Obama Administration released the FY2013 budget on February 13, 2012. The budget requested that funding for the SSBG be maintained at $1.7 billion for FY2013, the same amount it has received annually since FY2002. Additional Appropriations History Table 1 shows SSBG funding levels from 1985 on, including the high of $2.8 billion, which was provided annually from FY1991-FY1995. Although $2.8 billion was the originally authorized entitlement ceiling for FY1996, Congress reduced funding to $2.38 billion in that year. Welfare reform legislation (P.L. 104-193) subsequently set the annual SSBG entitlement ceiling at $2.38 billion in each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002. Under the welfare reform law, the ceiling was scheduled to return to a permanent level of $2.8 billion in FY2003. After welfare reform was enacted, Congress passed an appropriations measure for FY1997 (P.L. 104-208) that contained $2.5 billion for the SSBG, exceeding the ceiling established in the welfare reform law. For FY1998, President Clinton requested that the amount authorized by welfare reform ($2.38 billion) be appropriated. However, Congress approved an FY1998 appropriations bill (P.L. 105-78) containing $2.299 billion for the SSBG. The Senate Appropriations Committee explained the reduction by stating that funding is provided for social services through other federal programs (S.Rept. 105-58). The House Appropriations Committee expressed concern that HHS lacks information on the effectiveness of SSBG-funded activities ( (H.Rept. 105-205). ). In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act (TEA, P.L. 105-178) permanently reduced the SSBG entitlement ceiling to $1.7 billion, beginning in FY2001. However, the entitlement ceiling has not always reflected the actual appropriation. For example, the $1.725 billion appropriation level for FY2001 (H.R. 4577) exceeded the $1.7 billion ceiling by $25 million. In addition, a TEA provision limited the authority for states to transfer TANF funds to the SSBG beginning in FY2001 (reducing the transfer cap from 10%, as established in welfare reform, to 4.25%). However, each annual appropriation from FY2001 onward has included override to reinstate the higher cap, effectively enabling states to transfer up to 10% of their TANF funds to the SSBG. 19 For more information on deeming resolutions, see CRS Report RL31443, The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool, by Megan S. Lynch. Congressional Research Service 9 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding In addition to annual appropriations, the SSBG occasionally receives supplemental appropriations, including in FY2006, FY2008, and FY2013. See Appendix B for additional information on these recent supplemental appropriations. Table 1 shows SSBG entitlement ceilings and appropriations from FY1985-FY2015FY2016. Also shown for FY1997-FY2013FY2014 are the amounts transferred from TANF to SSBG. Table 1. SSBG Funding, FY1985-FY2015 (Dollars in billions) Fiscal Year Ceiling Appropriation Fiscal Year Ceiling Appropriation Transfer from TANF 1985 2.7 2.725a 1997 2.380 2.5 0.36 1986 2.7 2.584b 1998 2.380 2.299 1.12 1987 2.7 2.7 1999 2.380 1.909 1.32 1988 2.750c 2.7 2000 2.380 1.775 1.10 1989 2.7 2.7 2001 1.700 1.725 0.93 1990 2.8 2.762d 2002 1.700 1.700 1.03 1991 2.8 2.8 2003 1.700 1.700 0.93 1992 2.8 2.8 2004 1.700 1.700 0.77 1993 2.8 2.8 2005 1.700 1.700 0.92 1994 2.8 2.8 2006 1.700 1.700+0.550e 0.97 1995 2.8 2.8 2007 1.700 1.700 1.17 1996 2.381 2.381 2008 1.700 1.700+0.600f 1.18 2009 1.700 1.700 1.21 2010 1.700 1.700 1.22 2011 1.700 1.700 1.14 2012 1.700 1.700 1.13 2013 1.700 1.613+0.475g 1.13 2014 1.700 1.578h 2015 1.700 1.576i data not yet available Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on budget documents and HHS data. In this table, TANF transfer figures reflect data from combined year TANF spending reports; amounts may not necessarily match transfer amounts shown in annual SSBG reports. a. Amount includes $25 million earmarked for training of daycare providers, licensing officials, and parents, FY2016

(Dollars in billions)

Fiscal Year

Ceiling

Appropriation

Fiscal Year

Ceiling

Appropriation

Transfer from TANF

1985

2.7

2.725^a

1997

2.380

2.5

0.36

1986

2.7

2.584^b

1998

2.380

2.299

1.12

1987

2.7

2.7

1999

2.380

1.909

1.32

1988

2.750^c

2.7

2000

2.380

1.775

1.10

1989

2.7

2.7

2001

1.700

1.725

0.93

1990

2.8

2.762^d

2002

1.700

1.700

1.03

1991

2.8

2.8

2003

1.700

1.700

0.93

1992

2.8

2.8

2004

1.700

1.700

0.77

1993

2.8

2.8

2005

1.700

1.700

0.92

1994

2.8

2.8

2006

1.700

1.700+0.550^e

0.97

1995

2.8

2.8

2007

1.700

1.700

1.17

1996

2.381

2.381

2008

1.700

1.700+0.600^f

1.18

     

2009

1.700

1.700

1.21

     

2010

1.700

1.700

1.22

     

2011

1.700

1.700

1.14

     

2012

1.700

1.700

1.13

     

2013

1.700

1.613+0.475^g

1.13

     

2014

1.700

1.578^h

1.16

     

2015

1.700

1.576ⁱ

not avail

     

2016

1.700

1.584^j

not avail

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on budget documents and HHSdata. In this table, TANF transfer figures reflect data from combined year TANF spending reports; amounts maynot necessarily match transfer amounts shown in annual SSBG reports.

Note: not avail = data not yet available.

a. Amount includes $25 million earmarked for training of daycare providers, licensing officials, and parents, including training in the prevention of child abuse in child care settings (P.L. 98-473). b. ). b. The entitlement ceiling for FY1986 was $2.7 billion. However, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation sequestration of funds for that period reduced the funding by $116 million. c. c. The 1987 Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 100-203) included a $50 million increase in the Title XX entitlement ceiling for FY1988; however, these additional funds were not appropriated. d. d. The FY1990 appropriation included a supplemental appropriation of $100 million (P.L. 101-198). The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation sequestration of funds for FY1990 reduced funding by $37.8 million to $2.762 billion. Congressional Research Service 10 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding e. $2.762 billion. e. The FY2006 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act maintained regular SSBG funding at $1.7 billion. The FY2006 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) provided an additional $550 million in SSBG funding, for necessary expenses related to the consequences of hurricanes in 2005. f. f. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) maintained regular SSBG funding at $1.7 billion. However, the first FY2009 CR (P.L. 110-329) included, as Division B, the Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, which provided $600 million in supplemental SSBG funds. These funds were appropriated on the last day of FY2008, but not allotted to states until FY2009. g. g. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) appropriated $1.700 billion for the SSBG, but this amount was reduced to $1.613 billion due to sequestration. In response to Hurricane Sandy, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2), reserved roughly $500 million ($474.5 million post-sequester) for the SSBG. h. h. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) appropriated $1.7 billion for the SSBG, but this amount was reduced to $1.578 billion due to sequestration. i. i. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) appropriated $1.7 billion for the SSBG, but this amount was reduced to $1.576 billion due to sequestration. Allocation of Funds j. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) appropriated $1.7 billion for the SSBG, but this amount was reduced to $1.584 billion due to sequestration. Allocation of Funds SSBG funds are allocated to states according to the relative size of each state’'s population. Grants to Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands are based on their share of Title XX funds in FY1981, while grants to American Samoa are based on the relative size of their population compared to the population of the Northern Mariana Islands. No match is required for federal SSBG funds, and federal law does not specify a sub-state allocation formula. In other words, states have complete discretion for the distribution of SSBG funds within their borders. Table 2 displays FY2013 and FY2014FY2014-FY2016 SSBG allotments by state. (Supplemental funds provided in FY2013 are not shown here; see Table B-1 instead.) Table 2. FY2013 and FY2014 Table 2. FY2014-FY2016 SSBG Allotments to States and Territories (Amounts in dollars) State / Territory Alabama FY2013 FY2014 24,727,756 24,180,567 Alaska 3,721,041 3,638,700 Arizona 33,376,323 32,637,753 Arkansas 15,126,704 14,791,972 California 194,063,475 189,769,130 Colorado 26,344,729 25,761,758 Connecticut 18,435,913 18,027,953 Delaware 4,670,545 4,567,193 District of Columbia 3,181,862 3,111,452 Florida 98,121,125 95,949,846 Georgia 50,535,344 49,417,070 Hawaii 7,078,452 6,921,816 Idaho 8,160,576 7,979,994 Illinois 66,259,646 64,793,415 Congressional Research Service 11 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding State / Territory FY2013 FY2014 Indiana 33,553,525 32,811,034 Iowa 15,766,839 15,417,942 Kansas 14,783,077 14,455,948 Kentucky 22,496,402 21,998,589 Louisiana 23,554,352 23,033,128 6,838,411 6,687,087 Maryland 30,007,977 29,343,943 Massachusetts 33,917,094 33,166,558 Michigan 50,849,295 49,724,074 Minnesota 27,518,962 26,910,007 Mississippi 15,335,396 14,996,046 Missouri 30,947,090 30,262,276 Montana 5,139,404 5,025,676 Nebraska 9,487,163 9,277,226 14,021,505 13,711,229 6,786,955 6,636,769 New Jersey 45,417,276 44,412,258 New Mexico 10,720,698 10,483,465 100,220,009 98,002,285 North Carolina 49,717,688 48,617,507 North Dakota 3,521,345 3,443,423 Ohio 59,441,222 58,125,873 Oklahoma 19,521,249 19,089,272 Oregon 19,934,951 19,493,819 Pennsylvania 65,609,002 64,157,170 Rhode Island 5,412,814 5,293,036 South Carolina 24,091,843 23,558,725 South Dakota 4,242,932 4,149,042 32,968,795 32,239,243 Texas 132,190,636 129,265,447 Utah 14,504,966 14,183,992 3,225,291 3,153,920 Virginia 41,686,797 40,764,329 Washington 35,165,658 34,387,493 9,552,670 9,341,283 Wisconsin 29,408,042 28,757,285 Wyoming 2,925,262 2,860,530 Maine Nevada New Hampshire New York Tennessee Vermont West Virginia Congressional Research Service 12 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding State / Territory American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Total FY2013 FY2014 57,320 56,052 278,155 272,000 55,631 54,400 8,344,655 8,160,000 278,155 272,000 1,613,300,000 1,577,600,000 Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from HHS, available online at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/sec3k_ssbg_2015cj.pdf#page=15. Notes: Figures are based on the annual SSBG appropriations for FY2013 (P.L. 113-6) and FY2014 (P.L. 113-76), as reduced by sequestration. In FY2013, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2) reserved roughly $500 million ($474.5 million post-sequester) for the SSBG. Allocations based on this supplemental appropriation are not shown here. State Reporting Requirements Each year, states are required to submit an intended use plan, often called a “pre-expenditure report,” as a prerequisite to receive SSBG funds. The pre-expenditure report must be submitted 30 days prior to the start of the fiscal year.20 States must also submit a revised report if their planned uses for SSBG funds change during the course of the year. In pre-expenditure reports, states outline their plans for SSBG funds, including the types of services to be supported, and the categories and characteristics of individuals to be served (e.g., children, adults 59 and younger, adults 60 and older, and the disabled). States are also required to report annually on their actual SSBG expenditures in each of the 29 service categories. For this report, submitted within six months after the end of the reporting period, states use a standard post-expenditure reporting form.21 HHS published regulations (November 15, 1993) to implement this requirement and to provide states with a uniform set of service category definitions. States are not required to submit pre-expenditure reports using a standard format like the one required for post-expenditure reporting (e.g., states may simply submit a narrative or chart of their proposed activities and the individuals to be served). However, HHS issued a new Information Memorandum in December 2008, asking states to voluntarily include additional documentation as part of their pre-expenditure reports.22 Specifically, HHS requested that states submit a copy of the form used for post-expenditure reports, completed with estimated (rather than actual) expenditures and recipient data. The reason for this request was to allow for a more accurate analysis of the extent to which states are spending their SSBG funds “in a manner consistent” with their intended use plans. HHS issued a second Information Memorandum on this 20 This refers to September 1, provided the state operates on a federal fiscal year; alternately, this means June 1 if the state operates on a July-June fiscal year. 21 See OMB Form No. 0970-0234. 22 Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2009, Linking the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) Pre- and PostExpenditure Reports, HHS, Dec. 31, 2008, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/transmittal-no-01-2009linking-the-social-services-block-grant-ssbg-pre-and. Congressional Research Service 13 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding topic in June 2010, again encouraging states to submit pre-expenditure estimates using the same reporting form that is required for post-expenditure reports.23 Most recently, in February 2012, HHS issued an Information Memorandum about a new performance measure that will compare spending plans with actual spending.24 To support implementation of the performance measure, HHS requested that states submit pre- and postexpenditure reports in Excel using standard reporting forms. HHS also requested that states choosing not to use the standard pre-expenditure reporting form (since the standard form is not technically required) provide a crosswalk to SSBG service categories. In addition, HHS requested that states differentiate in their pre-expenditure reports between estimated spending from the state’s SSBG allocation and estimated state spending from projected TANF transfers, because the performance measure will apply only to those funds provided as part of a state’s SSBG allocation. Recent Expenditures Table 3 shows national SSBG expenditures from FY2010, the most recent year for which SSBG data are available. Expenditures are separated into those made from the annual SSBG allocation and those made from funds transferred from the TANF block grant, and are displayed by service category. In FY2010, the largest expenditures for services under the SSBG were for child care (13%), foster care services for children (13%), and special services for the disabled (12%). Table 3. Total SSBG Expenditures by Service Category, FY2010 SSBG Expenditures Made From: Service Category SSBG Allocation ($) Funds Transferred from TANF ($) Total SSBG Expenditures ($) Percent of Total Adoption Services 21,107,553 9,598,089 30,705,642 1% Case Management 129,647,136 73,961,188 203,608,325 7% Congregate Meals 4,596,350 34,088 4,630,437 0% Counseling Services 23,955,844 2,407,855 26,363,699 0% Day Care—Adults 24,633,593 11,425 24,645,017 0% Day Care—Children 94,455,146 276,262,234 370,717,380 13% 7,480,460 3,007,383 10,487,842 0% 11,925,900 225,976 12,151,876 0% Family Planning Services 9,844,355 21,534,883 31,379,238 1% Foster Care Services— Adults 34,744,191 8,649,489 43,393,679 2% Education and Training Services Employment Services 23 Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2010, Pre- and Post-Expenditure Reporting for the SSBG Program, HHS, June 7, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/transmittal-no-01-2010-pre-and-post-expenditurereporting-for-the-ssbg. 24 Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2012, Implementation of a New Performance Measure, HHS, February 23, 2012, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/implementation-of-a-new-performance-measure. Congressional Research Service 14 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding SSBG Expenditures Made From: Service Category SSBG Allocation ($) Funds Transferred from TANF ($) Total SSBG Expenditures ($) Percent of Total Foster Care Services— Children 127,266,211 249,264,621 376,530,833 13% Health-Related Services 15,047,911 1,923,376 16,971,287 1% Home-Based Services 163,113,592 20,324,157 183,437,748 7% Home-Delivered Meals 27,002,216 417,132 27,419,349 1% Housing Services 10,681,443 4,451,626 15,133,068 1% Independent/Transitional Living 6,231,216 946,726 7,177,942 0% Information and Referral 11,686,333 4,057,794 15,744,127 1% Legal Services 14,373,743 648,506 15,022,249 1% 7,160,933 1,722,254 8,883,187 0% 41,438,703 137,455,219 178,893,922 6% Protective Services— Adults 173,851,999 6,519,649 180,371,648 6% Protective Services— Children 119,248,981 170,597,531 289,846,512 10% 753,207 60,555 813,762 0% 52,516,577 44,928,959 97,445,536 3% 277,105,892 67,440,958 344,546,851 12% 37,460,489 3,482,626 40,943,115 1% 4,973,542 1,016,727 5,990,270 0% Transportation 14,547,075 2,179,976 16,727,051 1% Other Services 105,237,050 54,493,370 159,730,420 6% 74,487,958 17,995,453 92,483,411 3% 1,646,575,600 1,185,619,823 2,832,195,424 100% Pregnancy and Parenting Prevention and Intervention Recreation Services Residential Treatment Special Services— Disabled Special Services—Youth at Risk Substance Abuse Services Administrative Costs Total SSBG Expenditures Source: Table prepared by CRS based on data included in the Social Services Block Grant Program Annual Report 2010 (note that TANF transfer data from this source may differ from data in TANF financial reports). Full report available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/ssbg-2010-annual-report. Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Congressional Research Service 15 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Recent Legislative Action Other than appropriations legislation, no bills in the 109th Congress or 110th Congress that proposed changes to the SSBG were enacted into law. Notably, however, several bills from the 109th Congress included proposals that, if enacted, would have increased funding for the SSBG (see S. 6, S. 667, and H.R. 751 from the 109th

(Amounts in dollars)

State / Territory	FY2014	FY2015	FY2016
Alabama	24,098,066	23,961,439	23,961,910
Alaska	3,655,417	3,644,153	3,640,366
Arizona	32,749,900	32,849,106	33,261,842
Arkansas	14,738,286	14,670,028	14,657,526
California	190,112,095	190,019,689	191,732,260
Colorado	25,924,678	26,116,035	26,464,591
Connecticut	17,942,764	17,826,274	17,772,025
Delaware	4,583,168	4,589,068	4,623,088
District of Columbia	3,160,035	3,204,538	3,255,745
Florida	96,539,571	96,926,273	98,297,450
Georgia	49,574,938	49,532,575	49,893,342
Hawaii	6,958,086	6,960,093	7,014,384
Idaho	7,974,653	7,991,585	8,076,270
Illinois	64,344,103	63,858,552	63,645,969
Indiana	32,670,335	32,572,884	32,596,609
Iowa	15,363,248	15,319,626	15,353,039
Kansas	14,422,314	14,345,751	14,349,449
Kentucky	21,891,130	21,788,094	21,807,927
Louisiana	22,997,966	22,929,104	22,975,140
Maine	6,642,639	6,584,580	6,572,282
Maryland	29,408,111	29,389,964	29,530,830
Massachusetts	33,214,113	33,177,268	33,331,644
Michigan	49,392,104	49,053,988	48,967,028
Minnesota	26,882,254	26,869,585	26,965,173
Mississippi	14,917,172	14,827,833	14,794,447
Missouri	30094893	29,961,804	29,961,617
Montana	5,023,193	5,032,315	5,057,744
Nebraska	9,272,989	9,262,496	9,296,948
Nevada	13,787,761	13,831,096	14,028,655
New Hampshire	6,600,290	6,560,572	6,556,094
New Jersey	44,300,800	44,115,273	44,165,621
New Mexico	10,422,479	10,337,060	10,305,301
New York	97,802,404	97,413,396	97,570,743
North Carolina	48,735,997	48,818,216	49,135,460
North Dakota	3,496,392	3,585,961	3,653,954
Ohio	57,692,279	57,358,120	57,289,481
Oklahoma	19,064,568	19,087,806	19,162,360
Oregon	19,487,022	19,481,884	19,617,883
Pennsylvania	63,785,787	63,321,525	63,184,601
Rhode Island	5,248,836	5,212,488	5,212,857
South Carolina	23,606,812	23,669,547	23,878,428
South Dakota	4,164,688	4,188,174	4,215,738
Tennessee	32,265,083	32,201,475	32,361,886
Texas	130,230,901	131,107,407	133,200,657
Utah	14,269,300	14,380,030	14,541,570
Vermont	3,128,491	3,106,293	3,095,990
Virginia	40,908,881	40,947,988	41,142,148
Washington	34,467,826	34,558,238	34,892,677
West Virginia	9,272,429	9,192,045	9,142,895
Wisconsin	28,617,681	28,467,435	28,449,475
Wyoming	2,880,620	2,888,318	2,886,437
American Samoa	56,052	55,991	56,293
Guam	272,000	271,707	273,172
Northern Mariana Islands	54,400	54,341	54,635
Puerto Rico	8,160,000	8,151,207	8,195,172
Virgin Islands	272,000	271,707	273,172
Total	1,577,600,000	1,575,900,000	1,584,400,000

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data in annual congressional justifications produced by the HHS Administration for Children and Families. FY2014 allocations are taken from the FY2016 congressional justification; FY2015-FY2016 allocations are from the FY2017 congressional justification. The justifications are available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget.

Notes: Amounts are based on the annual SSBG appropriations as reduced by sequestration.

State Reporting Requirements

Each year, states are required to submit an intended use plan, often called a "pre-expenditure report," as a prerequisite to receive SSBG funds. The pre-expenditure report must be submitted 30 days prior to the start of the fiscal year.²² States must also submit a revised report if their planned uses for SSBG funds change during the course of the year. In pre-expenditure reports, states outline their plans for SSBG funds, including the types of services to be supported, and the categories and characteristics of individuals to be served (e.g., children, adults 59 and younger, adults 60 and older, and the disabled).

States are also required to report annually on their actual SSBG expenditures in each of the 29 service categories. For this report, submitted within six months after the end of the reporting period, states use a standard post-expenditure reporting form.²³ HHS published regulations (November 15, 1993) to implement this requirement and to provide states with a uniform set of service category definitions.

States are not required to submit pre-expenditure reports using a standard format like the one required for post-expenditure reporting (e.g., states may simply submit a narrative or chart of their proposed activities and the individuals to be served). However, HHS issued a new Information Memorandum in December 2008, asking states to voluntarily include additional documentation as part of their pre-expenditure reports.²⁴ Specifically, HHS requested that states submit a copy of the form used for post-expenditure reports, completed with estimated (rather than actual) expenditures and recipient data. The reason for this request was to allow for a more accurate analysis of the extent to which states are spending their SSBG funds "in a manner consistent" with their intended use plans. HHS issued a second Information Memorandum on this topic in June 2010, again encouraging states to submit pre-expenditure estimates using the same reporting form that is required for post-expenditure reports.²⁵

Finally, in February 2012, HHS issued an Information Memorandum about a new performance measure that will compare spending plans with actual spending.²⁶ To support implementation of the performance measure, HHS requested that states submit pre- and post-expenditure reports in Excel using standard reporting forms. HHS also requested that states choosing not to use the standard pre-expenditure reporting form (since the standard form is not technically required) provide a crosswalk to SSBG service categories. In addition, HHS requested that states differentiate in their pre-expenditure reports between estimated spending from the state's SSBG allocation and estimated state spending from projected TANF transfers, because the performance measure will apply only to those funds provided as part of a state's SSBG allocation.

Recent Expenditures Table 3 shows national SSBG expenditures from FY2012, the most recent year for which SSBG data are available. Expenditures are separated into those made from the annual SSBG allocation and those made from funds transferred from the TANF block grant, and are displayed by service category. In FY2012, the largest expenditures for services under the SSBG were for foster care services for children (14%), protective services for children (12%), special services for the disabled (11%), and child care (10%). Table 3. Total SSBG Expenditures by Service Category, FY2012  

SSBG Expenditures Made From:

   

Service Category

SSBG Allocation ($)

Funds Transferred from TANF ($)

Total SSBG Expenditures ($)

Percentage of Total  

29,673,885

10,036,499

   

Case Management

152,782,155

69,442,321

222,224,476

8%

Congregate Meals

4,906,242

0

4,906,242

0%

Counseling Services

22,218,804

4,037,846

26,256,650

1%

Day Care—Adults

30,170,052

10,521

30,180,573

1%

Day Care—Children

66,233,291

230,218,018

296,451,309

11%

Education and Training Services

7,494,272

6,797,472

14,291,744

1%

Employment Services

8,629,929

38,262

8,668,191

0%

Family Planning Services

11,000,100

610,212

11,610,312

0%

Foster Care Services—Adults

26,862,068

7,886,743

34,748,811

1%

Foster Care Services—Children

176,064,432

218,766,703

394,831,135

14%

Health-Related Services

18,098,660

1,125,873

19,224,533

1%

Home-Based Services

146,412,222

8,357,673

154,769,895

6%

Home-Delivered Meals

25,095,601

191

25,095,792

1%

Housing Services

10,353,497

3,031,809

13,385,306

0%

Independent/Transitional Living

9,400,440

1,030,234

10,430,674

0%

Information and Referral

17,499,427

3,750,026

21,249,453

1%

Legal Services

15,008,804

682,541

15,691,345

1%

Pregnancy and Parenting

3,820,120

2,291,321

6,111,441

0%

Prevention and Intervention

73,955,372

121,964,835

195,920,207

7%

Protective Services—Adults

197,491,685

5,838,701

203,330,386

7%

Protective Services—Children

136,387,962

194,651,822

331,039,784

12%

Recreation Services

715,390

303,237

1,018,627

0%

Residential Treatment

59,539,857

37,193,856

96,733,713

3%

Special Services—Disabled

230,157,511

77,422,663

307,580,174

11%

Special Services—Youth at Risk

65,262,115

3,454,826

68,716,941

2%

Substance Abuse Services

11,040,015

309,829

11,349,844

0%

Transportation

20,399,579

3,890,621

24,290,200

1%

Other Services

98,890,294

39,531,195

138,421,489

5%

Administrative Costs

68,241,307

5,563,624

73,804,931

3%

Total SSBG Expenditures

1,743,805,088

1,058,239,474

2,832,195,424

100%

Source: Prepared by CRS based on data included in the Social Services Block Grant Program Annual Report 2012 (note that TANF transfer data from this source may differ from data in TANF financial reports, as shown in Table 1). Full report available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/ssbg-2012-annual-report.

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Recent Legislative Action Other than appropriations legislation, no bills in the 109^th Congress or 110^th Congress that proposed changes to the SSBG were enacted into law. Notably, however, several bills from the 109^th Congress included proposals that, if enacted, would have increased funding for the SSBG (see S. 6, S. 667, and H.R. 751 from the 109^th Congress). Subsequently, several bills (S. 795, H.R. 2006, , H.R. 2006, S. 1796, , H.R. 3590) were introduced in the 111th111^th Congress that sought to amend Title XX of the Social Security Act (SSA)—the authorizing statute for the SSBG—to establish new programs to address the prevention, detection, and treatment of elder abuse or elder justice. Ultimately, the health care reform legislation passed by Congress in March 2010 included three provisions amending Title XX of the SSA (addressed briefly below), including one on elder justice. Meanwhile, in the 112th112^th Congress, the House agreed to a proposal to repeal the SSBG, but this bill was not taken up in the Senate. During the 113th Congress, there were further proposals to repeal the SSBG, including in House Budget ResolutionsThere were also calls to repeal the SSBG in the 114^th and 113^th Congresses associated with various budget resolutions adopted by the House and as part of the House Budget Committee’s Committee's July 2014 discussion draft on Expanding Opportunity in America25, but noneAmerica.²⁷ However, none of these activities have received the attention H.R. 5652 received in the 112th112^th Congress and, as such, are not discussed here. Proposal to Repeal the SSBG in the 112th Congress 112^th Congress On May 10, 2012, the House passed the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 (H.R. 5652H.R. 5652 in the 112th112^th Congress) by a recorded vote of 218-199. This bill included a provision (§621) that, if enacted, would have repealed the SSBG, effective October 1, 2012. However, the Senate did not take up this measure prior to the end of the 112th Congress. 112^th Congress. The Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 was a budget reconciliation bill. Budget reconciliation is an optional process that may be used by Congress to bring existing spending, revenue, and debt-limit laws into compliance with fiscal priorities established in the annual budget resolution.2628 The FY2013 House budget resolution included a reconciliation directive in Section 201. To comply with this directive, on April 18, 2012, the House Ways and Means Committee marked up legislation to meet its deficit reduction targets. This legislation included a provision to repeal the SSBG that was agreed to by the committee by a vote of 22-14.2729 The House Budget Committee compiled this legislation, along with submissions from other House committees, into the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 and reported the bill out of committee (H.Rept. 112-470) on May 9, 2012.28 30 The report accompanying the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 (H.Rept. 112470112-470) included text explaining the decision to repeal the SSBG.29 The report called the SSBG a 25 A copy of the discussion draft, which was released on July 24, 2014, is available at http://budget.house.gov/ uploadedfiles/expanding_opportunity_in_america.pdf. 26 For more information about budget reconciliation, see CRS Report R41186, Reconciliation Directives: Components and Enforcement, by Megan S. Lynch. 27 For the text of this legislation, visit http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/041812_3.pdf. Note that the legislation would repeal Title XX-A, Sections 2001-2007, but would not repeal Title XX-B (the subtitle on Elder Justice enacted in health reform legislation) or Sections 2008-2009 of Title XX-A (enacted by health reform legislation to create demonstration projects related to the health care workforce and a competitive grant program for the early detection of medical conditions related to environmental health hazards). 28 See reconciliation submissions by committee online at http://budget.house.gov/BudgetAnalysis/Reconciliation.htm. 29 See text beginning on p. 505 of H.Rept. 112-470. Congressional Research Service 16 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding 31 The report called the SSBG a duplicative funding stream lacking in focus and accountability. The report also criticized the SSBG for not requiring states to match federal SSBG allotments. Committee reports accompanying House budget resolutions for FY2012 and FY2013 included similar critiques of the SSBG and, in each year, recommended that the program be eliminated.3032 Similar arguments had previously been made by the George W. Bush Administration in proposing, as part of annual budget requests, to reduce and eventually eliminate funding for the SSBG.31 33 The committee report accompanying H.R. 5652 also included a summary of dissenting views, which focused largely on how the elimination of the SSBG might affect the vulnerable individuals served by these funds.3234 Similar concerns were raised by other critics of the proposal to eliminate the SSBG, such as the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).3335 The NCSL argued that the flexible nature of the SSBG allows states to address the needs of vulnerable populations and respond to local concerns, arguing that eliminating the SSBG might shift costs of such services directly to states.34 36 How Did Health Reform Affect the SSBG? On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law a comprehensive health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148). This law included three provisions that amended the SSBG’'s authorizing legislation, Title XX of the SSA. These provisions, discussed briefly below, created new programs related to elder justice, the health care workforce, and environmental health hazards. Notably, these changes were primarily of technical importance with respect to the SSBG. That is, they affected statutory citations for the SSBG, but they did not substantively amend the provisions within Title XX that govern the SSBG itself. New Subtitle on Elder Justice The health reform law re-titled Title XX as Block Grants to States for Social Services and Elder Justice Justice (formerly, Title XX was entitled Block Grants to States for Social Services). The law also divided Title XX into two subtitles: Subtitle A retained provisions related to the SSBG, while Subtitle B comprised a series of new provisions related to elder justice.3537 The elder justice provisions established (1) an Elder Justice Coordinating Council; (2) an Advisory Board on Elder 30 For FY2013, see H.Rept. 112-421, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2013, March 23, 2012, pp. 89-90. For FY2012, see H.Rept. 112-58, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2012, April 11, 2011, p. 97. 31 See discussion of these proposals in budget justifications of the HHS Administration for Children and Families, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget. The FY2007 and FY2008 President’s Budgets proposed to reduce funding for the SSBG, but not permanently eliminate the program. The initial FY2009 President’s Budget proposed to decrease funding for the SSBG by $500 million in FY2009, but to permanently eliminate the program beginning in FY2010. Subsequent amendments to the President’s Budget reduced the FY2009 request to $0. 32 H.Rept. 112-470, pp. 539-540. 33 Letter from The Honorable Tom Hansen (South Dakota Senate) and The Honorable Barbara W. Ballard (Kansas House of Representatives), Chairs of the NCSL Human Services and Welfare Committee, to The Honorable David Camp and the Honorable Sander Levin, chair and ranking Member (respectively) of the House Committee on Ways and Means, April 16, 2012, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/ncsl-letter-opposing-permanentelimination-of-ssbg.aspx. See also Indivar Dutta-Gupta, LaDonna Pavetti, and Ife Finch, Eliminating Social Services Block Grant Would Weaken Services for Vulnerable Children, Adults, and Disabled, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 3, 2012, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3765#_ftnref11. 34 Ibid. 35 See Sections 6701-6703 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148). Congressional Research Service 17 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding provisions established (1) an Elder Justice Coordinating Council; (2) an Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation; (3) a new grant program for stationary and mobile forensic centers to develop forensic expertise pertaining to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and (4) several new grant programs (and other activities) to promote elder justice.36 38 New Programs Authorized within the SSBG Subtitle of Title XX The health care reform law (P.L. 111-148) also included provisions establishing two new sections within Subtitle A of Title XX. The first created two demonstration projects related to the health care workforce. The second called for HHS to establish a competitive grant program for the early detection of medical conditions related to environmental health hazards. The health reform law established these new programs within the SSBG subtitle of Title XX and subjected their funding to the same prohibited uses as SSBG funds (though the new law made two exceptions37exceptions³⁹ to this rule). However, these new programs do not substantively alter the SSBG itself. The funding for these programs was provided separately in the health reform law (through mandatory preappropriations) and is not subject to the SSBG allocation formula. 36 A full description of these provisions is beyond the scope of this report, which is focused on the SSBG. For a summary of the provisions in P.L. 111-148 related to elder justice, see CRS Report R41278, Public Health, Workforce, Quality, and Related Provisions in ACA: Summary and Timeline, coordinated by C. Stephen Redhead and Elayne J. Heisler. 37 Section 10323(b) of ACA (P.L. 111-148) specifies that the general prohibition against using SSBG funds for the provision of medical care shall not be construed as to prohibit recipients of a grant for the early detection of medical conditions related to environmental health hazards from conducting screening for environmental health conditions. In addition, Section 5507 of ACA exempts both health care workforce demonstrations projects from the prohibition against using SSBG funds for the provision of an education service that the state makes generally available to its residents without cost and without regard to their income. Congressional Research Service 18 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Appendix A. pre-appropriations) and is not subject to the SSBG allocation formula.

Appendix A. TANF Transfers to SSBG in FY2013 Table A-1.FY2014 Table A-1. TANF Transfers to the SSBG in FY2013 State Total Federal TANF Fundsa ($) TANF Funds Transferred to SSBGb ($) Percent of TANF Funds Transferred to SSBG SSBG Allocation ($) Total SSBG Funds With TANF Transfer ($) Alabama 93,315,207 5,000,000 5.36% 24,727,756 29,727,756 Alaska 45,260,334 4,981,673 11.01% 3,721,041 8,702,714 Arizona 200,141,310 20,014,131 10.00% 33,376,323 53,390,454 Arkansas 56,732,858 0 0.00% 15,126,704 15,126,704 California 3,659,376,553 364,445,461 9.96% 194,063,475 558,508,936 Colorado 136,056,690 1,093,643 0.80% 26,344,729 27,438,372 Connecticut 266,788,107 26,678,810 10.00% 18,435,913 45,114,723 Delaware 32,290,981 0 0.00% 4,670,545 4,670,545 District of Columbia 92,609,815 3,935,917 4.25% 3,181,862 7,117,779 Florida 562,340,120 55,604,763 9.89% 98,121,125 153,725,888 Georgia 330,741,739 0 0.00% 50,535,344 50,535,344 Hawaii 98,904,788 7,417,500 7.50% 7,078,452 14,495,952 Idaho 30,412,562 1,292,534 4.25% 8,160,576 9,453,110 Illinois 585,056,960 1,200,000 0.21% 66,259,646 67,459,646 Indiana 206,799,109 0 0.00% 33,553,525 33,553,525 Iowa 131,030,394 12,962,008 9.89% 15,766,839 28,728,847 Kansas 101,931,061 10,193,106 10.00% 14,783,077 24,976,183 Kentucky 181,287,669 0 0.00% 22,496,402 22,496,402 Louisiana 163,971,985 16,397,198 10.00% 23,554,352 39,951,550 78,120,889 7,812,089 10.00% 6,838,411 14,650,500 Maryland 229,098,032 22,909,803 10.00% 30,007,977 52,917,780 Massachusetts 459,371,116 45,937,112 10.00% 33,917,094 79,854,206 Michigan 775,352,858 77,535,285 10.00% 50,849,295 128,384,580 Minnesota 263,434,070 4,790,000 1.82% 27,518,962 32,308,962 Mississippi 86,767,578 8,676,758 10.00% 15,335,396 24,012,154 Missouri 217,051,740 21,701,176 10.00% 30,947,090 52,648,266 Montana 38,039,116 2,354,101 6.19% 5,139,404 7,493,505 Nebraska 57,513,601 0 0.00% 9,487,163 9,487,163 Nevada 43,907,519 0 0.00% 14,021,505 14,021,505 New Hampshire 38,521,261 936,937 2.43% 6,786,955 7,723,892 404,034,823 21,172,500 5.24% 45,417,276 66,589,776 Maine New Jersey Congressional Research Service 19 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Total Federal TANF Fundsa ($) State New Mexico TANF Funds Transferred to SSBGb ($) Percent of TANF Funds Transferred to SSBG SSBG Allocation ($) Total SSBG Funds With TANF Transfer ($) 110,578,100 0 0.00% 10,720,698 10,720,698 2,442,930,602 191,552,283 7.84% 100,220,009 291,772,292 North Carolina 301,435,018 10,075,595 3.34% 49,717,688 59,793,283 North Dakota 26,399,809 0 0.00% 3,521,345 3,521,345 Ohio 727,968,260 38,533,876 5.29% 59,441,222 97,975,098 Oklahoma 145,281,442 14,528,144 10.00% 19,521,249 34,049,393 Oregon 166,798,629 0 0.00% 19,934,951 19,934,951 Pennsylvania 719,499,305 30,977,000 4.31% 65,609,002 96,586,002 Rhode Island 95,021,587 9,337,823 9.83% 5,412,814 14,750,637 South Carolina 99,967,824 0 0.00% 24,091,843 24,091,843 South Dakota 21,279,651 2,127,965 10.00% 4,242,932 6,370,897 Tennessee 191,523,797 0 0.00% 32,968,795 32,968,795 Texas 486,256,752 33,565,875 6.90% 132,190,636 165,756,511 Utah 75,609,475 7,560,947 10.00% 14,504,966 22,065,913 Vermont 47,353,181 4,735,318 10.00% 3,225,291 7,960,609 Virginia 158,285,172 13,825,500 8.73% 41,686,797 55,512,297 Washington 380,544,968 4,675,000 1.23% 35,165,658 39,840,658 West Virginia 110,176,310 11,017,631 10.00% 9,552,670 20,570,301 Wisconsin 313,896,002 15,433,200 4.92% 29,408,042 44,841,242 Wyoming 18,500,530 1,850,053 10.00% 2,925,262 4,775,315 16,305,567,259 1,134,838,715 — 1,604,286,084 2,739,124,799 New York Total Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on FY2013 data reported by HHS. In this table, TANF financial data reflect FY2013 one-year (not combined) spending, whereas SSBG figures represent FY2013 allocations. FY2013 FY2014

State

Total Federal TANF Funds^a($) TANF Funds Transferred to SSBG^b ($)

Percent of TANF Funds Transferred to SSBG

SSBG Allocation($) Total SSBG Funds With TANF Transfer ($)

Alabama

93,315,207

9,331,520

10.00%

24,098,066

33,429,586

Alaska

42,981,164

3,000,300

6.98%

3,655,417

6,655,717

Arizona

200,141,299

20,014,130

10.00%

32,749,900

52,764,030

Arkansas

56,732,858

0

0.00%

14,738,286

14,738,286

California

3,656,123,281

363,604,655

9.95%

190,112,095

553,716,750

Colorado

136,056,690

0

0.00%

25,924,678

25,924,678

Connecticut

266,788,107

26,512,113

9.94%

17,942,764

44,454,877

Delaware

32,290,981

0

0.00%

4,583,168

4,583,168

District of Columbia

92,609,815

3,935,917

4.25%

3,160,035

7,095,952

Florida

562,340,120

56,234,011

10.00%

96,539,571

152,773,582

Georgia

330,741,739

1,641,997

0.50%

49,574,938

51,216,935

Hawaii

98,904,788

7,800,000

7.89%

6,958,086

14,758,086

Idaho

30,412,562

1,292,534

4.25%

7,974,653

9,267,187

Illinois

585,056,960

1,200,000

0.21%

64,344,103

65,544,103

Indiana

206,799,109

0

0.00%

32,670,335

32,670,335

Iowa

131,044,306

12,962,008

9.89%

15,363,248

28,325,256

Kansas

101,931,061

10,193,106

10.00%

14,422,314

24,615,420

Kentucky

181,287,669

0

0.00%

21,891,130

21,891,130

Louisiana

163,533,444

16,353,344

10.00%

22,997,966

39,351,310

Maine

78,120,889

7,437,064

9.52%

6,642,639

14,079,703

Maryland

229,098,032

22,909,803

10.00%

29,408,111

52,317,914

Massachusetts

459,371,116

45,937,115

10.00%

33,214,113

79,151,228

Michigan

775,352,858

77,535,285

10.00%

49,392,104

126,927,389

Minnesota

263,434,070

4,790,000

1.82%

26,882,254

31,672,254

Mississippi

86,767,578

8,676,758

10.00%

14,917,172

23,593,930

Missouri

217,051,740

21,701,176

10.00%

30,094,893

51,796,069

Montana

37,809,102

2,575,839

6.81%

5,023,193

7,599,032

Nebraska

57,499,689

0

0.00%

9,272,989

9,272,989

Nevada

43,907,517

0

0.00%

13,787,761

13,787,761

New Hampshire

38,521,261

-2,027,712

-5.26%

6,600,290

4,572,578

New Jersey

404,034,823

16,938,000

4.19%

44,300,800

61,238,800

New Mexico

110,578,100

0

0.00%

10,422,479

10,422,479

New York

2,442,930,602

181,097,334

7.41%

97,802,404

278,899,738

North Carolina

301,435,018

9,828,259

3.26%

48,735,997

58,564,256

North Dakota

26,399,809

0

0.00%

3,496,392

3,496,392

Ohio

727,968,260

72,796,826

10.00%

57,692,279

130,489,105

Oklahoma

145,281,442

14,528,144

10.00%

19,064,568

33,592,712

Oregon

166,798,629

0

0.00%

19,487,022

19,487,022

Pennsylvania

719,499,305

30,977,000

4.31%

63,785,787

94,762,787

Rhode Island

95,021,587

9,059,250

9.53%

5,248,836

14,308,086

South Carolina

99,967,824

0

0.00%

23,606,812

23,606,812

South Dakota

21,279,651

2,127,965

10.00%

4,164,688

6,292,653

Tennessee

191,523,797

0

0.00%

32,265,083

32,265,083

Texas

486,256,752

33,566,135

6.90%

130,230,901

163,797,036

Utah

75,609,475

6,274,800

8.30%

14,269,300

20,544,100

Vermont

47,353,181

4,735,318

10.00%

3,128,491

7,863,809

Virginia

158,285,172

15,825,500

10.00%

40,908,881

56,734,381

Washington

380,544,968

6,233,000

1.64%

34,467,826

40,700,826

West Virginia

110,176,310

11,017,631

10.00%

9,272,429

20,290,060

Wisconsin

313,896,002

15,443,200

4.92%

28,617,681

44,060,881

Wyoming

18,500,530

1,850,053

10.00%

2,880,620

4,730,673

Total

16,299,366,249

1,155,909,378

—

1,568,785,548

2,724,694,926

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data reported by HHS. TANF financial data reflect FY2014 one-year (not combined) spending, whereas SSBG data are FY2014 allocations. TANF financial data are available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ programs/ofa/programs/tanf/data-reports. SSBG allocation data are from the FY2016 congressional justification for the HHS Administration for Children and Families, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget. a. ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2013. a. Amounts in this column reflect FY2013FY2014 state financial assistance grants and supplemental grants to states, but do not include contingency funds or tribal grants (see Table E2a of FY2013FY2014 TANF financial data). b. b. The amount in this column is the total amount of FY2013FY2014 TANF funding transferred to the SSBG in FY2013; FY2014; it does not include any adjustments made for previous years (see Table A6 of FY2013FY2014 TANF financial data). Funds transferred back to the TANF program that were not obligated and liquidated within the program deadlines are reported as negative amounts. Congressional Research Service 20 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Appendix B. Appendix B. Recent Supplemental Appropriations This appendix presents background and spending information on supplemental appropriations to the SSBG in FY2013, FY2008, and FY2006. FY2013 Supplemental: Hurricane Sandy On January 29, 2013, the President signed into law the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 ( (P.L. 113-2), in response to Hurricane Sandy. This law reserved roughly $500 million ($474.5 million when accounting for sequestration) for the SSBG.3840 The supplemental stipulated that these funds were to be used to address necessary expenses resulting from Hurricane Sandy, including social, health, and mental health services for individuals; and for repair, renovation, and rebuilding of health care facilities (including mental health facilities), child care facilities, and other social services facilities. The supplemental also included a provision giving states up to three years to expend these funds, one year longer than the SSBG’'s standard two-year expenditure period. On March 28, 2013, HHS issued an information memorandum regarding the availability of these supplemental funds.3941 According to this memorandum, five states were allocated supplemental funds based on their relative share of Hurricane Sandy Individual Assistance registrants, as reported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on March 18, 2013. These states were Connecticut ($10.6 million), Maryland ($1.2 million), New Jersey ($226.8 million), New York ($235.4 million), and Rhode Island ($0.5 million). HHS subsequently released a number of additional SSBG resources related to Hurricane Sandy, including two rounds of Questions and Answers and additional information on reporting requirements.40 Table B-1. State Allocations from the FY2013 Supplemental (Allocations in dollars) State Connecticut Allocation Percent of Total $10,569,192 2.23% 1,185,675 0.25% New Jersey 226,794,105 47.80% New York 235,434,600 49.62% 516,428 0.11% 474,500,000 100.00% Maryland Rhode Island Total 38 This law did not appropriate the $500 million directly to the SSBG. Rather, the law appropriated $800 million to the HHS Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund and required that, of this amount, the Secretary of HHS transfer $500 million to the SSBG. For additional information, see CRS Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief, coordinated by William L. Painter and Jared T. Brown. 39 See SSBG Information Memorandum Transmittal Number 01-2013, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/ ssbg_im_hurricane_sandy_approved_3_27_signed_2_0.pdf. 40 These resources are available on the HHS website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resourcelibrary/search?area[2129]=2129#?keyword[0]=sandy&area[2129]=2129&ajax=1. Congressional Research Service 21 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available in SSBG Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2013, March 28, 2013. FY2008 Supplemental: Major Disasters of 2008 (and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita) number of additional SSBG resources related to Hurricane Sandy, including two new information memoranda on reporting requirements, two rounds of Questions and Answers, copies of states' intended use plans, and various other resources.⁴² Of note, the most recent information memorandum (Transmittal No. 01-2015) revised the expenditure deadline for these funds to September 30, 2017, which represents an extension of two fiscal years from the previous deadline of September 30, 2015.⁴³ Table B-1. State Allocations and Spending from the FY2013 Supplemental

(As of March 10, 2016)

State	Allocation ($)	Percentage Spent
Connecticut	$10,569,192	48%
Maryland	1,185,675	63%
New Jersey	226,794,105	86%
New York	235,434,600	67%
Rhode Island	516,428	30%
Total	474,500,000	76%

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from HHS. Allocation data are available in SSBG Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2013, March 28, 2013.

FY2008 Supplemental: Major Disasters of 2008 (and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita)

The first FY2009 CR (P.L. 110-329) included, as Division B, the Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008. This law provided $600 million in supplemental funds for the SSBG in FY2008. These funds were appropriated on the last day of FY2008 and were not allotted to states by HHS until FY2009. The supplemental funds were appropriated for necessary expenses resulting from “"major disasters”" (as declared by the President and defined in Title IV of the Stafford Act) occurring during 2008, including hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters. The appropriation also made these funds available for necessary expenses resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The appropriations language specified that in addition to other uses permitted by Title XX of the Social Security Act, states could use their supplemental SSBG funds to provide social and health services (including mental health services) for individuals, as well as to support the repair, renovation, or construction of health care facilities, mental health facilities, child care centers, and other social services facilities affected by related disasters. Allocation of Funds The appropriations language explicitly required HHS to distribute funding to eligible states based on “"demonstrated need in accordance with objective criteria that are made available to the public.”" HHS outlined their criteria in Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 02-2009, FY2008 SSBG Supplemental Appropriation of Disaster Assistance Funds Awarded in FY2009, , which was issued by the Department on January 6, 2009.41 44 Figure B-1 illustrates how the criteria selected by HHS were used to allocate funds to states. 41 See the Information Memorandum online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/fiscal-year-fy-2008-ssbgsupplemental-appropriation-of-disaster. Congressional Research Service 22 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Figure B-1. HHS Allocation Methodology for the FY2008 SSBG Supplemental Funding Figure B-1. HHS Allocation Methodology for the FY2008 SSBG Supplemental Funding Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from HHS. As specified in the Information Memorandum, HHS identified criteria to determine which disasters qualified for supplemental SSBG funds. First, HHS specified that qualifying major disasters were those that occurred between January 1, 2008, and the date of enactment of the supplemental appropriation (September 30, 2008); in addition, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were considered to qualify automatically based on appropriations language. Second, HHS restricted qualifying disasters to those which triggered authorizations for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Individual Assistance. The FEMA Individual Assistance program provides money or direct assistance to individuals, families, and businesses in an affected area whose property has been damaged or destroyed and whose losses are not covered by insurance. HHS chose Individual Assistance data to serve as a proxy for “"demonstrated need,”" noting that these data represent individual households that have declared a loss associated with the disaster and who have registered for assistance. Twenty states (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) were directly affected by qualifying disasters in 2008, as determined by the HHS criteria. Based on these same criteria, four states were deemed to be eligible for supplemental funds as a result of the lasting effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (all but one of these states had also been affected by disasters in 2008). In total, 21 states (including Puerto Rico) were eligible to receive some share of the $600 million in supplemental funds under the HHS methodology. Congressional Research Service 23 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding As shown in Figure B-1, the HHS methodology called for three-fourths of the supplemental funds ($450 million) to be reserved for the states that were directly affected by major disasters occurring in 2008. One-fourth of the supplemental ($150 million) was then dedicated to the states facing ongoing needs as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. From there, funds in each category were allocated to states using two equally weighted sets of data: (1) the proportional share of FEMA registrants for Individual Assistance (that is, individuals from affected communities who validly registered with FEMA after the natural disaster), and (2) the relative size of state populations according to 2007 data from the Census Bureau’'s American Community Survey. Table B-2 displays the amount allocated to each state. Expenditure of Funds Typically, SSBG funds are subject to a two-year expenditure period—meaning that funds must be spent by the end of the fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year in which they were allotted to states.4245 The funds from this supplemental were allotted to states in FY2009, giving states until the last day of FY2010 (September 30, 2010) to spend them. However, most states had not spent all of their supplemental funds by the end of FY2010. Recognizing this, Congress passed a bill ( (S. 3774), which the President signed into law (P.L. 111-285) on November 24, 2010, extending the expenditure deadline for these funds by one fiscal year (to September 30, 2011).43 46 According to expenditure data from HHS, states spent more than $522 million (or 87%) of the $600 million in supplemental funds prior to the extended expenditure deadline. As shown in Table B-2, six states (Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, and Mississippi) spent all of the supplemental funds they were allotted, while two states (Oklahoma and West Virginia) spent none. The remaining states (plus Puerto Rico) spent some portion of their funds, ranging from 3.5% of Arkansas’'s allotment to 99.8% of Texas’s. 's. Table B-2. State Allocations and Spending from the FY2008 SSBG Supplemental (As of October 27, 2013) State Allocation ($) Percent Spent Alabama 13,092,588 100.0% Arkansas 7,386,653 3.5% Colorado 8,931,072 26.4% Florida 35,384,592 43.3% Georgia 18,111,127 22.6% Illinois 30,502,439 87.6% Indiana 18,139,459 100.0% Iowa 11,157,944 100.0% Kentucky 7,732,381 100.0% Louisiana 129,737,880 100.0% 42 Section 2002(c) of the Social Security Act. Terms and conditions of SSBG grant awards typically give states an additional 90 days (in this case, until December 30, 2011) to liquidate funds that had already been obligated at the end of the fiscal year. 43 Congressional Research Service 24 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding State Maine Allocation ($) Percent Spent 2,425,722 100.0% Mississippi 28,136,577 100.0% Missouri 12,188,291 99.6% Nebraska 3,570,592 57.1% Nevada 4,640,930 68.3% Oklahoma 6,540,619 0.0% Puerto Rico 12,427,602 71.3% Tennessee 11,689,137 64.2% 218,852,848 99.8% 3,386,574 0.0% 15,964,973 67.7% 600,000,000 87.0% Texas West Virginia Wisconsin Total Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from HHS. FY2006 Supplemental: Gulf Coast Hurricanes of 2005

(As of October 27, 2013)

State	Allocation ($)	Percentage Spent
Alabama	13,092,588	100.0%
Arkansas	7,386,653	3.5%
Colorado	8,931,072	26.4%
Florida	35,384,592	43.3%
Georgia	18,111,127	22.6%
Illinois	30,502,439	87.6%
Indiana	18,139,459	100.0%
Iowa	11,157,944	100.0%
Kentucky	7,732,381	100.0%
Louisiana	129,737,880	100.0%
Maine	2,425,722	100.0%
Mississippi	28,136,577	100.0%
Missouri	12,188,291	99.6%
Nebraska	3,570,592	57.1%
Nevada	4,640,930	68.3%
Oklahoma	6,540,619	0.0%
Puerto Rico	12,427,602	71.3%
Tennessee	11,689,137	64.2%
Texas	218,852,848	99.8%
West Virginia	3,386,574	0.0%
Wisconsin	15,964,973	67.7%
Total	600,000,000	87.0%

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from HHS.

FY2006 Supplemental: Gulf Coast Hurricanes of 2005

The FY2006 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) included supplemental SSBG funding in the amount of $550 million. These funds were for expenses related to the consequences of the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005. The Defense Appropriations Act expanded the potential services for which the additional $550 million could be used to include “"health services (including mental health services) and for repair, renovation and construction of health facilities.” " Allocation of Funds Factors used to allocate these supplemental funds included the number of FEMA registrants from hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, as well as the percentpercentage of individuals in poverty in each state. HHS distributed funds to all states that took in evacuees, not just the states that were directly affected, noting in a February 8, 2006, press release that the Bush Administration had promised no state would be unfairly disadvantaged for providing services to those affected by the storms.44 47 Although all states received a portion, Louisiana ($221 million), Mississippi ($128 million), Texas ($88 million), Florida ($54 million), and Alabama ($28 million) received the bulk of funding from the supplemental (94%). Expenditure of Funds On May 25, 2007, an FY2007 supplemental appropriations act was signed into law (P.L. 110-28), ), extending the availability of the supplemental SSBG funds for expenditure through the end of FY2009. In practical terms, this provision gave states until September 30, 2009, to spend all of their supplemental funds.4548 According to HHS, states failed to spend approximately $28.7 million 44 See http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060208a.html. The Terms and Conditions of SSBG grant agreements give states 90 days after the end of the grant period to finalize (continued...) 45 Congressional Research Service 25 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding (or 5%) of the $550 million in supplemental funds prior to the expenditure deadline. This means that about 95% of the supplemental funds were spent prior to the close of FY2009 (see Table B-3 for state-by-state data). Unspent funds were to revert to the U.S. Treasury. The 2009 SSBG annual report (most recent available) indicates that states spent supplemental funds on 28 of the 29 SSBG service categories defined in federal regulation, including education and training, counseling services, and health-related services.4649 The report shows that most of the supplemental funds were spent in the “"other services”" category, including expenditures for certain construction and renovation costs, as well as costs for certain health and mental health services. Table B-3. State Spending from the FY2006 SSBG Supplemental (As reported on April 1, 2010) State Alabama Allocation ($) Percent Spent 27,852,254 99.94% Alaska 37,554 0.00% Arizona 487,931 62.55% Arkansas 3,603,505 22.84% California 3,051,021 36.22% Colorado 545,168 79.30% Connecticut 113,858 100.00% 39,178 100.00% 328,256 100.00% Florida 53,808,916 69.44% Georgia 6,325,537 80.31% Hawaii 34,153 0.00% Idaho 35,224 63.68% Illinois 1,351,677 99.78% Indiana 381,125 39.22% Iowa 126,200 65.16% Kansas 191,975 100.00% Kentucky 525,110 100.00% Louisiana 220,901,534 99.92% 67,995 100.00% Maryland 380,188 99.50% Massachusetts 331,948 14.32% Delaware District of Columbia Maine (...continued) spending for funds they had obligated as of September 30, 2009. 46 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services, Social Services Block Grant Program Annual Report 2009, Chapter 5, http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ ocs/ssbg/reports/2009/index.html. Congressional Research Service 26 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding State Allocation ($) Percent Spent Michigan 734,927 81.65% Minnesota 153,936 44.04% Mississippi 128,398,427 100.00% Missouri 797,091 100.00% Montana 41,786 0.00% Nebraska 114,925 100.00% Nevada 273,291 20.27% 23,717 0.00% New Jersey 259,599 100.00% New Mexico 265,277 0.00% New York 1,182,346 0.00% North Carolina 1,310,272 55.87% 13,009 100.00% Ohio 556,283 10.66% Oklahoma 932,353 0.00% Oregon 177,170 100.00% Pennsylvania 402,568 89.71% Rhode Island 69,382 100.00% South Carolina 696,901 66.30% South Dakota 21,624 100.00% 3,470,718 100.00% 87,951,690 100.00% Utah 92,669 99.98% Vermont 23,272 0.00% Virginia 808,855 0.00% Washington 326,206 100.00% West Virginia 132,912 76.50% Wisconsin 227,555 96.00% Wyoming 20,932 0.00% 550,000,000 94.78% New Hampshire North Dakota Tennessee Texas Total Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from HHS. Notes:

(As reported on April 1, 2010)

State	Allocation ($)	Percentage Spent
Alabama	27,852,254	99.94%
Alaska	37,554	0.00%
Arizona	487,931	62.55%
Arkansas	3,603,505	22.84%
California	3,051,021	36.22%
Colorado	545,168	79.30%
Connecticut	113,858	100.00%
Delaware	39,178	100.00%
District of Columbia	328,256	100.00%
Florida	53,808,916	69.44%
Georgia	6,325,537	80.31%
Hawaii	34,153	0.00%
Idaho	35,224	63.68%
Illinois	1,351,677	99.78%
Indiana	381,125	39.22%
Iowa	126,200	65.16%
Kansas	191,975	100.00%
Kentucky	525,110	100.00%
Louisiana	220,901,534	99.92%
Maine	67,995	100.00%
Maryland	380,188	99.50%
Massachusetts	331,948	14.32%
Michigan	734,927	81.65%
Minnesota	153,936	44.04%
Mississippi	128,398,427	100.00%
Missouri	797,091	100.00%
Montana	41,786	0.00%
Nebraska	114,925	100.00%
Nevada	273,291	20.27%
New Hampshire	23,717	0.00%
New Jersey	259,599	100.00%
New Mexico	265,277	0.00%
New York	1,182,346	0.00%
North Carolina	1,310,272	55.87%
North Dakota	13,009	100.00%
Ohio	556,283	10.66%
Oklahoma	932,353	0.00%
Oregon	177,170	100.00%
Pennsylvania	402,568	89.71%
Rhode Island	69,382	100.00%
South Carolina	696,901	66.30%
South Dakota	21,624	100.00%
Tennessee	3,470,718	100.00%
Texas	87,951,690	100.00%
Utah	92,669	99.98%
Vermont	23,272	0.00%
Virginia	808,855	0.00%
Washington	326,206	100.00%
West Virginia	132,912	76.50%
Wisconsin	227,555	96.00%
Wyoming	20,932	0.00%
Total	550,000,000	94.78%

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from HHS.

Notes: These funds were appropriated in the FY2006 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148). A supplemental appropriations act for FY2007 (P.L. 110-28) extended the expenditure deadline for these funds, giving states until the end of FY2009 (September 30, 2009) to spend their allotments. Under the Terms and Conditions of their grant agreements, states had 90 days after the end of the grant period to finalize spending for funds that were obligated as of September 30, 2009. The numbers above (reported on April 1, 2010) should reflect final expenditures from the FY2006 supplemental. By law, unspent funds revert to the U.S. Treasury. Congressional Research Service 27 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Author Contact Information Karen E. Lynch Specialist in Social Policy klynch@crs.loc.gov, 7-6899 Congressional Research Service 28

Author Contact Information

[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Social Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])

Footnotes

1.	See Section 2005(a) of the Social Security Act.
2.	The conference report for the DRA notes that the House version of the bill increased the maximum transfer to SSBG to 10%, while the Senate bill had no provision. The conference report recedes to the Senate with regard to the transfer authority.
3.	FY2014 TANF financial data are available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/data-reports. Calculation is based on FY2014 dollars spent in FY2014; it does not include prior year funds.
4.	For a comprehensive discussion of the BCA, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].
5.	The discretionary limits were later modified by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA, P.L. 112-250) and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA, Division A of P.L. 113-6).
6.	OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2016, February 2, 2015, p. 6, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration/2016_jc_sequestration_report_speaker.pdf.
7.	H.Rept. 114-47, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget—Fiscal Year 2016, March 15, 2013, p. 115.
8.	OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2015, March 10, 2014, p. 7, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration_order_report_march2014.pdf.
9.	An exception is that on September 30, an automatic continuing resolution was enacted to cover FY2014 pay and allowances for (1) certain members of the Armed Forces, (2) certain Department of Defense (DOD) civilian personnel, and (3) other specified DOD and Department of Homeland Security contractors (P.L. 113-39).
10.	H.Rept. 113-17, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget—Fiscal Year 2014, March 15, 2013, p. 78.
11.	S.Prt. 113-12, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2014, March 2013, p. 146.
12.	This law did not appropriate the $500 million directly to the SSBG. Rather, the law appropriated $800 million to the HHS Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund and required that, of this amount, the Secretary of HHS transfer $500 million to the SSBG. For additional information, see CRS Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief, coordinated by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
13.	See SSBG Information Memorandum Transmittal Number 01-2013, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/ssbg_im_hurricane_sandy_approved_3_27_signed_2_0.pdf.
14.	These resources are available on the HHS website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource-library/search?area[2129]=2129#?keyword[0]=sandy&area[2129]=2129&ajax=1.
15.	Office of Management and Budget, Hurricane Sandy Funding Needs, Washington, DC, December 7, 2012, p. 15, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/supplemental__december_7_2012_hurricane_sandy_funding_needs.pdf.pdf.
16.	Press releases and a draft of the bill released by the subcommittee prior to markup can be found on the House Appropriations Committee website: http://appropriations.house.gov/subcommittees/subcommittee/?IssueID=34777.
17.	H.Rept. 112-421, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2013, March 23, 2012, pp. 89-90.
18.	See Section 201 of H.Con.Res. 112.
19.	For the text of this legislation, visit http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/041812_3.pdf. Note that the legislation would repeal Title XX-A, Sections 2001-2007, but would not repeal Title XX-B (the subtitle on Elder Justice enacted in health reform legislation) or Sections 2008-2009 of Title XX-A (enacted by health reform legislation to create demonstration projects related to the health care workforce and a competitive grant program for the early detection of medical conditions related to environmental health hazards). For a record of the vote, see http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Social_Services_Block_Grant_Roll_Call.pdf.
20.	See reconciliation submissions by committee online at http://budget.house.gov/BudgetAnalysis/Reconciliation.htm.
21.	For more information on deeming resolutions, see CRS Report RL31443, The "Deeming Resolution": A Budget Enforcement Tool, by [author name scrubbed].
22.	This refers to September 1, provided the state operates on a federal fiscal year; alternately, this means June 1 if the state operates on a July-June fiscal year.
23.	See OMB Form No. 0970-0234.
24.	Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2009, Linking the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) Pre- and Post-Expenditure Reports, HHS, Dec. 31, 2008, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/transmittal-no-01-2009-linking-the-social-services-block-grant-ssbg-pre-and.
25.	Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2010, Pre- and Post-Expenditure Reporting for the SSBG Program, HHS, June 7, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/transmittal-no-01-2010-pre-and-post-expenditure-reporting-for-the-ssbg.
26.	Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2012, Implementation of a New Performance Measure, HHS, February 23, 2012, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/implementation-of-a-new-performance-measure.
27.	A copy of the discussion draft, which was released on July 24, 2014, is available at http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/expanding_opportunity_in_america.pdf.
28.	For more information about budget reconciliation, see CRS Report R41186, Reconciliation Directives: Components and Enforcement, by [author name scrubbed].
29.	For the text of this legislation, visit http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/041812_3.pdf. Note that the legislation would repeal Title XX-A, Sections 2001-2007, but would not repeal Title XX-B (the subtitle on Elder Justice enacted in health reform legislation) or Sections 2008-2009 of Title XX-A (enacted by health reform legislation to create demonstration projects related to the health care workforce and a competitive grant program for the early detection of medical conditions related to environmental health hazards).
30.	See reconciliation submissions by committee online at http://budget.house.gov/BudgetAnalysis/Reconciliation.htm.
31.	See text beginning on p. 505 of H.Rept. 112-470.
32.	For FY2013, see H.Rept. 112-421, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2013, March 23, 2012, pp. 89-90. For FY2012, see H.Rept. 112-58, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2012, April 11, 2011, p. 97.
33.	See discussion of these proposals in budget justifications of the HHS Administration for Children and Families, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget. The FY2007 and FY2008 President's Budgets proposed to reduce funding for the SSBG, but not permanently eliminate the program. The initial FY2009 President's Budget proposed to decrease funding for the SSBG by $500 million in FY2009, but to permanently eliminate the program beginning in FY2010. Subsequent amendments to the President's Budget reduced the FY2009 request to $0.
34.	H.Rept. 112-470, pp. 539-540.
35.	Letter from The Honorable Tom Hansen (South Dakota Senate) and The Honorable Barbara W. Ballard (Kansas House of Representatives), Chairs of the NCSL Human Services and Welfare Committee, to The Honorable David Camp and the Honorable Sander Levin, chair and ranking Member (respectively) of the House Committee on Ways and Means, April 16, 2012, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/ncsl-letter-opposing-permanent-elimination-of-ssbg.aspx. See also Indivar Dutta-Gupta, LaDonna Pavetti, and Ife Finch, Eliminating Social Services Block Grant Would Weaken Services for Vulnerable Children, Adults, and Disabled, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 3, 2012, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3765#_ftnref11.
36.	Ibid.
37.	See Sections 6701-6703 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148).
38.	A full description of these provisions is beyond the scope of this report, which is focused on the SSBG. For a summary of the provisions in P.L. 111-148 related to elder justice, see CRS Report CRS Report R41278, Public Health, Workforce, Quality, and Related Provisions in ACA: Summary and Timeline, coordinated by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
39.	Section 10323(b) of ACA (P.L. 111-148) specifies that the general prohibition against using SSBG funds for the provision of medical care shall not be construed as to prohibit recipients of a grant for the early detection of medical conditions related to environmental health hazards from conducting screening for environmental health conditions. In addition, Section 5507 of ACA exempts both health care workforce demonstrations projects from the prohibition against using SSBG funds for the provision of an education service that the state makes generally available to its residents without cost and without regard to their income.
40.	This law did not appropriate the $500 million directly to the SSBG. Rather, the law appropriated $800 million to the HHS Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund and required that, of this amount, the Secretary of HHS transfer $500 million to the SSBG. For additional information, see CRS Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief, coordinated by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
41.	See SSBG Information Memorandum Transmittal Number 01-2013, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/ssbg_im_hurricane_sandy_approved_3_27_signed_2_0.pdf.
42.	These resources are available on the HHS website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/programs/ssbg/hurricane-sandy-supplemental-funds.
43.	See SSBG Information Memorandum Transmittal Number 01-2015, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/im_1_2015_ssbg_sandy_deadlines_revision_closeout_06122015.pdf.
44.	See the Information Memorandum online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/fiscal-year-fy-2008-ssbg-supplemental-appropriation-of-disaster.
45.	Section 2002(c) of the Social Security Act.
46.	Terms and conditions of SSBG grant awards typically give states an additional 90 days (in this case, until December 30, 2011) to liquidate funds that had already been obligated at the end of the fiscal year.
47.	See http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060208a.html.
48.	The Terms and Conditions of SSBG grant agreements give states 90 days after the end of the grant period to finalize spending for funds they had obligated as of September 30, 2009.
49.	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services, Social Services Block Grant Program Annual Report 2009, Chapter 5, http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/reports/2009/index.html.