Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Karen E. Lynch Analyst in Social Policy August 10, 2011 The House Ways and Means Committee is making available this version of this Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, with the cover date shown above, for inclusion in its 2011 Green Book website. CRS works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to Committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. Congressional Research Service 94-953 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress 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 FY2009, 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. The SSBG has received annual appropriations of $1.7 billion in every year since FY2002. Since FY2001, annual appropriations for the SSBG have included a provision stipulating that states may transfer up to 10% of their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants to the SSBG. In addition to funding from annual appropriations, the SSBG received supplemental appropriations in FY2006 and FY2009 for necessary expenses resulting from natural disasters. Congress passed eight continuing resolutions (CRs) for FY2011. The final (full-year) FY2011 CR, P.L. 112-10, maintained SSBG funding at $1.7 billion. Prior to the enactment of the full-year CR, the House had passed a bill (H.R. 1) on February 19, 2011, that would have made cuts to a number of programs. However, H.R. 1 (like the final CR) would have maintained SSBG funding at $1.7 billion. On March 9, 2011, the Senate voted to reject H.R. 1 and S.Amdt. 149 to H.R. 1 (in the nature of a substitute), which would also have funded the SSBG at $1.7 billion. President Obama released his FY2012 budget on February 14, 2011. The FY2012 President’s Budget proposes maintaining SSBG funding at $1.7 billion in FY2012. By contrast, the committee report (H.Rept. 112-58) accompanying the House-passed concurrent resolution on the FY2012 budget (H.Con.Res. 34) recommends eliminating the SSBG in FY2012. The SSBG is permanently authorized in Title XX of the Social Security Act (SSA). The 111th 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 (PPACA; P.L. 111-148). This law inserted a new subtitle on elder justice into Title XX, which was itself retitled 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. 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 Allocation of Funds ......................................................................................................................... 3 Transfer of TANF Funds to SSBG................................................................................................... 4 Funding............................................................................................................................................ 5 FY2012 Budget Resolution ....................................................................................................... 5 FY2012 Budget Request by the Obama Administration ........................................................... 5 FY2011 Appropriations ............................................................................................................. 6 FY2011 Budget Request by the Obama Administration ........................................................... 6 FY2010 Appropriations ............................................................................................................. 6 FY2010 Budget Request by the Obama Administration ........................................................... 7 FY2009 Appropriations ............................................................................................................. 7 FY2009 Budget Request by the Bush Administration............................................................... 7 Recent Supplemental Appropriations ........................................................................................ 8 FY2009 Supplemental Appropriation for Major Disasters of 2008 (and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita) ........................................................................................... 8 Allocation of Funds....................................................................................................... 8 Expenditure of Funds.................................................................................................. 10 FY2006 Supplemental Appropriation for Gulf Coast Hurricanes of 2005........................ 11 Allocation of Funds..................................................................................................... 11 Expenditure of Funds.................................................................................................. 11 Additional Funding History..................................................................................................... 12 State Reporting Requirements ....................................................................................................... 13 Recent Expenditures ...................................................................................................................... 14 Recent Legislative Action.............................................................................................................. 16 How Did Health Reform Affect the SSBG? ............................................................................ 16 New Subtitle on Elder Justice ........................................................................................... 16 New Programs Authorized within the SSBG Subtitle of Title XX ................................... 16 Additional Legislative History ................................................................................................ 17 Figures Figure 1. HHS Allocation Methodology for the FY2009 SSBG Supplemental Funding ................ 9 Tables Table 1. Estimated FY2011 SSBG Allotments to States and Territories ......................................... 3 Congressional Research Service Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Table 2. State Allocations and Spending from the FY2009 SSBG Supplemental ......................... 10 Table 3. SSBG Funding, FY1985-FY2010.................................................................................... 12 Table 4. Total SSBG Expenditures by Service Category, FY2009 ................................................ 14 Table A-1. TANF Transfers to the SSBG in FY2009..................................................................... 18 Table B-1. State Spending from the FY2006 SSBG Supplemental ............................................... 20 Appendixes Appendix A. TANF Transfers to SSBG in FY2009....................................................................... 18 Appendix B. FY2006 Supplemental SSBG Funding..................................................................... 20 Congressional Research Service 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” entitlement to states. This means that states are entitled to their share of funds, as determined by formula, out of an amount of money 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. In FY2011, funding for the SSBG was subject to a series of eight continuing resolutions. The final continuing resolution for FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) included $1.7 billion for the SSBG, the same level of annual funding the block grant has received since FY2002. (This is also the level of annualized funding the SSBG received under the previous seven continuing resolutions for FY2011.) In February 2011, the Obama Administration released the FY2012 President’s Budget. The budget proposes to maintain SSBG funding at $1.7 billion in FY2012. By contrast, the committee report (H.Rept. 112-58) accompanying the House-passed concurrent resolution on the FY2012 budget (H.Con.Res. 34) recommends eliminating the SSBG in FY2012.1 In addition to funding from annual appropriations, the SSBG has occasionally received supplemental appropriations, most recently $600 million in FY2009. The expenditure deadline for the FY2009 supplemental was originally scheduled for September 30, 2010. However, Congress passed a bill (S. 3774), which President Obama signed into law (P.L. 111-285), extending the expenditure deadline for these funds through the end of FY2011 (September 30, 2011). A special SSBG program for enterprise communities and empowerment zones was authorized in 1993 (P.L. 103-66), but is not currently funded. 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 discussed later in the report, have technical importance for the statutory citations of the SSBG, they do not substantively amend the provisions within Title XX that govern the SSBG itself. 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 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 1 H.Rept. 112-58, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2012, April 11, 2011, p. 97. Congressional Research Service 1 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding • 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; • preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care by providing for community-based care, home-based care, or other forms of less intensive care; and • securing referral or admission for institutional care when other forms of care are not appropriate, or providing services to individuals in institutions. 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 4 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 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 Congressional Research Service 2 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding 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).2 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). 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. 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 1 displays FY2011 SSBG allotments by state. Table 1. Estimated FY2011 SSBG Allotments to States and Territories State / Territory Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut 25,928,224 3,846,101 State / Territory Nevada New Hampshire Allotment ($) 14,553,992 7,293,695 36,319,265 New Jersey 47,948,654 15,910,587 New Mexico 11,066,135 203,527,234 New York 107,603,864 27,668,480 North Carolina 51,655,287 19,373,246 North Dakota 3,561,809 Delaware 4,873,872 Ohio 63,558,897 District of Columbia 3,301,976 Oklahoma 20,302,524 Oregon 21,065,756 54,123,974 Pennsylvania 69,407,410 7,131,822 Rhode Island 5,799,434 8,511,862 South Carolina 25,116,211 71,090,410 South Dakota 4,473,339 Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois 2 Allotment ($) 102,078,238 See Section 2005(a) of the Social Security Act. Congressional Research Service 3 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding State / Territory Allotment ($) State / Territory Allotment ($) Indiana 35,368,495 Tennessee Iowa 16,562,583 Texas 136,462,292 15,521,265 Utah 15,333,082 23,755,410 Vermont 24,735,353 Virginia 43,405,019 Washington 36,695,999 10,020,495 Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland 7,259,147 34,669,953 3,423,685 31,383,841 West Virginia Massachusetts 36,307,200 Wisconsin 31,137,681 Michigan 54,897,717 Wyoming 2,996,991 Minnesota 28,998,098 American Samoa Mississippi 16,254,993 Guam 32,970,258 Northern Mariana Islands Missouri Montana 5,368,720 Puerto Rico Nebraska 9,892,977 Virgin Islands 48,518 293,103 58,621 8,793,103 293,103 Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from HHS, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/docs/esalloc11.html. Notes: Figures are based on the annual SSBG appropriation of $1.7 billion, as provided in the final continuing resolution for FY2011 (P.L. 112-10). 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. 105178), 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 appropriations bill (H.R. 3061) proposing to maintain the 10% transfer authority, while the Senate’s amended version proposed a 5.7% transfer level. (The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended a 5.9% transfer authority level in S. 1536; however, the full Senate, in passing an amended H.R. 3061, would have reduced it to 5.7% as a partial offset to funding proposed in S.Amdt. 2084, which provided increased funding for Hispanic education programs.) Ultimately, appropriations acts maintained the transfer authority at 10% in FY2003-FY2011 as well. There has been some confusion about whether or not the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA, P.L. 109171) permanently reinstated the 10% transfer authority. This law reauthorized TANF, through the Congressional Research Service 4 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding end of FY2010, in the manner authorized for FY2004.3 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-FY2009, states annually transferred more than $9 billion of their TANF funds to the SSBG. In FY2009 alone, 43 states transferred $1.2 billion to the SSBG, with 32 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 FY2009 state-by-state data).4 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, or for children who are denied cash assistance because they were born into families already receiving benefits for another child. Funding FY2012 Budget Resolution On April 15, 2011, the House passed a concurrent resolution on the FY2012 budget (H.Con.Res. 34), which sets broad spending targets for FY2012 and subsequent years. This resolution does not determine spending amounts for specific programs. For annually appropriated programs, such as the SSBG, spending amounts are determined through the appropriations process. However, the committee report (H.Rept. 112-58) accompanying the House-passed FY2012 budget resolution included a recommendation that the SSBG be eliminated.5 In its critique of the SSBG, the committee report notes 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. FY2012 Budget Request by the Obama Administration The Obama Administration released the FY2012 Budget on February 14, 2011. The Budget requests that funding for the SSBG be maintained at $1.7 billion for FY2012, the same amount it has received annually since FY2002. 3 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. 4 See FY2009 TANF Financial Data available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/index.html. Calculation is based on FY2009 dollars spent in FY2009; it does not include prior year funds. 5 H.Rept. 112-58, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2012, April 11, 2011, p. 97. Congressional Research Service 5 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding FY2011 Appropriations Congress did not pass a regular FY2011 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies. Instead, funding for the SSBG was provided under a series of continuing resolutions (CRs) for the first half of the fiscal year until a final (full-year) FY2011 CR was passed by the Congress and enacted into law (P.L. 112-10) on April 15, 2011. The final FY2011 CR provided $1.7 billion for the SSBG, the same amount of annual funding the block grant has received since FY2002. Seven short-term CRs provided temporary funding for the SSBG prior to the enactment of the final FY2011 CR. Each of these CRs (P.L. 112-8, P.L. 112-6, P.L. 112-4, P.L. 111-322, P.L. 111-317, P.L. 111-290, P.L. 111-242) maintained SSBG funding at the annualized level of $1.7 billion. Prior to the enactment of the final FY2011 CR, the House had passed alternative legislation (H.R. 1) to extend funding through the end of FY2011, which would have reduced funding for many government programs. However, as passed by the House on February 19, 2011, H.R. 1 would have maintained SSBG funding at the $1.7 billion level. The Senate voted to reject H.R. 1 on March 9, 2011. On March 9, the Senate also voted to reject S.Amdt. 149 to H.R. 1 (in the nature of a substitute), which would have provided full-year funding of $1.7 billion for the SSBG. Before the passage of the first CR, the House and Senate had initiated the FY2011 appropriations process for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (L-HHS-ED) in the 111th Congress. The Senate Subcommittee on L-HHS-ED Appropriations marked up and approved its proposal for FY2011 L-HHS-ED funding on July 27, 2010. The full Senate Appropriations Committee subsequently reported on the proposed FY2011 funding bill (S.Rept. 111-243, S. 3686) on August 2, 2010. This bill would have maintained SSBG funding at the $1.7 billion level. The House Subcommittee on L-HHS-ED Appropriations marked up and approved its proposal for FY2011 appropriations on July 15, 2010, but the full House Appropriations Committee took no action on this legislation in the 111th Congress. FY2011 Budget Request by the Obama Administration In February 2010, the Obama Administration released the FY2011 Budget, which requested that funding for the SSBG be maintained at $1.7 billion for FY2011, the same amount it has received annually since FY2002. FY2010 Appropriations On December 16, 2009, President Obama signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, into law as P.L. 111-117. The measure provided $1.7 billion for the SSBG, reflecting the conference report (H.Rept. 111-366) filed on the bill, H.R. 3288, on December 8, 2009. The House and Senate agreed to the conference report on December 10 and December 13, respectively. P.L. 111117 also maintained the states’ authority to transfer up to 10% of their TANF funds to the SSBG. Prior to the passage of H.R. 3288, both the House and Senate had initiated the L-HHS-ED appropriations process for FY2010. Although the full Senate did not pass a bill to provide LHHS-ED appropriations for FY2010, the Senate Appropriations Committee did report such a bill (S.Rept. 111-66, H.R. 3293) on August 4, 2009, which sought to maintain funding for the SSBG at the annual level of $1.7 billion. Meanwhile, on July 24, 2009, the House passed its FY2010 LHHS-ED appropriations bill, H.R. 3293, which also sought to maintain funding for the SSBG at Congressional Research Service 6 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding $1.7 billion. Prior to consideration by the full House, this bill was reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on July 22, 2009 (H.Rept. 111-220). FY2010 Budget Request by the Obama Administration In May 2009, the Obama Administration released the detailed FY2010 Budget, which requested that funding for the SSBG be maintained at $1.7 billion in FY2010. This was a contrast to recent President’s Budgets submitted by the Bush Administration, which had proposed funding reductions and, ultimately, full elimination of the SSBG. FY2009 Appropriations President Obama signed the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8) into law on March 11, 2009. The FY2009 Omnibus funded the SSBG at an annual level of $1.7 billion in FY2009, rejecting the proposed cuts in the FY2009 budget request submitted by President Bush. The Omnibus also maintained states’ authority to transfer up to 10% of their TANF block grants to the SSBG. Prior to the passage of the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Congress had passed two CRs for FY2009 (P.L. 110-329 and P.L. 111-6). Both CRs also rejected cuts proposed by the Bush Administration, maintaining SSBG funding at $1.7 billion. The first of the two CRs (P.L. 110329) was signed into law by President Bush on September 30, 2008, and remained in effect until March 6, 2009. The second CR (P.L. 111-6) was signed into law by President Obama on March 6, 2009, and lasted until it was superseded by the FY2009 Omnibus on March 11, 2009. In addition to annual appropriations contained in the FY2009 Omnibus, many programs also received FY2009 funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The original Senate-passed version of this bill (H.R. 1) would have appropriated $400 million in SSBG funds, to be obligated to states within 60 calendar days from the date at which they become available for obligation. The original House-passed version of H.R. 1, meanwhile, included no funds for SSBG. Ultimately, the enacted version of this legislation adopted the House position on this and, as a result, the SSBG received no supplemental funds from the ARRA.6 FY2009 Budget Request by the Bush Administration President Bush’s FY2009 budget, released on February 4, 2008, originally called for $1.2 billion in funding for the SSBG in FY2009, a $500 million decrease from the authorized funding level. However the Bush Administration subsequently submitted to Congress two amendments to the initial budget request, which combined to reduce the proposed FY2009 SSBG funding level to $0.7 6 For more information about human services programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, see CRS Report R40211, Human Services Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, by Gene Falk et al. 7 These two amendments to the FY2009 President’s Budget can be found on the Government Printing Office (GPO) website at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy09/amndsup.html (see H.Doc. 110-123 and H.Doc. 110-141). Congressional Research Service 7 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding In addition to the proposed cut for FY2009, the Bush Administration budget also proposed a plan to permanently eliminate the SSBG beginning in FY2010. The Administration contended that the grant’s flexibility and lack of state reporting requirements make it difficult to measure its performance, and that the broad array of services funded through the SSBG often overlap with other federal programs. Recent Supplemental Appropriations FY2009 Supplemental Appropriation for 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, 2009.8 Figure 1 illustrates how the criteria selected by HHS were used to allocate funds to states. 8 See the Information Memorandum online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/procedures/IM_0109.html. Congressional Research Service 8 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Figure 1. HHS Allocation Methodology for the FY2009 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. As shown in Figure 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 Congressional Research Service 9 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding 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 2 displays the amount allocated to each state. Expenditure of Funds Based on data from HHS, states had spent more than $501 million (or 83.6%) of the $600 million in supplemental funds as of July 28, 2011. As shown in Table 2, some states have spent these funds more quickly than others. For instance, six states (Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, and Mississippi) had spent all of their supplemental funds by July 28, 2011, while two states (Oklahoma and West Virginia) had not yet spent any. The remaining 14 states (including Puerto Rico) had spent some portion of their funds, ranging from 3.5% of Arkansas’s allotment to 94.6% of Texas’s. Typically, SSBG funds are subject to a two-year expenditure period—meaning that funds must be spent by the end of the fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year in which they were allotted to states.9 The funds from this supplemental were allotted to states in FY2009, giving states until the last day of FY2010 (September 30, 2010) to spend them. However, most states had not spent all of their supplemental funds by the end of FY2010. Recognizing this, Congress passed a bill (S. 3774), which the President signed into law (P.L. 111-285) on November 24, 2010, extending the expenditure deadline for these funds by one fiscal year (to September 30, 2011). Table 2. State Allocations and Spending from the FY2009 SSBG Supplemental (as of July 28, 2011) State Allocation ($) Balance ($) Percent Spent Alabama 13,092,588 0 100.0% Arkansas 7,386,653 7,130,072 3.5% Colorado 8,931,072 6,569,293 26.4% Florida 35,384,592 20,058,269 43.3% Georgia 18,111,127 15,909,499 12.2% Illinois 30,502,439 9,951,979 67.4% Indiana 18,139,459 0 100.0% Iowa 11,157,944 815,000 92.7% Kentucky 7,732,381 0 100.0% Louisiana 129,737,880 0 100.0% 2,425,722 0 100.0% 28,136,577 0 100.0% Maine Mississippi 9 Section 2002(c) of the Social Security Act. Congressional Research Service 10 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding State Allocation ($) Balance ($) Percent Spent Missouri 12,188,291 2,018,395 83.4% Nebraska 3,570,592 2,072,383 42.0% Nevada 4,640,930 1,576,171 66.0% Oklahoma 6,540,619 6,540,619 0.0% Puerto Rico 12,427,602 1,364,147 89.0% Tennessee 11,689,137 4,185,273 64.2% 218,852,848 11,871,785 94.6% 3,386,574 3,386,574 0.0% 15,964,973 5,149,947 67.7% 600,000,000 98,599,404 83.6% Texas West Virginia Wisconsin Total Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from HHS. FY2006 Supplemental Appropriation for 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 percent 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.10 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.11 According to HHS, states failed to spend approximately $28.7 million (or about 5%) of the $550 million in supplemental funds prior to the expenditure deadline (see 10 See http://www.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 spending for funds they had obligated as of September 30, 2009. 11 Congressional Research Service 11 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Table B-1 in Appendix B for state-by-state data). This means that about 95% of the supplemental funds were spent prior to the close of FY2009. Unspent funds reverted to the U.S. Treasury. Additional Funding History Table 3 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. Table 3 shows SSBG entitlement ceilings and appropriations from FY1985-FY2010. Also shown for FY1997-FY2008 are the amounts transferred from TANF to SSBG. Table 3. SSBG Funding, FY1985-FY2010 (Dollars in billions) Fiscal Year Ceiling 1985 Fiscal Year Ceiling 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 Congressional Research Service Appropriation Transfer from TANF Appropriation 12 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Fiscal Year Ceiling 1993 2.8 1994 1995 1996 Ceiling 2.8 2005 1.700 1.700 0.92 2.8 2.8 2006 1.700 1.700+0.550e 0.97 2.8 2.8 2007 1.700 1.700 1.17 2008 1.700 1.700+0.600f 1.18 2009 1.700 1.700 1.21 2010 1.700 1.700 data not available 2011 1.700 1.700 data not available 2.381 Appropriation Transfer from TANF Fiscal Year 2.381 Appropriation 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 spending reports. 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. 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. 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. The FY1990 appropriation included a supplemental appropriation of $100 million (P.L. 101-198). The GrammRudman-Hollings legislation sequestration of funds for FY1990 reduced funding by $37.8 million to $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. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 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 funds for the SSBG. These funds were appropriated on the last day of FY2008, but were not allotted to states until FY2009. 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.12 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.13 HHS published regulations 12 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. 13 See OMB Form No. 0970-0234. Congressional Research Service 13 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding (November 15, 1993) to implement this requirement and to provide states with a uniform set of service category definitions. HHS does not require that states submit pre-expenditure reports using a standard format like the one required for post-expenditure reporting (most states simply submit a narrative or chart of their proposed activities and the individuals to be served). However, HHS issued a new Information Memorandum on December 31, 2008 (Transmittal No. 01-2009), asking states to voluntarily include additional documentation as part of their pre-expenditure reports.14 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. For states that submit this form as part of their pre-expenditure report, the additional documentation will allow for a more accurate analysis of the extent to which SSBG funds are spent “in a manner consistent” with the state’s intended use plan. HHS later issued an Information Memorandum on June 7, 2010 (Transmittal No. 01-2010) that again encouraged states to submit pre-expenditure estimates using the same reporting form that is required for post-expenditure reports.15 Recent Expenditures Table 4 shows national SSBG expenditures from FY2009, the most recent year for which 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 FY2009, the largest expenditures for services under the SSBG were for child care (14%), foster care services for children (13%), and special services for the disabled (11%). Table 4. Total SSBG Expenditures by Service Category, FY2009 SSBG Expenditures Made From: Service Category SSBG Allocation ($) Funds Transferred from TANF ($) Total SSBG Expenditures ($) Percent of Total Adoption Services 21,598,119 23,617,948 45,216,067 2% Case Management 150,434,644 65,812,653 216,247,297 8% Congregate Meals 7,173,962 8,884 7,182,846 0% Counseling Services 20,642,121 3,028,957 23,671,078 1% Day Care—Adults 23,988,382 21,589 24,009,971 1% 110,401,462 280,212,803 390,614,264 14% Education and Training Services 21,632,305 2,257,017 23,889,322 1% Employment Services 11,361,657 1,262,902 12,624,559 0% Family Planning Services 12,207,117 21,487,705 33,694,822 1% Day Care—Children 14 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/ssbg/procedures/mema.html. 15 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/ssbg/procedures/mema.html. 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— Adults 29,577,968 8,438,347 38,016,314 1% Foster Care Services— Children 132,657,642 240,167,267 372,824,909 13% Health-Related Services 16,549,569 1,794,449 18,344,018 1% Home-Based Services 169,380,683 28,184,628 197,565,311 7% Home-Delivered Meals 25,482,489 48,919 25,531,408 1% Housing Services 10,977,151 7,252,176 18,229,327 1% Independent/Transitional Living 6,794,858 1,073,922 7,868,780 0% Information and Referral 17,478,571 4,259,729 21,738,300 1% Legal Services 18,287,739 844,415 19,132,154 1% 7,723,212 2,046,509 9,769,720 0% 44,392,821 88,959,481 133,352,303 5% Protective Services— Adults 210,302,566 5,423,422 215,725,988 8% Protective Services— Children 133,001,497 137,159,212 270,160,708 10% 746,800 146,103 892,903 0% 58,881,865 47,642,297 106,524,162 4% 243,419,274 71,447,923 314,867,196 11% 20,820,932 4,632,124 25,453,056 1% 4,504,880 966,279 5,471,159 0% Transportation 20,107,583 2,755,929 22,863,512 1% Other Services 98,220,448 51,254,759 149,475,207 5% Administrative Costs 74,774,141 15,701,228 90,475,369 3% 1,723,522,458 1,117,909,571 2,841,432,029 100% Pregnancy and Parenting Prevention and Intervention Recreation Services Residential Treatment Special Services— Disabled Special Services—Youth at Risk Substance Abuse Services Total SSBG Expenditures Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data included in the Social Services Block Grant Program Annual Report 2009. Full report available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ ssbg/reports/reports.html. 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. During the first Session of the 111th Congress, several bills were introduced (S. 795, H.R. 2006, S. 1796, H.R. 3590) which 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, including one on elder justice. 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 (PPACA; 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 (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.16 The elder justice 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.17 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 exceptions18 to this 16 See Sections 6701-6703 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, P.L. 111-148). 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 R40943, Public Health, Workforce, Quality, and Related Provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148), coordinated by C. Stephen Redhead and Erin D. Williams. 18 Section 10323(b) of PPACA (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 (continued...) 17 Congressional Research Service 16 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding 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. Additional Legislative History Proposals to increase funding for the SSBG were included as part of welfare reauthorization bills in the 109th Congress, but these were not passed. (S. 667 would have increased funding for the SSBG by $1 billion over five years, and both H.R. 751 and S. 6 would have provided $1.975 billion for the SSBG in FY2006 and $2.8 billion in FY2007.) Instead, a scaled-back version of welfare reauthorization, which included none of the SSBG provisions, was included in reconciliation legislation and signed into law (P.L. 109-171) on February 8, 2006. It is possible that the next round of welfare reauthorization (due in FY2011) may include similar proposals with respect to the SSBG. (...continued) addition, Section 5507 of PPACA exempts both health care workforce demonstrations projects from the prohibition against using SSBG funds for the provision of an education service that the state makes generally available to its residents without cost and without regard to their income. Congressional Research Service 17 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Appendix A. TANF Transfers to SSBG in FY2009 Table A-1.TANF Transfers to the SSBG in FY2009 Total Federal TANF Funds ($) TANF Funds Transferred to SSBGa ($) Percent of TANF Funds Transferred to SSBG 104,408,461 10,440,848 10.00% 25,937,984 36,378,832 Alaska 53,044,477 5,049,000 9.52% 3,830,729 8,879,729 Arizona 264,204,113 22,415,757 8.48% 35,527,187 57,942,944 Arkansas 74,253,498 0 0.00% 15,888,351 15,888,351 California 3,659,875,042 351,609,041 9.61% 204,871,919 556,480,960 Colorado 174,570,108 14,962,638 8.57% 27,247,614 42,210,252 Connecticut 266,788,107 26,678,810 10.00% 19,629,594 46,308,404 Delaware 37,281,732 2,788,865 7.48% 4,846,793 7,635,658 District of Columbia 92,575,606 3,935,917 4.25% 3,297,234 7,233,151 Florida 622,745,788 62,274,578 10.00% 102,293,798 164,568,376 Georgia 368,024,967 0 0.00% 53,496,013 53,496,013 Hawaii 110,443,680 9,890,000 8.95% 7,193,079 17,083,079 Idaho 33,910,608 1,441,201 4.25% 8,403,785 9,844,986 Illinois 585,056,960 39,672,230 6.78% 72,035,420 111,707,650 Indiana 206,799,109 2,000,000 0.97% 35,563,808 37,563,808 Iowa 131,030,394 12,962,008 9.89% 16,747,274 29,709,282 Kansas 120,618,422 7,191,254 5.96% 15,558,791 22,750,045 Kentucky 181,287,669 0 0.00% 23,772,435 23,772,435 Louisiana 180,998,997 16,397,199 9.06% 24,062,369 40,459,568 78,120,889 2,542,709 3.25% 7,382,626 9,925,335 Maryland 267,281,037 22,909,803 8.57% 31,489,458 54,399,261 Massachusetts 551,245,339 45,937,113 8.33% 36,149,315 82,086,428 Michigan 930,423,430 77,535,285 8.33% 56,450,124 133,985,409 Minnesota 263,434,070 4,790,000 1.82% 29,131,407 33,921,407 Mississippi 95,803,252 9,580,325 10.00% 16,359,083 25,939,408 Missouri 217,051,740 21,705,174 10.00% 32,947,093 54,652,267 Montana 39,171,817 1,998,226 5.10% 5,368,579 7,366,805 Nebraska 57,513,601 0 0.00% 9,946,041 9,946,041 Nevada 51,591,051 1,924,690 3.73% 14,378,345 16,303,035 New Hampshire 38,521,261 2,000,000 5.19% 7,374,897 9,374,897 404,034,823 16,938,000 4.19% 48,682,478 65,620,478 State Alabama Maine New Jersey Congressional Research Service SSBG Allocationb ($) Total SSBG Funds With TANF Transfer ($) 18 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Total Federal TANF Funds ($) TANF Funds Transferred to SSBGa ($) Percent of TANF Funds Transferred to SSBG 139,246,824 0 0.00% 11,040,897 11,040,897 2,850,085,702 200,755,328 7.04% 108,159,098 308,914,426 North Carolina 398,797,467 14,838,807 3.72% 50,784,890 65,623,697 North Dakota 26,399,809 0 0.00% 3,585,448 3,585,448 Ohio 727,968,260 54,597,620 7.50% 64,269,293 118,866,913 Oklahoma 145,281,442 14,528,144 10.00% 20,274,180 34,802,324 Oregon 166,798,629 0 0.00% 21,003,578 21,003,578 Pennsylvania 717,365,627 23,232,750 3.24% 69,682,789 92,915,539 Rhode Island 95,021,587 8,257,769 8.69% 5,928,892 14,186,661 South Carolina 119,961,389 4,000,000 3.33% 24,704,142 28,704,142 South Dakota 21,279,651 2,127,965 10.00% 4,462,587 6,590,552 Tennessee 250,572,162 9,000,000 3.59% 34,506,919 43,506,919 Texas 538,964,526 31,267,490 5.80% 133,978,262 165,245,752 Utah 99,435,766 7,560,948 7.60% 14,826,434 22,387,382 Vermont 47,353,181 4,735,318 10.00% 3,481,978 8,217,296 Virginia 158,285,172 13,956,375 8.82% 43,224,403 57,180,778 Washington 456,899,680 6,176,000 1.35% 36,253,950 42,429,950 West Virginia 110,176,310 11,017,631 10.00% 10,156,017 21,173,648 Wisconsin 377,399,225 13,420,500 3.56% 31,395,836 44,816,336 Wyoming 18,500,530 0 0.00% 2,930,336 2,930,336 17,727,902,987 1,217,043,316 - 1,690,513,552 2,907,556,868 State New Mexico New York Total SSBG Allocationb ($) Total SSBG Funds With TANF Transfer ($) Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on FY2009 data reported by HHS. In this table, TANF financial data reflect FY2009 one-year (not combined) spending, whereas SSBG figures represent FY2009 allocations. a. The amount in this column is the total amount of FY2009 TANF funding transferred to the SSBG in FY2009; it does not include any adjustments made for previous years. This information comes from TANF financial data reports for FY2009 (Table A1-1), available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/index.html. b. The amount in this column does not include supplemental funds awarded to states under P.L. 110-329. Congressional Research Service 19 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding Appendix B. FY2006 Supplemental SSBG Funding The FY2006 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) included $550 million in supplemental SSBG funding for expenses related to the consequences of the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005. Table B-1 displays state-by-state allocations and balances (i.e., unspent funds) from the FY2006 supplemental. These HHS data suggest that approximately $28.7 million (or 5%) of the supplemental funds were not spent before the expenditure deadline of September 30, 2009. Unspent funds reverted to the U.S. Treasury. Table B-1. State Spending from the FY2006 SSBG Supplemental (as reported on April 1, 2010) State Alabama Allocation ($) Balance ($) (Amount Unspent) Percent Spent 27,852,254 16,601 99.94% Alaska 37,554 37,554 0.00% Arizona 487,931 182,722 62.55% Arkansas 3,603,505 2,780,335 22.84% California 3,051,021 1,945,928 36.22% Colorado 545,168 112,876 79.30% Connecticut 113,858 0 100.00% 39,178 0 100.00% 328,256 0 100.00% Florida 53,808,916 16,446,605 69.44% Georgia 6,325,537 1,245,651 80.31% Hawaii 34,153 34,153 0.00% Idaho 35,224 12,794 63.68% Illinois 1,351,677 2,942 99.78% Indiana 381,125 231,653 39.22% Iowa 126,200 43,966 65.16% Kansas 191,975 0 100.00% Kentucky 525,110 0 100.00% Louisiana 220,901,534 179,382 99.92% 67,995 3 100.00% Maryland 380,188 1,899 99.50% Massachusetts 331,948 284,422 14.32% Michigan 734,927 134,889 81.65% Minnesota 153,936 86,135 44.04% Mississippi 128,398,427 0 100.00% Missouri 797,091 0 100.00% Montana 41,786 41,786 0.00% Delaware District of Columbia Maine Congressional Research Service 20 Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding State Allocation ($) Balance ($) (Amount Unspent) Percent Spent Nebraska 114,925 0 100.00% Nevada 273,291 217,884 20.27% 23,717 23,717 0.00% New Jersey 259,599 0 100.00% New Mexico 265,277 265,277 0.00% New York 1,182,346 1,182,346 0.00% North Carolina 1,310,272 578,271 55.87% 13,009 0 100.00% Ohio 556,283 496,967 10.66% Oklahoma 932,353 932,353 0.00% Oregon 177,170 0 100.00% Pennsylvania 402,568 41,436 89.71% Rhode Island 69,382 0 100.00% South Carolina 696,901 234,866 66.30% South Dakota 21,624 0 100.00% 3,470,718 0 100.00% 87,951,690 0 100.00% Utah 92,669 19 99.98% Vermont 23,272 23,272 0.00% Virginia 808,855 808,855 0.00% Washington 326,206 0 100.00% West Virginia 132,912 31,233 76.50% Wisconsin 227,555 9,094 96.00% Wyoming 20,932 20,932 0.00% 550,000,000 28,688,818 94.78% New Hampshire North Dakota Tennessee Texas Total 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. Unspent funds reverted to the U.S. Treasury. Congressional Research Service 21