Social Services Block Grant:
Background and Funding
Karen E. Lynch
Specialist in Social Policy
August 28, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
94-953
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared 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 FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2055, P.L. 112-74) provided $1.7 billion for
the SSBG in FY2012, the same level of funding as had been requested in the FY2012 President’s
Budget. This is also the same level of annually appropriated funding that the SSBG has received
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.
The FY2013 President’s Budget, released by the Obama Administration in February 2012,
proposed to maintain annual SSBG funding at $1.7 billion. FY2013 appropriations have yet to be
enacted, but both the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill (S. 3295, S.Rept. 112-176)
and the draft bill approved by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies would maintain level funding for the SSBG.
By contrast, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 (H.R. 5652) includes a
provision that, if enacted, would repeal the SSBG, effective October 1, 2012. This budget
reconciliation bill was agreed to in the House on May 10, 2012, by a vote of 218-199. However,
the Senate has not taken up the measure. The House Budget Committee report accompanying the
reconciliation bill (H.Rept. 112-470) calls the SSBG a duplicative funding stream that lacks focus
and accountability. Those with dissenting views argue that the block grant’s flexibility allows
states to address the needs of vulnerable populations and respond to local concerns. Prior to the
introduction of the reconciliation bill, the House Budget Committee report (H.Rept. 112-421)
accompanying the House-passed concurrent resolution on the FY2013 budget (i.e., the House
budget resolution for FY2013, H.Con.Res. 112) had included a recommendation that the SSBG
be eliminated in FY2013.
Under current law, 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 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 .................................................................................................................................... 2
Goals.......................................................................................................................................... 2
Services ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Prohibited Uses.......................................................................................................................... 2
Eligibility ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Allocation of Funds ......................................................................................................................... 3
Transfer of TANF Funds to SSBG................................................................................................... 4
Funding............................................................................................................................................ 5
FY2013 Appropriations ............................................................................................................. 5
Potential Sequestration for FY2013 .......................................................................................... 6
FY2013 Budget Resolution and Reconciliation ........................................................................ 6
FY2013 Budget Request by the Obama Administration ........................................................... 7
FY2012 Appropriations ............................................................................................................. 7
FY2012 Budget Resolution ....................................................................................................... 8
FY2012 Budget Request by the Obama Administration ........................................................... 8
FY2011 Appropriations ............................................................................................................. 8
FY2011 Budget Request by the Obama Administration ........................................................... 9
FY2010 Appropriations ............................................................................................................. 9
FY2010 Budget Request by the Obama Administration ........................................................... 9
FY2009 Appropriations ............................................................................................................. 9
FY2009 Budget Request by the Bush Administration............................................................. 10
Recent Supplemental Appropriations ...................................................................................... 10
FY2009 Supplemental Appropriation for Major Disasters of 2008 (and
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita) ......................................................................................... 10
Allocation of Funds..................................................................................................... 11
Expenditure of Funds.................................................................................................. 12
FY2006 Supplemental Appropriation for Gulf Coast Hurricanes of 2005........................ 13
Allocation of Funds..................................................................................................... 13
Expenditure of Funds.................................................................................................. 14
Additional Funding History..................................................................................................... 14
State Reporting Requirements ....................................................................................................... 16
Recent Expenditures ...................................................................................................................... 17
Recent Legislative Action.............................................................................................................. 18
Proposal to Repeal the SSBG .................................................................................................. 18
How Did Health Reform Affect the SSBG?............................................................................ 20
New Subtitle on Elder Justice ........................................................................................... 20
New Programs Authorized within the SSBG Subtitle of Title XX ................................... 20
Additional Legislative History ................................................................................................ 21
Figures
Figure 1. HHS Allocation Methodology for the FY2009 SSBG Supplemental Funding .............. 11
Congressional Research Service
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Tables
Table 1. Estimated FY2012 SSBG Allotments to States and Territories ......................................... 3
Table 2. State Allocations and Spending from the FY2009 SSBG Supplemental ......................... 13
Table 3. SSBG Funding, FY1985-FY2012.................................................................................... 15
Table 4. Total SSBG Expenditures by Service Category, FY2009 ................................................ 17
Table A-1. TANF Transfers to the SSBG in FY2011..................................................................... 22
Table B-1. State Spending from the FY2006 SSBG Supplemental ............................................... 24
Appendixes
Appendix A. TANF Transfers to SSBG in FY2011....................................................................... 22
Appendix B. FY2006 Supplemental SSBG Funding..................................................................... 24
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 26
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 FY2012, the SSBG received $1.7 billion from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L.
112-74). This is the same amount the Obama Administration had requested for FY2012 and is the
same level of annual funding the block grant has received since FY2002. The FY2013 President’s
Budget would maintain SSBG funding at $1.7 billion. FY2013 appropriations have yet to be
enacted, but both the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill (S. 3295, S.Rept. 112-176)
and the draft bill approved by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies would maintain $1.7 billion for the SSBG.
By contrast, the committee report (H.Rept. 112-421) accompanying the House-passed concurrent
resolution on the FY2013 budget (H.Con.Res. 112) recommended eliminating the SSBG in
FY2013.1 The proposal to repeal the SSBG was ultimately included in a reconciliation package,
The Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 (H.R. 5652), which was reported out of
the House Budget Committee (H.Rept. 112-470) on May 9, 2012, and agreed to by the House the
following day. (See related discussion in the sections on the “FY2013 Budget Resolution and
Reconciliation” and the “Proposal to Repeal the SSBG”.)
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 has occasionally
received supplemental appropriations, including funds that were appropriated for expenses related
to natural disasters in FY2006 and FY2009. 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.
1 H.Rept. 112-421, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2013, March 23, 2012, pp. 89-90.
Congressional Research Service
1
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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
• 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
Congressional Research Service
2
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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).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 FY2012 SSBG allotments by state.
Table 1. Estimated FY2012 SSBG Allotments to States and Territories
State / Territory
Allotment ($)
State / Territory
Allotment ($)
Alabama 26,170,915
Nevada 14,786,568
Alaska 3,888,791
New
Hampshire
7,208,186
Arizona 34,998,781
New
Jersey
48,139,042
Arkansas 15,965,788
New
Mexico
11,274,807
California 203,979,910
New
York 106,102,651
Colorado 27,536,806
North
Carolina
52,210,481
Connecticut 19,569,572
North
Dakota 3,682,698
2 See Section 2005(a) of the Social Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
3
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
State / Territory
Allotment ($)
State / Territory
Allotment ($)
Delaware 4,916,538
Ohio
63,166,850
District of Columbia
3,294,668
Oklahoma
20,540,107
Florida 102,944,491
Oregon 20,976,621
Georgia 53,043,671
Pennsylvania
69,550,469
Hawai 7,448,177
Rhode
Island
5,763,214
Idaho 8,583,122
South
Carolina
25,325,668
Illinois 70,252,704
South
Dakota
4,457,952
Indiana 35,501,340
Tennessee
34,747,395
Iowa 16,679,979
Texas
137,681,734
Kansas 15,621,932
Utah 15,133,346
Kentucky 23,759,723
Vermont 3,426,176
Louisiana 24,821,976
Virginia 43,808,721
Maine
7,273,294
Washington
36,819,474
Maryland 31,612,444
West
Virginia
10,145,863
Massachusetts 35,850,817
Wisconsin
31,138,462
Michigan 54,116,776
Wyoming 3,086,072
Minnesota 29,041,054
American
Samoa
60,074
Mississippi 16,247,106
Guam
293,103
Missouri
32,791,706
Northern Mariana Islands
58,621
Montana 5,417,432
Puerto
Rico
8,793,103
Nebraska 9,999,928
Virgin
Islands
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/esalloc12.html.
Notes: Figures are based on the annual SSBG appropriation of $1.7 billion, as provided in the FY2012
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74).
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. 105-
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
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
Congressional Research Service
4
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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-FY2012 as well.
There has been some confusion about whether or not the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA, P.L. 109-
171) permanently reinstated the 10% transfer authority. This law reauthorized TANF, through the
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-FY2011, states annually transferred roughly $1 billion of their TANF
funds to the SSBG. In FY2011 alone, 39 states plus the District of Columbia transferred a
combined $1.1 billion to the SSBG, with 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 FY2011 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
FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013 appropriations have yet to be enacted. However, both the House and Senate have
initiated the FY2013 appropriations process for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (L-HHS-ED).
On July 18, 2012, the House Appropriations L-HHS-ED Subcommittee approved a bill for full
committee consideration. The full committee has yet to consider the bill, but as passed by the
subcommittee, the bill would provide $1.7 billion for the SSBG in FY2013.5
On June 14, 2012, prior to action in the House, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported a
bill to provide full-year FY2013 L-HHS-ED appropriations (S. 3295, S.Rept. 112-176). This bill
would also maintain SSBG funding at $1.7 billion for FY2013. In the report accompanying the
bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee called the SSBG a “critical source of funding for
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 FY2011 TANF Financial Data available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/index.html. Calculation is
based on FY2011 dollars spent in FY2011; it does not include prior year funds.
5 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.
Congressional Research Service
5
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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.”
Potential Sequestration for FY2013
Readers should note that FY2013 appropriations may be affected by automatic budget reduction
procedures (known as “sequestration”) authorized by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L.
112-25).6 The BCA established a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, charged with the
task of achieving at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over FY2012-FY2021. The Joint
Committee did not achieve this goal and Congress has not enacted legislation to repeal or modify
the automatic budget reduction procedures. As such, sequestration is currently scheduled to begin
on January 2, 2013. At that time, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is scheduled to
cancel (i.e., sequester) a certain amount of budgetary resources available for FY2013 by reducing
non-exempt programs, projects, and activities by a uniform percentage.
For BCA purposes, funding for the SSBG falls into the category of “non-defense mandatory
spending” and is not exempt from sequestration.7 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has
estimated that budgetary resources for non-defense mandatory programs that are not exempt or
subject to special rules would be reduced by roughly 7.8% in FY2013.8 However, OMB must
ultimately determine the actual percentage based on its own interpretations of the law and funding
in place at that time. On August 7, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Sequestration
Transparency Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-155), which requires the Administration to submit a detailed
report to Congress on implementation of sequestration within 30 days of the bill’s enactment (i.e.,
by September 6).
FY2013 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.9 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.
6 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.
7 See CRS Report R42050, Budget “Sequestration” and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules, coordinated
by Karen Spar.
8 Congressional Budget Office, Estimated Impact of Automatic Budget Enforcement Procedures Specified in the Budget
Control Act, September 12, 2011, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42754. See additional CBO materials on the BCA
(e.g., estimated impacts, sequestration reports, budget projections) at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43190.
9 H.Rept. 112-421, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2013, March 23, 2012, pp. 89-90.
Congressional Research Service
6
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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, 2012.10 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.11 The
legislation was transmitted to the House Budget Committee for inclusion in a larger reconciliation
bill.12 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
following day. (For additional information, see related discussion in the section on the “Proposal
to Repeal the SSBG”.)
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.”13
FY2013 Budget Request by the Obama Administration
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.
FY2012 Appropriations
On December 23, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2012 (H.R. 2055, P.L. 112-74), which provided $1.7 billion for the SSBG in FY2012, the same
amount of annual funding the block grant has received since FY2002. Prior to the enactment of
P.L. 112-74, pro-rated FY2012 funding for the SSBG was provided by three short-term
continuing resolutions (P.L. 112-33, P.L. 112-36, and P.L. 112-55), each of which maintained
SSBG funding at the annualized level of $1.7 billion.
Before the passage of the first continuing resolution (CR) for FY2012, the House and Senate had
initiated the FY2012 appropriations process for L-HHS-ED programs. On September 29, 2011,
the House introduced a bill to provide year-long FY2012 L-HHS-ED appropriations (H.R. 3070).
This bill would have provided $1.7 billion for the SSBG in FY2012. On September 21, 2011, the
Senate Appropriations Committee reported its bill to provide year-long FY2012 L-HHS-ED
10 See Section 201 of H.Con.Res. 112.
11 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.
12 See reconciliation submissions by committee online at http://budget.house.gov/BudgetAnalysis/Reconciliation.htm.
13 For more information on deeming resolutions, see CRS Report RL31443, The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget
Enforcement Tool, by Megan Suzanne Lynch.
Congressional Research Service
7
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
appropriations (S. 1599, S.Rept. 112-84). This bill would also have maintained SSBG funding at
the $1.7 billion level in FY2012.
FY2012 Budget Resolution
On April 15, 2011, the House passed a concurrent resolution on the FY2012 budget (H.Con.Res.
34), which set broad spending targets for FY2012 and subsequent years. The committee report
(H.Rept. 112-58) accompanying the House-passed FY2012 budget resolution included a
recommendation that the SSBG be eliminated.14 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.
FY2012 Budget Request by the Obama Administration
The Obama Administration released the FY2012 Budget on February 14, 2011. The Budget
requested that funding for the SSBG be maintained at $1.7 billion for FY2012, the same amount
it has received annually since FY2002.
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
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 L-HHS-ED
appropriations process 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
14 H.Rept. 112-58, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2012, April 11, 2011, p. 97.
Congressional Research Service
8
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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. 111-
117 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 L-
HHS-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 L-
HHS-ED appropriations bill, H.R. 3293, which also sought to maintain funding for the SSBG at
$1.7 billion. Prior to consideration by the full House, this bill was reported by the House
Appropriations Committee 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. 110-
329) 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.
Congressional Research Service
9
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
In addition to annual appropriations contained in the FY2009 Omnibus, many programs also
received FY2009 funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (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.15
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
$0.16
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.
15 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.
16 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
10
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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, 2009.17 Figure 1 illustrates how the criteria
selected by HHS were used to allocate funds to states.
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
17 See the Information Memorandum online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/procedures/IM_0109.html.
Congressional Research Service
11
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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
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 $522 million (or 87%) of the $600 million
in supplemental funds as of December 15, 2011. As shown in Table 2, seven states (Alabama,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, and Mississippi) had spent all of their supplemental
funds by that date, while two states (Oklahoma and West Virginia) had not spent any. The
remaining states (plus Puerto Rico) had spent some portion of their funds, ranging from 3.5% of
Arkansas’s allotment to 99.9% of Texas’s.
Typically, SSBG funds are subject to a two-year expenditure period—meaning that funds must be
spent by the end of the fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year in which they were allotted to
states.18 The funds from this supplemental were allotted to states in FY2009, giving states until
the last day of FY2010 (September 30, 2010) to spend them. However, most states had not spent
all of their supplemental funds by the end of FY2010. Recognizing this, Congress passed a bill
(S. 3774), which the President signed into law (P.L. 111-285) on November 24, 2010, extending
the expenditure deadline for these funds by one fiscal year (to September 30, 2011). Terms and
conditions of SSBG grant awards typically give states an additional 90 days (in this case, until
December 30, 2011) to liquidate funds that had already been obligated at the end of the fiscal
year. Final expenditure data are not yet available.
18 Section 2002(c) of the Social Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
12
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Table 2. State Allocations and Spending from the FY2009 SSBG Supplemental
(as of December 15, 2011)
State
Allocation ($)
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
3,791,646
87.6%
Indiana
18,139,459
0
100.0%
Iowa
11,157,944
0
100.0%
Kentucky
7,732,381
0
100.0%
Louisiana
129,737,880
0
100.0%
Maine
2,425,722
0
100.0%
Mississippi
28,136,577
0
100.0%
Missouri
12,188,291
509,948
95.8%
Nebraska
3,570,592
1,567,285
56.1%
Nevada
4,640,930
1,473,023
68.3%
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%
Texas
218,852,848
218,510
99.9%
West Virginia
3,386,574
3,386,574
0.0%
Wisconsin
15,964,973
5,149,947
67.7%
Total 600,000,000
77,854,157
87.0%
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
Congressional Research Service
13
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
no state would be unfairly disadvantaged for providing services to those affected by the storms.19
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.20 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
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.
19 See http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060208a.html.
20 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.
Congressional Research Service
14
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Table 3 shows SSBG entitlement ceilings and appropriations from FY1985-FY2012. Also shown
for FY1997-FY2011 are the amounts transferred from TANF to SSBG.
Table 3. SSBG Funding, FY1985-FY2012
(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
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,
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
Gramm-Rudman-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, 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 al otted to states until FY2009.
Congressional Research Service
15
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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.21 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.22 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.23 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.24
Most recently, in February 2012, HHS issued an Information Memorandum about a new
performance measure that will compare spending plans with actual spending.25 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.
21 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.
22 See OMB Form No. 0970-0234.
23 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/ssbg/procedures/mema.html.
24 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.
25 Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2012, Implementation of a New Performance Measure, HHS,
February 23, 2012, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/procedures/im12-01.html.
Congressional Research Service
16
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Recent Expenditures
Table 4 shows national SSBG expenditures from FY2009, 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 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:
SSBG
Funds Transferred
Total SSBG
Percent of
Service Category
Allocation ($)
from TANF ($)
Expenditures ($)
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%
Day Care—Children
110,401,462
280,212,803
390,614,264
14%
Education and Training
21,632,305
2,257,017
23,889,322
1%
Services
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%
Foster Care Services—
29,577,968
8,438,347
38,016,314
1%
Adults
Foster Care Services—
132,657,642
240,167,267
372,824,909
13%
Children
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
6,794,858
1,073,922
7,868,780
0%
Living
Information and Referral
17,478,571
4,259,729
21,738,300
1%
Legal Services
18,287,739
844,415
19,132,154
1%
Pregnancy and Parenting
7,723,212
2,046,509
9,769,720
0%
Prevention and
44,392,821
88,959,481
133,352,303
5%
Intervention
Protective Services—
210,302,566
5,423,422
215,725,988
8%
Adults
Protective Services—
133,001,497
137,159,212
270,160,708
10%
Children
Recreation Services
746,800
146,103
892,903
0%
Congressional Research Service
17
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
SSBG Expenditures Made From:
SSBG
Funds Transferred
Total SSBG
Percent of
Service Category
Allocation ($)
from TANF ($)
Expenditures ($)
Total
Residential Treatment
58,881,865
47,642,297
106,524,162
4%
Special Services—
243,419,274
71,447,923
314,867,196
11%
Disabled
Special Services—Youth
20,820,932
4,632,124
25,453,056
1%
at Risk
Substance Abuse
4,504,880
966,279
5,471,159
0%
Services
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%
Total SSBG
1,723,522,458
1,117,909,571
2,841,432,029
100%
Expenditures
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on data included in the Social Services Block Grant Program Annual
Report 2009 (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/ssbg/reports/reports.html.
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
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 (addressed briefly below), including one on elder
justice. More recently, within the 112th Congress, there has been consideration of a proposal to
repeal the SSBG.
Proposal to Repeal the SSBG
On May 10, 2012, the House passed the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 (H.R.
5652) by a recorded vote of 218-199. This bill includes a provision (Section 621) that, if enacted,
would repeal the SSBG, effective October 1, 2012. The Senate has not taken up the measure.
The Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 (H.R. 5652) is 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.26 The FY2013 House budget resolution included a reconciliation
26 For more information about budget reconciliation, see CRS Report R41186, Reconciliation Directives: Components
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
18
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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 22-14.27
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
The report accompanying the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 (H.Rept. 112-
470) includes text explaining the decision to repeal the SSBG.29 The report calls the SSBG a
duplicative funding stream that lacks focus and accountability. The report also criticizes the
SSBG for not requiring states to match federal SSBG allotments. Committee reports
accompanying House budget resolutions for the past two years have included similar critiques of
the SSBG and, in each year, have recommended that the program be eliminated.30 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
The committee report also includes a summary of dissenting views, which focuses largely on how
the elimination of the SSBG might affect the vulnerable individuals served by these funds.32
These arguments are similar to concerns put forward by other critics of the proposal to eliminate
the SSBG, such as the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).33 The NCSL, for
instance, has argued that the flexible nature of the SSBG allows states to address the needs of
vulnerable populations and respond to local concerns and that eliminating the SSBG might shift
costs of such services directly to states.34
(...continued)
and Enforcement, by Megan Suzanne 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.
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://transition.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.
For additional details on the FY2009 request, see the “FY2009 Budget Request by the Bush Administration” section.
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-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.
34 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
19
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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.35 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.36
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 exceptions37 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 pre-
appropriations) and is not subject to the SSBG allocation formula.
35 See Sections 6701-6703 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, P.L. 111-148).
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 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.
37 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
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
20
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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 $2.8 billion in FY2007.) Instead, a scaled-back version of
welfare reauthorization, which included none of the SSBG provisions, was included in
reconciliation legislation and signed into law (P.L. 109-171) on February 8, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
21
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Appendix A. TANF Transfers to SSBG in FY2011
Table A-1. TANF Transfers to the SSBG in FY2011
Percent of
Total SSBG
TANF Funds
TANF
Funds With
Total Federal
Transferred
Funds
SSBG
TANF
TANF Fundsa
to SSBGb
Transferred
Allocation
Transfer
State
($)
($)
to SSBG
($)
($)
Alabama 100,653,578
8,964,633
8.91%
25,928,224
34,892,857
Alaska
49,816,731 4,981,673 10.00% 3,846,101 8,827,774
Arizona
215,968,002 21,596,800
9.56% 36,319,265 57,916,065
Arkansas 60,846,417
0
0.00%
15,910,587
15,910,587
California
3,659,389,581 340,460,690
9.30% 203,527,234 543,987,924
Colorado
145,033,266 16,216,068 10.68% 27,668,480 43,884,548
Connecticut
266,788,107 26,678,810 10.00% 19,373,246 46,052,056
Delaware 32,290,981
-3,229,098
-9.52%
4,873,872
1,644,774
District of Columbia
92,609,815
3,935,917
4.05%
3,301,976
7,237,893
Florida 602,299,471
60,229,946
10.00%
102,078,238
162,308,184
Georgia 355,405,213
0
0.00%
54,123,974
54,123,974
Hawai 98,904,788
9,890,000
9.52%
7,131,822
17,021,822
Idaho 32,726,579
3,272,658
10.00%
8,511,862
11,784,520
Illinois
585,056,960 7,915,460 1.35% 71,090,410 79,005,870
Indiana 206,799,109
0
0.00%
35,368,495
35,368,495
Iowa
131,030,394 12,962,008
9.89% 16,562,583 29,524,591
Kansas
101,931,061 10,193,106
9.52% 15,521,265 25,714,371
Kentucky 181,287,669
0
0.00%
23,755,410
23,755,410
Louisiana
175,235,636 16,397,199
9.36% 24,735,353 41,132,552
Maine 78,120,889
0
0.00%
7,259,147
7,259,147
Maryland
229,098,032 22,909,803
9.52% 31,383,841 54,293,644
Massachusetts
459,371,116 45,937,113
9.52% 36,307,200 82,244,313
Michigan 775,352,858
77,535,285
9.52%
54,897,717
132,433,002
Minnesota 263,434,070
4,790,000
1.82%
28,998,098
33,788,098
Mississippi 92,744,827
9,274,483
10.00%
16,254,993
25,529,476
Missouri
217,051,740 21,701,176 10.00% 32,970,258 54,671,434
Montana
38,788,416 1,998,226 5.15% 5,368,720 7,366,946
Nebraska 57,513,601
0
0.00%
9,892,977
9,892,977
Nevada 46,377,313
754,063
1.55%
14,553,992
15,308,055
New Hampshire
38,521,261
936,937
2.43%
7,293,695
8,230,632
New
Jersey
404,034,823 16,938,000
3.99% 47,948,654 64,886,654
Congressional Research Service
22
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Percent of
Total SSBG
TANF Funds
TANF
Funds With
Total Federal
Transferred
Funds
SSBG
TANF
TANF Fundsa
to SSBGb
Transferred
Allocation
Transfer
State
($)
($)
to SSBG
($)
($)
New Mexico
114,913,087
0
0.00%
11,066,135
11,066,135
New
York
2,442,930,602 192,797,333
7.52% 107,603,864 300,401,197
North
Carolina
326,126,929 10,311,313
3.02% 51,655,287 61,966,600
North Dakota
26,399,809
0
0.00%
3,561,809
3,561,809
Ohio 727,968,260
43,260,642
5.94%
63,558,897
106,819,539
Oklahoma
145,281,442 14,528,144 10.00% 20,302,524 34,830,668
Oregon 166,798,629
0
0.00%
21,065,756
21,065,756
Pennsylvania 719,499,305
30,977,000
4.31%
69,407,410
100,384,410
Rhode Island
95,021,587
7,557,672
7.95%
5,799,434
13,357,106
South Carolina
99,967,824
0
0.00%
25,116,211
25,116,211
South
Dakota
21,279,651 2,127,965 10.00% 4,473,339 6,601,304
Tennessee 205,789,495
0
0.00%
34,669,953
34,669,953
Texas 521,123,819
32,408,086
6.22%
136,462,292
168,870,378
Utah 81,367,577
2,445,999
3.01%
15,333,082
17,779,081
Vermont
47,353,181 4,735,318 10.00% 3,423,685 8,159,003
Virginia
158,285,172 12,648,498
7.99% 43,405,019 56,053,517
Washington
380,544,968 10,702,000
2.68% 36,695,999 47,397,999
West
Virginia
110,176,310 11,017,631 10.00% 10,020,495 21,038,126
Wisconsin
314,499,354 14,837,318
4.49% 31,137,681 45,974,999
Wyoming
18,500,530 1,850,053 10.00% 2,996,991 4,847,044
Total
16,518,309,835 1,135,445,928
- 1,690,513,552 2,825,959,480
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on FY2011 data reported by HHS.
In this table, TANF financial data reflect FY2011 one-year (not combined) spending, whereas SSBG figures
represent FY2011 allocations. TANF financial data are available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/
data/index.html.
a. Amounts in this column reflect FY2011 state financial assistance grants and supplemental grants to states,
but do not include contingency funds or tribal grants (see Table E2a of FY2011 TANF financial data).
b. The amounts in this column is the total amount of FY2011 TANF funding transferred to the SSBG in
FY2011; it does not include any adjustments made for previous years (see Table A6 of FY2011 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
23
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 $28.7 million (or 5%) of the
supplemental funds were not spent before the expenditure deadline of September 30, 2009.
Unspent funds reverted to the U.S. Treasury.
Table B-1. State Spending from the FY2006 SSBG Supplemental
(as reported on April 1, 2010)
Balance ($)
State Allocation
($)
(Amount Unspent)
Percent Spent
Alabama
27,852,254
16,601
99.94%
Alaska
37,554
37,554
0.00%
Arizona
487,931
182,722
62.55%
Arkansas
3,603,505
2,780,335
22.84%
California
3,051,021
1,945,928
36.22%
Colorado
545,168
112,876
79.30%
Connecticut
113,858
0
100.00%
Delaware
39,178
0
100.00%
District of Columbia
328,256
0
100.00%
Florida
53,808,916
16,446,605
69.44%
Georgia
6,325,537
1,245,651
80.31%
Hawai
34,153
34,153
0.00%
Idaho
35,224
12,794
63.68%
Illinois
1,351,677
2,942
99.78%
Indiana
381,125
231,653
39.22%
Iowa
126,200
43,966
65.16%
Kansas
191,975
0
100.00%
Kentucky
525,110
0
100.00%
Louisiana
220,901,534
179,382
99.92%
Maine
67,995
3
100.00%
Maryland
380,188
1,899
99.50%
Massachusetts
331,948
284,422
14.32%
Michigan
734,927
134,889
81.65%
Minnesota
153,936
86,135
44.04%
Mississippi
128,398,427
0
100.00%
Missouri
797,091
0
100.00%
Montana
41,786
41,786
0.00%
Congressional Research Service
24
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Balance ($)
State Allocation
($)
(Amount Unspent)
Percent Spent
Nebraska
114,925
0
100.00%
Nevada
273,291
217,884
20.27%
New Hampshire
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%
North Dakota
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%
Tennessee
3,470,718
0
100.00%
Texas
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%
Total
550,000,000
28,688,818
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
25
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
26