Social Services Block Grant:
Background and Funding
Karen E. Lynch
Specialist in Social Policy
January 14, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
94-953
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Summary
The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) is a flexible source of funds that states use to support a
wide variety of social services activities. States have broad discretion over the use of these funds.
In FY2010, the most recent year for which expenditure data are available, the largest expenditures
for services under the SSBG were for child care, foster care, and special services for the disabled.
Since FY2002, annual appropriations laws have funded the SSBG at its authorized level of
$1.700 billion. However, SSBG appropriations for each of FY2013-FY2015 have been subject to
sequestration, a spending reduction process by which budgetary resources are canceled to enforce
budget policy goals. The FY2015 operating level for the SSBG is roughly $1.576 billion post-
sequester. This is $124 million (7.3%) less than the SSBG’s FY2015 pre-sequester funding level
of $1.700 billion and $2 million (0.1%) less than the SSBG’s FY2014 post-sequester operating
level of $1.578 billion.
In addition to annual appropriations, the SSBG occasionally receives supplemental appropriations
to assist states and territories in responding to natural disasters. Most recently, the SSBG received
supplemental funding of $474.5 million (post-sequester) in FY2013 to support states affected by
Hurricane Sandy. (These funds were in addition to the $1.613 billion, post-sequester, appropriated
in the FY2013 annual appropriations law.)
Annual appropriations laws since FY2001 have included a provision allowing states to transfer up
to 10% of their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants to the SSBG.
The SSBG is permanently authorized in Title XX-A 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 (ACA; P.L.
111-148). This law inserted a new subtitle on elder justice into Title XX, which was itself re-titled
as Block Grants to States for Social Services and Elder Justice. The health reform law also
amended Title XX by establishing two demonstration projects to address the workforce needs of
health care professionals and a new competitive grant program to support the early detection of
medical conditions related to environmental health hazards. The purpose of this report is to
provide background and funding information about the SSBG; the report does not provide
detailed information on other programs authorized within Title XX of the SSA.
Congressional Research Service
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Use of Funds .................................................................................................................................... 1
Goals .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Services ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Prohibited Uses .......................................................................................................................... 2
Eligibility ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Transfer of TANF Funds to SSBG ................................................................................................... 3
FY2015 Funding .............................................................................................................................. 4
Final Appropriations .................................................................................................................. 4
Preliminary Congressional Action ............................................................................................. 4
Obama Administration Budget Request .................................................................................... 4
FY2014 Funding .............................................................................................................................. 5
Final Appropriations .................................................................................................................. 5
Funding Gap and Continuing Resolutions ................................................................................. 5
Preliminary Congressional Action ............................................................................................. 5
Budget Resolution ..................................................................................................................... 6
Obama Administration Budget Request .................................................................................... 6
FY2013 Funding .............................................................................................................................. 6
Final Appropriations .................................................................................................................. 6
Disaster Supplemental ............................................................................................................... 7
Preliminary Congressional Action ............................................................................................. 8
House Budget Resolution and Reconciliation ........................................................................... 8
Senate Budget Resolution .......................................................................................................... 9
Obama Administration Budget Request .................................................................................... 9
Additional Appropriations History .................................................................................................. 9
Allocation of Funds ....................................................................................................................... 11
State Reporting Requirements ....................................................................................................... 13
Recent Expenditures ...................................................................................................................... 14
Recent Legislative Action .............................................................................................................. 16
Proposal to Repeal the SSBG in the 112th Congress ............................................................... 16
How Did Health Reform Affect the SSBG? ............................................................................ 17
New Subtitle on Elder Justice ........................................................................................... 17
New Programs Authorized within the SSBG Subtitle of Title XX ................................... 18
Figures
Figure B-1. HHS Allocation Methodology for the FY2008 SSBG Supplemental Funding .......... 23
Tables
Table 1. SSBG Funding, FY1985-FY2015 .................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Table 2. FY2013 and FY2014 SSBG Allotments to States and Territories ................................... 11
Table 3. Total SSBG Expenditures by Service Category, FY2010 ................................................ 14
Table A-1. TANF Transfers to the SSBG in FY2013 ..................................................................... 19
Table B-1. State Allocations from the FY2013 Supplemental ....................................................... 21
Table B-2. State Allocations and Spending from the FY2008 SSBG Supplemental ..................... 24
Table B-3. State Spending from the FY2006 SSBG Supplemental ............................................... 26
Appendixes
Appendix A. TANF Transfers to SSBG in FY2013 ....................................................................... 19
Appendix B. Recent Supplemental Appropriations ....................................................................... 21
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 28
Congressional Research Service
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Introduction
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 (and territories)
are entitled to their share of funds, as determined by formula, out of an amount that is capped in
statute at a specific level (also known as a funding ceiling). Although social services for certain
welfare recipients have been authorized under various titles of the Social Security Act since 1956,
the SSBG in its current form was created in 1981 (P.L. 97-35). Block grant funds are given to
states to achieve a wide range of social policy goals, which include promoting self-sufficiency,
preventing child abuse, and supporting community-based care for the elderly and disabled.
The FY2015 appropriations law (P.L. 113-235) appropriated $1.700 billion for the SSBG.
However, this amount was reduced to $1.576 billion due to budget sequestration. The FY2015
appropriations law also maintained a provision, included in annual appropriations laws since
FY2001, allowing states to transfer up to 10% of their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) block grants to the SSBG. In addition to annual appropriations, the SSBG occasionally
receives supplemental appropriations to assist states and territories in responding to natural
disasters, including in FY2006, FY2008, and FY2013 (for more information, see Appendix B).
Health reform legislation enacted into law (P.L. 111-148) in March 2010 amended Title XX of the
Social Security Act to include a subtitle on elder justice and to establish several other programs.
Although these changes, briefly reviewed later, have technical importance for the statutory
citations of the SSBG, they did not substantively amend the provisions within Title XX that
govern the SSBG itself and they are not discussed at length in this report. Likewise, this report
does not discuss the special SSBG program for enterprise communities and empowerment zones
that was authorized in 1993 (P.L. 103-66), but is not currently funded.
At the federal level, the SSBG is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). Legislation amending Title XX is typically reported by the House Ways and
Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee.
Use of Funds
Goals
Federal law establishes the five broad goals for the SSBG. Social services funded by states must
be linked to one or more of these goals. The five goals are
• achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate
dependency;
• achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency, including reduction or prevention of
dependency;
• preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and adults
unable to protect their own interests, or preserving, rehabilitating, or reuniting
families;
Congressional Research Service
1
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
• 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 3 for a full list of the service categories reported on by
states.) States may also transfer up to 10% of their SSBG allotments to block grants for health
activities and low-income home energy assistance.
Prohibited Uses
Although SSBG funds can be used for a broad array of activities, some restrictions are placed on
the use of these funds. Funds cannot be used for the following: (1) purchase of land, construction,
or major capital improvements; (2) cash payments as a service or for costs of subsistence or room
and board (other than costs of subsistence during rehabilitation, temporary emergency shelter
provided as a protective service, or in the case of vouchers for certain families as allowed under
welfare reform); (3) payment of wages as a social service (except wages of welfare recipients
employed in child day care); (4) most medical care (except family planning, rehabilitation
services, initial detoxification of certain individuals, or medical care provided as an “integral but
subordinate component of a social service”); (5) social services for residents of institutions
(including hospitals, nursing homes, and prisons); (6) educational services generally provided by
public schools; (7) child care that does not meet applicable state or local standards; (8) services
provided by anyone excluded from participation in Medicare or certain other Social Security Act
programs; or (9) items or services related to assisted suicide (this provision was added in 1997,
under P.L. 105-12).1 Under extraordinary circumstances, the law does allow HHS to waive two of
these prohibitions (use of the SSBG for the purchase of land or capital improvements, or for the
provision of medical care).
1 See Section 2005(a) of the Social Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
2
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Eligibility
There are no federal eligibility criteria for SSBG participants. Thus, states have total discretion to
set their own eligibility criteria. One exception is that welfare reform established an income limit
of 200% of poverty for recipients of services funded by TANF allotments that are transferred to
the SSBG.
Transfer of TANF Funds to SSBG
The 1996 welfare reform law replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a
block grant to states, called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), under Title IV-A
of the Social Security Act. The law allowed states to transfer up to 10% of their annual TANF
allotments into the SSBG. Under provisions of the Transportation Equity Act of 1998 (P.L. 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. 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 FY2004.2 In that fiscal year, the Social Security Act
capped states’ authority to transfer TANF funds to the SSBG at 4.25%, but this law was
superseded by the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199), which maintained the
practice of allowing 10% transfers from TANF to the SSBG. In the wake of the DRA, Congress
has continued to ensure that the transfer ceiling stays at 10% by including language to that effect
in appropriations legislation.
Over the course of FY1998-FY2013, states annually transferred roughly $1 billion of their TANF
funds to the SSBG. In FY2013 alone, 39 states (including the District of Columbia) transferred a
combined $1.1 billion to the SSBG, with roughly 30 of those states taking advantage of the higher
transfer ceiling by moving more than 4.25% of their TANF funds to the SSBG (see Table A-1 in
Appendix A for FY2013 state-by-state data).3 Funds transferred from TANF to the SSBG can be
used only for children and families whose income is less than 200% of the federal poverty
guidelines. Under welfare reform law, states also may use SSBG funds for vouchers for families
that are not eligible for cash assistance because of time limits under the welfare reform program,
2 The conference report for the DRA notes that the House version of the bill increased the maximum transfer to SSBG
to 10%, while the Senate bill had no provision. The conference report recedes to the Senate with regard to the transfer
authority.
3 FY2013 TANF financial data are available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/data-reports.
Calculation is based on FY2013 dollars spent in FY2013; it does not include prior year funds.
Congressional Research Service
3
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
or for children who are denied cash assistance because they were born into families already
receiving benefits for another child.
FY2015 Funding
Final Appropriations
On December 16, 2014, the President signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235). This law appropriated $1.7 billion for the SSBG.
However, SSBG funds are subject to sequestration in FY2015 (see text box). The sequester
reduced SSBG funding by 7.3% in FY2015, resulting in an estimated operating level of $1.576
billion.4 The FY2015 appropriations law maintained a provision, included in annual
appropriations laws since FY2001, allowing states to transfer up to 10% of their TANF block
grants to the SSBG.
Preliminary Congressional Action
Prior to the enactment of the FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act
(P.L. 113-235), temporary funding for the SSBG had been provided by three short-term
continuing resolutions (P.L. 113-203, P.L. 113-202, P.L. 113-164).
Before the passage of the first continuing resolution, on June 10, 2014, the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee for the Departments of Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies (L-HHS-
ED) approved an FY2015 appropriations bill by voice vote. The bill was not marked up by the
full committee. However, on July 23, the Senate Appropriations Committee released a copy of the
subcommittee-approved bill and draft subcommittee report. These materials indicate that the
subcommittee-approved bill would have funded the SSBG at a pre-sequester level of $1.7 billion
(for more information on sequestration, see text box). The House Appropriations Committee did
not take action on an FY2015 L-HHS-ED appropriations bill.
Obama Administration Budget Request
On March 4, 2014, the Obama Administration released its initial FY2015 budget materials,
requesting $1.7 billion for the SSBG.
4 OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2015, March 10, 2014, p. 7,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/
sequestration_order_report_march2014.pdf
Congressional Research Service
4
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
A Note on Sequestration
Readers should note that starting in FY2013, SSBG appropriations have been affected by automatic budget reduction
procedures (known as “sequestration”) authorized by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25) and the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177), as amended. The BCA, which was signed
into law on August 2, 2011, established a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, charged with the task of
achieving at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.5 The Joint Committee did not achieve this goal, triggering an
automatic budget reduction process consisting of a combination of sequestration and lower discretionary spending
limits.6 For FY2013, the BCA cal ed for sequestration of both mandatory and discretionary spending programs. For
FY2014-FY2024, the BCA (as amended) cal s for continued sequestration for mandatory programs and lower
spending limits for discretionary programs. Annual SSBG appropriations consist of mandatory funding and thus, in the
absence of congressional action, are expected to be subject to sequestration through FY2024.
FY2014 Funding
Final Appropriations
On January 17, 2014, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2014 (P.L. 113-76), providing omnibus appropriations for FY2014. This law appropriated $1.7
billion for the SSBG. However, SSBG appropriations were subject to sequestration in FY2014
(see text box). The sequester reduced SSBG funding from the $1.7 billion appropriated by P.L.
113-76, to an operating level of $1.578 billion in FY2014. The FY2014 omnibus maintained a
provision, included in annual appropriations laws since FY2001, allowing states to transfer up to
10% of their TANF block grants to the SSBG.
Funding Gap and Continuing Resolutions
Congress and the President did not enact FY2014 appropriations prior to the start of the fiscal
year, October 1, 2013.7 This resulted in a funding gap and government shutdown that lasted 16
days until a short-term continuing resolution (CR) was signed into law on October 17, 2013. That
CR (P.L. 113-46) lasted through January 15, 2014. A second FY2014 CR was enacted on January
15 (P.L. 113-73), and maintained temporary government-wide funding until the FY2014 omnibus
was signed by the President on January 17 (P.L. 113-76).
Preliminary Congressional Action
Prior to the start of the fiscal year, on July 11, 2013, the Senate Appropriations Committee
approved an FY2014 L-HHS-ED appropriations bill (S. 1284, S.Rept. 113-71). The Senate
Committee-reported bill would have funded the SSBG at the pre-sequester level of $1.7 billion.
5 For a comprehensive discussion of the BCA, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011, by Bill Heniff
Jr., Elizabeth Rybicki, and Shannon M. Mahan.
6 The discretionary limits were later modified by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA, P.L. 112-250) and
the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA, Division A of P.L. 113-6).
7 An exception is that on September 30, an automatic continuing resolution was enacted to cover FY2014 pay and
allowances for (1) certain members of the Armed Forces, (2) certain Department of Defense (DOD) civilian personnel,
and (3) other specified DOD and Department of Homeland Security contractors (P.L. 113-39).
Congressional Research Service
5
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
The House Appropriations Committee did not take action on an FY2014 L-HHS-ED
appropriations bill.
Budget Resolution
On December 26, 2013, the President signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA,
Division A of P.L. 113-67). The BBA includes a section titled “Establishing a Congressional
Budget” (Title I, Subtitle B), which provided an alternative mechanism for budget enforcement
that could serve as a substitute to a traditional congressional budget resolution for FY2014. In
January 2014, the House and Senate Budget Committees filed committee spending levels that
became enforceable on the House and Senate floor.
Prior to this, both the House and Senate had taken action on their own budget resolutions.
On March 21, 2013, the House agreed to a budget resolution for FY2014 (H.Con.Res. 25) by a
vote of 221-207. The committee report (H.Rept. 113-17) accompanying H.Con.Res. 25 included a
recommendation that the SSBG be eliminated.8 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.
On March 23, 2013, the Senate agreed to an FY2014 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 8) by a vote
of 50-49. The committee print (S.Prt. 113-12) accompanying S.Con.Res. 8 did not call for the
SSBG to be eliminated, but would have established a deficit neutral reserve fund for legislation
related to the SSBG and other programs deemed as providing a “critical safety net.”9
Obama Administration Budget Request
On April 10, 2013, the Obama Administration released its FY2014 budget, which requested $1.7
billion for the SSBG.
FY2013 Funding
Final Appropriations
Congress and the President did not enact full-year FY2013 appropriations prior to the start of the
fiscal year. Instead, following a six-month government-wide continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175),
Congress agreed to a full-year appropriations bill in March 2013. President Obama signed into
law the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) on March 26,
2013. Division F of P.L. 113-6 appropriated $1.700 billion for the SSBG, but this amount was
reduced to $1.613 billion by the sequester order issued by the President on March 1, 2013 (see
8 H.Rept. 113-17, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget—Fiscal Year 2014, March 15, 2013, p. 78.
9 S.Prt. 113-12, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2014, March 2013, p. 146.
Congressional Research Service
6
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
text box). The full-year bill maintained a provision, included in annual appropriations laws since
FY2001, allowing states to transfer up to 10% of their TANF block grants to the SSBG.
Disaster Supplemental
On January 29, 2013, the President signed into law the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013
(P.L. 113-2), in response to Hurricane Sandy. This law reserved roughly $500 million ($474.5
million when accounting for sequestration) for the SSBG.10 The supplemental included language
stipulating that these funds be used to address necessary expenses resulting from Hurricane
Sandy, including social, health, and mental health services for individuals; and for repair,
renovation, and rebuilding of health care facilities (including mental health facilities), child care
facilities, and other social services facilities. The supplemental also included a provision giving
states up to three years to expend these funds, one year longer than the SSBG’s standard two-year
expenditure period.
On March 28, 2013, HHS issued an information memorandum regarding the availability of these
supplemental funds.11 According to this memorandum, five states were allocated supplemental
funds based on their relative share of Hurricane Sandy Individual Assistance registrants, as
reported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on of March 18, 2013. These
states were Connecticut ($10.6 million), Maryland ($1.2 million), New Jersey ($226.8 million),
New York ($235.4 million), and Rhode Island ($0.5 million). HHS subsequently released a
number of additional SSBG resources related to Hurricane Sandy, including two rounds of
Questions and Answers and additional information on reporting requirements.12
Prior to the enactment of P.L. 113-2, the Obama Administration had submitted a request to
Congress on December 7, 2012, for disaster relief to support states affected by Hurricane Sandy.
As part of this request, the Administration called for Congress to provide $500 million in
supplemental funding for the SSBG.13 On December 28, 2012, the Senate approved this request as
part of a disaster supplemental package (introduced as an amendment to H.R. 1), with some
special provisions not included in the President’s request. However, the House took no action on
this bill, as amended by the Senate, prior to the end of the 112th Congress.
10 This law did not appropriate the $500 million directly to the SSBG. Rather, the law appropriated $800 million to the
HHS Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund and required that, of this amount, the Secretary of HHS
transfer $500 million to the SSBG. For additional information, see CRS Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental
Funding for Disaster Relief, coordinated by William L. Painter and Jared T. Brown.
11 See SSBG Information Memorandum Transmittal Number 01-2013, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/
ssbg_im_hurricane_sandy_approved_3_27_signed_2_0.pdf.
12 These resources are available on the HHS website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource-
library/search?area[2129]=2129#?keyword[0]=sandy&area[2129]=2129&ajax=1.
13 Office of Management and Budget, Hurricane Sandy Funding Needs, Washington, DC, December 7, 2012, p. 15,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
supplemental__december_7_2012_hurricane_sandy_funding_needs.pdf.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Preliminary Congressional Action
On July 18, 2012, the House Appropriations L-HHS-ED Subcommittee approved a bill that
would have provided $1.7 billion (pre-sequester) for the SSBG in FY2013.14 The full committee
did not take action on this bill.
On June 14, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported a bill to provide full-year
FY2013 L-HHS-ED appropriations (S. 3295, S.Rept. 112-176). This bill also called for funding
the SSBG funding at $1.7 billion (pre-sequester) in FY2013. In the report accompanying the bill,
the Senate Appropriations Committee called the SSBG a “critical source of funding for services
that protect children from neglect and abuse, including providing foster and respite care, as well
as related services for children and families, persons with disabilities, and older adults.” The
report went on to state, “The Committee recognizes the importance of this program, especially in
providing mental health and counseling services to underserved populations, and recommends
continued usage and flexibility of these funds for such purposes.”
House Budget Resolution and Reconciliation
On March 29, 2012, the House agreed to a budget resolution for FY2013 (H.Con.Res. 112),
which was later deemed enforceable in the House by H.Res. 614, as amended by H.Res. 643. The
committee report (H.Rept. 112-421) accompanying the House budget resolution for FY2013
included a recommendation that the SSBG be eliminated.15 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.
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, 2012.16 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.17 The
legislation was transmitted to the House Budget Committee for inclusion in a larger reconciliation
bill.18 On May 9, 2012, the House Budget Committee reported out the Sequester Replacement
Reconciliation Act of 2012 (H.R. 5652, H.Rept. 112-470), which is the reconciliation package
that includes the proposal to repeal the SSBG. This bill was passed by the House (218-199) the
14 Press releases and a draft of the bill released by the subcommittee prior to markup can be found on the House
Appropriations Committee website: http://appropriations.house.gov/subcommittees/subcommittee/?IssueID=34777.
15 H.Rept. 112-421, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2013, March 23, 2012, pp. 89-90.
16 See Section 201 of H.Con.Res. 112.
17 For the text of this legislation, visit http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/041812_3.pdf. Note that the
legislation would repeal Title XX-A, Sections 2001-2007, but would not repeal Title XX-B (the subtitle on Elder
Justice enacted in health reform legislation) or Sections 2008-2009 of Title XX-A (enacted by health reform legislation
to create demonstration projects related to the health care workforce and a competitive grant program for the early
detection of medical conditions related to environmental health hazards). For a record of the vote, see
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Social_Services_Block_Grant_Roll_Call.pdf.
18 See reconciliation submissions by committee online at http://budget.house.gov/BudgetAnalysis/Reconciliation.htm.
Congressional Research Service
8
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
following day. (For additional information, see related discussion in the section on the “Proposal
to Repeal the SSBG”.)
Senate Budget Resolution
The Senate has not agreed to a budget resolution for FY2013. However, on March 20, 2012,
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad filed in the Congressional Record aggregate
spending levels, aggregate revenue levels, and committee spending levels enforceable in the
Senate, which have been referred to as a “deeming resolution.”19
Obama Administration Budget Request
The Obama Administration released the FY2013 budget on February 13, 2012. The budget
requested that funding for the SSBG be maintained at $1.7 billion for FY2013, the same amount
it has received annually since FY2002.
Additional Appropriations History
Table 1 shows SSBG funding levels from 1985 on, including the high of $2.8 billion, which was
provided annually from FY1991-FY1995. Although $2.8 billion was the originally authorized
entitlement ceiling for FY1996, Congress reduced funding to $2.38 billion in that year. Welfare
reform legislation (P.L. 104-193) subsequently set the annual SSBG entitlement ceiling at $2.38
billion in each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002. Under the welfare reform law, the ceiling was
scheduled to return to a permanent level of $2.8 billion in FY2003.
After welfare reform was enacted, Congress passed an appropriations measure for FY1997 (P.L.
104-208) that contained $2.5 billion for the SSBG, exceeding the ceiling established in the
welfare reform law. For FY1998, President Clinton requested that the amount authorized by
welfare reform ($2.38 billion) be appropriated. However, Congress approved an FY1998
appropriations bill (P.L. 105-78) containing $2.299 billion for the SSBG. The Senate
Appropriations Committee explained the reduction by stating that funding is provided for social
services through other federal programs (S.Rept. 105-58). The House Appropriations Committee
expressed concern that HHS lacks information on the effectiveness of SSBG-funded activities
(H.Rept. 105-205).
In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act (TEA, P.L. 105-178) permanently reduced the SSBG
entitlement ceiling to $1.7 billion, beginning in FY2001. However, the entitlement ceiling has not
always reflected the actual appropriation. For example, the $1.725 billion appropriation level for
FY2001 (H.R. 4577) exceeded the $1.7 billion ceiling by $25 million. In addition, a TEA
provision limited the authority for states to transfer TANF funds to the SSBG beginning in
FY2001 (reducing the transfer cap from 10%, as established in welfare reform, to 4.25%).
However, each annual appropriation from FY2001 onward has included override to reinstate the
higher cap, effectively enabling states to transfer up to 10% of their TANF funds to the SSBG.
19 For more information on deeming resolutions, see CRS Report RL31443, The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget
Enforcement Tool, by Megan S. Lynch.
Congressional Research Service
9
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
In addition to annual appropriations, the SSBG occasionally receives supplemental
appropriations, including in FY2006, FY2008, and FY2013. See Appendix B for additional
information on these recent supplemental appropriations.
Table 1 shows SSBG entitlement ceilings and appropriations from FY1985-FY2015. Also shown
for FY1997-FY2013 are the amounts transferred from TANF to SSBG.
Table 1. SSBG Funding, FY1985-FY2015
(Dollars in billions)
Transfer
Fiscal Year
Ceiling
Appropriation
Fiscal Year
Ceiling
Appropriation
from TANF
1985
2.7 2.725a
1997
2.380 2.5
0.36
1986
2.7 2.584b
1998
2.380 2.299 1.12
1987
2.7 2.7
1999
2.380 1.909 1.32
1988
2.750c 2.7
2000
2.380 1.775 1.10
1989
2.7 2.7
2001
1.700 1.725 0.93
1990
2.8 2.762d
2002
1.700 1.700 1.03
1991
2.8 2.8
2003
1.700 1.700 0.93
1992
2.8 2.8
2004
1.700 1.700 0.77
1993
2.8 2.8
2005
1.700 1.700 0.92
1994
2.8 2.8
2006
1.700 1.700+0.550e 0.97
1995
2.8 2.8
2007
1.700 1.700 1.17
1996
2.381 2.381
2008
1.700 1.700+0.600f 1.18
2009
1.700 1.700 1.21
2010
1.700 1.700 1.22
2011
1.700 1.700 1.14
2012
1.700 1.700 1.13
2013
1.700 1.613+0.475g 1.13
data not yet
2014
1.700 1.578h
available
2015
1.700 1.576i
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.
Congressional Research Service
10
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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.
g. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) appropriated $1.700 billion
for the SSBG, but this amount was reduced to $1.613 billion due to sequestration. In response to Hurricane
Sandy, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2), reserved roughly $500 million ($474.5
mil ion post-sequester) for the SSBG.
h. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) appropriated $1.7 billion for the SSBG, but this
amount was reduced to $1.578 billion due to sequestration.
i.
The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) appropriated $1.7 billion
for the SSBG, but this amount was reduced to $1.576 billion due to sequestration.
Allocation of Funds
SSBG funds are allocated to states according to the relative size of each state’s population. Grants
to Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands are based on their share
of Title XX funds in FY1981, while grants to American Samoa are based on the relative size of
their population compared to the population of the Northern Mariana Islands. No match is
required for federal SSBG funds, and federal law does not specify a sub-state allocation formula.
In other words, states have complete discretion for the distribution of SSBG funds within their
borders. Table 2 displays FY2013 and FY2014 SSBG allotments by state. (Supplemental funds
provided in FY2013 are not shown here; see Table B-1 instead.)
Table 2. FY2013 and FY2014 SSBG Allotments to States and Territories
(Amounts in dollars)
State / Territory
FY2013
FY2014
Alabama 24,727,756
24,180,567
Alaska 3,721,041
3,638,700
Arizona 33,376,323
32,637,753
Arkansas 15,126,704
14,791,972
California 194,063,475
189,769,130
Colorado 26,344,729
25,761,758
Connecticut 18,435,913
18,027,953
Delaware 4,670,545
4,567,193
District of Columbia
3,181,862
3,111,452
Florida 98,121,125
95,949,846
Georgia 50,535,344
49,417,070
Hawai 7,078,452
6,921,816
Idaho 8,160,576
7,979,994
Illinois 66,259,646
64,793,415
Congressional Research Service
11
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
State / Territory
FY2013
FY2014
Indiana 33,553,525
32,811,034
Iowa 15,766,839
15,417,942
Kansas 14,783,077
14,455,948
Kentucky 22,496,402
21,998,589
Louisiana 23,554,352
23,033,128
Maine
6,838,411
6,687,087
Maryland 30,007,977
29,343,943
Massachusetts 33,917,094
33,166,558
Michigan 50,849,295
49,724,074
Minnesota 27,518,962
26,910,007
Mississippi 15,335,396
14,996,046
Missouri 30,947,090
30,262,276
Montana 5,139,404
5,025,676
Nebraska 9,487,163
9,277,226
Nevada 14,021,505
13,711,229
New Hampshire
6,786,955
6,636,769
New Jersey
45,417,276
44,412,258
New Mexico
10,720,698
10,483,465
New York
100,220,009
98,002,285
North Carolina
49,717,688
48,617,507
North Dakota
3,521,345
3,443,423
Ohio 59,441,222
58,125,873
Oklahoma 19,521,249
19,089,272
Oregon 19,934,951
19,493,819
Pennsylvania 65,609,002
64,157,170
Rhode Island
5,412,814
5,293,036
South Carolina
24,091,843
23,558,725
South Dakota
4,242,932
4,149,042
Tennessee 32,968,795
32,239,243
Texas 132,190,636
129,265,447
Utah 14,504,966
14,183,992
Vermont 3,225,291
3,153,920
Virginia 41,686,797
40,764,329
Washington 35,165,658
34,387,493
West Virginia
9,552,670
9,341,283
Wisconsin 29,408,042
28,757,285
Wyoming 2,925,262
2,860,530
Congressional Research Service
12
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
State / Territory
FY2013
FY2014
American Samoa
57,320
56,052
Guam 278,155
272,000
Northern Mariana Islands
55,631
54,400
Puerto Rico
8,344,655
8,160,000
Virgin Islands
278,155
272,000
Total 1,613,300,000
1,577,600,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from HHS, available online
at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/sec3k_ssbg_2015cj.pdf#page=15.
Notes: Figures are based on the annual SSBG appropriations for FY2013 (P.L. 113-6) and FY2014 (P.L. 113-76),
as reduced by sequestration. In FY2013, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2) reserved
roughly $500 million ($474.5 million post-sequester) for the SSBG. Allocations based on this supplemental
appropriation are not shown here.
State Reporting Requirements
Each year, states are required to submit an intended use plan, often called a “pre-expenditure
report,” as a prerequisite to receive SSBG funds. The pre-expenditure report must be submitted
30 days prior to the start of the fiscal year.20 States must also submit a revised report if their
planned uses for SSBG funds change during the course of the year. In pre-expenditure reports,
states outline their plans for SSBG funds, including the types of services to be supported, and the
categories and characteristics of individuals to be served (e.g., children, adults 59 and younger,
adults 60 and older, and the disabled).
States are also required to report annually on their actual SSBG expenditures in each of the 29
service categories. For this report, submitted within six months after the end of the reporting
period, states use a standard post-expenditure reporting form.21 HHS published regulations
(November 15, 1993) to implement this requirement and to provide states with a uniform set of
service category definitions.
States are not required to submit pre-expenditure reports using a standard format like the one
required for post-expenditure reporting (e.g., states may simply submit a narrative or chart of
their proposed activities and the individuals to be served). However, HHS issued a new
Information Memorandum in December 2008, asking states to voluntarily include additional
documentation as part of their pre-expenditure reports.22 Specifically, HHS requested that states
submit a copy of the form used for post-expenditure reports, completed with estimated (rather
than actual) expenditures and recipient data. The reason for this request was to allow for a more
accurate analysis of the extent to which states are spending their SSBG funds “in a manner
consistent” with their intended use plans. HHS issued a second Information Memorandum on this
20 This refers to September 1, provided the state operates on a federal fiscal year; alternately, this means June 1 if the
state operates on a July-June fiscal year.
21 See OMB Form No. 0970-0234.
22 Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2009, Linking the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) Pre- and Post-
Expenditure Reports, HHS, Dec. 31, 2008, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/transmittal-no-01-2009-
linking-the-social-services-block-grant-ssbg-pre-and.
Congressional Research Service
13
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
topic in June 2010, again encouraging states to submit pre-expenditure estimates using the same
reporting form that is required for post-expenditure reports.23
Most recently, in February 2012, HHS issued an Information Memorandum about a new
performance measure that will compare spending plans with actual spending.24 To support
implementation of the performance measure, HHS requested that states submit pre- and post-
expenditure reports in Excel using standard reporting forms. HHS also requested that states
choosing not to use the standard pre-expenditure reporting form (since the standard form is not
technically required) provide a crosswalk to SSBG service categories. In addition, HHS requested
that states differentiate in their pre-expenditure reports between estimated spending from the
state’s SSBG allocation and estimated state spending from projected TANF transfers, because the
performance measure will apply only to those funds provided as part of a state’s SSBG allocation.
Recent Expenditures
Table 3 shows national SSBG expenditures from FY2010, the most recent year for which SSBG
data are available. Expenditures are separated into those made from the annual SSBG allocation
and those made from funds transferred from the TANF block grant, and are displayed by service
category. In FY2010, the largest expenditures for services under the SSBG were for child care
(13%), foster care services for children (13%), and special services for the disabled (12%).
Table 3. Total SSBG Expenditures by Service Category, FY2010
SSBG Expenditures Made From:
SSBG
Funds Transferred
Total SSBG
Percent of
Service Category
Allocation ($)
from TANF ($)
Expenditures ($)
Total
Adoption Services
21,107,553
9,598,089
30,705,642
1%
Case Management
129,647,136
73,961,188
203,608,325
7%
Congregate Meals
4,596,350
34,088
4,630,437
0%
Counseling Services
23,955,844
2,407,855
26,363,699
0%
Day Care—Adults
24,633,593
11,425
24,645,017
0%
Day Care—Children
94,455,146
276,262,234
370,717,380
13%
Education and Training
7,480,460 3,007,383 10,487,842
0%
Services
Employment Services
11,925,900
225,976
12,151,876
0%
Family Planning Services
9,844,355
21,534,883
31,379,238
1%
Foster Care Services—
34,744,191 8,649,489 43,393,679
2%
Adults
23 Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2010, Pre- and Post-Expenditure Reporting for the SSBG Program,
HHS, June 7, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/transmittal-no-01-2010-pre-and-post-expenditure-
reporting-for-the-ssbg.
24 Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2012, Implementation of a New Performance Measure, HHS,
February 23, 2012, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/implementation-of-a-new-performance-measure.
Congressional Research Service
14
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
SSBG Expenditures Made From:
SSBG
Funds Transferred
Total SSBG
Percent of
Service Category
Allocation ($)
from TANF ($)
Expenditures ($)
Total
Foster Care Services—
127,266,211 249,264,621 376,530,833
13%
Children
Health-Related Services
15,047,911
1,923,376
16,971,287
1%
Home-Based Services
163,113,592
20,324,157
183,437,748
7%
Home-Delivered Meals
27,002,216
417,132
27,419,349
1%
Housing Services
10,681,443
4,451,626
15,133,068
1%
Independent/Transitional
Living
6,231,216 946,726 7,177,942
0%
Information and Referral
11,686,333
4,057,794
15,744,127
1%
Legal Services
14,373,743
648,506
15,022,249
1%
Pregnancy and Parenting
7,160,933
1,722,254
8,883,187
0%
Prevention and
Intervention
41,438,703 137,455,219 178,893,922 6%
Protective Services—
Adults
173,851,999 6,519,649
180,371,648
6%
Protective Services—
Children
119,248,981 170,597,531 289,846,512
10%
Recreation Services
753,207
60,555
813,762
0%
Residential Treatment
52,516,577
44,928,959
97,445,536
3%
Special Services—
Disabled
277,105,892 67,440,958 344,546,851
12%
Special Services—Youth
at Risk
37,460,489 3,482,626 40,943,115
1%
Substance Abuse
Services
4,973,542 1,016,727 5,990,270
0%
Transportation 14,547,075
2,179,976
16,727,051
1%
Other Services
105,237,050
54,493,370
159,730,420
6%
Administrative Costs
74,487,958
17,995,453
92,483,411
3%
Total SSBG
Expenditures
1,646,575,600 1,185,619,823 2,832,195,424 100%
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on data included in the Social Services Block Grant Program Annual
Report 2010 (note that TANF transfer data from this source may differ from data in TANF financial reports).
Ful report available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/ssbg-2010-annual-report.
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
15
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Recent Legislative Action
Other than appropriations legislation, no bills in the 109th Congress or 110th Congress that
proposed changes to the SSBG were enacted into law. Notably, however, several bills from the
109th Congress included proposals that, if enacted, would have increased funding for the SSBG
(see S. 6, S. 667, and H.R. 751 from the 109th Congress). Subsequently, several bills (S. 795, H.R.
2006, S. 1796, H.R. 3590) were introduced in the 111th Congress that sought to amend Title XX
of the Social Security Act (SSA)—the authorizing statute for the SSBG—to establish new
programs to address the prevention, detection, and treatment of elder abuse or elder justice.
Ultimately, the health care reform legislation passed by Congress in March 2010 included three
provisions amending Title XX of the SSA (addressed briefly below), including one on elder
justice. Meanwhile, in the 112th Congress, the House agreed to a proposal to repeal the SSBG, but
this bill was not taken up in the Senate. During the 113th Congress, there were further proposals to
repeal the SSBG, including in House Budget Resolutions and as part of the House Budget
Committee’s discussion draft on Expanding Opportunity in America25, but none have received the
attention H.R. 5652 received in the 112th Congress and, as such, are not discussed here.
Proposal to Repeal the SSBG in the 112th Congress
On May 10, 2012, the House passed the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 (H.R.
5652 in the 112th Congress) by a recorded vote of 218-199. This bill included a provision (§621)
that, if enacted, would have repealed the SSBG, effective October 1, 2012. However, the Senate
did not take up this measure prior to the end of the 112th Congress.
The Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 was a budget reconciliation bill. Budget
reconciliation is an optional process that may be used by Congress to bring existing spending,
revenue, and debt-limit laws into compliance with fiscal priorities established in the annual
budget resolution.26 The FY2013 House budget resolution included a reconciliation directive in
Section 201. To comply with this directive, on April 18, 2012, the House Ways and Means
Committee marked up legislation to meet its deficit reduction targets. This legislation included a
provision to repeal the SSBG that was agreed to by the committee by a vote of 22-14.27 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) included text explaining the decision to repeal the SSBG.29 The report called the SSBG a
25 A copy of the discussion draft, which was released on July 24, 2014, is available at http://budget.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/expanding_opportunity_in_america.pdf.
26 For more information about budget reconciliation, see CRS Report R41186, Reconciliation Directives: Components
and Enforcement, by Megan S. Lynch.
27 For the text of this legislation, visit http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/041812_3.pdf. Note that the
legislation would repeal Title XX-A, Sections 2001-2007, but would not repeal Title XX-B (the subtitle on Elder
Justice enacted in health reform legislation) or Sections 2008-2009 of Title XX-A (enacted by health reform legislation
to create demonstration projects related to the health care workforce and a competitive grant program for the early
detection of medical conditions related to environmental health hazards).
28 See reconciliation submissions by committee online at http://budget.house.gov/BudgetAnalysis/Reconciliation.htm.
29 See text beginning on p. 505 of H.Rept. 112-470.
Congressional Research Service
16
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
duplicative funding stream lacking in focus and accountability. The report also criticized the
SSBG for not requiring states to match federal SSBG allotments. Committee reports
accompanying House budget resolutions for FY2012 and FY2013 included similar critiques of
the SSBG and, in each year, recommended that the program be eliminated.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 accompanying H.R. 5652 also included a summary of dissenting views,
which focused largely on how the elimination of the SSBG might affect the vulnerable
individuals served by these funds.32 Similar concerns were raised by other critics of the proposal
to eliminate the SSBG, such as the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).33 The
NCSL argued that the flexible nature of the SSBG allows states to address the needs of vulnerable
populations and respond to local concerns, arguing that eliminating the SSBG might shift costs of
such services directly to states.34
How Did Health Reform Affect the SSBG?
On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law a comprehensive health care reform bill,
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148). This law included three
provisions that amended the SSBG’s authorizing legislation, Title XX of the SSA. These
provisions, discussed briefly below, created new programs related to elder justice, the health care
workforce, and environmental health hazards. Notably, these changes were primarily of technical
importance with respect to the SSBG. That is, they affected statutory citations for the SSBG, but
they did not substantively amend the provisions within Title XX that govern the SSBG itself.
New Subtitle on Elder Justice
The health reform law re-titled Title XX as Block Grants to States for Social Services and Elder
Justice (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
30 For FY2013, see H.Rept. 112-421, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2013, March 23, 2012, pp. 89-90. For
FY2012, see H.Rept. 112-58, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, FY2012, April 11, 2011, p. 97.
31 See discussion of these proposals in budget justifications of the HHS Administration for Children and Families,
available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget. The FY2007 and FY2008 President’s Budgets
proposed to reduce funding for the SSBG, but not permanently eliminate the program. The initial FY2009 President’s
Budget proposed to decrease funding for the SSBG by $500 million in FY2009, but to permanently eliminate the
program beginning in FY2010. Subsequent amendments to the President’s Budget reduced the FY2009 request to $0.
32 H.Rept. 112-470, pp. 539-540.
33 Letter from The Honorable Tom Hansen (South Dakota Senate) and The Honorable Barbara W. Ballard (Kansas
House of Representatives), Chairs of the NCSL Human Services and Welfare Committee, to The Honorable David
Camp and the Honorable Sander Levin, chair and ranking Member (respectively) of the House Committee on Ways
and Means, April 16, 2012, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/ncsl-letter-opposing-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.
35 See Sections 6701-6703 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148).
Congressional Research Service
17
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
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.
36 A full description of these provisions is beyond the scope of this report, which is focused on the SSBG. For a
summary of the provisions in P.L. 111-148 related to elder justice, see CRS Report R41278, Public Health, Workforce,
Quality, and Related Provisions in ACA: Summary and Timeline, coordinated by C. Stephen Redhead and Elayne J.
Heisler.
37 Section 10323(b) of ACA (P.L. 111-148) specifies that the general prohibition against using SSBG funds for the
provision of medical care shall not be construed as to prohibit recipients of a grant for the early detection of medical
conditions related to environmental health hazards from conducting screening for environmental health conditions. In
addition, Section 5507 of ACA exempts both health care workforce demonstrations projects from the prohibition
against using SSBG funds for the provision of an education service that the state makes generally available to its
residents without cost and without regard to their income.
Congressional Research Service
18
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Appendix A. TANF Transfers to SSBG in FY2013
Table A-1. TANF Transfers to the SSBG in FY2013
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 93,315,207
5,000,000
5.36%
24,727,756
29,727,756
Alaska 45,260,334
4,981,673
11.01%
3,721,041
8,702,714
Arizona 200,141,310
20,014,131
10.00%
33,376,323
53,390,454
Arkansas 56,732,858
0
0.00%
15,126,704
15,126,704
California 3,659,376,553
364,445,461
9.96%
194,063,475
558,508,936
Colorado 136,056,690
1,093,643
0.80%
26,344,729
27,438,372
Connecticut 266,788,107
26,678,810
10.00%
18,435,913
45,114,723
Delaware 32,290,981
0
0.00%
4,670,545
4,670,545
District of Columbia
92,609,815
3,935,917
4.25%
3,181,862
7,117,779
Florida 562,340,120
55,604,763
9.89%
98,121,125
153,725,888
Georgia 330,741,739
0
0.00%
50,535,344
50,535,344
Hawai 98,904,788
7,417,500
7.50%
7,078,452
14,495,952
Idaho 30,412,562
1,292,534
4.25%
8,160,576
9,453,110
Illinois
585,056,960 1,200,000 0.21%
66,259,646
67,459,646
Indiana 206,799,109
0
0.00%
33,553,525
33,553,525
Iowa 131,030,394
12,962,008
9.89%
15,766,839
28,728,847
Kansas 101,931,061
10,193,106
10.00%
14,783,077
24,976,183
Kentucky 181,287,669
0
0.00%
22,496,402
22,496,402
Louisiana 163,971,985
16,397,198
10.00%
23,554,352
39,951,550
Maine 78,120,889
7,812,089
10.00%
6,838,411
14,650,500
Maryland 229,098,032
22,909,803
10.00%
30,007,977
52,917,780
Massachusetts 459,371,116
45,937,112
10.00%
33,917,094
79,854,206
Michigan 775,352,858
77,535,285
10.00%
50,849,295
128,384,580
Minnesota 263,434,070
4,790,000
1.82%
27,518,962
32,308,962
Mississippi 86,767,578
8,676,758
10.00%
15,335,396
24,012,154
Missouri 217,051,740
21,701,176
10.00%
30,947,090
52,648,266
Montana 38,039,116
2,354,101
6.19%
5,139,404
7,493,505
Nebraska 57,513,601
0
0.00%
9,487,163
9,487,163
Nevada 43,907,519
0
0.00%
14,021,505
14,021,505
New Hampshire
38,521,261
936,937
2.43%
6,786,955
7,723,892
New Jersey
404,034,823
21,172,500
5.24%
45,417,276
66,589,776
Congressional Research Service
19
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
110,578,100
0
0.00%
10,720,698
10,720,698
New York
2,442,930,602
191,552,283
7.84%
100,220,009
291,772,292
North Carolina
301,435,018
10,075,595
3.34%
49,717,688
59,793,283
North Dakota
26,399,809
0
0.00%
3,521,345
3,521,345
Ohio 727,968,260
38,533,876
5.29%
59,441,222
97,975,098
Oklahoma 145,281,442
14,528,144
10.00%
19,521,249
34,049,393
Oregon 166,798,629
0
0.00%
19,934,951
19,934,951
Pennsylvania 719,499,305
30,977,000
4.31%
65,609,002
96,586,002
Rhode Island
95,021,587
9,337,823
9.83%
5,412,814
14,750,637
South Carolina
99,967,824
0
0.00%
24,091,843
24,091,843
South Dakota
21,279,651
2,127,965
10.00%
4,242,932
6,370,897
Tennessee 191,523,797 0
0.00%
32,968,795
32,968,795
Texas 486,256,752
33,565,875
6.90%
132,190,636
165,756,511
Utah 75,609,475
7,560,947
10.00%
14,504,966
22,065,913
Vermont 47,353,181
4,735,318
10.00%
3,225,291
7,960,609
Virginia 158,285,172
13,825,500
8.73%
41,686,797
55,512,297
Washington 380,544,968
4,675,000
1.23%
35,165,658
39,840,658
West Virginia
110,176,310
11,017,631
10.00%
9,552,670
20,570,301
Wisconsin 313,896,002
15,433,200
4.92%
29,408,042
44,841,242
Wyoming 18,500,530
1,850,053
10.00%
2,925,262
4,775,315
Total 16,305,567,259
1,134,838,715
—
1,604,286,084
2,739,124,799
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on FY2013 data reported by HHS.
In this table, TANF financial data reflect FY2013 one-year (not combined) spending, whereas SSBG figures
represent FY2013 allocations. FY2013 TANF financial data are available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2013.
a. Amounts in this column reflect FY2013 state financial assistance grants and supplemental grants to states,
but do not include contingency funds or tribal grants (see Table E2a of FY2013 TANF financial data).
b. The amount in this column is the total amount of FY2013 TANF funding transferred to the SSBG in FY2013;
it does not include any adjustments made for previous years (see Table A6 of FY2013 TANF financial data).
Funds transferred back to the TANF program that were not obligated and liquidated within the program
deadlines are reported as negative amounts.
Congressional Research Service
20
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Appendix B. Recent Supplemental Appropriations
This appendix presents background and spending information on supplemental appropriations to
the SSBG in FY2013, FY2008, and FY2006.
FY2013 Supplemental: Hurricane Sandy
On January 29, 2013, the President signed into law the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013
(P.L. 113-2), in response to Hurricane Sandy. This law reserved roughly $500 million ($474.5
million when accounting for sequestration) for the SSBG.38 The supplemental stipulated that these
funds were to be used to address necessary expenses resulting from Hurricane Sandy, including
social, health, and mental health services for individuals; and for repair, renovation, and
rebuilding of health care facilities (including mental health facilities), child care facilities, and
other social services facilities. The supplemental also included a provision giving states up to
three years to expend these funds, one year longer than the SSBG’s standard two-year
expenditure period.
On March 28, 2013, HHS issued an information memorandum regarding the availability of these
supplemental funds.39 According to this memorandum, five states were allocated supplemental
funds based on their relative share of Hurricane Sandy Individual Assistance registrants, as
reported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on March 18, 2013. These
states were Connecticut ($10.6 million), Maryland ($1.2 million), New Jersey ($226.8 million),
New York ($235.4 million), and Rhode Island ($0.5 million). HHS subsequently released a
number of additional SSBG resources related to Hurricane Sandy, including two rounds of
Questions and Answers and additional information on reporting requirements.40
Table B-1. State Allocations from the FY2013 Supplemental
(Allocations in dollars)
State
Allocation
Percent of Total
Connecticut $10,569,192
2.23%
Maryland 1,185,675
0.25%
New Jersey
226,794,105
47.80%
New York
235,434,600
49.62%
Rhode Island
516,428
0.11%
Total 474,500,000
100.00%
38 This law did not appropriate the $500 million directly to the SSBG. Rather, the law appropriated $800 million to the
HHS Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund and required that, of this amount, the Secretary of HHS
transfer $500 million to the SSBG. For additional information, see CRS Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental
Funding for Disaster Relief, coordinated by William L. Painter and Jared T. Brown.
39 See SSBG Information Memorandum Transmittal Number 01-2013, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/
ssbg_im_hurricane_sandy_approved_3_27_signed_2_0.pdf.
40 These resources are available on the HHS website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource-
library/search?area[2129]=2129#?keyword[0]=sandy&area[2129]=2129&ajax=1.
Congressional Research Service
21
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available in SSBG
Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2013, March 28, 2013.
FY2008 Supplemental: Major Disasters of 2008 (and Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita)
The first FY2009 CR (P.L. 110-329) included, as Division B, the Disaster Relief and Recovery
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008. This law provided $600 million in supplemental funds
for the SSBG in FY2008. These funds were appropriated on the last day of FY2008 and were not
allotted to states by HHS until FY2009. The supplemental funds were appropriated for necessary
expenses resulting from “major disasters” (as declared by the President and defined in Title IV of
the Stafford Act) occurring during 2008, including hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters.
The appropriation also made these funds available for necessary expenses resulting from
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The appropriations language specified that in addition to other uses permitted by Title XX of the
Social Security Act, states could use their supplemental SSBG funds to provide social and health
services (including mental health services) for individuals, as well as to support the repair,
renovation, or construction of health care facilities, mental health facilities, child care centers, and
other social services facilities affected by related disasters.
Allocation of Funds
The appropriations language explicitly required HHS to distribute funding to eligible states based
on “demonstrated need in accordance with objective criteria that are made available to the
public.” HHS outlined their criteria in Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 02-2009,
FY2008 SSBG Supplemental Appropriation of Disaster Assistance Funds Awarded in FY2009,
which was issued by the Department on January 6, 2009.41 Figure B-1 illustrates how the criteria
selected by HHS were used to allocate funds to states.
41 See the Information Memorandum online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/fiscal-year-fy-2008-ssbg-
supplemental-appropriation-of-disaster.
Congressional Research Service
22
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Figure B-1. HHS Allocation Methodology for the
FY2008 SSBG Supplemental Funding
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from HHS.
As specified in the Information Memorandum, HHS identified criteria to determine which
disasters qualified for supplemental SSBG funds. First, HHS specified that qualifying major
disasters were those that occurred between January 1, 2008, and the date of enactment of the
supplemental appropriation (September 30, 2008); in addition, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were
considered to qualify automatically based on appropriations language. Second, HHS restricted
qualifying disasters to those which triggered authorizations for Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Individual Assistance. The FEMA Individual Assistance program provides
money or direct assistance to individuals, families, and businesses in an affected area whose
property has been damaged or destroyed and whose losses are not covered by insurance. HHS
chose Individual Assistance data to serve as a proxy for “demonstrated need,” noting that these
data represent individual households that have declared a loss associated with the disaster and
who have registered for assistance.
Twenty states (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) were directly affected by qualifying
disasters in 2008, as determined by the HHS criteria. Based on these same criteria, four states
were deemed to be eligible for supplemental funds as a result of the lasting effects of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita (all but one of these states had also been affected by disasters in 2008). In total,
21 states (including Puerto Rico) were eligible to receive some share of the $600 million in
supplemental funds under the HHS methodology.
Congressional Research Service
23
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
As shown in Figure B-1, the HHS methodology called for three-fourths of the supplemental
funds ($450 million) to be reserved for the states that were directly affected by major disasters
occurring in 2008. One-fourth of the supplemental ($150 million) was then dedicated to the states
facing ongoing needs as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. From there, funds in each
category were allocated to states using two equally weighted sets of data: (1) the proportional
share of FEMA registrants for Individual Assistance (that is, individuals from affected
communities who validly registered with FEMA after the natural disaster), and (2) the relative
size of state populations according to 2007 data from the Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey. Table B-2 displays the amount allocated to each state.
Expenditure of Funds
Typically, SSBG funds are subject to a two-year expenditure period—meaning that funds must be
spent by the end of the fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year in which they were allotted to
states.42 The funds from this supplemental were allotted to states in FY2009, giving states until
the last day of FY2010 (September 30, 2010) to spend them. However, most states had not spent
all of their supplemental funds by the end of FY2010. Recognizing this, Congress passed a bill
(S. 3774), which the President signed into law (P.L. 111-285) on November 24, 2010, extending
the expenditure deadline for these funds by one fiscal year (to September 30, 2011).43
According to expenditure data from HHS, states spent more than $522 million (or 87%) of the
$600 million in supplemental funds prior to the extended expenditure deadline. As shown in
Table B-2, six states (Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, and Mississippi) spent all
of the supplemental funds they were allotted, while two states (Oklahoma and West Virginia)
spent none. The remaining states (plus Puerto Rico) spent some portion of their funds, ranging
from 3.5% of Arkansas’s allotment to 99.8% of Texas’s.
Table B-2. State Allocations and Spending from the FY2008 SSBG Supplemental
(As of October 27, 2013)
State
Allocation ($)
Percent Spent
Alabama 13,092,588
100.0%
Arkansas 7,386,653
3.5%
Colorado 8,931,072
26.4%
Florida 35,384,592
43.3%
Georgia 18,111,127
22.6%
Illinois 30,502,439
87.6%
Indiana 18,139,459
100.0%
Iowa 11,157,944
100.0%
Kentucky 7,732,381
100.0%
Louisiana 129,737,880
100.0%
42 Section 2002(c) of the Social Security Act.
43 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.
Congressional Research Service
24
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
State
Allocation ($)
Percent Spent
Maine 2,425,722
100.0%
Mississippi 28,136,577
100.0%
Missouri 12,188,291
99.6%
Nebraska 3,570,592
57.1%
Nevada 4,640,930
68.3%
Oklahoma 6,540,619
0.0%
Puerto Rico
12,427,602
71.3%
Tennessee 11,689,137
64.2%
Texas 218,852,848
99.8%
West Virginia
3,386,574
0.0%
Wisconsin 15,964,973
67.7%
Total 600,000,000
87.0%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from HHS.
FY2006 Supplemental: Gulf Coast Hurricanes of 2005
The FY2006 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) included supplemental SSBG funding in
the amount of $550 million. These funds were for expenses related to the consequences of the
Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005. The Defense Appropriations Act expanded the potential services
for which the additional $550 million could be used to include “health services (including mental
health services) and for repair, renovation and construction of health facilities.”
Allocation of Funds
Factors used to allocate these supplemental funds included the number of FEMA registrants from
hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, as well as the 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.44
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.45 According to HHS, states failed to spend approximately $28.7 million
44 See http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060208a.html.
45 The Terms and Conditions of SSBG grant agreements give states 90 days after the end of the grant period to finalize
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
25
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
(or 5%) of the $550 million in supplemental funds prior to the expenditure deadline. This means
that about 95% of the supplemental funds were spent prior to the close of FY2009 (see Table B-3
for state-by-state data). Unspent funds were to revert to the U.S. Treasury.
The 2009 SSBG annual report (most recent available) indicates that states spent supplemental
funds on 28 of the 29 SSBG service categories defined in federal regulation, including education
and training, counseling services, and health-related services.46 The report shows that most of the
supplemental funds were spent in the “other services” category, including expenditures for certain
construction and renovation costs, as well as costs for certain health and mental health services.
Table B-3. State Spending from the FY2006 SSBG Supplemental
(As reported on April 1, 2010)
State
Allocation ($)
Percent Spent
Alabama 27,852,254
99.94%
Alaska 37,554
0.00%
Arizona
487,931
62.55%
Arkansas 3,603,505
22.84%
California 3,051,021
36.22%
Colorado 545,168
79.30%
Connecticut 113,858
100.00%
Delaware 39,178
100.00%
District of Columbia
328,256
100.00%
Florida 53,808,916
69.44%
Georgia 6,325,537
80.31%
Hawai 34,153
0.00%
Idaho 35,224
63.68%
Illinois 1,351,677
99.78%
Indiana 381,125
39.22%
Iowa 126,200
65.16%
Kansas 191,975
100.00%
Kentucky 525,110
100.00%
Louisiana 220,901,534
99.92%
Maine 67,995
100.00%
Maryland 380,188
99.50%
Massachusetts 331,948
14.32%
(...continued)
spending for funds they had obligated as of September 30, 2009.
46 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community
Services, Social Services Block Grant Program Annual Report 2009, Chapter 5, http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
ocs/ssbg/reports/2009/index.html.
Congressional Research Service
26
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
State
Allocation ($)
Percent Spent
Michigan 734,927
81.65%
Minnesota 153,936
44.04%
Mississippi 128,398,427
100.00%
Missouri 797,091
100.00%
Montana 41,786
0.00%
Nebraska 114,925
100.00%
Nevada 273,291
20.27%
New Hampshire
23,717
0.00%
New Jersey
259,599
100.00%
New Mexico
265,277
0.00%
New York
1,182,346
0.00%
North Carolina
1,310,272
55.87%
North Dakota
13,009
100.00%
Ohio 556,283
10.66%
Oklahoma 932,353
0.00%
Oregon 177,170
100.00%
Pennsylvania 402,568
89.71%
Rhode Island
69,382
100.00%
South Carolina
696,901
66.30%
South Dakota
21,624
100.00%
Tennessee 3,470,718
100.00%
Texas 87,951,690
100.00%
Utah 92,669
99.98%
Vermont 23,272
0.00%
Virginia 808,855
0.00%
Washington 326,206
100.00%
West Virginia
132,912
76.50%
Wisconsin 227,555
96.00%
Wyoming 20,932
0.00%
Total 550,000,000
94.78%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from HHS.
Notes: These funds were appropriated in the FY2006 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148). A
supplemental appropriations act for FY2007 (P.L. 110-28) extended the expenditure deadline for these funds,
giving states until the end of FY2009 (September 30, 2009) to spend their allotments. Under the Terms and
Conditions of their grant agreements, states had 90 days after the end of the grant period to finalize spending for
funds that were obligated as of September 30, 2009. The numbers above (reported on April 1, 2010) should
reflect final expenditures from the FY2006 supplemental. By law, unspent funds revert to the U.S. Treasury.
Congressional Research Service
27
Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding
Author Contact Information
Karen E. Lynch
Specialist in Social Policy
klynch@crs.loc.gov, 7-6899
Congressional Research Service
28