[Background Material and Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Green Book)]
[Program Descriptions]
[Section 10. Title XX - Social Services Block Grant Program]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]



Overview, Allocation Formula, and Funding
Program Goals
Data on Services, Recipients, and Expenditures
Transfer of Funds Among Block Grants
Social Services in Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities
Legislative History


	Title XX of the Social Security Act, also referred to as the 
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), is a capped entitlement program. 
Thus, States are entitled to their share, according to a formula, of a 
nationwide funding ceiling or "cap," which is specified in statute. 
Block grant funds are given to States to help them achieve a wide 
range of social policy goals, which include preventing child abuse, 
increasing the availability of child care, and providing community-
based care for the elderly and disabled. Funds are allocated to the 
States on the basis of population. The allotments for Puerto Rico, 
Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Marianas from the national 
total are based on their allocation for fiscal year 1981 adjusted to 
reflect the new total funding level. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act (OBRA) of 1987 (Public Law 100-203) extended eligibility for title 
XX funds to American Samoa. The Federal funds are available to States 
without a State matching requirement.
	Title XX of the Social Security Act was created in 1975 
(Public Law 93-647); however, it was OBRA 1981 (Public Law 97-35) 
that amended title XX to establish a "block grant to States for 
social services." The entitlement ceiling, or cap, was cut from the 
fiscal year 1981 level of $2.9 billion to $2.4 billion for fiscal 
year 1982. Table 10-1 shows appropriated amounts and entitlement 
ceilings in select fiscal years from 1982-2003.  The table's 
footnotes, as well as the legislative history section of this 
chapter, elaborate on instances in which the appropriated amount 
for the program in a given year differed from the entitlement 
ceiling established for that year in statute. In these cases, 
appropriations legislation has, in effect, superseded the 
authority of any previous legislation's capped entitlement amounts. 
In theory, the entitlement ceiling represents the total amount from 
which States are entitled to receive their authorized allotments. 
However, as table 10-1 shows, appropriation levels have not always 
met the entitlement ceiling, and in a few cases, have surpassed it. 
Table 10-2 shows the total funds available to each State and 
territory under title XX in fiscal years 1996 through 2003.  






	The purpose of the Title XX Social Services Block Grant 
Program is to provide assistance to States to enable them to furnish 
services directed at one or more of five broad goals:

	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.

	States are given wide discretion to determine the services to 
be provided and the groups that may be eligible for services, usually 
low income families and individuals. In addition to supporting social 
services, the law allows States to use their allotment for staff 
training, administration, planning, evaluation, and purchasing 
technical assistance in developing, implementing, or administering the 
State social service program. States decide what amount of the Federal 
allotment to spend on services, training, and administration.

	Some restrictions are placed on the use of title XX funds. 
Funds cannot be used for the following: most medical care except 
family planning; rehabilitation and certain detoxification services; 
purchase of land, construction, or major capital improvements; most 
room and board except emergency short-term services; educational 
services generally provided by public schools; most social services 
provided in, and by employees of, hospitals, nursing homes, and 
prisons; cash payments for subsistence; child day care services that 
do not meet State and local standards; and wages to individuals as a 
social service except wages of welfare recipients employed in child 
day care.


	In the past, limited information has been available on the use 
of title XX funds by the States. Under the Title XX Social Services 
Block Grant Program, each State must submit a report to the Secretary 
of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on the 
intended use of its funds. These preexpenditure reports are only 
required to include information about the types of activities to be 
funded and the characteristics of the individuals to be served.
	The Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-485) 
strengthened reporting requirements. That legislation required States 
to submit annual reports containing detailed information on the 
services actually funded and the individuals served through title XX 
funds. DHHS published a final rule on November 15, 1993 implementing 
the reporting requirements and providing uniform definitions of 
services.  In July 1999, DHHS released an analysis of expenditure and 
recipient data for fiscal years 1995-97; however, the analysis 
included only 40 States.  Beginning with data for fiscal year 1998, 
DHHS has published annual reports on title XX program expenditures 
and recipients.
	Table 10-3 is a comparison of the primary services offered by 
States as reported on expenditure reports submitted by States for 
fiscal years 1994-2001. It should be noted when comparing the totals 
in any particular service category across years that for fiscal years 
1994-95, the table includes data from the five eligible territories, 
whereas this is not true for fiscal years 1996-2001. Also, as 
indicated in the table footnotes, categorization of services has 
varied over the years, making a strict comparison over years 
difficult. Nevertheless, table 10-3 presents a reasonably accurate 
picture of the range of services that have been offered by States 
under title XX. Based on these reports, at least 32 States in 2001 
used title XX funds for each of the following services: (1) daycare 
for children; (2) foster care services for children; (3) home-based 
services; (4) prevention/intervention; (5) protective services for 
children; and (6) protective services for adults.



Table 10-4 shows the percentage of title XX expenditures for each 
category of service in 1998-2001. The table is based on expenditure 
data submitted to DHHS from 50 States and the District of Columbia, 
and published by DHHS as Social Services Block Grant Program Annual 
Reports of Expenditures and Recipients.
	The table indicates that the single largest category of 
spending in 2001 was protective services for children, accounting for 
almost 12 percent of expenditures. This reflects an increase from 1999 
and 2000, when spending in this category was just under 9 percent and 
11 percent, respectively.  Expenditures for child day care services 
increased from 6 percent of title XX expenditures in 2000, but are 
below the 13 percent reported in 1999.  Home-based services, 
prevention and intervention services, and special services for the 
disabled each represented about 8 percent of expenditures in 2001.

YEARS 1998-2001



	Welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996 (Public Law 104-
193) replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) 
Program with a block grant to States called Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families (TANF; see section 7). The welfare reform law 
authorized States to transfer up to 30 percent of their TANF 
allotments to title XX or to the Child Care and Development Block 
Grant (CCDBG). However, as originally enacted, Public Law 104-193 
required that, for every dollar transferred to title XX, States must 
transfer $2 to the CCDBG.  This provision was revised by the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33) so that States are allowed to 
transfer up to 10 percent of their TANF allotment to title XX, 
regardless of how much, if any, they transfer to the CCDBG. The 
welfare reform law stipulates that any TANF funds transferred to title 
XX must be used for families with incomes no higher than 200 percent 
of the Federal poverty guidelines, and may be used to provide vouchers 
for families who are not eligible for cash assistance under TANF 
because of time limits, or for children who are denied cash assistance 
under TANF because they were born into families already receiving 
benefits for another child.
	Beginning in fiscal year 2001, under provisions of the 
Transportation Equity Act, signed into law June 9, 1998 (Public Law 
105-178), the percentage amount of their annual TANF allotment that 
States can transfer into title XX was scheduled to be reduced from 
10 percent to 4.25 percent.  However, this provision has been 
superceded in appropriations laws for fiscal years 2001-2003, which 
have maintained the 10 percent transfer authority level.  (States 
collectively transferred 6 percent of their fiscal year 2002 TANF 
allotment to title XX). The Transportation Equity Act also permanently 
reduced the entitlement ceiling to $1.7 billion beginning in fiscal 
year 2001, but as Table 10-1 shows, that ceiling was surpassed in 
fiscal year 2001, when Congress appropriated $1.725 billion for 
title XX (Public Law 106-554).
	Public Law 97-35, which created the title XX block grant, gave 
States the authority to transfer up to 10 percent of their annual 
allotment to one or any combination of the three health care block 
grants and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). 
(The three health care block grants are: the Preventive Health and 
Health Services Block Grant; the Maternal and Child Health Services 
Block Grant; and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Services 
Block Grant.) In turn, most other block grant statutes allow States 
to transfer funds to the title XX program. However, the Augustus F. 
Hawkins Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1990 eliminated the 
authority to transfer LIHEAP funds to other block grants, beginning 
for fiscal year 1994.


	The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 
103-66) made $1 billion available on an entitlement basis under title 
XX for the Secretary of DHHS to make grants to States for social 
services in qualified empowerment zones and enterprise communities 
(the legislation also provided certain tax incentives for zones and 
communities). On December 21, 1994, President Clinton selected 105 
designees to participate in this program (6 urban and 3 rural 
empowerment zones, 60 urban and 30 rural enterprise communities, 
2 supplemental empowerment zones and 4 enhanced enterprise 
communities). These funds remain available for expenditure for 10 
years. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) authorized 
a second round of enterprise zone and community designations, but no 
title XX funding was included for the second round.
	An empowerment zone or enterprise community is qualified for 
purposes of the title XX grant if it has been designated a zone or 
community under part I, subchapter U, chapter I of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 and if its strategic plan (required in an 
application for designation under the Internal Revenue Code) is 
	A qualified plan is a plan that: (1) includes a detailed 
description of the activities proposed for the area that are to be 
funded with the grant; (2) contains a commitment that the funds 
provided will not be used to supplant Federal or non-Federal funds 
for services and activities which promote the purposes of the grant; 
(3) to the extent a State does not use the funds on certain program 
options, explains the reasons why not; and (4) explains how the plan 
was developed in cooperation with the local government or governments 
with jurisdiction over the zone or community.
	With respect to each empowerment zone, the Secretary was 
required to make one grant ($50 million if urban, $20 million if 
rural) to each State in which the zone lies on the date of its 
designation, and a second grant of the same amount on the first day of 
the following fiscal year. With respect to each enterprise community, 
the Secretary made one grant of up to $3 million to each State in 
which the community lies on the date of its designation. States have 
up to 10 years from the date of their designation in which to expend 
these additional title XX funds, although they must be obligated 
within the first 2 years.
	States, in conjunction with the local governments with 
jurisdiction over the zone or community, have broad discretion in the 
use of grant funds. Funds must be used for social services directed at 
three goals of the basic title XX grant program: achieving or 
maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce or eliminate 
dependency; achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency, including 
reduction or prevention of dependency; or preventing or remedying 
neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and adults unable to 
protect their own interests, or preserving, rehabilitating or 
reuniting families. The funds also must be used in accordance with 
the strategic plan and on activities that benefit residents of the 
zone or community.
	Despite the similar purposes for which funds may be used, the 
range of allowable services is narrower in some respects, and broader 
in others, under the title XX empowerment zone provisions relative to 
the basic title XX program. For example, the basic title XX program 
includes a broader range of purposes than those outlined above for 
the empowerment zone program. On the other hand, certain restrictions 
of the basic title XX program (e.g., restrictions that limit drug 
treatment services to initial detoxification, and restrictions on the 
use of funds for the payment of wages) are waived under the 
empowerment zone program, in order to carry out certain specified 
program options. 


(For legislative history before 1996, see previous editions of the 
Green Book.)

Although $2.8 billion was the permanently authorized entitlement 
ceiling at the time, Congress appropriated only $2.381 billion for 
title XX in fiscal year 1996 (Public Law 104-134). The Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Public Law 
104-193) subsequently set the annual entitlement ceiling for title XX 
at $2.38 billion in each of fiscal years 1997-2002. Under this 
legislation, the entitlement ceiling was scheduled to return to the 
permanent level of $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2003. (Enactment of 
Public Law 105-178 in 1998 would subsequently lower this ceiling-see 
below.) Despite the newly established ceiling of $2.38 billion, 
Congress appropriated $2.5 billion for title XX in fiscal year 1997 
(Public Law 104-208).
	In June 1998, the Transportation Equity Act (TEA, Public Law 
105-178) was enacted, including a provision which scheduled the title 
XX ceiling to be reduced to $1.7 billion beginning in fiscal year 
2001. In addition to reducing the ceiling, the TEA contained a 
provision to reduce the percentage of a State's annual TANF allotment 
that it may transfer to title XX, beginning in fiscal year 2001, from 
10 percent to 4.25 percent.  As described above, subsequent 
appropriations laws have superceded the TEA provision.

The fiscal year 1998 appropriations measure (Public Law 105-178) 
decreased title XX funding to $2.299 billion, once again below the 
$2.38 billion ceiling established under the welfare reform law of 
1996. In explaining the reduction, the Senate Appropriations 
Committee noted that funding is provided for social services 
through other Federal programs. The House Appropriations Committee 
expressed concern that DHHS lacked information on the effectiveness of 
SSBG-funded activities. Funding for title XX continued to decline with 
a $1.909 billion appropriation under the Omnibus Consolidated 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 (Public Law 105-277). For 
fiscal year 2000, the Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 
106-113) set title XX funding at $1.775 billion, of which $425 
million could not be obligated to States until September 29, 2000.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-554) 
included $1.725 billion for title XX ($25 million above the 
entitlement ceiling) and maintained the 10 percent transfer authority 
from TANF.  The following year, Congress appropriated $1.7 billion for 
title XX in fiscal year 2002, and once again maintained the transfer 
authority at 10 percent (Public Law 107-116). Funding and transfer 
authority for fiscal year 2003 mirrored that provided for fiscal year 
2002, with $1.7 billion appropriated in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7).