Offic

Divis

SOCIAL SERVICES 

BLOCK GRANT 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 

ANNUAL REPORT 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................5
	

BACKGROUND/HISTORY .........................................................................................................................................................................7
 

Brief History on Policy and Regulations ........................................................................................................7
 

Statutory Goals...............................................................................................................................................7
 

SSBG Service Categories and SSBG High Level Service Areas ................................................................8
 

Historical Context of SSBG Allocations.........................................................................................................9
 

Reporting Procedures ....................................................................................................................................9
 

Explanations of Expenditures and Recipients.............................................................................................10
 

Total SSBG Expenditures ...................................................................................................................10
 

Other Federal, State, and Local Funds...............................................................................................10
 

Number of Recipients..........................................................................................................................10
 

FUNDING ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
	

Total SSBG Expenditures ............................................................................................................................ 11
 

Total SSBG Expenditures by SSBG High Level Service Area.................................................................... 11
 

Total Recipients............................................................................................................................................14
 

Proportion of Total SSBG Expenditures and Recipients by SSBG High Level Service Area....................14
 

Percentage Change in Total SSBG Expenditures vs. Recipients (FY 2011-FY 2015)...............................15
 

SSBG Service Category Highlights.............................................................................................................17
 

SSBG HIGH LEVEL SERVICE AREAS ................................................................................................................................................... 19
	

Child Welfare/Youth at Risk .........................................................................................................................19
 

Counseling and Support ..............................................................................................................................21
 

Day Care – Children.....................................................................................................................................23
 

Health and Wellbeing ...................................................................................................................................24
 

Special Services – Disabled ........................................................................................................................26
 

Vulnerable and Elderly Adults......................................................................................................................27
 

Additional Support Services ........................................................................................................................29
 

Administrative Costs.....................................................................................................................................32
 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES.................................................................................................................................................................33
 

Efficiency: SSBG Expenditures to Plan Performance.................................................................................33
 

Administration: Total SSBG Expenditures as Administrative Costs............................................................33
 

FOCUS REPORT TOPICS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 37
 

TANF Transfers ............................................................................................................................................37
 

Day Care – Children.....................................................................................................................................38
 

Child Welfare/Youth at Risk .........................................................................................................................39
 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Table Of Contents 2 
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING: HURRICANE SANDY ............................................................................................................................... 41
	

Background on the Funding.........................................................................................................................41
 

State Uses of SSBG Hurricane Sandy Supplemental Funds .....................................................................42
 

Improper Payment Reviews.........................................................................................................................43
 

Corrective Actions to Address Root Causes of Errors ................................................................................45
 

APPENDIX: UNIFORM DEFINITION OF SERVICES...............................................................................................................................46
 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Table Of Contents 3 
This report was prepared for the Office of Community Services, Administration for Children and 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by WRMA, Inc., a TriMetrix Company, 

under contract #GS10F0297L 

Information about the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program is available on the Internet at 

the following address: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/programs/ssbg 

For additional information, contact the SSBG Federal Project Officer at the following address: 

Lynwood McDaniel, SSBG Program Specialist Office of Community Services 

Administration for Children and Families 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
	

330 C Street, SW, 5th Floor Mail Room 5425 Washington, DC 20201
	

Phone: 202‒401‒4627
	

Lynwood.McDaniel@acf.hhs.gov 

Material contained in this report is in the public domain and may be reproduced, fully or partially, 

without permission from the Federal Government. The courtesy of crediting the source of the 

material is requested. The recommended citation follows: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
	

Office of Community Services. (2016). Social Services Block Grant Program Annual Report 2015. 

Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/programs/ssbg
	

SSBG Annual Report 2015 4 
SSBG Annual Report 2015: Executive Summary 5 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Each year, the federal government allocates funds to states to support social services for at risk children and 

adults through the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). This report reviews Total SSBG Expenditures and the 

number of service recipients during fiscal year (FY) 2015. 

The Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), at the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) administers the SSBG. Each year, states must report Total SSBG Expenditures 

for each service category and the total number of adults and children served. 

States may transfer up to 10 percent of their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants to the 

SSBG.1

 Funds transferred from TANF to SSBG are to be used only for programs or services to children or their 

families whose income is less than 200 percent of the income poverty guideline applicable to a family of the size 

involved (as defined and revised annually by the Office of Management and Budget).2 

SSBG regulations establish 29 SSBG Service Categories by which states may report Total SSBG Expenditures and 

recipients.3

 OCS has further grouped the 29 SSBG Service Categories into eight SSBG High Level Service Areas to 

facilitate the evaluation and analysis of data related to services and impact. 

In FY 2015, Total SSBG Expenditures for all states combined to approximately $2.76 billion.4

 Of these Total SSBG 

Expenditures, approximately $1.62 billion (59 percent) were SSBG Expenditures and approximately $1.14 billion 

(41 percent) were TANF Transfer funds. Three SSBG High Level Service Areas comprised $1.73 billion (62 percent) 

of Total SSBG Expenditures in FY 2015: Child Welfare/Youth at Risk, $842 million (30 percent); Additional Support 

Services, $591 million (21 percent); and Vulnerable and Elderly Adults, $293 million (11 percent).5 

SSBG Expenditures comprised a majority of reported Total SSBG Expenditures in six of the eight SSBG High Level 

Service Areas in FY 2015: Vulnerable and Elderly Adults (97 percent); Special Services – Disabled (72 percent); 

Health and Wellbeing (72 percent); Counseling and Support (70 percent); and Additional Support Services (66 

percent). TANF Transfer funds accounted for a majority of Total SSBG Expenditures in two SSBG High Level Service 

Areas: Day Care – Children (83 percent) and Child Welfare/Youth at Risk (59 percent). 

TANF Transfer funds are specifically targeted to serve children or their families in low-income households, and lend 

themselves naturally to services within the areas of Day Care – Children and Child Welfare/Youth at Risk. SSBG 

Expenditures, by contrast, are more flexible in their design and are able to address a wider base of needs held 

by individuals and families of all ages and backgrounds, helping to bridge gaps between residents’ needs and the 

availability of other funding sources. 

1 The original welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) set the limit on transfers from TANF to SSBG at 10 percent of the TANF block grant. 

P.L. 105-178 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) reduced funding for SSBG and the transfer authority from TANF to 

SSBG to 4.25 percent, effective FY 2001. 

2 42 U.S.C. §604(d)(3)(B). 

3 Appendix to 45 C.F.R. Part 96—Uniform Definition of Services, Federal Register, Volume 58, Number 218, Monday, November 15, 

1993. 

4 When reporting on use of Total SSBG Expenditures, states also report on other federal, state, and local funds used to provide 

services supported by the SSBG. Other federal, state, and local funds do not appear in calculations or in the narrative of this report 

when discussing Total SSBG Expenditures. 

5 When summing all Total SSBG Expenditures from Child Welfare/Youth at Risk, Additional Support Services, and Vulnerable and 

Elderly Adults together, these services account for 62 percent of Total SSBG Expenditures in FY 2015. However, when rounding 

each service area’s share of Total SSBG Expenditures to the nearest whole percent, these rounded values sum to 63 percent. 
States reported approximately 27 million recipients of SSBG services in FY 2015. Fifteen million (57 percent) recipients were adults and 11 million (43 percent) were children. Three SSBG High Level Service Areas comprised 70 

percent (19 million) of all recipients in FY 2015: Counseling and Support, 10 million (39 percent); Additional Support 

Services, 4 million (17 percent); and Child Welfare/Youth at Risk, 4 million (14 percent). 

In addition to examining Total SSBG Expenditures and recipients by SSBG High Level Service Area, this report also 

■		 Highlights notable findings by SSBG Service Category 

■		 Details the results of performance measures tracking states’ use of SSBG funds, and 

■		 Provides brief previews of upcoming SSBG Focus Reports on select topics relating to use of SSBG 

funds. 

In January 2013, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2) provided $500 million ($474.5 million 

after sequestration) in additional funding to the SSBG intended for use in disaster recovery efforts following 

Hurricane Sandy. The report concludes with a brief discussion of states’ use of SSBG Sandy funds in FY 2015. 

As all federal programs receiving funds under the Disaster Relief Act are designated as susceptible to significant 

improper payments for the purposes of the Improper Payments Information Act6

 the discussion includes a 

description of improper payments reviews conducted to ensure oversight of states’ use of SSBG Sandy funds. In 

FY 2015, states reported approximately $177 million in SSBG Sandy expenditures (37 percent of the total SSBG 

Sandy awards of $474.5 million), predominantly in areas of Housing Services, Health Services, Case Management, Counseling Services, and Repair, Renovation, and Rebuilding projects. In FY 2015, 0.22 percent of SSBG 

Sandy funds were improper payments. 

The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA), as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 

2010 (IPERA), the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 (IPERIA), and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) guidance in Memorandum (M-15-02) for Heads of Executive Department and Agencies dated October 20, 2014, 

OMB Circular A-123, Requirements for Effective Estimation and Remediation of Improper Payments. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Executive Summary 6 

6 
 

BACKGROUND/HISTORY 

This section provides an overview of the SSBG, including the services funded by the SSBG and the SSBG 

reporting requirements that states must fulfill to receive SSBG funds. 

In this report, “states” include the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The territories of 

American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands also receive funds from the 

SSBG, but their data are not included in this report.7 

BRIEF HISTORY ON POLICY AND REGULATIONS 

The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35) amended Title XX to establish the SSBG. The SSBG is a 

capped entitlement program. This means that states are entitled to their share of funds, according to a formula, 

from an amount of money that is capped in the statute at a specific level (also known as a funding ceiling). Each 

year, Congress determines the level of funding to be appropriated to the SSBG. SSBG funds are allocated to each 

of the 50 states and the District of Columbia according to their relative population size.8

 Designated state agencies 

administer the SSBG. 

Section 404(d) of the Social Security Act establishes a state’s authority to transfer no more than 10 percent of funds 

from TANF to SSBG.9 Funds transferred from TANF to SSBG are to be used only for programs or services to children or their families whose income is less than 200 percent of the income poverty guideline applicable to a family 

of the size involved (as defined and revised annually by the Office of Management and Budget).10 Funds transferred 

into the SSBG from TANF are subject to the statute, regulations, and reporting requirements of the SSBG. 

STATUTORY GOALS 

Federal law establishes five broad goals for the SSBG. Social services funded by states must be linked to one or 

more of these statutory goals:11 

Achieve or 

maintain 

economic 

self-support to 

prevent, reduce, 

or eliminate 

dependency 

1

Achieve or 

maintain 

self-sufficiency, 

including 

reduction or 

prevention of 

dependency 

2

Prevent or remedy 

neglect, abuse, 

or exploitation 

of children and 

adults unable 

to protect their 

own interests or 

preserve, rehabilitate, or reunite 

families 3

Prevent or reduce 

inappropriate 

institutional 

care by providing 

for communitybased care, 

or other 

forms of less 

intensive care 

4

Secure referral 

or admission 

for institutional 

care when other 

forms of care are 

not appropriate, 

or providing 

services to 

individuals in 

institutions 5

7 The Office of Community Services is working to improve these territories’ reporting mechanisms to allow for electronic reporting of 

data in future years. 

8 SSBG appropriations for Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are
 

determined according to standard ratios established at the inception of the SSBG.
 

9 The original welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) set the limit on transfers from TANF to SSBG at 10 percent of the TANF block grant. 

P.L. 105-178 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA) reduced funding for SSBG and the transfer authority from TANF to 

SSBG to 4.25 percent, effective FY 2001. TEA also established a new, lower SSBG funding ceiling of $1.7 billion starting in FY 2001. 

However, annual appropriation bills and temporary extension legislation (that continued TANF on the terms of previous years) have 

provided for a 10 percent transfer limit for FY 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year. 

10 42 U.S.C. §604(d)(3)(B). 

11 42 U.S.C. §1397. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Background/History 7 
SSBG SERVICE CATEGORIES AND SSBG HIGH LEVEL SERVICE AREAS 

States have broad discretion in the specific services they support with SSBG funds. The final rule issued in 1993 

included uniform definitions for 28 social services. If a service falls outside of the 28 definitions, states report their 

expenditure and recipient data under “Other Services”.12,13 

OCS has grouped the 29 SSBG Service Categories (including “Other Services”) into eight SSBG High Level Service 

Areas to facilitate the evaluation and analysis of data related to services and impact. Service area groupings were 

determined based on a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Analysis14 and a thorough review of the Uniform 

Definition of Services to identify related categories. These SSBG High Level Service Areas will simplify the evaluation of categories to better demonstrate the significance of funds dedicated to impacted services, systems, and 

communities across the nation. For a breakdown of SSBG Service Categories by SSBG High Level Service Area, 

reference the table below. 

CHILD WELFARE/YOUTH AT RISK 

■ Adoption Services 

■ Foster Care Services – Children 

■ Independent/Transitional Living 

■ Protective Services – Children 

■ Special Services – Youth at Risk 

COUNSELING AND SUPPORT 

■ Case Management 

■ Counseling Services 

■ Information and Referral 

DAY CARE – CHILDREN 

■ Day Care – Children 

HEALTH AND WELLBEING 

■ Family Planning Services 

■ Health-Related Services 

■ Pregnancy and Parenting 

■ Residential Treatment 

■ Substance Abuse Services 

SPECIAL SERVICES – DISABLED 

■ Special Services – Disabled 

12 45 C.F.R. §96.74(b). 

VULNERABLE AND ELDERLY ADULTS 

■ Congregate Meals 

■ Day Care – Adults 

■ Foster Care Services – Adults 

■ Home-Delivered Meals 

■ Protective Services – Adults 

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES 

■ Education and Training Services 

■ Employment Services 

■ Home-Based Services 

■ Housing Services 

■ Legal Services 

■ Prevention and Intervention 

■ Recreational Services 

■ Transportation 

■ Other Services 

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 

■ Administrative Costs 

13		 45 C.F.R. Part 96 - Uniform Definition of Services, Federal Register, Volume 58, Number 218, Monday, November 15, 1993. 

14		 Pavetti, L., & Floyd, I. (2016, April 18). Eliminating Social Services Block Grant Would Weaken 

Services for Vulnerable Children, Adults, and Disabled. Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/ 

eliminating-social-services-block-grant-would-weaken-services-for-vulnerable-children 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Background/History 8 
HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF SSBG ALLOCATIONS 

SSBG entitlement ceilings have decreased from a high of $2.8 billion in FY 1990 to $1.7 billion in FY 2015.15 

While Congress originally authorized a $2.8 billion funding ceiling for SSBG in FY 1996, welfare reform legislation 

revised the annual SSBG funding ceiling to approximately $2.4 billion from 1997 to 2002.16 Under this legislation, 

the ceiling was set to return to $2.8 billion in FY 2003. However, in 1998, the Transportation Equity Act (TEA) 

established a new, lower SSBG funding ceiling of $1.7 billion starting in FY 2001. Since the enactment of the TEA, 

the $1.7 billion annual SSBG allocation has remained largely unchanged. 

One exception includes the Budget Control Act of 2011, which imposed automatic budget cuts (known as sequestration) reducing the allocation of the SSBG funds to the states. The Budget Control Act allows for the continued 

sequestration of SSBG funds until FY 2025. Another recent exception is the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 

2013, which allocated $500 million in disaster relief funding to five states (Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, 

New York, and Rhode Island) in response to Hurricane Sandy. After accounting for sequestration, this amount 

was reduced to approximately $474.5 million. (See the Supplemental Funding section of this report for more 

information.) 

REPORTING PROCEDURES 

Before a state receives SSBG funds, it must submit a report specifying the intended use of the block grant, 

including information on the types of activities to be supported and the categories or characteristics of individuals 

to be served.17 This SSBG Pre-Expenditure Report is submitted annually to OCS within ACF at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The SSBG Pre-Expenditure Report must be submitted 30 days prior to the 

start of the fiscal year.18 States are required to submit a revised SSBG Pre-Expenditure Report if the planned use 

of SSBG funds changes during the year. 

HHS regulations require each state to submit an annual SSBG Post-Expenditure Report. The SSBG Post-Expenditure Report is submitted either six months after the end of the reporting period, or at the time that the state 

submits the SSBG Pre-Expenditure Report for the next reporting period.19 States are required to use a standardized SSBG Post-Expenditure reporting form that includes information on the use of SSBG funds, TANF Transfer 

funds, and other federal, state, and local funds, the number of individuals served by SSBG (by type of service and 

by the number of children and adults), and the service delivery methods used by public and private providers. 

Data from the SSBG Post-Expenditure reporting form are the basis for the analyses presented in this report. 

15 Lynch, K.E. (2016). Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding. (Congressional Research Service Report No. 94-953). 

Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-953.pdf 

16 P.L. 104-193 

17 42 U.S.C. §1397c. 

18 This refers to September 1, provided the state operates on a federal fiscal year. If the state operates on a July–June fiscal year, this 

means June 1. 45 C.F.R. §96.10(c)(1). 

19 45 C.F.R. §96.17. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Background/History 9 
EXPLANATIONS OF EXPENDITURES AND RECIPIENTS
	

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES 

Total SSBG Expenditures refer to the sum of two separate funding sources reported by states, expenditures of the 

SSBG allocation and expenditures of the funds transferred into the SSBG from the TANF block grant. 

SSBG Expenditures—states report dollars from the SSBG allocation spent for services and administrative costs.20 

TANF Transfer Funds—Also referred to as “Funds transferred into SSBG,” states report any expended 

dollars transferred from the TANF block grant into the SSBG. 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES 

SSBG EXPENDITURES TANF TRANSFERS 

OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL FUNDS 

States report the total amount of other federal, state, and local funds spent for each service supported with Total 

SSBG Expenditures. States do not report other federal, state, and local funds for services in which no Total SSBG 

Expenditures are reported.21 

NUMBER OF RECIPIENTS 

States report the actual or estimated number of adult and child recipients for each service category funded, in whole 

or in part, with Total SSBG Expenditures.22,23 

TOTAL RECIPIENTS 

CHILDREN ADULTS 

59 AND 

YOUNGER 

UNKNOWN 

AGE 

60 AND 

OLDER 

20	 The total reported amount may differ from the amount of the annual SSBG allocation if the full amount was not expended in the fiscal 

year during which it was allocated, or if a portion of the SSBG allocation from the previous year was expended during the reporting 

year. 

21	 Other federal, state, and local funds do not appear in calculations or in the narrative of this report when discussing Total SSBG 

Expenditures. However, states report on these other funds to indicate a more accurate total cost of service provision. 

22	 In reporting recipient and expenditure data, each state must report actual numbers of recipients and actual expenditures when this 

information is available. For purposes of this report, each state should, if possible, count only a single recipient for each service. 

states should also consider a service provided to a recipient for the length of the reporting period (one year) or any fraction thereof 

as a single service. Data based on sampling and/or estimates will be accepted when actual figures are unavailable. Each state must 

indicate for each service whether the data are based on actual figures, sampling, or estimates and must describe the sampling and/ 

or estimation process(es) it used to obtain these data in the annual report. Each state must also indicate, in reporting recipient data, 

whether the data reflects an unduplicated count of recipients. – 45 C.F.R. §96.74(b)(3). 

23 Each state must use its own definition of the terms “child” and “adult” in reporting the data required in paragraphs (a) (1) through (5) 

of this section. – 45 C.F.R. §96.74(b)(5). 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Background/History 10 
 

 

FUNDING 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES

$2,761,559,075 

$1,617,200,889 $1,144,358,186 

SSBG EXPENDITURES TANF TRANSFERS 

This section provides a summary of Total SSBG Expenditures in FY 2015.24 The section first reviews states’ use 

of Total SSBG Expenditures and the amounts of SSBG Expenditures and TANF Transfer funds reported for each 

SSBG High Level Service Area.25,26 This is followed by a brief review of service recipients reported by SSBG High 

Level Service Area. Further discussion examines trends in Total SSBG Expenditures and recipients by SSBG High 

Level Service Area from FY 2011 to FY 2015. Additional highlights of reported expenditures and recipients by SSBG 

Service Category are also provided. 

In FY 2015, Total SSBG Expenditures for all states combined to approximately $2.76 billion. Of the Total SSBG 

Expenditures, approximately $1.62 billion (59 percent) were from SSBG Expenditures and approximately 

$1.14 billion (41 percent) were TANF Transfer funds. 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES BY SSBG HIGH LEVEL SERVICE AREA 

Total SSBG Expenditures can be examined within the framework of eight SSBG High Level Service Areas. The 

SSBG High Level Service Areas group the 29 SSBG Service Categories and Administrative Costs into eight service 

areas for macro-level analysis. 

Figure 1 details how the $2.76 billion in FY 2015 Total SSBG Expenditures were reported according to the eight 

SSBG High Level Service Areas. Three SSBG High Level Service Areas comprised $1.73 billion (62 percent) of 

Total SSBG Expenditures in FY 2015: Child Welfare/Youth at Risk, $842 million (30 percent); Additional Support 

Services, $591 million (21 percent); and Vulnerable and Elderly Adults, $293 million (11 percent).27 

24	 States also report the total amount of other federal, state, and local funds spent for each service supported with SSBG funds. States 

do not report other federal, state, and local funds for services in which no Total SSBG Expenditures are reported. Other federal, 

state, and local funds do not appear in calculations or in the narrative of this report when discussing Total SSBG Expenditures. 

However, states report on these other funds to indicate a more accurate total cost of service provision. 

25	 The original welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) set the limit on transfers from TANF to SSBG at 10 percent of the TANF block grant. 

P.L. 105-178 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) reduced funding for SSBG and the transfer authority from TANF to 

SSBG to 4.25 percent, effective FY 2001. TEA also established a new, lower SSBG funding ceiling of $1.7 billion starting in FY 

2001. However, annual appropriation bills and temporary extension legislation (that continued TANF on the terms of previous years) 

have provided for a 10 percent transfer limit for FY 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year. 

26	 Funds transferred from TANF to SSBG are to be used only for programs or services to children or their families whose income is 

less than 200 percent of the income poverty guideline applicable to a family of the size involved (as defined and revised annually by 

the Office of Management and Budget). – 42 U.S.C. §604(d)(3)(B). 

27	 When summing all Total SSBG Expenditures from Child Welfare/Youth at Risk, Additional Support Services, and Vulnerable and 

Elderly Adults together, these services account for 62 percent of Total SSBG Expenditures in FY 2015. However, when rounding 

each service area’s share of Total SSBG Expenditures to the nearest whole percent, these rounded values sum to 63 percent. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Funding 11 
Child Welfare/Youth at Risk accounted for the largest proportion of Total SSBG Expenditures (30 percent) of all 

SSBG High Level Service Areas in FY 2015. Forty-six states reported approximately $842 million in Total SSBG 

Expenditures for services in this area, which are targeted to improve the safety, permanency, and well-being of 

children and youth involved with, or at risk of involvement with, child welfare agencies. 

FIGURE 1. 

Total SSBG Expenditures by SSBG High Level Service Area FY 201528 

Additional Support Services represented 21 percent of Total SSBG Expenditures in FY 2015. Forty-seven states 

reported approximately $591 million in Total SSBG Expenditures for services in this area. Additional Support 

Services can assist individuals or families in ways including, but not limited to 

■ preventing or intervening in cases of abuse, neglect, or family violence; 

■ resolving housing or home-based needs; 

■ obtaining legal help in civil matters; 

■ accessing employment or educational training services; 

■ providing or arranging transportation to obtain services; or 

■ facilitating engagement in physical, cultural, or social development activities. 

Vulnerable and Elderly Adults comprised 11 percent of Total SSBG Expenditures in FY 2015. Forty-three states 

reported $293 million in Total SSBG Expenditures for services in this area. These services improve the safety, 

permanency, and well-being of older adults. These can include efforts to increase self-sufficiency, reduce instances 

of abuse or neglect, and ensure safe and stable living situations. 

States report Total SSBG Expenditures according to two different funding sources: SSBG Expenditures obtained 

through annual appropriations, and TANF Transfer funds, which can be used to supplement SSBG-supported child 

and family services to low income households. When examining the use of these two funding streams in states’ 

reported Total SSBG Expenditures, the relative contributions of each funding source become apparent. 

TANF Transfer funds are specifically targeted to serve children or their families in low-income households, and 

lend themselves naturally to services within the areas of Day Care – Children and Child Welfare/Youth at Risk. 

These SSBG High Level Service Areas encompass services designed to cultivate positive development in 

children, and ensure their safety in healthy, long-term living arrangements. 

28 Due to rounding, the values in this figure do not equal 100 percent. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Funding 12 
SSBG Annual Report 2015: Funding 13

SSBG Expenditures, by contrast, are more flexible in their design and are able to address a wider base of needs 

held by individuals and families of all ages and backgrounds. States can direct SSBG Expenditures to service 

areas that may not have large, dedicated funding streams. As such, SSBG Expenditures are a tool to bridge gaps 

between residents’ needs and the availability of other funding sources. 

SSBG Expenditures comprised a majority of reported Total SSBG Expenditures in six of the eight SSBG High Level 

Service Areas in FY 2015 (see Figure 2). SSBG Expenditures encompassed almost all Total SSBG Expenditures 

(97 percent) for Vulnerable and Elderly Adults, and accounted for two-thirds or more of Total SSBG Expenditures for 

Special Services – Disabled (72 percent); Health and Wellbeing (72 percent); Counseling and Support (70 percent); 

and Additional Support Services (66 percent).29

TANF Transfer funds accounted for a majority of Total SSBG Expenditures in two SSBG High Level Service Areas: 

Day Care – Children (83 percent) and Child Welfare/Youth at Risk (59 percent). 

States vary in the way they use Total SSBG Expenditures to meet the needs of their at risk populations. States 

can decide which services to support with SSBG funds and which populations to serve, and can refocus their Total 

SSBG Expenditures over time as their populations’ needs change. 

29 SSBG Expenditures also accounted for 94 percent of Administrative Costs in FY 2015.

FIGURE 2.

SSBG High Level Service Areas, SSBG Expenditures and TANF Transfer Funds, FY 2015 MILLIONS
TOTAL RECIPIENTS TOTAL RECIPIENTS

26,728,153 

11,364,312 15,363,841

CHILDREN ADULTS 

States reported approximately 27 million recipients of SSBG services in FY 2015. Fifteen million (57 percent) recipients were adults and 11 million (43 percent) were children. Three SSBG High Level Service Areas comprised 70 

percent (19 million) of all recipients in FY 2015: Counseling and Support, 10 million (39 percent); Additional Support 

Services, 4 million (17 percent); and Child Welfare/Youth at Risk, 4 million (14 percent; see Figure 3). 

FIGURE 3. 

Recipients by SSBG High Level Service Area, FY 201530 

PROPORTION OF TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES AND RECIPIENTS BY SSBG HIGH LEVEL SERVICE AREA 

Examining the relative proportions of Total SSBG Expenditures and recipients reported for each SSBG High Level 

Service Area can reveal insights into both how states prioritize their services, as well as how economically states can 

provide these services to recipients. Larger disparities between the respective shares of Total SSBG Expenditures 

compared to recipients for a given SSBG High Level Service Area can illuminate the level of effort and resources 

needed to provide certain types of services to residents in need. Two of the largest disparities in reported Total 

SSBG Expenditures compared to recipients in FY 2015 can be found in the SSBG High Level Service Areas of Child 

Welfare/Youth at Risk and Counseling and Support (see Figure 4). 

Child Welfare/Youth at Risk accounted for 30 percent ($842 million) of Total SSBG Expenditures in FY 2015, while 

accounting for 14 percent (3.8 million) of recipients. This disparity might be explained by the relative time, cost, 

and effort that states can expend serving any given recipient in this area. Component services in this area include 

foster care and protective services for children. Efforts required to investigate and substantiate possible instances 

of abuse, neglect or misconduct can be extensive. In an effort to prioritize protection, greater costs are incurred by 

placing children, removed from unsafe living conditions, in out-of-home care. Adoption and Independent/Transitional 

Living Services support permanency for youth who cannot be safely reunited with their caregivers. 

30 Due to rounding, the values in this figure do not equal 100 percent. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Funding 14 
0

10

Administrative

Costs

Counseling

and Support

Day Care –

Children

Child Welfare/

Youth at Risk

Special

Services –

Disabled

Additional

Support

Services

Health and

Wellbeing

Vulnerable

and Elderly

Adults

11% 10% 10%

10%

3%

9%

5% 4%

2%

0%

FIGURE 4. 

Proportion of Total SSBG Expenditures and Recipients by SSBG High Level Service Area 

Total SSBG Expenditures Recipients

PERCENT OF TOTAL 

Counseling and Support accounted for nine percent of Total SSBG Expenditures in FY 2015, while accounting for 

39 percent of all recipients. Component services within this area may be more cost-effective to provide, as their 

focus can be more on facilitating and coordinating services for individuals and families. The SSBG Service Categories of Case Management and Information and Referral may serve either as an entry point into more extensive or 

targeted services, or else may help to transition individuals and families from one network of services into another. 

Counseling Services apply therapeutic processes to personal, family, situational, or occupational problems of varying 

lengths and intensities. In sum, these three SSBG Service Categories help individuals and families to address 

immediate needs to fulfill longer term goals. 

PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES VS. RECIPIENTS (FY 2011–FY 2015) 

Changes in states’ use of Total SSBG Expenditures and numbers of reported recipients over time can reveal trends 

in states’ social service priorities, target populations, and the relative cost efficiencies of services provided. 

Between FY 2011-FY 2015, Total SSBG Expenditures for all services combined have remained relatively stable, 

increasing less than one percent ($8.8 million) over five years. In this same period, total recipients declined by six 

percent, from 28 million recipients in FY 2011 to approximately 27 million recipients in FY 2015. 

Both Total SSBG Expenditures and recipients have increased over the last five years in two SSBG High Level 

Service Areas: Child Welfare/Youth at Risk and Counseling and Support (see Figure 5). Growth in the number 

of reported recipients outpaced growth in Total SSBG Expenditures for both of these service areas in the last five 

years. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Funding 15 
For For

FIGURE 5. 

Percent Change in Total SSBG Expenditures and Recipients by SSBG High Level Service Area (FY 2011–FY 2015) 

SSBG HIGH LEVEL 

SERVICE AREA 

CHILD WELFARE/

YOUTH AT RISK 

ICON AND 

COLOR 

TOTAL SSBG 

EXPENDITURES CHANGE 

$75,663,761 10% 

TOTAL RECIPIENTS 

CHANGE 

563,614 18% 

COUNSELING AND 

SUPPORT $8,161,545 3% 1,741,055 20% 

DAY CARE – 

CHILDREN -$51,263,160 15% -108,405 3% 

HEALTH AND 

WELLBEING -$30,195,319 17% -540,417 32% 

SPECIAL SERVICES – 

DISABLED -$50,571,544 15% -246,319 27% 

VULNERABLE AND 

ELDERLY ADULTS -$5,548,119 2% 1,731,172 206% 

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT 

SERVICES $75,792,823 15% -4,703,141 52% 

ADMINISTRATIVE 

COSTS -$13,207,631 16% 0 0% 

Total SSBG Expenditures and recipients have jointly decreased for three SSBG High Level Service Areas in the last 

five years: Day Care – Children, Health and Wellbeing, and Special Services – Disabled. Decreases in Total SSBG 

Expenditures for Day Care – Children outpaced reductions in reported recipients, while Health and Wellbeing and 

Special Services – Disabled saw greater reductions in reported recipients compared to Total SSBG Expenditures. 

Increases or decreases in Total SSBG Expenditures can be the result of a diverse set of factors. Predominately, 

states have discretion to shift priorities in serving their populations by redistributing funds to other service categories. 

Two SSBG High Level Service Areas saw divergent changes in Total SSBG Expenditures compared to reported 

recipients: Additional Support Services and Vulnerable and Elderly Adults. Additional Support Services reported an 

increase in Total SSBG Expenditures of $75 million (15 percent) between FY 2011–FY 2015, while the number of 

reported recipients over this same timeframe dropped by over half (4.7 million, 52 percent). Vulnerable and Elderly 

Adults experienced a slight reduction of Total SSBG Expenditures ($5.5 million, 2 percent) between FY 2011–FY 

2015, while the number of reported recipients more than doubled (1.7 million, 206 percent). This increase is due to 

the substantial increase in recipients reported in Congregate Meals (up 1.6 million, 2,095 percent from 2011; see 

Vulnerable and Elderly Adults section below for more details). 

Administrative costs have decreased by $13 million (16 percent) between FY 2011–FY 2015.31 For more information

on a performance measure aimed at reducing the amount of states’ Total SSBG Expenditures reported for

administrative costs, see the Performance Measure section below.

31	 Administrative Costs saw a decrease in Total SSBG Expenditures between FY 2011-FY 2015. However, states do not report recipients for this SSBG High Level Service Area. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Funding 16 
For more information on the changes in Total SSBG Expenditures and recipients within each of the SSBG High 

Level Service Areas, see the SSBG High Level Service Areas subsection below. 

SSBG SERVICE CATEGORY HIGHLIGHTS 

In addition to examining the SSBG High Level Service Areas, further insight into social service priorities and target 

populations across states can be garnered by examining the individual component SSBG Service Categories by 

which states annually report their SSBG data. 

In FY 2015, states reported the highest amounts of Total SSBG Expenditures for three SSBG Service Categories 

focusing on services for children and youth: Foster Care Services – Children, Protective Services – Children, 

and Day Care – Children (see Figure 6). These three SSBG Service Categories accounted for $1.02 billion (37 

percent) of Total SSBG Expenditures in FY 2015, and have consistently been among the highest funded SSBG 

Service Categories for each of the last five years. 

FIGURE 6. 

Top 3 SSBG Service Categories by Total SSBG Expenditure, FY 2015 

Foster Care Services – Children has been the top funded SSBG Service Category for each of the last five years, 

while Protective Services – Children and Day Care – Children have been among the top four funded services over 

the same period. These three categories are particularly suited for maximizing Total SSBG Expenditures, due in part 

to states’ utilization of TANF Transfer funds to serve children and families in low income households. In FY 2015, 

TANF Transfer funds accounted for 58 percent of Total SSBG Expenditures for Protective Services – Children, 

72 percent of Total SSBG Expenditures for Foster Care Services – Children, and 83 percent of Total SSBG Expenditures for Day Care – Children. 

The top three SSBG Service Categories by SSBG Expenditures (does not include transfer funds) in FY 2015 were 

Special Services – Disabled, Protective Services – Adults, and Home-Based Services. These three SSBG Service 

Categories accounted for 33 percent of SSBG Expenditures in FY 2015 (see Figure 7). 

FIGURE 7. 

Top 3 SSBG Service Categories by SSBG Expenditure, FY 2015 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Funding 17 
FIGURE 8. 

Top 3 SSBG Service Categories by Recipients, FY 2015 

The three SSBG Service Categories reporting the greatest numbers of recipients in FY 2015 were Information and 

Referral, Case Management, and Day Care – Children (see Figure 8). These three SSBG Service Categories 

accounted for over half (14 million, 52 percent) of all recipients reported in FY 2015. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Funding 18 
 

SSBG HIGH LEVEL SERVICE AREAS 

The following section reviews Total Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) Expenditures and recipients reported 

for each SSBG High Level Service Area in FY 2015.32 Total SSBG Expenditures are the combination of states’ 

reported SSBG Expenditures from their annual allocations, and expenditures of the funds transferred into the SSBG 

from the states’ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants.33,34 Review of each SSBG High 

Level Service Area includes highlights of Total SSBG Expenditures and recipients reported for the SSBG High Level 

Service Area’s component SSBG Service Categories. 

CHILD WELFARE/YOUTH AT RISK 

In FY 2015, 46 states reported Total SSBG Expenditures for Child Welfare/Youth at Risk totaling approximately $842 

million. Of the Total SSBG Expenditures for Child Welfare/Youth at Risk, approximately $347 million (41 percent) were 

from the SSBG Expenditures and approximately $495 million (59 percent) were TANF Transfer funds. The top five 

states with the highest reported Total SSBG Expenditures for Child Welfare/Youth at Risk were Florida ($111 million), 

Michigan ($98 million), California ($95 million), New York ($65 million), and Virginia ($40 million). The five states that 

allocated the largest proportion of their Total SSBG Expenditures towards Child Welfare/Youth at Risk were Hawaii 

(94 percent), West Virginia (93 percent), Louisiana (83 percent), Kansas (78 percent), and Michigan (78 percent). 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD WELFARE/YOUTH AT RISK 

States reported the largest proportions (87 percent) of Total SSBG Expenditures for Child Welfare/Youth at Risk services 

in two SSBG Service Categories: Foster Care Services – Children and Protective Services – Children (see Figure 9).35 

FIGURE 9. 

Total SSBG Expenditures For Child Welfare/Youth at Risk by SSBG Service Category, FY 201536 

32 States also report the total amount of other federal, state, and local funds spent for each service supported with SSBG funds. States 

do not report other federal, state, and local funds for services in which no Total SSBG Expenditures are reported. Other federal, 

state, and local funds do not appear in calculations or in the narrative of this report when discussing Total SSBG Expenditures. 

However, states report on these other funds to indicate a more accurate total cost of service provision. 

33 The original welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) set the limit on transfers from TANF to SSBG at 10 percent of the TANF block grant. 

P.L. 105-178 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) reduced funding for SSBG and the transfer authority from TANF to 

SSBG to 4.25 percent, effective FY 2001. TEA also established a new, lower SSBG funding ceiling of $1.7 billion starting in FY 2001. 

However, annual appropriation bills and temporary extension legislation (that continued TANF on the terms of previous years) have 

provided for a 10 percent transfer limit for FY 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year. 

34	 Funds transferred from TANF to SSBG are to be used only for programs or services to children or their families whose income is less 

than 200 percent of the income poverty guideline applicable to a family of the size involved (as defined and revised annually by the 

Office of Management and Budget). – 42 U.S.C. §604(d)(3)(B). 

35	 When summing all Total SSBG Expenditures from Foster Care Services – Children and Protective Services – Children together, 

these services account for 87 percent of Total SSBG Expenditures for Child Welfare/Youth at Risk services. However, when rounding each service’s share of Total SSBG Expenditures to the nearest whole percent, these rounded values sum to 86 percent. 

36	 Due to rounding, the values in this figure do not equal 100 percent. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 19 
SSBG SERVICE CATEGORY 

FOSTER CARE SERVICES – 

CHILDREN 

TOTAL SSBG 

EXPENDITURES CHANGE 

$77,668,124 22% 

TOTAL RECIPIEN

CHANGE 

3,077 

TS 

1% 

PROTECTIVE SERVICES – 

CHILDREN $5,999,681 2% 665,254 27% 

SPECIAL SERVICES – 

YOUTH AT RISK -$3,942,809 6% -76,997 51% 

ADOPTION SERVICES -$5,006,386 12% -1,140 1% 

INDEPENDENT/TRANSITIONAL

LIVING SERVICES $945,151 11% -26,580 49% 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES: 

CHILD WELFARE/YOUTH AT RISK $75,663,761 10% 563,614 18% 

 

RECIPIENTS OF CHILD WELFARE/YOUTH AT RISK 

States reported approximately 3.8 million recipients of Child Welfare/Youth at Risk in FY 2015. Protective Services 

– Children comprised the largest proportion (83 percent) of all reported recipients of Child Welfare/Youth at Risk 

services in FY 2015 (see Figure 10). 

FIGURE 10. 

Recipients of Child Welfare/Youth at Risk by SSBG Service Category, FY 2015 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES AND RECIPIENTS: CHILD WELFARE/YOUTH AT RISK, FY 2011–FY 2015 

Between FY 2011 and FY 2015, Total SSBG Expenditures for Child Welfare/Youth at Risk increased by $76 million 

(10 percent), while recipients of Child Welfare/Youth at Risk services increased by over half a million (18 percent). 

When examining the component SSBG Service Categories of Child Welfare/Youth at Risk, Total SSBG Expenditures for Foster Care Services – Children increased by $78 million (22 percent) in the last five years. Recipients of 

Protective Services – Children increased by 665,254 (27 percent) over the same period (see Figure 11). 

Total SSBG Expenditures for Adoption Services decreased by $5 million (12 percent) between FY 2011 and FY 

2015. Recipients of Special Services – Youth at Risk decreased by 76,997 (51 percent) over the same period. 

FIGURE 11. 

Percent Change in Total SSBG Expenditures and Recipients in Child Welfare/Youth at Risk (FY 2011–FY 2015) 

CHILD WELFARE/YOUTH AT RISK 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 20 
 COUNSELING AND SUPPORT
	

In FY 2015, 37 states reported Total SSBG Expenditures for Counseling and Support totaling approximately $254 

million. Of the Total SSBG Expenditures reported for Counseling and Support, approximately $178 million (70 

percent) were from the SSBG Expenditures and approximately $76 million (30 percent) were TANF Transfer funds. 

The top five states with the highest reported Total SSBG Expenditures for Counseling and Support services were 

New Jersey ($36 million), Missouri ($31 million), Maryland ($17 million), Texas ($16 million), and Ohio ($15 million). 

The five states that allocated the largest proportion of their Total SSBG Expenditures towards Counseling and 

Support were North Dakota (100 percent), Missouri (61 percent), New Jersey (56 percent), Utah (46 percent), and 

Iowa (45 percent). 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES FOR COUNSELING AND SUPPORT 

Case Management comprised the largest proportion (79 percent) of Total SSBG Expenditures for Counseling and 

Support services (see Figure 12). 

FIGURE 12. 

Total SSBG Expenditures for Counseling and Support by SSBG Service Category, FY 2015 

RECIPIENTS OF COUNSELING AND SUPPORT 

States reported approximately 10 million recipients of Counseling and Support in FY 2015. 

The largest proportion (98 percent) of recipients of Counseling and Support services were reported under two 

categories: Information and Referral and Case Management (see Figure 13). 

FIGURE 13. 

Recipients of Counseling and Support by SSBG Service Category, FY 2015 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 21 
 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES AND RECIPIENTS: COUNSELING AND SUPPORT, FY 2011–FY 2015 

Between FY 2011 and FY 2015, Total SSBG Expenditures for Counseling and Support increased by $8.2 million 

(three percent). Recipients of Counseling and Support services increased by 1.7 million (20 percent). 

When analyzing the component SSBG Service Categories of Counseling and Support, Total SSBG Expenditures for 

Information and Referral increased by $3.5 million (18 percent) in the last five years. Recipients of Information and 

Referral increased by 3.3 million (157 percent) over the same period (see Figure 14). 

Total SSBG Expenditures for Counseling Services decreased by $3.1 million (10 percent) between FY 2011 and FY 

2015. Recipients of Case Management decreased by 1.7 million (26 percent) over the same period. 

FIGURE 14. 

Percent Change in Total SSBG Expenditures and Recipients in Counseling and Support (FY 2011–FY 2015) 

COUNSELING AND SUPPORT 

SSBG SERVICE CATEGORY 

CASE MANAGEMENT 

TOTAL SSBG 

EXPENDITURES CHANGE 

$7,742,285 4% 

TOTAL RECIPIEN

CHANGE 

-1,658,088 

TS 

26% 

COUNSELING SERVICES -$3,128,813 10% 66,678 51% 

INFORMATION AND REFERRAL $3,548,073 18% 3,332,465 157% 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES: 

COUNSELING AND SUPPORT $8,161,545 3% 1,741,055 20% 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 22 
 DAY CARE – CHILDREN
	

In FY 2015, Total SSBG Expenditures for Day Care – Children totaled approximately $288 million. Of the Total SSBG 

Expenditures for Day Care – Children, approximately $50 million (17 percent) were from the SSBG Expenditures 

and approximately $238 million (83 percent) were TANF Transfer funds. 

The top five states with the highest reported Total SSBG Expenditures for Day Care – Children were California ($205 

million), Pennsylvania ($30 million), Connecticut ($15 million), New York ($9 million), and Rhode Island 

($7.9 million). The five states that allocated the largest proportion of their Total SSBG Expenditures towards Day 

Care – Children were Rhode Island (65 percent), Vermont (49 percent), California (38 percent), Connecticut 

(35 percent), and Pennsylvania (32 percent). 

RECIPIENTS OF DAY CARE – CHILDREN 

States reported approximately 3.7 million recipients of Day Care – Children in FY 2015. 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES AND RECIPIENTS: DAY CARE – CHILDREN, FY 2011-FY 2015 

Between FY 2011 and FY 2015, Total SSBG Expenditures for Day Care – Children decreased by $51 million (15 

percent). Recipients of Day Care – Children services decreased by 108,405 (three percent). 

EXPENDITURES 

RECIPIENTS 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES FOR 

DAY CARE – CHILDREN -15% DECREASED BY $51.3 MILLION FROM FY 2011–FY 2015 

RECIPIENTS OF 

DAY CARE – CHILDREN -3% DECREASED BY 108,405 FROM FY 2011–FY 2015 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 23 
 HEALTH AND WELLBEING
	

In FY 2015, 29 states reported Total SSBG Expenditures for Health and Wellbeing totaling approximately $148 

million. Of the Total SSBG Expenditures for Health and Wellbeing, approximately $106 million (72 percent) were 

from the SSBG Expenditures and approximately $42 million (28 percent) were TANF Transfer funds. 

The top five states with the highest reported Total SSBG Expenditures for Health and Wellbeing were 

Massachusetts ($41 million), Pennsylvania ($12 million), Illinois ($9.2 million), Missouri ($8.6 million), and 

Georgia ($8.5 million). The five states that allocated the largest proportion of their Total SSBG Expenditures 

towards Health and Wellbeing were Massachusetts (51 percent), Wyoming (32 percent), Arkansas (32 percent), 

Kentucky (32 percent), and Nevada (19 percent). 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES FOR HEALTH AND WELLBEING 

States reported the majority (61 percent) of Total SSBG Expenditures in Health and Wellbeing for Residential 

Treatment (see Figure 15). 

FIGURE 15. 

Total SSBG Expenditures for Health and Wellbeing by SSBG Service Category, FY 2015 

RECIPIENTS OF HEALTH AND WELLBEING 

States reported approximately 1.2 million recipients of Health and Wellbeing services in FY 2015. 

Of all reported recipients of Health and Wellbeing services, the largest proportion (32 percent) of these individuals 

was reported under Family Planning Services (see Figure 16). 

FIGURE 16. 

Recipients of Health and Wellbeing by SSBG Service Category, FY 2015 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 24
 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES AND RECIPIENTS: HEALTH AND WELLBEING, FY 2011-FY 2015 

Between FY 2011 and FY 2015, Total SSBG Expenditures for Health and Wellbeing decreased by $30 million 

(17 percent) and recipients for Health and Wellbeing decreased by 540,417 (32 percent). 

When examining the component SSBG Service Categories of Health and Wellbeing from FY 2011 to FY 2015, Total 

SSBG Expenditures for Substance Abuse Services increased by $8.8 million (181 percent) in the last five years and 

recipients of Pregnancy and Parenting services increased by 178,269 (106 percent). These represent the largest 

positive percent change for individual SSBG Service Categories in the last five years (see Figure 17). 

The largest negative percent change in Total SSBG Expenditures was for Family Planning Services, which 

decreased by $23 million (75 percent) between FY 2011 and FY 2015. Recipients of Health-Related Services 

decreased by 579,788 (63 percent) over this same period. 

FIGURE 17. 

Percent Change in Total SSBG Expenditures and Recipients in Health and Wellbeing (FY 2011–FY 2015) 

HEALTH AND WELLBEING 

SSBG SERVICE CATEGORY 

FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES 

TOTAL SSBG 

EXPENDITURES CHANGE 

-$23,302,387 75% 

TOTAL RECIPIEN

CHANGE 

-74,029 

TS 

17% 

PREGNANCY AND PARENTING -$1,418,260 16% 178,269 106% 

HEALTH-RELATED SERVICES $13,426,344 85% -579,788 63% 

SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES $8,760,347 181% -$50,235 41% 

RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT -$27,661,363 24% -14,634 37% 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES: 

HEALTH AND WELLBEING -$30,195,319 17% -540,417 32% 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 25 
 SPECIAL SERVICES – DISABLED
	

In FY 2015, 20 states reported Total SSBG Expenditures for Special Services – Disabled totaling approximately 

$279 million. Of the Total SSBG Expenditures for Special Services – Disabled, approximately $201 million (72 

percent) were from the SSBG Expenditures and approximately $78 million (28 percent) were TANF Transfer funds. 

The top five states with the highest reported Total SSBG Expenditures for Special Services – Disabled were California 

($216 million), Iowa ($12 million), Florida ($12 million), Georgia ($11 million), and North Carolina ($6.8 million). The five 

states that allocated the largest proportion of their Total SSBG Expenditures towards Special Services – Disabled were 

Montana (65 percent), Iowa (44 percent), California (40 percent), Arkansas (23 percent), and Georgia (20 percent). 

RECIPIENTS OF SPECIAL SERVICES – DISABLED 

States reported 672,446 recipients of Special Services – Disabled in FY 2015. 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES AND RECIPIENTS: SPECIAL SERVICES – DISABLED, FY 2011–FY 2015 

Between FY 2011 and FY 2015, both Total SSBG Expenditures and recipients for Special Services – Disabled 

decreased by $51 million (15 percent) and 246,319 (27 percent) respectively. 

EXPENDITURES 

RECIPIENTS 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES FOR 

SPECIAL SERVICES – DISABLED -15% DECREASED BY $50.6 MILLION FROM FY 2011–FY 2015 

RECIPIENTS OF 

SPECIAL SERVICES – DISABLED -27% DECREASED BY 246,319 FROM FY 2011–FY 2015 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 26 
 

 

 VULNERABLE AND ELDERLY ADULTS
	

In FY 2015, 43 states reported Total SSBG Expenditures for Vulnerable and Elderly Adults totaling approximately 

$293 million, consisting of $283 million (97 percent) in SSBG Expenditures and $9.7 million (three percent) in TANF 

Transfer funds. 

The top five states with the highest Total SSBG Expenditures for Vulnerable and Elderly Adults were: Texas 

($69 million), New York ($66 million), Michigan ($23 million), California ($19 million), and North Carolina 

($15 million). The five states that allocated the largest proportion of their Total SSBG Expenditures towards 

Vulnerable and Elderly Adults were Texas (41 percent), Puerto Rico (31 percent), Delaware (26 percent), Alabama 

(25 percent), and North Carolina (25 percent). 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES FOR VULNERABLE AND ELDERLY ADULTS 

States reported the majority (80 percent) of Total SSBG Expenditures for Vulnerable and Elderly Adults under two 

Service Categories: Protective Services – Adults and Day Care – Adults (see Figure 18). 

FIGURE 18. 

Total SSBG Expenditures for Vulnerable and Elderly Adults by SSBG Service Category, FY 2015 

RECIPIENTS OF VULNERABLE AND ELDERLY ADULTS 

States reported approximately 2.6 million recipients of Vulnerable and Elderly Adults in FY 2015. 

Congregate Meals comprised the largest proportion (65 percent) of all reported recipients of Vulnerable and Elderly 

Adults (see Figure 19). North Carolina reported approximately 95 percent (1.6 million) of the total recipients of 

Congregate Meals. 

FIGURE 19. 

Recipients of Vulnerable and Elderly Adults by SSBG Service Category, FY 2015 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 27
SSBG SERVICE CATEGORY 

CONGREGATE MEALS 

TOTAL SSBG 

EXPENDITURES CHANGE 

$2,027,117 90% 

TOTAL RECIPIE

CHANGE 

1,600,484 

NTS 

2095% 

DAY CARE – ADULTS $1,283,831 4% 4,123 6% 

FOSTER CARE SERVICES – 

ADULTS -$11,500,638 27% 1,548 2% 

HOME-DELIVERED MEALS -$2,095,584 8% 3,293 3% 

PROTECTIVE SERVICES – 

ADULTS $4,737,155 2% 121,724 23% 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES: 

VULNERABLE AND 

ELDERLY ADULTS 

-$5,548,119 2% 1,731,172 206% 

 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES AND RECIPIENTS: VULNERABLE AND ELDERLY ADULTS, FY 2011–FY 2015 

Between FY 2011 and FY 2015, Total SSBG Expenditures overall for Vulnerable and Elderly Adults decreased 

slightly by $5.5 million (two percent). However, the total recipients increased by 1.7 million (206 percent), due

largely to the increase in recipients of Congregate Meals. The Total SSBG Expenditures and recipients for

Congregate Meals had the largest percentage increase in the last five years of any SSBG Service Category in 

this SSBG High Level Service Area, Vulnerable and Elderly Adults (see Figure 20). 

FIGURE 20. 

Percent Change in Total SSBG Expenditures and Recipients in Vulnerable and Elderly Adults (FY 2011–FY 2015) 

VULNERABLE AND ELDERLY ADULTS 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 28 
 

 

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES
	

In FY 2015, 47 states reported Total SSBG Expenditures for Additional Support Services totaling approximately $591 

million, consisting of $388 million (66 percent) in SSBG Expenditures and $203 million (34 percent) in TANF Transfer 

funds. 

The top five states with the highest Total SSBG Expenditures for Additional Support Services were New York 

($137 million), Ohio ($69 million), Texas ($61 million), Illinois ($41 million), and Pennsylvania ($28 million). The five 

states that allocated the largest proportion of their Total SSBG Expenditures towards Additional Support Services were 

the District of Columbia (83 percent), Maine (72 percent), Alabama (67 percent), Oregon (63 percent), and Illinois 

(63 percent). 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES 

States reported the majority (88 percent) of Total SSBG Expenditures for Additional Support Services under 

three SSBG Service Categories: Prevention and Intervention, Other Services, and Home-Based Services (see 

Figure 21).37 

FIGURE 21. 

Total SSBG Expenditures for Additional Support Services by SSBG Service Category, FY 2015 

37	 When summing all Total SSBG Expenditures from Prevention and Intervention, Other Services, and Home-Based Services together, 

these services account for 88% of Total SSBG Expenditures for Additional Support Services. However, when rounding each 

service’s share of Total SSBG Expenditures to the nearest whole percent, these rounded values sum to 87 percent. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 29 
RECIPIENTS OF ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES 

States reported approximately 4.4 million recipients of Additional Support Services in FY 2015. 

Other Services comprised the largest proportion (39 percent) of all reported recipients of Additional 

Support Services (see Figure 22). 

FIGURE 22. 

Recipients of Additional Support Services by SSBG Service Category, FY 2015 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 30 
 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES AND RECIPIENTS: ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES, FY 2011–FY 2015 

Between FY 2011 and FY 2015, Total SSBG Expenditures overall for Additional Support Services increased by 

$76 million (15 percent) and total recipients for these services decreased by 4.7 million (52 percent). 

The largest increases of Total SSBG Expenditures in Additional Support Services in the last five years were reported 

in Other Services ($39 million, 28 percent), Prevention and Intervention ($36 million, 22 percent), and Transportation 

($8.5 million, 55 percent). The largest increases of recipients in Additional Support Services were in Other Services 

(985,962, 136 percent), Home-Based Services (203,806, 84 percent) and Recreation Services (13,905, 50 percent; 

see Figure 23). 

The largest decrease in Total SSBG Expenditures for Additional Support Services in the last five years was reported 

in Recreation Services ($816,921, 51 percent). The largest decrease in recipients occurred in Prevention and 

Intervention (6 million, 88 percent). 

FIGURE 23. 

Percent Change in Total SSBG Expenditures and Recipients in Additional Support Services (FY 2011–FY 2015) 

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES 

SSBG SERVICE CATEGORY 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

SERVICES 

TOTAL SSBG 

EXPENDITURES CHANGE 

$3,499,011 45% 

TOTAL RECIPIEN

CHANGE 

110,143 

TS 

25% 

EMPLOYMENT SERVICES -$3,464,839 38% 3,585 11% 

HOME-BASED SERVICES -$5,481,990 4% 203,806 84% 

HOUSING SERVICES -$1,207,781 8% -13,026 3% 

LEGAL SERVICES $117,909 1% -18,103 9% 

OTHER SERVICES $39,097,712 28% 985,962 136% 

PREVENTION AND 

INTERVENTION $35,511,555 22% -5,999,097 88% 

RECREATION SERVICES -$816,921 51% 13,905 50% 

TRANSPORTATION $8,538,167 55% 9,684 5% 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES: 

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES $75,792,823 15% -4,703,141 52% 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 31 
 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
	

In FY 2015, 40 states reported Total SSBG Expenditures for Administrative Costs totaling approximately $67 million. 

Of the Total SSBG Expenditures for Administrative Costs, approximately $63 million (94 percent) were from the 

SSBG Expenditures and approximately $4 million (six percent) were TANF Transfer funds. For a breakdown by 

state, please see the Performance Measure section below. 

TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, FY 2011-FY 2015 

Between FY 2011 and FY 2015, Total SSBG Expenditures for Administrative Costs decreased by $13 million 

(16 percent). 

EXPENDITURES -16% TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES FOR 

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 

DECREASED BY $13.2 MILLION FROM FY 2011–FY 2015 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: SSBG High Level Service Areas 32 
PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

The SSBG affords states substantial discretion in using the block grant funds. The SSBG has been working with the 

Office of Management and Budget to develop approaches for program assessment that afford sufficient accountability while preserving the flexibility inherent in the SSBG. A fundamental principle of block grant accountability is that the 

federal government must be assured that the funds are spent for the designated purposes. 

Two performance measures were developed by OCS to improve efficiency and accountability within states’ SSBG. The 

first of these measures analyzes states’ Intended Use Plans and reported SSBG Expenditures to determine the percentage of SSBG Expenditures that states spent on services as originally planned. The second performance measure aims 

to minimize administrative costs and maximize the amount of funds used for the provision of direct services. 

EFFICIENCY: SSBG EXPENDITURES TO PLAN PERFORMANCE 

Comparison of SSBG Pre-Expenditure and SSBG Post-Expenditure reporting is conducted annually to determine 

the extent to which funds were spent “in a manner consistent” with their planned use, as required by the law that 

authorizes the program, which can be found at 42 U.S.C. §1397e(a). This measure encourages more rigorous planning efforts on the part of the states. The performance measure examines only states’ reported SSBG Expenditures 

(not including administrative costs) rather than Total SSBG Expenditures. 

The summary performance measure represents the percentage of SSBG Expenditures spent as planned. The 

performance measure is capped at 100 percent, reflecting how close a state came to spending at least the dollars 

it committed to spend as planned in the SSBG Pre-Expenditure Report. OCS established a target percentage of 80 

percent for FY 2015.38 

Overall, states spent 87 percent of SSBG Expenditures as originally intended in FY 2015. Individually, 40 states met the 

performance measure goal of spending at least 80 percent of SSBG Expenditures as projected. Twelve states did not 

meet the performance measure goal, spending 17–79 percent of SSBG Expenditures as projected (see Figure 24). 

ADMINISTRATION: TOTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES AS ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 

States may use SSBG funds for such administrative costs as training, licensing activities, and the overhead costs of 

providing services. States may pay for these administrative functions entirely with SSBG funds or may use several 

funding sources. The purpose of the administrative costs efficiency measure is to ensure that maximum funds are 

used for the provision of direct services. OCS established a target goal for states’ administrative costs not to exceed 

nine percent of Total SSBG Expenditures.39, 40 Total SSBG Expenditures are the combination of states’ reported SSBG 

38	 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services. (2012, 

February). Implementation of a new performance measure (Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2012). Retrieved from 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/implementation-of-a-new-performance-measure 

39	 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services. (2007, 

June). Implementing a new performance measure to enhance efficiency (Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 04-2007). 

Retrieved from http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/procedures/ssbg_im_04_2007.html 

40	 States also report the total amount of other federal, state, and local funds spent for each service supported with SSBG funds. States 

do not report other federal, state, and local funds for services in which no Total SSBG Expenditures are reported. Other federal, 

state, and local funds do not appear in calculations or in the narrative of this report when discussing Total SSBG Expenditures. 

However, states report on these other funds to indicate a more accurate total cost of service provision. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Performance Measures 33 
Expenditures from their annual allocations, and expenditures of the funds transferred into the SSBG from the states’ 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants.41, 42 

In FY 2015, 40 states spent approximately $67 million for Administrative Costs, accounting for two percent of Total 

SSBG Expenditures. Of these 40 states, 36 states reported Administrative Costs accounting for nine percent of 

Total SSBG Expenditures or less. Four states did not meet the target goal for Administrative Costs, spending 

11–17 percent of Total SSBG Expenditures on Administrative Costs. Twelve states did not report using any portion 

of SSBG funds for administrative expenses (see Figure 25). 

From FY 2011 to FY 2015, there has been a 16 percent decrease in Total SSBG Expenditures for Administrative 

Costs, from approximately $81 million in FY 2011 to approximately $67 million in FY 2015. 

41 The original welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) set the limit on transfers from TANF to SSBG at 10 percent of the TANF block grant. 

P.L. 105-178 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) reduced funding for SSBG and the transfer authority from TANF to 

SSBG to 4.25 percent, effective FY 2001. TEA also established a new, lower SSBG funding ceiling of $1.7 billion starting in FY 2001. 

However, annual appropriation bills and temporary extension legislation (that continued TANF on the terms of previous years) have 

provided for a 10 percent transfer limit for FY 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year. 

42 Funds transferred from TANF to SSBG are to be used only for programs or services to children or their families whose income is less 

than 200 percent of the income poverty guideline applicable to a family of the size involved (as defined and revised annually by the 

Office of Management and Budget). – 42 U.S.C. §604(d)(3)(B). 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Performance Measures 34 
FIGURE 24. 

Efficiency: SSBG Expenditures to Plan by State, FY 2015
	

80% AND ABOVE 

80% 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Performance Measures 35 
FIGURE 25. 

Administration: Total SSBG Expenditures as Administrative Costs by State, FY 2015
	

9% AND BELOW 

9% 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Performance Measures 36 
FOCUS REPORT TOPICS 

Each year, OCS produces a series of reports describing use of Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funding 

for specific SSBG Service Categories, recipient populations, or other related areas of interest. These SSBG 

Focus Reports are based on data published in the SSBG Annual Report. This section contains short previews

of the topics to be covered in the FY 2015 SSBG Focus Reports. These previews contain a brief background 

of their topics of interest and provide some highlights of Total SSBG Expenditure and recipient data reported by 

states in FY 2015.43 Total SSBG Expenditures are the combination of states’ reported SSBG Expenditures 

from their annual allocations, and expenditures of the funds transferred into the SSBG from the states’ 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants.

44, 45 

TANF TRANSFERS 

Section 404(d) of the Social Security Act establishes a state’s authority to transfer no more than 30 percent of the 

amount of its TANF block grant (Section 403(a)) for a fiscal year to the Child Care and Development Block Grant 

(CCDBG) or SSBG. A state may not transfer more than 10 percent of funds from TANF to SSBG. Funds transferred 

from TANF to SSBG are to be used only for programs or services to children or their families whose income is less 

than 200 percent of the income poverty guideline applicable to a family of the size involved. 

In FY 2015, 40 states spent approximately $1.14 billion in TANF Transfer funds on SSBG services, accounting for 

41 percent of Total SSBG Expenditures (see Figure 26 and Figure 27). The majority of these funds were used in the 

SSBG High Level Service Areas of Child Welfare/Youth at Risk (43 percent) and Day Care – Children (21 percent). 

FIGURE 26. 

TANF Transfer Expenditures by SSBG High Level Service Area, FY 201546 

43	 States also report the total amount of other federal, state, and local funds spent for each service supported with Expenditures are 

reported. Other federal, state, and local funds do not appear in calculations or in the narrative of this report when discussing Total 

SSBG Expenditures. However, states report on these other funds to indicate a more accurate total cost of service provision. 

44	 The original welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) set the limit on transfers from TANF to SSBG at 10 percent of the TANF block grant. P.L. 

105-178 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) reduced funding for SSBG and the transfer authority from TANF to SSBG to 

4.25 percent, effective FY 2001. TEA also established a new, lower SSBG funding ceiling of $1.7 billion starting in FY 2001. However, 

annual appropriation bills and temporary extension legislation (that continued TANF on the terms of previous years) have provided for a 

10 percent transfer limit for FY 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year. 

45	 Funds transferred from TANF to SSBG are to be used only for programs or services to children or their families whose income is less 

than 200 percent of the income poverty guideline applicable to a family of the size involved (as defined and revised annually by the 

Office of Management and Budget). – 42 U.S.C. §604(d)(3)(B). 

46	 Due to rounding, the values in this figure do not equal 100 percent. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Focus Report Topics 37 
FIGURE 27. 

TANF Expenditures by State, FY 2015 

DAY CARE – CHILDREN 

State investments in day care for children support eligible low-income children and their families juggling work 

schedules and struggling to find child care programs that will fit their needs. States also employ these funds to 

improve the quality of care to support children’s healthy development and learning by supporting child care licensing and quality improvement systems to help programs meet higher standards. In FY 2015, 30 states reported 

approximately $288 million in Total SSBG Expenditures for Day Care – Children services that benefitted 3.7 million 

children. TANF Transfer funds accounted for 83 percent ($238 million) of these Total SSBG Expenditures. 

Of the $288 million spent in Day Care – Children, five states accounted for 93 percent of these expenditures: 

California (71 percent), Pennsylvania (11 percent), Connecticut (five percent), New York (three percent), and Rhode 

Island (three percent; see Figure 28). 

FIGURE 28. 

Total SSBG Expenditures for Day Care – Children by State, FY 2015 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Focus Report Topics 38 
Of 3.7 million total recipients of Day Care – Children funded by Total SSBG Expenditures, five states served 

90 percent of reported recipients: California (57 percent), Florida (21 percent), Illinois (five percent), Connecticut 

(three percent), and Texas (three percent; see Figure 29). 

FIGURE 29.47 

Recipients of Day Care – Children by State, FY 2015 

CHILD WELFARE/YOUTH AT RISK 

The High Level Service Area of Child Welfare/Youth at Risk includes services to children who may experience abuse 

or neglect, who may be at risk of contact with systems of juvenile justice, or who may be transitioning from out-ofhome care into adulthood. Services to children in these areas have varied over time, and have come under particular 

scrutiny for outcomes related to safety, permanency, and wellbeing. In FY 2015, 46 states reported approximately 

$842 million in Total SSBG Expenditures for Child Welfare/Youth at Risk services. TANF Transfer funds accounted 

for 59 percent ($495 million) of these Total SSBG Expenditures. 

FIGURE 30. 

Total SSBG Expenditures for Child Welfare/Youth at Risk by State, FY 2015 

47 Nebraska reported Total SSBG Expenditures for Day Care – Children. These funds were included in the state child care pool so that 

families can qualify for USDA Food Program subsidies. The state did not report explicit recipient counts for this service in FY 2015. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Focus Report Topics 39 
Of the $842 million spent in Child Welfare/Youth at Risk services, five states accounted for 49 percent of these 

expenditures: Florida (13 percent), Michigan (12 percent), California (11 percent), New York (eight percent), and 

Virginia (five percent; see Figure 30). 

FIGURE 31. 

Recipients of Child Welfare/Youth at Risk by State, FY 2015 

Of 3.8 million total recipients of Child Welfare/Youth at Risk services, five states served 60 percent of reported 

recipients: Texas (27 percent), Connecticut (10 percent), Kentucky (nine percent), Florida (seven percent), and 

Pennsylvania (six percent; see Figure 31). 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Focus Report Topics 40 
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING: HURRICANE SANDY 

BACKGROUND ON THE FUNDING 

The SSBG has a longstanding history of providing social services to communities impacted by the onset of disasters. In 2006, the Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) funded a supplemental $550 million to SSBG to support 

relief and recovery social services to those who had survived the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005. At that time, the 

funding was expanded to address expressed needs in the areas of health services (including mental health services) 

and for repair, renovation and construction of health facilities. The first Continuing Resolution of FY 2009 included, 

as Division B, the Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-329). These 

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. 

Additionally, these funds were made available for necessary expenses resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

not otherwise already addressed with previous supplemental funding. 

In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy struck the northeastern coast of the U.S. When the storm had finally passed, 

more than 150 people in its path lost their lives, thousands lost their homes, and millions found themselves without 

power and other vital resources. Hurricane Sandy interrupted access to essential services including housing, food, 

social services, and employment to individuals and their families. 

In January 2013, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2) provided $500 million in additional funding 

to the SSBG ($474.5 million after sequestration). These funds sponsored relief and recovery of states directly 

impacted by Hurricane Sandy including: Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. The 

funds have since ensured that approximately 5.8 million survivors received services to address the great impacts of 

the storm including: trauma-informed Counseling Services and Case Management, Employment Services, Housing 

Services, Legal Services, and Substance Abuse Services. In addition to individual assistance, the funds were used 

to repair and renovate the social service infrastructure in communities including child care centers, assisted living 

facilities, health, and mental health facilities. 

SSBG Sandy allocations were based on each state’s percentage of Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) Individual Assistance registrants (see Figure 32). 

FIGURE 32. 

SSBG Sandy Allocation by State 

STATE SUPPLEMENTAL SSBG ALLOCATION PROPORTION 

NEW YORK $235,434,600 49.62% 

NEW JERSEY $226,794,105 47.80% 

CONNECTICUT $10,569,192 2.23% 

MARYLAND $1,185,675 0.25% 

RHODE ISLAND $516,428 0.11% 

TOTAL $474,500,000 100% 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Supplemental Funding: Hurricane Sandy 41 
STATE USES OF SSBG HURRICANE SANDY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS 

In FY 2015, states reported approximately $177 million in SSBG Sandy expenditures. New York reported the highest 

proportion of SSBG Sandy expenditures ($111 million, 63 percent) with New Jersey spending the second highest 

($63 million, 35 percent). Connecticut, Maryland, and Rhode Island combined spent just under two percent 

($3.3 million) of FY 2015 SSBG Sandy expenditures. 

Together with the 29 standard SSBG Service Categories, states can expend and report on use of SSBG Sandy 

funds in six other service categories not typically allowable under the terms of the SSBG. These additional categories include: 1) health services; 2) mental health services; and the repair, renovation, and rebuilding of 3) child care 

facilities; 4) health care facilities; 5) mental health facilities; and 6) other facilities. 

Figure 33 displays the five service categories with the highest percentage of reported SSBG Sandy expenditures: 

Housing Services ($33 million, 18 percent), Health Services ($28 million, 16 percent), Other Services ($20 million, 

11 percent), Case Management ($9.8 million, six percent), and Counseling Services ($7.7 million, four percent). These 

five categories comprised $98 million (55 percent) of total SSBG Sandy expenditures in FY 2015. Repair, renovation, 

and rebuilding projects accounted for $37 million (22 percent) of SSBG Sandy expenditures in FY 2015. 

Key services included a variety of Housing Services for recipients and their families whose primary residences were 

destroyed or rendered uninhabitable by the storm. These services were mainly comprised of rental assistance, 

home repairs, or supportive housing for recipients with mental health or substance abuse disorders. Additional key 

services included reimbursements to local health care facilities in order to maintain access to health care services, 

supplementing food pantries, and implementing additional standardized health screenings. States also increased 

access to Case Management services protecting residents adversely affected by the storm from abuse and neglect, 

and increased available Counseling Services to children, parents, teachers, disaster relief workers, and individuals 

with mental health or substance abuse disorders whose problems were exacerbated by the storm. 

FIGURE 33. 

SSBG Sandy Expenditures by SSBG Service Category, FY 2015 

States served approximately 1.7 million recipients in FY 2015 through SSBG Sandy funds, with New York reporting 

the majority (1.6 million, 91 percent) of total recipients. Twenty-six percent (437,542) of reported recipients were 

children and 74 percent (1.3 million) were adults. Three SSBG Service Categories collectively accounted for 

83 percent (1.4 million) of reported recipients: Congregate Meals (512,694; 30 percent), Health Services (467,930; 

27 percent), and Other Services (435,956; 26 percent). Congregate Meals and Health Services helped ensure at risk 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Supplemental Funding: Hurricane Sandy 42 
populations (particularly children and older adults) received basic services in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Other 

Services provided training and other economic supports to assist those whose employment and livelihoods were 

disrupted by the storm. 

States were initially granted a two-year period to expend their SSBG Sandy allocations, with all funds to be obligated 

by the close of FY 2015. In FY 2014 and FY 2015, states collectively spent $315 million (66 percent) of their total 

SSBG Sandy funds. While some states were slower to begin expending their SSBG Sandy funds in FY 2014, total 

SSBG Sandy expenditures in FY 2015 increased by $39 million (29 percent) over the previous year. Of states’ total 

SSBG Sandy funds, approximately $159 million remained unspent at the end of the initial grant period. 

ACF has since revised the period of availability by which states may expend their SSBG Hurricane Sandy Supplemental funds. Under new guidance, states must expend all SSBG Sandy funds by September 30, 2017. Of the 

five states initially receiving SSBG Sandy funds, all but Rhode Island will continue to expend their remaining funds 

throughout FY 2016 and FY 2017. 48 

IMPROPER PAYMENT REVIEWS 

All federal programs receiving funds under the Disaster Relief Act are designated as susceptible to significant 

improper payments for the purposes of the Improper Payments Information Act.49 

OCS selected three of the five states that received SSBG Sandy funds (Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York) to 

calculate improper payment error rates, since their allocations represent 99 percent of the $474.5 million in SSBG 

Hurricane Sandy Supplemental funds. 

Because the states determine the types of services and eligibility for these services, as permitted by the SSBG law 

and regulations, there is considerable variation among states in their application of these funds. To account for this 

variation, OCS developed a two-fold (bifurcated) improper payment methodology to review the use of SSBG Sandy 

funds in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. The two approaches are a case record review process and a 

vendor payment review process. The case record review examines payments or benefits provided to or on behalf 

of individuals, families, or households (i.e., cases) based on specific eligibility criteria. The vendor payment review 

examines individual payments made to service vendors and assesses if the vendors provided adequate documentation (e.g., applications, authorizations) necessary to meet the eligibility requirements for these payments. 

OCS specified a FY 2015 review period (July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015) in order to 1) review a statistically valid 

sample of one year of SSBG Sandy payments, and 2) to compute a national SSBG error rate for submission to the 

HHS Agency Financial Report, published in November 2015. OCS completed case record and vendor payment 

reviews in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. OCS consolidated its review findings and calculated a national 

SSBG Hurricane Sandy error rate from the aggregate findings across all three states. 

48	 Rhode Island chose not to extend the use of SSBG Sandy funds beyond the initial grant period. As a result, the state’s remaining 

allocation ($359,292) has been recovered and returned to the US Department of Health and Human Services. 

49	 The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA), as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 

2010 (IPERA), the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 (IPERIA), and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) guidance in Memorandum (M-15-02) for Heads of Executive Department and Agencies dated October 20, 2014, 

OMB Circular A-123, Requirements for Effective Estimation and Remediation of Improper Payments. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Supplemental Funding: Hurricane Sandy 43 
 

SUPPLEMENTAL SSBG 

IMPROPER PAYMENT REVIEW FINDINGS 

1,152 THE NUMBER OF RECORDS 

OCS REVIEWED IN FY 2015 

ROOTCAUSES 

OF IMPROPER PAYMENTS: 

OF $209 MILLION IN TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL SSBG EXPENDITURES 

MADE IN FY 2015, APPROXIMATELY $464,000 WERE PAID IN ERROR 

ERROR 

RATE 0.22% 

ADMINISTRATION OR PROCESS ERRORS 53% DUE TO STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES 

INSUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION 32% TO DETERMINE 

ADMINISTRATION OR PROCESS ERRORS 15% DUE TO OTHER PARTIES 

TOTAL IN TOTAL IN $457,000 OVERPAYMENT $7,000 UNDERPAYMENT 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Supplemental Funding: Hurricane Sandy 44 
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ROOT CAUSES OF ERRORS 

OCS implemented a series of monitoring and oversight activities in all states to address problems of burden, information exchange, and organization of review materials. OCS activities have included drawing quarterly improper 

payment samples for more timely review of funds, and formalizing a 30-day response period for states upon 

completion of each review. The 30-day response period allows states to clarify payment policies or provide missing 

documentation that may have been mistakenly left out during the organization and assembly of files for review. 

In response to FY 2015 improper payment findings, OCS provided each state with a letter including itemized lists 

of unresolved errors from the FY 2015 review period. These letters established a 30-day timeframe for states to 

respond with planned corrective actions. 

As states received and reviewed unresolved errors from the FY 2015 review period, OCS worked with states to 

identify items for which additional corrective action would be taken (including obtaining additional documentation, 

making process adjustments, and the current state of improper payment recovery). OCS continues to coordinate 

with the states on additional corrective actions including payment recapture where necessary. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Supplemental Funding: Hurricane Sandy 45 
46 

APPENDIX: Uniform Definition of Services

50
 

1. ADOPTION SERVICES 

Adoption services are those services or activities provided to assist in bringing about the adoption of a child. Component services and activities may include, but are not limited to, counseling the biological parent(s), recruitment of 

adoptive homes, and pre- and post-placement training and/or counseling. 

2. CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

Case management services are services or activities for the arrangement, coordination, and monitoring of services 

to meet the needs of individuals and families. Component services and activities may include individual service plan 

development; counseling; monitoring, developing, securing, and coordinating services; monitoring and evaluating 

client progress; and assuring that clients’ rights are protected. 

3. CONGREGATE MEALS 

Congregate meals are those services or activities designed to prepare and serve one or more meals a day to individuals in central dining areas in order to prevent institutionalization, malnutrition, and feelings of isolation. Component 

services or activities may include the cost of personnel, equipment, and food; assessment of nutritional and dietary 

needs; nutritional education and counseling; socialization; and other services such as transportation and information 

and referral. 

4. COUNSELING SERVICES 

Counseling services are those services or activities that apply therapeutic processes to personal, family, situational, 

or occupational problems in order to bring about a positive resolution of the problem or improved individual or family 

functioning or circumstances. Problem areas may include family and marital relationships, parent-child problems, or 

drug abuse. 

5. DAY CARE SERVICES–ADULTS 

Day care services for adults are those services or activities provided to adults who require care and supervision 

in a protective setting for a portion of a 24-hour day. Component services or activities may include opportunity for 

social interaction, companionship, and self-education; health support or assistance in obtaining health services; 

counseling; recreation and general leisure time activities; meals; personal care services; plan development; and 

transportation. 

6. DAY CARE SERVICES–CHILDREN 

Day care services for children (including infants, preschoolers, and school age children) are services or activities 

provided in a setting that meets applicable standards of state and local law, in a center or in a home, for a portion of 

a 24-hour day. Component services or activities may include a comprehensive and coordinated set of appropriate 

developmental activities for children, recreation, meals and snacks, transportation, health support services, social 

service counseling for parents, plan development, and licensing and monitoring of child care homes and facilities. 

7. EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERVICES 

Education and training services are those services provided to improve knowledge or daily living skills and to 

enhance cultural opportunities. Services may include instruction or training in, but are not limited to, such issues as 

consumer education, health education, community protection and safety education, literacy education, English as 

a second language, and General Educational Development (G.E.D.). Component services or activities may include 

screening, assessment, and testing; individual or group instruction; tutoring; provision of books, supplies, and 

instructional material; counseling; transportation; and referral to community resources. 

8. EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 

Employment services are those services or activities provided to assist individuals in securing employment or 

acquiring or learning skills that promote opportunities for employment. Component services or activities may include 

50s 45 CFR Part 96—Uniform Definition of Services, Federal Register, Volume 58, Number 218, Monday, November 15, 1993. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Appendix: Uniform Definition Of Services 
employment screening, assessment, or testing; structured job skills and job seeking skills; specialized therapy 

(occupational, speech, physical); special training and tutoring, including literacy training and pre-vocational training; 

provision of books, supplies, and instructional material; counseling; transportation; and referral to community 

resources. 

9. FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES 

Family planning services are those educational, comprehensive medical, or social services or activities that enable 

individuals, including minors, to determine freely the number and spacing of their children and to select the means 

by which this may be achieved. These services and activities include a broad range of acceptable and effective 

methods and services to limit or enhance fertility, including contraceptive methods (including natural family planning 

and abstinence), and the management of infertility (including referral to adoption). Specific component services 

and activities may include preconceptional counseling, education, and general reproductive health care, including 

diagnosis and treatment of infections that threaten reproductive capability. Family planning services do not include 

pregnancy care (including obstetric or prenatal care). 

10. FOSTER CARE SERVICES–ADULTS 

Foster care services for adults are those services or activities that assess the need and arrange for the substitute 

care and alternate living situation of adults in a setting suitable to the individual’s needs. Individuals may need such 

services because of social, physical, or mental disabilities, or as a consequence of abuse or neglect. Care may 

be provided in a community-based setting, or such services may arrange for institutionalization when necessary. 

Component services or activities include assessment of the individual’s needs; case planning and case management 

to assure that the individual receives proper care in the placement; counseling to help with personal problems 

and adjusting to new situations; assistance in obtaining other necessary supportive services; determining, through 

periodic reviews, the continued appropriateness of and need for placement; and recruitment and licensing of foster 

care homes and facilities. 

11. FOSTER CARE SERVICES–CHILDREN 

Foster care services for children are those services or activities associated with the provision of an alternative family 

life experience for abused, neglected, or dependent children, between birth and the age of majority, on the basis 

of a court commitment or a voluntary placement agreement signed by the parents or guardians. Services may be 

provided to children in foster family homes, foster homes of relatives, group homes, emergency shelters, residential 

facilities, child care institutions, pre-adoptive homes, or a supervised independent living situation. Component 

services or activities may include assessment of the child’s needs; case planning and case management to assure 

that the child receives proper care in the placement; medical care as an integral but subordinate part of the service; 

counseling of the child, the child’s parents, and the foster parents; referral and assistance in obtaining other necessary supportive services; periodical reviews to determine the continued appropriateness and need for placement; 

and recruitment and licensing of foster homes and child care institutions. 

12. HEALTH-RELATED AND HOME HEALTH SERVICES 

Health-related and home health services are those in-home or out-of-home services or activities designed to assist 

individuals and families to attain and maintain a favorable condition of health. Component services and activities 

may include providing an analysis or assessment of an individual’s health problems and the development of a treatment plan; assisting individuals to identify and understand their health needs; assisting individuals to locate, provide, 

or secure and utilize appropriate medical treatment, preventive medical care, and health maintenance services, 

including in-home health services and emergency medical services; and providing followup services as needed. 

13. HOME-BASED SERVICES 

Home-based services are those in-home services or activities provided to individuals or families to assist with household or personal care activities that improve or maintain adequate family well-being. These services may be provided 

for reasons of illness, incapacity, frailty, absence of a caretaker relative, or to prevent abuse and neglect of a child 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Appendix: Uniform Definition Of Services 47 
or adult. Major service components include homemaker services, chore services, home maintenance services, and 

household management services. Component services or activities may include protective supervision of adults 

and/or children to help prevent abuse, temporary nonmedical personal care, house-cleaning, essential shopping, 

simple household repairs, yard maintenance, teaching of homemaking skills, training in self-help and self-care skills, 

assistance with meal planning and preparation, sanitation, budgeting, and general household management. 

14. HOME-DELIVERED MEALS 

Home-delivered meals are those services or activities designed to prepare and deliver one or more meals a day to 

an individual’s residence in order to prevent institutionalization, malnutrition, and feelings of isolation. Component 

services or activities may include the cost of personnel, equipment, and food; assessment of nutritional and dietary 

needs; nutritional education and counseling; socialization services; and information and referral. 

15. HOUSING SERVICES 

Housing services are those services or activities designed to assist individuals or families in locating, obtaining, or 

retaining suitable housing. Component services or activities may include tenant counseling; helping individuals and 

families to identify and correct substandard housing conditions on behalf of individuals and families who are unable 

to protect their own interests; and assisting individuals and families to understand leases, secure utilities, and make 

moving arrangements and minor renovations. 

16. INDEPENDENT AND TRANSITIONAL LIVING SERVICES 

Independent and transitional living services are those services and activities designed to help older youth in foster 

care or homeless youth make the transition to independent living, or to help adults make the transition from an 

institution, or from homelessness, to independent living. Component services or activities may include educational 

and employment assistance, training in daily living skills, and housing assistance. Specific component services and 

activities may include supervised practice living and post-foster care services. 

17. INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SERVICES 

Information and referral services are those services or activities designed to provide information about services 

provided by public and private service providers and a brief assessment of client needs (but not diagnosis and evaluation) to facilitate appropriate referral to these community resources. 

18. LEGAL SERVICES 

Legal services are those services or activities provided by a lawyer or other person(s) under the supervision of a 

lawyer to assist individuals in seeking or obtaining legal help in civil matters such as housing, divorce, child support, 

guardianship, paternity, and legal separation. Component services or activities may include receiving and preparing 

cases for trial, provision of legal advice, representation at hearings, and counseling. 

19. PREGNANCY AND PARENTING SERVICES FOR YOUNG PARENTS 

Pregnancy and parenting services are those services or activities for married or unmarried adolescent parents and 

their families designed to assist young parents in coping with the social, emotional, and economic problems related 

to pregnancy and in planning for the future. Component services or activities may include securing necessary health 

care and living arrangements; obtaining legal services; and providing counseling, child care education, and training 

in and development of parenting skills. 

20. PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION SERVICES 

Prevention and intervention services are those services or activities designed to provide early identification and/ 

or timely intervention to support families and prevent or ameliorate the consequences of abuse, neglect, or family 

violence, or to assist in making arrangement for alternate placements or living arrangements where necessary. Such 

services may also be provided to prevent the removal of a child or adult from the home. Component services and 

activities may include investigation; assessment and/or evaluation of the extent of the problem; counseling, including 

mental health counseling or therapy as needed; developmental and parenting skills training; respite care; and other 

services including supervision, case management, and transportation. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Appendix: Uniform Definition Of Services 48 
21. PROTECTIVE SERVICES–ADULTS 

Protective services for adults are those services or activities designed to prevent or remedy abuse, neglect, or 

exploitation of adults who are unable to protect their own interests. Examples of situations that may require protective services are injury due to maltreatment or family violence; lack of adequate food, clothing, or shelter; lack of 

essential medical treatment or rehabilitation services; and lack of necessary financial or other resources. Component 

services or activities may include investigation; immediate intervention; emergency medical services; emergency 

shelter; developing case plans; initiation of legal action (if needed); counseling for the individual and the family; 

assessment/evaluation of family circumstances; making alternative or improved living arrangements; preparing for 

foster placement, if needed; and case management and referral to service providers. 

22. PROTECTIVE SERVICES–CHILDREN 

Protective services for children are those services or activities designed to prevent or remedy abuse, neglect, or 

exploitation of children who may be harmed through physical or mental injury, sexual abuse or exploitation, and 

negligent treatment or maltreatment, including failure to be provided with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical 

care. Component services or activities may include immediate investigation and intervention; emergency medical 

services; emergency shelter; developing case plans; initiation of legal action (if needed); counseling for the child and 

the family; assessment/evaluation of family circumstances; arranging alternative living arrangements; preparing for 

foster placement, if needed; and case management and referral to service providers. 

23. RECREATIONAL SERVICES 

Recreational services are those services or activities designed to provide or assist individuals to take advantage of 

individual or group activities directed towards promoting physical, cultural, and/or social development. 

24. RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT SERVICES 

Residential treatment services provide short-term residential care and comprehensive treatment and services for 

children or adults whose problems are so severe or are such that they cannot be cared for at home or in foster care 

and need the specialized services provided by specialized facilities. Component services and activities may include 

diagnosis and psychological evaluation; alcohol and drug detoxification services; individual, family, and group 

therapy and counseling; remedial education and GED preparation; vocational or pre-vocational training; training in 

activities of daily living; supervised recreational and social activities; case management; transportation; and referral 

to and utilization of other services. 

25. SPECIAL SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL OR PHYSICAL DISABILITIES, OR 

PERSONS WITH VISUAL OR AUDITORY IMPAIRMENTS 

Special services for persons with developmental or physical disabilities, or persons with visual or auditory impairments, are services or activities to maximize the potential of persons with disabilities; help alleviate the effects of 

physical, mental, or emotional disabilities; and to enable these persons to live in the least restrictive environment 

possible. Component services or activities may include personal and family counseling; respite care; family support; 

recreation; transportation; aid to assist with independent functioning in the community; and training in mobility, 

communication skills, the use of special aids and appliances, and self-sufficiency skills. Residential and medical 

services may be included only as an integral but subordinate part of the services. 

26. SPECIAL SERVICES FOR YOUTH INVOLVED IN OR AT RISK OF 

INVOLVEMENT WITH CRIMINAL ACTIVITY 

Special services for youth involved in or at risk of involvement with criminal activity are those services or activities 

for youth who are, or who may become, involved with the juvenile justice system, and for their families. Component 

services or activities are designed to enhance family functioning and/or modify the youth’s behavior with the goal 

of developing socially appropriate behavior and may include counseling, intervention therapy, and residential and 

medical services if included as an integral but subordinate part of the service. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Appendix: Uniform Definition Of Services 49 
 

27. SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES 

Substance abuse services are those services or activities that are primarily designed to deter, reduce, or eliminate 

substance abuse or chemical dependence. Except for initial detoxification services, medical and residential services 

may be included but only as an integral but subordinate part of the service. Component substance abuse services 

or activities may include a comprehensive range of personal and family counseling methods, methadone treatment 

for opiate abusers, or detoxification treatment for alcohol abusers. Services may be provided in alternative living 

arrangements such as institutional settings and community-based halfway houses. 

28. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 

Transportation services are those services or activities that provide or arrange for the travel, including travel costs, of 

individuals in order to access services, or obtain medical care or employment. Component services or activities may 

include special travel arrangements such as special modes of transportation and personnel to accompany or assist 

individuals or families to utilize transportation. 

29. OTHER SERVICES 

Other Services are services that do not fall within the definitions of the preceding 28 services. 

SSBG Annual Report 2015: Appendix: Uniform Definition Of Services 50