10-1 

SECTION 10 - TITLE XX SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT 

PROGRAM 

CONTENTS 

Overview, Allocation Formula, and Funding 

Program Goals 

Data on Services, Recipients, and Expenditures 

Transfer of Funds Among Block Grants 

Social Services in Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities 

Legislative History

OVERVIEW, ALLOCATION FORMULA, AND FUNDING

 Title XX of the Social Security Act, also referred to as the Social Services 

Block Grant (SSBG), is a capped entitlement program. Thus, States are entitled to 

their share, according to a formula, of a nationwide funding ceiling or "cap," which 

is specified in statute. Block grant funds are given to States to help them achieve a 

wide range of social policy goals, which include preventing child abuse, increasing 

the availability of child care, and providing community-based care for the elderly 

and disabled. Funds are allocated to the States on the basis of population. The 

allotments for Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Marianas 

from the national total are based on their allocation for fiscal year 1981 adjusted to 

reflect the new total funding level. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

(OBRA) of 1987 (Public Law 100-203) extended eligibility for title XX funds to 

American Samoa. The Federal funds are available to States without a State 

matching requirement. 

 Title XX of the Social Security Act was created in 1975 (Public Law 

93-647); however, it was OBRA 1981 (Public Law 97-35) that amended title XX to 

establish a "block grant to States for social services." The entitlement ceiling, or 

cap, was cut from the fiscal year 1981 level of $2.9 billion to $2.4 billion for fiscal 

year 1982. Table 10-1 shows appropriated amounts and entitlement ceilings in 

select fiscal years from 1982-2003. The table's footnotes, as well as the legislative 

history section of this chapter, elaborate on instances in which the appropriated 

amount for the program in a given year differed from the entitlement ceiling 

established for that year in statute. In these cases, appropriations legislation has, in 

effect, superseded the authority of any previous legislation's capped entitlement 

amounts. In theory, the entitlement ceiling represents the total amount from which 

States are entitled to receive their authorized allotments. However, as table 10-1 

shows, appropriation levels have not always met the entitlement ceiling, and in a 

few cases, have surpassed it. Table 10-2 shows the total funds available to each 

State and territory under title XX in fiscal years 1996 through 2003. 
10-2 

TABLE 10-1--TITLE XX SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT 

FUNDING LEVELS, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1982-2003 

[In millions of dollars]

Fiscal Year Appropriation Entitlement Ceiling 

1982 $2,400 $2,400 

1984 2,700 2,700 

1986 2,5841

 2,700 

1988 2,700 2,7502

1990 2,7622

 2,8004

1992 2,800 2,800 

1994 2,8005

 2,800 

1996 2,381 2,3816

1997 2,5007

 2,3806

1998 2,2998

 2,3806

1999 1,9099

 2,3806

2000 1,77510 2,3806

2001 1,72512 1,70011

2002 1,700 1,700 

2003 1,700 1,700 

1

 The entitlement ceiling for fiscal year 1986 was $2.7 billion. However, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 

legislation sequestration of funds for that period reduced the funding by $116 million to $2.584 billion. 2

 The 1987 Budget Reconciliation Act (Public Law 100-203) included a $50 million increase in the 

title XX entitlement ceiling for fiscal year 1988; however, these additional funds were not 

appropriated. 

3

The fiscal year 1990 appropriation included a supplemental appropriation of $100 million (Public Law 

101-198). The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation sequestration of funds for fiscal year 1990 

reduced the funding by $37.8 million to $2.762 billion. 

4

OBRA 1989 (Public Law 101-239) included a permanent $100 million increase in the title XX 

entitlement ceiling to $2.8 billion, beginning in fiscal year 1990. 

5

The $2.8 billion appropriated amount shown does not include the $1 billion that OBRA 1993 made 

available on an entitlement basis under title XX for empowerment zones and enterprise communities. 

6

At the time of the fiscal year 1996 appropriation, the entitlement ceiling for title XX was still 

permanently set at $2.8 billion. However, the 1996 welfare reform law (Public Law 104-193) amended 

title XX of the Social Security Act to set the entitlement ceiling at $2.381 billion for fiscal year 1996, 

and $2.380 billion for fiscal years 1997-2002. Under this legislation, the ceiling was scheduled to 

return to $2.8 billion for fiscal year 2003 and succeeding years. 

7

 Public Law 104-208 contained a $2.5 billion appropriation for title XX. 

8

 The fiscal year 1998 appropriations measure (Public Law 105-78) included $2.299 billion for title 

XX. 

9

The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 (Public Law 105-277) included an 

appropriation level of $1.909 billion for title XX. 

10 The fiscal year 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-113) set title XX funding at 

$1.775 billion, of which $425 million could not be obligated to States until September 29, 2000. 

11 Under the Transportation Equity Act (TEA, Public Law 105-178), the title XX entitlement ceiling 

was scheduled to be permanently reduced to $1.7 billion beginning in fiscal year 2001. 

12 The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-554) contained $1.725 billion for 

title XX, exceeding the ceiling established by TEA (Public Law 105-178). 

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service. 
TABLE 10-2--TITLE XX SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT ALLOCATIONS BY STATE AND 

TERRITORY, FISCAL YEARS 1996-2003 

[In millions of dollars]

State 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Alabama $38.4 $40.3 $37.0 $30.6 $28.5 $27.6 $26.7 $26.5 Alaska 5.5 5.8 5.3 4.3 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.8 American Samoa 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Arizona 36.1 38.9 36.7 31.7 30.0 29.6 30.8 31.5 Arkansas 22.3 23.4 21.6 18.0 16.6 16.1 16.1 16.0 California 286.5 300.1 274.8 228.1 212.8 207.3 203.5 204.8 Colorado 32.7 34.9 32.6 27.4 25.7 25.2 25.8 26.2 Connecticut 30.1 31.3 28.5 23.4 21.6 20.8 20.5 20.3 Delaware 6.4 6.7 6.2 5.2 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 District of Columbia 5.3 5.4 4.8 3.9 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.4 Florida 125.6 133.2 123.3 103.0 96.6 94.7 96.0 97.3 Georgia 63.5 67.4 62.7 52.6 49.4 48.5 49.2 49.8 Guam 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Hawaii 10.8 11.3 10.3 8.5 7.8 7.6 7.3 7.3 Idaho 10.1 10.8 10.1 8.5 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 Illinois 107.4 112.2 102.9 84.8 78.5 76.4 74.6 74.1 Indiana 52.4 54.9 50.5 41.8 38.7 37.4 36.5 36.3 

Iowa 25.8 27.0 24.7 20.4 18.8 18.2 17.6 17.4 Kansas 23.2 24.4 22.3 18.4 17.1 16.7 16.1 16.0 Kentucky 34.8 36.5 33.6 27.8 25.8 25.0 24.3 24.1 Louisiana 39.4 41.2 37.8 31.1 28.7 27.7 26.8 26.5 Maine 11.4 11.8 10.8 8.9 8.2 7.9 7.7 7.6 Maryland 45.6 47.8 43.9 36.3 33.6 32.6 31.8 31.9 Massachusetts 55.2 57.7 52.8 43.6 40.3 39.0 38.1 37.9 

10-3 
TABLE 10-2--TITLE XX SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT ALLOCATIONS BY STATE AND 

TERRITORY, FISCAL YEARS 1996-2003 [In millions of dollars]-continued 

State 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Michigan 87.0 90.7 83.1 68.7 64.5 62.3 59.7 59.3 Minnesota 41.5 43.6 40.1 33.3 30.9 30.0 29.6 29.5 Mississippi 24.3 25.5 23.5 19.4 18.0 17.5 17.1 17.0 Missouri 48.0 50.4 46.3 38.3 35.6 34.5 33.6 33.4 Montana 7.7 8.2 7.6 6.3 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.4 

Nebraska 14.8 15.5 14.2 11.8 10.9 10.6 10.3 10.2 Nevada 12.8 13.9 13.3 11.5 11.1 11.1 12.0 12.5 New Hampshire 10.3 10.9 10.0 8.3 7.7 7.5 7.4 7.5 New Jersey 72.3 75.5 69.1 57.2 53.1 51.5 50.5 50.4 New Mexico 14.8 15.8 14.7 12.3 11.4 11.0 10.9 10.9 

New York 167.1 173.5 157.8 130.1 119.6 115.3 114.0 112.8 North Carolina 63.8 67.5 62.6 52.4 49.0 47.9 48.4 48.6 North Dakota 5.8 6.1 5.6 4.6 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.8 

Northern Mariana Islands 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Ohio 101.8 106.0 97.0 80.0 73.8 71.1 68.2 67.5 Oklahoma 29.7 31.1 28.5 23.6 21.9 21.2 20.7 20.5 

Oregon 27.8 29.5 27.3 22.9 21.4 20.8 20.6 20.6 

Pennsylvania 110.5 115.1 105.0 86.3 79.3 76.2 73.8 72.9 Puerto Rico 12.3 12.9 11.9 9.9 9.2 8.9 8.8 8.8 

Rhode Island 9.2 9.5 8.6 7.1 6.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 South Carolina 33.4 35.0 32.0 26.5 24.8 24.3 24.1 24.1 South Dakota 6.6 6.9 6.3 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.5 
Tennessee 46.8 49.4 45.7 38.1 35.4 34.5 34.2 34.1 

Texas 165.5 175.5 162.9 136.9 128.2 125.4 125.3 126.6 Utah 17.1 18.2 17.0 14.3 13.6 13.3 13.4 13.5 Vermont 5.3 5.5 5.1 4.2 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 

Virginia 59.6 62.6 57.6 47.8 44.4 43.1 42.5 42.7 Virgin Islands 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Washington 48.2 51.0 47.3 39.6 37.0 36.1 35.4 35.5 West Virginia 16.7 17.4 15.9 13.1 12.0 11.5 10.9 10.7 

Wisconsin 46.2 48.5 44.6 36.9 34.1 33.2 32.2 32.1 Wyoming 4.3 4.5 4.2 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 Total 2,381.0 2,500.0 2,299.0 1,909.0 1,775.0 1,725.0 1,700.0 1,700.0 

Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
10-6 

PROGRAM GOALS

 The purpose of the Title XX Social Services Block Grant Program is to 

provide assistance to States to enable them to furnish services directed at one or 

more of five broad goals: 

$ Achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or 

eliminate dependency; 

$ Achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency, including reduction or 

prevention of dependency; 

$ Preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and 

adults unable to protect their own interests, or preserving, rehabilitating or 

reuniting families; 

$ Preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care by providing for 

community-based care, home-based care, or other forms of less intensive 

care; and 

$ Securing referral or admission for institutional care when other forms of 

care are not appropriate, or providing services to individuals in 

institutions. 

 States are given wide discretion to determine the services to be provided and 

the groups that may be eligible for services, usually low income families and 

individuals. In addition to supporting social services, the law allows States to use 

their allotment for staff training, administration, planning, evaluation, and 

purchasing technical assistance in developing, implementing, or administering the 

State social service program. States decide what amount of the Federal allotment to 

spend on services, training, and administration. 

 Some restrictions are placed on the use of title XX funds. Funds cannot be 

used for the following: most medical care except family planning; rehabilitation and 

certain detoxification services; purchase of land, construction, or major capital 

improvements; most room and board except emergency short-term services; 

educational services generally provided by public schools; most social services 

provided in, and by employees of, hospitals, nursing homes, and prisons; cash 

payments for subsistence; child day care services that do not meet State and local 

standards; and wages to individuals as a social service except wages of welfare 

recipients employed in child day care. 

DATA ON SERVICES, RECIPIENTS, AND EXPENDITURES

 In the past, limited information has been available on the use of title XX 

funds by the States. Under the Title XX Social Services Block Grant Program, each 

State must submit a report to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (DHHS) on the intended use of its funds. These preexpenditure 

reports are only required to include information about the types of activities to be 

funded and the characteristics of the individuals to be served. 
10-7 

 The Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-485) strengthened 

reporting requirements. That legislation required States to submit annual reports 

containing detailed information on the services actually funded and the individuals 

served through title XX funds. DHHS published a final rule on November 15, 1993 

implementing the reporting requirements and providing uniform definitions of 

services. In July 1999, DHHS released an analysis of expenditure and recipient 

data for fiscal years 1995-97; however, the analysis included only 40 States. 

Beginning with data for fiscal year 1998, DHHS has published annual reports on 

title XX program expenditures and recipients. 

 Table 10-3 is a comparison of the primary services offered by States as 

reported on expenditure reports submitted by States for fiscal years 1994-2001. It 

should be noted when comparing the totals in any particular service category across 

years that for fiscal years 1994-95, the table includes data from the five eligible 

territories, whereas this is not true for fiscal years 1996-2001. Also, as indicated in 

the table footnotes, categorization of services has varied over the years, making a 

strict comparison over years difficult. Nevertheless, table 10-3 presents a 

reasonably accurate picture of the range of services that have been offered by States 

under title XX. Based on these reports, at least 32 States in 2001 used title XX 

funds for each of the following services: (1) daycare for children; (2) foster care 

services for children; (3) home-based services; (4) prevention/intervention; (5) 

protective services for children; and (6) protective services for adults. 

TABLE 10-3--COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF STATES 1

 

OFFERING SELECTED SERVICES, FISCAL YEARS 1994-2001

Services 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Adoption 38 35 28 27 30 29 27 28 

Case management 34 33 27 26 28 28 29 28 

Counseling 30 22 22 22 24 26 25 24 

Day care--adults 28 29 28 27 25 25 26 25 

Day care--children 45 51 47 47 46 43 43 45 

Education/training 19 18 13 17 16 15 16 16 

Emergency 2

 19 14 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 

Employment 16 19 16 15 13 16 15 16 

Family planning 19 20 16 17 14 14 15 15 

Foster care--adults 14 15 14 15 13 13 14 13 

Foster care--children 41 41 36 36 34 37 34 35 

Health-related 27 21 14 16 14 14 17 15 

Home-based 3

 46 45 39 39 36 36 35 37 

Home delivered/ congregate meals 18 22 21 25 26 26 28 26 

Housing 14 12 10 10 9 11 10 11 

Independent/transitional living 15 21 12 12 17 16 12 14 

Information and referral 26 27 13 15 16 17 19 16 

Legal 14 12 11 12 15 13 15 15 

Pregnancy and parenting 4

 ---- ---- 14 15 13 16 15 13 

Prevention/intervention 36 42 33 36 36 35 33 34 

Protective--adults 35 35 30 30 31 33 32 32 
10-8 

TABLE 10-3--COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF STATES 1

 

OFFERING SELECTED SERVICES, FISCAL YEARS 1994-2001-continued

Services 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Protective--children 49 44 40 39 38 43 41 43 

Recreation 5 ---- ---- 8 9 9 11 11 10 

Residential care/treatment 31 26 20 20 20 21 19 22 

Services for unmarried parents 6

 15 17 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 

Social support 7 37 27 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 

Special services--children 8

 15 16 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 

Special services--disabled 34 33 25 22 25 28 29 28 

Special services--youth at risk 16 19 18 18 20 18 20 19 

Substance abuse 13 12 9 11 10 9 11 12 

Transportation 27 29 22 21 19 21 23 23 

Other 7

 18 32 29 31 31 31 35 33 1

 For fiscal years 1994-95, the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the 5 eligible territories are included. For fiscal 

years 1996-2001, the 50 States and the District of Columbia are represented. 

2

 “Emergency” is not listed as a separate service category on the standard expenditure reporting form for fiscal years 

1996-2001. 

3 Home-based services include: homemaker, chore, home health, companionship, and home maintenance. 

4

 Pregnancy and parenting services for young parents is a category included on the standard reporting form beginning 

fiscal year 1996. This is not to imply that these services were not available prior to 1996. These services apply to both 

married and unmarried adolescent parents. The category “Services for unmarried parents” is not included on the 

reporting forms following fiscal year 1995. 

5

 The category “recreation” is included on the standard reporting form beginning with fiscal year 1996. For earlier 

years, recreation is included in “social support.” 

6 “Services for unmarried parents” is not listed as a separate category on the form for fiscal years 1996-2001. 

See footnote 4. 

7

 “Social Support” is not listed as a separate category on the form for fiscal years 1996-2001. For earlier years, this 

category included: socialization, recreation (see footnote 5), camping, physical activity, living skills (money 

management), day treatment, family development, social adjustment, community living services, family management, 

life skills education, personal and financial management. 

8

 The category “special services--children” is not listed as a separate category on the on the form for fiscal years 

1996-2001 

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for fiscal years 1994-95 and 1998-2001. Congressional 

Research Service, based on postexpenditure data submitted by the States to HHS, for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. 

Table 10-4 shows the percentage of title XX expenditures for each category of 

service in 1998-2001. The table is based on expenditure data submitted to DHHS 

from 50 States and the District of Columbia, and published by DHHS as Social 

Services Block Grant Program Annual Reports of Expenditures and Recipients. 

 The table indicates that the single largest category of spending in 2001 was 

protective services for children, accounting for almost 12 percent of expenditures. 

This reflects an increase from 1999 and 2000, when spending in this category was 

just under 9 percent and 11 percent, respectively. Expenditures for child day care 

services increased from 6 percent of title XX expenditures in 2000, but are below 

the 13 percent reported in 1999. Home-based services, prevention and intervention 

services, and special services for the disabled each represented about 8 percent of 

expenditures in 2001. 
10-9 

TABLE 10-4--USE OF TITLE XX FUNDS, BY EXPENDITURE 

CATEGORY, FISCAL YEARS 1998-2001 

Percent of Funds Services 

1998 1999 2000 2001 

Adoption services 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.3 

Case management 3.5 4.3 6.4 6.5 

Congregate meals 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 

Counseling services 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.6 

Day care--adults 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 

Day care--children 9.5 13.0 5.9 7.6 

Education/training services 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 

Employment services 2.3 1.8 2.0 0.8 

Family planning services 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 

Foster care services--adults 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Foster care services--children 8.0 10.6 10.7 10.1 

Health-related services 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.9 

Home-based services 9.5 6.8 7.2 7.6 

Home-delivered meals 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 

Housing services 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.3 

Independent/transitional living services 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.1 

Information and referral services 0.6 1.1 1.3 2.6 

Legal services 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 

Pregnancy and parenting 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 

Prevention/intervention 5.1 9.1 7.4 7.7 

Protective services--adults 2.8 3.6 4.9 5.7 

Protective services--children 7.1 8.8 10.8 11.8 

Recreation services 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 

Residential treatment 3.8 2.7 2.7 4.0 

Special services--youth at risk 1.2 2.6 3.1 2.3 

Special services--disabled 8.4 7.7 7.8 8.3 

Substance abuse services 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 

Transportation 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.7 

Other services 5.7 5.2 5.6 4.3 

Administrative costs 11.6 7.7 8.6 10.1 

Uncategorized TANF transfer expenditures 12.5 5.5 4.5 ---- 

Total 100 100 100 100 

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data submitted by 50 

States and the District of Columbia to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS AMONG BLOCK GRANTS

 Welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996 (Public Law 104-193) replaced 

the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program with a block grant 

to States called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF; see section 7). 

The welfare reform law authorized States to transfer up to 30 percent of their TANF 

allotments to title XX or to the Child Care and Development Block Grant 

(CCDBG). However, as originally enacted, Public Law 104-193 required that, for 

every dollar transferred to title XX, States must transfer $2 to the CCDBG. This 

provision was revised by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33) so 
10-10 

that States are allowed to transfer up to 10 percent of their TANF allotment to title 

XX, regardless of how much, if any, they transfer to the CCDBG. The welfare 

reform law stipulates that any TANF funds transferred to title XX must be used for 

families with incomes no higher than 200 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, 

and may be used to provide vouchers for families who are not eligible for cash 

assistance under TANF because of time limits, or for children who are denied cash 

assistance under TANF because they were born into families already receiving 

benefits for another child. 

 Beginning in fiscal year 2001, under provisions of the Transportation Equity 

Act, signed into law June 9, 1998 (Public Law 105-178), the percentage amount of 

their annual TANF allotment that States can transfer into title XX was scheduled to 

be reduced from 10 percent to 4.25 percent. However, this provision has been 

superceded in appropriations laws for fiscal years 2001-2003, which have 

maintained the 10 percent transfer authority level. (States collectively transferred 6 

percent of their fiscal year 2002 TANF allotment to title XX). The Transportation 

Equity Act also permanently reduced the entitlement ceiling to $1.7 billion 

beginning in fiscal year 2001, but as Table 10-1 shows, that ceiling was surpassed 

in fiscal year 2001, when Congress appropriated $1.725 billion for title XX (Public 

Law 106-554). 

 Public Law 97-35, which created the title XX block grant, gave States the 

authority to transfer up to 10 percent of their annual allotment to one or any 

combination of the three health care block grants and the Low-Income Home 

Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). (The three health care block grants are: the 

Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant; the Maternal and Child Health 

Services Block Grant; and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Services 

Block Grant.) In turn, most other block grant statutes allow States to transfer funds 

to the title XX program. However, the Augustus F. Hawkins Human Services 

Reauthorization Act of 1990 eliminated the authority to transfer LIHEAP funds to 

other block grants, beginning for fiscal year 1994. 

SOCIAL SERVICES IN EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE 

COMMUNITIES

 The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66) 

made $1 billion available on an entitlement basis under title XX for the Secretary of 

DHHS to make grants to States for social services in qualified empowerment zones 

and enterprise communities (the legislation also provided certain tax incentives for 

zones and communities). On December 21, 1994, President Clinton selected 105 

designees to participate in this program (6 urban and 3 rural empowerment zones, 

60 urban and 30 rural enterprise communities, 2 supplemental empowerment zones 

and 4 enhanced enterprise communities). These funds remain available for 

expenditure for 10 years. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) 

authorized a second round of enterprise zone and community designations, but no 

title XX funding was included for the second round. 

 An empowerment zone or enterprise community is qualified for purposes of 
10-11 

the title XX grant if it has been designated a zone or community under part I, 

subchapter U, chapter I of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and if its strategic 

plan (required in an application for designation under the Internal Revenue Code) is 

qualified. 

 A qualified plan is a plan that: (1) includes a detailed description of the 

activities proposed for the area that are to be funded with the grant; (2) contains a 

commitment that the funds provided will not be used to supplant Federal or 

non-Federal funds for services and activities which promote the purposes of the 

grant; (3) to the extent a State does not use the funds on certain program options, 

explains the reasons why not; and (4) explains how the plan was developed in 

cooperation with the local government or governments with jurisdiction over the 

zone or community. 

 With respect to each empowerment zone, the Secretary was required to make 

one grant ($50 million if urban, $20 million if rural) to each State in which the zone 

lies on the date of its designation, and a second grant of the same amount on the 

first day of the following fiscal year. With respect to each enterprise community, 

the Secretary made one grant of up to $3 million to each State in which the 

community lies on the date of its designation. States have up to 10 years from the 

date of their designation in which to expend these additional title XX funds, 

although they must be obligated within the first 2 years. 

 States, in conjunction with the local governments with jurisdiction over the 

zone or community, have broad discretion in the use of grant funds. Funds must be 

used for social services directed at three goals of the basic title XX grant program: 

achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce or eliminate 

dependency; achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency, including reduction or 

prevention of dependency; or preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or 

exploitation of children and adults unable to protect their own interests, or 

preserving, rehabilitating or reuniting families. The funds also must be used in 

accordance with the strategic plan and on activities that benefit residents of the zone 

or community. 

 Despite the similar purposes for which funds may be used, the range of 

allowable services is narrower in some respects, and broader in others, under the 

title XX empowerment zone provisions relative to the basic title XX program. For 

example, the basic title XX program includes a broader range of purposes than 

those outlined above for the empowerment zone program. On the other hand, 

certain restrictions of the basic title XX program (e.g., restrictions that limit drug 

treatment services to initial detoxification, and restrictions on the use of funds for 

the payment of wages) are waived under the empowerment zone program, in order 

to carry out certain specified program options. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

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

Although $2.8 billion was the permanently authorized entitlement ceiling at the