LC W 13/Z : 9 **i‘;“-; i _‘ -— 3 ; ) Q 1 we W-ashée ngton University 3')‘ A‘; *3 .7"; 0 WASHINGTON U N EVERSITY Issue Brief N0v171989 Lii:3i'i"{i-\‘r's’;it:§‘:f§ ST. i5. MO‘ % j .. ‘1I::::::::::::::IIIIP SHELVEIN 1Im1iim1flWn:mfltiiIii@ijM@i[gi@EJm un -103 SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB8ll02 AUTHOR: Smith, Mary Educatioh and Public Welfare Division Spar, Karen Education and Public Welfare Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED O3/l7/81R DATE UPDATED I2/22/81 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287;57OO 1226 CRS~ 1 IB81102 UPDATE-12/22/81 ISSUE DEFINITION President Reagan's plan to reduce the rate of growth in Federal spending included proposals to consolidate almost 100 categorical programs into 6 block grants in the areas of education, health and social services. Coupled with the Administration's block grant proposals was a request to cut funding for the programs to be included in the block grants by approximately 25%. The Administration's social services block grant proposal would have combined 12 existing programs, which in FY81 were funded at $5 billion. In the March 1981 budget, the Administration requested $3.8 billion for the social services block grant in FY82, or 25% less than FY81 funding. After considering and rejecting several versions of a social services block grant, Congress approved a block grant which consolidates only social services, day care and training under title XX of the Social Security Act. The new social services block grant was funded at a level of $2.4 billion for FY82 in the continuing appropriations resolutions approved by Congress on Sept. 30, Nov. 15, and Dec. 11, effective through March 1982. On Oct. 6, 1981, the House of Representatives passed its version of the FY82 Labor—Health and Human Services-Education appropriations bi11,, which also contained the $2.4 billion figure. However, in a revised FY82 budget sent to Congress on Sept. 30, the President requested only $1.974 billion for the social services block grant. Nonetheless, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Nov. 9 reported its version of the FY82 funding bill, which included $2.4 billion for the social services block grant. BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS As part of its FY82 budget revisions submitted to Congress Mar. 10, 1981, the Reagan Administration proposed a consolidation of 12 social services programs into 1 block grant to States. Table 1 shows the 12 programs that would have been consolidated under the Administration's proposal. CRS- 2 TABLE'l. Social Services Block Grant (in $ millions) Title XX Social Services (inc. day care),gL.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Title XX State & Local Training...... Child welfare Services.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. Child welfare Training . . . . . . . . . ...... Foster Caren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Adoption Assistance . . . . . . ..l . . . . . . . . .. Child Abuse...... . . . . . . . . . ........... Runaway Youth . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ....... Developmental Disabilities........... OHDS Salaries and Expenses . . . . . ...... Rehabilitation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Community Services Administration. Total Social Services Block Grant. Source: Department of Health .IB8llO2 1981 Current Services $2,916 75 163 6 349 R i 7 10 51 4 931 ___££2 $5.000 and Human Services UPDATE-l2/22/81 % l982 :Budget Request $3,800 CRS- 3 IB8llO2 UPDATE-12/22/81 All of these programs, except the Community Services Administration (CSA) and rehabilitation services, are currently administered by the Office of Human Development Services (OHDS) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Rehabilitation services are administered by the Department of Education and CSA in FY81 was an independent agency. The Administration submitted its detailed legislative proposals for the social services block grant on Apr. 29. Representative Ashbrook introduced the Administration's bill on May 7 as H.R. 3483. As proposed by the Administration, the bill would authorize $3.8 billion annually for FY82 and each of the three succeeding fiscal years. Each State would receive the same proportion of funds under the block grant as they receive in FY81 under each of the categorical programs proposed for consolidation. States would be allowed to transfer up to 10% of their social services block grant allotment each year into one of the other proposed block grants in the areas of health or energy and emergency assistance. States further would be allowed to use part of their allotment to purchase necessary technical assistance from either public or private sources. 2 Before spending any of their allotments under the social services block grant, States would be required under the Administration proposal to publish a report on their intended use of the funds. This report would be available to the public and other government agencies for review and comment. States also would be required to report, at least every 2 years, on the actual use of social services block grant funds. Audits also would be required at least every 2 years. States would be allowed to use whatever portion of) their allotments is necessary for administrative expenses. However, States would not be allowed to use their allotment, except in certain cases, for purchasing or improving land or buildings, for cash assistance or room and board, for paying wages as a social service, for certain foster care maintenance payments, for medical care, for services provided in an institution or for public education. The Secretary could waive the limitation on purchasing or improving land and buildings or providing medical care if necessary for a State to carry out the purposes of the Act. The Administration's bill would have repealed the following legislation effective Oct. 1, 1981: child welfare, foster care and adoption assistance under parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act; social services under title XX of the Social Security Act; the authority in titles I, X, XIV and XVI and part A of title IV of the Social Security Act for providing social services in the territories; the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act; the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974; the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 1978; the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (except for the definition of handicapped individual in section 7(7), and nondiscrimination provisions in sections 501, 503, 505, and 507); and the Community Services Act of 1974 (except for Head Start and Native American programs). Unlike the legislation proposed to be repealed, the Administration's social services block grant would not specifically define the types of services to be provided, nor would it restrict services to a specific population, such as the low—income or handicapped. These decisions would be left to the discretion of the States. The Administration further would consolidate the following research and demonstration components of various programs into a single discretionary CRS- 4 IB8llO2 UPDATE-l?/22/Bl activity to be administered by the Secretary of HHS: ” childl abuse, runaway youth, adoption opportunities, developmental disabilities special projects and university-affiliated facilities, social services research, Administration for Children, Youth and Families research and demonstration, and the National Institute for Handicapped Research. A A Congressional Action Two of the House committees with jurisdiction over the programs proposed for consolidation by the Administration indicated their lack of support for the block grant concept. The House Education and Labor Committee approved a categorical reauthorization of the Community Services Administration for three fiscal years, rejecting the proposal to consolidate CSA with other social services programs. This bill, originally reported by the committee as H.R. 3045, was included in the committee's legislation to comply with reconciliation instructions contained in the first concurrent resolution on the FY82 budget. Similarly, the committee approved a reauthorization of the child abuse and adoption opportunities program, H.R. 2318. The House ways and Means Committee, in their legislation to comply with reconciliation instructions, also rejected the block grant approach by continuing title Xx and other programs proposed for consolidation as _they currently exist. Legislation also was considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee to reauthorize the developmental disabilities program as a categorical activity (H.R. 3811). The House Budget Committee combined these and other proposals into an omnibus reconciliation bill, H.R. 3892. However, when the bill was brought before the full House for consideration, the House voted to consider instead a substitute sponsored by Representative Latta. The Latta substitute was adopted by the House on June 26 and included many of the Administration's block.grant proposals in the areas of health, education and social services. The social services block grant established by the Latta substitute was virtually identical to the Administration's original proposal, except that Latta would consolidate 6 programs while the Administration had proposed to consolidate l2. The 6 programs that would be consolidated into a social services block grant under the Latta proposal, as passed by the full House, were title XX social services and day care, title XX training, child abuse, adoption opportunities, runaway youth and the Community Services Administration. If these programs remained categorical, their combined funding level adjusted for inflation would be $3.726 billion in FY82. The Latta bill would authorize $3.123 billion annually for they block grant in fiscal years 82, 83 and 84, which represents a 16% decrease. The legislative provisions of the Latta social services block grant were identical in most respects to the legislation submitted by the Administration. Unlike the Administration's proposal, the Latta substitute would not incorporate child welfare services, foster care or adoption assistance into the social services block grant. Likewise, the rehabilitation services and developmental disabilities programs would be left outside the block grant. On the Senate side, the Finance Committee approved a different form of social services block grant, which also was included in the committee's legislation to comply with reconciliation instructions. However, the Finance Committee included in its block grant only those programs that are under its jurisdiction. As a result, CSA, rehabilitation services, developmental disabilities and child abuse prevention and treatment were not included in the Finance Committee's bill.‘ As approved by the Finance Committee, the CRS- 5 IB8llO2 UPDATE-12/22/81 block grant would consolidate the following: child welfare services and training, foster care and adoption assistance under title IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act; and social services, day care and training under title XX of the Social Security Act. Title IV-B and IV-E would be repealed by the Finance Committee bill and the current title XX would become the broader block grant. FY81 spending for these programs was approximately $3.5 billion; the block grant would authorize $2.639 billion annually in FY82 and. subsequent years. The Finance Committee bill would not require a non-Federal matching share, and would subject day care provided through the block grant to State and local standards only, rather than to Federal standards. State allotments under the block grant would be proportionately equal to the amount States currently receive under each of the consolidated programs. States would be required under the block grant proposal approved by the Finance Committee to meet certain requirements related to child welfare, foster care and adoption assistance, or they would lose a portion of their allotment. States would be required to operate a services program to help children remain in their home if possible; to develop a plan for each child for whose custody the State is responsible; to provide adoption assistance for children with special needs; to have standards for foster family homes and child care institutions; to operate a statewide information system (to be implemented by Oct. 1, l983) which would track the status of foster care children; and to spend no less than 75% of the amount spent by the State in FY81 for child welfare services, foster care and adoption assistance under section 408 and parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act. However, the proportion spent by States for foster care under the block grant could not exceed the proportion spent for foster care in FY81. Finally, the Finance Committee's block grant legislation would direct the Secretary of HHS to conduct a study to identify criteria and mechanisms that may be useful for States to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of services under the block grant. The study would address the possibility of Federal incentive payments as an option to reward high performance States. The Secretary would be required to submit results of this study within l year after enactment of the law. The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, as part of its legislative proposals to comply with reconciliation instructions, approved a separate block grant to replace the Community Services Administration. CSA would have been incorporated into the social services block grant under President Reagan's proposal. The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee did not approve a block grant approach for the three remaining programs under its jurisdiction which the Administration proposed to consolidate: vocational rehabilitation services, developmental disabilities and child abuse. As part of its reconciliation legislation, the committee voted to continue these programs as they currently exist. All of these proposals were approved by the full Senate on June 25 as part of its omnibus reconciliation bill, S. 1377. Conference Agreement The social services block grant finally adopted by House-Senate conferees on the reconciliation bill most closely resembles the proposal of the Senate Finance Committee. However, unlike the original Senate Finance Committee proposal, the compromise block grant does not consolidate funding for child welfare services, foster care or adoption assistance under the current titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. The compromise block grant only CRS- 6 IB8llO2 UPDATE-12/22/91 consolidates funding for social services, day care and training under title XX of the Social Security Act. The new block grant will be permanently authorized as title XX. Funding for the social services block grant is set at $2.4 billion in FY82, and will rise to $2.45 billion in FY83, $2.5 billion in FY84, $2.6 billion in FY85, and remain at $2.7 billion in FY86 and thereafter. If the previous title XX social services, day care and training programs had not been amended, FY82 funding would have been approximately $3.1 billion. State allotments under the new block grant will be based on population size, with allotments to Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and Mariana Islands based on the amounts received in FY81. Unlike the previous title XX, the social services block grant will not require States to furnish a non-Federal matching share. States further will be allowed to transfer funds received under the social services block grant to other health or energy assistance block grants. Eligible expenditures include the costs of administration, planning, evaluation and training. Before spending their allotments each year, States must develop a report on their intended use of funds. This report must be made available to the general public and submitted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. At least every 2 years, States also must report on the actual use of social services block grant funds and must conduct an audit. Under the final version of the social services block grant, States will decide what services to provide and to whom. Previous income eligibility and targeting provisions of title XX are repealed. Certain prohibitions will be imposed on block grant funds which are similar to those in previous law. For example, funds may not be used to purchase or improve land or buildings; for most room and board; for wages as a social service except in certain circumstances; for most medical care; for most institutional services provided by the institution; for educational services; and for cash payments. However, the prohibition against medical care and the purchase or improvement of land or buildings can be waived by the Secretary. Child care funded under the block grant will be subject to State and local standards, rather than to Federal regulations. However, provisions in the previous title XX program, which allow payments to welfare recipients hired as child care workers, are retained under the new block grant. The conference report containing the compromise social services block grant was adopted by both the House and Senate on July 31, 1981. President Reagan signed the measure into law (P.L. 97-35) on Aug. 13, 1981. FY82 Appropriations On Sept. 30, 1981, Congress approved a continuing appropriations resolution for FY82 (P.L. 97-51), which included $2.4 billion for the social services block grant. At the same time, President Reagan submitted a revised FY82 budget to Congress, proposing further reductions in many domestic, non-entitlement programs. This new budget requested $1.974 billion for the social services block grant. when the first continuing resolution expired on Nov. 20, Congress drafted a second, which would have been in effect until Mar. 30, 1982, and included a 2% across-the-board cut in most nonentitlement programs. However, this decrease was not sufficient for the Administration and President Reagan vetoed the resolution (H.J.Res. 357) on Nov. 23. Congress then approved another resolution, H.J.Res. 368, which simply extended the levels included in P.L. 97-51 through Dec. 15, 1981. President CRS- 7 IB8llO2 UPDATE-12/22/81 Reagan signed this measure into law (P.L. 97-85) on Nov. 23. (A further continuing appropriations resolution (H.J.Res. 370) was signed by President Reagan on Dec. l4, to be effective until Mar. 31, 1982. This resolution is .imilar to the vetoed measure, except it contains a 4% across-the-board cut in non—entitlement programs, rather than 2%. However, because the social services block grant is an entitlement to States, it remains funded at the $2.4 billion level through Mar. 30, 1982. The current continuing resolution is P.L. 97-92. Passage of a continuing appropriations resolution was necessary because Congress has yet to reach final approval on most of the regular appropriations bills for FY82, including the funding measure for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, which includes the social services block grant. That appropriations bill, H.R. 4560, was approved by the House on Oct. 6 and includes $2.4 billion for the social services block grant. The Senate Appropriations Committee also approved $2.4 billion for the social services block grant in its version of. H.R. 4560, reported on Nov. 9. The full Senate, however, has not yet acted on H.R. 4560. Arguments Pro and Con the Administration Proposal Various arguments can be made regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the Administration proposal to establish block grants. According to the Administration, "Because the new block grant legislation would allow significant savings in program overhead and more efficient service delivery due to the elimination of overlapping service responsibilities, this funding change need not result in a reduction of services." (Source: "A Program for Economic Recovery," Feb l8, 1981.) On the other hand, there has recently been comment in the media expressing concern that services may be cut and that many persons in need of services may not be able to receive them. Those favoring the block grant proposals might argue that the block grant approach gives the Federal Government a more feasible method of controlling Federal expenditures due to the consolidation of numerous categorical programs under a few block grants. Rather than making funding decisions program-by-program across numerous specific authorities, the Federal Government can designate a reduced sum of money for a loosely defined purposei and allow competition for the funds to take place at the State and local levels. The block grant approach would allow decentralized decisionmaking in which States could determine the priority needs they choose to fund. In addition, States could more easily vary priorities from year to year. Elected officials at the State and local levels would be responsible directly to the voters who put them in office, and therefore appropriate decisionmaking may be more assured under the block grant approach than under the current categorical approach in which funding decisions take place at the Federal level. Citizens have more access to State and local officials and could more easily impact upon the decisionmaking process under block grants. States could redesign the service delivery system to be more innovative and integrated under the block grant approach because the programs would not need to conform to the current funding categories. Fragmentation and duplication said to exist in the categorical funding approach could be reduced making services more efficient and less costly. Currently the costs of Federal administration of the categorical programs, including expenses of the Federal iureaucracy and planning and fiscal reporting requirements, add to overall program expenses. State administration of the programs could reduce overhead expense leaving more funds for services to those in need. CRS- 8 IB8llO2 UPDATE-13122/81 On the other hand, the proposed reductions of funding available to the block grants could curtail services used by poor people, and could\ drastically reduce the Federal role vis-a-vis the needs of vulnerable population. The proposal may be seen as detrimental to poor and/or minority group persons (who make up a large proportion of the beneficiaries under the existing programs) due to the reduction of Federal funds and the elimination of the State matching requirement. Placing decisionmaking for social service programs at the state and local levels could result in a further reduction of service to poor and minority persons due to differing priorities on the part of such officials. State and local officials may choose to fund programs which are politically more popular than programs for the most vulnerable individuals such as children and poor, minority, and handicapped persons. Individuals and groups dissatisfied with State decisionmaking may find that Congress and the Administration are not able to be responsive to their complaints because the Federal level would no longer have authority over distribution of social service funds. The current categorical system of allotting funds allows the Federal Government discretion in the granting of aid. Not only can the recipient groups be specified, but the various amounts of funds to be allotted to such recipients can be determined at the Federal level. The current system allows the Federal Government to promote specific national goals to address unsolved, widespread problems. Block grant funding would not provide resources for this Federal focus and Federal leadership. The block grant approach could thus eliminate the Federal forum for development of national policies regarding some social problems. In addition, the mechanism for encouraging interstate efforts to address problems would be reduced. The block grant approach could allow the Federal Government to divest itself of much responsibility for the most vulnerable populations in the country, such as the poor, the handicapped, migrant workers, and disadvantaged minority groups. The following list briefly describes each of the programs originally proposed for consolidation by the Administration into a social services block grant as they operated in FY81 and indicates their final disposition for FY82. Title XX Social Services and Child Day Care. Title XX of the Social Security Act authorizes Federal reimbursement for a wide variety of social services such as child day care, counseling, information and referral, legal services, protective services for children and adults, homemaker and other in-home services. Welfare recipients are categorically eligible for assistance. Other eligibility criteria are determined by States within a maximum income limit of ll5% of median income. Funds are distributed to States according to their relative population size. The Federal matching share for most services is 75%. Family planning is matched at a 90% Federal rate and certain child day care services are 100% federally funded. Folded into social services block grant effective Oct. l, 1981. Title XX State and Local Training. Under this program, the Federal Government reimburses States for various forms of training, both short term and long term, in-service and in classroms, for personnel employed in title XX agencies and certain volunteers. Prior to FY80, title XX training was an open-ended entitlement CRS- 9 IB8llO2 UPDATE-12/22/81 to States. However, as a result of P.L. 96-272, State training allotments in fiscal years l98O and l98l were limited to either 4% of the State's regular title XX allotment for that year or the amount of Federal funds received for training in FY79, whichever was higher. In FY82 and thereafter, States may receive Federal reimbursement only for training included in an approved State plan. The Federal matching rate for training under title XX is 75%. Folded into social services block grant effective Oct. 1, 1981. Child welfare Services and Training. The child welfare services program provides child protection, adoption, and foster care services to children under l8, without regard to income. Funds are distributed to the States, on the basis of the under-l8 population and per capita income, and are administered by the State child welfare agency. The Federal share is 75%. The child welfare training program funds traineeships for students and teaching grants for curriculum development through discretionary grants to institutions of higher learning. This program is 100% federally funded. Retained as is under permanent authorization. Foster Care. Funds under this program are paid for the maintenance of AFDC-eligible children who are in foster care, usually due to abuse or neglect. Funds are allotted to States on the basis of their under-l8 population and their foster care caseload. The Federal matching rate is according to the medicaid matching formula, which averages 54% for all the States. Retained as is under permanent authorization. Adoption Assistance. Funds under this program are used to make adoption assistance payments to adoptive parents of special needs children to enable these children to be permanently placed. Special needs children are defined as AFDC— or SSI-eligible children who are members of a sibling or minority group, older children, or children who have mental or physical handicaps. Funds are to be allotted to the States on behalf of any such child, with a Federal matching rate of 75%. (This program is expected to be fully operational by the end of FY82.) Retained as is under permanent authorization. Child Abuse. This program funds services for the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect, such as interdisciplinary teams of professionals to assist abusive families, assistance to parental self-help groups, and crisis centers and hotlines. Recipients of services are abused and neglected children and their families, without regard to income. Funding is provided in two ways: (1) block grants to States, based on the State's under-age population; and (2) discretionary grants to public and private nonprofit agencies. There is no State matching requirement. Reauthorized under provisions of budget reconciliation act through FY83. Runaway Youth. This program funds runaway shelters and associated services, such as counseling and referral for teenage runaways, and their families. The program also supports a national toll-free runaway hotline. Funding is distributed to cRs-10 IB8llO2 TUPDATE-12/22/31 States according to the State's under-l8 population. These projects are 90% federally funded. Retained as is; currently authorized through FY84. Developmental Disabilities. This program authorizes formula grants to States for planning, service delivery, and protection and advocacy systems for persons with developmental disabilities- service delivery in each State is limited to one or two of the following areas of priority need: case management services, child development services, alternative community living arrangement services, and non-vocational social-developmenti services. The formula is based on State population, income, and handicapped population. The Federal matching rate is 75% except in poverty areas where the matching rate is 90%. Reauthorized through FY84 under provisions of reconciliation bill. Rehabilitation Services. Vocational rehabilitation services are provided to mentally or physically handicapped persons when it is determined that such services will enable the individual to become employable. Services provided include mental and physical restoration, job training, the purchase of special devices to further employment, job placement, and counseling. Funds are allotted to States on the basis of a formula which gives relatively more funds to States with low per capita income. The Federal matching rate is 80%. Reauthorized through FY83 under provisions of reconciliation bill. Community Services Administration. The Community Services Administration provides financial assistance to local organizations which coordinate and deliver a wide array of social services to low-income individuals. A statutory formula for allocating funds to States is authorized, based on each State's relative number of unemployed individuals, welfare recipients and related children living in families below the poverty line. However, allocations are generally based on historical patterns rather than a strict reapplication of the formula each year. In general, Community Services Administration programs require a 20% non—Federal share although this may be waived in certain circumstances. Abolished and replaced by community services block grant to be administered by Health and Human Services under provisions of reconciliation bill. See CRS MB8l234 for details. LEGISLATION P.L. 97-35, H.R. 3982 Omnibus reconciliation bill to achieve savings in various government programs. Creates social services block grant. Introduced June l9, 1981; passed by House on June 26 by vote of 232-193. Conference report (H.Rept. 97-208) passed by House and Senate on July 31, 1981. Signed by President on Aug. 13, 1981 (P.L. 97-35). P.L. 97-51, H.J.Res. 325 CRS-ll IB8llO2 UPDATE-l2/22/81 Continuing appropriations for FY82. Includes $2.4 billion for social services block grant. Effective through Nov. 20, 1981. Introduced Sept. 11, 1981. Passed House, Sept. 16, 1981. Passed, Senate, Sept. 25, 1981. House and Senate approved conference report, Sept. 30, 1981. Signed by President, Oct. 2, 1981 (P.L. 97-51). P.L. 97-85, H.J.Res. 368 Continuing appropriations for FY82, effective until Dec. 15, 1981. Includes $2.4 billion for social services block grant. Passed House, Senate and signed by the President Nov. 23. P.L 97-92, H.J.Res. 370 Continuing appropriations for FY82, effective until Mar. 31, 1982. Includes $2.4 billion for social services block grant. Passed by House on Dec. 10, Senate on Dec. 11, and signed by President on Dec. 14. H.R. 3483 (Ashbrook) Consolidates Federal grants to States for social services; eliminates unnecessary restrictions on those programs; and increases flexibility in a State's exercise of its responsibility for program administration. Introduced May 7, 1981; referred to Committees on Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means. H.R. 4560 (Natcher) FY82 Labor-Health and Human Services-Education appropriation. Includes $2.4 billion for social services block grant. Introduced Jan. 15, 1981. Reported from House Appropriations Committee, Sept. 23, 1981 (H.Rept. 97-251). Passed House by voice vote, Oct. 6, 1981. Reported from Senate Appropriations Committee Nov. 9, 1981 (S.Rept. 97-268). S. 1377 (Domenici) Omnibus reconciliation bill to achieve savings in various government programs. Consolidates titles XX and IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act into a social services block grant; establishes a community services block grant to replace the Community Services Administration. Introduced June 17, 1981; referred to Committee on Budget. Passed by Senate on June 25 by vote of 80-15. Conference report on H.R. 3982 passed by House and Senate on July 31, 1981. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 12/14/81 -- President Reagan signed into law a continuing resolution (P.L. 97-92) which is effective until Mar. 31, 1982 and contains $2.4 billion for the social services block grant. 11/23/81 -- President Reagan signed into law a continuing appropriations resolution (P.L. 97-85) which is effective until Dec. 15, 1981, and includes $2.4 billion for the social services block grant. Earlier on this date, President Reagan vetoed H.J.Res. 368, which would have continued appropriations through Mar. 30, 1982, but did not include certain budget ll/O9/81 -- io/05/81 -- H09/30/81 -- O8/13/8l -- O7/31/8l -- O6/26/8l -- 06/25/81 -- 06/lO/81 -- O6/lo/81 -- O5/l9/81 -- CRS-l2 IB8llO2 UPDATE-l?}22/R1 reductions proposed by the Administration. Senate Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 4560, FY82 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, including $2.4 billion for the social services block grant. House passed FY82 Labor-HHS-Educations appropriations bill (H.R. 4560). Includes $2.4 billion for social. services block grant. President Reagan submitted revised FY82 budget to Congress. Requests $1.974 billion for social services block grant. Congress approved FY82 continuing resolution (P.L. 97-51), effective through Nov. 20, l98l. Contains $2.4 billion for social services block grant. President Reagan signed reconciliation bill into law (P.L. 97-35). House and senate agreed to conference report on budget reconciliation bill, containing social services block grant which consolidates activities under title XX of the Social Security Act. House passed Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981, H.R. 3982, which includes a social services block grant that would consolidate title XX of the Social Security Act, social services training, child abuse, adoption opportunities, runaway youth, and the Community Services Administration. Senate passed Omnibus Reconciliation Act of l98l, S. l377, which includes a social services block grant that would consolidate social services, child welfare, foster care and adoption assistance under titles XX and IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act into a social services block grant; also would establish a community services block grant to replace the Community Services Administration. Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee approved legislation to be included in omnibus reconciliation bill, authorizing a block grant to replace the Community Services Administration. This legislation also would continue rehabilitation services, developmental disabilities and child abuse prevention and treatment in their current form. House Education and Labor Committee approved legislation to be included in omnibus reconciliation bill, reauthorizing CSA and child abuse programs as categorical programs. House ways and Means Committee completed consideration of legislation to be included 05/07/81 05/05/81 03/10/81 jj CRS-l3 IB8llO2 UPDATE-l2/22/81 in omnibus reconciliation bill that would continue title XX of the Social Security Act in its current form. Representative Ashbrook introduced the Administration's social services block grant proposals as H.R. 3483. senate Finance Committee completed consideration of legislation to be included in omnibus reconciliation bill that would consolidate social services, child welfare services, foster care and adoption assistance under title XX, title IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act into a social services block grant to States. President Reagan submitted his FY82 budget revisions to Congress, calling for the consolidation of 12 programs into a social services block grant to States. LIBRARY OF WASHINGTON umuvsasnry __- 31; Lows - MO. W"-‘i‘© 2" '7 V v:"‘%- fi"‘:>‘r*;’;’:&!’"35« . '\ \ JUL 0 2 @672 Qi.V.ISiON OF AGING