These block grants are made to U. Individuals searching for social services should check out their state and local government resources. These services may be provided using federal block grant funding. For other government assistance for individuals, go to Benefits. For more information about grant types, check out our past What Is posts about grants , discretionary grants , and mandatory grants.
Coming up next in the series: What Is a Formula Grant? Do you have questions about block grants? Ideas for future What Is posts? Let us know by commenting below. Conversely, problems are more likely to arise when state governments assume responsibility for administering programs where the Federal Government previously awarded grants directly to local governmental units or nonprofit organizations.
Here state governments had to establish administrative structures, fill new staff positions, and develop new relations with service providers in a policy area where states previously had little or no role.
The enactment of the TANF block grant program was an important shift in federal policy since it marked the first time an entitlement to services was replaced with a block grant authority. Block grants enacted from the s through the early s involved the consolidation of discretionary grant programs, with the aim of streamlining administration and enhancing state and local decision-making authority.
In contrast, the statutory authority of the AFDC program created an individual right to benefits tied to state-established income eligibility standards. Similar to other entitlement programs, Title IV of the Social Security Act committed the Federal Government to share in the cost of all benefits regardless of the sums previously appropriated for AFDC payments to the states. The TANF program severed this link between individual eligibility, benefits, and federal financial participation.
Indeed, Section b of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act PRWORA explicitly indicates that "This part [of the statute] shall not be interpreted to entitle any individual or family to assistance under any State program funded under this part. In addition, beneficiaries are eligible to receive assistance for a maximum of five years, although some states apply a less stringent cap.
As welfare caseloads plunged and employment rates increased during the late s and early s, the welfare reform legislation was widely praised by politicians of both major political parties.
But the depressed economic conditions of the past four years have revealed the underside of shrinking the social safety net. The number of children receiving federal cash assistance declined between and by more than half. Children made up more than three-quarters of TANF recipients in Welfare caseloads remain 68 percent below their peak and just one in five low-income children currently live in a family receiving TANF funds. Meanwhile, faced with sinking revenues and increased service demands, states have sliced assistance by shortening time limits, tightening eligibility rules, and reducing benefit levels.
Moreover, with the removal of statutory constraints, many states have diverted TANF funds to other purposes. Arizona, for example, currently uses only about one-third of its TANF allocation for cash benefits and work programs—core purposes of the TANF legislation. Nationally, only about 30 percent of federal TANF payments are spent on cash benefits.
Proposals to convert the federal-state Medicaid program into a block grant authority are more akin to the AFDC-to-TANF conversion than to other existing block grant authorities.
The latest version of a Medicaid block grant surfaced as part of a broader plan to reduce federal spending that was unveiled by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan in January Titled "The Roadmap to Prosperity," the Ryan plan called for deep reductions in federal entitlement and discretionary spending and lower federal taxes as part of a broad-scaled effort to reduce the deficit and stimulate the national economy.
House of Representatives adopted the Ryan plan for reducing the deficit as part of its FY budget resolution. Congress took no steps to implement the House-passed budget resolution, however, because of the continuing impasse between Congressional Republicans and President Obama over the most appropriate pathway to reducing the deficit. But, given strong opposition in the Senate and threats of a Presidential veto, no action was taken on the House-passed budget plan prior to the November Presidential and Congressional elections.
Under the provisions of the House-approved budget resolution H. In addition, the ACA 34 would be repealed and, consequently, the planned expansion of Medicaid benefits to individuals and families with income under percent of the poverty level would not occur. Future Medicaid funding allocations would be tied to the amount of federal aid each state received in FY , adjusted for inflation and population growth during the intervening years. In addition, states would be given expanded latitude in establishing eligibility and coverage standards for their program, with the precise dimensions of state flexibility to be spelled out during the legislative process.
Federal funding losses would vary from state to state, with states currently offering broad coverage and having lower federal matching ratios experiencing smaller reductions than states with narrower programs and higher federal matching ratios.
Federal allocations to states such as Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Texas could be sliced by 45 percent or more over the year period, and nine other states could experience reductions of 40 percent or more. Even states with broad Medicaid coverage and low matching rates would experience federal aid reductions in excess of 30 percent. How much freedom states have would vary. Many proposals loosen state coverage requirements, which could mean that if states opted to cap enrollment, for example, people who are technically eligible might not get coverage, noted Edwin Park, vice president for health policy at the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.
The block grant differs slightly from that other conservative favorite. Per capita caps have also been endorsed by Ryan. Under those, states also get a fixed amount of money each year, but that sum is calculated based on how many people are in the program.
In theory, a per capita caps system would increase funding. Q: It seems like both Democrats and Republicans are pretty fired up about this. Why is this such a big deal? The block grant system is a radical shift from how Medicaid has worked previously. Republicans say it could save the government billions of dollars. But other analysts note those savings could limit access to health care if the funding becomes squeezed. Thanks to the health law, which led states to expand Medicaid eligibility, more people would face the brunt of those cuts.
The fiscal impact: The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates recent Republican block grant proposals could cut Medicaid spending by as much as a third over the next decade. The cuts would start small, growing larger over the years. Many Republicans say that, because states will have greater flexibility, they can innovate with their Medicaid programs. The fixed grants could mean states cut benefits or force beneficiaries to take on more cost-sharing, for instance.
Some federal requirements are necessary, said Tom Miller, a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. The potential impact is significant. More than 10 million who got insurance through Obamacare are on Medicaid and could be affected.
0コメント