essay

sment services and the administrative re also unlimited but are shared 50-50 r the state and federal governments. Child

training expenses can receive 75o/o re federal government-without limits. rn assistance is paid for similarly. h of the money used for contracting from the federal Social Services Block which is provided under Title XX of the Security Act. In 2003, the amount of provided overall from that block grant

7 billion. The history of Title XX funding plicated and varied. During the 1970s, ,as no limit on the amount of Title XX a state could receive from the federal gov-

rt, so long as the state was able to provide

ng funds of approximately one-third. : the expenditures were great and because

)vernment social services agencies were obtain funds from voluntary agencies to the federal fqnds, q cqp was eveltuplly d. U, t\ IUti)Aed n1d'ryidtI"J) ceilings on the Title XX Social Services Srant changed periodically. In 1996, the was $2.8 billion, but Congress only appro- $2.381 billion. (Committee on Ways and U.S. House of Representatives, 2004) For fi)2, the ceiling was $2.38 billion, but ss actually appropriated $2.5 billion for n 1998, the appropriation was reduced to billion, and in recent years, the ceiling luced to $1.7 billion. According to The rrce Alliance (2006), the appropriation for ial Services Block Grant has remained at fion. Social Services Block Grant is allocated to

n the basis of population. Although it rep- a large portion ofthe funds that are used rl services contracting, the Social Services irant is only one source of funds that state ments use in contracting for human ser- t is possible for states to transfer funds 'ther block grants to the Social Services. mple, the TANF program described ear- L block grant to the states. If they wish to tates may transfer up to 30o/o of the TANF

Structure and Financing of Human Services Organizations 93

grant to the Social Services Block Grant. There is

also a Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). When states transfer funds to the Social Services, they must also transfer two dol- lars for every dollar transferred to the Social Services to the CCDBG.

Table 4.5 shows the ways in which states spent

their Title XX funds in 1998-2001. In 2001, about 10%o ofthe funds were used for

administration. The bulk of the funds were used for children and youth to provide child protec- tion, day care, residential treatment, and foster care. Case management used 6.5% of the funds and substantial portions of that service are devoted to children. A second portion of the funds was used for adult protection and day care.

So, by and large, the Title XX Block Grant pro- gram serves children and adults, most of whom are elderly and in need of special services. Services for people with disabilities were also a large portion of the expenditures, 8.570.

Pu bl ic-Private Col !aboration

The Private Provision of Public Services: Trends and lssues

Perhaps the most significant development in the latter part of the 20th century, which con- tinues in the 21st century, is the contracting for services by government with nonprofit and proprietary organizations. The 1967 amend- ments to the Social Security Act authorized states, for the first time, to purchase services from nonprofit or proprietary agencies. Initially, government was looking for service providers, and nonprofits were in a positive negotiating position.

Governments often contract with nonprofit or proprietary organizations for service delivery as a means of promoting efiiciency. Programs may be begun and ended without the complexi- ties of creating government agencies and civil services positions. Federal and state government

procedures for establishing services and emplolng