Order Code RL33975
Vulnerable Youth:
Background and Policies
April 24Updated June 14, 2007
Adrienne L. Fernandes
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Summary
The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in
their communities. Most of those of school age live with parents who provide for
their well-being, and they attend schools that prepare them for advanced education
or vocational training, and, ultimately, self-sufficiency. Many youth also receive
assistance from their families during the transition to adulthood. During this period,
young adults cycle between attending school, living independently, and staying with
their families. On average, parents give their children an estimated $38,000, or about
$2,200 a year, while they are between the ages of 18 and 34 to supplement wages,
pay for college tuition, and assist with down payments on a house, among other types
of financial help. Even with this assistance, the current move from adolescence to
adulthood has become longer and increasingly complex.
For vulnerable (or “at-risk”) youth populations, the transition to adulthood is
further complicated by a number of challenges, including family conflict or
abandonment and obstacles to securing employment that provides adequate wages
and health insurance. These youth may be prone to outcomes that have negative
consequences for their future development as responsible, self-sufficient adults. Risk
outcomes include teenage parenthood; homelessness; drug abuse; delinquency;
physical and sexual abuse; and school dropout. Detachment from the labor market
and school — or disconnectedness — may be the single strongest indicator that the
transition to adulthood has not been made successfully. Approximately 2.3 million
noninstitutionalized civilian youth are not working or in school.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or
legislative vehicle that addresses the challenges vulnerable youth experience in
adolescence or while making the transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy
today has evolved from myriad programs established in the early 20th century and
expanded in the years following the 1964 announcement of the War on Poverty.
These programs, are concentrated in five areas —: workforce development, education,
juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, and public health — are
; they
are intended to provide vulnerable youth with opportunities to develop skills to assist
them in adulthood.
Despite the range of federal services and activities to assist disadvantaged youth,
many of these programs have not developed into a coherent system of support. This
is due in part to the administration of programs within several agencies and the lack
of mechanisms to coordinate their activities. In response to concerns about the
complex federal structure developed to assist vulnerable youth, Congress passed the
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365) in 2006. This
legislation, like predecessor legislation that was never fully implemented — the
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501) — establishes a federal
council to improve coordination of federal programs serving youth. Congress has
also considered other legislation (the Younger Americans Act of 2000 and the Youth
Community Development Block Grant of 1995) to improve the delivery of services
to vulnerable youth and provide opportunities to these youth through policies with
a “positive youth development” focus. This report will be updated periodically.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Age of Youth and the Transition to Adulthood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Groups of Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Framework for Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Disconnectedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Positive Youth Development: theThe Importance of
Resiliency Resiliency
and Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
What is Youth Development? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Youth Development Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Evolution of the Federal Role in Assisting Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1912-1950s: Children’s Bureau Programs and
Workforce Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1960s-1970s: War on Poverty Initiatives and
Expansion of Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
White House Conferences on Children and Youth:
1960s and 1970s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1960s and 1970s . 21
Family and Youth Services Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1980s-Present: Current Youth Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Job Training and Workforce Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Federal Efforts to Improve Coordination Among Programs for
Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Concerns about Coordination of Youth Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365) . . . . . . . . . 34
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L 101-501) . . . . . . . . . . 36
Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Grants for States and Community Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Youth Build Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Federal Initiatives to Improve Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Delinquency
Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Shared Youth Vision Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Partnerships for Youth Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Drug-Free Communities Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Coordination Around Specific Youth Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Policies to Promote Positive Youth Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Youth Development Community Block Grant of 1995
(H.R. 2807/S. 673) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Helping America’s Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Alliance for Youth: America’s Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Positive Youth Development State and
Local Collaboration
Demonstration Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix A-3.: Studies, Federal Programs, and Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information
and Experts . . . . . . . 73. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
List of Figures
Figure 1:. Vulnerable Youth Groups and Overlap Among Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2. Risk Framework for Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Tables
Table 1. Disconnected Civilian, Noninstitutional Youth,
Ages 16 to 24
(2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 2. Proportion of Married and Parenting Civilian,
Noninstitutional Noninstitutional
Disconnected Youth, Ages 16 to 24 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 3. Duties of the Federal Youth Council, by Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
AppendixTable A-1. Studies of Civilian, Noninstutionalized
Disconnected Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Table A-2. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix A-2. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4848
Table A-3. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information . . . . . . . . 72
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Introduction
Congress has long been concerned about the well-being of youth. The nation’s
future depends on young people today to leave school prepared for college or the
workplace and to begin to make positive contributions to society. Some youth,
however, face barriers to becoming contributing taxpayers, workers, and participants
in civic life. These youth have characteristics or experiences that put them at risk of
developing problem behaviors and outcomes that have the potential to harm their
community, themselves, or both. Poor outcomes often develop in home and
neighborhood environments that do not provide youth with adequate economic and
emotional supports. Groups of vulnerable (or “at-risk”) youth include emancipating
foster youth, runaway and homeless youth, and youth involved in the juvenile justice
system, among others. Like all youth, vulnerable youth face a difficult transition to
adulthood; however, their transition is further complicated by a number of
challenges, including family conflict and obstacles to securing employment that
provides adequate wages, health insurance, and potential for upward mobility.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or
legislative vehicle that addresses the challenges at-risk youth experience in
adolescence or while making the transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy
today has evolved from myriad programs established in the early 20th century and
expanded through Great Society initiatives. These programs, concentrated in five
areas — workforce development, education, juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention, social services, and public health — provide vulnerable youth with
opportunities to develop skills that will assist them in adulthood.
Despite the range of federal services and activities for vulnerable youth, many
of the programs have not been developed into a coordinated system of support. In
response, federal policymakers have periodically undertaken efforts to develop a
comprehensive federal policy around youth. Congress has passed legislation (the
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act, P.L. 109-365) establishing a youth
council to improve coordination of federal programs serving youth. Congress has
also considered other legislation in recent years (the Younger Americans Act of 2000
and the Youth Community Development Block Grant of 1995) to improve the
delivery of services to vulnerable youth and provide opportunities to these youth
through policies with a “positive youth development” focus.
This report first provides an overview of the youth population and the increasing
complexity of transitioning to adulthood for all adolescents. It also provides a
separate discussion of the concept of “disconnectedness,” as well as the protective
factors youth can develop during childhood and adolescence that can mitigate poor
outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal youth policy,
CRS-2
focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of current federal
programs targeted at vulnerable youth. (Appendix Table A-1, toward the end of the
report,
enumerates the objectives and funding levels of 45 such programs. Note that the
the table does not enumerate all programs that target, even in small part, vulnerable or
or disconnected youth.) The report then discusses the challenges of coordinating federal
federal programs for youth, as well as federal legislation and initiatives that promote
coordination among federal agencies and support programs with a positive youth
development focus.
Overview
Age of Youth and the Transition to Adulthood
For the purposes of this report, “youth” refers to adolescents and young adults
between the ages of 10 and 24. Under this definition, there are approximately 60
million youth (or 21% of the population) in the United States.1 Although traditional
definitions of youth include adolescents ages 12 to 18, cultural and economic shifts
have protracted the period of adolescence. Children as young as 10 are included in
this range because puberty begins at this age for some youth, and experiences in early
adolescence often shape enduring patterns of behavior.2 Older youth, up to age 24,
are in the process of transitioning to adulthood. Many young people in their mid-20s
attend school or begin to work, and some live with their parents.
The current move from adolescence to adulthood has become longer and more
complex.3 Youth of the 1950s were more likely to follow an orderly path to
adulthood. They generally completed their education and/or secured employment
(for males), including military service, which was followed by marriage and
parenthood in their early 20s. (This was not true for every young person; for
example, African Americans and immigrants in certain parts of the country faced
barriers to employment.) Unlike their postwar counterparts who had access to
plentiful jobs in the industrial sector, youth today must compete in a global,
information-driven economy. Many more youth now receive vocational training or
enroll in colleges and universities after leaving high school. Changed expectations
for women mean they attend college in greater numbers than men.4 During the
period of transition, young adults cycle between attending school, living
independently, and staying with their parents. They also use this time to explore
1
U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Age Groups and Sex: 2000, available at
[http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=D
EC_2000_SF1_U_QTP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U].
2
Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, Great
Transitions: Preparing Adolescents for a New Century (October 1995), pp. 20-21.
3
Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood
for Vulnerable Populations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005, pp. 4-6.
(Hereinafter Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net.)
4
Cladia Goldin, Lawrenece F. Katz, and Ilyana Kuziemo, “The Homecoming of American
College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap,” Journal of Economic
Perspectives, vol 20, no. 4, Fall 2006.
CRS-3
independently, and staying with their parents. They also use this time to explore
career options and relationships with potential long-term partners. The median age
of first marriage has risen each decade since the 1950s, with 27 now being the
median age for men and 25.5 the median age for women.5 These choices enable
youth to delay becoming financially independent, which can create a financial burden
for their families. On average, parents give their children an estimated $38,000 —
or about $2,200 a year — between the ages of 18 and 34 to supplement wages, pay
for college tuition, and help with housing costs, among other types of financial
assistance.6 Parents also provide support by allowing their adult children to live with
them or providing child care for their grandchildren.
Programs that assist youth making the transition to adulthood also recognize that
adolescence is no longer a finite period ending at age 18. Since FY2003, the Chafee
Foster Care Education and Training Vouchers program has provided vouchers worth
up to $5,000 annually per youth who is “aging out” of foster care or was adopted
from foster care after 16 years of age.7 The vouchers are available for the cost of
attendance at an institution of higher education, as defined by the Higher Education
Act of 1965. Youth receiving a voucher at age 21 may continue to participate in the
voucher program until age 23.
Further, the changing concept of the age of adulthood is gaining currency among
organizations and foundations that support and study youth development projects.
The Youth Transition Funders Group is a network of grant makers whose mission is
to help all adolescents make the successful transition to adulthood by age 25.
Similarly, the Network on Transitions to Adulthood, a consortium of approximately
20 researchers from around the country, was created in 2000 to study the changing
nature of early adulthood. The network recently published two books on this
population which highlight the difficulties for youth today in becoming selfsufficient, independent adults even into their mid-20s.8
Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population
The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in
their communities. Those of primary and secondary school age live with parents
who provide for their emotional and economic well-being and they attend schools
5
U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Median Age for First Marriage for Men and
Median Age of First Marriage for Women: 2000-2003, available at [http://www.census.gov/
population/www/socdemo/fertility/slideshow/ACS-MF/TextOnly/slide10.html].
6
Bob Schoeni and Karen Ross, “Material Assistance Received from Families During the
Transition to Adulthood.” In Richard A. Settersten, Jr., Frank F. Furstenburg, Jr., and Rubén
Rumbaut, eds., On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy, pp. 404405. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
7
See CRS Report RS22501, Child Welfare: The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
(CFCIP), by Adrienne Fernandes.
8
See Richard A. Settersten, Jr., Frank F. Furstenburg, Jr., and Rubén Rumbaut, eds., On the
Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2005. See also, Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net:
The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 2005. (Hereafter Osgood et al., eds, On Your Own Without a Net.)
CRS-4.
CRS-4
Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population
The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in
their communities. Those of primary and secondary school age live with parents
who provide for their emotional and economic well-being and they attend schools
that prepare them for continuing education or the workforce, and ultimately, selfsufficiency . Approximately one-quarter of today’s youth will graduate from a fouryear college or university.9 Nonetheless, some young people do not grow up in a
secure environment or with parents that provide a comprehensive system of support.
These youth often live in impoverished neighborhoods and come to school
unprepared to learn. Even youth who have adequate academic and emotional support
may experience greater challenges as they transition to adulthood.
There is no universal definition of the terms “vulnerable” or “at-risk” youth, and
some believe that these labels should not be used because of their potentially
stigmatizing effects.10 The terms have been used to denote individuals who
experience emotional and adjustment problems, are at risk of dropping out, or lack
the skills to succeed after graduation.11 They have also been used to suggest that
youth grow up in unstable family or community environments.12 Researchers,
policymakers, and youth advocates, however, might agree to this definition:
vulnerable youth have characteristics and experiences that put them at risk of
developing problem behaviors and outcomes that have the potential to hurt their
community, themselves, or both.13 “At risk” does not necessarily mean a youth has
already experienced negative outcomes but it suggests that negative outcomes are
more likely. Youth may also experience different levels of risk. On a risk
continuum, they might have remote risk (less positive family, school, and social
interaction and some stressors) to imminent risk (high-risk behaviors and many
stressors).14 Vulnerable youth may also display resiliency that mitigates negative
outcomes.
9
Based on calculation of the percentage of adults ages 25 to 34 who have received a
bachelor’s degree. Current Population Survey, Educational Attainment of Employed
Civilians 18 to 64, by Industry, Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 2006, available at
[http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/cps2006.html].
10
Kristin Anderson Moore, “Defining the Term “‘At Risk,’” Child Trends Research-toResults” Brief, Publication #2006-12, October 2006. (HereafterHereinafter Moore, “Defining the Term
Term ‘At-Risk.’”)
11
J. Jeffries McWhirter et al., At-Risk Youth: A Comprehensive Response. California:
Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2004, p. 6. (HereafterHereinafter McWhirter, At-Risk Youth.)
12
Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At-Risk.’”
13
Martha R. Burt, Gary Resnick, and Nancy Matheson, Comprehensive Service Integration
Programs for At-Risk Youth, The Urban Institute, 1992, pp. 13-22.
14
McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 7-9.
CRS-5
Groups of Vulnerable Youth. Researchers on vulnerable youth have
identified multiple groups at risk of experiencing poor outcomes as they enter
adulthood.15 These groups include, but are not limited to the following:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Youthyouth emancipating from foster care;
runaway and homeless youth;
youth involved in the juvenile justice system;
immigrant youth and youth with limited English proficiency (LEP);
youth with physical and mental disabilities;
youth with mental disorders; and
youth receiving special education.
Some researchers have also classified other groups of vulnerable youth based on risk
outcomes —: young unmarried mothers, high school dropouts, and disconnected (e.g.,
not in school nor working) youth.
Among the seven groups listed above, some lack financial assistance and
emotional support from their families. Former foster youth, for example, often do not
have parents who can provide financial assistance while they attend college or
vocational schools. Other vulnerable youth have difficulty securing employment
because of their disabilities, mental illness, juvenile justice records, or other
challenges. Vulnerable youth who have depended on public systems of support often
lose needed assistance at the age of majority.16 Many will lose health insurance
coverage, vocational services, and supplementary income.17 They will also face
challenges in accessing adult public systems, where professionals are not always
trained to address the special needs of young adults. Regardless of their specific risk
factor(s), groups of vulnerable youth share many of the same barriers to successfully
transitioning into their 20s.
Figure 1 (below) shows the approximate number or percentage of youth who
belong to each group and their basic characteristics. Even within these groups, the
population is highly diverse. For example, among youth with disabilities, individuals
experience asthma, visual or hearing impairments, emotional disturbances, congenital
heart disease, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, diabetes, cancer, and spina bifida. Youth in
these seven groups also represent myriad socioeconomic and racial backgrounds.
However, youth of color and the poor tend to be overrepresented in vulnerable
15
See, for example, Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, and Michael Wald and Tia
Tia Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country’s Most Vulnerable
Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Working Paper,
November 2003.
On Your Own Without a Net focuses on the seven groups, in addition to
youth reentering the
community from the juvenile justice system. “Connected by 25"
focuses on four groups: —
high school dropouts, young unmarried mothers, juvenile justice-involvedjusticeinvolved youth, and foster
youth.
16
17
Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, p. 10.
Ibid.p. 10.
Ibid, pp. 10-12.
CRS-6
populations. This is due, in part, to their exposure to poverty, and crime, racism, and
lack of access to systems of care, such as health care and vocational assistance.18
Youth may also be members of multiple vulnerable populations. For instance,
former foster youth are particularly at risk of becoming homeless. Each year about
20,000 youth “age out” of foster care, and of these youth, about two-fifths receive
independent living services.19 Emancipated youth may have inadequate housing
supports.20 Even if states made available all federal funds under the Chafee Foster
Care Independence Program for housing, each emancipated youth would receive less
than $800 per year.21 Recently emancipated foster youth also tend to be less
economically secure than their counterparts in the general youth population because
they earn lower wages and are more likely to forego college and vocational training.22
Their economic vulnerability can place them at risk of losing their housing. Figure
1 shows the overlap that exists among some of the seven groups of youth. (Note:
Figure 1 does not include all possible vulnerable youth groups nor does it show all
possible overlap(s) among multiple groups. The number of youth across groups
should not be aggregated.)
18
McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 9, 13, and 14.
19
Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring. “The Transition to Adulthood for Youth
“Aging Out” of the Foster Care System” in Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own
Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 2005, Without a Net,
pp. 27-32.
20
Ibid.
21
Section 497(b)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act requires that no more than 30% of federal
independent living funds administered through the Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program may be spent on housing for youth between the ages of 18 to 21. The act
authorizes $140 million each year for the program. The estimate of less than $800 for each
youth is based on the author’s calculations that as many as 60,000 youth ages 18, 19, and
20 are eligible to receive housing assistance totaling $47 million (or 30% of $140 million).
22
Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care: Findings from the Northwest Foster
Care Alumni Study, Casey Family Programs, 2005, pp. 1-2, available at [http://www.casey.
org/Resources/Publications/NorthwestAlumniStudy.htm.] (HereafterHereinafter Peter J. Pecora, et al.,
Improving Foster Family Care.)
CRS-7
Figure 1:. Vulnerable Youth Groups and Overlap Among Groups
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
CRS-8
Framework for Risk
Not all vulnerable youth experience negative outcomes. However, three broad
categories of factors influence whether youth face challenges in adolescence and as
they transition to adulthood.23 These categories include antecedents of risk, markers
of risk, and problem behaviors. Figure 2 summarizes the three categories and the
risk outcomes vulnerable youth may experience.
Figure 2. Risk Framework for Vulnerable Youth
Source: Figure created by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on Martha ShirkBurt, Gary
Resnick, and Nancy Matheson, “Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk Youth:
Final Report,” The Urban Institute, 1992, Exhibit 2.2.
23
This discussion is based on Martha R. Burt, Gary Resnick, and Nancy Matheson,
Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk Youth, The Urban Institute, 1992,
pp. 13-22.
CRS-9
Antecedents of risk — or social environmental conditions that influence
outcomes — significantly predict the overall well-being of youth. Poverty,
community conditions, and family structure are three primary antecedents of risk.
Poverty is linked to a number of potential future problems among youth, including
low professional attainment, and meager future earnings. An analysis that utilized
data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and U.S. census tract
information for 1980 to 1990 estimated that adolescents ages 14 to 22 who grew up
in relatively high poverty metropolitan neighborhoods had a lesser likelihood as
adults of being employed.24 Other macro-level forces — the location of employers
and the erosion of the manufacturing sector — can also limit the jobs available to
poor youth who live in urban areas.25 Some analyses have found that youths’ place
of residence in proximity to jobs affects their labor market involvement independent
of other factors.26 Jobs in the manufacturing sector have been replaced by the growth
of the service and high-technology sectors, jobs requiring technical and managerial
skills.27 Youth who drop out of school or do not pursue postsecondary education
cannot easily compete for available jobs.
Markers of risk also suggest that youth will experience negative outcomes in
adolescence and beyond. Markers of risk are tangible indicators that can be
measured or documented in public records; low school performance and involvement
in the child welfare system are two such markers. Low academic performance, based
on scores from a basic cognitive skills test as part of the 1994 National Longitudinal
Education Survey, is associated with low employment rates. Among16-to-24 year
olds who scored below the 20th percentile on the test, 74% of white youth, 47.7% of
black youth, and 57.4% of Hispanic youth were employed.28 Youth involved in the
child welfare system, including out-of-home placement in the foster care system, are
at-risk because of their history of abuse or neglect. Over 267,000 children and youth
ages 10 to 20 (52.1% of all youth in care) were in foster care and approximately 9%
of foster youth emancipated from care on the last day of FY2005.29 Studies show that
24
Steven R. Holloway and Stephen Mullherin, “The Effects of Adolescent Neighborhood
Poverty on Adult Employment,” Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 26, no. 4, 2004.
25
Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young
Men. Washington, D.C.DC: Urban Institute Press, 2006, pp. 19-21. (HereafterHereinafter Edelman,
Holzer, and Offner, Disadvantaged Young Men.)
26
See for example, Weinberg, Reagan, and Yankow, Do Neigborhoods Matter?; Katherine
M. O’Regan and John M. Quiley, “Where Youth Live: Economic Effects of Urban Space
on Employment Propsects,” Urban Studies, vol. 35, no.7, 1998 and Stephen Raphael, “Interand Intra-Ethnic Comparisons of the Central City-Suburban Youth Employment
Differential,” Industrial & Labor Relationship Review, vol. 51, no. 3, April 1998.
27
William Julius Wilson, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New
York: Vintage Books, 1996, pp. 25-29.
28
29
Disadvantaged Young Men, p. 21.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
The AFCARS Report, September 2005, at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/pro-grams/cb/stats_re
search/index.htm#afcars].
CRS-10
youth who have “aged out” of foster care fare poorly relative to their counterparts in
the general population on several outcome measures.30
Problem behaviors further define a youth’s level of risk for incurring serious
consequences during the transition to adulthood. Problem behaviors are activities that
have the potential to hurt youth, the community, or both. Youth with these behaviors
likely live under risk antecedent conditions and have displayed risk markers.
Behaviors include early sexual experimentation; truancy; use of tobacco, alcohol, or
other drugs; running away from home or foster care; and association with delinquent
peers. Problem behaviors, coupled with poor socioeconomic and social
environmental factors, can precipitate more long-term negative outcomes, described
in Figure 2 as risk outcomes. Risk outcomes include school dropout, low
employment prospects, teen pregnancy, and alcohol and substance abuse.
Disconnectedness.
Disconnectedness
Youth advocates and researchers have begun to focus
on vulnerable youth who
experience negative outcomes in employment and the
workforce.31 Generally
characterized as “disconnected,” these youth are not working
or attending school.
They are also not embedded in strong social networks of
family, friends, and
communities that provide assistance in the form of employment
connections, health
insurance coverage, tuition and other supports such as housing
and financial
assistance. However, there is no uniform definition of this term.
Based on the varying definitions of disconnectedness, low educational
attainment and detachment from the labor market appear to be signature
characteristics of the population. An analysis by the Congressional Research Service
of March 2006 CPS data used a definition of disconnectedness to include
noninstitutionalized youth ages 16 to 24 who did not work anytime during the
previous year (2005) due primarily to a reason other than school and were presently
(March 2006) not working or in school.32 Approximately 2.3 million youth — or
6.3% of all youth — ages 16 to 24 met this criteria. Table 1 shows that of the
noninstitutionalized male population, 3% of whites, 10.3% of blacks, and 4.7% of
Hispanics were disconnected.33 While black women had the same rate of
disconnection as their male counterparts, white and Hispanic females were about two
to three times as likely than their counterparts to experience disconnection. (See
Appendix Table A-1 for a summary of other studies on disconnected youth.)
30
Peter J. Pecora, et al., Improving Foster Family Care.
31
See, for example, Campaign for Youth, “Memo on Reconnecting our Youth From a
Coalition of Voices,” January 2005, available at [http://www.clasp.org/CampaignFor
Youth/]. See also Appendix Table A-1 for a summary of studies on disconnected youth.
32
This analysis was conducted with the assistance of Thomas Gabe, CRS Specialist in
Social Legislation.
33
These rates are not likely comparable to the Edelman, Holzer, and Offner analysis of
March 2000 CPS data. Edelman, Holzer, and Offman examined rates of disconnection in
the previous year only — 1999.
CRS-11
Table 1. Disconnected Civilian, Noninstitutional Youth,
Ages 16 to 24 (2006)
Number of Men
(% of total 16 to
24 population)b
Total
Disconnected
Youth
Married parentb
Parentb
NH
White
768,141 352,794
(3.0)
NH
Black
Number of Women
(% of total 16 to
24 population)a
Hispanic
Total
NH
White
NH
Black
Hispanic
259,794
(10.3)
155,827
(4.7)
1.41 m
657,423
(5.8)
277,843
(10.4)
472,879
(15.6)
6,165
869
(0)
1,887
(0.1)
3,409
(0.1)
275,293
224,530
(2.0)
22,360
(0.8)
218,403
(7.2)
Cohabiting parentb
Parentb
23,913
4,829
(0)
9,959
(0.4)
9,125
(0.3)
119,064
69,365
(0.6)
19,882
(0.7)
29,817
(1.0)
Single parentParent
14,026
1,852
(0)
6,704
(0.3)
5,470
(0.2)
235,800
93,456
(0.8)
80,286
(3.0)
62,058
(2.1)
709,034 337,067
(2.9)
235,440
(9.4)
136,527
(4.1)
488,928
232,704
(2.1)
146,606
(5.5)
109,618
(3.6)
5,532
(0)
1,296
(0.6)
99,058
37,368
(0.3)
8,708
(0.3)
52,982
(1.8)
Not married,
no children
Married,
no childrenMarried,
No Children
Married,
No Children
15,004
8,176
(0.2)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of Bureau of the CensusU.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
Survey Survey
(March 2006).
a. Beginning with the March 2003 CPS, the Census Bureau allows survey respondents to identify
themselves themselves
as belonging to one or more racial groups. The terms black and white refer to
persons who identified with
only a single racial group (i.e., non-Hispanic black or non-Hispanic
white). The term Hispanic refers to
individuals’ ethnic, as opposed to racial, identification.
Hispanics can be of any race.
The higher rates of disconnection among women may be explained, in part, by
their childrearing responsibilities (see Table 2). While approximately 5% of
disconnected males had children, nearly 20% of disconnected females had children.
(Parent refers to being the biological parent or step-parent of a child who lives in the
same household, or a parent figure to a cohabiting partner’s child who lives in the
same household.) Some of these women may have had adequate financial support
despite not working or attending school. Approximately one-half of all Hispanic
mothers and one-third of white mothers classified as disconnected were married, and
a smaller share (approximately 8%) of all disconnected mothers were living with a
partner. However, 29% of black disconnected mothers were neither married nor
living with a partner, suggesting that they may have faced financial difficulties
providing for their children.
The overwhelming majority of disconnected men in each racial group and over
half of all disconnected black women are not married or raising children. This begs
the question about the type of financial and other support they receive and the source
of this support. Future analyses of CPS data can show whether they receive housing
CRS-12
assistance by living with their parents (although the data cannot show if the youth pay
rent).
CRS-12
Table 2. Proportion of Married and Parenting Civilian,
Noninstitutional Disconnected Youth, Ages 16 to 24 (2006)
Men (%)a
NH
White
Women (%)a
NH
Black
Hispanic
NH
White
NH
Black
Hispanic
Married parentb
0.3
0.7
2.2
34.2
8.1
46.2
Cohabiting parentb
1.4
3.8
5.9
10.6
7.2
6.3
Single parent
0.5
2.6
3.5
14.2
28.9
13.1
95.5
90.7
87.6
35.4
52.8
23.2
2.3
2.1
0.8
5.7
3.1
11.2
Not married, no
children
Married, no children
Married Parentb
Cohabiting Parentb
Single Parent
Not Married, No Children
Married, No Children
NH
White
0.3
1.4
0.5
95.5
2.3
Men (%)a
NH
Hispanic
Black
0.7
2.2
3.8
5.9
2.6
3.5
90.7
87.6
2.1
0.8
NH
White
34.2
10.6
14.2
35.4
5.7
Women (%)a
NH
Hispanic
Black
8.1
46.2
7.2
6.3
28.9
13.1
52.8
23.2
3.1
11.2
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of Bureau of the CensusU.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
Survey (March 2006).
a. Beginning with the March 2003 CPS, the Census Bureau allows survey respondents to identify
themselves as belonging to one or more racial groups. The terms black and white refer to
persons who identified with only a single racial group. The term Hispanic refers to individuals’
ethnic, as opposed to racial, identification. Hispanics can be of any race.
b. Parent refers to biological parent, step-parent, or parent figure to cohabiting partner’s child.
Incarceration.34 The definitions of disconnectedness discussed above include
only the civilian noninstitutional population. They therefore omit such persons as
inmates of prisons and jails, the majority of whom are minority males (non-Hispanic
blacks and Hispanics).35 An analysis of 16-to-24-year olds examined the
disconnectedness (defined as out of work and school for at least one year) of both the
civilian noninstitutional and incarcerated population, based on data from the 1999
CPS supplemented with summary statistics of youth incarceration rates from the
Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. When incorporating the
incarcerated population, the rates of disconnection increased for white males from
3% to 4.2%; for black males from 10.5% to 17.1%; and for Hispanic males from 9%
to 11.9%.36 Another study that added residents of institutions and active-duty
personnel in the Armed Forces to October 2000 CPS data found the rate of
disconnection among 16 to 19 year old males rose from 8% to 10% and among 20
to 24 year old males, from 11% to 13%.37 In contrast, inclusion of these population
groups had no effect on the incidence of disconnection among females, which
remained at 9% for teenagers and 18% for young adults.
34
Discussion based in part on CRS Report RL32871, Youth: From Classroom to Workplace,
Workplace?, by Linda Levine.
35
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at
Midyear 2005, p. 8, available at [http://www.november.org/resources/Prisoners05.pdf].
36
37
Disadvantaged Young Men, p. 13.
U.S. Congressional Budget Office, What isIs Happening to Youth Employment Rates, Table
6, November 2004, available at [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6017&sequence=0].
CRS-13
CRS-13
groups had no effect on the incidence of disconnection among females, which
remained at 9% for teenagers and 18% for young adults.
A third study of incarcerated youth included those ages 18 to 24 in local jails
and state or federal prisons after being convicted of a crime, as well as unmarried
youth this same age with a high school degree or less who had been unemployed for
one or more years. At any point during the 1997 to 2001 period, the researchers
estimated that almost 1.8 million young adults (or 7% of the population ages 18 to
24) experienced long spells of unemployment (1.7 million) or were incarcerated
(420,000).38 A majority (59% or 1 million) in this group were male, who accounted
for 8% of the 18-to-24 year old male population. The 728,000 disconnected females
accounted for 6% of the 18-to-24 year old female population. Over one-third of the
disconnected males were incarcerated compared to just 3% of females. Nearly all the
disconnectd mothers had their first child between 14 and 20, and half of them
reported welfare receipt.
Positive Youth Development: the
The Importance
of Resiliency and Opportunity
WhileAlthough vulnerable youth overall experience more negative outcomes than their
their counterparts who are not considered to be at risk, some of these youth have
accomplished their goals of attending college and/or securing permanent
employment. Youth advocates argue that vulnerable youth can reach their goals if
given adequate opportunities to develop positive behaviors during adolescence.
Emphasizing that youth are in control of their future and can make contributions to
their communities and society, these advocates view vulnerable youth as resources
rather than victims or perpetrators.39
What is Youth Development? Youth development refers to the processes
— physical, cognitive, and emotional — that youth undergo during adolescence. The
competencies that youth begin to gain during adolescence can assist them as they
transition to adulthood. Youth who master competencies across several domains will
likely achieve desirable outcomes, including educational and professional success,
self-confidence, connections to family and the community, and contributions to
society. These areas of competency include: the following:
!
!
!
!
Cognitive: Knowledge of essential life skills, problem solving skills,
academic adeptness;
37
(...continued)
=0].
Social: Connectedness with others, perceived good relationships
with peers, parents, and other adults;
Physical: Good health habits, good health risk management skills;
Emotional: Good mental health, including positive self-regard; good
coping skills;
38
Michael Wald and Tia Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the
Country’s Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Working Paper, November 2003, pp. 14-17, available at [http://www.hewlett.org/
NR/rdonlyres/60C17B69-8A76-4F99-BB3B-84251E4E5A19/0/FinalVersionofDisconne
ctedYouthPaper.pdf].
39
National Youth Development Information Center, What is Youth Development?, available
at [http://www.nydic.org/nydic/programming/definition.htm].
CRS-14
!
!
!
!
!
!
Social: Connectedness with others, perceived good relationships
with peers, parents, and other adults;
Physical: Good health habits, good health risk management skills;
Emotional: Good mental health, including positive self-regard; good
coping skills;
!
!
Personal: Sense of personal autonomy and identity, sense of safety,
spirituality, planning for the future and future life events, strong
moral character;
Civic: Commitment to community engagement, volunteering,
knowledge of how to interface with government systems; and
Vocational: Knowledge of essential vocational skills, perception of
future in terms of jobs or careers.40
A primary factor that influences how well youth develop these competencies is
the interaction between individual characteristics, or traits influenced by genetic
inheritance and prenatal environment, and the social environment — societal
conditions, community, and the family can serve to reinforce positive behaviors and
promote positive outcomes for vulnerable youth.41
Societal conditions — economic conditions, the prevalence of discrimination,
and educational institutions — affect the development of youth competencies and
connectedness to others. Adolescents who perceive their future in terms of jobs or
careers often achieve desirable outcomes. For vulnerable youth, poor economic
conditions and fewer opportunities to work can affect how they perceive their future.
Youth’s interaction with the community is another variable that shapes their
development. Community culture, or the values and beliefs of a particular
community, may support the positive development of youth by reinforcing cultural
norms that favor academic achievement and professional success. Communities can
play a role in fostering youth development by providing multiple pathways to help
youth strengthen their competencies through schools and other institutions. Youth
advocates argue that these pathways should involve services and long-term programs
that provide opportunities for youth during the school day and in non-school hours
when youth may be more susceptible to risky behaviors.42 Within schools, the
availability of resources for youth and their parents, such as programs that monitor
and supervise youth, and quality youth-serving institutions and organizations can
buffer youth from negative community cultures. Outside of schools, youth
development programs emphasize the positive elements of growing up and engage
young people in alternatives to counteract negative pressures. Approximately 17,000
organizations offer youth programs, some of which are well-known with many
decades of experience (such as the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. and 4-H), and others
40
National Research Council, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002, pp. 6-7.
41
Discussion based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Family and Youth
Services Bureau, Understanding Youth Development: Promoting Positive Pathways of
Growth, 1997.
42
Karen Pittman, Merita Irby, and Thaddeus Ferber, Unfinished Business: Further
Reflections on a Decade of Promoting Youth Development, The Forum for Youth
Investment, 2000, p. 9, available at [http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/74_sup/
ydv_1.pdf]. (Hereafter referencedHereinafter Pittman, Irby, and Ferber, Unfinished Business.)
CRS-15
organizations offer youth programs, some of which are well-known with many
decades of experience (such as the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. and 4-H), and others
that are local, grassroots entities.43 These organizations offer a variety of services
that focus on the development of personal skills and critical life skills, and
opportunities for youth to participate in the decisions of the organization.44
Finally, the family context plays a pivotal role in youth development. Parental
monitoring and family structure affect how well youth transition to adulthood.
Positive adolescent development is facilitated when youth express independence
from their parents, yet rely on their parents for emotional support, empathy, and
advice. Parenting styles and family structure play important roles in the lives of
youth. Parents who discipline in a moderate and caring manner, and provide positive
sanctions for prosocial behaviors can assist youth to develop a sense of control over
their future. Family structures that promote positive parent-child relationships, even
after divorce or times of stress (such as separation or loss of a parent), can provide
youth with emotional and other support during adolescence and beyond.
The Youth Development Movement. The belief that all youth are assets
has formed the basis of the youth development movement that began in the 1980s in
response to youth policies and programs that attempted to curb the specific problems
facing youth (i.e., pregnancy, drug use) without focusing on how to holistically
improve outcomes for youth and ease their transition to adulthood. A range of
institutions have promoted this approach through their literature and programming:
policy organizations (Forum for Youth Investment and National Network for Youth);
national direct service organizations for youth (4-H and the Boys and Girls Clubs of
America); public and private research institutions (National Research Council and
Carnegie Corporation of New York), and government sub-agencies with a youth
focus (the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Family and Youth
Services Bureau and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention).45 The youth development movement has attempted to shift
from an approach to youth that emphasizes problem prevention to one that addressed
the types of attitudes, skills, knowledge, and behaviors young people need to develop
for adulthood.46
43
Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, A
Matter of Time: Risk and Opportunity in the Nonschool Hours (December 1992), p. 11.
44
4-H, The National Conversation on Youth Development in the 21st Century: Final Report.
2002, p. 4.
45
See for example, Karen Pittman, “Some Things Do Make a Difference and We Can Prove
It: Key Take-Aways” from Finding Out What Matters for Youth: Testing Key Links in a
Community Action Framework for Youth Development, The Forum for Youth Investment,
April 2003, available at [http://www.forumfyi.org/_portalcat.cfm?LID=D662C83D-BEEE4E8E-A926F89515009A78]; 4-H, The National Conversation on Youth Development in the
21st Century: Final Report, 2002; National Research Council, Community Programs to
Promote Youth Development, 2002; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Publications on Positive Youth Devlopment,
available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/positiveyouth/publications.htm].
46
Pittman, Irby, and Ferber, Unfinished Business, pp. 20-22.
CRS-16
Despite the endorsement of the positive youth development approach by
prominent organizations, the movement has faced challenges.47 Youth advocates
within the movement point to insufficient guidance for program planners and
policymakers about prioritizing which youth to serve, given the limited resources
available to communities for youth programs. They have also criticized the lack of
sufficient evaluation of programs and organizations using a positive development
approach. According to these advocates, some youth development efforts have been
built on insufficient data about demand for or supply of programs and were started
without baseline data on reasonable youth indicators. Further, they argue that youth
development messages have, at times, failed to generate excitement among
policymakers because they did not convey how positive youth development policy
and programs could respond to the challenges young people face and lead to better
outcomes for youth and society at large. In turn, the movement has failed to
adequately link to local and regional infrastructures that assist with funding, training,
and network development.
To address these challenges, youth advocates (the same groups that have raised
criticisms about the movement) have proposed a number of recommendations. For
example, the Forum for Youth has urged advocates to clarify a youth development
message that specifies concrete deliverables and to connect the movement to
sustainable public and private resources and other youth advocacy efforts.48 The
recommendations have also called for evaluations of youth programs with a positive
youth approach and improved monitoring and assessment of programs.
Evolution of the Federal Role
in Assisting
Vulnerable Youth
The remainder of this report describes the evolution of federal youth policy and
provides an overview of current programs and initiatives that focus on vulnerable
youth. Many of these initiatives promote coordination of federal youth programs and
positive youth development.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or
legislative vehicle that addresses the challenges that young people experience in
adolescence or while making the transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy
today evolved from myriad programs and initiatives that began in the early 1900s to
assist children and youth. From the turn of the twentieth century through the 1950s,
youth policy was generally subsumed under a broad framework of child welfare
issues. The Children’s Bureau, established in 1912, focused attention on child labor
and the protection of children with special needs. The age boundaries of “youth”
were not clearly delineated, but based on proposed child labor reform legislation at
that time, “child” referred to those individuals age 16 and under. Also during this
period, work and education support programs were created to ease the financial
pressures of the Great Depression for older youth (ages 16 to 23), and increasingly,
47
Ibid., pp. 30-31.
48
Ibid., pp. 14-27.
CRS-17
federal attention focused on addressing the growing number of youth classified as
delinquent. The subsequent period, spanning the 1960s and 1970s, was marked by
the creation of programs that targeted youth in five policy areas: workforce
development and job training, education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention,
social services, and public health. Finally, from the 1980s until the present, many of
these programs have been expanded; others have been eliminated. The federal
government has also recently adopted strategies to better serve the youth population
through targeted legislation and initiatives.
1912-1950s: Children’s Bureau Programs
and Workforce Programs
At the turn of the twentieth century, psychologists first formally defined the
concept of adolescence. American psychologist G. Stanley Hall characterized the
period between childhood and adulthood as a time of “storm and stress,” with youth
vulnerable to risky behavior, conflict with parents, and perversion.49 The well-being
of adolescents was emerging as an area of concern during this time, albeit as part of
a greater focus on child welfare by states and localities. States began to recognize the
distinct legal rights of children, generally defined as age 16 and younger, and to
establish laws for protecting children against physical abuse, cruelty, and neglect.
Children who were abused or neglected were increasingly removed from their homes
and placed in almshouses and foster homes by the state. Juvenile courts and reform
schools, first created in the late 1800s, were also expanding during this period. By
1912, 22 states had passed legislation to establish juvenile courts.50
The year 1912 also marked the federal government’s initial involvement in
matters relating to child welfare with the creation of the Children’s Bureau in the
U.S. Department of Labor. The Bureau emerged out of the Progressive Movement,
which emphasized that the stresses on family life due to industrial and urban society
were having a disproportionately negative effect on children.51 Though not a cabinetlevel agency, the purpose of the Bureau was to investigate and report upon all
“matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life” for the federal
government. The Bureau adopted a “whole child” philosophy, meaning that the
agency was devoted to researching every aspect of the child’s life throughout all
stages of his or her development. In particular, the Bureau focused on infant and
maternal health, child labor, and the protection of children with special needs (e.g.,
those who were poor, homeless, without proper guardianship, and mentally
handicapped).
49
G. Stanley Hall, “Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology,
Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and Education,” (1904) in John H.
Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth in America,
Vol. II: 1866-1932, Parts 1-6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, pp. 81-85.
50
John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth
in America, Vol. II: 1866-1932, Parts 1-6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1971, p. 440.
51
Kriste Lindenmeyer, “A Right to Childhood:” The U.S. Children’s Bureau and Child
Welfare, 1912-46. Urbana: University of Illinois Press), pp. 10-11. (Hereafter referenced
as Hereinafter
Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood.)
CRS-18
those who were poor, homeless, without proper guardianship, and mentally
handicapped).
The concept of a “youth policy” in those early years was virtually non-existentnonexistent.
However, the Bureau’s efforts in combating child labor and investigating juvenile
delinquency from 1912 through the early 1950s targeted youth ages 10 to 16. Bureau
Chief Julia Lathrop and Progressive Era advocates pushed for laws that would
prohibit the employment of children under age 16.52 The Bureau also tracked the
rising number of juvenile delinquents in the 1930s and evaluated the causes of
delinquency, citing unhappy home conditions and gang membership as a predictor
of gang activity.53 In 1954, the Bureau established a division on juvenile delinquency
prevention.
Perhaps the most well known policies the Children’s Bureau implemented that
affected youth were through the child health and welfare programs established by the
Social Security Act (P.L. 74-231) of 1935. As originally enacted, the law authorized
indefinite annual funding of $1.5 million for states to establish, extend, and
strengthen public child welfare services in “predominately rural” or “special needs”
areas. For purposes of this program (now at Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social
Security Act), these were described as services “for the protection and care of
homeless, dependent, and neglected children, and children in danger of becoming
delinquent.”54 The Aid to Dependent Children Program (now Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families Block Grant) was also created under the act to provide financial
assistance to impoverished children. “Dependent” children were defined as children
under age 16 who had been deprived of parental support or care due to a parent’s
death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity, and was
living with a relative. Amendments to the program extended the age of children to
18.55
Separately in the 1930s, the federal government addressed youth poverty
triggered by the Great Depression. The Federal Transient Relief Act of 1933
established a Transient Division within the Federal Transient Relief Administration
to provide relief services through state grants. Also in 1933, the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC) opened camps and shelters for more than one million
low-income older youth. Two years later, in 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt
created the National Youth Administration (NYA) by executive order to open
employment bureaus and provide cash assistance to poor college and high school
students. The Transient Division was disbanded shortly thereafter. From 1936 to
1940, legislation was proposed to provide for comprehensive educational and
vocational support for older youth. As introduced in 1938, the American Youth Act
52
Ibid.52
Ibid, pp. 127, 137-138.
53
Ibid., pp. 148-153.
54
In 1962 (P.L. 87-543), child welfare services were formally defined under Title IV-B as
“public social services which supplement, or substitute for parental care and supervision for
the purpose of (1) remedying or assisting in the solution of problems which may result in,
the neglect, abuse, exploitation, or delinquency of children, (2) protecting and caring for
homeless, dependent, or neglected children, (3) protecting and promoting the welfare of
children, including the strengthening of their own homes where possible or, where needed,
the provision of adequate care of children away from their homes in foster family homes or
day-care or other child-care facilities.”
55
Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood, p. 193.
CRS-19
students. The Transient Division was disbanded shortly thereafter. From 1936 to
1940, legislation was proposed to provide for comprehensive educational and
vocational support for older youth. As introduced in 1938, the American Youth Act
(S. 1463), if passed, would have established a federal National Youth Administration
to administer a system of public-works projects that would employ young persons
who were not employed or full-time students. The act would have also provided
unemployed youth with vocational advisors to assist them in securing apprentice
training. Further, young people enrolled in school and unable to continue their
studies without financial support would have been eligible to receive financial
assistance to pay school fees and school materials, and personal expenses.56 The act,
however, was never brought to a full vote by the House or Senate. The Roosevelt
Administration raised concerns in hearings on the bill that it was too expensive and
would have provided some of the same services already administered through the
CCC and NYA.57 (The two programs were eliminated in the early 1940s.)
By the late 1940s, the Children’s Bureau no longer had jurisdiction to address
“all matters” concerning children and youth because of federal government
reorganizations that prioritized agency function over a particular constituency (i.e.,
children, poor families, etc.). The bureau was moved in 1949 from the U.S.
Department of Labor to the Federal Security Agency (FSA), and child health policy
issues were transferred to the Public Health Service. The Bureau’s philosophy of the
“whole child” diminished further when the FSA was moved to the newly organized
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) in 1953.58
1960s-1970s: War on Poverty Initiatives
and Expansion of Programs
The 1960s and 1970s marked a period of federal efforts to assist poor and
disadvantaged children, adolescents, and their families. President Lyndon B.
Johnson’s War on Poverty initiatives and subsequent social legislation established
youth-targeted programs in the areas of workforce development and job training,
education, delinquency prevention, social services, and health. The major legislation
during this period included:
!
Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) of 1964 (P.L. 88-452): As the
centerpiece of the War on Poverty, the EOA established the Office
of Economic Opportunity. The office administered programs to
promote the well-being of poor youth and other low-income
individuals, including Job Corps, Upward Bound, Volunteers in
Service to America (VISTA), Head Start, and Neighborhood Youth
Corps, among others. The mission of the Job Corps was (and still
is) to promote the vocational and educational opportunities of older,
56
John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth
in America, Vol. III: 1933-1973, Parts 1-4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1971, pp. 91-96.
57
58
Ibid., pp. 99-104.
For additional information about the creation of HEW, see CRS Report RL31497,
Creation of Executive Departments: Highlights from the History of Modern Precedents, by
Thomas P. Carr.
CRS-20
Corps, among others. The mission of the Job Corps was (and still
is) to promote the vocational and educational opportunities of older,
low-income youth. Similarly, Upward Bound was created to assist
disadvantaged high school students who went on to attend college.
!
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (P.L. 8910): The purpose of the ESEA was to provide federal funding to
low-income schools. Amendments to the act in1966 (P.L 89-750)
created the Migrant Education Program and Migrant High School
Equivalency Program to assist states in providing education to
children of migrant workers.
!
Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 (P.L. 89-329): The HEA
increased federal funding to universities and created scholarships
and low interest loans for students. The act also created the Talent
Search Program to identify older, low-income youth with potential
for postsecondary education. The act was amended in 1968 (P.L.
90-575) to include two programs: Student Support Services and
Upward Bound (which was transferred from the Office of Economic
Opportunity to the Office of Education, and later to the U.S.
Department of Education). Student Support Services was created to
improve disadvantaged (defined as disabled, low-income, or first in
their family to attend college) college students’ retention and
graduation rates.
!
Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-378): The
legislation permanently established the Youth Conservation Pilot
Program to employ youth of all backgrounds to perform work on
federal lands.
!
Comprehensive Employment and Training Activities Act (CETA)
of 1973 (P.L. 93-203): The program established federal funding for
the Youth Employment and Training Program and the Summer
Youth Employment Program. The programs financed employment
training activities and on-the-job training.
!
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974
(P.L. 93-415): The act extended federal support to states and local
governments for rehabilitative and preventative juvenile justice
delinquency projects, as established under the Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 90-445). The major provisions of
the JJDPA funded preventative programs in local communities
outside of the juvenile justice system. The act’s Title III established
the Runaway Youth Program to provide temporary shelter,
counseling, and after-care services to runaway youth and their
families. Congress later amended (P.L. 95-115) Title III to include
homeless youth.
CRS-21
!
Education for All Handicapped Children of 1975 (P.L. 94-142): The
act required all public schools accepting federal funds to provide
equal access to education for children with physical and mental
disabilities. Public schools were also required to create an
CRS-21
educational plan for these students, with parental input, that would
emulate as closely as possible the educational experiences of ablebodied children. (This legislation is now known as the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act.)
White House Conferences on Children and Youth: 1960s and 1970s.
Since 1909, the executive branch has organized a White House Conference on
Children (and youth, in later decades). The White House conferences of 1960 and
1971 focused on efforts to promote opportunities for youth. The recommendations
from the 1960 conference’s forum on adolescents discussed the need for community
agencies to assist parents in addressing the concerns of youth, as well as improved
social services to adolescents and young adults.59 The recommendations called for
the federal government to establish a unit devoted to youth and to support public and
private research regarding the issues facing this population, including their
employment, education, military service, marriage, mobility, and community
involvement. The 1971 conference had a broader focus on issues that were important
to youth at the time. Recommendations from the conference included a suspension
of the draft, less punitive measures for drug possession, and income guarantees for
poor families.60
Family and Youth Services Bureau. The Family and Youth Services
Bureau (FYSB) was created in 1970 to provide leadership on youth issues in the
federal government.61 At that time, it was held that young people were placed
inappropriately in the juvenile justice system, while others were not receiving needed
social services. Known then as the Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention
Administration, the sub-agency proposed a new service delivery strategy (similar to
the contemporary positive youth development approach) that emphasized youth’s
competence, usefulness, and belonging.62 The passage of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 — which emphasized that youth
committing status offenses
(behaviors considered offenses only if carried out by a
juvenile, such as truancy or
running away) were more in need of care and guidance
than they were of punishment —.
Passage of the JJDPA laid the foundation for much of FYSB’s work today
around with
runaway and homeless youth and other vulnerable youth groups.
59
Executive Office of the President, Conference Proceedings from the Golden Anniversary
White House Conference on Children and Youth, March 27-April 2, 1960 (Washington:
GPO, 1960), p. 212.
60
Executive Office of the President, Conference Proceedings from the White House
Conference on Youth, 1971. Washington: GPO, 1971.
61
This discussion is based on personal correspondence with HHS, Administration for
Children and Families.
62
American Youth Policy Forum, A Youth Development Approach to Services for Young
People: The Work of the Family and Youth Services Bureau, Forum Brief, June 11, 1999.
CRS-22
1980s-Present: Current Youth Programs
Current federal youth policy has resulted from the piecemeal creation of
programs across several areas of social policy. Many of the youth-focused programs
that trace their history to the War on Poverty continue today, and several new
programs, spread across several agencies, have been created. (While the Family and
Youth Services Bureau was created to provide leadership on youth issues, it
administers a small number of youth programs: the Runaway and Homeless Youth
program, the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, and the Abstinence
Education program.) Federal youth policy today also includes recent initiatives to
promote positive youth development and increase coordination between federal
agencies that administer youth-focused programs.
Appendix Table A-2 provides an overview of 45 major federal programs for
youth in
five policy areas discussed above — job training and workforce
development,
education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services,
and public
health. The table includes the programs’ authorizing legislation and US
code section,
objectives, FY2006 and FY2007 funding levels and the requested
FY2008 funding
levels, agency with jurisdiction, and targeted at-risk youth
population.63 The 45
programs were selected based upon their objectives to serve
vulnerable youth
primarily between the ages of 10 to 24, or to research this
population. The CRS
contributors to Table A-2, their contact information, and CRS
reports on some of the
programs are listed in Table A-3.
As enacted, the programs are intended to provide vulnerable youth with the
opportunities to develop skills and abilities that will assist them in adolescence and
during the transition to adulthood. Congress has allocated funding to these programs
for a number of services and activities, including conflict resolution; counseling;
crime/violence prevention; gang intervention; job training assistance; mentoring;
parental/family intervention; planning and program development; and research and
evaluation. The programs differ in size, scope, and funding authorization levels and
type (mandatory vs. discretionary).
The list is not exhaustive and may omit programs that serve the targeted youth
population. Two major block grant programs — the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families Program (TANF) and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) —
are not included because they do not provide dedicated funding for youth activities.
However, states can choose to use TANF and SSBG funds for such purposes. TANF
law permits states to use block grant fund to provide services to recipient families
and other “needy” families (defined by the state) so long as the services are expected
to help lead to independence from government services or enable needy families to
care for children at home. States may also provide services to non-needy families if
they are directed at the goals of preventing and reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies
or encouraging the formation of two-parent families. SSBG provides funding to
assist states to provide a range of social services to adults and children, and each state
determines what services are provided and who is eligible. Youth-focused categories
of services that can be funded through the SSBG include education and training
63
The FY2008 funding levels will be updated when the final figures become available.
CRS-23
services to improve knowledge or daily living skills and to enhance cultural
opportunities; foster care services for children and older youth; independent and
transitional living services; pregnancy and parenting services for young parents; and
special services for youth involved in or at risk of involvement with criminal
activity.64
Job Training and Workforce Development. The federal government
funds four major job training and workforce development programs for youth: Job
Corps, Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth Activities, YouthBuild, and Youth
Conservation Corps.65 These programs (except for the Youth Conservation Corps)
are administered by the Department of Labor and target low-income youth ages 16
to 24 who require additional assistance in meeting their vocational goals. Job Corps
is the largest of these programs, with centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.
Program training consists of career preparation, development, and transition;
academic initiatives; and character building. Job Corps has been evaluated positively
by Mathematica, in 1982 and 2001.66 The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998
(P.L. 105-220) reauthorized the program through FY2003, although annual
appropriations have continued funding through FY2007.
The Workforce Investment Act also established WIA Youth Activities to fund
employment training and academic support services for both youth in school and
school dropouts ages 14 to 21. Eligible youth must be low-income and either
deficient in basic literacy skills, a school dropout, homeless, a runaway, foster child,
a parent, an offender, or an individual who needs additional assistance to complete
an educational program or secure employment. Youth councils of local Workforce
Investment Boards (WIBs) advise the boards about youth activities. WIBs are
certified by the state to coordinate the workforce development activities of a
particular area through a local workforce investment system.67
Created by the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990
(P.L. 101-625), YouthBuild has many of the same educational and vocational
objectives as those established under Job Corps and WIA Youth Activities.
YouthBuild participants ages 16 to 24 work toward their GED or high school
diploma while learning job skills by building affordable housing. The program,
formerly in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, was made part
of WIA, administered by DOL, under the YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2006 (P.L.
64
A state-by-state expenditure data report for these and other categories of services is
available at [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/docs/reports.html]
65
For additional information on Job Corps and WIA Youth Activities, see CRS Report
RL33687, The Workforce Investment Act (WIA): Program-by-Program Overview and
FY2007 Funding of Title I Training Programs, by Blake Alan Naughton and Ann Lordeman.
66
Peter Z. Schochet, John Burghardt, and Steven Glazerman, Does Job Corps Work?:
Summary of the National Job Corps Study, Mathematica, June 2001, available at
[http://wdr.doleta.gov/opr/fulltext/01-jcsummary.pdf].
67
The 109th Congress considered legislation (H.R. 27) to make the Youth Councils optional.
For additional information, see CRS Report RL32778, The Workforce Investment Act of
1998 (WIA): Reauthorization of Job Training Programs in the 109th Congress, by Blake
Alan Naughton and Ann Lordeman.
CRS-24
109-281). Finally, the Youth Conservation Corps, established in 1970 by the Youth
Conservation Corps Act (P.L. 91-378) and administered by the Departments of
Agriculture and Interior, targets youth ages 15 to 18 of all backgrounds to work on
projects that conserve natural resources.
Education. Most federal education programs for vulnerable youth are
authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and the
Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, administered by the U.S. Department of
Education. The ESEA provides the primary source of federal funds to K-12
education programs. The legislation’s purpose, from its original enactment in 1965
to the present, is, in part, to provide supplementary educational and related services
to educationally disadvantaged children who attend schools serving relatively lowincome areas. The Higher Education Act is the source of grant, loan, and work-study
assistance to help meet the costs of postsecondary education. The act also supports
programs by providing incentives and services to disadvantaged youth to help
increase their secondary or postsecondary educational attainment. Separate legislation
authorizes additional education programs serving youth with disabilities and
homeless youth.
Programs Authorized by Title I of the ESEA. Title I of ESEA provides
most of the funding for programs that serve disadvantaged youth, and was most
recently reauthorized and amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of
2001 (P.L. 107-110).
Title I-A (Education for the Disadvantaged Program) is the largest federal
elementary and secondary education program, with funds provided to approximately
15.8 million (34% of all) pupils.68 Title I-A grants fund supplementary educational
and related services to low-achieving and other pupils attending schools with
relatively high concentrations of pupils from low-income families. The NCLBA
expanded Title I-A provisions requiring participating states to adopt content and
pupil performance standards, and assessments linked to these; and to take specified
actions with respect to low-performing schools and local education agencies (LEAs).
Title I-C (Migrant Education Program) provides formula grants to state education
agencies (SEAs) for the development of programs targeted to migrant students and
Title I-D (Neglected, Delinquent, or at Risk of Dropping Out Program) gives funding
to LEAs and SEAs to meet the special educational needs of youth in institutions and
correctional facilities for neglected and delinquent youth, as well as youth at risk of
dropping out. Finally, Title I-H (High School Dropout Program) targets grants to
schools that serve grades 6 to 12 and have annual dropout rates that are above the
state average as well as middle schools that feed students into such schools.
Other ESEA Programs. Titles III and IV of the ESEA also target
disadvantaged youth. Title III (English Language Acquisition Program) provides
grant funding to states to ensure that limited English proficient (LEP) children and
68
For additional information, see CRS Report RL31284, K-12 Education: Highlights of the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), coordinated by Wayne C. Riddle and CRS
Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended: A Primer,
by Wayne C. Riddle and Rebecca R. Skinner.
CRS-25
youth, including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency. The
NCLBA has given SEAs and LEAs great flexibility in designing and administering
instructional programs, while at the same time foocusing greater attention on the
achievement of English proficiency. Title IV-A (Safe and Drug-Free Schools
Program) supports the efforts of SEAs and LEAs to prevent student violence in and
around schools and the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Program activities
include education and counseling; training of school personnel; and family,
community, and emergency activities.
Title IV-B (21st Century Community Learning Centers program) provides
competitive grants to LEAs for academic and other after-school programs. The
purpose of the program is to provide opportunities for academic enrichment to help
students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds, meet local and state
academic achievement standards and reinforce their regular academic instruction.
Programs Authorized Under HEA. Foremost among Higher Education Act
programs targeted to low-income, college-bound youth are Trio and GEAR UP.69
The Migrant High School Equivalency program is another key component of the
HEA.
Trio Programs. Trio programs are designed to assist students from
disadvantaged backgrounds to pursue higher education and to complete their postsecondary studies.70 Five Trio programs provide direct services to students and two
provide indirect services.71 The five primary programs are: Talent Search, Upward
Bound, Educational Opportunity Centers, Student Support Services, Ronald E.
McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement, and. Each of these programs is designed
to intervene at various points along the education continuum.
Talent Search, authorized under the original HEA legislation, encourages youth
who have completed at least five years of elementary education with college potential
to complete high school and enter postsecondary education; to encourage dropouts
to reenter school; and to disseminate information about available postsecondary
educational assistance. Upward Bound projects seek to motivate middle school and
high school students to succeed in postsecondary education through instruction and
counseling, among other activities.
Educational Opportunity Centers provide information to prospective
postsecondary students regarding available financial aid and academic assistance, and
help them apply to college. Student Support Services projects are intended to
69
For additional information, see CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR-UP Programs:
Status and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
70
The precise definition of disadvantaged varies between the programs. It generally refers
to individuals who are low-income, first-generation college students, or disabled.
71
These two programs are the Staff Development program and Dissemination Partnership
Grants program. The Staff Development program supports training of current and
prospective Trio staff. The Dissemination Partnership Grants funds partnerships with
institutions of higher education or community organizations not receiving Trio funds but
that serve first-generation and low-income college students.
CRS-26
improve college students’ retention and graduation rates, and improve transfer rates
from two-year to four-year colleges through instruction; exposure to career options;
mentoring; and assistance in graduate admissions and financial aid processes. In
selecting grantees, the Secretary of Education considers an institution’s efforts to
provide participants with aid sufficient to meet full financial needs and to constrain
student debt. Finally, the Robert E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement program
prepares disadvantaged students for post-doctoral study through seminars, research
opportunities, summer internships, tutoring, mentoring, and exposure to cultural
events and academic programs.
GEAR UP. Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate
Program (GEAR UP), a program not part of the TRIO array of programs, was added
to the HEA by the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 (P.L.105-244).
GEAR UP seeks to increase disadvantaged students’ secondary school completion
and postsecondary enrollment by providing support services. GEAR UP differs from
Trio in two key aspects: the program (1) serves a cohort of students from seventh
grade to their first year of college and (2) assures students of the availability of
financial aid to meet college costs. States or partnerships (schools and at least two
other entities, such as community organizations and state agencies) are eligible for
funding. Any funded state or partnership must provide comprehensive mentoring,
tutoring, counseling, outreach, and support services to participating students.
Participating states are also required to establish or maintain a postsecondary college
scholarship for participants; partnerships are permitted to include a scholarship
component.
Migrant High School Equivalency Program. The Migrant High School
Equivalency Program, authorized under HEA, funds institutions of higher education
(or private non-profitsnonprofits in cooperation with institutions of higher education) to recruit
and provide academic and support services to students who lack a high school
diploma and whose parents are engaged in migrant and other seasonal farmwork.
The purpose of the program is to assist students to obtain a high school equivalency
diploma and gain employment, or to attend college or another postsecondary
education or training program.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, is
the major statute that provides federal funding for the education of children and youth
with disabilities.72 Part B of the act includes provisions for the education of schoolaged children. As a condition for the receipt of funds states must provide “free
appropriate public education” to youth as old as 21 (age may vary depending on state
law). This term refers to the right of all children with disabilities to receive an
education and related services that meet state curriculum requirements, at no costs
to parents. Appropriateness is defined according to the child’s individualized
education plan (IEP) which delineates the special instruction the child should receive
and his or her educational goals.
72
For additional information, see CRS Report RS22138, Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA): Overview of P.L. 108-446, by Nancy Lee Jones and Richard N.
Apling.
CRS-27
Education of Homeless Children. The McKinney-Vento Act (P.L 10077), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, authorizes the Department of
Education to fund LEAs to provide homeless children and youth comparable
educational services. With certain exceptions for health and safety emergencies (and
for schools permitted under a “grandfather” clause), states are prohibited from using
funds for either a separate school or separate program within the school.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Department of Justice
coordinates federal activities and administers programs relating to the treatment of
juvenile offenders and the prevention of juvenile delinquency. These programs
include those enacted under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.73 The Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was first enacted in 1974 (P.L. 90415) and was most recently reauthorized in 2002 by the 21st Century Department of
Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273). Its provisions are currently
authorized through FY2007. The JJDPA as originally enacted had three main
components: it created a set of institutions within the federal government that were
dedicated to coordinating and administering federal juvenile justice efforts; it
established grant programs to assist the states with setting up and running their
juvenile justice systems; and it promulgated core mandates that states had to adhere
to in order to be eligible to receive grant funding. While the JJDPA has been
amended several times over the past thirty years, it continues to feature the same
three components. The major components of the JJDPA are discussed below.
State Formula Grants.The JJDPA authorizes OJJDP to make formula grants
to states which can be used to fund the planning, establishment, operation,
coordination, and evaluation of projects for the development of more effective
juvenile delinquency programs and improved juvenile justice systems. Funds are
allocated annually among the states on the basis of relative population of people
under the age of eighteen, and states must adhere to certain core mandates in order
to be eligible for funding.
Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grants. This is a discretionary
grant program and funding can be used to carry out projects designed to prevent
juvenile delinquency. Grant funding is allocated to eligible states based on the
proportion of their population that is under the age of 18. Funding for this grant
program has not been appropriated to date.
Juvenile Mentoring Program. This grant program was repealed in 2002 by
the 21st Century Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (P.L. 107-273); however,
it has continued to receive appropriations each subsequent fiscal year. These grants
73
This section was prepared by CRS Analyst Blas Nuñez-Neto. For an expanded discussion
of juvenile justice legislation and issues, please see CRS Report RL33097, Juvenile Justice:
Legislative History and Current Legislative Issues, by Blas Nuñez-Neto.
CRS-28
could be awarded to local educational agencies (in partnership with public or private
agencies) to establish and support mentoring programs.
Part E: Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New
Initiatives and Programs (Challenge Grants). The Challenge Grants program
authorizes OJJDP to make grants to state, local, and Indian governments and private
entities in order to carry out programs that will develop, test, or demonstrate
promising new initiatives that may prevent, control, or reduce juvenile delinquency.
Title V Community Prevention Block Grants. The Community Prevention
Block Grant program authorizes OJJDP to make grants to states, that are then
transmitted to units of local government, in order to carry out delinquency prevention
programs for juveniles who have come into contact with, or are likely to come into
contact with, the juvenile justice system.
Social Services. The major social service programs to assist at-risk youth are
authorized under the Social Security Act, as amended, and are administered by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.74
Foster Care Program and Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program (CFCIP). Title IV-E of the Social Security Act authorizes the federal
foster care program.75 Under this program, a state may seek federal funds for partial
reimbursement of the room and board costs needed to support eligible children who
are neglected, abused, or who, for some other reason, cannot remain in their own
homes. More than half a million children are in foster care in the United States on
any given day of the year and a little less than half of these (roughly 46% of the daily
caseload) are estimated as eligible for federal or Title IV-E foster care support. To
be eligible for Title IV-E, a child must be in the care and responsibility of the state
and 1) the child must meet income/assets tests and family structure rules in the home
he/she was removed from;76 2) have specific judicial determinations made related to
reasons for the removal and other aspects of his/her removal and placement; and 3)
be placed in an eligible licensed setting with an eligible provider(s).
74
Two additional child welfare programs, Court Appointed Special Advocates and
Children’s Advocacy Centers, are discussed in the chart below (see pp. 69-70). The
. The programs are
administered by the U.S. Department of Justice.
75
For additional information, see CRS Report RL31242, Child Welfare: Federal Program
Requirements for States, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
76
With an exception, discussed below, the income and asset tests, as well as family
structure/living arrangement rules are identical to the federal /state rules that applied to the
now-defunct cash aid program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), as they
existed on July 16, 1996. Under the prior law AFDC program, states established specific
AFDC income rules (within some federal parameters). The federal AFDC asset limit was
$1,000, however, P.L. 106-169 raised the allowable counted asset limit to $10,000 for
purposes of determining Title IV-E eligibility. In addition to meeting the income/asset
criteria in the home from which he/she was removed, a child must meet the AFDC family
structure/living arrangement rules. Those rules granted eligibility primarily to children in
single-parent families (parents are divorced, separated, or never-married and one spouse is
not living with the child; or the parent is dead). In some cases a child in a two-parent family
may be eligible (if one parent meets certain unemployment criteria).
CRS-29
The federal government has established certain requirements related to state
provision of foster care that are applicable to all children and youth in foster care.
These include that a state has a written case plan detailing, among other things, where
the child is placed and what services are to be provided to ensure that a permanent
home is re-established for the child. Further, for each child in foster care, this plan
must be reviewed on a regular basis, including a review by a judge no less often than
every 12 months. For many youth who enter foster care, returning to their parents is
the way permanence is re-established. For some youth, however, it is not safe or
possible to reunite with their parents. In those cases states must work to find adoptive
parents or legal guardians who can provide a permanent home for these youth.
Foster youth who reach the “age of majority” (18 years in most states) and who
have not been reunited with their parents or placed with adoptive parents or guardians
are said to “emancipate” or “age out” of foster care. The Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program, created in 1999 (P.L. 106-169), required states to provide
independent living services for youth until their 21st birthday and those of any age in
foster care who are expected to leave care without placement in a permanent family.77
Services may consist of educational assistance, vocational training, mentoring,
preventive health activities, and counseling. States may dedicate as much as 30% of
their program funding toward room and board for youth ages 18 through 20. A
separate component of the CFCIP — the Education and Training Vouchers program
— was established in 2002 (P.L. 107-133) to provide vouchers to youth eligible for
the CFCIP and youth adopted from foster care after 16 years of age. The vouchers are
available for the cost of attendance at an institution of higher education, as defined
by the Higher Education Act of 1965.78 Only youth receiving a voucher at age 21
may continue to participate in the voucher program until age 23.
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program. The Mentoring Children of
Prisoners Program was authorized in 2002 (P.L. 107-133) to provide children and
youth whose parents are imprisoned with free mentoring and support services.79 The
purpose of the program is to give guidance to youth and to help youth reconnect with
their parents after they are released. Public and private entities (including state or
local governments, tribal governments, and community and faith-based groups) are
eligible to apply for three-year grants to establish or expand and operate mentoring
programs. The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288)
also authorized HHS to enter into an agreement with a national mentoring support
organization to operate a demonstration project that will test the efficacy of vouchers
as a method for delivering mentoring services.
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program. The Runaway and Homeless
Youth Program, established in 1974 under Title III of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act, is comprised of three components — the Basic Center
77
For additional information, see CRS Report RS22501, Child Welfare: Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP), by Adrienne Fernandes.
78
79
See Sections 102 and 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
For additional information, see CRS Report RL32633, Mentoring Programs Funded by
the Federal Government Dedicated to Disadvantaged Youth: Issues and Activities, by Edith
Fairman-Cooper.
CRS-30
Program (BCP), Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach Program
(SOP).80 These programs are designed to provide services to runaway and homeless
youth outside of the law enforcement, juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental
health systems. Services include temporary and long-term shelter, counseling
services, and referrals to social service agencies, among other supports. The funding
streams for the Basic Center Program and Transitional Living Program were separate
until Congress consolidated them in 1999 (P.L. 106-71). Together, the two programs
— along with other program activities — are known as the Consolidated Runaway
and Homeless Youth Program.81 Although the Street Outreach Program is a
separately funded component, SOP services are coordinated with those provided by
the BCP and TLP.
Public Health. Public health programs for vulnerable youth are concentrated
in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families (ACF) and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA). These programs address youth mental health, substance
abuse, teen pregnancy prevention, and support for pregnant and parenting teens.
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. SAMSHA is organized
into three units: the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), the Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
(CSAP). Collectively, the centers administer approximately 13 programs (not all
discussed here or in Table A-2) for youth ages 10 to 21 (and up to 25 for some
programs). The programs primarily target youth with serious emotional disturbances
(SED) and youth at-risk of abusing drugs and alcohol.
CMHS. Suicide prevention activities are funded by SAMHSA’s Campus
Suicide Prevention Grant Program and State-Sponsored Youth Suicide Prevention
and Early Intervention Program (collectively known as the Garrett Lee Smith
Memorial Act Suicide Prevention Program). The campus grant program funds
services for all students (including those with mental health problems and substance
abuse that makes them vulnerable to suicide), while the state-sponsored program
supports statewide and tribal activities to develop and implement youth suicide
prevention and intervention strategies.82
The Comprehensive Mental Health Services for Children with SED program
provides community-based systems of care for children and adolescents with serious
emotional disturbances and their families. The program aims to ensure that services
are provided collaboratively across youth-serving systems (such as schools and foster
80
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics, Programs, and Emerging Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
81
Other program activities include a national communications system for runaway youth and
their families, logistical support for grantee organizations, HHS’s National Clearinghouse
on Families and Youth, demonstrations, and the administration of the management
information system that tracks data on runaway and homeless youth, known as NEORHYMIS.
82
Other SAMSHA funds are made available for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
and training to organizations and individuals developing suicide prevention programs.
CRS-31
care placements) and that each youth receives an individual service plan developed
with the participation of the family (and, where appropriate, the youth) to meet the
mental health needs of that youth. A second program, the National Child Traumatic
Stress Initiative, was created to establish a national network that provides services
and referrals for children and adolescents who have experienced traumatic events.
CSAT. The Assertive Adolescent and Family Treatment Program provides
grants to states to address gaps in substance abuse services for youth. The purpose
of the program is to use proven family-centered practices to treat drug addicted
youth. This treatment model focuses on making families and primary caregivers part
of the treatment process based on the belief that their inclusion increases the
likelihood of successful treatment and reintegration of adolescents into their
communities. Another program that provides treatment for youth who are drug
dependent is the Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts. This program targets juvenile
offenders (pre-adjudicated or adjudicated status, or post-detention), and provides
substance abuse treatment, wrap-around services supporting substance abuse
treatment, and case management. A judge oversees the drug treatment program and
may allow the youth to avoid (further) penalties for their delinquent behavior.
CSAP. The Strategic Prevention Framework State Infrastructure Grant
provides funding to states to implement strategies for preventing substance and
alcohol abuse among adolescents and adults. The grant implements a five-step
process: 1) conduct a community needs assessment; 2) mobilize and/or build
capacity; 3) develop a comprehensive strategic plan; 4) implement evidence-based
prevention programs and infrastructure development activities; and 5) monitor
process and evaluate effectiveness. CSAP also administers, in cooperation with the
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Drug-Free Communities
Support program (see below).
Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Support Programs. The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services administers research and education
programs to reduce teen pregnancy or to provide care services for pregnant and
parenting adolescents.83 Two education programs — Abstinence Education Grants
and Community-Based Abstinence Education — promote abstinence until marriage
in schools. States may request funding for the Abstinence Education Grants program
when they solicit Maternal and Child Health block grant funds (used for a variety of
health services for women and children, including adolescent pregnancy prevention
activities); this funding must be used exclusively for the teaching of abstinence. Since
FY2000, abstinence-only education for youth ages 12 to 18 has also been funded
through HHS’s Community-Based Abstinence Education program (formerly known
as Special Programs of Regional and National Significance, SPRANS).
In addition to the education programs, HHS sponsors projects to increase
awareness about teen pregnancy and abstinence. The Adolescent Family Life
Demonstration Projects and Research Grants were designed to promote family
83
For additional information, see CRS Report RS20873, Reducing Teen Pregnancy:
Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Programs and CRS Report RS20301,
Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Statistics and Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
CRS-32
involvement in the delivery of services, adolescent premarital sexual abstinence,
adoption as an alternative to early parenting, parenting and child development
education, and comprehensive health, education, and social services geared toward
the healthy development for mother and child. The project program provides
services to youth and the research and evaluation program evaluates the delivery of
those services.
Federal Efforts to Improve Coordination Among
Programs for Vulnerable Youth
Overview
Despite the range of services and activities programs for vulnerable youth, many
of these programs appear to have developed with little attempt to coordinate them in
a policy area or across policy areas. Policymakers and youth advocates argue that
federal agencies must develop mechanisms to improve coordination — defined, at
minimum, as communication and consultation. They argue that coordination is
necessary because of the expansion of programs that serve youth, the increasing
complexity and interrelated nature of public policies that affect youth, the
fragmentation of policy-making among agencies, and the establishment of new policy
priorities that cross older institutional boundaries.84 To address concerns about the
coordination of federal programs, Congress has passed the Tom Osborne Federal
Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365), the YouthBuild Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281),
and the Claude Pepper Young Americans Act (P.L. 101-501); however, of the three,
only the YouthBuild Transfer Act has been funded. The Administration has also
undertaken efforts to coordinate programs around youth topic areas and youth
populations.
Concerns about Coordination of Youth Programs
In addition to the 45 programs described in Table A-2, dozens of other
programs in multiple federal agencies target, even in small part, vulnerable youth.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cataloged 131 programs for atrisk or delinquent youth across 16 agencies in FY1996. GAO defined these youth as
individuals age five to 24 who, due to certain characteristics or experiences, were
statistically more likely than other youth to encounter certain problems — legal,
social, financial, educational, emotional, and health — in the future.85 The White
84
For additional information about rationales for coordination, see CRS Report RL31357,
Federal Interagency Coordinative Mechanisms: Varied Types and Numerous Devices, by
Frederick M. Kaiser. For a discussion of federal efforts to coordinate and integrate various
social service programs, see CRS Report RL32859, The “Superwaiver” Proposal and
Service Integration: A History of Federal Initiatives, by Cheryl Vincent.
85
U.S. General Accounting Office, At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal
Programs Raise Efficiency Questions, GAO/HEHS-96-34, March 1996, at [http://www.gao.
gov/archive/1996/he96034.pdf]. (GAO is now known as the U.S. Government
(continued...)
CRS-33
House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, convened in 2002, compiled a similar
list of over 300 programs for disadvantaged youth (using nearly the same definition
as GAO) in 12 agencies for FY2003 targeting vulnerable youth and youth generally.86
In its October 2003 final report, the task force identified five fundamental concerns
concerns with coordinating
youth programs:
!
Mission Fragmentation: The federal response to disadvantaged
youth is an example of “mission fragmentation” because dozens of
youth programs appear to provide many of the same services and
share similar goals. For example, academic support was identified
as a service provided by 92 programs and mentoring was identified
as a service provided by 123 such programs, in FY2003.
!
Poor Coordination for Sub-Groups of Youth: According to the task
force, the federal government does not coordinate services for
specific groups of youth (i.e., abused/neglected youth, current or
former foster youth, immigrant youth, minority youth, obese youth,
urban youth, and youth with disabilities, among others). The task
force report listed 30 sub-groups of vulnerable youth, with each subgroup receiving services through at least 50 programs administered
by 12 agencies. The report cited that each agency operates their
programs autonomously and is not required to coordinate services
with other agencies.
!
Mission Creep: Known as “mission creep,” multiple agencies are
authorized by broadly-written statute to provide similar services to
the same groups of youth despite having distinct agency goals and
missions. Though youth programs are concentrated in the U.S.
Departments of Education, Health and Human Service, and Justice,
nine other agencies administer at least two youth-focused programs:
Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor,
Transportation, Corporation for National and Community Service,
Defense, Office of Drug Control Policy, and Environmental
Protection Agency.
!
PoorLimited Program Accountability: The extent of overlap among youth
programs and the efficacy of these programs are difficult to
determine because some of them have not been recently assessed
through the Office of Management and Budget’s Program
85
(...continued)
Accountability Office.)
86
The programs provide services such as: academic support; support for adults who work
with youth; after-school programs; AIDS prevention activities; counseling; mental health
services; mentoring; self-sufficiency skills; tutoring; and violence and crime prevention. See
Executive Office of the President, White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final
Report, October 2003, pp. 165-179, at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/
white_house_task_force.pdf]. (Hereafter referencedHereinafter White House Task Force for
Disadvantaged Disadvantaged
Youth Final Report.)
CRS-34
Assessment and Rating Tool (PART) or by an independent program
evaluation. As of FY2003, more than half of the 339 youth-related
programs identified by the task force had not been evaluated within
the last five years. Of those programs that were evaluated, 75%
were evaluated independently and the remaining programs were selfevaluated by the grantees. According to the task force, the quality
of the evaluations was low because most did not randomly assign
some youth to the programs and track their progress against
similarly-situated youth not in the program.
!
Funding Streams that Reduce Accountability: The funding streams
for youth programs affect coordination. Approximately 63% of
youth programs are funded through a block grant or formula grant.
Large categorical and block grant programs — even when federal
allocations are based upon a formula — may minimize program
reporting requirements and decentralize funding decisions to
multiple levels of governmenttheir oversight. More than 300 youth
projects received earmarked appropriations (not necessarily from an
account in a federal youth program) in FY2003, totaling $206.2
million. According to the report, earmarked projects do not have the
same level of accountability as discretionary and mandatory
programs. The report also raised concerns that programs in needy
communities may be overlooked through the earmark process.
Congress has also examined challenges to coordinating programs targeted to
certain groups of youth. In a May 2004 hearing, the Government Reform Committee
examined redundancy and duplication in federal child welfare programs.87
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365)
In response to the concerns raised by the White House Task Force for
Disadvantaged Youth, Congress passed the Tom Osborne Federal Youth
Coordination Act (Title VIII of the Older Americans Act, P.L. 109-365) creating the
Federal Youth Coordination Council, to be chaired by the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. The purpose of the council is twofold:
to improve coordination across federal agencies that administer programs for
vulnerable youth and to assist federal agencies with evaluating these programs.
Table 3 describes the duties established by the council to meet these two goals.
Policymakers and advocates assert that the council can help to improve policy
effectiveness by reducing the duplication of effort and working at cross-purposes,
while integrating distinct but reinforcing responsibilities among relatively
autonomous agencies.88 They argue that the council can improve accountability of
various federal components by consolidating review and reporting requirements.
87
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Redundancy and Duplication
in Federal Child Welfare Programs: A Case Study on the Need for Executive
Reorganization Authority, hearing, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., May 20, 2004 (Washington: GPO,
2004), available at [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/chearings/108hcat1.html].
88
U.S. Congress, House Commitee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on
Select Education, Coordination Among Federal Youth Development Programs, hearing 109th
Cong., 1st sess., July 12, 2005, statements of Rep. Tom Osborne and Marguerite W. Sallee,
Alliance for Youth (Washington: GPO, 2005), available at [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
chearings/109hcat1.html].
CRS-35
Table 3. Duties of the Federal Youth Council, by Goal
Goal: To Improve Coordination
Goal: To Assess Youth Programs
Ensure communication among agencies
administering programs for disadvantaged
youth;
Identify possible areas of overlap or
duplication in the purpose and operation of
programs serving youth and recommending
ways to better facilitate the coordination and
consultation among such programs;
Identify target populations of youth who are
disproportionately at risk and assist agencies
in focusing additional resources on such
youth;
Assist federal agencies, at the request of one
or more agencies, in collaborating on a)
model programs and demonstration projects
focusing on special populations, including
youth in foster care and migrant youth; b)
projects to promote parental involvement; and
c) projects that work to involve young people
in service programs;
Solicit and document ongoing input and
recommendations from a) youth, especially
youth in disadvantaged situations; b) national
youth development experts, researchers,
parents, community-based organizations,
foundations, business leaders, youth service
providers, and teachers; and c) state and local
government agencies.
In coordination with the Federal Interagency
Forum on Child and Family Statistics, assess
a) the needs of youth, especially those in
disadvantaged situations, and those who work
with youth; and b) the quality and quantity of
federal programs offering services, supports,
and opportunities to help youth in their
development;
Recommend quantifiable goals and
objectives for federal programs to assist
disadvantaged youth;
Make recommendations for the allocation
of resources in support of such goals and
objectives;
Develop a plan (that is consistent with the
common indicators of youth well-being
tracked by the Federal Interagency Forum on
Child and Family Statistics) to assist federal
agencies (at the request of one or more such
agencies) coordinate to achieve quantifiable
goals and objectives;
Work with federal agencies a) to promote
high-quality research and evaluation, identify
and replicate model programs and promising
practices, and provide technical assistance
relating to the needs of youth; and b) to
coordinate the collection and dissemination of
youth services-related data and research.
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on the language in P.L. 109365.
Other duties of the council include providing technical assistance to states to
support a state-funded council for coordinating state youth efforts, at a state’s request,
and coordinating with other federal, state, and local coordinating efforts to carry out
its duties.
The law specifies that the council coordinate with three existing interagency
bodies —: the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, the
Interagency Council on Homelessness, and the Coordinating Council on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (The legislation does not describe how the
council should coordinate with these other bodies.) Further, the law requires that the
council provide Congress with an interim report within one year after the council’s
first meeting, as well as a final report not later than two years after the council’s first
meeting. The final report must include 1) a comprehensive list of recent research and
statistical reporting by various federal agencies on the overall well-being of youth;
2) the assessment of the needs of youth and those who serve youth; 3) a summary of
the plan in coordinating to achieve the goals and objectives for federal youth
programs; 4) recommendations to coordinate and improve federal training and
technical assistance, information sharing, and communication among federal
programs and agencies; 5) recommendations to better integrate and coordinate
CRS-36
policies across federal, state, and local levels of government, including any
recommendations the chair determines appropriate for legislation and administrative
actions; 6) a summary of the actions taken by the council at the request of federal
agencies to facilitate collaboration and coordination on youth serving programs and
the results of those collaborations, if available; 7) a summary of the action the council
has taken at the request of states to provide technical assistance; and 8) a summary
of the input and recommendations by disadvantaged youth, community-based
organizations, among others.
Funding was not appropriated to the council for FY2007, and the President’s
FY2008 budget does not request funding for the council. In response to inquiries
from Members of Congress about why HHS did not seek funding for the council in
its FY2008 appropriations request, HHS has said that the Coordinating Council on
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (see below for more discussion), of
which HHS is a member, is beginning to address some of the objectives and goals of
the act.
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L 101-501)
The Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (Title IX of the August F.
Hawkins Human Services Reauthorization Act, P.L. 101-501) shares some of the
same objectives as the Youth Coordination Act, and like that legislation, it was not
funded. The act sought to increase federal coordination among agencies that
administer programs for children and youth, while also enhancing the delivery of
social services to children, youth, and their families through improved coordination
at the state and local levels.89 In its report supporting the act’s coordinating
provisions, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee noted:90
The Committee is concerned that the current system of service is fragmented and
disjointed, making it difficult, if not impossible for children and families who are
being served in one system to access needed services from another. This creates
a situation in which problems of children and families not only go unmet but
undetected and unresolved. Through the inclusion of these proposals, the
Committee hopes to articulate a national commitment to our nation’s children,
youth, and families and to encourage greater cooperation at federal, state, and
local levels.
Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families. The Federal
Council on Children, Youth, and Families was established by the Young Americans
Act to address concerns about the fragmentation and duplication of services for youth
at the federal and local levels. The act provided that the council comprise
representatives from federal agencies and state or local agencies that serve youth,
89
For further discussion of concerns with coordination at the state and local levels and local
initiatives to improve coordination in the early 1990s, see CRS Report 96-369, Linking
Human Services: An Overview of Coordination and Integration Efforts, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem (out of print). The report is available upon request at x7-5700.
90
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Human Services
Reauthorization Act, report to accompany P.L. 101-501, 101th101st Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept.
101-421 101421 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1990), p. 1963.
CRS-37
rural and urban populations; and national organizations with an interest in young
individuals, families, and early childhood. The duties of the council were to include
1) advising and assisting the president on matters relating to the special needs of
young individuals (and submitting a report to the president in FY1992 through
FY1998); 2) reviewing and evaluating federal policies, programs, or other activities
affecting youth and identifying duplication of services for these youth; and 3) making
recommendations to the President and Congress to streamline services, reduce
duplication of services, and encourage coordination of services for youth and their
families at the state and local levels. The act was amended in 1994 (P.L. 103-252)
to require that the council also identify program regulations, practices, and eligibility
requirements that impede coordination and collaboration and make recommendations
for their modifications or elimination.
Though the council was to be funded through FY1998, funding was never
appropriated.
Grants for States and Community Programs. The Young Americans
Act also established grant funding for coordinating resources and providing
comprehensive services to children, youth, and families at the state and local levels.
For states to receive funding, the act required each state to submit a plan discussing
how state and local entities would coordinate developmental, preventative, and
remedial services, among other provisions.
This grant program was never funded.
Youth Build Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281)
The Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth identified several programs, including
YouthBuild, that were located in a federal department whose mission does not
provide a clear and compelling reason for locating them within that agency. As such,
the task force recommended that YouthBuild be transferred from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development to the U.S. Department of Labor
because of DOL’s mission of administering workforce and training programs.91 As
discussed above, the YouthBuild program provides educational services and job
training in construction for low-income youth ages 16 to 24 who are not enrolled in
school. On September 22, 2006 the YouthBuild Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281),
authorizing the transfer of the program from HUD to DOL, was signed into law. The
program is now funded as part of the WIA Youth Activities program.
Federal Initiatives to Improve Coordination
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. The Coordinating Council (Council) on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention was established by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) and is administered by the Department of
Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Council’s
primary functions are to coordinate federal programs and policies concerning juvenile
91
White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final Report, pp. 33-34.
CRS-38
delinquency prevention, unaccompanied juveniles, and missing and exploited
children. The Council is led by the Attorney General and the Administrator of
OJJDP and includes the heads of all the federal agencies that touch on these broad
areas, including the Secretary of Health and Human Services; the Secretary of Labor;
the Secretary of Education; the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; the
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; the Chief Executive Officer
of the Corporation for National and Community Service; and the Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization (now the Commissioner of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement).
In recent years, the Council has broadened its focus to other at-risk youth. The
Council is seeking to implement some of the recommendations made by the Task
Force for Disadvantaged Youth, including 1) improve coordination of mentoring
programs; 2) develop a unified protocol for federal best practices clearinghouses; 3)
build a rigorous and unified disadvantaged youth research agenda; 4) improve data
collection on the well-being of families; 5) increase parents’ involvement in federal
youth programs; 6) target youth in public care; 7) target youth with many risk factors;
and 8) expand mentoring programs to special target groups, among other
recommendations.92 The Council has formed the Federal Mentoring Council around
the issue of mentoring to best determine how agencies can combine resources to
provide training and technical assistance to federally-administered mentoring
programs.93 Chaired by the Corporation for National and Community Service and
Commissioner of FYSB, the Federal Mentoring Council has held a public forum on
mentoring and is now developing a mentoring initiative for young people aging out
of foster care.94
Shared Youth Vision Initiative. In response to the recommendations made
by the Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, the U.S. Departments of Education
(ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice (DOJ), and Labor (DOL), and the
Social Security Administration partnered to improve communication and
collaboration across programs that target at-risk youth groups under an initiative
called the “Shared Youth Vision.”
Together, the agencies have convened an Interagency Work Group and
conducted regional forums in 16 states to develop and coordinate policies and
research on the vulnerable youth population. Representatives from federal and state
agencies in workforce development, education, social services, and juvenile justice
have participated in the forums. The purpose of these forums is to create and
implement plans to improve communication and collaboration between local
organizations that serve at-risk youth. For example, the U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL) has led efforts to promote collaboration between the Runaway and Homeless
Youth Program and the agency’s Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs. The
92
U.S. Department of Justice, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, Minutes from the Quarterly Meeting on November 30, 2006, p. 10, available at
[http://www.juvenilecouncil.gov/meetings.html].
93
Ibid., pp. 8-9.
94
Based on correspondence with ACF staff in April 2007.
CRS-39
DOL has encouraged local and state Workforce Investment Boards to implement the
strategies of the Shared Vision initiative based, in part, on models already
implemented through three WIA programs in California, Oregon, and Washington
that provide employment and educational resources targeted for runaway and
homeless youth.95 In four of the 16 states with regional forums, the Family and
Youth Services Bureau, through the Federal Mentoring Council, has developed four
initiatives around mentoring for youth aging out of the foster care system.96
Partnerships for Youth Transition. HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental
Healthy Services Administration (SAMHSA) and ED’s Office of Special Education
are cosponsoring a four-year program, that began in FY2003, to offer long-term
support to young people between the ages of 14 and 25 with serious emotional
disorders and emerging serious mental illnesses. The program is intended to assist
youth transitioning to the adult system of medical care, while continuing to receive
educational services. One of the program’s goals is to develop models of
comprehensive youth transition services that can be evaluated for their
effectiveness.97
Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative. From FY1999 to
FY2006, HHS, ED, and DOJ have provided joint grant funding for the Safe
Schools/Healthy Students Initiative to reduce violence and drug abuse at schools (K12) and in communities. Local education agencies — in partnership with local law
enforcement, public mental health, and juvenile justice entities — apply for SS/HS
funding. The initiative sponsors projects in schools and communities that 1) provide
a safe school environment; 2) offer alcohol-, other drug -, and violence-prevention
activities and early intervention for troubled students; 3) offer school and community
mental health preventative and treatment intervention programs; 4) offer early
childhood psychosocial and emotional development programs; 5) support and
connect schools and communities; and 6) support safe-school policies.
Examples of programs for youth K through 12th grade include after-school and
summer tutoring programs; recreational activities such as chess club; volunteering;
and coordinated social service and academic activities for youth at risk of engaging
in delinquent behavior, including mental health care services, peer mentoring, and
parent workshops.
Drug-Free Communities Support Program. The Drug-Free Communities
Support Program is administered by SAMSHA and the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy (which has entered into an agreement with OJJDP to
manage the program on behalf of the sub-agency).98 The program awards grants to
95
See notice from Department of Labor to state workforce agencies, available on the DOL
website, available at [http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2176].
96
Based on correspondence with ACF staff in April 2007.
97
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Transition to Adulthood:
SAMHSA Helps Vulnerable Youth, SAMHSA News, vol. XI, no. 1 (2003).
98
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Drug-Free Community Support Program Grants,
(continued...)
CRS-40
community coalitions through a competitive grant award process. The program is
intended to strengthen the capacity of the coalitions to reduce substance abuse among
youth (and adults) and to disseminate timely information on best practices for
reducing substance abuse.
Coordination Around Specific Youth Populations. Federal agencies
have partnered to address the concerns raised in the Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth report about the uncoordinated response to assisting certain sub-groups of
youth.99 The U.S. Departments of Education and Labor are now working together to
assist youth who have dropped out of school. The agencies are working together to
coordinate alternative education, adolescent literacy and numeracy, and enhanced
GED programs funded through WIA to ensure that they comply with the No Child
Left Behind requirements.
ED and DOL, along with HHS and the USDA, have formed an interagency team
to address the educational needs of migrant youth. The team has developed a
proposal for a demonstration project that would provide educational assistance for
migrant youth at various locations along the migrant stream (The migrant stream
refers to the locations migrants frequent during particular seasons. For instance,
migrants along the east coast might work in Florida and North Carolina in the winter,
and Pennsylvania in the summer.) ED, HHS, DOJ, and DOL have also partnered to
improve education and employment outcomes for youth offenders.
Policies to Promote Positive Youth Development
Overview
Some youth advocates argue that expanding programs for youth and providing
mechanisms to coordinate these programs should be part of a larger effort to improve
youth outcomes. This effort builds on the positive youth development approach
(discussed above) that views youth as assets, in contrast to deficit-based models
which focus primarily on specific youth problems.
Federal legislation and initiatives have been framed through the youth
development philosophy with the goal of providing resources and guidance to
communities and youth-focused programs that engage young people in roles as full
participants in the work place, community, and society at large. Major legislation
with a positive youth approach has included the Youth Development Community
Block Grant of 1995 (H.R. 2807/S. 673) and the Younger Americans Act of 2001
(H.R. 17/S. 1005), both of which did not pass out of committee. The Administration
98
(...continued)
available at [http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html].
99
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on
Select Education, Coordination Among Federal Youth Development Programs, hearing,
109th Cong., 1st sess., July 12, 2005, statement of Dr. Michael O’Grady, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, (Washington, DC: GPO), available at [http://www.gpoaccess.
gov/chearings/109hcat1.html].
CRS-41
has promoted the Helping America’s Youth (HAY) initiative to raise awareness
about issues affecting youth and to address these challenges through current federal
programs and an online community action guide. Finally, America’s Promise, a
federally-sponsored program operated by the non-profitnonprofit Alliance for Youth, conducts
and commissions research around positive youth development and recognizes
communities and organizations that promote this philosophy.
Youth Development Community Block Grant
of 1995 (H.R. 2807/S. 673)
The Youth Development Community Block Grant (YDCBG) of 1995 (H.R.
2807/S. 673) proposed to consolidate nearly two dozen federal youth programs
administered by the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and
Justice. The purpose of the legislation was to shift from a system of categorical
programs that targeted the problems of certain sub-populations of youth (i.e.,
pregnant youth, youth abusing drugs) to one that promoted all aspects of youth
development. At hearings on the legislation in the House and Senate, Members of
Congress, community leaders, and youth advocates discussed the need to support
comprehensive community services for youth. J.C. Watts, a co-sponsor of the
legislation, testified:
Because high risk behaviors are often interrelated, programs must consider the
overall development of individual youngsters rather than focusing on one
problem in isolation. Our current system of narrowly defined, categorical
programs is rather like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle scattered over a card table.
The YDCBG puts these pieces together.100
The YDBCG Act did not prescribe specific activities or program types for which
the funds were to be used. Rather, the legislation would have required states to
submit a plan to HHS that outlined their youth development priorities. Funding
would have flowed to local community boards, which would have tailored local
YDCBG programs to community needs, consistent with the goals of these plans.
Funding from the block grant could only supplement, and not supplant, existing
funds for youth development programs and activities.
The block grant was to be based on three equally weighted formula factors: the
proportion of the nation’s total youth (defined as ages 6 to 17) that reside in each
state; proportion of the nation’s poor youth (defined as youth from low-income
families) that reside in each state; and the average incidence of juvenile crime during
the most recent four-year period. This $900 million proposed grant would have been
funded through the programs that were be eliminated, with a 10% overall reduction.
The legislation was referred out of committee in both the House and Senate, but
was not taken up again.
100
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families, Youth Development, hearing, 104th
Cong., 1st sess., September 19, 1996.
CRS-42
Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005)
The goal of the Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005) was to create
a national youth policy that would have funded a network of youth programs through
a central funding source, based loosely on the framework of the Older Americans
Act.101 Similar to its predecessor, the YDCBGA, the Younger Americans Act sought
to provide resources to youth consisting of (1) ongoing relationships with caring
adults; (2) safe places with structured activities; (3) access to services that promote
healthy lifestyles, including those designed to improve physical and mental health;
(4) opportunities to acquire marketable skills and competencies; and (5) opportunities
for community service and civic participation.
If passed, HHS would have distributed block grant funds to states based on a
formula that accounted for their proportion of the nation’s youth ages 10 to 19 and
the proportion of youth receiving a free or reduced-price school lunch. States would
have then distributed funds to local area agencies on youth, which were to be
supervised by community boards comprised of youth, representatives of youthserving organizations, representatives of local elected officials, parents, and leaders
of social and educational institutions in the community. Local youth organizations
could apply to the community service board for funding to carry out program
activities such as character development and ethical enrichment activities; mentoring
activities; provision and support of community youth centers; and nonschool hours,
weekend, and summer programs and camps, among other activities. HHS would
have also set aside funding for evaluations of these programs.
The Younger Americans Act proposed to fund the program at $500 million the
first year, increasing to $2 billion in its fifth year. The legislation did not pass
committee in the House or Senate.
Helping America’s Youth
Helping America’s Youth (HAY) is a national initiative, led by Laura Bush, that
grew from four National Youth Summits that were coordinated and facilitated by
HHS’s Family and Youth Services Bureau. These summits were designed to convene
policymakers, program operators, and youth in disadvantaged situations to explore
national activities across ten federal agencies.
The mission of HAY is to promote positive youth development by raising
awareness about the challenges facing youth and motivating caring adults to connect
with youth.102 The Administration has promoted the initiative through national and
regional forums and online resources. The 2005 White House Conference on
Helping America’s Youth convened researchers, federal youth-serving agencies, and
community and state leaders to discuss challenges facing youth and promote
successful youth programs. Regional forums in Washington, DC, and Denver have
101
The Older Americans Act is the major vehicle for the delivery of social and nutritional
services for older persons.
102
For additional information, see [http://www.helpingamericasyouth.gov/].
CRS-43
also brought together local civic leaders and researchers to discuss the goals of the
initiative. (Laura Bush has also promoted the initiative through site visits to
successful youth programs, such as Father Flanagan’s Boys and Girls Town in
Nebraska and Colonie Youth Court in New York.) In addition to these forums, HAY
provides online assistance to communities. The Community Action Guide is an
online resource to help communities assess their needs and resources and link them
to effective programs to help youth.103 Guide users can input their community
locations and learn about federal resources (i.e., HUD-funded housing units or
SAMSHA-funded programs), local resources (i.e., Boys and Girls Clubs), and the
presence of businesses that sell tobacco and alcohol. The Guide also provides a
primer on tenets of positive youth development (including guidance on how adult
mentors can get involved in the lives of youth) and building community partnerships
between government agencies and community organizations. This tool was created
in partnership with nine federal agencies (HHS, Justice, ED, USDA, Interior, HUD,
Labor, Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Corporation for National and
Community Service).
As part of HAY, the Administration’s Communities Empowering Youth (CEY)
program works to reduce youth violence and to promote positive youth development.
Created in 2005, CEY is administered through HHS’s Compassion Capital Fund. The
Compassion Capital Fund is the key element of the Administration’s faith-based
initiative, announced in January 2001, to expand the use of faith-based and
community group as providers of social services.104 It was created as a discretionary
program in 2002 appropriations law (P.L. 107-116). CEY and other Compassion
Capital Fund initiatives increase the service capacity and skills among faith-based
and community-organizations, and encourage replication of effective service
approaches. In FY2006, the first year funding was awarded for the CEY program,
100 organizations in 38 states and the District of Columbia each received $300,000,
for a total of $30 million (slightly more than half of the Compassion Capital Fund’s
overall budget of $58 million).105 These organizations have a record of addressing
youth violence and directing youth to resources that promote positive youth
development. As CEY recipients, they assist other faith-based and community
organizations that do not receive CEY funding, in four areas: 1) leadership
development, 2) organizational development, 3) program development, and 4)
community engagement.
103
See [http://guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/].
104
For additional information, see CRS Report RS21844, The Compassion Capital Fund:
Brief Facts and Current Development, by Joe Richardson.
105
For a complete list of CEY award recipients, see [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/
2006/ccf_fy_2006_data.pdf].
CRS-44
Alliance for Youth: America’s Promise
America’s Promise is the national program established by the non-profitnonprofit
organization, Alliance for Youth, to promote the Five Promises that attendees at the
Presidents’ Summit for America’s Future (held in Philadelphia in 1997)106
determined to be essential for the success of young people:
!
!
!
!
!
Caring adults who are actively involved in their lives (i.e.,
parents, mentors, teachers, coaches);
Safe places in which to learn and grow;
Healthy start toward adulthood;
Effective education that builds marketable skills; and
Opportunities to help others.107
America’s Promise is funded through a combination of federal and private
funds. The Corporation for National & Community Service, the agency that
administers federal community service programs, provides the federal portion of the
funds. In FY2006, the organization received $4.5 million from the Corporation.
The focus of the Alliance for Youth is to fund research that tracks youth
outcomes, recognize communities that implement best practices in youth
development, and provide financial and other resources to organizations that serve
young people. The organization’s 2006 report —, “Every Child, Every Promise: a
Report on America’s Young People,” ” — correlated the presence of the Five Promises
in young people’s lives with success in adolescence and adulthood. The report
concludes that children who have at least four of the Five Promises are more likely
to be academically successful, civically engaged, and socially competent, regardless
of their race or family income.108
Positive Youth Development State and
Local Collaboration Demonstration Projects
The Family and Youth Services Bureau administers demonstration projects that
promote its mission of providing positive youth development programming. From
FY1998 to FY2003, 13 states received demonstration grants to assess how positive
youth development principles could be integrated into state policies and procedures;
provide training on the positive youth development approach; and identify data to
measure positive youth outcomes. The Bureau has since awarded $3 million in
106
The five surviving presidents (at that time) convened the summit to mobilize Americans
in all sectors to ensure that all youth have adequate resources that will assist them in leading
healthy, productive lives.
107
The organization’s website provides additional information about the Five Promises:
[http://www.americaspromise.org/].
108
America’s Promise: The Alliance for Youth, Every Child, Every Promise: Turning
Failure to Action, p. 4, 2006, available at [http://www.americaspromise.org/uploaded
Files/AmericasPromise/Our_Work/Strategic_Initiatives/Every_Child_Every_
Promise/EC-EP_Documents/MAIN%20REPORT%20DRAFT%2011.1.pdf].
CRS-45
grants to nine (Iowa, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
New York, and Oregon) of the original 13 states to fund collaborative projects
between those states and local jurisdictions and Indian tribes. The purposes of the
projects are to facilitate communication and cooperation among different levels of
government and the non-profitnonprofit sector that provide services to young people; and to
energize local constituencies around the issue of youth development. For example,
one of the projects — in Chicago, Illinois — has forged a community partnership
between the Illinois Department of Social Service, a local youth council, community
center, a local park district, and other community service groups around the issues
of quality education and youth employment.109 The project has planned, raised funds
for, and marketed a career day and a forum for youth and police.
Conclusion
This report provided an overview of the vulnerable youth population and
examined the federal role in supporting these youth. While a precise number of
vulnerable youth cannot be aggregated (and should not be, due to data constraints),
these youth are generally concentrated among seven groups — youth “aging out” of
foster care, runaways and homeless youth, juvenile justice-involved youth, immigrant
youth and youth with limited English proficiency (LEP), youth with physical and
mental disabilities, youth with mental disorders, and youth receiving special
education. Each of these categories is comprised of youth with distinct challenges
and backgrounds; however, many of these youth share common experiences, such as
unstable home and neighborhood environments, coupled with problems in school.
Without protective factors in place, vulnerable youth may have difficulty
transitioning to adulthood. Detachment from the labor market and school — or
disconnectedness — is perhaps the single strongest indicator that the transition has
not been made adequately. Despite the negative forecast for the employment and
education prospects of vulnerable youth, some youth experience positive outcomes
in adulthood. Youth who develop strong cognitive, emotional, and vocational skills,
among other types of competencies, have greater opportunities to reach their goals.
Advocates for youth promote the belief that all youth have assets and can make
valuable contributions to their communities despite their challenges.
The federal government has not developed a single overarching policy or
program to assist vulnerable youth, like the Older Americans Act program for the
elderly. Since the 1960s, a number of programs, many operating in isolation from
others, have worked to address the specific needs (i.e., vocational, educational, social
services, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, and health) of these youth.
More recently, policymakers have taken steps toward a more comprehensive federal
response to the population. The YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2006 moved the
YouthBuild program from HUD to DOL because the program is more aligned with
DOL’s mission of administering workforce and training programs. Also in 2006, the
Tom Obsborne Youth Coordination Act was passed to improve coordination across
federal agencies that administer programs for vulnerable youth and to assist federal
109
For more information, see the Family and Youth Services Bureau page on grantees
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/youthdivision/initiatives/highlights.htm].
CRS-46
agencies with evaluating these programs. The Administration has not introduced
proposals to fund the Federal Youth Coordinating Council, created by the act. Other
coordinating efforts —, such as the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Council and
Shared Youth Vision initiative —, may have the resources and leadership
to create
a more unified federal youth policy, albeit the JJDPC has a primary focus
on juvenile
justice involved youth.
In addition to the Federal Youth Coordination Act, the few youth-targeted acts
over the past ten years have not passed or have passed without full implementation.
The unfunded Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 sought to increase
coordination among federal children and youth agencies by creating a Federal
Council on Children, Youth, and Families that would have streamlined federal youth
programs and advised the president on youth issues. Similarly, federal legislation
reflecting a youth development philosophy, with the goal of providing resources to
youth and engaging young people in their communities, has not been reported out of
committee. The 1995 Youth Development Community Block Grant and 2001
Younger Americans Act would have provided grant funding to the states with the
greatest concentrations of low-income youth to provide resources, such as mentors
and opportunities for community service and civic participation.
Though federal legislation targeted at vulnerable young people has not been
passed or implemented in recent years, current initiatives (Shared Youth Vision,
Helping America’s Youth, and America’s Promise) and collaborations (Safe
Schools/Healthy Students Initiative and the JJDPC) appear to have begun addressing,
even in small measure, the needs of this population.
CRS-47
Appendix: Studies, Federal Programs,
and Relevant CRS Reports and Experts
Table A-1. Studies of Civilian,
Noninstutionalized Disconnected Youth
Title and Year
Author
Major Findings
A Portrait of WellBeing in Early
Adulthood: A
Report of the
William and Floral
Hewlett
Foundation (2003)
Brett Brown,
Kristin
Moore, and
Sharon
Bzosteck,
Child Trends
The Condition of
Education (2005)
John Wirt et
al.
Kids Count (2006)
Annie E.
Casey
Foundation
Reconnecting
Disadvantaged
Young Men (2006)
Peter
Edelman,
Harry J.
Holzer, and
Pual Offner
Major Findings
Disconnected youth label applies to young
adults ages 23 to 27 in the civilian
noninstitutional population.
The study analyzed October 2000 CPS data,
and found that 800,000 or 4.5% of individuals in
this age range were not in school, not in the
labor force, not disabled, and not married.
The Condition of
Education (2005)
John Wirt et
al.
Kids Count (2006)
Annie E.
Casey
Foundation
Reconnecting
Disadvantaged
Young Men (2006)
Peter
Edelman,
Harry J.
Holzer, and
Pual Offner
Disconnected label not applied, however,
the study counted youth 16 to 19 who were out
of school and not working.
About 8% of youth 16 to 19 were not
working or going to school.
From 1986 to 2005, the percentage of out-ofschool and non-working youth 16 to 19 ranged
from 7% to 10%.
Disconnected youth label applies to 16-to-19
year olds not enrolled in school and not working
and to 18-to-24 year olds with no degree beyond
high school not working or attending school.
About 9% of 16-to-19 year olds and 18-to-24
year olds meet the definition of disconnected.
Disconnected youth label applies to 16-to-24
year olds not in school or working for at least
one year.
Over 3.2% of white, nearly 11% of black, and
9% of Hispanic males met this definition.
The rates of disconnectedness were the same
for young women as their male counterparts,
except that black females experienced nearly
half the rate of disconnection (5.4%) as black
males.
Idle youth label applies to 16-to-24 year olds
not in school or working for less than one year.
The rate of idleness for black men (22.8%)
was almost double the rate for Hispanic men
(12.8%) and more than double the rate for white
men (8.7%).
Young
Young women of every racial group
experienced higher rates of idleness than men of
their same race, except for black women.
CRS-48
AppendixTable A-2. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth
(FY2007 budget figures may not be final for some programs,
pending final executive branch interpretation of the Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5))
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
U.S. Department
of Labor
Youth ages 16 to
21 (with
exceptions) who
are either
low-income, basic
skills deficient, a
school dropout,
homeless, a
runaway, or a
foster child, a
parent or an
individual who
requires additional
education,
vocational
training, or
intensive
counseling and
related assistance
to participate
successfully in
regular
schoolwork or to
secure and hold
employment.
Job Training and Workforce Development
Job Corps
Workforce
Investment Act of
1998, as amended
29 U.S.C. §2881
et seq.
To assist eligible
youth who need
and can benefit
from an intensive
workforce
development
program, operated
in a group setting
in residential and
nonresidential
centers, to become
more responsible,
employable, and
productive
citizens.
FY2006: $1.6
billion
FY2007: $1.6
billion
FY2008: $1.5
billion
CRS-49
Program
WIA Youth
Activities
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Workforce
Investment Act of
1998, as amended
29 U.S.C. §2851
et seq.
YouthBuild
CranstonGonzalez National
Affordable
Housing Act of
1990, as amended
29 U.S.C. §2918a
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
To provide
services to eligible
youth seeking
assistance in
achieving
academic and
employment
success, including
the provision of
mentoring,
support services,
training, and
incentives.
FY2006: $941
million
FY2007: $941
million
FY2008: $841
million
U.S. Department
of Labor
Youth ages 14 to
21 who are
low-income and
either deficient in
basic literacy
skills, a school
dropout, homeless,
a runaway, a
foster child,
pregnant, a parent,
an offender, or an
individual who
requires additional
assistance to
complete an
educational
program, or to
secure and hold
employment.
To enable
disadvantaged
youth to obtain the
education and
employment skills
while expanding
the supply of
permanent
affordable housing
for homeless
individuals and
low-income
families.
FY2006: $50
million
FY2007: $50
million
FY2008: $50
million
U.S. Department
of Labor
Youth ages 16 to
24 who are a
member of a
low-income
family, in foster
care, a youth
offender, have a
disability, are a
child of
incarcerated
parents, or a
migrant youth or
a school dropout
(with exceptions).
CRS-50
Program
Youth
Conservation
Corps
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Youth
Conservation
Corps Act of
1970, as amended
16 U.S.C. §1701
et seq.
Objective(s) of
Program
To further the
development and
maintenance of
the natural
resources by
America’s youth,
and in so doing to
prepare them for
the ultimate
responsibility of
maintaining and
managing these
resources for the
American people.
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
No specific
amount
appropriated or
requested. The
Appropriations
Subcommittee on
Interior,
Environment, and
Related Agencies
generally directs
the four agencies
to allocate no less
than a particular
amount to Youth
Conservation
Corps activities
(funding generally
ranges from $1.5
million to $2
million per
agency).
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
U.S. Department
of the Interior
(Bureau of Land
Management, Fish
and Wildlife
Agency, and the
National Park
Service) and U.S.
Department of
Agriculture
(Forest Service)
All youth 15 to 18
years of age
(targets
economically
disadvantaged, atrisk).
CRS-51
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
Education
Title I-A:
Education for the
Disadvantaged
Elementary and
Secondary
Education Act of
1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §6301
et. seq.
Title I-C: Migrant
Education
Elementary and
Secondary
Education Act of
1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §6391
To improve the
educational
achievement of
educationally
disadvantaged
children and
youth, and to
reduce
achievement gaps
between such
pupils and their
more advantaged
peers.
FY2006: $13
billion
FY2007: $13
billion
FY2008: $14
billion
U.S. Department
of Education
Educationally
disadvantaged
children and
youth, in areas
with
concentrations of
children and youth
in low-income
families.
To support high
quality and
comprehensive
educational
programs for
migrant children
and youth.
FY2006: $387
million
FY2007: $387
million
FY2008: $380
million
U.S. Department
of Education
Migrant children
and youth.
CRS-52
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Title I-D:
Prevention and
Intervention
Programs for
Children and
Youths Who Are
Neglected,
Delinquent, or At
Risk
Elementary and
Secondary
Education Act of
1965, as amended
Title I-H: School
Dropout
Prevention
Elementary and
Secondary
Education Act of
1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §64216472 et seq.
20 U.S.C. §6551
et seq.
Title III: English
Language
Acquisition
Elementary and
Secondary
Education Act of
1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §6801
et seq.
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
To meet the
special
educational needs
of children in
institutions and
community day
school programs
for neglected and
delinquent
children and
children in adult
correctional
institutions.
FY2006: $50
million
FY2007: $50
million
FY2008: $50
million
U.S. Department
of Education
Abused/neglected
youth, delinquent
youth, and
juvenile offenders.
To provide for
school dropout
prevention and
reentry and to
raise academic
achievement
levels.
FY2006: $5
million
FY2007: $5
million
FY2008: $0
U.S. Department
of Education
Youth at risk of
dropping out of
school districts
with dropout rates
higher than their
state’s average.
To ensure that
limited English
proficient children
(LEP) and youth,
including
immigrant
children and
youth, attain
English
proficiency.
FY2006: $669
million
FY2007: $669
million
FY2008: $671
million
U.S. Department
of Education
Children and
youth with limited
English
proficiency.
CRS-53
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Title IV-A: Safe
and Drug Free
Schools, Part A,
Subpart 1, State
Grants for Drug
and Violence
Prevention
Elementary and
Secondary
Education Act of
1965, as amended
Title IV-B: 21st
Century Learning
Centers
Elementary and
Secondary
Education Act of
1965, as amended
20 U.S.C.
§§7111-7118
20 U.S.C. §8241
et seq.
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
To prevent
violence in and
around schools
and to strengthen
programs that
prevent the illegal
use of alcohol,
tobacco, and
drugs, involve
parents, and are
coordinated with
related federal,
state, and
community efforts
and resources.
FY2006: $347
million
FY2007: $347
million
FY2008: $100
million
U.S. Department
of Education
All youth; at-risk
youth; school
dropouts.
To create
community
learning centers
that help students
meet state and
local educational
standards, to
provide
supplementary
educational
assistance, and to
offer literacy and
other services to
the families of
participating
youth.
FY2006: $98
million
FY2007: $98
million
FY2008: $98
million
U.S. Department
of Education
Students who
attend highpoverty and lowperforming
schools.
CRS-54
Program
Title VII:
Education of
Homeless
Children
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
McKinney-Vento
Homeless
Assistance Act of
1987, as amended
42 U.S.C.
§§11431-11435
Migrant High
School
Equivalency
Program and
College
Assistance
Programs
Higher Education
Act, as amended
Upward Bound
Higher Education
Act of 1965, as
amended
20 U.S.C. §1070d2
20 U.S.C.
§1070a-13
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
To provide
activities for and
services to ensure
that homeless
children enroll in,
attend, and
achieve success in
school.
FY2006: $62
million (plus $5
million for
hurricane
supplemental)
FY2007: $62
million
FY2008: $62
million
U.S. Department
of Education
Homeless children
and youth in
elementary and
secondary schools,
homeless
preschool
children, and the
parents of
homeless children.
To provide
academic and
support services to
help eligible
migrant youth
obtain their high
school
equivalency
certificate and
move on to
employment or
enrollment in
higher education.
FY2006: $34
million
FY2007: $34
million
FY2008: $34
million
U.S. Department
of Education
Migrant youth
ages 16 to 21.
To increase the
academic
performance of
eligible enrollees
so that such
persons may
complete
FY2006: $310
million
FY2007: $314
million
FY2008: $314
million
U.S. Department
of Education
Low-income
individuals and
potential first
generation college
students between
ages 13 and 19,
and have
CRS-55
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
completed the
eighth grade but
have not entered
the twelfth grade
(with exceptions).
secondary school
and pursue
postsecondary
educational
programs.
Educational
Opportunity
Centers
Higher Education
Act of 1965, as
amended
20 U.S.C.
§1070a-16
Ronald E. McNair
Postbaccalaurete
Achievement
Higher Education
Act of 1965, as
amended
20 U.S.C. §1070a15
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
To provide
information to
prospective
postsecondary
students regarding
available financial
aid and academic
assistance, and
help them apply
for admission and
financial aid.
FY2006: $48
million
FY2007: $47
million
FY2008: $47
million
U.S. Department
of Education
At least two-thirds
of participants in
any project must
be low-income
students who
would be
first-generation
college goers.
They must also be
at least 19 years
old.
To provide grants
to institutions of
higher education
to prepare
participants for
doctoral studies
through
involvement in
research and other
scholarly
activities.
FY2006: $42
million
FY2007: $42
million
FY2008: $44
million
U.S. Department
of Education
Low-income
college students or
underrepresented
students enrolled
in an institution of
higher education.
CRS-56
Program
Student Support
Services
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Higher Education
Act of 1965, as
amended
20 U.S.C.
§1070a-14
Talent Search
Higher Education
Act of 1965, as
amended
20 U.S.C.
§1070a-12
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
To improve
college students’
retention and
graduation rates,
and improve the
transfer rates of
students from
two-year to
four-year colleges.
FY2006: $271
million
FY2007: $272
million
FY2008: $272
million
U.S. Department
of Education
At least two-thirds
of participants in
any project must
be either disabled
individuals or
low-income,
first-generation
college goers. The
remaining
participants must
be low-income, or
first-generation
college goers, or
disabled. Not less
than one-third of
the disabled
participants must
be low-income as
well.
To identify
disadvantaged
youth with
potential for
postsecondary
education; to
encourage them in
continuing in and
graduating from
secondary school
and in enrolling in
programs of
postsecondary
education; to
FY2006: $150
million
FY2007: $144
million
FY2008: $143
million
U.S. Department
of Education
Project
participants must
be between 11 and
27 years old
(exceptions
allowed), and
two-thirds must be
low-income
individuals who
are also potential
first-generation
college students.
CRS-57
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
U.S. Department
of Education
Low-income
students and
students in
high-poverty
schools.
publicize the
availability of
student financial
aid; and to
increase the
number of
secondary and
postsecondary
school dropouts
who reenter an
educational
program.
Gaining Early
Awareness and
Readiness for
Undergraduate
Programs (GEARUP)
Higher Education
Act of 1965, as
amended
20 U.S.C.
§1070a-21-1070a28
To provide
financial
assistance to lowincome
individuals to
attend an
institution of
higher education
and support
eligible entities in
providing
counseling,
mentoring,
academic support,
outreach, and
supportive
services to
students at risk of
dropping out of
school.
FY2006: $303
million
FY2007: $303
million
FY2008: $303
million
CRS-58
Program
Individuals with
Disabilities
Education Act,
Part B Grant to
States
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Education for All
Handicapped
Children Act of
1975, as amended
(currently known
as the Individuals
with Disabilities
Education Act)
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
To provide a free
appropriate
education to all
children with
disabilities.
FY2006: $10.6
billion
FY2007: $10.8
billion
FY2008: $10.5
billion
U.S. Department
of Education
School-aged
children and youth
with disabilities,
up to age 21
(pursuant to state
law).
To increase the
capacity of state
and local
governments to
support the
development of
more effective
education,
training, research,
and other
programs in the
area of juvenile
delinquency and
programs to
improve the
juvenile justice
system (e.g.,
community-based
services for the
prevention and
control of juvenile
FY2006: $80
million
FY2007: $79
million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ
FY2008
Performance
Budget proposes
to consolidate this
program with
other juvenile
justice and child
abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a
program known as
the Child Safety
and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
U.S. Department
of Justice
Delinquent youth,
juvenile offenders,
and at-risk youth.
20 U.S.C. §1400
et seq.
Juvenile Justice
State Formula
Grants
Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency
Prevention Act of
1974, as amended
42 U.S.C. §563133
CRS-59
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
delinquency,
group homes, and
halfway houses).
Juvenile
Delinquency
Prevention Block
Grant Program
21st Century
Department of
Justice
Reauthorization
Act of 2002
42 U.S.C. 56515656
Gang Free
Schools and
Communities Community Based
Gang Intervention
Currently
Unauthorized.
This program was
repealed by P.L.
107-273 but
continues to be
appropriated.
To provide
funding for
programs that
prevent juvenile
delinquency,
including, but not
limited to:
treatment for atrisk youth;
educational
projects and
supportive
services;
counseling,
training, and
mentoring
projects;
community-based
programs; and
dependency
treatment
programs.
FY2006: $0
FY2007: $0
FY2008: $0
U.S. Department
of Justice
Delinquent youth,
juvenile offenders,
gang members,
and at-risk youth.
To prevent and
reduce the
participation of
juveniles in the
activities of gangs
that commit
crimes (e.g.,
FY2006: $25
million
FY2007: $25
million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ
FY2008
U.S. Department
of Justice
At-risk youth,
delinquent youth,
juvenile offenders,
gang members,
and youth under
age 22.
CRS-60
Program
Juvenile
Mentoring
Program (JUMP)
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Currently
Unauthorized.
This program was
repealed by P.L.
107-273 but
continues to be
appropriated.
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
programs to
prevent youth
from entering
gangs and to
prevent high
school students
from dropping out
of school and
joining gangs).
Performance
Budget proposes
to consolidate this
program with
other juvenile
justice and child
abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a
program known as
the Child Safety
and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
To develop,
implement, and
pilot test
mentoring
strategies and/or
programs targeted
for youth in the
juvenile justice
system and in
foster care, and
youth who have
reentered the
juvenile justice
system (e.g., Big
Brothers/Big
Sisters program).
FY2006: $10
million
FY2007: $10
million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ
FY2008
Performance
Budget proposes
to consolidate this
program with
other juvenile
justice and child
abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a
program known as
the Child Safety
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
U.S. Department
of Justice
Delinquent youth,
juvenile offenders,
and foster youth.
CRS-61
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
U.S. Department
of Justice
At-risk youth,
delinquent youth,
juvenile offenders,
gang members,
and at-risk youth.
and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
State Challenge
Activities, Part E
Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency
Prevention Act of
1974, as amended
42 U.S.C. §5665
To provide states
with funding to
carry out
programs that will
develop, test, or
demonstrate
promising new
initiatives that
may prevent,
control, or reduce
juvenile
delinquency.
FY2006: $106
million
FY2007: $105
million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ
FY2008
Performance
Budget proposes
to consolidate this
program with
other juvenile
justice and child
abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a
program known as
the Child Safety
and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
CRS-62
Program
Title V Incentive
Grants for Local
Delinquency
Prevention
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency
Prevention Act of
1974, as amended
42 U.S.C. §478185
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
To fund
delinquency
prevention
programs and
activities for atrisk youth and
juvenile
delinquents,
including, among
other things:
substance abuse
prevention
services; child and
adolescent health
and mental health
services;
leadership and
youth
development
services; and job
skills training.
FY2006: $65
million
FY2007: $64
million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ
FY2008
Performance
Budget proposes
to consolidate this
program with
other juvenile
justice and child
abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a
program known as
the Child Safety
and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
U.S. Department
of Justice
Delinquent youth,
juvenile offenders,
at-risk youth.
CRS-63
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Federal support
available for
children and youth
who are removed
from low-income
families (meeting
specific criteria)
for their own
protection.
(However, federal
protections related
to case planning
and management
are available to all
children/youth
who are in foster
care.)
Social Services
Foster Care
Social Security
Act of 1935
(Sections 471 and
472), as amended
42 USC §§671,
672
To assist states in
providing foster
care for eligible
children, including
maintenance
payments (i.e.
room and board)
and case planning
and management
for children and
youth in out-ofhome placements.
FY2006: $4.7
billion
FY2007: $4.8
billion (Based on
HHS, ACF
Justification of
Estimates for
FY2008, and
reflects expected
“lapse” of funds
which were
expected to be
necessary in the
FY2007 budget
justifications).
FY2008: $4.6
million
CRS-64
Program
Chafee Foster
Care
Independence
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Social Security
Act of 1935
(Section 477), as
amended
42 U.S.C. §677
Chafee Foster
Care
Independence
Program
Education and
Training Vouchers
Social Security
Act of 1935,
(Section 477), as
amended
42 U.S.C. §677
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
To assist states
and localities in
establishing and
carrying out
programs designed
to assist foster
youth likely to
remain in foster
care until age 18
and youth ages 18
- 21 who have left
the foster care
system in making
the transition to
self-sufficiency.
FY2006: $140
million
FY2007: $140
million
FY2008: $140
million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Current or former
foster care youth
under age 21.
To make
education and
training vouchers
available for youth
who have aged out
of foster care or
who have been
adopted from the
public foster care
system after age
16.
FY2006: $46
million
FY2007: $46
million
FY2008: $46
million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Older foster care
youth and youth
adopted from
foster care at age
16 or older.
CRS-65
Program
Basic Center
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Runaway and
Homeless Youth
Act of 1974, as
amended
42 U.S.C.§5701 et
seq.
Transitional
Living Program
for Older
Homeless Youth
Runaway and
Homeless Youth
Act of 1974, as
amended
42 U.S.C. §5701
et seq.
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
To establish or
strengthen locally
controlled
community-based
programs outside
of the law
enforcement, child
welfare, mental
health, and
juvenile justice
systems that
address the
immediate needs
of runaway and
homeless youth
and their families.
FY2006: $48
million
FY2007: $48
million
FY2008: $48
million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Runaway and
homeless youth
and their families.
To establish and
operate
transitional living
projects for
homeless youth,
including pregnant
and parenting
youth.
FY2006: $40
million
FY2007: $40
million
FY2008: $40
million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Runaway and
homeless youth
ages 16-21.
CRS-66
Program
Street Outreach
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Runaway and
Homeless Youth
Act of 1974, as
amended
42 U.S.C. §5701
et seq.
Mentoring
Children of
Prisoners
Social Security
Act of 1935
(Section 439), as
amended
42 U.S.C. §629i
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
To provide grants
to non-profit
agencies to
provide streetbased services to
runaway,
homeless, and
street youth, who
have been
subjected to, or
are at risk of being
subjected to
sexual abuse,
prostitution, or
sexual
exploitation.
FY2006: $15
million
FY2007: $15
million
FY2008: $15
million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Runaway and
homeless youth
who live on or
frequent the
streets.
To make
competitive grants
to applicants in
areas with
significant
numbers of
children of
prisoners to
support the
establishment and
operation of
programs that
provide mentoring
FY2006: $50
million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth of
imprisoned
parents.
FY2007: $50
million
FY2008: $50
million
CRS-67
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
FY2006: $12
million
U.S. Department
of Justice
Abused and
neglected children
and youth.
services for these
children, and to
demonstrate the
potential
effectiveness of
vouchers as
delivery
mechanisms for
these mentoring
services.
Court Appointed
Special Advocates
Victims of Child
Abuse Act of
1990, as amended
42 U.S.C. §1301113014
To ensure every
victim of child
abuse and neglect
receives the
services of a court
appointed
advocate.
FY2007: $12
million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ
FY2008
Performance
Budget proposes
to consolidate this
program with
other juvenile
justice and child
abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a
program known as
CRS-68
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
U.S. Department
of Justice
Abused and
neglected youth.
the Child Safety
and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
Children’s
Advocacy Centers
Victims of Child
Abuse Act of
1990, as amended
42 U.S.C. §1300113004
To establish
advocacy centers
to coordinate
multi-disciplinary
responses to child
abuse and to
provide training
and technical
assistance to
professionals
involved in
investigating,
prosecuting, and
training child
abuse, and to
support the
development of
Children’s
Advocacy Centers
on multidisciplinary teams.
FY2006: $15
million
FY2007: $15
million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ
FY2008
Performance
Budget proposes
to consolidate this
program with
other juvenile
justice and child
abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a
program known as
the Child Safety
and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
CRS-69
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth under age
25.
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth under age
22 with a serious
emotional
disorders.
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Children and
youth who have
experienced
traumatic events.
Public Health
Garrett Lee Smith
Memorial Act
Youth Suicide
Prevention
Program
Public Health
Service Act of
1974, as amended
42 USC § §290aa
et seq., 290bb et
seq.
Comprehensive
Community
Mental Health
Services for
Children with
Serious Emotional
Disturbances
Public Health
Service Act of
1974, as amended
National Child
Traumatic Stress
Initiative
Children’s Health
Act of 2000
(Section 582(d))
42 USC §290ff
42 USC §290aa
To provide grants
to states and
college campuses
for youth suicide
prevention
activities.
FY2006: $27
million
To provide
community-based
systems of care
for children and
adolescents with a
serious emotional
disturbance and
their family.
FY2006: $104
million
To create a
national network
that develops,
promotes, and
disseminates
information
related to a wide
variety of
traumatic events.
FY2006: $29
million
FY2007: $27
million
FY2008: $27
million
FY2007: $104
million
FY2008: $104
million
FY2007: $29
million
FY2008: $28
million
CRS-70
Program
Strategic
Prevention
Framework State
Infrastructure
Grant
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Public Health
Service Act of
1974, as amended
42 U.S.C. 290bb
Assertive
Adolescent and
Family Treatment
Program (Family
Centered
Substance Abuse
Treatment Grants
for Adolescents
and their Families)
Public Health
Service Act of
1974, as amended
Juvenile
Treatment Drug
Court
Public Health
Service Act of
1974, as amended
42 U.S.C. 290bb-2
42 U.S.C. 290bb-2
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
To provide
funding to states
for infrastructure
and services that
implement a fivestep strategy for
preventing
substance and
alcohol abuse
among youth.
FY2006: $106
million
To provide
substance abuse
treatment
practices to
adolescents and
their families
using previously
proven effective
family-centered
methods.
FY2006: $5
million
To provide
effective
substance
treatment and
reduce delinquent
activity.
FY2006: $6
million
FY2007: $106
million
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth at risk of
using and abusing
drugs.
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth using
drugs.
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth using drugs
who are found
delinquent.
FY2008: $95
million
FY2007: $5
million
FY2008: $5
million
FY2007: $6
million
FY2008: $6
million
CRS-71
Program
Community-Based
Abstinence
Education
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Social Security
Act of 1935
(Section 1110
using the
definitions
contained in
Section
510(b)(2)), as
amended
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
To provide project
grants to public
and private
institutions for
community-based
abstinence
education project
grants.
FY2006: $109
million
To provide
formula grant
funding for states
to provide
abstinence
education and, at
the option of the
state, where
appropriate,
mentoring,
counseling, and
adult supervision
to promote
abstinence from
sexual activity.
FY2006: $50
million
FY2007: $109
million
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth ages 12 to
18.
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth likely to
bear children
outside of
marriage.
FY2008: $137
million
42 U.S.C. §710
Abstinence
Education
Program
Social Security
Act of 1935
(Section 510), as
amended
42 U.S.C. §710
FY2007: $50
million
FY2008: $50
million
CRS-72
Program
Adolescent Family
Life
Demonstration
Projects
Authorizing
Legislation and
U.S. Code
Citation
Public Health
Services Act of
1974, as amended
42 U.S.C. §3002
Adolescent Family
Life Research
Grants
Public Health
Services Act of
1974, as amended
42 U.S.C. §3002
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006
Appropriation,
FY2007
Appropriation,
and President’s
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
To provide project
grants to establish
innovative,
comprehensive,
and integrated
approaches to the
delivery of care
services for
pregnant and
parenting
adolescents with
primary emphasis
on adolescents
who are under age
17.
FY2006: $30
million
To provide project
grants to
encourage and
support research
projects and
dissemination
activities
concerning the
societal causes
and consequence
of adolescent
sexual activity,
contraceptive use,
pregnancy, and
child rearing.
FY2006: $30
million
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
FY2007: $30
million
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk
Youth Population
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Pregnant and
parenting youth,
non-pregnant
youth and their
families.
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Pregnant and
parenting youth,
non-pregnant
youth and their
families.
FY2008: $30
million
(Funding for the
Adolescent Family
Life
Demonstration
Projects and
Research Grants is
combined.)
FY2007: $30
million
FY2008: $30
million
(Funding for the
Adolescent Family
Life
Demonstration
Projects and
Research Grants is
combined.)
CRS-73
Appendix A-3. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst or Specialist
Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, Part B Grants to
States
CRS Report RL3368, The
Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA):
Interactions with Select
Provisions of the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB), by Rick N.
Apling and Nancy Lee Jones
Richard N. Apling
Title IV: Safe and Drug Free
Schools
CRS Report RS20532, The
Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Act:
Reauthorization and
Appropriations, by Edith
Fairman Cooper
Gail McCallion
Vulnerable Youth and Youth
Programs (generally)
CRS Report RS22501, Child
Welfare: The Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act
(CFCIP), by Adrienne
Fernandes
Adrienne L. Fernandes
Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program and
Education and Training Voucher
Program
Runaway and Homeless Youth
Program (Basic Center,
Transitional Living, and Street
Outreach Programs)
Missing and Exploited
Children’s Program
Mentoring Children of
Prisoners
CRS Report RL3199, Runaway
and Homeless Youth:
Demographics, Programs, and
Emerging Issues, by Adrienne
L. Fernandes
CRS Report RL31655, Missing
and Exploited Children:
Overview and Policy Concerns,
by Edith Fairman Cooper
CRS Report RL32633,
Mentoring Programs Funded by
the Federal Government
Dedicated to Disadvantaged
Youth: Issues and Activities, by
Edith Fairman Cooper
Contact Information
rapling@crs.loc.gov
x7-7352
gmccalion@crs.loc.gov
x7-77758
afernandes@crs.loc.gov
x7-9005
CRS-74
Issue Area(s)
Title VII: Education of
Homeless Children
Upward Bound
Education Opportunity
Centers
Student Support Services
Talent Search
Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduate
Programs
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst or Specialist
CRS Report RL30442,
Homelessness: Targeted
Federal Programs and Recent
Legislation, coordinated by
Libby Perl
Gail McCallion
CRS Report RL31622, Trio
and GEAR UP Programs: Status
and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Contact Information
gmccalion@crs.loc.gov
x7-77758
jkuenzi@crs.loc.gov
x7-8645
CRS Report RL33963, High
School Graduation, Completion,
and Dropouts: Federal Policy,
Programs, and Issues, by
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
School Dropout Prevention
Program
Workforce Development
(generally)
YouthBuild
Job Corps
Juvenile Justice (generally)
CRS Report RL33687, The
Workforce Investment Act
(WIA): Program-by-Program
Overview and FY2007 Funding
of Title I Training Programs, by
Blake Alan Naughton and Ann
Lordeman
Blake Alan Naughton
CRS Report RS22070,
Juvenile Justice: Overview of
Legislative History and Funding
Trends, by Blas Nuñez-Neto
Blas Nuñez-Neto
CRS Report RL33947,
Juvenile Justice: Legislative
History and Current Legislative
Issues, by Blas Nuñez-Neto
bnaughton@crs.loc.gov
x7-0376
bnunez-neto@crs.loc.gov
x7-0622
CRS-75
Issue Area(s)
Title I: Education for the
Disadvantaged
Title I-D: Prevention and
Intervention Programs for
Children and Youths Who Are
Neglected, Delinquent, or At
Risk
Migrant Education
Migrant High School
Equivalency Program
Title III: English Language
Acquisition
Community-Based Abstinence
Education
Abstinence Education
Program
Adolescent Family Life
Demonstration Projects
Adolescent Family Life
Research Grants
Foster Care
Court Appointed Special
Advocates Program
Children’s Advocacy Centers
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst or Specialist
CRS Report RL31487,
Education for the
Disadvantaged: Overview of
ESEA Title I-A Amendments
Under the No Child Left Behind
Act, by Wayne C. Riddle
Wayne C. Riddle
CRS Report RL31325, The
Federal Migrant Education
Program as Amended by the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Rebecca R. Skinner
Contact Information
wriddle@crs.loc.gov
x7-7382
rskinner@crs.loc.gov
x7-6600
CRS Report RL31315,
Education of Limited English
Proficient and Recent
Immigrant Students: Provisions
of the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
CRS Report RS20873,
Reducing Teen Pregnancy:
Family Life and Abstinence
Education Programs, by
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Carmen Solomon-Fears
csolomon-fears@crs.loc.gov
x7-7306
CRS Report RS20301,
Teenage Pregnancy Prevention:
Statistics and Programs, by
Carmen Solomon-Fears
CRS Report RL32976, Child
Welfare: Programs Authorized
by the Victims of Child Abuse
Act of 1990, by Emilie Stoltzfus
CRS Report RL31242 Child
Welfare: Federal Program
Requirements for States, by
Emilie Stoltzfus
Emilie Stoltzfus
estoltzfus@crs.loc.gov
x7-2324
CRS-76
Issue Area(s)
Youth Suicide Prevention
Program
Services for Youth Offenders
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
CRS Report RS22636, Alcohol
Use Among Youth, by Andrew
R. Sommers and Ramya
Sundaraman
Youth Interagency Research,
Training, and Technical
Assistance
Prevention, Treatment, and
Rehabilitation Model Projects
for High-Risk Youth
Substance Abuse Treatment
Services for Children and
Adolescents
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service.
Analyst or Specialist
Ramya Sundararaman
Contact Information
rsundararaman@crs.loc.gov
x7-7285 Youth
Population
Job Training and Workforce Development
Job Corps
Workforce Investment
To assist eligible youth who
Act of 1998, as amended need and can benefit from an
intensive workforce
29 U.S.C. §2881 et seq. development program,
operated in a group setting in
residential and nonresidential
centers, to become more
responsible, employable, and
productive citizens.
FY2006: $1.6 billion
FY2007: $1.6 billion
FY2008: $1.5 billion
U.S. Department Youth ages 16 to 21 (with
of Labor
exceptions) who are either
low-income, basic skills
deficient, a school dropout,
homeless, a runaway, or a
foster child, a parent or an
individual who requires
additional education,
vocational training, or
intensive counseling and
related assistance to
participate successfully in
regular schoolwork or to
secure and hold employment.
CRS-49
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
WIA Youth Activities
Workforce Investment
To provide services to eligible FY2006: $941 million
FY2007: $941 million
Act of 1998, as amended youth seeking assistance in
FY2008: $841 million
achieving academic and
29 U.S.C. §2851 et seq. employment success,
including the provision of
mentoring, support services,
training, and incentives.
YouthBuild
Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable
Housing Act of 1990, as
amended
29 U.S.C. §2918a
To enable disadvantaged
youth to obtain the education
and employment skills while
expanding the supply of
permanent affordable housing
for homeless individuals and
low-income families.
FY2006: $50 million
FY2007: $50 million
FY2008: $50 million
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department Youth ages 14 to 21 who are
of Labor
low-income and either
deficient in basic literacy
skills, a school dropout,
homeless, a runaway, a foster
child, pregnant, a parent, an
offender, or an individual who
requires additional assistance
to complete an educational
program, or to secure and
hold employment.
U.S. Department Youth ages 16 to 24 who are a
of Labor
member of a low-income
family, in foster care, a youth
offender, have a disability, are
a child of incarcerated
parents, or a migrant youth or
a school dropout (with
exceptions).
CRS-50
Program
Youth Conservation
Corps
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Youth Conservation
Corps Act of 1970, as
amended
16 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.
Objective(s) of
Program
To further the development
and maintenance of the
natural resources by
America’s youth, and in so
doing to prepare them for the
ultimate responsibility of
maintaining and managing
these resources for the
American people.
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
No specific amount
appropriated or
requested. The
Appropriations
Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies
generally directs the
four agencies to
allocate no less than a
particular amount to
Youth Conservation
Corps activities
(funding generally
ranges from $1.5
million to $2 million
per agency).
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department All youth 15 to 18 years of
age (targets economically
of the Interior
(Bureau of Land disadvantaged, at-risk).
Management,
Fish and
Wildlife
Agency, and the
National Park
Service) and
U.S. Department
of Agriculture
(Forest Service)
CRS-51
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Education
Title I-A: Education for Elementary and
To improve the educational
the Disadvantaged
Secondary Education
achievement of educationally
Act of 1965, as amended disadvantaged children and
youth, and to reduce
20 U.S.C. §6301 et. seq. achievement gaps between
such pupils and their more
advantaged peers.
FY2006: $13 billion
FY2007: $13 billion
FY2008: $14 billion
Title I-C: Migrant
Education
FY2006: $387 million
Elementary and
To support high quality and
FY2007: $387 million
Secondary Education
comprehensive educational
Act of 1965, as amended programs for migrant children FY2008: $380 million
and youth.
20 U.S.C. §6391
Title I-D: Prevention
and Intervention
Programs for Children
and Youths Who Are
Neglected, Delinquent,
or At Risk
To meet the special
Elementary and
educational needs of children
Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended in institutions and community
day school programs for
20 U.S.C. §6421-6472 et neglected and delinquent
children and children in adult
seq.
correctional institutions.
FY2006: $50 million
FY2007: $50 million
FY2008: $50 million
U.S. Department Educationally disadvantaged
of Education
children and youth, in areas
with concentrations of
children and youth in lowincome families.
U.S. Department Migrant children and youth.
of Education
U.S. Department Abused/neglected youth,
of Education
delinquent youth, and juvenile
offenders.
CRS-52
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Title I-H: School
Dropout Prevention
Elementary and
To provide for school dropout FY2006: $5 million
prevention and reentry and to FY2007: $5 million
Secondary Education
FY2008: $0
Act of 1965, as amended raise academic achievement
levels.
20 U.S.C. §6551 et seq.
U.S. Department Youth at risk of dropping out
of Education
of school districts with
dropout rates higher than their
state’s average.
Title III: English
Language Acquisition
Elementary and
To ensure that limited English FY2006: $669 million
Secondary Education
proficient children (LEP) and FY2007: $669 million
FY2008: $671 million
Act of 1965, as amended youth, including immigrant
children and youth, attain
20 U.S.C. §6801 et seq. English proficiency.
U.S. Department Children and youth with
of Education
limited English proficiency.
Title IV-A: Safe and
Drug Free Schools, Part
A, Subpart 1, State
Grants for Drug and
Violence Prevention
Elementary and
To prevent violence in and
Secondary Education
around schools and to
Act of 1965, as amended strengthen programs that
prevent the illegal use of
20 U.S.C. §§7111-7118 alcohol, tobacco, and drugs,
involve parents, and are
coordinated with related
federal, state, and community
efforts and resources.
FY2006: $347 million
FY2007: $347 million
FY2008: $100 million
U.S. Department All youth; at-risk youth;
of Education
school dropouts.
CRS-53
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Title IV-B: 21st Century Elementary and
To create community learning FY2006: $98 million
FY2007: $98 million
centers that help students
Learning Centers
Secondary Education
FY2008: $98 million
Act of 1965, as amended meet state and local
educational standards, to
20 U.S.C. §8241 et seq. provide supplementary
educational assistance, and to
offer literacy and other
services to the families of
participating youth.
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department Students who attend highof Education
poverty and low-performing
schools.
Title VII: Education of
Homeless Children
To provide activities for and
McKinney-Vento
services to ensure that
Homeless Assistance
Act of 1987, as amended homeless children enroll in,
attend, and achieve success in
school.
42 U.S.C.
§§11431-11435
FY2006: $62 million
(plus $5 million for
hurricane
supplemental)
FY2007: $62 million
FY2008: $62 million
U.S. Department Homeless children and youth
of Education
in elementary and secondary
schools, homeless preschool
children, and the parents of
homeless children.
Migrant High School
Equivalency Program
and College Assistance
Programs
Higher Education Act,
as amended
To provide academic and
support services to help
eligible migrant youth obtain
their high school equivalency
certificate and move on to
employment or enrollment in
higher education.
FY2006: $34 million
FY2007: $34 million
FY2008: $34 million
U.S. Department Migrant youth ages 16 to 21.
of Education
20 U.S.C. §1070d-2
CRS-54
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Upward Bound
Higher Education Act of To increase the academic
1965, as amended
performance of eligible
enrollees so that such persons
may complete secondary
20 U.S.C. §1070a-13
school and pursue
postsecondary educational
programs.
FY2006: $310 million
FY2007: $314 million
FY2008: $314 million
U.S. Department Low-income individuals and
of Education
potential first generation
college students between ages
13 and 19, and have
completed the 8th grade but
have not entered the 12th
grade (with exceptions).
Educational
Opportunity Centers
Higher Education Act of To provide information to
1965, as amended
prospective postsecondary
students regarding available
financial aid and academic
20 U.S.C. §1070a-16
assistance, and help them
apply for admission and
financial aid.
FY2006: $48 million
FY2007: $47 million
FY2008: $47 million
U.S. Department At least two-thirds of
of Education
participants in any project
must be low-income students
who would be first-generation
college goers. They must also
be at least 19 years old.
Ronald E. McNair
Postbaccalaurete
Achievement
Higher Education Act of To provide grants to
1965, as amended
institutions of higher
education to prepare
participants for doctoral
20 U.S.C. §1070a-15
studies through involvement
in research and other
scholarly activities.
FY2006: $42 million
FY2007: $42 million
FY2008: $44 million
U.S. Department Low-income college students
of Education
or underrepresented students
enrolled in an institution of
higher education.
CRS-55
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Student Support
Services
Higher Education Act of To improve college students’ FY2006: $271 million
1965, as amended
retention and graduation rates, FY2007: $272 million
and improve the transfer rates FY2008: $272 million
of students from two-year to
20 U.S.C. §1070a-14
four-year colleges.
Talent Search
Higher Education Act of To identify disadvantaged
1965, as amended
youth with potential for
postsecondary education; to
encourage them in continuing
20 U.S.C. §1070a-12
in and graduating from
secondary school and in
enrolling in programs of
postsecondary education; to
publicize the availability of
student financial aid; and to
increase the number of
secondary and postsecondary
school dropouts who reenter
an educational program.
FY2006: $150 million
FY2007: $144 million
FY2008: $143 million
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department At least two-thirds of
of Education
participants in any project
must be either disabled
individuals or low-income,
first-generation college goers.
The remaining participants
must be low-income, or
first-generation college goers,
or disabled. Not less than
one-third of the disabled
participants must be
low-income as well.
U.S. Department Project participants must be
of Education
between 11 and 27 years old
(exceptions allowed), and
two-thirds must be
low-income individuals who
are also potential firstgeneration college students.
CRS-56
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Gaining Early
Awareness and
Readiness for
Undergraduate
Programs (GEAR-UP)
FY2006: $303 million
Higher Education Act of To provide financial
FY2007: $303 million
1965, as amended
assistance to low-income
FY2008: $303 million
individuals to attend an
institution of higher education
20 U.S.C.
and support eligible entities in
§1070a-21-1070a-28
providing counseling,
mentoring, academic support,
outreach, and supportive
services to students at risk of
dropping out of school.
Individuals with
Disabilities Education
Act, Part B Grant to
States
To provide a free appropriate
Education for All
education to all children with
Handicapped Children
Act of 1975, as amended disabilities.
(currently known as the
Individuals with
Disabilities Education
Act)
20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
FY2006: $10.6 billion
FY2007: $10.8 billion
FY2008: $10.5 billion
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department Low-income students and
of Education
students in high-poverty
schools.
U.S. Department School-aged children and
of Education
youth with disabilities, up to
age 21 (pursuant to state law).
CRS-57
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Juvenile Justice
State Formula Grants
Juvenile Justice and
To increase the capacity of
Delinquency Prevention state and local governments to
Act of 1974, as amended support the development of
more effective education,
training, research, and other
42 U.S.C. §5631-33
programs in the area of
juvenile delinquency and
programs to improve the
juvenile justice system (e.g.,
community-based services for
the prevention and control of
juvenile delinquency, group
homes, and halfway houses).
U.S. Department Delinquent youth, juvenile
FY2006: $80 million
of Justice
offenders, and at-risk youth.
FY2007: $79 million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ FY2008
Performance Budget
proposes to consolidate
this program with other
juvenile justice and
child abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a program
known as the Child
Safety and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
CRS-58
Program
Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention Block Grant
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
21st Century Department
of Justice
Reauthorization Act of
2002
42 U.S.C. 5651-5656
Objective(s) of
Program
To provide funding for
programs that prevent
juvenile delinquency,
including, but not limited to:
treatment for at-risk youth;
educational projects and
supportive services;
counseling, training, and
mentoring projects;
community-based programs;
and dependency treatment
programs.
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
FY2006: $0
FY2007: $0
FY2008: $0
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department Delinquent youth, juvenile
of Justice
offenders, gang members, and
at-risk youth.
CRS-59
Program
Gang Free Schools and
Communities Community Based
Gang Intervention
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Currently Unauthorized.
This program was
repealed by P.L. 107273 but continues to be
appropriated.
Objective(s) of
Program
To prevent and reduce the
participation of juveniles in
the activities of gangs that
commit crimes (e.g.,
programs to prevent youth
from entering gangs and to
prevent high school students
from dropping out of school
and joining gangs).
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
U.S. Department
FY2006: $25 million
of Justice
FY2007: $25 million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ FY2008
Performance Budget
proposes to consolidate
this program with other
juvenile justice and
child abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a program
known as the Child
Safety and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
At-risk youth, delinquent
youth, juvenile offenders,
gang members, and youth
under age 22.
CRS-60
Program
Juvenile Mentoring
Program (JUMP)
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Currently Unauthorized.
This program was
repealed by P.L. 107273 but continues to be
appropriated.
Objective(s) of
Program
To develop, implement, and
pilot test mentoring strategies
and/or programs targeted for
youth in the juvenile justice
system and in foster care, and
youth who have reentered the
juvenile justice system (e.g.,
Big Brothers/Big Sisters
program).
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department Delinquent youth, juvenile
FY2006: $10 million
of Justice
offenders, and foster youth.
FY2007: $10 million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ FY2008
Performance Budget
proposes to consolidate
this program with other
juvenile justice and
child abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a program
known as the Child
Safety and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
CRS-61
Program
State Challenge
Activities, Part E
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
Juvenile Justice and
To provide states with
Delinquency Prevention funding to carry out programs
Act of 1974, as amended that will develop, test, or
demonstrate promising new
initiatives that may prevent,
42 U.S.C. §5665
control, or reduce juvenile
delinquency.
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
U.S. Department
FY2006: $106 million
of Justice
FY2007: $105 million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ FY2008
Performance Budget
proposes to consolidate
this program with other
juvenile justice and
child abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a program
known as the Child
Safety and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
At-risk youth, delinquent
youth, juvenile offenders,
gang members, and at-risk
youth.
CRS-62
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
To fund delinquency
Title V Incentive Grants Juvenile Justice and
for Local Delinquency Delinquency Prevention prevention programs and
Act of 1974, as amended activities for at-risk youth and
Prevention Program
juvenile delinquents,
including, among other
things: substance abuse
42 U.S.C. §4781-85
prevention services; child and
adolescent health and mental
health services; leadership
and youth development
services; and job skills
training.
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department Delinquent youth, juvenile
FY2006: $65 million
of Justice
offenders, at-risk youth.
FY2007: $64 million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ FY2008
Performance Budget
proposes to consolidate
this program with other
juvenile justice and
child abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a program
known as the Child
Safety and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
CRS-63
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Social Services
Foster Care
Social Security Act of
1935 (Sections 471 and
472), as amended
42 USC §§671, 672
Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program
Social Security Act of
1935 (Section 477), as
amended
42 U.S.C. §677
To assist states in providing
foster care for eligible
children, including
maintenance payments (i.e.
room and board) and case
planning and management for
children and youth in out-ofhome placements.
FY2006: $4.7 billion
FY2007: $4.8 billion
(Based on HHS, ACF
Justification of
Estimates for FY2008,
and reflects expected
“lapse” of funds which
were expected to be
necessary in the
FY2007 budget
justifications).
FY2008: $4.6 million
U.S. Department Federal support available for
children and youth who are
of Health and
Human Services removed from low-income
families (meeting specific
criteria) for their own
protection. (However, federal
protections related to case
planning and management are
available to all children/youth
who are in foster care.)
To assist states and localities
in establishing and carrying
out programs designed to
assist foster youth likely to
remain in foster care until age
18 and youth ages 18 - 21
who have left the foster care
system in making the
transition to self-sufficiency.
FY2006: $140 million
FY2007: $140 million
FY2008: $140 million
U.S. Department Current or former foster care
youth under age 21.
of Health and
Human Services
CRS-64
Program
Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program
Education and Training
Vouchers
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Social Security Act of
1935, (Section 477), as
amended
42 U.S.C. §677
Basic Center Program
Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act of 1974, as
amended
42 U.S.C.§5701 et seq.
Transitional Living
Program for Older
Homeless Youth
Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act of 1974, as
amended
42 U.S.C. §5701 et seq.
Objective(s) of
Program
To make education and
training vouchers available
for youth who have aged out
of foster care or who have
been adopted from the public
foster care system after age
16.
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
FY2006: $46 million
FY2007: $46 million
FY2008: $46 million
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department Older foster care youth and
youth adopted from foster
of Health and
Human Services care at age 16 or older.
FY2006: $48 million
To establish or strengthen
locally controlled community- FY2007: $48 million
based programs outside of the FY2008: $48 million
law enforcement, child
welfare, mental health, and
juvenile justice systems that
address the immediate needs
of runaway and homeless
youth and their families.
U.S. Department Runaway and homeless youth
and their families.
of Health and
Human Services
FY2006: $40 million
FY2007: $40 million
FY2008: $40 million
U.S. Department Runaway and homeless youth
ages 16-21.
of Health and
Human Services
To establish and operate
transitional living projects for
homeless youth, including
pregnant and parenting youth.
CRS-65
Program
Street Outreach
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act of 1974, as
amended
42 U.S.C. §5701 et seq.
Mentoring Children of
Prisoners
Social Security Act of
1935 (Section 439), as
amended
42 U.S.C. §629i
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
To provide grants to nonprofit FY2006: $15 million
FY2007: $15 million
agencies to provide streetFY2008: $15 million
based services to runaway,
homeless, and street youth,
who have been subjected to,
or are at risk of being
subjected to sexual abuse,
prostitution, or sexual
exploitation.
U.S. Department Runaway and homeless youth
who live on or frequent the
of Health and
Human Services streets.
To make competitive grants to FY2006: $50 million
applicants in areas with
FY2007: $50 million
significant numbers of
FY2008: $50 million
children of prisoners to
support the establishment and
operation of programs that
provide mentoring services
for these children, and to
demonstrate the potential
effectiveness of vouchers as
delivery mechanisms for these
mentoring services.
U.S. Department Youth of imprisoned parents.
of Health and
Human Services
CRS-66
Program
Court Appointed
Special Advocates
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
Victims of Child Abuse To ensure every victim of
Act of 1990, as amended child abuse and neglect
receives the services of a
court appointed advocate.
42 U.S.C. §13011-13014
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
FY2006: $12 million
FY2007: $12 million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ FY2008
Performance Budget
proposes to consolidate
this program with other
juvenile justice and
child abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a program
known as the Child
Safety and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department Abused and neglected
of Justice
children and youth.
CRS-67
Program
Children’s Advocacy
Centers
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
Victims of Child Abuse To establish advocacy centers
Act of 1990, as amended to coordinate multidisciplinary responses to child
abuse and to provide training
42 U.S.C. §13001-13004 and technical assistance to
professionals involved in
investigating, prosecuting,
and training child abuse, and
to support the development of
Children’s Advocacy Centers
on multi-disciplinary teams.
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
FY2006: $15 million
FY2007: $15 million
FY2008: unknown
(The U.S. DOJ FY2008
Performance Budget
proposes to consolidate
this program with other
juvenile justice and
child abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a program
known as the Child
Safety and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department Abused and neglected youth.
of Justice
CRS-68
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Public Health
Garrett Lee Smith
Memorial Act Youth
Suicide Prevention
Program
To provide grants to states
Public Health Service
Act of 1974, as amended and college campuses for
youth suicide prevention
activities.
42 USC § §290aa et
seq., 290bb et seq.
Public Health Service
Comprehensive
Act of 1974, as amended
Community Mental
Health Services for
Children with Serious
Emotional Disturbances 42 USC §290ff
National Child
Traumatic Stress
Initiative
FY2006: $27 million
FY2007: $27 million
FY2008: $27 million
To provide community-based FY2006: $104 million
systems of care for children
FY2007: $104 million
and adolescents with a serious
FY2008: $104 million
emotional disturbance and
their family.
Children’s Health Act of To create a national network
2000 (Section 582(d))
that develops, promotes, and
disseminates information
related to a wide variety of
42 USC §290aa
traumatic events.
U.S. Department Youth under age 25.
of Health and
Human Services
FY2006: $29 million
FY2007: $29 million
FY2008: $28 million
U.S. Department Youth under age 22 with a
serious emotional disorders.
of Health and
Human Services
U.S. Department Children and youth who have
experienced traumatic events.
of Health and
Human Services
CRS-69
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
Strategic Prevention
Framework State
Infrastructure Grant
Public Health Service
To provide funding to states
Act of 1974, as amended for infrastructure and services
that implement a five-step
strategy for preventing
42 U.S.C. 290bb
substance and alcohol abuse
among youth.
FY2006: $106 million
Assertive Adolescent
and Family Treatment
Program (Family
Centered Substance
Abuse Treatment
Grants for Adolescents
and their Families)
Public Health Service
To provide substance abuse
Act of 1974, as amended treatment practices to
adolescents and their families
using previously proven
42 U.S.C. 290bb-2
effective family-centered
methods.
FY2006: $5 million
Juvenile Treatment
Drug Court
Public Health Service
To provide effective
Act of 1974, as amended substance treatment and
reduce delinquent activity.
FY2006: $6 million
FY2007: $106 million
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department Youth at risk of using and
abusing drugs.
of Health and
Human Services
FY2008: $95 million
FY2007: $5 million
U.S. Department Youth using drugs.
of Health and
Human Services
FY2008: $5 million
FY2007: $6 million
U.S. Department Youth using drugs who are
found delinquent.
of Health and
Human Services
FY2008: $6 million
42 U.S.C. 290bb-2
Community-Based
Abstinence Education
Social Security Act of
1935 (Section 1110
using the definitions
contained in Section
510(b)(2)), as amended
42 U.S.C. §710
To provide project grants to
public and private institutions
for community-based
abstinence education project
grants.
FY2006: $109 million
FY2007: $109 million
FY2008: $137 million
U.S. Department Youth ages 12 to 18.
of Health and
Human Services
CRS-70
Program
Abstinence Education
Program
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Social Security Act of
1935 (Section 510), as
amended
42 U.S.C. §710
Adolescent Family Life
Demonstration Projects
Objective(s) of
Program
To provide formula grant
funding for states to provide
abstinence education and, at
the option of the state, where
appropriate, mentoring,
counseling, and adult
supervision to promote
abstinence from sexual
activity.
Public Health Services
To provide project grants to
Act of 1974, as amended establish innovative,
comprehensive, and integrated
approaches to the delivery of
42 U.S.C. §3002
care services for pregnant and
parenting adolescents with
primary emphasis on
adolescents who are under age
17.
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
FY2006: $50 million
FY2007: $50 million
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department Youth likely to bear children
outside of marriage.
of Health and
Human Services
FY2008: $50 million
FY2006: $30 million
FY2007: $30 million
FY2008: $30 million
(Funding for the
Adolescent Family Life
Demonstration Projects
and Research Grants is
combined.)
U.S. Department Pregnant and parenting youth,
non-pregnant youth and their
of Health and
Human Services families.
CRS-71
Program
Adolescent Family Life
Research Grants
Authorizing
Legislation and U.S.
Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
Public Health Services
To provide project grants to
Act of 1974, as amended encourage and support
research projects and
dissemination activities
42 U.S.C. §3002
concerning the societal causes
and consequence of
adolescent sexual activity,
contraceptive use, pregnancy,
and child rearing.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
FY2006 Approp.,
FY2007 Approp., and
President’s FY2008
Request (rounded)
FY2006: $30 million
FY2007: $30 million
FY2008: $30 million
(Funding for the
Adolescent Family Life
Demonstration Projects
and Research Grants is
combined.)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department Pregnant and parenting youth,
non-pregnant youth and their
of Health and
Human Services families.
CRS-72
Table A-3. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information
Issue Area(s)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
Part B Grants to States
Title IV: Safe and Drug Free Schools
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
CRS Report RL32913, The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA): Interactions with Selected Provisions of the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB), by Richard N. Apling and Nancy Lee Jones
Richard N. Apling
CRS Report RS30482, The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act: Background and Context,
by Edith Fairman Cooper
Gail McCallion
CRS Report RS22501, Child Welfare: The Chafee Foster Care
Independence Act (CFCIP), by Adrienne Fernandes
Adrienne L. Fernandes
Vulnerable Youth and Youth Programs
(generally)
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
and Education and Training Voucher Program
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program
(Basic Center, Transitional Living, and Street
Outreach Programs)
Missing and Exploited Children’s Program
Mentoring Children of Prisoners
Title VII: Education of Homeless Children
Analyst or Specialist
Contact Information
rapling@crs.loc.gov
x7-7352
gmccallion@crs.loc.gov
x7-7758
afernandes@crs.loc.gov
x7-9005
CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics, Programs, and Emerging Issues, by Adrienne L.
Fernandes
CRS Report RL31655, Missing and Exploited Children: Overview
and Policy Concerns, by Edith Fairman Cooper
CRS Report RL32633, Mentoring Programs Funded by the Federal
Government Dedicated to Disadvantaged Youth: Issues and Activities,
by Edith Fairman Cooper
CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs
and Recent Legislation, coordinated by Libby Perl
Gail McCallion
gmccallion@crs.loc.gov
x7-7758
CRS-73
Issue Area(s)
Upward Bound
Education Opportunity Centers
Student Support Services
Talent Search
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Analyst or Specialist
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Contact Information
jkuenzi@crs.loc.gov
x7-8645
CRS Report RL33963, High School Graduation, Completion, and
Dropouts: Federal Policy, Programs, and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs
School Dropout Prevention Program
Workforce Development (generally)
YouthBuild
Job Corps
Juvenile Justice (generally)
CRS Report RL33687, The Workforce Investment Act (WIA):
Program-by-Program Overview and FY2007 Funding of Title I
Training Programs, by Blake Alan Naughton and Ann Lordeman
Blake Alan Naughton
CRS Report RS22070, Juvenile Justice: Overview of Legislative
History and Funding Trends, by Blas Nuñez-Neto
Blas Nuñez-Neto
bnaughton@crs.loc.gov
x7-0376
bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov
x7-0622
CRS Report RL33947, Juvenile Justice: Legislative History and
Current Legislative Issues, by Blas Nuñez-Neto
Title I: Education for the Disadvantaged
Title I-D: Prevention and Intervention
Programs for Children and Youths Who Are
Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk
CRS Report RL31487, Education for the Disadvantaged: Overview
of ESEA Title I-A Amendments Under the No Child Left Behind Act,
by Wayne C. Riddle
Wayne C. Riddle
wriddle@crs.loc.gov
x7-7382
CRS-74
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Migrant Education
Migrant High School Equivalency Program
CRS Report RL31325, The Federal Migrant Education Program as
Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, by Jeffrey J.
Kuenzi
Title III: English Language Acquisition
Community-Based Abstinence Education
Abstinence Education Program
Adolescent Family Life Demonstration
Projects
Adolescent Family Life Research Grants
Foster Care
Court Appointed Special Advocates
Program
Children’s Advocacy Centers
Youth Suicide Prevention Program
Services for Youth Offenders
Analyst or Specialist
Rebecca R. Skinner
Contact Information
rskinner@crs.loc.gov
x7-6600
CRS Report RL31315, Education of Limited English Proficient and
Recent Immigrant Students: Provisions of the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
CRS Report RS20873, Reducing Teen Pregnancy: Family Life and
Abstinence Education Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears
Carmen Solomon-Fears
csolomonfears@crs.loc.gov
x7-7306
CRS Report RS20301, Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Statistics
and Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears
CRS Report RL32976, Child Welfare: Programs Authorized by the
Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, by Emilie Stoltzfus
Emilie Stoltzfus
estoltzfus@crs.loc.gov
x7-2324
CRS Report RL31242 Child Welfare: Federal Program
Requirements for States, by Emilie Stoltzfus
CRS Report RS22636, Alcohol Use Among Youth, by Andrew R.
Sommers and Ramya Sundaraman
Ramya Sundararaman
rsundararaman@crs.loc.gov
x7-7285
Youth Interagency Research, Training, and
Technical Assistance
Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation
Model Projects for High-Risk Youth
Substance Abuse Treatment Services for
Children and Adolescents
cr
s
p
h
p
g
w
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service.