Order Code RL33975
Vulnerable Youth:
Background and Policies
Updated September 3, 2008
Adrienne L. Fernandes
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
August 29, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33975
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
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-sufficiencyselfsufficiency. 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. their families. Approximately 60% of parents today provide financial support to
their adult children who are no longer in school. This support comes in the form of housing (50%
of parents provide this support to their adult children), living expenses (48%), cost of
transportation (41%), health insurance (35%), spending money (29%), and medical bills (28%).
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-sufficientselfsufficient 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 — —or disconnectedness—may be the single strongest indicator that the
transition to
adulthood has not been made successfully. Approximately 1.8 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 multiple 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 six areas: workforce development,
education,
juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and
national national
and community service. 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 109365) in 2006. Though activities under the act were never funded, the Interagency Working Group
on Youth Programs was formed in 2008 under Executive Order 13459 to carry out coordinating
activities across multiple agencies that oversee youth programs. Separately, Congress has
considered other legislation (the Younger Americans Act of 2000 and the Youth
Community 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Groups of Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Framework for Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Disconnectedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Positive Youth Development: The Importance of Resiliency
and Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
What is Youth Development? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Youth Development Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Evolution of the Federal Role in Assisting Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1912-1950s: Children’s Bureau Programs and Workforce Programs . . . . . 16
1960s-1970s: War on Poverty Initiatives and Expansion of Programs . . . 18
White House Conferences on Children and Youth:
1960s and 1970s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Family and Youth Services Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1980s-Present: Current Youth Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Job Training and Workforce Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
National and Community Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Federal Efforts to Improve Coordination Among Programs for
Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Concerns about Coordination of Youth Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365) . . . . . . . . . 36
Executive Order 13459 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L 101-501) . . . . . . . . . . 39
Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Grants for States and Community Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Youth Build Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Federal Initiatives to Improve Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Shared Youth Vision Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Partnerships for Youth Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Drug-Free Communities Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Coordination Around Specific Youth Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Policies to Promote Positive Youth Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Youth Development Community Block Grant of 1995
(H.R. 2807/S. 673) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Helping America’s Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Alliance for Youth: America’s Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Positive Youth Development State and Local Collaboration
Demonstration Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix: Federal Youth Programs and Relevant CRS Reports
and Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
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
by Race and Hispanic Origin, Ages 16 Through 24 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 2. Duties of the Federal Youth Council, by Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table A-1. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table A-2. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information . . . . . . . . 66
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 multiple programs established in the early 20th century and
expanded through Great Society initiatives. These programs, concentrated in six
areas — workforce development, education, juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention, social services, public health, and national and community service —
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) that authorizes the
federal government to establish 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
CRS-2
factors youth can develop during childhood and adolescence that can mitigate poor
outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal youth policy,
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 51 such programs. Note that
the table does not enumerate all programs that target, even in small part, vulnerable
or disconnected youth.) The report then discusses the challenges of coordinating
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 or other relatives.
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
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 Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net.)
4
Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz, and Ilyana Kuziemko, “The Homecoming of American
(continued...)
CRS-3
period of transition, young adults cycle between attending school, living
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 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. Approximately 23% of adults
ages 23 to 27 lived with one or both of their parents in 2003.7
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.8 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
4
(...continued)
College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap,” Journal of Economic
Perspectives, vol. 20, no. 4, Fall 2006.
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/socdemo/hh-fam/ms2.pdf].
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
Brett Brown, Kristin Moore, and Sharon Bzostek, A Portrait of Well-Being in Early
Adulthood: A Report to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Child Trends, October
2007, available at [http://www.hewlett.org/NR/rdonlyres/B0DB0AF1-02A4-455A-849AAD582B767AF3/0/FINALCOMPLETEPDF.pdf]. The data are based on the authors’
analysis of data from the Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau.
8
See CRS Report RS22501, Child Welfare: The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
(CFCIP), by Adrienne Fernandes.
CRS-4
population which highlight the difficulties for youth today in becoming selfsufficient, independent adults even into their mid-20s.9
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.10 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.11 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.12 They have also been used to suggest that
youth grow up in unstable family or community environments.13 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.14 “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
9
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 Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net.
10
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, 2007, available at
[http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/cps2007.html].
11
Kristin Anderson Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At Risk,’” Child Trends Research-toResults Brief, Publication #2006-12, October 2006. (Hereinafter Kristin Moore, “Defining
the Term ‘At-Risk.’”)
12
J. Jeffries McWhirter et al., At-Risk Youth: A Comprehensive Response. California:
Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2004, p. 6. (Hereinafter J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth.)
13
14
Kristin Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At-Risk.’”
Martha R. Burt, Gary Resnick, and Nancy Matheson, Comprehensive Service Integration
Programs for At-Risk Youth, The Urban Institute, 1992, pp. 13-22.
CRS-5
stressors).15 Vulnerable youth may also display resiliency that mitigates negative
outcomes.
Groups of Vulnerable Youth. Researchers on vulnerable youth have
identified multiple groups at risk of experiencing poor outcomes as they enter
adulthood.16 These groups include, but are not limited to the following:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
youth 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.17 Many will lose health insurance
coverage, vocational services, and supplementary income.18 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
15
J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 7-9.
16
See, for example, Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, and 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. 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 justiceinvolved youth, and foster youth.
17
18
Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, p. 10.
Ibid., pp. 10-12.
CRS-6
these seven groups also represent diverse socioeconomic and racial backgrounds.
However, youth of color and the poor tend to be overrepresented in vulnerable
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.19
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.20 Emancipated youth may have inadequate housing
supports.21 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.22 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.23
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.)
19
J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 9, 13, and 14.
20
Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring. “The Transition to Adulthood for Youth
“Aging Out” of the Foster Care System” in Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net,
pp. 27-32.
21
Ibid.
22
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).
23
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]. (Hereinafter 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.24 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 Burt, Gary
Resnick, and Nancy Matheson, “Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk Youth:
Final Report,” The Urban Institute, 1992, Exhibit 2.2.
24
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 are the social environmental conditions that influence
outcomes; these factors 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.25 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.26 Some analyses have found that youths’ place
of residence in proximity to jobs affects their labor market involvement independent
of other factors.27 Jobs in the manufacturing sector have been replaced by the growth
of the service and high-technology sectors, jobs requiring technical and managerial
skills.28 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.29 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 111,000 children and youth
ages 10 to 17 (38.8% of all those in care) were in foster care and approximately 9%
of foster youth emancipated from care on the last day of FY2005.30 Studies show that
25
Steven R. Holloway and Stephen Mullherin, “The Effects of Adolescent Neighborhood
Poverty on Adult Employment,” Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 26, no. 4, 2004.
26
Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young
Men. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 2006, pp. 19-21. (Hereafter Peter Edelman,
Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men.)
27
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.
28
William Julius Wilson, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New
York: Vintage Books, 1996, pp. 25-29.
29
Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young
Men, p. 21.
30
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
AFCARS Report #13: Preliminary Estimates for FY2005, September 2006, at
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm].
CRS-10
youth who have “aged out” of foster care fare poorly relative to their counterparts in
the general population on several outcome measures.31
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
Youth advocates and researchers have begun to focus on vulnerable youth who
experience negative outcomes in employment and the workforce.32 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.
On the basis of 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 the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) data used a definition
of disconnectedness to include noninstitutionalized youth ages 16 through 24 who
did not work anytime during a previous year due primarily to a reason other than
school and were presently (usually March or April of the current year) not working
or in school. The definition excludes youth who are married to a connected partner
and are parenting, on the assumption that these young people work in the home and
rely on financial and social support from their spouses. Thus, young people who are
married without children (to a connected or disconnected partner) or are cohabiting
with or without children meet the definition of being disconnected. According to this
definition, 1.8 million youth — or 4.9 percent of the general youth population ages
through 24 — were disconnected in 2007.33 Table 1 shows that of the
noninstitutionalized male population, 3.0% of whites, 9.0% of blacks, and 3.2% of
31
Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care.
32
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/].
33
This analysis was conducted with the assistance of Thomas Gabe, CRS Specialist in
Social Legislation.
CRS-11
Hispanics were disconnected.34 Although black and white women had nearly the
same rate of disconnection as their male counterparts (9.5% and 4.2%, respectively),
Hispanic females were almost twice as likely than their male counterparts to
experience disconnection.
Table 1. Disconnected Civilian, Noninstitutional Youth by Race
and Hispanic Origin, Ages 16 Through 24 (2007)
Total
Number of Men
(% of total
(% of 16 to 24 population)
16-24
NonNonNonpopulation) Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic
White
Black
Other
1,827,536
(4.9)
355,545
(3.0)
231,604
(9.0)
111,551
(3.2)
54,473
(4.2)
Number of Women
(% of 16 to 24 population)
NonHispanic
White
478,708
(4.2)
NonHispanic
Black
258,394
(9.5)
Hispanic
269,632
(8.6)
NonHispanic
Other
67,628
(5.2)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
Survey (March 2007).
Note: 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 (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.
Incarcerated Youth.35 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).36 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%.37 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%.38 In contrast, inclusion of these population
34
These rates do not appear to be 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.
35
This discussion based in part on CRS Report RL32871, Youth: From Classroom to
Workplace?, by Linda Levine.
36
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at
Midyear 2006, p. 1, available at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim06.pdf].
37
Disadvantaged Young Men, p. 13.
38
U.S. Congressional Budget Office, What Is Happening to Youth Employment Rates, Table
(continued...)
CRS-12
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).39 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
disconnected mothers had their first child between 14 and 20, and half of them
reported welfare receipt.
Positive Youth Development:
The Importance of Resiliency and Opportunity
Although vulnerable youth overall experience more negative outcomes than
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.40
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:
38
(...continued)
6, November 2004, at [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6017&sequence=0].
39
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].
40
National Youth Development Information Center, What is Youth Development?, available
at [http://www.nydic.org/nydic/programming/definition.htm].
CRS-13
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Cognitive: Knowledge of essential life skills, problem solving skills,
academic adeptness;
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.41
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.42
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.43 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
41
National Research Council, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002, pp. 6-7.
42
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.
43
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 Karen Pittman, Merita Irby, and Thaddeus Ferber, Unfinished
Business.)
CRS-14
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
that are local, grassroots entities.44 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.45
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).46 The youth development movement has attempted to shift
from an approach to youth that emphasizes problem prevention to one that addressed
44
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.
45
4-H, The National Conversation on Youth Development in the 21st Century: Final Report.
2002, p. 4.
46
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.ydsi.org/ydsi/pdf/WhatMatters.pdf]; 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].
CRS-15
the types of attitudes, skills, knowledge, and behaviors young people need to develop
for adulthood.47
Despite the endorsement of the positive youth development approach by
prominent organizations, the movement has faced challenges.48 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.49 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 multiple 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
47
Karen Pittman, Merita Irby, and Thaddeus Ferber, Unfinished Business, pp. 20-22.
48
Ibid., pp. 30-31.
49
Ibid., pp. 14-27.
CRS-16
“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, 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 six policy areas: workforce
development and job training, education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention,
social services, public health, and national and community service. 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.50 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.51
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.52 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
50
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.
51
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.
52
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 Kriste
Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood.)
CRS-17
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).
The concept of a “youth policy” in those early years was virtually nonexistent.
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 16.53 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.54 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.”55 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
18.56
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
53
Ibid., pp. 127, 137-138.
54
Ibid., pp. 148-153.
55
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.”
56
Kriste Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood, p. 193.
CRS-18
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
(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.57 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.58 (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 1953.59
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
57
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.
58
59
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-19
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,
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-20
!
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
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.60 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.61
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.62 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.63 The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 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 with
runaway and homeless youth and other vulnerable youth groups.
60
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.
61
Executive Office of the President, Conference Proceedings from the White House
Conference on Youth, 1971. Washington: GPO, 1971.
62
This discussion is based on correspondence with U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, April 2007.
63
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-21
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-1 provides an overview of 51 major federal programs for
youth in six policy areas discussed above — job training and workforce development,
education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health,
and national and community service. The table includes the programs’ authorizing
legislation and US code section; objectives; FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008 funding
levels and the requested FY2009 funding levels; agency with jurisdiction; and
targeted at-risk youth population.64 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-1, their contact
information, and CRS reports on some of the programs are listed in Table A-2.
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
64
The FY2009 funding levels will be updated when the final figures become available.
CRS-22
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.65
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.66 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 2001.67 The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998
(P.L. 105-220) reauthorized the program through FY2003, although annual
appropriations have continued funding through FY2008.
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.68
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.
65
A state-by-state expenditure data report for these and other categories of services is
available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/annrpt/2005/index.html].
66
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.
67
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].
68
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-23
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.69 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
youth, including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency. The
69
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-24
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.70
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.71 Five Trio programs provide direct services to students and two
provide indirect services.72 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
improve college students’ retention and graduation rates, and improve transfer rates
70
For additional information, see CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR-UP Programs:
Status and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
71
The precise definition of disadvantaged varies between the programs. It generally refers
to individuals who are low-income, first-generation college students, or disabled.
72
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-25
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 nonprofits 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.73 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.
73
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-26
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.74 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 were
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,
74
This section was prepared by CRS Analyst Blas Nuñez-Neto. For an expanded discussion
of juvenile justice legislation and issues, please see CRS Report RL33947, Juvenile Justice:
Legislative History and Current Legislative Issues, by Blas Nuñez-Neto.
CRS-27
it has continued to receive appropriations each subsequent fiscal year.75 These grants
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.76
Foster Care Program and Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program (CFCIP). Title IV-E of the Social Security Act authorizes the federal
foster care program.77 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;78 2) have specific judicial determinations made related to
75
For additional information, see CRS Report RL34306 Vulnerable Youth: Federal
Mentoring Programs and Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
76
Two additional child welfare programs, Court Appointed Special Advocates and
Children’s Advocacy Centers, are discussed in the chart below. The programs are
administered by the U.S. Department of Justice.
77
For additional information, see CRS Report RL31242, Child Welfare: Federal Program
Requirements for States, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
78
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
(continued...)
CRS-28
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).
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.79
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 1965.80 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.81 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
78
(...continued)
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).
79
For additional information, see CRS Report RS22501, Child Welfare: Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP), by Adrienne Fernandes.
80
81
See Sections 102 and 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
For additional information, see CRS Report RL34306 Vulnerable Youth: Federal
Mentoring Programs and Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
CRS-29
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, contains three components: the Basic Center Program
(BCP), Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach Program (SOP).82
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.83 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).84 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-1) 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
82
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics, Programs, and Emerging Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
83
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.
84
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33997 Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA): Reauthorization Issues, by Ramya Sundararaman.
CRS-30
supports statewide and tribal activities to develop and implement youth suicide
prevention and intervention strategies.85
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
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.86 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
85
Other SAMSHA funds are made available for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
and training to organizations and individuals developing suicide prevention programs.
86
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-31
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
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.
National and Community Service.87 The Corporation for National and
Community Service (CNCS) is an independent federal agency that administers
programs authorized by two statutes: the National and Community Service Act
(NCSA, P.L. 101-610) of 1990, as amended, and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act
(DVSA, P.L. 93-113) of 1973, as amended.88 The focus of these programs is to
provide public service to communities in need through multiple service activities.
Although CNCS works to involve a diverse range of individuals in their programs,
the agency makes particular efforts to engage disadvantaged youth, either because
they enroll these youth to help to carry out the programs (i.e., members or volunteers)
or provide services to them through the programs (i.e., beneficiaries). CNCS’s
strategic plan for 2006 through 2010 emphasizes the agency’s focus on improving the
lives of disadvantaged and other youth by leveraging national service programs to
meet their most pressing academic, health related, environmental, and social needs.89
The strategic plan also lays out the agency’s commitment to involving disadvantaged
youth in their communities through service, citing that these youth are less likely to
participate in volunteer activities than their counterparts who are not disadvantaged.
CNCS defines disadvantaged children and youth are those up to age 25 with
exceptional or special needs (as defined in part 2552.81 of the DVSA regulations),
or who are economically disadvantaged and for whom one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school, including out-of-school youth who are unemployed; 2) in
or aging out of foster care; 3) limited English proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
away from home; 5) at risk of leaving school without a diploma; and 6) former
juvenile offenders or at risk of delinquency.
87
This information was provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service
in correspondence in March and April 2008.
88
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33931, The Corporation for National and
Community Service: Overview of Programs and FY2009 Funding, by Ann Lordeman and
Abigail B. Rudman.
89
For further information, see [http://www.cns.gov/about/focus_areas/index.asp].
CRS-32
The major CNCS programs are organized into three service streams:
AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, and Senior Corps.
AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps identifies and address critical community needs by
tutoring and mentoring disadvantaged youth, managing or operating after-school
programs, helping communities respond to disasters, improving health services,
building affordable housing, and cleaning parks and streams, among other services.
For providing these types of services full-time for a term of service (up to one year),
AmeriCorps members earn an education award of $4,725 (and proportionally less if
they provide services for half-time, reduced half-time, etc.). CNCS classifies
programs as AmeriCorps programs if members are eligible to earn the education
award. Three CNCS programs meet this criteria: AmeriCorps State and National,
Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), and National Civilian Community Corps
(NCCC).
AmeriCorps State and National program90 provides state formula and
competitive grant funding to governor-appointed state service commissions, which
award grants to non-profit groups that recruit AmeriCorps members to respond to
local needs (AmeriCorps State). The balance of grant funding is distributed
competitively by CNCS to multi-state and national organizations (AmeriCorps
National), such as Teach for America, and to Indian tribes and territories. Some
grantees enroll members who are disadvantaged, such as YouthBuild USA, which
recruits at-risk youth ages 17 to 24 as members, to meet the housing and technology
needs of their communities. Other grantees place members in organizations and
schools to serve disadvantaged youth in grades K through 12 in after-school, before
school, and enrichment programs.
The focus of VISTA91 is to strengthen efforts to eliminate poverty through
volunteer service. VISTA provides full-time members to non-profit community
organizations and public agencies through a non-competitive application process
managed locally by CNCS State Offices. VISTA supports projects that focus on
serving disadvantaged youth beneficiaries, some of whom are younger than age 12.
These projects include mentoring, as well as after school, tutoring, and job skills
development programs. Although VISTA does not target any one population of
youth, the program has recently placed an emphasis on serving children of prisoners
and youth aging out of foster care.
Finally, NCCC92 is a residential program for youth 18 through 24. Members
live and train at five campuses93 and are deployed to serve communities in every
state. Like the other two AmeriCorps programs, members work closely with
non-profit organizations and public agencies to meet community needs.
90
The programs are also called AmeriCorps*State and National Direct by CNCS, and is
titled National Service Trust Programs in Title I-C of the NCSA.
91
This program is called AmeriCorps*VISTA by CNCS, and VISTA in Title I-A of DVSA.
92
This program is called AmeriCorps*NCCC by CNCS, and the Civilian Community Corps
in Title I-E of NCSA.
93
This number includes campuses that are scheduled to open in 2008 and 2009.
CRS-33
Learn and Serve America. Learn and Serve America emphasizes
service-learning, which is intended to engage students in using what they learn in the
classroom to solve real-life problems. Learn and Serve America makes formula
grants to state education agencies (SEAs) and makes competitive grants to SEAs,
Indian tribes, and non-profit organizations to support service by students, including
youth from disadvantaged circumstances, during school as well as after school and
in the summer months.94 The program also provides grants to support community
service projects by students, faculty, and staff on college campuses. Learn and Serve
projects provided assistance to youth beneficiaries from disadvantaged circumstances
through mentoring and tutoring. Several of the projects also focused on substance
abuse prevention, special education, and dropout prevention, among other activities
targeted to youth generally.
Senior Corps. Senior Corps is composed of volunteers over the age of 55
who help to meet a wide range of community challenges through three programs:
Foster Grandparents Program (FGP), Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP),
and Senior Companion program. The first two provide assistance in the community
by working with children and youth with a variety of needs, among other populations
and activities. The FGP provides aid to children and youth with exceptional needs,
including children who have been abused or neglected or are otherwise at risk;
mentors troubled teenagers and young mothers; cares for premature infants and
children with physical disabilities; and teaches reading instruction to children who
are falling behind their grade level. RSVP provides a variety of services to
communities. These services include tutoring children and teenagers, renovating
homes, and serving as museum docents. Grants for Senior Corps program are
awarded to non-profit organizations and public agencies. Upon successful
completion of a three-year grant cycle, the organization or agency is eligible to renew
the grant for another cycle without competition from other entities.
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
94
In its definition of disadvantaged, the program also include students who are enrolled in
schools where 50% or more of students receive free or reduced-priced meals.
CRS-34
priorities that cross older institutional boundaries.95 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 51 programs described in Table A-1, 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.96 The White
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.97
In its October 2003 final report, the task force identified 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
95
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.
96
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
Accountability Office.)
97
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 White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth Final Report.)
CRS-35
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.
!
Limited 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
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 their 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.98
98
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Redundancy and Duplication
in Federal Child Welfare Programs: A Case Study on the Need for Executive
(continued...)
CRS-36
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. Although not explicitly stated in P.L.
109-365, 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 2 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.99 They argue that the council
can improve accountability of various federal components by consolidating review
and reporting requirements.
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
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
98
(...continued)
Reorganization Authority, hearing, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., May 20, 2004 (Washington: GPO,
2004), available at [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/chearings/108hcat1.html].
99
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-37
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.
Funds were not appropriated for the council for FY2007 or FY2008, and the
President’s FY2009 budget does not request funding for the council. However, on
February 7, 2008, President Bush signed Executive Order 13459 to establish an
Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, discussed below.100
Table 2. Duties of the Federal Youth Council, by Goal
Goal: To Improve Coordination
— 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.
Goal: To Assess Youth Programs
— 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), on the basis of language in P.L. 109365.
100
Executive Order 13459. “Improving the Coordination and Effectiveness of Youth
Programs.” Federal Register, vol. 73 (February 7, 2008), pp. 8003-8005.
CRS-38
Executive Order 13459
In Executive Order 13459, President Bush cited the success of the interagency
collaboration that resulted from the Helping America’s Youth (HAY) initiative as the
impetus for creating an Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs. See below
for additional information on HAY. The working group is to consist of the
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human
Services, Housing and Urban Development Justice, and Labor; the Office of National
Drug Control Policy; and the Corporation for National and Community Service. The
HHS Secretary is to serve as chair and the Attorney General as vice chair for the two
years following the date of the executive order. Subsequent chairs and vice chairs
will be designated by the HHS Secretary on a biennial basis. The primary functions
of the working group are as follows:
!
identify and engage key government and private or nonprofit
organizations that can play a role in improving the coordination and
effectiveness of programs serving and engaging youth, such as faithbased and other community organizations, businesses, volunteers,
and other key constituencies;
!
develop a new federal website on youth, built upon the Community
Guide to Helping America’s Youth, with the first phase of the
website to be launched within 10 months of the date of the executive
order; develop strategies to ensure that the website is routinely
updated, improved, and publicized; provide for training to
youth-serving entities to enable effective use of the website; and
identify and assess the strengths and weaknesses of existing federal
websites focusing on youth-serving entities in order to improve
access to the most useful content;
!
encourage all youth-serving federal and state agencies, communities,
grantees, and organizations to adopt high standards for assessing
program results, including through the use of rigorous impact
evaluations, as appropriate, so that the most effective practices can
be identified and replicated, and ineffective or duplicative programs
can be eliminated or reformed;
!
identify and promote initiatives and activities that merit strong
interagency collaboration because of their potential to offer costeffective solutions to achieve better results for at-risk youth,
including volunteer service in concern with the USA Freedom Corps
and mentoring in concert with the Federal Mentoring Council; and
!
annually report to the President on its work and on the
implementation of any recommendations arising from its work, with
the first report submitted no later than six months after the date of
the executive order.
The website is to be funded by contributions from executive departments and
agencies.
CRS-39
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.101 In its report supporting the act’s coordinating
provisions, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee noted:102
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 authorized 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,
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.
101
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.
102
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Human Services
Reauthorization Act, report to accompany P.L. 101-501, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 101421 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1990), p. 1963.
CRS-40
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.103 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
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
103
White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final Report, pp. 33-34.
CRS-41
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.104 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.105 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.106
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 was to create and
implement plans to improve communication and collaboration between local
organizations that serve at-risk youth. The department competitively awarded grants
totaling $1.6 million to these states to assist them in developing strategic plans to link
their systems that serve youth. For example, Arizona is using this initiative to bring
together state and county agencies that can assist youth exiting foster care or the
juvenile justice system in two counties connect to education and employment
services and supports.107 The Department of Health and Human Services has funded
a solutions desk, administered by the National Child Welfare Resource Center for
Youth Development, to provide the 16 states a single point of access to information
on federal resources available to assist them in implementing Shared Youth Vision
activities.
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
104
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].
105
Ibid., pp. 8-9.
106
Based on correspondence with staff from the National Corporation for National and
Community Service, December 2007.
107
For additional information about the programs in each state, see [http://www.doleta.gov/
ryf/Resources/TechnicalAssistanceForum.cfm].
CRS-42
educational services. One of the program’s goals is to develop models of
comprehensive youth transition services that can be evaluated for their
effectiveness.108
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).109 The program awards grants to
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.110 According to congressional testimony in 2005 by the HHS Secretary, the
U.S. Departments of Education and Labor are working together to assist youth who
have dropped out of school. The agencies work 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.
108
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Transition to Adulthood:
SAMHSA Helps Vulnerable Youth, SAMHSA News, vol. XI, no. 1 (2003).
109
110
For additional information, see [http://samhsa.gov/grants/2008/sp_08_002.aspx].
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-43
The Secretary also stated that 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
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 nonprofit 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:
CRS-44
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.111
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.
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.112 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
111
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.
112
The Older Americans Act is the major vehicle for the delivery of social and nutritional
services for older persons.
CRS-45
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 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.113 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 six states and the District of
Columbia have also brought together local civic leaders, researchers, and youth 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.114 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
113
For additional information, see [http://www.helpingamericasyouth.gov/].
114
See [http://guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/].
CRS-46
community group as providers of social services.115 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. 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.
In response to the federal coordination that HAY has promoted, President Bush
signed an executive order to create an interagency working group on youth programs,
discussed above.
Alliance for Youth: America’s Promise
America’s Promise is the national program established by the nonprofit
organization, Alliance for Youth, to promote the Five Promises that attendees at the
Presidents’ Summit for America’s Future (held in Philadelphia in 1997)116
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.117
America’s Promise is funded through a combination of federal and private
funds. The Corporation for National and 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 CNCS. Congress did
not appropriate funds for America’s Promise for FY2007 and FY2008.118
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
115
For additional information, see CRS Report RS21844, The Compassion Capital Fund:
Brief Facts and Current Development, by Joe Richardson.
116
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.
117
The organization’s website provides additional information about the Five Promises:
[http://www.americaspromise.org/].
118
For funding in FY2008, the appropriations committees expect that America’s Promise
will be eligible to compete for merit-based grants under the AmeriCorps program. See U.S.
House, Congressional Record, H16282, December 17, 2007.
CRS-47
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.119
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
grants to nine (Iowa, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
New York, and Oregon) of the original 13 states in FY2005 to fund collaborative
projects between those states and local jurisdictions and Indian tribes. The purpose
of the projects is to facilitate communication and cooperation among different levels
of government and the nonprofit 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.120 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. Although 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 challenges in school.
Without protective factors in place, vulnerable youth may have difficulty
transitioning to adulthood. Detachment from the labor market and school — or
119
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].
120
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-48
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
agencies with evaluating these programs. In February 2008, President Bush signed
an executive order establishing a federal Interagency Working Group on Youth
Programs. 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-49
Appendix: Federal Youth Programs
and Relevant CRS Reports and Experts
Table A-1. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth
Program
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Job Training and Workforce Development
Job Corps
Workforce Investment Act
of 1998, as amended
29 U.S.C. §2881 et seq.
WIA Youth Activities
Workforce Investment Act
of 1998, as amended
29 U.S.C. §2851 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: $1.6 billion
FY2009: $1.5 billion
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.
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: $924 million
FY2009: $821 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.
CRS-50
Program
YouthBuild
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable
Housing Act of 1990, as
amended
29 U.S.C. §2918a
Youth Conservation
Corps
Youth Conservation Corps
Act of 1970, as amended
16 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
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: $59 million
FY2009: $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).
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.
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).
U.S. Department
All youth 15 to 18 years of age
of the Interior
(targets economically
(Bureau of Land
disadvantaged, at-risk).
Management, Fish
and Wildlife
Agency, and the
National Park
Service) and U.S.
Department of
Agriculture (Forest
Service)
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
FY2009: $14 billion
U.S. Department
of Education
Education
Title I-A: Education
for the Disadvantaged
Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as
amended
20 U.S.C. §6301 et. seq.
Educationally disadvantaged
children and youth, in areas
with concentrations of children
and youth in low-income
families.
CRS-51
Program
Title I-C: Migrant
Education
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as
amended
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
To support high quality and
comprehensive educational
programs for migrant children
and youth.
FY2006: $387 million
FY2007: $387 million
FY2008: $380 million
FY2009: $400 million
U.S. Department
of Education
Migrant children and youth.
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: $49 million FY2009:
$52 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: $0
FY2008: $0
FY2009: $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: $700 million
FY2009: $730 million
U.S. Department
of Education
Children and youth with limited
English proficiency.
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: $295 million
FY2009: $100 million
U.S. Department
of Education
All youth; at-risk youth; school
dropouts.
20 U.S.C. §6391
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. §6421-6472 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.
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
20 U.S.C. §§7111-7118
CRS-52
Program
Title IV-B: 21st
Century Learning
Centers
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as
amended
20 U.S.C. §8241 et seq.
Objective(s) of
Program
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 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
FY2006: $981 million
FY2007: $981 million
FY2008: $1.1 billion
FY2009: $800 million
U.S. Department
of Education
Students who attend highpoverty and low-performing
schools.
Title VII: Education of
Homeless Children
McKinney-Vento Homeless To provide activities for and
Assistance Act of 1987, as services to ensure that homeless
amended
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: $64 million
FY2009: $64 million
U.S. Department
of Education
Homeless children and youth 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
FY2009: $34 million
U.S. Department
of Education
Migrant youth ages 16 to 21.
Upward Bound
Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended
To increase the academic
performance of eligible enrollees
so that such persons may
complete secondary school and
pursue postsecondary
educational programs.
FY2006: $310 million
FY2007: $314 million
FY2008: $361 million
FY2009: $360 million
U.S. Department
of Education
Low-income individuals and
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).
20 U.S.C. §1070d-2
20 U.S.C. §1070a-13
CRS-53
Program
Educational
Opportunity Centers
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
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. §1070a-15
Student Support
Services
Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §1070a-14
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
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
FY2009: $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: $45 million
FY2008: $44 million
FY2009: $44 million
U.S. Department
of Education
Low-income college students
or underrepresented students
enrolled in an institution of
higher education.
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: $281 million
FY2009: $282 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.
CRS-54
Program
Talent Search
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §1070a-12
Objective(s) of
Program
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
FY2006: $150 million
FY2007: $143 million
FY2008: $143 million
FY2009: $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.
To provide financial assistance
to low-income 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
FY2009: $303 million
U.S. Department
of Education
Low-income students and
students in high-poverty
schools.
FY2006: $10.6 billion
FY2007: $10.8 billion
FY2008: $11.0 billion
FY2009: $11.3 billion
U.S. Department
of Education
School-aged children and youth
with disabilities, up to age 21
(pursuant to state law).
Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended
Individuals with
Disabilities Education
Act, Part B Grant to
States
To provide a free appropriate
Education for All
Handicapped Children Act education to all children with
disabilities.
of 1975, as amended
(currently known as the
Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act)
20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
Agency
with Jurisdiction
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
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 (GEAR-UP)
20 U.S.C.
§1070a-21-1070a-28
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
CRS-55
Program
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Juvenile Justice
State Formula Grants
Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974, as amended
42 U.S.C. §5631-33
Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention Block
Grant Program
21st Century Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act
of 2002
42 U.S.C. 5651-5656
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 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 delinquency, group
homes, and halfway houses).
FY2006: $80 million
FY2007: $79 million
FY2008: $74 million
FY2009: The U.S. DOJ
FY2009 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.
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: $0
FY2007: $0
FY2008: $0
FY2009: 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, gang members, and
at-risk youth.
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
FY2006: $25 million
FY2007: $25 million
FY2008: $19 million
FY2009: The U.S. DOJ
FY2008 Performance Budget
proposes to consolidate this
U.S. Department
of Justice
At-risk youth, delinquent
youth, juvenile offenders, gang
members, and youth under age
22.
CRS-56
Program
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
from dropping out of school and
joining gangs).
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
Juvenile Mentoring
Program (JUMP)
Currently Unauthorized.
This program was repealed
by P.L. 107-273 but
funding continues to be
appropriated.
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: $70 million
FY2009: The U.S. DOJ
FY2009 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 foster youth.
State Challenge
Activities, Part E
Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974, as amended
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: $94 million
FY2009: The U.S. DOJ
FY2009 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
At-risk youth, delinquent
youth, juvenile offenders, gang
members, and at-risk youth.
42 U.S.C. §5665
CRS-57
Program
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
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: $61 million
FY2009: The U.S. DOJ
FY2009 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, at-risk youth.
Foster Care
Social Security Act of 1935 To assist states in providing
(Sections 471 and 472), as foster care for eligible children,
amended
including maintenance payments
(i.e. room and board) and case
42 USC §§671, 672
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
FY2009: $4.5 million
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.)
Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program
Social Security Act of 1935 To assist states and localities in
(Section 477), as amended establishing and carrying out
programs designed to assist
42 U.S.C. §677
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:
FY2007:
FY2008:
FY2009:
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Current or former foster care
youth under age 21.
Title V Incentive
Grants for Local
Delinquency
Prevention Program
Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974, as amended
42 U.S.C. §4781-85
Social Services
$140 million
$140 million
$140 million
$140 million
CRS-58
Program
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Chafee Foster Care
Social Security Act of
Independence Program 1935, (Section 477), as
Education and Training amended
Vouchers
42 U.S.C. §677
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: $45 million
FY2009: $45 million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Older foster care youth and
youth adopted from foster care
at age 16 or older.
Basic Center Program
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:
FY2007:
FY2008:
FY2009:
$48 million
$48 million
$53 million
$53 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: $43 million
FY2009: $43 million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Runaway and homeless youth
ages 16-21.
To provide grants to nonprofit
agencies to provide street-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.
FY2006: $15 million
FY2007: $15 million
FY2008: $17 million
F72009: $17 million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Runaway and homeless youth
who live on or frequent the
streets.
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.
Street Outreach
Program
Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act of 1974, as
amended
42 U.S.C. §5701 et seq.
CRS-59
Program
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Mentoring Children of
Prisoners
Social Security Act of 1935 To make competitive grants to
(Section 439), as amended applicants in areas with
significant numbers of children
42 U.S.C. §629i
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.
FY2006: $50 million
FY2007: $50 million
FY2008: $49 million FY2009:
$50 million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth of imprisoned parents.
Court Appointed
Special Advocates
Victims of Child Abuse Act To ensure every victim of child
of 1990, as amended
abuse and neglect receives the
services of a court appointed
42 U.S.C. §13011-13014
advocate.
FY2006: $12 million
FY2007: $12 million
FY2008: $13 million
FY2009: The U.S. DOJ
FY2009 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
Abused and neglected children
and youth.
CRS-60
Program
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Victims of Child Abuse Act To establish advocacy centers to
of 1990, as amended
coordinate multi-disciplinary
responses to child abuse and to
42 U.S.C. §13001-13004
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: $17 million
F72009: The U.S. DOJ
FY2009: The FY2009
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
Abused and neglected youth.
Garrett Lee Smith
Memorial Act Youth
Suicide Prevention
Program
Public Health Service Act
of 1974, as amended
To provide grants to states and
college campuses for youth
suicide prevention activities.
FY2006: $23 million
FY2007: $23 million
FY2008: $34 million
FY2009: $23 million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth under age 25.
Comprehensive
Community Mental
Health Services for
Children with Serious
Emotional
Disturbances
Public Health Service Act
of 1974, as amended
To provide community-based
systems of care for children and
adolescents with a serious
emotional disturbance and their
family.
FY2006: $104 million
FY2007: $104 million
FY2008: $102 million
FY2009: $114 million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth under age 22 with a
serious emotional disorders.
National Child
Traumatic Stress
Initiative
Children’s Health Act of
2000 (Section 582(d))
To create a national network that
develops, promotes, and
disseminates information related
to a wide variety of traumatic
events.
FY2006: $29 million
FY2007: $29 million
FY2008: $33 million
FY2009: $16 million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Children and youth who have
experienced traumatic events.
To provide funding to states for
infrastructure and services that
FY2006: $106 million
FY2007: $106 million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Youth at risk of using and
abusing drugs.
Children’s Advocacy
Centers
Public Health
42 USC § §290aa et seq.,
290bb et seq.
42 USC §290ff
42 USC §290aa
Strategic Prevention
Framework State
Public Health Service Act
of 1974, as amended
CRS-61
Program
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Infrastructure Grant
42 U.S.C. 290bb
implement a five-step strategy
for preventing substance and
alcohol abuse among youth.
FY2008: $105 million
FY2009: $95 million
Human Services
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
To provide substance abuse
treatment practices to
adolescents and their families
using previously proven
effective family-centered
methods.
FY2006: $5 million
FY2007: $10 million
FY2008: $10 million
FY2009: $0
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth using drugs.
Juvenile Treatment
Drug Court
Public Health Service Act
of 1974, as amended
To provide effective substance
treatment and reduce delinquent
activity.
FY2006: $10 million
FY2007: $10 million
FY2008: $3 million
FY2009: $38 (for adult,
juvenile, and family treatment
drug court programs)
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth using drugs who are
found delinquent.
To provide project grants to
public and private institutions for
community-based abstinence
education project grants.
FY2006: $109 million
FY2007: $109 million
FY2008: $109 million
FY2009: $137 million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth ages 12 to 18.
FY2006: $50 million
FY2007: $50 million
FY2008: $50 million
FY2009: $50 million
U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services
Youth likely to bear children
outside of marriage.
42 U.S.C. 290bb-2
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
Abstinence Education
Program
Social Security Act of 1935 To provide formula grant
(Section 510), as amended funding for states to provide
abstinence education and, at the
42 U.S.C. §710
option of the state, where
appropriate, mentoring,
counseling, and adult
supervision to promote
abstinence from sexual activity.
CRS-62
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 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 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
FY2007: $30 million
FY2008: $30 million
FY2009: $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
FY2007: $30 million
FY2008: $30 million
FY2009: $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.
(Funding for the Adolescent
Family Life Demonstration
Projects and Research Grants
is combined.)
(Funding for the Adolescent
Family Life Demonstration
Projects and Research Grants
is combined.)
CRS-63
Program
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
FY2006: $265 million
FY2007: $265 million
FY2008: $257 million
FY2009: $274 million
Corporation for
National and
Community
Service
Youth up to age 25 with
exceptional or special needs, or
who are economically
disadvantaged and for whom
one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school,
including out-of-school youth
who are unemployed; 2) in or
aging out of foster care; 3)
limited English proficiency; 4)
homeless or have run away
from home; 5) at-risk of
leaving school without a
diploma; and 6) former juvenile
offenders or at risk of
delinquency.
FY2006: $95 million
FY2007: $95 million
FY2008: $94 million
FY2009: $92 million
Corporation for
National and
Community
Service
Youth up to age 25 with
exceptional or special needs, or
who are economically
disadvantaged and for whom
one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school,
including out-of-school youth
who are unemployed; 2) in or
aging out of foster care; 3)
limited English proficiency; 4)
homeless or have run away
from home; 5) at-risk to leave
school without a diploma; and
6) former juvenile offenders or
at risk of delinquency.
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
National and Community Service
AmeriCorps State and
National
National Community
Service Act, as amended
42 U.S.C. §12571 et seq.,
42 U.S.C. §12061 et seq.
AmeriCorps VISTA
Domestic Volunteer
Service Act, as amended
To address the educational,
public safety, human, or
environmental needs through
services that provide a direct
benefit to the community.
To bring low-income individuals
and communities out of poverty
through programs in community
42 U.S.C.§ 4951, 42 U.S.C. organizations and public
§12061 et seq.
agencies.
CRS-64
Program
AmeriCorps National
Civilian Community
Corps
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
National Community
Service Act, as amended
42 U.S.C. §12611 et seq.,
42 U.S.C. §12061 et seq.
Learn and Serve
America
National Community
Service Act, as amended
42 U.S.C. §12521-12547,
42 §U.S.C. 121561 et seq.
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
To address the educational,
public safety, environmental,
human needs, and disaster relief
through services that provide a
direct benefit to the community.
FY2006: $37 million
FY2007: $27 million
FY2008: $24 million
FY2009: $9 million
Corporation for
National and
Community
Service
Youth up to age 25 with
exceptional or special needs, or
who are economically
disadvantaged and for whom
one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school,
including out-of-school youth
who are unemployed; 2) in or
aging out of foster care; 3)
limited English proficiency; 4)
homeless or have run away
from home; 5) at risk of leaving
school without a diploma; and
6) former juvenile offenders or
at risk of delinquency.
To involve students in
community service projects that
address the educational, public
safety, human, or environmental
needs in ways that benefit both
the student and community.
FY2006: $37 million
FY2007: $37 million
FY2008: $37 million
FY2009: $32 million
Corporation for
National and
Community
Service
Youth up to age 25 with
exceptional or special needs, or
who are economically
disadvantaged and for whom
one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school,
including out-of-school youth
who are unemployed; 2) in or
aging out of foster care; 3)
limited English proficiency; 4)
homeless or have run away
from home; 5) at risk of leaving
school without a diploma; and
6) former juvenile offenders or
at risk of delinquency.
Objective(s) of
Program
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
CRS-65
Program
Senior Corps Foster
Grandparents
FY2006 -FY2008
Appropriations and
President’s FY2009 Request
(rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
To provide service to children
with special or exceptional
needs.
FY2006: $111 million
FY2007: $111 million
FY2008: $109 million
FY2009: $68 million
Corporation for
National and
Community
Service
Youth up to age 25 with
exceptional or special needs, or
who are economically
disadvantaged and for whom
one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school,
including out-of-school youth
who are unemployed; 2) in or
aging out of foster care; 3)
limited English proficiency; 4)
homeless or have run away
from home; 5) at risk of leaving
school without a diploma; and
6) former juvenile offenders or
at risk of delinquency.
To involve seniors in community
service projects that address the
educational, public safety,
human, or environmental needs
in ways that benefit both the
senior and community.
FY2006: $60 million
FY2007: $60 million
FY2008: $58 million
FY2009: $60 million
Corporation for
National and
Community
Service
Youth up to age 25 with
exceptional or special needs, or
who are economically
disadvantaged and for whom
one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school,
including out-of-school youth
who are unemployed; 2) in or
aging out of foster care; 3)
limited English proficiency; 4)
homeless or have run away
from home; 5) at risk of leaving
school without a diploma; and
6) former juvenile offenders or
at risk of delinquency.
Authorizing Legislation
and U.S. Code Citation
Domestic Volunteer
Service Act, as amended
Objective(s) of
Program
42 U.S.C. §5011 et seq.
Senior Corps RSVP
Domestic Volunteer
Service Act, as amended
42 U.S.C. 5001
Source: Table created by the Congressional Research Service.
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
CRS-66
Table A-2. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst
Contact Information
— Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, Part B Grants to States
— National and Community Service
Programs
— 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
— CRS Report RL33931, The Corporation for National and Community Service:
Overview of Programs and FY2009 Funding, by Ann Lordeman and Abigail B.
Rudman
Ann
Lordeman
alordeman@crs.loc.gov
x7-2323
— Title IV: Safe and Drug Free Schools
— CRS Report RL33980, School and Campus Safety Programs and Requirements in Gail
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Higher Education Act, by Rebecca McCallion
R. Skinner and Gail McCallion
gmccallion@crs.loc.gov
x7-7758
— 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
— CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning From Foster Care: Background,
Federal Programs, and Issues for Congress, by Adrienne Fernandes
— CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and
Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes
— CRS Report RL34050, Missing and Exploited Children: Background, Policies,
and Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes
— CRS Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and
Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes
Adrienne L.
Fernandes
afernandes@crs.loc.gov
x7-9005
— Title VII: Education of Homeless
Children
— CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs and Recent
Legislation, coordinated by Libby Perl
Gail
McCallion
gmccallion@crs.loc.gov
x7-7758
— Upward Bound
— Education Opportunity Centers
— Student Support Services
— Talent Search
— Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness
for Undergraduate Programs
— School Dropout Prevention Program
— CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status and Issues, by
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
— CRS Report RL33963, High School Graduation, Completion, and Dropouts:
Federal Policy, Programs, and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Jeffrey J.
Kuenzi
jkuenzi@crs.loc.gov
x7-8645
CRS-67
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst
Contact Information
— Workforce Development (generally)
— YouthBuild
— Job Corps
— CRS Report RL33687, The Workforce Investment Act (WIA): Program-byProgram Overview and FY2007 Funding of Title I Training Programs, by Blake Alan
Naughton and Ann Lordeman
Blake Alan
Naughton
bnaughton@crs.loc.gov
x7-0376
Juvenile Justice (generally)
— CRS Report RS22070, Juvenile Justice: Overview of Legislative History and
Funding Trends, by Blas Nuñez-Neto
— CRS Report RL33947, Juvenile Justice: Legislative History and Current
Legislative Issues, by Blas Nuñez-Neto
Blas NuñezNeto
bnunezneto@crs.loc.go
v
x7-0622
— 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 Wayne C.
I-A Amendments Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle
Riddle
wriddle@crs.loc.gov
x7-7382
— Migrant Education
— Migrant High School Equivalency
Program
— Title III: English Language Acquisition
— CRS Report RL31325, The Federal Migrant Education Program as Amended by
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
— 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
Rebecca R.
Skinner
rskinner@crs.loc.gov
x7-6600
— Community-Based Abstinence Education
— Abstinence Education Program
— Adolescent Family Life Demonstration
Projects
— Adolescent Family Life Research Grants
— CRS Report RS20873, Reducing Teen Pregnancy: Family Life and Abstinence
Education Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears
— CRS Report RS20301, Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Statistics and Programs,
by Carmen Solomon-Fears
Carmen
SolomonFears
csolomonfears@crs.loc.
gov
x7-7306
— Foster Care
— Court Appointed Special Advocates
Program
— Children’s Advocacy Centers
— 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
Source: Table created by the Congressional Research Service. a “positive youth development” focus.
Congressional Research Service
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 2
Age of Youth and the Transition to Adulthood.......................................................................... 2
Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population................................................................................ 4
Groups of Vulnerable Youth................................................................................................ 5
Framework for Risk......................................................................................................................... 6
Disconnectedness ...................................................................................................................... 8
Positive Youth Development: The Importance of Resiliency and Opportunity......................... 9
What is Youth Development?.............................................................................................. 9
The Youth Development Movement ................................................................................. 10
Evolution of the Federal Role in Assisting Vulnerable Youth ....................................................... 12
1912-1950s: Children’s Bureau Programs and Workforce Programs...................................... 12
1960s-1970s: War on Poverty Initiatives and Expansion of Programs.................................... 14
White House Conferences on Children and Youth: 1960s and 1970s............................... 15
Family and Youth Services Bureau ................................................................................... 16
1980s-Present: Current Youth Programs ................................................................................. 16
Job Training and Workforce Development........................................................................ 17
Education........................................................................................................................... 18
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ................................................................... 21
Social Services .................................................................................................................. 22
Public Health..................................................................................................................... 23
National and Community Service ..................................................................................... 25
Federal Efforts to Improve Coordination Among Programs for Vulnerable Youth ....................... 27
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 27
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501) ................................................ 28
Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families ........................................................... 28
Grants for States and Community Programs ..................................................................... 29
More Recent Concerns about Coordination of Youth Programs ............................................. 29
Youth Build Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281)................................................................................. 30
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365) ............................................... 31
Executive Order 13459............................................................................................................ 32
Comparison of the Federal Youth Development Council and the Interagency
Working Group............................................................................................................... 33
Federal Initiatives to Improve Coordination ........................................................................... 35
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention........................... 35
Shared Youth Vision Initiative........................................................................................... 35
Federal Mentoring Council ............................................................................................... 36
Child Welfare Partnerships................................................................................................ 36
Partnerships for Youth Transition...................................................................................... 37
Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative ............................................................ 37
Drug-Free Communities Support Program ....................................................................... 38
Policies to Promote Positive Youth Development ......................................................................... 38
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 38
Youth Development Community Block Grant of 1995 (H.R. 2807/S. 673)........................... 38
Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005) ................................................................ 39
Congressional Research Service
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 40
Figures
Figure 1. Risk Framework for Vulnerable Youth............................................................................. 7
Tables
Table 1. Duties of the Federal Youth Development Council, by Goal........................................... 32
Table A-1. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth....................................................................... 42
Table A-2. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information ............................................ 63
Appendixes
Appendix. Federal Youth Programs and Relevant CRS Reports and Experts ............................... 42
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 65
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 65
Congressional Research Service
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 multiple programs
established in the early 20th century and expanded through Great Society initiatives. These
programs, concentrated in six areas—workforce development, education, juvenile justice and
delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and community service—
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)
that authorizes the federal government to establish a youth council to improve coordination of
federal programs serving youth. The youth council has not been established, but in 2009, a federal
working group on youth issues was convened. In the past three decades, Congress has also
considered other legislation (the Youth Community Development Block Grant of 1995 and the
Younger Americans Act of 2000) 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, focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of current federal
programs targeted at vulnerable youth. (Table A-1, at the end of the report, enumerates the
objectives and funding levels of such programs. Note that the table does not enumerate all
programs that target, even in small part, vulnerable or disconnected youth.) The report then
discusses the challenges of coordinating 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.
Congressional Research Service
1
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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 64 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 or other relatives.
The current move from adolescence to adulthood has become longer and more complex,
particularly since the postwar period.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 that favors highly skilled, educated workers.4 The ability for young
people to secure well-paid employment is contingent on higher levels of education. From the
1970s to the 2000s, real wages and hours worked rose most significantly for those with some
college or who had a college degree.5 Many more youth now receive vocational training or enroll
in colleges and universities after leaving high school compared to earlier generations.6
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 career options
and relationships with potential long-term partners.7 The median age of first marriage has risen
1
U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Age and Sex: 2010, 2010 Census Summary File 1, available at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP1&prodType=
table.
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, Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own
Without a Net.)
4
Sheldon Danziger and David Ratner, “Labor Market Outcomes and the Transition to Adulthood,” The Future of
Children, Transition to Adulthood, vol. 20, no. 1 (Spring 2010), p. 24, http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/
publications/journals/journal_details/index.xml?journalid=72.
5
Ibid, pp. 136-138.
6
Maria D. Fitzpatrick and Sarah E. Turner, “Blurring the Boundary: Changes in Collegiate Participation and the
Transition to Adulthood,” in The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood, Sheldon Danziger and
Cecilia Elena Rouse, eds., (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007), pp. 110-11.
7
Sheldon Danziger and Cecilia Elena Rouse, eds., The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood
(New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007), pp. 3, 11. (Hereinafter, Danziger and Rouse, eds., The Price of
Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood.)
Congressional Research Service
2
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
each decade since the 1950s, with 25.8 years for women and 28.3 years for men in recent years.8
The extended transition to adulthood for some youth may delay becoming financially
independent, which can create burden their families. Nearly 60% of parents today provide
financial support to their adult children who are no longer in school. This support comes in the
form of housing (50% of the parents who provided support), living expenses (48%), cost of
transportation (41%), health insurance (35%), spending money (29%), and medical bills (28%).9
Approximately 1.1 million young adults who were not in school lived with one or both of their
parents in 2010.10
Programs that assist youth making the transition to adulthood also recognize that adolescence is
no longer a finite period ending at age 18. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (P.L. 111-148), the health reform law, requires health insurance companies to provide
coverage to the children of parents who are enrolled in their health care plans up to their 26th
birthday. It also provides a new Medicaid pathway, effective January 2014, for children who age
out of foster care up to their 26th birthday. 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.11 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.12
8
U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Time Series, Marital Status (MS-2), Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex:
1890 to the Present, available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam.html; and Casey E. Copen
et al., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, First Marriages in the United States: Data From the 2006-2010
National Survey of Family Growth, No. 49, March 22, 2012, pp. 5-6, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf.
9
This is based on a survey of parents and their adult children ages 18 to 39 who are not in school. Jenna Goudreau,
“Nearly 60% of Parents Provide Financial Support to Adult Children ,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/
jennagoudreau/2011/05/20/parents-provide-financial-support-money-adult-children/.
10
This is based on adult children ages 18 to 34 who are not in school. Laryssa Mykyta and Suzane Macartney, Sharing
a Household: Household Composition and Well-Being 2007-2010, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Report,
June 2012, http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-242.pdf.
11
See CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs, by Adrienne L.
Fernandes-Alcantara.
12
The Network has published three books on this topic. 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); Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net; and Danziger and Rouse, eds., The Price of
Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood.
Congressional Research Service
3
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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, self-sufficiency. One-third of young adults today will graduate from a
four-year college or university.13 Nonetheless, some young people do not grow up in a secure
environment or with parents that provide a comprehensive system of support.14 These youth often
live in impoverished neighborhoods, where they may be exposed to violence, and come to school
unprepared to learn. Their communities and schools often lack resources. 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,15 and some believe
that these labels should not be used because of their potentially stigmatizing effects.16 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.17 They have also been used to
suggest that youth grow up in unstable family or community environments.18 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.19 “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).20 Youth may also
experience multiple risk factors. Vulnerable youth may also display resiliency that mitigates
negative outcomes.
13
This is based on percentage of adults ages 25 to 34 who have received a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2011. Sarah
R. Crissey, “Educational Attainment of the Population 18 Years and Over by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin:
2011,” Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2011/tables.html.
14
Heather Koball et al., Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth, Mathematica Policy Research,
inc., ACF Youth Demonstration Development Project, June 21, 2011, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/fys/youth
... /synthesis_youth.pdf. (Hereinafter Heather Koball et al., Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk
Youth.)
15
Ibid.
16
Kristin Anderson Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At Risk,’” Child Trends Research-to-Results Brief, Publication
#2006-12, October 2006. (Hereinafter, Kristin Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At-Risk.’”)
17
J. Jeffries McWhirter et al., At-Risk Youth: A Comprehensive Response. California: Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2004, p.
6. (Hereinafter, J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth.)
18
Kristin Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At-Risk.’”
19
Martha R. Burt, Gary Resnick, and Nancy Matheson, Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk
Youth, The Urban Institute, 1992, pp. 13-22.
20
J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 7-9.
Congressional Research Service
4
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Groups of Vulnerable Youth
Researchers on vulnerable youth have identified multiple groups at risk of experiencing poor
outcomes as they enter adulthood.21 These groups include, but are not limited to the following:
•
youth 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 on the basis of 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
history, or other challenges. Vulnerable youth who have depended on public systems of support
often lose needed assistance at the age of majority.22 Many will lose health insurance coverage,
vocational services, and supplementary income.23 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.
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 diverse socioeconomic and racial backgrounds.
However, youth of color and the poor tend to be overrepresented in vulnerable populations. This
21
See, for example, Heather Koball et al., Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth; Wayne
Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net; and 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. Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth includes youth who are the
focus of programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and
Families, including youth aging out of foster care, runaway and homeless youth, youth receiving Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF), teenage parents, and juvenile offenders. On Your Own Without a Net focuses on the seven
groups listed above, 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-involved youth, and foster
youth.
22
Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, p. 10.
23
Ibid., pp. 10-12.
Congressional Research Service
5
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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.24
Youth may also be members of multiple vulnerable populations. For instance, former foster youth
are particularly at risk of becoming homeless. Each year about 26,000 youth “age out” of foster
care, and of these youth, about two-fifths receive independent living services.25 Emancipated
youth may have inadequate housing supports.26 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.27 Their economic
vulnerability can place them at risk of losing their housing.
Framework for Risk
Not all vulnerable youth experience negative outcomes. However, the social science literature
identifies three broad categories of factors that influence whether youth face challenges in
adolescence and as they transition to adulthood.28 These categories include antecedents of risk,
markers of risk, and problem behaviors. Figure 1 summarizes the three categories and the risk
outcomes vulnerable youth may experience.
24
J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 9, 13, and 14.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, AFCARS Report #19,
Preliminary Estimates for FY2011, July 2012, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#afcars.
26
Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring. “The Transition to Adulthood for Youth “Aging Out” of the Foster
Care System” in Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, pp. 27-32.
27
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. (Hereinafter, Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care.)
28
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.
25
Congressional Research Service
6
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Figure 1. Risk Framework for Vulnerable Youth
Source: Figure created by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of Martha Burt, Gary Resnick,
and Nancy Matheson, “Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk Youth: Final Report,” The
Urban Institute, 1992, Exhibit 2.2.
Antecedents of risk are the social environmental conditions that influence outcomes; these factors
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 were less likely to be employed as adults than their
peers.29 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.30
29
Steven R. Holloway and Stephen Mullherin, “The Effects of Adolescent Neighborhood Poverty on Adult
Employment,” Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 26, no. 4, 2004.
30
Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men. Washington, DC: Urban
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Some analyses have found that youths’ place of residence in proximity to jobs affects their labor
market involvement independent of other factors.31 Jobs in the manufacturing sector have been
replaced by the growth of the service and high-technology sectors, jobs requiring technical and
managerial skills.32 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, according to scores from a basic cognitive skills test as part
of the 1994 National Longitudinal Education Survey, is associated with low employment rates.
Among 16-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.33 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. Studies show that youth who have “aged out” of foster care fare
poorly relative to their counterparts in the general population on several outcome measures.34
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 1, as risk
outcomes. Risk outcomes include school dropout, low employment prospects, teen pregnancy, and
alcohol and substance abuse.
Disconnectedness
Youth advocates and researchers have recently focused on vulnerable youth who experience
negative outcomes in both employment and educational attainment.35 Generally characterized as
disconnected, these youth are not working or attending school. However, there is no uniform
definition of this term. On the basis of a CRS review of studies on the population, the definition
of disconnected varies, with differences in ages of the youth and the length that youth are not in
school or working. The studies count youth as young as age 16 and as old as age 24, with ages in
(...continued)
Institute Press, 2006, pp. 19-21. (Hereinafter, Edelman, Holzer, and Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men.)
31
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 Prospects,” Urban Studies, vol. 35,
no.7, 1998 and Stephen Raphael, “Inter-and Intra-Ethnic Comparisons of the Central City-Suburban Youth
Employment Differential,” Industrial & Labor Relationship Review, vol. 51, no. 3, April 1998.
32
William Julius Wilson, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Vintage Books,
1996, pp. 25-29.
33
Edelman, Holzer, and Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men, p. 21.
34
Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care.
35
CRS Report R40535, Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School, by
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara and Thomas Gabe.
Congressional Research Service
8
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
between (i.e., 16 to 19, 18 to 24).36 Youth are generally considered disconnected if they were not
working or in school at the time they were surveyed, or over a period of time prior to the survey.
Some of the definitions, however, incorporate other characteristics, such as marital status and
educational attainment. Further, several studies used definitions that included only noninstitutionalized youth. This means that these studies do not count youth in prisons, college
dorms, mental health facilities, and other institutions.
Positive Youth Development: The Importance of Resiliency
and Opportunity
Although vulnerable youth experience more negative outcomes than their counterparts who are
not considered to be at risk, some of these youth go on to attend college and/or secure
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.37
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;
•
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.38
36
Ibid.
National Youth Development Information Center, What is Youth Development?, available at http://www.nydic.org/
nydic/programming/definition.htm.
38
National Research Council, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 2002, pp. 6-7.
37
Congressional Research Service
9
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
A primary factor that influences how well youth develop these competencies is the interaction
among individual characteristics, or traits influenced by genetic inheritance and prenatal
environment; the social environment—societal conditions, communities, and schools can serve to
reinforce positive behaviors and promote positive outcomes for vulnerable youth; and the home
environment, including discord among parents and monitoring of children by their parents.39
Individual conditions refer to the characteristics of individuals that can influence resilience.
Individual-level characteristics that can promote resilience include social skills, coping strategies,
a positive sense of self, and high expectations. 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.40 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—such as mentoring and leadership programs—emphasize the positive
elements of growing up and engage young people in alternatives to counteract negative pressures.
Finally, the family context plays a pivotal role in youth development. Parental oversight of their
children 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 have 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
39
This discussion is based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Family and Youth Services Bureau,
Understanding Youth Development: Promoting Positive Pathways of Growth, 1997; and Heather Koball et al.,
Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth.
40
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. (Hereinafter Pittman, Irby, and Ferber, Unfinished Business.)
Congressional Research Service
10
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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 entities
(National Research Council, Carnegie Corporation of New York, and MacArthur Foundation
Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood), 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).41 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.42
Despite the endorsement of the positive youth development approach by prominent organizations,
the movement has faced challenges.43 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.44 The recommendations have also called for evaluations of youth programs with
a positive youth approach and improved monitoring and assessment of programs.
41
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.ydsi.org/ydsi/pdf/
WhatMatters.pdf; 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 Development,
available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/positiveyouth/publications.htm.
42
Pittman, Irby, and Ferber, Unfinished Business, pp. 20-22.
43
Ibid., pp. 30-31.
44
Ibid., pp. 14-27.
Congressional Research Service
11
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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 multiple 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 on the basis of 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, 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 six policy areas: workforce development and job training, education,
juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and
community service. 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.45 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.46
45
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. 8185.
46
John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth in America, Vol. II: 18661932, Parts 1-6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 440.
Congressional Research Service
12
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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.47 Though not a cabinet-level 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).
The concept of a “youth policy” in those early years was virtually nonexistent. 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 16.48
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.49 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.”50 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 18.51
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
47
Kriste Lindenmeyer, “A Right to Childhood:” The U.S. Children’s Bureau and Child Welfare, 1912-46 (Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press, 1997). (Hereinafter Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood.)
48
Ibid., pp. 127, 137-138.
49
Ibid., pp. 148-153.
50
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.”
51
Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood, p. 193.
Congressional Research Service
13
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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 (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.52 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.53 (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 (DOL) 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 1953.54
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
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 the following.
•
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, low-income youth. Similarly,
Upward Bound was created to assist disadvantaged high school students who
went on to attend college.
52
John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth in America, Vol. III: 19331973, Parts 1-4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, pp. 91-96.
53
Ibid., pp. 99-104.
54
For additional information about the creation of HEW, see CRS Report RL31497, Creation of Executive
Departments: Highlights from the Legislative History of Modern Precedents, by Thomas P. Carr.
Congressional Research Service
14
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
•
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (P.L. 89-10): 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, lowincome 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. 90445). 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 aftercare services to runaway youth and their families. Congress later amended (P.L.
95-115) Title III to include homeless youth.
•
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 educational plan for these students, with parental input, that would
emulate as closely as possible the educational experiences of able-bodied
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
Congressional Research Service
15
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
concerns of youth, as well as improved social services to adolescents and young adults.55 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.56
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.57 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.58 The
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 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 with
runaway and homeless youth and other vulnerable youth groups.
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, including the Runaway and Homeless
Youth program and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program, among others.) Federal youth policy
today also includes recent initiatives to promote positive youth development and increase
coordination between federal agencies that administer youth-focused programs.
Table A-1 in the Appendix provides an overview of over 50 major federal programs for youth in
six policy areas discussed above—job training and workforce development, education, juvenile
justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and community
service. The table includes the programs’ authorizing legislation and US code section; objectives;
FY2006 through FY2012 funding levels and the requested FY2013 funding levels; agency with
jurisdiction; and targeted at-risk youth population.59 The programs were selected based upon their
55
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.
56
Executive Office of the President, Conference Proceedings from the White House Conference on Youth, 1971.
Washington: GPO, 1971.
57
This discussion is based on correspondence with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, April 2007.
58
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.
59
The FY2009 funding levels will be updated when the final figures become available.
Congressional Research Service
16
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
objectives to serve vulnerable youth primarily between the ages of 10 to 24, or to research this
population. The CRS contributors to Table A-1, their contact information, and CRS reports on
some of the programs are listed in Table A-2.
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 twoparent 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 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.60
Job Training and Workforce Development61
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. 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. The Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) reauthorized the program through FY2003,
although annual appropriations have continued funding.
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
60
A state-by-state expenditure data report for these and other categories of services is available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/annrpt/2005/index.html.
61
For additional information, see CRS Report R40929, Vulnerable Youth: Employment and Job Training Programs, by
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
Congressional Research Service
17
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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.62
Created by the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1992 (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. 109-281). Finally,
the Youth Conservation Corps, established in 1970 by the Youth Conservation Corps Act (P.L. 91378) 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 (ED). 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.63 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
62
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.
63
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended
by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
Congressional Research Service
18
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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 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 focusing greater attention on the achievement of
English proficiency. 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
Funding provided under the Higher Education Act (P.L. 89-329), as amended, is authorized
through FY2014. Foremost among HEA programs targeted to low-income, college-bound youth
are Trio and GEAR UP.64 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 post-secondary studies.65 Five Trio programs
provide direct services to students and two provide indirect services.66 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
64
For additional information, see CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status and Issues, by Jeffrey J.
Kuenzi.
65
The precise definition of disadvantaged varies between the programs. It generally refers to individuals who are lowincome, first-generation college students, or disabled.
66
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.
Congressional Research Service
19
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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 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 nonprofits 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.67 Part B of the act includes provisions for the education of school-aged
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.
67
For additional information, see CRS Report R41833, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part
B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions, by Ann Lordeman.
Congressional Research Service
20
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Education of Homeless Children
The McKinney-Vento Act (P.L. 100-77), 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
(DOJ) 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 Act68
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 were 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 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.69 These grants 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,
68
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33947, Juvenile Justice: Legislative History and Current Legislative
Issues, by Kristin M. Finklea.
69
For additional information, see CRS Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues,
by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
Congressional Research Service
21
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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
(HHS).70
Foster Care Program and Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP)
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act authorizes the federal foster care program.71 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. 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;72 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).
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.
70
Two additional child welfare programs, Court Appointed Special Advocates and Children’s Advocacy Centers, are
discussed in the chart below. The programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Justice.
71
For additional information, see CRS Report RL31242, Child Welfare: Federal Program Requirements for States, by
Emilie Stoltzfus.
72
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).
Congressional Research Service
22
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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.73 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 1965.74 Only youth
receiving a voucher at age 21 may continue to participate in the voucher program until age 23.
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, contains three components: the Basic Center Program
(BCP), Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach Program (SOP).75 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.76 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).77 These programs address youth mental
health, substance abuse, teen pregnancy prevention, and support for pregnant and parenting teens.
73
For additional information, see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and
Federal Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
74
See Sections 102 and 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
75
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs,
by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
76
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
NEO-RHYMIS.
77
For additional information, see CRS Report R41477, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA): Agency Overview and Reauthorization Issues, by C. Stephen Redhead.
Congressional Research Service
23
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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-1) 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.78
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 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 Network, 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 on the basis of 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).
78
Other SAMSHA funds are made available for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and training to organizations
and individuals developing suicide prevention programs.
Congressional Research Service
24
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Support Programs79
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. An education program, Abstinence Education Grants, provides formula and
competitive grants for abstinence education. 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. From
FY2000 through FY2009, abstinence-only education for youth ages 12 to 18 was also funded
through HHS’s Community-Based Abstinence Education program (formerly known as Special
Programs of Regional and National Significance, SPRANS).
P.L. 111-148 (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA) established a state formula
grant program to enable states to operate a new Personal Responsibility Education Program
(PREP), which is a comprehensive approach to teen pregnancy prevention that educates
adolescents on both abstinence and contraception to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted
diseases. It also provides youth with information on several adulthood preparation subjects (e.g.,
healthy relationships, adolescent development, financial literacy, parent-child communication,
educational and career success, and healthy life skills). The new program is mandated to provide
programs that are evidence-based, medically accurate, and age-appropriate.
In addition to the education programs, HHS sponsored projects to increase awareness about teen
pregnancy and abstinence through FY2011 under the Adolescent Family Life Demonstration
Projects and Research Grants. These programs were designed to promote family 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 provided services to youth and the research and evaluation program evaluates the
delivery of those services.
National and Community Service80
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) is an independent federal agency
that administers programs authorized by two statutes: the National and Community Service Act
(NCSA, P.L. 101-610) of 1990, as amended, and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act (DVSA,
P.L. 93-113) of 1973, as amended.81 The focus of these programs is to provide public service to
communities in need through multiple service activities. Although CNCS works to involve a
diverse range of individuals in their programs, the agency makes particular efforts to engage
disadvantaged youth, either because they enroll these youth to help to carry out the programs (i.e.,
79
For additional information, see CRS Report RS20301, Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Statistics and Programs, by
Carmen Solomon-Fears.
80
This information was provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service in correspondence in March
and April 2008.
81
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33931, The Corporation for National and Community Service:
Overview of Programs and FY2012 Funding, by Abigail B. Rudman and Ann Lordeman, and CRS Report R40432,
Reauthorization of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973
(P.L. 111-13), by Ann Lordeman.
Congressional Research Service
25
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
members or volunteers) or provide services to them through the programs (i.e., beneficiaries).
CNCS’s strategic plan for 2011 through 2015 emphasizes the agency’s focus on improving the
lives of disadvantaged and other youth by leveraging national service programs to meet their most
pressing academic, health related, environmental, and social needs.82
The NCSA and DVSA were most recently reauthorized by the Serve America Act (P.L. 111-13),
which includes a definition of “disadvantaged youth.” A “disadvantaged youth” is an individual
who is economically disadvantaged and one or more of the following: out-of-school, including
out-of-school youth who are unemployed; in or aging out of foster care; has limited English
proficiency; homeless or who have run away from home; at-risk of leaving secondary school
without a diploma; former juvenile offenders or at risk of delinquency; or individuals with
disabilities. One of the programs discussed below requires a certain share of volunteers to be
disadvantaged youth.
The major CNCS programs are organized into two service streams, AmeriCorps and Senior
Corps.
AmeriCorps
AmeriCorps identifies and addresses critical community needs by tutoring and mentoring
disadvantaged youth, managing or operating after-school programs, helping communities respond
to disasters, improving health services, building affordable housing, and cleaning parks and
streams, among other services. There are three AmeriCorps programs: AmeriCorps State and
National, Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), and National Civilian Community Corps
(NCCC). For providing services full-time for a term of service (up to one year), AmeriCorps
members earn an education award equal to the maximum amount of a Pell Grant in the year in
which service is rendered (and proportionally less if they provide services for half-time, reduced
half-time, etc.).
AmeriCorps State and National program83 provides state formula and competitive grant funding
to governor-appointed state service commissions, which award grants to non-profit groups that
recruit AmeriCorps members to respond to local needs (AmeriCorps State). The balance of grant
funding is distributed competitively by CNCS to multi-state and national organizations
(AmeriCorps National), such as Teach for America, and to Indian tribes and territories. Some
grantees enroll members who are disadvantaged, such as YouthBuild USA, which recruits at-risk
youth ages 17 to 24 as members, to meet the housing and technology needs of their communities.
Other grantees place members in organizations and schools to serve disadvantaged youth in
grades K through 12 in after-school, before school, and enrichment programs.
The focus of VISTA84 is to strengthen efforts to eliminate poverty through volunteer service.
VISTA provides full-time members to non-profit community organizations and public agencies
through a non-competitive application process managed locally by CNCS State Offices. VISTA
supports projects that focus on serving disadvantaged youth beneficiaries, some of whom are
82
Corporation for National and Community Service, Strategic Plan 2011-2015, http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/
11_0203_cncs_strategic_plan.pdf.
83
The programs are also called AmeriCorps*State and National Direct by CNCS, and is titled National Service Trust
Programs in Title I-C of the NCSA.
84
This program is called AmeriCorps*VISTA by CNCS, and VISTA in Title I-A of DVSA.
Congressional Research Service
26
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
younger than age 12. These projects include mentoring, as well as after school, tutoring, and job
skills development programs. Although VISTA does not target any one population of youth, the
program has recently placed an emphasis on serving children of prisoners and youth aging out of
foster care.
Finally, NCCC85 is a residential program for youth 18 through 24. Members live and train at five
campuses and are deployed to serve communities in every state. Like the other two AmeriCorps
programs, members work closely with non-profit organizations and public agencies to meet
community needs. P.L. 111-13 requires that the percentage of participants in the program who are
disadvantaged youth increase over time.
Senior Corps
Senior Corps is composed of volunteers age 55 or older who help to meet a wide range of
community challenges through three programs: Foster Grandparents Program (FGP), Retired and
Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), and Senior Companion program. The first two provide
assistance in the community by working with children and youth with a variety of needs, among
other populations and activities. The FGP provides aid to children and youth with exceptional
needs, including children who have been abused or neglected or are otherwise at risk; mentors
troubled teenagers and young mothers; cares for premature infants and children with physical
disabilities; and teaches reading instruction to children who are falling behind their grade level.
RSVP provides a variety of services to communities. These services include tutoring children and
teenagers, renovating homes, and serving as museum docents. Grants for the Senior Corps
programs are awarded to non-profit organizations and public agencies. Upon successful
completion of a three-year grant cycle, the organization or agency is eligible to renew the grant
for another cycle without competition from other entities.
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.86
85
This program is called AmeriCorps*NCCC by CNCS, and the Civilian Community Corps in Title I-E of NCSA.
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.
86
Congressional Research Service
27
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
The following section discusses federal efforts to improve coordination of youth programs. The
section first addresses laws and an executive order that have sought to spur coordination across
multiple government agencies. These laws include the Claude Pepper Young Americans Act (P.L.
101-501), YouthBuild Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281), and Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination
Act (P.L. 109-365); however, of the three, only the YouthBuild Transfer Act has been funded. In
2008, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13459 to establish an Interagency
Working Group on Youth Programs. Following this discussion is a description of efforts to
coordinate programs around specific youth topic areas and youth populations, such as through
coordinating councils and grant programs carried out by two or more agencies.
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) was the first in recent history to address youth
coordination issues; however, the law was never funded. P.L. 101-501 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.87 In its report supporting the act’s coordinating
provisions, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee noted:88
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 authorized 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, 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
87
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.
88
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Human Services Reauthorization Act, report to
accompany P.L. 101-501, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 101-421 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1990), p. 1963.
Congressional Research Service
28
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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.
More Recent Concerns about Coordination of Youth Programs
In addition to the programs described in Table A-1, 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 at-risk 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.89 The White House Task Force
for Disadvantaged Youth, convened in 2002 under President George W. Bush, 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.90 In its October 2003
final report, the task force identified concerns with coordinating these 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
sub-group 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.
89
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 Accountability Office.)
90
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. (Hereinafter White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final Report.)
Congressional Research Service
29
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
•
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.
•
Limited 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 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 self-evaluated 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 their 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.91
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.92 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 under the
Workforce Investment Act.
91
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.
92
White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final Report, pp. 33-34.
Congressional Research Service
30
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365)
In response to the concerns generally 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), which created the Federal Youth Development Council and
specified that it would be chaired by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. The Council was authorized for FY2007 and FY2008, but was not ultimately
established. Funds were not appropriated for these years. However, on February 7, 2008,
President Bush signed Executive Order 13459 to establish an Interagency Working Group on
Youth Programs, discussed below, to improve coordination of youth policy.93
Although not explicitly stated in P.L. 109-365, the purpose of the legislation appeared to be
twofold: to improve coordination across federal agencies that administer programs for vulnerable
youth and to assist federal agencies with evaluating these programs. Table 1 describes the duties
of the Council that were discussed in the law to meet these two goals. Prior to the passage of the
law, policymakers and advocates asserted that the council could 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.94 They
argued that the council could improve accountability of various federal components by
consolidating review and reporting requirements. Other duties of the council that are not listed in
the table, 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 specified 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 did
not describe how the council should coordinate with these other bodies. For further information
on the Coordinating Council, see below.) Further, the law required 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 was to 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 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
93
Executive Order 13459. “Improving the Coordination and Effectiveness of Youth Programs.” Federal Register, vol.
73 (February 7, 2008), pp. 8003-8005.
94
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, statements of
Rep. Tom Osborne and Marguerite W. Sallee, Alliance for Youth (Washington: GPO, 2005), available at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/chearings/109hcat1.html.
Congressional Research Service
31
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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.
Table 1. Duties of the Federal Youth Development Council, by Goal
Goal: To Improve Coordination
Goal: To Assess Youth Programs
—Ensure communication among agencies administering
programs for disadvantaged youth;
—In coordination with the Federal Interagency Forum
on Child and Family Statistics, assess (1) the needs of
youth, especially those in disadvantaged situations, and
those who work with youth; and (2) the quality and
quantity of federal programs offering services,
supports, and opportunities to help youth in their
development;
—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 (1) model programs and
demonstration projects focusing on special populations,
including youth in foster care and migrant youth; (2)
projects to promote parental involvement; and (3)
projects that work to involve young people in service
programs;
—Solicit and document ongoing input and
recommendations from (1) youth, especially youth in
disadvantaged situations; (2) national youth development
experts, researchers, parents, community-based
organizations, foundations, business leaders, youth
service providers, and teachers; and (3) state and local
government agencies.
—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 (1) to promote highquality research and evaluation, identify and replicate
model programs and promising practices, and provide
technical assistance relating to the needs of youth; and
(2) to coordinate the collection and dissemination of
youth services-related data and research.
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), on the basis of language in P.L. 109-365.
Executive Order 13459
On February 7, 2008, President Bush signed Executive Order 13459 to establish an Interagency
Working Group on Youth Programs (hereinafter, Working Group). In the order, President Bush
cited the success of the interagency collaboration that resulted from the Helping America’s Youth
(HAY) initiative as the impetus for creating an Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs.
HAY was a national initiative, led by Laura Bush, to promote positive youth development by
raising awareness about the challenges facing youth and motivating caring adults to connect with
youth through forums and an online resource.95 This online resource, known as the Community
Action Guide, sought to help communities assess their needs and resources and link them to
effective programs to help youth. This tool was created in partnership with nine federal agencies.
The Working Group was convened in 2008. Pursuant to the executive order, the working group
consists of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human
Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Labor; the Office of National Drug
Control Policy; and the Corporation for National and Community Service. Many of the federal
95
For additional information, see http://www.helpingamericasyouth.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
32
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
career staff members involved in HAY participate in the Working Group. The primary functions
of the working group, as specified in the executive order, include (1) identifying and engaging
key government and private or nonprofit organizations that can play a role in improving the
coordination and effectiveness of programs serving and engaging youth, such as faith-based and
other community organizations; (2) developing a new federal website on youth, built upon HAY’s
Community Guide,96 (3) encouraging all youth-serving federal and state agencies, communities,
grantees, and organizations to adopt high standards for assessing program results, including
through the use of rigorous impact evaluations, as appropriate; and (4) reporting to the President
on its work and on the implementation of any recommendations arising from its work.
Congress has appropriated funds for the Working Group in one year since the group was
established. The Working Group received $1 million in FY2009 through the HHS appropriation
to be used for soliciting input from young people, state children’s cabinet directors, and nonprofit
organizations on youth programs; developing an “overarching strategic plan for federal youth
policy,” and “recommendation to improve the coordination, effectiveness, and efficiency of
programs affecting youth.”97 From May to December 2010, the Working Group convened
listening sessions in 10 communities throughout the United States to solicit input from
stakeholders, including youth, about the plan.98 In August and October 2010, the Working Group
held meetings, at HHS, to solicit information from the public on the strategic plan.99 In December
2010, the Working Group published a draft of the strategic plan in the Federal Register and asked
for public comments.100 The Working Group has since developed a framework to guide
development of the plan, which focuses on three overarching outcomes for youth up to the age of
24: health, safety, and wellness; school, family, and community engagement and connections; and
education, training, employment, transitions, and readiness for careers and adulthood.101
Comparison of the Federal Youth Development Council and the Interagency
Working Group
Major differences between the Federal Youth Development Council and the Interagency Working
Group, as expressed in the law and executive order, appear to be their leadership structures,
membership, and some of their duties. Under both the Federal Youth Development Council and
Interagency Working Group, the HHS Secretary is to serve as chair. As part of the Working
Group, the Secretary has the discretion to designate other agency heads as the chair and vice chair
after two years, and biennially thereafter. Although the Federal Youth Development Council was
96
The website has been established at http://www.findyouthinfo.org.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Division F of committee print to accompany the Omnibus
Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105), 111th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2009).
98
For further information, see Working Group on Youth Programs, “Strategic Plan,” http://www.findyouthinfo.gov/
spotlight_strategicPlan.shtml.
99
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
“Public Meeting To Solicit Input for a Strategic Plan for Federal Youth Policy,” 75 Federal Register 154, August 11,
2010; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, “Public Meeting To Solicit Input for a Strategic Plan for Federal Youth Policy,” 75 Federal Register 190,
October 1, 2010.
100
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
“Input for a Strategic Plan for Federal Youth Policy,” 75 Federal Register 244, December 21, 2010.
101
For further information, see Working Group on Youth Programs, “Strategic Plan,” http://www.findyouthinfo.gov/
spotlight_strategicPlan.shtml.
97
Congressional Research Service
33
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
authorized for a two-year period (FY2007 and FY2008), the executive order does not specify a
date that the Working Group should be terminated.
The Development Council would have likely been funded through an appropriation to HHS,
whereas the Working Group is funded by several agencies. Further, the authorization for the two
entities identified distinct, but overlapping memberships. The Council was authorized to include
representatives from outside organizations and groups, and the President would have been
required to consult with Congress about these appointments. In contrast, the Working Group
consists exclusively of federal staff. Finally, the two bodies have some distinct duties, as specified
in the law and executive order. Unlike the Working Group, the Council was charged with
assessing the needs of youth and those who work with youth to promote positive youth
development; recommending quantifiable goals and objectives for youth-serving programs; and
advising on the allocation of resources in support of these goals and objectives. And unlike the
Council, the Working Group is directed to create a new federal website on youth that provides
training to youth-serving entities and to develop and disseminate strategies to reduce the factors
that put youth at risk.
Despite these differences, the functions of the Council and Working Group, as described in law
and E.O. 13459, respectively, are similar. Both bodies were directed to improve coordination and
collaboration among federal agencies. For example, the law specifies that one of the duties of the
Council was to ensure communication among the agencies; to assist federal agencies in
collaborating on model programs, such as those involving special populations and projects to
promote parental involvement; and to coordinate with federal interagency entities, including the
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Likewise, the Working
Group is charged with identifying and promoting initiatives and activities that merit strong
interagency collaboration because of their potential to offer cost-effective solutions, including
mentoring, in concert with the Federal Mentoring Council. The Working Group is actively
working with other partnerships as well.
The law and executive order also direct the two bodies to identify and disseminate information
about promising youth programs. The law specifies that the Council should work with federal
agencies 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.”
Similarly, the executive order directs the Working Group to encourage various levels of
government and organizations to adopt “high standards for assessing program results ... so that
effective practices can be identified and replicated.” The role of the Working Group’s website is
to disseminate promising practices and to provide technical assistance to youth-serving
organizations and partnerships.
Finally, the executive order appears broad enough to permit the Working Group to take on some
of the functions that were specified for the Council, such as identifying target populations of
youth who are disproportionately at risk for negative outcomes; supporting initiatives that target
certain populations of youth, such as migrant youth or youth in foster care; and soliciting and
documenting ongoing input and recommendations from youth, national youth development
experts, researchers, community-based organizations, state and local governments, and other
stakeholders.
Congressional Research Service
34
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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 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.102
Shared Youth Vision Initiative
In response to the recommendations made by the Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, the U.S.
Departments of Education Health and Human Services, Justice, and Labor, 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 . The agencies
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 was to create and implement plans to
improve communication and collaboration between local organizations that serve at-risk youth.
The department competitively awarded grants totaling $1.6 million to these states to assist them
in developing strategic plans to link their systems that serve youth. For example, Arizona is using
this initiative to bring together state and county agencies that can assist youth exiting foster care
or the juvenile justice system in two counties connect to education and employment services and
supports.103 The Department of Health and Human Services has funded a solutions desk,
102
U.S. Department of Justice, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Report of
Activities and Recommendations to Congress, 2001-2008, September 2008, http://www.juvenilecouncil.gov/reports/
1_13_2009/Final%20Council%20Report%202008—12%2030%2008%20.pdf.
103
For additional information about the programs in each state, see http://www.doleta.gov/ryf/Resources/
TechnicalAssistanceForum.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
35
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
administered by the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development, to provide
the 16 states a single point of access to information on federal resources available to assist them
in implementing Shared Youth Vision activities.
Federal Mentoring Council104
The chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service and the
Commissioner of HHS’s Family and Youth Services Bureau chair the Federal Mentoring Council
(“Council”), which consists of the leadership teams of eight federal agencies with multiple youthfocused programs. The Council was created in 2006 to address the ways these agencies can
combine resources and training and technical assistance to federally administered mentoring
programs and to serve as a clearinghouse on federal mentoring. A national working group
composed of leading mentoring experts and practitioners (including the chief executive officers
of MENTOR, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the Boys and Girls Club, and America’s
Promise, among others) advises and shares effective mentoring practices with the Council. Since
the Council was convened, it has met quarterly.
The Council’s website, http://www.federalmentoringcouncil.gov, includes research from
practitioners in the mentoring field and lists grant opportunities for mentoring. The Council does
not have a designated funding source, although staff at HHS, CNCS, and the other agencies
commit time to serving on the Council and carrying out its activities. When funding has been
required to implement their initiatives, such as the website, member agencies contribute funding
as they are able.
Child Welfare Partnerships
HHS’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the agency that carries out most federal
child welfare programs, has partnered with other agencies to focus on the mental health and
educational needs of children in foster care. ACF is coordinating with the Centers on Medicare
and Medicaid (CMS) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), both agencies at HHS, to “support effective management” of prescription
medication for children in foster care, and they have called on their state counterparts to do the
same. Further, CMS, ACF, and SAMHSA convened state directors of child welfare, Medicaid,
and mental health agencies in August 2012 to address use of psychotropic medications for
children in foster care as well as the mental health needs of children who have experienced
maltreatment. In a letter to states about their joint work, the three federal agencies said that “State
Medicaid/CHIP agencies and mental health authorities play a significant role in providing
continuous access to and receipt of quality mental health services for children in out-of-home
care. Therefore it is essential that State child welfare, Medicaid, and mental health authorities
collaborate in any efforts to improve health, including medication use and prescription
monitoring structures in particular.”105
104
For additional information, see CRS Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues,
by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
105
George Sheldon, Acting Assistant Secretary, ACF; Donald Berwick, Administrator, CMS; and Pamela Hyde,
Administrator, SAMHSA, to “State Director,” November 23, 2011, http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/
mentalhealth/effectiveness/jointlettermeds.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
36
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Separately, ACF has partnered with the Department of Education (ED) in an effort to improve the
educational outcomes of youth in foster care. ACF and ED convened a meeting in 2011 with state
child welfare, education, and juvenile court officials for every state, Washington, DC, and Puerto
Rico. The purpose of the meeting was to encourage collaboration across these different systems
as a way to ensure that youth are continuously enrolled in school and that schools are meeting the
needs of these youth. The jurisdictions worked on action plans to implement strategies for
collaboration, and they continue to implement these plans.106
Partnerships for Youth Transition
HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and ED’s Office
of Special Education are cosponsoring a 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.107 An evaluation of the program suggests that it has contributed
to positive outcomes for youth, particularly in the areas of education and employment.108
Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative109
From FY1999 through the present, HHS, ED, and DOJ have provided joint grant funding for the
Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative to reduce violence and drug abuse at schools (K-12) 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.
106
For further information, see Hunter College, Silberman School of Social Work, National Resource Center for
Permanency and Family Connections, “Child Welfare, Education, and the Courts: A Collaboration to Strengthen
Educational Success of Children and Youth in Foster Care,” http://www.nrcpfc.org/education_summit/index.html.
107
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Transition to Adulthood: SAMHSA Helps Vulnerable
Youth, SAMHSA News, vol. XI, no. 1 (2003).
108
Mason G. Haber, Arun Karpur, Nicole Deschenes, and Hewitt B. Clark, Predicting Improvement of Transitioning
Youth People in the Partnerships for Youth Transition Initiative: Findings From a Multisite Demonstration, The
Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, vol. 35, no. 4 (October 2008).
109
For additional information, see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Administration, “Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SSHS) Initiative,” http://www.sshs.samhsa.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
37
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Drug-Free Communities Support Program110
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 agency). The program awards grants to 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.
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.
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.111
110
For additional information, see Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy,
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/dfc/.
111
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
38
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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.
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.112 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 according to 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 youth-serving 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.
(...continued)
Youth, and Families, Youth Development, hearing, 104th Cong., 1st sess., September 19, 1996.
112
The Older Americans Act is the major vehicle for the delivery of social and nutritional services for older persons.
Congressional Research Service
39
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Conclusion
This report provided an overview of the vulnerable youth population and examined the federal
role in supporting these youth. Although 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 challenges 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 agencies with evaluating these
programs. In February 2008, President Bush signed an executive order establishing a federal
Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs. Other coordinating efforts, such as the
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Shared Youth Vision
initiative, may have the resources and leadership to create a more unified federal youth policy,
albeit the Council 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.
Congressional Research Service
40
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Though federal legislation targeted at vulnerable young people has not been passed or
implemented in recent years, Executive Order 13459 and current collaborations (Share Youth
Vision and the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) appear to
have begun addressing, even in small measure, the needs of this population.
Congressional Research Service
41
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Appendix. Federal Youth Programs and Relevant CRS Reports and Experts
Table A-1. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Job Training and Workforce Development
Job Corps
Workforce Investment
Act of 1998, as amended
29 U.S.C. §2881 et seq.
WIA Youth Activities
Workforce Investment
Act of 1998, as amended
29 U.S.C. §2851 et seq.
CRS-42
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: $1.6 billion
FY2009: $1.7 billion
(plus $250,000 under
P.L. 111-5)
FY2010: $1.7 billion
FY2011: $1.7 billion
FY2012: $1.7 billion
U.S. Department of
Labor
Youth ages 16 to 21 (with
exceptions) who are either lowincome, 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.
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: $924 million
FY2009: $924 million
(plus $1.2 billion under
P.L. 111-5)
FY2010: $924 million
FY2011: $824 million
FY2012: $824 million
U.S. Department of
Labor
Youth ages 14 to 21 who are lowincome 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.
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
YouthBuild
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable
Housing Act of 1990, as
amended
29 U.S.C. §2918a
Youth Conservation
Corps
Youth Conservation
Corps Act of 1970, as
amended
16 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.
CRS-43
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
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: $62 million
FY2007: $62 million
FY2008: $59 million
FY2009: $70 million
(plus $50 million under
P.L. 111-5)
FY2010: $102.5 million
FY2011: $79.7 million
FY2012: $79.7 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).
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.
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).
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,
at-risk).
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
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
Title I-D: Prevention
and Intervention
Programs for
Children and Youths
Who Are Neglected,
Delinquent, or At
Risk
CRS-44
Elementary and
Secondary Education Act
of 1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §6421-6472 et
seq.
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: $12.7 billion
FY2007: $12.8 billion
FY2008: $13.9 billion
FY2009: $14.5 billion
(Plus $10.0 billion under
P.L. 111-5)
FY2010: $14.5 billion
FY2011: $14.5 billion
FY2012: $14.5 billion
FY2013 Request: $14.5
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
FY2009: $395 million
FY2010: $395 million
FY2011: $394 million
FY2012: $393 million
FY2013 Request: $393
million
U.S. Department of
Education
Migrant children and youth.
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: $49 million
FY2009: $50 million
FY2010: $50 million
FY2011: $50 million
FY2012: $50 million
FY2013 Request: $50
million
U.S. Department of
Education
Abused/neglected youth, delinquent
youth, and juvenile offenders.
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Title I-H: School
Dropout Prevention
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Elementary and
Secondary Education Act
of 1965, as amended
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.
CRS-45
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
To provide for school
dropout prevention and
reentry and to raise academic
achievement levels.
FY2006: $5 million
FY2007: $0
FY2008: $0
FY2009: $0
FY2010: $50 million
FY2011: $49 million
FY2012: $$49 million
FY2013 Request: $0
(Similar activities would
be supported under a
new program, College
Pathways and
Accelerated Learning,
that would consolidate
funds for School
Dropout Prevention and
other programs. The
Administration proposes
funding the new
program at $81 million.)
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: $700 million
FY2009: $730 million
FY2010: $750 million
FY2011: $734 million
FY2012: $732 million
FY2013 Request: $732
million
U.S. Department of
Education
Children and youth with limited
English proficiency.
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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.
Title VII: Education
of Homeless
Children
McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act
of 1987, as amended
42 U.S.C. §§1143111435
CRS-46
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
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: $295 million
FY2009: $295 million
FY2010: $0
FY2011: $0
FY2012: $0
FY2013 Request: $0
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: $981 million
FY2007: $981 million
FY2008: $1.1 billion
FY2009: $1.1 billion
FY2010: $1.2 billion
FY2011: $1.2 billion
FY2012: $1.2 billion
FY2013 Request: $1.2
billion
U.S. Department of
Education
Students who attend high-poverty
and low-performing schools.
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: $64 million
(plus $15 million for
disaster supplemental)
FY2009: $65 million
(plus $70 million under
P.L. 111-5)
FY2010: $65 million
FY2012: $65 million
FY2013 Request: $65
million
U.S. Department of
Education
Homeless children and youth in
elementary and secondary schools,
homeless preschool children, and the
parents of homeless children.
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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
Higher Education Act, as
amended
Upward Bound
(includes Regular
Upward Bound and
Upward Bound Math
and Science and
excludes Veterans
Upward Bound,
which serves
veterans)
Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended
CRS-47
20 U.S.C. §1070d-2
20 U.S.C. §1070a-13
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: $11.0 billion
FY2009: $11.5 billion
(plus $11.3 billion under
P.L. 111-5)
FY2010: $11.5 billion
FY2011: $11.5 billion
FY2012: $11.6 billion
FY2013 Request: $11.6
billion
U.S. Department of
Education
School-aged children and youth with
disabilities, up to age 21 (pursuant to
state law).
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: $33 million
FY2009: $34 million
FY2010: $37 million
FY2011: $37 million
FY2012: $37 million
FY2013 Request: $37
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
secondary school and pursue
postsecondary educational
programs.
FY2006: $299 million
FY2007: $301 million
FY2008: $347 million
FY2009: $350 million
FY2010: $349 million
FY2011: $340 million
FY2012: $310 million
FY2013 Request: $840
million (part of larger
funding for TRIO
programs)
U.S. Department of
Education
Low-income individuals and 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).
20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
Migrant High School
Equivalency Program
and College
Assistance Migrant
Programs
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
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
Student Support
Services
Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §1070a-15
20 U.S.C. §1070a-14
CRS-48
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
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
FY2009: $47 million
FY2010: $47 million
FY2011: $48 million
FY2012: $47 million
FY2013 Request: $840
million (part of larger
funding for TRIO
programs)
U.S. Department of
Education
At least two-thirds of participants in
any project must be low-income
students who would be firstgeneration 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: $45 million
FY2008: $45 million
FY2009: $47 million
FY2010: $48 million
FY2011: $46 million
FY2012: $36 million
FY2013 Request: $840
million (part of larger
funding for TRIO
programs)
U.S. Department of
Education
Low-income college students or
underrepresented students enrolled
in an institution of higher education.
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: $284 million
FY2009: $302 million
FY2010: $301 million
FY2011: $291 million
FY2012: $291 million
FY2013 Request: $840
million (part of larger
funding for TRIO
programs)
U.S. Department of
Education
At least two-thirds of participants in
any project must be either disabled
individuals or low-income, firstgeneration college goers. The
remaining participants must be lowincome, or first-generation college
goers, or disabled. Not less than onethird of the disabled participants
must be low-income as well.
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Talent Search
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §1070a-12
Gaining Early
Awareness and
Readiness for
Undergraduate
Programs (GEARUP)
CRS-49
Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §1070a-211070a-28
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
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
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: $143 million
FY2008: $143 million
FY2009: $142 million
FY2010: $142 million
FY2011: $$139 million
FY2012: $136 million
FY2013 Request: $840
million (part of larger
funding for TRIO
programs)
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.
To provide financial assistance
to low-income 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
FY2009: $313 million
FY2010: $323 million
FY2011: $303 million
FY2012: $302 million
FY2013 Request: $840
million (part of larger
funding for TRIO
programs)
U.S. Department of
Education
Low-income students and students in
high-poverty schools.
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Juvenile Justice
State Formula Grants
Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974, as amended
42 U.S.C. §5631-33
Juvenile
Accountability Block
Grant
21st Century
Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of
2002
42 U.S.C. 3796ee
CRS-50
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 delinquency, group
homes, and halfway houses).
FY2006: $80 million
FY2007: $79 million
FY2008: $74 million
FY2009: $75 million
FY2010: $75 million
FY2011: $62 million
FY2012: $40 million
FY2013 Request: $70
million
U.S. Department of
Justice
Delinquent youth, juvenile offenders,
and at-risk youth.
To strengthen the juvenile
justice system, including, but
not limited to, developing,
implementing, and
administering graduated
sanctions for juvenile
offenders; building, expanding,
renovating, or operating
temporary or permanent
juvenile correction, detention,
or community corrections
facilities; and hiring juvenile
court judges and other court
personnel.
FY2006: $50 million
FY2007: $49 million
FY2008: $52 million
FY2009: $55 million
FY2010: $55 million
FY2011: $46 million
FY2012: $30 million
FY2013 Request: $30
million
U.S. Department of
Justice
Delinquent youth, juvenile offenders,
gang members, and at-risk youth.
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Gang Free Schools
and Communities—
Community Based
Gang Intervention
Currently Unauthorized.
This program was
repealed by P.L. 107-273
but funding continues to
be appropriated.
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: $25 million
FY2007: $25 million
FY2008: $19 million
FY2009: $10 million
FY2010: $10 million
FY2011: $8 million
FY2012: $5 million
FY2013 Request: $0
U.S. Department of
Justice
At-risk youth, delinquent youth,
juvenile offenders, gang members,
and youth under age 22.
Juvenile Mentoring
Program (JUMP)
Currently Unauthorized.
This program was
repealed by P.L. 107-273
but funding continues to
be appropriated.
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: $70 million
FY2009: $70 million
FY2010: $100 million
FY2011: $83 million
FY2012: $78 million
FY2013 Request: $58
million
U.S. Department of
Justice
Delinquent youth, juvenile offenders,
and foster youth.
CRS-51
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
State Challenge
Activities, Part E
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974, as amended
42 U.S.C. §5665
Title V Incentive
Grants for Local
Delinquency
Prevention Program
Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974, as amended
42 U.S.C. §4781-85
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
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: $89 million
FY2009: $82 million
FY2010: $91 million
FY2011: $0
FY2012: $0
FY2013 Request: $0
U.S. Department of
Justice
At-risk youth, delinquent youth,
juvenile offenders, gang members,
and at-risk youth.
To fund delinquency
prevention programs and
activities for at-risk 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: $38 million
FY2009: $63 million
FY2010: $65 million
FY2011: $4 million
FY2012: $20 million
FY2012 Request: $40
million
U.S. Department of
Justice
Delinquent youth, juvenile offenders,
at-risk youth.
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
FY2008: $4.6 billion
FY2009: $4.7 billion
FY2010: $4.7 billion
FY2011: $4.5 billion
FY2012: $4.3 billion
FY2012 Request: $4.4
billion
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
CRS-52
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
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
Basic Center
Program
Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act of 1974, as
amended
42 U.S.C. §677
42 U.S.C.§5701 et seq.
CRS-53
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
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
FY2009: $140 million
FY2010: $140 million
FY2011: $140 million
FY2012: $140 million
FY2013 Request: $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: $45 million
FY2009: $45 million
FY2010: $45 million
FY2011: $45 million
FY2012: $45 million
FY2013 Request: $45
million
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Older foster care youth and youth
adopted from foster care at age 16
or older.
To establish or strengthen
locally controlled communitybased 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: $53 million
FY2009: $53 million
FY2010: $54 million
FY2011: $54 million
FY2012: $54 million
FY2013 Request: $54
million
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Runaway and homeless youth and
their families.
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Transitional Living
Program for Older
Homeless Youth
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act of 1974, as
amended
42 U.S.C. §5701 et seq.
Street Outreach
Program
Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act of 1974, as
amended
42 U.S.C. §5701 et seq.
Court Appointed
Special Advocates
Victims of Child Abuse
Act of 1990, as amended
42 U.S.C. §13011-13014
CRS-54
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
To establish and operate
transitional living projects for
homeless youth, including
pregnant and parenting youth.
FY2006: $40 million
FY2007: $40 million
FY2008: $43 million
FY2009: $44 million
FY2010: $44 million
FY2011: $44 million
FY2012: $44 million
FY2013 Request: $44
million
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Runaway and homeless youth ages
16-21.
To provide grants to
nonprofit agencies to provide
street-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.
FY2006: $15 million
FY2007: $15 million
FY2008: $17 million
FY2009: $17 million
FY2010: $18 million
FY2011: $18 million
FY2012: $18 million
FY2013 Request: $18
million
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Runaway and homeless youth who
live on or frequent the streets.
To ensure every victim of
child abuse and neglect
receives the services of a
court appointed advocate.
FY2006: $12 million
FY2007: $12 million
FY2008: $13 million
FY2009: $15 million
FY2010: $15 million
FY2011: $12 million
FY2012: $4.5 million
FY2013 Request: $0
U.S. Department of
Justice
Abused and neglected children and
youth.
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Children’s Advocacy
Centers
Victims of Child Abuse
Act of 1990, as amended
42 U.S.C. §13001-13004
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
To establish advocacy centers
to coordinate multidisciplinary responses to child
abuse and to provide training
and technical assistance to
professionals involved in
investigating and prosecuting
child abuse, and to support
the development of
Children’s Advocacy Centers
on multi-disciplinary teams.
FY2006: $15 million
FY2007: $15 million
FY2008: $16 million
FY2009: $20 million
FY2010: $23 million
FY2011: $19 million
FY2012: $18 million
FY2013 Request: $0
U.S. Department of
Justice
Abused and neglected youth.
To provide grants to states
and college campuses for
youth suicide prevention
activities.
FY2006: $23 million
FY2007: $23 million
FY2008: $34 million
FY2009: $35 million
FY2010: $35 million
FY2011: $42 million
FY2012: $42 million
FY2013 Request: $34
million
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Youth under age 25.
To provide community-based
systems of care for children
and adolescents with a
serious emotional disturbance
and their family.
FY2006: $104 million
FY2007: $104 million
FY2008: $102 million
FY2009: $108 million
FY2010: $121 million
FY2011: $118 million
FY2012: $117 million
FY2013 Request: $89
million
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Youth under age 22 with a serious
emotional disorders.
Public Health
Garrett Lee Smith
Memorial Act Youth
Suicide Prevention
Program
Public Health Service
Act of 1974, as amended
Comprehensive
Community Mental
Health Services for
Children with
Serious Emotional
Disturbances
Public Health Service
Act of 1974, as amended
CRS-55
42 USC § §290aa et seq.,
290bb et seq.
42 USC §290ff
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
National Child
Traumatic Stress
Network
Children’s Health Act of
2000 (Section 582(d))
Strategic Prevention
Framework State
Infrastructure Grant
Public Health Service
Act of 1974, as amended
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
CRS-56
42 USC §290aa
42 U.S.C. 290bb
42 U.S.C. 290bb-2
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
To create a national network
that develops, promotes, and
disseminates information
related to a wide variety of
traumatic events.
FY2006: $29 million
FY2007: $29 million
FY2008: $33 million
FY2009: $38 million
FY2010: $41 million
FY2011: $41 million
FY2012: $46 million
FY2013 Request: $46
million
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Children and youth who have
experienced traumatic events.
To provide funding to states
for infrastructure and services
that implement a five-step
strategy for preventing
substance and alcohol abuse
among youth.
FY2006: $106 million
FY2007: $105 million
FY2008: $103 million
FY2009: $110 million
FY2010: $112 million
FY2011: $110 million
FY2012: $110 million
FY2013 Request: $60
million
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Youth at risk of using and abusing
drugs.
To provide substance abuse
treatment practices to
adolescents and their families
using previously proven
effective family-centered
methods.
FY2006: $5 million
FY2007: $10 million
FY2008: $10 million
FY2009: $10 million
FY2010: $14 million
FY2011: $14 million
FY2012: $10 million
FY2013 Request: $10
million
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Youth using drugs.
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Sober Truth on
Preventing Underage
Drinking Act (STOP
Act)
Public Health Service
Act of 1974, as amended
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
FY2007: $840,000
FY2008: $5 million
FY2009: $7 million
FY2010: $8 million
FY2011: $7 million
FY2012: $7 million
FY2013 Request: $7
million
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Youth using alcohol.
42 U.S.C. 290bb-25b
To provide effective
substance treatment and
reduce delinquent activity.
Community-Based
Abstinence Education
(replaced in FY2010
with the Teen
Pregnancy
Prevention Program,
discussed below)
Social Security Act of
1935 (Section 1110 using
the definitions contained
in Section 510(b)(2)), as
amended
To provide project grants to
public and private institutions
for community-based
abstinence education project
grants.
FY2006: $109 million
FY2007: $109 million
FY2008: $109 million
FY2009: $95 million
FY2010: $0
FY2011: $0
FY2012: $0
FY2013 Request: $0
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Youth ages 12 to 18.
Abstinence Education
Program
Social Security Act of
1935 (Section 510), as
amended
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: $50 million
FY2008: $50 million
FY2009: $38 million
FY2010: $50 million
FY2011: $50 million
FY2012: $50 million
FY2013 Request: $0
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Youth likely to bear children outside
of marriage.
To provide competitive
grants to public or private
entities for abstinence
education as defined by 42
U.S.C. §710.
FY2006: $0
FY2007: $0
FY2008: $0
FY2009: $0
FY2010: $0
FY2011: $0
FY2012: $5 million
FY2013 Request: $0
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Youth likely to bear children outside
of marriage.
42 U.S.C. §710
42 U.S.C. §710
Abstinence Education
Program
CRS-57
Omnibus Appropriations
Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74)
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Teen Pregnancy
Prevention Program
Omnibus Appropriations
Act, FY2010 (P.L. 111117)
To provide competitive
project grants and contracts
to public and private entities
for medically accurate and age
appropriate programs that
reduce teen pregnancy.
FY2010: $110 million
FY2011: $105 million
FY2012: $105 million
FY2013 Request: $105
million
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Youth ages 12 to 18.
Adolescent Family
Life Demonstration
Projects
Public Health Services
Act of 1974, as amended
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
FY2007: $30 million
FY2008: $30 million
FY2009: $30 million
FY2010: $17 million
FY2011: $12 million
FY2012: $0
FY2013 Request: $0
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Pregnant and parenting youth, nonpregnant youth and their families.
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Pregnant and parenting youth, nonpregnant youth and their families.
42 U.S.C. §3002
(Funding for the
Adolescent Family Life
Demonstration Projects
and Research Grants is
combined.)
Adolescent Family
Life Research Grants
Public Health Services
Act of 1974, as amended
42 U.S.C. §3002
CRS-58
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
FY2007: $30 million
FY2008: $30 million
FY2009: $30 million
FY2010: $17 million
FY2011: $12 million
FY2012: $0
FY2012 Request: $0
(Funding for the
Adolescent Family Life
Demonstration Projects
and Research Grants is
combined.)
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Personal
Responsibility
Education Program
(PREP)
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
The Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act
(P.L. 111-148)
42 U.S.C. §713
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
To provide formula grant
funding for states to educate
youth on both abstinence and
contraception for the
prevention of pregnancy and
sexually transmitted
infections, including
HIV/AIDS.
FY2010: $75 million
FY2011: $75 million
FY2012: $75 million
FY2013 Request: $75
million
U.S. Department of
Health and Human
Services
Youth under the age of 21.
To address the educational,
public safety, human, or
environmental needs through
services that provide a direct
benefit to the community.
FY2006: $265 million
FY2007: $265 million
FY2008: $257 million
FY2009: $271 million
(plus $89 million under
P.L. 111-5)
FY2010: $373 million
FY2011: $349 million
FY2012: $344 million
FY2013 Request: $345
million
Corporation for
National and
Community Service
Youth up to age 25 with exceptional
or special needs, or who are
economically disadvantaged and for
whom one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school, including outof-school youth who are
unemployed; 2) in or aging out of
foster care; 3) limited English
proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
away from home; 5) at-risk of leaving
school without a diploma; and 6)
former juvenile offenders or at risk
of delinquency.
National and Community Service
AmeriCorps State
and National
National Community
Service Act, as amended
42 U.S.C. §12571 et seq.,
42 U.S.C. §12061 et seq.
CRS-59
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
AmeriCorps VISTA
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Domestic Volunteer
Service Act, as amended
42 U.S.C.§ 4951, 42
U.S.C. §12061 et seq.
AmeriCorps
National Civilian
Community Corps
CRS-60
National Community
Service Act, as amended
42 U.S.C. §12611 et seq.,
42 U.S.C. §12061 et seq.
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
To bring low-income
individuals and communities
out of poverty through
programs in community
organizations and public
agencies.
FY2006: $95 million
FY2007: $95 million
FY2008: $94 million
FY2009: $96 million
(plus $65 million under
P.L. 111-5)
FY2010: $99 million
FY2011: $99 million
FY2012: $95 million
FY2013 Request: $95
million
Corporation for
National and
Community Service
Youth up to age 25 with exceptional
or special needs, or who are
economically disadvantaged and for
whom one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school, including outof-school youth who are
unemployed; 2) in or aging out of
foster care; 3) limited English
proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
away from home; 5) at-risk to leave
school without a diploma; and 6)
former juvenile offenders or at risk
of delinquency.
To address the educational,
public safety, environmental,
human needs, and disaster
relief through services that
provide a direct benefit to the
community.
FY2006: $37 million
FY2007: $27 million
FY2008: $24 million
FY2009: $28 million
FY2010: $29 million
FY2011: $29 million
FY2012 : $32 million
FY2013 Request: $30
million
Corporation for
National and
Community Service
Youth up to age 25 with exceptional
or special needs, or who are
economically disadvantaged and for
whom one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school, including outof-school youth who are
unemployed; 2) in or aging out of
foster care; 3) limited English
proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
away from home; 5) at risk of leaving
school without a diploma; and 6)
former juvenile offenders or at risk
of delinquency.
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Learn and Serve
America
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
National Community
Service Act, as amended
42 U.S.C. §12521-12547,
42 §U.S.C. 121561 et
seq.
Senior Corps Foster
Grandparents
Domestic Volunteer
Service Act, as amended
42 U.S.C. §5011 et seq.
CRS-61
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
To involve students in
community service projects
that address the educational,
public safety, human, or
environmental needs in ways
that benefit both the student
and community.
FY2006: $37 million
FY2007: $37 million
FY2008: $37 million
FY2009: $37 million
FY2010: $40 million
FY2011: $0
FY2012: $0
FY2013 Request: $0
Corporation for
National and
Community Service
Youth up to age 25 with exceptional
or special needs, or who are
economically disadvantaged and for
whom one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school, including outof-school youth who are
unemployed; 2) in or aging out of
foster care; 3) limited English
proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
away from home; 5) at risk of leaving
school without a diploma; and 6)
former juvenile offenders or at risk
of delinquency.
To provide service to
children with special or
exceptional needs.
FY2006: $111 million
FY2007: $111 million
FY2008: $109 million
FY2009: $109 million
FY2010: $111 million
FY2011: $111 million
FY2013: $111 million
FY2013 Request: $111
million
Corporation for
National and
Community Service
Youth up to age 25 with exceptional
or special needs, or who are
economically disadvantaged and for
whom one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school, including outof-school youth who are
unemployed; 2) in or aging out of
foster care; 3) limited English
proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
away from home; 5) at risk of leaving
school without a diploma; and 6)
former juvenile offenders or at risk
of delinquency.
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Program
Senior Corps RSVP
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Domestic Volunteer
Service Act, as amended
42 U.S.C. 5001
Objective(s) of
Program
To involve seniors in
community service projects
that address the educational,
public safety, human, or
environmental needs in ways
that benefit both the senior
and community.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
CRS-62
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
President’s FY2013
Request
(all numbers
rounded)
FY2006: $60 million
FY2007: $60 million
FY2008: $59 million
FY2009: $59 million
FY2010: $63 million
FY2011: $50 million
FY2012: $50 million
FY2013 Request: $50
million
Agency
with Jurisdiction
Corporation for
National and
Community Service
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Youth up to age 25 with exceptional
or special needs, or who are
economically disadvantaged and for
whom one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school, including outof-school youth who are
unemployed; 2) in or aging out of
foster care; 3) limited English
proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
away from home; 5) at risk of leaving
school without a diploma; and 6)
former juvenile offenders or at risk
of delinquency.
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Table A-2. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, Part B Grants to States
CRS Report R41833, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions, by Ann Lordeman
National and Community Service
Programs
CRS Report RL33931, The Corporation for National and Community
Service: Overview of Programs and FY2012 Funding, by Abigail B. Rudman
and Ann Lordeman
Vulnerable Youth and Youth Programs
CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background
and Federal Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
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
Analyst
Contact Information
Ann Lordeman
alordeman@crs.loc.gov
x7-2323
Adrienne L. FernandesAlcantara
afernandes@crs.loc.gov
x7-9005
CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and
Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
CRS Report RL34050, Missing and Exploited Children: Background,
Policies, and Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
CRS Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and
Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
CRS Report R40929, Vulnerable Youth: Employment and Job Training
Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Workforce Investment Act youth
programs
Title VII: Education of Homeless
Children
CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs and
Recent Legislation, coordinated by Libby Perl
Gail McCallion
gmccallion@crs.loc.gov
x7-7758
Upward Bound
CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status and Issues, by
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi (archived)
Cassandria Dortch
cdortch@crs.loc.gov
x7-0376
CRS Report RL33687, The Workforce Investment Act (WIA): Program-byProgram Overview and Funding of Title I Training Programs, by David H.
Bradley
David H. Bradley
dbradley@crs.loc.gov
x7-7352
Education Opportunity Centers
Student Support Services
Talent Search
Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduate
Programs
Workforce Development
CRS-63
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Issue Area(s)
Juvenile Justice
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
CRS Report RS22655, Juvenile Justice Funding Trends, by Kristin M.
Finklea
Analyst
Contact Information
Kristin M. Finklea
kfinklea@crs.loc.gov
x7-6259
CRS Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as
Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer, by Rebecca R.
Skinner
Rebecca R. Skinner
rskinner@crs.loc.gov
x7-6600
Community-Based Abstinence
Education
CRS Report RS20873, Reducing Teen Pregnancy: Adolescent Family Life
and Abstinence Education Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears
Carmen Solomon-Fears
csolomonfears@crs.loc.gov
x7-7306
Abstinence Education Program
CRS Report RS20301, Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Statistics and
Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears
Emilie Stoltzfus
estoltzfus@crs.loc.gov
x7-2324
CRS Report RL33947, Juvenile Justice: Legislative History and Current
Legislative Issues, by Kristin M. Finklea
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
Adolescent Family Life Demonstration
Projects
Personal Responsibility Education
Program
Adolescent Family Life Research
Grants
Foster Care and Child Welfare
Court Appointed Special Advocates
Program
Children’s Advocacy Centers
CRS Report RL31242, Child Welfare: Federal Program Requirements for
States, by Emilie Stoltzfus
CRS Report RL31242, Child Welfare: Federal Program Requirements for
States, by Emilie Stoltzfus
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
CRS-64
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Author Contact Information
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
afernandes@crs.loc.gov, 7-9005
Acknowledgments
Carmen Solomon-Fears, Rebecca Skinner, and Erin Bagalman contributed to the tables in this report.
Congressional Research Service
65