Order Code RL34499
Youth Transitioning Fromfrom Foster Care:
Background, and Federal Programs,
and Issues for Congress
Updated September 5, 2008
Adrienne L. Fernandes
Analyst in Social Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Youth Transitioning From Foster Care: Background,
Federal Programs, and Issues for Congress
Summary
Nearly half of states have laws that explicitly permit the state child welfare
system to continue providing foster care for children beyond the age of majority
(usually no later than 19). However, the number of states that actually facilitate
youth remaining in care beyond their 18th or 19th birthdays is significantly smaller.
Over 20,000 young people have been emancipated from foster care annually from
FY2002 through FY2006. While most young people have access to emotional and
financial support systems throughout their early adult years, older youth in care and
those who age out of care often face obstacles to developing independent living skills
and building supports that ease the transition to adulthood. Older foster youth who
return to their parents or guardians may continue to experience poor family dynamics
or a lack of emotional and financial supports, and studies have shown that recently
emancipated foster youth fare poorly relative to their counterparts in the general
-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
August 1, 2011
The House Ways and Means Committee is making available this version of this Congressional Research Service
(CRS) report, with the cover date shown above, for inclusion in its 2011 Green Book website. CRS works
exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to Committees and Members of
both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.
Congressional Research Service
RL34499
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Summary
While most young people have access to emotional and financial support systems throughout
their early adult years, older youth in foster care and those who are emancipated from care often
face obstacles to developing independent living skills and building supports that ease the
transition to adulthood. Older foster youth who return to their parents or guardians may continue
to experience poor family dynamics or a lack of emotional and financial supports, and studies
have shown that recently emancipated foster youth fare poorly relative to their counterparts in the
general population on several outcome measures.
Recognizing the difficulties faced by older youth in care and youth emancipating
from foster
care, Congress created a new Independent Living initiative (P.L. 99-272)
in 1986 to assist certain
older foster youth as they enter adulthood. The legislation
authorized mandatory funding to states
under a new Section 477 of the Social
Security Act. In 1999, the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Act (P.L. 106169) replaced the Independent Living Program with the Chafee Foster Care
Security Act. In 1999, P.L. 106-169 rewrote Section 477 to
create the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) and doubled the total
annual funds available to states
from $70 million to $140 million. The law also expanded the
population of youth
eligible to receive independent living services — —with no lower age limit — and gave
—and
gave states greater flexibility in designing independent living programs. Independent
living living
services can refer to assistance in obtaining a high school diploma, and training in
daily living skills, and training in financial management, among other services.
Amendments to the CFCIP in FY2002
skills, among other services.
The CFCIP has been amended three times. In 2002, the Promoting Safe and Stable Amendments
of 2001 (P.L. 107-133) authorized discretionary
funding for states to provide education and
training vouchers to eligible youth.
Along with the CFCIP, federal child welfare law and other federal programs are
intended to help older current youth in care and foster care alumni make the
transition to adulthood. The federal foster care program has protections in place to
ensure that older youth in care have a written case plan that addresses the programs
and services that will assist in this transition, among other supports. Further, federal
law authorizes funding for states to provide workforce assistance and housing to
older foster youth. Despite these efforts and the resilience displayed by current and
former foster youth, policymakers and child welfare practitioners have suggested that
at a minimum, young people need better support to build stronger connections with
caring adults before leaving foster care and should have the option to remain in care
upon reaching their 18th or 19th birthdays.
Several bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress that propose greater
assistance to older youth in foster care and those who have aged out, including
legislation to provide federal foster care assistance for youth age 18 and older. This
report will be updated as warranted.
Contents
Who Are Older Youth in Foster Care and Youth Aging Out of Care? . . . . . . . . . 3
Characteristics of Youth in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Resiliency of Current and Former Foster Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Overview of Federal Support for Foster Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Federal Foster Care Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Case Planing and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Title IV-E Reimbursement for Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development
Survey of Foster Care Beyond Age 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Sample of States with Known Programs that Provide Foster Care
to Older Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Eligibility for CFCIP Benefits and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
The Role of Youth Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Administration of the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Education and Training Vouchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Funding for States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Training and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
National Youth in Transition Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Evaluation of Innovative CFCIPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
PART Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Assessments of the CFCIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Other Federal Support for Older Current and Former Foster Youth . . . . . . . . . . 36
Chafee Medicaid Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Other Educational Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Workforce Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Housing Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Grant to Support Curriculum for Supervising Older Youth in Care . . . . . . 42
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Foster Care for Youth Ages 18 and Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Changes to the CFCIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Permanency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Runaway Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Medicaid Coverage for Youth Aging Out of Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
The Risk of Becoming Disconnected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Appendix A. Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . 61
Appendix B. Maximum Age and Conditions for Youth Remaining
in Foster Care After Their 18th Birthday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Appendix C. Descriptions of Foster Care for Youth Ages 18 to 21
in Select States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Washington, DC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Appendix D. Funding for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program . . . . . 74
List of Tables
Table A-1. Comparison of Outcome Domains Between Young Adults
in the Midwest Study and Young Adults in the Add Health Study . . . . . . 61
Table B-1. National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth
Development Survey of States, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table D-1. Final FY2007 and Estimated FY2008 Federal CFCIP
General and Voucher Allotments by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Table D-2. Change in Funding by State from the Old Independent
Living Program (as of FY1998) and the CFCIP (as of FY2007) . . . . . . . . . 76
Table D-3. FY2005 Chafee Foster Care Independence Program: Final
Funds Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal Treasury, by State . . . 78
Table D-4. FY2005 Chafee Education and Training Vouchers: Estimated
Funds Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal Treasury, by State . . . 80
Youth Transitioning From Foster Care:
Background, Federal Programs,
and Issues for Congress
A significant number of youth spend at least some time in foster care during
their teenage years. On the last day of FY2006, over 176,800 youth ages 13 to 17
comprised more than one third of the foster care caseload nationally.1 Most teenagers
who leave foster care are reunified with their parents or primary caretakers, adopted,
or placed with relatives. Yet as many as 26,000 youth age out, or are emancipated,
from care each year when they reach the age of majority in their states (usually no
later than age 19).2
Youth who spend their teenage years in foster care and those who are likely to
age out of care face challenges as they move to early adulthood. While in care, they
may forego opportunities to develop strong support networks and independent living
skills that their counterparts in the general population might more naturally acquire.
Even older foster youth who return to their parents or guardians can still face
obstacles, such as poor family dynamics or a lack of emotional and financial
supports, that hinder their ability to achieve their goals as young adults. Perhaps the
strongest evidence that youth who have spent at least some years in care during
adolescence have not adequately made the transition to young adulthood is their poor
outcomes across a number of domains. During their early adult years, these youth
are much more likely than their peers to forego higher education, describe their
general health as fair or poor, become homeless, and rely on public supports.
The federal government has recognized that older youth in care and those aging
out are vulnerable to negative outcomes and may ultimately return to the care of the
state as adults, either through the public welfare, criminal justice, or other support
systems. In 1986, Congress passed legislation to assist certain older youth in care
under a new Independent Living program, enacted as part of P.L. 99-272. The
legislation authorized mandatory funding to states under Section 477 of the Social
Security Act and was made permanent in 1993 as part of P.L. 103-66. In 1999, the
John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Act (P.L. 106-169) replaced the
Independent Living Program with the permanently authorized Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP) and doubled the annual funds available to states
from $70 million to $140 million. The law also expanded the population of youth
1
U.S. Department of Health and Human, Administration for Children and Families,
Children’s Bureau. The AFCARS Report #14: Preliminary FY2006 Estimates, January
2008. At [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#afcars]. (Hereafter
referenced, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #14.)
2
Ibid.
CRS-2
eligible to receive independent living services, including youth who have left care
through age 21, and gave states greater flexibility in designing independent living
programs. Independent living programs are intended to assist youth prepare for
adulthood, and may include assistance in obtaining a high school diploma, career
exploration, training in daily living skills, training in budgeting and financial
management skills, and preventive health activities, among other services. Further,
the act required states to provide services to tribal youth on the same basis as other
youth in the state. The act also encouraged youth in foster care to participate directly
in designing their own activities that prepare them for independent living and further
stated that youth “accept personal responsibility for living up to their part of the
program.” Other related provisions in P.L. 109-133 enable states to use up to 30%
of their CFCIP funds for housing on current and former foster youth ages 18 to 21,
and to extend health care to these youth through a new Medicaid pathway known as
the “Chafee option.” Amendments to the CFCIP in FY2002 (P.L. 107-133)
authorized discretionary funding to states to provide vouchers for eligible youth
through a new Education and Training Voucher (ETV) program.
Along with the CFCIP, federal child welfare law and other federal programs are
intended to help current and former youth in foster care make the transition to
adulthood. The federal foster care program has protections in place to ensure that
older youth in care have a written case plan that addresses the programs and services
they need in making the transition. Further, federal law authorizes funding for states
and local jurisdictions to provide workforce support and housing to older foster youth
and youth emancipating from care. Despite these efforts and the resilience of young
people in care, policymakers and child welfare practitioners have suggested that at
a minimum, young people should have the option to remain in foster care upon
reaching their 18th birthdays and that they need more support to build genuine,
permanent connections with caring adults before leaving care.
This report begins with a discussion of the characteristics of older foster youth
in care and the types of outcomes experienced by youth who have recently
emancipated. The report then provides an overview of the federal foster care system,
including the Chafee Foster Care Independence program, and provisions in federal
foster care law that are intended to help prepare youth for adulthood. The report goes
on to discuss other federal support — through other programs — for youth aging out
of care in the areas of education, health care, employment, and housing. The report
seeks to understand how states vary in their approaches to serving older youth in care
and those who are recently emancipated. A small number of states are known to
extend foster care to youth ages 18 to 21 (and beyond in some cases) and less than
half of states provide Medicaid coverage to former foster youth beyond age 18
through the Chafee pathway option. The report also intends to demonstrate that,
despite negative outcomes for the group on average, many former foster youth are
engaged in decisions about the services they receive and display resiliency. The
report concludes with a discussion of issues that Congress may wish to consider, as
well as pending legislation relevant to each of the issues.
Appendix A provides a summary of outcome statistics for youth who were in
foster care, compared to youth in the general population; Appendix B summarizes
state policies regarding youth remaining in care beyond age 18; Appendix C includes
a description of foster care programs in selected states for youth ages 18 and older
CRS-3
in foster care; Appendix D provides funding tables for the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program, including information about funds returned to the Federal
Treasury; and Appendix E summarizes pending legislation that would amend the
CFCIP.
Who Are Older Youth in Foster Care and
Youth Aging Out of Care?
Children and adolescents age 17 and younger can enter state child welfare
systems due to abuse, neglect, or for some other reason, such as the death of a parent
or child behavioral problems. Some children remain in their own homes and receive
family support services, but many are placed in out-of-home settings, usually in a
foster home, relative placement, or institution (e.g., residential treatment facility,
maternity group home). This section provides a profile of older youth in foster care
as well as outcomes experienced by young people who have spent some time in care
as teenagers.
Characteristics of Youth in Foster Care
The Foster Care Dynamics report, a longitudinal study of children in 11 state
child welfare systems from 2000 through 2005, provides detailed information about
older youth who have been placed in foster care.3 The study examined state
administrative data to determine the typical trajectory of children across four age
categories who first entered foster care during the five-year period: less than age one;
one through five; six through12; and 13 through 17. The study found that teenagers
make up a significant share of the foster care population; have shorter median lengths
of stay relative to younger children; live in placements other than foster family
homes; experience more placements in their first year in care than younger children;
and most often exit care through reunification, although running away and reaching
the age of majority are exit pathways for about 10% to 24% of these older youth,
depending on their age.
From 2000 through 2005, about 350,000 children entered care in the 11 states,
of whom 27% were teenagers ages 13 through 17. Youth in the age 13 through 17
category comprised the second largest share of children in care (n=94,965), only after
children ages six through 12 (n= 95,676). The incidence rate for entering care for
youth ages 13 through 17 was about 2.5 per 1,000 over the five-year period; this is
compared to about 9.0 per 1,000 infants under age one; about 2.5 per 1,000 children
ages one through five; and about 1.8 per 1,000 children ages six through 12. In three
cohort years (2000-2001, 2002-2003, and 2004-2005), fifteen-year-olds comprised
the second largest share of children in care by single-year age category
(approximately 7%), only after infants under the age of one, who comprised 18% to
20% of the caseload.
3
Fred Wulczyn, Lijun Chen, Kristen Brunner Hislop, Foster Care Dynamics 2000-2005:
A Report from the Multistate Foster Care Data Archive, Chapin Hall Center for Children,
University of Chicago, 2007.
CRS-4
Of those youth ages 13 through 17 who entered care from 2000 to 2005, 49%
lived in congregate care (e.g, a residential school), 37% in foster family homes, and
13% in kinship care. The remaining two percent lived in an independent living
arrangement or other arrangement. Across all age categories, 41% to 43% of children
were moved within their first six months in foster care; however, a greater share of
teenagers experienced multiple placements within their first six months of entering
care. About 18% of youth ages 13 through 17 had two or more placements,
compared with 12% to 16% of children in other age categories. Teenagers were also
more likely to move to new living arrangements in the six to twelve months after
entering care. While older youth in care had a shorter median length of stay than
younger children in care, this median length of stay increased over the five-year
period. The median lengths of stay for infants decreased from 18.7 months in 2000
to 17.6 months in 2004 (data were not available for 2005), and increased for youth
ages 13 through 17 from 6.6 months in 2000 to 7.8 months in 2005.
Generally, teenagers were less likely to be adopted or placed with relatives as
they got older and were more likely to run away and exit by reaching the age of
majority or some other pathway such as independent living. With the exception of
17-year-olds, about the same share of teenagers were reunified as children ages three
to 12. One-third to 46% of youth ages 13 through 17 exited to reunification. The
balance of youth lived in an independent living arrangement or some other
arrangement (12.4% to 15.1% for each age 13 through 17), ran away (6.7% to
11.7%), lived with a relative (5.1% to 8.4%), or reached the age of majority (0.9%
to 23.9%). About two percent or less of the teenagers were adopted.
Although older youth tend to have shorter spells in foster care, they are more
likely to re-enter care after their first exit. About 28% of youth who were discharged
at ages 13 through 17 during 2000 to 2002 reentered care within one year, followed
by infants, at 26%. Children ages one to five were least likely to re-enter care, at
15%.
Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly in Foster Care
The transition to adulthood for all youth has becoming increasingly complex.
During this period, young people cycle between attending school, working, and living
independently. Many youth can rely on assistance from their families for financial
and emotional supports during the transition. 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.4 Parents also allow their adult children to live with
them5 and provide their children with non-material assistance, such as help with
4
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.
404-405. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
5
According to the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”), a
nationally representative survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time, approximately 41%
(continued...)
CRS-5
obtaining a driver’s license, guidance on applying to college, advice on finances and
establishing a new household, and connections to other caring adults in their
communities. For older foster youth and those who have already aged out of care,
this assistance is often not in place. Being in care may inherently cause instability
because of multiple out-of-home placements, school transfers, and the challenge in
maintaining relationships with parents and other kin. Youth may experience further
instability if they cannot afford to live on their own or are unable to live with
relatives or friends upon emancipation. In most states, youth may not remain in foster
care beyond age 18, a time when most young people explore educational and career
options.
Research on the transition for former foster youth is limited and most of the
studies on outcomes for these youth face methodological challenges — they tend to
be dated; include brief follow-up periods (e.g., no more than a year after exit from
care); have low response rates, non-representative samples, and small sample sizes;
and do not follow youth prior to exit from foster care.6 Few studies include
comparison groups to gauge how well these youth are transitioning to adulthood, in
relation to their peers in the foster care population or general population. However,
two studies — the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study and the Midwest Evaluation
of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth — have tracked outcomes for a
sample of youth across several domains, either prospectively (following youth in care
and as they age out) or retrospectively (examining current outcomes for young adults
who were in care at least a few years ago) and comparing these outcomes to other
groups of youth, either those who aged out and/or youth in the general population.
Both studies indicate that youth who spent time in foster care during their
teenage years tended to have difficulty during the transition to adulthood and beyond.
(The studies do not posit that foster care, per se, is associated with the challenges
former foster youth face in adulthood. In fact, children tend to have a range of
challenges upon entering care.7) The Midwest Evaluation has examined the extent
to which outcomes in early adulthood are in fluenced by the individual characteristics
of youth or their out-of-home care histories. The study found that still being in care,
as opposed to having left care, and having certain other characteristics (i.e., having
aspirations to graduate from college, feeling close to at least one family member, and
5
(...continued)
of surveyed youth age 21 in the study’s third wave (2001-2002) lived with their parents. See
Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Outcomes at Age 21, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago,
December 2007, p. 1. At [http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355].
(Hereafter referenced Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation at Age 21.)
6
For a compendium of outcome studies and their methodologies, see 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, appendix. (Hereafter
referenced as Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring, The Transition to Adulthood
for Youth “Aging Out” of the Foster Care System.”)
7
Fred Wulczyn et al. Beyond Common Sense: Child Welfare, Child Well-Being, and the
Evidence for Policy Reform (New Brunswick: AldineTransaction, 2005), p. 116. (Hereafter
referenced as Wulczyn et al., Beyond Common Sense.)
CRS-6
expressing satisfaction with their experience in foster care) more than doubled the
odds of working or being in school at age 19.8
The two reports exclude youth with developmental disabilities or severe mental
illness that precluded them from participating, as well as youth who were
incarcerated or in a psychiatric hospital.
Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Researchers with the Northwest
Foster Care Alumni Study interviewed and reviewed the case files of 479 foster care
youth who were in public or private foster care any time from 1988 to 1998 in
Oregon or Washington.9 On average, they interviewed youth who were 24.2 years
old, with a range of 20 to 33 years old. The youth tended to be females (60% versus
the 48% of females in foster care nationally in FY200610); to have entered care as
adolescents (11.1 years versus 8.1 years for children entering care in FY2006; nearly
60% of the youth in the study were age 12 and older at the time they entered care);
and to have exited care between the ages of 15 and older (the mean age at exit was
18.5 years versus 9.8 years in FY2006 for foster youth nationwide).11 Surveyed
young adults experienced these outcomes even though most (83.6%) reported having
access to “a lot” of child welfare services and supports, and about eight out of ten
(81.5%) said that they felt loved while in care. These findings suggest that a
confluence of factors, including the reasons they entered care, family dynamics, and
access to services and supports before and after care, among many other variables,
have likely influenced how well they function as adults.
The study compared the mental health status, educational attainment, and
employment and finances for the foster care alumni to those of the general
population.
!
Mental health: Over 54% of foster care alumni had at least one
mental health problem (depression, social phobia, panic disorder,
and post-traumatic stress disorder, among others), compared to
8
Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Outcomes at Age 19, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, May
2005, pp. 68-70. At [http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355].
9
Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care: Findings from the Northwest Foster
Care Alumni Study, Casey Family Programs, 2005. At [http://www.casey.org/Resources/
Publications/NorthwestAlumniStudy.htm]. (Hereafter referenced as Peter J. Pecora et al.,
Improving Foster Family Care.)
10
11
U.S. Department of Health and Human, AFCARS Report #14.
These youth were placed in care prior to the enactment of the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Act (P.L. 106-169) and most entered care because of sexual abuse and other
type of maltreatment, which is not a primary reason for most children entering care (though
the definition of sexual abuse in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ data
collection system for children in foster care is not identical to the definition in this study).
For additional information about the sample of youth, see pages 18 to 21 and 25 to 31 of the
study.
CRS-7
22.1% of the general population.12 About one quarter of the alumni
experienced post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This figure is
greater than the prevalence of PTSD among Vietnam or Iraq war
veterans — about 15%. Alumni tended to have similar recovery
rates as their counterparts in the general population for major
depression, panic syndrome, and alcohol dependency, but lower
rates of recovery for other disorders such as generalized anxiety
disorder, PTSD, social phobia, and bulimia.
!
Education: While alumni have obtained a high school diploma or
passed the general education development (GED) test at the same
rates as 25-to-34-year-olds generally (84.5% versus 87.3%), they are
much less likely to have a bachelor’s degree — 1.8% versus 22.5%
of all young people.
!
Employment and finances: One third of alumni reported living
below the poverty line, which is three times the national poverty
rate. Further, almost 17% were dependent on Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF), compared to 3% of the general
population (although the high rate of participation in Oregon and
Washington could have been due, in part, to TANF rules in those
states). The alumni employment rate was 80%, while the general
employment rate was 95%. Other indicators show that alumni were
not financially secure. One third lacked health insurance (versus
18% of the general population) and 22% were homeless at least one
day during the year after they left foster care (versus 1% of the
general population who were homeless within the last year).
Midwest Evaluation on the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth. Few foster care alumni studies are prospective, meaning that they follow
youth while in care through the time they leave care and beyond. The Midwest
Evaluation is an ongoing study that tracks 600 or more (depending on the data
collection wave) current and former foster youth in three states — Illinois, Iowa, and
Wisconsin. All of the surveyed youth entered care prior to their 16th birthday.13
Surveyed youth responded to researcher questions about outcomes in three data
collection waves: at wave 1, when they were age 17 or 18, at which time most were
in care; at wave 2 when they were ages 19 or 20, at which time some remained in
care; and at wave 3, when they were ages 20 or 21 and no longer in care. Of those
who remained in care beyond age 18, all were in Illinois, the only state of the three
that retains court jurisdiction of foster youth (with the youth’s permission) until age
12
In a nationally representative study of children ages 11 to 14 entering foster care, 56.1%
had a clinical/borderline score on the total problem behaviors checklist. Researchers often
use this list as a proxy for mental health issues. Wulczyn et al., Beyond Common Sense, p.
108.
13
Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation at Age 21.
CRS-8
21.14 The Midwest Evaluation researchers expect to track youth outcomes at age 23
and possibly beyond.15
At wave 1, about half to 70% of youth in care reported received any one
category of independent living services (educational services, employment/vocational
support, budget and financial management support, housing services, health
education services, and youth development services).16 At wave 2, not more than half
of the youth in care reported receiving at least one independent living service.17 At
wave 3, receipt of services decreased for youth, regardless of whether they remained
in care. No more than approximately one third of the youth reported receiving at
least one independent living service.18
For youth in the third wave, about one-third had left foster care within the
previous 12 months, and another one-third had left care in the past three to four
years; the balance of youth had left care one to three years prior or more than four
years prior. Nearly nine out of ten were age 21 and 53.2% were female. Most
(55.6%) identified as African American, followed by white (32.5%), multiracial
(9.5%), and other races. Approximately 8% identified as Hispanic. More than twothirds of youth (64.3%) reported feeling lucky to have been placed in foster care,
compared with 9.7% who neither agreed nor disagreed with feeling lucky, and 26%
who disagreed or strongly disagreed; about the same proportions of youth reported
feeling satisfied with their experiences in foster care. Youth were also asked about
receipt of independent living services across six domains: education, vocational
training or employment, budgeting and financial management, health education,
housing, and youth development such as conferences and leadership development
activities. For each of the domains, about one-third of the youth or less reported
having received relevant services since the wave 2 study and no more than one third
reported having received relevant services since they were discharged from care. The
researchers speculated that the services were available, but that the young adults did
not perceive a need for the services or were unable to access them.
14
Iowa amended its child welfare statute in 2006 to create a program that provides
continuing support to foster youth ages 18 to 21. The Iowa youth in the Midwest study were
already too old to benefit from the program when it was implemented.
15
This information is based on an announcement made by Chapin Hall Center for Children,
University of Chicago researchers at a December 9, 2007 Congressional briefing about the
study’s third wave of data.
16
Mark E. Courtney, Sherry Terao, and Noel Bost, Midwest Evaluation of the Adult
Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Conditions of Youth Preparing to Leave State Care,
Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, May 2005, pp. 28-30. At
[http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355].
17
Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Outcomes at Age19, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, May
2005, pp. 17-19. At [http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355].
18
Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation at Age 21, pp. 22-25.
CRS-9
At ages 21 or 22, most youth reported strong family ties, with 94% having said
that they felt somewhat or very close to at least one biological family member. The
greatest shares of youth reported feeling very close to their siblings, followed by
another relative (aunt, uncle, or cousin), grandparent, biological mother, and
biological father. The surveyed youth were most likely to be in daily contact (in this
order) with their siblings, biological mother, grandparents, and other relatives.
Overall, more than half of all youth perceived that some or most of the time, they had
social supports, such as someone to listen to him or her (66.1%), to help with favors
(59.2%), to loan money (50.3%), and to encourage his or her goals (53.6%).
Emancipated Youth Compared to Youth in Care at Midwest
Evaluation Wave 3. Findings from wave 3 of the Midwest Evaluation suggest that
youth who remain in care as late as age 20 tend to experience an easier transition to
adulthood than their counterparts who emancipate at age 18. The study found that
the young adults from Illinois (who were more likely to remain in care than youth in
Wisconsin and Iowa) were almost two times as likely to have ever attended college
than their peers in the other two states; and were more likely to have higher earnings
and delayed pregnancy. See the last section of this report for further information.
Youth at Midwest Evaluation Wave 3 Compared to Youth Age 21
Generally. For each of the three data collection waves, wherever possible,
researchers asked the same questions that were taken directly from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”), a nationally
representative survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time.19 The former foster
youth surveyed at wave 3 in the Midwest Evaluation were less likely to have attended
college for at least one year compared to the Add Health youth (29.8% versus
52.9%). Youth in the Midwest evaluation who were not currently in school reported
barriers to enrolling or staying in school, including that they lost interest (10.7%),
became employed (12.0%), became a parent (12.0%), and other reasons. While
youth formerly in care were almost as likely to report ever holding a job (95.1%
versus 96.9%) as Add Health youth, a smaller share were currently employed (44.%
versus 63.9%) and they had lower mean hourly wages ($8.85 versus $9.99) and mean
annual incomes ($8,914 versus $12,728). About 52% of former foster youth reported
having any savings or checking account, compared to 81% of youth generally. A
greater share of former foster youth did not have enough money to pay rent (26.5%),
compared to their counterparts in the Add Health survey (8.6%) and were more likely
to report having received food stamps (50.2% versus 6.3% for females; 9.0% versus
0.0% for males).
Table A-1 in Appendix A presents the outcomes for youth surveyed in wave
3 and Add Health participants surveyed at age 21 across ten domains — living
arrangements, educational attainment, employment and income, economic hardships,
health, sexual behavior and pregnancy, relationships and family formation,
involvement with the criminal justice system, transition to adulthood, orientation to
19
The Add Health sampled young adults from across the country, the majority (about 75%)
of whom were white. Data from the Add Health survey were collected three to four years
before wave 3 of the Midwest Evaluation. As a result, data on earnings and income have
been adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for comparison purposes.
CRS-10
the future, and mentoring. Table A-1 indicates that at age 21, former foster youth
and youth generally shared some common characteristics, but that the former foster
youth experience more negative educational and employment outcomes, among other
outcomes.
Resiliency of Current and Former Foster Youth
Despite the generally negative findings from the two major evaluations on youth
aging out of foster care, many youth have demonstrated resiliency by overcoming
obstacles, such as limited family support and financial resources, and meeting their
goals. As mentioned above, youth in the Northwest Evaluation have obtained a high
school diploma or passed the general education development (GED) test at close to
the same rates as 25-to-34-year-olds generally (84.5% versus 87.3%). Further, youth
in the third wave of the Midwest Evaluation were just as likely as the general youth
population to report being hopeful about their future. (See Table A-1.) As described
later in the report, these youth are active in making decisions about the independent
living services they receive to help them prepare for adulthood.
Current and former foster youth are also working to make improvements to the
child welfare system. At three hearings in the 110th Congress that have focused on
older youth in foster care, these young people highlighted their struggles, successes,
and their advocacy work on behalf of foster children. At a February 27, 2008 hearing
before the Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support,
a foster care alumni chronicled her life in care with eleven placements through her
recent graduation from college. In her testimony, she urged Congress to improve
conditions for children in foster care:
I have accomplished a lot, but it is in spite of all of the uncertainty I experienced
in foster care — not because of it. I want something better for the youth who are
currently in the foster care system. I want them to have families to love and
protect them and homes they know they can always return to. I want them to
leave foster care to live with a family, a relative — someone who will be
permanent in their lives. I do not want the youth currently in foster care to
age-out of foster care with no family and no one to turn to for help or support....
Congress has the power to do something, and I ask you on behalf of all of my
brothers and sisters who cannot be sitting here with me to do something now.20
The next section of this report describes the federal services and supports
available to youth in foster care, and demonstrates how some states have varied in
their approaches to serving older foster youth and youth who have recently
emancipated from care.
20
The written testimony from the hearing is available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=612].
CRS-11
Overview of Federal Support for Foster Youth
Historically, states have been primarily responsible for providing child welfare
services to families and children that need them. While in out-of-home foster care,
the state child welfare agency, under the supervision of the court (and in consultation
with the parents or primary caretakers in some cases), serves as the child’s parent and
makes decisions on his or her behalf that are to promote his or her safety,
permanence, and well-being.
Safety refers to the state child welfare system’s goal of ensuring that children in
foster care are protected from further abuse or neglect. Permanence refers to the
state’s goal of ensuring that children do not spend too many of their formative years
in a foster care placement, and that the state either returns them to their families
quickly and safely or quickly finds another safe and permanent home for them. Wellbeing is inextricably linked to safety and permanency. The term refers to efforts by
the child welfare system to promote positive outcomes for children in care, including
education and physical and mental health outcomes, as well as supportive families.
In most cases, the state relies on public and private entities and organizations to
provide these services. The federal government plays a role in shaping state child
welfare systems by providing funds and linking those funds to certain requirements.
Two programs under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act may provide support
to older youth in foster care. Child welfare provisions under Title IV-E apply to
children ages 18 and younger who are in state-supervised foster care, discussed
below, and foster care youth who are expected to finish high school at age 19
(Section 472). The Chafee Foster Care Independence program, also discussed below,
authorizes funding for states to provide independent living services to older foster
youth and those who have emancipated from care (Section 477).
Federal Foster Care Program
Federal support for foster care preceded, by several decades, the 1980 (P.L. 96272) creation of the Title IV-E foster care program under the Social Security Act.
However, the 1980 law established this support as an independent program to
provide funding to states to support children in foster care. The law also stressed the
importance of case planning and review to achieve permanence for children in care.
Case Planing and Review
Federal child welfare provisions under Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act require state child welfare agencies, as a condition of receiving funding
under these titles, to provide certain case management services to all children in
foster care. These include monthly case worker visits to each child in foster care
(Section 422(b)(17)); a written case plan for each child in care (Section 475(1)); and
procedures ensuring a case review is conducted not less often than every six months
by a judge or an administrative review panel, and at least once every 12 months by
a judge who must consider the child’s permanency plan (Section 475(5)). Specific
case plan and case review procedures pertain to older youth in care. For a child age
CRS-12
16 or older, the written case plan must include a description of the programs and
services that will help the child prepare for the transition to independent living
(Section 475(1)(D)), and the permanency plan hearing must consider “the services
needed to assist the child to make the transition from foster care to independent
living” (Section 475(5)(C)). The permanency hearing for all children, including
those transitioning to independent living, must be conducted with the child in an ageappropriate manner (Section 475(5)(C)).
Title IV-E Reimbursement for Foster Care
Title IV-E currently reimburses states for a part of the cost of providing foster
care to eligible children and youth, who, because of abuse or neglect (or some other
reason), cannot remain in their own homes and for whom a court has consequently
given care and placement responsibility to the state. Under this program, a state may
seek partial federal reimbursement to “cover the cost of (and the cost of providing)
food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, a child’s personal
incidentals, liability insurance with respect to a child, and reasonable travel to the
child’s home for visitation” (Section 475(4)). States may also seek reimbursement
for related costs of administration, child placement (e.g., case planning), training, and
data collection. Under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (see below),
states must certify that they will use Title IV-E foster care program funding (and
Adoption Assistance program funding) to provide training relevant to foster parents
and others (adoptive parents, workers in group homes, and case managers) to help
them understand and address the issues confronting adolescents preparing for
independent living and coordinating this training, where possible, with independent
living programs.21 Although case planning and review procedures (described above)
apply to all foster children in state care, federal reimbursement to states under Title
IV-E may be made only on behalf of a child who meets multiple federal eligibility
criteria (Section 472), including those related to the child’s removal and the income
and assets of the child’s family.
Eligible Placement Setting. For purposes of this report, the most
significant eligibility criteria for the federal foster care program are the child’s
placement setting and age. Under the program, federal reimbursement of part of the
costs of maintaining children in foster care may only be sought for children placed
in foster family homes or child care institutions. States may not seek federal
reimbursement of foster care costs for children who live in independent living
arrangements22 or who are in “detention facilities, forestry camps, training schools,
or any other facility operated primarily for the detention of children who are
21
22
Section 477(b)(3)(D).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Children’s Bureau, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3, Question 1. At
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/j2ee/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy.jsp?idFlag=3].
(Hereafter referenced as U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s
Bureau, Child Welfare Policy Manual.)
CRS-13
determined to be delinquent.”23 For FY2006 (the most recent year data are available),
almost 6,000 children (1% of the caseload) were placed in supervised independent
living settings.24
Eligible Age. Further, once a child has reached his or her 18th birthday, he or
she is no longer eligible for federal foster care assistance. The age limitation on Title
IV-E eligibility is created by the program’s eligibility link to the now-defunct Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.25 Children qualified as
dependents under the AFDC program until age 18. However, as was the case with
AFDC, federal law does permit states to make continued claims for otherwise
eligible foster youth until their 19th birthday provided that the youth is a full-time
student and is expected to complete high school or an equivalent training program
by age 19. States must have elected this option in its definition of “child” for
purposes of the state’s AFDC program.
A 2004 review of state laws by the American Bar Association found that just
under half of states have laws that explicitly permit court jurisdiction to continue for
foster children beyond the age of majority. Two states extend this jurisdiction to age
19, three states to age 20, and 17 states to age 21.26 A survey of states conducted in
2006 by the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development also
found that most states permitted youth to remain in care beyond their 18th birthdays,
but only under certain circumstances (see below). However, the number of states that
permit youth to remain in foster care beyond their 18th or 19th birthdays appears
significantly larger than the number that actually facilitate youth remaining in care.27
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth
Development Survey of Foster Care Beyond Age 18
In 2006, the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development
at the University of Oklahoma (a contractor with the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services that provides training and technical assistance to states on foster
care issues, including independent living) surveyed independent living coordinators
in all states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico to determine whether emancipating
foster youth are eligible to remain in foster care beyond age 18. The Resource Center
received responses from 45 states and Washington DC. However, the survey did not
23
Section 472(c) of the Social Security Act.
24
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Children’s Bureau, AFCARS Report #14.
25
For additional information, see Section 8.3A, Question 2 of the Child Welfare Policy
Manual.
26
Jane Kim and Kevin Sobczyk, Continuing Court Jurisdiction in Support of 18 to 21
Year-Old Foster Youth, American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law , July
2004, p. 16. At [http://www.abanet.org/child/court-jurisdiction.doc].
27
See for example, Child Welfare League of America, “National News Roundup,”
Children’s Voice, vol. 16, no. 9 (November/December 2007), p. 9; and “States Trying to
Extend Foster Care Benefits,” Stateline.org, August 23, 2007. At [http://www.stateline.org/
live/details/story?contentId=234381].
CRS-14
seek information about (1) the share of youth who actually remain in care beyond age
18; and whether (2) states encourage youth to remain in care; (3) financial supports
are in place to support youth in care after their 18th birthday; (4) the extended time
in care was authorized by state law; and (5) courts retained jurisdiction over the
youth.
Table B-1 in Appendix B provides a list of the maximum age limit at which
youth may remain in care and the conditions permitting youth to remain in care, as
determined by the survey. Age 18 is the maximum age for youth to remain in care in
one state (Florida). Six states (California, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Wisconsin,
Vermont, and Utah) reported allowing youth to remain in care until age 19. Three
states (Alaska, Iowa, and Michigan) permit youth to remain in care until age 20.
Thirty-one states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New
Mexico, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming) and Washington, D.C. reported that they
provide foster care custody through age 21 and two states (Massachusetts and Texas)
permit foster care custody through age 22. Finally, two states (Colorado and
Connecticut) permit foster care coverage through age 23. Hawaii, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Puerto Rico did not respond to the survey.
Four states that responded — Colorado, Connecticut, Nevada, and New York —
indicated an age limit, but did not provide information on the conditions for
remaining in care.
Sample of States with Known Programs that Provide Foster
Care to Older Youth
Although over half of all states report that youth remain in foster care custody
under certain circumstances until at least age 21, a much smaller number of states
appear to encourage youth to do so. This is evidenced by the small number of youth
ages 18 through 20 in foster care, as reported by HHS’s Adoption and Foster Care
Reporting and Analysis System (AFCARS), the federal system that collects national
foster care data. Data from AFCARS in FY2006 (the most recent year data are
available) illustrates significant drop off between the number of youth age 17
(39,624; 8% of the foster care population), compared to youth age 18 (13,303; 3%);
age 19 (5,488; 1%); and age 20 (3,316; 1%).28
The Congressional Research Service contacted four jurisdictions — Illinois,
New York, Vermont, and Washington D.C. — that are known to retain youth in
foster care at age 18 to 21 or 22.29 These jurisdictions provide state foster care
maintenance payments to fund foster care for older youth, and may use other funds
besides Title IV-E maintenance payments. Note that this is not an exhaustive review
of states that provide the payments to youth beyond their 18th birthdays. The four
28
29
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #14.
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the state or
city’s child welfare or independent living services staff in March and April 2008.
CRS-15
foster care programs for youth ages 18 and older vary. While Illinois, New York, and
Washington, D.C. provide more traditional foster care maintenance payments to
foster families on behalf of youth ages 18 to 21, Vermont provides stipends (much
like foster care maintenance payments) to caring adults (including foster care
families) who pledge to assist youth who have aged out of care.
In Washington, D.C., youth must remain in care until their 21st birthday unless
they meet narrow criteria, whereas in Illinois and New York, eligible youth may
decide to seek emancipation before reaching age 21. Former foster youth in Vermont
are not required to participate in the program. Further, New York and Vermont
require youth to be enrolled in an educational or workforce programs as a condition
for remaining in care; Illinois and Washington D.C. do not. In all cases, with the
exception of Vermont, youth ages 18 and older in care continue to be wards of the
state. The juvenile courts retain jurisdiction and social workers make routine visits
to assist youth in achieving their case goal, which is often independent living
(another planned living arrangement). For additional information about the foster
care programs for older youth in these states, see Appendix C.
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
A second Title IV-E program, the Chafee Foster Care Independence program
(CFCIP), provides primary federal support, including independent living services, to
older youth in foster care and youth transitioning out of care.30
Overview
The John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-169)
replaced the prior law Independent Living Program with the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program. The 1999 law doubled the annual funds available to states
for independent living services from $70 million to $140 million. To be eligible for
funds, the act requires states to expand the population of youth who receive
independent living services to include those who have “aged out” of foster care (until
their 21st birthday) and those of any age in foster care who are expected to leave care
without placement in a permanent family. 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 to 21, including for those youth enrolled in an
institution of higher education or who remain in foster care in states that provide care
to youth until ages 19, 20, or 21.31 Room and board are not defined in statute, but
typically include food and shelter, and may include rental deposits, rent, utilities, and
the cost of household startup purchases. CFCIP funds may not be used to acquire
30
31
See Appendix E for proposed legislative changes to the CFCIP.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1G, Questions 1 and 4.
CRS-16
property to provide housing to current or former foster youth.32 The act also required
that youth in the program be actively involved in decisions about the services they
receive.
In addition, the law changed the amount of earnings or other resources that
foster youth may accumulate to assist in their transition to independent living.
Eligibility for foster care maintenance payments under Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act is based on whether the children’s original families would qualify for
AFDC, as it was in effect on July 16, 1996. Under those rules, children could not
remain eligible for Title IV-E services if they accumulated assets of more than
$1,000. P.L. 106-169, however, changed this asset limit to $10,000. The act also
encouraged states to provide Medicaid coverage to youth ages 18, 19, and 20 who
have emancipated from foster care by authorizing a new Medicaid eligibility pathway
for “independent foster care adolescents,” commonly called the “Chafee option” (see
section on Medicaid in “Other Federal Support” below). In 2002 (P.L. 107-133),
discretionary funds — up to $60 million annually — were authorized for eligible
current and former foster care youth to receive education and training vouchers.
History
The CFCIP varies in its eligibility requirements and purpose from the former
Independent Living Program, originally established in 1985 (P.L. 99-272). Congress
created the former program under a new Section 477 of the Social Security Act to
assist foster youth ages 16 to 18 who met the income and other eligibility criteria of
the Title IV-E foster care program. The legislation authorized mandatory funding to
states, and states were awarded a share of independent living funds based on the
number of children receiving federal foster care payments in FY1984. In 1987 (P.L.
100-647) independent living eligibility was expanded to any foster care children age
16 or older (regardless of federal Title IV-E eligibility) and to certain youth for six
months after leaving care. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L.
101-508) gave states the option of providing independent living services to current
and former foster youth until age 21, and in 1993 (P.L. 103-66), Congress
permanently authorized funding for the program at $70 million annually.
Eligibility for CFCIP Benefits and Services
The Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 required states to ensure that
independent living programs serve children of “various ages and various stages of
achieving independence” and use objective criteria for determining eligibility for
benefits and services under the program. The act further specified that states are to
provide services under the CFCIP for children who are “likely to remain in foster
care until 18 years of age” or are “aging out of foster care.” It also addressed the
responsibilities of the states to consult with American Indian tribes and provide
services to tribal youth.
Foster youth who are in runaway status or lose contact with their child welfare
agency continue to be under the custody of the state, and therefore, are eligible for
32
Ibid, Section 3.1G, Questions 1 and 3.
CRS-17
services upon returning. On the last day of FY2006, states reported to HHS that
close to 12,200 (2%) children had run away from care. The 2006 data are similar to
what states reported for the last days of FY2004 and FY2005.33 Those youth in care
who have been adjudicated through the juvenile justice system are eligible for CFCIP
services as long as they are not in a detention or related facility.34 (The juvenile
corrections facility is responsible for all services for foster youth who are confined
in a locked setting.) Finally, foster children who are not citizens may be eligible for
CFCIP services while under state custody.
Youth Likely to Remain in Foster Care Until Age 18. Under the old
Independent Living program, states could provide services to current foster youth
ages 16 and 17 who were eligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments,
or to “other children in care,” regardless of Title IV-E status. The Chafee Foster Care
Independence Act removed reference to a minimum eligibility age and required states
to provide supports to children “likely to remain in foster care” until age 18. This
phrase is not defined in the act, and states are to create eligibility standards using
objective criteria.
According to the National Foster Care Coalition, a child welfare advocacy
organization, many states have developed indicators to help determine the likelihood
that a child will remain in care until his or her 18th birthday.35 For example,
Louisiana determines a child’s eligibility for independent living services by
reviewing his or her case history, presenting problems, and individual case goals.
Kentucky and Alaska require that services be provided concurrently with permanency
planning for young people over the age of 14. Alaska further defines the level of
such services that should be provided at age 14 and older.
States can provide services to any child age 17 and younger regardless of their
placement in a kinship care home, family foster home, pre-adoptive home, or any
other state-sanctioned placement so long as the child is in state custody. HHS’s Child
Welfare Policy Manual requires states that place children in foster care settings in
other states to fund independent living services for foster youth ages 16 to 18
regardless of their placement in another state.36
33
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #14.
34
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.4, Question 5.
35
National Foster Care Awareness Project, Frequently Asked Questions II: About the Foster
Care Independence Act of 1999 and the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program, December 2000, p16. At [http://www.casey.org/NR/rdonlyres/E8E5EC9B2C0B-496B-A165-5A55D2F793A5/459/ChafeeFAQI1.pdf]. (Hereafter referenced as
National Foster Care Awareness Project, Frequently Asked Questions II.) Some of the
members of the National Foster Care Awareness Project, which no longer exists, are now
members of the National Foster Care Coalition. The National Foster Care Coalition
produced the Frequently Asked Questions III publication about the program.
36
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1F, Question 2.
CRS-18
Permanency Planning. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
(ASFA, P.L. 105-89) amended the Social Security Act at Section 475(5), which
required that all young people in foster care have a permanency plan. ASFA
established that, in addition to reunification, adoption, placement with a relative, and
legal guardianship, “another planned permanent living arrangement” (APPLA) is
specified as a permanency option, and may include independent living. While the
CFCIP is intended to expand independent living services for older youth in foster
care, Section 477 of the act encourages states to continue their efforts to achieve
permanency for a young person, including by specifying that states should continue
to locate and achieve placement in adoptive families for older youth in care. In his
introductory remarks about the Senate version of P.L. 106-169 (S. 1327), Senator Jay
Rockefeller described the intent of the legislation:
“[A] youth’s need for a family does not end at any particular age. Each of us can
clearly recall times when we have had to turn to our own families for advice,
comfort, or support long after our 18th or 21st birthdays. Many of us are still in
the role of providing such support to our own children who are in their late teens
or 20s. Therefore, an important provision in this Senate version of the Foster
Care Independence Act states that Independent Living (IL) programs are not
alternatives to permanency planning-young people of all ages need and deserve
every possible effort made towards permanence, including adoption. It would be
counterproductive to create any disincentive for adoption of teenagers.”37
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care. Prior to the enactment of the CFCIP,
states had the option to serve young people who had emancipated from care until age
21. The Chafee Foster Care Independence Act requires states that receive CFCIP
funds to provide independent living services to youth who have aged out of care
between the ages of 18 through 21. According to HHS’s Child Welfare Policy
Manual, this requirement does not preclude states from providing services to other
former foster care youth ages 18 to 21 who exited care prior to their eighteenth
birthday.38 Former foster youth continue to remain eligible for aftercare services until
age 21 if they move to another state. The state in which the former foster youth
resides — whether or not the youth was in foster care in that state — is responsible
for providing independent living services to the eligible young person.39
Several states have developed recommitment policies for youth who have been
discharged from care that specify a time limit in which they may be eligible for
services. Under such a policy, youth who turn age 18 while in runaway status may
re-enter care to receive services.40 The Chafee Foster Care Independence Act further
requires states to provide certain services to youth based on their age or whether they
were in foster care at a specific age. States may provide room and board with CFCIP
funds and Medicaid through the Chafee pathway only to those youth who are eligible
37
U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, July 1, 1999, p. S8124.
38
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1B, Question 2.
39
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1F, Question 3.
40
National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 9.
CRS-19
for CFCIP services. Youth are eligible for an education and training voucher (until
age 23) if they emancipate from care or were adopted from care at age 16 or older.
However, to be eligible for a voucher at age 22 or 23, they must have received one
at age 21.
American Indian Youth. The prior federal Independent Living Program did
not specify that states consult with American Indian tribes or serve Indian youth in
particular. P.L. 106-169 required that under the CFCIP, states must certify that each
federally recognized Indian tribal organization in the state has been consulted about
the state’s independent living programs and that there have been efforts to coordinate
the programs with these tribes.41 The importance of tribal involvement was
explained by Representative J.D. Hayworth during debate of the House version of
P.L. 106-169 (H.R. 1802) in June 1999, when he said that tribes are in the best
position to identify the needs of tribal youth and local resources available for these
young people.42
Although tribal entities may not receive direct reimbursement from the federal
government for foster care and related costs on behalf of Title IV-E eligible children,
and must enter into intergovernmental agreements with states to receive this funding,
tribes are not required to have entered into a Title IV-E agreement43 with the state to
participate in discussions with the state about its independent living programs and to
access CFCIP funds and services.44
In addition to requiring states to consult and coordinate with Indian tribes, P.L.
106-169 also provides that the “benefits and services under the programs are to be
made available to Indian children in the state on the same basis as to other children
in the state.” “On the same basis” has been interpreted by HHS to mean that the
state will provide program services equitably to children in both state custody and
tribal custody.45
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development
survey of tribal consultation and independent living services. In 2007,
the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development reviewed select
parts of five-year state child welfare plans, known as Child and Family Service Plans
(CFSP), to determine the extent to which (1) states have consulted tribes and
involved tribal officials in the development of independent living programs and (2)
41
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1I, Question 4.
42
U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, June 25, 1999, p. H4969.
43
Though most tribes provide child welfare services, 78 tribes and eight Alaska Regional
Corporations have some form of a Title IV-E foster care agreement. This information is
based on correspondence with the Association of American Indian Affairs, April 2008.
44
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1I, Question 4.
45
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1I, Question 5.
CRS-20
tribal youth have accessed independent living services.46 Based on a review of these
five-year child welfare plans for 28 states, the NCWRCYD determined that the plans
provided limited information about tribal consultation. In one-third of the plans,
states did not provide a response about consulting tribes. (States may have provided
this information in other parts of the plans that were not reviewed and/or may have
in fact consulted widely with tribes.) However, some of the state plans detailed their
consultation process with tribal entities. The NCWRCYD also reviewed annual child
welfare progress reports (known as Annual Progress and Service Reports, which
update the five-year plans) and found that 39 states reported consulting with tribes,
but that only four states elaborated with additional information.
The Role of Youth Participants
Section 477 of the Social Security Act requires that states ensure youth in
independent living programs participate directly in designing their own program
activities that prepare them for independent living and further that they “accept
personal responsibility for living up to their part of the program.” This language
builds on the positive youth development approach to serving youth.47 Youth
advocates that support this approach view youth as assets and promote the idea that
youth should be engaged in decisions about their lives and communities.
States have also taken various approaches to involving young people in
decisions about the services they receive. These include annual conferences, with
young people involved in conference planning and participation; youth speakers’
bureaus, with young people trained and skilled in public speaking; youth or alumni
assisting in the recruitment of foster and adoptive parents; and young people serving
as mentors for children and youth in foster care, among other activities.48 Some
states have also established formal youth advisory boards to provide a forum for
youth to become involved in issues facing youth in care and aging out of care.49
Youth-serving organizations for current and former foster youth, such as Foster Club,
provide an outlet for young people to become involved in the larger foster care
community and advocate for other children in care. States are not required to utilize
life skills assessments or personal responsibility contracts with youth to comply with
46
University of Oklahoma, National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth
Development, Tribal Youth Transitioning to Adulthood: Current Status of Independent
Living Services Provided to Indian Youth, November 2007. The NCWRCYD reviewed at
least one of the following documents for each state: Child and Family Service Plans (CFSP)
for FY2005-FY2009 and Annual Progress and Service Reports (ASPR) for FY2005 and
FY2006.
47
For additional information about the positive youth development movement in youth
policy, see CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by Adrienne
L. Fernandes.
48
49
National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions II, pp. 30-31.
For a list of jurisdictions with youth advisory boards, see [http://www.fyi3.com/fyi3/
Involved/yabs/index.cfm].
CRS-21
the youth participation requirement, although some states use these tools to assist
youth make the transition to adulthood.50
Administration of the Program
States administer their independent living programs in a few ways. Some
programs are overseen by the state independent living office, which employs an
independent living coordinator and other staff. For example, in Maine, the state’s
independent living manager oversees six specialized life skills education coordinators
assigned to cover all of the state’s district offices for the Department of Health and
Human Services. In some states, like California, each county (or other jurisdiction)
administers its own program with some oversight and support from a statewide
program. Other states, including Florida, use contracted service providers to
administer their programs. Many jurisdictions have partnered with private
organizations to help fund and sometimes administer some aspect of their
independent living programs. For example, the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities
Initiative has provided funding and technical assistance to ten cities to provide
financial support and training to youth exiting care.51
Education and Training Vouchers
As mentioned above, in 2002, Congress passed legislation (P.L. 107-133) to
authorize discretionary funding to eligible current and former foster care youth for
education and training vouchers worth up to $5,000 annually per youth (states may
determine the annual period to which to apply the $5,000 ceiling52). Youth qualify
for a voucher if they are eligible for CFCIP services or were adopted from foster care
after 16 years of age. Youth eligible for CFCIP services includes those who are ages
18 to 21 who have left foster care because they have aged out; youth likely to remain
in foster care until age 18, as determined by the state; and former foster care
recipients age 21 and younger, as determined by the state.
The vouchers are available for the cost of full-time or part-time attendance at
an institution of higher education, as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.53
50
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1A, Question 1.
51
For further information about the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, see
[http://www.jimcaseyyouth.org/communities.htm].
52
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.5C, Question 7.
53
Section 472 of the Higher Education Act, as amended defines “cost of attendance” as
tuition, fees, and other equipment or materials required of all students in the same course
of study; books, supplies, and allowance for transportation and miscellaneous personal
expenses, including computers; room and board; child care expenses for a student who is
a parent; accommodations related to the student’s disability that is not paid for by another
source; expenses related to the youth’s work experience in a cooperative education program;
and student loan fees or insurance premiums on the loans. Section 102 of the Higher
(continued...)
CRS-22
(ETV funds may be used to pay for health insurance, which may cover mental health
services; but they may not be used to pay directly for a doctor’s visit or dental
insurance.54) A current fiscal year’s ETV funds may not be used to finance a youth’s
educational or vocational loans incurred prior to that current fiscal year.55 Students
may receive the vouchers if they are in good standing and making progress toward
completing their program or graduating, though states may have additional
requirements such as periodically meeting with a caseworker or limiting the funding
to a certain number of semesters.56 Only youth receiving a voucher at age 21 may
continue to participate in the voucher program until age 23.
Funding received through the ETV program does not count toward the student’s
expected family contribution, which is used by the federal government to determine
a student’s need for federal financial aid (even for those students who are classified
as independent, meaning that their parental financial information is not included in
the financial aid analysis). However, the total amount of education assistance
provided under the CFCIP and other federal programs may not exceed the total cost
of attendance, and students cannot claim the same education expenses under multiple
federal programs.
Administration of the Program. States and counties may use ETV dollars
to fund the vouchers and the costs associated with administering the program,
including for salaries, expenses, and training of staff who administer the state’s
voucher program. States are not permitted to use Title IV-E Foster Care or Adoption
Assistance program funds for administering the ETV program.57 They may, however,
spend additional funds from state sources or other sources to supplement the ETV
program or use ETV funds to expand existing post-secondary funding programs.58
Several states have scholarship programs, tuition waivers, and grants for current and
former foster youth that are funded through other sources.59
53
(...continued)
Education Act of 1965, as amended identifies “institutions of higher education” for purposes
of student assistance (under Title IV of the Higher Education Act) to include traditional
higher education institutions (i.e., public or private, nonprofit two- and four-year colleges
and universities) as well as other postsecondary institutions (i.e., proprietary or for-profit
schools offering technical training programs usually of less than two-years’ duration, and
vocational schools).
54
National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 12.
55
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.5C, Question 5.
56
National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 7.
57
Ibid, Section 3.5C, Question 5.
58
Ibid, Section 3.5C, Question 6.
59
For example, see National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, State
Policies to Help Youth Transition Out of Foster Care, Issue Brief, December 2007.
(Hereafter referenced as National Governors Association, State Policies to Help Youth
Transition Out of Foster Care.)
CRS-23
Generally, states administer their ETV program through their independent living
program. Some states, however, administer the program through their financial aid
office (e.g., California Student Aid Commission) or at the local level (e.g., Florida,
where all child welfare programs are administered through community-based
agencies). Some states contract with a non-profit service provider, such as the
Orphan Foundation of America or the Student Assistance Foundation. For example,
the Orphan Foundation of America (OFA), a non-profit child welfare organization,
contracts with nine states (Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Maryland,
Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and New York) to administer their ETV programs.
OFA’s administrative fee is capped at 12% of funds disbursed on behalf of a state.
OFA is involved in all aspects of program administration, including identifying
eligible youth for the program; maintaining a database with financial records, youth
demographics, and youth outcomes for the nine states; training child welfare staff
about the ETV program; and providing over-the-phone financial aid counseling to
ETV recipients in the nine states. Students identified at risk of dropping out because
of their grades receive academic counseling by OFA staff.
Youth Enrolled in the Program. Youth may enroll in the program if they
are in care or have aged out of care. The state with the placement and responsibility
for a youth in foster care is to provide the voucher to that youth. The state must also
provide a voucher to any youth who is currently receiving a voucher and moves to
another state for the sole purpose of attending an institution of higher education.60
If a youth permanently moves to another state after leaving care and subsequently
enrolls in a qualified institution of higher education, he or she can apply for a
voucher in his or her current state of residence.61
HHS’s Administration for Children and Families reported that states provided
vouchers to 11,365 youth in FY2006 and to 12,692 youth in FY2007 under the
Education and Training Voucher program.62 In the nine states for which the Orphan
Foundation of America administers ETV funds, it collects information on the type
of schools ETV recipients attend, their demographics, and their outcomes. In
FY2007, over 4,260 youth were eligible for the vouchers in those nine states, and just
over half of these youth — 2,400 (56.7%) — received a voucher. More than half
(55.4%) of the youth attend universities; 35.8% attend community colleges; and 8.7%
attend technical and speciality schools. (Many students pursue technical training
through community college programs). Based on demographic data collected of the
ETV recipients in the nine states, 58% were African American, 28% were white, 7%
were Latino, 5% were of two or more races, 1% were Native American, 1% were
Asian American, and less than 1% (11 recipients) were Pacific Islander. The
majority of youth recipients were female (68%) and just over half (54.5%) of the
youth were ages 19 or 20. Nearly 18% of the youth were parents; the average age at
which the youth became a parent was 17 years and nine months.
60
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.5, Question 1.
61
62
National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 7.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, FY2009 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, p. D-87.
CRS-24
Funding for States
States must provide a 20% match (in-kind or cash) to receive their full federal
CFCIP and ETV allotment. CFCIP funds are often mixed with state, local, and other
funding sources to provide a system of support for youth likely to age out of care and
those who have emancipated. To be eligible for CFCIP general and ETV funds, a
state must submit a five-year plan (as part of its Child and Family Service Plan
(CFSP) and Annual Progress and Service Report (APSR)) to HHS that describes how
it intends to carry out its independent living program. The box below lists the
certifications that the state must make when submitting its plan. Under Section 477
of the Social Security Act, HHS must approve a state’s plan for independent living
services if it contains all of the required materials. The plan must be submitted on
or before June 30 of the calendar year in which the plan is to begin. States may make
amendments to the plan and notify HHS within 30 days of modifying the plan. HHS
is to make the plans available to the public. Mandatory and discretionary funds
provided under the CFCIP may only supplement, rather than supplant, any funds
from other federal sources (e.g., Social Services Block Grant or Runaway and
Homeless Youth program) or non-federal sources that may be available for
independent living programs in the state.
Use of Funds. States may apply to receive mandatory funds for the six
purposes specified in the CFCIP:
(1) to identify children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age
and to help these children make the transition to self-sufficiency by providing
independent living and related services;
(2) to help children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age
receive the education, training, and services necessary to obtain employment;
(3) to help children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age
prepare for and enter postsecondary training and education institutions;
(4) to provide personal and emotional support to children aging out of foster care,
through mentoring and positive interactions with caring adults;
(5) to provide financial, housing, counseling, employment, education, and other
appropriate support and services to former foster care recipients between ages
18 and 21 years to complement their own efforts to achieve self-sufficiency and
to assure that program participants recognize and accept personal responsibility
for making the transition from adolescence to adulthood; and
(6) to make available education and training vouchers for youth who have aged out
of care.
As described in HHS’s Child Welfare Policy Manual, states may also use
CFCIP funding to establish trust funds for youth eligible under the program (Section
3.3E, Question 1). However, states may not use CFCIP funds to train foster parents,
workers in group homes, and case managers in issues confronting adolescents. States
may use funding under the Title IV-E Foster Care program or Adoption Assistance
program for this purpose.
CFCIP and ETV funds are distributed to each state based on its proportion of
the nation’s children in foster care. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008
(P.L. 110-161) provides $140 million in mandatory funding for the CFCIP and $45.4
CRS-25
million for the ETV program. Table D-1 in the Appendix provides the CFCIP and
voucher allotments for each state in FY2007 and FY2008.
CFCIP State Plan Requirements
To receive funds under the CFCIP, a state must describe in its CFCIP plan how it will
— design and deliver programs to achieve the program purposes;
— ensure statewide, although not necessarily uniform, coverage by the program;
— ensure that the programs serve children of various ages and at various stages of achieving
independence;
— involve the public and private sectors in helping adolescents in foster care achieve
independence;
— use objective criteria for determining eligibility for and ensuring fair and equitable
treatment of benefit recipients;
— cooperate in national evaluations of the effects of the programs in achieving the purpose
of the CFCIP.
The state must also certify that it will
— provide assistance and services to eligible former foster youth;
— use room and board payments only for youth ages 18 to 21;
— expend not more than 30% of CFCIP funds on room and board for youth ages 18 to 21;
— use funding under the Title IV-E Foster Care program and Adoption Assistance program
(but not the CFCIP) to provide training to help foster parents and others understand and
address the issues confronting adolescents preparing for independent living and
coordinate this training, where possible, with independent living programs;
— consult widely with public and private organizations in developing the plans and give the
public at least 30 days to comment on the plan;
— make every effort to coordinate independent living programs with other youth programs
at the local, state, and federal levels, including independent living projects funded under
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, abstinence education programs,
local housing programs, programs for disabled youth, and school-to-work programs
offered by high schools or local workforce agencies;
— consult each Indian tribe about the programs to be carried out under the plan, that there
have been efforts to coordinate the programs with such tribes, and that benefits and
services under the programs will be made available to Indian children in the state on the
same basis as other children in the state;
— ensure that eligible youth participate directly in designing their own program activities
that prepare them for independent living and that they accept personal responsibility for
living up to their part of the program;
— establish and enforce standards and procedures to prevent fraud and abuse in the programs
carried out under its plan;
— ensure that the ETV program complies with the federal program requirements, including
that (1) the total amount of education assistance to a youth provided through the ETV
program and under other federal and federally supported programs does not exceed the
total cost of attendance and (2) does not duplicate benefits under the CFCIP or other
federal or federally assisted benefit program.
Source: Section 473 of the Social Security Act.
CRS-26
Hold Harmless Provision. Section 477 of the Social Security Act’s includes
a “hold harmless” clause that precludes any state from receiving less than the amount
of general independent living funds it received under the former independent living
program in FY1998 or $500,000, whichever is greater. (There is no hold harmless
provision for ETV funds.) The general funding for independent living services
doubled nationally with the implementation of the CFCIP, however, the percentage
change in funds received varies across states. This is because the distribution of
funding was changed to reflect the most current state share of the national caseload
(instead of their share of the 1984 caseload in all previous years). Some states
receive nearly the same level of funding while others receive much more under the
CFCIP (see Table D-2 in the Appendix).63 In FY2007 (the latest year for which final
data are available), three states (the District of Columbia, Louisiana, and New York)
received the same funding amount they received in FY1998. Eight states (Alaska,
Delaware, Idaho, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and
Wyoming) each received $500,000 because their FY1998 allotments were this
amount or less.
Unused Funds. States have two years to spend their CFCIP and voucher
funds. For instance, funds allotted for FY2008 may be spent in FY2008 or FY2009.
If a state does not apply for all of its allotment, the remaining funds may be
redistributed among states that needs these funds as determined by HHS. If a state
applies for all of its CFCIP allotted funds but does not spend them within the twoyear time frame, the unused funds revert to the federal treasury.
Table D-3 in Appendix D shows the FY2005 (the latest year for which data
for returned funds are available) final allocations, dollars expended, and dollars
returned to the federal treasury for general CFCIP allotments. That fiscal year, the 50
states, Puerto Rico, and Washington D.C. were allocated a combined total of $137.9
million in general CFCIP funds, about one percent of which was returned to the
treasury. No states returned all of their funds.
Thirteen states (Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Texas, Virginia,
and Wyoming) each returned between 0.1% and 26.4% of their allocations.
States initially received funds for education and training vouchers in FY2003.
Table D-4, also in Appendix D, shows that in FY2005 (the latest year for which
data are available), the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington D.C. received $45.9
million in funds for the vouchers, of which 26 states and Puerto Rico collectively
returned 11.6% of those funds. Final data are not available for Alaska and Puerto
Rico, and therefore the total share of returned funds is not final. States did not report
to HHS the reasons for not spending ETV funds. Based on Congressional Research
Service (CRS) discussions with HHS staff, OFA staff, and a small number of states,
the reasons may include (1) the lack of infrastructure to absorb and distribute funds,
including training child welfare workers and knowledge about educational financial
63
This information is based on CRS analysis of FY1998 and FY2007 funding data for each
state. This analysis includes only the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
CRS-27
aid; (2) mechanisms for distributing funds to youth and tracking youth outcomes; (3)
federal fiscal year deadlines; and (4) youth’s knowledge about the ETV program.64
Training and Technical Assistance
Training and technical assistance grants for the CFCIP and ETV program are
awarded competitively every five years, with non-competitive grants renewed
annually.65 The National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development,
housed at the University of Oklahoma, currently provides assistance under the
grant.66 The NCWRCYD helps states and tribes implement their independent living
programs and involve foster youth in programming and services. The NCWRCYD
emphasizes the principles of youth development, cultural competence, permanent
connections, and collaboration in developing and carrying out state and tribal
programs and services for youth in care. Assistance is provided through conferences,
on-site technical assistance, and information made available on the NCWRCYD
website and through publications. In each of FY2007 and FY2008, NCWRCYD was
awarded $1.2 million under the training and technical assistance grant.67
National Youth in Transition Database
Section 477 requires that HHS consult with state and local public officials
responsible for administering independent living and other child welfare programs,
child welfare advocates, Members of Congress, youth service providers and
researchers to (1) “develop outcome measures (including measures of educational
attainment, high school diploma, avoidance of dependency, homelessness,
non-marital childbirth, incarceration, and high-risk behaviors) that can be used to
assess the performance of states in operating independent living programs;” (2)
identify the data needed to track the number and characteristics of children receiving
services, the type and quantity of services provided, and state performance on the
measures; and (3) develop and implement a plan to collect this information beginning
with the second fiscal year after the passage of P.L. 106-169. The law further
required that by December 2000, HHS was to submit to the House Ways and Means
Committee and Senate Finance Committee a report detailing a plan and timetable for
collecting the data from the states and a proposal to impose penalties of not less than
1% or more than 5% of the states’ CFCIP funding for states that do not comply with
the data collection requirements, based on the degree of noncompliance.
History. In its September 2001 Report to the Congress, “Developing a System
of Program Accountability Under the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program,” HHS outlined a plan and timetable for developing a data collection
64
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service in June 2007.
65
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary on July 25, 2008.
66
For more information about the type of assistance that is provided, see
[http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/about.html].
67
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary on July 25, 2008.
CRS-28
system. The report stated that HHS administrators and an HHS working group
consulted with stakeholders and reviewed child welfare literature to identify the data
elements to be collected and reported in the database, as well as the outcomes
relevant to assessing the CFCIP. The report discussed a penalty structure for states
not in compliance with the reporting requirements. HHS also established a pilot test
in 2001 involving seven states and an Indian tribe. In each of the jurisdictions,
caseworkers collected data about older youth, identified unclear data elements, and
described any difficulties encountered while collecting the information. According
to HHS, the pilot test enabled the agency to assess the burden for workers collecting
the data and to learn if the capacity to report data varied significantly across states
and agencies.
Acting on the advice of the Department’s General Counsel, HHS decided to
produce formal regulations for this mandatory data collection process instead of
following their initial plan of producing Program Instructions. The September 2001
report stated that HHS would publish the final outcomes and measures in the Federal
Register and seek public comment by May 2002. The agency anticipated
administering the database nationally in October 2003. However, a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the data collection system was not published until
July 14, 2006.
The NPRM provided for a 60-day comment period during which HHS heard
from states and child welfare advocates. After this period, the final regulations
underwent a full agency and department review as well as Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) clearance before final publication on February 26, 2008.68 The final
rule establishing the NYTD became effective April 28, 2008, sixty days after
publication and requires states to report data on youth beginning in FY2011.
Data Collection. HHS will use the NYTD to engage in two data collection
and reporting activities.69 First, states will collect information twice each fiscal year
on eligible youth who currently receive independent living services whether they
continue to remain in foster care, were in foster care in another state, or received
child welfare services through an Indian tribe or privately operated foster care
program. These youth are known as served youth. Second, states will also collect
information on foster youth on or about their 17th birthday, two years later on or about
their 19th birthday, and again on or about their 21st birthday. Foster youth age 17 are
known as the baseline youth and at ages 19 and 21 are known as the follow-up youth.
These current and former foster youth will be tracked regardless of whether they
receive independent living services at ages 17, 19, and 21. States have the option of
tracking a sample of youth who participated in the outcomes collection at age 17 to
reduce the data collection burden. Information will be collected on a new group of
foster youth age 17 every three years.
68
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Chafee National Youth in Transition
Database,” 73 Federal Register 10338, February 26, 2008.
69
For additional information, you may request a copy of a Congressional Distribution
Memorandum, Chafee Foster Care Independence Act National Youth in Transition
Database, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
CRS-29
Consistent with the statutory requirement developed by Congress in P.L.
106-169, HHS proposes to penalize any state not meeting the data collection
procedures for the NYTD from 1% to 5% of its annual Chafee fund allotment, which
includes any allotted or re-allotted funds for the general CFCIP program only. The
penalty amount will be withheld from a current fiscal year award of the funds. ACF
will evaluate a state’s data file against data compliance standards, provided by
statute. However, states will have the opportunity to submit corrected data.
Training and Technical Assistance.70 Training and technical assistance
is provided to states through HHS; the National Child Welfare Resource Center for
Youth Development; the National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and
Technology, housed at the Child Welfare League of America; and a contractor that
will be competitively selected. The Children’s Bureau hosted its first NYTD meeting
on technical assistance for states in July 2008. Once the contract for training and
technical assistance is awarded, the contractor will design, develop, and deploy a
system for accepting and processing data file transmissions from the states. The
contractor will also provide assistance through annual meetings, technical bulletins,
and on-site technical reviews.
Evaluation of Innovative CFCIPs
Section 477 provides that HHS is to conduct evaluations of independent living
programs funded by the CFCIP deemed to be innovative or of national significance.
The law reserves 1.5% ($2.1 million) of total CFCIP funding annually for these
evaluations, as well as CFCIP-related technical assistance, performance
measurement, and data collection. For FY2007, HHS spent $1.4 million on research
and evaluation and the remaining was set aside for technical assistance and other
program support.
HHS has contracted with the Urban Institute and its partners to conduct the fiveyear Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs. The goal of the evaluation is
to determine the effects of independent living programs funded by P.L. 106-169 in
achieving key outcomes, including increased educational attainment, higher
employment rates and stability, greater interpersonal and relationship skills, reduced
non-marital pregnancy and births, and reduced delinquency and crime rates.
HHS and the evaluation team initially conducted an assessment to identify
programs that could be evaluated rigorously, through random assignment to treatment
and control groups, as required under Section 477 of the Social Security Act. The
evaluation team, in coordination with HHS and a federally appointed technical work
group, established criteria for selecting the sites. Such criteria included that the
program should take in sufficient numbers of youth to allow for an adequate sample
size; have excess demand so that random assignment is possible while serving the
70
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary on July 25, 2008.
CRS-30
same number of youth as before the evaulation; and be reasonably stable, relatively
intense, and consistently implemented; among other considerations.71
The evaluation team determined that it could use random assignment at four
innovative programs in California and Massachusetts — an employment services
program in Kern County, California; a one-on-one intensive, individualized life skills
program in Massachusetts; and, a classroom-based life skills training program and
tutoring/mentoring program, both in Los Angeles County, California.72 The 1,400
youth participating in the evaluation at the four sites were assigned to intervention
and control groups, and have been surveyed at three points: baseline, one year after
baseline, and two years after baseline. The researchers have conducted in-person
interviews with the youth to obtain information on youth characteristics, program
interventions and services, and intermediate and longer-term outcomes. Researchers
have also conducted interviews with program administrators, community advocates,
and directors of community provider agencies. Further, the evaluation team has held
focus groups with youth, independent living program staff, and other agency staff
responsible for referring youth to the programs. The team is using extracts of state
administrative data to determine child and family demographics, child welfare
placement history, physical and mental health status, and delinquency history. Data
specific to each site is also being collected by the team.
A final study that synthesizes information from the various sites will be released
in 2010. Findings from the Kern County site are expected to be released in 2009, and
findings from the Massachusetts site are expected to released in 2010.73 The findings
from the two Los Angeles sites were made available in July 2008.
The life skills and tutoring programs in Los Angeles are administered by the
Community College Foundation, a nonprofit organization that administers education
and social service programs for foster youth and other vulnerable youth at community
colleges throughout California, including Los Angeles County. The purpose of the
life skills program is to prepare older foster youth to live independently and acquire
the skills and resources needed for emancipation.74 A second goal is to encourage
these youth to complete high school and go on to post-secondary education and
training. The life skills classes are held at the community colleges twice a week for
five weeks and address education, employment, daily living skills, choices and
consequences, and interpersonal social skills. Foster youth enrolled in the life skills
71
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Evaluation of the Life Skills Training
Program: Los Angeles County, July 2008. At [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/
abuse_neglect/chafee/reports/eval_lst/eval_lst.pdf]. (Hereafter referenced U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Evaluation of the Life Skills Training Program: Los Angeles
County.)
72
Additional information regarding the Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs is
available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/project/tprojectIndex.jsp?topicId=2].
73
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of
Planning, Research & Evaluation on February 11, 2008.
74
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Evaluation of the Life Skills Training
Program: Los Angeles County.
CRS-31
program and participating in the study were 17 years old at the time of assignment,
eligible for CFCIP services, and physically and mentally fit to participate. The
purpose of the tutoring program is to improve the educational outcomes of foster
youth in reading and math and to empower them to use other educational services
and resources that may be available to them. Another purpose of the program is to
facilitate a mentoring relationship between the tutor and youth. Youth enrolled in the
tutoring/mentoring program and participating in the study were ages 14 or 15 and
were one to three years behind grade level in either reading or math.75 The youth
received up to 50 hours of remedial one-on-one tutoring in reading in math in their
homes.
The life skills program evaluated outcomes across several domains: education,
employment, money management, housing, and health and hygiene. The tutoring
evaluation measured impacts through the Woodcock Johnson educational assessment,
grades, educational attainment, and school behavior. The evaluation of the two
programs found no statistically significant impact as a result of the life skills training
and tutoring interventions. A limitation of the design for the evaluation is that some
youth in the control group received life skills services or tutoring services through
other programs, and some members in the treatment group did not receive the life
skills or tutoring services through the Community College Foundation, as intended.
Nonetheless, the evaluation team concluded that even if there were no challenges with
the experimental design of the studies, the results would not likely change. According
to the research team, the findings from the evaluations should not be generalized to
other independent living programs, given that these other programs may be structured
differently and provide distinct services.
PART Review
In calendar year 2004, the CFCIP was reviewed through the U.S. Office of
Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process.76 The
evaluation concluded that program results were “not demonstrated” because the
CFCIP lacked long-term performance measures and time frames for these measures,
as well as adequate progress in achieving its annual performance goals; and because
some states did not use all of their CFCIP or ETV funding. OMB made the
determination about the performance measurement because the National Youth in
Transition Database, which will provide long-term performance and annual
performance measurement beginning in FY2011, had not yet been implemented. The
PART review also found that no independent evaluations of the program have been
routinely conducted. While the Multi-Site Evaluation will provide information about
outcomes for youth who receive independent living services, according to the PART
review, it is not sufficiently national in scope.
75
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Evaluation of the Early Start to
Emancipation Preparation — Tutoring Program Los Angeles County, July 2008. At
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/chafee/reports/eval_estep/eval_est
ep.pdf].
76
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Detailed Information on the Independent Living
Program Assessment, 2004. At [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/100
02146.2004.html].
CRS-32
The PART has established two goals for the program:
!
Promote the efficient use of CFCIP funds by 1) increasing the
percentage of states that completely expend their allocations within
the two-year expenditure period, and 2) decreasing the percentage of
funds that remain unexpended by states within that period. For
FY2007, the targets for these measurements are a 7% increase in the
number of states (over the previous year) that completely spent
CFCIP allocations; and a 20% decrease (from the previous year) in
the amount of funds remaining unexpended. The actual figures are
expected to be reported in January 2009.
!
Increase the percentages of CFCIP youth who avoid high-risk
behaviors which might otherwise lead to criminal investigations and
incarceration. The baseline measurement will be taken in FY2011,
the first year the NYTD is implemented.
Assessments of the CFCIP
There does not appear to be a clear picture of the types of services provided
through CFCIP-funded programs, although the National Youth in Transition Database
and the evaluation of innovative independent living programs will provide a national
overview about the number of youth served, the types of services provided, and best
practices in assisting current and former foster youth make the transition to adulthood.
Three sources — an evaluation of independent living services described in states’
Child and Family Services Review documents, a GAO report on the CFCIP, and a
report on ETV programs in six states — provide some insight into how states carry
out their independent living programs.77
Child and Family Services Review. The U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services determines state compliance with federal child welfare policies, and
helps to ensure that positive outcomes are achieved for children and families involved
in the child welfare system, by conducting reviews of state and child welfare
programs.
77
Other resources illustrate how select jurisdictions and programs provide independent
living services for older current and former foster youth. See, for example, U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some of the
Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to Education and Employment,
GAO-08-313, February 2008; National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices,
State Policies to Help Youth Transition Out of Foster Care, Issue Brief, January 2007;
Wilhelmina A. Leigh et al., Aging Out of the Foster Care System to Adulthood: Findings,
Challenges, and Recommendations, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and
Black Administrators in Child Welfare Inc., December 2007; and Rachel H. Sherman,
“Serving Youth Aging Out of Foster Care,” Welfare Information Network Issue Note, vol.
8, no. 5 (October 2004), pp. 5-7. See also the University of Chicago Law School,
“Transition From Foster Care to Adulthood Wiki” at [http://fostercaretoadulthood.wiki
spaces.com/] and the University of Oklahoma, National Child Welfare Resource Center for
Youth Development, “State by State Facts Page,” at [http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/state_
pages.html].
CRS-33
The most comprehensive component of HHS’s review system is the Child and
Family Services Reviews (CFSR).78 Conducted by the Children’s Bureau, the reviews
assess state conformity with certain requirements of Title IV-B and Title IV-E.79 The
first round of reviews was conducted between 2001 and 2004 in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and a final report was prepared discussing the
findings in each jurisdiction.80 This initial round found that no state’s child welfare
programs met the criteria that HHS established as demonstrating “substantial
conformity” with all of federal child welfare policy requirements. As a result, all states
have or are implementing Program Improvement Plans (PIP). To avoid financial
penalties associated with noncompliance, states must meet the improvement goals
established in their PIP. The second round of reviews for some jurisdictions are
underway.
To achieve substantial conformity with federal child welfare policy, states must
achieve seven outcomes related to the safety, permanency, and well-being of children
and they must demonstrate they have in place child welfare systems to achieve these
goals. A review team composed of federal and state evaluators uses 45 items — or
performance indicators — to guide the team through an evaluation of the state’s
performance. Though none of the performance indicators specifically target older
children in care, the review team assess how well states meet the needs of all children
in foster care, including adolescents, through multiple indicators.81
The CFSR second round review began in 2007 and requires federal and state
evaluators to interview, at the state-level, youth being served by the state child welfare
agency, especially those youth who are eligible to receive independent living services;
HHS also recommends that evaluators interview the state youth service agency.82
Further, at the local level, the evaluators are to interview youth being served by the
local child welfare agency, particularly those eligible for independent living services.
78
For additional information, see CRS Report RL32968, Child Welfare: State Performance
on Child and Family Services Reviews, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
79
In 2000, HHS published a final rule to establish a formal review process consistent with
legislative mandates to improve federal oversight of state child welfare programs. The final
rule established the CFSR and Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews. The Foster Care
Eligibility Reviews are conducted to validate a state’s claim for federal reimbursement of
payments made on behalf of eligible children, and are not discussed in this report.
80
The reports are available at [http://basis.caliber.com/cwig/ws/cwmd/docs/cb_web/
SearchForm].
81
One item used in reviews conducted in 2001 assessed state provision of independent
living services for children age 16 or older (Item 8). However, for reviews in 2002 to 2004,
review teams looked instead at appropriate and timely achievement of reunification,
guardianship, or kinship placement.
82
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Children’s Bureau, Child and Family Services Reviews Procedures Manual,
Working Draft, November 2006.
CRS-34
Analysis of first round CFSR findings.83 An analysis of the CFSR findings
for 45 jurisdictions found strengths in a few states related to increased involvement
of youth in case planning and other relevant activities, as well as an increased focus
on permanency issues for adolescents in care, including promoting family connections
for older foster youth.84 However, the analysis also found a number of barriers to
effective youth services to be fairly common.
The most common identified barrier was inadequate or non-existent services,
including service gaps related to life skills training, job skills training, substance abuse
treatment, mental health treatment, general independent living services, inpatient
mental health treatment services, services for pregnant or parenting teens, and
independent living assessments. (Of the 45 final reports reviewed in this analysis 34
states reported the service gap barrier.) The second most common barrier (identified
in 26 of the 45 reports analyzed) was a lack of placement resources for adolescents,
including transitional living placements, homes for youth over 18, and homes for
pregnant and parenting teens. Twenty-five of the 45 state final reports analyzed
identified gaps in youth-specific training for staff and foster parents ranging from
having no specialized adolescent training for any staff or foster parents to needing
specialized training in assessing youths’ needs. This training need was identified
despite the fact that the majority of states received a positive rating relating to
provision of training. Of the 45 states included in the analysis, 87% identified the need
for additional training in adolescent issues despite the fact that they received an
overall strength rating for their training program.
Inconsistency in services was found to be a barrier in a separate group of 25
states. This meant, for instance, that services related to life skills might be very strong
in one part of the state but lacking in other areas of the state. In addition, in some
places the service inconsistencies were found among contractors or providers within
a specific region or area of the state. Finally, in 24 states the quality and consistency
of independent living planning was identified as an issue. Specific problems included
a lack of youth involvement in case planning, no independent living case plan
completed, case plans not regularly updated, no transition planning, no youth
assessment, poor placement matches, lack of individualized planning for youth in
long-term care, and poor permanency goal selection.
A review of the initial 31 Program Improvement Plans approved for state
implementation found that independent living and adolescent issues might not have
been addressed. Researchers concluded that this might be the case because the
language in the PIP was more general (services for all children not just adolescents)
83
84
This section was written by Emilie Stoltzfus, Specialist in Social Policy.
Edi Winkle, Dorothy Ansell, and Ann Newman, An Analysis of State’s Child and Family
Services Reviews and Program Improvement Plans From a Youth Development Perspective,
National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, March 25,
2004, at [http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/resources/publications/pdfs/summaryv2.2.pdf]. This
analysis was based on 45 of the final reports that were available as of March 15, 2004.
CRS-35
or because the specific concern was identified within an area for which the state might
nonetheless have received a positive rating (e.g. quality of training program).85
GAO Report. A comprehensive report on the development and implementation
of the CFCIP was produced by the GAO in November 2004.86 The report was based
on survey data collected from independent living coordinators in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as well as review of the jurisdictions’ CFCIP
plans for FY2001 through FY2004. After the 1999 passage of P.L. 106-169, forty
states reported expanded independent living services to youth younger than they had
previously served and 36 states reported serving older youth. In addition, 45 states
reported offering assistance with room and board to emancipated foster youth.
According to officials in the states GAO visited for the study, funds were also used
to improve the quality of existing independent living services, refocus the attention
of their programs, or develop new services to assist youth of all ages in the programs.
The GAO report also raised concerns about the implementation of the CFCIP.
The report indicates that states varied in the percentage of eligible youth served. In
2003, forty states reported serving between 10% and 100% of eligible youth, with onethird of the states serving less than half of eligible youth. GAO also found gaps in the
availability of mental health services, mentoring services, and securing safe and
suitable housing, particularly in rural areas. Further, although 49 states reported
increased coordination with a number of federal, state, and local programs that can
provide or supplement independent living services, child welfare administrators and
youth interviewed by GAO said that they were unaware of the services. Finally, the
lack of uniformity among the states’ CFCIP five-year plans precluded using them at
the state and federal level to monitor how well the programs serve eligible youth.
Implementation of the ETV Program. In 2007, the National Foster Care
Coalition, in partnership with Casey Family Programs, a foundation supporting child
welfare research and advocacy, reported on six states’ (California, Maine, Montana,
New York, North Carolina, and Wyoming) experiences with implementing the ETV
program.87 These states serve as few as 31 youth to as many as nearly 2,000 youth
in a given school year, with average awards ranging from $2,950 to $4,318 for each
youth. Three of the states (Montana, New York, and North Carolina) contract with a
non-profit service provider to administer the ETV program, while the other three
states administer the program through the independent living coordinator or state
financial aid office.
85
Ibid.
86
U.S. Government Accountability Office. HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of
Services and Monitoring of States’ Independent Living Programs, GAO-05-25, November
2004, pp. 18-19.
87
National Foster Care Coalition, The Chafee Education and Training Voucher Program:
Six States’ Experiences, National Foster Care Coalition and Casey Family Programs, 2007.
At [http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/ETV.htm].
CRS-36
The report describes the best practices employed by the states in implementing
their ETV programs, as well as the challenges they have encountered.88 One
promising approach was the application process for some states, which involves a web
application process that allows students and schools to view application and approval
status and deadlines. Other states reported providing extensive promotion and
outreach about the program through information sessions, annual teen conferences for
foster youth, and mailings; and providing additional educational supports to youth
through financial aid counseling, mentoring, tuition waivers, and scholarships.
Contracting through a third-party was also identified as an important practice that has
lent to more efficient administration of the voucher program. The report also
identified youth feedback about the program as another important feature of the
programs.
In addition, the report also identified barriers to successfully administering the
ETV program. Some of the challenges include (1) meeting the demand for the
program; (2) recruiting youth to the program and ensuring that these youth have
sufficient support to remain in school; (3) managing awards for youth whom schools
are unable to locate once awards are issued or awarding funds to youth who have
dropped out; (4) tracking how voucher funds are spent; (5) conveying to university
financial aid staff the rules associated with the ETV program; (6) maintaining the
confidentiality of youth’s foster care experiences; (7) connecting non-college-bound
youth to vocational programs; and (8) meeting the needs of parenting youth, among
others. The states indicated that they are working to address these challenges.
Other Federal Support for Older Current
and Former Foster Youth
In addition to the federal programs under Title IV-E, other federal laws authorize
some funding for service or assistance to older current and former foster youth. This
section describes a Medicaid pathway for certain former foster youth; educational,
workforce, and housing supports; and a grant to fund training for child welfare
practitioners working with older foster youth and youth emancipating from care.
Chafee Medicaid Pathway
In the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act, Congress encouraged states to
provide Medicaid coverage to children who were aging out of the foster care system.
88
In a separate publication, from 2005, the National Foster Care Coalition identified
promising practices for ETV programs. These include (1) a clearly defined application
process and a funding process transparent to stakeholders, including informing students of
the amount of funding they receive; (2) open lines of communication between
applicants/participants and ETV administrators, including multiple methods for contacting
the ETV office; and (3) individual assessments for all applicants to ensure that ETV funds
are based on their unmet financial need as calculated by their educational institution; among
other approaches. See National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III:
About the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program and the Chafee Educational and
Training Program.
CRS-37
The law created a new optional Chafee Medicaid eligibility pathway for “independent
foster care adolescents;” this pathway is often called the “Chafee option.”89 The law
further defined these adolescents as individuals under the age of 21 and who were in
foster care under the responsibility of the state on their 18th birthday. Within this
broadest category of independent foster care adolescents, the law permits states to
restrict eligibility based on the youth’s income or resources, and whether or not the
youth had received Title IV-E funding.90
Based on a 2006 survey of state human service officials by the American Public
Human Services Association (APHSA), 17 states (Arizona, California, Florida,
Kansas, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming) have
extended Medicaid coverage to youth eligible under P.L. 106-169; Missouri and
Washington took up the Chafee Medicaid pathway in 2007.91 According to the
survey, as of 2006, four other states were considering adopting the option.
In all states, youth age 19 or younger with family incomes at or below 100% of
the federal poverty limit (or up to 250% in some states) are eligible for Medicaid or
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Youth ages 18 to 21 in foster
care who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP may be eligible for Medicaid coverage
through the “Ribicoff” pathway, named for the late former senator, Abraham Ribicoff.
Ribicoff youth must meet the income and resource requirements for the former Aid
to Families with Dependent Children program but do not meet other categorical
requirements for AFDC. More than half of all states have opted to provide coverage
to former foster care youth through this pathway, although length of eligibility for
coverage varies.92 Older foster youth may also be eligible under a pathway for
children under age 21 who are taken into state custody. This pathway allows the state
to extend Medicaid eligibility to youth under age 21 in foster care regardless of the
income or resources of their biological or foster parents.93
89
90
Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVII) of the Social Security Act.
Section 1905(w)(1)) of the Social Security Act.
91
Sonali Patel and Martha A. Roherty, Medicaid Access for Youth Aging Out of Foster
Care, American Public Human Services Association, 2007. At [http://www.aphsa.org/
Home/Doc/Medicaid-Access-for-Youth-Aging-Out-of-Foster-Care-Rpt.pdf]. Puerto Rico
was not included in this analysis. (Hereafter referenced as Sonali Patel and Martha A.
Roherty, Medicaid Access for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care.) SB 577 (2007) authorized
the Chafee Medicaid option for former foster youth in Missouri; see
[http://www.senate.mo.gov/07info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=28834].
Chapter 315 (2007) authorized the Chafee Medicaid option for former foster youth in
Washington; see [http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1201&year=2007].
92
Abigail English, Amy J. Stinnett, and Elisha Dunn-Georgiou, Health Care for Adolescents
and Young Adults Leaving Foster Care: Policy Options for Improving Access, Center for
Adolescent Health and the Law, p. 5, February 2006, at [http://www.cahl.org/PDFs/FC
IssueBrief.pdf].
93
Sonja Schwartz and Melanie Glascock, Improving Access to Health Coverage for
Transitional Youth, National Academy for State Healthy Policy, p. 5, July 2008, at
[http://www.nashp.org/Files/transitional_youth.pdf].
CRS-38
Former foster youth may qualify for Medicaid through other eligibility pathways
available to certain groups of adults, such as for pregnant women with family income
equal to or less than 133% of the federal poverty limit (FPL), some low-income adults
with children, and some adults with high medical expenses.94 These youth may be
also eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP coverage through waivers, known as Section
1115 waivers, that provide comprehensive coverage to categorically ineligible adults
with incomes up to at least 100% of the FPL.
Other Educational Support95
As of July 2009, the College Cost Reduction Act (P.L. 110-84) will allow certain
youth who have been in foster care to claim independent status when applying for
federal financial aid. The act amended the definition of “independent student” in the
Higher Education Act to include any child “who is an orphan, in foster care, or a ward
of the court at any time when the individual is 13 years of age or older” and “is an
emancipated minor or is in legal guardianship as determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction in the individual’s state of legal residence.” 96 The act does not specify the
length of time that the child must have been in foster care or the reason for exiting
care, to be eligible to claim independent status. The law first becomes effective for the
2009 to 2010 school year.
Students who claim independent status are typically able to access greater federal
education assistance because they are exempt from including information about
income and assets from their parents. An “independent” student’s expected “family”
contribution is the amount that the federal need analysis system determines should be
contributed, based only on his or her available income (and assets, if applicable), as
well as basic living expenses, federal income tax liability, and other expenses.
94
For information about Medicaid eligibility pathways, see CRS Report RL33019, Medicaid
Eligibility for Children and Adults, by Jean Hearne.
95
Though not discussed here, a small part of the allocation formula population factor for the
Title I-A program of Education for the Disadvantaged (authorized under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, as amended) accounts for the number of children ages five to 17
who are in institutions for delinquent children or foster homes when making grants to local
education agencies (LEAs). For additional information, see CRS Report RL33731,
Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No
Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.
96
The previous definition included an individual who is an orphan or ward of the state (or
was until age 18). 29 U.S.C. 1087vv(d). The College Cost Reduction and Access Act
Technical Amendments of 2007 (H.R. 4153), would make a correction to the definition of
independent student to include any child who “is an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the
court, or was an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court any time when the individual
was 13 years of age or older.” The Higher Education Opportunity Act (P.L. 110-315) makes
additional changes to the definition of independent student to include “an orphan, in foster
care, or a ward of the court, or was an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court at any
time when the individual was 13 years of age or older;” and “is, or was immediately prior
to attaining the age of majority, an emancipated minor or in legal guardianship as
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in the individual’s state of legal residence.”
CRS-39
Workforce Support
Workforce Investment Act Programs. The Workforce Investment Act
authorizes job training programs to unemployed and underemployed individuals
through the Department of Labor (DOL). Two of these programs — Youth Activities
and Job Corps — provide job training and related services to targeted low-income
vulnerable populations, including foster youth.97 The WIA Youth Activities program
focuses on preventative strategies to help in-school youth stay in school and receive
occupational skills, as well as on providing training and supportive services, such as
assistance with child care, for out-of-school youth. Job Corps is an educational and
vocational training program that helps students learn a trade, complete their GED, and
secure employment.
To be eligible, foster youth must meet age and income criteria as defined under
the act. Young people current or formerly in foster care may participate in Youth
Activities if they are ages 14 to 21, and in Job Corps if they are ages 16 to 24 (20%
of participants must be ages 22 to 24).98
Foster Youth Demonstration Project. The Workforce Investment Act
authorizes funding for pilot programs.99 Under this authority, the Department of
Labor’s Employment and Training Administration awarded grants to five states in
FY2005 — California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Texas — to design and
implement programs to improve the self sufficiency, education attainment, and
employment skills of youth aging out of foster care. The purpose of the grant was to
encourage states to develop best practices around serving foster youth in the
workforce investment system, and integrate these practices across workforce
investment boards across each state. The five states were required to target the
programs to youth in areas with the largest foster care populations. These areas are
Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, New York City, and Houston. DOL awarded each
state $800,000 total for FY2005 and FY2006; states were required to provide 100%
matching funds.
The programs have served over 1,000 youth, of whom 81% were ages 17 and
older and nearly 60% were female at entry. About 71% of the youth were black.100
The youth varied in their educational attainment at entry. Approximately 42% were
in high school, 9% were in a post-secondary institution, 23% had dropped out of
school, and 26% had graduated or obtained their GED but were not in a postsecondary institution. Further, at entry, about half of the youth had stable housing
97
Authorization of appropriations under WIA expired in FY2003 but is annually extended
through appropriations acts. Youth in foster care are also eligible for WIA’s Youth
Opportunity program, however, Congress has not appropriated funding for the program
since FY2003.
98
29 U.S.C. 2801(13) and 29 U.S.C. 2884(1).
99
29 U.S.C. 2916.
100
Institute for Educational Leadership, Foster Care Youth Employment Demonstration
Project: Summary Report of Year Two Site Visit, May 2007, at [http://www.iel.org/pubs/
caseysitesreport_year2.pdf].
CRS-40
situations, just over one quarter were in independent living arrangements, and about
19% were in temporary housing or homeless. Some of the youth also faced additional
barriers. About one of out five of the participants was currently or previously
adjudicated or incarcerated and slightly less than 20% were parents.
The sites have differed in their recruitment and delivery strategies, but all have
provided youth with academic instruction and support, preparation for and exposure
to the work place, support in developing skills for self-sufficiency, and the supportive
services intended to help them succeed academically and in the work place.
Approximately 46% of the youth have been enrolled in the programs at least seven to
nine quarters; nearly 32% have been enrolled for four to six quarters; and about 22%
have been enrolled for one to three quarters. Nearly 45% of youth have obtained a
GED or diploma, attended a post-secondary institution, or secured employment during
their time in the program.
With their own funding, Casey Family Programs and its partners conducted an
evaluation of the program.101 At all of the sites, youth formed strong relationships
with staff, and staff remained relatively consistent over time. The sites also reported
improvements in their programs. For example, multiple sites changed their program
classes and activities to accommodate the individual needs of youth. Partnerships with
workforce investment boards and other public agencies have also been formed to
provide youth with job training experience, and at some sites, new relationships
between the workforce agencies and the child welfare agencies have developed at the
state level. These partnerships appear to have been difficult to build.
The evaluation concluded that no single agency can meet the needs of youth in
foster care or aging out of care; case workers — who serve as social workers,
counselors, mentors, and teachers — are highly valued by the youth; well-defined
programs tended to be more successful in leveraging other services for youth; and the
sites lacked consistency in they ways they defined and collected the data, among other
findings.
The programs are continuing to serve eligible youth, with funding from Casey
Family Programs and a 100% match by the states and other lead partners.
Housing Support
Family Unification Vouchers Program. Current and former foster youth
may be eligible for housing subsidies provided through programs administered by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Family Unification
Vouchers program (FUP vouchers). The FUP vouchers were initially created in 1990
under P.L. 101-625 for families that qualify for Section 8 tenant-based assistance and
for whom the lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in the separation, or threat
of imminent separation, of children from their families or in preventing the
101
Institute for Educational Leadership, Foster Care Youth Demonstration Project: Final
Evaluation Report, Executive Summary, July 2008 at [http://www.casey.org/Resources/
Projects/DOL/] and [http://iel.org/programs/casey.html].
CRS-41
reunification of the children with their families.102 Amendments to the program in
2000 under P.L. 106-337 made youth ages 18 to 21 who left foster care at age 16 or
older eligible for the vouchers. These youth are eligible for the vouchers for up to 18
months.
FUP vouchers were initially awarded from 1992 to 2001. Over that period,
approximately 39,000 vouchers were distributed.103 Each award included five years
of funding per voucher and the voucher’s use was restricted to voucher-eligible
families for those five years. At the end of those five years, public housing authorities
(PHAs), which administer the vouchers, were eligible to convert FUP vouchers to
regular Section 8 housing vouchers for low-income families. While the five-year use
restrictions have expired for all family unification vouchers, some PHAs may have
continued to use their original family unification vouchers for FUP-eligible families
and some may have chosen to use some regular-purpose vouchers for FUP families.
For FY2008, Congress provided $20 million for new FUP vouchers.104 Congress
specified that amounts made available under the FY2008 appropriations act and
previous appropriations acts for Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance and used for
non-elderly families or the FUP are to remain available for these purposes, to the
extent practicable.
Other Support. Older current and former foster youth may be eligible for
housing services and related supports through the Runaway and Homeless Youth
program, administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.105 In
FY2007, over 1,000 of the 47,519 youth (2.1%) who used the program’s Basic Center
program or Transitional Living program, were living in foster homes at the time they
entered the program.106 That same year, of the 46,317 youth who exited the program,
nearly 1,600 (3.4%) were placed in a foster home. (The number of youth who may
have lived in other foster care settings before entering or at exit is not reported.)
Youth transitioning out of foster care may also be eligible for select transitional living
programs administered by HUD, though the programs do not specifically target these
youth.107
102
42 U.S.C. 1437(f)(x).
103
This information is based on correspondence with Ruth White, National Center for
Housing and Child Welfare, August 2008.
104
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Joint Explanatory Statement,
Division K. report to accompany FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment to H.R.
2764 (P.L. 110-161), 110th Cong., 1st sess.,p. 2396. At [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
house/appropriations/08conappro.html].
105
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics, Programs, and Emerging Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
106
Data on youth served by the program are provided in HHS’s National Extranet Optimized
Runaway and Homeless Youth Management Information System (NEO-RHYMIS).
Available at [https://extranet.acf.hhs.gov/rhymis/custom_reports.html.]
107
National Alliance to End Homelessness, “Federal Funding for Youth Housing Programs,”
information presented at National Alliance to End Audio Conference, March 9, 2006.
Available at [http://naeh.org/content/article/browse/?type=24&topic=Youth].
CRS-42
Grant to Support Curriculum for
Supervising Older Youth in Care
In FY2006, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services awarded grants
under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act (Promoting Safe and Stable Families) to
fund the development of curriculum for child welfare supervisors and their staff who
work with older youth in foster care. The grants were awarded through FY2008 to six
entities: the Hunter College School of Social Work; Massachusetts Department of
Social Services; San Francisco State University; University of Iowa; University of
Houston; and University of Louisville Research Foundation. Each of the entities
provide at least a 25% match to the federal grant award of (up to) $250,000 annually
for three years.
The six entities are to develop, implement, evaluate, and disseminate a training
curriculum for public child welfare agency supervisors.108 The purpose of the
curriculum is to strengthen supervision of staff interactions with older youth in care
and/or in independent living programs, and to ensure that staff adequately: (1) assess
a youth’s readiness for independent living services, support, and training; (2) identify
culturally competent independent living program services and activities; (3) utilize
positive youth development principles for involving youth in decisionmaking,
implementation, and evaluation of training and program activities;109 (4) identify areas
of stress and its impact on youth in foster care; (5) work with youth to help them deal
with crisis situations and to assess the results of the intervention; (6) work with youth
to develop and maintain permanent connections; and (7) collaborate with both interand intra-agency resource people to achieve positive outcomes for youth transitioning
to adulthood. Each entity must conduct an evaluation of the project, either in-house
or by contracting with a third-party evaluator.
One of the grantees, the National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice
and Permanency Planning (NRCFCPPP) at the Hunter College School of Social
Work, in partnership with the National Foster Care Coalition and Child Welfare
League of America, has developed and provided training on curriculum to three
state/city partners (Mississippi, New York City, and Oregon) based on a learning
circle model. Supervisors in the three jurisdictions participate in six learning circle
sessions with topics on youth development and older youth in care, such as creating
permanent connections for youth and caring adults, relating to youth as resources
rather than recipients of child welfare services, and involving a diverse array of
stakeholders in the development of a comprehensive set of services and supports for
youth transitioning out of care. At each learning circle session, staff are required to
develop action plans to guide their work. In turn, supervisors use the materials and
discussion guide from the learning circle sessions (and available on the university’s
108
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Training of Child Welfare Agency
Supervisors in the Effective Delivery and Management of Federal Independent Living
Service for Youth in Foster Care,” 70 Federal Register 35087, June 16, 2005.
109
In the fall of 2000, HHS awarded twelve grants for Independent Living Training for Child
Welfare practitioners. One of the findings from the completed projects was that child
welfare supervisors needed training on youth development to understand the unique
developmental and service needs of youth in care.
CRS-43
website) to train their staff one-on-one, in group settings, or at unit meetings or staff
retreats. The evaluation for the program is being conducted by the Hunter College
School of Social Work. During the first two years of the program, the school has
conducted a process evaluation to make needed adjustments to the curriculum content
and training delivery methods. The school is in the process of conducting an outcome
evaluation to measure the effectiveness of the curriculum.
The remainder of this report discusses issues related to the federal role in
providing support to current and former older foster youth, as well as related pending
legislation and hearings in the 110th Congress.
Issues110
Foster Care for Youth Ages 18 and Older
As discussed above, some states report allowing youth to remain in care after
their 18th birthdays under certain conditions, such as the youth attending a college or
university (see Appendix B and Appendix C). Yet few states appear to actually
facilitate youth staying in care. In light of the negative outcomes that young people
often experience upon emancipating, policymakers and child welfare practitioners
have raised concerns about policies requiring youth to leave foster care custody on
their 18th birthday. On July 12, 2007, the Subcommittee on Income Security and
Family Support of the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing to highlight
the challenges youth aging out of care face as they transition to adulthood.111 The
witnesses — child welfare practitioners and researchers and youth — explained that
foster care services end abruptly for many older youth in care when they reach age 18.
One practitioner said that a county child welfare agency has begun buying luggage for
youth aging out to replace the garbage bags they were using to haul their few
belongings. He went on to say that this practice is merely a band-aid and does not
address the bigger issue that youth often lack housing and other support upon aging
out of care.
Extending federal foster care beyond age 18 might raise concerns that youth
would be no more ready at age 21 than at age 18 to emancipate and that, even if given
the option to stay in care, youth may welcome the opportunity to be on their own.
Another related concern is that extending federal foster care maintenance payments
may encourage youth to rely on the state for basic supportive services and not develop
adequate independent living skills.
The limited research on youth who remain in care after their 18th birthday
suggests that the benefits of remaining in care likely outweigh the drawbacks.
110
For an overview of current child welfare legislation, including bills that pertain to older
youth in care or youth emancipating from foster care, see CRS Report RL34388, Child
Welfare Issues in the 110th Congress, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
111
Written testimony is available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?form
mode=detail&hearing=576].
CRS-44
Findings from wave 3 of the Midwest Evaluation (see above for more information)
suggests that youth who remain in care as late as age 20 tend to experience an easier
transition to adulthood than their counterparts who emancipate at age 18. The study
examined outcomes for former foster youth in three states — Illinois, Iowa, and
Wisconsin. These three states offer a natural experiment for comparing youth
outcomes: Iowa and Wisconsin emancipated nearly all of the foster youth in the study
by age 21, while approximately three-fourths of foster youth in Illinois who reached
age 18 in care remained under the custody of the state until age 21.112 The study found
that the young adults from Illinois were almost two times as likely to have ever
attended college than their peers in Iowa and Wisconsin; and after controlling for
observed differences (i.e., gender, race/ethnicity, age at most recent entry into care,
number of prior placements, among other characteristics), Illinois youth were four
times as likely to have ever attended college and approximately 3.5 times as likely to
complete one year of college.113
Further, remaining in care appears to be associated with higher earnings and
delayed pregnancy. The study found that while the young people in Illinois were less
likely to be employed, due likely to being in school, each additional year in care after
age 18 was associated with a $470 increase in annual earnings. Annual earnings for
youth who remained in care longer increased by $924 after controlling for certain
characteristics of the young adults (measured at baseline) that are likely to affect later
earnings (e.g., work history, education attainment, mental health problems, and
criminal behavior), as well as unobserved characteristics. Further, young people in
Illinois were 38% less likely to become pregnant between ages 17 and 19. Although
there was a reduction in the risk of pregnancy after age 19 for youth in care compared
to their counterparts, this difference was not statistically significant.
Eligible Placement Setting. Extending federal foster care for youth age 18
and older raises the question about whether states should be reimbursed for youth who
do not live in traditional foster care settings. A state may only claim some federal
reimbursement for foster care maintenance payments made on behalf of a child if that
child is placed in an “eligible setting” (Section 472(a)(2)(c)). Under current law, this
is defined to include a licensed foster family home or “child-care institution,”
including group homes or other congregate care facilities (Section 472(c)).114
Further, a foster care maintenance payment may only be made to a foster family
home or to a child care institution. No foster care maintenance payment may be made
directly to an older youth who is in a supervised independent living situation or to help
112
Iowa amended its child welfare statute in 2006 to create a program that provides
continuing support to foster youth ages 18 to 21. The Iowa youth in the Midwest study were
already too old to benefit from the program when it was implemented.
113
Mark E. Courtney, Amy Dworsky, and Harold Pollack, When Should the State Cease
Parenting? Evidence from the Midwest Study, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University
of Chicago, Issue Brief no. 115, December 2007. At [http://www.chapinhall.org/article_
abstract.aspx?ar=1355].
114
The statute provides that eligible group facilities may be publicly or privately operated,
but in the case of publicly operated facilities, they may not have more than 25 beds.
CRS-45
an older foster youth pay his or her rent.115 Yet, many older foster youth — even those
who remain in state care — do not live with a foster family (or in a child care
institution) but instead live in supervised independent living quarters or with relatives.
The Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth study
found that at age 19, half (50%) of the surveyed youth (some of whom were in foster
care) lived in supervised independent living settings; about 20% lived in foster family
homes; and 19% lived with relatives. The remainder lived in group quarters (7%) or
other settings (4%).116
Judicial Oversight. Foster care for youth ages 18 and over also raises
questions about the role of the juvenile court in supervising the cases, given that these
youth are legally adults. Appendix C describes foster care programs in four states —
Illinois, New York, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. — for youth age 18 and older.
While youth in Vermont do not remain under court jurisdiction, youth ages 18 and
older in care in Illinois, New York, and Washington, D.C. continue to be wards of the
state. The juvenile courts retain jurisdiction and social workers make routine visits
to assist youth in achieving their case goal (usually independent living).
Relevant Legislation. Legislation in the 110th Congress would extend federal
foster care maintenance payments to youth after their 18th birthday, as well as enact
requirements around which placement settings would be reimbursable under Title IVE of the Social Security Act. The pending bills are silent about the role of the juvenile
court in retaining oversight of young people in care who are legally adults.
Extension of Foster Care Maintenance Payments to Older Youth.
Seven bills pending in the 110th Congress would amend the definition of “child” under
Section 475 of the Social Security Act to require or permit states to provide federal
foster care assistance to youth ages 18 and older. Ultimately, the decision to remain
in care, however, would appear to remain with the youth who would otherwise be
exiting care.
The Foster Care Continuing Opportunities Act (S. 1512, introduced by Senator
Barbara Boxer) propose to give states the option of seeking federal reimbursement
under the Title IV-E foster care program for otherwise eligible youth who elect to
remain in foster care until their 21st birthday or at state option until their 19th or 20th
birthday.117 The Fostering Connections to Success Act (H.R. 6307, introduced by
115
See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.3B, Question 2, regarding allowable use
of Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.
116
Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Outcomes at Age 19, Chapin Hall, University of Chicago, May 2005, p. 13. At
[http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355].
117
S. 1512 would make “conforming amendments” to some of the purposes of the Chafee
Foster Care Independence (CFCIP) program. Overall, these amendments would change all
references to youth who aged out, or who are expected to age out of foster care at age 18,
to reference instead any older age that the state chooses as the age at which all youth must
leave foster care custody (i.e., at the 19th, 20th or 21st birthday). These “conforming”
(continued...)
CRS-46
Representative McDermott and passed by the House on June 24, 2008)118 would also
give states the option, beginning in FY2011, of extending federal Title IV-E support
to certain otherwise eligible youth after their 18th birthday until age 19, 20, or 21, at
the state’s option, provided that the youth is (1) completing high school or a program
leading to an equivalent credential; (2) enrolled in an institution that provides postsecondary or vocational education; (3) participating in a program or activity designed
to promote, or remove barriers to, employment; or (4) employed at least 80 hours per
month (i.e., part-time). Finally, as described on the Senate Finance Committee
website, the Chairman’s Mark of the Improved Adoption Incentives and Relative
Guardianship Support Act of 2008 (S. 3038, introduced by Senator Chuck Grassley)
would establish the same criteria and would add as a criteria a youth determined by
the state to be “particularly vulnerable” or a “high-risk individual.”119 Like H.R. 6307,
the Chairman’s Mark of S. 3038 would make this option available in FY2011.
In contrast to these bills, the Place to Call Home Act (H.R. 3409, introduced by
Representative Ruben Hinojosa) and Reconnecting Youth to Prevent Homelessness
Act of 2007 (H.R. 4208, introduced by Representative Shelley Berkley and S. 2560,
introduced by Senator John Kerry), would require states to make foster care
maintenance payments on behalf of eligible youth who choose to be in foster care after
their 18th birthday, but not beyond their 21st birthday.
Voluntary Placement Agreement. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would
amend Section 473(a)(2) of the Social Security Act to specify that, as part of choosing
to remain in foster care, a youth would be required to enter into a written “voluntary
placement agreement.” The agreement would be binding on both the youth and the
state agency, and would specify the youth’s legal status as well as the rights and
obligations of both the state agency and the youth while he or she remains in foster
care.
Eligible Placement Setting. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would also
amend current law (Section 472 of the Social Security Act) to explicitly provide that
foster care maintenance payments made on behalf of 18-to-21-year-olds would be
eligible for federal reimbursement if they are made to cover the cost of a foster family
home, child-care institution, or licensed “dwelling operated by agency that provides
social services” to promote the well-being of the child (regardless of whether the
117
(...continued)
changes to the purposes of CFCIP would not appear to prohibit services to currently eligible
individuals, however, by referencing an older age in the context of identifying and providing
independent living services, they might suggest a later onset of services. The same kind of
“conforming” amendments would also be made to certain stipulations that states must
abide by in order to receive CFCIP funds. For additional information about these and other
changes made by S. 1512, see CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum Foster Care
Continuing Opportunities Act (S. 1512), by Emilie Stoltzfus and Adrienne Fernandes.
118
H.R. 6307 supersedes the Invest in KIDS Act (H.R. 5466), introduced by Representative
Jim McDermott.
119
The Chairman’s Mark is described on the Senate Finance Committee website and is
scheduled for markup on September 10, 2008. The introduced version of S. 3038 does not
include this provision.
CRS-47
payments are made to the agency or directly to the child), or to cover the rent for a
youth’s housing. H.R. 6307, and the Chairman’s Mark of S. 3038 would amend the
definition of “child-care institution” to permit youth placed in a “supervised setting”
but who are living independently to remain eligible for the payments, in accordance
with any conditions established in regulation by HHS.
Changes to the CFCIP
As a result of the negative outcomes experienced by some youth who spend their
teenage years in foster care or emancipate from care, Members of the 110th Congress
have proposed changes to the CFCIP that would authorize additional funding for the
program, expand eligibility for independent living services, and require states to notify
emancipating youth of available social services. Another change would require HHS
to study promising programs that use CFCIP dollars to assist youth make the transition
from foster care.
Members of Congress have also recently proposed changes to the CFCIP
Education and Training Voucher program. According to some child welfare
practitioners and researchers, the program may provide a disincentive to establish
permanent relationships for youth through adoption because foster youth adopted
before the age of 16 would not be eligible for the vouchers.120 Studies of older foster
youth and youth leaving care show that many do not attend college directly after
emancipating.121 Therefore, former foster youth who start college after age 21 would
be ineligible for the program.
Funding Authority and Eligibility. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560
propose to increase the annual appropriations for the CFCIP from $140 million to
$200 million. H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208/S. 2560, and the Kinship Caregiver Support Act
(H.R. 2188, introduced by Representative Danny Davis) would amend a purpose of
the CFCIP — that states provide educational, career, and other services to youth that
states identify are likely to remain in foster care until age 18 — to include youth who
are likely to remain in care until age 14 (current law and the proposed bills do not
specify a lower age limit). H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would amend another
purpose of the CFCIP that states provide aftercare services (housing, counseling,
employment, education, and other appropriate services) to young adults ages 18 to 25.
Currently, youth ages 18 to 21 are eligible for these services. Further, the three bills
would add that a purpose of the CFCIP is to provide services and supports intended
to help youth transition to independent adulthood to any young person aged 14 and
older who has left foster care for relative guardianship or adoption. S. 3038 would
add this same provision, except that it would apply to youth ages 16 and older who
have left foster care for relative guardianship or adoption. Finally, H.R. 3409 and
H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would require states to certify that they used some of their CFCIP
funds to serve youth who had left foster care at age 18 but have not reached the age
120
Pew Charitable Trusts and Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, Time for Reform:
Aging Out and On Their Own, 2007, p. 12, at [http://kidsarewaiting.org/publications/
reports].
121
See Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former
Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 21 and Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care.
CRS-48
of 25 and that the state has used no more than 30% of its CFCIP allocation for room
and board for youth in this age category (currently, states must make these
certifications for youth ages 18 to 21).
Information About Support Services. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560
would amend the CFCIP program to require states to certify that they have informed
all children, when, or before, a youth leaves foster care, of the full range of available
financial, housing, counseling, health, and other services for which the youth is
eligible. The bills would further require that the HHS Secretary provide for the
“efficient distribution” to states and local areas of information about federal programs
— other than the CFCIP — that can assist youth in the transition to self-sufficiency
and how to access the services under these programs.
Evaluations. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would require the HHS
Secretary to conduct evaluations of model independent living programs that focus on
improving outcomes for youth aging out in a number of areas. The bills would also
require the evaluations to include information on mental and physical health, personal
development, and housing, as well as room and board services and how these services
are improving housing outcomes for youth. The proposed provision would expand the
evaluation requirements currently provided under law, which state that the HHS
Secretary is to conduct evaluations of potential national significance and that the
evaluations include information “on education, employment, and personal
development.”
Education and Training Vouchers. Currently, youth who were adopted
from foster care at age 16 or older and youth who emancipate from care are eligible
for CFCIP Education and Training Vouchers. H.R. 2188, H.R. 3409, and H.R. 4208/S.
2560 would also make eligible youth who left foster care at age 14 or older under a
kinship guardianship arrangement. Similarly, the Chairman’s Mark of S. 3038 would
extend the vouchers to youth who left foster care at age 16 or older for relative
guardianship. H.R. 2188, H.R. 3409, and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would also eliminate the
upper age limit for eligibility purposes (currently 23) and the requirement that a youth
must receive the voucher at age 21 to be eligible at age 22 or 23 for the program.
Another bill could shift the target population and purpose of the Education and
Training Voucher program. The School Choice for Foster Kids Act (H.R. 4311,
introduced by Representative Michele Bachmann) would enable the ETV program to
fund the education of foster children — of any age — at private schools and to
transport children to their school of origin, even if that school is outside of their
immediate area of placement.122 At a June 19, 2007 hearing on disconnected and
disadvantaged youth, conducted by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on
122
Under Title IV-E, states may not make foster care maintenance claims for the cost of
transporting children to their school of origin because education is not included in the
definition of a foster care maintenance payment. However, this type of cost can be an
administrative cost because it is a part of case management. To make an administrative
claim for school transportation costs, a state must discuss this kind of claim in its approved
cost allocation plan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.1B,
Question 27.
CRS-49
Income Security and Family Support, Representative Michele Bachmann and Dan
Lips with the Heritage Foundation testified that foster children face several
educational challenges, and that additional educational support is needed for the
population.123 They cited information that foster children are more likely to
experience multiple school placements, which may lead to gaps in learning and
lowered educational attainment, and that a disproportionate share of foster youth have
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) to accommodate their learning disabilities.
They suggested that funds from the ETV program could be used to improve the
educational outcomes of children and youth in care.
Other Changes. Pending legislation would also make changes related to tribal
provisions under the CFCIP and social service providers that assist states in delivering
independent living services to youth.
Under current law, Indian tribes are not eligible to directly claim federal foster
care funding under Title IV-E, neither are they eligible to seek CFCIP funds.124
Rather, they may enter into tribal-state agreements (or contracts) that permit them to
receive CFCIP funds (via the state) to operate independent living programs for eligible
tribal youth.
H.R. 6307, the Chairman’s Mark of S. 3038, and the Tribal Foster Care and
Adoption Access Act of 2007 (H.R. 4688, introduced by Representative Earl Pomeroy
and S. 1956, introduced by Senator Max Baucus) would permit eligible tribes, tribal
organizations, and tribal consortia to directly access Title IV-E funding, including
CFCIP funds. Under these bills, tribal entities would be eligible to receive a part of
a state’s allotment of CFCIP and ETV funds (in proportion to the tribal entity’s share
of the foster care population living in the state) directly from the federal government
in exchange for providing independent living services to tribal youth in the state who
are aging out or are expected to age out of tribal care. Generally under the bills, tribes
could apply to receive this funding whether they operate a Title IV-E foster care
program (as would be permitted under a separate provision of H.R. 4688/S. 1956,
H.R. 6307, and S. 3038) or enter into a cooperative agreement with the state to operate
a foster care program. Alternatively, the bills would explicitly permit a state and tribe
to enter into a cooperative agreement or contract whereby the tribe provides
independent living services to tribal youth and the state passes federal CFCIP funds
to the tribe for the services. The bills would continue to require states to provide
independent living services if the tribes do not otherwise provide the services to tribal
youth.
Another proposed change to the CFCIP involves social service providers. Current
law does not specify the types of providers that are to assist the state in delivering
support services to youth aging out of foster care; rather, it requires that states
“involve the public and private sectors in helping adolescents in foster care achieve
independence” (Section 477(b)(2) of the Social Security Act). H.R. 3409 and H.R.
4208/S. 2560 propose to amend the CFCIP by requiring states to distribute program
123
Written testimony is available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmod
e=detail&hearing=569].
124
This arrangement is not explicit under current law.
CRS-50
funds to a range of qualified private social service providers and to ensure that these
providers have equal opportunities to receive the funds.
Permanency
Several federal provisions require the state child welfare agency to assist youth
in planning for their transition from foster care to independent living. Currently under
Title IV-E, a case review must be conducted not less often than every six months by
a judge or an administrative review panel and at least once every 12 months by a judge
who must consider the child’s permanency plan (Section 475(5) of the Social Security
Act). Specific case plan and case review procedures pertain to older youth in care. As
described above, for a child age 16 or older, the written case plan must include a
description of the programs and services that will help the child prepare for the
transition to independent living (Section 475(1)(D)), and the permanency plan hearing
must consider “the services needed to assist the child to make the transition from
foster care to independent living” (Section 475(5)(C)).
Despite these federal protections to ensure that child welfare agencies help youth
plan for their future, child welfare practitioners and young people in care continue
to advocate for additional policies that improve the transition to adulthood by
encouraging strong, permanent connections to caring adults.125 A youth at the July 12,
2007 hearing on youth aging out of foster care, said that permanency can help young
people avoid poor outcomes. He said, “[p]ermanency is having someone there to help
you when you need it, someone you don’t need an appointment to talk to.
Permanency is having someone to lean on for support when obstacles come your
way.”126
In some jurisdictions, the child welfare agency plays an active role to ensure
permanent connections for youth aging out. The National Governors Association
reports that states are promoting permanency by (1) connecting youth to family
members such as grandparents and aunts; (2) establishing legal guardianship or some
other permanent arrangement with a caring adult in the youth’s life; (3) helping youth
develop relationships with caring adults such as teachers or mentors; (4) when
appropriate, exploring the viability of reunification with biological parents; and (5)
assisting youth, up to their early twenties, pursue adoptive relationships with adults.127
125
For additional information about the need for permanency for current and former older
foster youth, see Benjamin Kerman and Madelyn Freundlich, Recommendations for Policy,
Practice & Research, Proceedings from the Research Roundtable at the 2006 National
Convening on Youth Permanence, Annie E. Casey Foundation and Excal Consulting
Partners, 2006, at [http://www.caseyfamilyservices.org/pdfs/permanency_proceedings_final
.pdf]; and Gina Miranda Samuels, A Reason, A Season, or A Lifetime: Relational
Permanence Among Young Adults with Foster Care Backgrounds, Chapin Hall Center for
Children, University of Chicago, 2008, at [http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?
ar=1466&L2=61&L3=130].
126
Written testimony is available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?form
mode=detail&hearing=576].
127
National Governors Association, State Policies to Help Youth Transition Out of Foster
(continued...)
CRS-51
Some states, like California, require child welfare agencies to help youth build
permanent connections. County child welfare agencies in California are to provide
“assistance in maintaining relationships with individuals who are important to a child
who has been in out-of-home placement in a group home for six months or longer
from the date the child entered foster care, based on the child’s best interests”
(California Welfare and Institutions Code Sec. 391). In Alameda County, east of San
Francisco, the county child welfare agency conducts a transition conference for each
youth aging out of care.128 At the meeting, stakeholders in the youth’s life (e.g., social
worker, mental health counselor, family member(s), family friend(s), teacher(s), and
foster parent(s)) help the youth establish a plan for transitioning to adulthood. The
conference is intended to assist youth in planning their future and to ensure that one
or more of these stakeholders will provide the youth with emotional and other support
for the years following his or her emancipation from care.
Relevant Legislation. Several bills pending in the 110th Congress are
intended to assist youth achieve permanency. The bills address permanency review
hearings for youth leaving care, as well as information that should be included in
written case plans for these youth, optional payments under Title IV-E for kinship care
arrangements for older youth in care, information that is to be provided to youth about
social service and other resources available to them upon aging out, and mentoring
services for youth in care.
Written Case Plan. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would amend the
written case plan requirements in current law (Section 475(1)) of the Social Security
Act) to include the steps taken to ensure that a child has a permanent living
arrangement if they emancipate from care; in the case of a child age 17 or over with
a permanency goal of emancipation, the state must provide documentation of the
permanent living arrangement the youth will enter after foster care. H.R. 4208/S.
2560 would further require that where appropriate, the state is to include in the written
case plan for a child who is 14 years old in care, a description of the programs and
services that will facilitate his or her transition from foster care to independent living
(this is the current requirement for youth age 16 or older). Further, the plan must (1)
discuss the appropriateness of the services that have been provided to the child and
(2) include documentation of the steps the agency is taking to find a permanent
placement with a family or other adult connection for the youth, as well as a
permanent living arrangement.
The Chairman’s Mark of S. 3038 would amend the definition of “case review
system” (Section 475(5)) to require the child’s caseworker and other representatives
as appropriate, to help the child develop a personal transition plan during the 90-day
period immediately before he or she legally emancipates, regardless of whether he or
she is receiving a foster care maintenance payment or services under the CFCIF during
that period. The plan must be as detailed as the child chooses and include specific
127
(...continued)
Care, pp. 4-7.
128
This information was provided by Alameda County Children and Family Services in May
of 2007 at the National Pathways to Adulthood Conference.
CRS-52
options on housing, health insurance, education, local opportunities for mentoring,
continuing support services, workforce supports, and employment services.
Permanency Planning Review. H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would amend the case
review system requirements (Section 475(5)) to provide that the permanency hearing
review all documentation of the efforts to secure a permanent living arrangement for
the child upon emancipating. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would require that
a permanency hearing for a youth transitioning from foster care to a planned
permanent living arrangement or independent living is held in a family or juvenile
court or another court (including a tribal court) of competent jurisdiction. (Under
current law, this permanency hearing may be conducted by a court or court-appointed
administrative body.)
Optional Kinship Payments to Relatives Who Care for Older Youth
in Foster Care.129 Kinship care may be broadly defined as a living arrangement in
which an adult who is not the parent of a child but who is emotionally close to the
child (typically a grandparent or other relative) assumes primary responsibility for
raising this child. Children may be in kinship care for a variety of reasons, including
their parents’ military deployment, death or serious illness, poverty, abuse of drugs,
mental illness, or incarceration, among other issues. The large majority of children
living in kinship care are doing so by private arrangement. However, some kinship
arrangements involve children in foster care. On the last day of FY2006, about
125,000 children were in formal (court-ordered) foster care and were living with a
relative.130
H.R. 3409, H.R. 6307, S. 3038 (as scheduled for markup on September 10,
2008), H.R. 2188, and the Senate version of the Kinship Caregiver Support Act (S.
661, introduced by Senator Hillary Clinton) would permit states to provide
guardianship payments under Title IV-E to relative caregivers who become the
guardians of eligible foster children, including older children as specified below, and
would authorize other supports for these caregivers. The bills generally require that
the child must have been in foster care for at least 12 months and eligible for foster
care maintenance payments, among other requirements. Further, the payments would
in most of these bills be based on the circumstances of the relative and the needs of
the child, and depending on the bill, would be no less than the child’s foster care
maintenance payment, no less than what a child would receive as an adoption
assistance payment, or somewhere in between those two amounts.
All of the bills would authorize payments to be made to youth beyond age 18
under certain circumstances. H.R. 3409 would permit payments to be made to youth
until age 21 if the youth elects to remain in the care of the guardian. H.R. 6307 would
allow payments to be made on behalf of youth until they turn age 21 (or age 19 or 20,
as the state may elect) if the guardianship arrangement was entered into on or after the
youth’s 16th birthday and the youth is (1) completing high school or a program leading
to an equivalent credential; (2) enrolled in an institution that provides post-secondary
or vocational education; (3) participating in a program or activity designed to promote,
129
Emilie Stoltzfus, Specialist in Social Policy, contributed to this section.
130
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #14.
CRS-53
or remove barriers to, employment; or (4) employed at least 80 hours per month (i.e.,
part-time). S. 3038 would establish the same four criteria, and would add as a criteria
a youth determined by the state to be “particularly vulnerable” or a “high-risk
individual.” Both H.R. 6307 and the Chairman’s Mark of S. 3038 would also permit
federal payments to continue to be made until age 21 for any youth in a guardianship
arrangement that the state determines has a mental or physical handicap that warrants
continued assistance. H.R. 2188/S. 661 would allow the payments to continue until
age 19 if the child is a full-time student in a secondary school or equivalent level of
a vocational or technical training program; or until age 21 if the state determines the
youth has a mental or physical disability. All of the bills would require that children
14 years and older must be consulted regarding the kinship arrangement.
Information About Resources for Youth Aging out. H.R. 3409 and H.R.
4208/S. 2560 would further require that the state inform all children leaving care of
the full range of available financial, housing, counseling, health, and other services for
which the youth is eligible. In addition, the HHS Secretary would be required to
provide for the “efficient distribution” to states and local areas information about
federal programs, other than the CFCIP, that can assist youth in the transition to selfsufficiency and how to access the services under these programs.
Support Through Mentoring. Finally, the Foster Care Mentoring Act (S.
379, introduced by Senator Mary Landrieu), also pending in the 110th Congress, would
permanently authorize funding, under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, for grants
to provide mentoring to children in foster care. The grants would be awarded by HHS
to states (or to a political subdivision of the state if it serves a “substantial number”
of youth in foster care) to support, establish, and expand networks of public and
private community entities to provide this mentoring. Successful applicants would be
eligible to receive a maximum of $600,000 annually, would be required to spend no
less than 50% of the federal grant funds for training (and no more than 10% on
program administration), and would need to provide matching funds (in cash or in
kind) of 25%. The bill would authorize $15 million for this grant program in each of
FY2008 and FY2009 and “such sums as may be necessary” in every following fiscal
year.
Housing
Among the most often cited concerns for youth aging out of foster care is the lack
of adequate and affordable housing.131 In the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study
of former foster youth ages 20 to 33, about one out of five (22.5%) reported being
homeless for one day or more within a year of leaving foster care.132 (This figure is
slightly higher than the 18% of 21-year-olds in the Midwest Evaluation who reported
131
The University of Oklahoma, National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth
Development, The John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program: Aftercare Services,
2003. (Hereafter referenced as The University of Oklahoma, National Resource Center for
Youth Development, Aftercare Services). At [http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/resources/
publications/monographs/aftercare.pdf].
132
Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care, p. 41.
CRS-54
being homeless at least once since existing care.133) The housing status of former
foster youth is often affected by relationships, education, and employment.134
Reciprocally, youth who lack housing may have difficulty staying in school and/or
maintaining employment.
Although the CFCIP authorizes states to spend up to 30% of their allotment on
room and board for youth ages 18 to 21, child welfare researchers point out that these
funds alone cannot adequately cover the cost of housing for many youth.135 However,
several jurisdictions appear to be using innovative strategies to connect youth to both
temporary and permanent housing. These strategies have involved providing a
continuum of housing that allows the youth to choose from various housing options
(e.g., scattered-site apartments, supervised apartments, shared homes with multiple
youth, host homes, and boarding homes); permitting youth to have multiple
opportunities to remain in a housing program even if they fail to meet the terms of a
housing agreement or lease; and providing housing to former foster youth with mental
health issues and other barriers to living independently.136
Another related issue is temporary housing for youth in college who are unable
to stay with family or friends over school breaks. One of the youth witnesses at the
July 12, 2007 hearing described the difficulty in college with finding housing when
her dorm was closed: “I waited in limbo for a friend to extend an invitation as I
wondered where I would go for holidays and school breaks.”137 Some states require
public universities to provide housing for these youth. For example, California law
requires that the California State University system and the community college
system, “review housing issues for those emancipated foster youth living in college
dormitories to ensure basic housing during the regular academic school year, including
vacations and holidays other than summer break” (California Education Code Sec.
89342).
Relevant Legislation. H.R. 3409 would amend the Family Unification
Vouchers program, described above, to make former foster youth eligible for the
vouchers until age 25. The bill would also eliminate the requirement that these youth
may be eligible for the vouchers no more than 18 months.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act (H.R. 4137, HEOA), was signed into law
on August 14, 2008, as P.L. 110-315, and amends the Higher Education Act (HEA)
133
Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Outcomes at Age 21, pp. 15-16.
134
Miryam J. Choca et al. “Can’t Do It Alone: Housing Collaborations to Improve Foster
Youth Outcomes.” In Ruth Anne White and Debra J. Rog, eds., Child Welfare, vol.
LXXXIII, no. 5 (September/October 2004), pp. 469-474.
135
Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Huering, “The Transition to Adulthood for Youth
“Aging Out” of the Foster Care System,” p. 54.
136
The University of Oklahoma, National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth
Development, Aftercare Services, pp. 24-26.
137
Written testimony is available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?form
mode=detail&hearing=576].
CRS-55
to authorize services specifically for youth in foster care or recently emancipated
youth (and currently or formerly homeless children and youth as defined under the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act), including housing services, among other
related changes. The bill authorizes services under Student Support Services — a
program intended to improve the retention and graduation rates of disadvantaged
college students — for current and recently emancipated foster youth (and homeless
children and youth) and authorize, as a service, temporary housing during breaks in
the academic year for these youth. The HEOA further allows additional uses of funds
through the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to establish
demonstration projects that provide comprehensive support services for students who
were in foster care (or homeless) anytime before age 13, to enroll and succeed in
postsecondary education, including providing housing to the youth when housing at
an educational institution is closed or unavailable to other students.
The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-289), signed into law on July
30, 2008, enables owners of properties financed in part with Low-Income Housing
Tax Credits to claim as low-income units those units occupied by low-income
students who were in foster care. Owners of LIHTC properties are required to
maintain a certain percentage of their units for occupancy by low-income households;
students (with some exceptions) are not generally considered low-income households
for this purpose. The law does not specify the length of time these student must have
spent in foster care or that the students must have aged out of foster care.
Runaway Youth138
A child is considered missing from foster care if she or he is not in the physical
custody of the child welfare agency or the institution or person with whom the child
has been placed, due to (1) the child leaving voluntarily wi thout permission (i.e.,
runaways); (2) the family or nonfamily member removing the child, either voluntarily
or involuntarily, without permission (i.e., abductions); or (3) a lack of oversight by the
child welfare agency.139 The majority of children known to be missing from foster care
are runaways. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on
the last day of FY2006, approximately 12,000 (2%) of the 510,000 children in foster
care had run away, and another 5,049 had exited the system as runaways (because they
were old enough to emancipate and were on runaway status at the age of
emancipation).140 As shown in the Foster Care Dynamics study, discussed above,
most runaways tend to be teenagers.
A study of youth in the Midwest who ran away from foster care between 1993
and 2003 found that the average likelihood of an individual running away from foster
138
For additional information about this population, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway
and Homeless Youth: Demographics, Programs, and Emerging Issues, by Adrienne L.
Fernandes.
139
Caren Kapplan, Children Missing from Care, Child Welfare League of America, 2004,
at [http://www.cwla.org/programs/fostercare/childmiss.htm].
140
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #14.
CRS-56
care placements increased over this time period.141 Youth questioned about their
runaway experiences cited three primary reasons why they ran from foster care: (1) to
reconnect or stay connected to their biological families even if they recognized that
their families were neither healthy nor safe; (2) to express their autonomy and find
normalcy among sometimes chaotic events; and (3) to maintain surrogate family
relationships with non-family members. Youth in the study were more likely than their
foster care peers to abuse drugs and to have certain mental health disorders.
No federal laws specifically address the issue of children missing from foster
care, including runaways. However, Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act
require state child welfare agencies to monitor and provide for the safety and
well-being of children in out-of-home care. Under Section 471 (Title IV-E), states are
eligible for federal foster care and adoption assistance support if, among other
requirements, they develop a written case plan for each child regardless of IV-E
eligibility (Section 475(1) of Title IV-E). The case plan must discuss the safety and
appropriateness of the placement and a plan for assuring that the child receives safe
and proper care.
States must also develop a system to review, no less than every six months, the
status of the child’s case plan.142 Also, under Section 471, states must conduct
background checks for prospective foster parents before approving a placement.
Finally, under Section 422 (Title IV-B), states must ensure that children in foster care
are visited by their caseworkers on a monthly basis and that the majority of the visits
occur in the child’s residence.
Relevant Legislation. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560, discussed above,
propose amending Section 471 of the Social Security Act to require states to include
in their foster care and adoption assistance plans a description of their written policies
and procedures designed to reduce the incidence of children missing or running away
from foster care and to locate and return these children to foster care placements.
Medicaid Coverage for Youth Aging Out of Care
The Midwest Evaluation indicated that about half of all youth who were in foster
care up to age 17 or 18 (primarily in Iowa and Wisconsin) did not have health
insurance when they were surveyed one year after leaving care, at age 18 or 19.143
These studies also suggest that these youth need health and mental health services.
Current and former foster youth at age 18 or 19 tended to describe their overall health
less favorably than youth in the general population and were more likely to report that
141
Mark E. Courtney et al., Youth Who Run Away from Substitute Care, Chapin Hall Center
for Children, University of Chicago, Issue Brief no. 103, March 2005, p. 2, at
[http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1382].
142
This provision applies to all children and is defined in detail at Section 475(5) of the
Social Security Act.
143
Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Outcomes at Age 19, p. 44. Although Iowa is one of 17 states that have taken up the
Chafee Medicaid option, some former foster youth appear not to be covered, perhaps
because they do not meet the eligibility criteria for coverage.
CRS-57
health conditions limited their ability to engage in moderate activity.144 They also
reported more visits to the emergency room and more hospitalizations during the past
five years. These youth were also more likely to report being hospitalized for drug
use or emotional problems.145
Some child welfare advocates support expansion of the Chafee Medicaid option
to provide Medicaid for youth who age out of foster care. According to the American
Public Human Services Association, which surveyed five states (California, Florida,
Iowa, South Carolina, and Texas) on their Medicaid coverage to youth who have aged
out, the costs of the program vary depending on the type of program offered, but even
the highest cost — $350 per youth per month (South Carolina) — is affordable.146
Relevant Legislation. Several bills pending in the 110th Congress would
expand Medicaid coverage to former foster youth, either directly or indirectly. The
Medicaid Foster Care Coverage Act of 2007 (H.R. 1376, introduced by Representative
Dennis Cardoza), proposes to provide mandatory Medicaid coverage to any youth
under the age of 21 who was in foster care on his or her 18th birthday and without
regard to whether the youth chose to remain in foster care. H.R. 3409 would make this
same change, however, it would provide that this mandatory Medicaid coverage
category would continue until the youth reached the age of 25. Both H.R. 1376 and
H.R. 3409 would permit states to limit this mandatory coverage to those youth who
were in foster care on their 18th birthday who meet certain income and asset criteria,
were previously Title IV-E eligible, or who received CFCIP services. H.R. 3409
specifies that those CFCIP services may have been received up until the youth’s 25th
birthday.
H.R. 6307, S. 1512, and S. 3038 would not make any statutory changes to
Medicaid eligibility rules. However, because children eligible for Title IV-E foster
care maintenance payments are automatically eligible for Medicaid coverage,147 by
expanding the population of children eligible for those payments, the bills also would
extend mandatory148 Medicaid coverage to any youth who elects to remain in foster
care after his or her 18th birthday (provided that youth meets all the other Title IV-E
144
Ibid, pp. 39-40.
145
To be eligible for Medicaid coverage in Iowa from age 18 to age 21, youth must have
exited foster care at age 18 and have countable income under 200% of the federal poverty
line.
146
APHSA is a non-profit trade organization of state and local human service agencies and
individuals who work in or are interested in public human service programs. See Sonali
Patel and Martha A. Roherty, Medicaid Access for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care, pp. 3-6.
147
148
Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act.
Federal law defines over 50 distinct population groups as being potentially eligible for
states’ Medicaid programs. Some groups are mandatory, meaning that federal law requires
all states and the District of Columbia that participate in Medicaid to cover them. Other
groups are optional; that is, federal law allows states to choose to cover them. For
additional information on Medicaid eligibility for adults and children, see CRS Report
RL33019, Medicaid Eligibility for Adults and Children, by Jean Hearne.
CRS-58
eligibility criteria) for as long as the youth remained in foster care or until his or her
21st birthday (whichever came first).
The Risk of Becoming Disconnected
In its February 2008 report on disconnected youth, the U.S. Government
Accountability Office defined this population as youth ages 14 to 24 who are not in
school and not working, or lack family or other support networks.149 According to the
report, some of these young people may have become disconnected from education
and employment through incarceration, aging out of foster care, dropping out of high
school, or homelessness. At the June 19, 2007 hearing on disconnected and
disadvantaged youth, witnesses also identified emancipation from care as a potential
pathway to becoming disconnected.150 Chairman Jim McDermott and Ranking
Member Jerry Weller expressed that policymakers have become increasingly
concerned about the disconnected youth population because of the potential negative
outcomes they may experience, and that they may lack the ability to compete for jobs
and earn a living wage in the increasingly global economy.
An analysis by the Congressional Research Service of the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Current Population Survey (CPS) data uses 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. Thus, otherwise
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. Approximately 1.8 million youth — or 4.9% of all youth — ages 16
to 24 met this criteria.151 Although not directly comparable, the Midwest Evaluation
found that at age 19, 23.2% of females and 45.3% of males in foster care or who had
aged out, met the researchers’ definition of disconnected, which excluded parenting
youth who were not working or in school. At age 21, 11.8% of females and 36.6% of
males were disconnected.
Relevant Legislation. Several pending bills would provide educational and
other supports to older youth in care and youth aging out of care to strengthen their
connections to education and employment.
Education Support Through the TRIO and GEARUP Programs. As
discussed above, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (P.L. 110-315) amends the
Higher Education Act to stipulate that youth in foster care (including youth who have
left foster care after reaching age 16) and homeless children and youth are eligible for
149
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could
Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to
Education and Employment, GAO-08-313, February 2008.
150
The written testimony from the hearing is available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=569].
151
For more details about CRS’s analysis of disconnected youth, see CRS Report RL33975,
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
CRS-59
what are collectively called the federal Trio programs. P.L. 110-315 directs the
Department of Education to require applicants seeking Trio funds to identify and
make available services, including mentoring, tutoring, and other services, to these
youth. The Trio programs are designed to identify potential post-secondary students
from disadvantaged backgrounds, prepare these students for post-secondary education,
provide certain support services to them while they are in post-secondary education,
and train individuals who provide these services. The programs are known
individually as Talent Search, Upward Bound, Student Support Services, and
Educational Opportunity Centers.
P.L 110-315 authorizes that services provided under each of the four Trio
programs could specifically target current and former foster youth, homeless children
and youth, as well as other youth defined as “disconnected” under the act.152 In
addition, the act amends the Student Support Services program by changing one of its
purposes, that concerning fostering an institutional climate to support certain students,
to include youth in foster care or recently emancipated youth (as well as homeless
children and youth). HEOA also make changes to the Education Opportunity Centers
program to require that strategies for recruiting and serving hard-to-reach populations
should be targeted to students who are in foster care or aging out (as well as students
with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities, students from groups that
are traditionally underrepresented in higher education, homeless children and youth,
and other disconnected students).
Finally, HEOA directs the Secretary of Education to conduct a public awareness
campaign, not later than two years after the enactment of the law, about the
availability of federal financial aid. The Secretary is to coordinate with, among other
entities, organizations that provide services to individuals in foster care, that are or
were homeless, or other disconnected individuals.
Financial Support. The Focusing Investments and Resources for a Safe
Transition Act (S. 2341, introduced by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton), would
amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) to authorize financial
support and financial counseling for youth aging out of foster care. The bill would
authorize “such sums as may be necessary” for FY2008 through FY2012 to permit
HHS to make competitive grants to states (or state partners) to establish individual
development accounts (IDAs) for foster youth, including those in kinship or
guardianship placements, and youth transitioning from foster care. IDAs are savings
accounts to help low-income families and persons save for specified purposes, usually
education, purchase of a home, or to start a business.153 To be eligible for the funds,
states would be required to submit a plan to HHS that describes how an IDA program
would best suit the current and future needs of the state’s foster youth, enable foster
youth to achieve self support after leaving foster care, and establish public or private
partnerships to create a pool of funding from which foster care deposits can be
matched (not by more than $2 for every $1 deposited by a youth).
152
153
The term “disconnected” is not defined under HEOA.
For additional information, see CRS Report RS22185, Individual Development Accounts
(IDAs): Background and Current Legislation for Federal Grant Programs to Help
Low-Income Families Save, by Gene Falk.
CRS-60
Funds saved in this account could be used by a youth for housing, education,
vocational training, to operate a business or to purchase a car (though youth must
expend funds on the first three purposes before being permitted to spend funds on
these last two) and, at the option of the state, for purchase of work-related items or car
insurance to assist the individual in becoming independent. Youth would be eligible
to withdraw the funds upon reaching age 18 and completing money management
training. Any savings accumulated in an account during the period which a youth
maintains or makes contributions to the account would not be counted for determining
eligibility for other benefits under federal law (other than the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986). S. 2341 would also require the HHS Secretary to conduct evaluations of the
program and prepare reports to Congress that provide information about how youth
spent the funds, how the state program impacted quality of life indicators after the
youth withdrew the funds, the effectiveness of the money management training, and
recommendations on strengthening the program.
The bill appears to be based in part on the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities
Initiative’s Opportunity Passport, a program to increase the financial assets and
literacy of youth transitioning from foster care.154 The program, implemented in ten
cities throughout the country, assists current and former foster youth build financial
assets, including through a matched savings account. Of the 1,740 youth who
participated in the program as of December 31, 2006, one quarter have used their
savings to draw match funds for an approved asset; in most cases, the assets were a
car (58%), housing (28%), and educational expenses (28%).155 Youth who purchased
assets tend to be older and no longer in care compared to their counterparts who did
not purchase assets.
154
For more information about the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, see the written
testimony by Gary Stangler, Executive Director, at the July 12, 2007, hearing by the Ways
and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support on youth aging out of
foster care: [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=6232].
155
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the Jim Casey
Youth Opportunities Initiative in February 2008.
CRS-61
Appendix A. Outcomes for Young Adults
Formerly in Foster Care
Table A-1. Comparison of Outcome Domains Between
Young Adults in the Midwest Study and
Young Adults in the Add Health Study
Outcome
Midwest Evaluation (Wave 3)
- Former Foster Youth at Age
21 or 22
Add Health - Youth
Surveyed at Age 21
Current Living Arrangement (totals to 100% across rows in each column)
Lives in own place
44.3%
46.9%
Lives with biological
parent(s)
7.6%
41.0%
Lives with other relative
16.8%
3.0%
Lives with non-relative foster
parent(s)
5.6%
0%
Lives with spouse/partner
6.6%
0.4%
Lives with a friend
6.5%
1.2%
Lives in group quarters (e.g.,
dormitories, barracks)
3.1%
Imprisoned or in jail
7.1%
Other living arrangement
2.4%
6.7%
0.8%
Highest Educational Attainment (totals to 100 across rows in each column)
No high school diploma or
GED
23.0%
10.8%
High school diploma only
37.6%
29.7%
GED only
9.7%
6.6%
One or more years of college,
but no degree
27.9%
43.0%
Two-year college degree
1.9%
8.1%
Four-year college degree
—
1.7%
Graduate school
—
0.1%
Ever held a job
95.1%
96.9%
Currently employeda
(nonincarcerated youth only)
44.5%
63.9%
Mean hourly wagea
$8.85
$9.99
Employment, Income, and Assets
CRS-62
Outcome
Midwest Evaluation (Wave 3)
- Former Foster Youth at Age
21 or 22
Add Health - Youth
Surveyed at Age 21
Mean incomea
$8,914
$12,728
Any savings/checking
accounta
51.9%
80.7%
Owns a vehiclea
39.1%
73.0%
Not enough to pay renta
26.5%
8.6%
Not enough money to pay
utility billa
26.5%
10.9%
Gas or electricity shut off
8.3%
6.1%
Evicteda
8.3%
1.4%
Receipt of food stampsa
50.2% - females
9.9% - males
6.3% - females
0% - males
Receipt of TANF
8.8% - femalesa
0.3% - males
7.5% - femalesa
0% - males
Economic Hardships
Health and Access to Health Care Services
Description of general health
as faira
12.2%
4.0%
Description of general health
as poora
2.0%
0.3%
Health conditions or
disability limits daily
activitiesa
11.0%
4.7%
Has medical insurancea
50.7%
76.0%
Did not receive needed
medical carea
17.9%
24.1%
Received psychological or
emotional counselinga
10.5%
7.3%
Attended substance abuse
treatment program
3.6%
2.3%
16.0 - female
15.0 - male
16.0 - female
16.0 - male
Had sexual intercourse in the
past year
78.2 % - females
71.2% - malesa
83.0% - females
81.2% - malesa
Used birth control all or most
of the time in the past yeara
60.4% - females
56.8% - males
69.4% - females
67.9% - males
Sexual Behaviors and Pregnancy
Age at first intercourse
CRS-63
Outcome
Ever paid by someone to
have sexa
Midwest Evaluation (Wave 3)
- Former Foster Youth at Age
21 or 22
Add Health - Youth
Surveyed at Age 21
7.3% - females
14.0% - males
1.8% - females
6.0% - males
Ever pregnant (females only)a
70.9%
33.8%
Impregnated partner (males
only)a
49.2%
19.2%
Ever marrieda
11.5 % - females
5.1% - males
17.9% - females
10.1% - males
Currently married
11.1% - females
4.3% - malesa
16.2% - females
8.6% - malesa
Currently cohabiting
22.6% - females
18.0% - males
16.7% - females
13.5% - males
At least one living childa
56.1% - females
30.2% - males
23.5% - females
11.5%- males
Ever arresteda
56.7% - females
79.4% - males
4.3% - females
20.1% - males
Ever convicteda
24.5% - females
52.6% - males
1.3% - females
12.1% - males
Relationships and Parenting
Criminal Justiceb
Transition to Adulthood and Orientation Toward the Future
Became socially maturea
66.2% - faster than others
28.3% - about the same rate as
others
5.5% - slower than others
63.7% - faster than others
8.0% - about the same rate
as others
28.3% - slower than others
Took on adult
responsibilitiesa
67.9% - faster than others
26.5% - about the same rate as
others
5.6% - slower than others
68.2% - faster than others
7.3% - about the same rate
as others
24.5% - slower than others
Thinks of self as an adulta
Never or seldom - 4.9%
Sometimes - 8.7%
Most or all of the time - 86.3%
Never or seldom - 9.3%
Sometimes - 18.2%
Most or all of the time 72.6%
Will live to 35 (mean score
based on 1 to 5 scale, with 1
being almost no chance to 5
being almost certain)a
4.4
4.7
Will be married within next
10 years (mean score based
on 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being
almost no chance to 5 being
almost certain)a
3.4
3.9
CRS-64
Outcome
Will have a middle-class
income by age 30 (mean
score based on 1 to 5 scale,
with 1 being almost no
chance to 5 being almost
certain)a
Midwest Evaluation (Wave 3)
- Former Foster Youth at Age
21 or 22
Add Health - Youth
Surveyed at Age 21
3.6
4.1
60.3%
77.4%
13.8% - not at all to a little close
13.6% - somewhat close
72.9% - very or quite close
22.4% - not at all to a little
close
24.0% - somewhat close
53.6% - very or quite close
Mentoring
Maintained a positive
relationship with a caring
adult since age 14a
Closeness to mentora
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data in Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest
Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 21, Chapin Hall Center
for Children, University of Chicago, Dec. 2007.
Note: The Midwest Evaluation has tracked the outcomes of foster youth at age 17 and when they have
aged out of care at ages 19 and 21 (some of these youth remained in care until age 21). For each of the
three data collection waves, wherever possible, researchers asked the same questions that were taken
directly from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”), a nationally
representative survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time.
a. Indicates that the difference between the youth in the Midwest Evaluation and youth in the
Adolescent Heath Survey is statistically significant.
b. The Add Health figures reflect arrests and convictions since age 18. The Midwest Study figures
represent arrests and convictions since the wave 1 interview, when 62% of the young adults in
the wave 3 sample were still 17 years old. Data for “ever arrested” were missing for 10 young
men and 22 young women and data for “ever convicted” were missing for 24 young men and 35
young women.
CRS-65
Appendix B. Maximum Age and Conditions for Youth
Remaining in Foster Care After Their 18th Birthday
Table B-1. National Child Welfare Resource Center for
Youth Development Survey of States, 2006
State
Age at Which
Youth May No
Longer Remain in
Foster Care
Conditions for Extended Foster Care
(after 18th Birthday)
Alabama
21
If youth is in school and in approved placement.
Alaska
20
Youth may remain in care until age 19, without the youth’s
consent and in care until age 20 with the youth’s consent;
under both conditions, placement must be in the “best
interest” of the child.
Arizona
21
Youth who leave care at age 18 or older may return to care at
any time before their 21st birthday.
Arkansas
21
If the youth is pursuing a post-secondary education.
California
19
If the youth will graduate from high school before 19th
birthday.
Colorado
23
Did not respond to inquiry about conditions for remaining in
care.
Connecticut
23
Did not respond to inquiry about conditions for remaining in
care.
Delaware
21
If the youth is attending school and wishes to remain in
placement.
District of
Columbiaa
21
Court must approve request to terminate care before 21.
Florida
18
The youth may request an extension of jurisdiction until age19
so that the courts may monitor the provision of independent
living services. They are not considered “in foster care” but are
under the supervision of the court.
Georgia
21
If the youth has an educational plan in place and signs an
agreement with the resource provider and the county. Youth
may remain until age 21½ if the additional six months in care
will enable youth to complete an educational program.
Hawaii
Did not respond to survey.
Idaho
21
If the youth is still in school and working on an independent
living plan that includes continuing education, employment,
and self-sufficiency skills.
Illinoisa
21
Did not respond to inquiry about conditions for remaining in
care.
Indiana
21
If the youth is in high school and making an effort to graduate;
or if youth has been accepted into housing services (for
developmental disabilities) and awaiting placement.
Iowa
20
If the youth is in high school or working toward a GED.
CRS-66
State
Age at Which
Youth May No
Longer Remain in
Foster Care
Conditions for Extended Foster Care
(after 18th Birthday)
Kansas
21
Did not respond to inquiry about conditions for remaining in
care.
Kentucky
21
Youth may request to extend commitment or reinstate
commitment to remain in care. It must be approved by the
court.
Louisiana
Did not respond to survey.
Maine
21
If the youth needs care and support for educational, social, or
physical reasons.
Maryland
21
If the youth has documented special needs, is employed, and/or
enrolled in a formal education program.
Massachusetts
22
If the youth pursues education or vocational training and
complies with their service plan.
Michigan
20
Foster care maintenance payments are available for former
foster youth who have reached age 19, yet are still in a school
or training program, regardless of whether youth are in family
foster care or independent living settings.
Minnesota
21
Youth can request foster care benefits up to age 21, then must
enter into a plan with a county social worker regarding
education, employment, etc. If the county denies the request,
the child, parent(s) or foster parent may appeal to the state
Department of Human Services.
Mississippi
Did not respond to survey.
Missouri
21
If the youth is in school or foster care placement is in the
youth’s best interest; or if the placement is court ordered.
Montana
21
Youth may receive foster care maintenance payments beyond
age 18 if the youth: 1) is at grade level, but will not graduate
from high school until after turning age 18; 2) is at current
grade level but is having academic difficulties or missing
credits and will not graduate before turning age 18; or 3)is
below grade level (one or more years behind his or her age
group) and is more likely to graduate from high school if in
care.
Nebraska
19
Age 19 is age of majority.
Nevada
21
Did not respond to inquiry about conditions for remaining in
care.
New
Hampshire
19
If youth has not graduated from high school before 19th
birthday.
New Jersey
21
If the youth has not graduated from high school or needs
special treatment that can not be provided through another
source, or is a teen parent who needs to be under state
supervision.
New Mexico
21
Youth do not stay in state legal custody after age 18. Youth
may receive foster care maintenance payment if they receive
independent living services.
New York
21
Did not respond to inquiry about conditions for remaining in
care.
CRS-67
State
Age at Which
Youth May No
Longer Remain in
Foster Care
Conditions for Extended Foster Care
(after 18th Birthday)
North
Carolina
21
If the youth signs a CARS agreement (Contractual Agreement
for Residential Services) to remain in school or vocational
training full time and live in a licensed foster care placement.
North Dakota
21
If the youth resides in a family foster home and is completing
high school, or is attending an institution of higher education.
Ohio
21
If the youth is in school or has special needs.
Oklahoma
21
If youth has not finished high school or obtained a GED.
Oregon
21
If the youth is working on completing high school or obtaining
a GED or has an Individualized Education Plan (IEP); or the
case is reviewed by local child welfare agency and approved
as an exception.
Pennsylvania
21
Before turning age 18, youth must ask court to retain
jurisdiction to complete a course of treatment or education.
Puerto Rico
Did not respond to survey.
Rhode Island
Did not respond to survey.
South
Carolina
21
If the youth signs agreement to remain in care while in school
or vocational training; or due to a disabling condition that
places youth at risk and remaining in care is in youth’s best
interest.
South Dakota
21
If the youth has not completed high school.
Tennessee
Texas
Did not respond to survey.
22
If the youth has not completed high school, GED program, or
vocational training program.
19
With court order or significant need.
Vermont
19
If the youth is enrolled in education program.
Virginia
21
If the youth is enrolled in an educational or vocational program
and agrees to participate in the Independent Living Program.
Washington
21
The youth must be attending high school or a vocational
program.
West Virginia
21
If the youth is in school, has a Transitional Living Plan (TLP),
or is employed. Youth may receive room and board until age
20 if: 1) youth requests continued financial supports after
receiving a clear explanation of his or her right to
independence and responsibility for self-support at age
eighteen; and 2) youth will continue education (college,
vocational, or training) and plans to continue current
enrollment, or plans to enroll in a different school or training
program within the next three months.
Wisconsin
19
If the youth is enrolled in high school or high school
completion program.
Wyoming
21
Youth can remain in care until age 21 only for educational
reasons. Court must approve the extended stay and case is
reviewed very six months.
Utah
a
CRS-68
State
Age at Which
Youth May No
Longer Remain in
Foster Care
Conditions for Extended Foster Care
(after 18th Birthday)
Age 18 — 1 state;
Age 19 — 6 states;
Age 20 — 3 states;
Age 21 — 32 states
(including
Washington, D.C.);
Age 22 — 2 states;
Age 23 — 2 states;
No data provided —
6 states (including
Puerto Rico)
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from University of Oklahoma, National
Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development, 2006.
Note: This survey did not ask how many states encouraged youth to remain in care or how many youth
actually remained in care.
a. See Appendix C for information provided to the Congressional Research Service about foster care
for youth ages 18 and older in these states.
CRS-69
Appendix C. Descriptions of Foster Care for Youth
Ages 18 to 21 in Select States
At least three states — Illinois, New York, and Vermont — as well as the District
of Columbia provide foster care to young people ages 18 to 21 through state
maintenance payments or similar types of payments. These payments are made out
of state or local dollars and without regard to prior Title IV-E eligibility status. The
Congressional Research Service contacted the four jurisdictions to learn more about
their maintenance payment programs for older youth.156 The jurisdictions provided
varying levels of detail about their programs. Note that this is not an exhaustive
review of states that provide the payments to youth beyond their 18th birthdays.
Illinois
Illinois youth in foster care on their 18th birthday, regardless of their income or
educational status, may stay in care (in a traditional foster care setting) until they are
19, and some continue in care until age 21. The majority of youth leave care at age
19. Until they age out of care, the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS)
DCFS continues to have guardianship of the youth and the courts retain jurisdiction
of their cases. According to DCFS, Cook County, which includes the city of Chicago,
tends to retain custody of youth for a longer period than other counties.
As of March 2008, about 1,520 youth ages 18 to 21 were in foster care homes.
The state funds foster care for these older foster youth with state dollars and the
average state foster care maintenance payment made to each foster household on their
behalf is $458 per month. Youth not in foster family homes may be placed in an
institution or group home, or other setting. The court continues to hold six-month
reviews and annual review hearings for the youth.
Upon exiting foster care, youth remain under the guardianship of the state for six
months, meaning that the court assigns DCFS the responsibility for the physical care
and safety of the child, but does not make state foster care maintenance payments on
their behalf. During and after the guardianship period, youth are eligible to receive
transitional living services and housing through the state’s independent living
program. Youth attending college receive educational and other assistance from the
state and remain in guardianship until age 21. This assistance is funded through state
dollars, and not the federal Chafee Foster Care Independence program. As of March
2008, 815 youth ages 18 to 21 in guardianship lived in an independent living setting
and 1,023 were in another setting, including college or a detention facility, or were on
runaway status.
156
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the state or
city’s child welfare or independent living services staff in March and April 2008.
CRS-70
New York
New York enables youth to remain in foster care until age 21, provided the youth
consents to remaining in care, if they are enrolled in a school, college, university, or
vocational school, or if they lack the skills to live independently (generally due to
cognitive and developmental deficiencies). As of December 2007, nearly 4,900 youth
ages 17 through 20 were in foster care, of whom 1,994 were age 17; 1,269 were age
18; 924 were age 19; and 687 were age 20. The majority of the these youth had a
permanency planning goal of discharge to another planned living arrangement
(APPLA) with a permanency resource.157
The court continues to retain jurisdiction while the youth are in care (i.e., case
hearings every six months and an annual permanency plan hearing) and the county
provides the same case management services to youth (i.e., monthly case worker
visits) as they received when they were under age 18. The county makes state foster
care maintenance payments to foster parents for room and board, clothing, food, and
other provisions, and youth continue to remain eligible for Medicaid. For youth who
attend college and live on a college campus or in nearby housing, the local social
services district pays the college directly for room and board.
Every youth who is discharged to APPLA with a permanency resource is first
discharged on a trial basis, although youth can agree to be permanently discharged.158
Trial discharge means the youth remains in the custody of the local social services
district while living in the community. The same case planning and casework contact
requirements apply as if the youth were still in a foster care placement, and
permanency hearings are held. If a youth loses housing during the period of trial
discharge, the district must assist the youth to find other appropriate housing or place
the youth in a foster care setting. The trial discharge period may continue until a
youth reaches the age of 21.
Vermont
Youth in Vermont generally remain in foster care until age 18.159 Effective July
1, 2007, Act 17 (2007) authorized funding for payments on behalf of former foster
youth ages 18 through 22 under a program known as Extended Care, which includes
157
A permanency resource is a caring adult willing to help provide emotional support and
guidance to a youth as a youth transitions to adulthood, and can be a foster parent, teacher,
parent of a friend in the community.
158
Youth in care ages 16 and 17 must be discharged on a trial basis if they have been in care
for 12 of the last 36 months and if their case goal is “APPLA with a permanency resource.”
These youth may decline the trial discharge and opt instead for a final discharge; they may
also return to care if they are discharged.
159
As of March 2008, the state was using an interim plan to provide guidance about the
program. The state expects to promulgate regulations establishing the program guidelines
by August 1, 2008.
CRS-71
the Adult Living program and the Housing Support and Incidental Grant program.160
The Extended Care program is administered by the Vermont Department for Children
and Families. Youth in the two programs are no longer in the custody of the state and
the courts do not retain jurisdiction; youth voluntarily enroll in the program.161 A
youth development coordinator contracted with the Vermont Department of Children
and Family Services works with youth in both programs (The Department contracts
for independent living services in its 12 service districts.)162
The Vermont legislature made a state FY2008 appropriation of $500,000 for the
payments to caring adults (including family units) on behalf of older former foster
youth. As of March 2008, the Extended Care program enrolled 42 youth. The budget
for the program will likely support as many as 60 youth total.
Adult Living Program. The purpose of the Adult Living program is for youth
to live with caring adults, known as adult partners, after they reach age 18 through the
age of 22. Any eligible youth may decide at any point, up to age 21.5, to enroll in the
Adult Living program. Participants in the program live in an arrangement similar to
a foster family in households that are certified for a foster care placement, or a caring
adult at least age 25 who undergoes a background check.163
To be eligible for the program, youth who have aged out of foster care must sign
a voluntary services agreement pledging to gain independent living skills and work
toward self sufficiency, and they must assume responsibility for expenses other than
room and board. They are also to develop a savings plan in which they gradually save
money until they become self sufficient, where possible. Youth must be enrolled in
school part- or full-time, working, or actively seeking work. These criteria may be
waived by the Department for Children and Families Services Commissioner or
designee based on an individual youth’s circumstance. Furthermore, if a youth is
unemployed or not enrolled in an educational program, the department will determine
if the youth is meeting the criteria for “productive time.” Enrolled youth may live in
college dormitories, but return to a foster care arrangement during school breaks.
Youth who exit the program before age 21.5 may re-enter if they demonstrate a
commitment to living within a home-like environment and working toward their goals
of independent living.
160
A third component of the program, not discussed here, offers supports and services on
behalf of youth who reach their 18th birthday while in custody and are attending high school.
161
The legislature also appropriated $203,000 to fund 2.5 full-time youth development
coordinator staff to serve the older foster (and emancipated) youth population, as well as to
support driver’s education, prevention of homelessness, and transportation to the youth’s
school of origin.
162
All youth who emancipate from foster care are eligible to work with the youth
development coordinators and for other supports, such as housing and workforce training,
through the state’s independent living program.
163
The Department for Children and Families plans to address the feasibility of this second
option in its regulations.
CRS-72
For youth in the Adult Living program, the coordinator facilitates the youth
working with their social worker and supportive adults to create and monitor a plan
for life skills and self sufficiency; assists the youth in implementing the plan; calls and
meets with him or her monthly; and submits monthly reports about the youth’s status.
The reimbursement rate for the Adult Living program is $20.76 each day.
Payments are made to adult partners for the cost of (and the cost of providing) basic
provisions, including shelter, clothing, food, and school supplies. In the case of youth
attending college, adult partners receive the payments to provide provisions to youth
over their school breaks.
Housing Support Program. The Housing Support program provides
financial support for youth ages 18 to 22 who live independently. Youth in the
Housing Support program are also to sign the same voluntary services agreement that
is signed by youth in the Adult Living program. The agreement includes information
about how many hours they are to work and their budget. Youth may be asked to
leave the program if they fail to fulfill the responsibilities outlined in the agreement;
those who exit may return if they demonstrate a commitment to working toward their
self-sufficiency goals. For youth in the Housing Support program, the coordinator
assists the young person in preparing a housing contract; contacts the youth weekly
in the first two months and monthly thereafter; assists with the young person’s service
coordination; and submits monthly reports about the status of the youth.
Youth in the Housing Support program receive a grant of up to $5,000 to cover
housing and related expenses; on a case-by-case basis, youth may also receive
supplemental funds for educational expenses, such as books and lab fees.164
Washington, DC
The Washington, D.C. Child and Family Service Agency (CFSA) requires that
all foster youth remain in care until age 21 unless they (1) are reunified with their
families or adopted; (2) get married; (3) join the military; or (4) can demonstrate that
they have secured employment and housing and are self sufficient. Approximately
135 youth emancipate from the District of Columbia foster care system each year, of
whom 95% are age 21; the remaining 5% meet the criteria listed above. Currently, the
District has 446 youth ages 18 to 21 in care: 202 youth are age 18; 156 youth are age
19; and 117 youth are age 20.
Youth in care continue to remain under the jurisdiction of the court and receive
the same case support from CFSA, except that social workers from the agency’s
Office of Youth Development manage their cases. Further, youth may live in a variety
of settings — foster homes, group homes, and transitional living settings in an
independent living setting, or in institutional settings. CFSA dollars from the D.C.
164
Youth may receive direct payment under the Housing Support and Incidental Living
Grants program. Yet these youth might be rendered ineligible for Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) because the payment would count as direct income for TANF
eligibility purposes. If, however, the payment is made directly to a youth’s vendor (i.e.,
landlord or college) this assistance is considered a “subsidy.”
CRS-73
government fund the foster care maintenance payments made to the foster parent or
appropriate agency. Daily reimbursement rates range from $29.84 to $38.95,
depending on whether the youth have special needs. These payments cover the cost
of room and board, food, clothing, and a stipend, among other resources. The total
cost of these services in FY2007, including maintenance payments, was $21.3 million
(this includes youth in all types of living settings). Youth who are away at college
receive housing payments and other assistance through D.C.’s independent living
program.
CRS-74
Appendix D. Funding for the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program
Table D-1. Final FY2007 and Estimated FY2008 Federal CFCIP
General and Voucher Allotments by State
($ in thousands)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Final FY2007 Allotments
General
Voucher
Total
1,784
612
2,396
Estimated FY2008 Allotments
General Voucher
Total
1,784
601
2,386
500
159
659
500
156
656
2,601
892
3,492
2,601
876
3,477
834
286
1,120
834
281
1,115
California
20,953
7,185
28,138
20,954
7,060
28,013
Colorado
2,120
727
2,847
2,120
714
2,834
Connecticut
1,815
622
2,438
1,815
612
2,427
Arizona
Arkansas
Delaware
500
85
585
500
84
584
District of Columbia
1,092
222
1,314
1,092
218
1,310
Florida
7,566
2,595
10,161
7,566
2,549
10,116
Georgia
3,605
1,236
4,841
3,605
1,215
4,819
Hawaii
714
245
959
714
241
955
Idaho
500
161
661
500
158
658
Illinois
5,016
1,720
6,736
5,016
1,690
6,706
Indiana
2,906
996
3,902
2,906
979
3,885
Iowa
1,754
601
2,355
1,754
591
2,345
Kansas
1,506
516
2,023
1,506
507
2,014
Kentucky
1,881
645
2,526
1,881
634
2,515
Louisiana
1,358
428
1,786
1,358
420
1,778
Maine
596
204
800
596
201
797
Maryland
2,805
962
3,767
2,805
945
3,750
Massachusetts
3,161
1,084
4,244
3,161
1,065
4,225
Michigan
5,291
1,814
7,106
5,291
1,783
7,074
Minnesota
1,801
618
2,419
1,801
607
2,408
844
289
1,133
844
284
1,128
2,928
1,004
3,932
2,928
987
3,915
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
574
197
770
574
193
767
Nebraska
1,608
552
2,160
1,608
542
2,150
Nevada
1,205
413
1,619
1,205
406
1,612
500
104
604
500
102
602
3,108
1,066
4,174
3,108
1,047
4,156
591
203
794
591
199
791
11,586
2,693
14,279
11,586
2,646
14,232
2,761
947
3,708
2,761
930
3,692
500
121
621
500
119
619
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
CRS-75
State
Ohio
Final FY2007 Allotments
General
Voucher
Total
4,502
1,544
6,046
Estimated FY2008 Allotments
General Voucher
Total
4,502
1,517
6,019
Oklahoma
2,966
1,017
3,983
2,966
999
3,965
Oregon
2,845
976
3,820
2,845
958
3,803
Pennsylvania
5,599
1,920
7,519
5,599
1,887
7,486
Puerto Rico
1,752
601
3,503
1,752
590
2,342
648
222
870
648
218
866
1,228
421
1,649
1,228
414
1,642
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
500
152
652
500
149
649
Tennessee
2,328
798
3,126
2,328
784
3,112
Texas
7,456
2,557
10,012
7,456
2,512
9,967
Utah
590
202
792
590
199
789
Vermont
500
127
627
500
125
625
Virginia
1,813
622
2,434
1,813
611
2,423
Washington
2,599
891
3,490
2,599
876
3,474
West Virginia
1,118
383
1,501
1,118
377
1,495
Wisconsin
2,093
718
2,810
2,093
705
2,798
Wyoming
500
112
612
500
110
610
137,900
45,464
184,515
137,900
44,671
182,571
2,051
0
2,051
2,100
0
2,100
0
645
645
0
680
680
140,000
46,110
186,061
140,000
45,351
185,351
State Subtotal
Technical Assistance
Set Asides
Total
Source: U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
FY2009 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, pp. D-89, D-90, G-24, G-25.
CRS-76
Table D-2. Change in Funding by State from the
Old Independent Living Program (as of FY1998)
and the CFCIP (as of FY2007)
State
Funding in FY1998
($)
1,038,490
Funding in FY2007
($)
1,784,444
Percentage Change
in Funding (%)
71.8
Alaska
13,032
500,000
3736.7
Arizona
347,763
2,600,648
647.8
Arkansas
270,940
833,756
207.7
12,481,777
20,953,350
67.9
Colorado
825,854
2,120,011
156.7
Connecticut
754,518
1,815,162
140.6
Delaware
203,034
500,000
146.3
1,091,992
1,091,992
0.0
987,045
7,566,271
666.6
1,098,854
3,604,768
228.0
Hawaii
17,834
713,984
3,903.5
Idaho
107,004
500,000
367.3
Illinois
2,817,094
5,015,701
78.0
Indiana
1,019,970
2,905,756
184.9
Iowa
449,966
1,753,727
289.7
Kansas
717,477
1,506,181
109.9
Kentucky
791,557
1,880,984
137.6
Louisiana
1,358,131
1,358,131
0.0
565,888
596,019
5.3
1,238,095
2,805,086
126.6
635,852
3,160,529
397.1
Michigan
4,171,796
5,291,124
26.8
Minnesota
1,142,066
1,801,223
57.7
514,444
843,823
64.0
Missouri
1,295,026
2,928,213
126.1
Montana
244,190
573,562
134.9
Nebraska
435,562
1,608,401
269.3
Nevada
153,647
1,205,461
684.6
New Hampshire
320,326
500,000
56.1
2,297,848
3,108,387
35.3
207,149
591,373
185.5
11,585,958
11,585,958
0.0
1,045,349
2,761,462
164.2
192,058
500,000
160.3
2,860,992
4,502,283
57.4
Oklahoma
620,076
2,965,641
378.3
Oregon
930,799
2,844,837
205.6
Alabama
California
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
CRS-77
State
Funding in FY1998
($)
4,638,225
Funding in FY2007
($)
5,599,072
Percentage Change
in Funding (%)
20.7
N/A
1,751,663
N/A
Rhode Island
314,840
647,646
105.7
South Carolina
579,606
1,227,919
111.9
South Dakota
193,430
500,000
158.5
Tennessee
777,838
2,327,548
199.3
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
1,841,708
7,455,535
304.8
Utah
Texas
202,348
589,825
191.5
Vermont
295,633
500,000
69.1
Virginia
1,361,561
1,812,581
33.1
Washington
825,168
2,598,840
214.9
West Virginia
521,302
1,117,956
114.5
Wisconsin
1,554,305
2,093,167
34.7
Wyoming
44,585
500,000
1,021.5
70,000,000a
137,900,000
97.0
0
2,051
2,051.0
70,000,000
140,000,000
100.0
State Subtotal
Technical Assistance
Total
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data provided by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, May 2008.
N/A means not applicable.
CRS-78
Table D-3. FY2005 Chafee Foster Care Independence Program:
Final Funds Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal
Treasury, by State
State
Alabama
Dollar Amount
Allocated
Dollar Amount
Expended
Dollar Amount
Returned to the
Treasury
Percent of
Allotment
Returned
to Treasury
1,563,344
1,563,344
0
0
524,629
525,629
0
0
Arizona
1,991,020
1,991,020
0
0
Arkansas
771,514
771,514
0
0
California
25,012,729
25,012,729
0
0
Colorado
2,251,277
2,251,277
0
0
Connecticut
1,733,849
1,733,849
0
0
500,000
499,958
42
0
Alaska
Delaware
District of Columbia
1,091,992
1,091,992
0
0
Florida
7,889,242
7,889,242
0
0
Georgia
3,506,787
3,506,787
0
0
Hawaii
763,027
763,027
0
0
Idaho
500,000
500,000
0
0
5,556,956
5,556,956
0
0
Illinois
Indiana
2,288,567
2,248,212
40,355
1.8
Iowa
1,288,685
1,288,685
0
0.0
Kansas
1,486,707
1,486,707
0
0
Kentucky
1,773,196
1,334,896
438,300
24.7
Louisiana
1,358,131
1,358,131
0
0
771,257
771,257
0
0
Maine
Maryland
2,963,870
2,962,870
0
0
Massachusetts
3,242,415
3,128,310
114,105
3.5
Michigan
5,497,293
5,497,293
0
0
Minnesota
1,887,123
1,886,868
255
0
723,166
693,691
29,475
4.1
Missouri
3,090,942
2,638,275
452,667
14.6
Montana
500,000
500,000
0
0
Nebraska
Mississippi
1,553,057
1,553,057
0
0
Nevada
587,636
587,636
0
0
New Hampshire
500,000
500,000
0
0
3,298,993
3,298,993
0
0
540,060
540,060
0
0
11,585,958
11,585,958
0
0
2,451,871
2,299,836
152,035
6.2
500,000
368,216
131,784
26.4
Ohio
4,969,320
4,969,320
0
0
Oklahoma
2,364,432
2,364,432
0
0
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
CRS-79
State
Dollar Amount
Allocated
Dollar Amount
Expended
Dollar Amount
Returned to the
Treasury
Percent of
Allotment
Returned
to Treasury
Oregon
2,412,523
2,412,523
0
0
Pennsylvania
5,598,104
5,598,104
0
0
Puerto Rico
1,950,644
1,950,644
0
0
Rhode Island
600,238
600,238
0
0
1,258,597
1,258,597
0
0
500,000
500,000
0
0
Tennessee
2,439,784
2,439,784
0
0
Texas
5,706,887
5,702,068
4,819
0
Utah
522,829
522,829
0
0
Vermont
500,000
500,000
0
0
Virginia
1,812,029
1,711,992
100,037
5.5
Washington
2,161,782
2,161,782
0
0
West Virginia
1,046,430
1,046,430
0
0
Wisconsin
2,012,108
2,012,108
0
0
Wyoming
500,000
497,614
2,386
0.5
a
136,433,740
1,466,260
1.1
South Carolina
South Dakota
Total
137,900,000
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, April 2008.
a. Training and technical assistance, research and evaluation, and set asides are not included in the total
funding.
CRS-80
Table D-4. FY2005 Chafee Education and Training Vouchers:
Estimated Funds Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal
Treasury, by State
State
Alabama
Dollar Amount
Allocated
Dollar Amount
Expended
Dollar Amount
Returned to the
Treasury
Percent of
Allotment
Returned
to Treasury
534,236
534,236
0
0
179,280
165,396
13,884
7.7
Arizona
680,385
680,385
0
0
Arkansas
263,647
226,720
36,927
14.0
8,547,517
8,451,971
95,546
1.1
Colorado
769,321
767,971
1,350
0.2
Connecticut
592,502
592,502
0
0
71,536
71,536
0
0
271,732
271,732
0
0
Florida
2,695,964
2,334,113
361,851
13.4
Georgia
1,198,362
1,198,362
0
0
260,747
260,747
0
0.3
Alaska
a
California
Delaware
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Idaho
123,123
79,940
43,183
35.1
Illinois
1,898,960
1,898,960
0
0
Indiana
782,064
782,064
0
0
Iowa
440,378
440,378
0
0
Kansas
508,047
468,658
39,389
7.8
Kentucky
605,948
402,448
203,500
33.6
Louisiana
399,073
396,282
2,791
1.0
Maine
263,559
209,009
54,500
20.7
Maryland
1,012,491
700,931
311,560
30.8
Massachusetts
1,108,019
1,108,019
0
0
Michigan
1,878,571
1,128,776
749,795
39.9
644,880
595,124
49,756
7.7
Minnesota
Mississippi
247,125
186,275
60,850
24.6
Missouri
1,056,257
273,339
782,918
74.1
Montana
163,988
163,988
0
0
Nebraska
530,721
530,721
0
0
Nevada
200,811
200,811
0
0
106,953
106,953
0
0
1,127,354
1,127,354
0
0
184,553
78,401
106,152
57.5
3,362,375
3,362,375
136,491
0
North Carolina
837,869
825,205
12,664
1.5
North Dakota
108,798
77,470
31,328
28.8
1,698,149
1,041,104
657,045
38.7
807,989
807,989
0
0
New Hampshire
a
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
CRS-81
State
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
a
Dollar Amount
Allocated
Dollar Amount
Expended
Dollar Amount
Returned to the
Treasury
Percent of
Allotment
Returned
to Treasury
824,423
824,423
0
0
1,913,021
1,909,937
3,084
0.2
666,587
18,209
648,378
97.3
Rhode Island
205,117
205,117
0
0
South Carolina
430,096
430,096
0
0
South Dakota
138,854
107,292
31,562
22.7
Tennessee
833,739
833,739
0
0
1,950,195
1,425,349
524,846
26.9
Utah
178,665
161,066
17,559
9.9
Vermont
123,826
123,826
0
0
Virginia
619,218
384,977
234,241
37.8
Washington
738,738
738,738
0
0
West Virginia
357,593
146,222
211,371
59.1
Wisconsin
687,591
641,074
46,517
6.7
Wyoming
92,716
92,716
0
0
45,923,663
40,591,026
5,332,637
11.6
Texas
a
Total
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, July 2007.
a. Data are not yet final for Alaska, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico, and therefore the total data are not
yet final.(ETV) to youth who age out of foster care and youth adopted from care at age
16 or older. For FY2010, Congress appropriated $45.4 million to the ETV program. The CFCIP
was amended again in 2008 by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions
Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351). The act expanded eligibility for the program by adding as an
additional program purpose that youth who are in foster care on their 16th birthday but who
subsequently leave care for adoption or kinship guardianship are eligible for CFCIP service. The
law also extended the ETV program to youth who leave care at age 16 or older for kinship
guardianship; made tribal entities eligible to apply directly for CFCIP and ETV funds directly
from the federal government; and authorized additional supports and services outside of the
CFCIP to older youth in care, including providing states the option, beginning in FY2011, to
extend Title IV-E foster care to youth ages 18 to 21. In 2010, the program was amended for a
third time by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148, PPACA), which
requires states to educate youth aging out about the importance of a health care power of attorney.
Along with the CFCIP, federal child welfare law and other federal programs are intended to help
older foster youth and recent alumni make the transition to adulthood. The Title IV-E foster care
program has protections in place to ensure that older youth in care have a written case plan that
addresses the programs and services that will assist in this transition. Further the law that
established the CFCIP created a new optional Medicaid eligibility pathway for “independent
foster care adolescents;” this pathway is often called the “Chafee option.” Beginning in 2014,
eligible young people who emancipate from foster care will be covered under a mandatory
Medicaid pathway until age 26, as required under PPACA. Federal law also authorizes funding
for states to provide other types of assistance. Further, the Higher Education Act authorizes
services specifically for youth in foster care or recently emancipated youth, including education
and housing services.
Congressional Research Service
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Contents
Who Are Older Youth in Foster Care and Youth Aging Out of Care? ............................................. 3
Characteristics of Youth Who Have Had Contact with the Child Welfare System ................... 3
Characteristics of Youth in Foster Care ..................................................................................... 5
Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly in Foster Care ............................................................... 6
Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study ................................................................................. 7
Midwest Evaluation on the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth ............................. 8
Resiliency of Current and Former Foster Youth...................................................................... 11
Overview of Federal Child Welfare Support for Foster Youth ...................................................... 12
Federal Foster Care........................................................................................................................ 13
Case Planning and Review ...................................................................................................... 13
Title IV-E Reimbursement for Foster Care.............................................................................. 14
Eligibility........................................................................................................................... 14
Eligible Placement Setting ................................................................................................ 16
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program................................................................................... 16
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 16
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 17
Eligibility for CFCIP Benefits and Services............................................................................ 18
Youth Likely to Remain in Foster Care Until Age 18 ....................................................... 18
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care........................................................................................ 20
American Indian Youth ..................................................................................................... 20
The Role of Youth Participants................................................................................................ 21
Program Administration .......................................................................................................... 22
Education and Training Vouchers............................................................................................ 22
Program Administration .................................................................................................... 23
Youth Enrolled in the Program.......................................................................................... 24
Funding for States.................................................................................................................... 24
Use of Funds ..................................................................................................................... 25
Hold Harmless Provision .................................................................................................. 28
Unused Funds.................................................................................................................... 28
Training and Technical Assistance .......................................................................................... 29
National Youth in Transition Database .................................................................................... 29
History............................................................................................................................... 29
Data Collection.................................................................................................................. 30
Training and Technical Assistance ................................................................................... 31
Evaluation of Innovative CFCIPs............................................................................................ 31
PART Review .......................................................................................................................... 33
Assessments of the CFCIP ...................................................................................................... 34
Child and Family Services Review ................................................................................... 34
GAO Report ...................................................................................................................... 35
Implementation of the ETV Program................................................................................ 36
Other Federal Support for Older Current and Former Foster Youth.............................................. 37
Medicaid.................................................................................................................................. 37
Other Educational Support ...................................................................................................... 39
Workforce Support .................................................................................................................. 40
Workforce Investment Act Programs ................................................................................ 40
Foster Youth Demonstration Project ................................................................................. 40
Congressional Research Service
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Housing Support...................................................................................................................... 41
Family Unification Vouchers Program.............................................................................. 41
Other Support .................................................................................................................... 42
Grant to Support Curriculum for Supervising Older Youth in Care ........................................ 43
Tables
Table A-1. Comparison of Outcome Domains Between Young Adults in the Midwest
Study and Young Adults in the Add Health Study ...................................................................... 44
Table B-1. Final FY2009 and Estimated FY2010 CFCIP General and ETV Allotments by
State ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Table B-2. FY2008 Chafee Foster Care Independence Program: Final Funds Allotted,
Expended, and Returned to Federal Treasury, by State .............................................................. 50
Table B-3. FY2008 Chafee Foster Care Education and Training Voucher Program: Final
Funds Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal Treasury, by State..................................... 52
Appendixes
Appendix A. Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly in Foster Care .............................................. 44
Appendix B. Funding for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) and
Education and Training Voucher (ETV) Program ...................................................................... 48
Congressional Research Service
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
A
significant number of youth spend at least some time in foster care during their teenage
years. On the last day of FY2010, approximately 157,000 youth ages 13 through 19
comprised 35% of the foster care caseload nationally.1 Most teenagers left foster care and
were reunified with their parents or primary caretakers, adopted, or placed with relatives.
However, 27,829 youth aged out, or were emancipated, when they reached the age of majority in
their states, usually at age 18.2 The share of youth who exit to emancipation has increased in
recent years, from about 9% (26,500 youth) in FY2006 to 11% in FY2009 and FY2010.3
Youth who spend their teenage years in foster care and those who are likely to age out of care
face challenges as they move to early adulthood. While in care, they may forego opportunities to
develop strong support networks and independent living skills that their counterparts in the
general population might more naturally acquire. Even older foster youth who return to their
parents or guardians can still face obstacles, such as poor family dynamics or a lack of emotional
and financial supports, that hinder their ability to achieve their goals as young adults. Perhaps the
strongest evidence that youth who have spent at least some years in care during adolescence have
not adequately made the transition to young adulthood is their poor outcomes across a number of
domains. During their early adult years, these youth are much more likely than their peers to
forego higher education, describe their general health as fair or poor, become homeless, and rely
on public supports.
The federal government has recognized that older youth in care and those aging out are
vulnerable to negative outcomes and may ultimately return to the care of the state as adults, either
through the public welfare, criminal justice, or other systems. In 1986, Congress passed
legislation to assist certain older youth in care under a new Independent Living program, enacted
as part of P.L. 99-272. The legislation authorized mandatory funding to states under Section 477
of the Social Security Act and was made permanent in 1993 as part of P.L. 103-66. In 1999, the
Foster Care Independence Act (P.L. 106-169) rewrote Section 477 to create the permanently
authorized John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) and doubled the annual
funds available to states from $70 million to $140 million. The law also expanded the population
of youth eligible to receive independent living services, including youth who have left care
through age 21, and gave states greater flexibility in designing independent living programs.
Independent living programs are intended to assist youth prepare for adulthood, and may include
assistance in obtaining a high school diploma, career exploration, training in daily living skills,
training in budgeting and financial management skills, and preventive health activities, among
other services. Further, P.L. 106-169 required states to provide services to tribal youth on the
same basis as other youth in the state. The act also encouraged youth in foster care to participate
directly in designing their own activities that prepare them for independent living and further
stated that youth “accept personal responsibility for living up to their part of the program.” Other
1
U.S. Department of Health and Human, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. The AFCARS
Report #16: Preliminary FY2010 Estimates, June 2011, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/
index.htm#afcars. (Hereafter referenced as U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #18.)
2
Ibid.
3
Using data from 2002 through 2008 on children in foster care in 15 states, researchers have projected that the number
of youth who are expected to leave foster care upon turning age 18 will likely decline between 2009 and 2013, due
primarily to the decrease in the number of entries in foster care among children ages 10 through 17. Fred Wulczyn and
Linda Collins, A 5-Year Projection of the Number of Children Reaching Age 18 While in Foster Care, University of
Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2010, http://chapinhall.org/research/report/5-year-projection-numberchildren-turning-age-18-while-foster-care.
Congressional Research Service
1
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
related provisions in P.L. 106-169 enable states to use up to 30% of their CFCIP funds for
housing on current and former foster youth ages 18 to 21, and to extend health care to these youth
through a new Medicaid pathway known as the “Chafee option.”
The CFCIP has been amended three times. In FY2002, the Safe and Stable Families Amendments
of 2001 (P.L. 107-133) authorized discretionary funding to states to provide vouchers for eligible
youth through a new Education and Training Voucher (ETV) program. Youth were made eligible
for the vouchers if they age out of foster care or are adopted from care at age 16 or older (up to
age 21 or age 23, depending on when they received the voucher). For FY2010, Congress
appropriated $45.4 million to the ETV program. The CFCIP was amended a second time in 2008
by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351,
Fostering Connections).4 The act expanded eligibility for the CFCIP by adding as an additional
program purpose that youth who are in foster care on their 16th birthday but who subsequently
leave care for adoption or kinship guardianship are eligible for CFCIP service. The law also
extended the ETV program to youth who leave care at age 16 or older for kinship guardianship,
and made tribal entities eligible to apply directly for CFCIP and ETV funds directly from the
federal government. Finally, the CFCIF was amended in 2010 by the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148, PPACA), the health care reform law, to require states to
ensure that eligible youth are educated about the importance of designating an individual to make
health care treatment decisions for them.
Along with the CFCIP, federal child welfare law and other federal programs are intended to help
current and former youth in foster care make the transition to adulthood. The federal foster care
program has protections in place to ensure that older youth in care have a written case plan that
addresses the programs and services they need in making the transition. Further, federal law
authorizes funding for states and local jurisdictions to provide workforce support and housing to
older foster youth and youth emancipating from care. P.L. 110-351 and P.L. 111-148 authorized
additional supports and services to older youth in care outside of the CFCIP. P.L. 110-351
provides states the option, beginning in FY2011, to extend Title IV-E foster care to youth ages 18
to 21. P.L. 111-148 requires states, as of January 2014, to provide Medicaid coverage to eligible
young people who age out of foster care.
This report begins with a discussion of the characteristics of youth who have had contact with the
child welfare system, including those who entered care, as well as those who exited care via
emancipation. The report then provides an overview of the federal foster care system, including
the Chafee Foster Care Independence program, and provisions in federal foster care law that are
intended to help prepare youth for adulthood. The report goes on to discuss other federal
support—through other programs—for youth aging out of care in the areas of education, health
care, employment, and housing. The report seeks to understand how states vary in their
approaches to serving older youth in care and those who are recently emancipated. A small
number of states are known to extend foster care to youth ages 18 to 21 (and beyond in some
cases), and more states are seeking to do so with the passage of P.L. 110-351. Less than half of
states provide Medicaid coverage to former foster youth beyond age 18 through the Chafee
pathway option; however, youth will automatically receive coverage beginning in 2014 with the
new Medicaid pathways for this population. The report also intends to demonstrate that, despite
4
For further information about implementation of the youth provisions of the act, see CRS Report R40218, Youth
Transitioning from Foster Care: Issues for Congress, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
Congressional Research Service
2
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
negative outcomes for the group on average, many former foster youth are engaged in decisions
about the services they receive and they display resiliency.
Appendix A provides a summary of outcome statistics for youth who were in foster care,
compared to youth in the general population; and Appendix B provides funding tables for the
Chafee Foster Care Independence program, including information about funds returned to the
Federal Treasury.
Who Are Older Youth in Foster Care and Youth
Aging Out of Care?
Children and adolescents age 17 and younger can enter state child welfare systems due to abuse,
neglect, or for some other reason, such as the death of a parent or child behavioral problems.
Some children remain in their own homes and receive family support services, while others are
placed in out-of-home settings, usually in a foster home, relative placement, or institution (e.g.,
residential treatment facility, maternity group home). This section provides demographic and
other information on youth who have had contact with the child welfare system, but did not
necessarily enter care, as well as the characteristics of only those youth who entered in care. In
addition, the outcomes experienced by young people who left care via emancipation is discussed.
Characteristics of Youth Who Have Had Contact with the Child
Welfare System
The National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW), a national random sample
study of maltreated children or those at risk of maltreatment, was authorized by legislation (the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193) to
reform welfare.5 NSCAW is gathering information associated with 5,501 children from public
child welfare agencies in 92 localities across the nation. It is the first national longitudinal study
of its kind and the first to relate child well-being to family characteristics, experience with the
child welfare system, community environment, and other factors. The study has gathered this
information at five intervals since an investigation of maltreatment was closed, even for those
children who did not enter out-of-home foster care. For the fifth interval, information was
collected by age cohort. One of these cohorts included 620 youth ages 18 to 21 in the sample who
were ages 12 to 15 years old when baseline data were collected.6 The purpose of collecting data
on this age cohort was to learn about the extent of their contact with the child welfare system,
how they are developing during their transition to adulthood, and which services they need and/or
have received to support this transition. Overall, the study demonstrates that youth who have been
the subject of a child welfare investigation, regardless of whether they were removed from their
homes, were more likely to have challenges in making the transition to adulthood than their sameage peers, and that many youth in need of certain services were not receiving those services.
5
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, Overview,
available, along with the NSCAW reports, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/nscaw/index.html.
6
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, Adolescents
Involved with Child Welfare: A Transition to Adulthood, April 2008, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/
abuse_neglect/nscaw/reports/transition_adult/transition_adult.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Almost a third (31.9%) of the youth in the sample were involved in a child welfare services
investigation due to physical abuse. A caregiver’s failure to supervise was reported for 29.1% of
youth; sexual abuse, for 14.5%; a caregiver’s failure to provide, for 9.5%; emotional abuse for
7.2%; moral/legal or educational abuse, for 6.3%; and abandonment, for 1.6% (figures add to
100.1% because of rounding). Slightly more than a quarter of these investigations were
substantiated, meaning that child welfare services decided that the allegations of maltreatment
were valid, and nearly one out of five (17.2%) of the youth were placed in out-of-home foster
care during their adolescence. Nearly 60% (57.6%) of the families with youth in the sample were
involved with a previous child welfare investigation. Of those families, two-thirds of the abuse
and neglect incidents were substantiated.
At Wave 5, more than half (55.5%) of the youth in the sample were living with a caregiver. The
balance of the sample were either married and living with their spouse (9.5%), cohabiting with a
boyfriend or girlfriend (17.5%), living alone (11.8%), or living with non-relatives (6.3%). The
share of youth living with caretakers is consistent with that of their peers in the general
population. And like their peers generally, many of the youth in the study were currently
employed full or part time (58.1%). Despite these similarities, youth involved in a child welfare
services’ investigation (even if they did not enter out-of-home care) tended to face negative
outcomes across several domains relative to their peers generally as they made the transition to
adulthood.
Across several health indicators, youth in the sample were more likely to report negative
outcomes. (The study did not evaluate whether the shares of youth in the sample, compared to
shares of youth in the general population, are statistically significant.) For example, about onefifth (21.6%) of young adult females reported being in fair or poor health, compared to females in
the general U.S. population ages 18 and older (12.9%). Further, the sample youth were also far
more likely to report being depressed in the year prior to the interview (9.5% compared to
27.5%). While the share of youth in the sample having reported to be sexual active was about the
same as it is for the general population ages 20 to 24, a larger proportion of sample youth had
been sexual activity at an earlier age. Youth in the sample were almost more likely to be in an
intimate relationship involving physical violence. More than one-third (34.3%) of young adult
females had been in such a relationship. This is higher than the 22.1% lifetime prevalence for
intimate-partner violence among adult females.
In education, young adults in the sample scored, on average, substantially below the normative
mean of 100 in all categories of a cognitive test. The proportion w ho scored significantly lower
than the mean was 15.0% for applied problems, 25.3% for passage comprehension, 29.7% for
word-letter identification, and 43.6% for calculation. The sample youth were also more likely to
report living in poverty. About four out of ten (41.8%) of sample youth were living in households
with incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level, compared to an estimated 30% of all 18to-24 years living below the poverty level.
Finally, the study suggests that the needs of youth in the sample are not being met. Many young
adults in the study who reported having emotional, behavioral, learning, or attentional problems
did not get services to address these problems. For example, among youth with clinically
significant mental health scores and considered in need of mental health services, just over one
quarter (27.6%) received outpatient mental health services and 13.3% receive inpatient mental
health services (some received both services). In addition, only half of youth with symptoms
consistent with alcohol or drug dependence were receiving substance abuse services.
Congressional Research Service
4
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Characteristics of Youth in Foster Care
Other studies provide data on youth who were removed from their homes and placed in a foster
care setting. The Foster Care Dynamics report, a longitudinal study of children in 11 state child
welfare systems from 2000 through 2005, provides detailed information about older youth who
have been placed in out-of-home care.7 The study examined state administrative data to determine
the typical trajectory of children across four age categories who first entered foster care during
the five-year period: less than age one; one through five; six through12; and 13 through 17. The
study found that teenagers make up a significant share of the foster care population; have shorter
median lengths of stay relative to younger children; live in placements other than foster family
homes; experience more placements in their first year in care than younger children; and most
often exit care through reunification, although running away and reaching the age of majority are
exit pathways for about 10% to 24% of these older youth, depending on their age.
From 2000 through 2005, about 350,000 children entered care in the 11 states, of whom 27%
were teenagers ages 13 through 17. Youth in the age 13 through 17 category comprised the
second largest share of children in care (n=94,965), only after children ages six through 12 (n=
95,676). The incidence rate for entering care for youth ages 13 through 17 was about 2.5 per
1,000 over the five-year period; this is compared to about 9.0 per 1,000 infants under age one;
about 2.5 per 1,000 children ages one through five; and about 1.8 per 1,000 children ages six
through 12. In three cohort years (2000-2001, 2002-2003, and 2004-2005), fifteen-year-olds
comprised the second largest share of children in care by single-year age category (approximately
7%), only after infants under the age of one, who comprised 18% to 20% of the caseload.
Of those youth ages 13 through 17 who entered care from 2000 to 2005, 49% lived in congregate
care (e.g, a residential school), 37% in foster family homes, and 13% in kinship care. The
remaining two percent lived in an independent living arrangement or other arrangement. Across
all age categories, 41% to 43% of children were moved within their first six months in foster care;
however, a greater share of teenagers experienced multiple placements within their first six
months of entering care. About 18% of youth ages 13 through 17 had two or more placements,
compared with 12% to 16% of children in other age categories. Teenagers were also more likely
to move to new living arrangements in the six to twelve months after entering care. While older
youth in care had a shorter median length of stay than younger children in care, this median
length of stay increased over the five-year period. The median lengths of stay for infants
decreased from 18.7 months in 2000 to 17.6 months in 2004 (data were not available for 2005),
and increased for youth ages 13 through 17 from 6.6 months in 2000 to 7.8 months in 2005.
Generally, teenagers were less likely to be adopted or placed with relatives as they got older and
were more likely to run away and exit by reaching the age of majority or some other pathway
such as independent living. With the exception of 17-year-olds, about the same share of teenagers
were reunified as children ages three to 12. One-third to 46% of youth ages 13 through 17 exited
to reunification. The balance of youth lived in an independent living arrangement or some other
arrangement (12.4% to 15.1% for each age 13 through 17), ran away (6.7% to 11.7%), lived with
a relative (5.1% to 8.4%), or reached the age of majority (0.9% to 23.9%). About two percent or
less of the teenagers were adopted.
7
Fred Wulczyn, Lijun Chen, Kristen Brunner Hislop, Foster Care Dynamics 2000-2005: A Report from the Multistate
Foster Care Data Archive, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
5
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Although older youth tend to have shorter spells in foster care, they are more likely to re-enter
care after their first exit. About 28% of youth who were discharged at ages 13 through 17 during
2000 to 2002 reentered care within one year, followed by infants, at 26%. Children ages one to
five were least likely to reenter care, at 15%.
Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly in Foster Care
Finally, data is available for those youth who were placed in out-of-home care and ultimately
exited via emancipation. The data on these youth demonstrate that they have experienced
challenges in transitioning to adulthood. This transition for all youth has becoming increasingly
complex. During this period, young people cycle between attending school, working, and living
independently. Many youth can rely on assistance from their families for financial and emotional
supports during the transition. 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.8 Parents also allow their
adult children to live with them9 and provide their children with non-material assistance, such as
help with obtaining a driver’s license, guidance on applying to college, advice on finances and
establishing a new household, and connections to other caring adults in their communities. For
older foster youth and those who have already aged out of care, this assistance is often not in
place. Being in care may inherently cause instability because of multiple out-of-home placements,
school transfers, and the challenge in maintaining relationships with parents and other kin. Youth
may experience further instability if they cannot afford to live on their own or are unable to live
with relatives or friends upon emancipation. In most states, youth may not remain in foster care
beyond age 18, a time when most young people explore educational and career options. (P.L. 110351 has authorized states to seek Title IV-E foster care reimbursement for youth ages 18 to 21, at
state option, beginning in FY2011.)
Research on the transition for former foster youth is limited and most of the studies on outcomes
for these youth face methodological challenges—they tend to be dated; include brief follow-up
periods (e.g., no more than a year after exit from care); have low response rates, nonrepresentative samples, and small sample sizes; and do not follow youth prior to exit from foster
care.10 Few studies include comparison groups to gauge how well these youth are transitioning to
adulthood, in relation to their peers in the foster care population or general population. However,
two studies—the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study and the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult
Functioning of Former Foster Youth—have tracked outcomes for a sample of youth across several
domains, either prospectively (following youth in care and as they age out) or retrospectively
8
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. 404-405. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
9
According to the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”), a nationally representative
survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time, approximately 41% of surveyed youth age 21 in the study’s third wave
(2001-2002) lived with their parents. See Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of
Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 21, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, December 2007,
p. 1, at http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355. (Hereafter referenced as Courtney et al., Midwest
Evaluation at Age 21.)
10
For a compendium of outcome studies and their methodologies, see 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, appendix. (Hereafter referenced as Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring, The Transition to
Adulthood for Youth “Aging Out” of the Foster Care System.”)
Congressional Research Service
6
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
(examining current outcomes for young adults who were in care at least a few years ago) and
comparing these outcomes to other groups of youth, either those who aged out and/or youth in the
general population.
Both studies indicate that youth who spent time in foster care during their teenage years tended to
have difficulty during the transition to adulthood and beyond. (The studies do not posit that foster
care, per se, is associated with the challenges former foster youth face in adulthood. In fact,
children tend to have a range of challenges upon entering care.11) The Midwest Evaluation has
examined the extent to which outcomes in early adulthood are influenced by the individual
characteristics of youth or their out-of-home care histories. The study found that still being in
care, as opposed to having left care, and having certain other characteristics (i.e., having
aspirations to graduate from college, feeling close to at least one family member, and expressing
satisfaction with their experience in foster care) more than doubled the odds of working or being
in school at age 19.12
The two reports exclude youth with developmental disabilities or severe mental illness that
precluded them from participating, as well as youth who were incarcerated or in a psychiatric
hospital.
Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study
Researchers with the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study interviewed and reviewed the case
files of 479 foster care youth who were in public or private foster care any time from 1988 to
1998 in Oregon or Washington.13 On average, they interviewed youth who were 24.2 years old,
with a range of 20 to 33 years old. The youth tended to be females (60% versus the 48% of
females in foster care nationally in FY201014); to have entered care as adolescents (11.1 years
versus 8.1 years for children entering care in FY2006; nearly 60% of the youth in the study were
age 12 and older at the time they entered care); and to have exited care between the ages of 15
and older (the mean age at exit was 18.5 years versus 9.6 years in FY2008 for foster youth
nationwide).15 Surveyed young adults experienced these outcomes even though most (83.6%)
reported having access to “a lot” of child welfare services and supports, and about eight out of ten
(81.5%) said that they felt loved while in care. These findings suggest that a confluence of
factors, including the reasons they entered care, family dynamics, and access to services and
11
Fred Wulczyn et al. Beyond Common Sense: Child Welfare, Child Well-Being, and the Evidence for Policy Reform
(New Brunswick: AldineTransaction, 2005), p. 116. (Hereafter referenced as Wulczyn et al., Beyond Common Sense.)
12
Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 19,
Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, May 2005, pp. 68-70, at http://www.chapinhall.org/
article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355.
13
Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study, Casey
Family Programs, 2005, at http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/ImprovingFamilyFosterCare_FR.pdf.
(Hereafter referenced as Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care.) See also Peter J. Pecora et al., What
Works in Foster Care?: Key Components of Success From the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study (Oxford, U.K.:
Oxford University Press, 2010).
14
U.S. Department of Health and Human, AFCARS Report #18.
15
These youth were placed in care prior to the enactment of the Foster Care Independence Act (P.L. 106-169) and most
entered care because of sexual abuse and other type of maltreatment, which is not a primary reason for most children
entering care (though the definition of sexual abuse in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ data
collection system for children in foster care is not identical to the definition in this study). For additional information
about the sample of youth, see pages 18 to 21 and 25 to 31 of the study.
Congressional Research Service
7
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
supports before and after care, among many other variables, have likely influenced how well they
function as adults.
The study compared the mental health status, educational attainment, and employment and
finances for the foster care alumni to those of the general population.
•
Mental health: Over 54% of foster care alumni had at least one mental health
problem (depression, social phobia, panic disorder, and post-traumatic stress
disorder, among others), compared to 22.1% of the general population.16 About
one quarter of the alumni experienced post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
This figure is greater than the prevalence of PTSD among Vietnam or Iraq war
veterans—about 15%. Alumni tended to have similar recovery rates as their
counterparts in the general population for major depression, panic syndrome, and
alcohol dependency, but lower rates of recovery for other disorders such as
generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, social phobia, and bulimia.
•
Education: While alumni have obtained a high school diploma or passed the
general education development (GED) test at the same rates as 25-to-34-yearolds generally (84.5% versus 87.3%), they are much less likely to have a
bachelor’s degree—1.8% versus 22.5% of all young people.
•
Employment and finances: One third of alumni reported living below the poverty
line, which is three times the national poverty rate. Further, almost 17% were
dependent on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), compared to
3% of the general population (although the high rate of participation in Oregon
and Washington could have been due, in part, to TANF rules in those states). The
alumni employment rate was 80%, while the general employment rate was 95%.
Other indicators show that alumni were not financially secure. One third lacked
health insurance (versus 18% of the general population) and 22% were homeless
at least one day during the year after they left foster care (versus 1% of the
general population who were homeless within the last year).
Midwest Evaluation on the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth
Few foster care alumni studies are prospective, meaning that they follow youth while in care
through the time they leave care and beyond. The Midwest Evaluation is an ongoing study that
tracks 600 or more (depending on the data collection wave) current and former foster youth in
three states—Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. All of the surveyed youth entered care prior to their
16th birthday.17 Surveyed youth responded to researcher questions about outcomes in three data
collection waves: at wave 1, when they were ages 17 and 18, at which time most were in care; at
wave 2 when they were age 19, at which time some remained in care; at wave 3, when they were
age 21 and no longer in care; and wave 4, when they were ages 23 and 24 and at least a couple of
years out of care. Of those who remained in care beyond age 18, all were in Illinois, the only state
16
In a nationally representative study of children ages 11 to 14 entering foster care, 56.1% had a clinical/borderline
score on the total problem behaviors checklist. Researchers often use this list as a proxy for mental health issues.
Wulczyn et al., Beyond Common Sense, p. 108.
17
Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation at Age 21.
Congressional Research Service
8
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
of the three that retains court jurisdiction of foster youth (with the youth’s permission) until age
21.18
At wave 1, about half to 70% of youth in care reported receiving any one category of independent
living services (educational services, employment/vocational support, budget and financial
management support, housing services, health education services, and youth development
services).19 At wave 2, not more than half of the youth in care reported receiving at least one
independent living service.20 At wave 3, receipt of services decreased for youth, regardless of
whether they remained in care. No more than approximately one third of the youth reported
receiving at least one independent living service.21
For youth in the fourth wave, their mean age was 24 years old and just over half (53.5%) were
female.22 Nearly one-quarter had left foster care within the previous two to three years; about
20% had left within the past three to four years; 10% had left within the past four to five years;
30% had left care in the past five to six years; and 17% had left care in the last six to seven years.
Most (54.5%) identified as African American, followed by white (29.9%), multiracial (5.8%), and
other races. Approximately 4% identified as Hispanic. More than two-thirds of youth (62.9%)
reported feeling lucky to have been placed in foster care, compared with 15% who neither agreed
nor disagreed with feeling lucky, and 22% who disagreed or strongly disagreed. Youth were also
asked whether they felt prepared to be self-sufficient. Over one-quarter said that they felt
somewhat prepared and 65.5% said they felt very prepared; the remaining 7% said they did not
feel very prepared or did not feel prepared at all. When they exited foster care years earlier, only
one-quarter had said they felt very prepared.
At ages 23 or 24, most youth reported strong family ties, with 94% having said that they felt
somewhat or very close to at least one biological family member. The greatest shares of youth
reported feeling very close to their siblings, followed by another relative (aunt, uncle, or cousin),
grandparent, biological mother, and biological father. The surveyed youth were most likely to be
in daily contact (in this order) with their siblings, biological mother, another relative, grandparent,
or biological father. Overall, most youth reported that they had social support, based on a 5-point
scale with 1 meaning that they had support none of the time and 5 meaning they had support most
of the time. The youth had a mean score of a 3.8.
18
Iowa amended its child welfare statute in 2006 to create a program that provides continuing support to foster youth
ages 18 to 21. The Iowa youth in the Midwest study were already too old to benefit from the program when it was
implemented.
19
Mark E. Courtney, Sherry Terao, and Noel Bost, Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Conditions of Youth Preparing to Leave State Care, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago,
May 2005, pp. 28-30, at http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355.
20
Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age19,
Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, and Partners for Our Children, University of Washington, May
2005, pp. 17-19, at http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355.
21
Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation at Age 21, pp. 22-25.
22
Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Ages 23
and 24, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, 2010, http://www.chapinhall.org/research/report/
midwest-evaluation-adult-functioning-former-foster-youth.
Congressional Research Service
9
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Emancipated Youth Compared to Youth in Care at Midwest Evaluation Wave 3
Findings from wave 3 of the Midwest Evaluation suggest that youth who remain in care as late as
age 20 tend to experience an easier transition to adulthood than their counterparts who
emancipate at age 18. The study found that the young adults from Illinois (who were more likely
to remain in care than youth in Wisconsin and Iowa) were almost two times as likely to have ever
attended college than their peers in the other two states; and were more likely to have higher
earnings and delayed pregnancy. See the last section of this report for further information.
Youth at Midwest Evaluation Wave 4 Compared to Youth Ages 23 and 24
Generally
For each of the four data collection waves, wherever possible, researchers asked the same
questions that were taken directly from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health
(“Add Health”), a nationally representative survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time.23 The
former foster youth surveyed at wave 4 in the Midwest Evaluation were less likely to have
attained a four-year college degree compared to the Add Health youth (2.5% versus 19.4%).
Youth in the Midwest evaluation who were not currently in school reported barriers to enrolling
or staying in school, including that they could not pay (39.9%), needed to work full-time (19.7%),
needed to care for a child (13.8%), or had no transportation (3.2%), among other reasons. While
youth formerly in care were almost as likely to report ever holding a job as Add Health youth
(94.7% versus 97.3%), a smaller share were currently employed (48.0% versus 75.5%) and they
had lower median hourly wages ($9.45 versus $12.00) and mean annual incomes ($8,000 versus
$18,300). About 47% of former foster youth reported having any savings or checking account,
compared to 85% of youth generally. A greater share of former foster youth did not have enough
money to pay rent (38.6%), compared to their counterparts in the Add Health survey (7.4%) and
were more likely to report having received food stamps (67.7% versus 7.2% for females; 26.8%
versus 1.5% for males).
Table A-1 in Appendix A presents the outcomes for youth surveyed in wave 4 and Add Health
participants surveyed at ages 23 and 24 across ten domains—living arrangements, educational
attainment, employment and income, economic hardships, health, sexual behavior and pregnancy,
relationships and family formation, involvement with the criminal justice system, transition to
adulthood, orientation to the future, and mentoring. Table A-1 indicates that at age 23, former
foster youth and youth generally shared some common characteristics, but that the former foster
youth experienced more negative educational and employment outcomes, among other outcomes.
In addition to assessing the outcomes of youth at ages 23 and 24, the Midwest researchers have
classified these youth into four subgroups, based on their similar characteristics across multiple
indicators.24 The profiles of the youth vary based on their living arrangements, educational
attainment, and current employment status; whether they have children and whether they live
23
The Add Health sampled young adults from across the country, the majority (about 75%) of whom were white. Data
from the Add Health survey were collected six to seven years before wave 4 of the Midwest Evaluation. As a result,
data on earnings and income have been adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for comparison purposes.
24
Mark E. Courtney, Jennifer L. Hook, and JoAnn S. Lee, Distinct Subgroups of Former Foster Youth During Young
Adulthood: Implications for Policy and Practice, University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children and
University of Washington, Partners for Our Children, March 2010, http://www.chapinhall.org/research/brief/distinctsubgroups-former-foster-youth-during-young-adulthood-implications.
Congressional Research Service
10
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
with their children; and whether they have been convicted of a crime since leaving care. The
alumni were categorized as follows:
•
Accelerated adults: The highest percentage of youth (36.3%) were classified
under this category. These youth were most likely to live on their own in a fairly
stable situation (83.5%). Almost all had a high school diploma and over half had
attended some college (54.3%). Three quarters were employed (74.8%). About
half had children (51.9%), and they reported one of the lowest rates of criminal
conviction (13.7%) relative to the other groups. Although these youth were
generally high functioning, about one-third had been homeless or couch surfed
and over one-third receive food stamps at age 23 or 24.
•
Struggling parents: Nearly one out of four youth were categorized as struggling
parents. They tended to live on their own (45.6%) or with relatives or friends
(44.2%), and to have obtained a high school diploma (52.4%). Few (3.4%) were
attending college (3.4%). Nearly all had children (98.0%), most of whom lived
with them. Most were unemployed (74.5%) and most had not been convicted of a
crime since leaving care (85.3%).
•
Emerging adults: Emerging adults comprised 21.1% of the sample. All lived with
relatives, friends, or others. Almost half had attended some college (45.5%) and
just over one-third were currently employed (36.6%). Most did not have children
(73.2%) and almost none had been convicted of a crime since leaving care
(94.3%).
•
Troubled and troubling: Nearly one out of five (17.5%) of youth were
categorized as troubled and troubling. The majority of the group had lived in
multiple placements, were in jail or a treatment program, or had an unstable
living situation (71.6%). Four out of 10 did not have a high school diploma, but
most were employed (90.2%). About one out of five of the youth had been
convicted of a crime since leaving care (17.6%).
Resiliency of Current and Former Foster Youth
Despite the generally negative findings from the two major evaluations on youth aging out of
foster care, many youth have demonstrated resiliency by overcoming obstacles, such as limited
family support and financial resources, and meeting their goals. As mentioned above, youth in the
Northwest Evaluation have obtained a high school diploma or passed the general education
development (GED) test at close to the same rates as 25-to-34-year-olds generally (84.5% versus
87.3%). Further, youth in the third wave of the Midwest Evaluation were just as likely as the
general youth population to report being hopeful about their future. (See Table A-1.) Over onethird of the youth have been classified as fairly high functioning because they are attached to
work or school and live on their own.
Current and former foster youth are also working to make improvements to the child welfare
system. At hearings in the 110th Congress that focused on older youth in foster care, these young
people highlighted their struggles, successes, and their advocacy work on behalf of foster
children. At a February 27, 2008 hearing before the Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Income
Security and Family Support, a foster care alumni chronicled her life in care with 11 placements
through her recent graduation from college. In her testimony, she urged Congress to improve
conditions for children in foster care:
Congressional Research Service
11
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
I have accomplished a lot, but it is in spite of all of the uncertainty I experienced in foster
care—not because of it. I want something better for the youth who are currently in the foster
care system. I want them to have families to love and protect them and homes they know
they can always return to. I want them to leave foster care to live with a family, a relative—
someone who will be permanent in their lives. I do not want the youth currently in foster care
to age-out of foster care with no family and no one to turn to for help or support.... Congress
has the power to do something, and I ask you on behalf of all of my brothers and sisters who
cannot be sitting here with me to do something now.25
The next section of this report describes the federal services and supports available to youth in
foster care, and demonstrates how some states have varied in their approaches to serving older
foster youth and youth who have recently emancipated from care.
Overview of Federal Child Welfare Support for
Foster Youth
Historically, states have been primarily responsible for providing child welfare services to
families and children that need them. While in out-of-home foster care, the state child welfare
agency, under the supervision of the court (and in consultation with the parents or primary
caretakers in some cases), serves as the child’s parent and makes decisions on his or her behalf
that are to promote his or her safety, permanence, and well-being.
Safety refers to the state child welfare system’s goal of ensuring that children in foster care are
protected from further abuse or neglect. Permanence refers to the state’s goal of ensuring that
children do not spend too many of their formative years in a foster care placement, and that the
state either returns them to their families quickly and safely or quickly finds another safe and
permanent home for them. Well-being is inextricably linked to safety and permanency. The term
refers to efforts by the child welfare system to promote positive outcomes for children in care,
including education and physical and mental health outcomes, as well as supportive families. In
most cases, the state relies on public and private entities and organizations to provide these
services. The federal government plays a role in shaping state child welfare systems by providing
funds and linking those funds to certain requirements.
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act provides foster care, case planning, and services to older
foster youth. Title IV-E foster care authorizes federal funding for eligible children, and requires
states to follow certain case planning and management practices for all children in care (Section
472). The Chafee Foster Care Independence program authorizes funding for states to provide
independent living services to older foster youth and those who have emancipated from care
(Section 477). Both programs are discussed below.
25
U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, “Hearing
on Improving the Child Welfare System,” February 27, 2008, available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=612.
Congressional Research Service
12
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Federal Foster Care
Federal support for foster care preceded, by several decades, the 1980 (P.L. 96-272) creation of
Title IV-E foster care under the Social Security Act. However, the 1980 law established this
support as an independent funding source for states to provide foster homes for children in foster
care. The law also stressed the importance of case planning and review to achieve permanence for
foster children.
Case Planning and Review
Federal child welfare provisions under Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act
require state child welfare agencies, as a condition of receiving funding under these titles, to
provide certain case management services to all children in foster care. These include monthly
case worker visits to each child in foster care (Section 422(b)(17)); a written case plan for each
child in care that documents the child’s placement and steps taken to ensure their safety and wellbeing, including by addressing their health and educational needs (Section 475(1)); and
procedures ensuring a case review is conducted not less often than every six months by a judge or
an administrative review panel, and at least once every 12 months by a judge who must consider
the child’s permanency plan (Section 475(5)). Specific case plan and case review procedures
pertain to older youth in care. For a child age 16 or older, the written case plan must also include
a description of the programs and services that will help the child prepare for the transition to
independent living (Section 475(1)(D)). Permanency plan hearings, which are to be conducted at
least once a year after a child enters care, must consider for children age 16 and older, the
services needed to assist them transition to independent living (Section 475(5)(C)). Further, the
court or administrative body conducting the hearings is to consult, in an age-appropriate manner,
with the child regarding the proposed permanency or transition plan for the child (Section
475(5)(C)).
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 added requirements
about a transition plan for older youth. The law requires that a youth’s caseworker, and as
appropriate, other representative(s) of the youth, assist and support him or her in developing a
transition plan. The plan is to be directed by the youth, and is to include specific options on
housing, health insurance, education, local opportunities for mentors, workforce supports, and
employment services. The plan must be implemented 90 days prior to a youth’s 18th birthday (or
the 19th, 20th, or 21st birthdays of youth in states that take up the option to extend foster care),
“whether during that period foster care maintenance payments are being made on the child’s
behalf or the child is receiving benefits or services under [the Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program].”
The new health care reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148),
adds another element to the transition plan. The law requires that the plan addresses the
importance of designating another individual to make health care treatment decisions on behalf of
the youth if he or she becomes unable to participate in these decisions and does not have a
relative who would be authorized to make these decisions under state law, or he or she does not
want a relative to make those decisions. In addition, the transition plan must provide the youth
with the option to execute a health care power of attorney, health care proxy, or other similar
document recognized under state law. As part of program instructions issued by HHS on June 7,
2010, concerning implementation of PPACA, states and tribes that have submitted a Title IV-E
plan or have been approved to operate a Title IV-E program must submit, by December 31, 2010,
Congressional Research Service
13
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
a Title IV-E amendment that reflects implementation of, and compliance with, the new
requirement.26
Program instructions issued by HHS in July 2010 provide additional guidance on the transition
plan.27 The instructions encourage child welfare agencies to use the plan to build on earlier efforts
to help young people make the transition from foster care, including through the case planning
process and permanency hearings. Child welfare agencies are encouraged to begin engaging
youth in the transition plan process “well in advance” of the 90-day period.
Title IV-E Reimbursement for Foster Care
Title IV-E currently reimburses states for a part of the cost of providing foster care to eligible
children and youth, who, because of abuse or neglect (or some other reason), cannot remain in
their own homes and for whom a court has consequently given care and placement responsibility
to the state. Under this program, a state may seek partial federal reimbursement to “cover the cost
of (and the cost of providing) food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, a child’s
personal incidentals, liability insurance with respect to a child, and reasonable travel to the child’s
home for visitation” (Section 475(4)). States may also seek reimbursement for related costs of
administration, child placement (e.g., case planning), training, and data collection.
Under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (see below), states must certify that they
will use Title IV-E foster care program funding (and Adoption Assistance program funding) to
provide training relevant to foster parents and others (adoptive parents, workers in group homes,
and case managers) to help them understand and address the issues confronting adolescents
preparing for independent living and coordinating this training, where possible, with independent
living programs.28 Although case planning and review procedures (described above) apply to all
foster children in state care, federal reimbursement to states under Title IV-E may be made only
on behalf of a child who meets multiple federal eligibility criteria (Section 472), including those
related to the child’s removal and the income and assets of the child’s family. For purposes of this
report, the most significant eligibility criteria for the federal foster care program are the child’s
age and placement setting.
Eligibility
Prior to FY2011, once a child reached his or her 18th birthday, he or she was no longer eligible for
federal foster care assistance. The age limitation on Title IV-E eligibility was created by the
program’s eligibility link to the now-defunct Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
program.29 Children qualified as dependents under the AFDC program until age 18. As was the
26
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children Youth and Families, Administration for
Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Program Instruction: Public Law (P.L.) 111-148, the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, June 7, 2010, ACYF-CB-PI-10-10, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/
2010/pi1010.htm.
27
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children Youth and Families, Administration for
Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Program Instruction: Guidance on Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, ACYF-CB-PI-10-11, July 9, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/
laws_policies/policy/pi/2010/pi1011.htm.
28
Section 477(b)(3)(D).
29
For additional information, see Section 8.3A, Question 2 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual.
Congressional Research Service
14
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
case with AFDC, federal law permitted states to make continued claims for otherwise eligible
foster youth until their 19th birthday provided that the youth was a full-time student and was
expected to complete high school or an equivalent training program by age 19. States must have
elected this option in its definition of “child” for purposes of the state’s AFDC program.
Pursuant to P.L. 110-351, states have the option, as of FY2011, to seek reimbursement for the cost
of providing foster care to eligible youth until age 19, 20, or 21. The law makes this change by
inserting a definition of “child” as it pertains to older youth in care. This definition specifies that a
state may seek reimbursement for a youth age 18 or older who is (1) completing high school or a
program leading to an equivalent credential; (2) enrolled in an institution that provides postsecondary or vocational education; (3) participating in a program or activity designed to promote,
or remove barriers to, employment; or (4) employed at least 80 hours per month (i.e., part-time).
States may exempt youth from these requirements due to a medical condition, as documented and
updated in their case plan.
In its July 2010 program guidance, HHS advises that states and tribes can make remaining in care
conditional upon whether youth pursue certain educational or employment pathways. For
example, extended care could be provided just to those youth enrolled in post-secondary
education. Still, the guidance advises that states and tribes should “consider how [they] can
provide extended assistance to youth age 18 and older to the broadest population possible
consistent with the law to ensure that there are ample supports for older youth.” As of mid-April
2011, 11 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska,
New York, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia amended their Title
IV-E state plans to extend the maximum age of foster care.30 HHS approved plans for three
states—Alabama, Illinois, and Maryland—and was reviewing plans for the other states and DC.
All but two of the states (and DC) that submitted IV-E amendments to extend care, Tennessee and
West Virginia, would allow youth to remain in care under the four conditions listed above and
would exempt youth from these conditions if a youth is incapable of meeting them for medical
reasons. Tennessee would only allow youth to remain in care if they are completing high school
or a program leading to an equivalent credential, or are enrolled in an institution that provides
post-secondary or vocational education. West Virginia would allow youth to remain in care if they
met the two education-related requirements or were participating in a program or activity to
remove barriers to employment.
In states that extend foster care, youth ages 18 or older who emancipate from foster care may later
determine, prior to their state’s optional older age, that they would like to return to care because
of the challenges they face living on their own, or for other reasons. The July 2010 program
instructions issued by HHS permit states and tribes to extend foster care assistance in a way that
permits a youth to stay in care continuously or “leave care and return at some point after attaining
age 18” (up to age 19, 20, or 21, depending on the state) so long as the original court order
remains in effect and other IV-E eligibility criteria are satisfied. It appears that in at least a small
number of states, youth are already permitted to reenter care.
30
This information is based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s
Bureau, April 2011.
Congressional Research Service
15
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
P.L. 110-351 also authorizes states, for the first time, to provide Title IV-E subsidies on behalf of
youth 18 or older (until age 19, 20, or 21, at the state’s option) who left foster care after age 16 for
adoption or kinship guardianship, and meet the criteria listed above. This change was made by
adding a definition of “child” as it relates to these youth.
Eligible Placement Setting
Until FY2011, federal reimbursement of part of the costs of maintaining children in foster care
could be sought only for children placed in foster family homes or child care institutions. As
mentioned above, states now have the option of seeking federal maintenance payments to support
youth remaining in care up to age 20. States that take up the option are permitted to claim
reimbursement for youth placed in a “supervised setting in which the individual is living
independently.” The act directs HHS to establish in regulation what qualifies as such a setting. As
part of the July 2010 program instructions issued by HHS, the department stated that it does not
have plans “at this time” to issue “forthcoming regulations” that describe the kinds of living
arrangements considered to be independent living settings, how these settings should be
supervised, or any other conditions for a young person to live independently. The instructions
advise that states and tribes have the discretion to develop a range of supervised independent
living settings that “can be reasonably interpreted as consistent with the law, including whether or
not such settings need to be licensed and any safety protocols that may be needed.”
States may not seek federal reimbursement of foster care costs for children who are in “detention
facilities, forestry camps, training schools, or any other facility operated primarily for the
detention of children who are determined to be delinquent.”31
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
A second Title IV-E program, the Chafee Foster Care Independence program (CFCIP), provides
services to older youth in foster care and youth transitioning out of care.32
Overview
The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-169) replaced the prior law Independent
Living Program, established in 1985, with the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program. The 1999 law doubled the annual funds available to states for independent living
services from $70 million to $140 million. Youth served include those who are expected to leave
foster care because they have not been placed in a permanent family before reaching the state’s
legal age of majority and those who have emancipated from care (until age 21). As enacted by
P.L. 106-169, the purposes of the program are to—(1) identify youth who are likely to remain in
foster care until age 18 and provide them with support services to help make the transition to self
sufficiency; (2) assist these youth to obtain employment and prepare for and enter college or other
postsecondary training or educational institutions; (3) provide personal and emotional support to
youth aging out of foster care through mentors and other dedicated adults; (4) enhance the efforts
of former foster youth ages 18 to 21 to achieve self sufficiency through supports that connect
31
32
Section 472(c) of the Social Security Act.
See Appendix E for proposed legislative changes to the CFCIP.
Congressional Research Service
16
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
them to employment, education, housing, and other services; and (5) assure that youth receiving
services recognize and accept personal responsibility for preparing for and then making the
transition from adolescence to adulthood. As discussed below, the law has been amended twice to
expand the purposes of the CFCIP and to create a new Education and Training Voucher program
for eligible youth.
CFCIP-funded 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 to 21, including for those youth enrolled in an
institution of higher education or who remain in foster care in states that provide care to youth
until ages 19, 20, or 21.33 Room and board are not defined in statute, but typically include food
and shelter, and may include rental deposits, rent, utilities, and the cost of household startup
purchases. CFCIP funds may not be used to acquire property to provide housing to current or
former foster youth.34 The act also required that youth in the program be actively involved in
decisions about the services they receive.
In addition, the law changed the amount of earnings or other resources that foster youth may
accumulate to assist in their transition to independent living. Eligibility for foster care
maintenance payments under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act is based on whether the
children’s original families would qualify for AFDC, as it was in effect on July 16, 1996. Under
those rules, children could not remain eligible for Title IV-E services if they accumulated assets
of more than $1,000. P.L. 106-169, however, changed this asset limit to $10,000. The act also
encouraged states to provide Medicaid coverage to youth ages 18, 19, and 20 who have
emancipated from foster care by authorizing a new Medicaid eligibility pathway for “independent
foster care adolescents,” commonly called the “Chafee option” (see section on Medicaid in
“Other Federal Support” below, which also describes a new mandatory Medicaid pathway for
certain eligible youth who leave foster care). In 2002 (P.L. 107-133), discretionary funds—up to
$60 million annually—were authorized for eligible current and former foster care youth to
receive education and training vouchers.
Legislative History
The CFCIP is the successor to earlier efforts by Congress to better support the transition of youth
from foster care to independent living. In 1985, Congress established the Independent Living
Program (ILP), under a new section 477 of the Social Security Act, in response to several surveys
showing that significant number of individuals who used homeless shelters had been recently
discharged from foster care. The ILP awarded grants to states to provide services that would
prepare youth to live independently outside of the child welfare system. Youth ages 16 to 18 who
met the eligibility criteria of Title IV-E qualified for ILP services. In 1988 (P.L. 100-647), ILP
eligibility was expanded to include children ages 16 to18 in foster care, regardless of their federal
Title IV-E eligibility. The 1988 law also permitted states to use ILP funds to serve certain youth
for six months after their emancipation from foster care. In 1990, P.L. 101-508 gave states the
option of providing independent living services to any youth up to age 21 who had emancipated
from care. In 1993 (P.L. 103-66), Congress permanently authorized funding for the program at
$70 million annually.
33
34
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1G, Questions 1 and 4.
Ibid, Section 3.1G, Questions 1 and 3.
Congressional Research Service
17
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Since the CFCIP was established in 1999 under P.L. 106-169, the program has been amended
three times. In 2002, P.L. 107-133 authorized additional funding to provide education and training
vouchers to youth who age out of foster care and youth who are adopted from care at age 16 or
older. In 2008, P.L. 110-351 expanded eligibility for the program by adding as an additional
program purpose that youth who are in foster care on their 16th birthday but who subsequently
leave care for adoption or kinship are eligible for CFCIP services. The law also extended the ETV
program to youth who leave care at age 16 or older for kinship guardianship; and made tribal
entities eligible to apply directly for CFCIP and ETV funds directly from the federal government.
In 2010, the program was amended for a third time by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act to require states to make assurances about educating young people aging out about a health
care power of attorney and assisting the youth with executing the power of attorney.
Eligibility for CFCIP Benefits and Services
The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 required states to ensure that independent living
programs serve children of “various ages and various stages of achieving independence” and use
objective criteria for determining eligibility for benefits and services under the program. The act
further specified that states are to provide services under the CFCIP for children who are “likely
to remain in foster care until 18 years of age” or are “aging out of foster care.” It also addressed
the responsibilities of the states to consult with American Indian tribes and provide services to
tribal youth. Foster youth who are in runaway status or lose contact with their child welfare
agency continue to be under the custody of the state, and therefore, are eligible for services upon
returning. Those youth in care who have been adjudicated through the juvenile justice system are
eligible for CFCIP services as long as they are not in a detention or related facility.35 (The
juvenile corrections facility is responsible for all services for foster youth who are confined in a
locked setting.) Finally, foster children who are not citizens may be eligible for CFCIP services
while under state custody.
The Foster Care Independence Act further requires states to provide certain services to youth who
meet specific age and other criteria. States may provide room and board with CFCIP funds and
Medicaid through the Chafee pathway (see below for further information) only to those youth
who are eligible for CFCIP services. Youth are eligible for an education and training voucher
(until age 23) if they emancipate from care or were adopted from care at age 16 or older.
However, to be eligible for a voucher at age 22 or 23, they must have received one at age 21.
Youth Likely to Remain in Foster Care Until Age 18
Under the former ILP, states could provide services to current foster youth ages 16 and 17 who
were eligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments, or to “other children in care,”
regardless of Title IV-E status. P.L. 106-169 removed reference to a minimum eligibility age and
required states to provide supports to children “likely to remain in foster care” until age 18. This
phrase is not defined in the act, and states are to create eligibility standards using objective
criteria. States can provide services to any child age 17 and younger regardless of their placement
in a kinship care home, family foster home, pre-adoptive home, or any other state-sanctioned
placement so long as the child is in state custody. HHS’s Child Welfare Policy Manual requires
35
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.4, Question 5.
Congressional Research Service
18
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
states that place children in foster care settings in other states to fund independent living services
for foster youth ages 16 to 18 regardless of their placement in another state.36
According to the National Foster Care Coalition, a child welfare advocacy organization, many
states have developed indicators to help determine the likelihood that a child will remain in care
until his or her 18th birthday.37 For example, Louisiana determines a child’s eligibility for
independent living services by reviewing his or her case history, presenting problems, and
individual case goals. Kentucky and Alaska require that services be provided concurrently with
permanency planning for young people over the age of 14. Alaska further defines the level of
such services that should be provided at age 14 and older.
A 2008 survey of independent living coordinators in 45 states (including the District of
Columbia) by the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago found that in
about half of the states (24, 53.3%), youth as young as age 14 are eligible for CFCIP-funded
services. Seven states provide these services at a younger age, while 13 provide services at an
older age. One state said that the age depends on the county, and another state did not report on
the minimum age for services.38 Nearly all (40) of the surveyed states reported that foster youth
are eligible for CFCIP-funded services regardless of their permanency plan. Further, nearly half
of the states (22) said that young people who are placed with a permanent legal guardian are
ineligible or are eligible under certain circumstances.
Permanency Planning
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA, P.L. 105-89) amended the Social Security
Act at Section 475(5), which required that all young people in foster care have a permanency
plan. ASFA established that, in addition to reunification, adoption, placement with a relative, and
legal guardianship, “another planned permanent living arrangement” (APPLA) is specified as a
permanency option, and may include independent living. While the CFCIP is intended to expand
independent living services for older youth in foster care, Section 477 of the act encourages states
to continue their efforts to achieve permanency for a young person, including by specifying that
states should continue to locate and achieve placement in adoptive families for older youth in
care. In his introductory remarks about the Senate version of P.L. 106-169 (S. 1327), Senator Jay
Rockefeller described the intent of the legislation:
“[A] youth’s need for a family does not end at any particular age. Each of us can clearly
recall times when we have had to turn to our own families for advice, comfort, or support
long after our 18th or 21st birthdays. Many of us are still in the role of providing such support
to our own children who are in their late teens or 20s. Therefore, an important provision in
36
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1F, Question 2.
National Foster Care Awareness Project, Frequently Asked Questions II: About the Foster Care Independence Act of
1999 and the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, December 2000, p.16, at http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/
yd/programs/pdfs/faq2_final.pdf. (Hereafter referenced as National Foster Care Awareness Project, Frequently Asked
Questions II.) Some of the members of the National Foster Care Awareness Project, which no longer exists, are now
members of the National Foster Care Coalition. The National Foster Care Coalition produced the Frequently Asked
Questions III publication about the program.
38
Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2009, pp. 7-8, at
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=08-12-3903. (Hereafter referenced as Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek,
Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning Out of Foster Care.)
37
Congressional Research Service
19
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
this Senate version of the Foster Care Independence Act states that Independent Living (IL)
programs are not alternatives to permanency planning-young people of all ages need and
deserve every possible effort made towards permanence, including adoption.”39
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care
Prior to the enactment of the CFCIP, states had the option to serve young people who had
emancipated from care until age 21. The Foster Care Independence Act requires states that
receive CFCIP funds to provide independent living services to youth who have aged out of care
between the ages of 18 through 21. According to HHS’s Child Welfare Policy Manual, this
requirement does not preclude states from providing services to other former foster care youth
ages 18 to 21 who exited care prior to their eighteenth birthday.40 The 2008 Chapin Hall survey of
45 states found that than half of the states (19; 42.2%) reported that former foster youth are
eligible for aftercare services if they were not in care on their eighteenth birthday. Slightly more
states (about 21) reported that these youth could receive services if their discharge outcome was
reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship.
Former foster youth continue to remain eligible for aftercare services until age 21 if they move to
another state. The state in which the former foster youth resides—whether or not the youth was in
foster care in that state—is responsible for providing independent living services to the eligible
young person.41 Separately, several states have developed recommitment policies for youth who
have been discharged from care that specify a time limit in which they may be eligible for
services. Under such a policy, youth who turn age 18 while in runaway status may reenter care to
receive services.42
American Indian Youth
The prior federal Independent Living Program did not specify that states consult with American
Indian tribes or serve Indian youth in particular. P.L. 106-169 required that under the CFCIP,
states must certify that each federally recognized Indian tribal organization in the state has been
consulted about the state’s independent living programs and that there have been efforts to
coordinate the programs with these tribes.43 In addition, P.L. 106-169 provides that the “benefits
and services under the programs are to be made available to Indian children in the state on the
same basis as to other children in the state.” “On the same basis” has been interpreted by HHS to
mean that the state will provide program services equitably to children in both state custody and
tribal custody.44 The importance of tribal involvement was explained by Representative J.D.
Hayworth during debate of the House version of P.L. 106-169 (H.R. 1802) in June 1999, when he
said that tribes are in the best position to identify the needs of tribal youth and local resources
available for these young people.45
39
U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, July 1, 1999, p. S8124.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1B, Question 2.
41
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1F, Question 3.
42
National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 9.
43
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1I, Question 4.
44
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1I, Question 5.
45
U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, June 25, 1999, p. H4969.
40
Congressional Research Service
20
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
P.L. 110-351 added and modified provisions in the CFCIP pertaining to Indian youth. As of
FY2010, the law permits an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium that receives
direct funding from HHS to provide child welfare services or enters into a cooperative agreement
or contract with the state to provide foster care, to apply for and receive an allotment of CFCIP
and ETV funds directly from HHS. To be eligible, a tribal entity must be receiving Title IV-E
funds to operate a foster care program (under a Title IV-E plan approved by HHS or via a
cooperative agreement or contract with the state). Successful tribal applicants are to receive an
allotment amount(s) out of the state’s allotment for the program(s) based on the share of all
children in foster care in the state under the custody of the tribal entity. Tribal entities must satisfy
the CFCIP program requirements established for states, as HHS determines appropriate, and they
must submit a plan to HHS that details their process for consulting with the state about their
independent living or ETV programs, among other information. For example, in their state plans,
tribal entities must discuss the process for consulting with the state to ensure that tribal youth who
previously received independent living services through the state will continue to receive the
same services through the tribal entity.
The law also requires that as of FY2010, a state must certify that it will negotiate in good faith
with any tribal entity that does not receive a direct federal allotment of child welfare funds, but
would like to enter into an agreement or contract with the state to receive funds for administering,
supervising, or overseeing CFCIP and ETV programs for eligible Indian children under the tribal
entity’s authority.
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development Survey of Tribal
Consultation and Independent Living Services
In 2007, the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development reviewed select
parts of five-year state child welfare plans, known as the Child and Family Service Plan, to
determine the extent to which (1) states have consulted tribes and involved tribal officials in the
development of independent living programs and (2) tribal youth have accessed independent
living services.46 Based on a review of these five-year child welfare plans for 28 states, the
NCWRCYD determined that the plans provided limited information about tribal consultation. In
one-third of the plans, states did not provide a response about consulting tribes. (States may have
provided this information in other parts of the plans that were not reviewed and/or may have in
fact consulted widely with tribes.) However, some of the state plans detailed their consultation
process with tribal entities. The NCWRCYD also reviewed annual child welfare progress reports
(known as Annual Progress and Service Reports, which update the five-year plans) and found that
39 states reported consulting with tribes, but that only four states elaborated with additional
information.
The Role of Youth Participants
Section 477 of the Social Security Act requires that states ensure youth in independent living
programs participate directly in designing their own program activities that prepare them for
46
University of Oklahoma, National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development, Tribal Youth
Transitioning to Adulthood: Current Status of Independent Living Services Provided to Indian Youth, November 2007.
The NCWRCYD reviewed at least one of the following documents for each state: Child and Family Service Plans
(CFSP) for FY2005-FY2009 and Annual Progress and Service Reports (ASPR) for FY2005 and FY2006.
Congressional Research Service
21
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
independent living and further that they “accept personal responsibility for living up to their part
of the program.” This language builds on the positive youth development approach to serving
youth.47 Youth advocates that support this approach view youth as assets and promote the idea
that youth should be engaged in decisions about their lives and communities.
States have also taken various approaches to involving young people in decisions about the
services they receive. These include annual conferences, with young people involved in
conference planning and participation; youth speakers’ bureaus, with young people trained and
skilled in public speaking; youth or alumni assisting in the recruitment of foster and adoptive
parents; and young people serving as mentors for children and youth in foster care, among other
activities.48 Some states have also established formal youth advisory boards to provide a forum
for youth to become involved in issues facing youth in care and aging out of care.49 Youth-serving
organizations for current and former foster youth, such as Foster Club, provide an outlet for
young people to become involved in the larger foster care community and advocate for other
children in care. States are not required to utilize life skills assessments or personal responsibility
contracts with youth to comply with the youth participation requirement, although some states use
these tools to assist youth make the transition to adulthood.50
Program Administration
States administer their independent living programs in a few ways. Some programs are overseen
by the state independent living office, which employs an independent living coordinator and other
staff. For example, in Maine, the state’s independent living manager oversees six specialized life
skills education coordinators assigned to cover all of the state’s district offices for the Department
of Health and Human Services. In some states, like California, each county (or other jurisdiction)
administers its own program with some oversight and support from a statewide program. Other
states, including Florida, use contracted service providers to administer their programs. Many
jurisdictions have partnered with private organizations to help fund and sometimes administer
some aspect of their independent living programs. For example, the Jim Casey Youth
Opportunities Initiative has provided funding and technical assistance to multiple cities to provide
financial support and training to youth exiting care.51
Education and Training Vouchers
As mentioned above, in 2002, Congress passed legislation (P.L. 107-133) to authorize
discretionary funding to eligible current and former foster care youth for education and training
vouchers worth up to $5,000 annually per youth (states may determine the annual period to which
to apply the $5,000 ceiling52). Youth qualify for a voucher if they are eligible for CFCIP services
or were adopted from foster care after 16 years of age. (Youth are eligible if they are ages 18 to
47
For additional information about the positive youth development movement in youth policy, see CRS Report
RL33975, Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
48
National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions II, pp. 30-31.
49
For a list of jurisdictions with youth advisory boards, see http://groups.fosterclub.com/.
50
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1A, Question 1.
51
For further information about the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, see http://www.jimcaseyyouth.org/
communities.htm.
52
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.5C, Question 7.
Congressional Research Service
22
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
21 who have left foster care because they have aged out; youth likely to remain in foster care until
age 18, as determined by the state; and former foster care recipients age 21 and younger, as
determined by the state.) In 2008, P.L. 110-351 extended the ETV program to youth who leave
foster care at age 16 or older for kinship guardianship.
The vouchers are available for the cost of full-time or part-time attendance at an institution of
higher education, as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.53 (ETV funds may be used to
pay for health insurance, which may cover mental health services; but they may not be used to
pay directly for a doctor’s visit or dental insurance.54) A current fiscal year’s ETV funds may not
be used to finance a youth’s educational or vocational loans incurred prior to that current fiscal
year.55 Students may receive the vouchers if they are in good standing and making progress
toward completing their program or graduating, though states may have additional requirements
such as periodically meeting with a caseworker or limiting the funding to a certain number of
semesters.56 Only youth receiving a voucher at age 21 may continue to participate in the voucher
program until age 23.
Funding received through the ETV program does not count toward the student’s expected family
contribution, which is used by the federal government to determine a student’s need for federal
financial aid (even for those students who are classified as independent, meaning that their
parental financial information is not included in the financial aid analysis). However, the total
amount of education assistance provided under the CFCIP and other federal programs may not
exceed the total cost of attendance, and students cannot claim the same education expenses under
multiple federal programs.
Program Administration
States and counties may use ETV dollars to fund the vouchers and the costs associated with
administering the program, including for salaries, expenses, and training of staff who administer
the state’s voucher program. States are not permitted to use Title IV-E Foster Care or Adoption
Assistance program funds for administering the ETV program.57 They may, however, spend
additional funds from state sources or other sources to supplement the ETV program or use ETV
funds to expand existing post-secondary funding programs.58 Several states have scholarship
53
Section 472 of the Higher Education Act, as amended defines “cost of attendance” as tuition, fees, and other
equipment or materials required of all students in the same course of study; books, supplies, and allowance for
transportation and miscellaneous personal expenses, including computers; room and board; child care expenses for a
student who is a parent; accommodations related to the student’s disability that is not paid for by another source;
expenses related to the youth’s work experience in a cooperative education program; and student loan fees or insurance
premiums on the loans. Section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended identifies “institutions of higher
education” for purposes of student assistance (under Title IV of the Higher Education Act) to include traditional higher
education institutions (i.e., public or private, nonprofit two- and four-year colleges and universities) as well as other
postsecondary institutions (i.e., proprietary or for-profit schools offering technical training programs usually of less
than two-years’ duration, and vocational schools).
54
National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 12.
55
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.5C, Question 5.
56
National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 7.
57
Ibid, Section 3.5C, Question 5.
58
Ibid, Section 3.5C, Question 6.
Congressional Research Service
23
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
programs, tuition waivers, and grants for current and former foster youth that are funded through
other sources.59
Generally, states administer their ETV program through their independent living program. Some
states, however, administer the program through their financial aid office (e.g., California Student
Aid Commission) or at the local level (e.g., Florida, where all child welfare programs are
administered through community-based agencies). Some states contract with a non-profit service
provider, such as the Orphan Foundation of America or the Student Assistance Foundation.
Youth Enrolled in the Program
Youth may enroll in the program if they are in care or have aged out of care. The state with the
placement and responsibility for a youth in foster care is to provide the voucher to that youth. The
state must also provide a voucher to any youth who is currently receiving a voucher and moves to
another state for the sole purpose of attending an institution of higher education.60 If a youth
permanently moves to another state after leaving care and subsequently enrolls in a qualified
institution of higher education, he or she can apply for a voucher in his or her current state of
residence.61
HHS’s Administration for Children and Families reported that states provided vouchers to 11,365
youth in FY2006; 12,692 youth in FY2007; 16,700 youth in FY2008; and 16,600 youth in
FY2009 under the Education and Training Voucher program (these are the most recent data
available and do not include all states).62
Funding for States
States must provide a 20% match (in-kind or cash) to receive their full federal CFCIP and ETV
allotment. CFCIP funds are often mixed with state, local, and other funding sources to provide a
system of support for youth likely to age out of care and those who have emancipated. To be
eligible for CFCIP general and ETV funds, a state must submit a five-year plan (as part of what is
known as the Child and Family Service Plan (CFSP) and Annual Progress and Service Report
(APSR), discussed below) to HHS that describes how it intends to carry out its independent living
program, including how it involves the public and private sectors to do so. Among other things, a
state must ensure in the plan that CFCIP services are available statewide (although services do not
have to be identical in all places), that the program serves children of various ages and stages of
achieving independence, and that it uses objective criteria to determine eligibility for, and receipt
of, CFCIP services. P.L. 110-351 added the requirement that states must ensure that eligible youth
59
For example, see National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, State Policies to Help Youth Transition
Out of Foster Care, Issue Brief, December 2007. (Hereafter referenced as National Governors Association, State
Policies to Help Youth Transition Out of Foster Care.) See also, Liliana Hernandez and Toni Naccarato, “Scholarships
and Supports Available to Foster Care Alumni: A Study of 12 Programs Across the U.S.,” Children and Youth Services
Review, vol. 32, no. 5 (May 2010), pp. 758-766.
60
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.5, Question 1.
61
National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 7.
62
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2009 Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, p. D-87; and information provided to the Congressional Research Service by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, September 2009 and
March 2010.
Congressional Research Service
24
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
receive education about the importance of designating an individual to make health care treatment
decisions for them and other information about a health care power of attorney.
The box below includes the full list of certifications that the state must make when submitting its
plan. Under Section 477 of the Social Security Act, HHS must approve a state’s plan for
independent living services if it contains all of the required materials. The plan must be submitted
on or before June 30 of the calendar year in which the plan is to begin. States may make
amendments to the plan and notify HHS within 30 days of modifying the plan. HHS is to make
the plans available to the public. Mandatory and discretionary funds provided under the CFCIP
may only supplement, rather than supplant, any funds from other federal sources (e.g., Social
Services Block Grant or Runaway and Homeless Youth program) or non-federal sources that may
be available for independent living programs in the state.
The 2008 survey of 45 states by Chapin Hall (see above) found that 31 of the states (68.9%)
spend additional funds—beyond the 20% match—to provide independent living services and
supports to eligible youth.63 Of the 31 states, 22 reported that they used funds to provide services
for which CFCIP dollars cannot be used.64
Use of Funds
States may apply to receive mandatory funds for purposes specified in the CFCIP. Also as
described in HHS’s Child Welfare Policy Manual, states may also use CFCIP funding to establish
trust funds for youth eligible under the program (Section 3.3E, Question 1). However, states may
not use CFCIP funds to train foster parents, workers in group homes, and case managers in issues
confronting adolescents; however, states may use funding under the Title IV-E Foster Care
program or Adoption Assistance program for this purpose.
A comprehensive report on the development and implementation of the CFCIP was produced by
the GAO in November 2004.65 GAO found that a majority of states use CFCIP funds to provide
training on employment-related skills; independent living skills; assistance with obtaining a high
school diploma or its equivalent; assessments; and counseling for youth younger than 16. Nearly
all states provide these same services, as well as independent living arrangements for youth ages
18 to 21, although provision of services varies within and across states. Separately, the 2008
survey by Chapin Hall asked states if they used CFCIP funding for matched savings accounts,
which provide matching funds to youth who accumulate their own funds in a savings account (six
states do use funds for this purpose); room and board for youth ages 18 to 21 (39 states); and
room and board for current foster youth (11 states).66
63
Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, p. 14.
64
The authors of the survey note that some of the services for which states reported spending non-CFCIP dollars can,
in fact, be funded through the CFCIP.
65
U.S. Government Accountability Office. HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and Monitoring of
States’ Independent Living Programs, GAO-05-25, November 2004, p. 17, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d0525.pdf. (Hereafter referenced as U.S. Government Accountability Office. HHS Actions Could Improve
Coordination of Services and Monitoring of States’ Independent Living Programs.)
66
Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, pp. 12-13.
Congressional Research Service
25
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
CFCIP and ETV funds are distributed to each state based on its proportion of the nation’s children
in foster care. Table B-1 in Appendix B provides the CFCIP and voucher allotments for each
state (and for a small number of tribes) in FY2010 and FY2011.
Congressional Research Service
26
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
CFCIP State Plan Requirements
To receive funds under the CFCIP, a state must describe in its CFCIP plan how it will
•
design and deliver programs to achieve the program purposes;
•
ensure statewide, although not necessarily uniform, coverage by the program;
•
ensure that the programs serve children of various ages and at various stages of achieving independence;
•
involve the public and private sectors in helping adolescents in foster care achieve independence;
•
use objective criteria for determining eligibility for and ensuring fair and equitable treatment of benefit recipients;
and
•
cooperate in national evaluations of the effects of the programs in achieving the purpose of the CFCIP.
The state must also certify that it will
•
provide assistance and services to eligible former foster youth;
•
use room and board payments only for youth ages 18 to 21;
•
expend not more than 30% of CFCIP funds on room and board for youth ages 18 to 21;
•
use funding under the Title IV-E Foster Care program and Adoption Assistance program (but not the CFCIP) to
provide training to help foster parents and others understand and address the issues confronting adolescents
preparing for independent living and coordinate this training, where possible, with independent living programs;
•
consult widely with public and private organizations in developing the plans and give the public at least 30 days to
comment on the plan;
•
make every effort to coordinate independent living programs with other youth programs at the local, state, and
federal levels, including independent living projects funded under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act, abstinence education programs, local housing programs, programs for disabled youth, and school-to-work
programs offered by high schools or local workforce agencies;
•
consult each Indian tribe about the programs to be carried out under the plan, that there have been efforts to
coordinate the programs with such tribes, and that benefits and services under the programs will be made
available to Indian children in the state on the same basis as other children in the state (beginning in FY2010,
states must also negotiate in good faith with any tribal entity that does not receive a direct federal allotment of
child welfare funds, but would like to enter into an agreement or contract with the state to receive funds for
administering, supervising, or overseeing CFCIP and ETV programs for eligible Indian children under the tribal
entity’s authority);
•
ensure that eligible youth participate directly in designing their own program activities that prepare them for
independent living and that they accept personal responsibility for living up to their part of the program;
•
establish and enforce standards and procedures to prevent fraud and abuse in the programs carried out under its
plan;
•
ensure that the ETV program complies with the federal program requirements, including that (1) the total
amount of education assistance to a youth provided through the ETV program and under other federal and
federally supported programs does not exceed the total cost of attendance and (2) does not duplicate benefits
under the CFCIP or other federal or federally assisted benefit program; and
•
ensure that eligible youth receive education about (1) the importance of designating an individual to make health
care treatment decisions for them (should they become unable to do so, have no relatives authorized under
state law to do so, or do not want relatives to make those decisions); (2) whether a health care power of
attorney, health care proxy, or other similar document is recognized under state law; and (3) how to execute
such a document.
Source: Section 477 of the Social Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
27
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Hold Harmless Provision
Section 477 of the Social Security Act’s includes a “hold harmless” clause that precludes any
state from receiving less than the amount of general independent living funds it received under
the former independent living program in FY1998 or $500,000, whichever is greater. (There is no
hold harmless provision for ETV funds.) The general funding for independent living services
doubled nationally with the implementation of the CFCIP, however, the percentage change in
funds received varies across states. This is because the distribution of funding was changed to
reflect the most current state share of the national caseload (instead of their share of the 1984
caseload in all previous years). In FY2007 (the latest year for which final data are available),
three states (the District of Columbia, Louisiana, and New York) received the same funding
amount they received in FY1998. Eight states (Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, New Hampshire, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) each received $500,000 because their FY1998
allotments were this amount or less.
Unused Funds
States have two years to spend their CFCIP and voucher funds. For instance, funds allotted for
FY2008 may be spent in FY2008 or FY2009. If a state does not apply for all of its allotment, the
remaining funds may be redistributed among states that needs these funds as determined by HHS.
If a state applies for all of its CFCIP allotted funds but does not spend them within the two-year
time frame, the unused funds revert to the federal treasury. Table B-2 in Appendix B shows the
FY2008 (the latest year for which data for returned funds are available)67 final allocations, dollars
expended, and dollars returned to the federal treasury for general CFCIP allotments.68 That fiscal
year, the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, were allocated a combined total of $137.9
million in general CFCIP funds, of which $352,337 (0.3%) was returned to the treasury. No states
returned all of their funds. Two states (Louisiana and Wyoming), Puerto Rico, and Washington
DC each returned between less than 0.1% and 14.6% of their funds.
Table B-3, also in Appendix B, shows that in FY2008 (the latest year for which data are
available), the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, received $44.7 million in funds for
the vouchers, of which 10 states69 collectively returned $1.4 million (3.2%).70 States did not
report to HHS the reasons for not spending ETV funds. Based on past Congressional Research
Service (CRS) discussions with HHS staff, staff with the Orphan Foundation of America (which
administers funds in a small number of states), and a small number of states, the reasons may
include (1) the lack of infrastructure to absorb and distribute funds, including training child
welfare workers and knowledge about educational financial aid; (2) mechanisms for distributing
funds to youth and tracking youth outcomes; (3) federal fiscal year deadlines; and (4) youth’s
knowledge about the ETV program.71
67
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families in January 2010.
68
Ibid, September 2009.
69
These states are Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. The states each returned between less than 0.1% and 68.1% of their funds.
70
Ibid.
71
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service in June 2007.
Congressional Research Service
28
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Training and Technical Assistance
Training and technical assistance grants for the CFCIP and ETV program are awarded
competitively every five years, with non-competitive grants renewed annually.72 The most recent
cooperative agreement was made for FY2010 through FY2014.The National Child Welfare
Resource Center for Youth Development, housed at the University of Oklahoma, currently
provides assistance under the grant.73 The NCWRCYD helps states and tribes implement their
independent living programs and involve foster youth in programming and services. The
NCWRCYD emphasizes the principles of youth development, cultural competence, permanent
connections, and collaboration in developing and carrying out state and tribal programs and
services for youth in care. Training and technical assistance requests from states have involved
providing assistance with more effective implementation of state CFCIP plans, including
discussions around allowable expenditures of both CFCIP and ETV funds, permanency planning
for adolescents, and educating the courts on laws affecting for older youth, among other types of
issues.74 Assistance is provided through national conferences and meetings, on-site technical
assistance, and information made available on the NCWRCYD website and through publications.
National Youth in Transition Database
Section 477 requires that HHS consult with state and local public officials responsible for
administering independent living and other child welfare programs, child welfare advocates,
Members of Congress, youth service providers and researchers to (1) “develop outcome measures
(including measures of educational attainment, high school diploma, avoidance of dependency,
homelessness, non-marital childbirth, incarceration, and high-risk behaviors) that can be used to
assess the performance of states in operating independent living programs;” (2) identify the data
needed to track the number and characteristics of children receiving services, the type and
quantity of services provided, and state performance on the measures; and (3) develop and
implement a plan to collect this information beginning with the second fiscal year after the
passage of P.L. 106-169. The law further required that by December 2000, HHS was to submit to
the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee a report detailing a plan
and timetable for collecting the data from the states and a proposal to impose penalties of not less
than 1% or more than 5% of the states’ CFCIP funding for states that do not comply with the data
collection requirements, based on the degree of noncompliance.
History
In its September 2001 Report to the Congress, “Developing a System of Program Accountability
Under the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program,” HHS outlined a plan and
timetable for developing a data collection system. The report stated that HHS administrators and
an HHS working group consulted with stakeholders and reviewed child welfare literature to
identify the data elements to be collected and reported in the database, as well as the outcomes
relevant to assessing the CFCIP. The report discussed a penalty structure for states not in
72
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of the Secretary in July 2008.
73
For more information about the type of assistance that is provided, see http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/about.html.
74
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau in December 2008.
Congressional Research Service
29
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
compliance with the reporting requirements. HHS also established a pilot test in 2001 involving
seven states and an Indian tribe. In each of the jurisdictions, caseworkers collected data about
older youth, identified unclear data elements, and described any difficulties encountered while
collecting the information. According to HHS, the pilot test enabled the agency to assess the
burden for workers collecting the data and to learn if the capacity to report data varied
significantly across states and agencies.
Acting on the advice of the Department’s General Counsel, HHS decided to produce formal
regulations for this mandatory data collection process instead of following their initial plan of
producing Program Instructions. The September 2001 report stated that HHS would publish the
final outcomes and measures in the Federal Register and seek public comment by May 2002. The
agency anticipated administering the database nationally in October 2003. However, a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the data collection system was not published until July 14,
2006.
The NPRM provided for a 60-day comment period during which HHS heard from states and child
welfare advocates. After this period, the final regulations underwent a full agency and department
review as well as Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance before final publication on
February 26, 2008.75 The final rule establishing the NYTD became effective April 28, 2008, sixty
days after publication and requires states to report data on youth beginning in FY2011.
Data Collection
HHS will use the NYTD to engage in two data collection and reporting activities.76 First, states
collect information twice each fiscal year on eligible youth who currently receive independent
living services whether they continue to remain in foster care, were in foster care in another state,
or received child welfare services through an Indian tribe or privately operated foster care
program. These youth are known as served youth. Second, states collect information on foster
youth on or about their 17th birthday, two years later on or about their 19th birthday, and again on
or about their 21st birthday. Foster youth age 17 are known as the baseline youth and at ages 19
and 21 are known as the follow-up youth. These current and former foster youth are tracked
regardless of whether they receive independent living services at ages 17, 19, and 21. States have
the option of tracking a sample of youth who participated in the outcomes collection at age 17 to
reduce the data collection burden. Information will be collected on a new group of foster youth
age 17 every three years.
Consistent with the statutory requirement developed by Congress in P.L. 106-169, HHS will
penalize any state not meeting the data collection procedures for the NYTD from 1% to 5% of its
annual Chafee fund allotment, which includes any allotted or re-allotted funds for the general
CFCIP program only. The penalty amount will be withheld from a current fiscal year award of the
funds. ACF will evaluate a state’s data file against data compliance standards, provided by statute.
However, states will have the opportunity to submit corrected data.
75
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Chafee National Youth in Transition Database,” 73 Federal
Register 10338, February 26, 2008.
76
For additional information, you may request a copy of a Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act National Youth in Transition Database, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
Congressional Research Service
30
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
According to HHS, the department will make NYTD data files available to the public within a
few months after completing each annual round of data collection.77 As HHS has explained,
NYTD data files are reported semiannually, and because states have a window of time to collect
baseline outcomes data from youth, surveying a cohort of 17-year-olds in care (the baseline
youth) will take 18 months.78
Training and Technical Assistance 79
Training and technical assistance for NYTD is provided to states through HHS; the National
Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development (NCWRCYD) based at the University of
Oklahoma; the National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology (NRCCWDT),
housed at the Child Welfare League of America; and a contractor, ICF International, which was
selected in September 2008. The contractor is developing and deploying the system used to
receive and process states’ NYTD data and provide technical assistance to states around data
reporting. The Children’s Bureau has annually convened national technical assistance meetings
for states in each year since 2008. At the conferences, federal staff and staff from NCWRCYD
and NCRCCWDT have assisted states in understanding the NYTD regulation and
implementation requirements. In coordination with ICF, NCWRCYD, and NRCCWDT, HHS has
developed a technical assistance strategy in preparing for NYTD implementation, including a
technical assistance toolkit and a series of regional and national conference calls.
Evaluation of Innovative CFCIPs
Section 477 provides that HHS is to conduct evaluations of independent living programs funded
by the CFCIP deemed to be innovative or of national significance. The law reserves 1.5% of total
CFCIP funding annually for these evaluations, as well as CFCIP-related technical assistance,
performance measurement, and data collection.
Pursuant to Section 477, HHS contracted with the Urban Institute and its partners to conduct the
Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs. The goal of the evaluation was to determine the
effects of independent living programs funded by P.L. 106-169 in achieving key outcomes,
including increased educational attainment, higher employment rates and stability, greater
interpersonal and relationship skills, reduced non-marital pregnancy and births, and reduced
delinquency and crime rates. HHS and the evaluation team initially conducted an assessment to
identify programs that could be evaluated rigorously, through random assignment to treatment
and control groups, as required under Section 477 of the Social Security Act. The evaluation
team, in coordination with HHS and a federally appointed technical work group, established
criteria for selecting the sites. Such criteria included that the program should take in sufficient
numbers of youth to allow for an adequate sample size; have excess demand so that random
77
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau in June 2011.
78
The data files will be maintained at the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) at Cornell
University.
79
This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of the Secretary in July 2008, December 2008, and January 2010.
Congressional Research Service
31
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
assignment is possible while serving the same number of youth as before the evaluation; and be
reasonably stable, relatively intense, and consistently implemented; among other considerations.80
The evaluation team determined that it could use random assignment at four innovative programs
in California and Massachusetts—an employment services program in Kern County, California; a
one-on-one intensive, individualized life skills program in Massachusetts; and, a classroom-based
life skills training program and tutoring/mentoring program, both in Los Angeles County,
California.81 The 1,400 youth participating in the evaluation at the four sites were assigned to
intervention and control groups, and were surveyed at three points: baseline, one year after
baseline, and two years after baseline. The researchers conducted in-person interviews with the
youth to obtain information on youth characteristics, program interventions and services, and
intermediate and longer-term outcomes. Researchers also conducted interviews with program
administrators, community advocates, and directors of community provider agencies. Further, the
evaluation team held focus groups with youth, independent living program staff, and other agency
staff responsible for referring youth to the programs. The team used extracts of state
administrative data to determine child and family demographics, child welfare placement history,
physical and mental health status, and delinquency history. Data specific to each site were also
collected by the team. The findings from the two Los Angeles sites were made available in July
2008 and findings from the other sites were made available in June 2011.82
In short, the evaluation of the Los Angeles and Kern County programs found no statistically
significant impacts as a result of the interventions; however, the life skills program in
Massachusetts showed impacts for some of the education outcomes that were measured. The
program is known as the Massachusetts Adolescent Outreach Program for Youth in Intensive
Foster Care, or Outreach.83 The program assists youth who enroll voluntarily in preparing to live
independently and to have permanent connections to caring adults upon exiting care. Outreach is
intended to help youth achieve a range of outcomes, including receiving a high school diploma,
continuing their education, avoiding non-marital childbirth and high-risk behaviors, and gaining
employment, among other outcomes. The program provides services that are tailored to each
youth and emphasizes a youth development approach, which emphasizes that youth can be
empowered to make positive decisions about their lives. A core feature of the Outreach model is
that the social workers in the program oversee a small caseload (approximately 15 youth each)
and have regular (approximately once a week) interactions with the youth. The workers seek to
develop a close relationship with the youth, with the goal of the youth viewing the worker as his
or her advocate. Caseworkers assist youth with tasks like obtaining their driver’s licenses,
80
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Evaluation of the Life Skills Training Program: Los Angeles
County, July 2008, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/chafee/reports/eval_lst/eval_lst.pdf.
(Hereafter referenced as U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Evaluation of the Life Skills Training
Program: Los Angeles County.)
81
Additional information regarding the Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs is available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/chafee/.
82
The reports are available at U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, “Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs (Chafee
Independent Living Evaluation Project), 2001-2010,” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/chafee/
index.html.
83
Mark E. Courtney et al., Evaluation fo the Massachusetts Adolescent Outreach Program for Youths in Intesnive
Foster Care: Final Report, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families,
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, OPRE Report #2011-14, July 2011, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
opre/abuse_neglect/chafee/reports/eval_mass/eval_mass.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
32
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
applying for college, and gaining employment. Caseworkers may also refer youth to service
providers as needed.
To assess the effectiveness of the Outreach program, researchers randomly assigned nearly 200
youth born between 1985 and 1990 to the treatment program (the program) or to a control group
that received intensive foster care services as usual. To be eligible, youth had to be in intensive
foster care (also referred to as therapeutic foster care for youth with additional needs), have a
service plan goal of independent living or long-term care,84 and be deemed appropriate for
Outreach services by the youth’s caseworker. Youth were followed for two years and were
interviewed at the start of the evaluation (“baseline”) and once each year after that. The outcome
data are based on the youth’s second follow-up interview, as well as educational data acquired by
the National Student Clearinghouse, a repository of information on the enrollment status and
educational achievements of postsecondary students.
The baseline characteristics of youth in both the treatment and control groups were similar, except
that Outreach youth were more likely to have had prior placement in foster care and to have run
away from home.85 The impact evaluation examined educational, employment, and other
outcomes that can reflect how well a young person is transitioning to adulthood. Outreach youth
were more likely than their counterparts in the control group to report having ever enrolled in
college and they were more likely to stay enrolled. Outreach youth were also more likely to
experience outcomes that were not a focus of the evaluation: youth were more likely to remain in
foster care and to report receiving more help in some areas of educational assistance, employment
assistance, money management, and financial assistance for housing. According to the study,
remaining in care and enrolling and persisting in college appear to be strongly interrelated. In
short, the Outreach youth may have been less successful on the educational front if they had not
stayed in care.
Youth in the program reported similar outcomes as the control group for multiple other measures.
For example, Outreach youth did not report better outcomes in employment, economic wellbeing, housing, delinquency, pregnancy, or preparedness for various tasks associated with living
on one’s own.
PART Review
In calendar year 2004, the CFCIP was reviewed through the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process.86 The evaluation concluded that
program results were “not demonstrated” because the CFCIP lacked long-term performance
measures and time frames for these measures, as well as adequate progress in achieving its annual
performance goals; and because some states did not use all of their CFCIP or ETV funding. OMB
made the determination about the performance measurement because the National Youth in
Transition Database, which will provide long-term performance and annual performance
measurement beginning in FY2011, had not yet been implemented. The PART review also found
84
In addition to reunification, adoption, placement with a relative, and legal guardianship, “another planned permanent
living arrangement” (APPLA) is specified as a permanency option, and may include independent living. It does not,
however, include long-term foster care.
85
These differences were taken into account in the impact analyses.
86
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Detailed Information on the Independent Living Program Assessment, 2004,
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10002146.2004.html.
Congressional Research Service
33
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
that no independent evaluations of the program have been routinely conducted. While the MultiSite Evaluation will provide information about outcomes for youth who receive independent
living services, according to the PART review, it is not sufficiently national in scope.
The PART has established two goals for the program:
•
Promote the efficient use of CFCIP funds by (1) increasing the percentage of
states that completely expend their allocations within the two-year expenditure
period, and (2) decreasing the percentage of funds that remain unexpended by
states within that period.
•
Increase the percentages of CFCIP youth who avoid high-risk behaviors which
might otherwise lead to criminal investigations and incarceration. The baseline
measurement will be taken in FY2011, the first year the NYTD is implemented.
Assessments of the CFCIP
There does not appear to be a clear picture of the types of services provided through CFCIPfunded programs, although the National Youth in Transition Database and the evaluation of
innovative independent living programs will provide a national overview about the number of
youth served, the types of services provided, and best practices in assisting current and former
foster youth make the transition to adulthood. Three sources—an evaluation of independent living
services described in states’ Child and Family Services Review documents, a GAO report on the
CFCIP, and a report on ETV programs in six states—provide some insight into how states carry
out their independent living programs.87
Child and Family Services Review
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services determines state compliance with federal
child welfare policies, and helps to ensure that positive outcomes are achieved for children and
families involved in the child welfare system, by conducting reviews of state and child welfare
programs.
The most comprehensive component of HHS’s review system is the Child and Family Services
Reviews (CFSR).88 Conducted by the Children’s Bureau, the reviews assess state conformity with
87
Other resources illustrate how select jurisdictions and programs provide independent living services for older current
and former foster youth. See, for example, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disconnected Youth: Federal
Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to Education and
Employment, GAO-08-313, February 2008; National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, State Policies
to Help Youth Transition Out of Foster Care, Issue Brief, January 2007; Wilhelmina A. Leigh et al., Aging Out of the
Foster Care System to Adulthood: Findings, Challenges, and Recommendations, Joint Center for Political and
Economic Studies and Black Administrators in Child Welfare Inc., December 2007; and Rachel H. Sherman, “Serving
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care,” Welfare Information Network Issue Note, vol. 8, no. 5 (October 2004), pp. 5-7. See
also the University of Chicago Law School, “Transition From Foster Care to Adulthood Wiki” at
http://fostercaretoadulthood.wikispaces.com/ and the University of Oklahoma, National Child Welfare Resource Center
for Youth Development, “State by State Facts Page,” at http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/state_pages.html.
88
For additional information, see CRS Report RL32968, Child Welfare: State Performance on Child and Family
Services Reviews, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Congressional Research Service
34
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
certain requirements of Title IV-B and Title IV-E.89 During the review process, a joint federal and
state team determines whether states are in substantial conformity with seven outcomes related to
the safety, permanency, and well-being of children, and whether states have in place child welfare
systems to achieve these goals. The team reviews statewide administrative data; conducts
interviews with children and families served, as well as foster parents, service providers, case
workers, court personnel, and other key stakeholders; and systematically reviews the cases of a
random sample of children served.
The first round of reviews was conducted between 2001 and 2004 in all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and a final report was prepared discussing the findings in each
jurisdiction.90 This initial round found that no state’s child welfare programs met the criteria that
HHS established as demonstrating “substantial conformity” with all of federal child welfare
policy requirements. As a result, all states had Program Improvement Plans (PIP) to work toward
complying with the requirements, and nearly all states (43) had achieved their PIP goals.91
The second round of review has been completed for all states and nearly all states are working
toward completing their two-year PIPs (a small number of states have completed their PIPs). The
second round had a focus on older youth. For this second round, HHS has directed the federal and
state evaluators to interview, at the state-level, youth being served by the state child welfare
agency, especially those youth who are eligible to receive independent living services.92 Also in
the second round, 10 of 40 foster care cases reviewed were to involve children who were ages 16
or 17 as of the last day of the 12-month review period or the date that they exited care, as
applicable.93 This is to ensure that the reviewers had enough applicable cases to determine
whether states were adequately providing independent living services for youth with a goal of
emancipation.94
GAO Report
The 2004 report by the GAO evaluated its implementation.95 The report was based on survey data
collected from independent living coordinators in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico as well as review of the jurisdictions’ CFCIP plans for FY2001 through FY2004.
89
In 2000, HHS published a final rule to establish a formal review process consistent with legislative mandates to
improve federal oversight of state child welfare programs. The final rule established the CFSR and Title IV-E Foster
Care Eligibility Reviews. The Foster Care Eligibility Reviews are conducted to validate a state’s claim for federal
reimbursement of payments made on behalf of eligible children, and are not discussed in this report.
90
The reports are available at http://basis.caliber.com/cwig/ws/cwmd/docs/cb_web/SearchForm.
91
For further information, see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau, “Children and
Family Service Reviews: Status of Program Improvement Plans and Subsequent Child and Family Services Reviews,”
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/general_info/pipstatus.pdf.
92
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Children’s Bureau, Child
and Family Services Review Stakeholder Interview Guide, June 2008, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/
cwmonitoring/tools_guide/stakeholder.htm.
93
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Review Procedures Manual, Chapter 4,
available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/tools_guide/proce_manual.htm.
94
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Review Onsite Review Instrument and
Instructions, July 2008, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/tools_guide/
proce_manual.htm.
95
U.S. Government Accountability Office. HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and Monitoring of
States’ Independent Living Programs, pp. 18-19.
Congressional Research Service
35
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
After the 1999 passage of P.L. 106-169, forty states reported expanded independent living
services to youth younger than they had previously served and 36 states reported serving older
youth. In addition, 45 states reported offering assistance with room and board to emancipated
foster youth. According to officials in the states GAO visited for the study, funds were also used
to improve the quality of existing independent living services, refocus the attention of their
programs, or develop new services to assist youth of all ages in the programs.
The GAO report also raised concerns about the implementation of the CFCIP. The report
indicates that states varied in the percentage of eligible youth served. In 2003, forty states
reported serving between 10% and 100% of eligible youth, with one-third of the states serving
less than half of eligible youth. GAO also found gaps in the availability of mental health services,
mentoring services, and securing safe and suitable housing, particularly in rural areas. Further,
although 49 states reported increased coordination with a number of federal, state, and local
programs that can provide or supplement independent living services, child welfare
administrators and youth interviewed by GAO said that they were unaware of the services.
Finally, the lack of uniformity among the states’ CFCIP five-year plans precluded using them at
the state and federal level to monitor how well the programs serve eligible youth.
Implementation of the ETV Program
In 2007, the National Foster Care Coalition, in partnership with Casey Family Programs, a
foundation supporting child welfare research and advocacy, reported on six states’ (California,
Maine, Montana, New York, North Carolina, and Wyoming) experiences with implementing the
ETV program.96 These states serve as few as 31 youth to as many as nearly 2,000 youth in a given
school year, with average awards ranging from $2,950 to $4,318 for each youth. Three of the
states (Montana, New York, and North Carolina) contract with a non-profit service provider to
administer the ETV program, while the other three states administer the program through the
independent living coordinator or state financial aid office.
The report describes the best practices employed by the states in implementing their ETV
programs, as well as the challenges they have encountered.97 One promising approach was the
application process for some states, which involves a web application process that allows students
and schools to view application and approval status and deadlines. Other states reported providing
extensive promotion and outreach about the program through information sessions, annual teen
conferences for foster youth, and mailings; and providing additional educational supports to
youth through financial aid counseling, mentoring, tuition waivers, and scholarships. Contracting
through a third-party was also identified as an important practice that has lent to more efficient
96
National Foster Care Coalition, The Chafee Education and Training Voucher Program: Six States’ Experiences,
National Foster Care Coalition and Casey Family Programs, 2007, at http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/
ChafeeETV.pdf.
97
In a separate publication, from 2005, the National Foster Care Coalition identified promising practices for ETV
programs. These include (1) a clearly defined application process and a funding process transparent to stakeholders,
including informing students of the amount of funding they receive; (2) open lines of communication between
applicants/participants and ETV administrators, including multiple methods for contacting the ETV office; and (3)
individual assessments for all applicants to ensure that ETV funds are based on their unmet financial need as calculated
by their educational institution; among other approaches. See National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked
Questions III: About the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program and the Chafee Educational and Training
Program.
Congressional Research Service
36
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
administration of the voucher program. The report also identified youth feedback about the
program as another important feature of the programs.
In addition, the report also identified barriers to successfully administering the ETV program.
Some of the challenges include (1) meeting the demand for the program; (2) recruiting youth to
the program and ensuring that these youth have sufficient support to remain in school; (3)
managing awards for youth whom schools are unable to locate once awards are issued or
awarding funds to youth who have dropped out; (4) tracking how voucher funds are spent; (5)
conveying to university financial aid staff the rules associated with the ETV program; (6)
maintaining the confidentiality of youth’s foster care experiences; (7) connecting non-collegebound youth to vocational programs; and (8) meeting the needs of parenting youth, among others.
The states indicated that they are working to address these challenges.
Other Federal Support for Older Current and
Former Foster Youth
In addition to the federal programs under Title IV-E, other federal laws authorize some funding
for service or assistance to older current and former foster youth. This section describes a
Medicaid pathway for certain former foster youth; educational, workforce, and housing supports;
and a grant to fund training for child welfare practitioners working with older foster youth and
youth emancipating from care.
Medicaid
In the Foster Care Independence Act, Congress encouraged states to provide Medicaid coverage
to children who were aging out of the foster care system. The law created a new optional
Medicaid eligibility pathway for “independent foster care adolescents;” this pathway is often
called the “Chafee option.”98 The law further defined these adolescents as individuals under the
age of 21 and who were in foster care under the responsibility of the state on their 18th birthday.
Within this broadest category of independent foster care adolescents, the law permits states to
restrict eligibility based on the youth’s income or resources, and whether or not the youth had
received Title IV-E funding.99
In all states, youth age 19 or younger with family incomes at or below 100% of the federal
poverty limit (or up to 250% in some states) are eligible for Medicaid or State Children’s Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP). Youth ages 18 to 21 in foster care who do not qualify for Medicaid
or SCHIP may be eligible for Medicaid coverage through the “Ribicoff” pathway, named for the
late former senator, Abraham Ribicoff. Ribicoff youth must meet the income and resource
requirements for the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children program but do not meet
other categorical requirements for AFDC. Older foster youth may also be eligible under a
pathway for children under age 21 who are taken into state custody. This pathway allows the state
98
99
Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVII) of the Social Security Act.
Section 1905(w)(1)) of the Social Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
37
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
to extend Medicaid eligibility to youth under age 21 in foster care regardless of the income or
resources of their biological or foster parents.100
Former foster youth may also qualify for Medicaid through other eligibility pathways available to
certain groups of adults, such as for pregnant women with family income equal to or less than
133% of the federal poverty limit (FPL), some low-income adults with children, and some adults
with high medical expenses (i.e., “medically needy”).101 These youth may be also eligible for
Medicaid or SCHIP coverage through waivers, known as Section 1115 waivers, that provide
comprehensive coverage to categorically ineligible adults with incomes up to at least 100% of the
FPL.
According to the 2008 survey by Chapin Hall of 45 states, 29 states (64.4%) have extended the
Chafee option to eligible youth.102 Of the 28 states that responded to a follow-up question about
eligibility requirements, 25 states reported that to be eligible, youth must have been in foster care
on their 18th birthday; 15 states reported that youth must complete an application to be eligible;
one state said that youth are automatically eligible; and nine states reported other eligibility
criteria. Another 14 states reported that former foster youth are eligible for SCHIP (six of the
states) or Medicaid through other pathways (13 of the states). Youth are eligible for Medicaid by
meeting the “medically needy” criteria (seven states), through a 100% state funded program
(three states), and through other, unspecified pathways (three states). One state reported that
former foster youth are not categorically eligible for Medicaid.
The Chafee option will likely become a moot pathway in the next few years. As part of the health
care reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, youth who were in foster care on
their 18th birthday (or an older age allowed by the state) will be eligible under a new mandatory
Medicaid pathway specifically for former foster youth until age 26 regardless of their annual
income.103 This provision is effective January 1, 2014. HHS has not issued guidance about this
pathway.
100
Sonja Schwartz and Melanie Glascock, Improving Access to Health Coverage for Transitional Youth, National
Academy for State Healthy Policy, p. 5, July 2008, at http://www.nashp.org/sites/default/files/transitional_youth.pdf.
101
For information about Medicaid eligibility pathways, see CRS Report RL33019, Medicaid Eligibility for Adults and
Children, by Jean Hearne.
102
Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, p. 11. A 2006 survey of state human service officials by the American Public Human Services
Association (APHSA) found that 17 states reported extending Medicaid coverage to eligible youth through the Chafee
option. See Sonali Patel and Martha A. Roherty, Medicaid Access for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care, American
Public Human Services Association, 2007, at http://www.aphsa.org/Home/Doc/Medicaid-Access-for-Youth-AgingOut-of-Foster-Care-Rpt.pdf. Puerto Rico was not included in this analysis.
103
Youth will be eligible if they are not eligible or enrolled under existing (at the time P.L. 110-351 was passed)
Medicaid mandatory eligibility groups (or described in any of the existing Medicaid mandatory eligibility groups),
regardless of whether they have income that exceeds the upper income eligibility limit established under any such
group. Children in foster care who are not Title IV-E eligible generally still qualify for Medicaid coverage because all
states have implemented one or more mandatory or optional Medicaid eligibility categories that allow them to cover
children in care regardless of their IV-E eligibility status..
Congressional Research Service
38
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Other Educational Support104
The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), was signed into law on August 14, 2008 as P.L.
110-315, and amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) to authorize services specifically for
youth in foster care or recently emancipated youth, including housing services, among other
related changes. The act authorizes that youth in foster care (including youth who have left foster
care after reaching age 16) and homeless children and youth are eligible for what are collectively
called the federal Trio programs. The Trio programs are designed to identify potential postsecondary students from disadvantaged backgrounds, prepare these students for higher education,
provide certain support services to them while they are in college, and train individuals who
provide these services. The programs are known individually as Talent Search, Upward Bound,
Student Support Services, and Educational Opportunity Centers. P.L. 110-315 directs the
Department of Education to require applicants seeking Trio funds to identify and make available
services, including mentoring, tutoring, and other services, to these youth. In addition, the bill
authorizes services for current and former foster youth (and homeless youth) through Student
Support Services—a program intended to improve the retention and graduation rates of
disadvantaged college students—that include temporary housing during breaks in the academic
year.105
Separately, HEOA allows additional uses of funds through the Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education to establish demonstration projects that provide comprehensive support
services for students who were in foster care (or homeless) anytime before age 13. As specified in
the law, the projects can provide housing to the youth when housing at an educational institution
is closed or unavailable to other students.
As of July 2009, the College Cost Reduction Act (P.L. 110-84) allows certain youth who have
been in foster care to claim independent status when applying for federal financial aid. The act
amended the definition of “independent student” in the Higher Education Act to include any child
“who is an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court at any time when the individual is 13
years of age or older” and “is an emancipated minor or is in legal guardianship as determined by a
court of competent jurisdiction in the individual’s state of legal residence.” 106 Students who claim
independent status are typically able to access greater federal education assistance because they
104
Though not discussed here, a small part of the allocation formula population factor for the Title I-A program of
Education for the Disadvantaged (authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended)
accounts for the number of children ages five to 17 who are in institutions for delinquent children or foster homes when
making grants to local education agencies (LEAs). For additional information, see CRS Report RL33731, Education
for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Rebecca R.
Skinner.
105
The Department of Education issued regulations to provide further clarification about the changes made by P.L.
110-315, including the changes pertaining to foster youth. U.S. Department of Education, “High School Equivalency
Program and College Assistance Migrant Program, The Federal TRIO Programs, and Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduate Program,” 75 Federal Register 65712-65803, October 26, 2010.
106
The previous definition included an individual who is an orphan or ward of the state (or was until age 18). 29 U.S.C.
1087vv(d). The College Cost Reduction and Access Act Technical Amendments of 2007 (H.R. 4153), would make a
correction to the definition of independent student to include any child who “is an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of
the court, or was an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court any time when the individual was 13 years of age or
older.” The Higher Education Opportunity Act (P.L. 110-315) makes additional changes to the definition of
independent student to include “an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court, or was an orphan, in foster care, or a
ward of the court at any time when the individual was 13 years of age or older;” and “is, or was immediately prior to
attaining the age of majority, an emancipated minor or in legal guardianship as determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction in the individual’s state of legal residence.”
Congressional Research Service
39
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
are exempt from including information about income and assets from their parents. An
“independent” student’s expected “family” contribution is the amount that the federal need
analysis system determines should be contributed, based only on his or her available income (and
assets, if applicable), as well as basic living expenses, federal income tax liability, and other
expenses. The act does not specify the length of time that the child must have been in foster care
or the reason for exiting care, to be eligible to claim independent status. The law first became
effective for the 2009 to 2010 school year.
Workforce Support
Workforce Investment Act Programs
The Workforce Investment Act authorizes job training programs to unemployed and
underemployed individuals through the Department of Labor (DOL). Two of these programs—
Youth Activities and Job Corps—provide job training and related services to targeted low-income
vulnerable populations, including foster youth.107 The WIA Youth Activities program focuses on
preventative strategies to help in-school youth stay in school and receive occupational skills, as
well as on providing training and supportive services, such as assistance with child care, for outof-school youth. Job Corps is an educational and vocational training program that helps students
learn a trade, complete their GED, and secure employment.
To be eligible, foster youth must meet age and income criteria as defined under the act. Young
people current or formerly in foster care may participate in Youth Activities if they are ages 14 to
21, and in Job Corps if they are ages 16 to 24 (20% of participants must be ages 22 to 24).108
Foster Youth Demonstration Project
The Workforce Investment Act authorizes funding for pilot programs.109 Under this authority, the
Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration awarded grants to five states in
FY2005—California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Texas—to design and implement
programs to improve the self sufficiency, education attainment, and employment skills of youth
aging out of foster care. The purpose of the grant was to encourage states to develop best
practices around serving foster youth in the workforce investment system, and integrate these
practices across workforce investment boards across each state. The five states were required to
target the programs to youth in areas with the largest foster care populations. These areas are Los
Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, New York City, and Houston. DOL awarded each state $800,000 total
for FY2005 and FY2006; states were required to provide 100% matching funds.
The sites have differed in their recruitment and delivery strategies, but all have provided youth
with academic instruction and support, preparation for and exposure to the work place, support in
developing skills for self-sufficiency, and the supportive services intended to help them succeed
academically and in the work place.
107
Authorization of appropriations under WIA expired in FY2003 but is annually extended through appropriations acts.
Youth in foster care are also eligible for WIA’s Youth Opportunity program, however, Congress has not appropriated
funding for the program since FY2003.
108
29 U.S.C. 2801(13) and 29 U.S.C. 2884(1).
109
29 U.S.C. 2916.
Congressional Research Service
40
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
With their own funding, Casey Family Programs and its partners conducted an evaluation of the
program.110 At all of the sites, youth formed strong relationships with staff, and staff remained
relatively consistent over time. The sites also reported improvements in their programs. For
example, multiple sites changed their program classes and activities to accommodate the
individual needs of youth. Partnerships with workforce investment boards and other public
agencies have also been formed to provide youth with job training experience, and at some sites,
new relationships between the workforce agencies and the child welfare agencies have developed
at the state level. These partnerships appear to have been difficult to build.
The evaluation concluded that no single agency can meet the needs of youth in foster care or
aging out of care; case workers—who serve as social workers, counselors, mentors, and
teachers—are highly valued by the youth; well-defined programs tended to be more successful in
leveraging other services for youth; and the sites lacked consistency in they ways they defined
and collected the data, among other findings. The programs are continuing to serve eligible youth,
with funding from Casey Family Programs and a 100% match by the states and other lead
partners.
Housing Support
Family Unification Vouchers Program
Current and former foster youth may be eligible for housing subsidies provided through programs
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Family
Unification Vouchers program (FUP vouchers). The FUP vouchers were initially created in 1990
under P.L. 101-625 for families that qualify for Section 8 tenant-based assistance and for whom
the lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in the separation, or threat of imminent
separation, of children from their families or in preventing the reunification of the children with
their families.111 Amendments to the program in 2000 under P.L. 106-377 made youth ages 18 to
21 who left foster care at age 16 or older eligible for the vouchers. These youth are eligible for the
vouchers for up to 18 months.
FUP vouchers were initially awarded from 1992 to 2001. Over that period, approximately 39,000
vouchers were distributed.112 Each award included five years of funding per voucher and the
voucher’s use was restricted to voucher-eligible families for those five years. At the end of those
five years, public housing authorities (PHAs), which administer the vouchers, were eligible to
convert FUP vouchers to regular Section 8 housing vouchers for low-income families. While the
five-year use restrictions have expired for all family unification vouchers, some PHAs may have
continued to use their original family unification vouchers for FUP-eligible families and some
may have chosen to use some regular-purpose vouchers for FUP families. Congress appropriated
$20 million for new FUP vouchers in each of FY2008 and FY2009, and $15 million in
110
Institute for Educational Leadership, Foster Care Youth Demonstration Project: Final Evaluation Report, Executive
Summary, July 2008, at http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/EmPLOY/pdf/DOL_FinalReport_ES.pdf and
http://iel.org/programs/casey.html.
111
42 U.S.C. 1437(f)(x).
112
This information is based on correspondence with the National Center for Housing and Child Welfare, a child
welfare organization, in August 2008.
Congressional Research Service
41
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
FY2010.113 Congress has specified that amounts made available under Section 8 tenant-based
rental assistance and used for the FUP are to remain available for these purposes.114
A survey of states in 2008 by Chapin Hall found that 12 states provided housing assistance
through FUP vouchers, and another nine states gave youth priority access to Section 8
vouchers.115 Finally, 18 states reported providing housing assistance through other housing
programs, such as transitional living programs with a housing component.
Other Support
Older current and former foster youth may be eligible for housing services and related supports
through the Runaway and Homeless Youth program, administered by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.116 The program is comprised of three sub-programs: the Basic
Center program (BCP), which provides short-term housing and counseling to youth up to the age
of 18; the Transitional Living program (TLP), which provides longer-term housing and
counseling to youth ages 16 through 22; and the Street Outreach program (SOP), which provides
outreach and referrals to youth who live on the streets. In FY2010, 6.6% of youth in the BCP and
19% of youth in the TLP reported having been in foster care at some point (similar data were not
collected for youth in the SOP).117 Youth transitioning out of foster care may also be eligible for
select transitional living programs administered by HUD, though the programs do not specifically
target these youth.118
The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-289), was signed into law on July 30, 2008,
and enables owners of properties financed in part with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTCs) to claim as low-income units those units occupied by low-income students who were in
foster care. Owners of LIHTC properties are required to maintain a certain percentage of their
units for occupancy by low-income households; students (with some exceptions) are not generally
considered low-income households for this purpose. The law does not specify the length of time
these students must have spent in foster care nor require that youth are eligible only if they
emancipated.
113
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Joint Explanatory Statement, Division K. report to accompany
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment to H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161, 110th Cong., 1st sess., p. 2396; U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Division I, committee print of the
House Committee on Appropriations on H.R. 1105/P.L. 111-8, 111th Cong., 1st sess., p. 1987; and U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Transportation and Housing and Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, report to accompany H.R. 3288/P.L. 111-117, 111th Cong., 1st sess., December 8,
2009, H.Rept. 111-366, p. 46.
114
For a list of FUP sites by state, see National Center for Housing & Child Welfare, “Cumulative List of FUP Sites,”
http://www.nchcw.org/fup/sites.aspx.
115
Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, p. 13.
116
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and
Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
117
Congressional Research Service analysis, based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, “NEO-RHYMIS,” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/general_info/
pipstatus.pdf.
118
National Alliance to End Homelessness, “Federal Funding for Youth Housing Programs,” information presented at
National Alliance to End Audio Conference, March 9, 2006, available at http://naeh.org/content/article/browse/?type=
24&topic=Youth.
Congressional Research Service
42
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Grant to Support Curriculum for Supervising Older Youth in Care
In FY2006, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services awarded grants under Title IV-B
of the Social Security Act (Promoting Safe and Stable Families) to fund the development of
curriculum for child welfare supervisors and their staff who work with older youth in foster care.
The grants were awarded through FY2008 to six entities: the Hunter College School of Social
Work; Massachusetts Department of Social Services; San Francisco State University; University
of Iowa; University of Houston; and University of Louisville Research Foundation. Each of the
entities provided at least a 25% match to the federal grant award of (up to) $250,000 annually for
three years.
The six entities were directed to develop, implement, evaluate, and disseminate a training
curriculum for public child welfare agency supervisors.119 The purpose of the curriculum was to
strengthen supervision of staff interactions with older youth in care and/or in independent living
programs, and to ensure that staff adequately: (1) assess a youth’s readiness for independent
living services, support, and training; (2) identify culturally competent independent living
program services and activities; (3) utilize positive youth development principles for involving
youth in decisionmaking, implementation, and evaluation of training and program activities;120
(4) identify areas of stress and its impact on youth in foster care; (5) work with youth to help
them deal with crisis situations and to assess the results of the intervention; (6) work with youth
to develop and maintain permanent connections; and (7) collaborate with both inter-and intraagency resource people to achieve positive outcomes for youth transitioning to adulthood. Each
entity was required to conduct an evaluation of the project, either in-house or by contracting with
a third-party evaluator.
119
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Training of Child Welfare Agency Supervisors in the Effective
Delivery and Management of Federal Independent Living Service for Youth in Foster Care,” 70 Federal Register
35087, June 16, 2005.
120
In the fall of 2000, HHS awarded twelve grants for Independent Living Training for Child Welfare practitioners.
One of the findings from the completed projects was that child welfare supervisors needed training on youth
development to understand the unique developmental and service needs of youth in care.
Congressional Research Service
43
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Appendix A. Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly
in Foster Care
Table A-1. Comparison of Outcome Domains Between Young Adults in the Midwest
Study and Young Adults in the Add Health Study
Outcome
Midwest
Evaluation
(Wave 4)—
Former Foster
Youth at
Age 23 and 24
Add Health—
Youth Surveyed
at Age 23 and 24
Current Living Arrangement
Lives in own place
49.0%
63.2%
Lives with biological parent(s)
7.0%
29.4%
Lives with other relative
14.1%
3.4%
Lives with non-relative foster parent(s)
3.8%
0%
Lives with spouse/partner
7.3%
0.7%
Lives with a friend
6.5%
1.2%
Lives in group quarters (e.g., dormitories, barracks)
1.7%
1.1%
In Jail or Prison
7.0%
0.1%
Homeless
0.7%
0.1%
Other living arrangement
3.0%
0.8%
No high school diploma or GED
24.4%
7.3%
High school diploma only
33.7%
26.2%
GED only
9.8%
5.4%
One or more years of college, but no degree
25.6%
27.6%
Two-year college degree
3.2%
9.4%
Four-year college degree
2.5%
19.4%
One or more years of graduate school
0.5%
4.8%
94.7%
97.3%
48.0%
75.7%
$10.14
$13.94
$12,064
$20,349
Any savings/checking accounta
47.3%
85.1%
Owns a vehiclea
44.9%
81.3%
Highest Educational Attainment
Employment, Income, and Assets
Ever held a job
Currently
employeda
Mean hourly
Mean
(nonincarcerated youth only)
wagea
incomea
Congressional Research Service
44
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Outcome
Midwest
Evaluation
(Wave 4)—
Former Foster
Youth at
Age 23 and 24
Add Health—
Youth Surveyed
at Age 23 and 24
Economic Hardships
Not enough to pay renta
28.5%
7.4%
26.9%
11.8%
Gas or electricity shut off
8.7%
4.3%
Evicteda
8.6%
0.7%
Receipt of food stampsa
61.5% - females
19.9% - males
8.3% - females
1.2% - males
Receipt of TANF
6.6% - femalesa
2.0% - males
6.5% - femalesa
1.5% - males
14.6%
3.6%
1.2%
0.3%
Health conditions or disability limits daily activitiesa
12.5%
5.0%
Has medical insurancea
57.0%
78.0%
Did not receive needed medical carea
13.0%
22.6%
Received psychological or emotional counselinga
11.3%
6.5%
Attended substance abuse treatment program
5.1%
2.4%
Age at first intercourse
16.0 - female
15.0 - male
17.0 - female
16.0 - male
Used birth control at time of most recent intercoursea
51.6% - females
51.9% - males
68.2% - females
68.4% - males
Ever paid by someone to have sexa
9.4% - females
12.4% - males
3.9% - females
3.1% - males
Ever pregnant (females only)a
77.0%
40.4%
60.7%
28.4%
94.2%
84.4%
Ever married
16.1% - femalesa
13.2 - males
30.2% - femalesa
18.2% - males
Currently married
13.4% - femalesa
11.8% - males
27.7% - femalesa
16.3% - males
Currently cohabiting
26.4% - femalesa
21.4% - males
15.7% - femalesa
16.3% - males
At least one living childa
66.8% - females
44.3% - males
30.1% - females
18.3%- males
Not enough money to pay utility
billa
Health and Access to Health Care Services
Description of general health as faira
Description of general health as
poora
Sexual Behaviors and Pregnancy
Impregnated partner (males
only)a
Received prenatal care (females only) a
Relationships and Parenting
Congressional Research Service
45
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Outcome
Midwest
Evaluation
(Wave 4)—
Former Foster
Youth at
Age 23 and 24
Add Health—
Youth Surveyed
at Age 23 and 24
Criminal Justice
Ever arresteda
57.2% - females
81.2% - males
4.3% - females
17.4% - males
Arrested since age 18a
38.7% - females
64.0% - males
0.3% - females
2.9% - males
Ever convicteda
28.2% - females
58.8% - males
2.0% - females
10.3% - males
Convicted since age 18a
18.4% - females
42.8% - males
1.6% - females
9.1% - males
Became socially maturea
69.4% - faster than
others
23.4% - about the
same rate as others
6.5% - slower than
others
58.5% - faster than
others
8.5% - about the
same rate as others
32.8% - slower
than others
Took on adult responsibilitiesa
67.8% - faster than
others
25.4% - about the
same rate as others
6.8% - slower than
others
62.9% - faster than
others
8.5% - about the
same rate as others
28.5% - slower
than others
Thinks of self as an adulta
Most or all of the
time – 88.2%
Sometimes – 7.3%
Never or seldom –
4.3%
Most or all of the
time – 77.9%
Sometimes – 5.8%
Never or seldom –
2.0%
Will live to 35 (mean score based on 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being
almost no chance to 5 being almost certain)a
4.49
4.66
Will be married within next 10 years (mean score based on 1 to 5
scale, with 1 being almost no chance to 5 being almost certain)a
3.40
3.96
Will have a middle-class income by age 30 (mean score based on 1
to 5 scale, with 1 being almost no chance to 5 being almost
certain)a
3.66
4.17
Maintained a positive relationship with a caring adult
since age 14a
66.4%
76.2%
Closeness to mentora
9.3% - not at all to a
little close
26.5% - somewhat
close
64.1% - very or quite
close
10.7% - not at all
to a little close
31.5% - somewhat
close
57.8% - very or
quite close
Transition to Adulthood and Orientation Toward the Future
Mentoring
Congressional Research Service
46
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data in Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of
the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Ages 23 and 24, Chapin Hall Center for Children,
University of Chicago, 2010.
Note: The Midwest Evaluation has tracked the outcomes of foster youth at ages 17 and 18, age 19, age 21, and
age 23 and 24. For each of the four data collection waves, wherever possible, researchers asked the same
questions that were taken directly from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”), a
nationally representative survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time.
a.
Indicates that the difference between the youth in the Midwest Evaluation and youth in the Adolescent
Heath Survey is statistically significant.
Congressional Research Service
47
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Appendix B. Funding for the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP) and Education and
Training Voucher (ETV) Program
Table B-1. Final FY2009 and Estimated FY2010 CFCIP General and
ETV Allotments by State
Excludes funding for CFCIF technical assistance and ETV set asides
Estimated FY2011
Final FY2010
State
CFCIP
ETV
CFCIP
ETV
$2,020,511
$677,380
$2,697,891
$2,174,877
$725,247
$2,900,124
627,046
210,218
837,264
683,316
227,862
911,178
Arizona
2,995,850
1,004,364
4,000,214
3,209,948
1,070,406
4,280,354
Arkansas
1,012,123
339,316
1,351,439
1,153,688
384,715
1,538,403
California
19,346,731
6,486,023
25,832,754
18,990,900
6,332,808
25,323,708
Colorado
2,276,271
763,124
3,039,395
2,500,762
833,917
3,334,679
Connecticut
1,545,485
518,127
2,063,612
1,501,971
500,855
2,002,826
500,000
90,369
590,369
500,000
85,633
585,633
District of Columbia
1,091,992
213,590
1,305,582
1,091,992
222,076
1,314,068
Florida
6,375,916
2,137,537
8,513,453
6,045,111
2,015,835
8,060,946
Georgia
2,869,119
961,877
3,830,996
2,530,101
843,701
3,373,802
Hawaii
500,000
153,280
653,280
500,000
153,065
653,065
Idaho
500,000
165,997
665,997
500,000
152,119
652,119
Illinois
5,132,172
1,720,569
6,852,741
5,388,295
1,796,810
7,185,105
Indiana
3,559,387
1,193,290
4,752,677
3,923,550
1,308,368
5,231,918
Iowa
1,980,853
664,084
2,644,937
2,070,771
690,530
2,761,301
Kansas
1,812,230
607,553
2,419,783
1,785,308
595,338
2,380,646
Kentucky
2,094,365
702,139
2,796,504
2,167,937
722,932
2,890,869
Louisiana
1,455,538
487,972
1,943,510
1,509,859
503,485
2,013,344
565,888
180,641
746,529
565,888
173,159
739,047
Maryland
2,226,843
746,553
2,973,396
2,224,722
741,868
2,966,590
Massachusetts
2,996,999
1,004,749
4,001,748
3,044,324
1,015,176
4,059,500
Michigan
5,812,955
1,948,803
7,761,758
5,591,145
1,864,453
7,455,598
Minnesota
1,729,978
579,978
2,309,956
1,706,714
569,130
2,275,844
Mississippi
942,292
315,905
1,258,197
1,047,373
349,263
1,396,636
Missouri
2,760,494
925,460
3,685,954
3,126,978
1,042,739
4,169,717
Montana
500,000
155,014
655,014
517,062
172,422
689,484
1,607,101
546,933
2,154,034
1,661,642
562,082
2,223,724
Alabama
Alaska
Delaware
Maine
Nebraska
Congressional Research Service
Total
Total
48
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Estimated FY2011
Final FY2010
State
Nevada
CFCIP
ETV
Total
CFCIP
ETV
Total
1,442,032
483,443
1,925,475
1,507,650
502,749
2,010,399
500,000
98,847
598,847
500,000
97,836
597,836
2,537,781
850,795
3,388,576
2,463,536
821,504
3,285,040
638,253
213,975
852,228
633,788
211,346
845,134
11,585,958
2,841,411
14,427,369
11,585,958
2,944,748
14,530,706
2,828,025
948,100
3,776,125
3,011,830
1,004,341
4,016,171
500,000
119,464
619,464
500,000
128,764
628,764
Ohio
4,844,801
1,624,227
6,469,028
3,847,835
1,283,120
5,130,955
Oklahoma
3,044,704
1,020,742
4,065,446
2,748,409
916,499
3,664,908
Oregon
2,583,757
866,209
3,449,966
2,667,723
889,594
3,557,317
Pennsylvania
5,577,023
1,869,706
7,446,729
5,324,569
1,775,559
7,100,128
Puerto Rico
1,815,903
608,784
2,424,687
1,688,101
562,923
2,251,024
691,704
231,895
923,599
666,281
222,182
888,463
1,436,571
481,613
1,918,184
1,557,810
519,476
2,077,286
500,000
142,779
642,779
500,000
156,116
656,116
Tennessee
2,074,536
695,492
2,770,028
2,120,931
707,257
2,828,188
Texas
8,088,940
2,711,831
10,800,771
8,418,737
2,807,357
11,226,094
Utah
747,741
250,682
998,423
870,393
290,246
1,160,639
Vermont
500,000
115,610
615,610
500,000
111,722
611,722
Virginia
1,937,748
649,633
2,587,381
1,869,814
623,518
2,493,332
Washington
3,199,303
1,072,572
4,271,875
3,122,620
1,041,286
4,163,906
West Virginia
1,267,884
425,060
1,692,944
1,336,663
445,731
1,782,394
Wisconsin
2,127,412
713,219
2,840,631
2,140,491
713,779
2,854,270
Wyoming
500,000
111,179
611,179
500,000
121,506
621,506
137,808,215
44,648,113
182,456,328
137,797,373
44,555,153
182,352,526
2,322,030
22,622
2,344,652
102,627
26,241
128,868
$137,900,000
$44,670,735
$182,570,735
137,900,000
44,581,394
182,481,394
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Total for States
Tribes
Total for States and
Tribes
Sources: Congressional Research Service, based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services in June 2011.
Note: The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351) permits, as of
FY2010, an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium that receives direct funding from HHS to
provide child welfare services or enters into a cooperative agreement or contract with the state to provide
foster care, to apply for and receive an allotment of CFCIP and ETV funds directly from HHS. To be eligible, a
tribal entity must be receiving Title IV-E funds to operate a foster care program (under a Title IV-E plan
approved by HHS or via a cooperative agreement or contract with the state). For FY2010 and FY2011, the
following tribes received CFCIP funding: Prairie Band of Potawatomi (Kansas), Santee Sioux Nation (Nebraska),
Confederated Tribe of Warm Springs (Oregon), and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (Washington). For FY2010 and
FY2011, the following tribes received ETV funding: Prairie Band of Potawatomi (Kansas), Confederated Tribe of
Warm Springs (Oregon), and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (Washington).
Congressional Research Service
49
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Table B-2. FY2008 Chafee Foster Care Independence Program: Final Funds Allotted,
Expended, and Returned to Federal Treasury, by State
Excludes funding for CFCIF technical assistance
State
Alabama
Dollar Amount
Allocated
Dollar Amount
Expended
Dollar
Amount
Returned to
Treasury
Percent of
Allotment
Returned to
Treasury
$1,857,787
$1,857,787
$0
522,787
522,787
0
0
2,525,936
2,525,936
0
0
Arkansas
891,385
891,385
0
0
California
20,510,930
20,510,930
0
0
Colorado
2,112,690
2,112,690
0
0
Connecticut
1,933,323
1,933,323
0
0
500,000
500,000
0
0
District of Columbia
1,091,992
1,083,040
8,952
Florida
7,587,151
7,587,151
0
0
Georgia
3,419,915
3,419,915
0
0
Hawaii
611,302
611,302
0
0
Idaho
500,000
500,000
0
0
Illinois
4,768,674
4,768,674
0
0
Indiana
2,955,015
2,955,015
0
0
Iowa
2,346,569
2,346,569
0
0
Kansas
1,659,470
1,659,470
0
0
Kentucky
1,974,336
1,884,309
90,027
Louisiana
1,358,131
1,358,131
0
0
565,888
565,888
0
0
Maryland
2,816,920
2,816,920
0
0
Massachusetts
2,984,866
2,984,866
0
0
Michigan
5,228,383
5,228,383
0
0
Minnesota
1,857,527
1,857,527
0
0
Mississippi
831,422
831,422
0
0
Missouri
2,642,745
2,642,745
0
0
Montana
509,288
509,288
0
0
Nebraska
1,605,998
1,605,998
0
0
Nevada
1,310,081
1,310,081
0
0
500,000
500,000
0
0
2,749,950
2,749,950
0
0
611,821
611,821
0
0
11,585,958
11,585,958
0
0
Alaska
Arizona
Delaware
Maine
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Congressional Research Service
0%
0.8
4.6
50
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
State
North Carolina
Dollar Amount
Allocated
Dollar Amount
Expended
Dollar
Amount
Returned to
Treasury
Percent of
Allotment
Returned to
Treasury
2,885,189
2,885,189
0
0
500,000
500,000
0
0
Ohio
4,317,011
4,317,011
0
0
Oklahoma
3,067,151
3,067,151
0
0
Oregon
2,767,342
2,767,342
0
0
Pennsylvania
5,486,142
5,486,142
0
0
Puerto Rico
1,729,037
1,475,788
253,249
737,716
737,716
0
0
1,277,115
1,277,115
0
0
500,000
500,000
0
0
Tennessee
2,237,027
2,237,027
0
0
Texas
8,007,405
8,007,405
0
0
Utah
629,991
629,991
0
0
Vermont
500,000
500,000
0
0
Virginia
2,035,856
2,035,856
0
0
Washington
2,714,388
2,714,388
0
0
West Virginia
1,096,969
1,096,969
0
0
Wisconsin
1,983,421
1,983,421
0
0
Wyoming
500,000
499,891
109
$137,900,000
$137,547,663
$352,337
North Dakota
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Total
14.6
0.0
0.3%
Source: Congress Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, June 2011.
Congressional Research Service
51
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Table B-3. FY2008 Chafee Foster Care Education and Training Voucher Program:
Final Funds Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal Treasury, by State
Excludes funding for ETV set asides
State
Alabama
Dollar
Amount
Allocated
Dollar
Amount
Expended
Dollar Amount
Returned to
Treasury
Percent of
Allotment
Returned to
Treasury
$625,790
$625,790
$0
0%
Alaska
176,099
167,398
8,701
4.9
Arizona
850,853
850,853
0
Arkansas
300,260
283,174
17,086
California
6,909,043
6,909,043
0
0
Colorado
711,653
711,653
0
0
Connecticut
651,234
651,234
0
0
93,908
93,908
0
0
207,052
207,052
0
0
Florida
2,555,708
2,555,708
0
0
Georgia
1,151,988
1,151,988
0
0
Hawaii
205,915
205,915
0
0
Idaho
161,759
161,759
0
0
Illinois
1,606,313
1,606,313
0
0
Indiana
995,388
995,388
0
0
Iowa
790,434
790,434
0
0
Kansas
558,987
558,987
0
0
Kentucky
665,049
431,011
234,038
35.2
Louisiana
455,811
386,099
69,712
15.3
Maine
181,520
181,516
4
Maryland
948,871
903,466
45,405
Massachusetts
1,005,443
1,005,443
0
Michigan
1,761,164
1,727,827
33,337
Minnesota
625,702
625,702
0
0
Mississippi
280,062
280,062
0
0
Missouri
890,200
890,200
0
0
Montana
171,552
171,552
0
0
Nebraska
540,975
540,975
0
0
Nevada
441,297
441,297
0
0
New Hampshire
100,203
100,203
0
0
New Jersey
926,312
926,312
0
0
New Mexico
206,090
206,090
0
0
Delaware
District of Columbia
Congressional Research Service
0
5.7
0
4.8
0
1.9
52
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
State
New York
Dollar
Amount
Allocated
Dollar
Amount
Expended
Dollar Amount
Returned to
Treasury
Percent of
Allotment
Returned to
Treasury
2,620,762
2,620,762
0
North Carolina
971,867
799,348
172,519
North Dakota
116,379
116,379
0
0
Ohio
1,454,172
1,454,172
0
0
Oklahoma
1,033,160
719,228
313,932
932,170
932,170
0
0
Pennsylvania
1,847,990
1,847,990
0
0
Puerto Rico
582,421
582,421
0
0
Rhode Island
248,497
248,497
0
0
South Carolina
430,192
430,192
0
0
South Dakota
145,059
46,202
98,857
Tennessee
753,536
753,536
0
2,697,269
2,276,969
420,300
Utah
212,211
212,211
0
0
Vermont
120,576
120,576
0
0
Virginia
685,772
685,772
0
0
Washington
914,333
914,333
0
0
West Virginia
369,511
369,511
0
0
Wisconsin
668,109
668,109
0
0
Wyoming
113,756
111,452
2,304
$44,670,377
$43,254,182
$1,416,195
Oregon
Texas
Total
0
17.8
30.4
68.1
0
15.6
2.0
3.2%
Source: Congress Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, June 2011.
Congressional Research Service
53