Order Code RL31540
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Second Chance Homes:
Federal Funding, Programs, and Services
Updated December 17, 2004
Edith Fairman Cooper
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Second Chance Homes:
Federal Funding, Programs, and Services
Summary
Second chance homes for unwed teenage mothers are not a new concept in the
nation. Before the mid-1880s, support for unwed teen mothers was primarily
provided by family, friends, and churches. In 1883, Charles Crittenton founded the
first “rescue home” (named for his daughter Florence) that eventually became a chain
of what later were called private maternity homes, to better support such mothers and
ensure that no repeat out-of-wedlock pregnancies occurred. Subsequently, an
extensive network of private maternity homes was established across the nation.
In 1935, with the passage of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) program, financial support and other services through federal funding were
established primarily to help widows care for their children, and for the first time to
assist unwed mothers. After the framework of the private maternity home began to
disintegrate, a renewed interest in such homes occurred during the 1995 Senate
welfare reform debate when agreement was made to support the “second chance
home” concept.
With the passage of the welfare reform bill in August 1996, a block grant
program to states for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) was created
to replace AFDC. States were given the flexibility to use their TANF funds to assist
unwed teen mothers under 18 and their children who lived in a second chance home.
Although TANF is a significant source of funds for second chance homes, there is
no single primary federal funding source for such homes.
In the 108th Congress, S. 476, the Charitable Contributions bill or CARE Act of
2003, was reported (S.Rept. 108-11) and passed by the Senate (April 9, 2003). It
would have amended the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act allowing funding for
maternity group homes (second chance homes) through its Transitional Living
Program (TLP). H.R. 7, the Charitable Giving Act of 2003, that would have
provided funding for maternity group homes through TLP was reported, amended,
(H.Rept. 108-270, Part I) by the House Ways and Means Committee, passed by the
House on September 17, 2003, and referred to the Senate Finance Committee on
December 9, 2003. No further action occurred on either bill.
H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act,
which includes a provision to create maternity group homes through TLP projects,
was signed into law (P.L. 108-96) on October 10, 2003 to reauthorize programs
under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and Missing Children’s Assistance Act.
To date there have been very few rigorous evaluations of the effectiveness of
second chance homes. HHS reports, however, that there have been several analyses
regarding service delivery approaches of different programs that documented how the
programs worked and provided descriptions of the teen mothers and their children.
As a result, insights have been gained regarding the needs of the mothers and their
children, as well as in some cases, program outcomes, such as subsequent
employment, education, or subsequent pregnancies.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
What Are Second Chance Homes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
History of Maternity and Second Chance Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Goals of Second Chance Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
What Teen Families Are Served? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Growth of Second Chance Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Legislative Activities in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Selected Federal Programs and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program — Transitional
Living Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Social Services Block Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Child Welfare Services Program (Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of SSA) . . . 12
Foster Care Program (Title IV-E of SSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Community Development Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Supportive Housing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Emergency Shelter Grants Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Evaluations of Second Chance Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

---

Second Chance Homes:
Federal Funding, Programs, and Services
Introduction
Second chance homes (SCHs) for unwed teenage mothers are not a new concept
in the nation. They are a revival of an old institution, called the “maternity home,”
in a new form to provide a safe, stable environment for teen mothers and their
children who cannot live at home. Such teens are assisted in becoming self-
sufficient, developing job skills, learning how to become good mothers, obtaining
help in gaining access to child care, and in planning for the future. Renewed interest
in such homes occurred in 1995 during the welfare reform debate. With the passage
of the welfare reform bill in 1996, the state block grant for Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) was created. TANF allowed the use of SCHs as a form of
adult-supervised setting for unwed teenage mothers in which they could live apart
from their parents and still be eligible for cash assistance. In the 108th Congress,
TANF is up for reauthorization and a proposal has been introduced that would affect
SCHs. Also, legislation has been introduced that would amend the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Act to allow funding for maternity group homes (SCHs) through the
Act’s Transitional Living Program, and to evaluate such homes.
This report describes second chance homes, discusses legislation in the 108th
Congress related to such homes, and describes federal funding provided through
TANF and other programs to assist needy teen mothers who live in second chance
homes. Evaluations of the effectiveness of a SCH also are discussed.
What Are Second Chance Homes?
There is no one definition for second chance homes because, according to the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), second chance homes “can refer
to a group home, a cluster of apartments, or a network of homes that integrate
housing and services for teen mothers and their children who cannot live at home
because of abuse, neglect or other extenuating circumstances.”1 TANF law defines
a second chance home as “an entity that provides individuals ... with a supportive
and supervised living arrangement in which such individuals are required to learn
parenting skills, including child development, family budgeting, health and nutrition,
and other skills to promote their long-term economic independence and the well-
1 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Second Chance Homes: Providing Services for
Teenage Parents and Their Children, p. 3.

---

CRS-2
being of their children.”2 The law lists a “maternity home” as a distinct entity from
a second chance home and requires state welfare agencies to assist unwed teen
mothers in locating such a home. It does not, however, define a maternity home or
indicate how one differs from a second chance home. The Social Policy Action
Network (SPAN), a private nonprofit national resource center for these homes,
defines second chance homes as “places of refuge for the most vulnerable teen
mothers and their children. They are community-based institutions that build social
capital.”3 Depending on a community’s need, such homes can be located in both
urban and rural areas of a state.4
The purpose of a second chance home is to assist and support young teen
mothers in becoming self-sufficient by completing high school and developing job
skills, to learn how to become good mothers by properly caring for their child, to help
them gain access to child care, and to provide advice in planning for the future.
According to SPAN, the main criteria for second chance homes is that they serve
parenting teens (some will accept pregnant teens and allow them to remain in the
residence with their infants for at least six months or longer after birth), and that they
are residential.5 SPAN indicates that second chance home not only provides a stable,
nurturing atmosphere for teen mothers, but safe, nurturing environments for their
offspring.6 Second chance homes are said to be unique because most offer access on
site “to child care, education, job training, counseling, and advice on parenting and
life skills.” Staff also assist the residents in obtaining outside social services, child
care and in making future plans.7
Second chance homes can be individually operated or can be operated and
funded by agencies with broader missions and services. Churches and nonprofit
organizations across the nation have operated group homes for teen mothers for a
number of years. After the passage of the 1996 welfare reform law, several states
joined the effort to create and operate second chance homes by supporting programs
that were community-based or conducted by faith-based groups using TANF or state
funds.8
2 Compilation of the Social Security Laws, Including the Social Security Act, as Amended,
and Related Enactments Through January 1, 1999, Title IV, Part A, Section 408(5)(B)(iii),
at [http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0408.htm], visited Apr. 4, 2002.
3 SPAN, What Are Second Chance Homes? (Washington, D.C.: Social Policy Action
Network) (Hereafter cited as SPAN, What Are Second Chance Homes?)
4 Jacqueline Greer, SPAN Policy Associate, Second Chance Homes: State Contacts
(Washington, D.C.: Social Policy Action Network, June 24, 2002).
5 Jacqueline Greer, SPAN Policy Associate, telephone conversation with author, June 24,
2002. (Hereafter cited as Greer, telephone conversation).
6 SPAN, What Are Second Chance Homes?
7 Kathy Reich and Lisa M. Kelly, Starting a Second Chance Home: A Guide for
Policymakers and Practitioners (Washington, D.C.: Social Policy Action Network, Jan.
2001), p. 4. (Hereafter cited as Reich and Kelly, Starting a Second Chance Home.)
8 Ibid.

---

CRS-3
History of Maternity and Second Chance Homes
Second chance homes provide a substitute living arrangement for unwed
teenage mothers and their children who cannot live at home due to extenuating
circumstances, such as violence, physical abuse, or unsafe living conditions.9 Earlier
versions of this concept can be traced back to the mid-1880s. Before that time,
support for unwed teen mothers was primarily provided by family, friends, and
churches. In 1883, however, Charles Crittenton, a wealthy
businessman/philanthropist, founded the first “rescue home” (named for his daughter
Florence) that eventually became a chain of what later were called private maternity
homes, to better support such mothers. Through moral and religious instruction,
directors of these establishments tried to ensure that the mother did not bear more
out-of-wedlock children. Subsequently, an extensive network of private maternity
homes for “women in crisis” was established across the nation. The Florence
Crittenton homes, described as one of the best known networks of maternity homes
in 19th century America, “shielded mothers from psychological or material worries
during and after their confinement; ... provided nutritional and medical services that
encouraged healthy deliveries; ... helped stressed individuals become better prepared
to mother; and ... helped arrange adoptions” for mothers who lacked the means to
raise their offspring.10 The average length of stay in the homes was about 20 months,
and 60% of the mothers put their children up for adoption.11
In 1935, when the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program
was enacted, primarily to help widows care for their children, federal funding to
assist unwed mothers was established for the first time. George Liebmann, an
attorney and former counsel to the Maryland Department of Social Services, reports
that as a result of the AFDC program, the framework of the local maternity homes
began to disintegrate. Through the AFDC program, cash aid was extended to unwed
mothers to support and care for children in their own homes. Eventually, and also
as a result of changing social attitudes toward non-marital births, maternity homes
were widely viewed as obsolete. Around 1980, Liebmann indicates in a 1995
article,12 the number of maternity homes “bottomed out,” and since that time the
number of homes has been struggling upward. A survey of maternity homes
conducted in the mid-1990s revealed that 215 such residences were located across
the nation.13
In September 1995, during the Senate’s welfare reform debate, there was
support for the SCH concept, with passage of an amendment to provide $150 million
(over six years) as seed money for states to support community-based homes for teen
9 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation, Second Chance Homes: Providing Services for Teenage Parents and Their
Children, at [http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/2ndchancehomes00/index.htm], visited June 11, 2002.
10 Ibid.
11 George Liebmann, “Back to the Maternity Homes,” The American Enterprise, Jan. /Feb.
1995, vol. 6, p. 50.
12 Ibid., p. 51.
13 Ibid.

---

CRS-4
mothers under the age of 18. The SCH concept differed from the maternity home by
requiring young mothers from unstable families to live with their children under adult
supervision in the SCH as a condition for receiving welfare. Although included in
two versions of the welfare reform bills that subsequently were vetoed by President
Clinton, the SCH concept and principles attracted support in states and communities
and revived interest in the concept.14
On August 22,1996, the welfare reform bill (the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) was enacted into law (P.L. 104-193). The law
established block grants to states for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and
replaced the AFDC program. Funds may be used through TANF for second chance
homes at state discretion. In addition, TANF: (1) prohibits cash assistance to
unmarried teen parents (under 18) unless they live with their own parents, guardians,
or another adult relative, or other appropriate adult supervised living arrangement;
(2) requires states to provide or assist unwed teen parents, who are on welfare and
because of extenuating circumstances cannot live at home, in locating a second
chance home, maternity home, or other appropriate supervised living arrangement;
and (3) defines second chance homes.15
SPAN reports that a recent renewal of interest in second chance homes can be
attributed to three factors — (1) a decrease in state welfare caseloads has directed
more attention to the needs of young teen mothers and their need for secure, stable
housing; (2) state welfare surpluses have brought attention to options, such as second
chance homes, which initially appeared to be too expensive at the beginning of
welfare reform; and (3) President George W. Bush has made second chance homes
one of the mainstays of his philosophy of compassionate conservatism.16 17
Goals of Second Chance Homes
Second chance home providers may set various kinds of goals for their residents
and the program in general to attain. SPAN suggests that a primary goal should be
understood and supported by the entities funding the program, state and local social
14 For a history of the welfare reform debate and subsequent law, see CRS Report RS20807,
Short History of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, by Vee Burke and Joe Richardson.
15 P.L. 104-193, Title IV, Part A, Block Grants to States for Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, Section 408(5)(A)(B).
16 SPAN, What Are Second Chance Homes?
17 Compassionate conservatism was initially embraced by presidential candidate George W.
Bush as a political philosophy, according to Stephen Goldsmith, a domestic policy adviser
to the Bush campaign. Goldsmith states that “compassionate conservatism serves as a true
bridge from the era of big government as a way to solve social problems to a new era in
which we will have a full and healthy trust in the people of this nation to govern
themselves.” Stephen Goldsmith, “What Compassionate Conservatism Is — and Is Not,”
Hoover Digest, no. 4, 2000, at [http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/004/
goldsmith.html], visited Apr. 29, 2002.

---

CRS-5
service agencies, community groups, and the teen mothers.18 For example,
Massachusetts administrators chose safety as the state’s primary goal for SCH
providers. Consequently, state officials made contracts with private agencies to
establish 27 second chance homes to provide safe and stable housing for unwed teen
mothers and their children. New Mexico chose education as its primary goal and
focuses on providing secure housing for teen mothers and assistance in preventing
additional pregnancies, so that they can complete high school and strive to go to
college.
Proponents maintain that short- and long-term goals that might be established
for second chance homes include stressing the importance of protecting and nurturing
the children of the mothers, reuniting teens with and stabilizing their families,
building the self-esteem of the mothers, suggesting alternatives to abortion, and
keeping foster care mothers united with their children, among others.19
What Teen Families Are Served?
Most teen mothers who live in and are assisted by second chance homes have
experienced troubled lives. Many such mothers have undergone difficulties, which
might include living in poverty stricken and oftentimes abusive families, suffering
persistent neglect, and possibly using drugs. A new challenge they must confront is
parenthood. Living in a structured second chance home might not be easy for some
teen mothers because in a large number of cases, such a setting might be the first time
they are required to follow strict rules and meet certain expectations.20 Because of
such backgrounds of potential residents, not all second chance homes are qualified
to serve all teen mothers. SPAN notes that generally, teen mothers under age 14
might be better suited for foster care because of their inability to assume primary
responsibility for the care of their offspring.21 Consequently, second chance home
providers have to determine whether there are teen mothers that they will not serve.
SPAN gives several tips that second chance home providers could consider
when deciding which teen mothers can or cannot be assisted. These tips include —
determining the age range of teens to admit; deciding what time limits, if any, will
be set for periods spent at the home; deciding whether teen fathers will be provided
residential services; and determining how to handle custody issues (that is, whether
minor teen mothers living in such residences will remain in the custody of their
parents, or be in the custody of the state). Because of the criteria that most second
chance homes apply, some teen mothers will not be accepted. In such instances,
SPAN advises, program providers should be aware of alternatives that are available
to such teens.22
18 Reich and Kelly, Starting a Second Chance Home, p. 6.
19 Ibid., p. 7.
20 Ibid., p. 13.
21 Ibid., p. 14.
22 Ibid., p. 15.

---

CRS-6
Information in SPAN’s Second Chance Homes National Directory indicate that
of the 95 second chance home providers who responded to their survey, all (except
two, which specifically indicated that they also assist pregnant teens) served teen
families (which consist of a mother and child23), and assisted such mothers of ages
that ranged from as young as 12 to as old as 29. The time limit of stay ranged from
no limit, to one or no more than two years. Some of the providers precisely indicated
certain limits, such as, when the mother completed high school and found permanent
housing, or when the child turned three years of age. Others indicated the time limit
as it related to the type of housing or the specific program in which the mother was
involved, such as two years for those living in group homes, and two years for those
involved in a foster care Independent Living program. HHS reports that in some
cases, second chance home providers involve the fathers of the offspring and assist
them in obtaining access to services that they might need in becoming good parents,
and in acquiring skills that will lead to employment.24 The SPAN Second Chance
Homes National Directory lists 54 second chance homes that provide services to teen
fathers.
Growth of Second Chance Homes
SPAN reports in its Second Chance Homes National Directory25 that “a growing
number of states and communities have found a way to break the cycle of poverty
and abuse for ... teen mothers” through creating second chance homes. Although
funds for second chance homes were not specifically provided in the 1996 welfare
reform law, several states decided to provide their own funding or use TANF funds
to establish second chance homes. No state or community, however, directly
operates a SCH, but instead contracts with nonprofit organizations to operate the
homes. Among the first states to allow funding for a network of such homes were
Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, and New Mexico. In 1999, statewide networks
for such homes began in Texas, Rhode Island, and Nevada. In 2001, Georgia began
a statewide program to operate second chance homes. Several communities in
Missouri, Connecticut, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Vermont have used
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding to open second
chance homes.26 On the other hand, SPAN states that because of a lack of funding,
some second chance homes have been closed in various states.27
SPAN lists information about 95 second chance homes that are currently
operating throughout the nation in its November 2001 National Directory (the latest
data available). Such information includes what is described as “vital statistics” for
the homes (that is, whether families and/or pregnant teens are helped, time limit of
23 Greer, Telephone conversation.
24 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Second Chance Homes: Providing Services
for Teenage Parents and Their Children, p. 3.
25 SPAN, Second Chance Homes: National Directory (Washington, D.C.: Social Policy
Action Network, Nov. 2001).
26 SPAN, Second Chance Homes: Advice for the States (Washington, D.C.: Social Policy
Action Network, 1999).
27 Greer, telephone conversation.

---

CRS-7
residency, if any, age of persons helped, etc.), services that residents receive, budget
information, and contact information. Also listed are 37 additional second chance
homes that currently are operating but where similar information about the homes
could not be obtained. Information was gathered from the homes through a written
survey distributed in summer and fall 2001 and provided through telephone
interviews. The directory lists a total of 132 second chance homes that were
operating in 30 states in the nation. SPAN does not claim that the list is exhaustive,
but plans to produce annual updated editions to include information about additional
second chance home providers as it becomes available.28
Legislative Activities in the 108th Congress
The welfare reform act of 1996, as mentioned above, provides block grants to
states for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is a major source of
federal funding for second chance homes. In the 108th Congress, legislation was
introduced that contained provisions related to maternity group homes (second
chance homes). On January 30, 2003, S. 272, the Charity Aid, Recovery, and
Empowerment Act of 2003 (CARE Act), was introduced by Senator Rick Santorum
and referred to the Senate Finance Committee. Title IX of the bill would have
amended the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act with respect to the Transitional
Living Program to include maternity group homes, provide a definition and an
evaluation of such homes. No further action occurred on the legislation.
Senator Charles Grassley introduced S. 476, the Charitable Contributions bill
or CARE Act of 2003, on February 27, 2003. As introduced, the bill did not include
a provision pertaining to maternity group homes. On April 8, 2003, the measure was
amended to include a maternity group home provision (similar to the provision in S.
272) as Title IX, Section 901, amending the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act
(RHYA) to allow funding for such homes through the Transitional Living Program.
Also, the bill amended Part B of RHYA by requiring the Secretary of HHS to enter
into a contract with a public or private entity to evaluate maternity group homes that
would have been supported by funds under the CARE Act. The bill would have
required that a maternity group home evaluation include collected information about
relevant characteristics of persons benefitting from the home, and what services
provided were most beneficial. Also, the entity conducting the evaluation would
have been required to submit a report to Congress discussing the status, activities,
and achievements of maternity group homes no later than two years after the date of
the contract, and every two years thereafter. For FY2003, the bill would have
authorized $33 million for maternity group homes, and such sums as necessary for
FY2004. On February 27, 2003, S. 476 was reported (S.Rept. 108-11) by the
Committee on Finance, and passed, amended, by the Senate on April 9, 2003 (a vote
of 95 to 5). No further action occurred.
H.R. 7, the Charitable Giving Act of 2003, introduced on May 7, 2003, by
Representative Roy Blunt, would have amended RHYA to include a provision for
maternity group homes that would have been funded through TLP. Similar to S. 476,
28 SPAN, Second Chance Homes: National Directory, pp. 2, 101-103.

---

CRS-8
the bill would have authorized $33 million to be appropriated in FY2003 for such
homes, and such sums as necessary for FY2004. H.R. 7 was reported, amended,
(H.Rept. 108-270, Part I) by the House Ways and Means Committee on September
16, 2003, passed by the House on September 17, 2003, and referred to the Senate
Finance Committee on December 9, 2003. No further action occurred on the bill.
S. 367, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
Amendments of 2003, a TANF reauthorization bill, introduced February 12, 2003 by
Senator Jay Rockefeller, included a provision to establish grants for second chance
homes. Referred to the Senate Finance Committee, no further action occurred.
Section 503 of the bill, Second Chance Homes, would have authorized the HHS
Secretary to award $32 million for FY2004 for competitive grants to eligible
entities29 to create, expand, or enhance a second chance home that served mothers up
to 23 years old and their children. The legislation did not specify whether the
mothers assisted had to be unwed or not. The bill would have required eligible
entities to provide non-federal contributions equal to not less than 20% of the federal
funds received under the grant. Grants would have been awarded for five years.
When awarding grants, the HHS Secretary would have been required to give priority
to an eligible entity proposing to create a new second chance home, particularly in
a rural area or tribal community; proposing to collaborate with a nonprofit entity in
creating, expanding, or enhancing such a home; or demonstrating that the entity
would use state TANF funds to support a portion of the operating costs of such a
home.
The bill stipulated that the HHS Secretary must enter into a contract with a
public or private entity for an evaluation of second chance homes. The entity
conducting the evaluation would have been required to submit to Congress an interim
report that would have been due within two years after the date of the signed contract
for the evaluation, and it would have been required to submit a final report within
five years of the signed contract date. The bill would have required the HHS
Secretary to reserve $1 million for FY2004 for the evaluation. Also, the Secretary
could have used up to $500,000 to enter into a contract with a public or private party
for providing technical assistance to grantees.
On May 1, 2003, H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children
Protection Act, was introduced by Representative Phil Gingrey to reauthorize
programs under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) and the Missing
Children’s Assistance Act. On October 10, 2003, the measure was signed into law
(P.L. 108-96). Title I of the law amends the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act’s
section regarding eligibility for assistance to establish a TLP, by specifying that plans
to establish group homes include maternity group homes, and that services provided
include, as appropriate, parenting skills. A definition for maternity group homes is
included as a new subsection. Although for FY2004, $105 million was authorized
29 That is, a state (specifically, each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands), local
government unit, Indian tribe, or a public or private nonprofit agency, group, institution or
other nonprofit entity. An “other nonprofit entity” includes a nonprofit urban Indian
organization, or an Indian group or community other than an Indian tribe.

---

CRS-9
for RHYA, and such sums as necessary for FY2005 through FY2008, no specific
funding was recommended for maternity group homes.
Selected Federal Programs and Services
There is no single primary federal funding source for second chance homes.
There are a variety of federal, state, and local programs, however, through which
funding can be obtained for second chance homes. SPAN indicates that second
chance homes are expensive to operate. It reports that such costs range from $8,000
to $65,000 per year per teen family, depending on the location of the home, the
ability of the providers to coordinate services in a community, and the level of care
needed by teen families.30 Not all SCH providers receive federal funding to operate
second chance homes. For example, in Massachusetts, funding for some SCHs is
received only from the state Department of Social Services, the United Way and/or
state grants and contracts, while other homes receive funding from various sources,
including individual donors, non-profits and foundations, faith-based groups, county
or city governments, as well as federal grants.31
Major federal sources for second chance homes are available via programs
administered by HHS and the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). How much funding is being used for second chance homes through these
avenues, however, cannot be determined. Such decisions are made according to the
discretion of the agency administering the program. As mentioned above, some
second chance homes have been closed in various states because of a lack of
funding.32
Selected HHS and HUD programs that can be used as funding sources for
second chance homes are discussed below.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Programs administered by HHS that may provide assistance to unwed teen
mothers through second chance homes include the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Transitional Living Program, TANF, Social Services Block Grants, Child Welfare
Services Program (Title IV-B of the Social Security Act), and the Foster Care
Program (Title IV-E, of the SSA). According to HHS, the two largest federal
funding sources for second chance homes within the department are TANF and the
Social Services Block Grant. These two programs, HHS states, “provide funds to
states that may be important sources of support for young parents and can be used to
fund second chance homes.” Each program is discussed below.
30 Kathy Reich, Second Chance Homes: Finding the Funding, (Washington, D.C.: Social
Policy Action Network, Oct. 2000), p. 2 (Hereafter cited as Reich, Second Chance Homes:
Finding the Funding.)
31 Second Chance Homes: National Directory, pp. 40-58.
32 Greer, telephone conversation.

---

CRS-10
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program — Transitional Living
Program. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program (RHYP) is Title III of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. Amended by the
Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act (P.L. 108-96), the
program authorizes the HHS Secretary to make grants to states that would assist
public and private entities in creating and operating a community-based care system
for runaway and homeless youth33 and their families. For FY2002, President George
W. Bush requested $33 million for maternity group homes (also referred to as second
chance homes) as a new program component of the RHYP’s Transitional Living
Program (TLP). Under the proposed program, competitive grants would be offered
to faith-based and community-based groups that provide a safe and nurturing
environment for unwed teen mothers and their children.34
Through TLP, supported by the Family and Youth Services Bureau of HHS,
grants are provided for long-term assistance to 16- to 21-year-old homeless youth
through residential services for up to 18 months. Such assistance includes
counseling, interpersonal skill development, educational improvement, job
acquisition skills, and physical and mental health care, as needed, to help such youth
make a successful transition to self-sufficient living. Also, the goal is to help young
mothers, who reside in a second chance home, to complete high school, develop job
skills, and learn to be good parents.35
A portion of the FY2002 funding used for the needs of pregnant and parenting
teens, went to various organizations that already were receiving TLP funds and were
directly serving that teen population. Some of the funding supported new as well as
former grantees. Also, funds went to programs that did not specifically serve such
teens, but had connections with other organizations that directly served pregnant and
parenting teens. Many of the organizations receiving such grants were faith-based
groups.36
For FY2004, Congress appropriated $89,978,000 for the Consolidated Runaway
and Homeless Youth Program (RHYP). Of this amount, $40,260,056 is for TLP.37
No specific funding was appropriated for maternity group homes in FY2004.
Congress was aware of the need for funding residential services for young mothers
and their children, and that pregnant and parenting teens were eligible for and served
by TLP. It was expected that the Family and Youth Services Bureau would continue
33 The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 5701, et seq.) defines a homeless
youth as an individual 16 to 21 years of age, who cannot live in a safe environment with a
relative and who has no other alternative living arrangement (42 U.S.C. § 5732a(3)).
34 “President Bush Proposes $33 Million for Second Chance Homes,” SPAN Occasional
SCH Newsletter, Issue 2, Apr. 2001.
35 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
“Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, Fiscal Year 2003 Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, p. H-49.
36 Spokesman at FYSB, telephone conversation with author, Apr. 8, 2003.
37 All FY2004 RHYP figures reflect the across-the-board rescission of 0.59% through the
FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199).

---

CRS-11
providing technical assistance to enable TLP grantees and their community partners
to address the unique needs of young mothers and their children, as well as to assist
interested entities in identifying funding sources currently available to provide
residential services to this population.
For FY2005, Congress appropriated $89,447,000 for RHYP.38 For FY2003
through FY2005, the President requested $10 million for maternity group homes. No
funds, however, have been appropriated for such homes.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant. As mentioned
above, there are certain restrictions on the use of federal TANF funds for unwed teen
parents. TANF funds cannot assist unwed teen mothers under 18 unless they live
with their own parents, adult relatives, or live under adult supervision. Also, teen
parents who have not completed high school must go to school, or enter a GED
program, or participate in a state-approved alternative education or training
program.39 Furthermore, states may use TANF funds for operating a SCH and
maternity group home (TANF makes a distinction between the two homes), but not
for constructing the living quarters.40 Other restrictions on the use of TANF funds
include prohibiting their use for remodeling such buildings, or paying for medical
services.
Teen mothers living in such homes may be given cash assistance or vouchers
through TANF funds. Also, funds may be used for financing any service that states
want to provide in second chance homes. Such services might include pre-pregnancy
family planning services, including abstinence education and birth control. There is
no limit on the amount of TANF funding a state may use for a SCH.
There is a federal five-year time limit for receiving TANF assistance for teen
parents who are heads of households or who are married to a head of household.
Some states as well have their own shorter time limits on recipients receiving TANF
funds; however, states also have discretion in implementing time limit policies.
According to Kathy Reich of SPAN,41
States could exempt teens from time limits while they are living in Second
Chance Homes by declaring that the home provider acts as head of household.
Even if states decide against this, they will have discretion under TANF to
exempt up to 20 percent of their welfare caseloads from the lifetime limit for
reasons related to family hardship or domestic violence. The definition of
38 This figure is subject to a 0.80% across-the-board cut required by the FY2005
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P. L. 108-447).
39 Reich, Second Chance Homes: Finding the Funding, p. 4.
40 This restriction is based on the general rule of Comptroller General decisions regarding
a state’s use of TANF funds. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, “Helping Families Achieve Self-
Sufficiency: A Guide on Funding Services for Children and Families through the TANF
Program,” Dec. 12, 1999.
41 Reich, Second Chance Homes: Finding the Funding, pp. 4-5.

---

CRS-12
“hardship” is left to the states to determine and could encompass teens living in
Second Chance Homes.
Social Services Block Grant. The Social Service Block Grant (SSBG),
Title XX of SSA, is “designed to reduce or eliminate dependency; achieve or
maintain self-sufficiency for families; help prevent neglect, abuse or exploitation of
children and adults; prevent or reduce inappropriate institutional care; and secure
admission or referral for institutional care when other forms of care are not
appropriate.”42 States are free to designate eligible populations, which typically
include low-income children and families, the disabled, and the elderly.
SSBG funds can be used for any services related to second chance homes at the
discretion of the state. Funds are provided to states by formula based on total
population. There are no limitations on how much states can earmark for SCH or any
other use, and no time limit on assistance. States must report to HHS, however,
about how SSBG funds are spent and who is served. There are several federal
restraints on how SSBG funds can be used. Similar to TANF restrictions, these
include no use for construction, purchasing facilities, or major capital improvements.
Neither can SSBG funds be used for medical care, other than for family planning;
cash assistance; unlicenced child care; education services that are generally available
in the public schools; or social services provided by hospitals, nursing homes, or
prisons, except services to help drug or alcohol dependent persons and individuals
in rehabilitation for those problems. In addition, funds cannot be used to purchase
food or pay for housing, except in short-term emergencies.43
Child Welfare Services Program (Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of SSA) . The
goal of the Child Welfare Services program is to assist state public welfare agencies
in protecting children from abuse or neglect. These state services include —
interventions that will allow children to remain in their homes, if possible; services
that provide alternative placements, such as foster care or adoption, if children cannot
remain at home; and services to reunite children with their families, if appropriate.
All such services are available to children and their families regardless of income.
States have wide discretion over Title IV-B funds and can use them to provide
services for teen mothers in a SCH, if the state considers it appropriate (that is, in the
best interest of the teen mother).44
Foster Care Program (Title IV-E of SSA). The purpose of the Foster Care
Program is to assist states to provide proper care for children who are removed from
42 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Social Services Block Grant, Fiscal Year 2003 Justification of Estimates for
Appropriations Committees, p. D-8.
43 42 U.S.C. § 1397d. For information about SSBG funding as well as a detailed discussion
about the program, see CRS Report 94-953 EPW, Social Services Block Grant (Title XX of
the Social Security Act), by Melinda Gish.
44 For information about funding levels regarding Title IV-B and Title IV-E of SSA, see
CRS Report RL31746, Child Welfare Issues in the 108th Congress, by Emilie Stoltzfus. For
more detailed discussions about Title IV-B and Title IV-E programs, see CRS Report
RL31242, Child Welfare: Federal Program Requirements for States, by Emilie Stoltzfus.

---

CRS-13
their families because of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. Through the Title IV-E
program, funds are provided to states for foster care maintenance payments;
administrative costs to manage the program, including costs for statewide automated
information systems; and training of staff and foster and adopting parents. If a teen
mother meets federal eligibility criteria (that is, she has been removed from a welfare
eligible family) and the state and the court decide that a licensed second chance home
is the appropriate placement, the state may be reimbursed for part of the costs for
maintaining a teen mother and her child in a SCH. This program operates as an
open-ended entitlement to states.
John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. In 1999, the
Independent Living program, which was originally authorized in 1986 under Section
477 of Title IV-E of SSA, was replaced with the John H. Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP, P.L. 106-169). Under CFCIP, states have more
flexibility and extra resources for child welfare services that are designed to assist
teens in foster care with making a transition to an independent productive adulthood.
Services are provided to foster children under 18 and to former foster care youth who
are 18 to 21.45 Various services are provided such individuals to assist them in
making the transition to independent living, including, but not limited to,
“educational assistance, career exploration, vocational training, job placement, life
skills training, home management, health services, substance abuse prevention,
preventive health activities, and room and board.”46
Mandatory funding for CFCIP is $140 million. States can use CFCIP funds,
which are disbursed through formula grants, to provide second chance homes for 18-
to 21-year-old unwed mothers who have been in foster care. Also, funds can be used
to support foster care teens who live in a SCH. States are restricted from using more
than 30% of the program’s funds for room and board.47
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Second chance homes provide housing as well as programs and services. There
are several funding sources through HUD programs that can be used for second
chance homes — the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program, the
Supportive Housing Program, and the Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) program.48
They are discussed below.
Community Development Block Grants. The CDBG program, authorized
as Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended
45 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Independent Living, Fiscal Year 2003 Justification, p. C-21.
46 Ibid.
47 For more detailed information about CFCIP and its funding, see CRS Report RS20230,
Child Welfare: The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
48 For information about these programs and their funding levels, see CRS Report RL31962,
The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2004 Budget, coordinated by
Richard Bourdon.

---

CRS-14
(P.L. 93-383), provides assistance to state and local governments by awarding
formula grants to cities, urban counties, and states for community and economic
development that will assist low- and moderate-income individuals.49 Such
development might be broadly used by states and communities for acquiring,
constructing, or revitalizing permanent housing for low-income families, temporary
and transitional housing, developing community and economic activities, creating
and retaining jobs, reviving neighborhoods, and public services, among other
activities.
CDBG funds may be used for second chance homes. SPAN reports that many
such homes nationwide receive CDBG funds. Furthermore, it states that there are no
limits on how much funding states and eligible communities can allocate for a SCH,
but there are some federal restrictions related to the program.50 States and grantees
must prepare an action plan that determines how funds are to be spent and that
allows communities to participate in the program. The annual action plan must
include the local community’s objectives and indicate how the funds will be used.
Also, grantees must certify that at least 70% of the funds received during either a one,
two, or three-year period that it indicates, will primarily benefit low- and moderate-
income families.51
Supportive Housing Program. The Supportive Housing Program (SHP),
authorized as Title IV, Subtitle C of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
of 1987, as amended (P.L. 100-628), is administered by HUD’s Community Planning
and Development office, which generates supportive housing and services for the
homeless, through the Homeless Assistance Grant.52 Stable housing is provided for
the homeless while they increase their job skills and income to enable them to live
as independently as possible. SHP funds may be used for (1) transitional housing
within a 24-month period, and up to six months of follow-up assistance for former
residents to help them adjust to living independently; (2) permanent housing for
homeless persons with disabilities to maximize their ability to live independently; (3)
supportive services to help meet the immediate or long-term needs of homeless
persons and families; (4) supportive services that are not provided in conjunction
with supportive housing for homeless persons; and (5) “safe havens” for homeless
49 Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants, The Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance, at [http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/SYSTEM.PROGRAM_TEXT_
RPT.SHOW?p_arg_names=prog_nbr&p_arg_values=14.218], visited Feb. 10, 2004.
50 Reich, Second Chance Homes: Finding the Funding, p. 14.
51 Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants, The Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance, at [http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/SYSTEM.PROGRAM_TEXT
_RPT.SHOW?p_arg_names=prog_nbr&p_arg_values=14.218], visited Feb. 10, 2004.
52 The Supportive Housing Program is one of four programs funded through homeless
assistance grants. The other three are the Shelter Plus Care Program, Emergency Shelter
Care Program, and Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Assistance for Single-Room
Occupancy Dwellings.

---

CRS-15
mentally ill persons who live on the streets and are not yet ready for supportive
services.53
Funding for SHP, which is awarded as competitive grants, is provided through
the Homeless Assistance Grants account. Consequently, SHP funding assistance is
restricted only to homeless persons and to homeless families with children.54 SPAN
indicates that SHP funding can be used to acquire, rehabilitate, or lease housing (that
is, second chance homes), for homeless unmarried teenage mothers. Also, SHP
funding can be used to provide supportive services for such mothers including “child
care, employment assistance, outpatient health services, food, and case
management.”55 Furthermore, agencies can use the funds to assist these homeless
teen mothers with permanent housing, counseling concerning employment and
nutrition, security services, and ways to find additional help at the federal, state, and
local levels.56
Grants can be awarded to state and local governmental organizations and other
governmental entities, to private nonprofit groups, and to community mental health
organizations that are public nonprofit groups. The following limitations are placed
on financial assistance received through SHP grants: (1) SHP grant awards for
acquiring or rehabilitating buildings cannot exceed $200,000 (but can be increased
up to $400,000 for high-cost areas and for new construction); (2) SHP grant awards
for operating costs cannot exceed 75% of the funds awarded; (3) SHP grant awards
for supportive services costs cannot exceed 80% of the funds awarded; (4) SHP grant
awards for administrative costs cannot exceed 5% of the funds awarded; and (5) SHP
grant awards for leasing costs cannot exceed three years. Grants may be made
available for operating and supportive services costs for up to three years. Grant
recipients must match an equal amount of funds from other sources for acquiring,
rehabilitating, and building new structures.57
If persons live in substandard housing, live with friends or relatives, or are
wards of the state, HUD does not consider them to be homeless. In order to continue
to receive SHP assistance, individuals must remain homeless.58
Emergency Shelter Grants Program. The purpose of the Emergency
Shelter Grants Program (ESG), authorized as Title IV, Subtitle B of the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, as amended (P.L. 100-628), is fivefold —
(1) to assist in improving the quality of emergency shelters and transitional housing
for the homeless; (2) to make more shelters available to such persons; (3) to cover
53 Supportive Housing Program, The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, at
[http://www.cfda.gov/default.htm], visited June 5, 2002.
54 Ibid.
55 Reich, Second Chance Homes: Finding the Funding, p. 12.
56 Ibid.
57 Supportive Housing Program, The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, at
[http://www.cfda.gov/default.htm], visited June 6, 2002.
58 Reich, Second Chance Homes: Finding the Funding, p. 13.

---

CRS-16
the costs of operating shelters; (4) to provide fundamental social services to homeless
persons; and (5) to help prevent homelessness.59 Funding for ESG is provided
through the Homeless Assistance Grant (see the Supportive Housing Program above).
Formula grant allocations are distributed to states, cities, urban counties, and
territories, which receive funds based upon population. States must distribute ESG
funds to local governments, or to nonprofit groups with local government approval,
including second chance home providers.60
ESG funds for second chance homes can be used to convert and rehabilitate
structures, cover operating expenses for the homes, encourage homelessness
prevention, and provide necessary services, such as employment, health care, drug
abuse, and education to homeless unwed teen mothers. No more than 30% of such
funds can be used by state and community grantees for prevention and essential
services, unless waived by HUD, and no more than 5% of funds can be used for
administering the grant.61

Evaluations of Second Chance Homes
To date there have been very few rigorous evaluations on the effectiveness of
second chance homes.62 HHS reports, however, that there have been several analyses
regarding service delivery approaches of different programs that documented how the
programs worked and provided descriptions of the teen mothers and their children.
As a result, insights have been gained regarding the needs of the mothers and their
children, as well as in some cases, program outcomes, such as subsequent
employment, education or subsequent pregnancies.63
Successful outcomes have been reported, according to HHS, by several states
or programs related to reductions in repeat pregnancies, compared with the state
average, higher rates of mothers completing school, lower rates of child abuse and
neglect, improvements in the health of mothers and children, higher rates of mothers
becoming employed, and a reduction in their dependency upon welfare.64 New
Mexico, which began its state-sponsored second chance homes project in 1990 and
has the oldest operation of such homes in the nation, operates 10 second chance
homes with the capacity to serve 80 teen families. All needy teen mothers and their
children are served (as long as the mothers stay in school). New Mexico has had less
59 Emergency Shelter Grants Program, The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, at
[http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/SYSTEM.PROGRAM_TEXT_RPT.SHOW?p_arg_na
mes=prog_nbr&p_arg_values=14.231], visited Feb. 10, 2004.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation, Second Chance Homes: Providing Services for Teenage Parents and Their
Children, Oct. 2000, at [http://aspe.hhs.gov/search/hsp/2ndchancehomes00/index.htm],
visited Feb. 10, 2004.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid.

---

CRS-17
than 1% of its residents experience repeat pregnancies while living in the homes.65
The mothers are allowed to stay until they are 22 years of age. Services provided
include supervision, case management, family planning, educational assistance, job
training, health care, counseling, life skills training, and child care.66
Massachusetts, which was one of the first states to create a network of second
chance homes (beginning in December 1995), operates 15 such homes statewide
through state centralized services and assists pregnant and parenting teens ages 13
to 19. Data collected through its Department of Transitional Living Programs
indicate that there were fewer repeat pregnancies (about 2%67) among teen mothers
living in second chance homes than the statewide average.68 Furthermore, SPAN
reports that over half of the teen mothers in Massachusetts who left second chance
homes in 1998 have made notable progress in school, in learning to manage their
personal budgets, maintaining the health requirements of their children, such as
immunizations, and in mastering good parenting methods.69 The homes provide
services such as counseling, case management, and some on-site GED training, and
child care.70 Massachusetts once had 21 second chance homes across the state and
had the capacity to help 120 teen families on TANF and 16 teen families in the child
welfare system. SPAN reports, however, that because of a lack of funding,
Massachusetts has closed some of its second chance homes. Consequently, at the
time of this writing, the housing capacity to assist such teens might have diminished.
It remains, however, the state with the largest network of such homes and, according
to SPAN, is a good model of how state-run homes should work.71
Texas, which began operating second chance homes in 1999 and has four sites,
serves teen mothers on TANF under age 18 and their children as well as pregnant
teens eligible for Medicaid. Services provided include case management, counseling,
mentoring, parenting classes, child care, school-to-work services, and transportation.
Its home located in San Antonio reports that 90% of babies born to residents weigh
more than the average birth weight for teen births, which are expected to be high risk
for low birth-weight.72
HHS cautions that there are limitations in using these results to make informed
policy decisions about designing programs to assist such mothers because: (1) results
65 Jacqueline Greer, SPAN Policy Associate, Second Chance Homes: State Contacts, sent
via email, June 24, 2002. (Hereafter cited as Greer, Second Chance Homes: State Contacts.)
66 Fast Facts About the New Mexico Teen Residents (Washington, D.C.: Social Policy
Action Network).
67 Notes on Funding and Evaluating of Second Chance Homes (Washington, D.C.: Social
Policy Action Network)
68 Ibid.
69 Second Chance Homes in the Federal Budget, (Washington, D.C.: Social Policy Action
Network, Jan. 2002).
70 Greer, SPAN Policy Associate, Second Chance Homes: State Contacts.
71 Greer, telephone conversation.
72 SPAN, Notes on Funding and Evaluating of Second Chance Homes.

---

CRS-18
were based upon the participants’ self-reports that were not independently validated
for accuracy, (2) information was based on the reports of a very small number of
mothers; and (3) results reflected the outcomes of mothers who remained with the
programs or were tracked after leaving the programs. HHS found that in nearly all
cases, there was no other group used to compare outcomes in order to determine
whether participating in second chance homes specifically made a difference
compared with what could have otherwise occurred.73
The need for evaluation, HHS concluded, is being recognized as a fundamental
part of a new program’s design. Such information, HHS believed, not only could
inform program operators and sponsors about the general success of a second chance
home in accomplishing intended outcomes, but could be useful in informing others
interested in starting or redesigning a second chance home.
HHS suggests four key issues and challenges that might be considered as more
program administrators try to conduct accurate program evaluations. They are:
! “Program size and capacity” — Most second chance homes
accommodate a very small number of teen mothers and their
children at one time, usually six or eight. Because of the small
numbers, rigorous impact evaluations are more difficult.
! “Measurements” — Determining certain outcomes for mother and
child, such as acquiring a high school diploma or GED, might be
easily quantified. Other outcomes, such as good parenting skills or
increased self-esteem, might not be easily or quickly determined and
might not surface for extended periods of time.
! “Comparison” — For rigorous impact evaluation, there is a need to
use two comparable groups. Second chance homes participants,
however, would be difficult to separate into two distinct groups.
“Neither program operators nor researchers,” HHS states, “would
support the denial of services to teens and their children for purely
research purposes.” Often, however, there are places where there is
more demand for service than the ability to serve. In such instances,
applicants who are not selected, HHS suggests, could be included in
a study to compare outcomes.
! “Follow-up and tracking” — Certain key outcomes needed to
determine the effectiveness of second chance homes can be
measured only after an extended period of time. These outcomes
include long-term employment, subsequent higher earning and self-
sufficiency, and child development outcomes. Many of the
evaluations of second chance homes have data collected about
participants while in the program. Tracking such teens after they
have left a program, however, has proven to be very difficult.74

73 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Second Chance Homes: Providing Services
for Teenage Parents and Their Children, Oct. 2000.
74 Ibid.

---