Order Code RL33785
Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics, Programs, and Emerging Issues
January 8, 2007
Adrienne L. Fernandes
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics, Programs, and Emerging Issues
Summary
There is no single definition of the term “runaway youth” or “homeless youth.”
However, both groups of youth share the risk of not having adequate shelter and
other provisions, and may engage in harmful behaviors while away from a permanent
home. These two groups also include “thrownaway” youth who are asked to leave
their homes, and may include other vulnerable youth populations, such as current and
former foster youth and youth with mental health or other issues.
The precise number of homeless and runaway youth is unknown due to their
residential mobility and overlap among the populations. Determining the number of
these youth is further complicated by the lack of a standardized methodology for
counting the population and inconsistent definitions of what it means to be homeless
or a runaway. Estimates of the homeless youth population range from 52,000 to over
one million. Estimates of runaway youth — including “thrownaway” youth — are
between 1 million and 1.7 million.
From the early 20th century through the 1960s, the needs of a generally
unspecified problem of runaway and homeless youth were handled locally through
the child welfare agency, juvenile justice courts, or both. The 1970s marked a shift
toward federal oversight of programs that help youth who had run afoul of the law,
including those who committed status offenses (i.e., running away). In 1974,
Congress passed the Runaway Youth Act of 1974 as Title III of the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act (P.L. 93-415) to assist runaways outside of the
juvenile justice and child welfare systems. The scope of the act was expanded in
1977 to include homeless youth through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (P.L.
93-415). The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program (RHYP) has since been
reauthorized three times, most recently by the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing
Children Protection Act in 2003 (P.L. 108-96). The law currently authorizes federal
funding for three programs — the Basic Center Program, Transitional Living
Program, and Street Outreach Program.
The Basic Center Program provides temporary shelter, counseling, and after care
services to runaway and homeless youth under age 18 and their families, while the
Transitional Living Program is targeted to older youth ages 16 to 21. Youth who use
the TLP receive longer-term housing with supportive services, including counseling,
educational and vocational training, and health care. The Street Outreach Program
provides education, treatment, counseling, and referrals for runaway, homeless, and
street youth who have been subjected to or are at risk of being subjected to sexual
abuse and exploitation. Congress appropriated a total of $103.1 million for the three
programs in FY2006.
Funding authorization for the RHYP is set to expire in the 110th Congress.
Reauthorization issues may include changing personnel needs at grantee
organizations, funding for the Maternity Group Homes component of the TLP,
evaluation of youth outcomes, and the needs of “disconnected” youth. This report
will be updated as relevant funding and legislative activities occur.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Who Are Homeless and Runaway Youth? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Defining the Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Homeless Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Runaway and Thrownaway Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Factors Influencing Homelessness and Leaving Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Youth in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Risks Associated with Running Away and Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Evolution of Federal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Early Years: 1930s-1960s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Federal Legislation on Homeless Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Federal Legislation on Runaway Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Runaway Youth Act of 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Expanding the Scope of the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Funding and Description of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program . . . . . 14
Federal Administration and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Basic Center Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Youth in the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Transitional Living Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Youth in the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Maternity Group Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Street Outreach Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Youth in the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
National Communications System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Training and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Congressional Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Additional Federal Support for Runaway and Homeless Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Shared Vision for Youth Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Discretionary Grants for Family Violence Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Emerging Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Changing Personnel Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Runaway and Homeless Youth as “Disconnected Youth” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Funding for Maternity Group Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Youth Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
List of Figures
Figure 1. Evolution of Federal Runaway and Homeless Youth Policy,
1912-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2. Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Funding,
FY1986-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 3. Age of Youth Served by the Basic Center Program, FY2005 . . . . . . . 18
Figure 4. Race of Youth Served by the Basic Center Program, FY2005 . . . . . . . 18
List of Tables
Table 1. Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Funding,
FY2002-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Appendix Table 1. Basic Center Funding by State and Territory,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics, Programs,
and Emerging Issues
Introduction
Running away from home is not a recent phenomenon. Folkloric heroes
Huckleberry Finn and Davey Crockett fled their abusive fathers to find adventure and
employment. While some youth today also leave home due to abuse and neglect,
they often endure far more negative outcomes than their romanticized counterparts
from an earlier era. Without adequate and safe shelter, runaway and homeless youth
are vulnerable to engaging in high-risk behaviors and further victimization. Youth
who live away from home for extended periods may become removed from school
and systems of support that promote positive development. They might also resort
to illicit activities, including selling drugs and prostitution, for survival.
Congress began to hear concerns about the vulnerabilities of the runaway
population in the 1970s due to increased awareness about these youth and the
establishment of runaway shelters to assist them in returning home. Since that time,
Congress has authorized services to provide support for runaway and homeless youth
outside of the juvenile justice, mental health, and child welfare systems. The
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA), as currently amended, authorizes
federal funding for three programs to assist runaway and homeless youth — the Basic
Center Program (BCP), Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach
Program (SOP) — through FY2008.1 The basic purposes of the programs and
funding for the programs are summarized below.
! Basic Center Program: To provide outreach, crisis intervention,
temporary shelter, counseling, family unification, and after care
services to runaway and homeless youth under age 18 and their
families.
! Transitional Living Program: To support projects that provide
homeless youth ages 16 to 21 with stable, safe longer-term
residential services up to 18 months (or longer if the youth has not
reached age 18), including counseling in basic life skills,
interpersonal skills building, educational advancement, job
attainment skills, and physical and mental health care.
1 The RHYP was most recently reauthorized by Title I of the Runaway, Homeless, and
Missing Children Protection Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-96). For text of current law see 42
U.S.C. 4701 et seq.
CRS-2
! Street Outreach Program: To provide street-based outreach and
education, including treatment, counseling, provision of information,
and referrals for runaway, homeless, and street youth who have been
subjected to or are at risk of being subjected to sexual abuse and
exploitation.2
Table 1 shows funding levels for the three programs from FY2001 to FY2006.
Since FY2001, funding has remained stable for the Basic Center and Street Outreach
Programs. Funding for the Transitional Living Program nearly doubled from
FY2001 to FY2002 (as shown below), but has remained at about $40 million from
FY2002 to FY2006. Although the TLP authorized services for pregnant and
parenting teens, the Administration sought funds specifically to serve this population
and Congress provided the increased funds to enable these youth to access TLP
services. In FY2003, amendments to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (P.L.
108-96) specifically authorized TLP funds to be used for services targeted at pregnant
and parenting teens at TLP centers known as Maternity Group Homes. The FY2005
and FY2006 appropriations reflect funding for the Maternity Group Homes as part
of the TLP.
Table 1. Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Funding,
FY2002-FY2007
($ in thousands)
Program
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Allotted
Basic
$48,338
$48,288
$48,298
$49,171
$48,786
$48,298
Center
Program
Transitional
$20,740
$39,736
$40,505
$40,260a
$39,938a
$39,539a
Living
Program
Street
$14,999
$14,999
$15,399
$15,302
$15,178
$15,027
Outreach
Program
Total
$84,127
$103,023
$104,202
$104,733
$103,902
$102,864
Source: U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2003, p. H-48; Administration for
Children and Families Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2004, p. H-45;
Administration for Children and Families Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,
FY2005, p. H-89; Administration for Children and Families Justification of Estimates for
Appropriations Committees, FY2006, p. D-41; Administration for Children and Families Justification
of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2007, p. D-41.
Note: BCP and TLP funding are distributed under the Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth
Program. SOP funds are distributed separately.
a. Includes funding for the Maternity Group Home component.
2 This program is also known as the Education and Prevention Services to Reduce Sexual
Abuse of Runaway, Homeless, and Street Youth Program.
CRS-3
This report begins with an overview of the runaway and homeless youth
population. It describes the challenges in defining and counting the runaway and
homeless youth population, as well as the factors that influence homelessness and
leaving home. In particular, youth who experience foster care are vulnerable to
running away or becoming homeless while in care or after having been emancipated
from the system. This report also provides background on the evolution of the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act from the 1970s until it was last amended in 2003.
The report then goes on to describe the administration and funding of the Basic
Center, Transitional Living, and Street Outreach programs that were created from the
act, as well as the functions of their ancillary components. (Appendix Table 1
provides BCP funding by state for FY2005-FY2007.) In anticipation of the possible
reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program in the 110th Congress,
the report concludes with a discussion of 1) the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Program’s changing personnel needs; 2) funding for the Maternity Group Homes
component of the TLP; 3) evaluation of youth outcomes; and 4) the issue of runaway
and homeless youth as “disconnected” youth.
Who Are Homeless and Runaway Youth?
Defining the Population
There is no single federal definition of the terms “homeless youth” or “runaway
youth.” However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the
agency that administers the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, relies on the
definitions from the program’s authorizing legislation and its accompanying
regulations.3 The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act defines homeless youth as
individuals under age 18 who are unable to live in a safe environment with a relative
and lack safe alternative living arrangements, as well as individuals ages 18 to 21
without shelter.4 The regulations further define homeless youth as being in need of
services and shelter that provide supervision and care.5 Although the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Act does not define “runaway youth,” the regulations describe these
youth as individuals under age 18 who absent themselves from their home or legal
residence at least overnight without the permission of their families.6
Although these current policy definitions are distinct, youth can be homeless
and runaways. The American Medical Association’s Council on Scientific Affairs
argues that the distinctions between the two groups are artificial and may be
counterproductive. Their report on this population concludes that most youth on the
3 The U.S. Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development use definitions
of homelessness that are different than those used by HHS. The U.S. Department of Justice
uses a different definition for runaway youth.
4 42 U.S.C. §5732a, as amended by the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children
Protection Act (P.L. 108-96)
5 45 C.F.R. §1351.
6 Ibid.
CRS-4
streets are both runaways and homeless because they have no home to which they are
willing or able to return.7
Some definitions of runaway and homeless youth may include a sub-population
known as “thrownaway” youth (or “push outs”) who have been abandoned by their
parents or have been told to leave their households. These youth may be considered
part of the homeless population if they lack alternative living arrangements.
However, the most recent federal study of runaway youth — the National Incidence
Study of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children-2 (NISMART-2)
conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice — includes thrownaway youth in its
estimates.8 The study de-emphasizes distinctions between runaway and thrownaway
populations because many youth experience both circumstances, and the
categorization of a runaway or thrownaway episode frequently depends on whether
information was gathered from the youth (who tend to emphasize the thrownaway
aspects of the episode) or their care takers (who tend to emphasize the runaway
aspects). Some definitions of runaway and homeless youth, including those used by
HHS, include “street youth” because they lack shelter and live on the street and in
other areas that increase the risk of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, drug abuse, and
prostitution.9
Demographics
The precise number of homeless and runaway youth is unknown due to their
residential mobility. These youth often eschew the shelter system for locations or
areas that are not easily accessible to shelter workers and others who count the
homeless and runaways.10 Youth who come into contact with census takers may also
be reluctant to report that they have left home or are homeless. Determining the
number of homeless and runaway youth is further complicated by the lack of a
standardized methodology for counting the population and inconsistent definitions
of what it means to be homeless or a runaway.11
Differences in methodology for collecting data on homeless populations may
also influence how the characteristics of the runaway and homeless youth population
are reported. Some studies have relied on point prevalence estimates that report
whether youth have experienced homelessness at a given point in time, such as on a
7 “Health Care Needs of Homeless and Runaway Youths,” Journal of the American Medical
Association, v. 262, no. 10 (Sept. 1989).
8 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
“Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics,” by Heather
Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, OJJDP NISMART Bulletin, October 2002,
at [http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_runaway.pdf]. (Hereafter
referred to as “Runaway/Thrownaway Children.”)
9 §42 U.S.C. 5732a.
10 Christopher L. Ringwalt et al., “The Prevalence of Homelessness Among Adolescents in
the United States,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 88, no. 9 (Sept. 1998), p. 1325.
11 Ibid.
CRS-5
particular day.12 According to researchers that study the characteristics of runaway
and homeless youth, these studies appear to be biased toward describing individuals
who experience longer periods of homelessness.13 The sample location may also
misrepresent the characteristics of the population generally.14 Surveying youth who
live on the streets may lend to the perception that all runaway and homeless youth are
especially deviant. Youth surveyed in locations with high rates of drug use and sex
work — known as “cruise areas” — tend to be older, to have been away from home
longer, to have recently visited community-based agencies, and are less likely to
attend school than youth in “non-cruise areas.”15
Homeless Youth. Estimates of homeless youth range from approximately
52,000 to over 1 million. Though dated, a 1987 GAO report based on a survey of
intake workers at federally-funded youth shelters provides one of the few estimates
by the federal government. The report estimated that between 52,000 and 170,000
unaccompanied youth age 16 and younger were homeless on any given night.16 A
1998 study in the American Journal of Public Health used the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 1992 National Health Interview Survey of youth
ages 12 to 17 to determine the number of those who were homeless.17 In the survey,
youth were asked whether, in the past 12 months, they had spent one or more nights
in a specific type of shelter not intended to be a dwelling place (i.e., in an abandoned
building, public place, outside, underground, or in a stranger’s home) or a youth or
adult shelter. Based on their responses, researchers calculated that 5% of the
population ages 12 to 17 — more than 1 million youth in a given year — experienced
homelessness. The researchers concluded that the prevalence of staying at a
particular dwelling place while homeless was constant across racial groups,
socioeconomic status, youth who lived with both parents and those who did not, and
youth who lived in cities of varying sizes. However, boys were more likely to
experience homeless episodes, especially as these episodes related to sleeping in a
shelter or outside.18
Measured characteristics of homeless youth vary depending on the source of the
sample and methodology. Some evaluations of homeless youth indicate that gender
representation varies across sample locations. Surveys from family shelters suggest
either even numbers of females and males, or more females (see below for a
12 Ibid, pp. 1325-1326.
13 Ibid.
14 Andrea L. Witkin et al., “Finding Homeless Youth: Patterns Based on Geographical Area
and Number of Homeless Episodes,” Youth & Society, vol. 37, no. 1 (Sept. 2005), pp. 62-63.
(Hereafter “Finding Homeless Youth.”)
15 Ibid.
16 U.S. General Accounting Office (now the U.S. Government Accountability Office),
Children and Youths: About 68,000 Homeless and 186,000 in Shared Housing at Any Given
Time, GAO/PEMD-89-14, June1989, p. 27, at [http://archive.gao.gov/d25t7/138872.pdf]
17 “The Prevalence of Homelessness,” pp. 1326-1327.
18 Ibid., p 1327.
CRS-6
discussion of the gender of youth using federally-funded Basic Center shelters).19
Although studies tend to document that homeless youth generally reflect the ethnic
makeup of their local areas, some studies show overrepresentation of racial or ethnic
minorities relative to the community (black youth are overrepresented at the Basic
Center shelters).20 The history of homelessness among youth also varies by the
sample location. Youth in shelters tend to have short periods of homelessness and
have not experienced prior homeless episodes while youth living on the streets are
more likely to demonstrate patterns of episodic (i.e., multiple episodes adding up to
less than one year) or chronic homelessness (i.e., being homeless for one year or
longer).21
Runaway and Thrownaway Youth. The NISMART-2, the most recent
federal study of runaway and thrownaway youth, estimates that 1.7 million youth
under age 18 left home or were asked to leave home in 1999.22 Of these youth, 68%
were between the ages of 15 and 17. Males and females were equally represented in
the population. White youth made up the largest share of runaways (57%), followed
by black youth (17%) and Hispanic youth (15%). Over half of all youth left home
for one to six days, and 30% traveled more than one to 10 miles. An additional 30%
traveled more than 10 to 50 miles. Nearly all (99%) runaway and thrownaway youth
were returned to their homes. Another study estimates a somewhat smaller number
of runaway youth — 1 million to 1.3 million.23
Factors Influencing Homelessness and Leaving Home
Youth most often cite family conflict as the major reason for their homelessness
or episodes of running away. A literature review of homeless youth found that a
youth’s relationship with a step-parent, sexual activity, sexual orientation, pregnancy,
school problems, and alcohol and drug use were strong predictors of family discord.24
Of those callers who used the National Runaway Switchboard (a federally-sponsored
call center for youth and their relatives involved in runaway incidents) one third
attributed family conflict as the reason for their call.25 Runaway and homeless youth
also describe abuse and neglect as common experiences. Over 20% of youth in the
19 Marjorie J. Robertson and Paul A. Toro, “Homeless Youth: Research, Intervention, and
Policy,” The 1998 National Symposium on Homeless Research, pp. 1-2, at
[http://aspe.hhs.gov/progsys/homeless/symposium/3-Youth.htm].
20 Ibid., p. 4.
21 “Homeless Youth,” p. 4.
22 “Runaway/Thrownaway Children,” p. 7.
23 Jan Moore, “Unaccompanied and Homeless Youth Review of Literature (1995-2005),”
National Center for Homeless Education, 2005, p. 6, at
[http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeprevention/download/pdf/Homeless%20Youth%20Revie
w%20of%20Literature.pdf].
24 “Homeless Youth,” p. 5.
25 National Runaway Switchboard, “NRS Call Statistics,” at [http://www.nrscrisisline.org/
news_events/call_stats.html].
CRS-7
NISMART-2 reported being physically or sexually abused at home in the prior year
or feared abuse upon returning home.26
Youth in Foster Care. Youth who run away often have a history of
involvement in the foster care system. On the last day of FY2005, states reported
close to 11,000 (just over 2%) foster children as “runaways.”27 These data are similar
to what states reported for the last days of FY2003 and FY2004.28 A study of youth
who ran away from foster care between 1993 and 2003 by the Chapin Hall Center for
Children (University of Chicago) found that the average likelihood of an individual
running away from foster care placements increased over this time period.29 Youth
questioned about their runaway experiences cited three primary reasons why they ran
from foster care. First, they wanted to reconnect or stay connected to their biological
families even if they recognized that their families were neither healthy nor safe.
Second, youth wanted to express their autonomy and find normalcy among
sometimes chaotic events. Many youth explained that they already felt independent
because they had taken on adult responsibilities beginning at a young age. Third,
youth wanted 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.
Youth who experience foster care are also vulnerable to homelessness after
emancipating from the child welfare system. Each year about 24,000 youth “age out”
of foster care, many of whom lack the proper supports to successfully transition to
adulthood.30 Only about two-fifths of eligible foster youth receive independent living
services.31 Of those youth who do receive services, few have adequate housing
assistance. Research on youth who emancipate from foster care suggests a nexus
between foster care involvement and later episodes of homelessness. In a study of
19-year-olds who had emancipated from foster care in three states, approximately
26 “Runaway/Thrownaway Children,” p. 8.
27 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #13 (Preliminary
Estimates for FY2005) (September 2006), p. 1, available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm]. (Hereafter referred to as “AFCARS
Report #13.”)
28 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #10 (Preliminary
Estimates for FY2003) (June 2006), p. 1; AFCARS Report #11 (Preliminary Estimates for
FY2004) (June 2006), p. 1, available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
cb/stats_research/index.htm#afcars].
29 Mark E. Courtney et al., “Youth Who Run Away from Out-of-Home Care,” Chapin Hall
Center for Children Issue Brief, no. 103 (March 2005), p. 2, at
[http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1382].
30 AFCARS Report #13, p. 4.
31 Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring. “The Transition to Adulthood for Youth
“Aging Out” of the Foster Care System” in Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own
Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp. 27-32. (Hereafter “Youth “Aging Out” of the Foster
Care System.”)
CRS-8
14% had experienced homelessness since leaving care.32 A national study of former
foster youth found the percentage of the population who experienced homelessness
to be much higher — 25%.33
Risks Associated with Running Away and Homelessness
Runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to multiple problems while they
are away from a permanent home, including untreated mental health disorders, drug
use, and sexual exploitation. In a 1996 evaluation of street youth (ages 13 to 17) in
a Hollywood cruise area, about one quarter met clinical criteria for major depression
compared to 10% or less of their peers in the general population.34 However, youth
who live on the streets in cruise areas may experience greater challenges than other
homeless and runaway youth who stay in other locations. Another study that
compared rates for many mental disorders between homeless youth and the general
youth population concluded that they were similar, although homeless youth had
significantly higher rates of disruptive behavior disorders.35
Drug use is also reported among the runaway and homeless youth population.
NISMART-2 found that 17% of runaway youth used hard drugs and 18% were in the
company of someone known to be abusing drugs when they were away from home.36
Runaway and homeless youth are also vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation,
and are at high risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Some youth resort
to illegal activity including stealing, prostitution, and selling drugs for survival.
Runaway and homeless youth report other challenges including poor health and the
lack of basic provisions such as food.37
Evolution of Federal Policy
Prior to the passage of the 1974 Runaway Youth Act (Title III, Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, P.L 93-415), federal policy was limited in
the area of runaway and homeless youth. If they received any services, most such
youth were served through the local child welfare agency, juvenile justice court
system, or both. The 1970s marked a shift to a more rehabilitative model for assisting
32 Mark E. Courtney et al., “Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth,” Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago (2005), p. 9.
33 Ronna Cook, Esther Fleischman, and Virginia Grimes, “A National Evaluation of Title
IV-E Foster Care Independent Living Programs for Youth, Phase 2 Final Report,” vol. 1
(1991), Westat, pp. 4-11.
34 “Homeless Youth,” p. 7. The clinical criteria are found in the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd Revision, published by the American Psychiatric
Association, a handbook used most often to diagnose mental disorders in the United States.
35 Ibid.
36 “Runaway/Thrownaway Children,” p. 8.
37 Marjorie J. Robertson and Paul A. Toro, “Homeless Youth: Research, Intervention, and
Policy,” The 1998 National Symposium on Homeless Research, pp. 10, at
[http://aspe.hhs.gov/progsys/homeless/symposium/3-Youth.htm].
CRS-9
youth who had run afoul of the law, including those who committed status offenses
(i.e., running away). During this period, Congress focused increasing attention on
runaways and other vulnerable youth due, in part, to emerging sociological models
to explain why youth engaged in deviant behavior. The first runaway shelters were
created in the late 1960s and 1970s to assist them in returning home. The landmark
Runway Youth Act of 1974 decriminalized runaway youth and authorized funding
for programs to provide shelter, counseling, and other services. Since 1974,
Congress has expanded the services available to both runaway youth and homeless
youth. Figure 1 traces the evolution of federal runaway and homeless youth policy.
CRS-10
Figure 1. Evolution of Federal Runaway and Homeless Youth Policy, 1912-2003
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service.
CRS-11
Early Years: 1930s-1960s
Federal Legislation on Homeless Youth. The federal government first
addressed the problem of youth homelessness during the Great Depression when it
established programs to provide relief services for children and youth, often
accompanied by their families, who left home to find work and became homeless.
The estimated number of homeless individuals in 1933 was two million to five
million, of whom 20% to 30% were boys.38 Mayors at this time reported that the
transient and homeless populations in their cities were sometimes fed, pushed on to
other cities, or placed in jail.
In response to the influx of homeless adults and youth to the nation’s cities, the
Federal Transient Relief Act of 1933 established a Transient Division within the
Federal Transient Relief Administration to provide relief services through state
grants. Also in 1933, the Civilian Conservation Corps opened camps and shelters for
more than one million low-income older youth. In 1935, President Franklin
Roosevelt created the National Youth Administration by executive order to open
employment bureaus and provide cash assistance to poor college and high school
students. Together, these programs helped to reduce the number of homeless and
transient youth. According to the July 1935 Federal Transient Relief Act’s Monthly
Report, 50,000 young people were homeless and/or transient at that time.39 The
Transient Division was disbanded shortly thereafter.
Federal Legislation on Runaway Youth. Homeless youth were generally
considered a problem that had ended after the Great Depression, but youth running
away from home was emerging as a more serious issue. At about the same time the
federal government withdrew funding for homeless and transient youth services
provided during the Great Depression, it enacted, for the first time, separate and
unrelated legislation to assist vulnerable youth — including runaways — through
state grants. As originally enacted, the Social Security Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-231)
authorized indefinite annual funding of $1.5 million for states to establish, extend,
and strengthen public child welfare services in “predominately rural” or “special
needs” areas. For purposes of this program (now at Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the
Social Security Act), these were described as services “for the protection and care of
homeless, dependent, and neglected children, and children in danger of becoming
delinquent.”40 In 1950 (P.L. 81-734), Title IV-B was amended to allow state grants
38 Eric Beecroft and Seymour Janow, “Toward a National Policy for Migration,” Social
Forces, vol. 16, no. 4 (May 1938), p. 477. (Hereafter “Migration.”)
39 Ibid., 477.
40 In 1962 (P.L. 87-543), child welfare services were formally defined under Title IV-B as
“public social services which supplement, or substitute for parental care and supervision for
the purpose of (1) remedying or assisting in the solution of problems which may result in,
the neglect abuse, exploitation, or delinquency of children, (2) protecting and caring for
homeless, dependent, or neglected children, (3) protecting and promoting the welfare of
children, including the strengthening of their own homes where possible or, where needed,
the provision of adequate care of children away from their homes in foster family homes or
day-care or other child-care facilities.” P.L. 109-288 (2006) removes reference to homeless
(continued...)
CRS-12
to be used to pay the cost of returning a runaway child under the age of 16 to his or
her home state from another state. In 1958, the program was again amended (P.L.
85-840) to increase the age of runaways who could receive this aid to 18 and to
include 15 days of maintenance (i.e., room and board) for each child in cases where
the costs could not be met by his or her parents or the agency institution legally
responsible for the care of that child.
The passage of the 1961 Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act
(P.L. 87-274) focused on the environmental and underlying sociological factors of
deviant behavior among youth. Unaccompanied minors on the street fit the image
of troubled, and potentially delinquent youth. This image was further entrenched as
some runaway youth joined the Counterculture Movement of the 1960s.41 The first
runaway centers (Huckleberry House in San Francisco, the Runaway House in
Washington, D.C., and branch offices of the Young Women’s Christian Association
and Traveler’s Aid Society) opened during the late 1960s to provide shelter,
counseling, and other services to youth and their families. The centers received little,
if any, federal funds, and relied primarily on the donations of churches and other non-
governmental organizations.
The Runaway Youth Act of 1974
Concerned that an increasing number of runaway youth were entering the
juvenile justice system, the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the
Senate Judiciary Committee conducted hearings on runaway youth in 1972 to explore
the problems facing this population.42 Testimony from government officials, youth
workers, and community leaders focused on the lifestyles of youth, as well as their
interaction with police and increasing reliance on runaway centers. Runaway youth
were concentrated in areas like the Haight District in San Francisco and New York
City’s Greenwich Village, often staying in filthy, overcrowded houses (known as
“pads”) with other youth and adults. Police officers routinely sent unaccompanied
youth to juvenile detention centers. The few runaway centers operating in the early
1970s were underfunded, understaffed, and unable to help youth cope with the
reasons they ran away. A fractured home life and problems with school were most
often cited as motivation for leaving home. Youth who ran away because they were
abused or neglected were not always placed under the protection of the state. These
youth, like most runaways, had to secure permission from their parents to stay
overnight at a runaway center.
40 (...continued)
youth.
41 Karen M. Staller, “Constructing the Runaway and Homeless Youth Problem: Boy
Adventurers to Girl Prostitutes, 1960-1978,” Journal of Communication, vol. 53, no. 2
(2003), p. 331.
42 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee to Investigate
Juvenile Delinquency. Juvenile Delinquency. 92nd Congress, 1st session, January 13-14,
1972. (Washington: GPO, 1972).
CRS-13
The subcommittee also heard testimony regarding the need to establish and
federally fund programs to assist runaway youth. At the time, states could only use
Social Security Title IV-B funds for runaway youth to return them to their state of
origin (not for intrastate transfer). Other federal funding streams that targeted
runaway youth were also limited. The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control
Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-445) authorized funding for approximately four runaway centers
from 1968 to 1972. The primary purpose of the legislation was to provide assistance
to courts, correctional systems, schools, and community agencies for research and
training on juvenile justice issues.
Although the Senate reacted to the hearings by passing legislation to assist
runaway youth, the House did not act. However, two years later, in 1974, Congress
passed the Runaway Youth Act as Title III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDPA, P.L. 93-415). A total of $10 million for each fiscal year,
FY1975 through FY1977, was authorized to provide temporary shelter, family
counseling, and after-care services to runaway youth and their families through what
is now referred to as the Basic Center Program. To receive funding under Title III,
states had to decriminalize runaway youth and provide services outside of the
juvenile justice system. The legislation also included a provision requiring a
comprehensive statistical survey of runaway youth.
Expanding the Scope of the Act
Through the Juvenile Justice Amendments to the JJDPA in 1977 (P.L. 95-115),
Congress reauthorized the Runaway Youth Act for FY1978 and expanded its scope
to include homeless youth. Such youth became eligible for services provided through
the Basic Center Program. Two other programs were later added that targeted
specific sub-populations of runaway and homeless youth. Congress established the
Transitional Living Program through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-
690) to meet the needs of older youth ages 16 to 21. The impetus for passing the
legislation was the success of demonstration transitional living projects in the 1980s.
The other major program, the Street Outreach Program, was created in 1994 by the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). The
purpose of the program is to serve homeless youth living on the streets. The
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act was most recently reauthorized in 2003 by the
Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act (P.L. 108-96) which
extended the program’s funding authorization through FY2008.43
43 The Missing and Exploited Children’s Program, administered by the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the U.S. Department of Justice, is generally
reauthorized with the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program. For a discussion of the
program, see CRS Report RL31655, Missing and Exploited Children: Overview and Policy
Concerns, and CRS Report RS21365, The Missing Children’s Assistance Act (MCAA):
Appropriations and Reauthorization, by Edith Fairman Cooper.
CRS-14
Funding and Description of the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Program
Federal Administration and Funding
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program is administered by the Family and
Youth Services (FYSB) Bureau within HHS’s Administration for Children and
Families (ACF). The funding streams for the Basic Center Program (BCP) and
Transitional Living Program (TLP) were separate until Congress consolidated them
in 1999 when RHYA was reauthorized by the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway
Children Protection Act (P.L. 106-71). Together, these programs — along with other
program activities, except the Street Outreach Program(SOP) — are known as the
Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program. Although the Street Outreach
Program is a separately funded component, SOP services are coordinated with those
provided under the BCP and TLP. Figure 2 provides the program funding levels
from FY1986 through FY2006 for the Basic Center Program, and from 1988 and
1994, for the BCP and TLP, respectively, through FY2006.
The 2003 reauthorization (P.L. 108-96) of the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act authorized $105 million for FY2004 and such sums as may be necessary for the
Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program for FY2005 through FY2008.
Under current law, 90% of the federal funds appropriated under the authorization
must be used for the BCP and TLP. Of this amount, 45% is reserved for the BCP and
no more than 55% is reserved for the Transitional Living Program. The remaining
share of federal funding is allocated for 1) a national communication system to
facilitate communication between service providers, runaway youth, and their
families; 2) training and technical support for grantees; 3) evaluations of the
programs; and 4) HHS efforts to coordinate with other federal agencies on matters
relating to the health, education, employment, and housing of these youth.
The Street Outreach Program is authorized to receive such sums as may be
necessary.
CRS-15
Figure 2. Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Funding,
FY1986-FY2006
Funding Level
($ in millions)
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
198
198
19
19
1
1
1
6
99
2
8
9
9
2
0
9
9
2
2
2
4
9
00
00
6
98
0
0
0
2
04
06
Fiscal Year
SOP
TLP
BCP
Total Funding
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Basic Center Program
Overview. The Basic Center Program is intended to provide short-term shelter
and services for youth under age 18 and their families through public and private
community-based centers. Youth eligible to receive BCP services include those youth
who are at risk of running away or becoming homeless (and may live at home with
their parents), or have already left home, either voluntarily or involuntarily. BCP
centers were designed to provide these services outside of the law enforcement,
juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental health systems. In FY2006, 328 BCP
shelters operated in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, America Samoa, and Guam.44 These
centers, which generally shelter as many as 20 youth for approximately two weeks,
are located in areas that are frequented or easily reached by runaway and homeless
youth. The shelters seeks to reunite youth with their families, whenever possible, or
to locate appropriate alternative placements. They also provide food, clothing,
44 U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2007, p. D-43. According to
the ACF budget justification, the Northern Mariana Islands do not have Basic Center
Program grantees, although FY2006 funds are available for new awards to the territory, if
desired.
CRS-16
individual or group and family counseling, and health care referrals. Some centers
may serve homeless youth ages 18 to 21 through street-based services, home-based
services, and drug abuse education and prevention services.
BCP grantees — community-based public and private organizations — must
make efforts to contact the parents and relatives of runaway and homeless youth.
Grantees are also required to establish relationship with law enforcement, health and
mental health care, social service, welfare, and school district systems to coordinate
services. Centers maintain confidential statistical records of youth (including youth
who are not referred to out-of-home shelter services) and the family members. The
centers are required to submit an annual report to HHS detailing the program
activities and the number of youth participating in such activities.
HHS evaluates BCP organizations using the Basic Center Program Performance
Standards, which relate to how well the needs of runaway and homeless youth and
their families are being met. Nine of these standards address service components
(i.e., outreach, individual intake process, and recreational programs) and six focus on
administrative functions or activities (i.e., staffing and staff development, reporting,
and individual client files).
Funding. BCP grants are allocated by formula to each state, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico and are then distributed (by HHS) on a competitive basis
to community-based organizations. The amount of BCP funding available is based
on the jurisdiction’s proportion of the nation’s youth under age 18, and under the law,
these jurisdictions receive a minimum of $100,000. Separately, each of the territories
(U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, America Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands)
receives a minimum of $45,000 of the total appropriations. Congress appropriated
$48.3 million for the BCP in FY2006. See Appendix Table 1 for the amount of
funding allocated for each state in FY2005 and FY2006.
The costs of the Basic Center Program are shared by the federal government
(90%) and grantees (10%). Community-based organizations apply directly to the
federal government for the BCP grants. Grants may be awarded for up to three years.
Funding priority is given to organizations that have demonstrated experience in
providing services to runaway and homeless youth, and to those who apply for less
than $200,000 in funding per fiscal year. Funding for the second and third year,
however, depends on the availability of funds and the grantee’s satisfactory
performance.
CRS-17
Youth in the Program. BCP grantees serve only a fraction of the more than
one million youth who run away or are homeless. According to the FY2005 NEO-
RHYMIS report of all grantees, 51,680 youth used BCP services.45 Of these youth,
27,615 (53.4%) were female and 24,065 (46.6%) were male. As Figure 3 shows, the
greatest percentage of youth served are ages 15 and 16. The centers also served youth
younger than 12 and older than 18. Youth who visited the centers represented a
variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds. Although white youth made up the majority
of the youth served, black and American Indian youth were overrepresented
compared to their share of the general population, as shown in Figure 4. Hispanic
youth of any race comprised 15% of the served population (not shown in the figure),
with most Hispanic youth identified as white (48.2%), or not identified as part of a
racial group (42.3%).
At the time of their entrance to the BCP shelters in FY2005, the majority of
youth had lived with their parents and attended school regularly; however, 21%
attended irregularly. The greatest share of females were referred to the shelters by the
juvenile justice system, although the greatest share of males were referred by their
parents. According to the NEO-RHYMIS report, youth received counseling, basic
support, life skills training, substance abuse prevention treatment, and participated
in recreational activities, among other services at the shelters. Upon exiting, most
youth planned to live with their parents. The issues of concern that were cited most
frequently at the time of exiting were: family dynamics, education, abuse and neglect
by the youth or their family members, housing, and alcohol and drug abuse by the
youth or their family members.46
In FY2005, BCP shelters reported turning away 1,850 youth by phone and 231
youth in person due to a lack of bed space.
45 Data on youth served by the BCP, TLP, and SOP are provided in HHS’s NEO-RHYMIS
reporting system. See [https://extranet.acf.hhs.gov/rhymis/custom_reports.html]. The NEO-
RHYMIS (that is, National Extranet Optimized Runaway and Homeless Youth Management
Information System) is explained in the section below on Congressional Oversight.
46 FY2005 NEO-RHYMIS.
CRS-18
Figure 3. Age of Youth Served by the Basic Center Program,
FY2005
Over 18
Under 12
17 to 18
2%
7%
18%
12 to 14
34%
15 to 16
39%
Source: CRS Analysis of NEO-RHYMIS data.
Note: Based on data from 51,680 youth.
Figure 4. Race of Youth Served by the Basic Center Program,
FY2005
Multiracial
American Indian
2%
and Alaska Native Asian
4%
1%
Black or African
American
31%
White
61%
Native Hawaiian and
Pacific Islander
1%
Source: CRS Analysis of NEO-RHYMIS data.
Note: Based on data from 51,680 youth. Consistent with the Census Bureau classification
of ethnicity and race, Hispanic youth can be of any race.
CRS-19
Transitional Living Program
Overview. Recognizing the difficulty that youth face in becoming self-
sufficient adults, the Transitional Living Program provides longer-term shelter and
assistance for youth ages 16 to 21 (including pregnant and/or parenting youth) who
may leave their biological homes due to family conflict, or have left and are not
expected to return home. In FY2006, 207 organizations received TLP grants.47 All
but five states (Idaho, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming),
Puerto Rico, and Guam appear to have at least one TLP grantee.48
Each TLP grantee may shelter up to 20 youth at host family homes, supervised
apartments owned by a social service agency, or scattered-site apartments, and single-
occupancy apartments rented directly with the assistance of the agency. Shelter is
provided for up to 18 months, and youth under 18 may remain in the program an
additional 180 days or until the youth turns 18, whichever comes first. Youth receive
several types of services:
! basic life-skills training, including consumer education and
instruction in budgeting and housekeeping;
! interpersonal skill building;
! educational preparation, such as GED courses and post-secondary
training;
! assistance in job preparation and attainment;
! education and counseling on substance abuse; and
! mental and physical health care services.
TLP centers develop a written plan designed to help transition youth to
independent living or another appropriate living arrangement, and they refer youth
to other systems that can coordinate to meet their educational, health care, and social
service needs. The grantees must also submit an annual report to HHS that includes
information regarding the activities carried out with funds and the number and
characteristics of the homeless youth.
Funding. TLP grants are distributed competitively by HHS to community-
based public and private organizations for five-year periods. Congress appropriated
$39.5 million in FY2006 for the program. Grantees must provide at least 10% of the
total cost of the program.
Youth in the Program. For FY2005, NEO-RHYMIS reported that the
Transitional Living Program served 3,279 youth. Of these youth, the majority were
female. Approximately 60% were ages 18 or younger and 40% were ages 19 to 21.
Nearly 60% of the youth were white, 35% were black, and the remaining youth were
47 U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2007, pp. D-44.
48 See “Locate a TLP Program” on the Family and Youth Services website at
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/youthdivision/programs/locate.htm]
CRS-20
identified as another race or multi-racial.49 Most youth (80%) had completed at least
one grade of high school, and a smaller share obtained their GED or had attended
college. About one-fifth of youth in the program had dropped out of school.
According to the FY2005 NEO-RHYMIS report, prior to living at the TLP
shelter youth lived in a variety of locations: the homes of their friends and relatives
(24.1%) or parents (19.5%), on the street as a runaway or homeless youth (6.7%), a
homeless shelter (5.9%), a BCP shelter (4.7%), another youth emergency shelter
(4.2%), a detention center (2.7%), on the street as a thrownaway youth (2.3%),
among other locations. Youth most often self-referred or were referred to the TLP
by a relative or friend. While at the TLP shelter, youth received counseling, basic
support, life skills training, and physical health care, and they participated in
recreational activities, including other services.50 Youth identified housing,
unemployment, and alcohol or drug abuse most frequently as issues of concern upon
exiting.
In FY2005, over 2,000 youth were turned away from the TLP by telephone and
455 were turned away in person due to a lack of bed space.
Maternity Group Homes. For FY2002, the Administration proposed a $33
million initiative to fund Maternity Group Homes — or centers that provide shelter
to pregnant and parenting teens who are vulnerable to abuse and neglect — as a
component of the TLP. Congress did not fund the initiative as part of its FY2002
appropriation. However, that year Congress provided additional funding to the TLP
to ensure that pregnant and parenting teens could access services (H. Rept. 107-372).
A total of $39.7 million was appropriated for the TLP, which included an additional
$19.2 million over the FY2001 TLP appropriation to ensure that funds would be
available to assist pregnant and parenting teens.
The 2003 amendments to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (P.L. 108-96)
provided statutory authority to use TLP funds for Maternity Group Homes. For
FY2003 through FY2006, the President requested annual funding of $10 million for
such homes, separate from the funding for the TLP grants. Congress again did not
appropriate separate funds for the program, though funding remained stable at
approximately $40 million for the TLP. The Administration’s FY2007 budget
request sought to implement a voucher program to distribute funds to pregnant and
parenting youth, but no legislation to implement this was proposed or considered
during the 109th Congress.
Since FY2002, funding for adult-supervised transitional living arrangements
that serve pregnant or parenting women ages 16 to 21 and their children has been
awarded to organizations that receive TLP grants. Currently, an estimated one-third
of TLP grants fund Maternity Group Homes.51 These organizations provide youth
49 The percentage of Hispanic youth was not calculated because of inconsistencies in the
number of youth who identified their race and those who identified their ethnicity, but not
their race.
50 The average length of youth’s stay in the TLP is not available.
51 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children
(continued...)
CRS-21
with parenting skills, including child development education; family budgeting;
health and nutrition, and other skills to promote their well-being and the well-being
of their children.
Street Outreach Program
Overview. Runaway and homeless youth living on the streets or in areas that
increase their risk of using drugs or being subjected to sexual abuse, prostitution, or
sexual exploitation are eligible to receive services through the Street Outreach
Program. The program’s goal is to assist youth in transitioning to safe and
appropriate living arrangements. SOP services include:
! treatment and counseling;
! crisis intervention;
! drug abuse and exploitation prevention and education activities;
! survival aid;
! street-based education and outreach;
! information and referrals; and
! follow-up support.
Funding. The Street Outreach Program is funded separately from the BCP and
TLP and is authorized to receive such sums as may be necessary. Since FY1996,
when funding for the Street Outreach Program was first provided, community-based
public and private organizations have been eligible to apply for SOP grants. Grants
are generally awarded for a three-year period, and grantees must provide 10% of the
funds to cover the cost of the program. Applicants may apply for a $100,000 grant
each year for a maximum of $200,000 over that period. Approximately $15 million
was appropriated to fund 140 projects in FY2006, many of which operate in
coordination with BCPs and TLPs.
Youth in the Program. According to FY2005 NEO-RHYMIS data, street
workers with the grantee organizations made nearly 515,000 contacts with street
youth. Of those youth, most received written materials about referral services, health
and hygiene products, and food and drink items.
National Communications System
In FY2006, HHS allocated $3.1 million of BCP funds and $1.8 million of TLP
funds for training and technical assistance, which included funding for a national
communications system, logistical support, HHS’s National Clearinghouse on
Families and Youth, demonstrations, and the administration of the management
information system (known as RHYMIS).
A portion of the Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program funds are
allocated for a national communications system (that is, the National Runaway
Switchboard) to help homeless and runaway youth (or youth who are contemplating
running away) through counseling and referrals and communicating with their
51 (...continued)
Protection Act, H. Rept. 108-118, p. 9.
CRS-22
families. Beginning with FY1974 and every year after, the National Runaway
Switchboard has been funded through the Basic Center Program grant or the
Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grant. The Switchboard is
located in Chicago and operates each day to provide services to youth and their
families in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. Services include 1) a channel through which runaway and homeless
youth or their parents may leave messages; 2) 24-hour referrals to community
resources, including shelter, community food banks, legal assistance, and social
services agencies; and 3) crisis intervention counseling to youth. In calendar year
2005, the Switchboard handled more than 102,000 calls, 41% of which were from
youth and 36% of which were from parents.52
Other services are also provided through the Switchboard. Since 1995, the
“HomeFree” family reunification program has provided bus tickets for youth ages 12
to 21 to return home. In FY2002, the Switchboard offered family reunification
services to 4,872 youth, of whom 1,170 received free bus tickets to return home or
to an alternative placement near their home (such as an independent living program)
through HomeFree.53
Training and Technical Assistance
Under RHYA, HHS may make funds available to statewide and regional
nonprofit organizations that provide technical assistance and training to organizations
eligible to receive Runaway and Homeless Youth Program funds.54 HHS may also
provide grants to states, localities, and private entities to carry out research and
evaluation projects that increase knowledge concerning, and improve services for,
runaway and homeless youth. Nearly $200,000 in BCP funds and $450,000 in TLP
funds were allocated to research and evaluation activities in FY2006.
ACF evaluates each Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grant recipient
through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Monitoring System. Staff from regional
ACF offices and other grant recipients (known as peer reviewers) inspect the program
site, conduct interviews, review case files and other agency documents, and conduct
52 The Switchboard also has a special phone line for hearing-impaired callers and access to
AT&T’s language translation service. Its website provides information to those seeking
non-crisis related information. National statistics on use of the National Runaway
Switchboard are available at [http://www.nrscrisisline.org/news_events/call_stats.htmlp].
53 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress on the Youth
Programs of the Family and Youth Services Bureau for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003,October
2004, p. 17. (Hereafter Report to Congress.) Report available at
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/0203_report.pdf].
54 Technical support providers offer assistance through the Regional Training and Technical
Assistance Provider System comprised of one provider for each region. The providers work
closely with ACF regional office staff to identify grantee needs and review the results of
evaluations conducted by HHS staff. Based on these analyses, the provider needs
assessments, and grantee requests, the providers offer several types of services, including
regional and state-level conferences that address topics of interest to grantees, on-site and
telephone consultations, workshops and training on issues of concern, and resource
materials.
CRS-23
entry and exit conferences. The monitoring team then prepares a written report that
identifies the strengths of the program and areas that require corrective action.
In calendar year 2003, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program was
reviewed through the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) process. The evaluation concluded that program “results were
not demonstrated” because the RHYP lacked long-term performance measures and
time frames for these measures, as well as adequate progress in achieving its annual
and long-term performance goals. The PART review also found that no independent
evaluations of the program are routinely conducted.55
Congressional Oversight
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the
House Committee on Education and Workforce have exercised jurisdiction over the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program. HHS must submit reports biennially to the
committees on the status, activities, and accomplishments of program grant recipients
and evaluations of the programs performed by HHS. These reports generally include
data on the youth served by the programs which are generated by RHYMIS. The
information system is designed to collect information twice during the fiscal year
from program grantees on the basic demographics of the youth, the services they
received, and the status of the youth (i.e., expected living situation, physical and
mental health, and family dynamics) upon exiting the programs. RHYMIS was
updated in 2004 to reduce the burden of reporting the data. Known as NEO-
RHYMIS, the new system has received routine data submissions from nearly all
(99%) Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grantees.56 In prior years, fewer than
half of grantees reported on the number of youth served.57
The 2003 reauthorization (P.L. 108-96) of the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act required that HHS, in consultation with the U.S. Interagency Council on
Homelessness, submit a report to Congress on the promising strategies to end youth
homelessness within two years of the reauthorization, or by October 2005. As of
December 2006, the report is nearly complete, but HHS was unable to provide a date
that the report will be available.58
55 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Detailed Assessment on the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Assessment, 2005, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/
detail.10001064.2005.html].
56 NEO-RHYMIS data are available by state, region, and grantee at [https://extranet.acf.
hhs.gov/rhymis/custom_reports.html].
57 Report to Congress, p. 2.
58 Based on conversations with ACF staff members at HHS on November 27, 2006.
CRS-24
Additional Federal Support
for Runaway and Homeless Youth
Since the creation of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, other federal
initiatives have also established services for such youth. Four of these initiatives —
Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program, Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program, Shared Vision for Youth initiative, and Discretionary Grants
for Family Violence Prevention Program — are discussed below.
Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program
The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-77), as
amended, established the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program in the
U.S. Department of Education.59 This program assists state education agencies
(SEAs) to ensure that all homeless children and youth have equal access to the same,
appropriate education, including public preschool education, that is provided to other
children and youth. Grants made by SEAs to local education agencies (LEAs) under
this program must be used to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in
school of homeless children and youth. Program funds may be appropriated for
activities such as tutoring, supplemental instruction, and referral services for
homeless children and youth, as well as providing them with medical, dental, mental,
and other health services. Liaison staff for homeless children and youth in each LEA
are responsible for coordinating activities for these youth with other entities and
agencies, including local Basic Center and Transitional Living Program grantees.60
To receive funding, each state must submit a plan to the U.S. Department of
Education that indicates how the state will identify and assess the needs of eligible
children and youth; ensure that they have access to the federal, state, and local food
programs and the same educational programs available to other youth; and resolve
problems concerning delays in and barriers to enrollment and transportation.
Education for Homeless Children and Youth grants are allotted to SEAs in
proportion to grants made under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, which allocates funds to all states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico based on the percentage of low-income children enrolled in a school
or living in the nearby residential area. However, no state can receive less than the
greater of $150,000, 0.25% of the total annual appropriation, or the amount it
received in FY2001 under this program. The Department of Education must reserve
0.1% of the total appropriation for grants to the Virgin Islands, Guam, America
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The agency must
also transfer 1.0% of the total appropriation to the Department of the Interior for
59 Other programs assist homeless youth and their families through the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act, although none are targeted exclusively to runaway and homeless
youth. For additional information about these programs, see CRS Report RL30442,
Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs and Recent Legislation, coordinated by Libby
Perl.
60 HHS has provided guidance to grantees on meeting the requirements of the McKinney-
Vento Act, available at [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/aboutfysb/
McKinney-Vento_IM.pdf].
CRS-25
services to homeless children and youth provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Amendments to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 authorized
funding for the program through FY2007. In FY2006, program appropriations
totaled $61.9 million.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110) reauthorized and
amended the program explicitly to prohibit states that receive McKinney-Vento funds
from segregating homeless students from non-homeless students, except for short
periods of time for health and safety emergencies or to provide temporary, special,
supplemental services. Prior to the reauthorization, homeless children in some
districts attended class in separate buildings or schools. Advocates raised concerns
that these children, including those enrolled in classes that were equal in quality to
the classes attended by their non-homeless peers, were receiving an inferior education
because they were physically separated. The act exempted four counties (San
Joaquin, Orange, and San Diego counties in California and Maricopa County in
Arizona) from these requirements because they operated separate school districts for
homeless students in FY2000, as long as: (1) those separate schools offer services
that are comparable to local schools; and (2) homeless children are not required to
attend them. The Department of Education must certify annually that the school
districts meet these requirements.61
Shared Vision for Youth Initiative
In 2003, the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth, comprised of
the heads of executive branch agencies and their designees, issued a report calling for
increased federal coordination to improve service delivery to and outcomes for
vulnerable youth. In response to the report, the U.S. Departments of Education,
Health and Human Services, Justice, and Labor partnered to improve
communication, coordination, and collaboration across programs that target at-risk
youth groups under a initiative called the “Shared Vision for Youth.” One of these
groups includes runaway and homeless youth.
Together, the agencies have convened an Interagency Work Group and regional
forums to develop and coordinate policies and research on the vulnerable youth
population. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has led efforts to promote
collaboration between the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program and the agency’s
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs. The DOL has encouraged local and
state workforce investment boards to implement the strategies of the Shared Vision
initiative based, in part, on models already implemented through three WIA programs
in California, Oregon, and Washington that provide employment and educational
resources targeted for runaway and homeless youth.62
61 The Individual with Disabilities Education Act, last amended in 2004 (P.L. 108-446),
includes provisions aimed at ensuring special education and related services for children
with disabilities who are homeless or otherwise members of highly mobile populations. For
additional information, see CRS Report RL32716, Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA): Analysis of Changes Made by P.L. 108-446, by Richard N. Apling and Nancy
Lee Jones.
62 See notice from Department of Labor to state workforce agencies, available on the DOL
(continued...)
CRS-26
Discretionary Grants for Family Violence Prevention
The Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants Program
funds projects that prevent family violence, improve service delivery to address
family violence, and increase knowledge and understanding of family violence. The
program also provides discretionary grants to a range of initiatives that promote these
goals. One such initiative — the Domestic Violence/Runaway and Homeless Youth
Collaboration on the Prevention of Adolescent Dating Violence — targets runaway
and homeless youth who receive services through the BCP, TLP, and SOP. The
initiative was created because many runaway and homeless youth come from homes
where domestic violence occurs and may be at risk of abusing their partners or
becoming victims of abuse.
Collaboration projects are being carried out in nine locations (two in California
and one each in Florida, Kansas, Maryland, New York, New Mexico, Oregon, and
Pennsylvania) by faith-based and charitable organizations who are recipients, or have
been recipients of Runaway and Homeless Youth Program or Family Violence
Prevention and Service grants. The grants fund training for staff at these
organizations to enable them to assist youth in preventing dating violence. Each
organization received $75,000 for FY2005 through FY2007. Grantees must fund at
least 25% of the total approved cost of the project.
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
Recently emancipated foster youth are vulnerable to becoming homeless. In
FY2005, approximately 24,400 youth “aged out” of the foster care system.63 The
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP), created under the Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-169), provides states with funding to
support youth who are expected to emancipate from foster care and former foster
youth ages 18 to 21.64 States are authorized to receive funds based on their share of
the total number of children in foster care nationwide. However, the law’s “hold
harmless” clause precludes any state from receiving less than the amount of funds it
received in FY1998 or $500,000, whichever is greater.65 The program authorizes
funding for transitional living services, and as much as 30% of the funds may be
dedicated to room and board. In FY2006, Congress appropriated $140 million for
the program. Child welfare advocates have argued that the housing needs of youth
“aging out” of foster care have not been met despite the additional funds for
62 (...continued)
website, available at [http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2176]
63 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “AFCARS Report #13 (Preliminary
Estimates for FY2005) (September 2006), available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm]
64 For additional information on the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act, see CRS Report
RS22501, Child Welfare: The Chafee Foster Care Independence Act, by Adrienne
Fernandes.
65 Prior to the passage of P.L. 106-169, states were awarded a share of independent living
funds - $70 million - based on the number of children receiving federal foster care payments
in FY1984 under the Independent Living Program.
CRS-27
independent living that are provided through the CFCIP. If, for example, states made
available all federal funds allowable under the CFCIP for housing, each youth would
receive less than $800 per year.66
Emerging Issues
Funding authorization for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program is set to
expire in the 110th Congress (FY2008). Several issues may be relevant to any
upcoming reauthorization discussions.
Changing Personnel Needs
A review of testimony from the 2003 reauthorization of the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Act before congressional committees overseeing the program
indicated that the witnesses were generally satisfied with the services of the program
and the mission of the act. Witnesses said that the program had also been successful
in serving youth of different racial and ethnic backgrounds.67 However, they raised
concerns about the changing personnel needs within grantee organizations. They
indicated that grantees needed financial support to attract and retain professional staff
who are bilingual. They reported that bilingual staff who helped youth and their
families obtain needed services through the program were often hired away to
positions in schools and social service agencies that pay higher salaries.
During CRS site visits conducted at grantee organizations in the Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area in November 2006, grantees said that staff are needed for
more specialized languages, in addition to Spanish. For example, a growing number
of Pakistani youth are using services provided by Northern Virginia’s only Runaway
and Homeless Youth Program grantee. Although many of these youth are fluent in
English, their parents and extended families rely primarily on other languages to
communicate.
Runaway and Homeless Youth as “Disconnected Youth”
The concept of “disconnected youth” has recently gained currency among
policymakers who have raised concerns about the negative outcomes these
individuals face in adulthood. “Disconnected youth” have weak social networks of
family, friends, and communities that provide assistance such as employment
connections, health insurance coverage, housing, tuition and other financial
assistance, and emotional support. Researchers have focused on two measurable
characteristics to indicate that vulnerable youth groups are disconnected: the lack of
66 “Youth “Aging Out” of the Foster Care System,” p. 54. Based on the authors’ (Mark
Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring) calculation that as many as 60,000 youth ages 18 to
21 are eligible to receive independent living funds annually through the CFCIP, of which
30% (or about $47 million) are allocated for housing assistance.
67 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Health and Education, Subcommittee on Select
Education, Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Youth: Strengthening the System, 108th Cong.,
1st sess., April 29, 2003.
CRS-28
high school and/or college attendance coupled with not having a job for at least one
year. Approximately two to three million youth ages 16 to 24 are considered
“disconnected” under this criteria, a disproportionate share of whom are young
minorities in urban communities.68 Concentrated poverty, community insecurity,
and unstable family structures are associated with their poor academic and
employment outcomes.
Runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to becoming disconnected because
of separation from their families, absence from school, and non-participation in the
economy.69 Family conflict — rooted in abuse and neglect, school problems, and
drug and alcohol abuse — can compel youth to leave home. Family
disconnectendess is also evident among many runaway and homeless youth involved
in the foster care system. These youth are brought to the attention of child welfare
services because of incidents of abuse and neglect. Further, youth “aging out” of the
foster care system experience homelessness at a greater rate than their counterparts
in the general population, due, in part, to family disconnectedness.
Runaway and homeless youth also spend time out of school while they are away
from a permanent home. The FY2005 NEO-RHYMIS survey indicated that 21% of
youth were not attending school regularly before entering the Basic Center Program.
Of youth in the Transitional Living Program, 22% had dropped out of school. Some
homeless youth face barriers to attending school because of transportation problems
and the absence of parents and guardians who can provide records and permission for
youth to participate in school activities. Finally, some runaway and homeless youth
are removed from the formal economy, and resort to illegal activity including stealing
and selling drugs in exchange for cash. Other such youth are too young to work
legally or experience mental health and other challenges that make working difficult.
Funding for Maternity Group Homes
From FY2002 to FY2006, the Administration proposed additional funding for
Maternity Group Homes as a separate component of the Transitional Living Program
or as part of the program. In each of these years, funding increased for the TLP to
allow services to pregnant and parenting teens through Maternity Group Homes, but
no funds were specifically set aside for the homes. Some members of Congress and
the Administration have proposed measures to designate specific funds for this
purpose. For example, two bills (S. 6, S. 1780) in the 109th Congress would have
authorized funds. These bills were referred to committee, and no further action
occurred.
Although the Administration did not request separate funding for Maternity
Group Homes in FY2007, the ACF budget justification states that HHS plans to
68 Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young
Men (Washington, D.C., Urban Institute Press, 2006), p. 2.
69 Center for Law and Social Policy, Bob Reeg, “The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and
Disconnected Youth,” in Jodie Levin-Epstein and Mark H. Greenburg, eds., Leave No Youth
Behind: Opportunities for Congress to Reach Disconnected Youth (July 2003), pp. 56-63.
CRS-29
establish a voucher program to fund services for pregnant and parenting youth.70 The
budget justification provides that approximately $4 million in TLP funds would be
distributed to 100 youth. The Administration has proposed the voucher program to
reach more pregnant and parenting teens.
The budget justification indicates that ACF will designate an organization,
through a competitive grant process, to distribute the vouchers to the youth. This
organization would also recruit and accredit the maternity group home programs that
receive the vouchers and coordinate with existing TLP grantees to identify pregnant
teens seeking services.
In their 2007 appropriations reports (S. Rept. 109-287 and H. Rept. 109-515),
the Senate and House Appropriations subcommittees on Labor-HHS-Education noted
concerns with the voucher proposal. The reports asserted that the use of RHYP funds
is not authorized for vouchers, and noted that the program has not documented any
youth who were turned away because they were pregnant or parenting. The
committee reports recommend that HHS continue monitoring the TLP to ensure that
pregnant and parenting youth are served, and provide guidance to grantees on
services and funding for these youth.
Child welfare advocates have raised concerns about the proposed voucher
program.71 First, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act authorizes the program to
provide funding through grants, and not cash assistance or voucher payments directly
to youth. Advocates are concerned that permitting HHS to create the voucher system
could lead to other changes in the program that have not been authorized in statute.
Second, advocates claim that vouchers may weaken RHYP grantees’ capacity to
deliver high-quality services. Distributing the vouchers on a per-capita basis, rather
than to a specific organization, might create a disincentive for organizations to
develop or continue a full-service program for pregnant and parenting teens. Third,
based on the Administration’s target of providing 100 vouchers with $4 million, the
program would be costly (at $40,000 per mother and child, including the cost to a
single organization for administering the vouchers). Fourth, youth already have
choice among providers, and TLP grantees are obligated to assist these youth in
identifying other residential services within the community if those services offered
do not meet their needs. Finally, advocates argue that the distribution of the vouchers
by a single organization would duplicate the efforts of state governments that already
accredit and monitor existing Maternity Group Homes.
70 U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2004, p. D-42.
71 See U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations. Public Witness Hearing,
FY2007 Approprations. 109nd Congress, 2nd session, March 29-30, 2006, at
[http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/AnitaFriedmanTestimony.pdf]. See also March 8,
2006 letter from the National Network for Youth to the Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, at
[http://www.nn4youth.org/site/DocServer/FY_2007_RHYA_Maternity_Group_Homes_
Letter-Senate.pdf?docID=822].
CRS-30
Youth Outcomes
Little is known about the outcomes of youth after they leave the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Program. Although NEO-RHYMIS includes information about the
immediate living situation of youth after they leave the program, as well as their
mental and physical health status, the system does not capture longer-term measures.
Local grantee organizations have limited information about youth after they leave
care. Some grantees may decide to follow up with youth who received services, but
HHS does not require longitudinal data collection. Further, HHS does not aggregate
or analyze data that are collected by grantees that follow up with youth. As
previously mentioned, in FY2005, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program
received a PART rating of “results not demonstrated” due, in part, to its lack of
outcome measures for youth.72 The evaluation also raised concern that the program
also had not been independently evaluated in recent years to analyze its effectiveness.
Additionally, the PART review identified three of the program’s four annual
performance measures as unambitious because they sought to increase performance
by a single percentage point each year.
In response to the PART evaluation, HHS plans to fund an evaluation of the
Runaway and Homeless Youth program beginning sometime in 2007.73 HHS has also
revised its four annual performance measures for the program to better capture youth
outcomes. NEO-RHYMIS will be used to evaluate the outcomes. The performance
measures are the following:
! Achieve the proportion of youth served in the TLP entering safe and
appropriate settings after exiting care at 85% by FY2008 and
maintain this level through FY2010 (long-term outcome measure).
The 80% target was not met in FY2004. In FY2005, the target of
80% was exceeded by two percentage points. The goal for FY2006
is 83%.
! Increase funding efficiency by increasing the percent of youth who
complete the TLP by graduating or who leave ahead of schedule
based on opportunity (long-term efficiency measure). The target
measures of 43.6% in FY2004 and 45.6% in FY2005 were
exceeded. The goal for FY2006 is 49.6%.
! Increase the percentage of TLP youth participants who are engaged
in community service and service learning activities while in the
program (outcome measure). The program exceeded the target of
30% in FY2004, but only reached 27% in FY2005. The goal for
FY2006 is 32%.
72 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Detailed Assessment on the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Program, 2005, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/
detail.10001064.2005.html].
73 The agency expects to select a contractor in calendar year 2007. No further information
was provided. Based on conversations with ACF staff on November 27, 2006.
CRS-31
! Increase by 2% annually, beginning in FY2008, the proportion of
youth who are prevented from running away through BCP in-home
or off-site services as a percentage of all youth receiving such
services, including those youth who must be fully admitted to the
shelter despite such preventative efforts (outcome measure). FYSB
plans for the baseline measure to be established in FY2007.
CRS-32
Appendix
Appendix Table 1. Basic Center Funding by State and Territory,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
State
FY2005 Actual
FY2006 Allotted
Alabama
$653
$666
Alaska
319
100
Arizona
820
826
Arkansas
412
403
California
5,208
5,220
Colorado
588
654
Connecticut
505
513
Delaware
119
100
District of Columbia
113
100
Florida
2,490
2,505
Georgia
1,377
1,278
Hawaii
174
185
Idaho
225
201
Illinois
1,864
1,863
Indiana
1,008
912
Iowa
555
433
Kansas
434
401
Kentucky
550
606
Louisiana
659
662
Maine
334
192
Maryland
500
811
Massachusetts
821
947
Michigan
2,032
1,484
Minnesota
1,032
745
Mississippi
447
424
Missouri
673
840
Montana
144
135
Nebraska
454
256
Nevada
296
330
New Hampshire
191
190
New Jersey
800
1,266
New Mexico
364
276
New York
2,850
2,825
North Carolina
1,377
1,238
North Dakota
159
100
Ohio
1,679
1,638
Oklahoma
521
517
Oregon
734
524
Pennsylvania
1,607
1,820
Rhode Island
221
158
South Carolina
613
610
South Dakota
200
112
Tennessee
849
860
CRS-33
Texas
3,222
3,256
Utah
315
346
Vermont
100
100
Virginia
1,036
1,030
Washington
889
903
West Virginia
116
266
Wisconsin
845
806
Wyoming
118
100
Subtotal
$43,612
$42,732
America Samoa
45
45
Guam
45
45
N. Mariana Islandsa
0
45
Puerto Rico
144
556
U.S. Virgin Islandsa
0
45
Subtotal
234
736
Total
$43,847
$43,468
Source: U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2007, pp. D-45, D-46.
a. Though not shown here, the territory did not receive funding for FY2006. Funding for the territory
was reallocated to other territories and/or states.