Order Code RL33975
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
April 24, 2007
Adrienne L. Fernandes
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

---

Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Summary
The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in
their communities. Most of those of school age live with parents who provide for
their well-being, and they attend schools that prepare them for advanced education
or vocational training, and ultimately, self-sufficiency. Many youth also receive
assistance from their families during the transition to adulthood. During this period,
young adults cycle between attending school, living independently, and staying with
their families. On average, parents give their children an estimated $38,000, or about
$2,200 a year, while they are between the ages of 18 and 34 to supplement wages,
pay for college tuition, and assist with down payments on a house, among other types
of financial help. Even with this assistance, the current move from adolescence to
adulthood has become longer and increasingly complex.
For vulnerable (or “at-risk”) youth populations, the transition to adulthood is
further complicated by a number of challenges, including family conflict or
abandonment and obstacles to securing employment that provides adequate wages
and health insurance. These youth may be prone to outcomes that have negative
consequences for their future development as responsible, self-sufficient adults. Risk
outcomes include teenage parenthood; homelessness; drug abuse; delinquency;
physical and sexual abuse; and school dropout. Detachment from the labor market
and school — or disconnectedness — may be the single strongest indicator that the
transition to adulthood has not been made successfully. Approximately 2.3 million
noninstitutionalized civilian youth are not working or in school.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or
legislative vehicle that addresses the challenges vulnerable youth experience in
adolescence or while making the transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy
today has evolved from myriad programs established in the early 20th century and
expanded in the years following the 1964 announcement of the War on Poverty.
These programs, concentrated in five areas — workforce development, education,
juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, and public health — are
intended to provide vulnerable youth with opportunities to develop skills to assist
them in adulthood.
Despite the range of federal services and activities to assist disadvantaged youth,
many of these programs have not developed into a coherent system of support. This
is due in part to the administration of programs within several agencies and the lack
of mechanisms to coordinate their activities. In response to concerns about the
complex federal structure developed to assist vulnerable youth, Congress passed the
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365) in 2006. This
legislation, like predecessor legislation that was never fully implemented — the
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501) — establishes a federal
council to improve coordination of federal programs serving youth. Congress has
also considered other legislation (the Younger Americans Act of 2000 and the Youth
Community Development Block Grant of 1995) to improve the delivery of services
to vulnerable youth and provide opportunities to these youth through policies with
a “positive youth development” focus. This report will be updated periodically.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Age of Youth and the Transition to Adulthood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Groups of Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Framework for Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Disconnectedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Positive Youth Development: the Importance of
Resiliency and Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
What is Youth Development? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Youth Development Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Evolution of the Federal Role in Assisting Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1912-1950s: Children’s Bureau Programs and
Workforce Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1960s-1970s: War on Poverty Initiatives and
Expansion of Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
White House Conferences on Children and Youth:
1960s and 1970s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Family and Youth Services Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1980s-Present: Current Youth Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Job Training and Workforce Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Federal Efforts to Improve Coordination Among Programs for
Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Concerns about Coordination of Youth Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365) . . . . . . . . . 34
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L 101-501) . . . . . . . . . . 36
Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Grants for States and Community Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Youth Build Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Federal Initiatives to Improve Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Shared Youth Vision Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Partnerships for Youth Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Drug-Free Communities Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Coordination Around Specific Youth Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

---

Policies to Promote Positive Youth Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Youth Development Community Block Grant of 1995
(H.R. 2807/S. 673) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Helping America’s Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Alliance for Youth: America’s Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Positive Youth Development State and
Local Collaboration Demonstration Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix A-3. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information . . . . . 73
List of Figures
Figure 1: Vulnerable Youth Groups and Overlap Among Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2. Risk Framework for Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Tables
Table 1. Disconnected Civilian, Noninstitutional Youth,
Ages 16 to 24 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 2. Proportion of Married and Parenting Civilian,
Noninstitutional Disconnected Youth, Ages 16 to 24 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 3. Duties of the Federal Youth Council, by Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix A-1. Studies of Civilian, Noninstutionalized
Disconnected Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix A-2. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

---

Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Introduction
Congress has long been concerned about the well-being of youth. The nation’s
future depends on young people today to leave school prepared for college or the
workplace and to begin to make positive contributions to society. Some youth,
however, face barriers to becoming contributing taxpayers, workers, and participants
in civic life. These youth have characteristics or experiences that put them at risk of
developing problem behaviors and outcomes that have the potential to harm their
community, themselves, or both. Poor outcomes often develop in home and
neighborhood environments that do not provide youth with adequate economic and
emotional supports. Groups of vulnerable (or “at-risk”) youth include emancipating
foster youth, runaway and homeless youth, and youth involved in the juvenile justice
system, among others. Like all youth, vulnerable youth face a difficult transition to
adulthood; however, their transition is further complicated by a number of
challenges, including family conflict and obstacles to securing employment that
provides adequate wages, health insurance, and potential for upward mobility.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or
legislative vehicle that addresses the challenges at-risk youth experience in
adolescence or while making the transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy
today has evolved from myriad programs established in the early 20th century and
expanded through Great Society initiatives. These programs, concentrated in five
areas — workforce development, education, juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention, social services, and public health — provide vulnerable youth with
opportunities to develop skills that will assist them in adulthood.
Despite the range of federal services and activities for vulnerable youth, many
of the programs have not been developed into a coordinated system of support. In
response, federal policymakers have periodically undertaken efforts to develop a
comprehensive federal policy around youth. Congress has passed legislation (the
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act, P.L. 109-365) establishing a youth
council to improve coordination of federal programs serving youth. Congress has
also considered other legislation in recent years (the Younger Americans Act of 2000
and the Youth Community Development Block Grant of 1995) to improve the
delivery of services to vulnerable youth and provide opportunities to these youth
through policies with a “positive youth development” focus.
This report first provides an overview of the youth population and the increasing
complexity of transitioning to adulthood for all adolescents. It also provides a
separate discussion of the concept of “disconnectedness,” as well as the protective
factors youth can develop during childhood and adolescence that can mitigate poor
outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal youth policy,

---

CRS-2
focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of current federal
programs targeted at vulnerable youth. (Appendix A-1, toward the end of the report,
enumerates the objectives and funding levels of 45 such programs. Note that the
table does not enumerate all programs that target, even in small part, vulnerable or
disconnected youth.) The report then discusses the challenges of coordinating federal
programs for youth, as well as federal legislation and initiatives that promote
coordination among federal agencies and support programs with a positive youth
development focus.
Overview
Age of Youth and the Transition to Adulthood
For the purposes of this report, “youth” refers to adolescents and young adults
between the ages of 10 and 24. Under this definition, there are approximately 60
million youth (or 21% of the population) in the United States.1 Although traditional
definitions of youth include adolescents ages 12 to 18, cultural and economic shifts
have protracted the period of adolescence. Children as young as 10 are included in
this range because puberty begins at this age for some youth, and experiences in early
adolescence often shape enduring patterns of behavior.2 Older youth, up to age 24,
are in the process of transitioning to adulthood. Many young people in their mid-20s
attend school or begin to work, and some live with their parents.
The current move from adolescence to adulthood has become longer and more
complex.3 Youth of the 1950s were more likely to follow an orderly path to
adulthood. They generally completed their education and/or secured employment
(for males), including military service, which was followed by marriage and
parenthood in their early 20s. (This was not true for every young person; for
example, African Americans and immigrants in certain parts of the country faced
barriers to employment.) Unlike their postwar counterparts who had access to
plentiful jobs in the industrial sector, youth today must compete in a global,
information-driven economy. Many more youth now receive vocational training or
enroll in colleges and universities after leaving high school. Changed expectations
for women mean they attend college in greater numbers than men.4 During the
period of transition, young adults cycle between attending school, living
independently, and staying with their parents. They also use this time to explore
1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Age Groups and Sex: 2000, available at
[http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=D
EC_2000_SF1_U_QTP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U].
2 Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, Great
Transitions: Preparing Adolescents for a New Century (October 1995), pp. 20-21.
3 Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood
for Vulnerable Populations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005, pp. 4-6.
4 Cladia Goldin, Lawrenece F. Katz, and Ilyana Kuziemo, “The Homecoming of American
College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap,” Journal of Economic
Perspectives, vol 20, no. 4, Fall 2006.

---

CRS-3
career options and relationships with potential long-term partners. The median age
of first marriage has risen each decade since the 1950s, with 27 now being the
median age for men and 25.5 the median age for women.5 These choices enable
youth to delay becoming financially independent, which can create a financial burden
for their families. On average, parents give their children an estimated $38,000 —
or about $2,200 a year — between the ages of 18 and 34 to supplement wages, pay
for college tuition, and help with housing costs, among other types of financial
assistance.6 Parents also provide support by allowing their adult children to live with
them or providing child care for their grandchildren.
Programs that assist youth making the transition to adulthood also recognize that
adolescence is no longer a finite period ending at age 18. Since FY2003, the Chafee
Foster Care Education and Training Vouchers program has provided vouchers worth
up to $5,000 annually per youth who is “aging out” of foster care or was adopted
from foster care after 16 years of age.7 The vouchers are available for the cost of
attendance at an institution of higher education, as defined by the Higher Education
Act of 1965. Youth receiving a voucher at age 21 may continue to participate in the
voucher program until age 23.
Further, the changing concept of the age of adulthood is gaining currency among
organizations and foundations that support and study youth development projects.
The Youth Transition Funders Group is a network of grant makers whose mission is
to help all adolescents make the successful transition to adulthood by age 25.
Similarly, the Network on Transitions to Adulthood, a consortium of approximately
20 researchers from around the country, was created in 2000 to study the changing
nature of early adulthood. The network recently published two books on this
population which highlight the difficulties for youth today in becoming self-
sufficient, independent adults even into their mid-20s.8
Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population
The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in
their communities. Those of primary and secondary school age live with parents
who provide for their emotional and economic well-being and they attend schools
5 U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Median Age for First Marriage for Men and
Median Age of First Marriage for Women: 2000-2003, available at [http://www.census.gov/
population/www/socdemo/fertility/slideshow/ACS-MF/TextOnly/slide10.html].
6 Bob Schoeni and Karen Ross, “Material Assistance Received from Families During the
Transition to Adulthood.” In Richard A. Settersten, Jr., Frank F. Furstenburg, Jr., and Rubén
Rumbaut, eds., On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy, pp. 404-
405. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
7 See CRS Report RS22501, Child Welfare: The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
(CFCIP), by Adrienne Fernandes.
8 See Richard A. Settersten, Jr., Frank F. Furstenburg, Jr., and Rubén Rumbaut, eds., On the
Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2005. See also, Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net:
The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 2005. (Hereafter Osgood et al., eds, On Your Own Without a Net.)

---

CRS-4
that prepare them for continuing education or the workforce, and ultimately, self-
sufficiency . Approximately one-quarter of today’s youth will graduate from a four-
year college or university.9 Nonetheless, some young people do not grow up in a
secure environment or with parents that provide a comprehensive system of support.
These youth often live in impoverished neighborhoods and come to school
unprepared to learn. Even youth who have adequate academic and emotional support
may experience greater challenges as they transition to adulthood.
There is no universal definition of the terms “vulnerable” or “at-risk” youth, and
some believe that these labels should not be used because of their potentially
stigmatizing effects.10 The terms have been used to denote individuals who
experience emotional and adjustment problems, are at risk of dropping out, or lack
the skills to succeed after graduation.11 They have also been used to suggest that
youth grow up in unstable family or community environments.12 Researchers,
policymakers, and youth advocates, however, might agree to this definition:
vulnerable youth have characteristics and experiences that put them at risk of
developing problem behaviors and outcomes that have the potential to hurt their
community, themselves, or both.13 “At risk” does not necessarily mean a youth has
already experienced negative outcomes but it suggests that negative outcomes are
more likely. Youth may also experience different levels of risk. On a risk
continuum, they might have remote risk (less positive family, school, and social
interaction and some stressors) to imminent risk (high-risk behaviors and many
stressors).14 Vulnerable youth may also display resiliency that mitigates negative
outcomes.
9 Based on calculation of the percentage of adults ages 25 to 34 who have received a
bachelor’s degree. Current Population Survey, Educational Attainment of Employed
Civilians 18 to 64, by Industry, Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 2006, available at
[http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/cps2006.html].
10 Kristin Anderson Moore, “Defining the Term “At Risk,” Child Trends Research-to-
Results” Brief, Publication #2006-12, October 2006. (Hereafter Moore, “Defining the Term
At-Risk.”)
11 J. Jeffries McWhirter et al. At-Risk Youth: A Comprehensive Response. California:
Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2004, p. 6. (Hereafter McWhirter, At-Risk Youth.)
12 Moore, Defining the Term At-Risk.
13 Martha R. Burt, Gary Resnick, and Nancy Matheson, Comprehensive Service Integration
Programs for At-Risk Youth, The Urban Institute, 1992, pp. 13-22.
14 McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 7-9.

---

CRS-5
Groups of Vulnerable Youth. Researchers on vulnerable youth have
identified multiple groups at risk of experiencing poor outcomes as they enter
adulthood.15 These groups include, but are not limited to:
! Youth emancipating from foster care;
! runaway and homeless youth;
! youth involved in the juvenile justice system;
! immigrant youth and youth with limited English proficiency (LEP);
! youth with physical and mental disabilities;
! youth with mental disorders; and
! youth receiving special education.
Some researchers have also classified other groups of vulnerable youth based on risk
outcomes — young unmarried mothers, high school dropouts, and disconnected (e.g.,
not in school nor working) youth.
Among the seven groups listed above, some lack financial assistance and
emotional support from their families. Former foster youth, for example, often do not
have parents who can provide financial assistance while they attend college or
vocational schools. Other vulnerable youth have difficulty securing employment
because of their disabilities, mental illness, juvenile justice records, or other
challenges. Vulnerable youth who have depended on public systems of support often
lose needed assistance at the age of majority.16 Many will lose health insurance
coverage, vocational services, and supplementary income.17 They will also face
challenges in accessing adult public systems, where professionals are not always
trained to address the special needs of young adults. Regardless of their specific risk
factor(s), groups of vulnerable youth share many of the same barriers to successfully
transitioning into their 20s.
Figure 1 (below) shows the approximate number or percentage of youth who
belong to each group and their basic characteristics. Even within these groups, the
population is highly diverse. For example, among youth with disabilities, individuals
experience asthma, visual or hearing impairments, emotional disturbances, congenital
heart disease, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, diabetes, cancer, and spina bifida. Youth in
these seven groups also represent myriad socioeconomic and racial backgrounds.
However, youth of color and the poor tend to be overrepresented in vulnerable
15 See for example, Osgood et al., On Your Own Without a Net and Michael Wald and Tia
Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country’s Most Vulnerable
14-24 Year Olds, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Working Paper, November 2003.
On Your Own Without a Net focuses on the seven groups, in addition to youth reentering the
community from the juvenile justice system. “Connected by 25" focuses on four groups —
high school dropouts, young unmarried mothers, juvenile justice-involved youth, and foster
youth.
16 Osgood et al., p. 10.
17 Ibid, pp. 10-12.

---

CRS-6
populations. This is due, in part, to their exposure to poverty, and crime, racism, and
lack of access to systems of care, such as health care and vocational assistance.18
Youth may also be members of multiple vulnerable populations. For instance,
former foster youth are particularly at risk of becoming homeless. Each year about
20,000 youth “age out” of foster care, and of these youth, about two-fifths receive
independent living services.19 Emancipated youth may have inadequate housing
supports.20 Even if states made available all federal funds under the Chafee Foster
Care Independence Program for housing, each emancipated youth would receive less
than $800 per year.21 Recently emancipated foster youth also tend to be less
economically secure than their counterparts in the general youth population because
they earn lower wages and are more likely to forego college and vocational training.22
Their economic vulnerability can place them at risk of losing their housing. Figure
1 shows the overlap that exists among some of the seven groups of youth. (Note:
Figure 1 does not include all possible vulnerable youth groups nor does it show all
possible overlap(s) among multiple groups. The number of youth across groups
should not be aggregated.)
18 McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 9, 13, and 14.
19 Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring. “The Transition to Adulthood for Youth
“Aging Out” of the Foster Care System” in Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own
Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 2005, pp. 27-32.
20 Ibid.
21 Section 497(b)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act requires that no more than 30% of federal
independent living funds administered through the Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program may be spent on housing for youth between the ages of 18 to 21. The act
authorizes $140 million each year for the program. The estimate of less than $800 for each
youth is based on the author’s calculations that as many as 60,000 youth ages 18, 19, and
20 are eligible to receive housing assistance totaling $47 million (or 30% of $140 million).
22 Peter J. Pecora et al. Improving Foster Family Care: Findings from the Northwest Foster
Care Alumni Study, Casey Family Programs, 2005, pp. 1-2, available at [http://www.casey.
org/Resources/Publications/NorthwestAlumniStudy.htm.] (Hereafter Peter J. Pecora, et al.,
Improving Foster Family Care.)

---

CRS-7
Figure 1: Vulnerable Youth Groups and Overlap Among Groups
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

---

CRS-8
Framework for Risk
Not all vulnerable youth experience negative outcomes. However, three broad
categories of factors influence whether youth face challenges in adolescence and as
they transition to adulthood.23 These categories include antecedents of risk, markers
of risk, and problem behaviors. Figure 2 summarizes the three categories and the
risk outcomes vulnerable youth may experience.
Figure 2. Risk Framework for Vulnerable Youth
Source: Figure created by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on Martha Shirk, Gary
Resnick, and Nancy Matheson, “Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk Youth:
Final Report,” The Urban Institute, 1992, Exhibit 2.2.
23 This discussion is based on Martha R. Burt, Gary Resnick, and Nancy Matheson,
Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk Youth, The Urban Institute, 1992,
pp. 13-22.

---

CRS-9
Antecedents of risk — or social environmental conditions that influence
outcomes — significantly predict the overall well-being of youth. Poverty,
community conditions, and family structure are three primary antecedents of risk.
Poverty is linked to a number of potential future problems among youth, including
low professional attainment, and meager future earnings. An analysis that utilized
data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and U.S. census tract
information for 1980 to 1990 estimated that adolescents ages 14 to 22 who grew up
in relatively high poverty metropolitan neighborhoods had a lesser likelihood as
adults of being employed.24 Other macro-level forces — the location of employers
and the erosion of the manufacturing sector — can also limit the jobs available to
poor youth who live in urban areas.25 Some analyses have found that youths’ place
of residence in proximity to jobs affects their labor market involvement independent
of other factors.26 Jobs in the manufacturing sector have been replaced by the growth
of the service and high-technology sectors, jobs requiring technical and managerial
skills.27 Youth who drop out of school or do not pursue postsecondary education
cannot easily compete for available jobs.
Markers of risk also suggest that youth will experience negative outcomes in
adolescence and beyond. Markers of risk are tangible indicators that can be
measured or documented in public records; low school performance and involvement
in the child welfare system are two such markers. Low academic performance, based
on scores from a basic cognitive skills test as part of the 1994 National Longitudinal
Education Survey, is associated with low employment rates. Among16-to-24 year
olds who scored below the 20th percentile on the test, 74% of white youth, 47.7% of
black youth, and 57.4% of Hispanic youth were employed.28 Youth involved in the
child welfare system, including out-of-home placement in the foster care system, are
at-risk because of their history of abuse or neglect. Over 267,000 children and youth
ages 10 to 20 (52.1% of all youth in care) were in foster care and approximately 9%
of foster youth emancipated from care on the last day of FY2005.29 Studies show that
24 Steven R. Holloway and Stephen Mullherin, “The Effects of Adolescent Neighborhood
Poverty on Adult Employment,” Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 26, no. 4, 2004.
25 Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young
Men. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 2006, pp. 19-21. (Hereafter Edelman,
Holzer, and Offner, Disadvantaged Young Men.)
26 See for example, Weinberg, Reagan, and Yankow, Do Neigborhoods Matter?; Katherine
M. O’Regan and John M. Quiley, “Where Youth Live: Economic Effects of Urban Space
on Employment Propsects,” Urban Studies, vol. 35, no.7, 1998 and Stephen Raphael, “Inter-
and Intra-Ethnic Comparisons of the Central City-Suburban Youth Employment
Differential,” Industrial & Labor Relationship Review, vol. 51, no. 3, April 1998.
27 William Julius Wilson, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New
York: Vintage Books, 1996, pp. 25-29.
28 Disadvantaged Young Men, p. 21.
29 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
The AFCARS Report, September 2005, at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/pro-grams/cb/stats_re
search/index.htm#afcars].

---

CRS-10
youth who have “aged out” of foster care fare poorly relative to their counterparts in
the general population on several outcome measures.30
Problem behaviors further define a youth’s level of risk for incurring serious
consequences during the transition to adulthood. Problem behaviors are activities that
have the potential to hurt youth, the community, or both. Youth with these behaviors
likely live under risk antecedent conditions and have displayed risk markers.
Behaviors include early sexual experimentation; truancy; use of tobacco, alcohol, or
other drugs; running away from home or foster care; and association with delinquent
peers. Problem behaviors, coupled with poor socioeconomic and social
environmental factors, can precipitate more long-term negative outcomes, described
in Figure 2 as risk outcomes. Risk outcomes include school dropout, low
employment prospects, teen pregnancy, and alcohol and substance abuse.
Disconnectedness. Youth advocates and researchers have begun to focus
on vulnerable youth who experience negative outcomes in employment and the
workforce.31 Generally characterized as “disconnected,” these youth are not working
or attending school. They are also not embedded in strong social networks of
family, friends, and communities that provide assistance in the form of employment
connections, health insurance coverage, tuition and other supports such as housing
and financial assistance. However, there is no uniform definition of this term.
Based on the varying definitions of disconnectedness, low educational
attainment and detachment from the labor market appear to be signature
characteristics of the population. An analysis by the Congressional Research Service
of March 2006 CPS data used a definition of disconnectedness to include
noninstitutionalized youth ages 16 to 24 who did not work anytime during the
previous year (2005) due primarily to a reason other than school and were presently
(March 2006) not working or in school.32 Approximately 2.3 million youth — or
6.3% of all youth — ages 16 to 24 met this criteria. Table 1 shows that of the
noninstitutionalized male population, 3% of whites, 10.3% of blacks, and 4.7% of
Hispanics were disconnected.33 While black women had the same rate of
disconnection as their male counterparts, white and Hispanic females were about two
to three times as likely than their counterparts to experience disconnection. (See
Appendix A-1 for a summary of other studies on disconnected youth.)
30 Peter J. Pecora, et al., Improving Foster Family Care.
31 See, for example, Campaign for Youth, “Memo on Reconnecting our Youth From a
Coalition of Voices,” January 2005, available at [http://www.clasp.org/CampaignFor
Youth/]. See also Appendix A-1 for a summary of studies on disconnected youth.
32 This analysis was conducted with the assistance of Thomas Gabe, CRS Specialist in
Social Legislation.
33 These rates are not likely comparable to the Edelman, Holzer, and Offner analysis of
March 2000 CPS data. Edelman, Holzer, and Offman examined rates of disconnection in
the previous year only — 1999.

---

CRS-11
Table 1. Disconnected Civilian, Noninstitutional Youth,
Ages 16 to 24 (2006)
Number of Men
Number of Women
(% of total 16 to
(% of total 16 to
24 population)b
24 population)a
NH
NH
NH
NH
Total
Hispanic
Total
Hispanic
White
Black
White
Black
Disconnected Youth
768,141 352,794
259,794
155,827
1.41 m
657,423
277,843
472,879
(3.0)
(10.3)
(4.7)
(5.8)
(10.4)
(15.6)
Married parentb
6,165
869
1,887
3,409
275,293
224,530
22,360
218,403
(0)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(2.0)
(0.8)
(7.2)
Cohabiting parentb
23,913
4,829
9,959
9,125
119,064
69,365
19,882
29,817
(0)
(0.4)
(0.3)
(0.6)
(0.7)
(1.0)
Single parent
14,026
1,852
6,704
5,470
235,800
93,456
80,286
62,058
(0)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.8)
(3.0)
(2.1)
Not married,
709,034 337,067
235,440
136,527
488,928
232,704
146,606
109,618
no children
(2.9)
(9.4)
(4.1)
(2.1)
(5.5)
(3.6)
Married,
15,004
8,176
5,532
1,296
99,058
37,368
8,708
52,982
no children
(0.2)
(0)
(0.6)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(1.8)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of Bureau of the Census, Current Population
Survey (March 2006).
a. Beginning with the March 2003 CPS, the Census Bureau allows survey respondents to identify
themselves as belonging to one or more racial groups. The terms black and white refer to
persons who identified with only a single racial group (i.e., non-Hispanic black or non-Hispanic
white). The term Hispanic refers to individuals’ ethnic, as opposed to racial, identification.
Hispanics can be of any race.
The higher rates of disconnection among women may be explained, in part, by
their childrearing responsibilities (see Table 2). While approximately 5% of
disconnected males had children, nearly 20% of disconnected females had children.
(Parent refers to being the biological parent or step-parent of a child who lives in the
same household, or a parent figure to a cohabiting partner’s child who lives in the
same household.) Some of these women may have had adequate financial support
despite not working or attending school. Approximately one-half of all Hispanic
mothers and one-third of white mothers classified as disconnected were married, and
a smaller share (approximately 8%) of all disconnected mothers were living with a
partner. However, 29% of black disconnected mothers were neither married nor
living with a partner, suggesting that they may have faced financial difficulties
providing for their children.
The overwhelming majority of disconnected men in each racial group and over
half of all disconnected black women are not married or raising children. This begs
the question about the type of financial and other support they receive and the source
of this support. Future analyses of CPS data can show whether they receive housing
assistance by living with their parents (although the data cannot show if the youth pay
rent).

---

CRS-12
Table 2. Proportion of Married and Parenting Civilian,
Noninstitutional Disconnected Youth, Ages 16 to 24 (2006)
Men (%)a
Women (%)a
NH
NH
NH
NH
Hispanic
Hispanic
White
Black
White
Black
Married parentb
0.3
0.7
2.2
34.2
8.1
46.2
Cohabiting parentb
1.4
3.8
5.9
10.6
7.2
6.3
Single parent
0.5
2.6
3.5
14.2
28.9
13.1
Not married, no
95.5
90.7
87.6
35.4
52.8
23.2
children
Married, no children
2.3
2.1
0.8
5.7
3.1
11.2
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of Bureau of the Census, Current Population
Survey (March 2006).
a. Beginning with the March 2003 CPS, the Census Bureau allows survey respondents to identify
themselves as belonging to one or more racial groups. The terms black and white refer to
persons who identified with only a single racial group. The term Hispanic refers to individuals’
ethnic, as opposed to racial, identification. Hispanics can be of any race.
b. Parent refers to biological parent, step-parent, or parent figure to cohabiting partner’s child.
Incarceration.34 The definitions of disconnectedness discussed above include
only the civilian noninstitutional population. They therefore omit such persons as
inmates of prisons and jails, the majority of whom are minority males (non-Hispanic
blacks and Hispanics).35 An analysis of 16-to-24-year olds examined the
disconnectedness (defined as out of work and school for at least one year) of both the
civilian noninstitutional and incarcerated population, based on data from the 1999
CPS supplemented with summary statistics of youth incarceration rates from the
Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. When incorporating the
incarcerated population, the rates of disconnection increased for white males from
3% to 4.2%; for black males from 10.5% to 17.1%; and for Hispanic males from 9%
to 11.9%.36 Another study that added residents of institutions and active-duty
personnel in the Armed Forces to October 2000 CPS data found the rate of
disconnection among 16 to 19 year old males rose from 8% to 10% and among 20
to 24 year old males, from 11% to 13%.37 In contrast, inclusion of these population
34 Discussion based in part on CRS Report RL32871, Youth: From Classroom to Workplace,
by Linda Levine.
35 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at
Midyear 2005, p. 8, available at [http://www.november.org/resources/Prisoners05.pdf].
36 Disadvantaged Young Men, p. 13.
37 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, What is Happening to Youth Employment Rates, Table
6, November 2004, available at [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6017&sequence

---

CRS-13
groups had no effect on the incidence of disconnection among females, which
remained at 9% for teenagers and 18% for young adults.
A third study of incarcerated youth included those ages 18 to 24 in local jails
and state or federal prisons after being convicted of a crime, as well as unmarried
youth this same age with a high school degree or less who had been unemployed for
one or more years. At any point during the 1997 to 2001 period, the researchers
estimated that almost 1.8 million young adults (or 7% of the population ages 18 to
24) experienced long spells of unemployment (1.7 million) or were incarcerated
(420,000).38 A majority (59% or 1 million) in this group were male, who accounted
for 8% of the 18-to-24 year old male population. The 728,000 disconnected females
accounted for 6% of the 18-to-24 year old female population. Over one-third of the
disconnected males were incarcerated compared to just 3% of females. Nearly all the
disconnectd mothers had their first child between 14 and 20, and half of them
reported welfare receipt.
Positive Youth Development: the Importance
of Resiliency and Opportunity
While vulnerable youth overall experience more negative outcomes than their
counterparts who are not considered to be at risk, some of these youth have
accomplished their goals of attending college and/or securing permanent
employment. Youth advocates argue that vulnerable youth can reach their goals if
given adequate opportunities to develop positive behaviors during adolescence.
Emphasizing that youth are in control of their future and can make contributions to
their communities and society, these advocates view vulnerable youth as resources
rather than victims or perpetrators.39
What is Youth Development? Youth development refers to the processes
— physical, cognitive, and emotional — that youth undergo during adolescence. The
competencies that youth begin to gain during adolescence can assist them as they
transition to adulthood. Youth who master competencies across several domains will
likely achieve desirable outcomes, including educational and professional success,
self-confidence, connections to family and the community, and contributions to
society. These areas of competency include:
! Cognitive: Knowledge of essential life skills, problem solving skills,
academic adeptness;
37 (...continued)
=0].
38 Michael Wald and Tia Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the
Country’s Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Working Paper, November 2003, pp. 14-17, available at [http://www.hewlett.org/
NR/rdonlyres/60C17B69-8A76-4F99-BB3B-84251E4E5A19/0/FinalVersionofDisconne
ctedYouthPaper.pdf].
39 National Youth Development Information Center, What is Youth Development?, available
at [http://www.nydic.org/nydic/programming/definition.htm].

---

CRS-14
! Social: Connectedness with others, perceived good relationships
with peers, parents, and other adults;
! Physical: Good health habits, good health risk management skills;
! Emotional: Good mental health, including positive self-regard; good
coping skills;
! Personal: Sense of personal autonomy and identity, sense of safety,
spirituality, planning for the future and future life events, strong
moral character;
! Civic: Commitment to community engagement, volunteering,
knowledge of how to interface with government systems; and
! Vocational: Knowledge of essential vocational skills, perception of
future in terms of jobs or careers.40
A primary factor that influences how well youth develop these competencies is
the interaction between individual characteristics, or traits influenced by genetic
inheritance and prenatal environment, and the social environment — societal
conditions, community, and the family can serve to reinforce positive behaviors and
promote positive outcomes for vulnerable youth.41
Societal conditions — economic conditions, the prevalence of discrimination,
and educational institutions — affect the development of youth competencies and
connectedness to others. Adolescents who perceive their future in terms of jobs or
careers often achieve desirable outcomes. For vulnerable youth, poor economic
conditions and fewer opportunities to work can affect how they perceive their future.
Youth’s interaction with the community is another variable that shapes their
development. Community culture, or the values and beliefs of a particular
community, may support the positive development of youth by reinforcing cultural
norms that favor academic achievement and professional success. Communities can
play a role in fostering youth development by providing multiple pathways to help
youth strengthen their competencies through schools and other institutions. Youth
advocates argue that these pathways should involve services and long-term programs
that provide opportunities for youth during the school day and in non-school hours
when youth may be more susceptible to risky behaviors.42 Within schools, the
availability of resources for youth and their parents, such as programs that monitor
and supervise youth, and quality youth-serving institutions and organizations can
buffer youth from negative community cultures. Outside of schools, youth
development programs emphasize the positive elements of growing up and engage
young people in alternatives to counteract negative pressures. Approximately 17,000
40 National Research Council, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002, pp. 6-7.
41 Discussion based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Family and Youth
Services Bureau, Understanding Youth Development: Promoting Positive Pathways of
Growth, 1997.
42 Karen Pittman, Merita Irby, and Thaddeus Ferber, Unfinished Business: Further
Reflections on a Decade of Promoting Youth Development, The Forum for Youth
Investment, 2000, p. 9, available at [http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/74_sup/
ydv_1.pdf]. (Hereafter referenced Pittman, Irby, and Ferber, Unfinished Business.)

---

CRS-15
organizations offer youth programs, some of which are well-known with many
decades of experience (such as the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. and 4-H), and others
that are local, grassroots entities.43 These organizations offer a variety of services
that focus on the development of personal skills and critical life skills, and
opportunities for youth to participate in the decisions of the organization.44
Finally, the family context plays a pivotal role in youth development. Parental
monitoring and family structure affect how well youth transition to adulthood.
Positive adolescent development is facilitated when youth express independence
from their parents, yet rely on their parents for emotional support, empathy, and
advice. Parenting styles and family structure play important roles in the lives of
youth. Parents who discipline in a moderate and caring manner, and provide positive
sanctions for prosocial behaviors can assist youth to develop a sense of control over
their future. Family structures that promote positive parent-child relationships, even
after divorce or times of stress (such as separation or loss of a parent), can provide
youth with emotional and other support during adolescence and beyond.
The Youth Development Movement. The belief that all youth are assets
has formed the basis of the youth development movement that began in the 1980s in
response to youth policies and programs that attempted to curb the specific problems
facing youth (i.e., pregnancy, drug use) without focusing on how to holistically
improve outcomes for youth and ease their transition to adulthood. A range of
institutions have promoted this approach through their literature and programming:
policy organizations (Forum for Youth Investment and National Network for Youth);
national direct service organizations for youth (4-H and the Boys and Girls Clubs of
America); public and private research institutions (National Research Council and
Carnegie Corporation of New York), and government sub-agencies with a youth
focus (the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Family and Youth
Services Bureau and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention).45 The youth development movement has attempted to shift
from an approach to youth that emphasizes problem prevention to one that addressed
the types of attitudes, skills, knowledge, and behaviors young people need to develop
for adulthood.46
43 Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, A
Matter of Time: Risk and Opportunity in the Nonschool Hours (December 1992), p. 11.
44 4-H, The National Conversation on Youth Development in the 21st Century: Final Report.
2002, p. 4.
45 See for example, Karen Pittman, “Some Things Do Make a Difference and We Can Prove
It: Key Take-Aways” from Finding Out What Matters for Youth: Testing Key Links in a
Community Action Framework for Youth Development, The Forum for Youth Investment,
April 2003, available at [http://www.forumfyi.org/_portalcat.cfm?LID=D662C83D-BEEE-
4E8E-A926F89515009A78]; 4-H, The National Conversation on Youth Development in the
21st Century: Final Report, 2002; National Research Council, Community Programs to
Promote Youth Development, 2002; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Publications on Positive Youth Devlopment,
available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/positiveyouth/publications.htm].
46 Pittman, Irby, and Ferber, Unfinished Business, pp. 20-22.

---

CRS-16
Despite the endorsement of the positive youth development approach by
prominent organizations, the movement has faced challenges.47 Youth advocates
within the movement point to insufficient guidance for program planners and
policymakers about prioritizing which youth to serve, given the limited resources
available to communities for youth programs. They have also criticized the lack of
sufficient evaluation of programs and organizations using a positive development
approach. According to these advocates, some youth development efforts have been
built on insufficient data about demand for or supply of programs and were started
without baseline data on reasonable youth indicators. Further, they argue that youth
development messages have, at times, failed to generate excitement among
policymakers because they did not convey how positive youth development policy
and programs could respond to the challenges young people face and lead to better
outcomes for youth and society at large. In turn, the movement has failed to
adequately link to local and regional infrastructures that assist with funding, training,
and network development.
To address these challenges, youth advocates (the same groups that have raised
criticisms about the movement) have proposed a number of recommendations. For
example, the Forum for Youth has urged advocates to clarify a youth development
message that specifies concrete deliverables and to connect the movement to
sustainable public and private resources and other youth advocacy efforts.48 The
recommendations have also called for evaluations of youth programs with a positive
youth approach and improved monitoring and assessment of programs.
Evolution of the Federal Role in Assisting
Vulnerable Youth
The remainder of this report describes the evolution of federal youth policy and
provides an overview of current programs and initiatives that focus on vulnerable
youth. Many of these initiatives promote coordination of federal youth programs and
positive youth development.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or
legislative vehicle that addresses the challenges that young people experience in
adolescence or while making the transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy
today evolved from myriad programs and initiatives that began in the early 1900s to
assist children and youth. From the turn of the twentieth century through the 1950s,
youth policy was generally subsumed under a broad framework of child welfare
issues. The Children’s Bureau, established in 1912, focused attention on child labor
and the protection of children with special needs. The age boundaries of “youth”
were not clearly delineated, but based on proposed child labor reform legislation at
that time, “child” referred to those individuals age 16 and under. Also during this
period, work and education support programs were created to ease the financial
pressures of the Great Depression for older youth (ages 16 to 23), and increasingly,
47 Ibid, pp. 30-31.
48 Ibid, pp. 14-27.

---

CRS-17
federal attention focused on addressing the growing number of youth classified as
delinquent. The subsequent period, spanning the 1960s and 1970s, was marked by
the creation of programs that targeted youth in five policy areas: workforce
development and job training, education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention,
social services, and public health. Finally, from the 1980s until the present, many of
these programs have been expanded; others have been eliminated. The federal
government has also recently adopted strategies to better serve the youth population
through targeted legislation and initiatives.
1912-1950s: Children’s Bureau Programs
and Workforce Programs
At the turn of the twentieth century, psychologists first formally defined the
concept of adolescence. American psychologist G. Stanley Hall characterized the
period between childhood and adulthood as a time of “storm and stress,” with youth
vulnerable to risky behavior, conflict with parents, and perversion.49 The well-being
of adolescents was emerging as an area of concern during this time, albeit as part of
a greater focus on child welfare by states and localities. States began to recognize the
distinct legal rights of children, generally defined as age 16 and younger, and to
establish laws for protecting children against physical abuse, cruelty, and neglect.
Children who were abused or neglected were increasingly removed from their homes
and placed in almshouses and foster homes by the state. Juvenile courts and reform
schools, first created in the late 1800s, were also expanding during this period. By
1912, 22 states had passed legislation to establish juvenile courts.50
The year 1912 also marked the federal government’s initial involvement in
matters relating to child welfare with the creation of the Children’s Bureau in the
U.S. Department of Labor. The Bureau emerged out of the Progressive Movement,
which emphasized that the stresses on family life due to industrial and urban society
were having a disproportionately negative effect on children.51 Though not a cabinet-
level agency, the purpose of the Bureau was to investigate and report upon all
“matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life” for the federal
government. The Bureau adopted a “whole child” philosophy, meaning that the
agency was devoted to researching every aspect of the child’s life throughout all
stages of his or her development. In particular, the Bureau focused on infant and
maternal health, child labor, and the protection of children with special needs (e.g.,
49 G. Stanley Hall, “Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology,
Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and Education,” (1904) in John H.
Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth in America,
Vol. II: 1866-1932, Parts 1-6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, pp. 81-85.
50 John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth
in America, Vol. II: 1866-1932, Parts 1-6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1971, p. 440.
51 Kriste Lindenmeyer, “A Right to Childhood:” The U.S. Children’s Bureau and Child
Welfare, 1912-46. Urbana: University of Illinois Press), pp. 10-11. (Hereafter referenced
as Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood.)

---

CRS-18
those who were poor, homeless, without proper guardianship, and mentally
handicapped).
The concept of a “youth policy” in those early years was virtually non-existent.
However, the Bureau’s efforts in combating child labor and investigating juvenile
delinquency from 1912 through the early 1950s targeted youth ages 10 to 16. Bureau
Chief Julia Lathrop and Progressive Era advocates pushed for laws that would
prohibit the employment of children under age 16.52 The Bureau also tracked the
rising number of juvenile delinquents in the 1930s and evaluated the causes of
delinquency, citing unhappy home conditions and gang membership as a predictor
of gang activity.53 In 1954, the Bureau established a division on juvenile delinquency
prevention.
Perhaps the most well known policies the Children’s Bureau implemented that
affected youth were through the child health and welfare programs established by the
Social Security Act (P.L. 74-231) of 1935. As originally enacted, the law authorized
indefinite annual funding of $1.5 million for states to establish, extend, and
strengthen public child welfare services in “predominately rural” or “special needs”
areas. For purposes of this program (now at Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social
Security Act), these were described as services “for the protection and care of
homeless, dependent, and neglected children, and children in danger of becoming
delinquent.”54 The Aid to Dependent Children Program (now Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families Block Grant) was also created under the act to provide financial
assistance to impoverished children. “Dependent” children were defined as children
under age 16 who had been deprived of parental support or care due to a parent’s
death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity, and was
living with a relative. Amendments to the program extended the age of children to
18.55
Separately in the 1930s, the federal government addressed youth poverty
triggered by the Great Depression. The Federal Transient Relief Act of 1933
established a Transient Division within the Federal Transient Relief Administration
to provide relief services through state grants. Also in 1933, the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC) opened camps and shelters for more than one million
low-income older youth. Two years later, in 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt
created the National Youth Administration (NYA) by executive order to open
employment bureaus and provide cash assistance to poor college and high school
52 Ibid, pp. 127, 137-138.
53 Ibid, pp. 148-153.
54 In 1962 (P.L. 87-543), child welfare services were formally defined under Title IV-B as
“public social services which supplement, or substitute for parental care and supervision for
the purpose of (1) remedying or assisting in the solution of problems which may result in,
the neglect, abuse, exploitation, or delinquency of children, (2) protecting and caring for
homeless, dependent, or neglected children, (3) protecting and promoting the welfare of
children, including the strengthening of their own homes where possible or, where needed,
the provision of adequate care of children away from their homes in foster family homes or
day-care or other child-care facilities.”
55 Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood, p. 193.

---

CRS-19
students. The Transient Division was disbanded shortly thereafter. From 1936 to
1940, legislation was proposed to provide for comprehensive educational and
vocational support for older youth. As introduced in 1938, the American Youth Act
(S. 1463), if passed, would have established a federal National Youth Administration
to administer a system of public-works projects that would employ young persons
who were not employed or full-time students. The act would have also provided
unemployed youth with vocational advisors to assist them in securing apprentice
training. Further, young people enrolled in school and unable to continue their
studies without financial support would have been eligible to receive financial
assistance to pay school fees and school materials, and personal expenses.56 The act,
however, was never brought to a full vote by the House or Senate. The Roosevelt
Administration raised concerns in hearings on the bill that it was too expensive and
would have provided some of the same services already administered through the
CCC and NYA.57 (The two programs were eliminated in the early 1940s.)
By the late 1940s, the Children’s Bureau no longer had jurisdiction to address
“all matters” concerning children and youth because of federal government
reorganizations that prioritized agency function over a particular constituency (i.e.,
children, poor families, etc.). The bureau was moved in 1949 from the U.S.
Department of Labor to the Federal Security Agency (FSA), and child health policy
issues were transferred to the Public Health Service. The Bureau’s philosophy of the
“whole child” diminished further when the FSA was moved to the newly organized
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) in 1953.58
1960s-1970s: War on Poverty Initiatives
and Expansion of Programs
The 1960s and 1970s marked a period of federal efforts to assist poor and
disadvantaged children, adolescents, and their families. President Lyndon B.
Johnson’s War on Poverty initiatives and subsequent social legislation established
youth-targeted programs in the areas of workforce development and job training,
education, delinquency prevention, social services, and health. The major legislation
during this period included:
! Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) of 1964 (P.L. 88-452): As the
centerpiece of the War on Poverty, the EOA established the Office
of Economic Opportunity. The office administered programs to
promote the well-being of poor youth and other low-income
individuals, including Job Corps, Upward Bound, Volunteers in
Service to America (VISTA), Head Start, and Neighborhood Youth
56 John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth
in America, Vol. III: 1933-1973, Parts 1-4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1971, pp. 91-96.
57 Ibid, pp. 99-104.
58 For additional information about the creation of HEW, see CRS Report RL31497,
Creation of Executive Departments: Highlights from the History of Modern Precedents, by
Thomas P. Carr.

---

CRS-20
Corps, among others. The mission of the Job Corps was (and still
is) to promote the vocational and educational opportunities of older,
low-income youth. Similarly, Upward Bound was created to assist
disadvantaged high school students who went on to attend college.
! Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (P.L. 89-
10): The purpose of the ESEA was to provide federal funding to
low-income schools. Amendments to the act in1966 (P.L 89-750)
created the Migrant Education Program and Migrant High School
Equivalency Program to assist states in providing education to
children of migrant workers.
! Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 (P.L. 89-329): The HEA
increased federal funding to universities and created scholarships
and low interest loans for students. The act also created the Talent
Search Program to identify older, low-income youth with potential
for postsecondary education. The act was amended in 1968 (P.L.
90-575) to include two programs: Student Support Services and
Upward Bound (which was transferred from the Office of Economic
Opportunity to the Office of Education, and later to the U.S.
Department of Education). Student Support Services was created to
improve disadvantaged (defined as disabled, low-income, or first in
their family to attend college) college students’ retention and
graduation rates.
! Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-378): The
legislation permanently established the Youth Conservation Pilot
Program to employ youth of all backgrounds to perform work on
federal lands.
! Comprehensive Employment and Training Activities Act (CETA)
of 1973 (P.L. 93-203): The program established federal funding for
the Youth Employment and Training Program and the Summer
Youth Employment Program. The programs financed employment
training activities and on-the-job training.
! Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974
(P.L. 93-415): The act extended federal support to states and local
governments for rehabilitative and preventative juvenile justice
delinquency projects, as established under the Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 90-445). The major provisions of
the JJDPA funded preventative programs in local communities
outside of the juvenile justice system. The act’s Title III established
the Runaway Youth Program to provide temporary shelter,
counseling, and after-care services to runaway youth and their
families. Congress later amended (P.L. 95-115) Title III to include
homeless youth.

---

CRS-21
! Education for All Handicapped Children of 1975 (P.L. 94-142): The
act required all public schools accepting federal funds to provide
equal access to education for children with physical and mental
disabilities. Public schools were also required to create an
educational plan for these students, with parental input, that would
emulate as closely as possible the educational experiences of able-
bodied children. (This legislation is now known as the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act.)
White House Conferences on Children and Youth: 1960s and 1970s.
Since 1909, the executive branch has organized a White House Conference on
Children (and youth, in later decades). The White House conferences of 1960 and
1971 focused on efforts to promote opportunities for youth. The recommendations
from the 1960 conference’s forum on adolescents discussed the need for community
agencies to assist parents in addressing the concerns of youth, as well as improved
social services to adolescents and young adults.59 The recommendations called for
the federal government to establish a unit devoted to youth and to support public and
private research regarding the issues facing this population, including their
employment, education, military service, marriage, mobility, and community
involvement. The 1971 conference had a broader focus on issues that were important
to youth at the time. Recommendations from the conference included a suspension
of the draft, less punitive measures for drug possession, and income guarantees for
poor families.60
Family and Youth Services Bureau. The Family and Youth Services
Bureau (FYSB) was created in 1970 to provide leadership on youth issues in the
federal government.61 At that time, it was held that young people were placed
inappropriately in the juvenile justice system, while others were not receiving needed
social services. Known then as the Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention
Administration, the sub-agency proposed a new service delivery strategy (similar to
the contemporary positive youth development approach) that emphasized youth’s
competence, usefulness, and belonging.62 The passage of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 — which emphasized that youth
committing status offenses (behaviors considered offenses only if carried out by a
juvenile, such as truancy or running away) were more in need of care and guidance
than they were of punishment — laid the foundation for much of FYSB’s work today
around runaway and homeless youth and other vulnerable youth groups.
59 Executive Office of the President, Conference Proceedings from the Golden Anniversary
White House Conference on Children and Youth, March 27-April 2, 1960 (Washington:
GPO, 1960), p. 212.
60 Executive Office of the President, Conference Proceedings from the White House
Conference on Youth, 1971. Washington: GPO, 1971.
61 This discussion is based on personal correspondence with HHS, Administration for
Children and Families.
62 American Youth Policy Forum, A Youth Development Approach to Services for Young
People: The Work of the Family and Youth Services Bureau, Forum Brief, June 11, 1999.

---

CRS-22
1980s-Present: Current Youth Programs
Current federal youth policy has resulted from the piecemeal creation of
programs across several areas of social policy. Many of the youth-focused programs
that trace their history to the War on Poverty continue today, and several new
programs, spread across several agencies, have been created. (While the Family and
Youth Services Bureau was created to provide leadership on youth issues, it
administers a small number of youth programs: the Runaway and Homeless Youth
program, the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, and the Abstinence
Education program.) Federal youth policy today also includes recent initiatives to
promote positive youth development and increase coordination between federal
agencies that administer youth-focused programs.
Appendix A-2 provides an overview of 45 major federal programs for youth in
five policy areas discussed above — job training and workforce development,
education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, and public
health. The table includes the programs’ authorizing legislation and US code section,
objectives, FY2006 and FY2007 funding levels and the requested FY2008 funding
levels, agency with jurisdiction, and targeted at-risk youth population.63 The 45
programs were selected based upon their objectives to serve vulnerable youth
primarily between the ages of 10 to 24, or to research this population. The CRS
contributors to Table A-2, their contact information, and CRS reports on some of the
programs are listed in Table A-3.
As enacted, the programs are intended to provide vulnerable youth with the
opportunities to develop skills and abilities that will assist them in adolescence and
during the transition to adulthood. Congress has allocated funding to these programs
for a number of services and activities, including conflict resolution; counseling;
crime/violence prevention; gang intervention; job training assistance; mentoring;
parental/family intervention; planning and program development; and research and
evaluation. The programs differ in size, scope, and funding authorization levels and
type (mandatory vs. discretionary).
The list is not exhaustive and may omit programs that serve the targeted youth
population. Two major block grant programs — the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families Program (TANF) and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) —
are not included because they do not provide dedicated funding for youth activities.
However, states can choose to use TANF and SSBG funds for such purposes. TANF
law permits states to use block grant fund to provide services to recipient families
and other “needy” families (defined by the state) so long as the services are expected
to help lead to independence from government services or enable needy families to
care for children at home. States may also provide services to non-needy families if
they are directed at the goals of preventing and reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies
or encouraging the formation of two-parent families. SSBG provides funding to
assist states to provide a range of social services to adults and children, and each state
determines what services are provided and who is eligible. Youth-focused categories
of services that can be funded through the SSBG include education and training
63 The FY2008 funding levels will be updated when the final figures become available.

---

CRS-23
services to improve knowledge or daily living skills and to enhance cultural
opportunities; foster care services for children and older youth; independent and
transitional living services; pregnancy and parenting services for young parents; and
special services for youth involved in or at risk of involvement with criminal
activity.64
Job Training and Workforce Development. The federal government
funds four major job training and workforce development programs for youth: Job
Corps, Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth Activities, YouthBuild, and Youth
Conservation Corps.65 These programs (except for the Youth Conservation Corps)
are administered by the Department of Labor and target low-income youth ages 16
to 24 who require additional assistance in meeting their vocational goals. Job Corps
is the largest of these programs, with centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.
Program training consists of career preparation, development, and transition;
academic initiatives; and character building. Job Corps has been evaluated positively
by Mathematica, in 1982 and 2001.66 The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998
(P.L. 105-220) reauthorized the program through FY2003, although annual
appropriations have continued funding through FY2007.
The Workforce Investment Act also established WIA Youth Activities to fund
employment training and academic support services for both youth in school and
school dropouts ages 14 to 21. Eligible youth must be low-income and either
deficient in basic literacy skills, a school dropout, homeless, a runaway, foster child,
a parent, an offender, or an individual who needs additional assistance to complete
an educational program or secure employment. Youth councils of local Workforce
Investment Boards (WIBs) advise the boards about youth activities. WIBs are
certified by the state to coordinate the workforce development activities of a
particular area through a local workforce investment system.67
Created by the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990
(P.L. 101-625), YouthBuild has many of the same educational and vocational
objectives as those established under Job Corps and WIA Youth Activities.
YouthBuild participants ages 16 to 24 work toward their GED or high school
diploma while learning job skills by building affordable housing. The program,
formerly in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, was made part
of WIA, administered by DOL, under the YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2006 (P.L.
64 A state-by-state expenditure data report for these and other categories of services is
available at [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/docs/reports.html]
65 For additional information on Job Corps and WIA Youth Activities, see CRS Report
RL33687, The Workforce Investment Act (WIA): Program-by-Program Overview and
FY2007 Funding of Title I Training Programs, by Blake Alan Naughton and Ann Lordeman.
66 Peter Z. Schochet, John Burghardt, and Steven Glazerman, Does Job Corps Work?:
Summary of the National Job Corps Study, Mathematica, June 2001, available at
[http://wdr.doleta.gov/opr/fulltext/01-jcsummary.pdf].
67 The 109th Congress considered legislation (H.R. 27) to make the Youth Councils optional.
For additional information, see CRS Report RL32778, The Workforce Investment Act of
1998 (WIA): Reauthorization of Job Training Programs in the 109th Congress, by Blake
Alan Naughton and Ann Lordeman.

---

CRS-24
109-281). Finally, the Youth Conservation Corps, established in 1970 by the Youth
Conservation Corps Act (P.L. 91-378) and administered by the Departments of
Agriculture and Interior, targets youth ages 15 to 18 of all backgrounds to work on
projects that conserve natural resources.
Education. Most federal education programs for vulnerable youth are
authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and the
Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, administered by the U.S. Department of
Education. The ESEA provides the primary source of federal funds to K-12
education programs. The legislation’s purpose, from its original enactment in 1965
to the present, is, in part, to provide supplementary educational and related services
to educationally disadvantaged children who attend schools serving relatively low-
income areas. The Higher Education Act is the source of grant, loan, and work-study
assistance to help meet the costs of postsecondary education. The act also supports
programs by providing incentives and services to disadvantaged youth to help
increase their secondary or postsecondary educational attainment. Separate legislation
authorizes additional education programs serving youth with disabilities and
homeless youth.
Programs Authorized by Title I of the ESEA. Title I of ESEA provides
most of the funding for programs that serve disadvantaged youth, and was most
recently reauthorized and amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of
2001 (P.L. 107-110).
Title I-A (Education for the Disadvantaged Program) is the largest federal
elementary and secondary education program, with funds provided to approximately
15.8 million (34% of all) pupils.68 Title I-A grants fund supplementary educational
and related services to low-achieving and other pupils attending schools with
relatively high concentrations of pupils from low-income families. The NCLBA
expanded Title I-A provisions requiring participating states to adopt content and
pupil performance standards, and assessments linked to these; and to take specified
actions with respect to low-performing schools and local education agencies (LEAs).
Title I-C (Migrant Education Program) provides formula grants to state education
agencies (SEAs) for the development of programs targeted to migrant students and
Title I-D (Neglected, Delinquent, or at Risk of Dropping Out Program) gives funding
to LEAs and SEAs to meet the special educational needs of youth in institutions and
correctional facilities for neglected and delinquent youth, as well as youth at risk of
dropping out. Finally, Title I-H (High School Dropout Program) targets grants to
schools that serve grades 6 to 12 and have annual dropout rates that are above the
state average as well as middle schools that feed students into such schools.
Other ESEA Programs. Titles III and IV of the ESEA also target
disadvantaged youth. Title III (English Language Acquisition Program) provides
grant funding to states to ensure that limited English proficient (LEP) children and
68 For additional information, see CRS Report RL31284, K-12 Education: Highlights of the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), coordinated by Wayne C. Riddle and CRS
Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended: A Primer,
by Wayne C. Riddle and Rebecca R. Skinner.

---

CRS-25
youth, including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency. The
NCLBA has given SEAs and LEAs great flexibility in designing and administering
instructional programs, while at the same time foocusing greater attention on the
achievement of English proficiency. Title IV-A (Safe and Drug-Free Schools
Program) supports the efforts of SEAs and LEAs to prevent student violence in and
around schools and the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Program activities
include education and counseling; training of school personnel; and family,
community, and emergency activities.
Title IV-B (21st Century Community Learning Centers program) provides
competitive grants to LEAs for academic and other after-school programs. The
purpose of the program is to provide opportunities for academic enrichment to help
students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds, meet local and state
academic achievement standards and reinforce their regular academic instruction.
Programs Authorized Under HEA. Foremost among Higher Education Act
programs targeted to low-income, college-bound youth are Trio and GEAR UP.69
The Migrant High School Equivalency program is another key component of the
HEA.
Trio Programs. Trio programs are designed to assist students from
disadvantaged backgrounds to pursue higher education and to complete their post-
secondary studies.70 Five Trio programs provide direct services to students and two
provide indirect services.71 The five primary programs are: Talent Search, Upward
Bound, Educational Opportunity Centers, Student Support Services, Ronald E.
McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement, and. Each of these programs is designed
to intervene at various points along the education continuum.
Talent Search, authorized under the original HEA legislation, encourages youth
who have completed at least five years of elementary education with college potential
to complete high school and enter postsecondary education; to encourage dropouts
to reenter school; and to disseminate information about available postsecondary
educational assistance. Upward Bound projects seek to motivate middle school and
high school students to succeed in postsecondary education through instruction and
counseling, among other activities.
Educational Opportunity Centers provide information to prospective
postsecondary students regarding available financial aid and academic assistance, and
help them apply to college. Student Support Services projects are intended to
69 For additional information, see CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR-UP Programs:
Status and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
70 The precise definition of disadvantaged varies between the programs. It generally refers
to individuals who are low-income, first-generation college students, or disabled.
71 These two programs are the Staff Development program and Dissemination Partnership
Grants program. The Staff Development program supports training of current and
prospective Trio staff. The Dissemination Partnership Grants funds partnerships with
institutions of higher education or community organizations not receiving Trio funds but
that serve first-generation and low-income college students.

---

CRS-26
improve college students’ retention and graduation rates, and improve transfer rates
from two-year to four-year colleges through instruction; exposure to career options;
mentoring; and assistance in graduate admissions and financial aid processes. In
selecting grantees, the Secretary of Education considers an institution’s efforts to
provide participants with aid sufficient to meet full financial needs and to constrain
student debt. Finally, the Robert E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement program
prepares disadvantaged students for post-doctoral study through seminars, research
opportunities, summer internships, tutoring, mentoring, and exposure to cultural
events and academic programs.
GEAR UP. Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate
Program (GEAR UP), a program not part of the TRIO array of programs, was added
to the HEA by the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 (P.L.105-244).
GEAR UP seeks to increase disadvantaged students’ secondary school completion
and postsecondary enrollment by providing support services. GEAR UP differs from
Trio in two key aspects: the program (1) serves a cohort of students from seventh
grade to their first year of college and (2) assures students of the availability of
financial aid to meet college costs. States or partnerships (schools and at least two
other entities, such as community organizations and state agencies) are eligible for
funding. Any funded state or partnership must provide comprehensive mentoring,
tutoring, counseling, outreach, and support services to participating students.
Participating states are also required to establish or maintain a postsecondary college
scholarship for participants; partnerships are permitted to include a scholarship
component.
Migrant High School Equivalency Program. The Migrant High School
Equivalency Program, authorized under HEA, funds institutions of higher education
(or private non-profits in cooperation with institutions of higher education) to recruit
and provide academic and support services to students who lack a high school
diploma and whose parents are engaged in migrant and other seasonal farmwork.
The purpose of the program is to assist students to obtain a high school equivalency
diploma and gain employment, or to attend college or another postsecondary
education or training program.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, is
the major statute that provides federal funding for the education of children and youth
with disabilities.72 Part B of the act includes provisions for the education of school-
aged children. As a condition for the receipt of funds states must provide “free
appropriate public education” to youth as old as 21 (age may vary depending on state
law). This term refers to the right of all children with disabilities to receive an
education and related services that meet state curriculum requirements, at no costs
to parents. Appropriateness is defined according to the child’s individualized
education plan (IEP) which delineates the special instruction the child should receive
and his or her educational goals.
72 For additional information, see CRS Report RS22138, Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA): Overview of P.L. 108-446, by Nancy Lee Jones and Richard N.
Apling.

---

CRS-27
Education of Homeless Children. The McKinney-Vento Act (P.L 100-
77), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, authorizes the Department of
Education to fund LEAs to provide homeless children and youth comparable
educational services. With certain exceptions for health and safety emergencies (and
for schools permitted under a “grandfather” clause), states are prohibited from using
funds for either a separate school or separate program within the school.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Department of Justice
coordinates federal activities and administers programs relating to the treatment of
juvenile offenders and the prevention of juvenile delinquency. These programs
include those enacted under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.73 The Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was first enacted in 1974 (P.L. 90-
415) and was most recently reauthorized in 2002 by the 21st Century Department of
Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273). Its provisions are currently
authorized through FY2007. The JJDPA as originally enacted had three main
components: it created a set of institutions within the federal government that were
dedicated to coordinating and administering federal juvenile justice efforts; it
established grant programs to assist the states with setting up and running their
juvenile justice systems; and it promulgated core mandates that states had to adhere
to in order to be eligible to receive grant funding. While the JJDPA has been
amended several times over the past thirty years, it continues to feature the same
three components. The major components of the JJDPA are discussed below.
State Formula Grants.The JJDPA authorizes OJJDP to make formula grants
to states which can be used to fund the planning, establishment, operation,
coordination, and evaluation of projects for the development of more effective
juvenile delinquency programs and improved juvenile justice systems. Funds are
allocated annually among the states on the basis of relative population of people
under the age of eighteen, and states must adhere to certain core mandates in order
to be eligible for funding.
Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grants. This is a discretionary
grant program and funding can be used to carry out projects designed to prevent
juvenile delinquency. Grant funding is allocated to eligible states based on the
proportion of their population that is under the age of 18. Funding for this grant
program has not been appropriated to date.
Juvenile Mentoring Program. This grant program was repealed in 2002 by
the 21st Century Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (P.L. 107-273); however,
it has continued to receive appropriations each subsequent fiscal year. These grants
73 This section was prepared by CRS Analyst Blas Nuñez-Neto. For an expanded discussion
of juvenile justice legislation and issues, please see CRS Report RL33097, Juvenile Justice:
Legislative History and Current Legislative Issues, by Blas Nuñez-Neto.

---

CRS-28
could be awarded to local educational agencies (in partnership with public or private
agencies) to establish and support mentoring programs.
Part E: Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New
Initiatives and Programs (Challenge Grants). The Challenge Grants program
authorizes OJJDP to make grants to state, local, and Indian governments and private
entities in order to carry out programs that will develop, test, or demonstrate
promising new initiatives that may prevent, control, or reduce juvenile delinquency.
Title V Community Prevention Block Grants. The Community Prevention
Block Grant program authorizes OJJDP to make grants to states, that are then
transmitted to units of local government, in order to carry out delinquency prevention
programs for juveniles who have come into contact with, or are likely to come into
contact with, the juvenile justice system.
Social Services. The major social service programs to assist at-risk youth are
authorized under the Social Security Act, as amended, and are administered by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.74
Foster Care Program and Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program (CFCIP). Title IV-E of the Social Security Act authorizes the federal
foster care program.75 Under this program, a state may seek federal funds for partial
reimbursement of the room and board costs needed to support eligible children who
are neglected, abused, or who, for some other reason, cannot remain in their own
homes. More than half a million children are in foster care in the United States on
any given day of the year and a little less than half of these (roughly 46% of the daily
caseload) are estimated as eligible for federal or Title IV-E foster care support. To
be eligible for Title IV-E, a child must be in the care and responsibility of the state
and 1) the child must meet income/assets tests and family structure rules in the home
he/she was removed from;76 2) have specific judicial determinations made related to
reasons for the removal and other aspects of his/her removal and placement; and 3)
be placed in an eligible licensed setting with an eligible provider(s).
74 Two additional child welfare programs, Court Appointed Special Advocates and
Children’s Advocacy Centers, are discussed in the chart below (see pp. 69-70). The
programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Justice.
75 For additional information, see CRS Report RL31242, Child Welfare: Federal Program
Requirements for States, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
76 With an exception, discussed below, the income and asset tests, as well as family
structure/living arrangement rules are identical to the federal /state rules that applied to the
now-defunct cash aid program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), as they
existed on July 16, 1996. Under the prior law AFDC program, states established specific
AFDC income rules (within some federal parameters). The federal AFDC asset limit was
$1,000, however, P.L. 106-169 raised the allowable counted asset limit to $10,000 for
purposes of determining Title IV-E eligibility. In addition to meeting the income/asset
criteria in the home from which he/she was removed, a child must meet the AFDC family
structure/living arrangement rules. Those rules granted eligibility primarily to children in
single-parent families (parents are divorced, separated, or never-married and one spouse is
not living with the child; or the parent is dead). In some cases a child in a two-parent family
may be eligible (if one parent meets certain unemployment criteria).

---

CRS-29
The federal government has established certain requirements related to state
provision of foster care that are applicable to all children and youth in foster care.
These include that a state has a written case plan detailing, among other things, where
the child is placed and what services are to be provided to ensure that a permanent
home is re-established for the child. Further, for each child in foster care, this plan
must be reviewed on a regular basis, including a review by a judge no less often than
every 12 months. For many youth who enter foster care, returning to their parents is
the way permanence is re-established. For some youth, however, it is not safe or
possible to reunite with their parents. In those cases states must work to find adoptive
parents or legal guardians who can provide a permanent home for these youth.
Foster youth who reach the “age of majority” (18 years in most states) and who
have not been reunited with their parents or placed with adoptive parents or guardians
are said to “emancipate” or “age out” of foster care. The Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program, created in 1999 (P.L. 106-169), required states to provide
independent living services for youth until their 21st birthday and those of any age in
foster care who are expected to leave care without placement in a permanent family.77
Services may consist of educational assistance, vocational training, mentoring,
preventive health activities, and counseling. States may dedicate as much as 30% of
their program funding toward room and board for youth ages 18 through 20. A
separate component of the CFCIP — the Education and Training Vouchers program
— was established in 2002 (P.L. 107-133) to provide vouchers to youth eligible for
the CFCIP and youth adopted from foster care after 16 years of age. The vouchers are
available for the cost of attendance at an institution of higher education, as defined
by the Higher Education Act of 1965.78 Only youth receiving a voucher at age 21
may continue to participate in the voucher program until age 23.
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program. The Mentoring Children of
Prisoners Program was authorized in 2002 (P.L. 107-133) to provide children and
youth whose parents are imprisoned with free mentoring and support services.79 The
purpose of the program is to give guidance to youth and to help youth reconnect with
their parents after they are released. Public and private entities (including state or
local governments, tribal governments, and community and faith-based groups) are
eligible to apply for three-year grants to establish or expand and operate mentoring
programs. The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288)
also authorized HHS to enter into an agreement with a national mentoring support
organization to operate a demonstration project that will test the efficacy of vouchers
as a method for delivering mentoring services.
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program. The Runaway and Homeless
Youth Program, established in 1974 under Title III of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act, is comprised of three components — the Basic Center
77 For additional information, see CRS Report RS22501, Child Welfare: Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP), by Adrienne Fernandes.
78 See Sections 102 and 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
79 For additional information, see CRS Report RL32633, Mentoring Programs Funded by
the Federal Government Dedicated to Disadvantaged Youth: Issues and Activities, by Edith
Fairman-Cooper.

---

CRS-30
Program (BCP), Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach Program
(SOP).80 These programs are designed to provide services to runaway and homeless
youth outside of the law enforcement, juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental
health systems. Services include temporary and long-term shelter, counseling
services, and referrals to social service agencies, among other supports. The funding
streams for the Basic Center Program and Transitional Living Program were separate
until Congress consolidated them in 1999 (P.L. 106-71). Together, the two programs
— along with other program activities — are known as the Consolidated Runaway
and Homeless Youth Program.81 Although the Street Outreach Program is a
separately funded component, SOP services are coordinated with those provided by
the BCP and TLP.
Public Health. Public health programs for vulnerable youth are concentrated
in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families (ACF) and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA). These programs address youth mental health, substance
abuse, teen pregnancy prevention, and support for pregnant and parenting teens.
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. SAMSHA is organized
into three units: the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), the Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
(CSAP). Collectively, the centers administer approximately 13 programs (not all
discussed here or in Table A-2) for youth ages 10 to 21 (and up to 25 for some
programs). The programs primarily target youth with serious emotional disturbances
(SED) and youth at-risk of abusing drugs and alcohol.
CMHS. Suicide prevention activities are funded by SAMHSA’s Campus
Suicide Prevention Grant Program and State-Sponsored Youth Suicide Prevention
and Early Intervention Program (collectively known as the Garrett Lee Smith
Memorial Act Suicide Prevention Program). The campus grant program funds
services for all students (including those with mental health problems and substance
abuse that makes them vulnerable to suicide), while the state-sponsored program
supports statewide and tribal activities to develop and implement youth suicide
prevention and intervention strategies.82
The Comprehensive Mental Health Services for Children with SED program
provides community-based systems of care for children and adolescents with serious
emotional disturbances and their families. The program aims to ensure that services
are provided collaboratively across youth-serving systems (such as schools and foster
80 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics, Programs, and Emerging Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
81 Other program activities include a national communications system for runaway youth and
their families, logistical support for grantee organizations, HHS’s National Clearinghouse
on Families and Youth, demonstrations, and the administration of the management
information system that tracks data on runaway and homeless youth, known as NEO-
RHYMIS.
82 Other SAMSHA funds are made available for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
and training to organizations and individuals developing suicide prevention programs.

---

CRS-31
care placements) and that each youth receives an individual service plan developed
with the participation of the family (and, where appropriate, the youth) to meet the
mental health needs of that youth. A second program, the National Child Traumatic
Stress Initiative, was created to establish a national network that provides services
and referrals for children and adolescents who have experienced traumatic events.
CSAT. The Assertive Adolescent and Family Treatment Program provides
grants to states to address gaps in substance abuse services for youth. The purpose
of the program is to use proven family-centered practices to treat drug addicted
youth. This treatment model focuses on making families and primary caregivers part
of the treatment process based on the belief that their inclusion increases the
likelihood of successful treatment and reintegration of adolescents into their
communities. Another program that provides treatment for youth who are drug
dependent is the Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts. This program targets juvenile
offenders (pre-adjudicated or adjudicated status, or post-detention), and provides
substance abuse treatment, wrap-around services supporting substance abuse
treatment, and case management. A judge oversees the drug treatment program and
may allow the youth to avoid (further) penalties for their delinquent behavior.
CSAP. The Strategic Prevention Framework State Infrastructure Grant
provides funding to states to implement strategies for preventing substance and
alcohol abuse among adolescents and adults. The grant implements a five-step
process: 1) conduct a community needs assessment; 2) mobilize and/or build
capacity; 3) develop a comprehensive strategic plan; 4) implement evidence-based
prevention programs and infrastructure development activities; and 5) monitor
process and evaluate effectiveness. CSAP also administers, in cooperation with the
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Drug-Free Communities
Support program (see below).
Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Support Programs. The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services administers research and education
programs to reduce teen pregnancy or to provide care services for pregnant and
parenting adolescents.83 Two education programs — Abstinence Education Grants
and Community-Based Abstinence Education — promote abstinence until marriage
in schools. States may request funding for the Abstinence Education Grants program
when they solicit Maternal and Child Health block grant funds (used for a variety of
health services for women and children, including adolescent pregnancy prevention
activities); this funding must be used exclusively for the teaching of abstinence. Since
FY2000, abstinence-only education for youth ages 12 to 18 has also been funded
through HHS’s Community-Based Abstinence Education program (formerly known
as Special Programs of Regional and National Significance, SPRANS).
In addition to the education programs, HHS sponsors projects to increase
awareness about teen pregnancy and abstinence. The Adolescent Family Life
Demonstration Projects and Research Grants were designed to promote family
83 For additional information, see CRS Report RS20873, Reducing Teen Pregnancy:
Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Programs and CRS Report RS20301,
Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Statistics and Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.

---

CRS-32
involvement in the delivery of services, adolescent premarital sexual abstinence,
adoption as an alternative to early parenting, parenting and child development
education, and comprehensive health, education, and social services geared toward
the healthy development for mother and child. The project program provides
services to youth and the research and evaluation program evaluates the delivery of
those services.
Federal Efforts to Improve Coordination Among
Programs for Vulnerable Youth
Overview
Despite the range of services and activities programs for vulnerable youth, many
of these programs appear to have developed with little attempt to coordinate them in
a policy area or across policy areas. Policymakers and youth advocates argue that
federal agencies must develop mechanisms to improve coordination — defined, at
minimum, as communication and consultation. They argue that coordination is
necessary because of the expansion of programs that serve youth, the increasing
complexity and interrelated nature of public policies that affect youth, the
fragmentation of policy-making among agencies, and the establishment of new policy
priorities that cross older institutional boundaries.84 To address concerns about the
coordination of federal programs, Congress has passed the Tom Osborne Federal
Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365), the YouthBuild Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281),
and the Claude Pepper Young Americans Act (P.L. 101-501); however, of the three,
only the YouthBuild Transfer Act has been funded. The Administration has also
undertaken efforts to coordinate programs around youth topic areas and youth
populations.
Concerns about Coordination of Youth Programs
In addition to the 45 programs described in Table A-2, dozens of other
programs in multiple federal agencies target, even in small part, vulnerable youth.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cataloged 131 programs for at-
risk or delinquent youth across 16 agencies in FY1996. GAO defined these youth as
individuals age five to 24 who, due to certain characteristics or experiences, were
statistically more likely than other youth to encounter certain problems — legal,
social, financial, educational, emotional, and health — in the future.85 The White
84 For additional information about rationales for coordination, see CRS Report RL31357,
Federal Interagency Coordinative Mechanisms: Varied Types and Numerous Devices, by
Frederick M. Kaiser. For a discussion of federal efforts to coordinate and integrate various
social service programs, see CRS Report RL32859, The “Superwaiver” Proposal and
Service Integration: A History of Federal Initiatives, by Cheryl Vincent.
85 U.S. General Accounting Office, At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal
Programs Raise Efficiency Questions, GAO/HEHS-96-34, March 1996, at [http://www.gao.
gov/archive/1996/he96034.pdf]. (GAO is now known as the U.S. Government
(continued...)

---

CRS-33
House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, convened in 2002, compiled a similar
list of over 300 programs for disadvantaged youth (using nearly the same definition
as GAO) in 12 agencies for FY2003 targeting vulnerable youth and youth generally.86
In its October 2003 final report, the task force identified five fundamental concerns
with coordinating youth programs:
! Mission Fragmentation: The federal response to disadvantaged
youth is an example of “mission fragmentation” because dozens of
youth programs appear to provide many of the same services and
share similar goals. For example, academic support was identified
as a service provided by 92 programs and mentoring was identified
as a service provided by 123 such programs, in FY2003.
! Poor Coordination for Sub-Groups of Youth: According to the task
force, the federal government does not coordinate services for
specific groups of youth (i.e., abused/neglected youth, current or
former foster youth, immigrant youth, minority youth, obese youth,
urban youth, and youth with disabilities, among others). The task
force report listed 30 sub-groups of vulnerable youth, with each sub-
group receiving services through at least 50 programs administered
by 12 agencies. The report cited that each agency operates their
programs autonomously and is not required to coordinate services
with other agencies.
! Mission Creep: Known as “mission creep,” multiple agencies are
authorized by broadly-written statute to provide similar services to
the same groups of youth despite having distinct agency goals and
missions. Though youth programs are concentrated in the U.S.
Departments of Education, Health and Human Service, and Justice,
nine other agencies administer at least two youth-focused programs:
Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor,
Transportation, Corporation for National and Community Service,
Defense, Office of Drug Control Policy, and Environmental
Protection Agency.
! Poor Program Accountability: The extent of overlap among youth
programs and the efficacy of these programs are difficult to
determine because some of them have not been recently assessed
through the Office of Management and Budget’s Program
85 (...continued)
Accountability Office.)
86 The programs provide services such as: academic support; support for adults who work
with youth; after-school programs; AIDS prevention activities; counseling; mental health
services; mentoring; self-sufficiency skills; tutoring; and violence and crime prevention. See
Executive Office of the President, White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final
Report, October 2003, pp. 165-179, at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/
white_house_task_force.pdf]. (Hereafter referenced White House Task Force for
Disadvantaged Youth Final Report.)

---

CRS-34
Assessment and Rating Tool (PART) or by an independent program
evaluation. As of FY2003, more than half of the 339 youth-related
programs identified by the task force had not been evaluated within
the last five years. Of those programs that were evaluated, 75%
were evaluated independently and the remaining programs were self-
evaluated by the grantees. According to the task force, the quality
of the evaluations was low because most did not randomly assign
some youth to the programs and track their progress against
similarly-situated youth not in the program.
! Funding Streams that Reduce Accountability: The funding streams
for youth programs affect coordination. Approximately 63% of
youth programs are funded through a block grant or formula grant.
Large categorical and block grant programs — even when federal
allocations are based upon a formula — may minimize program
reporting requirements and decentralize funding decisions to
multiple levels of government.
Congress has also examined challenges to coordinating programs targeted to
certain groups of youth. In a May 2004 hearing, the Government Reform Committee
examined redundancy and duplication in federal child welfare programs.87
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365)
In response to the concerns raised by the White House Task Force for
Disadvantaged Youth, Congress passed the Tom Osborne Federal Youth
Coordination Act (Title VIII of the Older Americans Act, P.L. 109-365) creating the
Federal Youth Coordination Council, to be chaired by the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. The purpose of the council is twofold:
to improve coordination across federal agencies that administer programs for
vulnerable youth and to assist federal agencies with evaluating these programs.
Table 3 describes the duties established by the council to meet these two goals.
Policymakers and advocates assert that the council can help to improve policy
effectiveness by reducing the duplication of effort and working at cross-purposes,
while integrating distinct but reinforcing responsibilities among relatively
autonomous agencies.88 They argue that the council can improve accountability of
various federal components by consolidating review and reporting requirements.
87 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Redundancy and Duplication
in Federal Child Welfare Programs: A Case Study on the Need for Executive
Reorganization Authority, hearing, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., May 20, 2004 (Washington: GPO,
2004), available at [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/chearings/108hcat1.html].
88 U.S. Congress, House Commitee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on
Select Education, Coordination Among Federal Youth Development Programs, hearing 109th
Cong., 1st sess., July 12, 2005, statements of Rep. Tom Osborne and Marguerite W. Sallee,
Alliance for Youth (Washington: GPO, 2005), available at [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
chearings/109hcat1.html].

---

CRS-35
Table 3. Duties of the Federal Youth Council, by Goal
Goal: To Improve Coordination
Goal: To Assess Youth Programs
 Ensure communication among agencies
 In coordination with the Federal Interagency
administering programs for disadvantaged
Forum on Child and Family Statistics, assess
youth;
a) the needs of youth, especially those in
 Identify possible areas of overlap or
disadvantaged situations, and those who work
duplication in the purpose and operation of
with youth; and b) the quality and quantity of
programs serving youth and recommending
federal programs offering services, supports,
ways to better facilitate the coordination and
and opportunities to help youth in their
consultation among such programs;
development;
 Identify target populations of youth who are
 Recommend quantifiable goals and
disproportionately at risk and assist agencies
objectives for federal programs to assist
in focusing additional resources on such
disadvantaged youth;
youth;
 Make recommendations for the allocation
 Assist federal agencies, at the request of one
of resources in support of such goals and
or more agencies, in collaborating on a)
objectives;
model programs and demonstration projects
 Develop a plan (that is consistent with the
focusing on special populations, including
common indicators of youth well-being
youth in foster care and migrant youth; b)
tracked by the Federal Interagency Forum on
projects to promote parental involvement; and
Child and Family Statistics) to assist federal
c) projects that work to involve young people
agencies (at the request of one or more such
in service programs;
agencies) coordinate to achieve quantifiable
 Solicit and document ongoing input and
goals and objectives;
recommendations from a) youth, especially
 Work with federal agencies a) to promote
youth in disadvantaged situations; b) national
high-quality research and evaluation, identify
youth development experts, researchers,
and replicate model programs and promising
parents, community-based organizations,
practices, and provide technical assistance
foundations, business leaders, youth service
relating to the needs of youth; and b) to
providers, and teachers; and c) state and local
coordinate the collection and dissemination of
government agencies.
youth services-related data and research.
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on the language in P.L. 109-
365.
Other duties of the council include providing technical assistance to states to
support a state-funded council for coordinating state youth efforts, at a state’s request,
and coordinating with other federal, state, and local coordinating efforts to carry out
its duties.
The law specifies that the council coordinate with three existing interagency
bodies — the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, the
Interagency Council on Homelessness, and the Coordinating Council on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (The legislation does not describe how the
council should coordinate with these other bodies.) Further, the law requires that the
council provide Congress with an interim report within one year after the council’s
first meeting, as well as a final report not later than two years after the council’s first
meeting. The final report must include 1) a comprehensive list of recent research and
statistical reporting by various federal agencies on the overall well-being of youth;
2) the assessment of the needs of youth and those who serve youth; 3) a summary of
the plan in coordinating to achieve the goals and objectives for federal youth
programs; 4) recommendations to coordinate and improve federal training and
technical assistance, information sharing, and communication among federal
programs and agencies; 5) recommendations to better integrate and coordinate

---

CRS-36
policies across federal, state, and local levels of government, including any
recommendations the chair determines appropriate for legislation and administrative
actions; 6) a summary of the actions taken by the council at the request of federal
agencies to facilitate collaboration and coordination on youth serving programs and
the results of those collaborations, if available; 7) a summary of the action the council
has taken at the request of states to provide technical assistance; and 8) a summary
of the input and recommendations by disadvantaged youth, community-based
organizations, among others.
Funding was not appropriated to the council for FY2007, and the President’s
FY2008 budget does not request funding for the council. In response to inquiries
from Members of Congress about why HHS did not seek funding for the council in
its FY2008 appropriations request, HHS has said that the Coordinating Council on
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (see below for more discussion), of
which HHS is a member, is beginning to address some of the objectives and goals of
the act.
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L 101-501)
The Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (Title IX of the August F.
Hawkins Human Services Reauthorization Act, P.L. 101-501) shares some of the
same objectives as the Youth Coordination Act, and like that legislation, it was not
funded. The act sought to increase federal coordination among agencies that
administer programs for children and youth, while also enhancing the delivery of
social services to children, youth, and their families through improved coordination
at the state and local levels.89 In its report supporting the act’s coordinating
provisions, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee noted:90
The Committee is concerned that the current system of service is fragmented and
disjointed, making it difficult, if not impossible for children and families who are
being served in one system to access needed services from another. This creates
a situation in which problems of children and families not only go unmet but
undetected and unresolved. Through the inclusion of these proposals, the
Committee hopes to articulate a national commitment to our nation’s children,
youth, and families and to encourage greater cooperation at federal, state, and
local levels.
Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families. The Federal
Council on Children, Youth, and Families was established by the Young Americans
Act to address concerns about the fragmentation and duplication of services for youth
at the federal and local levels. The act provided that the council comprise
representatives from federal agencies and state or local agencies that serve youth,
89 For further discussion of concerns with coordination at the state and local levels and local
initiatives to improve coordination in the early 1990s, see CRS Report 96-369, Linking
Human Services: An Overview of Coordination and Integration Efforts, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem (out of print). The report is available upon request at x7-5700.
90 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Human Services
Reauthorization Act, report to accompany P.L. 101-501, 101th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept.
101-421 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1990), p. 1963.

---

CRS-37
rural and urban populations; and national organizations with an interest in young
individuals, families, and early childhood. The duties of the council were to include
1) advising and assisting the president on matters relating to the special needs of
young individuals (and submitting a report to the president in FY1992 through
FY1998); 2) reviewing and evaluating federal policies, programs, or other activities
affecting youth and identifying duplication of services for these youth; and 3) making
recommendations to the President and Congress to streamline services, reduce
duplication of services, and encourage coordination of services for youth and their
families at the state and local levels. The act was amended in 1994 (P.L. 103-252)
to require that the council also identify program regulations, practices, and eligibility
requirements that impede coordination and collaboration and make recommendations
for their modifications or elimination.
Though the council was to be funded through FY1998, funding was never
appropriated.
Grants for States and Community Programs. The Young Americans
Act also established grant funding for coordinating resources and providing
comprehensive services to children, youth, and families at the state and local levels.
For states to receive funding, the act required each state to submit a plan discussing
how state and local entities would coordinate developmental, preventative, and
remedial services, among other provisions.
This grant program was never funded.

Youth Build Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281)
The Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth identified several programs, including
YouthBuild, that were located in a federal department whose mission does not
provide a clear and compelling reason for locating them within that agency. As such,
the task force recommended that YouthBuild be transferred from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development to the U.S. Department of Labor
because of DOL’s mission of administering workforce and training programs.91 As
discussed above, the YouthBuild program provides educational services and job
training in construction for low-income youth ages 16 to 24 who are not enrolled in
school. On September 22, 2006 the YouthBuild Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281),
authorizing the transfer of the program from HUD to DOL, was signed into law. The
program is now funded as part of the WIA Youth Activities program.
Federal Initiatives to Improve Coordination
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. The Coordinating Council (Council) on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention was established by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) and is administered by the Department of
Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Council’s
primary functions are to coordinate federal programs and policies concerning juvenile
91 White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final Report, pp. 33-34.

---

CRS-38
delinquency prevention, unaccompanied juveniles, and missing and exploited
children. The Council is led by the Attorney General and the Administrator of
OJJDP and includes the heads of all the federal agencies that touch on these broad
areas, including the Secretary of Health and Human Services; the Secretary of Labor;
the Secretary of Education; the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; the
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; the Chief Executive Officer
of the Corporation for National and Community Service; and the Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization (now the Commissioner of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement).
In recent years, the Council has broadened its focus to other at-risk youth. The
Council is seeking to implement some of the recommendations made by the Task
Force for Disadvantaged Youth, including 1) improve coordination of mentoring
programs; 2) develop a unified protocol for federal best practices clearinghouses; 3)
build a rigorous and unified disadvantaged youth research agenda; 4) improve data
collection on the well-being of families; 5) increase parents’ involvement in federal
youth programs; 6) target youth in public care; 7) target youth with many risk factors;
and 8) expand mentoring programs to special target groups, among other
recommendations.92 The Council has formed the Federal Mentoring Council around
the issue of mentoring to best determine how agencies can combine resources to
provide training and technical assistance to federally-administered mentoring
programs.93 Chaired by the Corporation for National and Community Service and
Commissioner of FYSB, the Federal Mentoring Council has held a public forum on
mentoring and is now developing a mentoring initiative for young people aging out
of foster care.94
Shared Youth Vision Initiative. In response to the recommendations made
by the Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, the U.S. Departments of Education
(ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice (DOJ), and Labor (DOL), and the
Social Security Administration partnered to improve communication and
collaboration across programs that target at-risk youth groups under an initiative
called the “Shared Youth Vision.”
Together, the agencies have convened an Interagency Work Group and
conducted regional forums in 16 states to develop and coordinate policies and
research on the vulnerable youth population. Representatives from federal and state
agencies in workforce development, education, social services, and juvenile justice
have participated in the forums. The purpose of these forums is to create and
implement plans to improve communication and collaboration between local
organizations that serve at-risk youth. For example, the U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL) has led efforts to promote collaboration between the Runaway and Homeless
Youth Program and the agency’s Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs. The
92 U.S. Department of Justice, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, Minutes from the Quarterly Meeting on November 30, 2006, p. 10, available at
[http://www.juvenilecouncil.gov/meetings.html].
93 Ibid, pp. 8-9.
94 Based on correspondence with ACF staff in April 2007.

---

CRS-39
DOL has encouraged local and state Workforce Investment Boards to implement the
strategies of the Shared Vision initiative based, in part, on models already
implemented through three WIA programs in California, Oregon, and Washington
that provide employment and educational resources targeted for runaway and
homeless youth.95 In four of the 16 states with regional forums, the Family and
Youth Services Bureau, through the Federal Mentoring Council, has developed four
initiatives around mentoring for youth aging out of the foster care system.96
Partnerships for Youth Transition. HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental
Healthy Services Administration (SAMHSA) and ED’s Office of Special Education
are cosponsoring a four-year program, that began in FY2003, to offer long-term
support to young people between the ages of 14 and 25 with serious emotional
disorders and emerging serious mental illnesses. The program is intended to assist
youth transitioning to the adult system of medical care, while continuing to receive
educational services. One of the program’s goals is to develop models of
comprehensive youth transition services that can be evaluated for their
effectiveness.97
Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative. From FY1999 to
FY2006, HHS, ED, and DOJ have provided joint grant funding for the Safe
Schools/Healthy Students Initiative to reduce violence and drug abuse at schools (K-
12) and in communities. Local education agencies — in partnership with local law
enforcement, public mental health, and juvenile justice entities — apply for SS/HS
funding. The initiative sponsors projects in schools and communities that 1) provide
a safe school environment; 2) offer alcohol-, other drug -, and violence-prevention
activities and early intervention for troubled students; 3) offer school and community
mental health preventative and treatment intervention programs; 4) offer early
childhood psychosocial and emotional development programs; 5) support and
connect schools and communities; and 6) support safe-school policies.
Examples of programs for youth K through 12th grade include after-school and
summer tutoring programs; recreational activities such as chess club; volunteering;
and coordinated social service and academic activities for youth at risk of engaging
in delinquent behavior, including mental health care services, peer mentoring, and
parent workshops.
Drug-Free Communities Support Program. The Drug-Free Communities
Support Program is administered by SAMSHA and the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy (which has entered into an agreement with OJJDP to
manage the program on behalf of the sub-agency).98 The program awards grants to
95 See notice from Department of Labor to state workforce agencies, available on the DOL
website, available at [http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2176].
96 Based on correspondence with ACF staff in April 2007.
97 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Transition to Adulthood:
SAMHSA Helps Vulnerable Youth, SAMHSA News, vol. XI, no. 1 (2003).
98 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Drug-Free Community Support Program Grants,
(continued...)

---

CRS-40
community coalitions through a competitive grant award process. The program is
intended to strengthen the capacity of the coalitions to reduce substance abuse among
youth (and adults) and to disseminate timely information on best practices for
reducing substance abuse.
Coordination Around Specific Youth Populations. Federal agencies
have partnered to address the concerns raised in the Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth report about the uncoordinated response to assisting certain sub-groups of
youth.99 The U.S. Departments of Education and Labor are now working together to
assist youth who have dropped out of school. The agencies are working together to
coordinate alternative education, adolescent literacy and numeracy, and enhanced
GED programs funded through WIA to ensure that they comply with the No Child
Left Behind requirements.
ED and DOL, along with HHS and the USDA, have formed an interagency team
to address the educational needs of migrant youth. The team has developed a
proposal for a demonstration project that would provide educational assistance for
migrant youth at various locations along the migrant stream (The migrant stream
refers to the locations migrants frequent during particular seasons. For instance,
migrants along the east coast might work in Florida and North Carolina in the winter,
and Pennsylvania in the summer.) ED, HHS, DOJ, and DOL have also partnered to
improve education and employment outcomes for youth offenders.
Policies to Promote Positive Youth Development
Overview
Some youth advocates argue that expanding programs for youth and providing
mechanisms to coordinate these programs should be part of a larger effort to improve
youth outcomes. This effort builds on the positive youth development approach
(discussed above) that views youth as assets, in contrast to deficit-based models
which focus primarily on specific youth problems.
Federal legislation and initiatives have been framed through the youth
development philosophy with the goal of providing resources and guidance to
communities and youth-focused programs that engage young people in roles as full
participants in the work place, community, and society at large. Major legislation
with a positive youth approach has included the Youth Development Community
Block Grant of 1995 (H.R. 2807/S. 673) and the Younger Americans Act of 2001
(H.R. 17/S. 1005), both of which did not pass out of committee. The Administration
98 (...continued)
available at [http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html].
99 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on
Select Education, Coordination Among Federal Youth Development Programs, hearing,
109th Cong., 1st sess., July 12, 2005, statement of Dr. Michael O’Grady, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, (Washington, DC: GPO), available at [http://www.gpoaccess.
gov/chearings/109hcat1.html].

---

CRS-41
has promoted the Helping America’s Youth (HAY) initiative to raise awareness
about issues affecting youth and to address these challenges through current federal
programs and an online community action guide. Finally, America’s Promise, a
federally-sponsored program operated by the non-profit Alliance for Youth, conducts
and commissions research around positive youth development and recognizes
communities and organizations that promote this philosophy.
Youth Development Community Block Grant
of 1995 (H.R. 2807/S. 673)
The Youth Development Community Block Grant (YDCBG) of 1995 (H.R.
2807/S. 673) proposed to consolidate nearly two dozen federal youth programs
administered by the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and
Justice. The purpose of the legislation was to shift from a system of categorical
programs that targeted the problems of certain sub-populations of youth (i.e.,
pregnant youth, youth abusing drugs) to one that promoted all aspects of youth
development. At hearings on the legislation in the House and Senate, Members of
Congress, community leaders, and youth advocates discussed the need to support
comprehensive community services for youth. J.C. Watts, a co-sponsor of the
legislation, testified:
Because high risk behaviors are often interrelated, programs must consider the
overall development of individual youngsters rather than focusing on one
problem in isolation. Our current system of narrowly defined, categorical
programs is rather like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle scattered over a card table.
The YDCBG puts these pieces together.100
The YDBCG Act did not prescribe specific activities or program types for which
the funds were to be used. Rather, the legislation would have required states to
submit a plan to HHS that outlined their youth development priorities. Funding
would have flowed to local community boards, which would have tailored local
YDCBG programs to community needs, consistent with the goals of these plans.
Funding from the block grant could only supplement, and not supplant, existing
funds for youth development programs and activities.
The block grant was to be based on three equally weighted formula factors: the
proportion of the nation’s total youth (defined as ages 6 to 17) that reside in each
state; proportion of the nation’s poor youth (defined as youth from low-income
families) that reside in each state; and the average incidence of juvenile crime during
the most recent four-year period. This $900 million proposed grant would have been
funded through the programs that were be eliminated, with a 10% overall reduction.
The legislation was referred out of committee in both the House and Senate, but
was not taken up again.
100 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families, Youth Development, hearing, 104th
Cong., 1st sess., September 19, 1996.

---

CRS-42
Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005)
The goal of the Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005) was to create
a national youth policy that would have funded a network of youth programs through
a central funding source, based loosely on the framework of the Older Americans
Act.101 Similar to its predecessor, the YDCBGA, the Younger Americans Act sought
to provide resources to youth consisting of (1) ongoing relationships with caring
adults; (2) safe places with structured activities; (3) access to services that promote
healthy lifestyles, including those designed to improve physical and mental health;
(4) opportunities to acquire marketable skills and competencies; and (5) opportunities
for community service and civic participation.
If passed, HHS would have distributed block grant funds to states based on a
formula that accounted for their proportion of the nation’s youth ages 10 to 19 and
the proportion of youth receiving a free or reduced-price school lunch. States would
have then distributed funds to local area agencies on youth, which were to be
supervised by community boards comprised of youth, representatives of youth-
serving organizations, representatives of local elected officials, parents, and leaders
of social and educational institutions in the community. Local youth organizations
could apply to the community service board for funding to carry out program
activities such as character development and ethical enrichment activities; mentoring
activities; provision and support of community youth centers; and nonschool hours,
weekend, and summer programs and camps, among other activities. HHS would
have also set aside funding for evaluations of these programs.
The Younger Americans Act proposed to fund the program at $500 million the
first year, increasing to $2 billion in its fifth year. The legislation did not pass
committee in the House or Senate.
Helping America’s Youth
Helping America’s Youth (HAY) is a national initiative, led by Laura Bush, that
grew from four National Youth Summits that were coordinated and facilitated by
HHS’s Family and Youth Services Bureau. These summits were designed to convene
policymakers, program operators, and youth in disadvantaged situations to explore
national activities across ten federal agencies.
The mission of HAY is to promote positive youth development by raising
awareness about the challenges facing youth and motivating caring adults to connect
with youth.102 The Administration has promoted the initiative through national and
regional forums and online resources. The 2005 White House Conference on
Helping America’s Youth convened researchers, federal youth-serving agencies, and
community and state leaders to discuss challenges facing youth and promote
successful youth programs. Regional forums in Washington, DC, and Denver have
101 The Older Americans Act is the major vehicle for the delivery of social and nutritional
services for older persons.
102 For additional information, see [http://www.helpingamericasyouth.gov/].

---

CRS-43
also brought together local civic leaders and researchers to discuss the goals of the
initiative. (Laura Bush has also promoted the initiative through site visits to
successful youth programs, such as Father Flanagan’s Boys and Girls Town in
Nebraska and Colonie Youth Court in New York.) In addition to these forums, HAY
provides online assistance to communities. The Community Action Guide is an
online resource to help communities assess their needs and resources and link them
to effective programs to help youth.103 Guide users can input their community
locations and learn about federal resources (i.e., HUD-funded housing units or
SAMSHA-funded programs), local resources (i.e., Boys and Girls Clubs), and the
presence of businesses that sell tobacco and alcohol. The Guide also provides a
primer on tenets of positive youth development (including guidance on how adult
mentors can get involved in the lives of youth) and building community partnerships
between government agencies and community organizations. This tool was created
in partnership with nine federal agencies (HHS, Justice, ED, USDA, Interior, HUD,
Labor, Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Corporation for National and
Community Service).
As part of HAY, the Administration’s Communities Empowering Youth (CEY)
program works to reduce youth violence and to promote positive youth development.
Created in 2005, CEY is administered through HHS’s Compassion Capital Fund. The
Compassion Capital Fund is the key element of the Administration’s faith-based
initiative, announced in January 2001, to expand the use of faith-based and
community group as providers of social services.104 It was created as a discretionary
program in 2002 appropriations law (P.L. 107-116). CEY and other Compassion
Capital Fund initiatives increase the service capacity and skills among faith-based
and community-organizations, and encourage replication of effective service
approaches. In FY2006, the first year funding was awarded for the CEY program,
100 organizations in 38 states and the District of Columbia each received $300,000,
for a total of $30 million (slightly more than half of the Compassion Capital Fund’s
overall budget of $58 million).105 These organizations have a record of addressing
youth violence and directing youth to resources that promote positive youth
development. As CEY recipients, they assist other faith-based and community
organizations that do not receive CEY funding, in four areas: 1) leadership
development, 2) organizational development, 3) program development, and 4)
community engagement.
103 See [http://guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/].
104 For additional information, see CRS Report RS21844, The Compassion Capital Fund:
Brief Facts and Current Development, by Joe Richardson.
105 For a complete list of CEY award recipients, see [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/
2006/ccf_fy_2006_data.pdf].

---

CRS-44
Alliance for Youth: America’s Promise
America’s Promise is the national program established by the non-profit
organization, Alliance for Youth, to promote the Five Promises that attendees at the
Presidents’ Summit for America’s Future (held in Philadelphia in 1997)106
determined to be essential for the success of young people:
! Caring adults who are actively involved in their lives (i.e.,
parents, mentors, teachers, coaches);
! Safe places in which to learn and grow;
! Healthy start toward adulthood;
! Effective education that builds marketable skills; and
! Opportunities to help others.107
America’s Promise is funded through a combination of federal and private
funds. The Corporation for National & Community Service, the agency that
administers federal community service programs, provides the federal portion of the
funds. In FY2006, the organization received $4.5 million from the Corporation.
The focus of the Alliance for Youth is to fund research that tracks youth
outcomes, recognize communities that implement best practices in youth
development, and provide financial and other resources to organizations that serve
young people. The organization’s 2006 report — “Every Child, Every Promise: a
Report on America’s Young People” — correlated the presence of the Five Promises
in young people’s lives with success in adolescence and adulthood. The report
concludes that children who have at least four of the Five Promises are more likely
to be academically successful, civically engaged, and socially competent, regardless
of their race or family income.108
Positive Youth Development State and
Local Collaboration Demonstration Projects
The Family and Youth Services Bureau administers demonstration projects that
promote its mission of providing positive youth development programming. From
FY1998 to FY2003, 13 states received demonstration grants to assess how positive
youth development principles could be integrated into state policies and procedures;
provide training on the positive youth development approach; and identify data to
measure positive youth outcomes. The Bureau has since awarded $3 million in
106 The five surviving presidents (at that time) convened the summit to mobilize Americans
in all sectors to ensure that all youth have adequate resources that will assist them in leading
healthy, productive lives.
107 The organization’s website provides additional information about the Five Promises:
[http://www.americaspromise.org/].
108 America’s Promise: The Alliance for Youth, Every Child, Every Promise: Turning
Failure to Action, p. 4, 2006, available at [http://www.americaspromise.org/uploaded
Files/AmericasPromise/Our_Work/Strategic_Initiatives/Every_Child_Every_
Promise/EC-EP_Documents/MAIN%20REPORT%20DRAFT%2011.1.pdf].

---

CRS-45
grants to nine (Iowa, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
New York, and Oregon) of the original 13 states to fund collaborative projects
between those states and local jurisdictions and Indian tribes. The purposes of the
projects are to facilitate communication and cooperation among different levels of
government and the non-profit sector that provide services to young people; and to
energize local constituencies around the issue of youth development. For example,
one of the projects — in Chicago, Illinois — has forged a community partnership
between the Illinois Department of Social Service, a local youth council, community
center, a local park district, and other community service groups around the issues
of quality education and youth employment.109 The project has planned, raised funds
for, and marketed a career day and a forum for youth and police.
Conclusion
This report provided an overview of the vulnerable youth population and
examined the federal role in supporting these youth. While a precise number of
vulnerable youth cannot be aggregated (and should not be, due to data constraints),
these youth are generally concentrated among seven groups — youth “aging out” of
foster care, runaways and homeless youth, juvenile justice-involved youth, immigrant
youth and youth with limited English proficiency (LEP), youth with physical and
mental disabilities, youth with mental disorders, and youth receiving special
education. Each of these categories is comprised of youth with distinct challenges
and backgrounds; however, many of these youth share common experiences, such as
unstable home and neighborhood environments, coupled with problems in school.
Without protective factors in place, vulnerable youth may have difficulty
transitioning to adulthood. Detachment from the labor market and school — or
disconnectedness — is perhaps the single strongest indicator that the transition has
not been made adequately. Despite the negative forecast for the employment and
education prospects of vulnerable youth, some youth experience positive outcomes
in adulthood. Youth who develop strong cognitive, emotional, and vocational skills,
among other types of competencies, have greater opportunities to reach their goals.
Advocates for youth promote the belief that all youth have assets and can make
valuable contributions to their communities despite their challenges.
The federal government has not developed a single overarching policy or
program to assist vulnerable youth, like the Older Americans Act program for the
elderly. Since the 1960s, a number of programs, many operating in isolation from
others, have worked to address the specific needs (i.e., vocational, educational, social
services, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, and health) of these youth.
More recently, policymakers have taken steps toward a more comprehensive federal
response to the population. The YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2006 moved the
YouthBuild program from HUD to DOL because the program is more aligned with
DOL’s mission of administering workforce and training programs. Also in 2006, the
Tom Obsborne Youth Coordination Act was passed to improve coordination across
federal agencies that administer programs for vulnerable youth and to assist federal
109 For more information, see the Family and Youth Services Bureau page on grantees
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/youthdivision/initiatives/highlights.htm].

---

CRS-46
agencies with evaluating these programs. The Administration has not introduced
proposals to fund the Federal Youth Coordinating Council, created by the act. Other
coordinating efforts — the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Council and
Shared Youth Vision initiative — may have the resources and leadership to create
a more unified federal youth policy, albeit the JJDPC has a primary focus on juvenile
justice involved youth.
In addition to the Federal Youth Coordination Act, the few youth-targeted acts
over the past ten years have not passed or have passed without full implementation.
The unfunded Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 sought to increase
coordination among federal children and youth agencies by creating a Federal
Council on Children, Youth, and Families that would have streamlined federal youth
programs and advised the president on youth issues. Similarly, federal legislation
reflecting a youth development philosophy, with the goal of providing resources to
youth and engaging young people in their communities, has not been reported out of
committee. The 1995 Youth Development Community Block Grant and 2001
Younger Americans Act would have provided grant funding to the states with the
greatest concentrations of low-income youth to provide resources, such as mentors
and opportunities for community service and civic participation.

Though federal legislation targeted at vulnerable young people has not been
passed or implemented in recent years, current initiatives (Shared Youth Vision,
Helping America’s Youth, and America’s Promise) and collaborations (Safe
Schools/Healthy Students Initiative and the JJDPC) appear to have begun addressing,
even in small measure, the needs of this population.

---

CRS-47
Appendix A-1. Studies of Civilian,
Noninstutionalized Disconnected Youth
Title and Year
Author
Major Findings
A Portrait of Well-
Brett Brown,
 Disconnected youth label applies to young
Being in Early
Kristin
adults ages 23 to 27 in the civilian
Adulthood: A
Moore, and
noninstitutional population.
Report of the
Sharon
 The study analyzed October 2000 CPS data,
William and Floral
Bzosteck,
and found that 800,000 or 4.5% of individuals in
Hewlett
Child Trends
this age range were not in school, not in the
Foundation (2003)
labor force, not disabled, and not married.
The Condition of
John Wirt et
 Disconnected label not applied, however,
Education (2005)
al.
the study counted youth 16 to 19 who were out
of school and not working.
 About 8% of youth 16 to 19 were not
working or going to school.
 From 1986 to 2005, the percentage of out-of-
school and non-working youth 16 to 19 ranged
from 7% to 10%.
Kids Count (2006)
Annie E.
 Disconnected youth label applies to 16-to-19
Casey
year olds not enrolled in school and not working
Foundation
and to 18-to-24 year olds with no degree beyond
high school not working or attending school.
 About 9% of 16-to-19 year olds and 18-to-24
year olds meet the definition of disconnected.
Reconnecting
Peter
 Disconnected youth label applies to 16-to-24
Disadvantaged
Edelman,
year olds not in school or working for at least
Young Men (2006)
Harry J.
one year.
Holzer, and
 Over 3.2% of white, nearly 11% of black, and
Pual Offner
9% of Hispanic males met this definition.
 The rates of disconnectedness were the same
for young women as their male counterparts,
except that black females experienced nearly
half the rate of disconnection (5.4%) as black
males.
 Idle youth label applies to 16-to-24 year olds
not in school or working for less than one year.
 The rate of idleness for black men (22.8%)
was almost double the rate for Hispanic men
(12.8%) and more than double the rate for white
men (8.7%).
 Young women of every racial group
experienced higher rates of idleness than men of
their same race, except for black women.

---

CRS-48
Appendix A-2. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth
(FY2007 budget figures may not be final for some programs,
pending final executive branch interpretation of the Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5))
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Job Training and Workforce Development
Job Corps
Workforce
To assist eligible
FY2006: $1.6
U.S. Department
Youth ages 16 to
Investment Act of
youth who need
billion
of Labor
21 (with
1998, as amended
and can benefit
FY2007: $1.6
exceptions) who
from an intensive
billion
are either
29 U.S.C. §2881
workforce
FY2008: $1.5
low-income, basic
et seq.
development
billion
skills deficient, a
program, operated
school dropout,
in a group setting
homeless, a
in residential and
runaway, or a
nonresidential
foster child, a
centers, to become
parent or an
more responsible,
individual who
employable, and
requires additional
productive
education,
citizens.
vocational
training, or
intensive
counseling and
related assistance
to participate
successfully in
regular
schoolwork or to
secure and hold
employment.

---

CRS-49
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
WIA Youth
Workforce
To provide
FY2006: $941
U.S. Department
Youth ages 14 to
Activities
Investment Act of
services to eligible
million
of Labor
21 who are
1998, as amended
youth seeking
FY2007: $941
low-income and
assistance in
million
either deficient in
29 U.S.C. §2851
achieving
FY2008: $841
basic literacy
et seq.
academic and
million
skills, a school
employment
dropout, homeless,
success, including
a runaway, a
the provision of
foster child,
mentoring,
pregnant, a parent,
support services,
an offender, or an
training, and
individual who
incentives.
requires additional
assistance to
complete an
educational
program, or to
secure and hold
employment.
YouthBuild
Cranston-
To enable
FY2006: $50
U.S. Department
Youth ages 16 to
Gonzalez National
disadvantaged
million
of Labor
24 who are a
Affordable
youth to obtain the
FY2007: $50
member of a
Housing Act of
education and
million
low-income
1990, as amended
employment skills
FY2008: $50
family, in foster
while expanding
million
care, a youth
29 U.S.C. §2918a
the supply of
offender, have a
permanent
disability, are a
affordable housing
child of
for homeless
incarcerated
individuals and
parents, or a
low-income
migrant youth or
families.
a school dropout
(with exceptions).

---

CRS-50
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Youth
Youth
To further the
No specific
U.S. Department
All youth 15 to 18
Conservation
Conservation
development and
amount
of the Interior
years of age
Corps
Corps Act of
maintenance of
appropriated or
(Bureau of Land
(targets
1970, as amended
the natural
requested. The
Management, Fish
economically
resources by
Appropriations
and Wildlife
disadvantaged, at-
16 U.S.C. §1701
America’s youth,
Subcommittee on
Agency, and the
risk).
et seq.
and in so doing to
Interior,
National Park
prepare them for
Environment, and
Service) and U.S.
the ultimate
Related Agencies
Department of
responsibility of
generally directs
Agriculture
maintaining and
the four agencies
(Forest Service)
managing these
to allocate no less
resources for the
than a particular
American people.
amount to Youth
Conservation
Corps activities
(funding generally
ranges from $1.5
million to $2
million per
agency).

---

CRS-51
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Education
Title I-A:
Elementary and
To improve the
FY2006: $13
U.S. Department
Educationally
Education for the
Secondary
educational
billion
of Education
disadvantaged
Disadvantaged
Education Act of
achievement of
FY2007: $13
children and
1965, as amended
educationally
billion
youth, in areas
disadvantaged
FY2008: $14
with
20 U.S.C. §6301
children and
billion
concentrations of
et. seq.
youth, and to
children and youth
reduce
in low-income
achievement gaps
families.
between such
pupils and their
more advantaged
peers.
Title I-C: Migrant
Elementary and
To support high
FY2006: $387
U.S. Department
Migrant children
Education
Secondary
quality and
million
of Education
and youth.
Education Act of
comprehensive
FY2007: $387
1965, as amended
educational
million
programs for
FY2008: $380
20 U.S.C. §6391
migrant children
million
and youth.

---

CRS-52
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Title I-D:
Elementary and
To meet the
FY2006: $50
U.S. Department
Abused/neglected
Prevention and
Secondary
special
million
of Education
youth, delinquent
Intervention
Education Act of
educational needs
FY2007: $50
youth, and
Programs for
1965, as amended
of children in
million
juvenile offenders.
Children and
institutions and
FY2008: $50
Youths Who Are
20 U.S.C. §6421-
community day
million
Neglected,
6472 et seq.
school programs
Delinquent, or At
for neglected and
Risk
delinquent
children and
children in adult
correctional
institutions.
Title I-H: School
Elementary and
To provide for
FY2006: $5
U.S. Department
Youth at risk of
Dropout
Secondary
school dropout
million
of Education
dropping out of
Prevention
Education Act of
prevention and
FY2007: $5
school districts
1965, as amended
reentry and to
million
with dropout rates
raise academic
FY2008: $0
higher than their
20 U.S.C. §6551
achievement
state’s average.
et seq.
levels.
Title III: English
Elementary and
To ensure that
FY2006: $669
U.S. Department
Children and
Language
Secondary
limited English
million
of Education
youth with limited
Acquisition
Education Act of
proficient children
FY2007: $669
English
1965, as amended
(LEP) and youth,
million
proficiency.
including
FY2008: $671
20 U.S.C. §6801
immigrant
million
et seq.
children and
youth, attain
English
proficiency.

---

CRS-53
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Title IV-A: Safe
Elementary and
To prevent
FY2006: $347
U.S. Department
All youth; at-risk
and Drug Free
Secondary
violence in and
million
of Education
youth; school
Schools, Part A,
Education Act of
around schools
FY2007: $347
dropouts.
Subpart 1, State
1965, as amended
and to strengthen
million
Grants for Drug
programs that
FY2008: $100
and Violence
20 U.S.C.
prevent the illegal
million
Prevention
§§7111-7118
use of alcohol,
tobacco, and
drugs, involve
parents, and are
coordinated with
related federal,
state, and
community efforts
and resources.
Title IV-B: 21st
Elementary and
To create
FY2006: $98
U.S. Department
Students who
Century Learning
Secondary
community
million
of Education
attend high-
Centers
Education Act of
learning centers
FY2007: $98
poverty and low-
1965, as amended
that help students
million
performing
meet state and
FY2008: $98
schools.
20 U.S.C. §8241
local educational
million
et seq.
standards, to
provide
supplementary
educational
assistance, and to
offer literacy and
other services to
the families of
participating
youth.

---

CRS-54
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Title VII:
McKinney-Vento
To provide
FY2006: $62
U.S. Department
Homeless children
Education of
Homeless
activities for and
million (plus $5
of Education
and youth in
Homeless
Assistance Act of
services to ensure
million for
elementary and
Children
1987, as amended
that homeless
hurricane
secondary schools,
children enroll in,
supplemental)
homeless
42 U.S.C.
attend, and
FY2007: $62
preschool
§§11431-11435
achieve success in
million
children, and the
school.
FY2008: $62
parents of
million
homeless children.
Migrant High
Higher Education
To provide
FY2006: $34
U.S. Department
Migrant youth
School
Act, as amended
academic and
million
of Education
ages 16 to 21.
Equivalency
support services to
FY2007: $34
Program and
20 U.S.C. §1070d-
help eligible
million
College
2
migrant youth
FY2008: $34
Assistance
obtain their high
million
Programs
school
equivalency
certificate and
move on to
employment or
enrollment in
higher education.
Upward Bound
Higher Education
To increase the
FY2006: $310
U.S. Department
Low-income
Act of 1965, as
academic
million
of Education
individuals and
amended
performance of
FY2007: $314
potential first
eligible enrollees
million
generation college
20 U.S.C.
so that such
FY2008: $314
students between
§1070a-13
persons may
million
ages 13 and 19,
complete
and have

---

CRS-55
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
secondary school
completed the
and pursue
eighth grade but
postsecondary
have not entered
educational
the twelfth grade
programs.
(with exceptions).
Educational
Higher Education
To provide
FY2006: $48
U.S. Department
At least two-thirds
Opportunity
Act of 1965, as
information to
million
of Education
of participants in
Centers
amended
prospective
FY2007: $47
any project must
postsecondary
million
be low-income
20 U.S.C.
students regarding
FY2008: $47
students who
§1070a-16
available financial
million
would be
aid and academic
first-generation
assistance, and
college goers.
help them apply
They must also be
for admission and
at least 19 years
financial aid.
old.
Ronald E. McNair
Higher Education
To provide grants
FY2006: $42
U.S. Department
Low-income
Postbaccalaurete
Act of 1965, as
to institutions of
million
of Education
college students or
Achievement
amended
higher education
FY2007: $42
underrepresented
to prepare
million
students enrolled
20 U.S.C. §1070a-
participants for
FY2008: $44
in an institution of
15
doctoral studies
million
higher education.
through
involvement in
research and other
scholarly
activities.

---

CRS-56
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Student Support
Higher Education
To improve
FY2006: $271
U.S. Department
At least two-thirds
Services
Act of 1965, as
college students’
million
of Education
of participants in
amended
retention and
FY2007: $272
any project must
graduation rates,
million
be either disabled
20 U.S.C.
and improve the
FY2008: $272
individuals or
§1070a-14
transfer rates of
million
low-income,
students from
first-generation
two-year to
college goers. The
four-year colleges.
remaining
participants must
be low-income, or
first-generation
college goers, or
disabled. Not less
than one-third of
the disabled
participants must
be low-income as
well.
Talent Search
Higher Education
To identify
FY2006: $150
U.S. Department
Project
Act of 1965, as
disadvantaged
million
of Education
participants must
amended
youth with
FY2007: $144
be between 11 and
potential for
million
27 years old
20 U.S.C.
postsecondary
FY2008: $143
(exceptions
§1070a-12
education; to
million
allowed), and
encourage them in
two-thirds must be
continuing in and
low-income
graduating from
individuals who
secondary school
are also potential
and in enrolling in
first-generation
programs of
college students.
postsecondary
education; to

---

CRS-57
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
publicize the
availability of
student financial
aid; and to
increase the
number of
secondary and
postsecondary
school dropouts
who reenter an
educational
program.
Gaining Early
Higher Education
To provide
FY2006: $303
U.S. Department
Low-income
Awareness and
Act of 1965, as
financial
million
of Education
students and
Readiness for
amended
assistance to low-
FY2007: $303
students in
Undergraduate
income
million
high-poverty
Programs (GEAR-
20 U.S.C.
individuals to
FY2008: $303
schools.
UP)
§1070a-21-1070a-
attend an
million
28
institution of
higher education
and support
eligible entities in
providing
counseling,
mentoring,
academic support,
outreach, and
supportive
services to
students at risk of
dropping out of
school.

---

CRS-58
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Individuals with
Education for All
To provide a free
FY2006: $10.6
U.S. Department
School-aged
Disabilities
Handicapped
appropriate
billion
of Education
children and youth
Education Act,
Children Act of
education to all
FY2007: $10.8
with disabilities,
Part B Grant to
1975, as amended
children with
billion
up to age 21
States
(currently known
disabilities.
FY2008: $10.5
(pursuant to state
as the Individuals
billion
law).
with Disabilities
Education Act)
20 U.S.C. §1400
et seq.
Juvenile Justice
State Formula
Juvenile Justice
To increase the
FY2006: $80
U.S. Department
Delinquent youth,
Grants
and Delinquency
capacity of state
million
of Justice
juvenile offenders,
Prevention Act of
and local
FY2007: $79
and at-risk youth.
1974, as amended
governments to
million
support the
FY2008: unknown
42 U.S.C. §5631-
development of
(The U.S. DOJ
33
more effective
FY2008
education,
Performance
training, research,
Budget proposes
and other
to consolidate this
programs in the
program with
area of juvenile
other juvenile
delinquency and
justice and child
programs to
abuse programs
improve the
into a single
juvenile justice
discretionary block
system (e.g.,
grant under a
community-based
program known as
services for the
the Child Safety
prevention and
and Juvenile
control of juvenile
Justice Program.)

---

CRS-59
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
delinquency,
group homes, and
halfway houses).
Juvenile
21st Century
To provide
FY2006: $0
U.S. Department
Delinquent youth,
Delinquency
Department of
funding for
FY2007: $0
of Justice
juvenile offenders,
Prevention Block
Justice
programs that
FY2008: $0
gang members,
Grant Program
Reauthorization
prevent juvenile
and at-risk youth.
Act of 2002
delinquency,
including, but not
42 U.S.C. 5651-
limited to:
5656
treatment for at-
risk youth;
educational
projects and
supportive
services;
counseling,
training, and
mentoring
projects;
community-based
programs; and
dependency
treatment
programs.
Gang Free
Currently
To prevent and
FY2006: $25
U.S. Department
At-risk youth,
Schools and
Unauthorized.
reduce the
million
of Justice
delinquent youth,
Communities -
This program was
participation of
FY2007: $25
juvenile offenders,
Community Based
repealed by P.L.
juveniles in the
million
gang members,
Gang Intervention
107-273 but
activities of gangs
FY2008: unknown
and youth under
continues to be
that commit
(The U.S. DOJ
age 22.

appropriated.
crimes (e.g.,
FY2008

---

CRS-60
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
programs to
Performance
prevent youth
Budget proposes
from entering
to consolidate this
gangs and to
program with
prevent high
other juvenile
school students
justice and child
from dropping out
abuse programs
of school and
into a single
joining gangs).
discretionary block
grant under a
program known as
the Child Safety
and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
Juvenile
Currently
To develop,
FY2006: $10
U.S. Department
Delinquent youth,
Mentoring
Unauthorized.
implement, and
million
of Justice
juvenile offenders,
Program (JUMP)
This program was
pilot test
FY2007: $10
and foster youth.
repealed by P.L.
mentoring
million
107-273 but
strategies and/or
FY2008: unknown
continues to be
programs targeted
(The U.S. DOJ
appropriated.
for youth in the
FY2008
juvenile justice
Performance
system and in
Budget proposes
foster care, and
to consolidate this
youth who have
program with
reentered the
other juvenile
juvenile justice
justice and child
system (e.g., Big
abuse programs
Brothers/Big
into a single
Sisters program).
discretionary block
grant under a
program known as
the Child Safety

---

CRS-61
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
State Challenge
Juvenile Justice
To provide states
FY2006: $106
U.S. Department
At-risk youth,
Activities, Part E
and Delinquency
with funding to
million
of Justice
delinquent youth,
Prevention Act of
carry out
FY2007: $105
juvenile offenders,
1974, as amended
programs that will
million
gang members,
develop, test, or
FY2008: unknown
and at-risk youth.
42 U.S.C. §5665
demonstrate
(The U.S. DOJ
promising new
FY2008
initiatives that
Performance
may prevent,
Budget proposes
control, or reduce
to consolidate this
juvenile
program with
delinquency.
other juvenile
justice and child
abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a
program known as
the Child Safety
and Juvenile
Justice Program.)

---

CRS-62
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Title V Incentive
Juvenile Justice
To fund
FY2006: $65
U.S. Department
Delinquent youth,
Grants for Local
and Delinquency
delinquency
million
of Justice
juvenile offenders,
Delinquency
Prevention Act of
prevention
FY2007: $64
at-risk youth.
Prevention
1974, as amended
programs and
million
Program
activities for at-
FY2008: unknown
risk youth and
(The U.S. DOJ
42 U.S.C. §4781-
juvenile
FY2008
85
delinquents,
Performance
including, among
Budget proposes
other things:
to consolidate this
substance abuse
program with
prevention
other juvenile
services; child and
justice and child
adolescent health
abuse programs
and mental health
into a single
services;
discretionary block
leadership and
grant under a
youth
program known as
development
the Child Safety
services; and job
and Juvenile
skills training.
Justice Program.)

---

CRS-63
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Social Services
Foster Care
Social Security
To assist states in
FY2006: $4.7
U.S. Department
Federal support
Act of 1935
providing foster
billion
of Health and
available for
(Sections 471 and
care for eligible
FY2007: $4.8
Human Services
children and youth
472), as amended
children, including
billion (Based on
who are removed
maintenance
HHS, ACF
from low-income
42 USC §§671,
payments (i.e.
Justification of
families (meeting
672
room and board)
Estimates for
specific criteria)
and case planning
FY2008, and
for their own
and management
reflects expected
protection.
for children and
“lapse” of funds
(However, federal
youth in out-of-
which were
protections related
home placements.
expected to be
to case planning
necessary in the
and management
FY2007 budget
are available to all
justifications).
children/youth
FY2008: $4.6
who are in foster
million
care.)

---

CRS-64
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Chafee Foster
Social Security
To assist states
FY2006: $140
U.S. Department
Current or former
Care
Act of 1935
and localities in
million
of Health and
foster care youth
Independence
(Section 477), as
establishing and
FY2007: $140
Human Services
under age 21.
Program
amended
carrying out
million
programs designed
FY2008: $140
42 U.S.C. §677
to assist foster
million
youth likely to
remain in foster
care until age 18
and youth ages 18
- 21 who have left
the foster care
system in making
the transition to
self-sufficiency.
Chafee Foster
Social Security
To make
FY2006: $46
U.S. Department
Older foster care
Care
Act of 1935,
education and
million
of Health and
youth and youth
Independence
(Section 477), as
training vouchers
FY2007: $46
Human Services
adopted from
Program
amended
available for youth
million
foster care at age
Education and
who have aged out
FY2008: $46
16 or older.
Training Vouchers
42 U.S.C. §677
of foster care or
million
who have been
adopted from the
public foster care
system after age
16.

---

CRS-65
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Basic Center
Runaway and
To establish or
FY2006: $48
U.S. Department
Runaway and
Program
Homeless Youth
strengthen locally
million
of Health and
homeless youth
Act of 1974, as
controlled
FY2007: $48
Human Services
and their families.
amended
community-based
million
programs outside
FY2008: $48
42 U.S.C.§5701 et
of the law
million
seq.
enforcement, child
welfare, mental
health, and
juvenile justice
systems that
address the
immediate needs
of runaway and
homeless youth
and their families.
Transitional
Runaway and
To establish and
FY2006: $40
U.S. Department
Runaway and
Living Program
Homeless Youth
operate
million
of Health and
homeless youth
for Older
Act of 1974, as
transitional living
FY2007: $40
Human Services
ages 16-21.
Homeless Youth
amended
projects for
million
homeless youth,
FY2008: $40
42 U.S.C. §5701
including pregnant
million
et seq.
and parenting
youth.

---

CRS-66
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Street Outreach
Runaway and
To provide grants
FY2006: $15
U.S. Department
Runaway and
Program
Homeless Youth
to non-profit
million
of Health and
homeless youth
Act of 1974, as
agencies to
FY2007: $15
Human Services
who live on or
amended
provide street-
million
frequent the
based services to
FY2008: $15
streets.
42 U.S.C. §5701
runaway,
million
et seq.
homeless, and
street youth, who
have been
subjected to, or
are at risk of being
subjected to
sexual abuse,
prostitution, or
sexual
exploitation.
Mentoring
Social Security
To make
FY2006: $50
U.S. Department
Youth of
Children of
Act of 1935
competitive grants
million
of Health and
imprisoned
Prisoners
(Section 439), as
to applicants in
FY2007: $50
Human Services
parents.
amended
areas with
million
significant
FY2008: $50
42 U.S.C. §629i
numbers of
children of
million
prisoners to
support the
establishment and
operation of
programs that
provide mentoring

---

CRS-67
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
services for these
children, and to
demonstrate the
potential
effectiveness of
vouchers as
delivery
mechanisms for
these mentoring
services.
Court Appointed
Victims of Child
To ensure every
FY2006: $12
U.S. Department
Abused and
Special Advocates
Abuse Act of
victim of child
million
of Justice
neglected children
1990, as amended
abuse and neglect
FY2007: $12
and youth.
receives the
million
services of a court
42 U.S.C. §13011-
appointed
FY2008: unknown
13014
advocate.
(The U.S. DOJ
FY2008
Performance
Budget proposes
to consolidate this
program with
other juvenile
justice and child
abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a
program known as

---

CRS-68
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
the Child Safety
and Juvenile
Justice Program.)
Children’s
Victims of Child
To establish
FY2006: $15
U.S. Department
Abused and
Advocacy Centers
Abuse Act of
advocacy centers
million
of Justice
neglected youth.
1990, as amended
to coordinate
FY2007: $15
multi-disciplinary
million
responses to child
42 U.S.C. §13001-
abuse and to
FY2008: unknown
13004
provide training
(The U.S. DOJ
and technical
FY2008
assistance to
Performance
professionals
Budget proposes
involved in
to consolidate this
investigating,
program with
prosecuting, and
other juvenile
training child
justice and child
abuse, and to
abuse programs
support the
into a single
development of
discretionary block
Children’s
grant under a
Advocacy Centers
program known as
on multi-
the Child Safety
disciplinary teams.
and Juvenile
Justice Program.)

---

CRS-69
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Public Health
Garrett Lee Smith
Public Health
To provide grants
FY2006: $27
U.S. Department
Youth under age
Memorial Act
Service Act of
to states and
million
of Health and
25.
Youth Suicide
1974, as amended
college campuses
Human Services
FY2007: $27
Prevention
for youth suicide
million
Program
prevention
42 USC § §290aa
activities.
FY2008: $27
et seq., 290bb et
million
seq.
Comprehensive
Public Health
To provide
FY2006: $104
U.S. Department
Youth under age
Community
Service Act of
community-based
million
of Health and
22 with a serious
Mental Health
1974, as amended
systems of care
Human Services
emotional
FY2007: $104
Services for
for children and
disorders.
million
Children with
adolescents with a
Serious Emotional
42 USC §290ff
serious emotional
FY2008: $104
Disturbances
disturbance and
million
their family.
National Child
Children’s Health
To create a
FY2006: $29
U.S. Department
Children and
Traumatic Stress
Act of 2000
national network
million
of Health and
youth who have
Initiative
(Section 582(d))
that develops,
Human Services
experienced
FY2007: $29
promotes, and
traumatic events.
million
disseminates
42 USC §290aa
information
FY2008: $28
related to a wide
million
variety of
traumatic events.

---

CRS-70
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Strategic
Public Health
To provide
FY2006: $106
U.S. Department
Youth at risk of
Prevention
Service Act of
funding to states
million
of Health and
using and abusing
Framework State
1974, as amended
for infrastructure
FY2007: $106
Human Services
drugs.
Infrastructure
and services that
million
Grant
implement a five-
42 U.S.C. 290bb
step strategy for
FY2008: $95
preventing
million
substance and
alcohol abuse
among youth.
Assertive
Public Health
To provide
FY2006: $5
U.S. Department
Youth using
Adolescent and
Service Act of
substance abuse
million
of Health and
drugs.
Family Treatment
1974, as amended
treatment
FY2007: $5
Human Services
Program (Family
practices to
million
Centered
adolescents and
Substance Abuse
42 U.S.C. 290bb-2
their families
FY2008: $5
Treatment Grants
using previously
million
for Adolescents
proven effective
and their Families)
family-centered
methods.
Juvenile
Public Health
To provide
FY2006: $6
U.S. Department
Youth using drugs
Treatment Drug
Service Act of
effective
million
of Health and
who are found
Court
1974, as amended
substance
FY2007: $6
Human Services
delinquent.
treatment and
million
reduce delinquent
42 U.S.C. 290bb-2
activity.
FY2008: $6
million

---

CRS-71
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Community-Based
Social Security
To provide project
FY2006: $109
U.S. Department
Youth ages 12 to
Abstinence
Act of 1935
grants to public
million
of Health and
18.
Education
(Section 1110
and private
FY2007: $109
Human Services
using the
institutions for
million
definitions
community-based
contained in
abstinence
FY2008: $137
Section
education project
million
510(b)(2)), as
grants.
amended
42 U.S.C. §710
Abstinence
Social Security
To provide
FY2006: $50
U.S. Department
Youth likely to
Education
Act of 1935
formula grant
million
of Health and
bear children
Program
(Section 510), as
funding for states
FY2007: $50
Human Services
outside of
amended
to provide
million
marriage.
abstinence
education and, at
FY2008: $50
42 U.S.C. §710
the option of the
million
state, where
appropriate,
mentoring,
counseling, and
adult supervision
to promote
abstinence from
sexual activity.

---

CRS-72
FY2006
Appropriation,
Authorizing
FY2007
Legislation and
Objective(s) of
Agency
Target At-Risk
Program
Appropriation,
U.S. Code
Program
with Jurisdiction
Youth Population
and President’s
Citation
FY2008 Request
(rounded)
Adolescent Family
Public Health
To provide project
FY2006: $30
U.S. Department
Pregnant and
Life
Services Act of
grants to establish
million
of Health and
parenting youth,
Demonstration
1974, as amended
innovative,
FY2007: $30
Human Services
non-pregnant
Projects
comprehensive,
million
youth and their
and integrated
families.
42 U.S.C. §3002
approaches to the
FY2008: $30
delivery of care
million
services for
pregnant and
parenting
(Funding for the
adolescents with
Adolescent Family
primary emphasis
Life
on adolescents
Demonstration
who are under age
Projects and
17.
Research Grants is
combined.)
Adolescent Family
Public Health
To provide project
FY2006: $30
U.S. Department
Pregnant and
Life Research
Services Act of
grants to
million
of Health and
parenting youth,
Grants
1974, as amended
encourage and
FY2007: $30
Human Services
non-pregnant
support research
million
youth and their
projects and
families.
42 U.S.C. §3002
dissemination
FY2008: $30
activities
million
concerning the
societal causes
and consequence
(Funding for the
of adolescent
Adolescent Family
sexual activity,
Life
contraceptive use,
Demonstration
pregnancy, and
Projects and
child rearing.
Research Grants is
combined.)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).

---

CRS-73
Appendix A-3. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst or Specialist
Contact Information
 Individuals with Disabilities
 CRS Report RL3368, The
Richard N. Apling
rapling@crs.loc.gov
Education Act, Part B Grants to
Individuals with Disabilities
x7-7352
States
Education Act (IDEA):
Interactions with Select
Provisions of the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB), by Rick N.
Apling and Nancy Lee Jones
 Title IV: Safe and Drug Free
 CRS Report RS20532, The
Gail McCallion
gmccalion@crs.loc.gov
Schools
Safe and Drug-Free Schools
x7-77758
and Communities Act:
Reauthorization and
Appropriations, by Edith
Fairman Cooper
 Vulnerable Youth and Youth
 CRS Report RS22501, Child
Adrienne L. Fernandes
afernandes@crs.loc.gov
Programs (generally)
Welfare: The Chafee Foster
x7-9005
Care Independence Act
 Chafee Foster Care
(CFCIP), by Adrienne
Independence Program and
Fernandes
Education and Training Voucher
Program
 CRS Report RL3199, Runaway
and Homeless Youth:
 Runaway and Homeless Youth
Demographics, Programs, and
Program (Basic Center,
Emerging Issues, by Adrienne
Transitional Living, and Street
L. Fernandes
Outreach Programs)
 CRS Report RL31655, Missing
 Missing and Exploited
and Exploited Children:
Children’s Program
Overview and Policy Concerns,
 Mentoring Children of
by Edith Fairman Cooper
Prisoners
 CRS Report RL32633,
Mentoring Programs Funded by
the Federal Government
Dedicated to Disadvantaged
Youth: Issues and Activities, by
Edith Fairman Cooper

---

CRS-74
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst or Specialist
Contact Information
 Title VII: Education of
 CRS Report RL30442,
Gail McCallion
gmccalion@crs.loc.gov
Homeless Children
Homelessness: Targeted
x7-77758
Federal Programs and Recent
Legislation, coordinated by
Libby Perl
 Upward Bound
 CRS Report RL31622, Trio
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
jkuenzi@crs.loc.gov
and GEAR UP Programs: Status
 Education Opportunity
x7-8645
and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Centers
 CRS Report RL33963, High
 Student Support Services
School Graduation, Completion,
 Talent Search
and Dropouts: Federal Policy,
Programs, and Issues, by
 Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduate
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Programs
 School Dropout Prevention
Program
 Workforce Development
 CRS Report RL33687, The
Blake Alan Naughton
bnaughton@crs.loc.gov
(generally)
Workforce Investment Act
x7-0376
(WIA): Program-by-Program
 YouthBuild
Overview and FY2007 Funding
 Job Corps
of Title I Training Programs, by
Blake Alan Naughton and Ann
Lordeman
 Juvenile Justice (generally)
 CRS Report RS22070,
Blas Nuñez-Neto
bnunez-neto@crs.loc.gov
Juvenile Justice: Overview of
x7-0622
Legislative History and Funding
Trends, by Blas Nuñez-Neto
 CRS Report RL33947,
Juvenile Justice: Legislative
History and Current Legislative
Issues, by Blas Nuñez-Neto

---

CRS-75
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst or Specialist
Contact Information
 Title I: Education for the
 CRS Report RL31487,
Wayne C. Riddle
wriddle@crs.loc.gov
Disadvantaged
Education for the
x7-7382
Disadvantaged: Overview of
 Title I-D: Prevention and
ESEA Title I-A Amendments
Intervention Programs for
Under the No Child Left Behind
Children and Youths Who Are
Act, by Wayne C. Riddle
Neglected, Delinquent, or At
Risk
 Migrant Education
 CRS Report RL31325, The
Rebecca R. Skinner
rskinner@crs.loc.gov
Federal Migrant Education
 Migrant High School
x7-6600
Program as Amended by the No
Equivalency Program
Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
 Title III: English Language
by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Acquisition
 CRS Report RL31315,
Education of Limited English
Proficient and Recent
Immigrant Students: Provisions
of the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
 Community-Based Abstinence
 CRS Report RS20873,
Carmen Solomon-Fears
csolomon-fears@crs.loc.gov
Education
Reducing Teen Pregnancy:
x7-7306
Family Life and Abstinence
 Abstinence Education
Education Programs, by
Program
Carmen Solomon-Fears
 Adolescent Family Life
Demonstration Projects
 CRS Report RS20301,
Teenage Pregnancy Prevention:
 Adolescent Family Life
Statistics and Programs, by
Research Grants
Carmen Solomon-Fears
 Foster Care
 CRS Report RL32976, Child
Emilie Stoltzfus
estoltzfus@crs.loc.gov
Welfare: Programs Authorized
 Court Appointed Special
x7-2324
by the Victims of Child Abuse
Advocates Program
Act of 1990, by Emilie Stoltzfus
 Children’s Advocacy Centers
 CRS Report RL31242 Child
Welfare: Federal Program
Requirements for States, by
Emilie Stoltzfus

---

CRS-76
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst or Specialist
Contact Information
 Youth Suicide Prevention
 CRS Report RS22636, Alcohol
Ramya Sundararaman
rsundararaman@crs.loc.gov
Program
Use Among Youth, by Andrew
x7-7285
R. Sommers and Ramya
 Services for Youth Offenders
Sundaraman
 Youth Interagency Research,
Training, and Technical
Assistance
 Prevention, Treatment, and
Rehabilitation Model Projects
for High-Risk Youth
 Substance Abuse Treatment
Services for Children and
Adolescents
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service.

---