Order Code RL33975
Vulnerable Youth:
Background and Policies
Updated June 14, 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 are concentrated in five areas: workforce development, education,
juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, and public health ; they
are intended to provide vulnerable youth with opportunities to develop skills to assist
them in adulthood.
Despite the range of federal services and activities to assist disadvantaged youth,
many of these programs have not developed into a coherent system of support. This
is due in part to the administration of programs within several agencies and the lack
of mechanisms to coordinate their activities. In response to concerns about the
complex federal structure developed to assist vulnerable youth, Congress passed the
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365) in 2006. This
legislation, like predecessor legislation that was never fully implemented — the
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501) — establishes a federal
council to improve coordination of federal programs serving youth. Congress has
also 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
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: Studies, Federal Programs, and Relevant CRS Reports
and Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
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
Table A-1. Studies of Civilian, Noninstutionalized Disconnected Youth . . . . . 47
Table A-2. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table A-3. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information . . . . . . . . 72

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 Table 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
1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Age Groups and Sex: 2000, available at
[http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=D
EC_2000_SF1_U_QTP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U].
2 Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, Great
Transitions: Preparing Adolescents for a New Century
(October 1995), pp. 20-21.
3 Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood
for Vulnerable Populations
. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005, pp. 4-6.
(Hereinafter Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net.)
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
independently, and staying with their parents. They also use this time to explore
career options and relationships with potential long-term partners. The median age
of first marriage has risen each decade since the 1950s, with 27 now being the
median age for men and 25.5 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
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 Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net.

CRS-4
Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population
The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in
their communities. Those of primary and secondary school age live with parents
who provide for their emotional and economic well-being and they attend schools
that prepare them for continuing education or the workforce, and ultimately, self-
sufficiency . 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. (Hereinafter 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. (Hereinafter 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 the following:
! youth emancipating from foster care;
! runaway and homeless youth;
! youth involved in the juvenile justice system;
! immigrant youth and youth with limited English proficiency (LEP);
! youth with physical and mental disabilities;
! youth with mental disorders; and
! youth receiving special education.
Some researchers have also classified other groups of vulnerable youth based on risk
outcomes: young unmarried mothers, high school dropouts, and disconnected (e.g.,
not in school nor working) youth.
Among the seven groups listed above, some lack financial assistance and
emotional support from their families. Former foster youth, for example, often do not
have parents who can provide financial assistance while they attend college or
vocational schools. Other vulnerable youth have difficulty securing employment
because of their disabilities, mental illness, juvenile justice records, or other
challenges. Vulnerable youth who have depended on public systems of support often
lose needed assistance at the age of majority.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., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, and Michael Wald and
Tia Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country’s Most
Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds,
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Working Paper,
November 2003. On Your Own Without a Net focuses on the seven groups, in addition to
youth reentering the community from the juvenile justice system. “Connected by 25"
focuses on four groups: high school dropouts, young unmarried mothers, juvenile justice-
involved youth, and foster youth.
16 Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, 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 Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net,
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.] (Hereinafter Peter J. Pecora et al.,
Improving Foster Family Care.)


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


CRS-8
Framework for Risk
Not all vulnerable youth experience negative outcomes. However, three broad
categories of factors influence whether youth face challenges in adolescence and as
they transition to adulthood.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 Burt, 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, DC: Urban Institute Press, 2006, pp. 19-21. (Hereinafter 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 Table 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 Table 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
768,141 352,794
259,794
155,827
1.41 m
657,423
277,843
472,879
Youth
(3.0)
(10.3)
(4.7)
(5.8)
(10.4)
(15.6)
Married
6,165
869
1,887
3,409
275,293
224,530
22,360
218,403
Parentb
(0)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(2.0)
(0.8)
(7.2)
Cohabiting
23,913
4,829
9,959
9,125
119,064
69,365
19,882
29,817
Parentb
(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 U.S. Census Bureau, 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

CRS-12
assistance by living with their parents (although the data cannot show if the youth pay
rent).
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 Children
95.5
90.7
87.6
35.4
52.8
23.2
Married, No Children
2.3
2.1
0.8
5.7
3.1
11.2
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 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
groups had no effect on the incidence of disconnection among females, which
remained at 9% for teenagers and 18% for young adults.
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, at [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6017&sequence=0].

CRS-13
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

Although vulnerable youth overall experience more negative outcomes than
their counterparts who are not considered to be at risk, some of these youth have
accomplished their goals of attending college and/or securing permanent
employment. Youth advocates argue that vulnerable youth can reach their goals if
given adequate opportunities to develop positive behaviors during adolescence.
Emphasizing that youth are in control of their future and can make contributions to
their communities and society, these advocates view vulnerable youth as resources
rather than victims or perpetrators.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 the following:
! Cognitive: Knowledge of essential life skills, problem solving skills,
academic adeptness;
! Social: Connectedness with others, perceived good relationships
with peers, parents, and other adults;
! Physical: Good health habits, good health risk management skills;
! Emotional: Good mental health, including positive self-regard; good
coping skills;
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
! 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
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
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]. (Hereinafter Pittman, Irby, and Ferber, Unfinished Business.)

CRS-15
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.,
those who were poor, homeless, without proper guardianship, and mentally
handicapped).
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. (Hereinafter
Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood.)

CRS-18
The concept of a “youth policy” in those early years was virtually nonexistent.
However, the Bureau’s efforts in combating child labor and investigating juvenile
delinquency from 1912 through the early 1950s targeted youth ages 10 to 16. Bureau
Chief Julia Lathrop and Progressive Era advocates pushed for laws that would
prohibit the employment of children under age 16.52 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
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
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
(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
Corps, among others. The mission of the Job Corps was (and still
is) to promote the vocational and educational opportunities of older,
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
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.
! 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

CRS-21
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 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 emphasized that youth committing status offenses
(behaviors considered offenses only if carried out by a juvenile, such as truancy or
running away) were more in need of care and guidance than they were of punishment.
Passage of the JJDPA laid the foundation for much of FYSB’s work today with
runaway and homeless youth and other vulnerable youth groups.
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 Table 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 nonprofits in cooperation with institutions of higher education) to recruit
and provide academic and support services to students who lack a high school
diploma and whose parents are engaged in migrant and other seasonal farmwork.
The purpose of the program is to assist students to obtain a high school equivalency
diploma and gain employment, or to attend college or another postsecondary
education or training program.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, is
the major statute that provides federal funding for the education of children and youth
with disabilities.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. 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 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.
! Limited Program Accountability: The extent of overlap among youth
programs and the efficacy of these programs are difficult to
determine because some of them have not been recently assessed
through the Office of Management and Budget’s Program
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]. (Hereinafter 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 their oversight. More than 300 youth
projects received earmarked appropriations (not necessarily from an
account in a federal youth program) in FY2003, totaling $206.2
million. According to the report, earmarked projects do not have the
same level of accountability as discretionary and mandatory
programs. The report also raised concerns that programs in needy
communities may be overlooked through the earmark process.
Congress has also examined challenges to coordinating programs targeted to
certain groups of youth. In a May 2004 hearing, the Government Reform Committee
examined redundancy and duplication in federal child welfare programs.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, 101st 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 nonprofit Alliance for Youth, conducts
and commissions research around positive youth development and recognizes
communities and organizations that promote this philosophy.
Youth Development Community Block Grant
of 1995 (H.R. 2807/S. 673)

The Youth Development Community Block Grant (YDCBG) of 1995 (H.R.
2807/S. 673) proposed to consolidate nearly two dozen federal youth programs
administered by the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and
Justice. The purpose of the legislation was to shift from a system of categorical
programs that targeted the problems of certain sub-populations of youth (i.e.,
pregnant youth, youth abusing drugs) to one that promoted all aspects of youth
development. At hearings on the legislation in the House and Senate, Members of
Congress, community leaders, and youth advocates discussed the need to support
comprehensive community services for youth. J.C. Watts, a co-sponsor of the
legislation, testified:
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 nonprofit
organization, Alliance for Youth, to promote the Five Promises that attendees at the
Presidents’ Summit for America’s Future (held in Philadelphia in 1997)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 nonprofit sector that provide services to young people; and to
energize local constituencies around the issue of youth development. For example,
one of the projects — in Chicago, Illinois — has forged a community partnership
between the Illinois Department of Social Service, a local youth council, community
center, a local park district, and other community service groups around the issues
of quality education and youth employment.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, such as the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Council and Shared Youth Vision initiative, may have the resources and leadership
to create a more unified federal youth policy, albeit the JJDPC has a primary focus
on juvenile justice involved youth.
In addition to the Federal Youth Coordination Act, the few youth-targeted acts
over the past ten years have not passed or have passed without full implementation.
The unfunded Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 sought to increase
coordination among federal children and youth agencies by creating a Federal
Council on Children, Youth, and Families that would have streamlined federal youth
programs and advised the president on youth issues. Similarly, federal legislation
reflecting a youth development philosophy, with the goal of providing resources to
youth and engaging young people in their communities, has not been reported out of
committee. The 1995 Youth Development Community Block Grant and 2001
Younger Americans Act would have provided grant funding to the states with the
greatest concentrations of low-income youth to provide resources, such as mentors
and opportunities for community service and civic participation.

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

CRS-47
Appendix: Studies, Federal Programs,
and Relevant CRS Reports and Experts

Table 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
Table 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 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Job Training and Workforce Development
Job Corps
Workforce Investment
To assist eligible youth who
FY2006: $1.6 billion
U.S. Department Youth ages 16 to 21 (with
Act of 1998, as amended need and can benefit from an
FY2007: $1.6 billion
of Labor
exceptions) who are either
intensive workforce
FY2008: $1.5 billion
low-income, basic skills
29 U.S.C. §2881 et seq.
development program,
deficient, a school dropout,
operated in a group setting in
homeless, a runaway, or a
residential and nonresidential
foster child, a parent or an
centers, to become more
individual who requires
responsible, employable, and
additional education,
productive citizens.
vocational training, or
intensive counseling and
related assistance to
participate successfully in
regular schoolwork or to
secure and hold employment.

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

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

CRS-51
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Education
Title I-A: Education for
Elementary and
To improve the educational
FY2006: $13 billion
U.S. Department Educationally disadvantaged
the Disadvantaged
Secondary Education
achievement of educationally
FY2007: $13 billion
of Education
children and youth, in areas
Act of 1965, as amended disadvantaged children and
FY2008: $14 billion
with concentrations of
youth, and to reduce
children and youth in low-
20 U.S.C. §6301 et. seq.
achievement gaps between
income families.
such pupils and their more
advantaged peers.
Title I-C: Migrant
Elementary and
To support high quality and
FY2006: $387 million
U.S. Department Migrant children and youth.
Education
Secondary Education
comprehensive educational
FY2007: $387 million
of Education
Act of 1965, as amended programs for migrant children
FY2008: $380 million
and youth.
20 U.S.C. §6391
Title I-D: Prevention
Elementary and
To meet the special
FY2006: $50 million
U.S. Department Abused/neglected youth,
and Intervention
Secondary Education
educational needs of children
FY2007: $50 million
of Education
delinquent youth, and juvenile
Programs for Children
Act of 1965, as amended in institutions and community
FY2008: $50 million
offenders.
and Youths Who Are
day school programs for
Neglected, Delinquent,
20 U.S.C. §6421-6472 et neglected and delinquent
or At Risk
seq.
children and children in adult
correctional institutions.

CRS-52
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Title I-H: School
Elementary and
To provide for school dropout
FY2006: $5 million
U.S. Department Youth at risk of dropping out
Dropout Prevention
Secondary Education
prevention and reentry and to
FY2007: $5 million
of Education
of school districts with
Act of 1965, as amended raise academic achievement
FY2008: $0
dropout rates higher than their
levels.
state’s average.
20 U.S.C. §6551 et seq.
Title III: English
Elementary and
To ensure that limited English
FY2006: $669 million
U.S. Department Children and youth with
Language Acquisition
Secondary Education
proficient children (LEP) and
FY2007: $669 million
of Education
limited English proficiency.
Act of 1965, as amended youth, including immigrant
FY2008: $671 million
children and youth, attain
20 U.S.C. §6801 et seq.
English proficiency.
Title IV-A: Safe and
Elementary and
To prevent violence in and
FY2006: $347 million
U.S. Department All youth; at-risk youth;
Drug Free Schools, Part
Secondary Education
around schools and to
FY2007: $347 million
of Education
school dropouts.
A, Subpart 1, State
Act of 1965, as amended strengthen programs that
FY2008: $100 million
Grants for Drug and
prevent the illegal use of
Violence Prevention
20 U.S.C. §§7111-7118
alcohol, tobacco, and drugs,
involve parents, and are
coordinated with related
federal, state, and community
efforts and resources.

CRS-53
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Title IV-B: 21st Century
Elementary and
To create community learning
FY2006: $98 million
U.S. Department Students who attend high-
Learning Centers
Secondary Education
centers that help students
FY2007: $98 million
of Education
poverty and low-performing
Act of 1965, as amended meet state and local
FY2008: $98 million
schools.
educational standards, to
20 U.S.C. §8241 et seq.
provide supplementary
educational assistance, and to
offer literacy and other
services to the families of
participating youth.
Title VII: Education of
McKinney-Vento
To provide activities for and
FY2006: $62 million
U.S. Department Homeless children and youth
Homeless Children
Homeless Assistance
services to ensure that
(plus $5 million for
of Education
in elementary and secondary
Act of 1987, as amended homeless children enroll in,
hurricane
schools, homeless preschool
attend, and achieve success in
supplemental)
children, and the parents of
42 U.S.C.
school.
FY2007: $62 million
homeless children.
§§11431-11435
FY2008: $62 million
Migrant High School
Higher Education Act,
To provide academic and
FY2006: $34 million
U.S. Department Migrant youth ages 16 to 21.
Equivalency Program
as amended
support services to help
FY2007: $34 million
of Education
and College Assistance
eligible migrant youth obtain
FY2008: $34 million
Programs
20 U.S.C. §1070d-2
their high school equivalency
certificate and move on to
employment or enrollment in
higher education.

CRS-54
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Upward Bound
Higher Education Act of To increase the academic
FY2006: $310 million
U.S. Department Low-income individuals and
1965, as amended
performance of eligible
FY2007: $314 million
of Education
potential first generation
enrollees so that such persons
FY2008: $314 million
college students between ages
20 U.S.C. §1070a-13
may complete secondary
13 and 19, and have
school and pursue
completed the 8th grade but
postsecondary educational
have not entered the 12th
programs.
grade (with exceptions).
Educational
Higher Education Act of To provide information to
FY2006: $48 million
U.S. Department At least two-thirds of
Opportunity Centers
1965, as amended
prospective postsecondary
FY2007: $47 million
of Education
participants in any project
students regarding available
FY2008: $47 million
must be low-income students
20 U.S.C. §1070a-16
financial aid and academic
who would be first-generation
assistance, and help them
college goers. They must also
apply for admission and
be at least 19 years old.
financial aid.
Ronald E. McNair
Higher Education Act of To provide grants to
FY2006: $42 million
U.S. Department Low-income college students
Postbaccalaurete
1965, as amended
institutions of higher
FY2007: $42 million
of Education
or underrepresented students
Achievement
education to prepare
FY2008: $44 million
enrolled in an institution of
20 U.S.C. §1070a-15
participants for doctoral
higher education.
studies through involvement
in research and other
scholarly activities.

CRS-55
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Student Support
Higher Education Act of To improve college students’
FY2006: $271 million
U.S. Department At least two-thirds of
Services
1965, as amended
retention and graduation rates, FY2007: $272 million
of Education
participants in any project
and improve the transfer rates
FY2008: $272 million
must be either disabled
20 U.S.C. §1070a-14
of students from two-year to
individuals or low-income,
four-year colleges.
first-generation college goers.
The remaining participants
must be low-income, or
first-generation college goers,
or disabled. Not less than
one-third of the disabled
participants must be
low-income as well.
Talent Search
Higher Education Act of To identify disadvantaged
FY2006: $150 million
U.S. Department Project participants must be
1965, as amended
youth with potential for
FY2007: $144 million
of Education
between 11 and 27 years old
postsecondary education; to
FY2008: $143 million
(exceptions allowed), and
20 U.S.C. §1070a-12
encourage them in continuing
two-thirds must be
in and graduating from
low-income individuals who
secondary school and in
are also potential first-
enrolling in programs of
generation college students.
postsecondary education; to
publicize the availability of
student financial aid; and to
increase the number of
secondary and postsecondary
school dropouts who reenter
an educational program.

CRS-56
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Gaining Early
Higher Education Act of To provide financial
FY2006: $303 million
U.S. Department Low-income students and
Awareness and
1965, as amended
assistance to low-income
FY2007: $303 million
of Education
students in high-poverty
Readiness for
individuals to attend an
FY2008: $303 million
schools.
Undergraduate
20 U.S.C.
institution of higher education
Programs (GEAR-UP)
§1070a-21-1070a-28
and support eligible entities in
providing counseling,
mentoring, academic support,
outreach, and supportive
services to students at risk of
dropping out of school.
Individuals with
Education for All
To provide a free appropriate
FY2006: $10.6 billion
U.S. Department School-aged children and
Disabilities Education
Handicapped Children
education to all children with
FY2007: $10.8 billion
of Education
youth with disabilities, up to
Act, Part B Grant to
Act of 1975, as amended disabilities.
FY2008: $10.5 billion
age 21 (pursuant to state law).
States
(currently known as the
Individuals with
Disabilities Education
Act)
20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.

CRS-57
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Juvenile Justice
State Formula Grants
Juvenile Justice and
To increase the capacity of
FY2006: $80 million
U.S. Department Delinquent youth, juvenile
Delinquency Prevention
state and local governments to FY2007: $79 million
of Justice
offenders, and at-risk youth.
Act of 1974, as amended support the development of
FY2008: unknown
more effective education,
(The U.S. DOJ FY2008
42 U.S.C. §5631-33
training, research, and other
Performance Budget
programs in the area of
proposes to consolidate
juvenile delinquency and
this program with other
programs to improve the
juvenile justice and
juvenile justice system (e.g.,
child abuse programs
community-based services for
into a single
the prevention and control of
discretionary block
juvenile delinquency, group
grant under a program
homes, and halfway houses).
known as the Child
Safety and Juvenile
Justice Program.)

CRS-58
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Juvenile Delinquency
21st Century Department To provide funding for
FY2006: $0
U.S. Department Delinquent youth, juvenile
Prevention Block Grant
of Justice
programs that prevent
FY2007: $0
of Justice
offenders, gang members, and
Program
Reauthorization Act of
juvenile delinquency,
FY2008: $0
at-risk youth.
2002
including, but not limited to:
treatment for at-risk youth;
42 U.S.C. 5651-5656
educational projects and
supportive services;
counseling, training, and
mentoring projects;
community-based programs;
and dependency treatment
programs.

CRS-59
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Gang Free Schools and
Currently Unauthorized. To prevent and reduce the
FY2006: $25 million
U.S. Department At-risk youth, delinquent
Communities -
This program was
participation of juveniles in
FY2007: $25 million
of Justice
youth, juvenile offenders,
Community Based
repealed by P.L. 107-
the activities of gangs that
FY2008: unknown
gang members, and youth
Gang Intervention
273 but continues to be
commit crimes (e.g.,
(The U.S. DOJ FY2008
under age 22.
appropriated.
programs to prevent youth
Performance Budget
from entering gangs and to
proposes to consolidate
prevent high school students
this program with other
from dropping out of school
juvenile justice and
and joining gangs).
child abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a program
known as the Child
Safety and Juvenile
Justice Program.)

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

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

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

CRS-63
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Social Services
Foster Care
Social Security Act of
To assist states in providing
FY2006: $4.7 billion
U.S. Department Federal support available for
1935 (Sections 471 and
foster care for eligible
FY2007: $4.8 billion
of Health and
children and youth who are
472), as amended
children, including
(Based on HHS, ACF
Human Services
removed from low-income
maintenance payments (i.e.
Justification of
families (meeting specific
42 USC §§671, 672
room and board) and case
Estimates for FY2008,
criteria) for their own
planning and management for
and reflects expected
protection. (However, federal
children and youth in out-of-
“lapse” of funds which
protections related to case
home placements.
were expected to be
planning and management are
necessary in the
available to all children/youth
FY2007 budget
who are in foster care.)
justifications).
FY2008: $4.6 million
Chafee Foster Care
Social Security Act of
To assist states and localities
FY2006: $140 million
U.S. Department Current or former foster care
Independence Program
1935 (Section 477), as
in establishing and carrying
FY2007: $140 million
of Health and
youth under age 21.
amended
out programs designed to
FY2008: $140 million
Human Services
assist foster youth likely to
42 U.S.C. §677
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.

CRS-64
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Chafee Foster Care
Social Security Act of
To make education and
FY2006: $46 million
U.S. Department Older foster care youth and
Independence Program
1935, (Section 477), as
training vouchers available
FY2007: $46 million
of Health and
youth adopted from foster
Education and Training
amended
for youth who have aged out
FY2008: $46 million
Human Services
care at age 16 or older.
Vouchers
of foster care or who have
42 U.S.C. §677
been adopted from the public
foster care system after age
16.
Basic Center Program
Runaway and Homeless
To establish or strengthen
FY2006: $48 million
U.S. Department Runaway and homeless youth
Youth Act of 1974, as
locally controlled community- FY2007: $48 million
of Health and
and their families.
amended
based programs outside of the
FY2008: $48 million
Human Services
law enforcement, child
42 U.S.C.§5701 et seq.
welfare, mental health, and
juvenile justice systems that
address the immediate needs
of runaway and homeless
youth and their families.
Transitional Living
Runaway and Homeless
To establish and operate
FY2006: $40 million
U.S. Department Runaway and homeless youth
Program for Older
Youth Act of 1974, as
transitional living projects for
FY2007: $40 million
of Health and
ages 16-21.
Homeless Youth
amended
homeless youth, including
FY2008: $40 million
Human Services
pregnant and parenting youth.
42 U.S.C. §5701 et seq.

CRS-65
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Street Outreach
Runaway and Homeless
To provide grants to nonprofit
FY2006: $15 million
U.S. Department Runaway and homeless youth
Program
Youth Act of 1974, as
agencies to provide street-
FY2007: $15 million
of Health and
who live on or frequent the
amended
based services to runaway,
FY2008: $15 million
Human Services
streets.
homeless, and street youth,
42 U.S.C. §5701 et seq.
who have been subjected to,
or are at risk of being
subjected to sexual abuse,
prostitution, or sexual
exploitation.
Mentoring Children of
Social Security Act of
To make competitive grants to FY2006: $50 million
U.S. Department Youth of imprisoned parents.
Prisoners
1935 (Section 439), as
applicants in areas with
FY2007: $50 million
of Health and
amended
significant numbers of
Human Services
children of prisoners to
FY2008: $50 million
42 U.S.C. §629i
support the establishment and
operation of programs that
provide mentoring services
for these children, and to
demonstrate the potential
effectiveness of vouchers as
delivery mechanisms for these
mentoring services.

CRS-66
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Court Appointed
Victims of Child Abuse
To ensure every victim of
FY2006: $12 million
U.S. Department Abused and neglected
Special Advocates
Act of 1990, as amended child abuse and neglect
FY2007: $12 million
of Justice
children and youth.
receives the services of a
court appointed advocate.
FY2008: unknown
42 U.S.C. §13011-13014
(The U.S. DOJ FY2008
Performance Budget
proposes to consolidate
this program with other
juvenile justice and
child abuse programs
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a program
known as the Child
Safety and Juvenile
Justice Program.)

CRS-67
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Children’s Advocacy
Victims of Child Abuse
To establish advocacy centers
FY2006: $15 million
U.S. Department Abused and neglected youth.
Centers
Act of 1990, as amended to coordinate multi-
FY2007: $15 million
of Justice
disciplinary responses to child
abuse and to provide training
FY2008: unknown
42 U.S.C. §13001-13004 and technical assistance to
(The U.S. DOJ FY2008
professionals involved in
Performance Budget
investigating, prosecuting,
proposes to consolidate
and training child abuse, and
this program with other
to support the development of
juvenile justice and
Children’s Advocacy Centers
child abuse programs
on multi-disciplinary teams.
into a single
discretionary block
grant under a program
known as the Child
Safety and Juvenile
Justice Program.)

CRS-68
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Public Health
Garrett Lee Smith
Public Health Service
To provide grants to states
FY2006: $27 million
U.S. Department Youth under age 25.
Memorial Act Youth
Act of 1974, as amended and college campuses for
FY2007: $27 million
of Health and
Suicide Prevention
youth suicide prevention
Human Services
Program
activities.
FY2008: $27 million
42 USC § §290aa et
seq., 290bb et seq.
Comprehensive
Public Health Service
To provide community-based
FY2006: $104 million
U.S. Department Youth under age 22 with a
Community Mental
Act of 1974, as amended systems of care for children
FY2007: $104 million
of Health and
serious emotional disorders.
Health Services for
and adolescents with a serious
Human Services
Children with Serious
emotional disturbance and
FY2008: $104 million
Emotional Disturbances 42 USC §290ff
their family.
National Child
Children’s Health Act of To create a national network
FY2006: $29 million
U.S. Department Children and youth who have
Traumatic Stress
2000 (Section 582(d))
that develops, promotes, and
FY2007: $29 million
of Health and
experienced traumatic events.
Initiative
disseminates information
Human Services
related to a wide variety of
FY2008: $28 million
42 USC §290aa
traumatic events.

CRS-69
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Strategic Prevention
Public Health Service
To provide funding to states
FY2006: $106 million
U.S. Department Youth at risk of using and
Framework State
Act of 1974, as amended for infrastructure and services
FY2007: $106 million
of Health and
abusing drugs.
Infrastructure Grant
that implement a five-step
Human Services
strategy for preventing
FY2008: $95 million
42 U.S.C. 290bb
substance and alcohol abuse
among youth.
Assertive Adolescent
Public Health Service
To provide substance abuse
FY2006: $5 million
U.S. Department Youth using drugs.
and Family Treatment
Act of 1974, as amended treatment practices to
of Health and
FY2007: $5 million
Program (Family
adolescents and their families
Human Services
Centered Substance
using previously proven
FY2008: $5 million
Abuse Treatment
42 U.S.C. 290bb-2
effective family-centered
Grants for Adolescents
methods.
and their Families)
Juvenile Treatment
Public Health Service
To provide effective
FY2006: $6 million
U.S. Department Youth using drugs who are
Drug Court
Act of 1974, as amended substance treatment and
of Health and
found delinquent.
FY2007: $6 million
reduce delinquent activity.
Human Services
FY2008: $6 million
42 U.S.C. 290bb-2
Community-Based
Social Security Act of
To provide project grants to
FY2006: $109 million
U.S. Department Youth ages 12 to 18.
Abstinence Education
1935 (Section 1110
public and private institutions
FY2007: $109 million
of Health and
using the definitions
for community-based
Human Services
contained in Section
abstinence education project
FY2008: $137 million
510(b)(2)), as amended
grants.
42 U.S.C. §710

CRS-70
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Abstinence Education
Social Security Act of
To provide formula grant
FY2006: $50 million
U.S. Department Youth likely to bear children
Program
1935 (Section 510), as
funding for states to provide
FY2007: $50 million
of Health and
outside of marriage.
amended
abstinence education and, at
Human Services
the option of the state, where
FY2008: $50 million
appropriate, mentoring,
42 U.S.C. §710
counseling, and adult
supervision to promote
abstinence from sexual
activity.
Adolescent Family Life
Public Health Services
To provide project grants to
FY2006: $30 million
U.S. Department Pregnant and parenting youth,
Demonstration Projects
Act of 1974, as amended establish innovative,
FY2007: $30 million
of Health and
non-pregnant youth and their
comprehensive, and integrated
Human Services families.
approaches to the delivery of
FY2008: $30 million
42 U.S.C. §3002
care services for pregnant and
parenting adolescents with
(Funding for the
primary emphasis on
Adolescent Family Life
adolescents who are under age Demonstration Projects
17.
and Research Grants is
combined.)

CRS-71
FY2006 Approp.,
Authorizing
Agency
Objective(s) of
FY2007 Approp., and
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Legislation and U.S.
with
Program
President’s FY2008
Population
Code Citation
Jurisdiction
Request (rounded)
Adolescent Family Life
Public Health Services
To provide project grants to
FY2006: $30 million
U.S. Department Pregnant and parenting youth,
Research Grants
Act of 1974, as amended encourage and support
FY2007: $30 million
of Health and
non-pregnant youth and their
research projects and
Human Services families.
dissemination activities
FY2008: $30 million
42 U.S.C. §3002
concerning the societal causes
and consequence of
(Funding for the
adolescent sexual activity,
Adolescent Family Life
contraceptive use, pregnancy,
Demonstration Projects
and child rearing.
and Research Grants is
combined.)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).

CRS-72
Table A-3. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst or Specialist
Contact Information
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
CRS Report RL32913, The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Richard N. Apling
rapling@crs.loc.gov
Part B Grants to States
Act (IDEA): Interactions with Selected Provisions of the No Child Left
x7-7352
Behind Act (NCLB), by Richard N. Apling and Nancy Lee Jones
Title IV: Safe and Drug Free Schools
CRS Report RS30482, The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Gail McCallion
gmccallion@crs.loc.gov
Communities Act: Background and Context,
x7-7758
by Edith Fairman Cooper
Vulnerable Youth and Youth Programs
CRS Report RS22501, Child Welfare: The Chafee Foster Care
Adrienne L. Fernandes
afernandes@crs.loc.gov
(generally)
Independence Act (CFCIP), by Adrienne Fernandes
x7-9005
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth:
and Education and Training Voucher Program
Demographics, Programs, and Emerging Issues, by Adrienne L.
Fernandes
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program
(Basic Center, Transitional Living, and Street
CRS Report RL31655, Missing and Exploited Children: Overview
Outreach Programs)
and Policy Concerns, by Edith Fairman Cooper
Missing and Exploited Children’s Program
CRS Report RL32633, Mentoring Programs Funded by the Federal
Government Dedicated to Disadvantaged Youth: Issues and Activities
,
Mentoring Children of Prisoners
by Edith Fairman Cooper
Title VII: Education of Homeless Children
CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs
Gail McCallion
gmccallion@crs.loc.gov
and Recent Legislation, coordinated by Libby Perl
x7-7758

CRS-73
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst or Specialist
Contact Information
 Upward Bound
CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status and
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
jkuenzi@crs.loc.gov
Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
 Education Opportunity Centers
x7-8645
CRS Report RL33963, High School Graduation, Completion, and
 Student Support Services
Dropouts: Federal Policy, Programs, and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
 Talent Search
 Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs
 School Dropout Prevention Program
Workforce Development (generally)
CRS Report RL33687, The Workforce Investment Act (WIA):
Blake Alan Naughton
bnaughton@crs.loc.gov
Program-by-Program Overview and FY2007 Funding of Title I
YouthBuild
x7-0376
Training Programs, by Blake Alan Naughton and Ann Lordeman
Job Corps
Juvenile Justice (generally)
CRS Report RS22070, Juvenile Justice: Overview of Legislative
Blas Nuñez-Neto
bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov
History and Funding Trends, by Blas Nuñez-Neto
x7-0622
 CRS Report RL33947, Juvenile Justice: Legislative History and
Current Legislative Issues
, by Blas Nuñez-Neto
 Title I: Education for the Disadvantaged
CRS Report RL31487, Education for the Disadvantaged: Overview
Wayne C. Riddle
wriddle@crs.loc.gov
of ESEA Title I-A Amendments Under the No Child Left Behind Act,
 Title I-D: Prevention and Intervention
x7-7382
by Wayne C. Riddle
Programs for Children and Youths Who Are
Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk

CRS-74
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst or Specialist
Contact Information
 Migrant Education
CRS Report RL31325, The Federal Migrant Education Program as
Rebecca R. Skinner
rskinner@crs.loc.gov
Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, by Jeffrey J.
x7-6600
 Migrant High School Equivalency Program
Kuenzi
 Title III: English Language 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 Education
CRS Report RS20873, Reducing Teen Pregnancy: Family Life and
Carmen Solomon-Fears
csolomonfears@crs.loc.gov
Abstinence Education Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears
 Abstinence Education Program
x7-7306
CRS Report RS20301, Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Statistics
 Adolescent Family Life Demonstration
and Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears
Projects
 Adolescent Family Life Research Grants
 Foster Care
CRS Report RL32976, Child Welfare: Programs Authorized by the
Emilie Stoltzfus
estoltzfus@crs.loc.gov
Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, by Emilie Stoltzfus
 Court Appointed Special Advocates
x7-2324
Program
CRS Report RL31242 Child Welfare: Federal Program
Requirements for States
, by Emilie Stoltzfus
 Children’s Advocacy Centers

 Youth Suicide Prevention Program
CRS Report RS22636, Alcohol Use Among Youth, by Andrew R.
Ramya Sundararaman
rsundararaman@crs.loc.gov
Sommers and Ramya Sundaraman
x7-7285
 Services for Youth Offenders
 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.
w
g
p
h
p
s
cr