Order Code RL34499
Youth Transitioning From Foster Care:
Background, Federal Programs,
and Issues for Congress
May 21, 2008
Adrienne L. Fernandes
Analyst in Social Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division

---

Youth Transitioning From Foster Care: Background,
Federal Programs, and Issues for Congress
Summary
Nearly half of states have laws that explicitly permit the state child welfare
system to continue providing foster care for children beyond the age of majority
(usually no later than 19). However, the number of states that actually facilitate
youth remaining in care beyond their 18th or 19th birthdays is significantly smaller.
Over 20,000 young people have been emancipated from foster care annually from
FY2002 through FY2006. While most young people have access to emotional and
financial support systems throughout their early adult years, older youth in care and
those who age out of care often face obstacles to developing independent living skills
and building supports that ease the transition to adulthood. Older foster youth who
return to their parents or guardians may continue to experience poor family dynamics
or a lack of emotional and financial supports, and studies have shown that recently
emancipated foster youth fare poorly relative to their counterparts in the general
population on several outcome measures.
Recognizing the difficulties faced by older youth in care and youth emancipating
from foster care, Congress created a new Independent Living initiative (P.L. 99-272)
in 1986 to assist certain older foster youth as they enter adulthood. The legislation
authorized mandatory funding to states under a new Section 477 of the Social
Security Act. In 1999, the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Act (P.L. 106-
169) replaced the Independent Living Program with the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP) and doubled the total annual funds available to states
from $70 million to $140 million. The law also expanded the population of youth
eligible to receive independent living services — with no lower age limit — and gave
states greater flexibility in designing independent living programs. Independent
living services can refer to assistance in obtaining a high school diploma, training in
daily living skills, and training in financial management, among other services.
Amendments to the CFCIP in FY2002 (P.L. 107-133) authorized discretionary
funding for states to provide education and training vouchers to eligible youth.
Along with the CFCIP, federal child welfare law and other federal programs are
intended to help older current youth in care and foster care alumni make the
transition to adulthood. The federal foster care program has protections in place to
ensure that older youth in care have a written case plan that addresses the programs
and services that will assist in this transition, among other supports. Further, federal
law authorizes funding for states to provide workforce assistance and housing to
older foster youth. Despite these efforts and the resilience displayed by current and
former foster youth, policymakers and child welfare practitioners have suggested that
at a minimum, young people need better support to build stronger connections with
caring adults before leaving foster care and should have the option to remain in care
upon reaching their 18th or 19th birthdays.
Several bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress that propose greater
assistance to older youth in foster care and those who have aged out, including
legislation to provide federal foster care assistance for youth age 18 and older. This
report will be updated as warranted.

---

Contents
Who Are Older Youth in Foster Care and Youth Aging Out of Care? . . . . . . . . . 3
Characteristics of Youth in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Midwest Evaluation on the Adult Functioning of Former
Foster Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Resiliency of Current and Former Foster Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Overview of Federal Support for Foster Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Federal Foster Care Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Case Planing and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Title IV-E Reimbursement for Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Eligible Placement Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Eligible Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development
Survey of Foster Care Beyond Age 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Sample of States with Known Programs that Provide Foster Care
to Older Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Eligibility for CFCIP Benefits and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Youth Likely to Remain in Foster Care Until Age 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
American Indian Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The Role of Youth Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Administration of the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Education and Training Vouchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Administration of the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Youth Enrolled in the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Funding for States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Use of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Hold Harmless Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Unused Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
National Youth in Transition Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Evaluation of Innovative CFCIPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
PART Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Assessments of the CFCIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Child and Family Services Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
GAO Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Implementation of the ETV Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Other Federal Support for Older Current and Former Foster Youth . . . . . . . . . . 35
Chafee Medicaid Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Other Educational Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

---

Workforce Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Workforce Investment Act Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Foster Youth Workforce Demonstration Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Housing Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Family Unification Vouchers Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Other Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Grant to Support Curriculum for Supervising Older Youth in Care . . . . . . 40
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Foster Care for Youth Ages 18 and Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Eligible Placement Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Judicial Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Relevant Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Permanency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Relevant Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Relevant Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Runaway Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Relevant Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Use of Chafee Education and Training Vouchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Relevant Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Medicaid Coverage for Youth Aging Out of Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Relevant Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
The Risk of Becoming Disconnected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Relevant Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Appendix A. Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . 55
Appendix B. Maximum Age and Conditions for Youth Remaining
in Foster Care After Their 18th Birthday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Appendix C. Descriptions of Foster Care for Youth Ages 18 to 21
in Select States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Adult Living Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Housing Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Appendix D. Funding for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program . . . . . 68
Appendix E. Proposed Legislative Changes in the 110th Congress
to the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Increased Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Education and Training Vouchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Direct Funding for Tribal Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Private Social Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Information About Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

---

List of Tables
Table A-1. Comparison of Outcome Domains Between Young Adults in
the Midwest Study and Young Adults in the Add Health Study . . . . . . . . 55
Table B-1. National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development
Survey of States, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table D-1. Final FY2007 and Estimated FY2008 Federal CFCIP
General and Voucher Allotments by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table D-2. Change in Funding by State from the Old Independent Living
Program (as of FY1998) and the CFCIP (as of FY2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table D-3. FY2005 Chafee Foster Care Independence Program: Final Funds
Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal Treasury, by State . . . . . . . . 72
Table D-4. FY2005 Chafee Education and Training Vouchers: Estimated
Funds Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal Treasury, by State . . . 74

---

Youth Transitioning From Foster Care:
Background, Federal Programs,
and Issues for Congress
A significant number of youth spend at least some time in foster care during
their teenage years. On the last day of FY2006, over 176,800 youth ages 13 to 17
comprised more than one third of the foster care caseload nationally.1 Most teenagers
who leave foster care are reunified with their parents or primary caretakers, adopted,
or placed with relatives. Yet as many as 26,000 youth age out, or are emancipated,
from care each year when they reach the age of majority in their states (usually no
later than age 19).2
Youth who spend their teenage years in foster care and those who are likely to
age out of care face challenges as they move to early adulthood. While in care, they
may forego opportunities to develop strong support networks and independent living
skills that their counterparts in the general population might more naturally acquire.
Even older foster youth who return to their parents or guardians can still face
obstacles, such as poor family dynamics or a lack of emotional and financial
supports, that hinder their ability to achieve their goals as young adults. Perhaps the
strongest evidence that youth who have spent at least some years in care during
adolescence have not adequately made the transition to young adulthood is their poor
outcomes across a number of domains. During their early adult years, these youth
are much more likely than their peers to forego higher education, describe their
general health as fair or poor, become homeless, and rely on public supports.
The federal government has recognized that older youth in care and those aging
out are vulnerable to negative outcomes and may ultimately return to the care of the
state as adults, either through the public welfare, criminal justice, or other support
systems. In 1986, Congress passed legislation to assist certain older youth in care
under a new Independent Living program, enacted as part of P.L. 99-272. The
legislation authorized mandatory funding to states under Section 477 of the Social
Security Act and was made permanent in 1993 as part of P.L. 103-66. In 1999, the
John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Act (P.L. 106-169) replaced the
Independent Living Program with the permanently authorized Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP) and doubled the annual funds available to states
from $70 million to $140 million. The law also expanded the population of youth
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human, Administration for Children and Families,
Children’s Bureau. The AFCARS Report #14: Preliminary FY2006 Estimates, October
2006. At [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#afcars]. (Hereafter
referenced, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #14.)
2 Ibid.

---

CRS-2
eligible to receive independent living services, including youth who have left care
through age 21, and gave states greater flexibility in designing independent living
programs. Independent living programs are intended to assist youth prepare for
adulthood, and may include assistance in obtaining a high school diploma, career
exploration, training in daily living skills, training in budgeting and financial
management skills, and preventive health activities, among other services. Further,
the act required states to provide services to tribal youth on the same basis as other
youth in the state. The act also encouraged youth in foster care to participate directly
in designing their own activities that prepare them for independent living and further
stated that youth “accept personal responsibility for living up to their part of the
program.” Other related provisions in P.L. 109-133 enable states to use up to 30%
of their CFCIP funds for housing on current and former foster youth ages 18 to 21,
and to extend health care to these youth through a new Medicaid pathway known as
the “Chafee option.” Amendments to the CFCIP in FY2002 (P.L. 107-133)
authorized discretionary funding to states to provide vouchers for eligible youth
through a new Education and Training Voucher (ETV) program.
Along with the CFCIP, federal child welfare law and other federal programs are
intended to help current and former youth in foster care make the transition to
adulthood. The federal foster care program has protections in place to ensure that
older youth in care have a written case plan that addresses the programs and services
they need in making the transition. Further, federal law authorizes funding for states
and local jurisdictions to provide workforce support and housing to older foster youth
and youth emancipating from care. Despite these efforts and the resilience of young
people in care, policymakers and child welfare practitioners have suggested that at
a minimum, young people should have the option to remain in foster care upon
reaching their 18th birthdays and that they need more support to build genuine,
permanent connections with caring adults before leaving care.
This report begins with a discussion of the characteristics of older foster youth
in care and the types of outcomes experienced by youth who have recently
emancipated. The report then provides an overview of the federal foster care system,
including the Chafee Foster Care Independence program, and provisions in federal
foster care law that are intended to help prepare youth for adulthood. The report goes
on to discuss other federal support — through other programs — for youth aging out
of care in the areas of education, health care, employment, and housing. The report
seeks to understand how states vary in their approaches to serving older youth in care
and those who are recently emancipated. A small number of states are known to
extend foster care to youth ages 18 to 21 (and beyond in some cases) and less than
half of states provide Medicaid coverage to former foster youth beyond age 18
through the Chafee pathway option. The report also intends to demonstrate that,
despite negative outcomes for the group on average, many former foster youth are
engaged in decisions about the services they receive and display resiliency. The
report concludes with a discussion of issues that Congress may wish to consider, as
well as pending legislation relevant to each of the issues.
Appendix A provides a summary of outcome statistics for youth who were in
foster care, compared to youth in the general population; Appendix B summarizes
state policies regarding youth remaining in care beyond age 18; Appendix C includes
a description of foster care programs in selected states for youth ages 18 and older

---

CRS-3
in foster care; Appendix D provides funding tables for the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program, including information about funds returned to the Federal
Treasury; and Appendix E summarizes pending legislation that would amend the
CFCIP.
Who Are Older Youth in Foster Care and
Youth Aging Out of Care?
Children and adolescents age 17 and younger can enter state child welfare
systems due to abuse, neglect, or for some other reason, such as the death of a parent
or child behavioral problems. Some children remain in their own homes and receive
family support services, but many are placed in out-of-home settings, usually in a
foster home, relative placement, or institution (e.g., residential treatment facility,
maternity group home). This section provides a profile of older youth in foster care
as well as outcomes experienced by young people who have spent some time in care
as teenagers.
Characteristics of Youth in Foster Care
The Foster Care Dynamics report, a longitudinal study of children in 11 state
child welfare systems from 2000 through 2005, provides detailed information about
older youth who have been placed in foster care.3 The study examined state
administrative data to determine the typical trajectory of children across four age
categories who first entered foster care during the five-year period: less than age one;
one through five; six through12; and 13 through 17. The study found that teenagers
make up a significant share of the foster care population; have shorter median lengths
of stay relative to younger children; live in placements other than foster family
homes; experience more placements in their first year in care than younger children;
and most often exit care through reunification, although running away and reaching
the age of majority are exit pathways for about 10% to 24% of these older youth,
depending on their age.
From 2000 through 2005, about 350,000 children entered care in the 11 states,
of whom 27% were teenagers ages 13 through 17. Youth in the age 13 through 17
category comprised the second largest share of children in care (n=94,965), only after
children ages six through 12 (n= 95,676). The incidence rate for entering care for
youth ages 13 through 17 was about 2.5 per 1,000 over the five-year period; this is
compared to about 9.0 per 1,000 infants under age one; about 2.5 per 1,000 children
ages one through five; and about 1.8 per 1,000 children ages six through 12. In three
cohort years (2000-2001, 2002-2003, and 2004-2005), fifteen-year-olds comprised
the second largest share of children in care by single-year age category
(approximately 7%), only after infants under the age of one, who comprised 18% to
20% of the caseload.
3 Fred Wulczyn, Lijun Chen, Kristen Brunner Hislop, Foster Care Dynamics 2000-2005:
A Report from the Multistate Foster Care Data Archive, Chapin Hall Center for Children,
University of Chicago, 2007.

---

CRS-4
Of those youth ages 13 through 17 who entered care from 2000 to 2005, 49%
lived in congregate care (e.g, a residential school), 37% in foster family homes, and
13% in kinship care. The remaining two percent lived in an independent living
arrangement or other arrangement. Across all age categories, 41% to 43% of children
were moved within their first six months in foster care; however, a greater share of
teenagers experienced multiple placements within their first six months of entering
care. About 18% of youth ages 13 through 17 had two or more placements,
compared with 12% to 16% of children in other age categories. Teenagers were also
more likely to move to new living arrangements in the six to twelve months after
entering care. While older youth in care had a shorter median length of stay than
younger children in care, this median length of stay increased over the five-year
period. The median lengths of stay for infants decreased from 18.7 months in 2000
to 17.6 months in 2004 (data were not available for 2005), and increased for youth
ages 13 through 17 from 6.6 months in 2000 to 7.8 months in 2005.
Generally, teenagers were less likely to be adopted or placed with relatives as
they got older and were more likely to run away and exit by reaching the age of
majority or some other pathway such as independent living. With the exception of
17-year-olds, about the same share of teenagers were reunified as children ages three
to 12. One-third to 46% of youth ages 13 through 17 exited to reunification. The
balance of youth lived in an independent living arrangement or some other
arrangement (12.4% to 15.1% for each age 13 through 17), ran away (6.7% to
11.7%), lived with a relative (5.1% to 8.4%), or reached the age of majority (0.9%
to 23.9%). About two percent or less of the teenagers were adopted.
Although older youth tend to have shorter spells in foster care, they are more
likely to re-enter care after their first exit. About 28% of youth who were discharged
at ages 13 through 17 during 2000 to 2002 reentered care within one year, followed
by infants, at 26%. Children ages one to five were least likely to re-enter care, at
15%.
Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly in Foster Care
The transition to adulthood for all youth has becoming increasingly complex.
During this period, young people cycle between attending school, working, and living
independently. Many youth can rely on assistance from their families for financial
and emotional supports during the transition. On average, parents give their children
an estimated $38,000 — or about $2,200 a year — between the ages of 18 and 34 to
supplement wages, pay for college tuition, and help with housing costs, among other
types of financial assistance.4 Parents also allow their adult children to live with
them5 and provide their children with non-material assistance, such as help with
4 Bob Schoeni and Karen Ross, “Material Assistance Received from Families During the
Transition to Adulthood.” In Richard A. Settersten, Jr., Frank F. Furstenburg, Jr., and Rubén
Rumbaut, eds., On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy, pp.
404-405. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
5 According to the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”), a
nationally representative survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time, approximately 41%
(continued...)

---

CRS-5
obtaining a driver’s license, guidance on applying to college, advice on finances and
establishing a new household, and connections to other caring adults in their
communities. For older foster youth and those who have already aged out of care,
this assistance is often not in place. Being in care may inherently cause instability
because of multiple out-of-home placements, school transfers, and the challenge in
maintaining relationships with parents and other kin. Youth may experience further
instability if they cannot afford to live on their own or are unable to live with
relatives or friends upon emancipation. In most states, youth may not remain in foster
care beyond age 18, a time when most young people explore educational and career
options.
Research on the transition for former foster youth is limited and most of the
studies on outcomes for these youth face methodological challenges — they tend to
be dated; include brief follow-up periods (e.g., no more than a year after exit from
care); have low response rates, non-representative samples, and small sample sizes;
and do not follow youth prior to exit from foster care.6 Few studies include
comparison groups to gauge how well these youth are transitioning to adulthood, in
relation to their peers in the foster care population or general population. However,
two studies — the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study and the Midwest Evaluation
of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth — have tracked outcomes for a
sample of youth across several domains, either prospectively (following youth in care
and as they age out) or retrospectively (examining current outcomes for young adults
who were in care at least a few years ago) and comparing these outcomes to other
groups of youth, either those who aged out and/or youth in the general population.
Both studies indicate that youth who spent time in foster care during their
teenage years tended to have difficulty during the transition to adulthood and beyond.
(The studies do not posit that foster care, per se, is associated with the challenges
former foster youth face in adulthood. In fact, children tend to have a range of
challenges upon entering care.7) The Midwest Evaluation has examined the extent
to which outcomes in early adulthood are in fluenced by the individual characteristics
of youth or their out-of-home care histories. The study found that still being in care,
as opposed to having left care, and having certain other characteristics (i.e., having
aspirations to graduate from college, feeling close to at least one family member, and
5 (...continued)
of surveyed youth age 21 in the study’s third wave (2001-2002) lived with their parents. See
Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Outcomes at Age 21, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago,
December 2007, p. 1. At [http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355].
(Hereafter referenced Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation at Age 21.)
6 For a compendium of outcome studies and their methodologies, see Mark E. Courtney and
Darcy Hughes Heuring. “The Transition to Adulthood for Youth “Aging Out” of the Foster
Care System” in Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, appendix. (Hereafter
referenced as Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring, The Transition to Adulthood
for Youth “Aging Out” of the Foster Care System.”)
7 Fred Wulczyn et al. Beyond Common Sense: Child Welfare, Child Well-Being, and the
Evidence for Policy Reform (New Brunswick: AldineTransaction, 2005), p. 116. (Hereafter
referenced as Wulczyn et al., Beyond Common Sense.)

---

CRS-6
expressing satisfaction with their experience in foster care) more than doubled the
odds of working or being in school at age 19.8
The two reports exclude youth with developmental disabilities or severe mental
illness that precluded them from participating, as well as youth who were
incarcerated or in a psychiatric hospital.
Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Researchers with the Northwest
Foster Care Alumni Study interviewed and reviewed the case files of 479 foster care
youth who were in public or private foster care any time from 1988 to 1998 in
Oregon or Washington.9 On average, they interviewed youth who were 24.2 years
old, with a range of 20 to 33 years old. The youth tended to be females (60% versus
the 48% of females in foster care nationally in FY200610); to have entered care as
adolescents (11.1 years versus 8.1 years for children entering care in FY2006; nearly
60% of the youth in the study were age 12 and older at the time they entered care);
and to have exited care between the ages of 15 and older (the mean age at exit was
18.5 years versus 9.8 years in FY2006 for foster youth nationwide).11 Surveyed
young adults experienced these outcomes even though most (83.6%) reported having
access to “a lot” of child welfare services and supports, and about eight out of ten
(81.5%) said that they felt loved while in care. These findings suggest that a
confluence of factors, including the reasons they entered care, family dynamics, and
access to services and supports before and after care, among many other variables,
have likely influenced how well they function as adults.
The study compared the mental health status, educational attainment, and
employment and finances for the foster care alumni to those of the general
population.
! Mental health: Over 54% of foster care alumni had at least one
mental health problem (depression, social phobia, panic disorder,
and post-traumatic stress disorder, among others), compared to
8 Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Outcomes at Age 19, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, May
2005, pp. 68-70. At [http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355].
9 Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care: Findings from the Northwest Foster
Care Alumni Study, Casey Family Programs, 2005. At [http://www.casey.org/Resources/
Publications/NorthwestAlumniStudy.htm]. (Hereafter referenced as Peter J. Pecora et al.,
Improving Foster Family Care.)
10 U.S. Department of Health and Human, AFCARS Report #14.
11 These youth were placed in care prior to the enactment of the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Act (P.L. 106-169) and most entered care because of sexual abuse and other
type of maltreatment, which is not a primary reason for most children entering care (though
the definition of sexual abuse in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ data
collection system for children in foster care is not identical to the definition in this study).
For additional information about the sample of youth, see pages 18 to 21 and 25 to 31 of the
study.

---

CRS-7
22.1% of the general population.12 About one quarter of the alumni
experienced post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This figure is
greater than the prevalence of PTSD among Vietnam or Iraq war
veterans — about 15%. Alumni tended to have similar recovery
rates as their counterparts in the general population for major
depression, panic syndrome, and alcohol dependency, but lower
rates of recovery for other disorders such as generalized anxiety
disorder, PTSD, social phobia, and bulimia.
! Education: While alumni have obtained a high school diploma or
passed the general education development (GED) test at the same
rates as 25-to-34-year-olds generally (84.5% versus 87.3%), they are
much less likely to have a bachelor’s degree — 1.8% versus 22.5%
of all young people.
! Employment and finances: One third of alumni reported living
below the poverty line, which is three times the national poverty
rate. Further, almost 17% were dependent on Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF), compared to 3% of the general
population (although the high rate of participation in Oregon and
Washington could have been due, in part, to TANF rules in those
states). The alumni employment rate was 80%, while the general
employment rate was 95%. Other indicators show that alumni were
not financially secure. One third lacked health insurance (versus
18% of the general population) and 22% were homeless at least one
day during the year after they left foster care (versus 1% of the
general population who were homeless within the last year).
Midwest Evaluation on the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth. Few foster care alumni studies are prospective, meaning that they follow
youth while in care through the time they leave care and beyond. The Midwest
Evaluation is an ongoing study that tracks 600 or more (depending on the data
collection wave) current and former foster youth in three states — Illinois, Iowa, and
Wisconsin. All of the surveyed youth entered care prior to their 16th birthday.13
Surveyed youth responded to researcher questions about outcomes in three data
collection waves: at wave 1, when they were age 17 or 18, at which time most were
in care; at wave 2 when they were ages 19 or 20, at which time some remained in
care; and at wave 3, when they were ages 20 or 21 and no longer in care. Of those
who remained in care beyond age 18, all were in Illinois, the only state of the three
that retains court jurisdiction of foster youth (with the youth’s permission) until age
12 In a nationally representative study of children ages 11 to 14 entering foster care, 56.1%
had a clinical/borderline score on the total problem behaviors checklist. Researchers often
use this list as a proxy for mental health issues. Wulczyn et al., Beyond Common Sense, p.
108.
13 Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation at Age 21.

---

CRS-8
21.14 The Midwest Evaluation researchers expect to track youth outcomes at age 23
and possibly beyond.15
At wave 1, about half to 70% of youth in care reported received any one
category of independent living services (educational services, employment/vocational
support, budget and financial management support, housing services, health
education services, and youth development services).16 At wave 2, not more than half
of the youth in care reported receiving at least one independent living service.17 At
wave 3, receipt of services decreased for youth, regardless of whether they remained
in care. No more than approximately one third of the youth reported receiving at
least one independent living service.18
For youth in the third wave, about one-third had left foster care within the
previous 12 months, and another one-third had left care in the past three to four
years; the balance of youth had left care one to three years prior or more than four
years prior. Nearly nine out of ten were age 21 and 53.2% were female. Most
(55.6%) identified as African American, followed by white (32.5%), multiracial
(9.5%), and other races. Approximately 8% identified as Hispanic. More than two-
thirds of youth (64.3%) reported feeling lucky to have been placed in foster care,
compared with 9.7% who neither agreed nor disagreed with feeling lucky, and 26%
who disagreed or strongly disagreed; about the same proportions of youth reported
feeling satisfied with their experiences in foster care. Youth were also asked about
receipt of independent living services across six domains: education, vocational
training or employment, budgeting and financial management, health education,
housing, and youth development such as conferences and leadership development
activities. For each of the domains, about one-third of the youth or less reported
having received relevant services since the wave 2 study and no more than one third
reported having received relevant services since they were discharged from care. The
researchers speculated that the services were available, but that the young adults did
not perceive a need for the services or were unable to access them.
14 Iowa amended its child welfare statute in 2006 to create a program that provides
continuing support to foster youth ages 18 to 21. The Iowa youth in the Midwest study were
already too old to benefit from the program when it was implemented.
15 This information is based on an announcement made by Chapin Hall Center for Children,
University of Chicago researchers at a December 9, 2007 Congressional briefing about the
study’s third wave of data.
16 Mark E. Courtney, Sherry Terao, and Noel Bost, Midwest Evaluation of the Adult
Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Conditions of Youth Preparing to Leave State Care,
Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, May 2005, pp. 28-30. At
[http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355].
17 Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Outcomes at Age19, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, May
2005, pp. 17-19. At [http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355].
18 Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation at Age 21, pp. 22-25.

---

CRS-9
At ages 21 or 22, most youth reported strong family ties, with 94% having said
that they felt somewhat or very close to at least one biological family member. The
greatest shares of youth reported feeling very close to their siblings, followed by
another relative (aunt, uncle, or cousin), grandparent, biological mother, and
biological father. The surveyed youth were most likely to be in daily contact (in this
order) with their siblings, biological mother, grandparents, and other relatives.
Overall, more than half of all youth perceived that some or most of the time, they had
social supports, such as someone to listen to him or her (66.1%), to help with favors
(59.2%), to loan money (50.3%), and to encourage his or her goals (53.6%).
Emancipated Youth Compared to Youth in Care at Midwest
Evaluation Wave 3. Findings from wave 3 of the Midwest Evaluation suggest that
youth who remain in care as late as age 20 tend to experience an easier transition to
adulthood than their counterparts who emancipate at age 18. The study found that
the young adults from Illinois (who were more likely to remain in care than youth in
Wisconsin and Iowa) were almost two times as likely to have ever attended college
than their peers in the other two states; and were more likely to have higher earnings
and delayed pregnancy. See the last section of this report for further information.
Youth at Midwest Evaluation Wave 3 Compared to Youth Age 21
Generally. For each of the three data collection waves, wherever possible,
researchers asked the same questions that were taken directly from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”), a nationally
representative survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time.19 The former foster
youth surveyed at wave 3 in the Midwest Evaluation were less likely to have attended
college for at least one year compared to the Add Health youth (29.8% versus
52.9%). Youth in the Midwest evaluation who were not currently in school reported
barriers to enrolling or staying in school, including that they lost interest (10.7%),
became employed (12.0%), became a parent (12.0%), and other reasons. While
youth formerly in care were almost as likely to report ever holding a job (95.1%
versus 96.9%) as Add Health youth, a smaller share were currently employed (44.%
versus 63.9%) and they had lower mean hourly wages ($8.85 versus $9.99) and mean
annual incomes ($8,914 versus $12,728). About 52% of former foster youth reported
having any savings or checking account, compared to 81% of youth generally. A
greater share of former foster youth did not have enough money to pay rent (26.5%),
compared to their counterparts in the Add Health survey (8.6%) and were more likely
to report having received food stamps (50.2% versus 6.3% for females; 9.0% versus
0.0% for males).
Table A-1 in Appendix A presents the outcomes for youth surveyed in wave
3 and Add Health participants surveyed at age 21 across ten domains — living
arrangements, educational attainment, employment and income, economic hardships,
health, sexual behavior and pregnancy, relationships and family formation,
involvement with the criminal justice system, transition to adulthood, orientation to
19 The Add Health sampled young adults from across the country, the majority (about 75%)
of whom were white. Data from the Add Health survey were collected three to four years
before wave 3 of the Midwest Evaluation. As a result, data on earnings and income have
been adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for comparison purposes.

---

CRS-10
the future, and mentoring. Table A-1 indicates that at age 21, former foster youth
and youth generally shared some common characteristics, but that the former foster
youth experience more negative educational and employment outcomes, among other
outcomes.
Resiliency of Current and Former Foster Youth
Despite the generally negative findings from the two major evaluations on youth
aging out of foster care, many youth have demonstrated resiliency by overcoming
obstacles, such as limited family support and financial resources, and meeting their
goals. As mentioned above, youth in the Northwest Evaluation have obtained a high
school diploma or passed the general education development (GED) test at close to
the same rates as 25-to-34-year-olds generally (84.5% versus 87.3%). Further, youth
in the third wave of the Midwest Evaluation were just as likely as the general youth
population to report being hopeful about their future. (See Table A-1.) As described
later in the report, these youth are active in making decisions about the independent
living services they receive to help them prepare for adulthood.
Current and former foster youth are also working to make improvements to the
child welfare system. At three hearings in the 110th Congress that have focused on
older youth in foster care, these young people highlighted their struggles, successes,
and their advocacy work on behalf of foster children. At a February 27, 2008 hearing
before the Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support,
a foster care alumni chronicled her life in care with eleven placements through her
recent graduation from college. In her testimony, she urged Congress to improve
conditions for children in foster care:
I have accomplished a lot, but it is in spite of all of the uncertainty I experienced
in foster care — not because of it. I want something better for the youth who are
currently in the foster care system. I want them to have families to love and
protect them and homes they know they can always return to. I want them to
leave foster care to live with a family, a relative — someone who will be
permanent in their lives. I do not want the youth currently in foster care to
age-out of foster care with no family and no one to turn to for help or support....
Congress has the power to do something, and I ask you on behalf of all of my
brothers and sisters who cannot be sitting here with me to do something now.20
The next section of this report describes the federal services and supports
available to youth in foster care, and demonstrates how some states have varied in
their approaches to serving older foster youth and youth who have recently
emancipated from care.
20 The written testimony from the hearing is available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=612].

---

CRS-11
Overview of Federal Support for Foster Youth
Historically, states have been primarily responsible for providing child welfare
services to families and children that need them. While in out-of-home foster care,
the state child welfare agency, under the supervision of the court (and in consultation
with the parents or primary caretakers in some cases), serves as the child’s parent and
makes decisions on his or her behalf that are to promote his or her safety,
permanence, and well-being.
Safety refers to the state child welfare system’s goal of ensuring that children in
foster care are protected from further abuse or neglect. Permanence refers to the
state’s goal of ensuring that children do not spend too many of their formative years
in a foster care placement, and that the state either returns them to their families
quickly and safely or quickly finds another safe and permanent home for them. Well-
being is inextricably linked to safety and permanency. The term refers to efforts by
the child welfare system to promote positive outcomes for children in care, including
education and physical and mental health outcomes, as well as supportive families.
In most cases, the state relies on public and private entities and organizations to
provide these services. The federal government plays a role in shaping state child
welfare systems by providing funds and linking those funds to certain requirements.
Two programs under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act may provide support
to older youth in foster care. Child welfare provisions under Title IV-E apply to
children ages 18 and younger who are in state-supervised foster care, discussed
below, and foster care youth who are expected to finish high school at age 19
(Section 472). The Chafee Foster Care Independence program, also discussed below,
authorizes funding for states to provide independent living services to older foster
youth and those who have emancipated from care (Section 477).
Federal Foster Care Program
Federal support for foster care preceded, by several decades, the 1980 (P.L. 96-
272) creation of the Title IV-E foster care program under the Social Security Act.
However, the 1980 law established this support as an independent program to
provide funding to states to support children in foster care. The law also stressed the
importance of case planning and review to achieve permanence for children in care.
Case Planing and Review
Federal child welfare provisions under Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act require state child welfare agencies, as a condition of receiving funding
under these titles, to provide certain case management services to all children in
foster care. These include monthly case worker visits to each child in foster care
(Section 422(b)(17)); a written case plan for each child in care (Section 475(1)); and
procedures ensuring a case review is conducted not less often than every six months
by a judge or an administrative review panel, and at least once every 12 months by
a judge who must consider the child’s permanency plan (Section 475(5)). Specific
case plan and case review procedures pertain to older youth in care. For a child age

---

CRS-12
16 or older, the written case plan must include a description of the programs and
services that will help the child prepare for the transition to independent living
(Section 475(1)(D)), and the permanency plan hearing must consider “the services
needed to assist the child to make the transition from foster care to independent
living” (Section 475(5)(C)). The permanency hearing for all children, including
those transitioning to independent living, must be conducted with the child in an age-
appropriate manner (Section 475(5)(C)).
Title IV-E Reimbursement for Foster Care
Title IV-E currently reimburses states for a part of the cost of providing foster
care to eligible children and youth, who, because of abuse or neglect (or some other
reason), cannot remain in their own homes and for whom a court has consequently
given care and placement responsibility to the state. Under this program, a state may
seek partial federal reimbursement to “cover the cost of (and the cost of providing)
food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, a child’s personal
incidentals, liability insurance with respect to a child, and reasonable travel to the
child’s home for visitation” (Section 475(4)). States may also seek reimbursement
for related costs of administration, child placement (e.g., case planning), training, and
data collection. Under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (see below),
states must certify that they will use Title IV-E foster care program funding (and
Adoption Assistance program funding) to provide training relevant to foster parents
and others (adoptive parents, workers in group homes, and case managers) to help
them understand and address the issues confronting adolescents preparing for
independent living and coordinating this training, where possible, with independent
living programs.21 Although case planning and review procedures (described above)
apply to all foster children in state care, federal reimbursement to states under Title
IV-E may be made only on behalf of a child who meets multiple federal eligibility
criteria (Section 472), including those related to the child’s removal and the income
and assets of the child’s family.
Eligible Placement Setting. For purposes of this report, the most
significant eligibility criteria for the federal foster care program are the child’s
placement setting and age. Under the program, federal reimbursement of part of the
costs of maintaining children in foster care may only be sought for children placed
in foster family homes or child care institutions. States may not seek federal
reimbursement of foster care costs for children who live in independent living
arrangements22 or who are in “detention facilities, forestry camps, training schools,
or any other facility operated primarily for the detention of children who are
21 Section 477(b)(3)(D).
22 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Children’s Bureau, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3, Question 1. At
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/j2ee/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy.jsp?idFlag=3].
(Hereafter referenced as U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s
Bureau, Child Welfare Policy Manual.)

---

CRS-13
determined to be delinquent.”23 For FY2006 (the most recent year data are available),
almost 6,000 children (1% of the caseload) were placed in supervised independent
living settings.24
Eligible Age. Further, once a child has reached his or her 18th birthday, he or
she is no longer eligible for federal foster care assistance. The age limitation on Title
IV-E eligibility is created by the program’s eligibility link to the now-defunct Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.25 Children qualified as
dependents under the AFDC program until age 18. However, as was the case with
AFDC, federal law does permit states to make continued claims for otherwise
eligible foster youth until their 19th birthday provided that the youth is a full-time
student and is expected to complete high school or an equivalent training program
by age 19. States must have elected this option in its definition of “child” for
purposes of the state’s AFDC program.
A 2004 review of state laws by the American Bar Association found that just
under half of states have laws that explicitly permit court jurisdiction to continue for
foster children beyond the age of majority. Two states extend this jurisdiction to age
19, three states to age 20, and 17 states to age 21.26 A survey of states conducted in
2006 by the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development also
found that most states permitted youth to remain in care beyond their 18th birthdays,
but only under certain circumstances (see below). However, the number of states that
permit youth to remain in foster care beyond their 18th or 19th birthdays appears
significantly larger than the number that actually facilitate youth remaining in care.27
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth
Development Survey of Foster Care Beyond Age 18
In 2006, the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development
at the University of Oklahoma (a contractor with the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services that provides training and technical assistance to states on foster
care issues, including independent living) surveyed independent living coordinators
in all states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico to determine whether emancipating
foster youth are eligible to remain in foster care beyond age 18. The Resource Center
received responses from 45 states and Washington D.C. However, the survey did not
23 Section 472(c) of the Social Security Act.
24 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Children’s Bureau, AFCARS Report #14.
25 For additional information, see Section 8.3A, Question 2 of the Child Welfare Policy
Manual.
26 Jane Kim and Kevin Sobczyk, Continuing Court Jurisdiction in Support of 18 to 21
Year-Old Foster Youth, American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law , July
2004, p. 16. At [http://www.abanet.org/child/court-jurisdiction.doc].
27 See for example, Child Welfare League of America, “National News Roundup,”
Children’s Voice, vol. 16, no. 9 (November/December 2007), p. 9; and “States Trying to
Extend Foster Care Benefits,” Stateline.org, August 23, 2007. At [http://www.stateline.org/
live/details/story?contentId=234381].

---

CRS-14
seek information about (1) the share of youth who actually remain in care beyond age
18; and whether (2) states encourage youth to remain in care; (3) financial supports
are in place to support youth in care after their 18th birthday; (4) the extended time
in care was authorized by state law; and (5) courts retained jurisdiction over the
youth.
Table B-1 in Appendix B provides a list of the maximum age limit at which
youth may remain in care and the conditions permitting youth to remain in care, as
determined by the survey. Age 18 is the maximum age for youth to remain in care in
one state (Florida). Six states (California, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Wisconsin,
Vermont, and Utah) reported allowing youth to remain in care until age 19. Three
states (Alaska, Iowa, and Michigan) permit youth to remain in care until age 20.
Thirty-one states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New
Mexico, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming) and Washington, D.C. reported that they
provide foster care custody through age 21 and two states (Massachusetts and Texas)
permit foster care custody through age 22. Finally, two states (Colorado and
Connecticut) permit foster care coverage through age 23. Hawaii, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Puerto Rico did not respond to the survey.
Four states that responded — Colorado, Connecticut, Nevada, and New York —
indicated an age limit, but did not provide information on the conditions for
remaining in care.
Sample of States with Known Programs that Provide Foster
Care to Older Youth
Although over half of all states report that youth remain in foster care custody
under certain circumstances until at least age 21, a much smaller number of states
appear to encourage youth to do so. This is evidenced by the small number of youth
ages 18 through 20 in foster care, as reported by HHS’s Adoption and Foster Care
Reporting and Analysis System (AFCARS), the federal system that collects national
foster care data. Data from AFCARS in FY2006 (the most recent year data are
available) illustrates significant drop off between the number of youth age 17
(39,624; 8% of the foster care population), compared to youth age 18 (13,303; 3%);
age 19 (5,488; 1%); and age 20 (3,316; 1%).28
The Congressional Research Service contacted four jurisdictions — Illinois,
New York, Vermont, and Washington D.C. — that are known to retain youth in
foster care at age 18 to 21 or 22.29 These jurisdictions provide state foster care
maintenance payments to fund foster care for older youth, and may use other funds
besides Title IV-E maintenance payments. Note that this is not an exhaustive review
of states that provide the payments to youth beyond their 18th birthdays. The four
28 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #14.
29 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the state or
city’s child welfare or independent living services staff in March and April 2008.

---

CRS-15
foster care programs for youth ages 18 and older vary. While Illinois, New York, and
Washington, D.C. provide more traditional foster care maintenance payments to
foster families on behalf of youth ages 18 to 21, Vermont provides stipends (much
like foster care maintenance payments) to caring adults (including foster care
families) who pledge to assist youth who have aged out of care.
In Washington, D.C., youth must remain in care until their 21st birthday unless
they meet narrow criteria, whereas in Illinois and New York, eligible youth may
decide to seek emancipation before reaching age 21. Former foster youth in Vermont
are not required to participate in the program. Further, New York and Vermont
require youth to be enrolled in an educational or workforce programs as a condition
for remaining in care; Illinois and Washington D.C. do not. In all cases, with the
exception of Vermont, youth ages 18 and older in care continue to be wards of the
state. The juvenile courts retain jurisdiction and social workers make routine visits
to assist youth in achieving their case goal, which is often independent living
(another planned living arrangement). For additional information about the foster
care programs for older youth in these states, see Appendix C.
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
A second Title IV-E program, the Chafee Foster Care Independence program
(CFCIP), provides primary federal support, including independent living services, to
older youth in foster care and youth transitioning out of care.30
Overview
The John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-169)
replaced the prior law Independent Living Program with the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program. The 1999 law doubled the annual funds available to states
for independent living services from $70 million to $140 million. To be eligible for
funds, the act requires states to expand the population of youth who receive
independent living services to include those who have “aged out” of foster care (until
their 21st birthday) and those of any age in foster care who are expected to leave care
without placement in a permanent family. Services may consist of educational
assistance, vocational training, mentoring, preventive health activities, and
counseling. States may dedicate as much as 30% of their program funding toward
room and board for youth ages 18 to 21, including for those youth enrolled in an
institution of higher education or who remain in foster care in states that provide care
to youth until ages 19, 20, or 21.31 Room and board are not defined in statute, but
typically include food and shelter, and may include rental deposits, rent, utilities, and
the cost of household startup purchases. CFCIP funds may not be used to acquire
30 See Appendix E for proposed legislative changes to the CFCIP.
31 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1G, Questions 1 and 4.

---

CRS-16
property to provide housing to current or former foster youth.32 The act also required
that youth in the program be actively involved in decisions about the services they
receive.
In addition, the law changed the amount of earnings or other resources that
foster youth may accumulate to assist in their transition to independent living.
Eligibility for foster care maintenance payments under Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act is based on whether the children’s original families would qualify for
AFDC, as it was in effect on July 16, 1996. Under those rules, children could not
remain eligible for Title IV-E services if they accumulated assets of more than
$1,000. P.L. 106-169, however, changed this asset limit to $10,000. The act also
encouraged states to provide Medicaid coverage to youth ages 18, 19, and 20 who
have emancipated from foster care by authorizing a new Medicaid eligibility pathway
for “independent foster care adolescents,” commonly called the “Chafee option” (see
section on Medicaid in “Other Federal Support” below). In 2002 (P.L. 107-133),
discretionary funds — up to $60 million annually — were authorized for eligible
current and former foster care youth to receive education and training vouchers.
History
The CFCIP varies in its eligibility requirements and purpose from the former
Independent Living Program, originally established in 1985 (P.L. 99-272). Congress
created the former program under a new Section 477 of the Social Security Act to
assist foster youth ages 16 to 18 who met the income and other eligibility criteria of
the Title IV-E foster care program. The legislation authorized mandatory funding to
states, and states were awarded a share of independent living funds based on the
number of children receiving federal foster care payments in FY1984. In 1987 (P.L.
100-647) independent living eligibility was expanded to any foster care children age
16 or older (regardless of federal Title IV-E eligibility) and to certain youth for six
months after leaving care. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L.
101-508) gave states the option of providing independent living services to current
and former foster youth until age 21, and in 1993 (P.L. 103-66), Congress
permanently authorized funding for the program at $70 million annually.
Eligibility for CFCIP Benefits and Services
The Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 required states to ensure that
independent living programs serve children of “various ages and various stages of
achieving independence” and use objective criteria for determining eligibility for
benefits and services under the program. The act further specified that states are to
provide services under the CFCIP for children who are “likely to remain in foster
care until 18 years of age” or are “aging out of foster care.” It also addressed the
responsibilities of the states to consult with American Indian tribes and provide
services to tribal youth.
Foster youth who are in runaway status or lose contact with their child welfare
agency continue to be under the custody of the state, and therefore, are eligible for
32 Ibid, Section 3.1G, Questions 1 and 3.

---

CRS-17
services upon returning. On the last day of FY2006, states reported to HHS that
close to 12,200 (2%) children had run away from care. The 2006 data are similar to
what states reported for the last days of FY2004 and FY2005.33 Those youth in care
who have been adjudicated through the juvenile justice system are eligible for CFCIP
services as long as they are not in a detention or related facility.34 (The juvenile
corrections facility is responsible for all services for foster youth who are confined
in a locked setting.) Finally, foster children who are not citizens may be eligible for
CFCIP services while under state custody.
Youth Likely to Remain in Foster Care Until Age 18. Under the old
Independent Living program, states could provide services to current foster youth
ages 16 and 17 who were eligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments,
or to “other children in care,” regardless of Title IV-E status. The Chafee Foster Care
Independence Act removed reference to a minimum eligibility age and required states
to provide supports to children “likely to remain in foster care” until age 18. This
phrase is not defined in the act, and states are to create eligibility standards using
objective criteria.
According to the National Foster Care Coalition, a child welfare advocacy
organization, many states have developed indicators to help determine the likelihood
that a child will remain in care until his or her 18th birthday.35 For example,
Louisiana determines a child’s eligibility for independent living services by
reviewing his or her case history, presenting problems, and individual case goals.
Kentucky and Alaska require that services be provided concurrently with permanency
planning for young people over the age of 14. Alaska further defines the level of
such services that should be provided at age 14 and older.
States can provide services to any child age 17 and younger regardless of their
placement in a kinship care home, family foster home, pre-adoptive home, or any
other state-sanctioned placement so long as the child is in state custody. HHS’s Child
Welfare Policy Manual requires states that place children in foster care settings in
other states to fund independent living services for foster youth ages 16 to 18
regardless of their placement in another state.36
33 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #14.
34 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.4, Question 5.
35 National Foster Care Awareness Project, Frequently Asked Questions II: About the Foster
Care Independence Act of 1999 and the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program, December 2000, p16. At [http://www.casey.org/NR/rdonlyres/E8E5EC9B-
2C0B-496B-A165-5A55D2F793A5/459/ChafeeFAQI1.pdf]. (Hereafter referenced as
National Foster Care Awareness Project, Frequently Asked Questions II.) Some of the
members of the National Foster Care Awareness Project, which no longer exists, are now
members of the National Foster Care Coalition. The National Foster Care Coalition
produced the Frequently Asked Questions III publication about the program.
36 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1F, Question 2.

---

CRS-18
Permanency Planning. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
(ASFA, P.L. 105-89) amended the Social Security Act at Section 475(5), which
required that all young people in foster care have a permanency plan. ASFA
established that, in addition to reunification, adoption, placement with a relative, and
legal guardianship, “another planned permanent living arrangement” (APPLA) is
specified as a permanency option, and may include independent living. While the
CFCIP is intended to expand independent living services for older youth in foster
care, Section 477 of the act encourages states to continue their efforts to achieve
permanency for a young person, including by specifying that states should continue
to locate and achieve placement in adoptive families for older youth in care. In his
introductory remarks about the Senate version of P.L. 106-169 (S. 1327), Senator Jay
Rockefeller described the intent of the legislation:
“[A] youth’s need for a family does not end at any particular age. Each of us can
clearly recall times when we have had to turn to our own families for advice,
comfort, or support long after our 18th or 21st birthdays. Many of us are still in
the role of providing such support to our own children who are in their late teens
or 20s. Therefore, an important provision in this Senate version of the Foster
Care Independence Act states that Independent Living (IL) programs are not
alternatives to permanency planning-young people of all ages need and deserve
every possible effort made towards permanence, including adoption. It would be
counterproductive to create any disincentive for adoption of teenagers.”37
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care. Prior to the enactment of the CFCIP,
states had the option to serve young people who had emancipated from care until age
21. The Chafee Foster Care Independence Act requires states that receive CFCIP
funds to provide independent living services to youth who have aged out of care
between the ages of 18 through 21. According to HHS’s Child Welfare Policy
Manual, this requirement does not preclude states from providing services to other
former foster care youth ages 18 to 21 who exited care prior to their eighteenth
birthday.38 Former foster youth continue to remain eligible for aftercare services until
age 21 if they move to another state. The state in which the former foster youth
resides — whether or not the youth was in foster care in that state — is responsible
for providing independent living services to the eligible young person.39
Several states have developed recommitment policies for youth who have been
discharged from care that specify a time limit in which they may be eligible for
services. Under such a policy, youth who turn age 18 while in runaway status may
re-enter care to receive services.40 The Chafee Foster Care Independence Act further
requires states to provide certain services to youth based on their age or whether they
were in foster care at a specific age. States may provide room and board with CFCIP
funds and Medicaid through the Chafee pathway only to those youth who are eligible
37 U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, July 1, 1999, p. S8124.
38 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1B, Question 2.
39 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1F, Question 3.
40 National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 9.

---

CRS-19
for CFCIP services. Youth are eligible for an education and training voucher (until
age 23) if they emancipate from care or were adopted from care at age 16 or older.
However, to be eligible for a voucher at age 22 or 23, they must have received one
at age 21.
American Indian Youth. The prior federal Independent Living Program did
not specify that states consult with American Indian tribes or serve Indian youth in
particular. P.L. 106-169 required that under the CFCIP, states must certify that each
federally recognized Indian tribal organization in the state has been consulted about
the state’s independent living programs and that there have been efforts to coordinate
the programs with these tribes.41 The importance of tribal involvement was
explained by Representative J.D. Hayworth during debate of the House version of
P.L. 106-169 (H.R. 1802) in June 1999, when he said that tribes are in the best
position to identify the needs of tribal youth and local resources available for these
young people.42
Although tribal entities may not receive direct reimbursement from the federal
government for foster care and related costs on behalf of Title IV-E eligible children,
and must enter into intergovernmental agreements with states to receive this funding,
tribes are not required to have entered into a Title IV-E agreement43 with the state to
participate in discussions with the state about its independent living programs and to
access CFCIP funds and services.44
In addition to requiring states to consult and coordinate with Indian tribes, P.L.
106-169 also provides that the “benefits and services under the programs are to be
made available to Indian children in the state on the same basis as to other children
in the state.” “On the same basis” has been interpreted by HHS to mean that the
state will provide program services equitably to children in both state custody and
tribal custody.45
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development
survey of tribal consultation and independent living services. In 2007,
the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development reviewed select
parts of five-year state child welfare plans, known as Child and Family Service Plans
(CFSP), to determine the extent to which (1) states have consulted tribes and
involved tribal officials in the development of independent living programs and (2)
41 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1I, Question 4.
42 U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, June 25, 1999, p. H4969.
43 Though most tribes provide child welfare services, 78 tribes and eight Alaska Regional
Corporations have some form of a Title IV-E foster care agreement. This information is
based on correspondence with the Association of American Indian Affairs, April 2008.
44 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1I, Question 4.
45 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1I, Question 5.

---

CRS-20
tribal youth have accessed independent living services.46 Based on a review of these
five-year child welfare plans for 28 states, the NCWRCYD determined that the plans
provided limited information about tribal consultation. In one-third of the plans,
states did not provide a response about consulting tribes. (States may have provided
this information in other parts of the plans that were not reviewed and/or may have
in fact consulted widely with tribes.) However, some of the state plans detailed their
consultation process with tribal entities. The NCWRCYD also reviewed annual child
welfare progress reports (known as Annual Progress and Service Reports, which
update the five-year plans) and found that 39 states reported consulting with tribes,
but that only four states elaborated with additional information.
The Role of Youth Participants
Section 477 of the Social Security Act requires that states ensure youth in
independent living programs participate directly in designing their own program
activities that prepare them for independent living and further that they “accept
personal responsibility for living up to their part of the program.” This language
builds on the positive youth development approach to serving youth.47 Youth
advocates that support this approach view youth as assets and promote the idea that
youth should be engaged in decisions about their lives and communities.
States have also taken various approaches to involving young people in
decisions about the services they receive. These include annual conferences, with
young people involved in conference planning and participation; youth speakers’
bureaus, with young people trained and skilled in public speaking; youth or alumni
assisting in the recruitment of foster and adoptive parents; and young people serving
as mentors for children and youth in foster care, among other activities.48 Some
states have also established formal youth advisory boards to provide a forum for
youth to become involved in issues facing youth in care and aging out of care.49
Youth-serving organizations for current and former foster youth, such as Foster Club,
provide an outlet for young people to become involved in the larger foster care
community and advocate for other children in care. States are not required to utilize
life skills assessments or personal responsibility contracts with youth to comply with
46 University of Oklahoma, National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth
Development, Tribal Youth Transitioning to Adulthood: Current Status of Independent
Living Services Provided to Indian Youth, November 2007. The NCWRCYD reviewed at
least one of the following documents for each state: Child and Family Service Plans (CFSP)
for FY2005-FY2009 and Annual Progress and Service Reports (ASPR) for FY2005 and
FY2006.
47 For additional information about the positive youth development movement in youth
policy, see CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by Adrienne
L. Fernandes.
48 National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions II, pp. 30-31.
49 For a list of jurisdictions with youth advisory boards, see [http://www.fyi3.com/fyi3/
Involved/yabs/index.cfm].

---

CRS-21
the youth participation requirement, although some states use these tools to assist
youth make the transition to adulthood.50
Administration of the Program
States administer their independent living programs in a few ways. Some
programs are overseen by the state independent living office, which employs an
independent living coordinator and other staff. For example, in Maine, the state’s
independent living manager oversees six specialized life skills education coordinators
assigned to cover all of the state’s district offices for the Department of Health and
Human Services. In some states, like California, each county (or other jurisdiction)
administers its own program with some oversight and support from a statewide
program. Other states, including Florida, use contracted service providers to
administer their programs. Many jurisdictions have partnered with private
organizations to help fund and sometimes administer some aspect of their
independent living programs. For example, the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities
Initiative has provided funding and technical assistance to ten cities to provide
financial support and training to youth exiting care.51
Education and Training Vouchers
As mentioned above, in 2002, Congress passed legislation (P.L. 107-133) to
authorize discretionary funding to eligible current and former foster care youth for
education and training vouchers worth up to $5,000 annually per youth (states may
determine the annual period to which to apply the $5,000 ceiling52). Youth qualify
for a voucher if they are eligible for CFCIP services or were adopted from foster care
after 16 years of age. Youth eligible for CFCIP services includes those who are ages
18 to 21 who have left foster care because they have aged out; youth likely to remain
in foster care until age 18, as determined by the state; and former foster care
recipients age 21 and younger, as determined by the state.
The vouchers are available for the cost of full-time or part-time attendance at
an institution of higher education, as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.53
50 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.1A, Question 1.
51 For further information about the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, see
[http://www.jimcaseyyouth.org/communities.htm].
52 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.5C, Question 7.
53 Section 472 of the Higher Education Act, as amended defines “cost of attendance” as
tuition, fees, and other equipment or materials required of all students in the same course
of study; books, supplies, and allowance for transportation and miscellaneous personal
expenses, including computers; room and board; child care expenses for a student who is
a parent; accommodations related to the student’s disability that is not paid for by another
source; expenses related to the youth’s work experience in a cooperative education program;
and student loan fees or insurance premiums on the loans. Section 102 of the Higher
(continued...)

---

CRS-22
(ETV funds may be used to pay for health insurance, which may cover mental health
services; but they may not be used to pay directly for a doctor’s visit or dental
insurance.54) A current fiscal year’s ETV funds may not be used to finance a youth’s
educational or vocational loans incurred prior to that current fiscal year.55 Students
may receive the vouchers if they are in good standing and making progress toward
completing their program or graduating, though states may have additional
requirements such as periodically meeting with a caseworker or limiting the funding
to a certain number of semesters.56 Only youth receiving a voucher at age 21 may
continue to participate in the voucher program until age 23.
Funding received through the ETV program does not count toward the student’s
expected family contribution, which is used by the federal government to determine
a student’s need for federal financial aid (even for those students who are classified
as independent, meaning that their parental financial information is not included in
the financial aid analysis). However, the total amount of education assistance
provided under the CFCIP and other federal programs may not exceed the total cost
of attendance, and students cannot claim the same education expenses under multiple
federal programs.
Administration of the Program. States and counties may use ETV dollars
to fund the vouchers and the costs associated with administering the program,
including for salaries, expenses, and training of staff who administer the state’s
voucher program. States are not permitted to use Title IV-E Foster Care or Adoption
Assistance program funds for administering the ETV program.57 They may, however,
spend additional funds from state sources or other sources to supplement the ETV
program or use ETV funds to expand existing post-secondary funding programs.58
Several states have scholarship programs, tuition waivers, and grants for current and
former foster youth that are funded through other sources.59
53 (...continued)
Education Act of 1965, as amended identifies “institutions of higher education” for purposes
of student assistance (under Title IV of the Higher Education Act) to include traditional
higher education institutions (i.e., public or private, nonprofit two- and four-year colleges
and universities) as well as other postsecondary institutions (i.e., proprietary or for-profit
schools offering technical training programs usually of less than two-years’ duration, and
vocational schools).
54 National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 12.
55 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.5C, Question 5.
56 National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 7.
57 Ibid, Section 3.5C, Question 5.
58 Ibid, Section 3.5C, Question 6.
59 For example, see National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, State
Policies to Help Youth Transition Out of Foster Care, Issue Brief, December 2007.
(Hereafter referenced as National Governors Association, State Policies to Help Youth
Transition Out of Foster Care.)

---

CRS-23
Generally, states administer their ETV program through their independent living
program. Some states, however, administer the program through their financial aid
office (e.g., California Student Aid Commission) or at the local level (e.g., Florida,
where all child welfare programs are administered through community-based
agencies). Some states contract with a non-profit service provider, such as the
Orphan Foundation of America or the Student Assistance Foundation. For example,
the Orphan Foundation of America (OFA), a non-profit child welfare organization,
contracts with nine states (Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Maryland,
Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and New York) to administer their ETV programs.
OFA’s administrative fee is capped at 12% of funds disbursed on behalf of a state.
OFA is involved in all aspects of program administration, including identifying
eligible youth for the program; maintaining a database with financial records, youth
demographics, and youth outcomes for the nine states; training child welfare staff
about the ETV program; and providing over-the-phone financial aid counseling to
ETV recipients in the nine states. Students identified at risk of dropping out because
of their grades receive academic counseling by OFA staff.
Youth Enrolled in the Program. Youth may enroll in the program if they
are in care or have aged out of care. The state with the placement and responsibility
for a youth in foster care is to provide the voucher to that youth. The state must also
provide a voucher to any youth who is currently receiving a voucher and moves to
another state for the sole purpose of attending an institution of higher education.60
If a youth permanently moves to another state after leaving care and subsequently
enrolls in a qualified institution of higher education, he or she can apply for a
voucher in his or her current state of residence.61
HHS’s Administration for Children and Families reported that states provided
vouchers to 11,365 youth in FY2006 and to 12,692 youth in FY2007 under the
Education and Training Voucher program.62 In the nine states for which the Orphan
Foundation of America administers ETV funds, it collects information on the type
of schools ETV recipients attend, their demographics, and their outcomes. In
FY2007, over 4,260 youth were eligible for the vouchers in those nine states, and just
over half of these youth — 2,400 (56.7%) — received a voucher. More than half
(55.4%) of the youth attend universities; 35.8% attend community colleges; and 8.7%
attend technical and speciality schools. (Many students pursue technical training
through community college programs). Based on demographic data collected of the
ETV recipients in the nine states, 58% were African American, 28% were white, 7%
were Latino, 5% were of two or more races, 1% were Native American, 1% were
Asian American, and less than 1% (11 recipients) were Pacific Islander. The
majority of youth recipients were female (68%) and just over half (54.5%) of the
youth were ages 19 or 20. Nearly 18% of the youth were parents; the average age at
which the youth became a parent was 17 years and nine months.
60 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section
3.5, Question 1.
61 National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 7.
62 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, FY2009 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, p. D-87.

---

CRS-24
Funding for States
States must provide a 20% match (in-kind or cash) to receive their full federal
CFCIP and ETV allotment. CFCIP funds are often mixed with state, local, and other
funding sources to provide a system of support for youth likely to age out of care and
those who have emancipated. To be eligible for CFCIP general and ETV funds, a
state must submit a five-year plan (as part of its Child and Family Service Plan
(CFSP) and Annual Progress and Service Report (APSR)) to HHS that describes how
it intends to carry out its independent living program. The box below lists the
certifications that the state must make when submitting its plan. Under Section 477
of the Social Security Act, HHS must approve a state’s plan for independent living
services if it contains all of the required materials. The plan must be submitted on
or before June 30 of the calendar year in which the plan is to begin. States may make
amendments to the plan and notify HHS within 30 days of modifying the plan. HHS
is to make the plans available to the public. Mandatory and discretionary funds
provided under the CFCIP may only supplement, rather than supplant, any funds
from other federal sources (e.g., Social Services Block Grant or Runaway and
Homeless Youth program) or non-federal sources that may be available for
independent living programs in the state.
Use of Funds. States may apply to receive mandatory funds for the six
purposes specified in the CFCIP:
(1) to identify children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age
and to help these children make the transition to self-sufficiency by providing
independent living and related services;
(2) to help children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age
receive the education, training, and services necessary to obtain employment;
(3) to help children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age
prepare for and enter postsecondary training and education institutions;
(4) to provide personal and emotional support to children aging out of foster care,
through mentoring and positive interactions with caring adults;
(5) to provide financial, housing, counseling, employment, education, and other
appropriate support and services to former foster care recipients between ages
18 and 21 years to complement their own efforts to achieve self-sufficiency and
to assure that program participants recognize and accept personal responsibility
for making the transition from adolescence to adulthood; and
(6) to make available education and training vouchers for youth who have aged out
of care.
As described in HHS’s Child Welfare Policy Manual, states may also use
CFCIP funding to establish trust funds for youth eligible under the program (Section
3.3E, Question 1). However, states may not use CFCIP funds to train foster parents,
workers in group homes, and case managers in issues confronting adolescents. States
may use funding under the Title IV-E Foster Care program or Adoption Assistance
program for this purpose.
CFCIP and ETV funds are distributed to each state based on its proportion of
the nation’s children in foster care. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008
(P.L. 110-161) provides $140 million in mandatory funding for the CFCIP and $45.4

---

CRS-25
million for the ETV program. Table D-1 in the Appendix provides the CFCIP and
voucher allotments for each state in FY2007 and FY2008.
CFCIP State Plan Requirements
To receive funds under the CFCIP, a state must describe in its CFCIP plan how it will
— design and deliver programs to achieve the program purposes;
— ensure statewide, although not necessarily uniform, coverage by the program;
— ensure that the programs serve children of various ages and at various stages of achieving
independence;
— involve the public and private sectors in helping adolescents in foster care achieve
independence;
— use objective criteria for determining eligibility for and ensuring fair and equitable
treatment of benefit recipients;
— cooperate in national evaluations of the effects of the programs in achieving the purpose
of the CFCIP.
The state must also certify that it will
— provide assistance and services to eligible former foster youth;
— use room and board payments only for youth ages 18 to 21;
— expend not more than 30% of CFCIP funds on room and board for youth ages 18 to 21;
— use funding under the Title IV-E Foster Care program and Adoption Assistance program
(but not the CFCIP) to provide training to help foster parents and others understand and
address the issues confronting adolescents preparing for independent living and
coordinate this training, where possible, with independent living programs;
— consult widely with public and private organizations in developing the plans and give the
public at least 30 days to comment on the plan;
— make every effort to coordinate independent living programs with other youth programs
at the local, state, and federal levels, including independent living projects funded under
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, abstinence education programs,
local housing programs, programs for disabled youth, and school-to-work programs
offered by high schools or local workforce agencies;
— consult each Indian tribe about the programs to be carried out under the plan, that there
have been efforts to coordinate the programs with such tribes, and that benefits and
services under the programs will be made available to Indian children in the state on the
same basis as other children in the state;
— ensure that eligible youth participate directly in designing their own program activities
that prepare them for independent living and that they accept personal responsibility for
living up to their part of the program;
— establish and enforce standards and procedures to prevent fraud and abuse in the programs
carried out under its plan;
— ensure that the ETV program complies with the federal program requirements, including
that (1) the total amount of education assistance to a youth provided through the ETV
program and under other federal and federally supported programs does not exceed the
total cost of attendance and (2) does not duplicate benefits under the CFCIP or other
federal or federally-assisted benefit program.
Source: Section 473 of the Social Security Act.

---

CRS-26
Hold Harmless Provision. Section 477 of the Social Security Act’s includes
a “hold harmless” clause that precludes any state from receiving less than the amount
of general independent living funds it received under the former independent living
program in FY1998 or $500,000, whichever is greater. (There is no hold harmless
provision for ETV funds.) The general funding for independent living services
doubled nationally with the implementation of the CFCIP, however, the percentage
change in funds received varies across states. This is because the distribution of
funding was changed to reflect the most current state share of the national caseload
(instead of their share of the 1984 caseload in all previous years). Some states
receive nearly the same level of funding while others receive much more under the
CFCIP (see Table D-2 in the Appendix).63 In FY2007 (the latest year for which final
data are available), three states (the District of Columbia, Louisiana, and New York)
received the same funding amount they received in FY1998. Eight states (Alaska,
Delaware, Idaho, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and
Wyoming) each received $500,000 because their FY1998 allotments were this
amount or less.
Unused Funds. States have two years to spend their CFCIP and voucher
funds. For instance, funds allotted for FY2008 may be spent in FY2008 or FY2009.
If a state does not apply for all of its allotment, the remaining funds may be
redistributed among states that needs these funds as determined by HHS. If a state
applies for all of its CFCIP allotted funds but does not spend them within the two-
year time frame, the unused funds revert to the federal treasury.
Table D-3 in Appendix D shows the FY2005 (the latest year for which data
for returned funds are available) final allocations, dollars expended, and dollars
returned to the federal treasury for general CFCIP allotments. That fiscal year, the 50
states, Puerto Rico, and Washington D.C. were allocated a combined total of $137.9
million in general CFCIP funds, about one percent of which was returned to the
treasury. No states returned all of their funds.
Thirteen states (Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Texas, Virginia,
and Wyoming) each returned between 0.1% and 26.4% of their allocations.
States initially received funds for education and training vouchers in FY2003.
Table D-4, also in Appendix D, shows that in FY2005 (the latest year for which
data are available), the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington D.C. received $45.9
million in funds for the vouchers, of which 26 states and Puerto Rico collectively
returned 11.6% of those funds. Final data are not available for Alaska and Puerto
Rico, and therefore the total share of returned funds is not final. States did not report
to HHS the reasons for not spending ETV funds. Based on Congressional Research
Service (CRS) discussions with HHS staff, OFA staff, and a small number of states,
the reasons may include (1) the lack of infrastructure to absorb and distribute funds,
including training child welfare workers and knowledge about educational financial
63 This information is based on CRS analysis of FY1998 and FY2007 funding data for each
state. This analysis includes only the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

---

CRS-27
aid; (2) mechanisms for distributing funds to youth and tracking youth outcomes; (3)
federal fiscal year deadlines; and (4) youth’s knowledge about the ETV program.64
National Youth in Transition Database
Section 477 requires that HHS consult with state and local public officials
responsible for administering independent living and other child welfare programs,
child welfare advocates, Members of Congress, youth service providers and
researchers to (1) “develop outcome measures (including measures of educational
attainment, high school diploma, avoidance of dependency, homelessness,
non-marital childbirth, incarceration, and high-risk behaviors) that can be used to
assess the performance of states in operating independent living programs;” (2)
identify the data needed to track the number and characteristics of children receiving
services, the type and quantity of services provided, and state performance on the
measures; and (3) develop and implement a plan to collect this information beginning
with the second fiscal year after the passage of P.L. 106-169. The law further
required that by December 2000, HHS was to submit to the House Ways and Means
Committee and Senate Finance Committee a report detailing a plan and timetable for
collecting the data from the states and a proposal to impose penalties of not less than
1% or more than 5% of the states’ CFCIP funding for states that do not comply with
the data collection requirements, based on the degree of noncompliance.
In its September 2001 Report to the Congress, “Developing a System of
Program Accountability Under the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program,” HHS outlined a plan and timetable for developing a data collection
system. The report stated that HHS administrators and an HHS working group
consulted with stakeholders and reviewed child welfare literature to identify the data
elements to be collected and reported in the database, as well as the outcomes
relevant to assessing the CFCIP. The report discussed a penalty structure for states
not in compliance with the reporting requirements. HHS also established a pilot test
in 2001 involving seven states and an Indian tribe. In each of the jurisdictions,
caseworkers collected data about older youth, identified unclear data elements, and
described any difficulties encountered while collecting the information. According
to HHS, the pilot test enabled the agency to assess the burden for workers collecting
the data and to learn if the capacity to report data varied significantly across states
and agencies.
Acting on the advice of the Department’s General Counsel, HHS decided to
produce formal regulations for this mandatory data collection process instead of
following their initial plan of producing Program Instructions. The September 2001
report stated that HHS would publish the final outcomes and measures in the Federal
Register and seek public comment by May 2002. The agency anticipated
administering the database nationally in October 2003. However, a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the data collection system was not published until
July 14, 2006.
64 This information was provided to CRS in June 2007.

---

CRS-28
The NPRM provided for a 60-day comment period during which HHS heard
from states and child welfare advocates. After this period, the final regulations
underwent a full agency and department review as well as Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) clearance before final publication on February 26, 2008.65 The final
rule establishing the NYTD became effective April 28, 2008, sixty days after
publication and requires states to report data on youth beginning in FY2011.
HHS will use the NYTD to engage in two data collection and reporting
activities.66 First, states will collect information twice each fiscal year on eligible
youth who currently receive independent living services whether they continue to
remain in foster care, were in foster care in another state, or received child welfare
services through an Indian tribe or privately operated foster care program. These
youth are known as served youth. Second, states will also collect information on
foster youth on or about their 17th birthday, two years later on or about their 19th
birthday, and again on or about their 21st birthday. Foster youth age 17 are known
as the baseline youth and at ages 19 and 21 are known as the follow-up youth. These
current and former foster youth will be tracked regardless of whether they receive
independent living services at ages 17, 19, and 21. States have the option of tracking
a sample of youth who participated in the outcomes collection at age 17 to reduce the
data collection burden. Information will be collected on a new group of foster youth
age 17 every three years.
Consistent with the statutory requirement developed by Congress in P.L.
106-169, HHS proposes to penalize any state not meeting the data collection
procedures for the NYTD from 1% to 5% of its annual Chafee fund allotment, which
includes any allotted or re-allotted funds for the general CFCIP program only. The
penalty amount will be withheld from a current fiscal year award of the funds. ACF
will evaluate a state’s data file against data compliance standards, provided by
statute. However, states will have the opportunity to submit corrected data.
Evaluation of Innovative CFCIPs
Section 477 provides that HHS is to conduct evaluations of independent living
programs funded by the CFCIP deemed to be innovative or of national significance.
The law reserves 1.5% ($2.1 million) of total CFCIP funding annually for these
evaluations, as well as CFCIP-related technical assistance, performance
measurement, and data collection. For FY2007, HHS spent $1.4 million on research
and evaluation and the remaining was set aside for technical assistance and other
program support.
HHS has contracted with the Urban Institute and its partners to conduct the five-
year Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs. The goal of the evaluation is
to determine the effects of independent living programs funded by P.L. 106-169 in
65 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Chafee National Youth in Transition
Database,” 73 Federal Register 10338, February 26, 2008.
66 For additional information, you may request a copy of a Congressional Distribution
Memorandum, Chafee Foster Care Independence Act National Youth in Transition
Database, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.

---

CRS-29
achieving key outcomes, including increased educational attainment, higher
employment rates and stability, greater interpersonal and relationship skills, reduced
non-marital pregnancy and births, and reduced delinquency and crime rates.
Researchers initially conducted an assessment to identify programs that could
be evaluated rigorously (i.e., random assignment to treatment and control groups),
as required under Section 477 of the Social Security Act. The research team
determined that it could use random assignment at four innovative programs in
California and Massachusetts — an employment services program in Kern County,
California; a one-on-one intensive, individualized life skills program in
Massachusetts; and, a tutoring/mentoring program and a classroom-based life skills
training program, both in Los Angeles County, California.67
According to HHS, the researchers have completed collecting data from the Los
Angeles sites and continue to collect data for the other two sites.68 The data
collection process will be complete in Kern County in 2008 and in Massachusetts in
2009. Findings from the two Los Angeles sites are expected to be released in 2008;
findings from the Kern County site are expected to be released in 2009; and findings
from the Massachusetts site are expected to released in 2010. A final study will be
released in 2010.
The 1,400 youth participating in the evaluation were assigned to intervention
and control groups, and have been surveyed at three points: baseline, one year after
baseline, and two years after baseline. The researchers have conducted in-person
interviews with the youth to obtain information on youth characteristics, program
interventions and services, and intermediate and longer-term outcomes. Researchers
have also conducted interviews with program administrators, community advocates,
and directors of community provider agencies. Further, the research team has held
focus groups with youth, independent living program staff, and other agency staff
responsible for referring youth to the programs. The team is using extracts of state
administrative data to determine child and family demographics, child welfare
placement history, physical and mental health status, and delinquency history. Data
specific to each site (such as information from tutor contact logs at the Los Angeles
tutoring/mentoring program and length of outreach services and service referrals at
the life skills program in Massachusetts) is also being collected by the team.
67 Additional information regarding the Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs is
available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/project/tprojectIndex.jsp?topicId=2].
68 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of
Planning, Research & Evaluation on February 11, 2008.

---

CRS-30
PART Review
In calendar year 2004, the CFCIP was reviewed through the U.S. Office of
Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process.69 The
evaluation concluded that program results were “not demonstrated” because the
CFCIP lacked long-term performance measures and time frames for these measures,
as well as adequate progress in achieving its annual performance goals; and because
some states did not use all of their CFCIP or ETV funding. OMB made the
determination about the performance measurement because the National Youth in
Transition Database, which will provide long-term performance and annual
performance measurement beginning in FY2011, had not yet been implemented. The
PART review also found that no independent evaluations of the program have been
routinely conducted. While the Multi-Site Evaluation will provide information about
outcomes for youth who receive independent living services, according to the PART
review, it is not sufficiently national in scope.
The PART has established two goals for the program:
! Promote the efficient use of CFCIP funds by 1) increasing the
percentage of states that completely expend their allocations within
the two-year expenditure period, and 2) decreasing the percentage of
funds that remain unexpended by states within that period. For
FY2007, the targets for these measurements are a 7% increase in the
number of states (over the previous year) that completely spent
CFCIP allocations; and a 20% decrease (from the previous year) in
the amount of funds remaining unexpended. The actual figures are
expected to be reported in January 2009.
! Increase the percentages of CFCIP youth who avoid high-risk
behaviors which might otherwise lead to criminal investigations and
incarceration. The baseline measurement will be taken in FY2011,
the first year the NYTD is implemented.
Assessments of the CFCIP
There does not appear to be a clear picture of the types of services provided
through CFCIP-funded programs, although the National Youth in Transition
Database and the evaluation of innovative independent living programs will provide
a national overview about the number of youth served, the types of services provided,
and best practices in assisting current and former foster youth make the transition to
adulthood. Three sources — an evaluation of independent living services described
in states’ Child and Family Services Review documents, a GAO report on the CFCIP,
69 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Detailed Information on the Independent Living
Program Assessment, 2004. At [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/100
02146.2004.html].

---

CRS-31
and a report on ETV programs in six states — provide some insight into how states
carry out their independent living programs.70
Child and Family Services Review. The U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services determines state compliance with federal child welfare policies, and
helps to ensure that positive outcomes are achieved for children and families
involved in the child welfare system, by conducting reviews of state and child
welfare programs.
The most comprehensive component of HHS’s review system is the Child and
Family Services Reviews (CFSR).71 Conducted by the Children’s Bureau, the reviews
assess state conformity with certain requirements of Title IV-B and Title IV-E.72 The
first round of reviews was conducted between 2001 and 2004 in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and a final report was prepared discussing the
findings in each jurisdiction.73 This initial round found that no state’s child welfare
programs met the criteria that HHS established as demonstrating “substantial
conformity” with all of federal child welfare policy requirements. As a result, all
states have or are implementing Program Improvement Plans (PIPs). To avoid
financial penalties associated with noncompliance, states must meet the improvement
goals established in their PIP. The second round of reviews for some jurisdictions
are underway.
To achieve substantial conformity with federal child welfare policy, states must
achieve seven outcomes related to the safety, permanency, and well-being of children
and they must demonstrate they have in place child welfare systems to achieve these
70 Other resources illustrate how select jurisdictions and programs provide independent
living services for older current and former foster youth. See, for example, U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some of the
Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to Education and Employment,
GAO-08-313, February 2008; National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices,
State Policies to Help Youth Transition Out of Foster Care, Issue Brief, January 2007;
Wilhelmina A. Leigh et al., Aging Out of the Foster Care System to Adulthood: Findings,
Challenges, and Recommendations, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and
Black Administrators in Child Welfare Inc., December 2007; and Rachel H. Sherman,
“Serving Youth Aging Out of Foster Care,” Welfare Information Network Issue Note, vol.
8, no. 5 (October 2004), pp. 5-7. See also the University of Chicago Law School,
“Transition From Foster Care to Adulthood Wiki” at [http://fostercaretoadulthood.wiki
spaces.com/] and the University of Oklahoma, National Child Welfare Resource Center for
Youth Development, “State by State Facts Page,” at [http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/state_
pages.html].
71 For additional information, see CRS Report RL32968, Child Welfare: State Performance
on Child and Family Services Reviews, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
72 In 2000, HHS published a final rule to establish a formal review process consistent with
legislative mandates to improve federal oversight of state child welfare programs. The final
rule established the CFSR and Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews. The Foster Care
Eligibility Reviews are conducted to validate a state’s claim for federal reimbursement of
payments made on behalf of eligible children, and are not discussed in this report.
73 The reports are available at [http://basis.caliber.com/cwig/ws/cwmd/docs/cb_web/
SearchForm].

---

CRS-32
goals. A review team composed of federal and state evaluators uses 45 items — or
performance indicators — to guide the team through an evaluation of the state’s
performance. Though none of the performance indicators specifically target older
children in care, the review team assess how well states meet the needs of all children
in foster care, including adolescents, through multiple indicators.74
The CFSR second round review began in 2007 and requires federal and state
evaluators to interview, at the state-level, youth being served by the state child
welfare agency, especially those youth who are eligible to receive independent living
services; HHS also recommends that evaluators interview the state youth service
agency.75 Further, at the local level, the evaluators are to interview youth being
served by the local child welfare agency, particularly those eligible for independent
living services.
Analysis of first round CFSR findings. An analysis of the CFSR findings
for 45 jurisdictions found strengths in a few states related to increased involvement
of youth in case planning and other relevant activities, as well as an increased focus
on permanency issues for adolescents in care, including promoting family
connections for older foster youth.76 However, the analysis also found a number of
barriers to effective youth services to be fairly common.
The most common identified barrier was inadequate or non-existent services,
including service gaps related to life skills training, job skills training, substance
abuse treatment, mental health treatment, general independent living services,
inpatient mental health treatment services, services for pregnant or parenting teens,
and independent living assessments. (Of the 45 final reports reviewed in this analysis
34 states reported the service gap barrier.) The second most common barrier
(identified in 26 of the 45 reports analyzed) was a lack of placement resources for
adolescents, including transitional living placements, homes for youth over 18, and
homes for pregnant and parenting teens. Twenty-five of the 45 state final reports
analyzed identified gaps in youth-specific training for staff and foster parents ranging
from having no specialized adolescent training for any staff or foster parents to
needing specialized training in assessing youths’ needs. This training need was
identified despite the fact that the majority of states received a positive rating relating
to provision of training. Of the 45 states included in the analysis, 87% identified the
74 One item used in reviews conducted in 2001 assessed state provision of independent
living services for children age 16 or older (Item 8). However, for reviews in 2002 to 2004,
review teams looked instead at appropriate and timely achievement of reunification,
guardianship, or kinship placement.
75 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Children’s Bureau, Child and Family Services Reviews Procedures Manual,
Working Draft, November 2006.
76 Edi Winkle, Dorothy Ansell, and Ann Newman, An Analysis of State’s Child and Family
Services Reviews and Program Improvement Plans From a Youth Development Perspective,
National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, March 25,
2004, at [http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/resources/publications/pdfs/summaryv2.2.pdf]. This
analysis was based on 45 of the final reports that were available as of March 15, 2004.

---

CRS-33
need for additional training in adolescent issues despite the fact that they received an
overall strength rating for their training program.
Inconsistency in services was found to be a barrier in a separate group of 25
states. This meant, for instance, that services related to life skills might be very strong
in one part of the state but lacking in other areas of the state. In addition, in some
places the service inconsistencies were found among contractors or providers within
a specific region or area of the state. Finally, in 24 states the quality and consistency
of independent living planning was identified as an issue. Specific problems included
a lack of youth involvement in case planning, no independent living case plan
completed, case plans not regularly updated, no transition planning, no youth
assessment, poor placement matches, lack of individualized planning for youth in
long-term care, and poor permanency goal selection.
A review of the initial 31 Program Improvement Plans approved for state
implementation found that independent living and adolescent issues might not have
been addressed. Researchers concluded that this might be the case because the
language in the PIP was more general (services for all children not just adolescents)
or because the specific concern was identified within an area for which the state
might nonetheless have received a positive rating (e.g. quality of training program).77
GAO Report. A comprehensive report on the development and implementation
of the CFCIP was produced by the GAO in November 2004.78 The report was based
on survey data collected from independent living coordinators in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as well as review of the jurisdictions’ CFCIP
plans for FY2001 through FY2004. After the 1999 passage of P.L. 106-169, forty
states reported expanded independent living services to youth younger than they had
previously served and 36 states reported serving older youth. In addition, 45 states
reported offering assistance with room and board to emancipated foster youth.
According to officials in the states GAO visited for the study, funds were also used
to improve the quality of existing independent living services, refocus the attention
of their programs, or develop new services to assist youth of all ages in the programs.
The GAO report also raised concerns about the implementation of the CFCIP.
The report indicates that states varied in the percentage of eligible youth served. In
2003, forty states reported serving between 10% and 100% of eligible youth, with
one-third of the states serving less than half of eligible youth. GAO also found gaps
in the availability of mental health services, mentoring services, and securing safe
and suitable housing, particularly in rural areas. Further, although 49 states reported
increased coordination with a number of federal, state, and local programs that can
provide or supplement independent living services, child welfare administrators and
youth interviewed by GAO said that they were unaware of the services. Finally, the
lack of uniformity among the states’ CFCIP five-year plans precluded using them at
the state and federal level to monitor how well the programs serve eligible youth.
77 Ibid.
78 U.S. Government Accountability Office. HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of
Services and Monitoring of States’ Independent Living Programs, GAO-05-25, November
2004, pp. 18-19.

---

CRS-34
Implementation of the ETV Program. In 2007, the National Foster Care
Coalition, in partnership with Casey Family Programs, a foundation supporting child
welfare research and advocacy, reported on six states’ (California, Maine, Montana,
New York, North Carolina, and Wyoming) experiences with implementing the ETV
program.79 These states serve as few as 31 youth to as many as nearly 2,000 youth
in a given school year, with average awards ranging from $2,950 to $4,318 for each
youth. Three of the states (Montana, New York, and North Carolina) contract with
a non-profit service provider to administer the ETV program, while the other three
states administer the program through the independent living coordinator or state
financial aid office.
The report describes the best practices employed by the states in implementing
their ETV programs, as well as the challenges they have encountered.80 One
promising approach was the application process for some states, which involves a
web application process that allows students and schools to view application and
approval status and deadlines. Other states reported providing extensive promotion
and outreach about the program through information sessions, annual teen
conferences for foster youth, and mailings; and providing additional educational
supports to youth through financial aid counseling, mentoring, tuition waivers, and
scholarships. Contracting through a third-party was also identified as an important
practice that has lent to more efficient administration of the voucher program. The
report also identified youth feedback about the program as another important feature
of the programs.
In addition, the report also identified barriers to successfully administering the
ETV program. Some of the challenges include (1) meeting the demand for the
program; (2) recruiting youth to the program and ensuring that these youth have
sufficient support to remain in school; (3) managing awards for youth whom schools
are unable to locate once awards are issued or awarding funds to youth who have
dropped out; (4) tracking how voucher funds are spent; (5) conveying to university
financial aid staff the rules associated with the ETV program; (6) maintaining the
confidentiality of youth’s foster care experiences; (7) connecting non-college-bound
youth to vocational programs; and (8) meeting the needs of parenting youth, among
others. The states indicated that they are working to address these challenges.
79 National Foster Care Coalition, The Chafee Education and Training Voucher Program:
Six States’ Experiences, National Foster Care Coalition and Casey Family Programs, 2007.
At [http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/ETV.htm].
80 In a separate publication, from 2005, the National Foster Care Coalition identified
promising practices for ETV programs. These include (1) a clearly defined application
process and a funding process transparent to stakeholders, including informing students of
the amount of funding they receive; (2) open lines of communication between
applicants/participants and ETV administrators, including multiple methods for contacting
the ETV office; and (3) individual assessments for all applicants to ensure that ETV funds
are based on their unmet financial need as calculated by their educational institution; among
other approaches. See National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III:
About the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program and the Chafee Educational and
Training Program.

---

CRS-35
Other Federal Support for Older Current
and Former Foster Youth
In addition to the federal programs under Title IV-E, other federal laws
authorize some funding for service or assistance to older current and former foster
youth. This section describes a Medicaid pathway for certain former foster youth;
educational, workforce, and housing supports; and a grant to fund training for child
welfare practitioners working with older foster youth and youth emancipating from
care.
Chafee Medicaid Pathway
In the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act, Congress encouraged states to
provide Medicaid coverage to children who were aging out of the foster care system.
The law created a new optional Chafee Medicaid eligibility pathway for “independent
foster care adolescents;” this pathway is often called the “Chafee option.”81 The law
further defined these adolescents as individuals under the age of 21 and who were in
foster care under the responsibility of the state on their 18th birthday. Within this
broadest category of independent foster care adolescents, the law permits states to
restrict eligibility based on the youth’s income or resources, and whether or not the
youth had received Title IV-E funding.82
Based on a 2006 survey of state human service officials, 17 states (Arizona,
California, Florida, Kansas, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New
Jersey, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and
Wyoming) have extended Medicaid coverage to youth eligible under P.L. 106-169;
Missouri took up the Chafee Medicaid pathway in 2007.83 According to the survey,
four other states were considering adopting the option.
In all states, youth age 19 or younger with family incomes at or below 100% of
the federal poverty limit (or up to 250% in some states) are eligible for Medicaid or
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Youth ages 18 to 21 in foster
care who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP may be eligible for Medicaid
coverage through the “Ribicoff” pathway, named for the late former senator,
Abraham Ribicoff. Ribicoff youth must meet the income and resource requirements
for the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children program but do not meet
other categorical requirements for AFDC. Over half of all states have opted to
provide coverage to former foster care youth through this pathway, although length
81 Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVII) of the Social Security Act.
82 Section 1905(w)(1)) of the Social Security Act.
83 Sonali Patel and Martha A. Roherty, Medicaid Access for Youth Aging Out of Foster
Care, American Public Human Services Association, 2007. At [http://www.aphsa.org/
Home/Doc/Medicaid-Access-for-Youth-Aging-Out-of-Foster-Care-Rpt.pdf]. Puerto Rico
was not included in this analysis. (Hereafter referenced as Sonali Patel and Martha A.
Roherty, Medicaid Access for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care.) For additional inforrmation
about Missouri’s coverage option, see [http://www.senate.mo.gov/07info/BTS_Web/Bill.
aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=28834].

---

CRS-36
of eligibility for coverage varies.84 Finally, current and former foster youth may
qualify for Medicaid through other eligibility pathways available to certain groups
of adults, such as for pregnant women with family income equal to or less than 133%
of the federal poverty limit (FPL) and some low-income adults with children.85
Other Educational Support86
As of July 2009, the College Cost Reduction Act (P.L. 110-84) will allow
certain youth who have been in foster care to claim independent status when applying
for federal financial aid. The act amended the definition of “independent student”
in the Higher Education Act to include any child “who is an orphan, in foster care,
or a ward of the court at any time when the individual is 13 years of age or older”
and “is an emancipated minor or is in legal guardianship as determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction in the individual’s state of legal residence.” 87 The act does not
specify the length of time that the child must have been in foster care or the reason
for exiting care, to be eligible to claim independent status. The law first becomes
effective for the 2009 to 2010 school year.
Students who claim independent status are typically able to access greater
federal education assistance because they are exempt from including information
about income and assets from their parents. An “independent” student’s expected
“family” contribution is the amount that the federal need analysis system determines
should be contributed, based only on his or her available income (and assets, if
applicable), as well as basic living expenses, federal income tax liability, and other
expenses.
84 Abigail English, Amy J. Stinnett, and Elisha Dunn-Georgiou, Health Care for Adolescents
and Young Adults Leaving Foster Care: Policy Options for Improving Access, Center for
Adolescent Health and the Law, p. 5, February 2006, at [http://www.cahl.org/PDFs/FC
IssueBrief.pdf].
85 For information about Medicaid eligibility pathways, see CRS Report RL33019, Medicaid
Eligibility for Children and Adults, by Jean Hearne.
86 Though not discussed here, a small part of the allocation formula population factor for the
Title I-A program of Education for the Disadvantaged (authorized under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, as amended) accounts for the number of children ages five to 17
who are in institutions for delinquent children or foster homes when making grants to local
education agencies (LEAs). For additional information, see CRS Report RL33731,
Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No
Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.
87 The previous definition included an individual who is an orphan or ward of the state (or
was until age 18). 29 U.S.C. 1087vv(d). The College Cost Reduction and Access Act
Technical Amendments of 2007 (H.R. 4153), would make a correction to the definition of
independent student to include any child who “is an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the
court, or was an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court any time when the individual
was 13 years of age or older.”

---

CRS-37
Workforce Support
Workforce Investment Act Programs. The Workforce Investment Act
authorizes job training programs to unemployed and underemployed individuals
through the Department of Labor (DOL). Two of these programs — Youth Activities
and Job Corps — provide job training and related services to targeted low-income
vulnerable populations, including foster youth.88 The WIA Youth Activities program
focuses on preventative strategies to help in-school youth stay in school and receive
occupational skills, as well as on providing training and supportive services, such as
assistance with child care, for out-of-school youth. Job Corps is an educational and
vocational training program that helps students learn a trade, complete their GED,
and secure employment.
To be eligible, foster youth must meet age and income criteria as defined under
the act. Young people currently or formerly in foster care may participate in Youth
Activities if they are ages 14 to 21, and in Job Corps if they are ages 16 to 24 (20%
of participants must be ages 22 to 24).89
Foster Youth Workforce Demonstration Projects. The Workforce
Investment Act authorizes funding for pilot programs.90 Under this authority, the
Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration awarded grants to
five states in FY2005 — California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Texas — to
design and implement programs to improve the self sufficiency, education
attainment, and employment skills of youth aging out of foster care. The purpose of
the grant was to encourage states to develop best practices around serving foster
youth in the workforce investment system, and integrate these practices across
workforce investment boards across each state. The five states were required to
target the programs to youth in areas with the largest foster care populations. These
areas are Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, New York City, and Houston. DOL
awarded each state $800,000 total for FY2005 and FY2006; states were required to
provide 100% matching funds.
The programs have served over 1,000 youth, of whom 81% were ages 17 and
older and nearly 60% were female at entry. About 71% of the youth were black.91
The youth varied in their educational attainment at entry. Approximately 42% were
in high school, 9% were in a post-secondary institution, 23% had dropped out of
school, and 26% had graduated or obtained their GED but were not in a post-
secondary institution. Further, at entry, about half of the youth had stable housing
88 Authorization of appropriations under WIA expired in FY2003 but is annually extended
through appropriations acts. Youth in foster care are also eligible for WIA’s Youth
Opportunity program, however, Congress has not appropriated funding for the program
since FY2003.
89 29 U.S.C. 2801(13) and 29 U.S.C. 2884(1).
90 29 U.S.C. 2916.
91 Institute for Educational Leadership, Foster Care Youth Employment Demonstration
Project: Summary Report of Year Two Site Visit, May 2007, at [http://www.iel.org/pubs/
caseysitesreport_year2.pdf].

---

CRS-38
situations, just over one quarter were in independent living arrangements, and about
19% were in temporary housing or homeless. Some of the youth also faced
additional barriers. About one of out five of the participants was currently or
previously adjudicated or incarcerated and slightly less than 20% were parents.
The sites have differed in their recruitment and delivery strategies, but all have
provided youth with academic instruction and support, preparation for and exposure
to the work place, support in developing skills for self-sufficiency, and the supportive
services youth need to succeed academically and in the work place. Approximately
46% of the youth have been enrolled in the programs at least seven to nine quarters;
nearly 32% have been enrolled for four to six quarters; and about 22% have been
enrolled for one to three quarters.
With their own funding, Casey Family Programs and its partners are conducting
an evaluation of the program, and has reported preliminary results.92 The evaluation
found that in the second year of the grant (FY2006), grantees noted the challenges
with serving the older foster care population because of the youth’s mental health
needs, low literacy levels, and anger management issues. All of the sites reported
difficulty in forming partnerships that provide mentoring to youth. The sites also
reported improvements in their programs. Partnerships with workforce investment
boards and other public agencies were formed to provide youth with job training
experience. At the state level, new relationships between the workforce agencies and
the child welfare agencies have also been formed.
Further, nearly 45% of youth have obtained a GED or diploma, attended a post-
secondary institution, or secured employment during their time in the program.93
Youth who have been in the program longer were more likely to attain one of these
outcomes than youth who were in the program for a shorter period of time. The
evaluation has preliminarily concluded that no single agency can meet the needs of
youth in foster care or aging out of care; case workers — who serve as social
workers, counselors, mentors, and teachers — are highly valued by the youth;
well-defined programs tended to be more successful in leveraging other services for
youth; and the sites lacked consistency in they ways they defined and collected the
data. However, the evaluation has also found that the sites made efforts to overcome
the challenges with the data to better enable researchers to evaluate the youth’s
progress and outcomes.
The programs are continuing to serve eligible youth, with funding from Casey
Family Programs and a 100% match by the states and other lead partners.
92 For additional information, see [http://www.iel.org/programs/casey.html].
93 Institute for Educational Leadership, Foster Care Youth Demonstration Project: Draft
Final Evaluation Report, Executive Summary, forthcoming in June 2008. The report will
be available at [http://www.casey.org] and [http://www.iel.org].

---

CRS-39
Housing Support
Family Unification Vouchers Program. Current and former foster youth
may be eligible for housing services provided through programs administered by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Family Unification
Vouchers program (FUP vouchers). The FUP vouchers were initially created in 1990
under P.L. 101-625 for families that qualify for Section 8 tenant-based assistance and
for whom the lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in the separation, or threat
of imminent separation, of children from their families or in preventing the
reunification of the children with their families.94 Amendments to the program in
2000 under P.L. 106-337 made youth ages 18 to 21 who left foster care at age 16 or
older eligible for the vouchers. These youth are eligible for the vouchers for up to 18
months.

FUP vouchers were initially awarded from 1992 to 2001. Each award included
five years of funding per voucher and the voucher’s use was restricted to
voucher-eligible families for those five years. At the end of those five years, public
housing authorities (PHAs), which administer the vouchers, were eligible to convert
FUP vouchers to regular Section 8 housing vouchers for low-income families. While
the five-year use restrictions have expired for all family unification vouchers, some
PHAs may have continued to use their original family unification vouchers for
FUP-eligible families and some may have chosen to use some regular-purpose
vouchers for FUP families. For FY2008, Congress provided $20 million for new FUP
vouchers.95 Congress has also specified that amounts made available under the
FY2008 appropriations act and previous appropriations acts for Section 8 tenant-
based rental assistance and used for non-elderly families or the FUP are to remain
available for these purposes, to the extent practicable.
Other Support. Older current and former foster youth may be eligible for
housing services and related supports through the Runaway and Homeless Youth
program, administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.96 In
FY2007, over 1,000 of the 47,519 youth (2.1%) who used the program’s Basic
Center program or Transitional Living program, were living in foster homes at the
time they entered the program.97 That same year, of the 46,317 youth who exited the
program, nearly 1,600 (3.4%) were placed in a foster home. (The number of youth
who may have lived in other foster care settings before entering or at exit is not
reported.) Youth transitioning out of foster care may also be eligible for select
94 42 U.S.C. 1437(f)(x).
95 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Joint Explanatory Statement,
Division K. report to accompany FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment to H.R.
2764 (P.L. 110-161), 110th Cong., 1st sess.,p. 2396. At [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
house/appropriations/08conappro.html].
96 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics, Programs, and Emerging Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
97 Data on youth served by the program are provided in HHS’s National Extranet Optimized
Runaway and Homeless Youth Management Information System (NEO-RHYMIS)
Available at [https://extranet.acf.hhs.gov/rhymis/custom_reports.html.]

---

CRS-40
transitional living programs administered by HUD, though the programs do not
specifically target these youth.98
Grant to Support Curriculum for
Supervising Older Youth in Care
In FY2006, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services awarded grants
under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act (Promoting Safe and Stable Families) to
fund the development of curriculum for child welfare supervisors and their staff who
work with older youth in foster care. The grants were awarded through FY2008 to
six entities: the Hunter College School of Social Work; Massachusetts Department
of Social Services; San Francisco State University; University of Iowa; University
of Houston; and University of Louisville Research Foundation. Each of the entities
provide at least a 25% match to the federal grant award of (up to) $250,000 annually
for three years.
The six entities are to develop, implement, evaluate, and disseminate a training
curriculum for public child welfare agency supervisors.99 The purpose of the
curriculum is to strengthen supervision of staff interactions with older youth in care
and/or in independent living programs, and to ensure that staff adequately: (1) assess
a youth’s readiness for independent living services, support, and training; (2) identify
culturally competent independent living program services and activities; (3) utilize
positive youth development principles for involving youth in decisionmaking,
implementation, and evaluation of training and program activities;100 (4) identify
areas of stress and its impact on youth in foster care; (5) work with youth to help
them deal with crisis situations and to assess the results of the intervention; (6) work
with youth to develop and maintain permanent connections; and (7) collaborate with
both inter-and intra-agency resource people to achieve positive outcomes for youth
transitioning to adulthood. Each entity must conduct an evaluation of the project,
either in-house or by contracting with a third-party evaluator.
One of the grantees, the National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice
and Permanency Planning (NRCFCPPP) at the Hunter College School of Social
Work, in partnership with the National Foster Care Coalition and Child Welfare
League of America, has developed and provided training on curriculum to three
state/city partners (Mississippi, New York City, and Oregon) based on a learning
circle model. Supervisors in the three jurisdictions participate in six learning circle
sessions with topics on youth development and older youth in care, such as creating
98 National Alliance to End Homelessness, “Federal Funding for Youth Housing Programs,”
information presented at National Alliance to End Audio Conference, March 9, 2006.
Available at [http://naeh.org/content/article/browse/?type=24&topic=Youth].
99 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Training of Child Welfare Agency
Supervisors in the Effective Delivery and Management of Federal Independent Living
Service for Youth in Foster Care,” 70 Federal Register 35087, June 16, 2005.
100 In the fall of 2000, HHS awarded twelve grants for Independent Living Training for Child
Welfare practitioners. One of the findings from the completed projects was that child
welfare supervisors needed training on youth development to understand the unique
developmental and service needs of youth in care.

---

CRS-41
permanent connections for youth and caring adults, relating to youth as resources
rather than recipients of child welfare services, and involving a diverse array of
stakeholders in the development of a comprehensive set of services and supports for
youth transitioning out of care. At each learning circle session, staff are required to
develop action plans to guide their work. In turn, supervisors use the materials and
discussion guide from the learning circle sessions (and available on the university’s
website) to train their staff one-on-one, in group settings, or at unit meetings or staff
retreats. The evaluation for the program is being conducted by the Hunter College
School of Social Work. During the first two years of the program, the school has
conducted a process evaluation to make needed adjustments to the curriculum
content and training delivery methods. The school is in the process of conducting an
outcome evaluation to measure the effectiveness of the curriculum.
The remainder of this report discusses issues related to the federal role in
providing support to current and former older foster youth, as well as related pending
legislation and hearings in the 110th Congress.
Issues101
Foster Care for Youth Ages 18 and Older
As discussed above, some states report allowing youth to remain in care after
their 18th birthdays under certain conditions, such as the youth attending a college or
university (see Appendix B and Appendix C). Yet few states appear to actually
facilitate youth staying in care. In light of the negative outcomes that young people
often experience upon emancipating, policymakers and child welfare practitioners
have raised concerns about policies requiring youth to leave foster care custody on
their 18th birthday. On July 12, 2007, the Subcommittee on Income Security and
Family Support of the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing to highlight
the challenges youth aging out of care face as they transition to adulthood.102 The
witnesses — child welfare practitioners and researchers and youth — explained that
foster care services end abruptly for many older youth in care when they reach age
18. One practitioner said that a county child welfare agency has begun buying
luggage for youth aging out to replace the garbage bags they were using to haul their
few belongings. He went on to say that this practice is merely a band-aid and does
not address the bigger issue that youth often lack housing and other support upon
aging out of care.
While there is a paucity of information about outcomes for youth who remain
in care after age 18, findings from wave 3 of the Midwest Evaluation (see above for
more information) suggests that youth who remain in care as late as age 20 tend to
101 For an overview of current child welfare legislation, including bills that pertain to older
youth in care or youth emancipating from foster care, see CRS Report RL34388, Child
Welfare Issues in the 110th Congress, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
102 Written testimony is available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?form
mode=detail&hearing=576].

---

CRS-42
experience an easier transition to adulthood than their counterparts who emancipate
at age 18. The study examined outcomes for former foster youth in three states —
Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. These three states offer a natural experiment for
comparing youth outcomes: Iowa and Wisconsin emancipated nearly all of the foster
youth in the study by age 21, while approximately three-fourths of foster youth in
Illinois who reached age 18 in care remained under the custody of the state until age
21.103 The study found that the young adults from Illinois were almost two times as
likely to have ever attended college than their peers in Iowa and Wisconsin; and after
controlling for observed differences (i.e., gender, race/ethnicity, age at most recent
entry into care, number of prior placements, among other characteristics), Illinois
youth were four times as likely to have ever attended college and approximately 3.5
times as likely to complete one year of college.104
Further, remaining in care appears to be associated with higher earnings and
delayed pregnancy. The study found that while the young people in Illinois were less
likely to be employed, due likely to being in school, each additional year in care after
age 18 was associated with a $470 increase in annual earnings. Annual earnings for
youth who remained in care longer increased by $924 after controlling for certain
characteristics of the young adults (measured at baseline) that are likely to affect later
earnings (e.g., work history, education attainment, mental health problems, and
criminal behavior), as well as unobserved characteristics. Further, young people in
Illinois were 38% less likely to become pregnant between ages 17 and 19. Although
there was a reduction in the risk of pregnancy after age 19 for youth in care compared
to their counterparts, this difference was not statistically significant.
Eligible Placement Setting. Extending federal foster care for youth age 18
and older raises the question about whether states should be reimbursed for youth
who do not live in traditional foster care settings. A state may only claim some
federal reimbursement for foster care maintenance payments made on behalf of a
child if that child is placed in an “eligible setting” (Section 472(a)(2)(c)). Under
current law, this is defined to include a licensed foster family home or “child-care
institution,” including group homes or other congregate care facilities (Section
472(c)).105
Further, a foster care maintenance payment may only be made to a foster family
home or to a child care institution. No foster care maintenance payment may be
made directly to an older youth who is in a supervised independent living situation
103 Iowa amended its child welfare statute in 2006 to create a program that provides
continuing support to foster youth ages 18 to 21. The Iowa youth in the Midwest study were
already too old to benefit from the program when it was implemented.
104 Mark E. Courtney, Amy Dworsky, and Harold Pollack, When Should the State Cease
Parenting? Evidence from the Midwest Study, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University
of Chicago, Issue Brief no. 115, December 2007. At [http://www.chapinhall.org/article_
abstract.aspx?ar=1355], visited March 24, 2008.
105 The statute provides that eligible group facilities may be publicly or privately operated,
but in the case of publicly operated facilities, they may not have more than 25 beds.

---

CRS-43
or to help an older foster youth pay his or her rent.106 Yet, many older foster youth
— even those who remain in state care — do not live with a foster family (or in a
child care institution) but instead live in supervised independent living quarters or
with relatives. The Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth study found that at age 19, half (50%) of the surveyed youth (some of whom
were in foster care) lived in supervised independent living settings; about 20% lived
in foster family homes; and 19% lived with relatives. The remainder lived in group
quarters (7%) or other settings (4%).107
Judicial Oversight. Foster care for youth ages 18 and over also raises
questions about the role of the juvenile court in supervising the cases, given that
these youth are legally adults. Appendix C describes foster care programs in four
states — Illinois, New York, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. — for youth age 18
and older. While youth in Vermont do not remain under court jurisdiction, youth
ages 18 and older in care in Illinois, New York, and Washington, D.C. continue to
be wards of the state. The juvenile courts retain jurisdiction and social workers make
routine visits to assist youth in achieving their case goal (usually independent living).
Relevant Legislation. Four bills pending in the 110th Congress propose to
require or encourage states to provide foster care to youth ages 18 and older.
The Foster Care Continuing Opportunities Act (S. 1512, introduced by Senator
Barbara Boxer), and the Invest in KIDS Act (H.R. 5466, introduced by
Representative Jim McDermott) propose to give states the option of seeking federal
reimbursement under the Title IV-E foster care program for otherwise eligible youth
who elect to remain in foster care until their 21st birthday or at state option until their
19th or 20th birthday.108 By contrast, the Place to Call Home Act (H.R. 3409,
introduced by Representative Ruben Hinojosa) and Reconnecting Youth to Prevent
Homelessness Act of 2007 (H.R. 4208, introduced by Representative Shelley
Berkeley and S. 2560, introduced by Senator John Kerry), would require states to
106 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.3B, Question 2, regarding allowable use
of Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.
107 Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Outcomes at Age 19, Chapin Hall, University of Chicago, May 2005, p. 13. At
[http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355].
108 S. 1512 would make “conforming amendments” to some of the purposes of the Chafee
Foster Care Independence (CFCIP) program. Overall, these amendments would change all
references to youth who aged out, or who are expected to age out of foster care at age 18,
to reference instead any older age that the state chooses as the age at which all youth must
leave foster care custody (i.e., at the 19th, 20th or 21st birthday). These “conforming”
changes to the purposes of CFCIP would not appear to prohibit services to currently eligible
individuals, however, by referencing an older age in the context of identifying and providing
independent living services, they might suggest a later onset of services. The same kind of
“conforming” amendments would also be made to certain stipulations that states must
abide by in order to receive CFCIP funds. For additional information about these and other
changes made by S. 1512, see CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum Foster Care
Continuing Opportunities Act (S. 1512), by Emilie Stoltzfus and Adrienne Fernandes.

---

CRS-44
make foster care maintenance payments on behalf of eligible youth who choose to be
in foster care after their 18th birthday (but not beyond their 21st birthday).
Under H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560, as part of choosing to remain in foster
care, a youth would be required to enter into a written “voluntary placement
agreement,” that would be binding on both the youth and the state agency, and would
specify the youth’s legal status as well as the rights and obligations of both the state
agency and the youth while he or she remains in foster care. Because they provide
access to additional federal funds for foster care, S. 1512 and H.R. 5466 (as well as
H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560) might encourage more states to both permit youth
to elect to remain in foster care and to facilitate this longer-term placement.
Ultimately, the decision to remain in care, however, would appear to remain with the
youth who would otherwise be exiting care.
H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would also amend current law to explicitly
provide that foster care maintenance payments would be eligible for federal
reimbursement even if they are made to cover the cost of a licensed supportive
housing facility or to cover the rent for a youth’s apartment. H.R. 5466 would
amend current law to permit youth placed in a “supervised setting” but who are living
independently to remain eligible for the payments, in accordance with any conditions
established by the HHS Secretary by regulation with regard to such a setting. S. 1512
does not address the issue of “eligible placement setting.”
The four bills are silent about the role of the juvenile court in retaining oversight
of young people in care who are legally adults.
Permanency
Several federal provisions require the state child welfare agency to assist youth
in planning for their transition from foster care to independent living. Currently
under Title IV-E, a case review must be conducted not less often than every six
months by a judge or an administrative review panel and at least once every 12
months by a judge who must consider the child’s permanency plan (Section 475(5)).
Specific case plan and case review procedures pertain to older youth in care. As
described above, for a child age 16 or older, the written case plan must include a
description of the programs and services that will help the child prepare for the
transition to independent living (Section 475(1)(D)), and the permanency plan
hearing must consider “the services needed to assist the child to make the transition
from foster care to independent living” (Section 475(5)(C)).
Despite these federal protections to ensure that child welfare agencies help
youth plan for their future, child welfare practitioners and young people in care
continue to advocate for additional policies that improve the transition to adulthood
by encouraging strong, permanent connections to caring adults.109 A youth at the July
109 For additional information about the need for permanency for current and former older
foster youth, see Benjamin Kerman and Madelyn Freundlich, Recommendations for Policy,
Practice & Research, Proceedings from the Research Roundtable at the 2006 National
(continued...)

---

CRS-45
12, 2007 hearing on youth aging out of foster care, said that permanency can help
young people avoid poor outcomes. He said, “[p]ermanency is having someone there
to help you when you need it, someone you don’t need an appointment to talk to.
Permanency is having someone to lean on for support when obstacles come your
way.”110
In some jurisdictions, the child welfare agency plays an active role to ensure
permanent connections for youth aging out. The National Governors Association
reports that connections may include (1) connecting youth to family members such
as grandparents and aunts; (2) establishing legal guardianship or some other
permanent arrangement with a caring adult in the youth’s life; (3) helping youth
develop relationships with caring adults such as teachers or mentors; (4) when
appropriate, exploring the viability of reunification with biological parents; and (5)
assisting youth, up to their early twenties, pursue adoptive relationships with
adults.111
Some states, like California, require child welfare agencies to help youth build
permanent connections. County child welfare agencies in California are to provide
“assistance in maintaining relationships with individuals who are important to a child
who has been in out-of-home placement in a group home for six months or longer
from the date the child entered foster care, based on the child’s best interests”
(California Welfare and Institutions Code Sec. 391). In Alameda County, east of
San Francisco, the county child welfare agency conducts a transition conference for
each youth aging out of care.112 At the meeting, stakeholders in the youth’s life (e.g.,
social worker, mental health counselor, family member(s), family friend(s),
teacher(s), and foster parent(s)) help the youth establish a plan for transitioning to
adulthood. The conference is intended to assist youth in planning their future and to
ensure that one or more of these stakeholders will provide the youth with emotional
and other support for the years following his or her emancipation from care.
Relevant Legislation. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would require that
a permanency hearing for a youth transitioning from foster care to a planned
permanent living arrangement or independent living is held in a family or juvenile
court or another court (including a tribal court) of competent jurisdiction. Further,
the bills would require states to include in the written case plans for children aging
109 (...continued)
Convening on Youth Permanence, Annie E. Casey Foundation and Excal Consulting
Partners, 2006,at [http://www.caseyfamilyservices.org/pdfs/permanency_proceedings_final
.pdf]; and Gina Miranda Samuels, A Reason, A Season, or A Lifetime: Relational
Permanence Among Young Adults with Foster Care Backgrounds, Chapin Hall Center for
Children, University of Chicago, 2008, at [http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?
ar=1466&L2=61&L3=130].
110 Written testimony is available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?form
mode=detail&hearing=576].
111 National Governors Association, State Policies to Help Youth Transition Out of Foster
Care, pp. 4-7.
112 This information was provided by Alameda County Children and Family Services in May
of 2007 at the National Pathways to Adulthood Conference.

---

CRS-46
out of foster care, the steps taken to ensure that a child has a permanent living
arrangement if they emancipate from care; in the case of a child age 17 or over with
a permanency goal of emancipation, the state must provide documentation of the
permanent living arrangement. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would provide that
where appropriate, the state is to include in the written case plan for a child who is
14 years old in care, a description of the programs and services that will facilitate his
or her transition from foster care to independent living. The plan must discuss the
appropriateness of the services that have been provided to the child as well as
documentation of the steps the agency is taking to find a permanent placement with
a family or other adult connection for the youth, as well as a permanent living
arrangement. In addition, the bills would require that the permanency hearing review
all documentation of the efforts to secure a permanent living arrangement for the
child upon emancipating.
H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would further require that the state inform all
children leaving care of the full range of available financial, housing, counseling,
health, and other services for which the youth is eligible. In addition, the HHS
Secretary would be required to provide for the “efficient distribution” to states and
local areas information about federal programs, other than the CFCIP, that can assist
youth in the transition to self-sufficiency and how to access the services under these
programs.
Finally, the Foster Care Mentoring Act (S. 379), also pending in the 110th
Congress, would permanently authorize funding, under Title IV-B of the Social
Security Act, for grants to provide mentoring to children in foster care. The grants
would be awarded by HHS to states (or to a political subdivision of the state if it
serves a “substantial number” of youth in foster care) to support, establish, and
expand networks of public and private community entities to provide this mentoring.
Successful applicants would be eligible to receive a maximum of $600,000 annually,
would be required to spend no less than 50% of the federal grant funds for training
(and no more than 10% on program administration), and would need to provide
matching funds (in cash or in kind) of 25%. The bill would authorize $15 million for
this grant program in each of FY2008 and FY2009 and “such sums as may be
necessary” in every following fiscal year.
Housing
Among the most often cited concerns for youth aging out of foster care is the
lack of adequate and affordable housing.113 In the Northwest Foster Care Alumni
Study of former foster youth ages 20 to 33, about one out of five (22.5%) reported
being homeless for one day or more within a year of leaving foster care.114 (This
figure is slightly higher than the 18% of 21-year-olds in the Midwest Evaluation who
113 The University of Oklahoma, National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth
Development, The John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program: Aftercare Services,
2003. (Hereafter referenced as The University of Oklahoma, National Resource Center for
Youth Development, Aftercare Services). At [http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/resources/publica
tions/monographs/aftercare.pdf].
114 Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care, p. 41.

---

CRS-47
reported being homeless at least once since existing care.115) The housing status of
former foster youth is often affected by relationships, education, and employment.116
Reciprocally, youth who lack housing may have difficulty staying in school and/or
maintaining employment.
While the CFCIP authorizes states to spend up to 30% of their allotment on
room and board for youth ages 18 to 21, child welfare researchers point out that these
funds alone cannot adequately cover the cost of housing for many youth.117 However,
several jurisdictions appear to be using innovative strategies to connect youth to both
temporary and permanent housing. These strategies have involved providing a
continuum of housing that allows the youth to choose from various housing options
(e.g., scattered-site apartments, supervised apartments, shared homes with multiple
youth, host homes, and boarding homes); permitting youth to have multiple
opportunities to remain in a housing program even if they fail to meet the terms of
a housing agreement or lease; and providing housing to former foster youth with
mental health issues and other barriers to living independently.118
Another related issue is temporary housing for youth in college who are unable
to stay with family or friends over school breaks. One of the youth witnesses at the
July 12, 2007 hearing described the difficulty in college with finding housing when
her dorm was closed: “I waited in limbo for a friend to extend an invitation as I
wondered where I would go for holidays and school breaks.”119 Some states require
public universities to provide housing for these youth. For example, California law
requires that the California State University system and the community college
system, “review housing issues for those emancipated foster youth living in college
dormitories to ensure basic housing during the regular academic school year,
including vacations and holidays other than summer break” (California Education
Code Sec. 89342).
Relevant Legislation. H.R. 3409 would amend the Family Unification
Vouchers program, described above, to make former foster youth eligible for the
vouchers until age 25. The bill would also eliminate the requirement that these youth
may be eligible for the vouchers no more than 18 months.
The College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 (H.R. 4137, introduced
by Representative George Miller) and the Higher Education Amendments of 2007
115 Mark E. Courtney et. al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Outcomes at Age 21, pp. 15-16.
116 Miryam J. Choca et al. “Can’t Do It Alone: Housing Collaborations to Improve Foster
Youth Outcomes.” In Ruth Anne White and Debra J. Rog, eds., Child Welfare, vol.
LXXXIII, no. 5 (September/October 2004), pp. 469-474.
117 Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Huering, “The Transition to Adulthood for Youth
“Aging Out” of the Foster Care System,” p. 54.
118 The University of Oklahoma, National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth
Development, Aftercare Services, pp. 24-26.
119 Written testimony is available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?form
mode=detail&hearing=576].

---

CRS-48
(S. 1642, introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy) would authorize funding from
federal higher education programs (Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary
Education in S. 1642 and Student Support Services in H.R. 4137) to be used to
establish demonstration projects that provide comprehensive support services for
homeless students or students who were in foster care until the age of 18, to enroll
and succeed in postsecondary education, including providing housing to students
when housing at an educational institution is closed or unavailable to other students.
Runaway Youth120
A child is considered missing from foster care if she or he is not in the physical
custody of the child welfare agency or the institution or person with whom the child
has been placed, due to (1) the child leaving voluntarily without permission (i.e.,
runaways); (2) the family or nonfamily member removing the child, either voluntarily
or involuntarily, without permission (i.e., abductions); or (3) a lack of oversight by
the child welfare agency.121 The majority of children known to be missing from foster
care are runaways. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
on the last day of FY2006, approximately 12,000 (2%) of the 510,000 children in
foster care had run away, and another 5,049 had exited the system as runaways
(because they were old enough to emancipate and were on runaway status at the age
of emancipation).122 As shown in the Foster Care Dynamics study, discussed above,
most runaways tend to be teenagers.
A study of youth in the Midwest who ran away from foster care between 1993
and 2003 found that the average likelihood of an individual running away from foster
care placements increased over this time period.123 Youth questioned about their
runaway experiences cited three primary reasons why they ran from foster care: (1)
to reconnect or stay connected to their biological families even if they recognized that
their families were neither healthy nor safe; (2) to express their autonomy and find
normalcy among sometimes chaotic events; and (3) to maintain surrogate family
relationships with non-family members. Youth in the study were more likely than
their foster care peers to abuse drugs and to have certain mental health disorders.
No federal laws specifically address the issue of children missing from foster
care, including runaways. However, Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act
require state child welfare agencies to monitor and provide for the safety and
well-being of children in out-of-home care. Under Section 471 (Title IV-E), states
are eligible for federal foster care and adoption assistance support if, among other
120 For additional information about this population, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway
and Homeless Youth: Demographics, Programs, and Emerging Issues, by Adrienne L.
Fernandes.
121 Caren Kapplan, Children Missing from Care, Child Welfare League of America, 2004,
at [http://www.cwla.org/programs/fostercare/childmiss.htm].
122 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #14.
123 Mark E. Courtney et al., Youth Who Run Away from Substitute Care, Chapin Hall Center
for Children, University of Chicago, Issue Brief no. 103, March 2005, p. 2, at
[http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1382].

---

CRS-49
requirements, they develop a written case plan for each child regardless of IV-E
eligibility (Section 475(1) of Title IV-E). The case plan must discuss the safety and
appropriateness of the placement and a plan for assuring that the child receives safe
and proper care.
States must also develop a system to review, no less than every six months, the
status of the child’s case plan.124 Also, under Section 471, states must conduct
background checks for prospective foster parents before approving a placement.
Finally, under Section 422 (Title IV-B), states must ensure that children in foster care
are visited by their caseworkers on a monthly basis and that the majority of the visits
occur in the child’s residence.
Relevant Legislation. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560, discussed above,
propose amending Section 471 of the Social Security Act to require states to include
in their foster care and adoption assistance plans a description of their written
policies and procedures designed to reduce the incidence of children missing or
running away from foster care and to locate and return these children to foster care
placements.
Use of Chafee Education and Training Vouchers
Under current law, the Chafee Education and Training Voucher program is
available for youth who are eligible for CFCIP services or were adopted from foster
care after 16 years of age. Youth may continue to be eligible for the program until
age 23, but only if they received a voucher at age 21. According to some child
welfare practitioners and researchers, the program may provide a disincentive to
establish permanent relationships for youth through adoption because foster youth
adopted before the age of 16 would not be eligible for the vouchers.125 Further,
studies of older foster youth and youth leaving care show that many do not attend
college directly after emancipating.126 Therefore, former foster youth who start
college after age 21 would be ineligible for the program.
Relevant Legislation. The pending Kinship Caregiver Support Act (H.R.
2188, introduced by Representative Danny Davis), H.R. 3409, and H.R. 4208/S. 5260
would permit youth who left foster care at age 14 or older under a kinship
guardianship arrangement or because they were adopted to be eligible for ETVs.
Another bill could shift the target population and purpose of the education and
training voucher program. The School Choice for Foster Kids Act (H.R. 4311,
introduced by Representative Michele Bachmann) would enable the education and
124 This provision applies to all children and is defined in detail at Section 475(5) of the
Social Security Act.
125 Pew Charitable Trusts and Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, Time for Reform:
Aging Out and On Their Own, 2007, p. 12, at [http://kidsarewaiting.org/publications/
reports].
126 See Mark E. Courtney et. al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former
Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 21 and Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care.

---

CRS-50
training voucher program to fund the education of foster children — of any age —
at private schools and to transport children to their original school, even if the school
is outside of their immediate area of placement.127 At a June 19, 2007 hearing on
disconnected and disadvantaged youth, conducted by the House Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Representative Michele
Bachmann and Dan Lips with the Heritage Foundation testified that foster children
face several educational challenges, and that additional educational support is needed
for the population.128 They cited that foster children are more likely to experience
multiple school placements, which may lead to gaps in learning and lowered
educational attainment, and that a disproportionate share of foster youth have
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) to accommodate their learning disabilities.
They suggested that funds from the ETV program could be used to improve the
educational outcomes of children and youth in care.
Medicaid Coverage for Youth Aging Out of Care
The Midwest Evaluation indicated that about half of all youth who were in
foster care up to age 17 or 18 (primarily in Iowa and Wisconsin) did not have health
insurance when they were surveyed one year after leaving care, at age 18 or 19.129
These studies also suggest that these youth need health and mental health services.
Current and former foster youth at age 18 or 19 tended to describe their overall health
less favorably than youth in the general population and were more likely to report
that health conditions limited their ability to engage in moderate activity.130 They
also reported more visits to the emergency room and more hospitalizations during the
past five years. These youth were also more likely to report being hospitalized for
drug use or emotional problems.131
Some child welfare advocates support expansion of the Chafee Medicaid option
to provide Medicaid for youth who age out of foster care. According to the American
127 Under Title IV-E, states may not make foster care maintenance claims for the cost of
transporting children to their school of origin because education is not included in the
definition of a foster care maintenance payment. However, this type of cost can be an
administrative cost because it is a part of case management. To make an administrative
claim for school transportation costs, a state must discuss this kind of claim in its approved
cost allocation plan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.1B,
Question 27.
128 Written testimony is available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmod
e=detail&hearing=569].
129 Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Outcomes at Age 19, p. 44. Although Iowa is one of 17 states that have taken up the
Chafee Medicaid option, some former foster youth appear not to be covered, perhaps
because they do not meet the eligibility criteria for coverage.
130 Ibid, pp. 39-40.
131 To be eligible for Medicaid coverage in Iowa from age 18 to age 21, youth must have
exited foster care at age 18 and have countable income under 200% of the federal poverty
line.

---

CRS-51
Public Human Services Association (APHSA), which surveyed five states
(California, Florida, Iowa, South Carolina, and Texas) on their Medicaid coverage
to youth who have aged out, the costs of the program vary depending on the type of
program offered, but even the highest cost — $350 per youth per month (South
Carolina) — is affordable.132
Relevant Legislation. Five bills pending in the 110th Congress would
expand Medicaid coverage to former foster youth, either directly or indirectly. The
Medicaid Foster Care Coverage Act of 2007 (H.R. 1376, introduced by
Representative Dennis Cardoza), proposes to provide mandatory Medicaid coverage
to any youth under the age of 21 who was in foster care on his or her 18th birthday
and without regard to whether the youth chose to remain in foster care. H.R. 3409
would make this same change, however, it would provide that this mandatory
Medicaid coverage category would continue until the youth reached the age of 25.
Both H.R. 1376 and H.R. 3409 would permit states to limit this mandatory coverage
to those youth who were in foster care on their 18th birthday who meet certain income
and asset criteria, were previously Title IV-E eligible, or who received CFCIP
services. H.R. 3409 specifies that those CFCIP services may have been received up
until the youth’s 25th birthday.
S. 1512, H.R. 5466, and H.R. 4207 would not make any statutory changes to
Medicaid eligibility rules. However, because children eligible for Title IV-E foster
care maintenance payments are automatically eligible for Medicaid coverage,133 by
expanding the population of children eligible for those payments, the bill also would
extend mandatory134 Medicaid coverage to any youth who elects to remain in foster
care after his or her 18th birthday (provided that youth meets all the other Title IV-E
eligibility criteria) for as long as the youth remained in foster care or until his or her
21st birthday (whichever came first).
The Risk of Becoming Disconnected
In its February 2008 report on disconnected youth, the U.S. Government
Accountability Office defined this population as youth ages 14 to 24 who are not in
school and not working, or lack family or other support networks.135 According to
132 APHSA is a non-profit trade organization of state and local human service agencies and
individuals who work in or are interested in public human service programs. See Sonali
Patel and Martha A. Roherty, Medicaid Access for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care, pp. 3-6.
133 Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act.
134 Federal law defines over 50 distinct population groups as being potentially eligible for
states’ Medicaid programs. Some groups are mandatory, meaning that federal law requires
all states and the District of Columbia that participate in Medicaid to cover them. Other
groups are optional; that is, federal law allows states to choose to cover them. For
additional information on Medicaid eligibility for adults and children, see CRS Report
RL33019, Medicaid Eligibility for Adults and Children, by Jean Hearne.
135 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could
Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to
Education and Employment, GAO-08-313, February 2008.

---

CRS-52
the report, some of these young people may have become disconnected from
education and employment through incarceration, aging out of foster care, dropping
out of high school, or homelessness. At the June 19, 2007 hearing on disconnected
and disadvantaged youth, witnesses also identified emancipation from care as a
potential pathway to becoming disconnected.136 Chairman Jim McDermott and
Ranking Member Jerry Weller expressed that policymakers have become
increasingly concerned about the disconnected youth population because of the
potential negative outcomes they may experience, and that they may lack the ability
to compete for jobs and earn a living wage in the increasingly global economy.
An analysis by the Congressional Research Service of the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Current Population Survey (CPS) data uses a definition of disconnectedness to
include noninstitutionalized youth ages 16 through 24 who did not work anytime
during a previous year due primarily to a reason other than school and were presently
(usually March or April of the current year) not working or in school. Thus,
otherwise young people who are married without children (to a connected or
disconnected partner) or are cohabiting with or without children meet the definition
of being disconnected. Approximately 1.8 million youth — or 4.9% of all youth —
ages 16 to 24 met this criteria.137 Although not directly comparable, the Midwest
Evaluation found that at age 19, 23.2% of females and 45.3% of males in foster care
or who had aged out, met one of the researchers’ definition of disconnected, which
excluded parenting youth who were not working or in school. At age 21, 11.8% of
females and 36.6% of males were disconnected.
Relevant Legislation. Several pending bills would provide educational and
other supports to older youth in care and youth aging out of care to strengthen their
connections to education and employment.
Education Support through the TRIO and GEARUP Programs. The
federal TRIO and GEARUP programs seek to increase disadvantaged students’ high
school completion and enrollment in higher education by providing a variety of
academic, counseling, and college preparatory services.138 H.R. 4137139 and S. 1642
would allow or require TRIO funds (specifically for the Educational Opportunity
Centers, Student Support, Talent Search, and Upward Bound programs) and
GEARUP funds (for H.R. 4137 only) to be used for programs and activities that are
designed for students who are in foster care or are aging out of foster care and to
recruit these youth to Educational Opportunity Centers, which provide counseling
and information on college admissions to qualified adults who want to enter or
136 The written testimony from the hearing is available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=569].
137 For more details about the analysis of disconnected youth, see CRS Report RL33975,
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
138 For additional information, see CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR UP Programs:
Status and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
139 H.R. 4137 defines current and former foster youth as “orphans, in foster care, or wards
of the court, or who were in foster care or were wards of the court until the students reached
the age of 16,” as part of the term “disconnected students.”

---

CRS-53
continue a program of postsecondary education. Further, H.R. 4137 would require
applicants for TRIO funds to coordinate with other programs for disadvantaged
students (regardless of the funding source of such programs) that provide services to
foster youth. H.R. 4137 would also require grantees seeking funding under the
GEARUP program for early intervention activities (e.g., comprehensive mentoring,
counseling, outreach, and support services to participating students) to treat as a
priority any student in preschool through grade 12 (and may consider a student in the
first year of attendance at an institution), who is in foster care or a homeless or
unaccompanied youth, as defined by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
Financial Support. The Focusing Investments and Resources for a Safe
Transition Act (S. 2341, introduced by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton), would
amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) to authorize
financial support and financial counseling for youth aging out of foster care. The bill
would authorize “such sums as may be necessary” for FY2008 through FY2012 to
permit HHS to make competitive grants to states (or state partners) to establish
individual development accounts (IDAs) for foster youth, including those in kinship
or guardianship placements, and youth transitioning from foster care. IDAs are
savings accounts to help low-income families and persons save for specified
purposes, usually education, purchase of a home, or to start a business.140 To be
eligible for the funds, states would be required to submit a plan to HHS that describes
how an IDA program would best suit the current and future needs of the state’s foster
youth, enable foster youth to achieve self support after leaving foster care, and
establish public or private partnerships to create a pool of funding from which foster
care deposits can be matched (not by more than $2 for every $1 deposited by a
youth).
Funds saved in this account could be used by a youth for housing, education,
vocational training, to operate a business or to purchase a car (though youth must
expend funds on the first three purposes before being permitted to spend funds on
these last two) and, at the option of the state, for purchase of work-related items or
car insurance to assist the individual in becoming independent. Youth would be
eligible to withdraw the funds upon reaching age 18 and completing money
management training. Any savings accumulated in an account during the period
which a youth maintains or makes contributions to the account would not be counted
for determining eligibility for other benefits under federal law (other than the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986). S. 2341 would also require the HHS Secretary to conduct
evaluations of the program and prepare reports to Congress that provide information
about how youth spent the funds, how the state program impacted quality of life
indicators after the youth withdrew the funds, the effectiveness of the money
management training, and recommendations on strengthening the program.
The bill appears to be based in part on the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities
Initiative’s Opportunity Passport, a program to increase the financial assets and
literacy of youth transitioning from foster care. The program, implemented in ten
140 For additional information, see CRS Report RS22185, Individual Development Accounts
(IDAs): Background and Current Legislation for Federal Grant Programs to Help
Low-Income Families Save, by Gene Falk.

---

CRS-54
cities throughout the country, assists current and former foster youth build financial
assets, including through a matched savings account. Of the 1,740 youth who
participated in the program as of December 31, 2006, one quarter have used their
savings to draw match funds for an approved asset; in most cases, the assets were a
car (58%), housing (28%), and educational expenses (28%).141 Youth who purchased
assets tend to be older and no longer in care compared to their counterparts who did
not purchase assets.
141 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the Jim Casey
Youth Opportunities Initiative in February 2008.

---

CRS-55
Appendix A. Outcomes for Young Adults
Formerly in Foster Care
Table A-1. Comparison of Outcome Domains Between
Young Adults in the Midwest Study and
Young Adults in the Add Health Study
Outcome
Midwest Evaluation (Wave 3)
Add Health - Youth
- Former Foster Youth at Age
Surveyed at Age 21
21 or 22
Current Living Arrangement (totals to 100% across rows in each column)
Lives in own place
44.3%
46.9%
Lives with biological
7.6%
41.0%
parent(s)
Lives with other relative
16.8%
3.0%
Lives with non-relative foster
5.6%
0%
parent(s)
Lives with spouse/partner
6.6%
0.4%
Lives with a friend
6.5%
1.2%
Lives in group quarters (e.g.,
3.1%
dormitories, barracks)
6.7%
Imprisoned or in jail
7.1%
Other living arrangement
2.4%
0.8%
Highest Educational Attainment (totals to 100 across rows in each column)
No high school diploma or
23.0%
10.8%
GED
High school diploma only
37.6%
29.7%
GED only
9.7%
6.6%
One or more years of college,
27.9%
43.0%
but no degree
Two-year college degree
1.9%
8.1%
Four-year college degree
—
1.7%
Graduate school
—
0.1%
Employment, Income, and Assets
Ever held a job
95.1%
96.9%
Currently employeda
44.5%
63.9%
(nonincarcerated youth only)
Mean hourly wagea
$8.85
$9.99

---

CRS-56
Outcome
Midwest Evaluation (Wave 3)
Add Health - Youth
- Former Foster Youth at Age
Surveyed at Age 21
21 or 22
Mean incomea
$8,914
$12,728
Any savings/checking
51.9%
80.7%
accounta
Owns a vehiclea
39.1%
73.0%
Economic Hardships
Not enough to pay renta
26.5%
8.6%
Not enough money to pay
26.5%
10.9%
utility billa
Gas or electricity shut off
8.3%
6.1%
Evicteda
8.3%
1.4%
Receipt of food stampsa
50.2% - females
6.3% - females
9.9% - males
0% - males
Receipt of TANF
8.8% - femalesa
7.5% - femalesa
0.3% - males
0% - males
Health and Access to Health Care Services
Description of general health
12.2%
4.0%
as faira
Description of general health
2.0%
0.3%
as poora
Health conditions or
11.0%
4.7%
disability limits daily
activitiesa
Has medical insurancea
50.7%
76.0%
Did not receive needed
17.9%
24.1%
medical carea
Received psychological or
10.5%
7.3%
emotional counselinga
Attended substance abuse
3.6%
2.3%
treatment program
Sexual Behaviors and Pregnancy
Age at first intercourse
16.0 - female
16.0 - female
15.0 - male
16.0 - male
Had sexual intercourse in the
78.2 % - females
83.0% - females
past year
71.2% - malesa
81.2% - malesa
Used birth control all or most
60.4% - females
69.4% - females
of the time in the past yeara
56.8% - males
67.9% - males

---

CRS-57
Outcome
Midwest Evaluation (Wave 3)
Add Health - Youth
- Former Foster Youth at Age
Surveyed at Age 21
21 or 22
Ever paid by someone to
7.3% - females
1.8% - females
have sexa
14.0% - males
6.0% - males
Ever pregnant (females
70.9%
33.8%
only)a
Impregnated partner (males
49.2%
19.2%
only)a
Relationships and Parenting
Ever marrieda
11.5 % - females
17.9% - females
5.1% - males
10.1% - males
Currently married
11.1% - females
16.2% - females
4.3% - malesa
8.6% - malesa
Currently cohabiting
22.6% - females
16.7% - females
18.0% - males
13.5% - males
At least one living childa
56.1% - females
23.5% - females
30.2% - males
11.5%- males
Criminal Justiceb
Ever arresteda
56.7% - females
4.3% - females
79.4% - males
20.1% - males
Ever convicteda
24.5% - females
1.3% - females
52.6% - males
12.1% - males
Transition to Adulthood and Orientation Toward the Future
Became socially maturea
66.2% - faster than others
63.7% - faster than others
28.3% - about the same rate as
8.0% - about the same rate
others
as others
5.5% - slower than others
28.3% - slower than others
Took on adult
67.9% - faster than others
68.2% - faster than others
responsibilitiesa
26.5% - about the same rate as
7.3% - about the same rate
others
as others
5.6% - slower than others
24.5% - slower than others
Thinks of self as an adulta
Never or seldom - 4.9%
Never or seldom - 9.3%
Sometimes - 8.7%
Sometimes - 18.2%
Most or all of the time - 86.3%
Most or all of the time -
72.6%
Will live to 35 (mean score
4.4
4.7
based on 1 to 5 scale, with 1
being almost no chance to 5
being almost certain)a
Will be married within next
3.4
3.9
10 years (mean score based
on 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being
almost no chance to 5 being
almost certain)a

---

CRS-58
Outcome
Midwest Evaluation (Wave 3)
Add Health - Youth
- Former Foster Youth at Age
Surveyed at Age 21
21 or 22
Will have a middle-class
3.6
4.1
income by age 30 (mean
score based on 1 to 5 scale,
with 1 being almost no
chance to 5 being almost
certain)a
Mentoring
Maintained a positive
60.3% 77.4%
relationship with a caring
adult since age 14a
Closeness to mentora
13.8% - not at all to a little
22.4% - not at all to a little
close
close
13.6% - somewhat close
24.0% - somewhat close
72.9% - very or quite close
53.6% - very or quite close
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data in Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest
Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 21, Chapin Hall
Center for Children, University of Chicago, Dec. 2007.
Note: The Midwest Evaluation has tracked the outcomes of foster youth at age 17 and when they have
aged out of care at ages 19 and 21 (some of these youth remained in care until age 21). For each of
the three data collection waves, wherever possible, researchers asked the same questions that were
taken directly from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”), a
nationally representative survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time
a. Indicates that the difference between the youth in the Midwest Evaluation and youth in the
Adolescent Heath Survey is statistically signficant.
b. The Add Health figures reflect arrests and convictions since age 18. The Midwest Study figures
represent arrests and convictions since the wave 1 interview, when 62% of the young adults in
the wave 3 sample were still 17 years old. Data for “ever arrested” were missing for 10 young
men and 22 young women and data for “ever convicted” were missing for 24 young men and
35 young women.

---

CRS-59
Appendix B. Maximum Age and Conditions for
Youth Remaining in Foster Care
After Their 18th Birthday
Table B-1. National Child Welfare Resource Center for
Youth Development Survey of States, 2006
State
Age at Which
Conditions for Extended Foster Care
Youth May No
(after 18th Birthday)
Longer Remain in
Foster Care
Alabama
21
If youth is in school and in approved placement.
Alaska
20
Youth may remain in care until age 19, without the youth’s
consent and in care until age 20 with the youth’s consent;
under both conditions, placement must be in the “best
interest” of the child.
Arizona
21
Youth who leave care at age 18 or older may return to care at
any time before their 21st birthday.
Arkansas
21
If the youth is pursuing a post-secondary education.
California
19
If the youth will graduate from high school before 19th
birthday.
Colorado
23
Did not respond to inquiry about conditions for remaining in
care.
Connecticut
23
Did not respond to inquiry about conditions for remaining in
care.
Delaware
21
If the youth is attending school and wishes to remain in
placement.
District of
21
Court must approve request to terminate care before 21.
Columbiaa
Florida
18
The youth may request an extension of jurisdiction until age19
so that the courts may monitor the provision of independent
living services. They are not considered “in foster care” but are
under the supervision of the court.
Georgia
21
If the youth has an educational plan in place and signs an
agreement with the resource provider and the county. Youth
may remain until age 21½ if the additional six months in care
will enable youth to complete an educational program.
Hawaii
Did not respond to survey.
Idaho
21
If the youth is still in school and working on an independent
living plan that includes continuing education, employment,
and self-sufficiency skills.
Illinoisa
21
Did not respond to inquiry about conditions for remaining in
care.
Indiana
21
If the youth is in high school and making an effortto graduate;
or if youth has been accepted into housing services (for
developmental disabilities) and awaiting placement.
Iowa
20
If the youth is in high school or working toward a GED.

---

CRS-60
State
Age at Which
Conditions for Extended Foster Care
Youth May No
(after 18th Birthday)
Longer Remain in
Foster Care
Kansas
21
Did not respond to inquiry about conditions for remaining in
care.
Kentucky
21
Youth may request to extend commitment or reinstate
commitment to remain in care. It must be approved by the
court.
Louisiana
Did not respond to survey.
Maine
21
If the youth needs care and support for educational, social, or
physical reasons.
Maryland
21
If the youth has documented special needs, is employed, and/or
enrolled in a formal education program.
Massachusetts
22
If the youth pursues education or vocational training and
complies with their service plan.
Michigan
20
Foster care maintenance payments are available for former
foster youth who have reached age 19, yet are still in a school
or training program, regardless of whether youth are in family
foster care or independent living settings.
Minnesota
21
Youth can request foster care benefits up to age 21, then must
enter into a plan with a county social worker regarding
education, employment, etc. If the county denies the request,
the child, parent(s) or foster parent may appeal to the state
Department of Human Services.
Mississippi
Did not respond to survey.
Missouri
21
If the youth is in school or foster care placement is in the
youth’s best interest; or if the placement is court ordered.
Montana
21
Youth may receive foster care maintenance payments beyond
age 18 if the youth: 1) is at grade level, but will not graduate
from high school until after turning age 18; 2) is at current
grade level but is having academic difficulties or missing
credits and will not graduate before turning age 18; or 3)is
below grade level (one or more years behind his or her age
group) and is more likely to graduate from high school if in
care.
Nebraska
19
Age 19 is age of majority.
Nevada
21
Did not respond to inquiry about conditions for remaining in
care.
New
19
If youth has not graduated from high school before 19th
Hampshire
birthday.
New Jersey
21
If the youth has not graduated from high school or needs
special treatment that can not be provided through another
source, or is a teen parent who needs to be under state
supervision.
New Mexico
21
Youth do not stay in state legal custody after age 18. Youth
may receive foster care maintenance payment if they receive
independent living services.
New York
21
Did not respond to inquiry about conditions for remaining in
care.
North
21
If the youth signs a CARS agreement (Contractual Agreement
Carolina
for Residential Services) to remain in school or vocational

---

CRS-61
State
Age at Which
Conditions for Extended Foster Care
Youth May No
(after 18th Birthday)
Longer Remain in
Foster Care
training full time and live in a licensed foster care placement.
North Dakota
21
If the youth resides in a family foster home and is completing
high school, or is attending an institution of higher education.
Ohio
21
If the youth is in school or has special needs.
Oklahoma
21
If youth has not finished high school or obtained a GED.
Oregon
21
If the youth is working on completing high school or obtaining
a GED or has an Individualized Education Plan (IEP); or the
case is reviewed by local child welfare agency and approved
as an exception.
Pennsylvania
21
Before turning age 18, youth must ask court to retain
jurisdiction to complete a course of treatment or education.
Puerto Rico
Did not respond to survey.
Rhode Island
Did not respond to survey.
South
21
If the youth signs agreement to remain in care while in school
Carolina
or vocational training; or due to a disabling condition that
places youth at risk and remaining in care is in youth’s best
interest.
South Dakota
21
If the youth has not completed high school.
Tennessee
Did not respond to survey.
Texas
22
If the youth has not completed high school, GED program, or
vocational training program.
Utah
19
With court order or significant need.
Vermonta
19
If the youth is enrolled in education program.
Virginia
21
If the youth is enrolled in an educational or vocational program
and agrees to participate in the Independent Living Program.
Washington
21
The youth must be attending high school or a vocational
program.
West Virginia
21
If the youth is in school, has a Transitional Living Plan (TLP),
or is employed. Youth may receive room and board until age
20 if: 1) youth requests continued financial supports after
receiving a clear explanation of his or her right to
independence and responsibility for self-support at age
eighteen; and 2) youth will continue education (college,
vocational, or training) and plans to continue current
enrollment, or plans to enroll in a different school or training
program within the next three months.
Wisconsin
19
If the youth is enrolled in high school or high school
completion program.
Wyoming
21
Youth can remain in care until age 21 only for educational
reasons. Court must approve the extended stay and case is
reviewed very six months.
Age 18 — 1 state;
Age 19 — 6 states;
Age 20 — 3 states;
Age 21 — 32 states
(including
Washington, D.C.);
Age 22 — 2 states;

---

CRS-62
State
Age at Which
Conditions for Extended Foster Care
Youth May No
(after 18th Birthday)
Longer Remain in
Foster Care
Age 23 — 2 states;
No data provided —
6 states (including
Puerto Rico)
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from University of Oklahoma, National
Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development, 2006.
Note: This survey did not ask how many states encouraged youth to remain in care or how many youth
actually remained in care.
a. See Appendix C for information provided to the Congressional Research Service about foster care
for youth ages 18 and older in these states.

---

CRS-63
Appendix C. Descriptions of Foster Care for Youth
Ages 18 to 21 in Select States
At least three states — Illinois, New York, and Vermont — as well as the
District of Columbia provide foster care to young people ages 18 to 21 through state
maintenance payments or similar types of payments. These payments are made out
of state or local dollars and without regard to prior Title IV-E eligibility status. The
Congressional Research Service contacted the four jurisdictions to learn more about
their maintenance payment programs for older youth.142 The jurisdictions provided
varying levels of detail about their programs. Note that this is not an exhaustive
review of states that provide the payments to youth beyond their 18th birthdays.
Illinois
Illinois youth in foster care on their 18th birthday, regardless of their income or
educational status, may stay in care (in a traditional foster care setting) until they are
19, and some continue in care until age 21. The majority of youth leave care at age
19. Until they age out of care, the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS)
DCFS continues to have guardianship of the youth and the courts retain jurisdiction
of their cases. According to DCFS, Cook County, which includes the city of
Chicago, tends to retain custody of youth for a longer period than other counties.
As of March 2008, about 1,520 youth ages 18 to 21 were in foster care homes.
The state funds foster care for these older foster youth with state dollars and the
average state foster care maintenance payment made to each foster household on their
behalf is $458 per month. Youth not in foster family homes may be placed in an
institution or group home, or other setting. The court continues to hold six-month
reviews and annual review hearings for the youth.
Upon exiting foster care, youth remain under the guardianship of the state for
six months, meaning that the court assigns DCFS the responsibility for the physical
care and safety of the child, but does not make state foster care maintenance
payments on their behalf. During and after the guardianship period, youth are
eligible to receive transitional living services and housing through the state’s
independent living program. Youth attending college receive educational and other
assistance from the state and remain in guardianship until age 21. This assistance is
funded through state dollars, and not the federal Chafee Foster Care Independence
program. As of March 2008, 815 youth ages 18 to 21 in guardianship lived in an
independent living setting and 1,023 were in another setting, including college or a
detention facility, or were on runaway status.
142 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the state or
city’s child welfare or independent living services staff in March and April 2008.

---

CRS-64
New York
New York enables youth to remain in foster care until age 21, provided the
youth consents to remaining in care, if they are enrolled in a school, college,
university, or vocational school, or if they lack the skills to live independently
(generally due to cognitive and developmental deficiencies). As of December 2007,
nearly 4,900 youth ages 17 through 20 were in foster care, of whom 1,994 were age
17; 1,269 were age 18; 924 were age 19; and 687 were age 20. The majority of the
these youth had a permanency planning goal of discharge to another planned living
arrangement (APPLA) with a permanency resource.143
The court continues to retain jurisdiction while the youth are in care (i.e., case
hearings every six months and an annual permanency plan hearing) and the county
provides the same case management services to youth (i.e., monthly case worker
visits) as they received when they were under age 18. The county makes state foster
care maintenance payments to foster parents for room and board, clothing, food, and
other provisions, and youth continue to remain eligible for Medicaid. For youth who
attend college and live on a college campus or in nearby housing, the local social
services district pays the college directly for room and board.
Every youth who is discharged to APPLA with a permanency resource is first
discharged on a trial basis, although youth can agree to be permanently discharged.144
Trial discharge means the youth remains in the custody of the local social services
district while living in the community. The same case planning and casework contact
requirements apply as if the youth were still in a foster care placement, and
permanency hearings are held. If a youth loses housing during the period of trial
discharge, the district must assist the youth to find other appropriate housing or place
the youth in a foster care setting. The trial discharge period may continue until a
youth reaches the age of 21.
Vermont
Youth in Vermont generally remain in foster care until age 18.145 Effective July
1, 2007, Act 17 (2007) authorized funding for payments on behalf of former foster
youth ages 18 through 22 under a program known as Extended Care, which includes
143 A permanency resource is a caring adult willing to help provide emotional support and
guidance to a youth as a youth transitions to adulthood, and can be a foster parent, teacher,
parent of a friend in the community.
144 Youth in care ages 16 and 17 must be discharged on a trial basis if they have been in care
for 12 of the last 36 months and if their case goal is “APPLA with a permanency resource.”
These youth may decline the trial discharge and opt instead for a final discharge; they may
also return to care if they are discharged.
145 As of March 2008, the state was using an interim plan to provide guidance about the
program. The state expects to promulgate regulations establishing the program guidelines
by August 1, 2008.

---

CRS-65
the Adult Living program and the Housing Support and Incidental Grant program.146
The Extended Care program is administered by the Vermont Department for Children
and Families. Youth in the two programs are no longer in the custody of the state and
the courts do not retain jurisdiction; youth voluntarily enroll in the program.147 A
youth development coordinator contracted with the Vermont Department of Children
and Family Services works with youth in both programs (The Department contracts
for independent living services in its 12 service districts.)148
The Vermont Legislature made a state FY2008 appropriation of $500,000 for
the payments to caring adults (including family units) on behalf of older former foster
youth. As of March 2008, the Extended Care program enrolled 42 youth. The
budget for the program will likely support as many as 60 youth total.
Adult Living Program. The purpose of the Adult Living program is for
youth to live with caring adults, known as adult partners, after they reach age 18
through the age of 22. Any eligible youth may decide at any point, up to age 21.5, to
enroll in the Adult Living program. Participants in the program live in an
arrangement similar to a foster family in households that are certified for a foster care
placement, or a caring adult at least age 25 who undergoes a background check.149
To be eligible for the program, youth who have aged out of foster care must sign
a voluntary services agreement pledging to gain independent living skills and work
toward self sufficiency, and they must assume responsibility for expenses other than
room and board. They are also to develop a savings plan in which they gradually save
money until they become self sufficient, where possible. Youth must be enrolled in
school part- or full-time, working, or actively seeking work. These criteria may be
waived by the Department for Children and Families Services Commissioner or
designee based on an individual youth’s circumstance. Furthermore, if a youth is
unemployed or not enrolled in an educational program, the department will determine
if the youth is meeting the criteria for “productive time.” Enrolled youth may live in
college dormitories, but return to a foster care arrangement during school breaks.
Youth who exit the program before age 21.5 may re-enter if they demonstrate a
commitment to living within a home-like environment and working toward their
goals of independent living.
146 A third component of the program, not discussed here, offers supports and services on
behalf of youth who reach their 18th birthday while in custody and are attending high school.
147 The legislature also appropriated $203,000 to fund 2.5 full-time youth development
coordinator staff to serve the older foster (and emancipated) youth population, as well as to
support driver’s education, prevention of homelessness, and transportation to the youth’s
school of origin.
148 All youth who emancipate from foster care are eligible to work with the youth
development coordinators and for other supports, such as housing and workforce training,
through the state’s independent living program.
149 The Department for Children and Families plans to address the feasibility of this second
option in its regulations.

---

CRS-66
For youth in the Adult Living program, the coordinator facilitates the youth
working with their social worker and supportive adults to create and monitor a plan
for life skills and self sufficiency; assists the youth in implementing the plan; calls
and meets with him or her monthly; and submits monthly reports about the youth’s
status.
The reimbursement rate for the Adult Living program is $20.76 each day.
Payments are made to adult partners for the cost of (and the cost of providing) basic
provisions, including shelter, clothing, food, and school supplies. In the case of
youth attending college, adult partners receive the payments to provide provisions to
youth over their school breaks.
Housing Support Program. The Housing Support program provides
financial support for youth ages 18 to 22 who live independently. Youth in the
Housing Support program are also to sign the same voluntary services agreement that
is signed by youth in the Adult Living program. The agreement includes information
about how many hours they are to work and their budget. Youth may be asked to
leave the program if they fail to fulfill the responsibilities outlined in the agreement;
those who exit may return if they demonstrate a commitment to working toward their
self-sufficiency goals. For youth in the Housing Support program, the coordinator
assists the young person in preparing a housing contract; contacts the youth weekly
in the first two months and monthly thereafter; assists with the young person’s
service coordination; and submits monthly reports about the status of the youth.
Youth in the Housing Support program receive a grant of up to $5,000 to cover
housing and related expenses; on a case-by-case basis, youth may also receive
supplemental funds for educational expenses, such as books and lab fees.150
Washington, D.C.
The Washington, D.C. Child and Family Service Agency (CFSA) requires that
all foster youth remain in care until age 21 unless they (1) are reunified with their
families or adopted; (2) get married; (3) join the military; or (4) can demonstrate that
they have secured employment and housing and are self sufficient. Approximately
135 youth emancipate from the District of Columbia foster care system each year, of
whom 95% are age 21; the remaining 5% meet the criteria listed above. Currently,
the District has 446 youth ages 18 to 21 in care: 202 youth are age 18; 156 youth are
age 19; and 117 youth are age 20.
Youth in care continue to remain under the jurisdiction of the court and receive
the same case support from CFSA, except that social workers from the agency’s
Office of Youth Development manage their cases. Further, youth may live in a
variety of settings — foster homes, group homes, and transitional living settings in
150 Youth may receive direct payment under the Housing Support and Incidental Living
Grants program. Yet these youth might be rendered ineligible for Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) because the payment would count as direct income for TANF
eligibility purposes. If, however, the payment is made directly to a youth’s vendor (i.e.,
landlord or college) this assistance is considered a “subsidy.”

---

CRS-67
an independent living setting, or in institutional settings. CFSA dollars from the D.C.
government fund the foster care maintenance payments made to the foster parent or
appropriate agency. Daily reimbursement rates range from $29.84 to $38.95,
depending on whether the youth have special needs. These payments cover the cost
of room and board, food, clothing, and a stipend, among other resources. The total
cost of these services in FY2007, including maintenance payments, was $21.3
million (this includes youth in all types of living settings). Youth who are away at
college receive housing payments and other assistance through D.C.’s independent
living program.

---

CRS-68
Appendix D. Funding for the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program
Table D-1. Final FY2007 and Estimated FY2008 Federal CFCIP
General and Voucher Allotments by State
($ in thousands)
Final FY2007 Allotments
Estimated FY2008 Allotments
State
General
Voucher
Total
General
Voucher
Total
Alabama
1,784
612
2,396
1,784
601
2,386
Alaska
500
159
659
500
156
656
Arizona
2,601
892
3,492
2,601
876
3,477
Arkansas
834
286
1,120
834
281
1,115
California
20,953
7,185
28,138
20,954
7,060
28,013
Colorado
2,120
727
2,847
2,120
714
2,834
Connecticut
1,815
622
2,438
1,815
612
2,427
Delaware
500
85
585
500
84
584
District of Columbia
1,092
222
1,314
1,092
218
1,310
Florida
7,566
2,595
10,161
7,566
2,549
10,116
Georgia
3,605
1,236
4,841
3,605
1,215
4,819
Hawaii
714
245
959
714
241
955
Idaho
500
161
661
500
158
658
Illinois
5,016
1,720
6,736
5,016
1,690
6,706
Indiana
2,906
996
3,902
2,906
979
3,885
Iowa
1,754
601
2,355
1,754
591
2,345
Kansas
1,506
516
2,023
1,506
507
2,014
Kentucky
1,881
645
2,526
1,881
634
2,515
Louisiana
1,358
428
1,786
1,358
420
1,778
Maine
596
204
800
596
201
797
Maryland
2,805
962
3,767
2,805
945
3,750
Massachusetts
3,161
1,084
4,244
3,161
1,065
4,225
Michigan
5,291
1,814
7,106
5,291
1,783
7,074
Minnesota
1,801
618
2,419
1,801
607
2,408
Mississippi
844
289
1,133
844
284
1,128
Missouri
2,928
1,004
3,932
2,928
987
3,915
Montana
574
197
770
574
193
767
Nebraska
1,608
552
2,160
1,608
542
2,150
Nevada
1,205
413
1,619
1,205
406
1,612
New Hampshire
500
104
604
500
102
602
New Jersey
3,108
1,066
4,174
3,108
1,047
4,156
New Mexico
591
203
794
591
199
791
New York
11,586
2,693
14,279
11,586
2,646
14,232
North Carolina
2,761
947
3,708
2,761
930
3,692
North Dakota
500
121
621
500
119
619

---

CRS-69
Final FY2007 Allotments
Estimated FY2008 Allotments
State
General
Voucher
Total
General
Voucher
Total
Ohio
4,502
1,544
6,046
4,502
1,517
6,019
Oklahoma
2,966
1,017
3,983
2,966
999
3,965
Oregon
2,845
976
3,820
2,845
958
3,803
Pennsylvania
5,599
1,920
7,519
5,599
1,887
7,486
Puerto Rico
1,752
601
3,503
1,752
590
2,342
Rhode Island
648
222
870
648
218
866
South Carolina
1,228
421
1,649
1,228
414
1,642
South Dakota
500
152
652
500
149
649
Tennessee
2,328
798
3,126
2,328
784
3,112
Texas
7,456
2,557
10,012
7,456
2,512
9,967
Utah
590
202
792
590
199
789
Vermont
500
127
627
500
125
625
Virginia
1,813
622
2,434
1,813
611
2,423
Washington
2,599
891
3,490
2,599
876
3,474
West Virginia
1,118
383
1,501
1,118
377
1,495
Wisconsin
2,093
718
2,810
2,093
705
2,798
Wyoming
500
112
612
500
110
610
State Subtotal
137,900
45,464
184,515
137,900
44,671
182,571
Technical Assistance
2,051
0
2,051
2,100
0
2,100
Set Asides
0
645
645
0
680
680
Total
140,000
46,110
186,061
140,000
45,351
185,351
Source: U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
FY2009 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, pp. D-89, D-90, G-24, G-25.

---

CRS-70
Table D-2. Change in Funding by State from the
Old Independent Living Program (as of FY1998)
and the CFCIP (as of FY2007)
State
Funding in FY1998
Funding in FY2007
Percentage Change
($)
($)
in Funding (%)
Alabama
1,038,490
1,784,444
71.8
Alaska
13,032
500,000
3736.7
Arizona
347,763
2,600,648
647.8
Arkansas
270,940
833,756
207.7
California
12,481,777
20,953,350
67.9
Colorado
825,854
2,120,011
156.7
Connecticut
754,518
1,815,162
140.6
Delaware
203,034
500,000
146.3
District of Columbia
1,091,992
1,091,992
0.0
Florida
987,045
7,566,271
666.6
Georgia
1,098,854
3,604,768
228.0
Hawaii
17,834
713,984
3,903.5
Idaho
107,004
500,000
367.3
Illinois
2,817,094
5,015,701
78.0
Indiana
1,019,970
2,905,756
184.9
Iowa
449,966
1,753,727
289.7
Kansas
717,477
1,506,181
109.9
Kentucky
791,557
1,880,984
137.6
Louisiana
1,358,131
1,358,131
0.0
Maine
565,888
596,019
5.3
Maryland
1,238,095
2,805,086
126.6
Massachusetts
635,852
3,160,529
397.1
Michigan
4,171,796
5,291,124
26.8
Minnesota
1,142,066
1,801,223
57.7
Mississippi
514,444
843,823
64.0
Missouri
1,295,026
2,928,213
126.1
Montana
244,190
573,562
134.9
Nebraska
435,562
1,608,401
269.3
Nevada
153,647
1,205,461
684.6
New Hampshire
320,326
500,000
56.1
New Jersey
2,297,848
3,108,387
35.3
New Mexico
207,149
591,373
185.5
New York
11,585,958
11,585,958
0.0
North Carolina
1,045,349
2,761,462
164.2
North Dakota
192,058
500,000
160.3
Ohio
2,860,992
4,502,283
57.4
Oklahoma
620,076
2,965,641
378.3
Oregon
930,799
2,844,837
205.6

---

CRS-71
State
Funding in FY1998
Funding in FY2007
Percentage Change
($)
($)
in Funding (%)
Pennsylvania
4,638,225
5,599,072
20.7
Puerto Rico
N/A
1,751,663
N/A
Rhode Island
314,840
647,646
105.7
South Carolina
579,606
1,227,919
111.9
South Dakota
193,430
500,000
158.5
Tennessee
777,838
2,327,548
199.3
Texas
1,841,708
7,455,535
304.8
Utah
202,348
589,825
191.5
Vermont
295,633
500,000
69.1
Virginia
1,361,561
1,812,581
33.1
Washington
825,168
2,598,840
214.9
West Virginia
521,302
1,117,956
114.5
Wisconsin
1,554,305
2,093,167
34.7
Wyoming
44,585
500,000
1,021.5
State Subtotal
70,000,000a
137,900,000
97.0
Technical Assistance
0
2,051
2,051.0
Total
70,000,000
140,000,000
100.0
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data provided by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, May 2008.
N/A means not applicable.

---

CRS-72
Table D-3. FY2005 Chafee Foster Care Independence Program:
Final Funds Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal
Treasury, by State
State
Dollar Amount
Dollar Amount
Dollar Amount
Percent of
Allocated
Expended
Returned to the
Allotment
Treasury
Returned
to Treasury

Alabama
1,563,344
1,563,344 0 0
Alaska
524,629
525,629
0
0

Arizona
1,991,020
1,991,020 0 0
Arkansas
771,514
771,514
0
0

California
25,012,729
25,012,729 0 0

Colorado
2,251,277
2,251,277 0 0

Connecticut
1,733,849
1,733,849 0 0
Delaware
500,000
499,958
42
0
District of Columbia
1,091,992
1,091,992
0
0

Florida
7,889,242
7,889,242 0 0

Georgia
3,506,787
3,506,787 0 0

Hawaii
763,027
763,027 0 0

Idaho
500,000
500,000 0 0
Illinois
5,556,956
5,556,956 0 0
Indiana
2,288,567
2,248,212
40,355
1.8
Iowa
1,288,685
1,288,685
0
0.0

Kansas
1,486,707
1,486,707 0 0
Kentucky
1,773,196
1,334,896
438,300
24.7
Louisiana
1,358,131
1,358,131
0
0

Maine
771,257
771,257 0 0

Maryland
2,963,870
2,962,870 0 0
Massachusetts
3,242,415 3,128,310 114,105
3.5

Michigan
5,497,293
5,497,293 0 0
Minnesota
1,887,123
1,886,868
255
0
Mississippi
723,166
693,691
29,475
4.1
Missouri
3,090,942
2,638,275
452,667
14.6

Montana
500,000
500,000 0 0

Nebraska
1,553,057
1,553,057 0 0

Nevada
587,636
587,636 0 0
New Hampshire
500,000
500,000
0
0
New Jersey
3,298,993
3,298,993
0
0
New Mexico
540,060
540,060
0
0
New York
11,585,958
11,585,958
0
0
North Carolina
2,451,871
2,299,836
152,035
6.2
North Dakota
500,000
368,216
131,784
26.4

Ohio
4,969,320
4,969,320 0 0

Oklahoma
2,364,432
2,364,432 0 0

---

CRS-73
State
Dollar Amount
Dollar Amount
Dollar Amount
Percent of
Allocated
Expended
Returned to the
Allotment
Treasury
Returned
to Treasury

Oregon
2,412,523
2,412,523 0 0

Pennsylvania
5,598,104
5,598,104 0 0
Puerto Rico
1,950,644
1,950,644
0
0
Rhode Island
600,238
600,238
0
0
South Carolina
1,258,597
1,258,597
0
0
South Dakota
500,000
500,000
0
0

Tennessee
2,439,784
2,439,784 0 0
Texas
5,706,887
5,702,068
4,819
0

Utah
522,829
522,829 0 0

Vermont
500,000
500,000 0 0
Virginia
1,812,029
1,711,992
100,037
5.5

Washington
2,161,782
2,161,782 0 0
West Virginia
1,046,430
1,046,430
0
0

Wisconsin
2,012,108
2,012,108 0 0
Wyoming
500,000
497,614
2,386
0.5
Total
137,900,000a 136,433,740
1,466,260
1.1
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, April 2008.
a. Training and technical assistance, research and evaluation, and set asides are not included in the
total funding.

---

CRS-74
Table D-4. FY2005 Chafee Education and Training Vouchers:
Estimated Funds Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal
Treasury, by State
State
Dollar Amount
Dollar Amount
Dollar Amount
Percent of
Allocated
Expended
Returned to the
Allotment
Treasury
Returned
to Treasury
Alabama
534,236
534,236
0
0
Alaskaa
179,280 165,396 13,884
7.7
Arizona
680,385
680,385
0
0
Arkansas
263,647
226,720
36,927
14.0
California
8,547,517
8,451,971
95,546
1.1
Colorado
769,321
767,971
1,350
0.2
Connecticut
592,502
592,502
0
0
Delaware
71,536
71,536
0
0
District of Columbia
271,732
271,732
0
0
Florida
2,695,964
2,334,113
361,851
13.4
Georgia
1,198,362
1,198,362
0
0
Hawaii
260,747
260,747
0
0.3
Idaho
123,123
79,940
43,183
35.1
Illinois
1,898,960 1,898,960
0
0
Indiana
782,064
782,064
0
0
Iowa
440,378
440,378
0
0
Kansas
508,047
468,658
39,389
7.8
Kentucky
605,948
402,448
203,500
33.6
Louisiana
399,073
396,282
2,791
1.0
Maine
263,559
209,009
54,500
20.7
Maryland
1,012,491
700,931
311,560
30.8
Massachusetts
1,108,019
1,108,019
0
0
Michigan
1,878,571
1,128,776
749,795
39.9
Minnesota
644,880
595,124
49,756
7.7
Mississippi
247,125
186,275
60,850
24.6
Missouri
1,056,257
273,339
782,918
74.1
Montana
163,988
163,988
0
0
Nebraska
530,721
530,721
0
0
Nevada
200,811
200,811
0
0
New Hampshire
106,953
106,953
0
0
New Jerseya
1,127,354 1,127,354
0
0
New Mexico
184,553
78,401
106,152
57.5
New York
3,362,375
3,362,375
136,491
0
North Carolina
837,869
825,205
12,664
1.5
North Dakota
108,798
77,470
31,328
28.8
Ohio
1,698,149
1,041,104
657,045
38.7
Oklahoma
807,989
807,989
0
0

---

CRS-75
State
Dollar Amount
Dollar Amount
Dollar Amount
Percent of
Allocated
Expended
Returned to the
Allotment
Treasury
Returned
to Treasury
Oregon
824,423
824,423
0
0
Pennsylvania
1,913,021
1,909,937
3,084
0.2
Puerto Ricoa
666,587 18,209
648,378
97.3
Rhode Island
205,117
205,117
0
0
South Carolina
430,096
430,096
0
0
South Dakota
138,854
107,292
31,562
22.7
Tennessee
833,739
833,739
0
0
Texas
1,950,195
1,425,349
524,846
26.9
Utah
178,665
161,066
17,559
9.9
Vermont
123,826
123,826
0
0
Virginia
619,218
384,977
234,241
37.8
Washington
738,738
738,738
0
0
West Virginia
357,593
146,222
211,371
59.1
Wisconsin
687,591
641,074
46,517
6.7
Wyoming
92,716 92,716
0
0
Total a
45,923,663 40,591,026 5,332,637
11.6
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, July 2007.
a. Data are not yet final for Alaska, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico, and therefore the total data are not
yet final.

---

CRS-76
Appendix E. Proposed Legislative Changes in the
110th Congress to the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program
Eight pending bills propose changes to the Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program: Kinship Caregiver Support Act (H.R. 2188), introduced by Representative
Danny Davis; Place to Call Home Act (H.R. 3409),151 introduced by Representative
Ruben Hinojosa; Tribal Foster Care and Adoption Access Act of 2007 (H.R. 4688
and S. 1956), introduced by Senator Max Baucus and Representative Earl Pomeroy;
Reconnecting Youth to Prevent Homelessness Act (H.R. 4208 and S. 2560),
introduced by Representative Shelley Berkeley and Senator John Kerry; and School
Choice for Foster Kids Act (H.R. 4311), introduced by Representative Michele
Bachmann; and the Improved Adoption Incentives and Relative Guardianship
Support Act of 2008 (S. 3038), introduced by Senator Grassley. The changes include
increased appropriations and expansion of the program, among other amendments.
Increased Appropriations. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 propose to
increase the annual appropriations for the CFCIP from $140 million to $200 million.
Eligibility. H.R. 2188, H.R. 3409, and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would require states
to provide educational, career, and other services to youth that states identify are
likely to remain in foster care until age 14. Current law requires states to identify
children likely to remain in care until age 18. H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S. 2560
would further require states to provide aftercare services (housing, counseling,
employment, education, and other appropriate services) to young adults ages 18 to
25. Currently, youth ages 18 to 21 are eligible for these services. The four bills
would additionally require states to certify that they will provide support services,
including housing, to youth as old as age 25. S. 3038 would add that a purpose of the
CFCIP is to provide services and supports intended to help youth transition to
independent adulthood to any youth ages 16 and older who have left foster care for
relative guardianship or adoption.
Education and Training Vouchers. Currently, youth who were adopted
from foster care at age 16 or older and youth who emancipate from care are eligible
for the vouchers. H.R. 2188, H.R. 3409, and H.R. 4208/S. 5260 would require states
to provide education and training vouchers to youth who left foster care at age 14 or
older under a kinship guardianship arrangement or because they were adopted. The
bills would also eliminate the upper age limit for eligibility purposes (currently 23)
and the requirement that a youth must receive the voucher at age 21 to be eligible at
age 22 or 23 for the program. S. 3038 would extend the vouchers to youth who left
foster care at 16 years for relative guardianship or adoption.
Direct Funding for Tribal Entities. Under current law, tribes are not
permitted to seek funding directly from the federal government for CFCIP funding.
151 H.R. 3409 is an omnibus child welfare and youth policy bill that makes changes to
several federal programs concerning youth, primarily those who have run away or are
homeless.

---

CRS-77
Rather, they may enter into cooperative agreements with states for the tribe or the
state to provide the independent living services to the youth.152 S. 1956/H.R. 4688
would permit eligible tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia to receive a part
of a state’s allotment of CFCIP and ETV funds (in proportion to the tribal entity’s
share of the foster care population living in the state) directly from the federal
government in exchange for providing independent living services to tribal youth in
the state who are aging out or are expected to age out of tribal care. Tribes would
receive this funding whether they operate a Title IV-E foster care program (as
provided under a separate provision of S. 1956/H.R. 4688); enter into a cooperative
agreement with the state; or enter into an agreement with HHS (as provided under a
separate provision of S. 1956/H.R. 4688). Alternatively, the bills would explicitly
permit states and tribes to enter into cooperative agreements with the state to provide
independent living services. The bills would require states to provide independent
living services if the tribes decide not to provide the services under one of three
pathways discussed above or enter into cooperative agreements with the state to
provide the services.
Private Social Service Providers. Current law does not specify the types
of providers that are to assist the state in delivering support services to youth aging
out of foster care; rather, it requires that states “involve the public and private sectors
in helping adolescents in foster care achieve independence.” H.R. 3409 and H.R.
4208/S. 2560 propose to amend the CFCIP by requiring states to distribute program
funds to a range of qualified private social service providers and to ensure that these
providers have equal opportunities to receive the funds.

Information About Support Services. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560
would require that the state inform all children leaving care of the full range of
available financial, housing, counseling, health, and other services for which the
youth is eligible. The bills would further require that the HHS Secretary provide for
the “efficient distribution” to states and local areas of information about federal
programs — other than the CFCIP — that can assist youth in the transition to self-
sufficiency and how to access the services under these programs.
Evaluations. H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4208/S. 2560 would require the HHS
Secretary to conduct evaluations of model independent living programs that focus on
improving outcomes for youth aging out in a number of areas. The bills would also
require the evaluations to include information on mental and physical health,
personal development, and housing, as well as room and board services and how
these services are improving housing outcomes for youth. The proposed provision
would expand the evaluation requirements currently provided under law, which state
that the HHS Secretary conduct evaluations of potential national significance and that
the evaluations include information “on education, employment, and personal
development.”
152 This arrangement is not explicit under current law.

---