.

Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics
and Programs

Adrienne L. Fernandes
Specialist in Social Policy
May 20, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33785
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

Summary
There is no single definition of the term “runaway youth” or “homeless youth.” However, both
groups of youth share the risk of not having adequate shelter and other provisions, and may
engage in harmful behaviors while away from a permanent home. These two groups also include
“thrownaway” youth who are asked to leave their homes, and may include other vulnerable youth
populations, such as current and former foster youth and youth with mental health or other issues.
Youth most often cite family conflict as the major reason for their homelessness or episodes of
running away. A youth’s relationship with a step-parent, sexual activity, sexual orientation,
pregnancy, school problems, and alcohol and drug use are strong predictors of family discord.
The precise number of homeless and runaway youth is unknown due to their residential mobility
and overlap among the populations. Determining the number of these youth is further
complicated by the lack of a standardized methodology for counting the population and
inconsistent definitions of what it means to be homeless or a runaway. Estimates of the homeless
youth exceed 1 million. Estimates of runaway youth—including “thrownaway” youth (youth
asked to leave their homes)—are between 1 million and 1.7 million.
From the early 20th century through the 1960s, the needs of runaway and homeless youth were
handled locally through the child welfare agency, juvenile justice courts, or both. The 1970s
marked a shift toward federal oversight of programs that help youth who had run afoul of the law,
including those who committed status offenses (i.e., running away). In 1974, Congress passed the
Runaway Youth Act of 1974 as Title III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
(P.L. 93-415) to assist runaways outside of the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. The
federal Runaway and Homeless Youth Program (RHYP) has since been expanded through
reauthorization laws enacted approximately every five years since the 1970s, most recently by the
Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act (P.L. 110-378).
The RHYP currently authorizes federal funding for three programs—the Basic Center Program,
Transitional Living Program, and Street Outreach Program. The Basic Center Program provides
temporary shelter, counseling, and after care services to runaway and homeless youth under age
18 and their families. The BCP serves approximately 40,000 to 50,000 youth per year. The
Transitional Living Program is targeted to older youth ages 16 through 22 (and sometimes an
older age), and serves approximately 3,500 to 4,000 youth each year. Youth who use the TLP
receive longer-term housing with supportive services. The Street Outreach Program provides
education, treatment, counseling, and referrals for runaway, homeless, and street youth who have
been subjected to or are at risk of being subjected to sexual abuse and exploitation. Each year, the
SOP makes hundreds of thousands of contacts with street youth (some of whom have multiple
contacts). Related services authorized by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act include a
national communication system to facilitate communication between service providers, runaway
youth, and their families; training and technical support for grantees; and evaluations of the
programs; among other activities. The 2008 reauthorizing legislation expands the program,
requiring HHS to conduct an incidence and prevalence study of runaway and homeless youth.
In addition to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, other federal programs support
runaway and homeless youth. Assistance can be provided through the Education for Homeless
Children and Youth program, discretionary grants for family violence prevention, and the Chafee
Foster Care Independent Living program for foster youth.
Congressional Research Service

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Who Are Homeless and Runaway Youth?.................................................................................... 2
Defining the Population ........................................................................................................ 2
Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 3
Homeless Youth .............................................................................................................. 4
Runaway and Thrownaway Youth ................................................................................... 4
Factors Influencing Homelessness and Leaving Home........................................................... 5
Youth in Foster Care ....................................................................................................... 6
Risks Associated with Running Away and Homelessness....................................................... 6
Evolution of Federal Policy......................................................................................................... 7
Early Years: 1930s-1960s...................................................................................................... 7
Federal Legislation on Homeless Youth........................................................................... 7
Federal Legislation on Runaway Youth ......................................................................... 10
The Runaway Youth Act of 1974......................................................................................... 10
Expanding the Scope of the Act........................................................................................... 11
Funding and Description of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program ................................... 12
Federal Administration and Funding.................................................................................... 12
Basic Center Program ......................................................................................................... 13
Overview ...................................................................................................................... 13
Funding Allocation........................................................................................................ 14
Youth in the Program .................................................................................................... 14
Transitional Living Program................................................................................................ 17
Overview ...................................................................................................................... 17
Funding Allocation........................................................................................................ 18
Youth in the Program .................................................................................................... 18
Outcomes of Youth in the TLP ...................................................................................... 19
Maternity Group Homes................................................................................................ 20
Street Outreach Program ..................................................................................................... 20
Overview ...................................................................................................................... 20
Funding ........................................................................................................................ 21
Youth in the Program .................................................................................................... 21
Incidence and Prevalence Studies ........................................................................................ 21
Training and Technical Assistance ....................................................................................... 22
National Communication System .................................................................................. 23
Oversight ............................................................................................................................ 23
Oversight of Grantees ................................................................................................... 23
Congressional Oversight ............................................................................................... 24
PART Evaluation........................................................................................................... 25
Additional Federal Support for Runaway and Homeless Youth .................................................. 25
Educational Assistance........................................................................................................ 25
Shared Youth Vision Initiative ............................................................................................. 26
Discretionary Grants for Family Violence Prevention .......................................................... 27
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program ......................................................................... 27

Congressional Research Service

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

Figures
Figure 1. Evolution of Federal Runaway and Homeless Youth Policy .......................................... 9
Figure 2. Age of Youth Served by the Basic Center Program, FY2009 ....................................... 16
Figure 3. Race of Youth Served by the Basic Center Program, FY2009...................................... 17

Tables
Table 1. Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Funding, FY2001-FY2010 (Enacted)
and FY2011 (Proposed).......................................................................................................... 13
Table A-1. Basic Center Funding by State and Territory, FY2009-FY2010................................. 29

Appendixes
Appendix. ................................................................................................................................. 29

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 31
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 31

Congressional Research Service

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

Introduction
Running away from home is not a recent phenomenon. Folkloric heroes Huckleberry Finn and
Davey Crockett fled their abusive fathers to find adventure and employment. Although some
youth today also leave home due to abuse and neglect, they often endure far more negative
outcomes than their romanticized counterparts from an earlier era. Without adequate and safe
shelter, runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to engaging in high-risk behaviors and
further victimization. Youth who live away from home for extended periods may become
removed from school and systems of support that promote positive development. They might also
resort to illicit activities, including selling drugs and prostitution, for survival.
Congress began to hear concerns about the vulnerabilities of the runaway population in the 1970s
due to increased awareness about these youth and the establishment of runaway shelters to assist
them in returning home. Since that time, Congress has authorized services to provide support for
runaway and homeless youth outside of the juvenile justice, mental health, and child welfare
systems. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA), as amended, authorizes federal funding
for three programs to assist runaway and homeless youth—the Basic Center Program (BCP),
Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach Program (SOP)—through FY2013.1
These programs make up the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program (RHYP), administered by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Basic Center Program: To provide outreach, crisis intervention, temporary
shelter, counseling, family unification, and after care services to runaway and
homeless youth under age 18 and their families. In some cases, BCP-funded
programs may serve older youth.
Transitional Living Program: To support projects that provide homeless youth
ages 16 through 22 with stable, safe longer-term residential services up to 18
months (or longer under certain circumstances), including counseling in basic life
skills, interpersonal skills building, educational advancement, job attainment
skills, and physical and mental health care.
Street Outreach Program: To provide street-based outreach and education,
including treatment, counseling, provision of information, and referrals for
runaway, homeless, and street youth who have been subjected to or are at risk of
being subjected to sexual abuse and exploitation.2
This report begins with a brief discussion of the reauthorization of and appropriations for the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, followed by an overview of the runaway and homeless
youth population. The report describes the challenges in defining and counting the runaway and
homeless youth population, as well as the factors that influence homelessness and leaving home.
In particular, youth who experience foster care are vulnerable to running away or becoming
homeless while in care or after having been emancipated from the system. The report also

1 RHYA was most recently reauthorized by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection Act (P.L. 110-378). 42
U.S.C. § 4701 et seq. For additional information about the 2008 reauthorization law, see CRS Report RL34483,
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Reauthorization Legislation and Issues in the 110th Congress, by Adrienne L.
Fernandes.
2 In 42 U.S.C. § 4701 et seq., this program is referred to as the Education and Prevention Services to Reduce Abuse of
Runaway, Homeless, and Street Youth Program.
Congressional Research Service
1

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

provides background on the evolution of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act from the 1970s
until it was last amended in 2008. It then describes the administration and funding of the Basic
Center, Transitional Living, and Street Outreach programs that were created from the act, as well
as the functions of their ancillary components. Finally, the report discusses other federal programs
that may be used to assist runaway and homeless youth.
Who Are Homeless and Runaway Youth?
Defining the Population
There is no single federal definition of the terms “homeless youth” or “runaway youth.”
However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services relies on the definitions from the
program’s authorizing legislation and its accompanying regulations.3 The Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act defines homeless youth for purposes of the BCP as individuals under age 18 (or some
older age if permitted by state or local law) who are unable to live in a safe environment with a
relative and lack safe alternative living arrangements. For purposes of the TLP, homeless youth
are individuals ages 16 through 22 who are unable to live in a safe environment with a relative
and lack safe alternative living arrangements. Youth older than age 22 may participate if they
entered the program before age 22 and meet other requirements.4 The accompanying regulations
further define homeless youth as being in need of services and shelter that provide supervision
and care.5 The act and regulations describe runaway youth as individuals under age 18 who
absent themselves from their home or legal residence at least overnight without the permission of
their parents or legal guardians.6
Although these current policy definitions are distinct, youth can be homeless and runaways. The
American Medical Association’s Council on Scientific Affairs argues that the distinctions
between the two groups are artificial and may be counterproductive. Their report on this
population concludes that most youth on the streets are both runaways and homeless because they
have no home to which they are willing or able to return.7
Some definitions of runaway and homeless youth may include a sub-population known as
“thrownaway” youth (or “push outs”) who have been abandoned by their parents or have been
told to leave their households. These youth may be considered part of the homeless population if
they lack alternative living arrangements. However, the most recent federal study of runaway
youth—the National Incidence Study of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway
Children-2 (NISMART-2) conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice—includes thrownaway

3 The U.S. Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development use definitions of homelessness that are
different than those used by HHS. The U.S. Department of Justice uses a different definition for runaway youth. For
some of these definitions, see CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs and Recent
Legislation
, coordinated by Libby Perl.
4 Prior to the enactment of the 2008 reauthorization law (P.L. 110-378), the law did not authorize an older age for youth
to stay at a BCP or TLP-funded site. Further, the law specified that youth ages 16 through 21 were eligible for the TLP
program.
5 45 C.F.R. § 1351.
6 Ibid. The regulations reference “family” rather than “parent” or “legal guardian.”
7 American Medical Association Council of Scientific Affairs, “Health Care Needs of Homeless and Runaway
Youths,” Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 262, no. 10 (September 1989).
Congressional Research Service
2

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

youth in its estimates.8 The study de-emphasizes distinctions between runaway and thrownaway
populations because many youth experience both circumstances, and the categorization of a
runaway or thrownaway episode frequently depends on whether information was gathered from
the youth (who tend to emphasize the thrownaway aspects of the episode) or their care takers
(who tend to emphasize the runaway aspects). Some definitions of runaway and homeless youth,
including those used by HHS, include “street youth” because they lack shelter and live on the
street and in other areas that increase the risk of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, drug abuse,
and prostitution.9
Demographics
The precise number of homeless and runaway youth is unknown due to their residential mobility.
These youth often eschew the shelter system for locations or areas that are not easily accessible to
shelter workers and others who count the homeless and runaways.10 Youth who come into contact
with census takers may also be reluctant to report that they have left home or are homeless.
Determining the number of homeless and runaway youth is further complicated by the lack of a
standardized methodology for counting the population and inconsistent definitions of what it
means to be homeless or a runaway.11
Differences in methodology for collecting data on homeless populations may also influence how
the characteristics of the runaway and homeless youth population are reported. Some studies have
relied on point prevalence estimates that report whether youth have experienced homelessness at
a given point in time, such as on a particular day.12 According to researchers that study the
characteristics of runaway and homeless youth, these studies appear to be biased toward
describing individuals who experience longer periods of homelessness.13 The sample location
may also misrepresent the characteristics of the population generally.14 Surveying youth who live
on the streets may lend to the perception that all runaway and homeless youth are especially
deviant. Youth surveyed in locations with high rates of drug use and sex work, known as “cruise
areas,” tend to be older, to have been away from home longer, to have recently visited
community-based agencies, and to be less likely to attend school than youth in “non-cruise
areas.”15
As discussed later in the report, the Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act (P.L. 110-378), which
renewed the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program through FY2013, authorizes funding for

8 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Runaway/Thrownaway
Children: National Estimates and Characteristics,” by Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak,
OJJDP NISMART Bulletin, October 2002, http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_runaway.pdf.
(Hereafter, U.S. Department of Justice, “Runaway/Thrownaway Children.”)
9 § 42 U.S.C. 5732a.
10 Christopher L. Ringwalt et al., “The Prevalence of Homelessness Among Adolescents in the United States,”
American Journal of Public Health, vol. 88, no. 9 (September 1998), p. 1325. (Hereafter, Ringwalt, “The Prevalence of
Homelessness Among Adolescents.”)
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid, pp. 1325-1326.
13 Ibid.
14 Andrea L. Witkin et al., “Finding Homeless Youth: Patterns Based on Geographical Area and Number of Homeless
Episodes,” Youth & Society, vol. 37, no. 1 (September 2005), pp. 62-63.
15 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
3

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

HHS to conduct periodic studies of the incidence and prevalence of youth who have run away or
are homeless.
Homeless Youth
A 1998 study in the American Journal of Public Health used the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s (CDC) 1992 National Health Interview Survey of youth ages 12 to 17 to determine
the number of those who were homeless.16 In the survey, youth were asked whether, in the past 12
months, they had spent one or more nights in a specific type of shelter not intended to be a
dwelling place (i.e., in an abandoned building, public place, outside, underground, or in a
stranger’s home) or a youth or adult shelter. Based on their responses, researchers calculated that
5% of the population ages 12 to 17—more than 1 million youth in a given year—experienced
homelessness. The researchers concluded that the prevalence of staying at a particular dwelling
place while homeless was constant across racial groups, socioeconomic status, youth who lived
with both parents and those who did not, and youth who lived in cities of varying sizes. However,
boys were more likely to experience homeless episodes, especially as these episodes related to
sleeping in a shelter or outside.17
Measured characteristics of homeless youth vary depending on the source of the sample and
methodology. Some evaluations of homeless youth indicate that gender representation varies
across sample locations. Surveys from family shelters suggest either even numbers of females and
males, or more females (see “Youth in the Program” below for a discussion of the gender of
youth using federally funded Basic Center shelters).18 Although studies tend to document that
homeless youth generally reflect the ethnic makeup of their local areas, some studies show
overrepresentation of racial or ethnic minorities relative to the community (black youth are
overrepresented at the Basic Center shelters).19 The history of homelessness among youth also
varies by the sample location. Youth in shelters tend to have short periods of homelessness and
have not experienced prior homeless episodes while youth living on the streets are more likely to
demonstrate patterns of episodic (i.e., multiple episodes adding up to less than one year) or
chronic homelessness (i.e., being homeless for one year or longer).20
Runaway and Thrownaway Youth
According to HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA),
approximately 1.6 million youth (7 %) ages 12 to 17 had run away from home and slept on the
street in a 12-month period (in 2002). These youth were more likely to be male (55%) than
female, and nearly half (46%) were ages 16 or 17.21 The NISMART-2, a study sponsored by the

16 Ringwalt, “The Prevalence of Homelessness Among Adolescents,” pp. 1326-1327.
17 Ibid., p 1327.
18 Marjorie J. Robertson and Paul A. Toro, “Homeless Youth: Research, Intervention, and Policy,” The 1998 National
Symposium on Homeless Research
, (1998), pp. 1-2, http://aspe.hhs.gov/progsys/homeless/symposium/3-Youth.htm.
(Hereafter, Robertson and Toro, “Homeless Youth: Research, Intervention, and Policy.”)
19 Ibid., p. 4.
20 Ibid.
21 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Office of Applied Statistics, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, Substance Abuse Among Youth Who Had Run
Away From Home
, 2002, http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/runAways/runAways.htm. (Hereafter, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse Among Youth Who Had Run Away From Home.)
Congressional Research Service
4

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

U.S. Department of Justice, estimates that 1.7 million youth under age 18 left home or were asked
to leave home in 1999.22 Of these youth, 68% were between the ages of 15 and 17. Males and
females were equally represented in the population. White youth made up the largest share of
runaways (57%), followed by black youth (17%) and Hispanic youth (15%). Over half of all
youth left home for one to six days, and 30% traveled more than one to 10 miles. An additional
30% traveled more than 10 to 50 miles. Nearly all (99%) runaway and thrownaway youth were
returned to their homes. Another study estimates a somewhat smaller number of runaway youth—
1 million to 1.3 million.23
A study of runaway youth’s lifetime prevalence of running away used longitudinal survey data of
young people who were 12 to 18 years old when they were first interviewed about whether they
had run away—defined as staying away at least one night without their parents’ prior knowledge
or permission—along with other behaviors.24 In subsequent years, youth who were under age 17
at their previous interview were asked if they had run away since their last interview. Youth who
had ever run away were asked how many times they had run away and the age at which they first
ran away. The study found that 19% of youth ran away before turning 18 years old; females were
more likely than males to run away; and among white, black, and Hispanic youth, black youth
have the highest rate of ever running away. Youth who ran away reported that they did so about
three times on average; however, about half of runaways had only run away once. About half of
the youth had run away before age 14.
Factors Influencing Homelessness and Leaving Home
Youth most often cite family conflict as the major reason for their homelessness or episodes of
running away. A literature review of homeless youth found that a youth’s relationship with a step-
parent, sexual activity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, school problems, and alcohol and drug use
were strong predictors of family discord.25 Of those callers who used the National Runaway
Switchboard (a federally sponsored call center for youth and their relatives involved in runaway
incidents) nearly one-third attributed family conflict as the reason for their call.26 Runaway and
homeless youth also describe abuse and neglect as common experiences. Over 20% of youth in
the NISMART-2 reported being physically or sexually abused at home in the prior year or feared
abuse upon returning home.27 Gay and lesbian youth appear to be overrepresented in the homeless
population, due often to experiencing negative reactions from their parents when they came out
about their sexuality. In five studies of unaccompanied youth in mid-size and large cities, between
20% and 40% of respondents identified as gay or lesbian.28

22 U.S. Department of Justice, “Runaway/Thrownaway Children,” p. 7.
23 Jan Moore, Unaccompanied and Homeless Youth Review of Literature (1995-2005), National Center for Homeless
Education, 2005, p. 6, http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeprevention/download/pdf/
Homeless%20Youth%20Review%20of%20Literature.pdf.
24 Michael R. Pergamit, On the Lifetime Prevalence of Running Away From Home, Urban Institute, April 2010,
http://www.urban.org/publications/412087.html.
25 Robertson and Toro, “Homeless Youth: Research, Intervention, and Policy,” p. 5.
26 National Runaway Switchboard, “NRS Call Statistics,” at http://www.nrscrisisline.org/news_events/call_stats.html.
27 U.S. Department of Justice, “Runaway/Thrownaway Children,” p. 8.
28 Nicholas Ray, Lesbian, Gay, and Transgender Youth: An Epidemic of Homelessness, National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force and National Coalition for the Homeless, 2006, pp. 12-14, http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/
reports/HomelessYouth.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

Youth in Foster Care
Youth who run away often have a history of involvement in the foster care system. On the last
day of FY2008, states reported 9,766 (2%) foster children as “runaways.”29 A study of youth who
ran away from foster care between 1993 and 2003 by the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the
University of Chicago found that the average likelihood of an individual running away from
foster care placements increased over this time period.30 Youth questioned about their runaway
experiences cited three primary reasons why they ran from foster care. First, they wanted to
reconnect or stay connected to their biological families even if they recognized that their families
were neither healthy nor safe. Second, youth wanted to express their autonomy and find normalcy
among sometimes chaotic events. Many youth explained that they already felt independent
because they had taken on adult responsibilities beginning at a young age. Third, youth wanted to
maintain surrogate family relationships with non-family members. Youth in the study were more
likely than their foster care peers to abuse drugs and to have certain mental health disorders.
Youth who experience foster care are also vulnerable to homelessness after emancipating from
the child welfare system. Each year as many as 26,500 youth “age out” of foster care, many of
whom lack the proper supports to successfully transition to adulthood.31 Only about two-fifths of
eligible foster youth receive independent living services.32 Of those youth who do receive
services, few have adequate housing assistance. Research on youth who emancipate from foster
care suggests a nexus between foster care involvement and later episodes of homelessness. In a
study of 21-year-olds who had emancipated from foster care in three states, approximately 18%
had experienced homelessness since leaving care.33 A national study of former foster youth found
the percentage of the population who experienced homelessness to be much higher—25%.34
Risks Associated with Running Away and Homelessness
Runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to multiple problems while they are away from a
permanent home, including untreated mental health disorders, drug use, and sexual exploitation.
In a 1996 evaluation of street youth (ages 13 to 17) in a Hollywood cruise area, about one-quarter
met clinical criteria for major depression compared to 10% or less of their peers in the general
population.35 However, youth who live on the streets in cruise areas may experience greater

29 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #16 (Preliminary Estimates for FY2008). October
2009, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report16.htm. (Hereafter, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #16.)
30 Mark E. Courtney et al., “Youth Who Run Away from Out-of-Home Care,” Chapin Hall Center for Children Issue
Brief
, no. 103 (March 2005), p. 2, http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1382.
31 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #14.
32 Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring. “The Transition to Adulthood for Youth ‘Aging Out’ of the Foster
Care System” in Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood for
Vulnerable Populations
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp. 27-32. (Hereafter, Courtney and
Huering, “Youth ‘Aging Out’ of the Foster Care System.”)
33 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. 16, http://www.chapinhall.org/
article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355.
34 Ronna Cook, Esther Fleischman, and Virginia Grimes, A National Evaluation of Title IV-E Foster Care Independent
Living Programs for Youth, Phase 2 Final Report
, vol. 1 (1991), Westat, pp. 4-11.
35 Robertson and Toro, “Homeless Youth: Research, Intervention, and Policy,” p. 7. The clinical criteria are found in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd Revision, published by the American Psychiatric
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

challenges than other homeless and runaway youth who stay in other locations. Another study
that compared rates for many mental disorders between homeless youth and the general youth
population concluded that they were similar, although homeless youth had significantly higher
rates of disruptive behavior disorders.36
Drug use also appears prevalent among the runaway and homeless youth population. The
SAMHSA study found that nearly 30% had used marijuana and almost one-quarter used any
illicit drug other than marijuana.37 NISMART-2 reported that 17% of runaway youth used hard
drugs (not defined) and 18% were in the company of someone known to be abusing drugs when
they were away from home.38 Runaway and homeless youth are also vulnerable to sexual abuse
and exploitation, and are at high risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Some youth
resort to illegal activity including stealing, prostitution, and selling drugs for survival. Runaway
and homeless youth report other challenges including poor health and the lack of basic
provisions.39
Evolution of Federal Policy
Prior to the passage of the 1974 Runaway Youth Act (Title III, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974, P.L. 93-415), federal policy was limited in the area of runaway and
homeless youth. If they received any services, most such youth were served through the local
child welfare agency, juvenile justice court system, or both. The 1970s marked a shift to a more
rehabilitative model for assisting youth who had run afoul of the law, including those who
committed status offenses such as running away. During this period, Congress focused increasing
attention on runaways and other vulnerable youth due, in part, to emerging sociological models to
explain why youth engaged in deviant behavior. The first runaway shelters were created in the
late 1960s and 1970s to assist them in returning home. The landmark Runway Youth Act of 1974
decriminalized runaway youth and authorized funding for programs to provide shelter,
counseling, and other services. Since 1974, Congress has expanded the services available to both
runaway youth and homeless youth. Figure 1 traces the evolution of the act.
Early Years: 1930s-1960s
Federal Legislation on Homeless Youth
The federal government first addressed the problem of youth homelessness during the Great
Depression when it established programs to provide relief services for children and youth, often
accompanied by their families, who left home to find work and became homeless. The estimated

(...continued)
Association, a handbook used most often to diagnose mental disorders in the United States.
36 Ibid.
37 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Substance Abuse Among Youth Who Had Run Away From Home.
38 U.S. Department of Justice, “Runaway/Thrownaway Children,” p. 8.
39 Robertson and Toro, “Homeless Youth: Research, Intervention, and Policy,” p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
7

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

number of homeless individuals in 1933 was 2 million to 5 million, of whom 20% to 30% were
boys.40
In response to the influx of homeless adults and youth to the nation’s cities, the Federal Transient
Relief Act of 1933 established a Transient Division within the Federal Transient Relief
Administration to provide relief services through state grants. Also in 1933, the Civilian
Conservation Corps opened camps and shelters for more than 1 million low-income older youth.
In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt created the National Youth Administration by executive
order to open employment bureaus and provide cash assistance to poor college and high school
students. Together, these programs helped to reduce the number of homeless and transient youth.
According to the July 1935 Federal Transient Relief Act’s Monthly Report, 50,000 young people
were homeless and/or transient at that time.41 The Transient Division was disbanded shortly
thereafter.

40 Eric Beecroft and Seymour Janow, “Toward a National Policy for Migration,” Social Forces, vol. 16, no. 4 (May
1938), p. 477. (Hereafter, Beecroft and Janow, “Migration.”)
41 Ibid., 477.
Congressional Research Service
8


.

Figure 1. Evolution of Federal Runaway and Homeless Youth Policy

Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service.

CRS-9

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

Federal Legislation on Runaway Youth
Homeless youth were generally considered a problem that had ended after the Great Depression,
but youth running away from home was emerging as a more serious issue. At about the same time
the federal government withdrew funding for homeless and transient youth services provided
during the Great Depression, it enacted, for the first time, separate and unrelated legislation to
assist vulnerable youth—including runaways—through state grants. As originally enacted, the
Social Security Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-231) authorized indefinite annual funding of $1.5 million for
states to establish, extend, and strengthen public child welfare services in “predominately rural”
or “special needs” areas. For purposes of this program (now at Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social
Security Act), these were described as services “for the protection and care of homeless,
dependent, and neglected children, and children in danger of becoming delinquent.”42 In 1950
(P.L. 81-734), Title IV-B was amended to allow state grants to be used to pay the cost of returning
a runaway child under the age of 16 to his or her home state from another state. In 1958, the
program was again amended (P.L. 85-840) to increase the age of runaways who could receive this
aid to 18 and to include 15 days of maintenance (i.e., room and board) for each child in cases
where the costs could not be met by his or her parents or the agency institution legally responsible
for the care of that child.
The passage of the 1961 Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act (P.L. 87-274)
focused on the environmental and underlying sociological factors of deviant behavior among
youth. Unaccompanied minors on the street fit the image of troubled, and potentially delinquent
youth. This image was further entrenched as some runaway youth joined the Counterculture
Movement of the 1960s.43 The first runaway centers (Huckleberry House in San Francisco, the
Runaway House in Washington, DC, and branch offices of the Young Women’s Christian
Association and Traveler’s Aid Society) opened during the late 1960s to provide shelter,
counseling, and other services to youth and their families. The centers received little, if any,
federal funds, and relied primarily on the donations of churches and other non-governmental
organizations.
The Runaway Youth Act of 1974
Concerned that an increasing number of runaway youth were entering the juvenile justice system,
the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Senate Judiciary Committee
conducted hearings on runaway youth in 1972 to explore the problems facing this population.44
Testimony from government officials, youth workers, and community leaders focused on the
lifestyles of youth, as well as their interaction with police and increasing reliance on runaway

42 In 1962 (P.L. 87-543), child welfare services were formally defined under Title IV-B as “public social services
which supplement, or substitute for parental care and supervision for the purpose of (1) remedying or assisting in the
solution of problems which may result in, the neglect abuse, exploitation, or delinquency of children, (2) protecting and
caring for homeless, dependent, or neglected children, (3) protecting and promoting the welfare of children, including
the strengthening of their own homes where possible or, where needed, the provision of adequate care of children away
from their homes in foster family homes or day-care or other child-care facilities.” P.L. 109-288 (2006) removes
reference to homeless youth.
43 Karen M. Staller, “Constructing the Runaway and Homeless Youth Problem: Boy Adventurers to Girl Prostitutes,
1960-1978,” Journal of Communication, vol. 53, no. 2 (2003), p. 331.
44 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, Juvenile
Delinquency
, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., January 13-14, 1972 (Washington: GPO, 1972).
Congressional Research Service
10

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

centers. Runaway youth were concentrated in areas like the Haight District in San Francisco and
New York City’s Greenwich Village, often staying in filthy, overcrowded houses (known as
“pads”) with other youth and adults. Police officers routinely sent unaccompanied youth to
juvenile detention centers. The few runaway centers operating in the early 1970s were
underfunded, understaffed, and unable to help youth cope with the reasons they ran away. A
fractured home life and problems with school were most often cited as motivation for leaving
home. Youth who ran away because they were abused or neglected were not always placed under
the protection of the state. These youth, like most runaways, had to secure permission from their
parents to stay overnight at a runaway center.
The subcommittee also heard testimony regarding the need to establish and federally fund
programs to assist runaway youth. At the time, states could only use Social Security Title IV-B
funds for runaway youth to return them to their state of origin (not for intrastate transfer). Other
federal funding streams that targeted runaway youth were also limited. The Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention and Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-445) authorized funding for approximately four
runaway centers from 1968 to 1972. The primary purpose of the legislation was to provide
assistance to courts, correctional systems, schools, and community agencies for research and
training on juvenile justice issues.
Although the Senate reacted to the hearings by passing legislation to assist runaway youth, the
House did not act. However, two years later, in 1974, Congress passed the Runaway Youth Act as
Title III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA, P.L. 93-415). A total of
$10 million for each fiscal year, FY1975 through FY1977, was authorized to provide temporary
shelter, family counseling, and after-care services to runaway youth and their families through
what is now referred to as the Basic Center Program. To receive funding under Title III, states had
to decriminalize runaway youth and provide services outside of the juvenile justice system. The
legislation also included a provision requiring a comprehensive statistical survey of runaway
youth.
Expanding the Scope of the Act
Through the Juvenile Justice Amendments to the JJDPA in 1977 (P.L. 95-115), Congress
reauthorized the Runaway Youth Act for FY1978 and expanded its scope to include homeless
youth. Such youth became eligible for services provided through the Basic Center Program. Two
other programs were later added that targeted specific sub-populations of runaway and homeless
youth. Congress established the Transitional Living Program through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988 (P.L. 100-690) to meet the needs of older youth ages 16 to 21. The impetus for passing the
legislation was the success of demonstration transitional living projects in the 1980s. The other
major program, the Street Outreach Program, was created in 1994 by the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). The purpose of the program is to serve
homeless youth living on the streets. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act was most recently
reauthorized by the Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-378), which extended
the program’s funding authorization through FY2013 and authorized funding for a prevalence and
incidence study of the homeless youth population, among other activities.
Congressional Research Service
11

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

Funding and Description of the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Program

Federal Administration and Funding
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program is administered by the Family and Youth Services
(FYSB) Bureau within HHS’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF). The funding
streams for the Basic Center Program and Transitional Living Program were separate until
Congress consolidated them in 1999 when RHYA was reauthorized by the Missing, Exploited,
and Runaway Children Protection Act (P.L. 106-71). Under current law, 90% of the federal funds
appropriated under the consolidated program must be used for the Basic Center Program and
Transitional Living Program. (Together, the programs and their related activities are known as the
Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth program.) Of this amount, 45% is reserved for the
BCP and no more than 55% is reserved for the TLP. The remaining share of federal funding is
allocated for (1) a national communication system to facilitate communication between service
providers, runaway youth, and their families; (2) training and technical support for grantees; (3)
evaluations of the programs; (4) HHS efforts to coordinate with other federal agencies on matters
relating to the health, education, employment, and housing of these youth; and (5) periodic
incidence and prevalence study of runaway and homeless youth. Although the Street Outreach
Program is a separately funded component, SOP services are coordinated with those provided
under the BCP and TLP.
Table 1 shows funding levels for the RHYP from FY2001 through FY2010 and the level of
funding proposed by the Obama Administration for FY2011.45 Over this period, funding has been
significantly increased for the program twice—from FY2001 to FY2002 and FY2007 to FY2008.
The first increase was due to the doubling of funding for the Transitional Living Program.
Although the TLP authorized services for pregnant and parenting teens prior to FY2002, the Bush
Administration sought funds specifically to serve this population and Congress provided the
increased funds to enable these youth to access TLP services. In FY2003, amendments to the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (P.L. 108-96) authorized TLP funds to be used for services
targeted at pregnant and parenting teens at TLP centers known as Maternity Group Homes. The
second funding increase was likely due in part to heightened attention to the RHYP, as Congress
began to consider legislation in FY2008 to reauthorize the program.

45 The program did not receive funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 110-5), the
omnibus stimulus law.
Congressional Research Service
12

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

Table 1. Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Funding, FY2001-FY2010 (Enacted)
and FY2011 (Proposed)
($ in thousands)
Program FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007a FY2008b FY2009 FY2010 FY2011
BCP
$48,338 $48,288 $48,298 $49,171 $48,786 $48,265 $48,298 $52,860 $53,469 $53,744 $53,744
TLPc
20,740 39,736 40,505 40,260 39,938 39,511 39,539 43,268 43,765 43,990 43,990
SOP
14,999 14,999 15,399 15,302 15,178 15,017 15,027 17,221 17,721 17,971 17,971
Total
84,127 103,023 104,202 104,733 103,902 102,793 102,864 113,349 114,955 115,705 115,705
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2003, p. H-48; Administration for Children and Families Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2004, p. H-45; Administration for Children and Families Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2005, p. H-89; Administration for Children and Families Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2006, p. D-41; Administration for Children and Families Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2007, p. D-41; Administration for Children and Families Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2008, pp. 92, 98; Administration for Children and Families Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2009, p. D-42; Administration for Children and Families Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2010, pp. 85,92; and Administration for Children and Families Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2011, pp. 95, 102.
Note: BCP and TLP funds are appropriated together under what is known as the Consolidated Runaway and
Homeless Youth program. SOP funds are appropriated separately.
a. The fourth Continuing Resolution for the FY2007 budget (P.L. 110-5) general y funded programs at their
FY2006 levels. However, the FY2006 funding total for the RHYP was slightly lower than the FY2007 total
because of an additional transfer of funds from the RHYP accounts to an HHS sub-agency.
b. The FY2008 appropriations includes a 1.7% across-the-board rescission on Labor-HHS-Education programs.
c. Since FY2004, the TLP has included funding for the Maternity Group Home component.
Basic Center Program
Overview
The Basic Center Program is intended to provide short-term shelter and services for youth and
their families through public and private community-based centers. Youth eligible to receive BCP
services include those youth who are at risk of running away or becoming homeless (and may live
at home with their parents), or have already left home, either voluntarily or involuntarily. To stay
at the shelter, youth must be under age 18, or, as added by the 2008 reauthorization act (P.L. 110-
378), an older age if the BCP center is located in a state or locality that permits this higher age.
Some centers may serve homeless youth older than 18 through street-based services, home-based
services, and drug abuse education and prevention services.
BCP centers were designed to provide these services outside of the law enforcement, juvenile
justice, child welfare, and mental health systems. For FY2009 (the most recent year for which
data are available), the program supported 373 BCP shelters in all 50 states, America Samoa,
Guam, and Puerto Rico.46 These centers, which generally shelter as many as 20 youth, are located

46 U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Justification of Estimates
for Appropriations Committees
, FY2011, p. 98.
Congressional Research Service
13

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

in areas that are frequented or easily reached by runaway and homeless youth. The shelters seeks
to reunite youth with their families, whenever possible, or to locate appropriate alternative
placements. They also provide food, clothing, individual or group and family counseling, and
health care referrals. Youth may stay in a center continuously up to 21 days and may re-enter the
program multiple times.47
BCP grantees—community-based public and private organizations—must make efforts to contact
the parents and relatives of runaway and homeless youth. Grantees are also required to establish
relationship with law enforcement, health and mental health care, social service, welfare, and
school district systems to coordinate services. Centers maintain confidential statistical records of
youth (including youth who are not referred to out-of-home shelter services) and the family
members. The centers are required to submit an annual report to HHS detailing the program
activities and the number of youth participating in such activities, as well as information about the
operation of the centers.
HHS evaluates BCP organizations using the Basic Center Program Performance Standards, which
relate to how well the needs of runaway and homeless youth and their families are being met.
Nine of these standards address service components (i.e., outreach, individual intake process, and
recreational programs) and six focus on administrative functions or activities (i.e., staffing and
staff development, reporting, and individual client files).
Funding Allocation
BCP grants are allocated by formula to each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and
are then distributed (by HHS) on a competitive basis to community-based organizations. The
amount of BCP funding available is based on the jurisdiction’s proportion of the nation’s youth
under age 18, and under the law, these jurisdictions receive a minimum of $200,000. Pursuant to
the 2008 reauthorization act (P.L. 110-378), HHS is to re-allot any funds from one state to other
states that will not be obligated before the end of a fiscal year. Separately, each of the territories
(U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, America Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands) receive a
minimum of $70,000 of the total appropriations. (Prior to the enactment of P.L. 110-378, the
states were to receive a minimum of $100,000 and territories received a minimum of $45,000.)
See Table A-1 for the amount of funding allocated for each state in FY2009 and FY2010. The
costs of the Basic Center Program are shared by the federal government (90%) and grantees
(10%). Community-based organizations apply directly to the federal government for the BCP
grants. Grants may be awarded for up to three years. Funding priority is given to organizations
that have demonstrated experience in providing services to runaway and homeless youth, and to
those who apply for less than $200,000 in funding per fiscal year. Funding for the second and
third year, however, depends on the availability of funds and the grantee’s satisfactory
performance.
Youth in the Program
BCP grantees serve only a fraction of the more than 1 million youth who run away or are
homeless. According to the FY2009 NEO-RHYMIS report of all grantees, 40,023 youth used

47 Prior to the enactment of the 2008 reauthorization law (P.L. 110-378), youth could stay at a BCP center for up to 15
days, as authorized under rules promulgated by HHS. See 45 C.F.R. 1351.1(a).
Congressional Research Service
14

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

BCP services (compared to 52,216 youth in FY2006; 47,299 youth in FY2007; and 44,454 youth
in FY2008).48 Of these youth, 21,516 (53.8%) were female and 18,507 (46.2%) were male (nearly
the same percentages as in FY2006 through FY2008). As Figure 2 shows, the greatest percentage
of youth served were ages 15 and 16. The centers also served youth younger than 12 and older
than 18. The proportions of youth in each age category were nearly the same as they were in
recent years.
Youth who visited the centers represented a variety of racial backgrounds (see Figure 3),
although about 8% did not report their race. Although white youth made up the majority of the
youth served, black and American Indian or Alaska Native youth were overrepresented compared
to their share of the general population.49 In FY2009, black youth comprised approximately one-
third of the BCP population, but made up about 15% of the 10-to-19-year-old population around
that same period. Similarly, American Indian or Alaska Native youth comprised nearly 4% of the
BCP population in FY2009, but were about 1% of the American population ages 10 to 19. The
share of Asian youth who used RHY services (nearly 1%) in FY2009 was well below their share
of the population overall (3.9%). Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander youth (0.6%) were slightly
overrepresented relative to their share of the general population (0.2%), while multiracial youth
(3.6%) made up about their same share of the general population (3.5%). Approximately 90% of
youth reported whether they were of Hispanic descent. Of those youth, about 6,700 (19%)
reported being Hispanic (most of the youth who reported being Hispanic did not report their race
or reported their race as white). Hispanic youth made up about the same share relative to their
representation generally, approximately 18%. These demographics are similar to FY2006 through
FY2008 data.
Approximately 5% of youth identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning in FY2009.
Information about youth’s sexual orientation was unknown for approximately 17% of the BCP
population in FY2009. In addition, about 7% of youth reported having spent some time in foster
care and about 6% of youth in BCP shelters had been in the care of the juvenile justice system at
some point in their lives.
Also in FY2009, youth were most likely to be referred to the shelters by their parents, followed
by referrals from law enforcement agencies, self-referrals, child welfare agencies, the juvenile
justice system, other youth-serving agencies or programs, and schools. According to NEO-
RHYMIS, at the time of their entrance to the BCP shelters in FY2009, about 71% of youth had
lived with their parents or legal guardians, 12.1% lived with other relatives or friends, and 7%
lived on the streets, among other locations. About 81% of the youth attended school; however,
about 23% attended irregularly (attended one to three days a week, on average). Approximately
7% had dropped out and the balance of youth had graduated, obtained a GED, were suspended or

48 NEO-RHYMIS allows users to retrieve reports on a variety of topics, including the number of youth at BCP or TLP
shelters, demographic features of the youth, the type of services youth receive, and information about their living status
at entrance and exit, among other types of reports. Some of the reports are newer (i.e., they were introduced in recent
years) and have more comprehensive data than the older reports. For example, the older reports include only “female”
and “male” gender records and not “transsexual (male to female and female to male),” “other,” and “unknown.” The
older reports also do not handle invalid codes in the field and missing data in the same way. For these reasons, the total
number of youth varies slightly across the reports for a given fiscal year, depending on whether the reports are newer or
older. This discussion of youth in the BCP (and TLP, later in this report) primarily includes percentages, and not actual
numbers, due to the differences in numbers across the reports.
49 Based on Congressional Research Service analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community Survey
3-year Estimates
, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=&_lang=
en&_ts=
Congressional Research Service
15

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

expelled, or did not know their school status. Nearly all youth received basic support, such as
food, clothing, shelter, and transportation (89.2%); and received counseling (88.6%). Youth also
received planning for after care (77.7%), life skills training (61.4%), recreational activities
(56.5%), substance abuse prevention and/or treatment (36%), and education (35.2%), among
other services at the shelters.50 Upon exiting, almost 7 out of 10 youth (66.4%) went to live with
their parents. However, youth also exited to a relative or friend’s home (8.4%), the street (4.3%),
and residential programs (5.9%), among other locations. Approximately 1% of youth did not
know where they would live upon exiting.
The issues of concern cited most by youth and staff at the time of exiting in FY2009—in order of
frequency—were housing, family dynamics, unemployment, school education, and mental health
(the same as FY2006 through FY2008 data). Finally, in FY2009, BCP shelters reported turning
away 2,413 youth by phone and 121 youth in person due to a lack of bed space, for a total of
2,534 youth (compared to 4,098 youth in FY2006, 4,911 youth in FY2007, and 2,629 youth in
FY2008).
Figure 2. Age of Youth Served by the Basic Center Program, FY2009
Over 18
Under 12
17 and 18
1.3%
6.1%
22.4%
12 to 14
30.4%
39.7%
15 and 16

Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of NEO-RHYMIS data.
Note: Based on data from 40,023 youth.

50 The total number of youth who received services was not provided. Therefore, the number of youth is based on the
youth who are included in the NEO-RHYMIS report on gender distribution.
Congressional Research Service
16

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

Figure 3. Race of Youth Served by the Basic Center Program, FY2009
Black or
White, 56.5%
African
American,
34.7%
American
Native
Indian/Alaska
Hawaian/
Native, 3.6%
Other Pacific
Multiracial,
Islander, 0.6%
Asian, 1.0%
3.6%

Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of NEO-RHYMIS data.
Note: Based on data from 40,023 youth. More than 3,300 youth did not provide information about their race.
Transitional Living Program
Overview
Recognizing the difficulty that youth face in becoming self-sufficient adults, the Transitional
Living Program provides longer-term shelter and assistance for youth ages 16 through 22 (or
older if the youth entered the TLP prior to reaching age 22) who may leave their biological homes
due to family conflict, or have left and are not expected to return home. Pregnant and/or parenting
youth are eligible for TLP services. In FY2009, the TLP supported 215 organizations.51 All states
and Guam appear to have at least one TLP grantee.52
Each TLP grantee may shelter up to 20 youth at host family homes, supervised apartments owned
by a social service agency, or scattered-site apartments, and single-occupancy apartments rented
directly with the assistance of the agency. The 2008 appropriations law (P.L. 110-378) continues
to allow youth to remain at TLP projects for up to 540 days (18 months) or longer for youth under
age 18 and adds that a youth ages 16 through 22 may remain in the program for a continuous
period of 635 days (approximately 21 months) under “exceptional circumstances.” This term
means circumstances in which a youth would benefit to an unusual extent from additional time in
the program. The new law further authorizes that a youth in a TLP who has not reached age 18 on
the last day of the 635-day period may, in exceptional circumstances and if otherwise qualified
for the program, remain in the program until his or her 18th birthday.

51 U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Justification of Estimates
for Appropriations Committees
, FY2011, p. 99.
52 See “Locate a TLP Program” on the Family and Youth Services website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/
content/youthdivision/programs/locate.htm.
Congressional Research Service
17

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

Youth receive several types of services at TLP-funded programs:
• basic life-skills training, including consumer education and instruction in
budgeting and housekeeping;
• interpersonal skill building;
• educational preparation, such as GED courses and post-secondary training;
• assistance in job preparation and attainment;
• education and counseling on substance abuse; and
• mental and physical health care services.
TLP centers develop a written plan designed to help transition youth to independent living or
another appropriate living arrangement, and they refer youth to other systems that can coordinate
to meet their educational, health care, and social service needs. The grantees must also submit an
annual report to HHS that includes information regarding the activities carried out with funds and
the number and characteristics of the homeless youth.
Funding Allocation
TLP grants are distributed competitively by HHS to community-based public and private
organizations for five-year periods. Grantees must provide at least 10% of the total cost of the
program.
Youth in the Program
For FY2009, NEO-RHYMIS reported that the Transitional Living Program served 3,912 youth
(compared to 4,158 youth in FY2006; 4,016 in FY2007; and 3,927 in FY2008). Of these youth,
about 62% were female and 38% were male. Approximately 54% were ages 18 or younger and
46% were ages 19 and older. Of the youth who reported their race, about half were white, 40.2%
were black, and the remaining youth identified as American Indian or Alaska Native (5.3%),
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (0.7%), Asian (0.6%), or multi-racial (4.0%). Black,
American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander youth were
overrepresented, while white and Asian youth were underrepresented, compared to their share of
the general population ages 15 to 24 in recent years.53 Among youth who reported their ethnicity,
15.1% of youth were Hispanic, which is less than their share of the general population of
approximately 17% (most of the youth who reported being Hispanic did not report their race or
reported their race as white). These demographics are similar to FY2006 through FY2008 data.
Approximately 8% of youth at TLPs in FY2009 identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or
questioning. Sexual orientation was unknown for 8.4% of the TLP population in FY2009. In
addition, approximately 19% of youth spent time in foster care and nearly 10% had been in the
care of the juvenile justice system at some time in their lives. In FY2009, 28.2% of youth in TLP
were pregnant or parenting.

53 Based on Congressional Research Service analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community Survey
3-year Estimates
, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=&_lang=
en&_ts=.
Congressional Research Service
18

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

In FY2009, youth most often self-referred or were referred to the TLP by a relative or friend.
Prior to living at the TLP, youth lived in a variety of locations: the homes of their friends and
relatives (27.6%) or parents (16.9%), in shelters (18.5%), or on the street as runaway or homeless
youth (11.6%), among other locations. Also in FY2009, about 44% of the youth in the TLP
attended school, of whom one-quarter attended irregularly; 22.6% had dropped out; 21.9% had
graduated from high school; and 8.2% obtained a GED. The remaining youth either were
suspended or expelled, or did not know their school status.
Youth remained at TLP sites for varying lengths: less than six months (65.2%), six months to a
year (21.4%), one year to 18 months (5.6%), and 18 months or more (8.1%). While at the TLP
shelter, the majority of youth received counseling, basic support such as shelter and
transportation; life skills training; planning for services after care; and employment services,
including other services.54
Approximately one-quarter (23.9%) of youth completed the program. The remaining youth did
not complete the program; 29.1% did not complete the program because of other opportunities,
23.4% did not complete the program and had no other plans, and 23.5% of youth were expelled or
involuntarily discharged from the program. In FY2009, youth and staff identified as issues of
concern upon exiting—in order of frequency—education, housing, health, and alcohol and drug
abuse by youth and family members. Youth reported that at exit, they would live with friends or
relatives (28.8%), independently (21.6%), or with their parents (17.3%), among other situations.
About 8% did not know where they would live.
In FY2009, 1,190 youth were turned away by phone, 2,230 youth were turned away in person,
and 1,709 were placed on a waiting list, for a total of 5,129 youth turned away. The total figure
was slightly more than in previous years (4,870 youth in FY2006, 4,451 youth in FY2007, and
4,935 youth in FY2008).
Outcomes of Youth in the TLP
Efforts are currently underway at HHS to learn more about the long-term outcomes of youth who
are served by the Transitional Living Program. 55 In August 2007, HHS approved a sub-contract
to Abt Associates to conduct an evaluation of the TLP at select grantee sites. The study seeks to
describe the outcomes of youth who participate in the program and to isolate and describe
promising practices and other factors that may have contributed to their successes or challenges,
including service delivery approaches, personal characteristics, and local circumstances. In
FY2008, Abt researchers conducted three site visits to TLP grantees (in Dallas, TX; Portland, OR;
and Wichita, KS) and a series of consultations with HHS and outside experts to inform the design
of the study.56
HHS has reported that Abt, in consultation with HHS, will select the TLP survey sites for the
study itself during 2010. According to HHS, the selected sites will likely have extensive

54 The average length of youth’s stay in the TLP is not available.
55 Based on correspondence with the Department Health and Human Services on January 12, 2010.
56 HHS issued a proposed information collection request for public comment about the evaluation in the Federal
Register
on August 25, 2008. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, “Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request,” 73 Federal Register 50022, August 25,
2008.
Congressional Research Service
19

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

experience working with runaway and homeless youth and will have continuous TLP funding for
at least three years after the survey commences. These sites will work to ensure that after
receiving training, staff will be sufficiently capable of administering the survey instruments. The
sites will also need to be large enough to capture an adequate sample size. The study will likely
include about 760 youth.
Youth participants will complete surveys that are administered by their TLP programs at two
points—during entry and while receiving services. They will also complete surveys for up to one
year after leaving the program. Youth will self-report the data to a website six months and twelve
months after exiting. Evaluators will compare the individual outcomes of each youth to the
objectives of the program and to his or her benchmark data. TLP grantees will also be surveyed to
learn more about the approaches they use to serve youth. HHS expects that the study will be
completed in 2013. Further, HHS expects to maintain the self-reporting website indefinitely as a
means of tracking TLP graduates after the formal study is complete. According to HHS,
participants may be encouraged to continue reporting their status after their last survey.
Maternity Group Homes
For FY2002, the Administration proposed a $33 million initiative to fund Maternity Group
Homes—or centers that provide shelter to pregnant and parenting teens who are vulnerable to
abuse and neglect—as a component of the TLP. Congress did not fund the initiative as part of its
FY2002 appropriation. However, that year Congress provided additional funding to the TLP to
ensure that pregnant and parenting teens could access services (H.Rept. 107-376). A total of $39.7
million was appropriated for the TLP, which included an additional $19.2 million over the
FY2001 TLP appropriation to ensure that funds would be available to assist pregnant and
parenting teens.
The 2003 amendments to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (P.L. 108-96) provided statutory
authority to use TLP funds for Maternity Group Homes. Since FY2004, funding for adult-
supervised transitional living arrangements that serve pregnant or parenting women ages 16 to 21
and their children has been awarded to organizations that receive TLP grants. Currently, an
estimated one-third of TLP grants fund Maternity Group Homes.57 These organizations provide
youth with parenting skills, including child development education; family budgeting; health and
nutrition, and other skills to promote their well-being and the well-being of their children.
Street Outreach Program
Overview
Runaway and homeless youth living on the streets or in areas that increase their risk of using
drugs or being subjected to sexual abuse, prostitution, or sexual exploitation are eligible to
receive services through the Street Outreach Program. The program’s goal is to assist youth in
transitioning to safe and appropriate living arrangements. SOP services include the following:
• treatment and counseling;

57 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children
Protection Act
, report to accompany H.R. 1925, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-118 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
20

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

• crisis intervention;
• drug abuse and exploitation prevention and education activities;
• survival aid;
• street-based education and outreach;
• information and referrals; and
• follow-up support.
Funding
The SOP is funded separately from the BCP and TLP and is authorized to receive such sums as
may be necessary. Since FY1996, when funding for the Street Outreach Program was first
provided, community-based public and private organizations have been eligible to apply for SOP
grants. Grants are generally awarded for a three-year period, and grantees must provide 10% of
the funds to cover the cost of the program. Applicants may apply for a $100,000 grant each year
for a maximum of $200,000 over that period. Approximately $17.7 million was appropriated to
fund 164 grantees in FY2009, many of which were to operate in coordination with BCPs and
TLPs.58
Youth in the Program
According to FY2009 NEO-RHYMIS data, street workers with the grantee organizations made
812,418 contacts with street youth (compared to 778,795 contacts in FY2006; 726,796 contacts in
FY2007; and 766,817 contacts in FY2008). Of those youth, most received written materials about
referral services, health and hygiene products, and food and drink items.
Incidence and Prevalence Studies
The 2008 reauthorization law (P.L. 110-378) requires HHS to estimate at five year intervals—
beginning within two years of the enactment of the law (October 8, 2010)—the incidence and
prevalence of the runaway and homeless youth population ages 13 to 26. The law also directs
HHS to assess the characteristics of these youth. HHS is required to conduct a survey of and
direct interviews with a representative sample of the youth to determine past and current
socioeconomic characteristics, barriers to obtaining housing and other services, and other
information HHS determines useful, in consultation with states and other entities concerned with
youth homelessness. HHS is to consult with the federal Interagency Council on Homelessness
regarding the study overall. The study must be submitted to the House Education and Labor
Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee and made available to the public.
The new law does not specify the methodology for carrying out the studies, except to say that
HHS should make the estimate on the basis of the best quantitative and qualitative social science
research methods available. Further, if HHS enters into an agreement with a non-federal entity to

58 U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Justification of Estimates
for Appropriations Committees
, FY2010, p. 93.
Congressional Research Service
21

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

carry out the assessment, the entity is to be a non-governmental organization or individual
determined by HHS to have expertise in this type of research.
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, as amended, authorizes Congress to appropriate such
sums as may be necessary to fund the studies. Funds have not yet been appropriated for this
purpose.
Training and Technical Assistance
In FY2009, HHS allocated approximately $4.7 million in BCP and TLP funds for training and
technical assistance, which included funding for the National Clearinghouse on Families and
Youth, which provides information on runaway and homeless youth issues, among other related
topics; national communications system, discussed below; and the administration of the
management information system (known as NEO-RHYMIS), discussed in the “Congressional
Oversight” section below.59
HHS provides training and technical assistance to RHYP grantees through its Runaway and
Homeless Youth Training and Technical Assistance Program. Until FY2007, HHS awarded funds
to multiple non-profit organizations to provide this assistance in each of the Administration for
Children and Families’ 10 regions.60 Since FY2008, training and technical assistance has been
provided by one entity. On September 30, 2007, HHS competitively awarded two five-year
cooperative agreements to the University of Oklahoma’s National Child Welfare Resource Center
for Youth Services (NRCYS) to provide training and technical assistance through a newly created
Runaway and Homeless Youth Training and Technical Assistance Center (RHYTTAC).61 NRCYS
has operated for over 30 years serving public, private, tribal child welfare, and youth services
professionals through training and conference events annually.
The two cooperative agreements have distinct assignments.62 The NRCYS Technical Assistance
Center provides specialized attention to specific areas of concern raised by federal staff or RHYP
grantees to improve grantee performance and/or comply with federal legislation or regulations for
the Runaway and Homeless Youth program. The Training Center is designed to provide training
and conference services to RHYP grantees that enhances and promotes continuous quality
improvement of services provided by RHYP grantees.

59 Ibid, pp. 88-89.
60 Technical support providers offered assistance through the Regional Training and Technical Assistance Provider
System. The providers worked closely with ACF regional office staff to identify grantee needs and review the results of
evaluations conducted by HHS staff. Based on these analyses, the provider needs assessments, and grantee requests, the
providers offered several types of services, including regional and state-level conferences that address topics of interest
to grantees, on-site and telephone consultations, workshops and training on issues of concern, and resource materials.
61 For further information, see the RHYTTC website at http://www.rhyttac.ou.edu/.
62 This information was provided in correspondence by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on October
25, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
22

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

National Communication System63
A portion of the funds for the BCP, TLP, and related activities—known collectively as the
Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program—are allocated for a national
communications system (that is, the National Runaway Switchboard) to help homeless and
runaway youth (or youth who are contemplating running away) through counseling and referrals
and communicating with their families. Beginning with FY1974 and every year after, the
National Runaway Switchboard has been funded through the Basic Center Program grant or the
Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grant. The Switchboard is located in
Chicago and operates each day to provide services to youth and their families in the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Services include (1) a
channel through which runaway and homeless youth or their parents may leave messages; (2) 24-
hour referrals to community resources, including shelter, community food banks, legal assistance,
and social services agencies; and (3) crisis intervention counseling to youth. In calendar year
2008 (the most recent year for which data are available), the Switchboard handled more than
114,000 calls, about half of which were from youth and one-third were from parents; the
remaining callers were relatives, friends, and others.64
Other services are also provided through the Switchboard. Since 1995, the “HomeFree” family
reunification program has provided bus tickets for youth ages 12 to 21 to return home or to an
alternative placement near their home (such as an independent living program) through
HomeFree.65
Oversight
Oversight of Grantees
ACF evaluates each Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grant recipient through the Runaway
and Homeless Youth Monitoring System. Staff from regional ACF offices and other grant
recipients (known as peer reviewers) inspect the program site, conduct interviews, review case
files and other agency documents, and conduct entry and exit conferences. The monitoring team
then prepares a written report that identifies the strengths of the program and areas that require
corrective action.

63 HHS reports that it provides information to the public about runaway and homeless youth in multiple ways, including
through the National Communications System. Further, the National Clearinghouse on Youth and Families, a FYSB-
funded resource center, produces publications for the public about the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program. Finally,
RHYA grantees conduct local advocacy and outreach efforts, and public service announcements to attract youth
eligible for services. As described in grant announcements for the BCP, TLP, and SOP, grant applicants are evaluated,
in part, on the basis of their efforts to establish outreach efforts to youth, including minority sub-groups of youth, where
applicable. Based on correspondence with the Department of Health and Human Services on March 20, 2008.
64 The Switchboard also has a special phone line for hearing-impaired callers and access to AT&T’s language
translation service. Its website provides information to those seeking non-crisis related information. National statistics
on use of the National Runaway Switchboard are available at http://www.1800runaway.org/news_events/
call_stats.html.
65 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress on the Youth Programs of the Family and Youth
Services Bureau for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003,
October 2004, p. 17, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/
docs/0203_report.pdf. (Hereafter, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress.)
Congressional Research Service
23

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

Congressional Oversight
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the House Committee on
Education and Workforce have exercised jurisdiction over the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Program. HHS must submit reports biennially to the committees on the status, activities, and
accomplishments of program grant recipients and evaluations of the programs performed by
HHS.66 These reports generally include data on the youth served by the programs which are
generated by RHYMIS. The information system is designed to collect information twice during
the fiscal year from program grantees on the basic demographics of the youth, the services they
received, and the status of the youth (i.e., expected living situation, physical and mental health,
and family dynamics) upon exiting the programs. RHYMIS was updated in 2004 to reduce the
burden of reporting the data. Now known as NEO-RHYMIS, the system has received routine data
submissions from nearly all Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grantees.67 In prior years,
fewer than half of grantees reported on the number of youth served.68
The 2003 reauthorization law (P.L. 108-96) of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act required
that HHS, in consultation with the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, submit a report to
Congress on the promising strategies to end youth homelessness within two years of the
reauthorization, in October 2005. The report was submitted to Congress in June 2007.69
As mentioned above, the 2008 reauthorization law (P.L. 110-378) required HHS, as of FY2010, to
periodically submit to Congress an incidence and prevalence study of runaway and homeless
youth ages 13 to 26, as well as the characteristics of a representative sample of these youth. As
discussed above, Congress has not appropriated funds for this purpose.
The law also directed the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the process by which
organizations apply for BCP, TLP, and SOP, including HHS’s response to these applicants. GAO
submitted a report to Congress in May 2010 on its findings.70 GAO found weaknesses in several
of the procedures for reviewing grants, such as that peer reviewers for the grant did not always
have expertise in runaway and homeless youth issues and feedback on grants was not provided in
a permanent record. In addition, GAO found that HHS delayed telling successful grantees that the
grant had been awarded to them. Grantees reported that this affected decisions about hiring staff
and other decisions. GAO noted that HHS policy does not prohibit HHS from telling grantees
immediately. Finally, GAO found that information about why applicants were unsuccessful often
included information that was not always clear or specific. GAO made recommendations to
address these issues.

66 NEO-RHYMIS data are available online by state, region, and grantee organization at https://extranet.acf.hhs.gov/
rhymis/custom_reports.html.
67 This information was provided in correspondence by NEO-RHYMIS technical support staff March 2, 2007. See also
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress, p. 2.
68 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress, p. 2.
69 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Promising Strategies to End Youth Homelessness, Report to
Congress
, 2007, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/reporttocongress_youthhomelessness.pdf. This
report was required under P.L. 108-96. See 42 U.S.C. 5701.
70 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Runaway and Homeless Youth Grants: Improvements Needed in the Grant
Award Process
, GAO-10-335, May 2010, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10335.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

PART Evaluation
In calendar years 2003 and 2006, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program was reviewed
through the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
process.71 The 2003 evaluation concluded that program results were not demonstrated because the
RHYP lacked long-term performance measures and time frames for these measures, as well as
adequate progress in achieving its annual and long-term performance goals. The PART review
also found that no independent evaluations of the program were routinely conducted. However, in
2006 the program was rated effective because it made improvements to its long-term measures
for evaluating youth outcomes. According to the PART evaluation, the re-engineering of NEO-
RHYMIS has enhanced HHS staff’s ability to evaluate these outcomes (see below for more
information about changes to NEO-RHYMIS). The 2006 PART also explains that the program
has ambitious targets and time frames for its long term measures. More accurate NEO-RHYMIS
data has enabled HHS to more effectively evaluate the program internally and through contracts.
Using these data, HHS has found that the program has met or exceeded its goals. For example,
one of the goals is to increase the proportion of youth who are living in safe and appropriate
settings after exiting TLP services to at least 85% by FY2010; for FY2009 (the most recent year
data are available), the rate was 86%.72
Additional Federal Support for Runaway and
Homeless Youth

Since the creation of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, other federal initiatives have
also established services for such youth. Four of these initiatives—Education for Homeless
Children and Youth Program, Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, Shared Vision for
Youth initiative, and Discretionary Grants for Family Violence Prevention Program—are
discussed below.
Educational Assistance
The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-77), as amended, established
the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program in the U.S. Department of Education.73
This program assists state education agencies (SEAs) to ensure that all homeless children and
youth have equal access to the same, appropriate education, including public preschool education,
that is provided to other children and youth. Grants made by SEAs to local education agencies
(LEAs) under this program must be used to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in

71 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Detailed Assessment on the Runaway and Homeless Youth Assessment,
2003 and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Detailed Assessment on the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Assessment, 2007, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10001064.2006.html. (Hereafter, U.S.
Office of Management and Budget, PART 2003 or PART 2007.)
72 U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Justification of Estimates
for Appropriations Committees
, FY2011 Online Performance Index, p. 23.
73 Other programs assist homeless youth and their families through the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act,
although none are targeted exclusively to runaway and homeless youth. For additional information about these
programs, see CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs and Recent Legislation, coordinated
by Libby Perl.
Congressional Research Service
25

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

school of homeless children and youth. Program funds may be appropriated for activities such as
tutoring, supplemental instruction, and referral services for homeless children and youth, as well
as providing them with medical, dental, mental, and other health services. Liaison staff for
homeless children and youth in each LEA are responsible for coordinating activities for these
youth with other entities and agencies, including local Basic Center and Transitional Living
Program grantees.
To receive funding, each state must submit a plan to the U.S. Department of Education that
indicates how the state will identify and assess the needs of eligible children and youth; ensure
that they have access to the federal, state, and local food programs and the same educational
programs available to other youth; and resolve problems concerning delays in and barriers to
enrollment and transportation. Education for Homeless Children and Youth grants are allotted to
SEAs in proportion to grants made under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, which allocates funds to all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico based on the percentage of low-income children enrolled in a school or living in the nearby
residential area. However, no state can receive less than the greater of $150,000, 0.25% of the
total annual appropriation, or the amount it received in FY2001 under this program. The
Department of Education must reserve 0.1% of the total appropriation for grants to the Virgin
Islands, Guam, America Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The
agency must also transfer 1.0% of the total appropriation to the Department of the Interior for
services to homeless children and youth provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Amendments
to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 authorized funding for the program
through FY2007. Congress has continued to appropriate funding for the program.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110) reauthorized and amended the program
explicitly to prohibit states that receive McKinney-Vento funds from segregating homeless
students from non-homeless students, except for short periods of time for health and safety
emergencies or to provide temporary, special, supplemental services. Prior to the reauthorization,
homeless children in some districts attended class in separate buildings or schools. Advocates
raised concerns that these children, including those enrolled in classes that were equal in quality
to the classes attended by their non-homeless peers, were receiving an inferior education because
they were physically separated. The act exempted four counties (San Joaquin, Orange, and San
Diego counties in California and Maricopa County in Arizona) from these requirements because
they operated separate school districts for homeless students in FY2000, as long as: (1) those
separate schools offer services that are comparable to local schools; and (2) homeless children are
not required to attend them. The Department of Education must certify annually that the school
districts meet these requirements.74
Shared Youth Vision Initiative
In 2003, the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth, comprised of the heads of
executive branch agencies and their designees, issued a report calling for increased federal
coordination to improve service delivery to and outcomes for vulnerable youth. In response to the
report, the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Labor, and

74 The Individual with Disabilities Education Act, last amended in 2004 (P.L. 108-446), includes provisions aimed at
ensuring special education and related services for children with disabilities who are homeless or otherwise members of
highly mobile populations. For additional information, see CRS Report RL32716, Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA): Analysis of Changes Made by P.L. 108-446
, by Ann Lordeman and Nancy Lee Jones.
Congressional Research Service
26

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

the Social Security Administration, partnered to improve communication, coordination, and
collaboration across programs that target at-risk youth groups under a initiative called the “Shared
Youth Vision.” One of these groups includes runaway and homeless youth.
Together, the agencies have convened an Interagency Work Group and regional forums to
develop and coordinate policies and research on the vulnerable youth population. The U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL) has led efforts to promote collaboration between the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Program and the agency’s Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs. The DOL
has encouraged local and state workforce investment boards to implement the strategies of the
Shared Youth Vision initiative based, in part, on models already implemented through three WIA
programs in California, Oregon, and Washington that provide employment and educational
resources targeted for runaway and homeless youth.75
Discretionary Grants for Family Violence Prevention
The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), Title III of the Child Abuse
Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-457), authorized funds for Family Violence Prevention and Service
grants that work to prevent family violence, improve service delivery to address family violence,
and increase knowledge and understanding of family violence. Some of these projects focus on
runaway and homeless youth in dating violence situations, through HHS’s Domestic
Violence/Runaway and Homeless Youth Collaboration on the Prevention of Adolescent Dating
Violence initiative. The initiative was created because many runaway and homeless youth come
from homes where domestic violence occurs and may be at risk of abusing their partners or
becoming victims of abuse.76 The initiative funds projects carried by faith-based and charitable
organizations who advocate or provide direct services to runaway and homeless youth or victims
of domestic violence. The grants fund training for staff at these organizations to enable them to
assist youth in preventing dating violence. Eight projects are funded at $75,000 annually, for
FY2008 through FY2010, the most recent funding cycle.77 Grantees funded at least 25% of the
total approved cost of the project.
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program78
Recently emancipated foster youth are vulnerable to becoming homeless. In FY2008, nearly
30,000 youth “aged out” of foster care.79 The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
(CFCIP), created under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-169),
provides states with funding to support youth who are expected to emancipate from foster care
and former foster youth ages 18 to 21.80 States are authorized to receive funds based on their

75 See notice from Department of Labor to state workforce agencies, available on the DOL website,
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2176.
76 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Domestic Violence/Runaway and Homeless Youth Collaboration on
the Prevention of Adolescent Dating Violence
Grant Announcement, April 24, 2007, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/
open/HHS-2007-ACF-ACYF-EV-0103.html.
77 This information was provided in correspondence by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on May 5,
2009.
78 For additional information about the program, see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care:
Background and Federal Programs
, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
79 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #16.
80 For additional information on the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act, see CRS Report RL34499, Youth
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
27

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

share of the total number of children in foster care nationwide. However, the law’s “hold
harmless” clause precludes any state from receiving less than the amount of funds it received in
FY1998 or $500,000, whichever is greater.81 The program authorizes funding for transitional
living services, and as much as 30% of the funds may be dedicated to room and board. The
program is mandatory, and as such Congress appropriates $140 million for the program each year.
Child welfare advocates have argued that the housing needs of youth “aging out” of foster care
have not been met despite the additional funds for independent living that are provided through
the CFCIP.82

(...continued)
Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
81 Prior to the passage of P.L. 106-169, states were awarded a share of independent living funds—$70 million—based
on the number of children receiving federal foster care payments in FY1984 under the Independent Living Program.
82 Courtney and Huering, “Youth ‘Aging Out’ of the Foster Care System,” p. 54.
Congressional Research Service
28

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

Appendix.
Table A-1. Basic Center Funding by State and Territory, FY2009-FY2010
($ in thousands)
FY2009
FY2010
State/Territory
Actual
Estimate
Alabama
$847,720
$716,463
Alaska
200,000
200,000
Arizona
933,015
969,541
Arkansas
414,052
419,226
California
5,353,339
5,688,972
Colorado
714,129
742,788
Connecticut
664,419
667,977
Delaware
188,787
200,000
District of Columbia
200,000
200,000
Florida
2,777,505
2,846,247
Georgia
1,229,616
1,470,208
Hawai
262,432
205,855
Idaho
202,350
203,434
Illinois
2,438,838 2,028,022
Indiana
978,172
1,002,356
Iowa
456,697
455,362
Kansas
409,250
424,928
Kentucky
579,997
620,422
Louisiana
659,783
616,750
Maine
286,547
279,483
Maryland
393,363
812,831
Massachusetts
903,398
961,447
Michigan
2,282,955
1,608,821
Minnesota
1,149,489
1,155,645
Mississippi
649,723
453,634
Missouri
888,000
886,359
Montana
200,000
192,587
Nebraska
668,361
257,598
Nevada
370,667
383,299
New Hampshire
285,478
186,471
New Jersey
1,095,510
1,285,309
New Mexico
593,534
310,186
Congressional Research Service
29

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

FY2009
FY2010
State/Territory
Actual
Estimate
New York
3,237,097
2,996,675
North Carolina
1,441,921
1,378,530
North Dakota
200,000
200,000
Ohio
1,608,870
1,749,916
Oklahoma
579,532
582,636
Oregon
1,178,393
666,238
Pennsylvania
1,675,725
1,872,969
Rhode Island
182,878
200,000
South Carolina
534,913
660,708
South Dakota
310,937
200,000
Tennessee
822,021
943,219
Texas
3,326,650
3,628,283
Utah
379,007
398,290
Vermont
100,000
200,000
Virginia
874,551
1,142,828
Washington
1,154,769
959,687
West Virginia
259,098
260,486
Wisconsin
819,687
853,658
Wyoming
200,000
200,000
Subtotal
48,163,175
47,546,344
American Samoa
0
70,000
Guam
200,000
70,000
Northern Mariana Islands
45,000
70,000
Puerto Rico
200,000
543,256
Virgin Islands
0
70,000
Subtotal
445,000
823,256
Totala
48,608,175
48,369,600
Source: U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2011, pp. 100-101.
a. The total does not include funding for technical assistance, research evaluation, demonstration projects, and
program support.
Congressional Research Service
30

.
Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs


Author Contact Information

Adrienne L. Fernandes

Specialist in Social Policy
afernandes@crs.loc.gov, 7-9005


Acknowledgments
Theresa Moy, a graduate intern with the Domestic Social Policy Division, contributed to this report.

Congressional Research Service
31