Youth Transitioning from Foster Care:
Background and Federal Programs
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
August 1, 2011
The House Ways and Means Committee is making available this version of this Congressional Research Service
(CRS) report, with the cover date shown above, for inclusion in its 2011 Green Book website. CRS works
exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to Committees and Members of
both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.
Congressional Research Service
RL34499
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Summary
While most young people have access to emotional and financial support systems throughout
their early adult years, older youth in foster care and those who are emancipated from care often
face obstacles to developing independent living skills and building supports that ease the
transition to adulthood. Older foster youth who return to their parents or guardians may continue
to experience poor family dynamics or a lack of emotional and financial supports, and studies
have shown that recently emancipated foster youth fare poorly relative to their counterparts in the
general population on several outcome measures.
Recognizing the difficulties faced by older youth in care and youth emancipating from foster
care, Congress created a new Independent Living initiative (P.L. 99-272) in 1986 to assist certain
older foster youth as they enter adulthood. The legislation authorized mandatory funding to states
under a new Section 477 of the Social Security Act. In 1999, P.L. 106-169 rewrote Section 477 to
create the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) and doubled the total
annual funds available to states from $70 million to $140 million. The law also expanded the
population of youth eligible to receive independent living services—with no lower age limit—and
gave states greater flexibility in designing independent living programs. Independent living
services can refer to assistance in obtaining a high school diploma and training in daily living
skills, among other services.
The CFCIP has been amended three times. In 2002, the Promoting Safe and Stable Amendments
of 2001 (P.L. 107-133) authorized discretionary funding for states to provide education and
training vouchers (ETV) to youth who age out of foster care and youth adopted from care at age
16 or older. For FY2010, Congress appropriated $45.4 million to the ETV program. The CFCIP
was amended again in 2008 by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions
Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351). The act expanded eligibility for the program by adding as an
additional program purpose that youth who are in foster care on their 16th birthday but who
subsequently leave care for adoption or kinship guardianship are eligible for CFCIP service. The
law also extended the ETV program to youth who leave care at age 16 or older for kinship
guardianship; made tribal entities eligible to apply directly for CFCIP and ETV funds directly
from the federal government; and authorized additional supports and services outside of the
CFCIP to older youth in care, including providing states the option, beginning in FY2011, to
extend Title IV-E foster care to youth ages 18 to 21. In 2010, the program was amended for a
third time by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148, PPACA), which
requires states to educate youth aging out about the importance of a health care power of attorney.
Along with the CFCIP, federal child welfare law and other federal programs are intended to help
older foster youth and recent alumni make the transition to adulthood. The Title IV-E foster care
program has protections in place to ensure that older youth in care have a written case plan that
addresses the programs and services that will assist in this transition. Further the law that
established the CFCIP created a new optional Medicaid eligibility pathway for “independent
foster care adolescents;” this pathway is often called the “Chafee option.” Beginning in 2014,
eligible young people who emancipate from foster care will be covered under a mandatory
Medicaid pathway until age 26, as required under PPACA. Federal law also authorizes funding
for states to provide other types of assistance. Further, the Higher Education Act authorizes
services specifically for youth in foster care or recently emancipated youth, including education
and housing services.
Congressional Research Service
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Contents
Who Are Older Youth in Foster Care and Youth Aging Out of Care? ............................................. 3
Characteristics of Youth Who Have Had Contact with the Child Welfare System ................... 3
Characteristics of Youth in Foster Care..................................................................................... 5
Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly in Foster Care ............................................................... 6
Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study ................................................................................. 7
Midwest Evaluation on the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth ............................. 8
Resiliency of Current and Former Foster Youth...................................................................... 11
Overview of Federal Child Welfare Support for Foster Youth ...................................................... 12
Federal Foster Care........................................................................................................................ 13
Case Planning and Review ...................................................................................................... 13
Title IV-E Reimbursement for Foster Care.............................................................................. 14
Eligibility........................................................................................................................... 14
Eligible Placement Setting ................................................................................................ 16
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program................................................................................... 16
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 16
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 17
Eligibility for CFCIP Benefits and Services............................................................................ 18
Youth Likely to Remain in Foster Care Until Age 18 ....................................................... 18
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care........................................................................................ 20
American Indian Youth ..................................................................................................... 20
The Role of Youth Participants................................................................................................ 21
Program Administration .......................................................................................................... 22
Education and Training Vouchers............................................................................................ 22
Program Administration .................................................................................................... 23
Youth Enrolled in the Program.......................................................................................... 24
Funding for States.................................................................................................................... 24
Use of Funds ..................................................................................................................... 25
Hold Harmless Provision .................................................................................................. 28
Unused Funds.................................................................................................................... 28
Training and Technical Assistance .......................................................................................... 29
National Youth in Transition Database.................................................................................... 29
History............................................................................................................................... 29
Data Collection.................................................................................................................. 30
Training and Technical Assistance ................................................................................... 31
Evaluation of Innovative CFCIPs............................................................................................ 31
PART Review .......................................................................................................................... 33
Assessments of the CFCIP ...................................................................................................... 34
Child and Family Services Review ................................................................................... 34
GAO Report ...................................................................................................................... 35
Implementation of the ETV Program................................................................................ 36
Other Federal Support for Older Current and Former Foster Youth.............................................. 37
Medicaid.................................................................................................................................. 37
Other Educational Support ...................................................................................................... 39
Workforce Support .................................................................................................................. 40
Workforce Investment Act Programs ................................................................................ 40
Foster Youth Demonstration Project ................................................................................. 40
Congressional Research Service
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Housing Support...................................................................................................................... 41
Family Unification Vouchers Program.............................................................................. 41
Other Support .................................................................................................................... 42
Grant to Support Curriculum for Supervising Older Youth in Care ........................................ 43
Tables
Table A-1. Comparison of Outcome Domains Between Young Adults in the Midwest
Study and Young Adults in the Add Health Study...................................................................... 44
Table B-1. Final FY2009 and Estimated FY2010 CFCIP General and ETV Allotments by
State ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Table B-2. FY2008 Chafee Foster Care Independence Program: Final Funds Allotted,
Expended, and Returned to Federal Treasury, by State .............................................................. 50
Table B-3. FY2008 Chafee Foster Care Education and Training Voucher Program: Final
Funds Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal Treasury, by State..................................... 52
Appendixes
Appendix A. Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly in Foster Care.............................................. 44
Appendix B. Funding for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) and
Education and Training Voucher (ETV) Program ...................................................................... 48
Congressional Research Service
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
significant number of youth spend at least some time in foster care during their teenage
years. On the last day of FY2010, approximately 157,000 youth ages 13 through 19
A comprised 35% of the foster care caseload nationally.1 Most teenagers left foster care and
were reunified with their parents or primary caretakers, adopted, or placed with relatives.
However, 27,829 youth aged out, or were emancipated, when they reached the age of majority in
their states, usually at age 18.2 The share of youth who exit to emancipation has increased in
recent years, from about 9% (26,500 youth) in FY2006 to 11% in FY2009 and FY2010.3
Youth who spend their teenage years in foster care and those who are likely to age out of care
face challenges as they move to early adulthood. While in care, they may forego opportunities to
develop strong support networks and independent living skills that their counterparts in the
general population might more naturally acquire. Even older foster youth who return to their
parents or guardians can still face obstacles, such as poor family dynamics or a lack of emotional
and financial supports, that hinder their ability to achieve their goals as young adults. Perhaps the
strongest evidence that youth who have spent at least some years in care during adolescence have
not adequately made the transition to young adulthood is their poor outcomes across a number of
domains. During their early adult years, these youth are much more likely than their peers to
forego higher education, describe their general health as fair or poor, become homeless, and rely
on public supports.
The federal government has recognized that older youth in care and those aging out are
vulnerable to negative outcomes and may ultimately return to the care of the state as adults, either
through the public welfare, criminal justice, or other systems. In 1986, Congress passed
legislation to assist certain older youth in care under a new Independent Living program, enacted
as part of P.L. 99-272. The legislation authorized mandatory funding to states under Section 477
of the Social Security Act and was made permanent in 1993 as part of P.L. 103-66. In 1999, the
Foster Care Independence Act (P.L. 106-169) rewrote Section 477 to create the permanently
authorized John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) and doubled the annual
funds available to states from $70 million to $140 million. The law also expanded the population
of youth eligible to receive independent living services, including youth who have left care
through age 21, and gave states greater flexibility in designing independent living programs.
Independent living programs are intended to assist youth prepare for adulthood, and may include
assistance in obtaining a high school diploma, career exploration, training in daily living skills,
training in budgeting and financial management skills, and preventive health activities, among
other services. Further, P.L. 106-169 required states to provide services to tribal youth on the
same basis as other youth in the state. The act also encouraged youth in foster care to participate
directly in designing their own activities that prepare them for independent living and further
stated that youth “accept personal responsibility for living up to their part of the program.” Other
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. The AFCARS
Report #16: Preliminary FY2010 Estimates, June 2011, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/
index.htm#afcars. (Hereafter referenced as U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #18.)
2 Ibid.
3 Using data from 2002 through 2008 on children in foster care in 15 states, researchers have projected that the number
of youth who are expected to leave foster care upon turning age 18 will likely decline between 2009 and 2013, due
primarily to the decrease in the number of entries in foster care among children ages 10 through 17. Fred Wulczyn and
Linda Collins, A 5-Year Projection of the Number of Children Reaching Age 18 While in Foster Care, University of
Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2010, http://chapinhall.org/research/report/5-year-projection-number-
children-turning-age-18-while-foster-care.
Congressional Research Service
1
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
related provisions in P.L. 106-169 enable states to use up to 30% of their CFCIP funds for
housing on current and former foster youth ages 18 to 21, and to extend health care to these youth
through a new Medicaid pathway known as the “Chafee option.”
The CFCIP has been amended three times. In FY2002, the Safe and Stable Families Amendments
of 2001 (P.L. 107-133) authorized discretionary funding to states to provide vouchers for eligible
youth through a new Education and Training Voucher (ETV) program. Youth were made eligible
for the vouchers if they age out of foster care or are adopted from care at age 16 or older (up to
age 21 or age 23, depending on when they received the voucher). For FY2010, Congress
appropriated $45.4 million to the ETV program. The CFCIP was amended a second time in 2008
by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351,
Fostering Connections).4 The act expanded eligibility for the CFCIP by adding as an additional
program purpose that youth who are in foster care on their 16th birthday but who subsequently
leave care for adoption or kinship guardianship are eligible for CFCIP service. The law also
extended the ETV program to youth who leave care at age 16 or older for kinship guardianship,
and made tribal entities eligible to apply directly for CFCIP and ETV funds directly from the
federal government. Finally, the CFCIF was amended in 2010 by the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148, PPACA), the health care reform law, to require states to
ensure that eligible youth are educated about the importance of designating an individual to make
health care treatment decisions for them.
Along with the CFCIP, federal child welfare law and other federal programs are intended to help
current and former youth in foster care make the transition to adulthood. The federal foster care
program has protections in place to ensure that older youth in care have a written case plan that
addresses the programs and services they need in making the transition. Further, federal law
authorizes funding for states and local jurisdictions to provide workforce support and housing to
older foster youth and youth emancipating from care. P.L. 110-351 and P.L. 111-148 authorized
additional supports and services to older youth in care outside of the CFCIP. P.L. 110-351
provides states the option, beginning in FY2011, to extend Title IV-E foster care to youth ages 18
to 21. P.L. 111-148 requires states, as of January 2014, to provide Medicaid coverage to eligible
young people who age out of foster care.
This report begins with a discussion of the characteristics of youth who have had contact with the
child welfare system, including those who entered care, as well as those who exited care via
emancipation. The report then provides an overview of the federal foster care system, including
the Chafee Foster Care Independence program, and provisions in federal foster care law that are
intended to help prepare youth for adulthood. The report goes on to discuss other federal
support—through other programs—for youth aging out of care in the areas of education, health
care, employment, and housing. The report seeks to understand how states vary in their
approaches to serving older youth in care and those who are recently emancipated. A small
number of states are known to extend foster care to youth ages 18 to 21 (and beyond in some
cases), and more states are seeking to do so with the passage of P.L. 110-351. Less than half of
states provide Medicaid coverage to former foster youth beyond age 18 through the Chafee
pathway option; however, youth will automatically receive coverage beginning in 2014 with the
new Medicaid pathways for this population. The report also intends to demonstrate that, despite
4 For further information about implementation of the youth provisions of the act, see CRS Report R40218, Youth
Transitioning from Foster Care: Issues for Congress, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
Congressional Research Service
2
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
negative outcomes for the group on average, many former foster youth are engaged in decisions
about the services they receive and they display resiliency.
Appendix A provides a summary of outcome statistics for youth who were in foster care,
compared to youth in the general population; and Appendix B provides funding tables for the
Chafee Foster Care Independence program, including information about funds returned to the
Federal Treasury.
Who Are Older Youth in Foster Care and Youth
Aging Out of Care?
Children and adolescents age 17 and younger can enter state child welfare systems due to abuse,
neglect, or for some other reason, such as the death of a parent or child behavioral problems.
Some children remain in their own homes and receive family support services, while others are
placed in out-of-home settings, usually in a foster home, relative placement, or institution (e.g.,
residential treatment facility, maternity group home). This section provides demographic and
other information on youth who have had contact with the child welfare system, but did not
necessarily enter care, as well as the characteristics of only those youth who entered in care. In
addition, the outcomes experienced by young people who left care via emancipation is discussed.
Characteristics of Youth Who Have Had Contact with the Child
Welfare System
The National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW), a national random sample
study of maltreated children or those at risk of maltreatment, was authorized by legislation (the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193) to
reform welfare.5 NSCAW is gathering information associated with 5,501 children from public
child welfare agencies in 92 localities across the nation. It is the first national longitudinal study
of its kind and the first to relate child well-being to family characteristics, experience with the
child welfare system, community environment, and other factors. The study has gathered this
information at five intervals since an investigation of maltreatment was closed, even for those
children who did not enter out-of-home foster care. For the fifth interval, information was
collected by age cohort. One of these cohorts included 620 youth ages 18 to 21 in the sample who
were ages 12 to 15 years old when baseline data were collected.6 The purpose of collecting data
on this age cohort was to learn about the extent of their contact with the child welfare system,
how they are developing during their transition to adulthood, and which services they need and/or
have received to support this transition. Overall, the study demonstrates that youth who have been
the subject of a child welfare investigation, regardless of whether they were removed from their
homes, were more likely to have challenges in making the transition to adulthood than their same-
age peers, and that many youth in need of certain services were not receiving those services.
5 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, Overview,
available, along with the NSCAW reports, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/nscaw/index.html.
6 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, Adolescents
Involved with Child Welfare: A Transition to Adulthood, April 2008, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/
abuse_neglect/nscaw/reports/transition_adult/transition_adult.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Almost a third (31.9%) of the youth in the sample were involved in a child welfare services
investigation due to physical abuse. A caregiver’s failure to supervise was reported for 29.1% of
youth; sexual abuse, for 14.5%; a caregiver’s failure to provide, for 9.5%; emotional abuse for
7.2%; moral/legal or educational abuse, for 6.3%; and abandonment, for 1.6% (figures add to
100.1% because of rounding). Slightly more than a quarter of these investigations were
substantiated, meaning that child welfare services decided that the allegations of maltreatment
were valid, and nearly one out of five (17.2%) of the youth were placed in out-of-home foster
care during their adolescence. Nearly 60% (57.6%) of the families with youth in the sample were
involved with a previous child welfare investigation. Of those families, two-thirds of the abuse
and neglect incidents were substantiated.
At Wave 5, more than half (55.5%) of the youth in the sample were living with a caregiver. The
balance of the sample were either married and living with their spouse (9.5%), cohabiting with a
boyfriend or girlfriend (17.5%), living alone (11.8%), or living with non-relatives (6.3%). The
share of youth living with caretakers is consistent with that of their peers in the general
population. And like their peers generally, many of the youth in the study were currently
employed full or part time (58.1%). Despite these similarities, youth involved in a child welfare
services’ investigation (even if they did not enter out-of-home care) tended to face negative
outcomes across several domains relative to their peers generally as they made the transition to
adulthood.
Across several health indicators, youth in the sample were more likely to report negative
outcomes. (The study did not evaluate whether the shares of youth in the sample, compared to
shares of youth in the general population, are statistically significant.) For example, about one-
fifth (21.6%) of young adult females reported being in fair or poor health, compared to females in
the general U.S. population ages 18 and older (12.9%). Further, the sample youth were also far
more likely to report being depressed in the year prior to the interview (9.5% compared to
27.5%). While the share of youth in the sample having reported to be sexual active was about the
same as it is for the general population ages 20 to 24, a larger proportion of sample youth had
been sexual activity at an earlier age. Youth in the sample were almost more likely to be in an
intimate relationship involving physical violence. More than one-third (34.3%) of young adult
females had been in such a relationship. This is higher than the 22.1% lifetime prevalence for
intimate-partner violence among adult females.
In education, young adults in the sample scored, on average, substantially below the normative
mean of 100 in all categories of a cognitive test. The proportion w ho scored significantly lower
than the mean was 15.0% for applied problems, 25.3% for passage comprehension, 29.7% for
word-letter identification, and 43.6% for calculation. The sample youth were also more likely to
report living in poverty. About four out of ten (41.8%) of sample youth were living in households
with incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level, compared to an estimated 30% of all 18-
to-24 years living below the poverty level.
Finally, the study suggests that the needs of youth in the sample are not being met. Many young
adults in the study who reported having emotional, behavioral, learning, or attentional problems
did not get services to address these problems. For example, among youth with clinically
significant mental health scores and considered in need of mental health services, just over one
quarter (27.6%) received outpatient mental health services and 13.3% receive inpatient mental
health services (some received both services). In addition, only half of youth with symptoms
consistent with alcohol or drug dependence were receiving substance abuse services.
Congressional Research Service
4
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Characteristics of Youth in Foster Care
Other studies provide data on youth who were removed from their homes and placed in a foster
care setting. The Foster Care Dynamics report, a longitudinal study of children in 11 state child
welfare systems from 2000 through 2005, provides detailed information about older youth who
have been placed in out-of-home care.7 The study examined state administrative data to determine
the typical trajectory of children across four age categories who first entered foster care during
the five-year period: less than age one; one through five; six through12; and 13 through 17. The
study found that teenagers make up a significant share of the foster care population; have shorter
median lengths of stay relative to younger children; live in placements other than foster family
homes; experience more placements in their first year in care than younger children; and most
often exit care through reunification, although running away and reaching the age of majority are
exit pathways for about 10% to 24% of these older youth, depending on their age.
From 2000 through 2005, about 350,000 children entered care in the 11 states, of whom 27%
were teenagers ages 13 through 17. Youth in the age 13 through 17 category comprised the
second largest share of children in care (n=94,965), only after children ages six through 12 (n=
95,676). The incidence rate for entering care for youth ages 13 through 17 was about 2.5 per
1,000 over the five-year period; this is compared to about 9.0 per 1,000 infants under age one;
about 2.5 per 1,000 children ages one through five; and about 1.8 per 1,000 children ages six
through 12. In three cohort years (2000-2001, 2002-2003, and 2004-2005), fifteen-year-olds
comprised the second largest share of children in care by single-year age category (approximately
7%), only after infants under the age of one, who comprised 18% to 20% of the caseload.
Of those youth ages 13 through 17 who entered care from 2000 to 2005, 49% lived in congregate
care (e.g, a residential school), 37% in foster family homes, and 13% in kinship care. The
remaining two percent lived in an independent living arrangement or other arrangement. Across
all age categories, 41% to 43% of children were moved within their first six months in foster care;
however, a greater share of teenagers experienced multiple placements within their first six
months of entering care. About 18% of youth ages 13 through 17 had two or more placements,
compared with 12% to 16% of children in other age categories. Teenagers were also more likely
to move to new living arrangements in the six to twelve months after entering care. While older
youth in care had a shorter median length of stay than younger children in care, this median
length of stay increased over the five-year period. The median lengths of stay for infants
decreased from 18.7 months in 2000 to 17.6 months in 2004 (data were not available for 2005),
and increased for youth ages 13 through 17 from 6.6 months in 2000 to 7.8 months in 2005.
Generally, teenagers were less likely to be adopted or placed with relatives as they got older and
were more likely to run away and exit by reaching the age of majority or some other pathway
such as independent living. With the exception of 17-year-olds, about the same share of teenagers
were reunified as children ages three to 12. One-third to 46% of youth ages 13 through 17 exited
to reunification. The balance of youth lived in an independent living arrangement or some other
arrangement (12.4% to 15.1% for each age 13 through 17), ran away (6.7% to 11.7%), lived with
a relative (5.1% to 8.4%), or reached the age of majority (0.9% to 23.9%). About two percent or
less of the teenagers were adopted.
7 Fred Wulczyn, Lijun Chen, Kristen Brunner Hislop, Foster Care Dynamics 2000-2005: A Report from the Multistate
Foster Care Data Archive, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
5
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Although older youth tend to have shorter spells in foster care, they are more likely to re-enter
care after their first exit. About 28% of youth who were discharged at ages 13 through 17 during
2000 to 2002 reentered care within one year, followed by infants, at 26%. Children ages one to
five were least likely to reenter care, at 15%.
Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly in Foster Care
Finally, data is available for those youth who were placed in out-of-home care and ultimately
exited via emancipation. The data on these youth demonstrate that they have experienced
challenges in transitioning to adulthood. This transition for all youth has becoming increasingly
complex. During this period, young people cycle between attending school, working, and living
independently. Many youth can rely on assistance from their families for financial and emotional
supports during the transition. On average, parents give their children an estimated $38,000—or
about $2,200 a year—between the ages of 18 and 34 to supplement wages, pay for college tuition,
and help with housing costs, among other types of financial assistance.8 Parents also allow their
adult children to live with them9 and provide their children with non-material assistance, such as
help with obtaining a driver’s license, guidance on applying to college, advice on finances and
establishing a new household, and connections to other caring adults in their communities. For
older foster youth and those who have already aged out of care, this assistance is often not in
place. Being in care may inherently cause instability because of multiple out-of-home placements,
school transfers, and the challenge in maintaining relationships with parents and other kin. Youth
may experience further instability if they cannot afford to live on their own or are unable to live
with relatives or friends upon emancipation. In most states, youth may not remain in foster care
beyond age 18, a time when most young people explore educational and career options. (P.L. 110-
351 has authorized states to seek Title IV-E foster care reimbursement for youth ages 18 to 21, at
state option, beginning in FY2011.)
Research on the transition for former foster youth is limited and most of the studies on outcomes
for these youth face methodological challenges—they tend to be dated; include brief follow-up
periods (e.g., no more than a year after exit from care); have low response rates, non-
representative samples, and small sample sizes; and do not follow youth prior to exit from foster
care.10 Few studies include comparison groups to gauge how well these youth are transitioning to
adulthood, in relation to their peers in the foster care population or general population. However,
two studies—the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study and the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult
Functioning of Former Foster Youth—have tracked outcomes for a sample of youth across several
domains, either prospectively (following youth in care and as they age out) or retrospectively
8 Bob Schoeni and Karen Ross, “Material Assistance Received from Families During the Transition to Adulthood.” In
Richard A. Settersten, Jr., Frank F. Furstenburg, Jr., and Rubén Rumbaut, eds., On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory,
Research, and Public Policy, pp. 404-405. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
9 According to the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”), a nationally representative
survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time, approximately 41% of surveyed youth age 21 in the study’s third wave
(2001-2002) lived with their parents. See Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of
Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 21, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, December 2007,
p. 1, at http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355. (Hereafter referenced as Courtney et al., Midwest
Evaluation at Age 21.)
10 For a compendium of outcome studies and their methodologies, see Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring.
“The Transition to Adulthood for Youth “Aging Out” of the Foster Care System” in Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own
Without a Net, appendix. (Hereafter referenced as Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring, The Transition to
Adulthood for Youth “Aging Out” of the Foster Care System.”)
Congressional Research Service
6
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
(examining current outcomes for young adults who were in care at least a few years ago) and
comparing these outcomes to other groups of youth, either those who aged out and/or youth in the
general population.
Both studies indicate that youth who spent time in foster care during their teenage years tended to
have difficulty during the transition to adulthood and beyond. (The studies do not posit that foster
care, per se, is associated with the challenges former foster youth face in adulthood. In fact,
children tend to have a range of challenges upon entering care.11) The Midwest Evaluation has
examined the extent to which outcomes in early adulthood are influenced by the individual
characteristics of youth or their out-of-home care histories. The study found that still being in
care, as opposed to having left care, and having certain other characteristics (i.e., having
aspirations to graduate from college, feeling close to at least one family member, and expressing
satisfaction with their experience in foster care) more than doubled the odds of working or being
in school at age 19.12
The two reports exclude youth with developmental disabilities or severe mental illness that
precluded them from participating, as well as youth who were incarcerated or in a psychiatric
hospital.
Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study
Researchers with the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study interviewed and reviewed the case
files of 479 foster care youth who were in public or private foster care any time from 1988 to
1998 in Oregon or Washington.13 On average, they interviewed youth who were 24.2 years old,
with a range of 20 to 33 years old. The youth tended to be females (60% versus the 48% of
females in foster care nationally in FY201014); to have entered care as adolescents (11.1 years
versus 8.1 years for children entering care in FY2006; nearly 60% of the youth in the study were
age 12 and older at the time they entered care); and to have exited care between the ages of 15
and older (the mean age at exit was 18.5 years versus 9.6 years in FY2008 for foster youth
nationwide).15 Surveyed young adults experienced these outcomes even though most (83.6%)
reported having access to “a lot” of child welfare services and supports, and about eight out of ten
(81.5%) said that they felt loved while in care. These findings suggest that a confluence of
factors, including the reasons they entered care, family dynamics, and access to services and
11 Fred Wulczyn et al. Beyond Common Sense: Child Welfare, Child Well-Being, and the Evidence for Policy Reform
(New Brunswick: AldineTransaction, 2005), p. 116. (Hereafter referenced as Wulczyn et al., Beyond Common Sense.)
12 Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 19,
Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, May 2005, pp. 68-70, at http://www.chapinhall.org/
article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355.
13 Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study, Casey
Family Programs, 2005, at http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/ImprovingFamilyFosterCare_FR.pdf.
(Hereafter referenced as Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care.) See also Peter J. Pecora et al., What
Works in Foster Care?: Key Components of Success From the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study (Oxford, U.K.:
Oxford University Press, 2010).
14 U.S. Department of Health and Human, AFCARS Report #18.
15 These youth were placed in care prior to the enactment of the Foster Care Independence Act (P.L. 106-169) and most
entered care because of sexual abuse and other type of maltreatment, which is not a primary reason for most children
entering care (though the definition of sexual abuse in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ data
collection system for children in foster care is not identical to the definition in this study). For additional information
about the sample of youth, see pages 18 to 21 and 25 to 31 of the study.
Congressional Research Service
7
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
supports before and after care, among many other variables, have likely influenced how well they
function as adults.
The study compared the mental health status, educational attainment, and employment and
finances for the foster care alumni to those of the general population.
• Mental health: Over 54% of foster care alumni had at least one mental health
problem (depression, social phobia, panic disorder, and post-traumatic stress
disorder, among others), compared to 22.1% of the general population.16 About
one quarter of the alumni experienced post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
This figure is greater than the prevalence of PTSD among Vietnam or Iraq war
veterans—about 15%. Alumni tended to have similar recovery rates as their
counterparts in the general population for major depression, panic syndrome, and
alcohol dependency, but lower rates of recovery for other disorders such as
generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, social phobia, and bulimia.
• Education: While alumni have obtained a high school diploma or passed the
general education development (GED) test at the same rates as 25-to-34-year-
olds generally (84.5% versus 87.3%), they are much less likely to have a
bachelor’s degree—1.8% versus 22.5% of all young people.
• Employment and finances: One third of alumni reported living below the poverty
line, which is three times the national poverty rate. Further, almost 17% were
dependent on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), compared to
3% of the general population (although the high rate of participation in Oregon
and Washington could have been due, in part, to TANF rules in those states). The
alumni employment rate was 80%, while the general employment rate was 95%.
Other indicators show that alumni were not financially secure. One third lacked
health insurance (versus 18% of the general population) and 22% were homeless
at least one day during the year after they left foster care (versus 1% of the
general population who were homeless within the last year).
Midwest Evaluation on the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth
Few foster care alumni studies are prospective, meaning that they follow youth while in care
through the time they leave care and beyond. The Midwest Evaluation is an ongoing study that
tracks 600 or more (depending on the data collection wave) current and former foster youth in
three states—Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. All of the surveyed youth entered care prior to their
16th birthday.17 Surveyed youth responded to researcher questions about outcomes in three data
collection waves: at wave 1, when they were ages 17 and 18, at which time most were in care; at
wave 2 when they were age 19, at which time some remained in care; at wave 3, when they were
age 21 and no longer in care; and wave 4, when they were ages 23 and 24 and at least a couple of
years out of care. Of those who remained in care beyond age 18, all were in Illinois, the only state
16 In a nationally representative study of children ages 11 to 14 entering foster care, 56.1% had a clinical/borderline
score on the total problem behaviors checklist. Researchers often use this list as a proxy for mental health issues.
Wulczyn et al., Beyond Common Sense, p. 108.
17 Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation at Age 21.
Congressional Research Service
8
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
of the three that retains court jurisdiction of foster youth (with the youth’s permission) until age
21.18
At wave 1, about half to 70% of youth in care reported receiving any one category of independent
living services (educational services, employment/vocational support, budget and financial
management support, housing services, health education services, and youth development
services).19 At wave 2, not more than half of the youth in care reported receiving at least one
independent living service.20 At wave 3, receipt of services decreased for youth, regardless of
whether they remained in care. No more than approximately one third of the youth reported
receiving at least one independent living service.21
For youth in the fourth wave, their mean age was 24 years old and just over half (53.5%) were
female.22 Nearly one-quarter had left foster care within the previous two to three years; about
20% had left within the past three to four years; 10% had left within the past four to five years;
30% had left care in the past five to six years; and 17% had left care in the last six to seven years.
Most (54.5%) identified as African American, followed by white (29.9%), multiracial (5.8%), and
other races. Approximately 4% identified as Hispanic. More than two-thirds of youth (62.9%)
reported feeling lucky to have been placed in foster care, compared with 15% who neither agreed
nor disagreed with feeling lucky, and 22% who disagreed or strongly disagreed. Youth were also
asked whether they felt prepared to be self-sufficient. Over one-quarter said that they felt
somewhat prepared and 65.5% said they felt very prepared; the remaining 7% said they did not
feel very prepared or did not feel prepared at all. When they exited foster care years earlier, only
one-quarter had said they felt very prepared.
At ages 23 or 24, most youth reported strong family ties, with 94% having said that they felt
somewhat or very close to at least one biological family member. The greatest shares of youth
reported feeling very close to their siblings, followed by another relative (aunt, uncle, or cousin),
grandparent, biological mother, and biological father. The surveyed youth were most likely to be
in daily contact (in this order) with their siblings, biological mother, another relative, grandparent,
or biological father. Overall, most youth reported that they had social support, based on a 5-point
scale with 1 meaning that they had support none of the time and 5 meaning they had support most
of the time. The youth had a mean score of a 3.8.
18 Iowa amended its child welfare statute in 2006 to create a program that provides continuing support to foster youth
ages 18 to 21. The Iowa youth in the Midwest study were already too old to benefit from the program when it was
implemented.
19 Mark E. Courtney, Sherry Terao, and Noel Bost, Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Conditions of Youth Preparing to Leave State Care, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago,
May 2005, pp. 28-30, at http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355.
20 Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age19,
Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, and Partners for Our Children, University of Washington, May
2005, pp. 17-19, at http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355.
21 Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation at Age 21, pp. 22-25.
22 Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Ages 23
and 24, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, 2010, http://www.chapinhall.org/research/report/
midwest-evaluation-adult-functioning-former-foster-youth.
Congressional Research Service
9
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Emancipated Youth Compared to Youth in Care at Midwest Evaluation Wave 3
Findings from wave 3 of the Midwest Evaluation suggest that youth who remain in care as late as
age 20 tend to experience an easier transition to adulthood than their counterparts who
emancipate at age 18. The study found that the young adults from Illinois (who were more likely
to remain in care than youth in Wisconsin and Iowa) were almost two times as likely to have ever
attended college than their peers in the other two states; and were more likely to have higher
earnings and delayed pregnancy. See the last section of this report for further information.
Youth at Midwest Evaluation Wave 4 Compared to Youth Ages 23 and 24
Generally
For each of the four data collection waves, wherever possible, researchers asked the same
questions that were taken directly from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health
(“Add Health”), a nationally representative survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time.23 The
former foster youth surveyed at wave 4 in the Midwest Evaluation were less likely to have
attained a four-year college degree compared to the Add Health youth (2.5% versus 19.4%).
Youth in the Midwest evaluation who were not currently in school reported barriers to enrolling
or staying in school, including that they could not pay (39.9%), needed to work full-time (19.7%),
needed to care for a child (13.8%), or had no transportation (3.2%), among other reasons. While
youth formerly in care were almost as likely to report ever holding a job as Add Health youth
(94.7% versus 97.3%), a smaller share were currently employed (48.0% versus 75.5%) and they
had lower median hourly wages ($9.45 versus $12.00) and mean annual incomes ($8,000 versus
$18,300). About 47% of former foster youth reported having any savings or checking account,
compared to 85% of youth generally. A greater share of former foster youth did not have enough
money to pay rent (38.6%), compared to their counterparts in the Add Health survey (7.4%) and
were more likely to report having received food stamps (67.7% versus 7.2% for females; 26.8%
versus 1.5% for males).
Table A-1 in Appendix A presents the outcomes for youth surveyed in wave 4 and Add Health
participants surveyed at ages 23 and 24 across ten domains—living arrangements, educational
attainment, employment and income, economic hardships, health, sexual behavior and pregnancy,
relationships and family formation, involvement with the criminal justice system, transition to
adulthood, orientation to the future, and mentoring. Table A-1 indicates that at age 23, former
foster youth and youth generally shared some common characteristics, but that the former foster
youth experienced more negative educational and employment outcomes, among other outcomes.
In addition to assessing the outcomes of youth at ages 23 and 24, the Midwest researchers have
classified these youth into four subgroups, based on their similar characteristics across multiple
indicators.24 The profiles of the youth vary based on their living arrangements, educational
attainment, and current employment status; whether they have children and whether they live
23 The Add Health sampled young adults from across the country, the majority (about 75%) of whom were white. Data
from the Add Health survey were collected six to seven years before wave 4 of the Midwest Evaluation. As a result,
data on earnings and income have been adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for comparison purposes.
24 Mark E. Courtney, Jennifer L. Hook, and JoAnn S. Lee, Distinct Subgroups of Former Foster Youth During Young
Adulthood: Implications for Policy and Practice, University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children and
University of Washington, Partners for Our Children, March 2010, http://www.chapinhall.org/research/brief/distinct-
subgroups-former-foster-youth-during-young-adulthood-implications.
Congressional Research Service
10
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
with their children; and whether they have been convicted of a crime since leaving care. The
alumni were categorized as follows:
• Accelerated adults: The highest percentage of youth (36.3%) were classified
under this category. These youth were most likely to live on their own in a fairly
stable situation (83.5%). Almost all had a high school diploma and over half had
attended some college (54.3%). Three quarters were employed (74.8%). About
half had children (51.9%), and they reported one of the lowest rates of criminal
conviction (13.7%) relative to the other groups. Although these youth were
generally high functioning, about one-third had been homeless or couch surfed
and over one-third receive food stamps at age 23 or 24.
• Struggling parents: Nearly one out of four youth were categorized as struggling
parents. They tended to live on their own (45.6%) or with relatives or friends
(44.2%), and to have obtained a high school diploma (52.4%). Few (3.4%) were
attending college (3.4%). Nearly all had children (98.0%), most of whom lived
with them. Most were unemployed (74.5%) and most had not been convicted of a
crime since leaving care (85.3%).
• Emerging adults: Emerging adults comprised 21.1% of the sample. All lived with
relatives, friends, or others. Almost half had attended some college (45.5%) and
just over one-third were currently employed (36.6%). Most did not have children
(73.2%) and almost none had been convicted of a crime since leaving care
(94.3%).
• Troubled and troubling: Nearly one out of five (17.5%) of youth were
categorized as troubled and troubling. The majority of the group had lived in
multiple placements, were in jail or a treatment program, or had an unstable
living situation (71.6%). Four out of 10 did not have a high school diploma, but
most were employed (90.2%). About one out of five of the youth had been
convicted of a crime since leaving care (17.6%).
Resiliency of Current and Former Foster Youth
Despite the generally negative findings from the two major evaluations on youth aging out of
foster care, many youth have demonstrated resiliency by overcoming obstacles, such as limited
family support and financial resources, and meeting their goals. As mentioned above, youth in the
Northwest Evaluation have obtained a high school diploma or passed the general education
development (GED) test at close to the same rates as 25-to-34-year-olds generally (84.5% versus
87.3%). Further, youth in the third wave of the Midwest Evaluation were just as likely as the
general youth population to report being hopeful about their future. (See Table A-1.) Over one-
third of the youth have been classified as fairly high functioning because they are attached to
work or school and live on their own.
Current and former foster youth are also working to make improvements to the child welfare
system. At hearings in the 110th Congress that focused on older youth in foster care, these young
people highlighted their struggles, successes, and their advocacy work on behalf of foster
children. At a February 27, 2008 hearing before the Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Income
Security and Family Support, a foster care alumni chronicled her life in care with 11 placements
through her recent graduation from college. In her testimony, she urged Congress to improve
conditions for children in foster care:
Congressional Research Service
11
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
I have accomplished a lot, but it is in spite of all of the uncertainty I experienced in foster
care—not because of it. I want something better for the youth who are currently in the foster
care system. I want them to have families to love and protect them and homes they know
they can always return to. I want them to leave foster care to live with a family, a relative—
someone who will be permanent in their lives. I do not want the youth currently in foster care
to age-out of foster care with no family and no one to turn to for help or support.... Congress
has the power to do something, and I ask you on behalf of all of my brothers and sisters who
cannot be sitting here with me to do something now.25
The next section of this report describes the federal services and supports available to youth in
foster care, and demonstrates how some states have varied in their approaches to serving older
foster youth and youth who have recently emancipated from care.
Overview of Federal Child Welfare Support for
Foster Youth
Historically, states have been primarily responsible for providing child welfare services to
families and children that need them. While in out-of-home foster care, the state child welfare
agency, under the supervision of the court (and in consultation with the parents or primary
caretakers in some cases), serves as the child’s parent and makes decisions on his or her behalf
that are to promote his or her safety, permanence, and well-being.
Safety refers to the state child welfare system’s goal of ensuring that children in foster care are
protected from further abuse or neglect. Permanence refers to the state’s goal of ensuring that
children do not spend too many of their formative years in a foster care placement, and that the
state either returns them to their families quickly and safely or quickly finds another safe and
permanent home for them. Well-being is inextricably linked to safety and permanency. The term
refers to efforts by the child welfare system to promote positive outcomes for children in care,
including education and physical and mental health outcomes, as well as supportive families. In
most cases, the state relies on public and private entities and organizations to provide these
services. The federal government plays a role in shaping state child welfare systems by providing
funds and linking those funds to certain requirements.
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act provides foster care, case planning, and services to older
foster youth. Title IV-E foster care authorizes federal funding for eligible children, and requires
states to follow certain case planning and management practices for all children in care (Section
472). The Chafee Foster Care Independence program authorizes funding for states to provide
independent living services to older foster youth and those who have emancipated from care
(Section 477). Both programs are discussed below.
25 U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, “Hearing
on Improving the Child Welfare System,” February 27, 2008, available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=612.
Congressional Research Service
12
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Federal Foster Care
Federal support for foster care preceded, by several decades, the 1980 (P.L. 96-272) creation of
Title IV-E foster care under the Social Security Act. However, the 1980 law established this
support as an independent funding source for states to provide foster homes for children in foster
care. The law also stressed the importance of case planning and review to achieve permanence for
foster children.
Case Planning and Review
Federal child welfare provisions under Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act
require state child welfare agencies, as a condition of receiving funding under these titles, to
provide certain case management services to all children in foster care. These include monthly
case worker visits to each child in foster care (Section 422(b)(17)); a written case plan for each
child in care that documents the child’s placement and steps taken to ensure their safety and well-
being, including by addressing their health and educational needs (Section 475(1)); and
procedures ensuring a case review is conducted not less often than every six months by a judge or
an administrative review panel, and at least once every 12 months by a judge who must consider
the child’s permanency plan (Section 475(5)). Specific case plan and case review procedures
pertain to older youth in care. For a child age 16 or older, the written case plan must also include
a description of the programs and services that will help the child prepare for the transition to
independent living (Section 475(1)(D)). Permanency plan hearings, which are to be conducted at
least once a year after a child enters care, must consider for children age 16 and older, the
services needed to assist them transition to independent living (Section 475(5)(C)). Further, the
court or administrative body conducting the hearings is to consult, in an age-appropriate manner,
with the child regarding the proposed permanency or transition plan for the child (Section
475(5)(C)).
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 added requirements
about a transition plan for older youth. The law requires that a youth’s caseworker, and as
appropriate, other representative(s) of the youth, assist and support him or her in developing a
transition plan. The plan is to be directed by the youth, and is to include specific options on
housing, health insurance, education, local opportunities for mentors, workforce supports, and
employment services. The plan must be implemented 90 days prior to a youth’s 18th birthday (or
the 19th, 20th, or 21st birthdays of youth in states that take up the option to extend foster care),
“whether during that period foster care maintenance payments are being made on the child’s
behalf or the child is receiving benefits or services under [the Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program].”
The new health care reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148),
adds another element to the transition plan. The law requires that the plan addresses the
importance of designating another individual to make health care treatment decisions on behalf of
the youth if he or she becomes unable to participate in these decisions and does not have a
relative who would be authorized to make these decisions under state law, or he or she does not
want a relative to make those decisions. In addition, the transition plan must provide the youth
with the option to execute a health care power of attorney, health care proxy, or other similar
document recognized under state law. As part of program instructions issued by HHS on June 7,
2010, concerning implementation of PPACA, states and tribes that have submitted a Title IV-E
plan or have been approved to operate a Title IV-E program must submit, by December 31, 2010,
Congressional Research Service
13
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
a Title IV-E amendment that reflects implementation of, and compliance with, the new
requirement.26
Program instructions issued by HHS in July 2010 provide additional guidance on the transition
plan.27 The instructions encourage child welfare agencies to use the plan to build on earlier efforts
to help young people make the transition from foster care, including through the case planning
process and permanency hearings. Child welfare agencies are encouraged to begin engaging
youth in the transition plan process “well in advance” of the 90-day period.
Title IV-E Reimbursement for Foster Care
Title IV-E currently reimburses states for a part of the cost of providing foster care to eligible
children and youth, who, because of abuse or neglect (or some other reason), cannot remain in
their own homes and for whom a court has consequently given care and placement responsibility
to the state. Under this program, a state may seek partial federal reimbursement to “cover the cost
of (and the cost of providing) food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, a child’s
personal incidentals, liability insurance with respect to a child, and reasonable travel to the child’s
home for visitation” (Section 475(4)). States may also seek reimbursement for related costs of
administration, child placement (e.g., case planning), training, and data collection.
Under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (see below), states must certify that they
will use Title IV-E foster care program funding (and Adoption Assistance program funding) to
provide training relevant to foster parents and others (adoptive parents, workers in group homes,
and case managers) to help them understand and address the issues confronting adolescents
preparing for independent living and coordinating this training, where possible, with independent
living programs.28 Although case planning and review procedures (described above) apply to all
foster children in state care, federal reimbursement to states under Title IV-E may be made only
on behalf of a child who meets multiple federal eligibility criteria (Section 472), including those
related to the child’s removal and the income and assets of the child’s family. For purposes of this
report, the most significant eligibility criteria for the federal foster care program are the child’s
age and placement setting.
Eligibility
Prior to FY2011, once a child reached his or her 18th birthday, he or she was no longer eligible for
federal foster care assistance. The age limitation on Title IV-E eligibility was created by the
program’s eligibility link to the now-defunct Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
program.29 Children qualified as dependents under the AFDC program until age 18. As was the
26 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children Youth and Families, Administration for
Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Program Instruction: Public Law (P.L.) 111-148, the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, June 7, 2010, ACYF-CB-PI-10-10, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/
2010/pi1010.htm.
27 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children Youth and Families, Administration for
Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Program Instruction: Guidance on Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, ACYF-CB-PI-10-11, July 9, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/
laws_policies/policy/pi/2010/pi1011.htm.
28 Section 477(b)(3)(D).
29 For additional information, see Section 8.3A, Question 2 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual.
Congressional Research Service
14
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
case with AFDC, federal law permitted states to make continued claims for otherwise eligible
foster youth until their 19th birthday provided that the youth was a full-time student and was
expected to complete high school or an equivalent training program by age 19. States must have
elected this option in its definition of “child” for purposes of the state’s AFDC program.
Pursuant to P.L. 110-351, states have the option, as of FY2011, to seek reimbursement for the cost
of providing foster care to eligible youth until age 19, 20, or 21. The law makes this change by
inserting a definition of “child” as it pertains to older youth in care. This definition specifies that a
state may seek reimbursement for a youth age 18 or older who is (1) completing high school or a
program leading to an equivalent credential; (2) enrolled in an institution that provides post-
secondary or vocational education; (3) participating in a program or activity designed to promote,
or remove barriers to, employment; or (4) employed at least 80 hours per month (i.e., part-time).
States may exempt youth from these requirements due to a medical condition, as documented and
updated in their case plan.
In its July 2010 program guidance, HHS advises that states and tribes can make remaining in care
conditional upon whether youth pursue certain educational or employment pathways. For
example, extended care could be provided just to those youth enrolled in post-secondary
education. Still, the guidance advises that states and tribes should “consider how [they] can
provide extended assistance to youth age 18 and older to the broadest population possible
consistent with the law to ensure that there are ample supports for older youth.” As of mid-April
2011, 11 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska,
New York, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia amended their Title
IV-E state plans to extend the maximum age of foster care.30 HHS approved plans for three
states—Alabama, Illinois, and Maryland—and was reviewing plans for the other states and DC.
All but two of the states (and DC) that submitted IV-E amendments to extend care, Tennessee and
West Virginia, would allow youth to remain in care under the four conditions listed above and
would exempt youth from these conditions if a youth is incapable of meeting them for medical
reasons. Tennessee would only allow youth to remain in care if they are completing high school
or a program leading to an equivalent credential, or are enrolled in an institution that provides
post-secondary or vocational education. West Virginia would allow youth to remain in care if they
met the two education-related requirements or were participating in a program or activity to
remove barriers to employment.
In states that extend foster care, youth ages 18 or older who emancipate from foster care may later
determine, prior to their state’s optional older age, that they would like to return to care because
of the challenges they face living on their own, or for other reasons. The July 2010 program
instructions issued by HHS permit states and tribes to extend foster care assistance in a way that
permits a youth to stay in care continuously or “leave care and return at some point after attaining
age 18” (up to age 19, 20, or 21, depending on the state) so long as the original court order
remains in effect and other IV-E eligibility criteria are satisfied. It appears that in at least a small
number of states, youth are already permitted to reenter care.
30 This information is based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s
Bureau, April 2011.
Congressional Research Service
15
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
P.L. 110-351 also authorizes states, for the first time, to provide Title IV-E subsidies on behalf of
youth 18 or older (until age 19, 20, or 21, at the state’s option) who left foster care after age 16 for
adoption or kinship guardianship, and meet the criteria listed above. This change was made by
adding a definition of “child” as it relates to these youth.
Eligible Placement Setting
Until FY2011, federal reimbursement of part of the costs of maintaining children in foster care
could be sought only for children placed in foster family homes or child care institutions. As
mentioned above, states now have the option of seeking federal maintenance payments to support
youth remaining in care up to age 20. States that take up the option are permitted to claim
reimbursement for youth placed in a “supervised setting in which the individual is living
independently.” The act directs HHS to establish in regulation what qualifies as such a setting. As
part of the July 2010 program instructions issued by HHS, the department stated that it does not
have plans “at this time” to issue “forthcoming regulations” that describe the kinds of living
arrangements considered to be independent living settings, how these settings should be
supervised, or any other conditions for a young person to live independently. The instructions
advise that states and tribes have the discretion to develop a range of supervised independent
living settings that “can be reasonably interpreted as consistent with the law, including whether or
not such settings need to be licensed and any safety protocols that may be needed.”
States may not seek federal reimbursement of foster care costs for children who are in “detention
facilities, forestry camps, training schools, or any other facility operated primarily for the
detention of children who are determined to be delinquent.”31
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
A second Title IV-E program, the Chafee Foster Care Independence program (CFCIP), provides
services to older youth in foster care and youth transitioning out of care.32
Overview
The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-169) replaced the prior law Independent
Living Program, established in 1985, with the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program. The 1999 law doubled the annual funds available to states for independent living
services from $70 million to $140 million. Youth served include those who are expected to leave
foster care because they have not been placed in a permanent family before reaching the state’s
legal age of majority and those who have emancipated from care (until age 21). As enacted by
P.L. 106-169, the purposes of the program are to—(1) identify youth who are likely to remain in
foster care until age 18 and provide them with support services to help make the transition to self
sufficiency; (2) assist these youth to obtain employment and prepare for and enter college or other
postsecondary training or educational institutions; (3) provide personal and emotional support to
youth aging out of foster care through mentors and other dedicated adults; (4) enhance the efforts
of former foster youth ages 18 to 21 to achieve self sufficiency through supports that connect
31 Section 472(c) of the Social Security Act.
32 See Appendix E for proposed legislative changes to the CFCIP.
Congressional Research Service
16
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
them to employment, education, housing, and other services; and (5) assure that youth receiving
services recognize and accept personal responsibility for preparing for and then making the
transition from adolescence to adulthood. As discussed below, the law has been amended twice to
expand the purposes of the CFCIP and to create a new Education and Training Voucher program
for eligible youth.
CFCIP-funded services may consist of educational assistance, vocational training, mentoring,
preventive health activities, and counseling. States may dedicate as much as 30% of their program
funding toward room and board for youth ages 18 to 21, including for those youth enrolled in an
institution of higher education or who remain in foster care in states that provide care to youth
until ages 19, 20, or 21.33 Room and board are not defined in statute, but typically include food
and shelter, and may include rental deposits, rent, utilities, and the cost of household startup
purchases. CFCIP funds may not be used to acquire property to provide housing to current or
former foster youth.34 The act also required that youth in the program be actively involved in
decisions about the services they receive.
In addition, the law changed the amount of earnings or other resources that foster youth may
accumulate to assist in their transition to independent living. Eligibility for foster care
maintenance payments under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act is based on whether the
children’s original families would qualify for AFDC, as it was in effect on July 16, 1996. Under
those rules, children could not remain eligible for Title IV-E services if they accumulated assets
of more than $1,000. P.L. 106-169, however, changed this asset limit to $10,000. The act also
encouraged states to provide Medicaid coverage to youth ages 18, 19, and 20 who have
emancipated from foster care by authorizing a new Medicaid eligibility pathway for “independent
foster care adolescents,” commonly called the “Chafee option” (see section on Medicaid in
“Other Federal Support” below, which also describes a new mandatory Medicaid pathway for
certain eligible youth who leave foster care). In 2002 (P.L. 107-133), discretionary funds—up to
$60 million annually—were authorized for eligible current and former foster care youth to
receive education and training vouchers.
Legislative History
The CFCIP is the successor to earlier efforts by Congress to better support the transition of youth
from foster care to independent living. In 1985, Congress established the Independent Living
Program (ILP), under a new section 477 of the Social Security Act, in response to several surveys
showing that significant number of individuals who used homeless shelters had been recently
discharged from foster care. The ILP awarded grants to states to provide services that would
prepare youth to live independently outside of the child welfare system. Youth ages 16 to 18 who
met the eligibility criteria of Title IV-E qualified for ILP services. In 1988 (P.L. 100-647), ILP
eligibility was expanded to include children ages 16 to18 in foster care, regardless of their federal
Title IV-E eligibility. The 1988 law also permitted states to use ILP funds to serve certain youth
for six months after their emancipation from foster care. In 1990, P.L. 101-508 gave states the
option of providing independent living services to any youth up to age 21 who had emancipated
from care. In 1993 (P.L. 103-66), Congress permanently authorized funding for the program at
$70 million annually.
33 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1G, Questions 1 and 4.
34 Ibid, Section 3.1G, Questions 1 and 3.
Congressional Research Service
17
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Since the CFCIP was established in 1999 under P.L. 106-169, the program has been amended
three times. In 2002, P.L. 107-133 authorized additional funding to provide education and training
vouchers to youth who age out of foster care and youth who are adopted from care at age 16 or
older. In 2008, P.L. 110-351 expanded eligibility for the program by adding as an additional
program purpose that youth who are in foster care on their 16th birthday but who subsequently
leave care for adoption or kinship are eligible for CFCIP services. The law also extended the ETV
program to youth who leave care at age 16 or older for kinship guardianship; and made tribal
entities eligible to apply directly for CFCIP and ETV funds directly from the federal government.
In 2010, the program was amended for a third time by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act to require states to make assurances about educating young people aging out about a health
care power of attorney and assisting the youth with executing the power of attorney.
Eligibility for CFCIP Benefits and Services
The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 required states to ensure that independent living
programs serve children of “various ages and various stages of achieving independence” and use
objective criteria for determining eligibility for benefits and services under the program. The act
further specified that states are to provide services under the CFCIP for children who are “likely
to remain in foster care until 18 years of age” or are “aging out of foster care.” It also addressed
the responsibilities of the states to consult with American Indian tribes and provide services to
tribal youth. Foster youth who are in runaway status or lose contact with their child welfare
agency continue to be under the custody of the state, and therefore, are eligible for services upon
returning. Those youth in care who have been adjudicated through the juvenile justice system are
eligible for CFCIP services as long as they are not in a detention or related facility.35 (The
juvenile corrections facility is responsible for all services for foster youth who are confined in a
locked setting.) Finally, foster children who are not citizens may be eligible for CFCIP services
while under state custody.
The Foster Care Independence Act further requires states to provide certain services to youth who
meet specific age and other criteria. States may provide room and board with CFCIP funds and
Medicaid through the Chafee pathway (see below for further information) only to those youth
who are eligible for CFCIP services. Youth are eligible for an education and training voucher
(until age 23) if they emancipate from care or were adopted from care at age 16 or older.
However, to be eligible for a voucher at age 22 or 23, they must have received one at age 21.
Youth Likely to Remain in Foster Care Until Age 18
Under the former ILP, states could provide services to current foster youth ages 16 and 17 who
were eligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments, or to “other children in care,”
regardless of Title IV-E status. P.L. 106-169 removed reference to a minimum eligibility age and
required states to provide supports to children “likely to remain in foster care” until age 18. This
phrase is not defined in the act, and states are to create eligibility standards using objective
criteria. States can provide services to any child age 17 and younger regardless of their placement
in a kinship care home, family foster home, pre-adoptive home, or any other state-sanctioned
placement so long as the child is in state custody. HHS’s Child Welfare Policy Manual requires
35 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.4, Question 5.
Congressional Research Service
18
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
states that place children in foster care settings in other states to fund independent living services
for foster youth ages 16 to 18 regardless of their placement in another state.36
According to the National Foster Care Coalition, a child welfare advocacy organization, many
states have developed indicators to help determine the likelihood that a child will remain in care
until his or her 18th birthday.37 For example, Louisiana determines a child’s eligibility for
independent living services by reviewing his or her case history, presenting problems, and
individual case goals. Kentucky and Alaska require that services be provided concurrently with
permanency planning for young people over the age of 14. Alaska further defines the level of
such services that should be provided at age 14 and older.
A 2008 survey of independent living coordinators in 45 states (including the District of
Columbia) by the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago found that in
about half of the states (24, 53.3%), youth as young as age 14 are eligible for CFCIP-funded
services. Seven states provide these services at a younger age, while 13 provide services at an
older age. One state said that the age depends on the county, and another state did not report on
the minimum age for services.38 Nearly all (40) of the surveyed states reported that foster youth
are eligible for CFCIP-funded services regardless of their permanency plan. Further, nearly half
of the states (22) said that young people who are placed with a permanent legal guardian are
ineligible or are eligible under certain circumstances.
Permanency Planning
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA, P.L. 105-89) amended the Social Security
Act at Section 475(5), which required that all young people in foster care have a permanency
plan. ASFA established that, in addition to reunification, adoption, placement with a relative, and
legal guardianship, “another planned permanent living arrangement” (APPLA) is specified as a
permanency option, and may include independent living. While the CFCIP is intended to expand
independent living services for older youth in foster care, Section 477 of the act encourages states
to continue their efforts to achieve permanency for a young person, including by specifying that
states should continue to locate and achieve placement in adoptive families for older youth in
care. In his introductory remarks about the Senate version of P.L. 106-169 (S. 1327), Senator Jay
Rockefeller described the intent of the legislation:
“[A] youth’s need for a family does not end at any particular age. Each of us can clearly
recall times when we have had to turn to our own families for advice, comfort, or support
long after our 18th or 21st birthdays. Many of us are still in the role of providing such support
to our own children who are in their late teens or 20s. Therefore, an important provision in
36 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1F, Question 2.
37 National Foster Care Awareness Project, Frequently Asked Questions II: About the Foster Care Independence Act of
1999 and the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, December 2000, p.16, at http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/
yd/programs/pdfs/faq2_final.pdf. (Hereafter referenced as National Foster Care Awareness Project, Frequently Asked
Questions II.) Some of the members of the National Foster Care Awareness Project, which no longer exists, are now
members of the National Foster Care Coalition. The National Foster Care Coalition produced the Frequently Asked
Questions III publication about the program.
38 Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2009, pp. 7-8, at
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=08-12-3903. (Hereafter referenced as Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek,
Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning Out of Foster Care.)
Congressional Research Service
19
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
this Senate version of the Foster Care Independence Act states that Independent Living (IL)
programs are not alternatives to permanency planning-young people of all ages need and
deserve every possible effort made towards permanence, including adoption.”39
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care
Prior to the enactment of the CFCIP, states had the option to serve young people who had
emancipated from care until age 21. The Foster Care Independence Act requires states that
receive CFCIP funds to provide independent living services to youth who have aged out of care
between the ages of 18 through 21. According to HHS’s Child Welfare Policy Manual, this
requirement does not preclude states from providing services to other former foster care youth
ages 18 to 21 who exited care prior to their eighteenth birthday.40 The 2008 Chapin Hall survey of
45 states found that than half of the states (19; 42.2%) reported that former foster youth are
eligible for aftercare services if they were not in care on their eighteenth birthday. Slightly more
states (about 21) reported that these youth could receive services if their discharge outcome was
reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship.
Former foster youth continue to remain eligible for aftercare services until age 21 if they move to
another state. The state in which the former foster youth resides—whether or not the youth was in
foster care in that state—is responsible for providing independent living services to the eligible
young person.41 Separately, several states have developed recommitment policies for youth who
have been discharged from care that specify a time limit in which they may be eligible for
services. Under such a policy, youth who turn age 18 while in runaway status may reenter care to
receive services.42
American Indian Youth
The prior federal Independent Living Program did not specify that states consult with American
Indian tribes or serve Indian youth in particular. P.L. 106-169 required that under the CFCIP,
states must certify that each federally recognized Indian tribal organization in the state has been
consulted about the state’s independent living programs and that there have been efforts to
coordinate the programs with these tribes.43 In addition, P.L. 106-169 provides that the “benefits
and services under the programs are to be made available to Indian children in the state on the
same basis as to other children in the state.” “On the same basis” has been interpreted by HHS to
mean that the state will provide program services equitably to children in both state custody and
tribal custody.44 The importance of tribal involvement was explained by Representative J.D.
Hayworth during debate of the House version of P.L. 106-169 (H.R. 1802) in June 1999, when he
said that tribes are in the best position to identify the needs of tribal youth and local resources
available for these young people.45
39 U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, July 1, 1999, p. S8124.
40 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1B, Question 2.
41 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1F, Question 3.
42 National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 9.
43 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1I, Question 4.
44 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1I, Question 5.
45 U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, June 25, 1999, p. H4969.
Congressional Research Service
20
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
P.L. 110-351 added and modified provisions in the CFCIP pertaining to Indian youth. As of
FY2010, the law permits an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium that receives
direct funding from HHS to provide child welfare services or enters into a cooperative agreement
or contract with the state to provide foster care, to apply for and receive an allotment of CFCIP
and ETV funds directly from HHS. To be eligible, a tribal entity must be receiving Title IV-E
funds to operate a foster care program (under a Title IV-E plan approved by HHS or via a
cooperative agreement or contract with the state). Successful tribal applicants are to receive an
allotment amount(s) out of the state’s allotment for the program(s) based on the share of all
children in foster care in the state under the custody of the tribal entity. Tribal entities must satisfy
the CFCIP program requirements established for states, as HHS determines appropriate, and they
must submit a plan to HHS that details their process for consulting with the state about their
independent living or ETV programs, among other information. For example, in their state plans,
tribal entities must discuss the process for consulting with the state to ensure that tribal youth who
previously received independent living services through the state will continue to receive the
same services through the tribal entity.
The law also requires that as of FY2010, a state must certify that it will negotiate in good faith
with any tribal entity that does not receive a direct federal allotment of child welfare funds, but
would like to enter into an agreement or contract with the state to receive funds for administering,
supervising, or overseeing CFCIP and ETV programs for eligible Indian children under the tribal
entity’s authority.
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development Survey of Tribal
Consultation and Independent Living Services
In 2007, the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development reviewed select
parts of five-year state child welfare plans, known as the Child and Family Service Plan, to
determine the extent to which (1) states have consulted tribes and involved tribal officials in the
development of independent living programs and (2) tribal youth have accessed independent
living services.46 Based on a review of these five-year child welfare plans for 28 states, the
NCWRCYD determined that the plans provided limited information about tribal consultation. In
one-third of the plans, states did not provide a response about consulting tribes. (States may have
provided this information in other parts of the plans that were not reviewed and/or may have in
fact consulted widely with tribes.) However, some of the state plans detailed their consultation
process with tribal entities. The NCWRCYD also reviewed annual child welfare progress reports
(known as Annual Progress and Service Reports, which update the five-year plans) and found that
39 states reported consulting with tribes, but that only four states elaborated with additional
information.
The Role of Youth Participants
Section 477 of the Social Security Act requires that states ensure youth in independent living
programs participate directly in designing their own program activities that prepare them for
46 University of Oklahoma, National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development, Tribal Youth
Transitioning to Adulthood: Current Status of Independent Living Services Provided to Indian Youth, November 2007.
The NCWRCYD reviewed at least one of the following documents for each state: Child and Family Service Plans
(CFSP) for FY2005-FY2009 and Annual Progress and Service Reports (ASPR) for FY2005 and FY2006.
Congressional Research Service
21
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
independent living and further that they “accept personal responsibility for living up to their part
of the program.” This language builds on the positive youth development approach to serving
youth.47 Youth advocates that support this approach view youth as assets and promote the idea
that youth should be engaged in decisions about their lives and communities.
States have also taken various approaches to involving young people in decisions about the
services they receive. These include annual conferences, with young people involved in
conference planning and participation; youth speakers’ bureaus, with young people trained and
skilled in public speaking; youth or alumni assisting in the recruitment of foster and adoptive
parents; and young people serving as mentors for children and youth in foster care, among other
activities.48 Some states have also established formal youth advisory boards to provide a forum
for youth to become involved in issues facing youth in care and aging out of care.49 Youth-serving
organizations for current and former foster youth, such as Foster Club, provide an outlet for
young people to become involved in the larger foster care community and advocate for other
children in care. States are not required to utilize life skills assessments or personal responsibility
contracts with youth to comply with the youth participation requirement, although some states use
these tools to assist youth make the transition to adulthood.50
Program Administration
States administer their independent living programs in a few ways. Some programs are overseen
by the state independent living office, which employs an independent living coordinator and other
staff. For example, in Maine, the state’s independent living manager oversees six specialized life
skills education coordinators assigned to cover all of the state’s district offices for the Department
of Health and Human Services. In some states, like California, each county (or other jurisdiction)
administers its own program with some oversight and support from a statewide program. Other
states, including Florida, use contracted service providers to administer their programs. Many
jurisdictions have partnered with private organizations to help fund and sometimes administer
some aspect of their independent living programs. For example, the Jim Casey Youth
Opportunities Initiative has provided funding and technical assistance to multiple cities to provide
financial support and training to youth exiting care.51
Education and Training Vouchers
As mentioned above, in 2002, Congress passed legislation (P.L. 107-133) to authorize
discretionary funding to eligible current and former foster care youth for education and training
vouchers worth up to $5,000 annually per youth (states may determine the annual period to which
to apply the $5,000 ceiling52). Youth qualify for a voucher if they are eligible for CFCIP services
or were adopted from foster care after 16 years of age. (Youth are eligible if they are ages 18 to
47 For additional information about the positive youth development movement in youth policy, see CRS Report
RL33975, Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
48 National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions II, pp. 30-31.
49 For a list of jurisdictions with youth advisory boards, see http://groups.fosterclub.com/.
50 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1A, Question 1.
51 For further information about the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, see http://www.jimcaseyyouth.org/
communities.htm.
52 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.5C, Question 7.
Congressional Research Service
22
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
21 who have left foster care because they have aged out; youth likely to remain in foster care until
age 18, as determined by the state; and former foster care recipients age 21 and younger, as
determined by the state.) In 2008, P.L. 110-351 extended the ETV program to youth who leave
foster care at age 16 or older for kinship guardianship.
The vouchers are available for the cost of full-time or part-time attendance at an institution of
higher education, as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.53 (ETV funds may be used to
pay for health insurance, which may cover mental health services; but they may not be used to
pay directly for a doctor’s visit or dental insurance.54) A current fiscal year’s ETV funds may not
be used to finance a youth’s educational or vocational loans incurred prior to that current fiscal
year.55 Students may receive the vouchers if they are in good standing and making progress
toward completing their program or graduating, though states may have additional requirements
such as periodically meeting with a caseworker or limiting the funding to a certain number of
semesters.56 Only youth receiving a voucher at age 21 may continue to participate in the voucher
program until age 23.
Funding received through the ETV program does not count toward the student’s expected family
contribution, which is used by the federal government to determine a student’s need for federal
financial aid (even for those students who are classified as independent, meaning that their
parental financial information is not included in the financial aid analysis). However, the total
amount of education assistance provided under the CFCIP and other federal programs may not
exceed the total cost of attendance, and students cannot claim the same education expenses under
multiple federal programs.
Program Administration
States and counties may use ETV dollars to fund the vouchers and the costs associated with
administering the program, including for salaries, expenses, and training of staff who administer
the state’s voucher program. States are not permitted to use Title IV-E Foster Care or Adoption
Assistance program funds for administering the ETV program.57 They may, however, spend
additional funds from state sources or other sources to supplement the ETV program or use ETV
funds to expand existing post-secondary funding programs.58 Several states have scholarship
53 Section 472 of the Higher Education Act, as amended defines “cost of attendance” as tuition, fees, and other
equipment or materials required of all students in the same course of study; books, supplies, and allowance for
transportation and miscellaneous personal expenses, including computers; room and board; child care expenses for a
student who is a parent; accommodations related to the student’s disability that is not paid for by another source;
expenses related to the youth’s work experience in a cooperative education program; and student loan fees or insurance
premiums on the loans. Section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended identifies “institutions of higher
education” for purposes of student assistance (under Title IV of the Higher Education Act) to include traditional higher
education institutions (i.e., public or private, nonprofit two- and four-year colleges and universities) as well as other
postsecondary institutions (i.e., proprietary or for-profit schools offering technical training programs usually of less
than two-years’ duration, and vocational schools).
54 National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 12.
55 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.5C, Question 5.
56 National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 7.
57 Ibid, Section 3.5C, Question 5.
58 Ibid, Section 3.5C, Question 6.
Congressional Research Service
23
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
programs, tuition waivers, and grants for current and former foster youth that are funded through
other sources.59
Generally, states administer their ETV program through their independent living program. Some
states, however, administer the program through their financial aid office (e.g., California Student
Aid Commission) or at the local level (e.g., Florida, where all child welfare programs are
administered through community-based agencies). Some states contract with a non-profit service
provider, such as the Orphan Foundation of America or the Student Assistance Foundation.
Youth Enrolled in the Program
Youth may enroll in the program if they are in care or have aged out of care. The state with the
placement and responsibility for a youth in foster care is to provide the voucher to that youth. The
state must also provide a voucher to any youth who is currently receiving a voucher and moves to
another state for the sole purpose of attending an institution of higher education.60 If a youth
permanently moves to another state after leaving care and subsequently enrolls in a qualified
institution of higher education, he or she can apply for a voucher in his or her current state of
residence.61
HHS’s Administration for Children and Families reported that states provided vouchers to 11,365
youth in FY2006; 12,692 youth in FY2007; 16,700 youth in FY2008; and 16,600 youth in
FY2009 under the Education and Training Voucher program (these are the most recent data
available and do not include all states).62
Funding for States
States must provide a 20% match (in-kind or cash) to receive their full federal CFCIP and ETV
allotment. CFCIP funds are often mixed with state, local, and other funding sources to provide a
system of support for youth likely to age out of care and those who have emancipated. To be
eligible for CFCIP general and ETV funds, a state must submit a five-year plan (as part of what is
known as the Child and Family Service Plan (CFSP) and Annual Progress and Service Report
(APSR), discussed below) to HHS that describes how it intends to carry out its independent living
program, including how it involves the public and private sectors to do so. Among other things, a
state must ensure in the plan that CFCIP services are available statewide (although services do not
have to be identical in all places), that the program serves children of various ages and stages of
achieving independence, and that it uses objective criteria to determine eligibility for, and receipt
of, CFCIP services. P.L. 110-351 added the requirement that states must ensure that eligible youth
59 For example, see National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, State Policies to Help Youth Transition
Out of Foster Care, Issue Brief, December 2007. (Hereafter referenced as National Governors Association, State
Policies to Help Youth Transition Out of Foster Care.) See also, Liliana Hernandez and Toni Naccarato, “Scholarships
and Supports Available to Foster Care Alumni: A Study of 12 Programs Across the U.S.,” Children and Youth Services
Review, vol. 32, no. 5 (May 2010), pp. 758-766.
60 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.5, Question 1.
61 National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions III, p. 7.
62 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2009 Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, p. D-87; and information provided to the Congressional Research Service by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, September 2009 and
March 2010.
Congressional Research Service
24
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
receive education about the importance of designating an individual to make health care treatment
decisions for them and other information about a health care power of attorney.
The box below includes the full list of certifications that the state must make when submitting its
plan. Under Section 477 of the Social Security Act, HHS must approve a state’s plan for
independent living services if it contains all of the required materials. The plan must be submitted
on or before June 30 of the calendar year in which the plan is to begin. States may make
amendments to the plan and notify HHS within 30 days of modifying the plan. HHS is to make
the plans available to the public. Mandatory and discretionary funds provided under the CFCIP
may only supplement, rather than supplant, any funds from other federal sources (e.g., Social
Services Block Grant or Runaway and Homeless Youth program) or non-federal sources that may
be available for independent living programs in the state.
The 2008 survey of 45 states by Chapin Hall (see above) found that 31 of the states (68.9%)
spend additional funds—beyond the 20% match—to provide independent living services and
supports to eligible youth.63 Of the 31 states, 22 reported that they used funds to provide services
for which CFCIP dollars cannot be used.64
Use of Funds
States may apply to receive mandatory funds for purposes specified in the CFCIP. Also as
described in HHS’s Child Welfare Policy Manual, states may also use CFCIP funding to establish
trust funds for youth eligible under the program (Section 3.3E, Question 1). However, states may
not use CFCIP funds to train foster parents, workers in group homes, and case managers in issues
confronting adolescents; however, states may use funding under the Title IV-E Foster Care
program or Adoption Assistance program for this purpose.
A comprehensive report on the development and implementation of the CFCIP was produced by
the GAO in November 2004.65 GAO found that a majority of states use CFCIP funds to provide
training on employment-related skills; independent living skills; assistance with obtaining a high
school diploma or its equivalent; assessments; and counseling for youth younger than 16. Nearly
all states provide these same services, as well as independent living arrangements for youth ages
18 to 21, although provision of services varies within and across states. Separately, the 2008
survey by Chapin Hall asked states if they used CFCIP funding for matched savings accounts,
which provide matching funds to youth who accumulate their own funds in a savings account (six
states do use funds for this purpose); room and board for youth ages 18 to 21 (39 states); and
room and board for current foster youth (11 states).66
63 Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, p. 14.
64 The authors of the survey note that some of the services for which states reported spending non-CFCIP dollars can,
in fact, be funded through the CFCIP.
65 U.S. Government Accountability Office. HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and Monitoring of
States’ Independent Living Programs, GAO-05-25, November 2004, p. 17, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d0525.pdf. (Hereafter referenced as U.S. Government Accountability Office. HHS Actions Could Improve
Coordination of Services and Monitoring of States’ Independent Living Programs.)
66 Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, pp. 12-13.
Congressional Research Service
25
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
CFCIP and ETV funds are distributed to each state based on its proportion of the nation’s children
in foster care. Table B-1 in Appendix B provides the CFCIP and voucher allotments for each
state (and for a small number of tribes) in FY2010 and FY2011.
Congressional Research Service
26
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
CFCIP State Plan Requirements
To receive funds under the CFCIP, a state must describe in its CFCIP plan how it will
•
design and deliver programs to achieve the program purposes;
•
ensure statewide, although not necessarily uniform, coverage by the program;
•
ensure that the programs serve children of various ages and at various stages of achieving independence;
•
involve the public and private sectors in helping adolescents in foster care achieve independence;
•
use objective criteria for determining eligibility for and ensuring fair and equitable treatment of benefit recipients;
and
•
cooperate in national evaluations of the effects of the programs in achieving the purpose of the CFCIP.
The state must also certify that it will
•
provide assistance and services to eligible former foster youth;
•
use room and board payments only for youth ages 18 to 21;
•
expend not more than 30% of CFCIP funds on room and board for youth ages 18 to 21;
•
use funding under the Title IV-E Foster Care program and Adoption Assistance program (but not the CFCIP) to
provide training to help foster parents and others understand and address the issues confronting adolescents
preparing for independent living and coordinate this training, where possible, with independent living programs;
•
consult widely with public and private organizations in developing the plans and give the public at least 30 days to
comment on the plan;
•
make every effort to coordinate independent living programs with other youth programs at the local, state, and
federal levels, including independent living projects funded under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act, abstinence education programs, local housing programs, programs for disabled youth, and school-to-work
programs offered by high schools or local workforce agencies;
•
consult each Indian tribe about the programs to be carried out under the plan, that there have been efforts to
coordinate the programs with such tribes, and that benefits and services under the programs will be made
available to Indian children in the state on the same basis as other children in the state (beginning in FY2010,
states must also negotiate in good faith with any tribal entity that does not receive a direct federal allotment of
child welfare funds, but would like to enter into an agreement or contract with the state to receive funds for
administering, supervising, or overseeing CFCIP and ETV programs for eligible Indian children under the tribal
entity’s authority);
•
ensure that eligible youth participate directly in designing their own program activities that prepare them for
independent living and that they accept personal responsibility for living up to their part of the program;
•
establish and enforce standards and procedures to prevent fraud and abuse in the programs carried out under its
plan;
•
ensure that the ETV program complies with the federal program requirements, including that (1) the total
amount of education assistance to a youth provided through the ETV program and under other federal and
federal y supported programs does not exceed the total cost of attendance and (2) does not duplicate benefits
under the CFCIP or other federal or federal y assisted benefit program; and
•
ensure that eligible youth receive education about (1) the importance of designating an individual to make health
care treatment decisions for them (should they become unable to do so, have no relatives authorized under
state law to do so, or do not want relatives to make those decisions); (2) whether a health care power of
attorney, health care proxy, or other similar document is recognized under state law; and (3) how to execute
such a document.
Source: Section 477 of the Social Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
27
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Hold Harmless Provision
Section 477 of the Social Security Act’s includes a “hold harmless” clause that precludes any
state from receiving less than the amount of general independent living funds it received under
the former independent living program in FY1998 or $500,000, whichever is greater. (There is no
hold harmless provision for ETV funds.) The general funding for independent living services
doubled nationally with the implementation of the CFCIP, however, the percentage change in
funds received varies across states. This is because the distribution of funding was changed to
reflect the most current state share of the national caseload (instead of their share of the 1984
caseload in all previous years). In FY2007 (the latest year for which final data are available),
three states (the District of Columbia, Louisiana, and New York) received the same funding
amount they received in FY1998. Eight states (Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, New Hampshire, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) each received $500,000 because their FY1998
allotments were this amount or less.
Unused Funds
States have two years to spend their CFCIP and voucher funds. For instance, funds allotted for
FY2008 may be spent in FY2008 or FY2009. If a state does not apply for all of its allotment, the
remaining funds may be redistributed among states that needs these funds as determined by HHS.
If a state applies for all of its CFCIP allotted funds but does not spend them within the two-year
time frame, the unused funds revert to the federal treasury. Table B-2 in Appendix B shows the
FY2008 (the latest year for which data for returned funds are available)67 final allocations, dollars
expended, and dollars returned to the federal treasury for general CFCIP allotments.68 That fiscal
year, the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, were allocated a combined total of $137.9
million in general CFCIP funds, of which $352,337 (0.3%) was returned to the treasury. No states
returned all of their funds. Two states (Louisiana and Wyoming), Puerto Rico, and Washington
DC each returned between less than 0.1% and 14.6% of their funds.
Table B-3, also in Appendix B, shows that in FY2008 (the latest year for which data are
available), the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, received $44.7 million in funds for
the vouchers, of which 10 states69 collectively returned $1.4 million (3.2%).70 States did not
report to HHS the reasons for not spending ETV funds. Based on past Congressional Research
Service (CRS) discussions with HHS staff, staff with the Orphan Foundation of America (which
administers funds in a small number of states), and a small number of states, the reasons may
include (1) the lack of infrastructure to absorb and distribute funds, including training child
welfare workers and knowledge about educational financial aid; (2) mechanisms for distributing
funds to youth and tracking youth outcomes; (3) federal fiscal year deadlines; and (4) youth’s
knowledge about the ETV program.71
67 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families in January 2010.
68 Ibid, September 2009.
69 These states are Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. The states each returned between less than 0.1% and 68.1% of their funds.
70 Ibid.
71 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service in June 2007.
Congressional Research Service
28
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Training and Technical Assistance
Training and technical assistance grants for the CFCIP and ETV program are awarded
competitively every five years, with non-competitive grants renewed annually.72 The most recent
cooperative agreement was made for FY2010 through FY2014.The National Child Welfare
Resource Center for Youth Development, housed at the University of Oklahoma, currently
provides assistance under the grant.73 The NCWRCYD helps states and tribes implement their
independent living programs and involve foster youth in programming and services. The
NCWRCYD emphasizes the principles of youth development, cultural competence, permanent
connections, and collaboration in developing and carrying out state and tribal programs and
services for youth in care. Training and technical assistance requests from states have involved
providing assistance with more effective implementation of state CFCIP plans, including
discussions around allowable expenditures of both CFCIP and ETV funds, permanency planning
for adolescents, and educating the courts on laws affecting for older youth, among other types of
issues.74 Assistance is provided through national conferences and meetings, on-site technical
assistance, and information made available on the NCWRCYD website and through publications.
National Youth in Transition Database
Section 477 requires that HHS consult with state and local public officials responsible for
administering independent living and other child welfare programs, child welfare advocates,
Members of Congress, youth service providers and researchers to (1) “develop outcome measures
(including measures of educational attainment, high school diploma, avoidance of dependency,
homelessness, non-marital childbirth, incarceration, and high-risk behaviors) that can be used to
assess the performance of states in operating independent living programs;” (2) identify the data
needed to track the number and characteristics of children receiving services, the type and
quantity of services provided, and state performance on the measures; and (3) develop and
implement a plan to collect this information beginning with the second fiscal year after the
passage of P.L. 106-169. The law further required that by December 2000, HHS was to submit to
the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee a report detailing a plan
and timetable for collecting the data from the states and a proposal to impose penalties of not less
than 1% or more than 5% of the states’ CFCIP funding for states that do not comply with the data
collection requirements, based on the degree of noncompliance.
History
In its September 2001 Report to the Congress, “Developing a System of Program Accountability
Under the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program,” HHS outlined a plan and
timetable for developing a data collection system. The report stated that HHS administrators and
an HHS working group consulted with stakeholders and reviewed child welfare literature to
identify the data elements to be collected and reported in the database, as well as the outcomes
relevant to assessing the CFCIP. The report discussed a penalty structure for states not in
72 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of the Secretary in July 2008.
73 For more information about the type of assistance that is provided, see http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/about.html.
74 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau in December 2008.
Congressional Research Service
29
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
compliance with the reporting requirements. HHS also established a pilot test in 2001 involving
seven states and an Indian tribe. In each of the jurisdictions, caseworkers collected data about
older youth, identified unclear data elements, and described any difficulties encountered while
collecting the information. According to HHS, the pilot test enabled the agency to assess the
burden for workers collecting the data and to learn if the capacity to report data varied
significantly across states and agencies.
Acting on the advice of the Department’s General Counsel, HHS decided to produce formal
regulations for this mandatory data collection process instead of following their initial plan of
producing Program Instructions. The September 2001 report stated that HHS would publish the
final outcomes and measures in the Federal Register and seek public comment by May 2002. The
agency anticipated administering the database nationally in October 2003. However, a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the data collection system was not published until July 14,
2006.
The NPRM provided for a 60-day comment period during which HHS heard from states and child
welfare advocates. After this period, the final regulations underwent a full agency and department
review as well as Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance before final publication on
February 26, 2008.75 The final rule establishing the NYTD became effective April 28, 2008, sixty
days after publication and requires states to report data on youth beginning in FY2011.
Data Collection
HHS will use the NYTD to engage in two data collection and reporting activities.76 First, states
collect information twice each fiscal year on eligible youth who currently receive independent
living services whether they continue to remain in foster care, were in foster care in another state,
or received child welfare services through an Indian tribe or privately operated foster care
program. These youth are known as served youth. Second, states collect information on foster
youth on or about their 17th birthday, two years later on or about their 19th birthday, and again on
or about their 21st birthday. Foster youth age 17 are known as the baseline youth and at ages 19
and 21 are known as the follow-up youth. These current and former foster youth are tracked
regardless of whether they receive independent living services at ages 17, 19, and 21. States have
the option of tracking a sample of youth who participated in the outcomes collection at age 17 to
reduce the data collection burden. Information will be collected on a new group of foster youth
age 17 every three years.
Consistent with the statutory requirement developed by Congress in P.L. 106-169, HHS will
penalize any state not meeting the data collection procedures for the NYTD from 1% to 5% of its
annual Chafee fund allotment, which includes any allotted or re-allotted funds for the general
CFCIP program only. The penalty amount will be withheld from a current fiscal year award of the
funds. ACF will evaluate a state’s data file against data compliance standards, provided by statute.
However, states will have the opportunity to submit corrected data.
75 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Chafee National Youth in Transition Database,” 73 Federal
Register 10338, February 26, 2008.
76 For additional information, you may request a copy of a Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act National Youth in Transition Database, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
Congressional Research Service
30
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
According to HHS, the department will make NYTD data files available to the public within a
few months after completing each annual round of data collection.77 As HHS has explained,
NYTD data files are reported semiannually, and because states have a window of time to collect
baseline outcomes data from youth, surveying a cohort of 17-year-olds in care (the baseline
youth) will take 18 months.78
Training and Technical Assistance 79
Training and technical assistance for NYTD is provided to states through HHS; the National
Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development (NCWRCYD) based at the University of
Oklahoma; the National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology (NRCCWDT),
housed at the Child Welfare League of America; and a contractor, ICF International, which was
selected in September 2008. The contractor is developing and deploying the system used to
receive and process states’ NYTD data and provide technical assistance to states around data
reporting. The Children’s Bureau has annually convened national technical assistance meetings
for states in each year since 2008. At the conferences, federal staff and staff from NCWRCYD
and NCRCCWDT have assisted states in understanding the NYTD regulation and
implementation requirements. In coordination with ICF, NCWRCYD, and NRCCWDT, HHS has
developed a technical assistance strategy in preparing for NYTD implementation, including a
technical assistance toolkit and a series of regional and national conference calls.
Evaluation of Innovative CFCIPs
Section 477 provides that HHS is to conduct evaluations of independent living programs funded
by the CFCIP deemed to be innovative or of national significance. The law reserves 1.5% of total
CFCIP funding annually for these evaluations, as well as CFCIP-related technical assistance,
performance measurement, and data collection.
Pursuant to Section 477, HHS contracted with the Urban Institute and its partners to conduct the
Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs. The goal of the evaluation was to determine the
effects of independent living programs funded by P.L. 106-169 in achieving key outcomes,
including increased educational attainment, higher employment rates and stability, greater
interpersonal and relationship skills, reduced non-marital pregnancy and births, and reduced
delinquency and crime rates. HHS and the evaluation team initially conducted an assessment to
identify programs that could be evaluated rigorously, through random assignment to treatment
and control groups, as required under Section 477 of the Social Security Act. The evaluation
team, in coordination with HHS and a federally appointed technical work group, established
criteria for selecting the sites. Such criteria included that the program should take in sufficient
numbers of youth to allow for an adequate sample size; have excess demand so that random
77 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau in June 2011.
78 The data files will be maintained at the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) at Cornell
University.
79 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of the Secretary in July 2008, December 2008, and January 2010.
Congressional Research Service
31
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
assignment is possible while serving the same number of youth as before the evaluation; and be
reasonably stable, relatively intense, and consistently implemented; among other considerations.80
The evaluation team determined that it could use random assignment at four innovative programs
in California and Massachusetts—an employment services program in Kern County, California; a
one-on-one intensive, individualized life skills program in Massachusetts; and, a classroom-based
life skills training program and tutoring/mentoring program, both in Los Angeles County,
California.81 The 1,400 youth participating in the evaluation at the four sites were assigned to
intervention and control groups, and were surveyed at three points: baseline, one year after
baseline, and two years after baseline. The researchers conducted in-person interviews with the
youth to obtain information on youth characteristics, program interventions and services, and
intermediate and longer-term outcomes. Researchers also conducted interviews with program
administrators, community advocates, and directors of community provider agencies. Further, the
evaluation team held focus groups with youth, independent living program staff, and other agency
staff responsible for referring youth to the programs. The team used extracts of state
administrative data to determine child and family demographics, child welfare placement history,
physical and mental health status, and delinquency history. Data specific to each site were also
collected by the team. The findings from the two Los Angeles sites were made available in July
2008 and findings from the other sites were made available in June 2011.82
In short, the evaluation of the Los Angeles and Kern County programs found no statistically
significant impacts as a result of the interventions; however, the life skills program in
Massachusetts showed impacts for some of the education outcomes that were measured. The
program is known as the Massachusetts Adolescent Outreach Program for Youth in Intensive
Foster Care, or Outreach.83 The program assists youth who enroll voluntarily in preparing to live
independently and to have permanent connections to caring adults upon exiting care. Outreach is
intended to help youth achieve a range of outcomes, including receiving a high school diploma,
continuing their education, avoiding non-marital childbirth and high-risk behaviors, and gaining
employment, among other outcomes. The program provides services that are tailored to each
youth and emphasizes a youth development approach, which emphasizes that youth can be
empowered to make positive decisions about their lives. A core feature of the Outreach model is
that the social workers in the program oversee a small caseload (approximately 15 youth each)
and have regular (approximately once a week) interactions with the youth. The workers seek to
develop a close relationship with the youth, with the goal of the youth viewing the worker as his
or her advocate. Caseworkers assist youth with tasks like obtaining their driver’s licenses,
80 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Evaluation of the Life Skills Training Program: Los Angeles
County, July 2008, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/chafee/reports/eval_lst/eval_lst.pdf.
(Hereafter referenced as U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Evaluation of the Life Skills Training
Program: Los Angeles County.)
81 Additional information regarding the Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs is available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/chafee/.
82 The reports are available at U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, “Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs (Chafee
Independent Living Evaluation Project), 2001-2010,” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/chafee/
index.html.
83 Mark E. Courtney et al., Evaluation fo the Massachusetts Adolescent Outreach Program for Youths in Intesnive
Foster Care: Final Report, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families,
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, OPRE Report #2011-14, July 2011, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
opre/abuse_neglect/chafee/reports/eval_mass/eval_mass.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
32
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
applying for college, and gaining employment. Caseworkers may also refer youth to service
providers as needed.
To assess the effectiveness of the Outreach program, researchers randomly assigned nearly 200
youth born between 1985 and 1990 to the treatment program (the program) or to a control group
that received intensive foster care services as usual. To be eligible, youth had to be in intensive
foster care (also referred to as therapeutic foster care for youth with additional needs), have a
service plan goal of independent living or long-term care,84 and be deemed appropriate for
Outreach services by the youth’s caseworker. Youth were followed for two years and were
interviewed at the start of the evaluation (“baseline”) and once each year after that. The outcome
data are based on the youth’s second follow-up interview, as well as educational data acquired by
the National Student Clearinghouse, a repository of information on the enrollment status and
educational achievements of postsecondary students.
The baseline characteristics of youth in both the treatment and control groups were similar, except
that Outreach youth were more likely to have had prior placement in foster care and to have run
away from home.85 The impact evaluation examined educational, employment, and other
outcomes that can reflect how well a young person is transitioning to adulthood. Outreach youth
were more likely than their counterparts in the control group to report having ever enrolled in
college and they were more likely to stay enrolled. Outreach youth were also more likely to
experience outcomes that were not a focus of the evaluation: youth were more likely to remain in
foster care and to report receiving more help in some areas of educational assistance, employment
assistance, money management, and financial assistance for housing. According to the study,
remaining in care and enrolling and persisting in college appear to be strongly interrelated. In
short, the Outreach youth may have been less successful on the educational front if they had not
stayed in care.
Youth in the program reported similar outcomes as the control group for multiple other measures.
For example, Outreach youth did not report better outcomes in employment, economic well-
being, housing, delinquency, pregnancy, or preparedness for various tasks associated with living
on one’s own.
PART Review
In calendar year 2004, the CFCIP was reviewed through the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process.86 The evaluation concluded that
program results were “not demonstrated” because the CFCIP lacked long-term performance
measures and time frames for these measures, as well as adequate progress in achieving its annual
performance goals; and because some states did not use all of their CFCIP or ETV funding. OMB
made the determination about the performance measurement because the National Youth in
Transition Database, which will provide long-term performance and annual performance
measurement beginning in FY2011, had not yet been implemented. The PART review also found
84 In addition to reunification, adoption, placement with a relative, and legal guardianship, “another planned permanent
living arrangement” (APPLA) is specified as a permanency option, and may include independent living. It does not,
however, include long-term foster care.
85 These differences were taken into account in the impact analyses.
86 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Detailed Information on the Independent Living Program Assessment, 2004,
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10002146.2004.html.
Congressional Research Service
33
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
that no independent evaluations of the program have been routinely conducted. While the Multi-
Site Evaluation will provide information about outcomes for youth who receive independent
living services, according to the PART review, it is not sufficiently national in scope.
The PART has established two goals for the program:
• Promote the efficient use of CFCIP funds by (1) increasing the percentage of
states that completely expend their allocations within the two-year expenditure
period, and (2) decreasing the percentage of funds that remain unexpended by
states within that period.
• Increase the percentages of CFCIP youth who avoid high-risk behaviors which
might otherwise lead to criminal investigations and incarceration. The baseline
measurement will be taken in FY2011, the first year the NYTD is implemented.
Assessments of the CFCIP
There does not appear to be a clear picture of the types of services provided through CFCIP-
funded programs, although the National Youth in Transition Database and the evaluation of
innovative independent living programs will provide a national overview about the number of
youth served, the types of services provided, and best practices in assisting current and former
foster youth make the transition to adulthood. Three sources—an evaluation of independent living
services described in states’ Child and Family Services Review documents, a GAO report on the
CFCIP, and a report on ETV programs in six states—provide some insight into how states carry
out their independent living programs.87
Child and Family Services Review
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services determines state compliance with federal
child welfare policies, and helps to ensure that positive outcomes are achieved for children and
families involved in the child welfare system, by conducting reviews of state and child welfare
programs.
The most comprehensive component of HHS’s review system is the Child and Family Services
Reviews (CFSR).88 Conducted by the Children’s Bureau, the reviews assess state conformity with
87 Other resources illustrate how select jurisdictions and programs provide independent living services for older current
and former foster youth. See, for example, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disconnected Youth: Federal
Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect Youth to Education and
Employment, GAO-08-313, February 2008; National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, State Policies
to Help Youth Transition Out of Foster Care, Issue Brief, January 2007; Wilhelmina A. Leigh et al., Aging Out of the
Foster Care System to Adulthood: Findings, Challenges, and Recommendations, Joint Center for Political and
Economic Studies and Black Administrators in Child Welfare Inc., December 2007; and Rachel H. Sherman, “Serving
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care,” Welfare Information Network Issue Note, vol. 8, no. 5 (October 2004), pp. 5-7. See
also the University of Chicago Law School, “Transition From Foster Care to Adulthood Wiki” at
http://fostercaretoadulthood.wikispaces.com/ and the University of Oklahoma, National Child Welfare Resource Center
for Youth Development, “State by State Facts Page,” at http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/state_pages.html.
88 For additional information, see CRS Report RL32968, Child Welfare: State Performance on Child and Family
Services Reviews, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Congressional Research Service
34
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
certain requirements of Title IV-B and Title IV-E.89 During the review process, a joint federal and
state team determines whether states are in substantial conformity with seven outcomes related to
the safety, permanency, and well-being of children, and whether states have in place child welfare
systems to achieve these goals. The team reviews statewide administrative data; conducts
interviews with children and families served, as well as foster parents, service providers, case
workers, court personnel, and other key stakeholders; and systematically reviews the cases of a
random sample of children served.
The first round of reviews was conducted between 2001 and 2004 in all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and a final report was prepared discussing the findings in each
jurisdiction.90 This initial round found that no state’s child welfare programs met the criteria that
HHS established as demonstrating “substantial conformity” with all of federal child welfare
policy requirements. As a result, all states had Program Improvement Plans (PIP) to work toward
complying with the requirements, and nearly all states (43) had achieved their PIP goals.91
The second round of review has been completed for all states and nearly all states are working
toward completing their two-year PIPs (a small number of states have completed their PIPs). The
second round had a focus on older youth. For this second round, HHS has directed the federal and
state evaluators to interview, at the state-level, youth being served by the state child welfare
agency, especially those youth who are eligible to receive independent living services.92 Also in
the second round, 10 of 40 foster care cases reviewed were to involve children who were ages 16
or 17 as of the last day of the 12-month review period or the date that they exited care, as
applicable.93 This is to ensure that the reviewers had enough applicable cases to determine
whether states were adequately providing independent living services for youth with a goal of
emancipation.94
GAO Report
The 2004 report by the GAO evaluated its implementation.95 The report was based on survey data
collected from independent living coordinators in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico as well as review of the jurisdictions’ CFCIP plans for FY2001 through FY2004.
89 In 2000, HHS published a final rule to establish a formal review process consistent with legislative mandates to
improve federal oversight of state child welfare programs. The final rule established the CFSR and Title IV-E Foster
Care Eligibility Reviews. The Foster Care Eligibility Reviews are conducted to validate a state’s claim for federal
reimbursement of payments made on behalf of eligible children, and are not discussed in this report.
90 The reports are available at http://basis.caliber.com/cwig/ws/cwmd/docs/cb_web/SearchForm.
91 For further information, see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau, “Children and
Family Service Reviews: Status of Program Improvement Plans and Subsequent Child and Family Services Reviews,”
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/general_info/pipstatus.pdf.
92 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Children’s Bureau, Child
and Family Services Review Stakeholder Interview Guide, June 2008, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/
cwmonitoring/tools_guide/stakeholder.htm.
93 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Review Procedures Manual, Chapter 4,
available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/tools_guide/proce_manual.htm.
94 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Review Onsite Review Instrument and
Instructions, July 2008, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/tools_guide/
proce_manual.htm.
95 U.S. Government Accountability Office. HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and Monitoring of
States’ Independent Living Programs, pp. 18-19.
Congressional Research Service
35
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
After the 1999 passage of P.L. 106-169, forty states reported expanded independent living
services to youth younger than they had previously served and 36 states reported serving older
youth. In addition, 45 states reported offering assistance with room and board to emancipated
foster youth. According to officials in the states GAO visited for the study, funds were also used
to improve the quality of existing independent living services, refocus the attention of their
programs, or develop new services to assist youth of all ages in the programs.
The GAO report also raised concerns about the implementation of the CFCIP. The report
indicates that states varied in the percentage of eligible youth served. In 2003, forty states
reported serving between 10% and 100% of eligible youth, with one-third of the states serving
less than half of eligible youth. GAO also found gaps in the availability of mental health services,
mentoring services, and securing safe and suitable housing, particularly in rural areas. Further,
although 49 states reported increased coordination with a number of federal, state, and local
programs that can provide or supplement independent living services, child welfare
administrators and youth interviewed by GAO said that they were unaware of the services.
Finally, the lack of uniformity among the states’ CFCIP five-year plans precluded using them at
the state and federal level to monitor how well the programs serve eligible youth.
Implementation of the ETV Program
In 2007, the National Foster Care Coalition, in partnership with Casey Family Programs, a
foundation supporting child welfare research and advocacy, reported on six states’ (California,
Maine, Montana, New York, North Carolina, and Wyoming) experiences with implementing the
ETV program.96 These states serve as few as 31 youth to as many as nearly 2,000 youth in a given
school year, with average awards ranging from $2,950 to $4,318 for each youth. Three of the
states (Montana, New York, and North Carolina) contract with a non-profit service provider to
administer the ETV program, while the other three states administer the program through the
independent living coordinator or state financial aid office.
The report describes the best practices employed by the states in implementing their ETV
programs, as well as the challenges they have encountered.97 One promising approach was the
application process for some states, which involves a web application process that allows students
and schools to view application and approval status and deadlines. Other states reported providing
extensive promotion and outreach about the program through information sessions, annual teen
conferences for foster youth, and mailings; and providing additional educational supports to
youth through financial aid counseling, mentoring, tuition waivers, and scholarships. Contracting
through a third-party was also identified as an important practice that has lent to more efficient
96 National Foster Care Coalition, The Chafee Education and Training Voucher Program: Six States’ Experiences,
National Foster Care Coalition and Casey Family Programs, 2007, at http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/
ChafeeETV.pdf.
97 In a separate publication, from 2005, the National Foster Care Coalition identified promising practices for ETV
programs. These include (1) a clearly defined application process and a funding process transparent to stakeholders,
including informing students of the amount of funding they receive; (2) open lines of communication between
applicants/participants and ETV administrators, including multiple methods for contacting the ETV office; and (3)
individual assessments for all applicants to ensure that ETV funds are based on their unmet financial need as calculated
by their educational institution; among other approaches. See National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked
Questions III: About the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program and the Chafee Educational and Training
Program.
Congressional Research Service
36
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
administration of the voucher program. The report also identified youth feedback about the
program as another important feature of the programs.
In addition, the report also identified barriers to successfully administering the ETV program.
Some of the challenges include (1) meeting the demand for the program; (2) recruiting youth to
the program and ensuring that these youth have sufficient support to remain in school; (3)
managing awards for youth whom schools are unable to locate once awards are issued or
awarding funds to youth who have dropped out; (4) tracking how voucher funds are spent; (5)
conveying to university financial aid staff the rules associated with the ETV program; (6)
maintaining the confidentiality of youth’s foster care experiences; (7) connecting non-college-
bound youth to vocational programs; and (8) meeting the needs of parenting youth, among others.
The states indicated that they are working to address these challenges.
Other Federal Support for Older Current and
Former Foster Youth
In addition to the federal programs under Title IV-E, other federal laws authorize some funding
for service or assistance to older current and former foster youth. This section describes a
Medicaid pathway for certain former foster youth; educational, workforce, and housing supports;
and a grant to fund training for child welfare practitioners working with older foster youth and
youth emancipating from care.
Medicaid
In the Foster Care Independence Act, Congress encouraged states to provide Medicaid coverage
to children who were aging out of the foster care system. The law created a new optional
Medicaid eligibility pathway for “independent foster care adolescents;” this pathway is often
called the “Chafee option.”98 The law further defined these adolescents as individuals under the
age of 21 and who were in foster care under the responsibility of the state on their 18th birthday.
Within this broadest category of independent foster care adolescents, the law permits states to
restrict eligibility based on the youth’s income or resources, and whether or not the youth had
received Title IV-E funding.99
In all states, youth age 19 or younger with family incomes at or below 100% of the federal
poverty limit (or up to 250% in some states) are eligible for Medicaid or State Children’s Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP). Youth ages 18 to 21 in foster care who do not qualify for Medicaid
or SCHIP may be eligible for Medicaid coverage through the “Ribicoff” pathway, named for the
late former senator, Abraham Ribicoff. Ribicoff youth must meet the income and resource
requirements for the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children program but do not meet
other categorical requirements for AFDC. Older foster youth may also be eligible under a
pathway for children under age 21 who are taken into state custody. This pathway allows the state
98 Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVII) of the Social Security Act.
99 Section 1905(w)(1)) of the Social Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
37
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
to extend Medicaid eligibility to youth under age 21 in foster care regardless of the income or
resources of their biological or foster parents.100
Former foster youth may also qualify for Medicaid through other eligibility pathways available to
certain groups of adults, such as for pregnant women with family income equal to or less than
133% of the federal poverty limit (FPL), some low-income adults with children, and some adults
with high medical expenses (i.e., “medically needy”).101 These youth may be also eligible for
Medicaid or SCHIP coverage through waivers, known as Section 1115 waivers, that provide
comprehensive coverage to categorically ineligible adults with incomes up to at least 100% of the
FPL.
According to the 2008 survey by Chapin Hall of 45 states, 29 states (64.4%) have extended the
Chafee option to eligible youth.102 Of the 28 states that responded to a follow-up question about
eligibility requirements, 25 states reported that to be eligible, youth must have been in foster care
on their 18th birthday; 15 states reported that youth must complete an application to be eligible;
one state said that youth are automatically eligible; and nine states reported other eligibility
criteria. Another 14 states reported that former foster youth are eligible for SCHIP (six of the
states) or Medicaid through other pathways (13 of the states). Youth are eligible for Medicaid by
meeting the “medically needy” criteria (seven states), through a 100% state funded program
(three states), and through other, unspecified pathways (three states). One state reported that
former foster youth are not categorically eligible for Medicaid.
The Chafee option will likely become a moot pathway in the next few years. As part of the health
care reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, youth who were in foster care on
their 18th birthday (or an older age allowed by the state) will be eligible under a new mandatory
Medicaid pathway specifically for former foster youth until age 26 regardless of their annual
income.103 This provision is effective January 1, 2014. HHS has not issued guidance about this
pathway.
100 Sonja Schwartz and Melanie Glascock, Improving Access to Health Coverage for Transitional Youth, National
Academy for State Healthy Policy, p. 5, July 2008, at http://www.nashp.org/sites/default/files/transitional_youth.pdf.
101 For information about Medicaid eligibility pathways, see CRS Report RL33019, Medicaid Eligibility for Adults and
Children, by Jean Hearne.
102 Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, p. 11. A 2006 survey of state human service officials by the American Public Human Services
Association (APHSA) found that 17 states reported extending Medicaid coverage to eligible youth through the Chafee
option. See Sonali Patel and Martha A. Roherty, Medicaid Access for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care, American
Public Human Services Association, 2007, at http://www.aphsa.org/Home/Doc/Medicaid-Access-for-Youth-Aging-
Out-of-Foster-Care-Rpt.pdf. Puerto Rico was not included in this analysis.
103 Youth will be eligible if they are not eligible or enrolled under existing (at the time P.L. 110-351 was passed)
Medicaid mandatory eligibility groups (or described in any of the existing Medicaid mandatory eligibility groups),
regardless of whether they have income that exceeds the upper income eligibility limit established under any such
group. Children in foster care who are not Title IV-E eligible generally still qualify for Medicaid coverage because all
states have implemented one or more mandatory or optional Medicaid eligibility categories that allow them to cover
children in care regardless of their IV-E eligibility status..
Congressional Research Service
38
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Other Educational Support104
The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), was signed into law on August 14, 2008 as P.L.
110-315, and amended the Higher Education Act (HEA) to authorize services specifically for
youth in foster care or recently emancipated youth, including housing services, among other
related changes. The act authorizes that youth in foster care (including youth who have left foster
care after reaching age 16) and homeless children and youth are eligible for what are collectively
called the federal Trio programs. The Trio programs are designed to identify potential post-
secondary students from disadvantaged backgrounds, prepare these students for higher education,
provide certain support services to them while they are in college, and train individuals who
provide these services. The programs are known individually as Talent Search, Upward Bound,
Student Support Services, and Educational Opportunity Centers. P.L. 110-315 directs the
Department of Education to require applicants seeking Trio funds to identify and make available
services, including mentoring, tutoring, and other services, to these youth. In addition, the bill
authorizes services for current and former foster youth (and homeless youth) through Student
Support Services—a program intended to improve the retention and graduation rates of
disadvantaged college students—that include temporary housing during breaks in the academic
year.105
Separately, HEOA allows additional uses of funds through the Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education to establish demonstration projects that provide comprehensive support
services for students who were in foster care (or homeless) anytime before age 13. As specified in
the law, the projects can provide housing to the youth when housing at an educational institution
is closed or unavailable to other students.
As of July 2009, the College Cost Reduction Act (P.L. 110-84) allows certain youth who have
been in foster care to claim independent status when applying for federal financial aid. The act
amended the definition of “independent student” in the Higher Education Act to include any child
“who is an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court at any time when the individual is 13
years of age or older” and “is an emancipated minor or is in legal guardianship as determined by a
court of competent jurisdiction in the individual’s state of legal residence.” 106 Students who claim
independent status are typically able to access greater federal education assistance because they
104 Though not discussed here, a small part of the allocation formula population factor for the Title I-A program of
Education for the Disadvantaged (authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended)
accounts for the number of children ages five to 17 who are in institutions for delinquent children or foster homes when
making grants to local education agencies (LEAs). For additional information, see CRS Report RL33731, Education
for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Rebecca R.
Skinner.
105 The Department of Education issued regulations to provide further clarification about the changes made by P.L.
110-315, including the changes pertaining to foster youth. U.S. Department of Education, “High School Equivalency
Program and College Assistance Migrant Program, The Federal TRIO Programs, and Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduate Program,” 75 Federal Register 65712-65803, October 26, 2010.
106 The previous definition included an individual who is an orphan or ward of the state (or was until age 18). 29 U.S.C.
1087vv(d). The College Cost Reduction and Access Act Technical Amendments of 2007 (H.R. 4153), would make a
correction to the definition of independent student to include any child who “is an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of
the court, or was an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court any time when the individual was 13 years of age or
older.” The Higher Education Opportunity Act (P.L. 110-315) makes additional changes to the definition of
independent student to include “an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court, or was an orphan, in foster care, or a
ward of the court at any time when the individual was 13 years of age or older;” and “is, or was immediately prior to
attaining the age of majority, an emancipated minor or in legal guardianship as determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction in the individual’s state of legal residence.”
Congressional Research Service
39
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
are exempt from including information about income and assets from their parents. An
“independent” student’s expected “family” contribution is the amount that the federal need
analysis system determines should be contributed, based only on his or her available income (and
assets, if applicable), as well as basic living expenses, federal income tax liability, and other
expenses. The act does not specify the length of time that the child must have been in foster care
or the reason for exiting care, to be eligible to claim independent status. The law first became
effective for the 2009 to 2010 school year.
Workforce Support
Workforce Investment Act Programs
The Workforce Investment Act authorizes job training programs to unemployed and
underemployed individuals through the Department of Labor (DOL). Two of these programs—
Youth Activities and Job Corps—provide job training and related services to targeted low-income
vulnerable populations, including foster youth.107 The WIA Youth Activities program focuses on
preventative strategies to help in-school youth stay in school and receive occupational skills, as
well as on providing training and supportive services, such as assistance with child care, for out-
of-school youth. Job Corps is an educational and vocational training program that helps students
learn a trade, complete their GED, and secure employment.
To be eligible, foster youth must meet age and income criteria as defined under the act. Young
people current or formerly in foster care may participate in Youth Activities if they are ages 14 to
21, and in Job Corps if they are ages 16 to 24 (20% of participants must be ages 22 to 24).108
Foster Youth Demonstration Project
The Workforce Investment Act authorizes funding for pilot programs.109 Under this authority, the
Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration awarded grants to five states in
FY2005—California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Texas—to design and implement
programs to improve the self sufficiency, education attainment, and employment skills of youth
aging out of foster care. The purpose of the grant was to encourage states to develop best
practices around serving foster youth in the workforce investment system, and integrate these
practices across workforce investment boards across each state. The five states were required to
target the programs to youth in areas with the largest foster care populations. These areas are Los
Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, New York City, and Houston. DOL awarded each state $800,000 total
for FY2005 and FY2006; states were required to provide 100% matching funds.
The sites have differed in their recruitment and delivery strategies, but all have provided youth
with academic instruction and support, preparation for and exposure to the work place, support in
developing skills for self-sufficiency, and the supportive services intended to help them succeed
academically and in the work place.
107 Authorization of appropriations under WIA expired in FY2003 but is annually extended through appropriations acts.
Youth in foster care are also eligible for WIA’s Youth Opportunity program, however, Congress has not appropriated
funding for the program since FY2003.
108 29 U.S.C. 2801(13) and 29 U.S.C. 2884(1).
109 29 U.S.C. 2916.
Congressional Research Service
40
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
With their own funding, Casey Family Programs and its partners conducted an evaluation of the
program.110 At all of the sites, youth formed strong relationships with staff, and staff remained
relatively consistent over time. The sites also reported improvements in their programs. For
example, multiple sites changed their program classes and activities to accommodate the
individual needs of youth. Partnerships with workforce investment boards and other public
agencies have also been formed to provide youth with job training experience, and at some sites,
new relationships between the workforce agencies and the child welfare agencies have developed
at the state level. These partnerships appear to have been difficult to build.
The evaluation concluded that no single agency can meet the needs of youth in foster care or
aging out of care; case workers—who serve as social workers, counselors, mentors, and
teachers—are highly valued by the youth; well-defined programs tended to be more successful in
leveraging other services for youth; and the sites lacked consistency in they ways they defined
and collected the data, among other findings. The programs are continuing to serve eligible youth,
with funding from Casey Family Programs and a 100% match by the states and other lead
partners.
Housing Support
Family Unification Vouchers Program
Current and former foster youth may be eligible for housing subsidies provided through programs
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Family
Unification Vouchers program (FUP vouchers). The FUP vouchers were initially created in 1990
under P.L. 101-625 for families that qualify for Section 8 tenant-based assistance and for whom
the lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in the separation, or threat of imminent
separation, of children from their families or in preventing the reunification of the children with
their families.111 Amendments to the program in 2000 under P.L. 106-377 made youth ages 18 to
21 who left foster care at age 16 or older eligible for the vouchers. These youth are eligible for the
vouchers for up to 18 months.
FUP vouchers were initially awarded from 1992 to 2001. Over that period, approximately 39,000
vouchers were distributed.112 Each award included five years of funding per voucher and the
voucher’s use was restricted to voucher-eligible families for those five years. At the end of those
five years, public housing authorities (PHAs), which administer the vouchers, were eligible to
convert FUP vouchers to regular Section 8 housing vouchers for low-income families. While the
five-year use restrictions have expired for all family unification vouchers, some PHAs may have
continued to use their original family unification vouchers for FUP-eligible families and some
may have chosen to use some regular-purpose vouchers for FUP families. Congress appropriated
$20 million for new FUP vouchers in each of FY2008 and FY2009, and $15 million in
110 Institute for Educational Leadership, Foster Care Youth Demonstration Project: Final Evaluation Report, Executive
Summary, July 2008, at http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/EmPLOY/pdf/DOL_FinalReport_ES.pdf and
http://iel.org/programs/casey.html.
111 42 U.S.C. 1437(f)(x).
112 This information is based on correspondence with the National Center for Housing and Child Welfare, a child
welfare organization, in August 2008.
Congressional Research Service
41
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
FY2010.113 Congress has specified that amounts made available under Section 8 tenant-based
rental assistance and used for the FUP are to remain available for these purposes.114
A survey of states in 2008 by Chapin Hall found that 12 states provided housing assistance
through FUP vouchers, and another nine states gave youth priority access to Section 8
vouchers.115 Finally, 18 states reported providing housing assistance through other housing
programs, such as transitional living programs with a housing component.
Other Support
Older current and former foster youth may be eligible for housing services and related supports
through the Runaway and Homeless Youth program, administered by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.116 The program is comprised of three sub-programs: the Basic
Center program (BCP), which provides short-term housing and counseling to youth up to the age
of 18; the Transitional Living program (TLP), which provides longer-term housing and
counseling to youth ages 16 through 22; and the Street Outreach program (SOP), which provides
outreach and referrals to youth who live on the streets. In FY2010, 6.6% of youth in the BCP and
19% of youth in the TLP reported having been in foster care at some point (similar data were not
collected for youth in the SOP).117 Youth transitioning out of foster care may also be eligible for
select transitional living programs administered by HUD, though the programs do not specifically
target these youth.118
The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-289), was signed into law on July 30, 2008,
and enables owners of properties financed in part with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTCs) to claim as low-income units those units occupied by low-income students who were in
foster care. Owners of LIHTC properties are required to maintain a certain percentage of their
units for occupancy by low-income households; students (with some exceptions) are not generally
considered low-income households for this purpose. The law does not specify the length of time
these students must have spent in foster care nor require that youth are eligible only if they
emancipated.
113 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Joint Explanatory Statement, Division K. report to accompany
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment to H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161, 110th Cong., 1st sess., p. 2396; U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Division I, committee print of the
House Committee on Appropriations on H.R. 1105/P.L. 111-8, 111th Cong., 1st sess., p. 1987; and U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Transportation and Housing and Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, report to accompany H.R. 3288/P.L. 111-117, 111th Cong., 1st sess., December 8,
2009, H.Rept. 111-366, p. 46.
114 For a list of FUP sites by state, see National Center for Housing & Child Welfare, “Cumulative List of FUP Sites,”
http://www.nchcw.org/fup/sites.aspx.
115 Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, p. 13.
116 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and
Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
117 Congressional Research Service analysis, based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, “NEO-RHYMIS,” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/general_info/
pipstatus.pdf.
118 National Alliance to End Homelessness, “Federal Funding for Youth Housing Programs,” information presented at
National Alliance to End Audio Conference, March 9, 2006, available at http://naeh.org/content/article/browse/?type=
24&topic=Youth.
Congressional Research Service
42
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Grant to Support Curriculum for Supervising Older Youth in Care
In FY2006, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services awarded grants under Title IV-B
of the Social Security Act (Promoting Safe and Stable Families) to fund the development of
curriculum for child welfare supervisors and their staff who work with older youth in foster care.
The grants were awarded through FY2008 to six entities: the Hunter College School of Social
Work; Massachusetts Department of Social Services; San Francisco State University; University
of Iowa; University of Houston; and University of Louisville Research Foundation. Each of the
entities provided at least a 25% match to the federal grant award of (up to) $250,000 annually for
three years.
The six entities were directed to develop, implement, evaluate, and disseminate a training
curriculum for public child welfare agency supervisors.119 The purpose of the curriculum was to
strengthen supervision of staff interactions with older youth in care and/or in independent living
programs, and to ensure that staff adequately: (1) assess a youth’s readiness for independent
living services, support, and training; (2) identify culturally competent independent living
program services and activities; (3) utilize positive youth development principles for involving
youth in decisionmaking, implementation, and evaluation of training and program activities;120
(4) identify areas of stress and its impact on youth in foster care; (5) work with youth to help
them deal with crisis situations and to assess the results of the intervention; (6) work with youth
to develop and maintain permanent connections; and (7) collaborate with both inter-and intra-
agency resource people to achieve positive outcomes for youth transitioning to adulthood. Each
entity was required to conduct an evaluation of the project, either in-house or by contracting with
a third-party evaluator.
119 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Training of Child Welfare Agency Supervisors in the Effective
Delivery and Management of Federal Independent Living Service for Youth in Foster Care,” 70 Federal Register
35087, June 16, 2005.
120 In the fall of 2000, HHS awarded twelve grants for Independent Living Training for Child Welfare practitioners.
One of the findings from the completed projects was that child welfare supervisors needed training on youth
development to understand the unique developmental and service needs of youth in care.
Congressional Research Service
43
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Appendix A. Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly
in Foster Care
Table A-1. Comparison of Outcome Domains Between Young Adults in the Midwest
Study and Young Adults in the Add Health Study
Midwest
Evaluation
(Wave 4)—
Former Foster
Add Health—
Youth at
Youth Surveyed
Outcome
Age 23 and 24
at Age 23 and 24
Current Living Arrangement
Lives in own place
49.0%
63.2%
Lives with biological parent(s)
7.0%
29.4%
Lives with other relative
14.1%
3.4%
Lives with non-relative foster parent(s)
3.8%
0%
Lives with spouse/partner
7.3%
0.7%
Lives with a friend
6.5%
1.2%
Lives in group quarters (e.g., dormitories, barracks)
1.7%
1.1%
In Jail or Prison
7.0%
0.1%
Homeless
0.7%
0.1%
Other living arrangement
3.0%
0.8%
Highest Educational Attainment
No high school diploma or GED
24.4%
7.3%
High school diploma only
33.7%
26.2%
GED only
9.8%
5.4%
One or more years of col ege, but no degree
25.6%
27.6%
Two-year col ege degree
3.2%
9.4%
Four-year col ege degree
2.5%
19.4%
One or more years of graduate school
0.5%
4.8%
Employment, Income, and Assets
Ever held a job
94.7%
97.3%
Currently employeda (nonincarcerated youth only)
48.0%
75.7%
Mean hourly wagea
$10.14
$13.94
Mean incomea
$12,064
$20,349
Any savings/checking accounta
47.3%
85.1%
Owns a vehiclea
44.9%
81.3%
Congressional Research Service
44
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Midwest
Evaluation
(Wave 4)—
Former Foster
Add Health—
Youth at
Youth Surveyed
Outcome
Age 23 and 24
at Age 23 and 24
Economic Hardships
Not enough to pay renta
28.5%
7.4%
Not enough money to pay utility billa
26.9%
11.8%
Gas or electricity shut off
8.7%
4.3%
Evicteda
8.6%
0.7%
Receipt of food stampsa
61.5% - females
8.3% - females
19.9% - males
1.2% - males
Receipt of TANF
6.6% - femalesa
6.5% - femalesa
2.0% - males
1.5% - males
Health and Access to Health Care Services
Description of general health as faira
14.6%
3.6%
Description of general health as poora
1.2%
0.3%
Health conditions or disability limits daily activitiesa
12.5%
5.0%
Has medical insurancea
57.0%
78.0%
Did not receive needed medical carea
13.0%
22.6%
Received psychological or emotional counselinga
11.3%
6.5%
Attended substance abuse treatment program
5.1%
2.4%
Sexual Behaviors and Pregnancy
Age at first intercourse
16.0 - female
17.0 - female
15.0 - male
16.0 - male
Used birth control at time of most recent intercoursea
51.6% - females
68.2% - females
51.9% - males
68.4% - males
Ever paid by someone to have sexa
9.4% - females
3.9% - females
12.4% - males
3.1% - males
Ever pregnant (females only)a
77.0%
40.4%
Impregnated partner (males only)a
60.7%
28.4%
Received prenatal care (females only) a
94.2%
84.4%
Relationships and Parenting
Ever married
16.1% - femalesa
30.2% - femalesa
13.2 - males
18.2% - males
Currently married
13.4% - femalesa
27.7% - femalesa
11.8% - males
16.3% - males
Currently cohabiting
26.4% - femalesa
15.7% - femalesa
21.4% - males
16.3% - males
At least one living childa
66.8% - females
30.1% - females
44.3% - males
18.3%- males
Congressional Research Service
45
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Midwest
Evaluation
(Wave 4)—
Former Foster
Add Health—
Youth at
Youth Surveyed
Outcome
Age 23 and 24
at Age 23 and 24
Criminal Justice
Ever arresteda
57.2% - females
4.3% - females
81.2% - males
17.4% - males
Arrested since age 18a
38.7% - females
0.3% - females
64.0% - males
2.9% - males
Ever convicteda
28.2% - females
2.0% - females
58.8% - males
10.3% - males
Convicted since age 18a
18.4% - females
1.6% - females
42.8% - males
9.1% - males
Transition to Adulthood and Orientation Toward the Future
Became socially maturea
69.4% - faster than
58.5% - faster than
others
others
23.4% - about the
8.5% - about the
same rate as others
same rate as others
6.5% - slower than
32.8% - slower
others
than others
Took on adult responsibilitiesa
67.8% - faster than
62.9% - faster than
others
others
25.4% - about the
8.5% - about the
same rate as others
same rate as others
6.8% - slower than
28.5% - slower
others
than others
Thinks of self as an adulta
Most or all of the
Most or all of the
time – 88.2%
time – 77.9%
Sometimes – 7.3%
Sometimes – 5.8%
Never or seldom –
Never or seldom –
4.3%
2.0%
Will live to 35 (mean score based on 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being
4.49
4.66
almost no chance to 5 being almost certain)a
Will be married within next 10 years (mean score based on 1 to 5
3.40
3.96
scale, with 1 being almost no chance to 5 being almost certain)a
Will have a middle-class income by age 30 (mean score based on 1
3.66
4.17
to 5 scale, with 1 being almost no chance to 5 being almost
certain)a
Mentoring
Maintained a positive relationship with a caring adult
66.4%
76.2%
since age 14a
Closeness to mentora
9.3% - not at al to a
10.7% - not at al
little close
to a little close
26.5% - somewhat
31.5% - somewhat
close
close
64.1% - very or quite
57.8% - very or
close
quite close
Congressional Research Service
46
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data in Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of
the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Ages 23 and 24, Chapin Hall Center for Children,
University of Chicago, 2010.
Note: The Midwest Evaluation has tracked the outcomes of foster youth at ages 17 and 18, age 19, age 21, and
age 23 and 24. For each of the four data col ection waves, wherever possible, researchers asked the same
questions that were taken directly from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”), a
national y representative survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time.
a. Indicates that the difference between the youth in the Midwest Evaluation and youth in the Adolescent
Heath Survey is statistically significant.
Congressional Research Service
47
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Appendix B. Funding for the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP) and Education and
Training Voucher (ETV) Program
Table B-1. Final FY2009 and Estimated FY2010 CFCIP General and
ETV Allotments by State
Excludes funding for CFCIF technical assistance and ETV set asides
Final FY2010
Estimated FY2011
State CFCIP
ETV
Total
CFCIP
ETV
Total
Alabama
$2,020,511
$677,380
$2,697,891
$2,174,877
$725,247
$2,900,124
Alaska
627,046
210,218
837,264
683,316
227,862
911,178
Arizona
2,995,850
1,004,364
4,000,214
3,209,948
1,070,406
4,280,354
Arkansas
1,012,123
339,316
1,351,439
1,153,688
384,715
1,538,403
California
19,346,731
6,486,023
25,832,754
18,990,900
6,332,808
25,323,708
Colorado
2,276,271
763,124
3,039,395
2,500,762
833,917
3,334,679
Connecticut
1,545,485
518,127
2,063,612
1,501,971
500,855
2,002,826
Delaware
500,000
90,369
590,369
500,000
85,633
585,633
District of Columbia
1,091,992
213,590
1,305,582
1,091,992
222,076
1,314,068
Florida
6,375,916
2,137,537
8,513,453
6,045,111
2,015,835
8,060,946
Georgia
2,869,119
961,877
3,830,996
2,530,101
843,701
3,373,802
Hawai
500,000
153,280
653,280
500,000
153,065
653,065
Idaho
500,000
165,997
665,997
500,000
152,119
652,119
Illinois
5,132,172
1,720,569
6,852,741
5,388,295
1,796,810
7,185,105
Indiana
3,559,387
1,193,290
4,752,677
3,923,550
1,308,368
5,231,918
Iowa
1,980,853
664,084
2,644,937
2,070,771
690,530
2,761,301
Kansas
1,812,230
607,553
2,419,783
1,785,308
595,338
2,380,646
Kentucky
2,094,365
702,139
2,796,504
2,167,937
722,932
2,890,869
Louisiana
1,455,538
487,972
1,943,510
1,509,859
503,485
2,013,344
Maine
565,888
180,641
746,529
565,888
173,159
739,047
Maryland
2,226,843
746,553
2,973,396
2,224,722
741,868
2,966,590
Massachusetts
2,996,999
1,004,749
4,001,748
3,044,324
1,015,176
4,059,500
Michigan
5,812,955
1,948,803
7,761,758
5,591,145
1,864,453
7,455,598
Minnesota
1,729,978
579,978
2,309,956
1,706,714
569,130
2,275,844
Mississippi
942,292
315,905
1,258,197
1,047,373
349,263
1,396,636
Missouri
2,760,494
925,460
3,685,954
3,126,978
1,042,739
4,169,717
Montana
500,000
155,014
655,014
517,062
172,422
689,484
Nebraska
1,607,101
546,933
2,154,034
1,661,642
562,082
2,223,724
Congressional Research Service
48
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Final FY2010
Estimated FY2011
State CFCIP
ETV
Total
CFCIP
ETV
Total
Nevada
1,442,032
483,443
1,925,475
1,507,650
502,749
2,010,399
New Hampshire
500,000
98,847
598,847
500,000
97,836
597,836
New Jersey
2,537,781
850,795
3,388,576
2,463,536
821,504
3,285,040
New Mexico
638,253
213,975
852,228
633,788
211,346
845,134
New York
11,585,958
2,841,411
14,427,369
11,585,958
2,944,748
14,530,706
North Carolina
2,828,025
948,100
3,776,125
3,011,830
1,004,341
4,016,171
North Dakota
500,000
119,464
619,464
500,000
128,764
628,764
Ohio
4,844,801
1,624,227
6,469,028
3,847,835
1,283,120
5,130,955
Oklahoma
3,044,704
1,020,742
4,065,446
2,748,409
916,499
3,664,908
Oregon
2,583,757
866,209
3,449,966
2,667,723
889,594
3,557,317
Pennsylvania
5,577,023
1,869,706
7,446,729
5,324,569
1,775,559
7,100,128
Puerto Rico
1,815,903
608,784
2,424,687
1,688,101
562,923
2,251,024
Rhode Island
691,704
231,895
923,599
666,281
222,182
888,463
South Carolina
1,436,571
481,613
1,918,184
1,557,810
519,476
2,077,286
South Dakota
500,000
142,779
642,779
500,000
156,116
656,116
Tennessee
2,074,536
695,492
2,770,028
2,120,931
707,257
2,828,188
Texas
8,088,940
2,711,831
10,800,771
8,418,737
2,807,357
11,226,094
Utah
747,741
250,682
998,423
870,393
290,246
1,160,639
Vermont
500,000
115,610
615,610
500,000
111,722
611,722
Virginia
1,937,748
649,633
2,587,381
1,869,814
623,518
2,493,332
Washington
3,199,303
1,072,572
4,271,875
3,122,620
1,041,286
4,163,906
West Virginia
1,267,884
425,060
1,692,944
1,336,663
445,731
1,782,394
Wisconsin
2,127,412
713,219
2,840,631
2,140,491
713,779
2,854,270
Wyoming
500,000
111,179
611,179
500,000
121,506
621,506
Total for States
137,808,215
44,648,113
182,456,328
137,797,373
44,555,153 182,352,526
Tribes 2,322,030
22,622
2,344,652
102,627
26,241
128,868
Total for States and
$137,900,000 $44,670,735 $182,570,735 137,900,000 44,581,394 182,481,394
Tribes
Sources: Congressional Research Service, based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services in June 2011.
Note: The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351) permits, as of
FY2010, an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium that receives direct funding from HHS to
provide child welfare services or enters into a cooperative agreement or contract with the state to provide
foster care, to apply for and receive an allotment of CFCIP and ETV funds directly from HHS. To be eligible, a
tribal entity must be receiving Title IV-E funds to operate a foster care program (under a Title IV-E plan
approved by HHS or via a cooperative agreement or contract with the state). For FY2010 and FY2011, the
following tribes received CFCIP funding: Prairie Band of Potawatomi (Kansas), Santee Sioux Nation (Nebraska),
Confederated Tribe of Warm Springs (Oregon), and Port Gamble S’Klal am Tribe (Washington). For FY2010 and
FY2011, the fol owing tribes received ETV funding: Prairie Band of Potawatomi (Kansas), Confederated Tribe of
Warm Springs (Oregon), and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (Washington).
Congressional Research Service
49
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Table B-2. FY2008 Chafee Foster Care Independence Program: Final Funds Allotted,
Expended, and Returned to Federal Treasury, by State
Excludes funding for CFCIF technical assistance
Dollar
Percent of
Amount
Allotment
Dollar Amount
Dollar Amount
Returned to
Returned to
State
Allocated
Expended
Treasury
Treasury
Alabama $1,857,787
$1,857,787
$0
0%
Alaska 522,787
522,787
0
0
Arizona 2,525,936
2,525,936
0
0
Arkansas 891,385
891,385
0
0
California 20,510,930
20,510,930
0
0
Colorado 2,112,690
2,112,690
0
0
Connecticut 1,933,323
1,933,323
0
0
Delaware 500,000
500,000
0
0
District of Columbia
1,091,992
1,083,040
8,952
0.8
Florida 7,587,151
7,587,151
0
0
Georgia 3,419,915
3,419,915
0
0
Hawai 611,302
611,302
0
0
Idaho 500,000
500,000
0
0
Illinois 4,768,674
4,768,674
0
0
Indiana 2,955,015
2,955,015
0
0
Iowa 2,346,569
2,346,569
0
0
Kansas 1,659,470
1,659,470
0
0
Kentucky
1,974,336
1,884,309
90,027
4.6
Louisiana 1,358,131
1,358,131
0
0
Maine 565,888
565,888
0
0
Maryland 2,816,920
2,816,920
0
0
Massachusetts 2,984,866
2,984,866
0
0
Michigan 5,228,383
5,228,383
0
0
Minnesota 1,857,527
1,857,527
0
0
Mississippi 831,422
831,422
0
0
Missouri 2,642,745
2,642,745
0
0
Montana 509,288
509,288
0
0
Nebraska 1,605,998
1,605,998
0
0
Nevada 1,310,081
1,310,081
0
0
New Hampshire
500,000
500,000
0
0
New Jersey
2,749,950
2,749,950
0
0
New Mexico
611,821
611,821
0
0
New York
11,585,958
11,585,958
0
0
Congressional Research Service
50
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Dollar
Percent of
Amount
Allotment
Dollar Amount
Dollar Amount
Returned to
Returned to
State
Allocated
Expended
Treasury
Treasury
North Carolina
2,885,189
2,885,189
0
0
North Dakota
500,000
500,000
0
0
Ohio 4,317,011
4,317,011
0
0
Oklahoma 3,067,151
3,067,151
0
0
Oregon 2,767,342
2,767,342
0
0
Pennsylvania 5,486,142
5,486,142
0
0
Puerto Rico
1,729,037
1,475,788
253,249
14.6
Rhode Island
737,716
737,716
0
0
South Carolina
1,277,115
1,277,115
0
0
South Dakota
500,000
500,000
0
0
Tennessee 2,237,027
2,237,027
0
0
Texas 8,007,405
8,007,405
0
0
Utah 629,991
629,991
0
0
Vermont 500,000
500,000
0
0
Virginia 2,035,856
2,035,856
0
0
Washington 2,714,388
2,714,388
0
0
West Virginia
1,096,969
1,096,969
0
0
Wisconsin 1,983,421
1,983,421
0
0
Wyoming 500,000
499,891
109
0.0
Total $137,900,000
$137,547,663
$352,337
0.3%
Source: Congress Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, June 2011.
Congressional Research Service
51
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Table B-3. FY2008 Chafee Foster Care Education and Training Voucher Program:
Final Funds Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal Treasury, by State
Excludes funding for ETV set asides
Percent of
Dollar
Dollar
Dollar Amount
Allotment
Amount
Amount
Returned to
Returned to
State
Allocated
Expended
Treasury
Treasury
Alabama
$625,790
$625,790
$0
0%
Alaska
176,099
167,398
8,701
4.9
Arizona
850,853
850,853
0
0
Arkansas
300,260
283,174
17,086
5.7
California
6,909,043
6,909,043
0
0
Colorado
711,653
711,653
0
0
Connecticut
651,234
651,234
0
0
Delaware
93,908
93,908
0
0
District of Columbia
207,052
207,052
0
0
Florida
2,555,708
2,555,708
0
0
Georgia
1,151,988
1,151,988
0
0
Hawai
205,915
205,915
0
0
Idaho
161,759
161,759
0
0
Illinois
1,606,313
1,606,313
0
0
Indiana
995,388
995,388
0
0
Iowa
790,434
790,434
0
0
Kansas
558,987
558,987
0
0
Kentucky
665,049
431,011
234,038
35.2
Louisiana
455,811
386,099
69,712
15.3
Maine
181,520
181,516
4
0
Maryland
948,871
903,466
45,405
4.8
Massachusetts
1,005,443
1,005,443
0
0
Michigan
1,761,164
1,727,827
33,337
1.9
Minnesota
625,702
625,702
0
0
Mississippi
280,062
280,062
0
0
Missouri
890,200
890,200
0
0
Montana
171,552
171,552
0
0
Nebraska
540,975
540,975
0
0
Nevada
441,297
441,297
0
0
New Hampshire
100,203
100,203
0
0
New Jersey
926,312
926,312
0
0
New Mexico
206,090
206,090
0
0
Congressional Research Service
52
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Percent of
Dollar
Dollar
Dollar Amount
Allotment
Amount
Amount
Returned to
Returned to
State
Allocated
Expended
Treasury
Treasury
New York
2,620,762
2,620,762
0
0
North Carolina
971,867
799,348
172,519
17.8
North Dakota
116,379
116,379
0
0
Ohio
1,454,172
1,454,172
0
0
Oklahoma
1,033,160
719,228
313,932
30.4
Oregon
932,170
932,170
0
0
Pennsylvania
1,847,990
1,847,990
0
0
Puerto Rico
582,421
582,421
0
0
Rhode Island
248,497
248,497
0
0
South Carolina
430,192
430,192
0
0
South Dakota
145,059
46,202
98,857
68.1
Tennessee
753,536
753,536
0
0
Texas
2,697,269
2,276,969
420,300
15.6
Utah
212,211
212,211
0
0
Vermont
120,576
120,576
0
0
Virginia
685,772
685,772
0
0
Washington
914,333
914,333
0
0
West Virginia
369,511
369,511
0
0
Wisconsin
668,109
668,109
0
0
Wyoming
113,756
111,452
2,304
2.0
Total $44,670,377
$43,254,182
$1,416,195
3.2%
Source: Congress Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, June 2011.
Congressional Research Service
53