Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
August 29, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33975
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Summary
The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in their communities.
Most of those of school age live with parents who provide for their well-being, and they attend
schools that prepare them for advanced education or vocational training and, ultimately, self-
sufficiency. Many youth also receive assistance from their families during the transition to
adulthood. During this period, young adults cycle between attending school, living independently,
and staying with their families. Approximately 60% of parents today provide financial support to
their adult children who are no longer in school. This support comes in the form of housing (50%
of parents provide this support to their adult children), living expenses (48%), cost of
transportation (41%), health insurance (35%), spending money (29%), and medical bills (28%).
Even with this assistance, the current move from adolescence to adulthood has become longer
and increasingly complex.
For vulnerable (or “at-risk”) youth populations, the transition to adulthood is further complicated
by a number of challenges, including family conflict or abandonment and obstacles to securing
employment that provides adequate wages and health insurance. These youth may be prone to
outcomes that have negative consequences for their future development as responsible, self-
sufficient adults. Risk outcomes include teenage parenthood; homelessness; drug abuse;
delinquency; physical and sexual abuse; and school dropout. Detachment from the labor market
and school—or disconnectedness—may be the single strongest indicator that the transition to
adulthood has not been made successfully.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or legislative vehicle
that addresses the challenges vulnerable youth experience in adolescence or while making the
transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy today has evolved from multiple programs
established in the early 20th century and expanded in the years following the 1964 announcement
of the War on Poverty. These programs are concentrated in six areas: workforce development,
education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national
and community service. They are intended to provide vulnerable youth with opportunities to
develop skills to assist them in adulthood.
Despite the range of federal services and activities to assist disadvantaged youth, many of these
programs have not developed into a coherent system of support. This is due in part to the
administration of programs within several agencies and the lack of mechanisms to coordinate
their activities. In response to concerns about the complex federal structure developed to assist
vulnerable youth, Congress passed the Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-
365) in 2006. Though activities under the act were never funded, the Interagency Working Group
on Youth Programs was formed in 2008 under Executive Order 13459 to carry out coordinating
activities across multiple agencies that oversee youth programs. Separately, Congress has
considered other legislation (the Younger Americans Act of 2000 and the Youth Community
Development Block Grant of 1995) to improve the delivery of services to vulnerable youth and
provide opportunities to these youth through policies with a “positive youth development” focus.
Congressional Research Service
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 2
Age of Youth and the Transition to Adulthood.......................................................................... 2
Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population................................................................................ 4
Groups of Vulnerable Youth................................................................................................ 5
Framework for Risk......................................................................................................................... 6
Disconnectedness ...................................................................................................................... 8
Positive Youth Development: The Importance of Resiliency and Opportunity......................... 9
What is Youth Development?.............................................................................................. 9
The Youth Development Movement ................................................................................. 10
Evolution of the Federal Role in Assisting Vulnerable Youth ....................................................... 12
1912-1950s: Children’s Bureau Programs and Workforce Programs...................................... 12
1960s-1970s: War on Poverty Initiatives and Expansion of Programs.................................... 14
White House Conferences on Children and Youth: 1960s and 1970s............................... 15
Family and Youth Services Bureau ................................................................................... 16
1980s-Present: Current Youth Programs ................................................................................. 16
Job Training and Workforce Development........................................................................ 17
Education........................................................................................................................... 18
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ................................................................... 21
Social Services .................................................................................................................. 22
Public Health..................................................................................................................... 23
National and Community Service ..................................................................................... 25
Federal Efforts to Improve Coordination Among Programs for Vulnerable Youth ....................... 27
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 27
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501) ................................................ 28
Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families ........................................................... 28
Grants for States and Community Programs ..................................................................... 29
More Recent Concerns about Coordination of Youth Programs ............................................. 29
Youth Build Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281)................................................................................. 30
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365) ............................................... 31
Executive Order 13459............................................................................................................ 32
Comparison of the Federal Youth Development Council and the Interagency
Working Group............................................................................................................... 33
Federal Initiatives to Improve Coordination ........................................................................... 35
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention........................... 35
Shared Youth Vision Initiative........................................................................................... 35
Federal Mentoring Council ............................................................................................... 36
Child Welfare Partnerships................................................................................................ 36
Partnerships for Youth Transition...................................................................................... 37
Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative............................................................ 37
Drug-Free Communities Support Program ....................................................................... 38
Policies to Promote Positive Youth Development ......................................................................... 38
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 38
Youth Development Community Block Grant of 1995 (H.R. 2807/S. 673)........................... 38
Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005) ................................................................ 39
Congressional Research Service
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 40
Figures
Figure 1. Risk Framework for Vulnerable Youth............................................................................. 7
Tables
Table 1. Duties of the Federal Youth Development Council, by Goal........................................... 32
Table A-1. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth....................................................................... 42
Table A-2. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information ............................................ 63
Appendixes
Appendix. Federal Youth Programs and Relevant CRS Reports and Experts ............................... 42
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 65
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 65
Congressional Research Service
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Introduction
Congress has long been concerned about the well-being of youth. The nation’s future depends on
young people today to leave school prepared for college or the workplace and to begin to make
positive contributions to society. Some youth, however, face barriers to becoming contributing
taxpayers, workers, and participants in civic life. These youth have characteristics or experiences
that put them at risk of developing problem behaviors and outcomes that have the potential to
harm their community, themselves, or both. Poor outcomes often develop in home and
neighborhood environments that do not provide youth with adequate economic and emotional
supports. Groups of vulnerable (or “at-risk”) youth include emancipating foster youth, runaway
and homeless youth, and youth involved in the juvenile justice system, among others. Like all
youth, vulnerable youth face a difficult transition to adulthood; however, their transition is further
complicated by a number of challenges, including family conflict and obstacles to securing
employment that provides adequate wages, health insurance, and potential for upward mobility.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or legislative vehicle
that addresses the challenges at-risk youth experience in adolescence or while making the
transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy today has evolved from multiple programs
established in the early 20th century and expanded through Great Society initiatives. These
programs, concentrated in six areas—workforce development, education, juvenile justice and
delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and community service—
provide vulnerable youth with opportunities to develop skills that will assist them in adulthood.
Despite the range of federal services and activities for vulnerable youth, many of the programs
have not been developed into a coordinated system of support. In response, federal policymakers
have periodically undertaken efforts to develop a comprehensive federal policy around youth.
Congress has passed legislation (the Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act, P.L. 109-365)
that authorizes the federal government to establish a youth council to improve coordination of
federal programs serving youth. The youth council has not been established, but in 2009, a federal
working group on youth issues was convened. In the past three decades, Congress has also
considered other legislation (the Youth Community Development Block Grant of 1995 and the
Younger Americans Act of 2000) to improve the delivery of services to vulnerable youth and
provide opportunities to these youth through policies with a “positive youth development” focus.
This report first provides an overview of the youth population and the increasing complexity of
transitioning to adulthood for all adolescents. It also provides a separate discussion of the concept
of “disconnectedness,” as well as the protective factors youth can develop during childhood and
adolescence that can mitigate poor outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal
youth policy, focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of current federal
programs targeted at vulnerable youth. (Table A-1, at the end of the report, enumerates the
objectives and funding levels of such programs. Note that the table does not enumerate all
programs that target, even in small part, vulnerable or disconnected youth.) The report then
discusses the challenges of coordinating federal programs for youth, as well as federal legislation
and initiatives that promote coordination among federal agencies and support programs with a
positive youth development focus.
Congressional Research Service
1
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Overview
Age of Youth and the Transition to Adulthood
For the purposes of this report, “youth” refers to adolescents and young adults between the ages
of 10 and 24. Under this definition, there are approximately 64 million youth (or 21% of the
population) in the United States.1 Although traditional definitions of youth include adolescents
ages 12 to 18, cultural and economic shifts have protracted the period of adolescence. Children as
young as 10 are included in this range because puberty begins at this age for some youth, and
experiences in early adolescence often shape enduring patterns of behavior.2 Older youth, up to
age 24, are in the process of transitioning to adulthood. Many young people in their mid-20s
attend school or begin to work, and some live with their parents or other relatives.
The current move from adolescence to adulthood has become longer and more complex,
particularly since the postwar period.3 Youth of the 1950s were more likely to follow an orderly
path to adulthood. They generally completed their education and/or secured employment (for
males), including military service, which was followed by marriage and parenthood in their early
20s. (This was not true for every young person; for example, African Americans and immigrants
in certain parts of the country faced barriers to employment.) Unlike their postwar counterparts
who had access to plentiful jobs in the industrial sector, youth today must compete in a global,
information-driven economy that favors highly skilled, educated workers.4 The ability for young
people to secure well-paid employment is contingent on higher levels of education. From the
1970s to the 2000s, real wages and hours worked rose most significantly for those with some
college or who had a college degree.5 Many more youth now receive vocational training or enroll
in colleges and universities after leaving high school compared to earlier generations.6
During the period of transition, young adults cycle between attending school, living
independently, and staying with their parents. They also use this time to explore career options
and relationships with potential long-term partners.7 The median age of first marriage has risen
1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Age and Sex: 2010, 2010 Census Summary File 1, available at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP1&prodType=
table.
2 Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, Great Transitions: Preparing
Adolescents for a New Century (October 1995), pp. 20-21.
3 Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations.
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp. 4-6. (Hereinafter, Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own
Without a Net.)
4 Sheldon Danziger and David Ratner, “Labor Market Outcomes and the Transition to Adulthood,” The Future of
Children, Transition to Adulthood, vol. 20, no. 1 (Spring 2010), p. 24, http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/
publications/journals/journal_details/index.xml?journalid=72.
5 Ibid, pp. 136-138.
6 Maria D. Fitzpatrick and Sarah E. Turner, “Blurring the Boundary: Changes in Collegiate Participation and the
Transition to Adulthood,” in The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood, Sheldon Danziger and
Cecilia Elena Rouse, eds., (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007), pp. 110-11.
7 Sheldon Danziger and Cecilia Elena Rouse, eds., The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood
(New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007), pp. 3, 11. (Hereinafter, Danziger and Rouse, eds., The Price of
Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood.)
Congressional Research Service
2
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
each decade since the 1950s, with 25.8 years for women and 28.3 years for men in recent years.8
The extended transition to adulthood for some youth may delay becoming financially
independent, which can create burden their families. Nearly 60% of parents today provide
financial support to their adult children who are no longer in school. This support comes in the
form of housing (50% of the parents who provided support), living expenses (48%), cost of
transportation (41%), health insurance (35%), spending money (29%), and medical bills (28%).9
Approximately 1.1 million young adults who were not in school lived with one or both of their
parents in 2010.10
Programs that assist youth making the transition to adulthood also recognize that adolescence is
no longer a finite period ending at age 18. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (P.L. 111-148), the health reform law, requires health insurance companies to provide
coverage to the children of parents who are enrolled in their health care plans up to their 26th
birthday. It also provides a new Medicaid pathway, effective January 2014, for children who age
out of foster care up to their 26th birthday. Since FY2003, the Chafee Foster Care Education and
Training Vouchers program has provided vouchers worth up to $5,000 annually per youth who is
“aging out” of foster care or was adopted from foster care after 16 years of age.11 The vouchers
are available for the cost of attendance at an institution of higher education, as defined by the
Higher Education Act of 1965. Youth receiving a voucher at age 21 may continue to participate in
the voucher program until age 23.
Further, the changing concept of the age of adulthood is gaining currency among organizations
and foundations that support and study youth development projects. The Youth Transition
Funders Group is a network of grant makers whose mission is to help all adolescents make the
successful transition to adulthood by age 25. Similarly, the Network on Transitions to Adulthood,
a consortium of approximately 20 researchers from around the country, was created in 2000 to
study the changing nature of early adulthood.12
8 U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Time Series, Marital Status (MS-2), Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex:
1890 to the Present, available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam.html; and Casey E. Copen
et al., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, First Marriages in the United States: Data From the 2006-2010
National Survey of Family Growth, No. 49, March 22, 2012, pp. 5-6, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf.
9 This is based on a survey of parents and their adult children ages 18 to 39 who are not in school. Jenna Goudreau,
“Nearly 60% of Parents Provide Financial Support to Adult Children ,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/
jennagoudreau/2011/05/20/parents-provide-financial-support-money-adult-children/.
10 This is based on adult children ages 18 to 34 who are not in school. Laryssa Mykyta and Suzane Macartney, Sharing
a Household: Household Composition and Well-Being 2007-2010, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Report,
June 2012, http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-242.pdf.
11 See CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs, by Adrienne L.
Fernandes-Alcantara.
12 The Network has published three books on this topic. See Richard A. Settersten, Jr., Frank F. Furstenburg, Jr., and
Rubén Rumbaut, eds., On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2005); Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net; and Danziger and Rouse, eds., The Price of
Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood.
Congressional Research Service
3
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population
The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in their communities.
Those of primary and secondary school age live with parents who provide for their emotional and
economic well-being and they attend schools that prepare them for continuing education or the
workforce, and ultimately, self-sufficiency. One-third of young adults today will graduate from a
four-year college or university.13 Nonetheless, some young people do not grow up in a secure
environment or with parents that provide a comprehensive system of support.14 These youth often
live in impoverished neighborhoods, where they may be exposed to violence, and come to school
unprepared to learn. Their communities and schools often lack resources. Even youth who have
adequate academic and emotional support may experience greater challenges as they transition to
adulthood.
There is no universal definition of the terms “vulnerable” or “at-risk” youth,15 and some believe
that these labels should not be used because of their potentially stigmatizing effects.16 The terms
have been used to denote individuals who experience emotional and adjustment problems, are at
risk of dropping out, or lack the skills to succeed after graduation.17 They have also been used to
suggest that youth grow up in unstable family or community environments.18 Researchers,
policymakers, and youth advocates, however, might agree to this definition: vulnerable youth
have characteristics and experiences that put them at risk of developing problem behaviors and
outcomes that have the potential to hurt their community, themselves, or both.19 “At risk” does
not necessarily mean a youth has already experienced negative outcomes but it suggests that
negative outcomes are more likely. Youth may also experience different levels of risk. On a risk
continuum, they might have remote risk (less positive family, school, and social interaction and
some stressors) to imminent risk (high-risk behaviors and many stressors).20 Youth may also
experience multiple risk factors. Vulnerable youth may also display resiliency that mitigates
negative outcomes.
13 This is based on percentage of adults ages 25 to 34 who have received a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2011. Sarah
R. Crissey, “Educational Attainment of the Population 18 Years and Over by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin:
2011,” Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2011/tables.html.
14 Heather Koball et al., Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth, Mathematica Policy Research,
inc., ACF Youth Demonstration Development Project, June 21, 2011, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/fys/youth
... /synthesis_youth.pdf. (Hereinafter Heather Koball et al., Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk
Youth.)
15 Ibid.
16 Kristin Anderson Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At Risk,’” Child Trends Research-to-Results Brief, Publication
#2006-12, October 2006. (Hereinafter, Kristin Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At-Risk.’”)
17 J. Jeffries McWhirter et al., At-Risk Youth: A Comprehensive Response. California: Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2004, p.
6. (Hereinafter, J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth.)
18 Kristin Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At-Risk.’”
19 Martha R. Burt, Gary Resnick, and Nancy Matheson, Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk
Youth, The Urban Institute, 1992, pp. 13-22.
20 J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 7-9.
Congressional Research Service
4
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Groups of Vulnerable Youth
Researchers on vulnerable youth have identified multiple groups at risk of experiencing poor
outcomes as they enter adulthood.21 These groups include, but are not limited to the following:
• youth emancipating from foster care;
• runaway and homeless youth;
• youth involved in the juvenile justice system;
• immigrant youth and youth with limited English proficiency (LEP);
• youth with physical and mental disabilities;
• youth with mental disorders; and
• youth receiving special education.
Some researchers have also classified other groups of vulnerable youth on the basis of risk
outcomes: young unmarried mothers, high school dropouts, and disconnected (e.g., not in school
nor working) youth.
Among the seven groups listed above, some lack financial assistance and emotional support from
their families. Former foster youth, for example, often do not have parents who can provide
financial assistance while they attend college or vocational schools. Other vulnerable youth have
difficulty securing employment because of their disabilities, mental illness, juvenile justice
history, or other challenges. Vulnerable youth who have depended on public systems of support
often lose needed assistance at the age of majority.22 Many will lose health insurance coverage,
vocational services, and supplementary income.23 They will also face challenges in accessing
adult public systems, where professionals are not always trained to address the special needs of
young adults. Regardless of their specific risk factor(s), groups of vulnerable youth share many of
the same barriers to successfully transitioning into their 20s.
Even within these groups, the population is highly diverse. For example, among youth with
disabilities, individuals experience asthma, visual or hearing impairments, emotional
disturbances, congenital heart disease, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, diabetes, cancer, and spina bifida.
Youth in these seven groups also represent diverse socioeconomic and racial backgrounds.
However, youth of color and the poor tend to be overrepresented in vulnerable populations. This
21 See, for example, Heather Koball et al., Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth; Wayne
Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net; and Michael Wald and Tia Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the
Life Chances of the Country’s Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Working
Paper, November 2003. Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth includes youth who are the
focus of programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and
Families, including youth aging out of foster care, runaway and homeless youth, youth receiving Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF), teenage parents, and juvenile offenders. On Your Own Without a Net focuses on the seven
groups listed above, in addition to youth reentering the community from the juvenile justice system. “Connected by 25”
focuses on four groups: high school dropouts, young unmarried mothers, juvenile justice-involved youth, and foster
youth.
22 Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, p. 10.
23 Ibid., pp. 10-12.
Congressional Research Service
5
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
is due, in part, to their exposure to poverty, and crime, racism, and lack of access to systems of
care, such as health care and vocational assistance.24
Youth may also be members of multiple vulnerable populations. For instance, former foster youth
are particularly at risk of becoming homeless. Each year about 26,000 youth “age out” of foster
care, and of these youth, about two-fifths receive independent living services.25 Emancipated
youth may have inadequate housing supports.26 Recently emancipated foster youth also tend to be
less economically secure than their counterparts in the general youth population because they
earn lower wages and are more likely to forego college and vocational training.27 Their economic
vulnerability can place them at risk of losing their housing.
Framework for Risk
Not all vulnerable youth experience negative outcomes. However, the social science literature
identifies three broad categories of factors that influence whether youth face challenges in
adolescence and as they transition to adulthood.28 These categories include antecedents of risk,
markers of risk, and problem behaviors. Figure 1 summarizes the three categories and the risk
outcomes vulnerable youth may experience.
24 J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 9, 13, and 14.
25 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, AFCARS Report #19,
Preliminary Estimates for FY2011, July 2012, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#afcars.
26 Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring. “The Transition to Adulthood for Youth “Aging Out” of the Foster
Care System” in Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, pp. 27-32.
27 Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study, Casey
Family Programs, 2005, pp. 1-2, available at http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/
NorthwestAlumniStudy.htm. (Hereinafter, Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care.)
28 This discussion is based on Martha R. Burt, Gary Resnick, and Nancy Matheson, Comprehensive Service Integration
Programs for At-Risk Youth, The Urban Institute, 1992, pp. 13-22.
Congressional Research Service
6
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Figure 1. Risk Framework for Vulnerable Youth
Source: Figure created by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of Martha Burt, Gary Resnick,
and Nancy Matheson, “Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk Youth: Final Report,” The
Urban Institute, 1992, Exhibit 2.2.
Antecedents of risk are the social environmental conditions that influence outcomes; these factors
significantly predict the overall well-being of youth. Poverty, community conditions, and family
structure are three primary antecedents of risk. Poverty is linked to a number of potential future
problems among youth, including low professional attainment and meager future earnings. An
analysis that utilized data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and U.S. census tract
information for 1980 to 1990 estimated that adolescents ages 14 to 22 who grew up in relatively
high poverty metropolitan neighborhoods were less likely to be employed as adults than their
peers.29 Other macro-level forces—the location of employers and the erosion of the
manufacturing sector—can also limit the jobs available to poor youth who live in urban areas.30
29 Steven R. Holloway and Stephen Mullherin, “The Effects of Adolescent Neighborhood Poverty on Adult
Employment,” Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 26, no. 4, 2004.
30 Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men. Washington, DC: Urban
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Some analyses have found that youths’ place of residence in proximity to jobs affects their labor
market involvement independent of other factors.31 Jobs in the manufacturing sector have been
replaced by the growth of the service and high-technology sectors, jobs requiring technical and
managerial skills.32 Youth who drop out of school or do not pursue postsecondary education
cannot easily compete for available jobs.
Markers of risk also suggest that youth will experience negative outcomes in adolescence and
beyond. Markers of risk are tangible indicators that can be measured or documented in public
records; low school performance and involvement in the child welfare system are two such
markers. Low academic performance, according to scores from a basic cognitive skills test as part
of the 1994 National Longitudinal Education Survey, is associated with low employment rates.
Among 16-to-24 year olds who scored below the 20th percentile on the test, 74% of white youth,
47.7% of black youth, and 57.4% of Hispanic youth were employed.33 Youth involved in the child
welfare system, including out-of-home placement in the foster care system, are at-risk because of
their history of abuse or neglect. Studies show that youth who have “aged out” of foster care fare
poorly relative to their counterparts in the general population on several outcome measures.34
Problem behaviors further define a youth’s level of risk for incurring serious consequences during
the transition to adulthood. Problem behaviors are activities that have the potential to hurt youth,
the community, or both. Youth with these behaviors likely live under risk antecedent conditions
and have displayed risk markers. Behaviors include early sexual experimentation; truancy; use of
tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs; running away from home or foster care; and association with
delinquent peers. Problem behaviors, coupled with poor socioeconomic and social environmental
factors, can precipitate more long-term negative outcomes, described in Figure 1, as risk
outcomes. Risk outcomes include school dropout, low employment prospects, teen pregnancy, and
alcohol and substance abuse.
Disconnectedness
Youth advocates and researchers have recently focused on vulnerable youth who experience
negative outcomes in both employment and educational attainment.35 Generally characterized as
disconnected, these youth are not working or attending school. However, there is no uniform
definition of this term. On the basis of a CRS review of studies on the population, the definition
of disconnected varies, with differences in ages of the youth and the length that youth are not in
school or working. The studies count youth as young as age 16 and as old as age 24, with ages in
(...continued)
Institute Press, 2006, pp. 19-21. (Hereinafter, Edelman, Holzer, and Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men.)
31 See for example, Weinberg, Reagan, and Yankow, Do Neigborhoods Matter?; Katherine M. O’Regan and John M.
Quiley, “Where Youth Live: Economic Effects of Urban Space on Employment Prospects,” Urban Studies, vol. 35,
no.7, 1998 and Stephen Raphael, “Inter-and Intra-Ethnic Comparisons of the Central City-Suburban Youth
Employment Differential,” Industrial & Labor Relationship Review, vol. 51, no. 3, April 1998.
32 William Julius Wilson, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Vintage Books,
1996, pp. 25-29.
33 Edelman, Holzer, and Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men, p. 21.
34 Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care.
35 CRS Report R40535, Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24-Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School, by
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara and Thomas Gabe.
Congressional Research Service
8
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
between (i.e., 16 to 19, 18 to 24).36 Youth are generally considered disconnected if they were not
working or in school at the time they were surveyed, or over a period of time prior to the survey.
Some of the definitions, however, incorporate other characteristics, such as marital status and
educational attainment. Further, several studies used definitions that included only non-
institutionalized youth. This means that these studies do not count youth in prisons, college
dorms, mental health facilities, and other institutions.
Positive Youth Development: The Importance of Resiliency
and Opportunity
Although vulnerable youth experience more negative outcomes than their counterparts who are
not considered to be at risk, some of these youth go on to attend college and/or secure
employment. Youth advocates argue that vulnerable youth can reach their goals if given adequate
opportunities to develop positive behaviors during adolescence. Emphasizing that youth are in
control of their future and can make contributions to their communities and society, these
advocates view vulnerable youth as resources rather than victims or perpetrators.37
What is Youth Development?
Youth development refers to the processes—physical, cognitive, and emotional—that youth
undergo during adolescence. The competencies that youth begin to gain during adolescence can
assist them as they transition to adulthood. Youth who master competencies across several
domains will likely achieve desirable outcomes, including educational and professional success,
self-confidence, connections to family and the community, and contributions to society. These
areas of competency include the following:
• Cognitive: Knowledge of essential life skills, problem solving skills, academic
adeptness;
• Social: Connectedness with others, perceived good relationships with peers,
parents, and other adults;
• Physical: Good health habits, good health risk management skills;
• Emotional: Good mental health, including positive self-regard; good coping
skills;
• Personal: Sense of personal autonomy and identity, sense of safety, spirituality,
planning for the future and future life events, strong moral character;
• Civic: Commitment to community engagement, volunteering, knowledge of how
to interface with government systems; and
• Vocational: Knowledge of essential vocational skills, perception of future in
terms of jobs or careers.38
36 Ibid.
37 National Youth Development Information Center, What is Youth Development?, available at http://www.nydic.org/
nydic/programming/definition.htm.
38 National Research Council, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 2002, pp. 6-7.
Congressional Research Service
9
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
A primary factor that influences how well youth develop these competencies is the interaction
among individual characteristics, or traits influenced by genetic inheritance and prenatal
environment; the social environment—societal conditions, communities, and schools can serve to
reinforce positive behaviors and promote positive outcomes for vulnerable youth; and the home
environment, including discord among parents and monitoring of children by their parents.39
Individual conditions refer to the characteristics of individuals that can influence resilience.
Individual-level characteristics that can promote resilience include social skills, coping strategies,
a positive sense of self, and high expectations. Societal conditions—economic conditions, the
prevalence of discrimination, and educational institutions—affect the development of youth
competencies and connectedness to others. Adolescents who perceive their future in terms of jobs
or careers often achieve desirable outcomes. For vulnerable youth, poor economic conditions and
fewer opportunities to work can affect how they perceive their future. Youth’s interaction with the
community is another variable that shapes their development. Community culture, or the values
and beliefs of a particular community, may support the positive development of youth by
reinforcing cultural norms that favor academic achievement and professional success.
Communities can play a role in fostering youth development by providing multiple pathways to
help youth strengthen their competencies through schools and other institutions. Youth advocates
argue that these pathways should involve services and long-term programs that provide
opportunities for youth during the school day and in non-school hours when youth may be more
susceptible to risky behaviors.40 Within schools, the availability of resources for youth and their
parents, such as programs that monitor and supervise youth, and quality youth-serving institutions
and organizations can buffer youth from negative community cultures. Outside of schools, youth
development programs—such as mentoring and leadership programs—emphasize the positive
elements of growing up and engage young people in alternatives to counteract negative pressures.
Finally, the family context plays a pivotal role in youth development. Parental oversight of their
children and family structure affect how well youth transition to adulthood. Positive adolescent
development is facilitated when youth express independence from their parents, yet rely on their
parents for emotional support, empathy, and advice. Parenting styles and family structure play
important roles in the lives of youth. Parents who discipline in a moderate and caring manner, and
provide positive sanctions for prosocial behaviors can assist youth to develop a sense of control
over their future. Family structures that promote positive parent-child relationships, even after
divorce or times of stress (such as separation or loss of a parent), can provide youth with
emotional and other support during adolescence and beyond.
The Youth Development Movement
The belief that all youth have assets has formed the basis of the youth development movement
that began in the 1980s in response to youth policies and programs that attempted to curb the
specific problems facing youth (i.e., pregnancy, drug use) without focusing on how to holistically
improve outcomes for youth and ease their transition to adulthood. A range of institutions have
39 This discussion is based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Family and Youth Services Bureau,
Understanding Youth Development: Promoting Positive Pathways of Growth, 1997; and Heather Koball et al.,
Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth.
40 Karen Pittman, Merita Irby, and Thaddeus Ferber, Unfinished Business: Further Reflections on a Decade of
Promoting Youth Development, The Forum for Youth Investment, 2000, p. 9, available at http://www.ppv.org/ppv/
publications/assets/74_sup/ydv_1.pdf. (Hereinafter Pittman, Irby, and Ferber, Unfinished Business.)
Congressional Research Service
10
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
promoted this approach through their literature and programming: policy organizations (Forum
for Youth Investment and National Network for Youth); national direct service organizations for
youth (4-H and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America); public and private research entities
(National Research Council, Carnegie Corporation of New York, and MacArthur Foundation
Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood), and government sub-agencies with a youth focus
(the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Family and Youth Services Bureau and the
U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention).41 The youth
development movement has attempted to shift from an approach to youth that emphasizes
problem prevention to one that addressed the types of attitudes, skills, knowledge, and behaviors
young people need to develop for adulthood.42
Despite the endorsement of the positive youth development approach by prominent organizations,
the movement has faced challenges.43 Youth advocates within the movement point to insufficient
guidance for program planners and policymakers about prioritizing which youth to serve, given
the limited resources available to communities for youth programs. They have also criticized the
lack of sufficient evaluation of programs and organizations using a positive development
approach. According to these advocates, some youth development efforts have been built on
insufficient data about demand for or supply of programs and were started without baseline data
on reasonable youth indicators. Further, they argue that youth development messages have, at
times, failed to generate excitement among policymakers because they did not convey how
positive youth development policy and programs could respond to the challenges young people
face and lead to better outcomes for youth and society at large. In turn, the movement has failed
to adequately link to local and regional infrastructures that assist with funding, training, and
network development.
To address these challenges, youth advocates (the same groups that have raised criticisms about
the movement) have proposed a number of recommendations. For example, the Forum for Youth
has urged advocates to clarify a youth development message that specifies concrete deliverables
and to connect the movement to sustainable public and private resources and other youth
advocacy efforts.44 The recommendations have also called for evaluations of youth programs with
a positive youth approach and improved monitoring and assessment of programs.
41 See for example, Karen Pittman, “Some Things Do Make a Difference and We Can Prove It: Key Take-Aways”
from Finding Out What Matters for Youth: Testing Key Links in a Community Action Framework for Youth
Development, The Forum for Youth Investment, April 2003, available at http://www.ydsi.org/ydsi/pdf/
WhatMatters.pdf; 4-H, The National Conversation on Youth Development in the 21st Century: Final Report, 2002;
National Research Council, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development, 2002; U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Publications on Positive Youth Development,
available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/positiveyouth/publications.htm.
42 Pittman, Irby, and Ferber, Unfinished Business, pp. 20-22.
43 Ibid., pp. 30-31.
44 Ibid., pp. 14-27.
Congressional Research Service
11
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Evolution of the Federal Role in Assisting
Vulnerable Youth
The remainder of this report describes the evolution of federal youth policy and provides an
overview of current programs and initiatives that focus on vulnerable youth. Many of these
initiatives promote coordination of federal youth programs and positive youth development.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or legislative vehicle
that addresses the challenges that young people experience in adolescence or while making the
transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy today evolved from multiple programs and
initiatives that began in the early 1900s to assist children and youth. From the turn of the
twentieth century through the 1950s, youth policy was generally subsumed under a broad
framework of child welfare issues. The Children’s Bureau, established in 1912, focused attention
on child labor and the protection of children with special needs. The age boundaries of “youth”
were not clearly delineated, but on the basis of proposed child labor reform legislation at that
time, “child” referred to those individuals age 16 and under. Also during this period, work and
education support programs were created to ease the financial pressures of the Great Depression
for older youth (ages 16 to 23), and increasingly, federal attention focused on addressing the
growing number of youth classified as delinquent.
The subsequent period, spanning the 1960s and 1970s, was marked by the creation of programs
that targeted youth in six policy areas: workforce development and job training, education,
juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and
community service. Finally, from the 1980s until the present, many of these programs have been
expanded; others have been eliminated. The federal government has also recently adopted
strategies to better serve the youth population through targeted legislation and initiatives.
1912-1950s: Children’s Bureau Programs and Workforce Programs
At the turn of the twentieth century, psychologists first formally defined the concept of
adolescence. American psychologist G. Stanley Hall characterized the period between childhood
and adulthood as a time of “storm and stress,” with youth vulnerable to risky behavior, conflict
with parents, and perversion.45 The well-being of adolescents was emerging as an area of concern
during this time, albeit as part of a greater focus on child welfare by states and localities. States
began to recognize the distinct legal rights of children, generally defined as age 16 and younger,
and to establish laws for protecting children against physical abuse, cruelty, and neglect. Children
who were abused or neglected were increasingly removed from their homes and placed in
almshouses and foster homes by the state. Juvenile courts and reform schools, first created in the
late 1800s, were also expanding during this period. By 1912, 22 states had passed legislation to
establish juvenile courts.46
45 G. Stanley Hall, “Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex,
Crime, Religion, and Education,” (1904) in John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds.,
Children & Youth in America, Vol. II: 1866-1932, Parts 1-6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, pp. 81-
85.
46 John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth in America, Vol. II: 1866-
1932, Parts 1-6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 440.
Congressional Research Service
12
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
The year 1912 also marked the federal government’s initial involvement in matters relating to
child welfare with the creation of the Children’s Bureau in the U.S. Department of Labor. The
Bureau emerged out of the Progressive Movement, which emphasized that the stresses on family
life due to industrial and urban society were having a disproportionately negative effect on
children.47 Though not a cabinet-level agency, the purpose of the Bureau was to investigate and
report upon all “matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life” for the federal
government. The Bureau adopted a “whole child” philosophy, meaning that the agency was
devoted to researching every aspect of the child’s life throughout all stages of his or her
development. In particular, the Bureau focused on infant and maternal health, child labor, and the
protection of children with special needs (e.g., those who were poor, homeless, without proper
guardianship, and mentally handicapped).
The concept of a “youth policy” in those early years was virtually nonexistent. However, the
Bureau’s efforts in combating child labor and investigating juvenile delinquency from 1912
through the early 1950s targeted youth ages 10 to 16. Bureau Chief Julia Lathrop and Progressive
Era advocates pushed for laws that would prohibit the employment of children under age 16.48
The Bureau also tracked the rising number of juvenile delinquents in the 1930s and evaluated the
causes of delinquency, citing unhappy home conditions and gang membership as a predictor of
gang activity.49 In 1954, the Bureau established a division on juvenile delinquency prevention.
Perhaps the most well known policies the Children’s Bureau implemented that affected youth
were through the child health and welfare programs established by the Social Security Act (P.L.
74-231) of 1935. As originally enacted, the law authorized indefinite annual funding of $1.5
million for states to establish, extend, and strengthen public child welfare services in
“predominately rural” or “special needs” areas. For purposes of this program (now at Title IV-B,
Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act), these were described as services “for the protection and
care of homeless, dependent, and neglected children, and children in danger of becoming
delinquent.”50 The Aid to Dependent Children Program (now Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families Block Grant) was also created under the act to provide financial assistance to
impoverished children. “Dependent” children were defined as children under age 16 who had
been deprived of parental support or care due to a parent’s death, continued absence from the
home, or physical or mental incapacity, and was living with a relative. Amendments to the
program extended the age of children to 18.51
Separately in the 1930s, the federal government addressed youth poverty triggered by the Great
Depression. The Federal Transient Relief Act of 1933 established a Transient Division within the
Federal Transient Relief Administration to provide relief services through state grants. Also in
1933, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) opened camps and shelters for more than one
47 Kriste Lindenmeyer, “A Right to Childhood:” The U.S. Children’s Bureau and Child Welfare, 1912-46 (Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press, 1997). (Hereinafter Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood.)
48 Ibid., pp. 127, 137-138.
49 Ibid., pp. 148-153.
50 In 1962 (P.L. 87-543), child welfare services were formally defined under Title IV-B as “public social services
which supplement, or substitute for parental care and supervision for the purpose of (1) remedying or assisting in the
solution of problems which may result in, the neglect, abuse, exploitation, or delinquency of children, (2) protecting
and caring for homeless, dependent, or neglected children, (3) protecting and promoting the welfare of children,
including the strengthening of their own homes where possible or, where needed, the provision of adequate care of
children away from their homes in foster family homes or day-care or other child-care facilities.”
51 Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood, p. 193.
Congressional Research Service
13
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
million low-income older youth. Two years later, in 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt created
the National Youth Administration (NYA) by executive order to open employment bureaus and
provide cash assistance to poor college and high school students. The Transient Division was
disbanded shortly thereafter.
From 1936 to 1940, legislation was proposed to provide for comprehensive educational and
vocational support for older youth. As introduced in 1938, the American Youth Act (S. 1463), if
passed, would have established a federal National Youth Administration to administer a system of
public-works projects that would employ young persons who were not employed or full-time
students. The act would have also provided unemployed youth with vocational advisors to assist
them in securing apprentice training. Further, young people enrolled in school and unable to
continue their studies without financial support would have been eligible to receive financial
assistance to pay school fees and school materials, and personal expenses.52 The act, however,
was never brought to a full vote by the House or Senate. The Roosevelt Administration raised
concerns in hearings on the bill that it was too expensive and would have provided some of the
same services already administered through the CCC and NYA.53 (The two programs were
eliminated in the early 1940s.)
By the late 1940s, the Children’s Bureau no longer had jurisdiction to address “all matters”
concerning children and youth because of federal government reorganizations that prioritized
agency function over a particular constituency (i.e., children, poor families, etc.). The bureau was
moved in 1949 from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to the Federal Security Agency (FSA),
and child health policy issues were transferred to the Public Health Service. The Bureau’s
philosophy of the “whole child” diminished further when the FSA was moved to the newly
organized Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) in 1953.54
1960s-1970s: War on Poverty Initiatives and Expansion of Programs
The 1960s and 1970s marked a period of federal efforts to assist poor and disadvantaged children
and their families. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty initiatives and subsequent
social legislation established youth-targeted programs in the areas of workforce development and
job training, education, delinquency prevention, social services, and health. The major legislation
during this period included the following.
• Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) of 1964 (P.L. 88-452): As the centerpiece of
the War on Poverty, the EOA established the Office of Economic Opportunity.
The office administered programs to promote the well-being of poor youth and
other low-income individuals, including Job Corps, Upward Bound, Volunteers
in Service to America (VISTA), Head Start, and Neighborhood Youth Corps,
among others. The mission of the Job Corps was (and still is) to promote the
vocational and educational opportunities of older, low-income youth. Similarly,
Upward Bound was created to assist disadvantaged high school students who
went on to attend college.
52 John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth in America, Vol. III: 1933-
1973, Parts 1-4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, pp. 91-96.
53 Ibid., pp. 99-104.
54 For additional information about the creation of HEW, see CRS Report RL31497, Creation of Executive
Departments: Highlights from the Legislative History of Modern Precedents, by Thomas P. Carr.
Congressional Research Service
14
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
• Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (P.L. 89-10): The
purpose of the ESEA was to provide federal funding to low-income schools.
Amendments to the act in1966 (P.L 89-750) created the Migrant Education
Program and Migrant High School Equivalency Program to assist states in
providing education to children of migrant workers.
• Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 (P.L. 89-329): The HEA increased federal
funding to universities and created scholarships and low interest loans for
students. The act also created the Talent Search Program to identify older, low-
income youth with potential for postsecondary education. The act was amended
in 1968 (P.L. 90-575) to include two programs: Student Support Services and
Upward Bound (which was transferred from the Office of Economic Opportunity
to the Office of Education, and later to the U.S. Department of Education).
Student Support Services was created to improve disadvantaged (defined as
disabled, low-income, or first in their family to attend college) college students’
retention and graduation rates.
• Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-378): The legislation
permanently established the Youth Conservation Pilot Program to employ youth
of all backgrounds to perform work on federal lands.
• Comprehensive Employment and Training Activities Act (CETA) of 1973 (P.L.
93-203): The program established federal funding for the Youth Employment and
Training Program and the Summer Youth Employment Program. The programs
financed employment training activities and on-the-job training.
• Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 (P.L. 93-415):
The act extended federal support to states and local governments for
rehabilitative and preventative juvenile justice delinquency projects, as
established under the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 90-
445). The major provisions of the JJDPA funded preventative programs in local
communities outside of the juvenile justice system. The act’s Title III established
the Runaway Youth Program to provide temporary shelter, counseling, and after-
care services to runaway youth and their families. Congress later amended (P.L.
95-115) Title III to include homeless youth.
• Education for All Handicapped Children of 1975 (P.L. 94-142): The act required
all public schools accepting federal funds to provide equal access to education for
children with physical and mental disabilities. Public schools were also required
to create an educational plan for these students, with parental input, that would
emulate as closely as possible the educational experiences of able-bodied
children. (This legislation is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.)
White House Conferences on Children and Youth: 1960s and 1970s
Since 1909, the executive branch has organized a White House Conference on Children (and
youth, in later decades). The White House conferences of 1960 and 1971 focused on efforts to
promote opportunities for youth. The recommendations from the 1960 conference’s forum on
adolescents discussed the need for community agencies to assist parents in addressing the
Congressional Research Service
15
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
concerns of youth, as well as improved social services to adolescents and young adults.55 The
recommendations called for the federal government to establish a unit devoted to youth and to
support public and private research regarding the issues facing this population, including their
employment, education, military service, marriage, mobility, and community involvement. The
1971 conference had a broader focus on issues that were important to youth at the time.
Recommendations from the conference included a suspension of the draft, less punitive measures
for drug possession, and income guarantees for poor families.56
Family and Youth Services Bureau
The Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) was created in 1970 to provide leadership on
youth issues in the federal government.57 At that time, it was held that young people were placed
inappropriately in the juvenile justice system, while others were not receiving needed social
services. Known then as the Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention Administration, the
sub-agency proposed a new service delivery strategy (similar to the contemporary positive youth
development approach) that emphasized youth’s competence, usefulness, and belonging.58 The
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 emphasized that youth
committing status offenses (behaviors considered offenses only if carried out by a juvenile, such
as truancy or running away) were more in need of care and guidance than they were of
punishment. Passage of the JJDPA laid the foundation for much of FYSB’s work today with
runaway and homeless youth and other vulnerable youth groups.
1980s-Present: Current Youth Programs
Current federal youth policy has resulted from the piecemeal creation of programs across several
areas of social policy. Many of the youth-focused programs that trace their history to the War on
Poverty continue today, and several new programs, spread across several agencies, have been
created. (While the Family and Youth Services Bureau was created to provide leadership on youth
issues, it administers a small number of youth programs, including the Runaway and Homeless
Youth program and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program, among others.) Federal youth policy
today also includes recent initiatives to promote positive youth development and increase
coordination between federal agencies that administer youth-focused programs.
Table A-1 in the Appendix provides an overview of over 50 major federal programs for youth in
six policy areas discussed above—job training and workforce development, education, juvenile
justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and community
service. The table includes the programs’ authorizing legislation and US code section; objectives;
FY2006 through FY2012 funding levels and the requested FY2013 funding levels; agency with
jurisdiction; and targeted at-risk youth population.59 The programs were selected based upon their
55 Executive Office of the President, Conference Proceedings from the Golden Anniversary White House Conference
on Children and Youth, March 27-April 2, 1960 (Washington: GPO, 1960), p. 212.
56 Executive Office of the President, Conference Proceedings from the White House Conference on Youth, 1971.
Washington: GPO, 1971.
57 This discussion is based on correspondence with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, April 2007.
58 American Youth Policy Forum, A Youth Development Approach to Services for Young People: The Work of the
Family and Youth Services Bureau, Forum Brief, June 11, 1999.
59 The FY2009 funding levels will be updated when the final figures become available.
Congressional Research Service
16
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
objectives to serve vulnerable youth primarily between the ages of 10 to 24, or to research this
population. The CRS contributors to Table A-1, their contact information, and CRS reports on
some of the programs are listed in Table A-2.
As enacted, the programs are intended to provide vulnerable youth with the opportunities to
develop skills and abilities that will assist them in adolescence and during the transition to
adulthood. Congress has allocated funding to these programs for a number of services and
activities, including conflict resolution; counseling; crime/violence prevention; gang intervention;
job training assistance; mentoring; parental/family intervention; planning and program
development; and research and evaluation. The programs differ in size, scope, and funding
authorization levels and type (mandatory vs. discretionary).
The list is not exhaustive and may omit programs that serve the targeted youth population. Two
major block grant programs—the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (TANF) and
the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)—are not included because they do not provide dedicated
funding for youth activities. However, states can choose to use TANF and SSBG funds for such
purposes. TANF law permits states to use block grant fund to provide services to recipient
families and other “needy” families (defined by the state) so long as the services are expected to
help lead to independence from government services or enable needy families to care for children
at home. States may also provide services to non-needy families if they are directed at the goals
of preventing and reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies or encouraging the formation of two-
parent families. SSBG provides funding to assist states to provide a range of social services to
adults and children, and each state determines what services are provided and who is eligible.
Youth-focused categories of services that can be funded through the SSBG include education and
training services to improve knowledge or daily living skills and to enhance cultural
opportunities; foster care services for children and older youth; independent and transitional
living services; pregnancy and parenting services for young parents; and special services for
youth involved in or at risk of involvement with criminal activity.60
Job Training and Workforce Development61
The federal government funds four major job training and workforce development programs for
youth: Job Corps, Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth Activities, YouthBuild, and Youth
Conservation Corps. These programs (except for the Youth Conservation Corps) are administered
by the Department of Labor and target low-income youth ages 16 to 24 who require additional
assistance in meeting their vocational goals. Job Corps is the largest of these programs, with
centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Program training consists of career preparation,
development, and transition; academic initiatives; and character building. The Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) reauthorized the program through FY2003,
although annual appropriations have continued funding.
The Workforce Investment Act also established WIA Youth Activities to fund employment
training and academic support services for both youth in school and school dropouts ages 14 to
21. Eligible youth must be low-income and either deficient in basic literacy skills, a school
60 A state-by-state expenditure data report for these and other categories of services is available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/annrpt/2005/index.html.
61 For additional information, see CRS Report R40929, Vulnerable Youth: Employment and Job Training Programs, by
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
Congressional Research Service
17
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
dropout, homeless, a runaway, foster child, a parent, an offender, or an individual who needs
additional assistance to complete an educational program or secure employment. Youth councils
of local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) advise the boards about youth activities. WIBs are
certified by the state to coordinate the workforce development activities of a particular area
through a local workforce investment system.62
Created by the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1992 (P.L. 101-625),
YouthBuild has many of the same educational and vocational objectives as those established
under Job Corps and WIA Youth Activities. YouthBuild participants ages 16 to 24 work toward
their GED or high school diploma while learning job skills by building affordable housing. The
program, formerly in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, was made part of
WIA, administered by DOL, under the YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-281). Finally,
the Youth Conservation Corps, established in 1970 by the Youth Conservation Corps Act (P.L. 91-
378) and administered by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior, targets youth ages 15 to 18
of all backgrounds to work on projects that conserve natural resources.
Education
Most federal education programs for vulnerable youth are authorized by the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965,
administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The ESEA provides the primary source
of federal funds to K-12 education programs. The legislation’s purpose, from its original
enactment in 1965 to the present, is, in part, to provide supplementary educational and related
services to educationally disadvantaged children who attend schools serving relatively low-
income areas. The Higher Education Act is the source of grant, loan, and work-study assistance to
help meet the costs of postsecondary education. The act also supports programs by providing
incentives and services to disadvantaged youth to help increase their secondary or postsecondary
educational attainment. Separate legislation authorizes additional education programs serving
youth with disabilities and homeless youth.
Programs Authorized by Title I of the ESEA
Title I of ESEA provides most of the funding for programs that serve disadvantaged youth, and
was most recently reauthorized and amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001
(P.L. 107-110).
Title I-A (Education for the Disadvantaged Program) is the largest federal elementary and
secondary education program.63 Title I-A grants fund supplementary educational and related
services to low-achieving and other pupils attending schools with relatively high concentrations
of pupils from low-income families. The NCLBA expanded Title I-A provisions requiring
participating states to adopt content and pupil performance standards, and assessments linked to
these; and to take specified actions with respect to low-performing schools and local education
agencies (LEAs). Title I-C (Migrant Education Program) provides formula grants to state
62 The 109th Congress considered legislation (H.R. 27) to make the Youth Councils optional. For additional
information, see CRS Report RL32778, The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA): Reauthorization of Job Training
Programs in the 109th Congress, by Blake Alan Naughton and Ann Lordeman.
63 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended
by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
Congressional Research Service
18
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
education agencies (SEAs) for the development of programs targeted to migrant students and
Title I-D (Neglected, Delinquent, or at Risk of Dropping Out Program) gives funding to LEAs
and SEAs to meet the special educational needs of youth in institutions and correctional facilities
for neglected and delinquent youth, as well as youth at risk of dropping out. Finally, Title I-H
(High School Dropout Program) targets grants to schools that serve grades 6 to 12 and have
annual dropout rates that are above the state average as well as middle schools that feed students
into such schools.
Other ESEA Programs
Titles III and IV of the ESEA also target disadvantaged youth. Title III (English Language
Acquisition Program) provides grant funding to states to ensure that limited English proficient
(LEP) children and youth, including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency.
The NCLBA has given SEAs and LEAs great flexibility in designing and administering
instructional programs, while at the same time focusing greater attention on the achievement of
English proficiency. Title IV-B (21st Century Community Learning Centers program) provides
competitive grants to LEAs for academic and other after-school programs. The purpose of the
program is to provide opportunities for academic enrichment to help students, particularly those
from low-income backgrounds, meet local and state academic achievement standards and
reinforce their regular academic instruction.
Programs Authorized Under HEA
Funding provided under the Higher Education Act (P.L. 89-329), as amended, is authorized
through FY2014. Foremost among HEA programs targeted to low-income, college-bound youth
are Trio and GEAR UP.64 The Migrant High School Equivalency program is another key
component of the HEA.
Trio Programs. Trio programs are designed to assist students from disadvantaged backgrounds to
pursue higher education and to complete their post-secondary studies.65 Five Trio programs
provide direct services to students and two provide indirect services.66 The five primary programs
are: Talent Search, Upward Bound, Educational Opportunity Centers, Student Support Services,
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement, and. Each of these programs is designed to
intervene at various points along the education continuum.
Talent Search, authorized under the original HEA legislation, encourages youth who have
completed at least five years of elementary education with college potential to complete high
school and enter postsecondary education; to encourage dropouts to reenter school; and to
disseminate information about available postsecondary educational assistance. Upward Bound
64 For additional information, see CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status and Issues, by Jeffrey J.
Kuenzi.
65 The precise definition of disadvantaged varies between the programs. It generally refers to individuals who are low-
income, first-generation college students, or disabled.
66 These two programs are the Staff Development program and Dissemination Partnership Grants program. The Staff
Development program supports training of current and prospective Trio staff. The Dissemination Partnership Grants
funds partnerships with institutions of higher education or community organizations not receiving Trio funds but that
serve first-generation and low-income college students.
Congressional Research Service
19
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
projects seek to motivate middle school and high school students to succeed in postsecondary
education through instruction and counseling, among other activities.
Educational Opportunity Centers provide information to prospective postsecondary students
regarding available financial aid and academic assistance, and help them apply to college. Student
Support Services projects are intended to improve college students’ retention and graduation
rates, and improve transfer rates from two-year to four-year colleges through instruction;
exposure to career options; mentoring; and assistance in graduate admissions and financial aid
processes. In selecting grantees, the Secretary of Education considers an institution’s efforts to
provide participants with aid sufficient to meet full financial needs and to constrain student debt.
Finally, the Robert E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement program prepares disadvantaged
students for post-doctoral study through seminars, research opportunities, summer internships,
tutoring, mentoring, and exposure to cultural events and academic programs.
GEAR UP. Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program (GEAR UP), a
program not part of the TRIO array of programs, was added to the HEA by the Higher Education
Act Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244). GEAR UP seeks to increase disadvantaged students’
secondary school completion and postsecondary enrollment by providing support services. GEAR
UP differs from Trio in two key aspects: the program (1) serves a cohort of students from seventh
grade to their first year of college and (2) assures students of the availability of financial aid to
meet college costs. States or partnerships (schools and at least two other entities, such as
community organizations and state agencies) are eligible for funding. Any funded state or
partnership must provide comprehensive mentoring, tutoring, counseling, outreach, and support
services to participating students. Participating states are also required to establish or maintain a
postsecondary college scholarship for participants; partnerships are permitted to include a
scholarship component.
Migrant High School Equivalency Program. The Migrant High School Equivalency Program,
authorized under HEA, funds institutions of higher education (or private nonprofits in
cooperation with institutions of higher education) to recruit and provide academic and support
services to students who lack a high school diploma and whose parents are engaged in migrant
and other seasonal farmwork. The purpose of the program is to assist students to obtain a high
school equivalency diploma and gain employment, or to attend college or another postsecondary
education or training program.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended by the No Child Left
Behind Act, is the major statute that provides federal funding for the education of children and
youth with disabilities.67 Part B of the act includes provisions for the education of school-aged
children. As a condition for the receipt of funds states must provide “free appropriate public
education” to youth as old as 21 (age may vary depending on state law). This term refers to the
right of all children with disabilities to receive an education and related services that meet state
curriculum requirements, at no costs to parents. Appropriateness is defined according to the
child’s individualized education plan (IEP) which delineates the special instruction the child
should receive and his or her educational goals.
67 For additional information, see CRS Report R41833, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part
B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions, by Ann Lordeman.
Congressional Research Service
20
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Education of Homeless Children
The McKinney-Vento Act (P.L. 100-77), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, authorizes
the Department of Education to fund LEAs to provide homeless children and youth comparable
educational services. With certain exceptions for health and safety emergencies (and for schools
permitted under a “grandfather” clause), states are prohibited from using funds for either a
separate school or separate program within the school.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Department of Justice
(DOJ) coordinates federal activities and administers programs relating to the treatment of juvenile
offenders and the prevention of juvenile delinquency. These programs include those enacted
under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act68
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was first enacted in 1974 (P.L. 90-
415) and was most recently reauthorized in 2002 by the 21st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273). Its provisions were authorized through FY2007.
The JJDPA as originally enacted had three main components: it created a set of institutions within
the federal government that were dedicated to coordinating and administering federal juvenile
justice efforts; it established grant programs to assist the states with setting up and running their
juvenile justice systems; and it promulgated core mandates that states had to adhere to in order to
be eligible to receive grant funding. While the JJDPA has been amended several times over the
past thirty years, it continues to feature the same three components. The major components of the
JJDPA are discussed below.
State Formula Grants.The JJDPA authorizes OJJDP to make formula grants to states which can
be used to fund the planning, establishment, operation, coordination, and evaluation of projects
for the development of more effective juvenile delinquency programs and improved juvenile
justice systems. Funds are allocated annually among the states on the basis of relative population
of people under the age of eighteen, and states must adhere to certain core mandates in order to be
eligible for funding.
Juvenile Mentoring Program. This grant program was repealed in 2002 by the 21st Century
Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (P.L. 107-273); however, it has continued to receive
appropriations each subsequent fiscal year.69 These grants could be awarded to local educational
agencies (in partnership with public or private agencies) to establish and support mentoring
programs.
Part E: Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New Initiatives and Programs
(Challenge Grants). The Challenge Grants program authorizes OJJDP to make grants to state,
68 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33947, Juvenile Justice: Legislative History and Current Legislative
Issues, by Kristin M. Finklea.
69 For additional information, see CRS Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues,
by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
Congressional Research Service
21
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
local, and Indian governments and private entities in order to carry out programs that will
develop, test, or demonstrate promising new initiatives that may prevent, control, or reduce
juvenile delinquency.
Title V Community Prevention Block Grants. The Community Prevention Block Grant program
authorizes OJJDP to make grants to states, that are then transmitted to units of local government,
in order to carry out delinquency prevention programs for juveniles who have come into contact
with, or are likely to come into contact with, the juvenile justice system.
Social Services
The major social service programs to assist at-risk youth are authorized under the Social Security
Act, as amended, and are administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS).70
Foster Care Program and Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP)
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act authorizes the federal foster care program.71 Under this
program, a state may seek federal funds for partial reimbursement of the room and board costs
needed to support eligible children who are neglected, abused, or who, for some other reason,
cannot remain in their own homes. To be eligible for Title IV-E, a child must be in the care and
responsibility of the state and 1) the child must meet income/assets tests and family structure
rules in the home he/she was removed from;72 2) have specific judicial determinations made
related to reasons for the removal and other aspects of his/her removal and placement; and 3) be
placed in an eligible licensed setting with an eligible provider(s).
The federal government has established certain requirements related to state provision of foster
care that are applicable to all children and youth in foster care. These include that a state has a
written case plan detailing, among other things, where the child is placed and what services are to
be provided to ensure that a permanent home is re-established for the child. Further, for each
child in foster care, this plan must be reviewed on a regular basis, including a review by a judge
no less often than every 12 months. For many youth who enter foster care, returning to their
parents is the way permanence is re-established. For some youth, however, it is not safe or
possible to reunite with their parents. In those cases states must work to find adoptive parents or
legal guardians who can provide a permanent home for these youth.
70 Two additional child welfare programs, Court Appointed Special Advocates and Children’s Advocacy Centers, are
discussed in the chart below. The programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Justice.
71 For additional information, see CRS Report RL31242, Child Welfare: Federal Program Requirements for States, by
Emilie Stoltzfus.
72 With an exception, discussed below, the income and asset tests, as well as family structure/living arrangement rules
are identical to the federal /state rules that applied to the now-defunct cash aid program, Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC), as they existed on July 16, 1996. Under the prior law AFDC program, states established
specific AFDC income rules (within some federal parameters). The federal AFDC asset limit was $1,000, however,
P.L. 106-169 raised the allowable counted asset limit to $10,000 for purposes of determining Title IV-E eligibility. In
addition to meeting the income/asset criteria in the home from which he/she was removed, a child must meet the AFDC
family structure/living arrangement rules. Those rules granted eligibility primarily to children in single-parent families
(parents are divorced, separated, or never-married and one spouse is not living with the child; or the parent is dead). In
some cases a child in a two-parent family may be eligible (if one parent meets certain unemployment criteria).
Congressional Research Service
22
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Foster youth who reach the “age of majority” (18 years in most states) and who have not been
reunited with their parents or placed with adoptive parents or guardians are said to “emancipate”
or “age out” of foster care. The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, created in 1999 (P.L.
106-169), required states to provide independent living services for youth until their 21st birthday
and those of any age in foster care who are expected to leave care without placement in a
permanent family.73 Services may consist of educational assistance, vocational training,
mentoring, preventive health activities, and counseling. States may dedicate as much as 30% of
their program funding toward room and board for youth ages 18 through 20. A separate
component of the CFCIP—the Education and Training Vouchers program—was established in
2002 (P.L. 107-133) to provide vouchers to youth eligible for the CFCIP and youth adopted from
foster care after 16 years of age. The vouchers are available for the cost of attendance at an
institution of higher education, as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.74 Only youth
receiving a voucher at age 21 may continue to participate in the voucher program until age 23.
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, established in 1974 under Title III of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, contains three components: the Basic Center Program
(BCP), Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach Program (SOP).75 These
programs are designed to provide services to runaway and homeless youth outside of the law
enforcement, juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental health systems. Services include
temporary and long-term shelter, counseling services, and referrals to social service agencies,
among other supports. The funding streams for the Basic Center Program and Transitional Living
Program were separate until Congress consolidated them in 1999 (P.L. 106-71). Together, the two
programs, along with other program activities, are known as the Consolidated Runaway and
Homeless Youth Program.76 Although the Street Outreach Program is a separately funded
component, SOP services are coordinated with those provided by the BCP and TLP.
Public Health
Public health programs for vulnerable youth are concentrated in the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).77 These programs address youth mental
health, substance abuse, teen pregnancy prevention, and support for pregnant and parenting teens.
73 For additional information, see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and
Federal Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
74 See Sections 102 and 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
75 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs,
by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
76 Other program activities include a national communications system for runaway youth and their families, logistical
support for grantee organizations, HHS’s National Clearinghouse on Families and Youth, demonstrations, and the
administration of the management information system that tracks data on runaway and homeless youth, known as
NEO-RHYMIS.
77 For additional information, see CRS Report R41477, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA): Agency Overview and Reauthorization Issues, by C. Stephen Redhead.
Congressional Research Service
23
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services
SAMSHA is organized into three units: the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), the
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
(CSAP). Collectively, the centers administer approximately 13 programs (not all discussed here
or in Table A-1) for youth ages 10 to 21 (and up to 25 for some programs). The programs
primarily target youth with serious emotional disturbances (SED) and youth at-risk of abusing
drugs and alcohol.
CMHS. Suicide prevention activities are funded by SAMHSA’s Campus Suicide Prevention Grant
Program and State-Sponsored Youth Suicide Prevention and Early Intervention Program
(collectively known as the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Suicide Prevention Program). The
campus grant program funds services for all students (including those with mental health
problems and substance abuse that makes them vulnerable to suicide), while the state-sponsored
program supports statewide and tribal activities to develop and implement youth suicide
prevention and intervention strategies.78
The Comprehensive Mental Health Services for Children with SED program provides
community-based systems of care for children and adolescents with serious emotional
disturbances and their families. The program aims to ensure that services are provided
collaboratively across youth-serving systems (such as schools and foster care placements) and
that each youth receives an individual service plan developed with the participation of the family
(and, where appropriate, the youth) to meet the mental health needs of that youth. A second
program, the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, was created to establish a national
network that provides services and referrals for children and adolescents who have experienced
traumatic events.
CSAT. The Assertive Adolescent and Family Treatment Program provides grants to states to
address gaps in substance abuse services for youth. The purpose of the program is to use proven
family-centered practices to treat drug addicted youth. This treatment model focuses on making
families and primary caregivers part of the treatment process on the basis of the belief that their
inclusion increases the likelihood of successful treatment and reintegration of adolescents into
their communities. Another program that provides treatment for youth who are drug dependent is
the Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts. This program targets juvenile offenders (pre-adjudicated or
adjudicated status, or post-detention), and provides substance abuse treatment, wrap-around
services supporting substance abuse treatment, and case management. A judge oversees the drug
treatment program and may allow the youth to avoid (further) penalties for their delinquent
behavior.
CSAP. The Strategic Prevention Framework State Infrastructure Grant provides funding to states
to implement strategies for preventing substance and alcohol abuse among adolescents and adults.
The grant implements a five-step process: 1) conduct a community needs assessment; 2) mobilize
and/or build capacity; 3) develop a comprehensive strategic plan; 4) implement evidence-based
prevention programs and infrastructure development activities; and 5) monitor process and
evaluate effectiveness. CSAP also administers, in cooperation with the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy, the “Drug-Free Communities Support Program” (see below).
78 Other SAMSHA funds are made available for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and training to organizations
and individuals developing suicide prevention programs.
Congressional Research Service
24
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Support Programs79
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administers research and education
programs to reduce teen pregnancy or to provide care services for pregnant and parenting
adolescents. An education program, Abstinence Education Grants, provides formula and
competitive grants for abstinence education. States may request funding for the Abstinence
Education Grants program when they solicit Maternal and Child Health block grant funds (used
for a variety of health services for women and children, including adolescent pregnancy
prevention activities); this funding must be used exclusively for the teaching of abstinence. From
FY2000 through FY2009, abstinence-only education for youth ages 12 to 18 was also funded
through HHS’s Community-Based Abstinence Education program (formerly known as Special
Programs of Regional and National Significance, SPRANS).
P.L. 111-148 (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA) established a state formula
grant program to enable states to operate a new Personal Responsibility Education Program
(PREP), which is a comprehensive approach to teen pregnancy prevention that educates
adolescents on both abstinence and contraception to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted
diseases. It also provides youth with information on several adulthood preparation subjects (e.g.,
healthy relationships, adolescent development, financial literacy, parent-child communication,
educational and career success, and healthy life skills). The new program is mandated to provide
programs that are evidence-based, medically accurate, and age-appropriate.
In addition to the education programs, HHS sponsored projects to increase awareness about teen
pregnancy and abstinence through FY2011 under the Adolescent Family Life Demonstration
Projects and Research Grants. These programs were designed to promote family involvement in
the delivery of services, adolescent premarital sexual abstinence, adoption as an alternative to
early parenting, parenting and child development education, and comprehensive health,
education, and social services geared toward the healthy development for mother and child. The
project program provided services to youth and the research and evaluation program evaluates the
delivery of those services.
National and Community Service80
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) is an independent federal agency
that administers programs authorized by two statutes: the National and Community Service Act
(NCSA, P.L. 101-610) of 1990, as amended, and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act (DVSA,
P.L. 93-113) of 1973, as amended.81 The focus of these programs is to provide public service to
communities in need through multiple service activities. Although CNCS works to involve a
diverse range of individuals in their programs, the agency makes particular efforts to engage
disadvantaged youth, either because they enroll these youth to help to carry out the programs (i.e.,
79 For additional information, see CRS Report RS20301, Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Statistics and Programs, by
Carmen Solomon-Fears.
80 This information was provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service in correspondence in March
and April 2008.
81 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33931, The Corporation for National and Community Service:
Overview of Programs and FY2012 Funding, by Abigail B. Rudman and Ann Lordeman, and CRS Report R40432,
Reauthorization of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973
(P.L. 111-13), by Ann Lordeman.
Congressional Research Service
25
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
members or volunteers) or provide services to them through the programs (i.e., beneficiaries).
CNCS’s strategic plan for 2011 through 2015 emphasizes the agency’s focus on improving the
lives of disadvantaged and other youth by leveraging national service programs to meet their most
pressing academic, health related, environmental, and social needs.82
The NCSA and DVSA were most recently reauthorized by the Serve America Act (P.L. 111-13),
which includes a definition of “disadvantaged youth.” A “disadvantaged youth” is an individual
who is economically disadvantaged and one or more of the following: out-of-school, including
out-of-school youth who are unemployed; in or aging out of foster care; has limited English
proficiency; homeless or who have run away from home; at-risk of leaving secondary school
without a diploma; former juvenile offenders or at risk of delinquency; or individuals with
disabilities. One of the programs discussed below requires a certain share of volunteers to be
disadvantaged youth.
The major CNCS programs are organized into two service streams, AmeriCorps and Senior
Corps.
AmeriCorps
AmeriCorps identifies and addresses critical community needs by tutoring and mentoring
disadvantaged youth, managing or operating after-school programs, helping communities respond
to disasters, improving health services, building affordable housing, and cleaning parks and
streams, among other services. There are three AmeriCorps programs: AmeriCorps State and
National, Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), and National Civilian Community Corps
(NCCC). For providing services full-time for a term of service (up to one year), AmeriCorps
members earn an education award equal to the maximum amount of a Pell Grant in the year in
which service is rendered (and proportionally less if they provide services for half-time, reduced
half-time, etc.).
AmeriCorps State and National program83 provides state formula and competitive grant funding
to governor-appointed state service commissions, which award grants to non-profit groups that
recruit AmeriCorps members to respond to local needs (AmeriCorps State). The balance of grant
funding is distributed competitively by CNCS to multi-state and national organizations
(AmeriCorps National), such as Teach for America, and to Indian tribes and territories. Some
grantees enroll members who are disadvantaged, such as YouthBuild USA, which recruits at-risk
youth ages 17 to 24 as members, to meet the housing and technology needs of their communities.
Other grantees place members in organizations and schools to serve disadvantaged youth in
grades K through 12 in after-school, before school, and enrichment programs.
The focus of VISTA84 is to strengthen efforts to eliminate poverty through volunteer service.
VISTA provides full-time members to non-profit community organizations and public agencies
through a non-competitive application process managed locally by CNCS State Offices. VISTA
supports projects that focus on serving disadvantaged youth beneficiaries, some of whom are
82 Corporation for National and Community Service, Strategic Plan 2011-2015, http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/
11_0203_cncs_strategic_plan.pdf.
83 The programs are also called AmeriCorps*State and National Direct by CNCS, and is titled National Service Trust
Programs in Title I-C of the NCSA.
84 This program is called AmeriCorps*VISTA by CNCS, and VISTA in Title I-A of DVSA.
Congressional Research Service
26
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
younger than age 12. These projects include mentoring, as well as after school, tutoring, and job
skills development programs. Although VISTA does not target any one population of youth, the
program has recently placed an emphasis on serving children of prisoners and youth aging out of
foster care.
Finally, NCCC85 is a residential program for youth 18 through 24. Members live and train at five
campuses and are deployed to serve communities in every state. Like the other two AmeriCorps
programs, members work closely with non-profit organizations and public agencies to meet
community needs. P.L. 111-13 requires that the percentage of participants in the program who are
disadvantaged youth increase over time.
Senior Corps
Senior Corps is composed of volunteers age 55 or older who help to meet a wide range of
community challenges through three programs: Foster Grandparents Program (FGP), Retired and
Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), and Senior Companion program. The first two provide
assistance in the community by working with children and youth with a variety of needs, among
other populations and activities. The FGP provides aid to children and youth with exceptional
needs, including children who have been abused or neglected or are otherwise at risk; mentors
troubled teenagers and young mothers; cares for premature infants and children with physical
disabilities; and teaches reading instruction to children who are falling behind their grade level.
RSVP provides a variety of services to communities. These services include tutoring children and
teenagers, renovating homes, and serving as museum docents. Grants for the Senior Corps
programs are awarded to non-profit organizations and public agencies. Upon successful
completion of a three-year grant cycle, the organization or agency is eligible to renew the grant
for another cycle without competition from other entities.
Federal Efforts to Improve Coordination Among
Programs for Vulnerable Youth
Overview
Despite the range of services and activities programs for vulnerable youth, many of these
programs appear to have developed with little attempt to coordinate them in a policy area or
across policy areas. Policymakers and youth advocates argue that federal agencies must develop
mechanisms to improve coordination—defined, at minimum, as communication and consultation.
They argue that coordination is necessary because of the expansion of programs that serve youth,
the increasing complexity and interrelated nature of public policies that affect youth, the
fragmentation of policy-making among agencies, and the establishment of new policy priorities
that cross older institutional boundaries.86
85 This program is called AmeriCorps*NCCC by CNCS, and the Civilian Community Corps in Title I-E of NCSA.
86 For additional information about rationales for coordination, see CRS Report RL31357, Federal Interagency
Coordinative Mechanisms: Varied Types and Numerous Devices, by Frederick M. Kaiser. For a discussion of federal
efforts to coordinate and integrate various social service programs, see CRS Report RL32859, The “Superwaiver”
Proposal and Service Integration: A History of Federal Initiatives, by Cheryl Vincent.
Congressional Research Service
27
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
The following section discusses federal efforts to improve coordination of youth programs. The
section first addresses laws and an executive order that have sought to spur coordination across
multiple government agencies. These laws include the Claude Pepper Young Americans Act (P.L.
101-501), YouthBuild Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281), and Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination
Act (P.L. 109-365); however, of the three, only the YouthBuild Transfer Act has been funded. In
2008, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13459 to establish an Interagency
Working Group on Youth Programs. Following this discussion is a description of efforts to
coordinate programs around specific youth topic areas and youth populations, such as through
coordinating councils and grant programs carried out by two or more agencies.
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501)
The Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (Title IX of the August F. Hawkins Human
Services Reauthorization Act, P.L. 101-501) was the first in recent history to address youth
coordination issues; however, the law was never funded. P.L. 101-501 sought to increase federal
coordination among agencies that administer programs for children and youth, while also
enhancing the delivery of social services to children, youth, and their families through improved
coordination at the state and local levels.87 In its report supporting the act’s coordinating
provisions, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee noted:88
The Committee is concerned that the current system of service is fragmented and disjointed,
making it difficult, if not impossible for children and families who are being served in one
system to access needed services from another. This creates a situation in which problems of
children and families not only go unmet but undetected and unresolved. Through the
inclusion of these proposals, the Committee hopes to articulate a national commitment to our
nation’s children, youth, and families and to encourage greater cooperation at federal, state,
and local levels.
Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families
The Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families was authorized by the Young Americans
Act to address concerns about the fragmentation and duplication of services for youth at the
federal and local levels. The act provided that the council comprise representatives from federal
agencies and state or local agencies that serve youth, rural and urban populations; and national
organizations with an interest in young individuals, families, and early childhood. The duties of
the council were to include 1) advising and assisting the president on matters relating to the
special needs of young individuals (and submitting a report to the president in FY1992 through
FY1998); 2) reviewing and evaluating federal policies, programs, or other activities affecting
youth and identifying duplication of services for these youth; and 3) making recommendations to
the President and Congress to streamline services, reduce duplication of services, and encourage
coordination of services for youth and their families at the state and local levels. The act was
amended in 1994 (P.L. 103-252) to require that the council also identify program regulations,
practices, and eligibility requirements that impede coordination and collaboration and make
87 For further discussion of concerns with coordination at the state and local levels and local initiatives to improve
coordination in the early 1990s, see CRS Report 96-369, Linking Human Services: An Overview of Coordination and
Integration Efforts, by Ruth Ellen Wasem (out of print). The report is available upon request at x7-5700.
88 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Human Services Reauthorization Act, report to
accompany P.L. 101-501, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 101-421 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1990), p. 1963.
Congressional Research Service
28
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
recommendations for their modifications or elimination. Though the council was to be funded
through FY1998, funding was never appropriated.
Grants for States and Community Programs
The Young Americans Act also established grant funding for coordinating resources and
providing comprehensive services to children, youth, and families at the state and local levels.
For states to receive funding, the act required each state to submit a plan discussing how state and
local entities would coordinate developmental, preventative, and remedial services, among other
provisions. This grant program was never funded.
More Recent Concerns about Coordination of Youth Programs
In addition to the programs described in Table A-1, dozens of other programs in multiple federal
agencies target, even in small part, vulnerable youth. The U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) cataloged 131 programs for at-risk or delinquent youth across 16 agencies in FY1996.
GAO defined these youth as individuals age five to 24 who, due to certain characteristics or
experiences, were statistically more likely than other youth to encounter certain problems—legal,
social, financial, educational, emotional, and health—in the future.89 The White House Task Force
for Disadvantaged Youth, convened in 2002 under President George W. Bush, compiled a similar
list of over 300 programs for disadvantaged youth (using nearly the same definition as GAO) in
12 agencies for FY2003 targeting vulnerable youth and youth generally.90 In its October 2003
final report, the task force identified concerns with coordinating these programs:
• Mission Fragmentation: The federal response to disadvantaged youth is an
example of “mission fragmentation” because dozens of youth programs appear to
provide many of the same services and share similar goals. For example,
academic support was identified as a service provided by 92 programs and
mentoring was identified as a service provided by 123 such programs, in
FY2003.
• Poor Coordination for Sub-Groups of Youth: According to the task force, the
federal government does not coordinate services for specific groups of youth
(i.e., abused/neglected youth, current or former foster youth, immigrant youth,
minority youth, obese youth, urban youth, and youth with disabilities, among
others). The task force report listed 30 sub-groups of vulnerable youth, with each
sub-group receiving services through at least 50 programs administered by 12
agencies. The report cited that each agency operates their programs
autonomously and is not required to coordinate services with other agencies.
89 U.S. General Accounting Office, At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise Efficiency
Questions, GAO/HEHS-96-34, March 1996, at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/he96034.pdf. (GAO is now known as
the U.S. Government Accountability Office.)
90 The programs provide services such as: academic support; support for adults who work with youth; after-school
programs; AIDS prevention activities; counseling; mental health services; mentoring; self-sufficiency skills; tutoring;
and violence and crime prevention. See Executive Office of the President, White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth Final Report, October 2003, pp. 165-179, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/
white_house_task_force.pdf. (Hereinafter White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final Report.)
Congressional Research Service
29
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
• Mission Creep: Known as “mission creep,” multiple agencies are authorized by
broadly-written statute to provide similar services to the same groups of youth
despite having distinct agency goals and missions. Though youth programs are
concentrated in the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Service,
and Justice, nine other agencies administer at least two youth-focused programs:
Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation,
Corporation for National and Community Service, Defense, Office of Drug
Control Policy, and Environmental Protection Agency.
• Limited Program Accountability: The extent of overlap among youth programs
and the efficacy of these programs are difficult to determine because some of
them have not been recently assessed through the Office of Management and
Budget’s Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART) or by an independent
program evaluation. As of FY2003, more than half of the 339 youth-related
programs identified by the task force had not been evaluated within the last five
years. Of those programs that were evaluated, 75% were evaluated independently
and the remaining programs were self-evaluated by the grantees. According to
the task force, the quality of the evaluations was low because most did not
randomly assign some youth to the programs and track their progress against
similarly-situated youth not in the program.
• Funding Streams that Reduce Accountability: The funding streams for youth
programs affect their oversight. More than 300 youth projects received
earmarked appropriations (not necessarily from an account in a federal youth
program) in FY2003, totaling $206.2 million. According to the report, earmarked
projects do not have the same level of accountability as discretionary and
mandatory programs. The report also raised concerns that programs in needy
communities may be overlooked through the earmark process.
Congress has also examined challenges to coordinating programs targeted to certain groups of
youth. In a May 2004 hearing, the Government Reform Committee examined redundancy and
duplication in federal child welfare programs.91
Youth Build Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281)
The Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth identified several programs, including YouthBuild, that
were located in a federal department whose mission does not provide a clear and compelling
reason for locating them within that agency. As such, the task force recommended that
YouthBuild be transferred from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to the
U.S. Department of Labor because of DOL’s mission of administering workforce and training
programs.92 As discussed above, the YouthBuild program provides educational services and job
training in construction for low-income youth ages 16 to 24 who are not enrolled in school. On
September 22, 2006 the YouthBuild Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281), authorizing the transfer of the
program from HUD to DOL, was signed into law. The program is now funded under the
Workforce Investment Act.
91 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Redundancy and Duplication in Federal Child Welfare
Programs: A Case Study on the Need for Executive Reorganization Authority, hearing, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., May 20,
2004 (Washington: GPO, 2004), available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/chearings/108hcat1.html.
92 White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final Report, pp. 33-34.
Congressional Research Service
30
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365)
In response to the concerns generally raised by the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth, Congress passed the Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (Title VIII of the Older
Americans Act, P.L. 109-365), which created the Federal Youth Development Council and
specified that it would be chaired by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. The Council was authorized for FY2007 and FY2008, but was not ultimately
established. Funds were not appropriated for these years. However, on February 7, 2008,
President Bush signed Executive Order 13459 to establish an Interagency Working Group on
Youth Programs, discussed below, to improve coordination of youth policy.93
Although not explicitly stated in P.L. 109-365, the purpose of the legislation appeared to be
twofold: to improve coordination across federal agencies that administer programs for vulnerable
youth and to assist federal agencies with evaluating these programs. Table 1 describes the duties
of the Council that were discussed in the law to meet these two goals. Prior to the passage of the
law, policymakers and advocates asserted that the council could help to improve policy
effectiveness by reducing the duplication of effort and working at cross-purposes, while
integrating distinct but reinforcing responsibilities among relatively autonomous agencies.94 They
argued that the council could improve accountability of various federal components by
consolidating review and reporting requirements. Other duties of the council that are not listed in
the table, include providing technical assistance to states to support a state-funded council for
coordinating state youth efforts, at a state’s request, and coordinating with other federal, state, and
local coordinating efforts to carry out its duties.
The law specified that the council coordinate with three existing interagency bodies: the Federal
Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, the Interagency Council on Homelessness, and
the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (The legislation did
not describe how the council should coordinate with these other bodies. For further information
on the Coordinating Council, see below.) Further, the law required that the council provide
Congress with an interim report within one year after the council’s first meeting, as well as a final
report not later than two years after the council’s first meeting. The final report was to include (1)
a comprehensive list of recent research and statistical reporting by various federal agencies on the
overall well-being of youth; (2) the assessment of the needs of youth and those who serve youth;
(3) a summary of the plan in coordinating to achieve the goals and objectives for federal youth
programs; (4) recommendations to coordinate and improve federal training and technical
assistance, information sharing, and communication among federal programs and agencies; (5)
recommendations to better integrate and coordinate policies across federal, state, and local levels
of government, including any recommendations the chair determines appropriate for legislation
and administrative actions; (6) a summary of the actions taken by the council at the request of
federal agencies to facilitate collaboration and coordination on youth serving programs and the
results of those collaborations, if available; (7) a summary of the action the council has taken at
93 Executive Order 13459. “Improving the Coordination and Effectiveness of Youth Programs.” Federal Register, vol.
73 (February 7, 2008), pp. 8003-8005.
94 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Select Education,
Coordination Among Federal Youth Development Programs, hearing 109th Cong., 1st sess., July 12, 2005, statements of
Rep. Tom Osborne and Marguerite W. Sallee, Alliance for Youth (Washington: GPO, 2005), available at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/chearings/109hcat1.html.
Congressional Research Service
31
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
the request of states to provide technical assistance; and (8) a summary of the input and
recommendations by disadvantaged youth, community-based organizations, among others.
Table 1. Duties of the Federal Youth Development Council, by Goal
Goal: To Improve Coordination
Goal: To Assess Youth Programs
—Ensure communication among agencies administering
—In coordination with the Federal Interagency Forum
programs for disadvantaged youth;
on Child and Family Statistics, assess (1) the needs of
youth, especially those in disadvantaged situations, and
—Identify possible areas of overlap or duplication in the
those who work with youth; and (2) the quality and
purpose and operation of programs serving youth and
quantity of federal programs offering services,
recommending ways to better facilitate the coordination
supports, and opportunities to help youth in their
and consultation among such programs;
development;
—Identify target populations of youth who are
—Recommend quantifiable goals and objectives for
disproportionately at risk and assist agencies in focusing
federal programs to assist disadvantaged youth;
additional resources on such youth;
—Make recommendations for the allocation of
—Assist federal agencies, at the request of one or more
resources in support of such goals and objectives;
agencies, in collaborating on (1) model programs and
demonstration projects focusing on special populations,
—Develop a plan (that is consistent with the common
including youth in foster care and migrant youth; (2)
indicators of youth well-being tracked by the Federal
projects to promote parental involvement; and (3)
Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics) to
projects that work to involve young people in service
assist federal agencies (at the request of one or more
programs;
such agencies) coordinate to achieve quantifiable goals
and objectives;
—Solicit and document ongoing input and
recommendations from (1) youth, especial y youth in
—Work with federal agencies (1) to promote high-
disadvantaged situations; (2) national youth development
quality research and evaluation, identify and replicate
experts, researchers, parents, community-based
model programs and promising practices, and provide
organizations, foundations, business leaders, youth
technical assistance relating to the needs of youth; and
service providers, and teachers; and (3) state and local
(2) to coordinate the col ection and dissemination of
government agencies.
youth services-related data and research.
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), on the basis of language in P.L. 109-365.
Executive Order 13459
On February 7, 2008, President Bush signed Executive Order 13459 to establish an Interagency
Working Group on Youth Programs (hereinafter, Working Group). In the order, President Bush
cited the success of the interagency collaboration that resulted from the Helping America’s Youth
(HAY) initiative as the impetus for creating an Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs.
HAY was a national initiative, led by Laura Bush, to promote positive youth development by
raising awareness about the challenges facing youth and motivating caring adults to connect with
youth through forums and an online resource.95 This online resource, known as the Community
Action Guide, sought to help communities assess their needs and resources and link them to
effective programs to help youth. This tool was created in partnership with nine federal agencies.
The Working Group was convened in 2008. Pursuant to the executive order, the working group
consists of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human
Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Labor; the Office of National Drug
Control Policy; and the Corporation for National and Community Service. Many of the federal
95 For additional information, see http://www.helpingamericasyouth.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
32
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
career staff members involved in HAY participate in the Working Group. The primary functions
of the working group, as specified in the executive order, include (1) identifying and engaging
key government and private or nonprofit organizations that can play a role in improving the
coordination and effectiveness of programs serving and engaging youth, such as faith-based and
other community organizations; (2) developing a new federal website on youth, built upon HAY’s
Community Guide,96 (3) encouraging all youth-serving federal and state agencies, communities,
grantees, and organizations to adopt high standards for assessing program results, including
through the use of rigorous impact evaluations, as appropriate; and (4) reporting to the President
on its work and on the implementation of any recommendations arising from its work.
Congress has appropriated funds for the Working Group in one year since the group was
established. The Working Group received $1 million in FY2009 through the HHS appropriation
to be used for soliciting input from young people, state children’s cabinet directors, and nonprofit
organizations on youth programs; developing an “overarching strategic plan for federal youth
policy,” and “recommendation to improve the coordination, effectiveness, and efficiency of
programs affecting youth.”97 From May to December 2010, the Working Group convened
listening sessions in 10 communities throughout the United States to solicit input from
stakeholders, including youth, about the plan.98 In August and October 2010, the Working Group
held meetings, at HHS, to solicit information from the public on the strategic plan.99 In December
2010, the Working Group published a draft of the strategic plan in the Federal Register and asked
for public comments.100 The Working Group has since developed a framework to guide
development of the plan, which focuses on three overarching outcomes for youth up to the age of
24: health, safety, and wellness; school, family, and community engagement and connections; and
education, training, employment, transitions, and readiness for careers and adulthood.101
Comparison of the Federal Youth Development Council and the Interagency
Working Group
Major differences between the Federal Youth Development Council and the Interagency Working
Group, as expressed in the law and executive order, appear to be their leadership structures,
membership, and some of their duties. Under both the Federal Youth Development Council and
Interagency Working Group, the HHS Secretary is to serve as chair. As part of the Working
Group, the Secretary has the discretion to designate other agency heads as the chair and vice chair
after two years, and biennially thereafter. Although the Federal Youth Development Council was
96 The website has been established at http://www.findyouthinfo.org.
97 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Division F of committee print to accompany the Omnibus
Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105), 111th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2009).
98 For further information, see Working Group on Youth Programs, “Strategic Plan,” http://www.findyouthinfo.gov/
spotlight_strategicPlan.shtml.
99 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
“Public Meeting To Solicit Input for a Strategic Plan for Federal Youth Policy,” 75 Federal Register 154, August 11,
2010; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, “Public Meeting To Solicit Input for a Strategic Plan for Federal Youth Policy,” 75 Federal Register 190,
October 1, 2010.
100 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
“Input for a Strategic Plan for Federal Youth Policy,” 75 Federal Register 244, December 21, 2010.
101 For further information, see Working Group on Youth Programs, “Strategic Plan,” http://www.findyouthinfo.gov/
spotlight_strategicPlan.shtml.
Congressional Research Service
33
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
authorized for a two-year period (FY2007 and FY2008), the executive order does not specify a
date that the Working Group should be terminated.
The Development Council would have likely been funded through an appropriation to HHS,
whereas the Working Group is funded by several agencies. Further, the authorization for the two
entities identified distinct, but overlapping memberships. The Council was authorized to include
representatives from outside organizations and groups, and the President would have been
required to consult with Congress about these appointments. In contrast, the Working Group
consists exclusively of federal staff. Finally, the two bodies have some distinct duties, as specified
in the law and executive order. Unlike the Working Group, the Council was charged with
assessing the needs of youth and those who work with youth to promote positive youth
development; recommending quantifiable goals and objectives for youth-serving programs; and
advising on the allocation of resources in support of these goals and objectives. And unlike the
Council, the Working Group is directed to create a new federal website on youth that provides
training to youth-serving entities and to develop and disseminate strategies to reduce the factors
that put youth at risk.
Despite these differences, the functions of the Council and Working Group, as described in law
and E.O. 13459, respectively, are similar. Both bodies were directed to improve coordination and
collaboration among federal agencies. For example, the law specifies that one of the duties of the
Council was to ensure communication among the agencies; to assist federal agencies in
collaborating on model programs, such as those involving special populations and projects to
promote parental involvement; and to coordinate with federal interagency entities, including the
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Likewise, the Working
Group is charged with identifying and promoting initiatives and activities that merit strong
interagency collaboration because of their potential to offer cost-effective solutions, including
mentoring, in concert with the Federal Mentoring Council. The Working Group is actively
working with other partnerships as well.
The law and executive order also direct the two bodies to identify and disseminate information
about promising youth programs. The law specifies that the Council should work with federal
agencies to “promote high-quality research and evaluation, identify and replicate model programs
and promising practices, and provide technical assistance relating to the needs of youth.”
Similarly, the executive order directs the Working Group to encourage various levels of
government and organizations to adopt “high standards for assessing program results ... so that
effective practices can be identified and replicated.” The role of the Working Group’s website is
to disseminate promising practices and to provide technical assistance to youth-serving
organizations and partnerships.
Finally, the executive order appears broad enough to permit the Working Group to take on some
of the functions that were specified for the Council, such as identifying target populations of
youth who are disproportionately at risk for negative outcomes; supporting initiatives that target
certain populations of youth, such as migrant youth or youth in foster care; and soliciting and
documenting ongoing input and recommendations from youth, national youth development
experts, researchers, community-based organizations, state and local governments, and other
stakeholders.
Congressional Research Service
34
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Federal Initiatives to Improve Coordination
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
The Coordinating Council (Council) on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was
established by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) and is
administered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. The Council’s primary functions are to coordinate federal programs and policies
concerning juvenile delinquency prevention, unaccompanied juveniles, and missing and exploited
children. The Council is led by the Attorney General and the Administrator of OJJDP and
includes the heads of all the federal agencies that touch on these broad areas, including the
Secretary of Health and Human Services; the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary of Education; the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; the Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy; the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community
Service; and the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization (now the Commissioner of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
In recent years, the Council has broadened its focus to other at-risk youth. The Council is seeking
to implement some of the recommendations made by the Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth,
including (1) improve coordination of mentoring programs; (2) develop a unified protocol for
federal best practices clearinghouses; (3) build a rigorous and unified disadvantaged youth
research agenda; (4) improve data collection on the well-being of families; (5) increase parents’
involvement in federal youth programs; (6) target youth in public care; (7) target youth with many
risk factors; and (8) expand mentoring programs to special target groups, among other
recommendations.102
Shared Youth Vision Initiative
In response to the recommendations made by the Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, the U.S.
Departments of Education Health and Human Services, Justice, and Labor, and the Social
Security Administration partnered to improve communication and collaboration across programs
that target at-risk youth groups under an initiative called the “Shared Youth Vision . The agencies
convened an Interagency Work Group and conducted regional forums in 16 states to develop and
coordinate policies and research on the vulnerable youth population. Representatives from federal
and state agencies in workforce development, education, social services, and juvenile justice have
participated in the forums. The purpose of these forums was to create and implement plans to
improve communication and collaboration between local organizations that serve at-risk youth.
The department competitively awarded grants totaling $1.6 million to these states to assist them
in developing strategic plans to link their systems that serve youth. For example, Arizona is using
this initiative to bring together state and county agencies that can assist youth exiting foster care
or the juvenile justice system in two counties connect to education and employment services and
supports.103 The Department of Health and Human Services has funded a solutions desk,
102 U.S. Department of Justice, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Report of
Activities and Recommendations to Congress, 2001-2008, September 2008, http://www.juvenilecouncil.gov/reports/
1_13_2009/Final%20Council%20Report%202008—12%2030%2008%20.pdf.
103 For additional information about the programs in each state, see http://www.doleta.gov/ryf/Resources/
TechnicalAssistanceForum.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
35
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
administered by the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development, to provide
the 16 states a single point of access to information on federal resources available to assist them
in implementing Shared Youth Vision activities.
Federal Mentoring Council104
The chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service and the
Commissioner of HHS’s Family and Youth Services Bureau chair the Federal Mentoring Council
(“Council”), which consists of the leadership teams of eight federal agencies with multiple youth-
focused programs. The Council was created in 2006 to address the ways these agencies can
combine resources and training and technical assistance to federally administered mentoring
programs and to serve as a clearinghouse on federal mentoring. A national working group
composed of leading mentoring experts and practitioners (including the chief executive officers
of MENTOR, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the Boys and Girls Club, and America’s
Promise, among others) advises and shares effective mentoring practices with the Council. Since
the Council was convened, it has met quarterly.
The Council’s website, http://www.federalmentoringcouncil.gov, includes research from
practitioners in the mentoring field and lists grant opportunities for mentoring. The Council does
not have a designated funding source, although staff at HHS, CNCS, and the other agencies
commit time to serving on the Council and carrying out its activities. When funding has been
required to implement their initiatives, such as the website, member agencies contribute funding
as they are able.
Child Welfare Partnerships
HHS’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the agency that carries out most federal
child welfare programs, has partnered with other agencies to focus on the mental health and
educational needs of children in foster care. ACF is coordinating with the Centers on Medicare
and Medicaid (CMS) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), both agencies at HHS, to “support effective management” of prescription
medication for children in foster care, and they have called on their state counterparts to do the
same. Further, CMS, ACF, and SAMHSA convened state directors of child welfare, Medicaid,
and mental health agencies in August 2012 to address use of psychotropic medications for
children in foster care as well as the mental health needs of children who have experienced
maltreatment. In a letter to states about their joint work, the three federal agencies said that “State
Medicaid/CHIP agencies and mental health authorities play a significant role in providing
continuous access to and receipt of quality mental health services for children in out-of-home
care. Therefore it is essential that State child welfare, Medicaid, and mental health authorities
collaborate in any efforts to improve health, including medication use and prescription
monitoring structures in particular.”105
104 For additional information, see CRS Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues,
by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
105 George Sheldon, Acting Assistant Secretary, ACF; Donald Berwick, Administrator, CMS; and Pamela Hyde,
Administrator, SAMHSA, to “State Director,” November 23, 2011, http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/
mentalhealth/effectiveness/jointlettermeds.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
36
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Separately, ACF has partnered with the Department of Education (ED) in an effort to improve the
educational outcomes of youth in foster care. ACF and ED convened a meeting in 2011 with state
child welfare, education, and juvenile court officials for every state, Washington, DC, and Puerto
Rico. The purpose of the meeting was to encourage collaboration across these different systems
as a way to ensure that youth are continuously enrolled in school and that schools are meeting the
needs of these youth. The jurisdictions worked on action plans to implement strategies for
collaboration, and they continue to implement these plans.106
Partnerships for Youth Transition
HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and ED’s Office
of Special Education are cosponsoring a program, that began in FY2003, to offer long-term
support to young people between the ages of 14 and 25 with serious emotional disorders and
emerging serious mental illnesses. The program is intended to assist youth transitioning to the
adult system of medical care, while continuing to receive educational services. One of the
program’s goals is to develop models of comprehensive youth transition services that can be
evaluated for their effectiveness.107 An evaluation of the program suggests that it has contributed
to positive outcomes for youth, particularly in the areas of education and employment.108
Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative109
From FY1999 through the present, HHS, ED, and DOJ have provided joint grant funding for the
Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative to reduce violence and drug abuse at schools (K-12) and
in communities. Local education agencies—in partnership with local law enforcement, public
mental health, and juvenile justice entities—apply for SS/HS funding. The initiative sponsors
projects in schools and communities that 1) provide a safe school environment; 2) offer alcohol-,
other drug -, and violence-prevention activities and early intervention for troubled students; 3)
offer school and community mental health preventative and treatment intervention programs; 4)
offer early childhood psychosocial and emotional development programs; 5) support and connect
schools and communities; and 6) support safe-school policies.
Examples of programs for youth K through 12th grade include after-school and summer tutoring
programs; recreational activities such as chess club; volunteering; and coordinated social service
and academic activities for youth at risk of engaging in delinquent behavior, including mental
health care services, peer mentoring, and parent workshops.
106 For further information, see Hunter College, Silberman School of Social Work, National Resource Center for
Permanency and Family Connections, “Child Welfare, Education, and the Courts: A Collaboration to Strengthen
Educational Success of Children and Youth in Foster Care,” http://www.nrcpfc.org/education_summit/index.html.
107 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Transition to Adulthood: SAMHSA Helps Vulnerable
Youth, SAMHSA News, vol. XI, no. 1 (2003).
108 Mason G. Haber, Arun Karpur, Nicole Deschenes, and Hewitt B. Clark, Predicting Improvement of Transitioning
Youth People in the Partnerships for Youth Transition Initiative: Findings From a Multisite Demonstration, The
Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, vol. 35, no. 4 (October 2008).
109 For additional information, see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Administration, “Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SSHS) Initiative,” http://www.sshs.samhsa.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
37
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Drug-Free Communities Support Program110
The Drug-Free Communities Support Program is administered by SAMSHA and the White
House Office of National Drug Control Policy (which has entered into an agreement with OJJDP
to manage the program on behalf of the agency). The program awards grants to community
coalitions through a competitive grant award process. The program is intended to strengthen the
capacity of the coalitions to reduce substance abuse among youth (and adults) and to disseminate
timely information on best practices for reducing substance abuse.
Policies to Promote Positive Youth Development
Overview
Some youth advocates argue that expanding programs for youth and providing mechanisms to
coordinate these programs should be part of a larger effort to improve youth outcomes. This effort
builds on the positive youth development approach (discussed above) that views youth as assets,
in contrast to deficit-based models which focus primarily on specific youth problems.
Federal legislation and initiatives have been framed through the youth development philosophy
with the goal of providing resources and guidance to communities and youth-focused programs
that engage young people in roles as full participants in the work place, community, and society at
large. Major legislation with a positive youth approach has included the Youth Development
Community Block Grant of 1995 (H.R. 2807/S. 673) and the Younger Americans Act of 2001
(H.R. 17/S. 1005), both of which did not pass out of committee.
Youth Development Community Block Grant of 1995
(H.R. 2807/S. 673)
The Youth Development Community Block Grant (YDCBG) of 1995 (H.R. 2807/S. 673)
proposed to consolidate nearly two dozen federal youth programs administered by the U.S.
Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice. The purpose of the
legislation was to shift from a system of categorical programs that targeted the problems of
certain sub-populations of youth (i.e., pregnant youth, youth abusing drugs) to one that promoted
all aspects of youth development. At hearings on the legislation in the House and Senate,
Members of Congress, community leaders, and youth advocates discussed the need to support
comprehensive community services for youth. J.C. Watts, a co-sponsor of the legislation,
testified:
Because high risk behaviors are often interrelated, programs must consider the overall
development of individual youngsters rather than focusing on one problem in isolation. Our
current system of narrowly defined, categorical programs is rather like the pieces of a jigsaw
puzzle scattered over a card table. The YDCBG puts these pieces together.111
110 For additional information, see Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy,
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/dfc/.
111 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
38
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
The YDBCG Act did not prescribe specific activities or program types for which the funds were
to be used. Rather, the legislation would have required states to submit a plan to HHS that
outlined their youth development priorities. Funding would have flowed to local community
boards, which would have tailored local YDCBG programs to community needs, consistent with
the goals of these plans. Funding from the block grant could only supplement, and not supplant,
existing funds for youth development programs and activities.
The block grant was to be based on three equally weighted formula factors: the proportion of the
nation’s total youth (defined as ages 6 to 17) that reside in each state; proportion of the nation’s
poor youth (defined as youth from low-income families) that reside in each state; and the average
incidence of juvenile crime during the most recent four-year period. This $900 million proposed
grant would have been funded through the programs that were be eliminated, with a 10% overall
reduction.
The legislation was referred out of committee in both the House and Senate, but was not taken up
again.
Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005)
The goal of the Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005) was to create a national youth
policy that would have funded a network of youth programs through a central funding source,
based loosely on the framework of the Older Americans Act.112 Similar to its predecessor, the
YDCBGA, the Younger Americans Act sought to provide resources to youth consisting of (1)
ongoing relationships with caring adults; (2) safe places with structured activities; (3) access to
services that promote healthy lifestyles, including those designed to improve physical and mental
health; (4) opportunities to acquire marketable skills and competencies; and (5) opportunities for
community service and civic participation.
If passed, HHS would have distributed block grant funds to states according to a formula that
accounted for their proportion of the nation’s youth ages 10 to 19 and the proportion of youth
receiving a free or reduced-price school lunch. States would have then distributed funds to local
area agencies on youth, which were to be supervised by community boards comprised of youth,
representatives of youth-serving organizations, representatives of local elected officials, parents,
and leaders of social and educational institutions in the community. Local youth organizations
could apply to the community service board for funding to carry out program activities such as
character development and ethical enrichment activities; mentoring activities; provision and
support of community youth centers; and nonschool hours, weekend, and summer programs and
camps, among other activities. HHS would have also set aside funding for evaluations of these
programs.
The Younger Americans Act proposed to fund the program at $500 million the first year,
increasing to $2 billion in its fifth year. The legislation did not pass committee in the House or
Senate.
(...continued)
Youth, and Families, Youth Development, hearing, 104th Cong., 1st sess., September 19, 1996.
112 The Older Americans Act is the major vehicle for the delivery of social and nutritional services for older persons.
Congressional Research Service
39
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Conclusion
This report provided an overview of the vulnerable youth population and examined the federal
role in supporting these youth. Although a precise number of vulnerable youth cannot be
aggregated (and should not be, due to data constraints), these youth are generally concentrated
among seven groups: youth “aging out” of foster care, runaways and homeless youth, juvenile
justice-involved youth, immigrant youth and youth with limited English proficiency (LEP), youth
with physical and mental disabilities, youth with mental disorders, and youth receiving special
education. Each of these categories is comprised of youth with distinct challenges and
backgrounds; however, many of these youth share common experiences, such as unstable home
and neighborhood environments, coupled with challenges in school. Without protective factors in
place, vulnerable youth may have difficulty transitioning to adulthood. Detachment from the
labor market and school—or disconnectedness—is perhaps the single strongest indicator that the
transition has not been made adequately. Despite the negative forecast for the employment and
education prospects of vulnerable youth, some youth experience positive outcomes in adulthood.
Youth who develop strong cognitive, emotional, and vocational skills, among other types of
competencies, have greater opportunities to reach their goals. Advocates for youth promote the
belief that all youth have assets and can make valuable contributions to their communities despite
their challenges.
The federal government has not developed a single overarching policy or program to assist
vulnerable youth, like the Older Americans Act program for the elderly. Since the 1960s, a
number of programs, many operating in isolation from others, have worked to address the specific
needs (i.e., vocational, educational, social services, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention,
and health) of these youth. More recently, policymakers have taken steps toward a more
comprehensive federal response to the population. The YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2006 moved
the YouthBuild program from HUD to DOL because the program is more aligned with DOL’s
mission of administering workforce and training programs. Also in 2006, the Tom Obsborne
Youth Coordination Act was passed to improve coordination across federal agencies that
administer programs for vulnerable youth and to assist federal agencies with evaluating these
programs. In February 2008, President Bush signed an executive order establishing a federal
Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs. Other coordinating efforts, such as the
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Shared Youth Vision
initiative, may have the resources and leadership to create a more unified federal youth policy,
albeit the Council has a primary focus on juvenile justice-involved youth.
In addition to the Federal Youth Coordination Act, the few youth-targeted acts over the past ten
years have not passed or have passed without full implementation. The unfunded Claude Pepper
Young Americans Act of 1990 sought to increase coordination among federal children and youth
agencies by creating a Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families that would have
streamlined federal youth programs and advised the president on youth issues. Similarly, federal
legislation reflecting a youth development philosophy, with the goal of providing resources to
youth and engaging young people in their communities, has not been reported out of committee.
The 1995 Youth Development Community Block Grant and 2001 Younger Americans Act would
have provided grant funding to the states with the greatest concentrations of low-income youth to
provide resources, such as mentors and opportunities for community service and civic
participation.
Congressional Research Service
40
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Though federal legislation targeted at vulnerable young people has not been passed or
implemented in recent years, Executive Order 13459 and current collaborations (Share Youth
Vision and the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) appear to
have begun addressing, even in small measure, the needs of this population.
Congressional Research Service
41
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Appendix. Federal Youth Programs and Relevant CRS Reports and Experts
Table A-1. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Job Training and Workforce Development
Job Corps
Workforce Investment
To assist eligible youth who
FY2006: $1.6 billion
U.S. Department of
Youth ages 16 to 21 (with
Act of 1998, as amended need and can benefit from an
FY2007: $1.6 billion
Labor
exceptions) who are either low-
intensive workforce
FY2008: $1.6 billion
income, basic skills deficient, a school
29 U.S.C. §2881 et seq.
development program,
FY2009: $1.7 billion
dropout, homeless, a runaway, or a
operated in a group setting in
(plus $250,000 under
foster child, a parent or an individual
residential and nonresidential
P.L. 111-5)
who requires additional education,
centers, to become more
FY2010: $1.7 billion
vocational training, or intensive
responsible, employable, and
FY2011: $1.7 billion
counseling and related assistance to
productive citizens.
FY2012: $1.7 billion
participate successfully in regular
schoolwork or to secure and hold
employment.
WIA Youth Activities Workforce Investment
To provide services to eligible FY2006: $941 million
U.S. Department of
Youth ages 14 to 21 who are low-
Act of 1998, as amended youth seeking assistance in
FY2007: $941 million
Labor
income and either deficient in basic
achieving academic and
FY2008: $924 million
literacy skills, a school dropout,
29 U.S.C. §2851 et seq.
employment success,
FY2009: $924 million
homeless, a runaway, a foster child,
including the provision of
(plus $1.2 billion under
pregnant, a parent, an offender, or an
mentoring, support services,
P.L. 111-5)
individual who requires additional
training, and incentives.
FY2010: $924 million
assistance to complete an educational
FY2011: $824 million
program, or to secure and hold
FY2012: $824 million
employment.
CRS-42
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
YouthBuild Cranston-Gonzalez
To enable disadvantaged
FY2006: $62 million
U.S. Department of
Youth ages 16 to 24 who are a
National Affordable
youth to obtain the education FY2007: $62 million
Labor
member of a low-income family, in
Housing Act of 1990, as
and employment skills while
FY2008: $59 million
foster care, a youth offender, have a
amended
expanding the supply of
FY2009: $70 million
disability, are a child of incarcerated
permanent affordable housing
(plus $50 million under
parents, or a migrant youth or a
29 U.S.C. §2918a
for homeless individuals and
P.L. 111-5)
school dropout (with exceptions).
low-income families.
FY2010: $102.5 million
FY2011: $79.7 million
FY2012: $79.7 million
Youth Conservation
Youth Conservation
To further the development
No specific amount
U.S. Department of
Al youth 15 to 18 years of age
Corps
Corps Act of 1970, as
and maintenance of the
appropriated or
the Interior (Bureau
(targets economically disadvantaged,
amended
natural resources by
requested. The
of Land Management,
at-risk).
America’s youth, and in so
Appropriations
Fish and Wildlife
16 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.
doing to prepare them for the Subcommittee on
Agency, and the
ultimate responsibility of
Interior, Environment,
National Park Service)
maintaining and managing
and Related Agencies
and U.S. Department
these resources for the
generally directs the four of Agriculture (Forest
American people.
agencies to allocate no
Service)
less than a particular
amount to Youth
Conservation Corps
activities (funding
generally ranges from
$1.5 million to $2 million
per agency).
CRS-43
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Education
Title I-A: Education
Elementary and
To improve the educational
FY2006: $12.7 billion
U.S. Department of
Educationally disadvantaged children
for the
Secondary Education Act achievement of educational y
FY2007: $12.8 billion
Education
and youth, in areas with
Disadvantaged
of 1965, as amended
disadvantaged children and
FY2008: $13.9 billion
concentrations of children and youth
youth, and to reduce
FY2009: $14.5 billion
in low-income families.
20 U.S.C. §6301 et. seq.
achievement gaps between
(Plus $10.0 billion under
such pupils and their more
P.L. 111-5)
advantaged peers.
FY2010: $14.5 billion
FY2011: $14.5 billion
FY2012: $14.5 billion
FY2013 Request: $14.5
billion
Title I-C: Migrant
Elementary and
To support high quality and
FY2006: $387 million
U.S. Department of
Migrant children and youth.
Education
Secondary Education Act comprehensive educational
FY2007: $387 million
Education
of 1965, as amended
programs for migrant children FY2008: $380 million
and youth.
FY2009: $395 million
20 U.S.C. §6391
FY2010: $395 million
FY2011: $394 million
FY2012: $393 million
FY2013 Request: $393
million
Title I-D: Prevention
Elementary and
To meet the special
FY2006: $50 million
U.S. Department of
Abused/neglected youth, delinquent
and Intervention
Secondary Education Act educational needs of children
FY2007: $50 million
Education
youth, and juvenile offenders.
Programs for
of 1965, as amended
in institutions and community
FY2008: $49 million
Children and Youths
day school programs for
FY2009: $50 million
Who Are Neglected, 20 U.S.C. §6421-6472 et
neglected and delinquent
FY2010: $50 million
Delinquent, or At
seq.
children and children in adult
FY2011: $50 million
Risk
correctional institutions.
FY2012: $50 million
FY2013 Request: $50
million
CRS-44
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Title I-H: School
Elementary and
To provide for school
FY2006: $5 million
U.S. Department of
Youth at risk of dropping out of
Dropout Prevention
Secondary Education Act dropout prevention and
FY2007: $0
Education
school districts with dropout rates
of 1965, as amended
reentry and to raise academic
FY2008: $0
higher than their state’s average.
achievement levels.
FY2009: $0
20 U.S.C. §6551 et seq.
FY2010: $50 million
FY2011: $49 million
FY2012: $$49 million
FY2013 Request: $0
(Similar activities would
be supported under a
new program, College
Pathways and
Accelerated Learning,
that would consolidate
funds for School
Dropout Prevention and
other programs. The
Administration proposes
funding the new
program at $81 million.)
Title III: English
Elementary and
To ensure that limited English FY2006: $669 million
U.S. Department of
Children and youth with limited
Language Acquisition
Secondary Education Act proficient children (LEP) and
FY2007: $669 million
Education
English proficiency.
of 1965, as amended
youth, including immigrant
FY2008: $700 million
children and youth, attain
FY2009: $730 million
20 U.S.C. §6801 et seq.
English proficiency.
FY2010: $750 million
FY2011: $734 million
FY2012: $732 million
FY2013 Request: $732
million
CRS-45
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Title IV-A: Safe and
Elementary and
To prevent violence in and
FY2006: $347 million
U.S. Department of
Al youth; at-risk youth; school
Drug Free Schools,
Secondary Education Act around schools and to
FY2007: $347 million
Education
dropouts.
Part A, Subpart 1,
of 1965, as amended
strengthen programs that
FY2008: $295 million
State Grants for
prevent the illegal use of
FY2009: $295 million
Drug and Violence
20 U.S.C. §§7111-7118
alcohol, tobacco, and drugs,
FY2010: $0
Prevention
involve parents, and are
FY2011: $0
coordinated with related
FY2012: $0
federal, state, and community
FY2013 Request: $0
efforts and resources.
Title IV-B: 21st
Elementary and
To create community learning FY2006: $981 million
U.S. Department of
Students who attend high-poverty
Century Learning
Secondary Education Act centers that help students
FY2007: $981 million
Education
and low-performing schools.
Centers
of 1965, as amended
meet state and local
FY2008: $1.1 billion
educational standards, to
FY2009: $1.1 billion
20 U.S.C. §8241 et seq.
provide supplementary
FY2010: $1.2 billion
educational assistance, and to
FY2011: $1.2 billion
offer literacy and other
FY2012: $1.2 billion
services to the families of
FY2013 Request: $1.2
participating youth.
billion
Title VII: Education
McKinney-Vento
To provide activities for and
FY2006: $62 million
U.S. Department of
Homeless children and youth in
of Homeless
Homeless Assistance Act services to ensure that
(plus $5 million for
Education
elementary and secondary schools,
Children
of 1987, as amended
homeless children enroll in,
hurricane supplemental)
homeless preschool children, and the
attend, and achieve success in
FY2007: $62 million
parents of homeless children.
42 U.S.C. §§11431-
school.
FY2008: $64 million
11435
(plus $15 million for
disaster supplemental)
FY2009: $65 million
(plus $70 million under
P.L. 111-5)
FY2010: $65 million
FY2012: $65 million
FY2013 Request: $65
million
CRS-46
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Individuals with
Education for All
To provide a free appropriate FY2006: $10.6 billion
U.S. Department of
School-aged children and youth with
Disabilities Education Handicapped Children
education to all children with
FY2007: $10.8 billion
Education
disabilities, up to age 21 (pursuant to
Act, Part B Grant to
Act of 1975, as amended disabilities.
FY2008: $11.0 billion
state law).
States
(currently known as the
FY2009: $11.5 billion
Individuals with
(plus $11.3 billion under
Disabilities Education
P.L. 111-5)
Act)
FY2010: $11.5 billion
FY2011: $11.5 billion
20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
FY2012: $11.6 billion
FY2013 Request: $11.6
billion
Migrant High School
Higher Education Act, as To provide academic and
FY2006: $34 million
U.S. Department of
Migrant youth ages 16 to 21.
Equivalency Program
amended
support services to help
FY2007: $34 million
Education
and College
eligible migrant youth obtain
FY2008: $33 million
Assistance Migrant
20 U.S.C. §1070d-2
their high school equivalency
FY2009: $34 million
Programs
certificate and move on to
FY2010: $37 million
employment or enrollment in
FY2011: $37 million
higher education.
FY2012: $37 million
FY2013 Request: $37
million
Upward Bound
Higher Education Act of
To increase the academic
FY2006: $299 million
U.S. Department of
Low-income individuals and potential
(includes Regular
1965, as amended
performance of eligible
FY2007: $301 million
Education
first generation college students
Upward Bound and
enrol ees so that such
FY2008: $347 million
between ages 13 and 19, and have
Upward Bound Math
20 U.S.C. §1070a-13
persons may complete
FY2009: $350 million
completed the 8th grade but have not
and Science and
secondary school and pursue
FY2010: $349 million
entered the 12th grade (with
excludes Veterans
postsecondary educational
FY2011: $340 million
exceptions).
Upward Bound,
programs.
FY2012: $310 million
which serves
FY2013 Request: $840
veterans)
million (part of larger
funding for TRIO
programs)
CRS-47
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Educational
Higher Education Act of
To provide information to
FY2006: $48 million
U.S. Department of
At least two-thirds of participants in
Opportunity Centers 1965, as amended
prospective postsecondary
FY2007: $47 million
Education
any project must be low-income
students regarding available
FY2008: $47 million
students who would be first-
20 U.S.C. §1070a-16
financial aid and academic
FY2009: $47 million
generation college goers. They must
assistance, and help them
FY2010: $47 million
also be at least 19 years old.
apply for admission and
FY2011: $48 million
financial aid.
FY2012: $47 million
FY2013 Request: $840
million (part of larger
funding for TRIO
programs)
Ronald E. McNair
Higher Education Act of
To provide grants to
FY2006: $42 million
U.S. Department of
Low-income college students or
Postbaccalaurete
1965, as amended
institutions of higher
FY2007: $45 million
Education
underrepresented students enrol ed
Achievement
education to prepare
FY2008: $45 million
in an institution of higher education.
20 U.S.C. §1070a-15
participants for doctoral
FY2009: $47 million
studies through involvement
FY2010: $48 million
in research and other
FY2011: $46 million
scholarly activities.
FY2012: $36 million
FY2013 Request: $840
million (part of larger
funding for TRIO
programs)
Student Support
Higher Education Act of
To improve college students’
FY2006: $271 million
U.S. Department of
At least two-thirds of participants in
Services
1965, as amended
retention and graduation
FY2007: $272 million
Education
any project must be either disabled
rates, and improve the
FY2008: $284 million
individuals or low-income, first-
20 U.S.C. §1070a-14
transfer rates of students
FY2009: $302 million
generation college goers. The
from two-year to four-year
FY2010: $301 million
remaining participants must be low-
colleges.
FY2011: $291 million
income, or first-generation college
FY2012: $291 million
goers, or disabled. Not less than one-
FY2013 Request: $840
third of the disabled participants
million (part of larger
must be low-income as well.
funding for TRIO
programs)
CRS-48
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Talent Search
Higher Education Act of
To identify disadvantaged
FY2006: $150 million
U.S. Department of
Project participants must be between
1965, as amended
youth with potential for
FY2007: $143 million
Education
11 and 27 years old (exceptions
postsecondary education; to
FY2008: $143 million
allowed), and two-thirds must be
20 U.S.C. §1070a-12
encourage them in continuing
FY2009: $142 million
low-income individuals who are also
in and graduating from
FY2010: $142 million
potential first-generation college
secondary school and in
FY2011: $$139 million
students.
enrolling in programs of
FY2012: $136 million
postsecondary education; to
FY2013 Request: $840
publicize the availability of
million (part of larger
student financial aid; and to
funding for TRIO
increase the number of
programs)
secondary and postsecondary
school dropouts who reenter
an educational program.
Gaining Early
Higher Education Act of
To provide financial assistance FY2006: $303 million
U.S. Department of
Low-income students and students in
Awareness and
1965, as amended
to low-income individuals to
FY2007: $303 million
Education
high-poverty schools.
Readiness for
attend an institution of higher
FY2008: $303 million
Undergraduate
20 U.S.C. §1070a-21-
education and support eligible FY2009: $313 million
Programs (GEAR-
1070a-28
entities in providing
FY2010: $323 million
UP)
counseling, mentoring,
FY2011: $303 million
academic support, outreach,
FY2012: $302 million
and supportive services to
FY2013 Request: $840
students at risk of dropping
million (part of larger
out of school.
funding for TRIO
programs)
CRS-49
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Juvenile Justice
State Formula Grants Juvenile Justice and
To increase the capacity of
FY2006: $80 million
U.S. Department of
Delinquent youth, juvenile offenders,
Delinquency Prevention
state and local governments
FY2007: $79 million
Justice
and at-risk youth.
Act of 1974, as amended to support the development
FY2008: $74 million
of more effective education,
FY2009: $75 million
42 U.S.C. §5631-33
training, research, and other
FY2010: $75 million
programs in the area of
FY2011: $62 million
juvenile delinquency and
FY2012: $40 million
programs to improve the
FY2013 Request: $70
juvenile justice system (e.g.,
million
community-based services for
the prevention and control of
juvenile delinquency, group
homes, and halfway houses).
Juvenile
21st Century
To strengthen the juvenile
FY2006: $50 million
U.S. Department of
Delinquent youth, juvenile offenders,
Accountability Block
Department of Justice
justice system, including, but
FY2007: $49 million
Justice
gang members, and at-risk youth.
Grant
Reauthorization Act of
not limited to, developing,
FY2008: $52 million
2002
implementing, and
FY2009: $55 million
administering graduated
FY2010: $55 million
42 U.S.C. 3796ee
sanctions for juvenile
FY2011: $46 million
offenders; building, expanding, FY2012: $30 million
renovating, or operating
FY2013 Request: $30
temporary or permanent
million
juvenile correction, detention,
or community corrections
facilities; and hiring juvenile
court judges and other court
personnel.
CRS-50
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Gang Free Schools
Currently Unauthorized.
To prevent and reduce the
FY2006: $25 million
U.S. Department of
At-risk youth, delinquent youth,
and Communities—
This program was
participation of juveniles in
FY2007: $25 million
Justice
juvenile offenders, gang members,
Community Based
repealed by P.L. 107-273 the activities of gangs that
FY2008: $19 million
and youth under age 22.
Gang Intervention
but funding continues to
commit crimes (e.g.,
FY2009: $10 million
be appropriated.
programs to prevent youth
FY2010: $10 million
from entering gangs and to
FY2011: $8 million
prevent high school students
FY2012: $5 million
from dropping out of school
FY2013 Request: $0
and joining gangs).
Juvenile Mentoring
Currently Unauthorized.
To develop, implement, and
FY2006: $10 million
U.S. Department of
Delinquent youth, juvenile offenders,
Program (JUMP)
This program was
pilot test mentoring strategies FY2007: $10 million
Justice
and foster youth.
repealed by P.L. 107-273 and/or programs targeted for
FY2008: $70 million
but funding continues to
youth in the juvenile justice
FY2009: $70 million
be appropriated.
system and in foster care, and FY2010: $100 million
youth who have reentered
FY2011: $83 million
the juvenile justice system
FY2012: $78 million
(e.g., Big Brothers/Big Sisters
FY2013 Request: $58
program).
million
CRS-51
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
State Challenge
Juvenile Justice and
To provide states with
FY2006: $106 million
U.S. Department of
At-risk youth, delinquent youth,
Activities, Part E
Delinquency Prevention
funding to carry out programs FY2007: $105 million
Justice
juvenile offenders, gang members,
Act of 1974, as amended that will develop, test, or
FY2008: $89 million
and at-risk youth.
demonstrate promising new
FY2009: $82 million
42 U.S.C. §5665
initiatives that may prevent,
FY2010: $91 million
control, or reduce juvenile
FY2011: $0
delinquency.
FY2012: $0
FY2013 Request: $0
Title V Incentive
Juvenile Justice and
To fund delinquency
FY2006: $65 million
U.S. Department of
Delinquent youth, juvenile offenders,
Grants for Local
Delinquency Prevention
prevention programs and
FY2007: $64 million
Justice
at-risk youth.
Delinquency
Act of 1974, as amended activities for at-risk youth and FY2008: $38 million
Prevention Program
juvenile delinquents, including, FY2009: $63 million
42 U.S.C. §4781-85
among other things, substance FY2010: $65 million
abuse prevention services;
FY2011: $4 million
child and adolescent health
FY2012: $20 million
and mental health services;
FY2012 Request: $40
leadership and youth
million
development services; and job
skills training.
Social Services
Foster Care
Social Security Act of
To assist states in providing
FY2006: $4.7 billion
U.S. Department of
Federal support available for children
1935 (Sections 471 and
foster care for eligible
FY2007: $4.8 billion
Health and Human
and youth who are removed from
472), as amended
children, including
FY2008: $4.6 billion
Services
low-income families (meeting specific
maintenance payments (i.e.
FY2009: $4.7 billion
criteria) for their own protection.
42 USC §§671, 672
room and board) and case
FY2010: $4.7 billion
(However, federal protections
planning and management for
FY2011: $4.5 billion
related to case planning and
children and youth in out-of-
FY2012: $4.3 billion
management are available to all
home placements.
FY2012 Request: $4.4
children/youth who are in foster
billion
care.)
CRS-52
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Chafee Foster Care
Social Security Act of
To assist states and localities
FY2006: $140 million
U.S. Department of
Current or former foster care youth
Independence
1935 (Section 477), as
in establishing and carrying
FY2007: $140 million
Health and Human
under age 21.
Program
amended
out programs designed to
FY2008: $140 million
Services
assist foster youth likely to
FY2009: $140 million
42 U.S.C. §677
remain in foster care until age FY2010: $140 million
18 and youth ages 18-21 who
FY2011: $140 million
have left the foster care
FY2012: $140 million
system in making the
FY2013 Request: $140
transition to self-sufficiency.
million
Chafee Foster Care
Social Security Act of
To make education and
FY2006: $46 million
U.S. Department of
Older foster care youth and youth
Independence
1935, (Section 477), as
training vouchers available for FY2007: $46 million
Health and Human
adopted from foster care at age 16
Program Education
amended
youth who have aged out of
FY2008: $45 million
Services
or older.
and Training
foster care or who have been
FY2009: $45 million
Vouchers
42 U.S.C. §677
adopted from the public
FY2010: $45 million
foster care system after age
FY2011: $45 million
16.
FY2012: $45 million
FY2013 Request: $45
million
Basic Center
Runaway and Homeless
To establish or strengthen
FY2006: $48 million
U.S. Department of
Runaway and homeless youth and
Program
Youth Act of 1974, as
locally control ed community-
FY2007: $48 million
Health and Human
their families.
amended
based programs outside of
FY2008: $53 million
Services
the law enforcement, child
FY2009: $53 million
42 U.S.C.§5701 et seq.
welfare, mental health, and
FY2010: $54 million
juvenile justice systems that
FY2011: $54 million
address the immediate needs
FY2012: $54 million
of runaway and homeless
FY2013 Request: $54
youth and their families.
million
CRS-53
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Transitional Living
Runaway and Homeless
To establish and operate
FY2006: $40 million
U.S. Department of
Runaway and homeless youth ages
Program for Older
Youth Act of 1974, as
transitional living projects for
FY2007: $40 million
Health and Human
16-21.
Homeless Youth
amended
homeless youth, including
FY2008: $43 million
Services
pregnant and parenting youth. FY2009: $44 million
42 U.S.C. §5701 et seq.
FY2010: $44 million
FY2011: $44 million
FY2012: $44 million
FY2013 Request: $44
million
Street Outreach
Runaway and Homeless
To provide grants to
FY2006: $15 million
U.S. Department of
Runaway and homeless youth who
Program
Youth Act of 1974, as
nonprofit agencies to provide
FY2007: $15 million
Health and Human
live on or frequent the streets.
amended
street-based services to
FY2008: $17 million
Services
runaway, homeless, and street FY2009: $17 million
42 U.S.C. §5701 et seq.
youth, who have been
FY2010: $18 million
subjected to, or are at risk of
FY2011: $18 million
being subjected to sexual
FY2012: $18 million
abuse, prostitution, or sexual
FY2013 Request: $18
exploitation.
million
Court Appointed
Victims of Child Abuse
To ensure every victim of
FY2006: $12 million
U.S. Department of
Abused and neglected children and
Special Advocates
Act of 1990, as amended child abuse and neglect
FY2007: $12 million
Justice
youth.
receives the services of a
FY2008: $13 million
42 U.S.C. §13011-13014
court appointed advocate.
FY2009: $15 million
FY2010: $15 million
FY2011: $12 million
FY2012: $4.5 million
FY2013 Request: $0
CRS-54
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Children’s Advocacy
Victims of Child Abuse
To establish advocacy centers FY2006: $15 million
U.S. Department of
Abused and neglected youth.
Centers
Act of 1990, as amended to coordinate multi-
FY2007: $15 million
Justice
disciplinary responses to child FY2008: $16 million
42 U.S.C. §13001-13004
abuse and to provide training
FY2009: $20 million
and technical assistance to
FY2010: $23 million
professionals involved in
FY2011: $19 million
investigating and prosecuting
FY2012: $18 million
child abuse, and to support
FY2013 Request: $0
the development of
Children’s Advocacy Centers
on multi-disciplinary teams.
Public Health
Garrett Lee Smith
Public Health Service
To provide grants to states
FY2006: $23 million
U.S. Department of
Youth under age 25.
Memorial Act Youth
Act of 1974, as amended and college campuses for
FY2007: $23 million
Health and Human
Suicide Prevention
youth suicide prevention
FY2008: $34 million
Services
Program
42 USC § §290aa et seq., activities.
FY2009: $35 million
290bb et seq.
FY2010: $35 million
FY2011: $42 million
FY2012: $42 million
FY2013 Request: $34
million
Comprehensive
Public Health Service
To provide community-based
FY2006: $104 million
U.S. Department of
Youth under age 22 with a serious
Community Mental
Act of 1974, as amended systems of care for children
FY2007: $104 million
Health and Human
emotional disorders.
Health Services for
and adolescents with a
FY2008: $102 million
Services
Children with
42 USC §290ff
serious emotional disturbance FY2009: $108 million
Serious Emotional
and their family.
FY2010: $121 million
Disturbances
FY2011: $118 million
FY2012: $117 million
FY2013 Request: $89
million
CRS-55
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
National Child
Children’s Health Act of
To create a national network
FY2006: $29 million
U.S. Department of
Children and youth who have
Traumatic Stress
2000 (Section 582(d))
that develops, promotes, and
FY2007: $29 million
Health and Human
experienced traumatic events.
Network
disseminates information
FY2008: $33 million
Services
42 USC §290aa
related to a wide variety of
FY2009: $38 million
traumatic events.
FY2010: $41 million
FY2011: $41 million
FY2012: $46 million
FY2013 Request: $46
million
Strategic Prevention
Public Health Service
To provide funding to states
FY2006: $106 million
U.S. Department of
Youth at risk of using and abusing
Framework State
Act of 1974, as amended for infrastructure and services FY2007: $105 million
Health and Human
drugs.
Infrastructure Grant
that implement a five-step
FY2008: $103 million
Services
42 U.S.C. 290bb
strategy for preventing
FY2009: $110 million
substance and alcohol abuse
FY2010: $112 million
among youth.
FY2011: $110 million
FY2012: $110 million
FY2013 Request: $60
million
Assertive Adolescent Public Health Service
To provide substance abuse
FY2006: $5 million
U.S. Department of
Youth using drugs.
and Family
Act of 1974, as amended treatment practices to
FY2007: $10 million
Health and Human
Treatment Program
adolescents and their families
FY2008: $10 million
Services
(Family Centered
42 U.S.C. 290bb-2
using previously proven
FY2009: $10 million
Substance Abuse
effective family-centered
FY2010: $14 million
Treatment Grants
methods.
FY2011: $14 million
for Adolescents and
FY2012: $10 million
their Families)
FY2013 Request: $10
million
CRS-56
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Sober Truth on
Public Health Service
To provide effective
FY2007: $840,000
U.S. Department of
Youth using alcohol.
Preventing Underage
Act of 1974, as amended substance treatment and
FY2008: $5 million
Health and Human
Drinking Act (STOP
42 U.S.C. 290bb-25b
reduce delinquent activity.
FY2009: $7 million
Services
Act)
FY2010: $8 million
FY2011: $7 million
FY2012: $7 million
FY2013 Request: $7
million
Community-Based
Social Security Act of
To provide project grants to
FY2006: $109 million
U.S. Department of
Youth ages 12 to 18.
Abstinence Education 1935 (Section 1110 using public and private institutions
FY2007: $109 million
Health and Human
(replaced in FY2010
the definitions contained for community-based
FY2008: $109 million
Services
with the Teen
in Section 510(b)(2)), as
abstinence education project
FY2009: $95 million
Pregnancy
amended
grants.
FY2010: $0
Prevention Program,
42 U.S.C. §710
FY2011: $0
discussed below)
FY2012: $0
FY2013 Request: $0
Abstinence Education Social Security Act of
To provide formula grant
FY2006: $50 million
U.S. Department of
Youth likely to bear children outside
Program
1935 (Section 510), as
funding for states to provide
FY2007: $50 million
Health and Human
of marriage.
amended
abstinence education and, at
FY2008: $50 million
Services
42 U.S.C. §710
the option of the state, where FY2009: $38 million
appropriate, mentoring,
FY2010: $50 million
counseling, and adult
FY2011: $50 million
supervision to promote
FY2012: $50 million
abstinence from sexual
FY2013 Request: $0
activity.
Abstinence Education Omnibus Appropriations To provide competitive
FY2006: $0
U.S. Department of
Youth likely to bear children outside
Program
Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74)
grants to public or private
FY2007: $0
Health and Human
of marriage.
entities for abstinence
FY2008: $0
Services
education as defined by 42
FY2009: $0
U.S.C. §710.
FY2010: $0
FY2011: $0
FY2012: $5 million
FY2013 Request: $0
CRS-57
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Teen Pregnancy
Omnibus Appropriations To provide competitive
FY2010: $110 million
U.S. Department of
Youth ages 12 to 18.
Prevention Program
Act, FY2010 (P.L. 111-
project grants and contracts
FY2011: $105 million
Health and Human
117)
to public and private entities
FY2012: $105 million
Services
for medically accurate and age FY2013 Request: $105
appropriate programs that
million
reduce teen pregnancy.
Adolescent Family
Public Health Services
To provide project grants to
FY2006: $30 million
U.S. Department of
Pregnant and parenting youth, non-
Life Demonstration
Act of 1974, as amended establish innovative,
FY2007: $30 million
Health and Human
pregnant youth and their families.
Projects
42 U.S.C. §3002
comprehensive, and
FY2008: $30 million
Services
integrated approaches to the
FY2009: $30 million
delivery of care services for
FY2010: $17 million
pregnant and parenting
FY2011: $12 million
adolescents with primary
FY2012: $0
emphasis on adolescents who
FY2013 Request: $0
are under age 17.
(Funding for the
Adolescent Family Life
Demonstration Projects
and Research Grants is
combined.)
Adolescent Family
Public Health Services
To provide project grants to
FY2006: $30 million
U.S. Department of
Pregnant and parenting youth, non-
Life Research Grants
Act of 1974, as amended encourage and support
FY2007: $30 million
Health and Human
pregnant youth and their families.
42 U.S.C. §3002
research projects and
FY2008: $30 million
Services
dissemination activities
FY2009: $30 million
concerning the societal causes FY2010: $17 million
and consequence of
FY2011: $12 million
adolescent sexual activity,
FY2012: $0
contraceptive use, pregnancy,
FY2012 Request: $0
and child rearing.
(Funding for the
Adolescent Family Life
Demonstration Projects
and Research Grants is
combined.)
CRS-58
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Personal
The Patient Protection
To provide formula grant
FY2010: $75 million
U.S. Department of
Youth under the age of 21.
Responsibility
and Affordable Care Act funding for states to educate
FY2011: $75 million
Health and Human
Education Program
(P.L. 111-148)
youth on both abstinence and
FY2012: $75 million
Services
(PREP)
contraception for the
FY2013 Request: $75
42 U.S.C. §713
prevention of pregnancy and
million
sexually transmitted
infections, including
HIV/AIDS.
National and Community Service
AmeriCorps State
National Community
To address the educational,
FY2006: $265 million
Corporation for
Youth up to age 25 with exceptional
and National
Service Act, as amended
public safety, human, or
FY2007: $265 million
National and
or special needs, or who are
environmental needs through
FY2008: $257 million
Community Service
economically disadvantaged and for
42 U.S.C. §12571 et seq., services that provide a direct FY2009: $271 million
whom one or more of the following
42 U.S.C. §12061 et seq.
benefit to the community.
(plus $89 million under
apply: 1) out-of-school, including out-
P.L. 111-5)
of-school youth who are
FY2010: $373 million
unemployed; 2) in or aging out of
FY2011: $349 million
foster care; 3) limited English
FY2012: $344 million
proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
FY2013 Request: $345
away from home; 5) at-risk of leaving
million
school without a diploma; and 6)
former juvenile offenders or at risk
of delinquency.
CRS-59
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
AmeriCorps VISTA
Domestic Volunteer
To bring low-income
FY2006: $95 million
Corporation for
Youth up to age 25 with exceptional
Service Act, as amended
individuals and communities
FY2007: $95 million
National and
or special needs, or who are
out of poverty through
FY2008: $94 million
Community Service
economically disadvantaged and for
42 U.S.C.§ 4951, 42
programs in community
FY2009: $96 million
whom one or more of the following
U.S.C. §12061 et seq.
organizations and public
(plus $65 million under
apply: 1) out-of-school, including out-
agencies.
P.L. 111-5)
of-school youth who are
FY2010: $99 million
unemployed; 2) in or aging out of
FY2011: $99 million
foster care; 3) limited English
FY2012: $95 million
proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
FY2013 Request: $95
away from home; 5) at-risk to leave
million
school without a diploma; and 6)
former juvenile offenders or at risk
of delinquency.
AmeriCorps
National Community
To address the educational,
FY2006: $37 million
Corporation for
Youth up to age 25 with exceptional
National Civilian
Service Act, as amended
public safety, environmental,
FY2007: $27 million
National and
or special needs, or who are
Community Corps
human needs, and disaster
FY2008: $24 million
Community Service
economically disadvantaged and for
42 U.S.C. §12611 et seq., relief through services that
FY2009: $28 million
whom one or more of the following
42 U.S.C. §12061 et seq.
provide a direct benefit to the FY2010: $29 million
apply: 1) out-of-school, including out-
community.
FY2011: $29 million
of-school youth who are
FY2012 : $32 million
unemployed; 2) in or aging out of
FY2013 Request: $30
foster care; 3) limited English
million
proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
away from home; 5) at risk of leaving
school without a diploma; and 6)
former juvenile offenders or at risk
of delinquency.
CRS-60
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Learn and Serve
National Community
To involve students in
FY2006: $37 million
Corporation for
Youth up to age 25 with exceptional
America
Service Act, as amended
community service projects
FY2007: $37 million
National and
or special needs, or who are
that address the educational,
FY2008: $37 million
Community Service
economically disadvantaged and for
42 U.S.C. §12521-12547, public safety, human, or
FY2009: $37 million
whom one or more of the following
42 §U.S.C. 121561 et
environmental needs in ways
FY2010: $40 million
apply: 1) out-of-school, including out-
seq.
that benefit both the student
FY2011: $0
of-school youth who are
and community.
FY2012: $0
unemployed; 2) in or aging out of
FY2013 Request: $0
foster care; 3) limited English
proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
away from home; 5) at risk of leaving
school without a diploma; and 6)
former juvenile offenders or at risk
of delinquency.
Senior Corps Foster
Domestic Volunteer
To provide service to
FY2006: $111 million
Corporation for
Youth up to age 25 with exceptional
Grandparents
Service Act, as amended
children with special or
FY2007: $111 million
National and
or special needs, or who are
exceptional needs.
FY2008: $109 million
Community Service
economically disadvantaged and for
42 U.S.C. §5011 et seq.
FY2009: $109 million
whom one or more of the following
FY2010: $111 million
apply: 1) out-of-school, including out-
FY2011: $111 million
of-school youth who are
FY2013: $111 million
unemployed; 2) in or aging out of
FY2013 Request: $111
foster care; 3) limited English
million
proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
away from home; 5) at risk of leaving
school without a diploma; and 6)
former juvenile offenders or at risk
of delinquency.
CRS-61
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY2006 -FY2012
Appropriations
(including funding
under the Recovery
Act, P.L. 111-5) and
Authorizing
President’s FY2013
Legislation
Request
and U.S. Code
Objective(s) of
(all numbers
Agency
Target At-Risk Youth
Program
Citation
Program
rounded)
with Jurisdiction
Population
Senior Corps RSVP
Domestic Volunteer
To involve seniors in
FY2006: $60 million
Corporation for
Youth up to age 25 with exceptional
Service Act, as amended
community service projects
FY2007: $60 million
National and
or special needs, or who are
that address the educational,
FY2008: $59 million
Community Service
economically disadvantaged and for
42 U.S.C. 5001
public safety, human, or
FY2009: $59 million
whom one or more of the following
environmental needs in ways
FY2010: $63 million
apply: 1) out-of-school, including out-
that benefit both the senior
FY2011: $50 million
of-school youth who are
and community.
FY2012: $50 million
unemployed; 2) in or aging out of
FY2013 Request: $50
foster care; 3) limited English
million
proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
away from home; 5) at risk of leaving
school without a diploma; and 6)
former juvenile offenders or at risk
of delinquency.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
CRS-62
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Table A-2. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst
Contact Information
Individuals with Disabilities Education
CRS Report R41833, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Ann Lordeman
alordeman@crs.loc.gov
Act, Part B Grants to States
(IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions, by Ann Lordeman
x7-2323
National and Community Service
CRS Report RL33931, The Corporation for National and Community
Programs
Service: Overview of Programs and FY2012 Funding, by Abigail B. Rudman
and Ann Lordeman
Vulnerable Youth and Youth Programs CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background
Adrienne L. Fernandes-
afernandes@crs.loc.gov
and Federal Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Alcantara
x7-9005
Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program and Education and Training
CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and
Voucher Program
Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Runaway and Homeless Youth
CRS Report RL34050, Missing and Exploited Children: Background,
Program (Basic Center, Transitional
Policies, and Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Living, and Street Outreach Programs)
CRS Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and
Missing and Exploited Children’s
Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Program
CRS Report R40929, Vulnerable Youth: Employment and Job Training
Mentoring Children of Prisoners
Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Workforce Investment Act youth
programs
Title VII: Education of Homeless
CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs and
Gail McCallion
gmccallion@crs.loc.gov
Children
Recent Legislation, coordinated by Libby Perl
x7-7758
Upward Bound
CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status and Issues, by Cassandria Dortch
cdortch@crs.loc.gov
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi (archived)
x7-0376
Education Opportunity Centers
Student Support Services
Talent Search
Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduate
Programs
Workforce Development
CRS Report RL33687, The Workforce Investment Act (WIA): Program-by-
David H. Bradley
dbradley@crs.loc.gov
Program Overview and Funding of Title I Training Programs, by David H.
x7-7352
Bradley
CRS-63
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Issue Area(s)
Corresponding CRS Report(s)
Analyst
Contact Information
Juvenile Justice
CRS Report RS22655, Juvenile Justice Funding Trends, by Kristin M.
Kristin M. Finklea
kfinklea@crs.loc.gov
Finklea
x7-6259
CRS Report RL33947, Juvenile Justice: Legislative History and Current
Legislative Issues, by Kristin M. Finklea
Title I: Education for the
CRS Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as
Rebecca R. Skinner
rskinner@crs.loc.gov
Disadvantaged
Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer, by Rebecca R.
x7-6600
Skinner
Title I-D: Prevention and Intervention
Programs for Children and Youths
Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or
At Risk
Migrant Education
Migrant High School Equivalency
Program
Title III: English Language Acquisition
Community-Based Abstinence
CRS Report RS20873, Reducing Teen Pregnancy: Adolescent Family Life
Carmen Solomon-Fears
csolomonfears@crs.loc.gov
Education
and Abstinence Education Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears
x7-7306
Abstinence Education Program
CRS Report RS20301, Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Statistics and
Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears
Adolescent Family Life Demonstration
Projects
Personal Responsibility Education
Program
Adolescent Family Life Research
Grants
Foster Care and Child Welfare
CRS Report RL31242, Child Welfare: Federal Program Requirements for
Emilie Stoltzfus
estoltzfus@crs.loc.gov
States, by Emilie Stoltzfus
x7-2324
Court Appointed Special Advocates
Program
CRS Report RL31242, Child Welfare: Federal Program Requirements for
States, by Emilie Stoltzfus
Children’s Advocacy Centers
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
CRS-64
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Author Contact Information
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
afernandes@crs.loc.gov, 7-9005
Acknowledgments
Carmen Solomon-Fears, Rebecca Skinner, and Erin Bagalman contributed to the tables in this report.
Congressional Research Service
65