Youth Transitioning from Foster Care:
Background and Federal Programs
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
October 1, 2012
The House Ways and Means Committee is making available this version of this Congressional Research Service
(CRS) report, with the cover date shown, for inclusion in its 2012 Green Book website. CRS works exclusively
for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to Committees and Members of both the
House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.
Congressional Research Service
RL34499
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Summary
While most young people have access to emotional and financial support systems throughout
their early adult years, older youth in foster care and those who are emancipated from care often
face obstacles to developing independent living skills and building supports that ease the
transition to adulthood. Older foster youth who return to their parents or guardians may continue
to experience poor family dynamics or a lack of emotional and financial supports, and studies
have shown that recently emancipated foster youth fare poorly relative to their counterparts in the
general population on several outcome measures.
The federal government recognizes that older youth in foster care and those aging out are
vulnerable to negative outcomes and may ultimately return to the care of the state as adults, either
through the public welfare, criminal justice, or other systems. Under the federal foster care
programs, states may seek reimbursement for youth to remain in care up to the age of 21. In
addition, the federal foster care program has certain protections for older youth. For example,
states must annually obtain the credit report of each child in care who is age 16 or older.
States must also assist youth with developing what is known as a transition plan. The law requires
that a youth’s caseworker, and as appropriate, other representative(s) of the youth, assist and
support him or her in developing the plan. The plan is to be directed by the youth, and is to
include specific options on housing, health insurance, education, local opportunities for mentors,
workforce supports, and employment services. The plan must address the importance of
designating another individual to make health care treatment decisions on behalf of the youth.
Separately, the federal government provides funding for services to assist in the transition to
adulthood through the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP). The law
enables states to provide these services to youth who are likely to age out of foster care (with no
lower age limit), and youth age 16 or older who left foster care for kinship guardianship or
adoption. Independent living services may include assistance in obtaining a high school diploma,
career exploration, training in daily living skills, training in budgeting and financial management
skills, and preventive health activities, among other services. The CFCIP requires that states
ensure youth in independent living programs participate directly in designing their own program
activities that prepare them for independent living, and further that they “accept personal
responsibility for living up to their part of the program.” The Chafee Education and Training
Voucher (ETV) program separately authorizes discretionary funding for education and training
vouchers for eligible youth to cover their cost of postsecondary education (until age 23). A recent
evaluation of independent living programs, such as those that provide mentoring and life skills,
shows mixed results. One promising independent living program has social workers who oversee
a small caseload (approximately 15 youth each) and have regular (approximately once a week)
interactions with the youth. The youth in this program are more likely to attend college and stay
enrolled than their peers not in the program.
Along with the CFCIP, other federal programs are intended to help current and former youth in
foster care make the transition to adulthood. Federal law authorizes funding for states and local
jurisdictions to provide workforce support and housing to older foster youth and youth
emancipating from care. Further, the law that established the CFCIP created an optional Medicaid
eligibility pathway for youth who age out of foster care; this pathway is often called the “Chafee
option.” Beginning in 2014, eligible young people who emancipate from foster care will be
covered under a mandatory Medicaid pathway until age 26. In addition, youth in foster care or
recently emancipated youth are specifically eligible for certain education services.
Congressional Research Service
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Congressional Research Service
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Contents
Who Are Older Youth in Foster Care and Youth Aging Out of Care? ............................................. 1
Resiliency of Current and Former Foster Youth........................................................................ 3
Overview of Federal Child Welfare and Other Support for Foster Youth........................................ 4
Federal Foster Care.......................................................................................................................... 5
Case Planning and Review ........................................................................................................ 5
Title IV-E Reimbursement for Foster Care................................................................................ 7
Eligibility............................................................................................................................. 7
Eligible Placement Setting .................................................................................................. 9
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program..................................................................................... 9
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 9
Eligibility for CFCIP Benefits and Services............................................................................ 10
Youth Likely to Remain in Foster Care Until Age 18 ....................................................... 11
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care........................................................................................ 12
American Indian Youth ..................................................................................................... 12
The Role of Youth Participants................................................................................................ 13
Program Administration .......................................................................................................... 14
Chafee Education and Training Vouchers................................................................................ 14
Program Administration .......................................................................................................... 15
Youth Receiving Vouchers ................................................................................................ 15
Funding for States.................................................................................................................... 16
Hold Harmless Provision .................................................................................................. 18
Unused Funds.................................................................................................................... 18
Training and Technical Assistance .......................................................................................... 18
National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) ..................................................................... 19
Evaluation of Innovative Independent Living Programs......................................................... 20
Other Federal Support for Older Current and Former Foster Youth.............................................. 21
Medicaid.................................................................................................................................. 21
Educational Support ................................................................................................................ 23
Independent Student Status ............................................................................................... 23
TRIO Programs ................................................................................................................. 23
Workforce Support .................................................................................................................. 24
Workforce Investment Act Programs ................................................................................ 24
Housing Support...................................................................................................................... 25
Family Unification Vouchers Program.............................................................................. 25
Other Support .................................................................................................................... 26
Tables
Table A-1. Comparison of Outcome Domains Between Young Adults in the
Midwest Study and Young Adults in the Add Health Study ....................................................... 32
Table B-1. FY2011 and FY2012 CFCIP General and ETV Allotments by State ......................... 35
Congressional Research Service
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Appendixes
Appendix A. Characteristics and Outcomes of Youth in or Formerly in Foster Care.................... 27
Appendix B. Funding for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) and
Education and Training Voucher (ETV) Program ...................................................................... 35
Congressional Research Service
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
his report provides background on young people in and exiting from foster care, and the
federal support that is available to these youth as they transition to adulthood. It begins
T with a discussion of the characteristics of youth who have had contact with the child
welfare system, including those who entered care, as well as those who exited care via
emancipation. The report then provides an overview of the federal foster care system, including
the Chafee Foster Care Independence program (CFCIP), and provisions in federal foster care law
that are intended to help prepare youth for adulthood. The report goes on to discuss other federal
support—through other programs—for youth aging out of care in the areas of education, health
care, employment, and housing. The report seeks to understand how states vary in their
approaches to serving older youth in care and those who are recently emancipated. For example, a
approximately 15 states are known to extend foster care to youth beyond age 18. The report also
intends to demonstrate that, despite negative outcomes for the group on average, many former
foster youth display resiliency.
Appendix A provides a summary of the characteristics and outcomes of youth who are or were in
foster care compared to youth in the general population, where applicable; and Appendix B
includes funding data for the CFCIP.
Who Are Older Youth in Foster Care and Youth
Aging Out of Care?
Children and adolescents age 17 and younger can come to the attention of state child welfare
systems due to abuse, neglect, or for some other reason, such as the death of a parent or child
behavioral problems. Some children remain in their own homes and receive family support
services, while others are placed in out-of-home settings, usually in a foster home, relative
placement, or institution (e.g., residential treatment facility, maternity group home). A significant
number of youth spend at least some time in foster care during their teenage years. On the last
day of FY2011, approximately 138,000 youth ages 13 through 20 comprised 35% of the foster
care caseload nationally.1 Most teenagers left foster care and were reunified with their parents or
primary caretakers, adopted, or placed with relatives. However, 26,286 (11%) youth aged out that
year, or were emancipated, when they reached the age of majority in their states, usually at age
18. The share of youth emancipating increased from FY2006 (9%) to FY2009 (11%), and has
since remained at 11%.2
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children
and Families, Children’s Bureau, The AFCARS Report, #19, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-
technology/statistics-research/afcars.
2 Ibid, The AFCARS Report #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, and #19. From FY2006 through FY2011, the number and share of
emancipating youth was as follows: FY2006—26,517 (9%); FY2007—29,730 (10%); FY2008—29,516 (10%);
FY2009—29,471 (11%); FY2010—27,854 (11%); and FY2011—26,286 (11%). Using data from 2002 through 2008
on children in foster care in 15 states, researchers have projected that the number of youth who are expected to leave
foster care upon turning age 18 will likely decline between 2009 and 2013, due primarily to the decrease in the number
of entries in foster care among children ages 10 through 17. Fred Wulczyn and Linda Collins, A 5-Year Projection of
the Number of Children Reaching Age 18 While in Foster Care, University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for
Children, 2010, http://chapinhall.org/research/report/5-year-projection-number-children-turning-age-18-while-foster-
care.
Congressional Research Service
1
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Youth who spend their teenage years in foster care and those who are likely to age out of care
face challenges as they move to early adulthood. While in care, they may forego opportunities to
develop strong support networks and independent living skills that their counterparts in the
general population might more naturally acquire. Even older foster youth who return to their
parents or guardians can still face obstacles, such as poor family dynamics or a lack of emotional
and financial supports, that hinder their ability to achieve their goals as young adults. Perhaps the
strongest evidence that youth who have spent at least some years in care during adolescence have
not adequately made the transition to young adulthood is their poor outcomes across a number of
domains. During their early adult years, these youth are much more likely than their peers to
forego higher education, describe their general health as fair or poor, become homeless, and rely
on public supports.
The Foster Care Dynamics report, a longitudinal study of children in 11 state child welfare
systems from 2000 through 2005, provides detailed information about older youth who have been
placed in out-of-home care.3 The study examined state administrative data to determine the
typical trajectory of children across four age categories who first entered foster care during the
five-year period: less than age 1; 1 through 5; 6 through 12; and 13 through 17. The study found
that teenagers made up a significant share of the foster care population; had shorter median
lengths of stay relative to younger children; lived in placements other than foster family homes
(i.e., residential treatment facilities, group homes, etc.); experienced more placements in their first
year in care than younger children; and most often exited care through reunification, although
running away and reaching the age of majority were exit pathways for about 10% to 24% of these
older youth, depending on their age.
Data are available for those youth who were placed in out-of-home care and ultimately exited via
emancipation. The data on these youth demonstrate that they have experienced challenges in
transitioning to adulthood—including in the areas of mental health, education, and employment.
This transition has become increasingly complex for all youth. During this period, young people
cycle between attending school, working, and living independently. Many youth can rely on
assistance from their families for financial and emotional supports during the transition.4 For
older foster youth and those who have already aged out of care, this assistance is often not in
place. Being in care may inherently cause instability because of multiple out-of-home placements,
school transfers, and the challenge of maintaining relationships with parents and other kin. Youth
may experience further instability if they cannot afford to live on their own or are unable to live
with relatives or friends upon emancipation. In most states, youth may not remain in foster care
beyond age 18, a time when most young people explore educational and career options. (Since
FY2011, states have been authorized to seek Title IV-E foster care reimbursement to provide
foster care to eligible youth ages 18 to 21.)
Research on the transition for former foster youth is limited and most of the studies on outcomes
for these youth face methodological challenges—they tend to be dated; include brief follow-up
periods (e.g., no more than a year after exit from care); have low response rates, non-
3 Fred Wulczyn, Lijun Chen, Kristen Brunner Hislop, Foster Care Dynamics 2000-2005: A Report from the Multistate
Foster Care Data Archive, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, 2007.
4 For further information about the transition to adulthood, see CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable Youth: Background
and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
Congressional Research Service
2
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
representative samples, and small sample sizes; and do not follow youth prior to exit from foster
care.5 Few studies include comparison groups to gauge how well these youth are transitioning to
adulthood in relation to their peers in the foster care population or general population. However,
two studies—the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study6 and the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult
Functioning of Former Foster Youth7—have tracked outcomes for a sample of youth across
several domains, either prospectively (following youth in care and as they age out and beyond) or
retrospectively (examining current outcomes for young adults who were in care at least a few
years ago) and comparing these outcomes to other groups of youth, either those who aged out
and/or youth in the general population.
Both studies indicate that youth who spent time in foster care during their teenage years tended to
have difficulty during the transition to adulthood and beyond. The studies do not posit that foster
care, per se, is associated with the challenges former foster youth face in adulthood. (In fact,
children tend to have a range of challenges upon entering care.8) The Northwest Study looked at
the outcomes of young adults who had been in foster care and found that they were more likely to
have mental health and financial challenges than their peers generally. While they were just as
likely to obtain a high school diploma, they were much less likely to obtain a bachelor’s degree.
The Midwest Evaluation has examined the extent to which outcomes in early adulthood are
influenced by the individual characteristics of youth or their out-of-home care histories. The study
has tracked the outcomes of youth who were in foster care since age 17. Data were most recently
collected when these young people were age 26. Compared to their counterparts in the general
population, youth in the Midwest study fare poorly in terms of education, employment, and other
outcomes. For further information about these studies, see Appendix A.
Resiliency of Current and Former Foster Youth
Despite the generally negative findings from the two major evaluations on youth aging out of
foster care, many youth have demonstrated resiliency by overcoming obstacles, such as limited
family support and financial resources, and meeting their goals. For example, youth in the
Northwest Evaluation have obtained a high school diploma or passed the general education
development (GED) test at close to the same rates as 25-to-34-year-olds generally (84.5% versus
87.3%). Further, youth in the Midwest Evaluation were just as likely as the general youth
population at age 23 to report being hopeful about their future.
Current and former foster youth are also working to make improvements to the child welfare
system. At hearings in the 110th Congress that focused on older youth in foster care, these young
people highlighted their struggles, successes, and their advocacy work on behalf of foster
5 For a compendium of outcome studies and their methodologies, see Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring.
“The Transition to Adulthood for Youth ‘Aging Out’ of the Foster Care System” in Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own
Without a Net, appendix. (Hereinafter referenced as Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring, The Transition to
Adulthood for Youth ‘Aging Out’ of the Foster Care System.”)
6 Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study, Casey
Family Programs, 2005, http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/ImprovingFamilyFosterCare_FR.pdf.
7 Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth:
http://www.chapinhall.org/research/report/midwest-evaluation-adult-functioning-former-foster-youth,
8 Fred Wulczyn et al. Beyond Common Sense: Child Welfare, Child Well-Being, and the Evidence for Policy Reform
(New Brunswick: AldineTransaction, 2005), p. 116. (Hereinafter referenced as Wulczyn et al., Beyond Common
Sense.)
Congressional Research Service
3
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
children. At a February 27, 2008, hearing before the Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Income
Security and Family Support, a foster care alumni chronicled her life in care with 11 placements
through her recent graduation from college. In her testimony, she urged Congress to improve
conditions for children in foster care:
I have accomplished a lot, but it is in spite of all of the uncertainty I experienced in foster
care—not because of it. I want something better for the youth who are currently in the foster
care system. I want them to have families to love and protect them and homes they know
they can always return to. I want them to leave foster care to live with a family, a relative—
someone who will be permanent in their lives. I do not want the youth currently in foster care
to age-out of foster care with no family and no one to turn to for help or support.... Congress
has the power to do something, and I ask you on behalf of all of my brothers and sisters who
cannot be sitting here with me to do something now.9
Overview of Federal Child Welfare and Other
Support for Foster Youth
The federal government recognizes that older youth in foster care and those aging out are
vulnerable to negative outcomes and may ultimately return to the care of the state as adults, either
through the public welfare, criminal justice, or other systems. Under the federal foster care
programs, states may seek reimbursement for youth to remain in care up to the age of 21. In
addition, the federal foster care program has protections in place to ensure that older youth in care
have a written case plan that addresses the programs and services they need in making the
transition. Separately, the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) provides
mandatory funding for independent living services and supports (until age 21) to youth who will
likely age out of foster care without reunifying with their parents, being adopted, or being placed
with relatives or other guardians; and to youth age 16 or older who left foster care for kinship
guardianship or adoption. Independent living services are intended to assist youth prepare for
adulthood, and may include assistance in obtaining a high school diploma, career exploration,
training in daily living skills, training in budgeting and financial management skills, and
preventive health activities, among other services. The Chafee Education and Training Voucher
(ETV) program separately authorizes discretionary funding for education and training vouchers
for eligible youth to cover their cost of postsecondary education (until age 23).
Along with the CFCIP, other federal programs are intended to help current and former youth in
foster care make the transition to adulthood. Federal law authorizes funding for states and local
jurisdictions to provide workforce support and housing to older foster youth and youth
emancipating from care. As of January 1, 2014, states must provide Medicaid coverage to eligible
young people who age out of foster care.
9 U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, “Hearing on
Improving the Child Welfare System,” February 27, 2008, available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?
formmode=detail&hearing=612.
Congressional Research Service
4
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Federal Foster Care
Historically, states have been primarily responsible for providing child welfare services to
families and children that need them. While in out-of-home foster care, the state child welfare
agency, under the supervision of the court (and in consultation with the parents or primary
caretakers in some cases), serves as the child’s parent and makes decisions on his or her behalf
that are to promote his or her safety, permanence, and well-being.10 In most cases, the state relies
on public and private entities and organizations to provide these services. The federal government
plays a role in shaping state child welfare systems by providing funds and linking those funds to
certain requirements.
Federal support for foster care preceded, by several decades, the creation of Title IV-E foster care
under the Social Security Act in 1980 (P.L. 96-272). However, the 1980 law established this
support as an independent funding source for states to provide foster homes for children in foster
care. The law also stressed the importance of case planning and review to achieve permanence for
foster children. Title IV-E requires states to follow certain case planning and management
practices for all children in care. Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, which authorizes funding
for child welfare services, includes related oversight provisions.
Case Planning and Review
Federal child welfare provisions under Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act
require state child welfare agencies, as a condition of receiving funding under these titles, to
provide certain case management services to all children in foster care. These include monthly
case worker visits to each child in foster care;11 a written case plan for each child in care that
documents the child’s placement and steps taken to ensure their safety and well-being, including
by addressing their health and educational needs;12 and procedures ensuring a case review is
conducted not less often than every six months by a judge or an administrative review panel, and
at least once every 12 months by a judge or administrative body who must consider the child’s
permanency plan.13
Specific case plan and case review procedures pertain to older youth in care. For a child age 16 or
older, the written case plan must also include a description of the programs and services that will
help the child prepare for the transition to independent living.14 Permanency plan hearings, which
are to be conducted at least once a year after a child enters care, must consider for children age 16
and older the services needed to help them transition to independent living.15 Further, the court or
10 Safety refers to the state child welfare system’s goal of ensuring that children in foster care are protected from further
abuse or neglect. Permanence refers to the state’s goal of ensuring that children do not spend too many of their
formative years in a foster care placement, and that the state either quickly and safely returns them to their families or
quickly finds another safe and permanent home for them. Well-being is inextricably linked to safety and permanency.
The term refers to efforts by the child welfare system to promote positive outcomes for children in care, including
education and physical and mental health outcomes, as well as supportive families.
11 42 U.S.C. 622(b)(17).
12 42 U.S.C. 675(1).
13 42 U.S.C. 675(5).
14 42 U.S.C. 675(1)(D).
15 42 U.S.C. 675(5)(C).
Congressional Research Service
5
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
administrative body conducting the hearings is to consult, in an age-appropriate manner, with the
child regarding the proposed permanency or transition plan for the child.16 In addition, the state
must annually obtain the credit report of each child in care who is age 16 or older, provide the
child with a copy of the report at no cost, and assist the youth with interpreting and resolving
any inaccuracies in the report.17 Minor children do not usually have the legal ability to sign a
contract or apply for credit and generally do not have credit reports. Those with credit reports
may have them because of error, fraud, or identity theft. Credit reports for children cannot be
requested from the three major credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion)
using the standard online procedures used for requesting credit reports for adults. States must
request reports individually from the three reporting agencies, each of which has established
procedures (separate procedures, with varying details and requirements) that a state must follow
to request and receive a credit report for a minor. States must also assist youth who remain in
foster care at age 18 or older (and receive Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments) with
obtaining their credit report and addressing any inaccuracies; however, the youth can request his
or her own credit report.18
States must also assist youth with developing what is known as a transition plan.19 The law
requires that a youth’s caseworker, and as appropriate, other representative(s) of the youth, assist
and support him or her in developing the plan. The plan is to be directed by the youth, and is to
include specific options on housing, health insurance, education, local opportunities for mentors,
workforce supports, and employment services. The plan must address the importance of
designating another individual to make health care treatment decisions on behalf of the youth if
he or she becomes unable to participate in these decisions and does not have a relative who would
be authorized to make these decisions under state law, or he or she does not want a relative to
make those decisions. In addition, the transition plan must provide the youth with the option to
execute a health care power of attorney, health care proxy, or other similar document recognized
under state law. The plan must be implemented 90 days prior to a youth’s 18th birthday (or the
19th, 20th, or 21st birthdays of youth in states that take up the option to extend foster care),
“whether during that period foster care maintenance payments are being made on the child’s
behalf or the child is receiving benefits or services under [the Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program].” Through program guidance, HHS has encouraged child welfare agencies to use the
plan to build on earlier efforts to help young people make the transition from foster care,
including through the case planning process and permanency hearings.20 Child welfare agencies
are encouraged to begin engaging youth in the transition plan process “well in advance” of the
90-day period.
16 Ibid.
17 42 U.S.C. 475(5)(I)).
18 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children Youth and Families, Administration for
Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Program Instruction: Annual Credit Report Required by the Child and
Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (Public Law (P.L.) 112-34), ACYF-CB-PI-12-07, May 8, 2012,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/pi1207.
19 42 U.S.C. 475(5)(H).
20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children Youth and Families, Administration for
Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Program Instruction: Guidance on Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, ACYF-CB-PI-10-11, July 9, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/
laws_policies/policy/pi/2010/pi1011.htm. (Hereinafter referenced as U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Program Instruction: Guidance on Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.)
Congressional Research Service
6
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Title IV-E Reimbursement for Foster Care
Title IV-E currently reimburses states for a part of the cost of providing foster care to eligible
children and youth, who, because of abuse or neglect (or some other reason), cannot remain in
their own homes and for whom a court has consequently given care and placement responsibility
to the state. Under this program, a state may seek partial federal reimbursement to “cover the cost
of (and the cost of providing) food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, a child’s
personal incidentals, liability insurance with respect to a child, and reasonable travel to the child’s
home for visitation and reasonable travel for the child to remain in the school in which the
child is enrolled at the time of placement.”21 States may also seek reimbursement for related
costs of administration, child placement (e.g., case planning), training, and data collection.
Under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (see below), states must certify that they
will use Title IV-E foster care program funding (and Adoption Assistance program funding) to
provide training relevant to foster parents and others (adoptive parents, workers in group homes,
and case managers) to help them understand and address the issues confronting adolescents
preparing for independent living and coordinating this training, where possible, with independent
living programs.22 Although case planning and review procedures (described above) apply to all
foster children in state care, federal reimbursement to states under Title IV-E may be made only
on behalf of a child who meets multiple federal eligibility criteria,23 including those related to the
child’s removal and the income and assets of the child’s family. For purposes of this report, the
most significant eligibility criteria for the federal foster care program are the child’s age and
placement setting.
Eligibility
Prior to FY2011, once a child reached his or her 18th birthday, he or she was no longer eligible for
federal foster care assistance. The age limitation on Title IV-E eligibility was created by the
program’s eligibility link to the now-defunct Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
program.24 Children qualified as dependents under the AFDC program until age 18. As was the
case with AFDC, federal law permitted states to make continued claims for otherwise eligible
foster youth until their 19th birthday provided that the youth was a full-time student and was
expected to complete high school or an equivalent training program by age 19. States must have
elected this option in their definitions of “child” for purposes of the states’ AFDC programs.
Pursuant to the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351),
states have the option, as of FY2011, to seek reimbursement for the cost of providing foster care
to eligible youth until age 19, 20, or 21. The law makes this change by inserting a definition of
“child” as it pertains to older youth in care.25 This definition specifies that a state may seek
reimbursement for a youth age 18 or older who is (1) completing high school or a program
21 42 U.S.C. 675(4).
22 42 U.S.C. 677(b)(3)(D).
23 42 U.S.C. 677.
24 For additional information, see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth
and Families, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Section 8.3A, Question 2 of the Child
Welfare Policy Manual. (Hereinafter referenced as U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare
Policy Manual.)
25 42 U.S.C. 675(8).
Congressional Research Service
7
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
leading to an equivalent credential; (2) enrolled in an institution that provides post-secondary or
vocational education; (3) participating in a program or activity designed to promote, or remove
barriers to, employment; or (4) employed at least 80 hours per month (i.e., part-time). States may
exempt youth from these requirements due to a medical condition, as documented and updated in
their case plan.
In program guidance, HHS advises that states and tribes can make remaining in care conditional
upon whether youth pursue certain educational or employment pathways.26 For example,
extended care could be provided just to those youth enrolled in post-secondary education. Still,
the guidance advises that states and tribes should “consider how [they] can provide extended
assistance to youth age 18 and older to the broadest population possible consistent with the law to
ensure that there are ample supports for older youth.”
As of September 2012, 17 jurisdictions amended their Title IV-E state plans with the intent to
extend the maximum age of foster care and submitted these plans for HHS to review.27 HHS
approved plans for 14 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington) and the
District of Columbia, and was reviewing plan amendments for two other states (Indiana and West
Virginia). All states with approved plan amendments, except for Nebraska, extend care until age
21; Nebraska extends care until age 19.
Except for Tennessee and Washington, states with approved plan amendments allow youth to
remain in care under the four conditions listed above and exempt youth from these conditions if a
youth is incapable of meeting them for medical reasons. Tennessee allows youth to remain in care
so long as youth are in school or participating in a program to address barriers to employment, or
are incapable of performing these activities for medical reasons. Washington’s plan amendment
limits this care to otherwise eligible youth who are completing high school or completing a
program leading to an equivalent credential.
In states that extend foster care, youth ages 18 or older who emancipate from foster care may later
determine, prior to their state’s optional older age, that they would like to return to care because
of the challenges they face living on their own, or for other reasons. Instructions issued by HHS
permit states and tribes to extend foster care assistance in a way that permits a youth to stay in
care continuously or “leave care and return at some point after attaining age 18” (up to age 19, 20,
or 21, depending on the state) so long as the original court order remains in effect and other IV-E
eligibility criteria are satisfied.28 It appears that in at least a small number of states, youth are
already permitted to re-enter care.
P.L. 110-351 also authorizes states, for the first time, to provide Title IV-E subsidies on behalf of
youth 18 or older (until age 19, 20, or 21, at the state’s option) who left foster care after age 16 for
adoption or kinship guardianship, and meet the criteria listed above. This change was also made
by adding a definition of “child” as it relates to these youth.
26 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Program Instruction: Guidance on Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.
27 This information is based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau,
September 2012.
28 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Program Instruction: Guidance on Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.
Congressional Research Service
8
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Eligible Placement Setting
Until FY2011, federal reimbursement of part of the costs of maintaining children in foster care
could be sought only for children placed in foster family homes or child care institutions. As
mentioned above, states have the option of seeking federal maintenance payments to support
youth remaining in care up to age 20. States that take up the option are permitted to claim
reimbursement for youth placed in a “supervised setting in which the individual is living
independently.”29 The act directs HHS to establish in regulation what qualifies as such a setting.
In program instructions issued by HHS, the department stated that it did not have plans to issue
regulations that describe the kinds of living arrangements considered to be independent living
settings, how these settings should be supervised, or any other conditions for a young person to
live independently. The instructions advise that states and tribes have the discretion to develop a
range of supervised independent living settings that “can be reasonably interpreted as consistent
with the law, including whether or not such settings need to be licensed and any safety protocols
that may be needed.” States appear to allow youth age 18 and older to live in a variety of settings.
For example, in Minnesota youth can live in apartments, homes, dorms, and other settings. The
state has explained that it is trying to determine how best to assist youth who pursue
postsecondary education out of state, given that caseworkers must continue to meet with these
youth at least once a month. Youth may live with roommates; the state does not allow youth to
live with their parent(s) from whom they were removed or significant others. The state does not
require independent living settings to be licensed, and each county is given discretion on how to
handle background checks for roommates and any safety concerns at the independent living
setting.30
States may not seek federal reimbursement of foster care costs for children who are in “detention
facilities, forestry camps, training schools, or any other facility operated primarily for the
detention of children who are determined to be delinquent.”31
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
The Chafee Foster Care Independence program (CFCIP), authorized under Section 477 Title IV-E
of the Social Security Act, provides services to older youth in foster care and youth transitioning
out of care.32
Overview
The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-169) replaced the prior-law Independent
Living Program, established in 1985, with the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program. The 1999 law doubled the annual mandatory funds available to states for independent
living services from $70 million to $140 million. Youth served include those who are expected to
leave foster care because they have not been placed in a permanent family before reaching the
29 42 U.S.C. 672(c).
30 Fostering Connections Resource Center, State Approaches to Providing Foster Youth with Options for Supervised
Independent Living, webinar, April 12, 2012.
31 42 U.S.C. 672(c).
32 42 U.S.C. 677.
Congressional Research Service
9
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
state’s legal age of majority and those who have emancipated from care (until age 21). As enacted
by P.L. 106-169, the purposes of the program are to
• identify children (youth) who are likely to remain in foster care until age 18 and
provide them with support services to help make the transition to self sufficiency;
• assist these youth to obtain employment and prepare for and enter college or
other postsecondary training or educational institutions;
• provide personal and emotional support to youth aging out of foster care through
mentors and other dedicated adults;
• enhance the efforts of former foster youth ages 18 to 21 to achieve self
sufficiency through supports that connect them to employment, education,
housing, and other services;
• assure that youth receiving services recognize and accept personal responsibility
for preparing for and then making the transition from adolescence to adulthood;
• make education and training vouchers, including postsecondary training and
education, available to youth who have aged out of foster care; and
• provide services to youth who, after attaining 16 years of age, have left foster
care for kinship guardianship or adoption.
CFCIP-funded services may consist of educational assistance, vocational training, mentoring, and
preventive health activities, among other services. States may dedicate as much as 30% of their
program funding toward room and board for youth ages 18 to 21, including for those youth who
are enrolled in an institution of higher education or who remain in foster care in states that
provide care to youth until ages 19, 20, or 21.33 Room and board are not defined in statute, but
they typically include food and shelter, and may include rental deposits, rent, utilities, and the
cost of household startup purchases. CFCIP funds may not be used to acquire property to provide
housing to current or former foster youth.34 The act also required that youth in the program be
actively involved in decisions about the services they receive.
Eligibility for CFCIP Benefits and Services
The CFCIP requires states to ensure that independent living programs serve children of “various
ages and various stages of achieving independence” and use objective criteria for determining
eligibility for benefits and services under the program. It further specifies that states are to
provide services under the CFCIP for children who are “likely to remain in foster care until 18
years of age” or are “aging out of foster care.” States must also consult with American Indian
tribes and provide services to tribal youth. Foster youth who are in runaway status or lose contact
with their child welfare agency continue to be under the custody of the state, and therefore are
eligible for services upon returning. Those youth in care who have been adjudicated through the
juvenile justice system are eligible for CFCIP services as long as they are not in a detention or
related facility.35 (The juvenile corrections facility is responsible for all services for foster youth
33 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1G, Questions 1 and 4.
34 Ibid, Section 3.1G, Questions 1 and 3.
35 Ibid, Section 3.4, Question 5.
Congressional Research Service
10
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
who are confined in a locked setting.) Foster children who are not citizens may be eligible for
CFCIP services while under state custody.
The CFCIP further requires states to provide certain services to youth who meet specific age and
other criteria. States may provide room and board with CFCIP funds and Medicaid through the
Chafee pathway (see below for further information) only to those youth who are eligible for
CFCIP services. Youth are eligible for an education and training voucher (until age 23) if they
emancipate from care or left care at age 16 or older because they were adopted or went to live
with relatives in a kinship guardianship arrangement. However, to be eligible for a voucher at age
22 or 23, they must have received one at age 21.
The number of youth who receive independent living program assistance with CFCIP dollars
and/or other independent living dollars is not systematically collected; however, as discussed
further below, the number of youth receiving vouchers is available.
Youth Likely to Remain in Foster Care Until Age 18
Under the former Independent Living Program, states could provide services to current foster
youth ages 16 and 17 who were eligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments, or to
“other children in care,” regardless of Title IV-E status. The law establishing the CFCIP removed
reference to a minimum eligibility age and required states to provide supports to children “likely
to remain in foster care” until age 18. This phrase is not defined in the act, and states are to create
eligibility standards using objective criteria. States can provide services to any child age 17 and
younger regardless of their placement in a kinship care home, family foster home, pre-adoptive
home, or any other state-sanctioned placement so long as the child is in state custody. HHS’s
Child Welfare Policy Manual requires states that place children in foster care settings in other
states to fund independent living services for foster youth ages 16 to 18 regardless of their
placement in another state.36
A 2008 survey of independent living coordinators in 45 states (including the District of
Columbia) by the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago found that in
about half of the states (24, 53.3%), youth as young as age 14 are eligible for CFCIP-funded
services. Seven states provide these services at a younger age, while 13 provide services at an
older age. One state said that the age depends on the county, and another state did not report on
the minimum age for services.37 Nearly all (40) of the surveyed states reported that foster youth
are eligible for CFCIP-funded services regardless of their permanency plan. Further, nearly half
of the states (22) said that young people who are placed with a permanent legal guardian are
ineligible or are eligible under certain circumstances.
Permanency Planning
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA, P.L. 105-89) amended Title IV-E to require
that all young people in foster care have a permanency plan of reunification, adoption, placement
36 Ibid, Section 3.1F, Question 2.
37 Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2009, pp. 7-8, at
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=08-12-3903. (Hereinafter referenced as Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek,
Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning Out of Foster Care.)
Congressional Research Service
11
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
with a relative, or legal guardianship. “Another planned permanent living arrangement” (APPLA)
may be selected only if none of those goals is possible or appropriate. In selecting APPLA, states
must document a “compelling reason” for determining that the other case permanency goals
would not be in the child’s best interest. In guidance, HHS has advised that states can pursue
independent living and/or emancipation as a permanency option under APPLA on a “case-by case
basis only.”38
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care
Prior to the enactment of the CFCIP, states had the option to serve young people who had
emancipated from care until age 21. The Foster Care Independence Act requires states that
receive CFCIP funds to provide independent living services to youth who have aged out of care
between the ages of 18 through 21. According to HHS, this requirement does not preclude states
from providing services to other former foster care youth ages 18 to 21 who exited care prior to
their 18th birthday.39 The 2008 Chapin Hall survey of 45 states found that almost half of the states
(19; 42.2%) reported that former foster youth are eligible for aftercare services if they were not in
care on their 18th birthday. Slightly more states (about 21) reported that these youth could receive
services if their discharge outcome was reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship.
Former foster youth continue to remain eligible for aftercare services until age 21 if they move to
another state. The state in which the former foster youth resides—whether or not the youth was in
foster care in that state—is responsible for providing independent living services to the eligible
young person.40
American Indian Youth
The prior federal Independent Living Program did not specify that states consult with American
Indian tribes or serve Indian youth in particular. The CFCIP requires that a state must certify that
each federally recognized Indian tribal organization in the state has been consulted about that
state’s independent living programs and that there have been efforts to coordinate the programs
with these tribes. In addition, the CFCIP provides that the “benefits and services under the
programs are to be made available to Indian children in the state on the same basis as to other
children in the state.” “On the same basis” has been interpreted by HHS to mean that the state
will provide program services equitably to children in both state custody and tribal custody.41 The
importance of tribal involvement was explained by Representative J.D. Hayworth during debate
of the House version of P.L. 106-169 (H.R. 1802) in June 1999, when he said that tribes are in the
best position to identify the needs of tribal youth and local resources available for these
young people.42
As of FY2010, the law permits an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium that
receives direct funding from HHS to provide child welfare services or enters into a cooperative
agreement or contract with the state to provide foster care to apply for and receive an allotment of
38 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Question 3.4.
39 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1B, Question 2.
40 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1F, Question 3.
41 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1I, Question 5.
42 U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, June 25, 1999, p. H4969.
Congressional Research Service
12
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
CFCIP and ETV funds directly from HHS. To be eligible, a tribal entity must be receiving Title
IV-E funds to operate a foster care program (under a Title IV-E plan approved by HHS or via a
cooperative agreement or contract with the state). Successful tribal applicants are to receive an
allotment amount(s) out of the state’s allotment for the program(s) based on the share of all
children in foster care in the state under the custody of the tribal entity. Tribal entities must satisfy
the CFCIP program requirements established for states, as HHS determines appropriate, and they
must submit a plan to HHS that details their process for consulting with the state about their
independent living or ETV programs, among other information, through what is known as the
Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) and annual updates to that plan. Four tribes—Prairie
Band of Potawatomi (Kansas), Santee Sioux Nation (Nebraska), Confederated Tribe of Warm
Springs (Oregon), and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (Washington)—receive CFCIP and ETV
funding.
Also as of FY2010, a state must certify that it will negotiate in good faith with any tribal entity
that does not receive a direct federal allotment of child welfare funds but would like to enter into
an agreement or contract with the state to receive funds for administering, supervising, or
overseeing CFCIP and ETV programs for eligible Indian children under the tribal entity’s
authority.
The Role of Youth Participants
The CFCIP requires that states ensure youth in independent living programs participate directly in
designing their own program activities that prepare them for independent living and further that
they “accept personal responsibility for living up to their part of the program.” This language
builds on the positive youth development approach to serving youth.43 Youth advocates that
support this approach view youth as assets and promote the idea that youth should be engaged in
decisions about their lives and communities.
States have also taken various approaches to involving young people in decisions about the
services they receive. These include annual conferences, with young people involved in
conference planning and participation; youth speakers’ bureaus, with young people trained and
skilled in public speaking; youth or alumni assisting in the recruitment of foster and adoptive
parents; and young people serving as mentors for children and youth in foster care, among other
activities.44 Some states have also established formal youth advisory boards to provide a forum
for youth to become involved in issues facing youth in care and aging out of care.45 Youth-serving
organizations for current and former foster youth, such as Foster Club, provide an outlet for
young people to become involved in the larger foster care community and advocate for other
children in care. States are not required to utilize life skills assessments or personal responsibility
contracts with youth to comply with the youth participation requirement, although some states use
these tools to assist youth in making the transition to adulthood.46
43 For additional information about the positive youth development movement in youth policy, see CRS Report
RL33975, Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
44 National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions II About the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
and the Chafee Educational and Training Voucher Program, pp. 30-31.
45 For a list of jurisdictions with youth advisory boards, see http://groups.fosterclub.com/.
46 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1A, Question 1.
Congressional Research Service
13
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Program Administration
States administer their independent living programs in a few ways. Some programs are overseen
by the state independent living office, which employs an independent living coordinator and other
staff. For example, in Maine the state’s independent living manager oversees six specialized life
skills education coordinators assigned to cover all of the state’s district offices for the Department
of Health and Human Services. In some states, like California, each county (or other jurisdiction)
administers its own program with some oversight and support from a statewide program. Other
states, including Florida, use contracted service providers to administer their programs. Many
jurisdictions have partnered with private organizations to help fund and sometimes administer
some aspect of their independent living programs. For example, the Jim Casey Youth
Opportunities Initiative has provided funding and technical assistance to multiple cities to provide
financial support and training to youth exiting care.47
Chafee Education and Training Vouchers
Youth who qualify for the CFCIP, including youth who left foster care at age 16 or older for
kinship guardianship or adoption, are eligible for the Chafee Education and Training Voucher
(ETV) Program.. Vouchers are available for the cost of (full-time or part-time) attendance at an
institution of higher education, as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA). HEA
defines “cost of attendance” as tuition, fees, and other equipment or materials required of all
students in the same course of study; books, supplies, and allowance for transportation and
miscellaneous personal expenses, including computers; room and board; child care expenses for a
student who is a parent; accommodations related to the student’s disability that is not paid for by
another source; expenses related to the youth’s work experience in a cooperative education
program; and student loan fees or insurance premiums on the loans.48 HEA defines “institutions
of higher education” to include traditional higher education institutions (e.g., public or private,
nonprofit two- and four-year colleges and universities) as well as other postsecondary institutions
(e.g., proprietary or for-profit schools offering technical training programs usually of less than
two-years’ duration, and vocational schools).49
Youth are eligible to receive ETVs until age 21, except that youth receiving a voucher at age 21
may continue to participate in the voucher program until age 23 if they are enrolled in a
postsecondary education or training program and are making satisfactory progress toward
completion of that program. Given the age restriction, this may preclude former foster youth who
delay college enrollment or are applying to graduate school from receiving the voucher.
Funding received through the ETV program does not count toward the student’s expected family
contribution, which is used by the federal government to determine a student’s need for federal
financial aid. However, the total amount of education assistance provided under the ETV program
and other federal programs may not exceed the total cost of attendance, and students cannot claim
the same education expenses under multiple federal programs.50 In addition, a current fiscal
47 For further information about the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, see http://www.jimcaseyyouth.org/
communities.htm.
48 Section 132(a)(2) of the Higher Education Act.
49 Section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act.
50 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.5B, Question 1.
Congressional Research Service
14
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
year’s ETV funds may not be used to finance a youth’s educational or vocational loans incurred
prior to that current fiscal year.51
Program Administration
The ETV program is administered by HHS, which provides funding to states to carry out the
program. The state with the placement and responsibility for a youth in foster care is to provide
the voucher to that youth. The state must also continue to provide a voucher to any youth who is
currently receiving a voucher and moves to another state for the sole purpose of attending an
institution of higher education. If a youth permanently moves to another state after leaving care
and subsequently enrolls in a qualified institution of higher education, the state where he or she
resides would provide the voucher.52
Generally, states administer their ETV program through their independent living program. Some
states, however, administer the program through their financial aid office (e.g., California Student
Aid Commission) or at the local level (e.g., Florida, where all child welfare programs are
administered through community-based agencies). Some states contract with a nonprofit service
provider, such as the Orphan Foundation of America or the Student Assistance Foundation.
States and counties may use ETV dollars to fund the vouchers and the costs associated with
administering the program, including for salaries, expenses, and training of staff who administer
the state’s voucher program. States are not permitted to use Title IV-E Foster Care or Adoption
Assistance program funds for administering the ETV program.53 They may, however, spend
additional funds from state sources or other sources to supplement the ETV program or use ETV
funds to expand existing postsecondary funding programs.54 Several states have scholarship
programs, tuition waivers, and grants for current and former foster youth that are funded through
other sources.55
Youth Receiving Vouchers
States provided vouchers to 16,400 youth in FY2007; 16,650 youth in FY2008; and 17,400 youth
in FY2009. These are the most recent data available and include all states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico.56 The average value of a voucher awarded during FY2009 was
$3,000.57
51 Ibid. Section 3.5C, Question 5.
52 Ibid. Section 3.5, Question 1.
53 Ibid, Section 3.5C, Question 5.
54 Ibid, Section 3.5C, Question 6.
55 For example, see Amy Dworsky and Alfred Perez, Helping Former Foster Youth Graduate From College: Campus
Support Programs in California and Washington State, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, 2009;
and Liliana Hernandez and Toni Naccarato, “Scholarships and Supports Available to Foster Care Alumni: A Study of
12 Programs Across the U.S.,” Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 32, no. 5 (May 2010), pp. 758-766; and
Casey Family Programs, Supporting Success: Improving Higher Education Outcomes for Youth in Foster Care: A
Framework for Program Enhancement, 2010.
56 This is based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on
Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, April 2012.
57 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration
for Children and Families, FY2013 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, p. 145.
Congressional Research Service
15
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Funding for States
States must provide a 20% match (in-kind or cash) to receive their full federal CFCIP and ETV
allotment. CFCIP funds are often mixed with state, local, and other funding sources to provide a
system of support for youth likely to age out of care and those who have emancipated. The 2008
survey of 45 states by Chapin Hall found that 31 of the states (68.9%) spend additional funds—
beyond the 20% match—to provide independent living services and supports to eligible youth.58
Of the 31 states, 22 reported that they used funds to provide services for which CFCIP dollars
cannot be used.59
To be eligible for CFCIP general and ETV funds, a state must submit a five-year plan (as part of
what is known as the Child and Family Service Plan (CFSP) and Annual Progress and Service
Report (APSR)) to HHS that describes how it intends to carry out its independent living program.
The text box below includes the full list of certifications that the state must make when
submitting its plan. The plan must be submitted on or before June 30 of the calendar year in
which the plan is to begin. States may make amendments to the plan and notify HHS within 30
days of modifying the plan. HHS is to make the plans available to the public.
States may use CFCIP funding to provide services listed in the CFCIP’s authorizing statute. Also,
as described in HHS’s Child Welfare Policy Manual, states may use CFCIP funding to establish
trust funds for youth eligible under the program.60
CFCIP and ETV funds are distributed to each state based on its proportion of the nation’s children
in foster care. Table B-1 in Appendix B provides the CFCIP and voucher allotments for each
state (and for a small number of tribes) in FY2011 and FY2012.
58 Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, p. 14.
59 The authors of the survey note that some of the services for which states reported spending non-CFCIP dollars can,
in fact, be funded through the CFCIP.
60 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.3E, Question 1.
Congressional Research Service
16
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
CFCIP State Plan Requirements
To receive funds under the CFCIP, a state must describe in its CFCIP plan how it will
•
design and deliver programs to achieve the program purposes;
•
ensure statewide, although not necessarily uniform, coverage by the program;
•
ensure that the programs serve children of various ages and at various stages of achieving independence;
•
involve the public and private sectors in helping adolescents in foster care achieve independence;
•
use objective criteria for determining eligibility for and ensuring fair and equitable treatment of benefit recipients;
and
•
cooperate in national evaluations of the effects of the programs in achieving the purpose of the CFCIP.
The state must also certify that it will
•
provide assistance and services to eligible former foster youth;
•
use room and board payments only for youth ages 18 to 21;
•
expend not more than 30% of CFCIP funds on room and board for youth ages 18 to 21;
•
use funding under the Title IV-E Foster Care program and Adoption Assistance program (but not the CFCIP) to
provide training to help foster parents and others understand and address the issues confronting adolescents
preparing for independent living and coordinate this training, where possible, with independent living programs;
•
consult widely with public and private organizations in developing the plans and give the public at least 30 days to
comment on the plan;
•
make every effort to coordinate independent living programs with other youth programs at the local, state, and
federal levels, including independent living projects funded under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act, abstinence education programs, local housing programs, programs for disabled youth, and school-to-work
programs offered by high schools or local workforce agencies;
•
consult each Indian tribe about the programs to be carried out under the plan, ensure that there have been
efforts to coordinate the programs with such tribes, and ensure that benefits and services under the programs
will be made available to Indian children in the state on the same basis as other children in the state (beginning in
FY2010, states must also negotiate in good faith with any tribal entity that does not receive a direct federal
allotment of child welfare funds, but would like to enter into an agreement or contract with the state to receive
funds for administering, supervising, or overseeing CFCIP and ETV programs for eligible Indian children under
the tribal entity’s authority);
•
ensure that eligible youth participate directly in designing their own program activities that prepare them for
independent living and that they accept personal responsibility for living up to their part of the program;
•
establish and enforce standards and procedures to prevent fraud and abuse in the programs carried out under its
plan;
•
ensure that the ETV program complies with the federal program requirements, including that (1) the total
amount of education assistance to a youth provided through the ETV program and under other federal and
federal y supported programs does not exceed the total cost of attendance and (2) it does not duplicate benefits
under the CFCIP or other federal or federal y assisted benefit programs; and
•
ensure that eligible youth receive education about (1) the importance of designating an individual to make health
care treatment decisions for them (should they become unable to do so, have no relatives authorized under
state law to do so, or do not want relatives to make those decisions); (2) whether a health care power of
attorney, health care proxy, or other similar document is recognized under state law; and (3) how to execute
such a document.
Source: Section 477 of the Social Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
17
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Hold Harmless Provision
The CFCIP includes a “hold harmless” clause that precludes any state from receiving less than the
amount of general independent living funds it received under the former independent living
program in FY1998 or $500,000, whichever is greater. (There is no hold harmless provision for
ETV funds.) The general funding for independent living services doubled nationally with the
implementation of the CFCIP; however, the percentage change in funds received varies across
states. This is because the distribution of funding was changed to reflect the most current state
share of the national caseload (instead of their share of the 1984 caseload in all previous years).
Unused Funds
States have two years to spend their CFCIP and voucher funds. For instance, funds allotted for
FY2012 may be spent in FY2012 or FY2013. If a state does not apply for all of its allotment, the
remaining funds may be redistributed among states that need these funds as determined by HHS.
If a state applies for all of its CFCIP allotted funds but does not spend them within the two-year
time frame, the unused funds revert to the federal treasury. In FY2009 (the most recent year data
are available), the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, were allocated a combined total of
$137.9 million in general CFCIP funds, of which $662,419 (0.6%) was returned to the treasury by
seven states. No states returned all of their funds. Also in FY2009, the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and
Washington, DC, received $44.7 million in funds for the vouchers, of which 17 states collectively
returned $1.7 million (3.9%). No states returned all of their funds.61
Training and Technical Assistance
Training and technical assistance grants for the CFCIP and ETV program are awarded
competitively every five years, with non-competitive grants renewed annually. The most recent
cooperative agreement was made for FY2010 through FY2014.The National Child Welfare
Resource Center for Youth Development (NCWRCYD), housed at the University of Oklahoma,
currently provides assistance under the grant.62 The NCWRCYD helps states and tribes
implement their independent living programs and involve foster youth in programming and
services. Training and technical assistance requests from states have involved providing
assistance with more effective implementation of state CFCIP plans, including discussions around
allowable expenditures of both CFCIP and ETV funds, permanency planning for adolescents, and
educating the courts on laws affecting older youth, among other types of issues.63 Assistance is
provided through national conferences and meetings, on-site technical assistance, and information
made available on the NCWRCYD website and through publications.
61 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s
Bureau, April 2012.
62 For more information about the type of assistance that is provided, see http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/about.html.
63 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s
Bureau in December 2008.
Congressional Research Service
18
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD)
The CFCIP requires that HHS consult with state and local public officials responsible for
administering independent living and other child welfare programs, child welfare advocates,
Members of Congress, youth service providers, and researchers to (1) “develop outcome
measures (including measures of educational attainment, high school diploma, avoidance of
dependency, homelessness, non-marital childbirth, incarceration, and high-risk behaviors) that
can be used to assess the performance of states in operating independent living programs;” (2)
identify the data needed to track the number and characteristics of children receiving services, the
type and quantity of services provided, and state performance on the measures; and (3) develop
and implement a plan to collect this information beginning with the second fiscal year after the
passage of the law establishing the CFCIP.
In response to these requirements, HHS created the National Youth in Transition Database
(NYTD). The final rule establishing the NYTD became effective April 28, 2008, 60 days after
publication, and it required states to report data on youth beginning in FY2011.64 HHS uses
NYTD to engage in two data collection and reporting activities.65 First, states collect information
twice each fiscal year on eligible youth who currently receive independent living services
whether they continue to remain in foster care, were in foster care in another state, or received
child welfare services through an Indian tribe or privately operated foster care program. These
youth are known as served youth. Second, states collect information on foster youth on or about
their 17th birthday, two years later on or about their 19th birthday, and again on or about their 21st
birthday. Foster youth at age 17 are known as the baseline youth, and at ages 19 and 21 they are
known as the follow-up youth. These current and former foster youth are tracked regardless of
whether they receive independent living services at ages 17, 19, and 21. States may track a
sample of youth who participated in the outcomes collection at age 17 to reduce the data
collection burden. Information is to be collected on a new group of foster youth at age 17 every
three years.
Consistent with the statutory requirement developed by Congress in the CFCIP authorizing
statute, HHS is to penalize any state not meeting the data collection procedures for the NYTD
from 1% to 5% of its annual Chafee fund allotment, which includes any allotted or re-allotted
funds for the general CFCIP program only. The penalty amount is to be withheld from a current
fiscal year award of the funds. HHS’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is to
evaluate a state’s data file against data compliance standards, provided by statute. However, states
will have the opportunity to submit corrected data..66
Training and technical assistance for NYTD is provided to states through HHS; the National
Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development (NCWRCYD) based at the University of
Oklahoma; the National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology (NRCCWDT),
housed at the Child Welfare League of America; and a contractor, ICF International, which was
64 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Chafee National Youth in Transition Database,” 73 Federal
Register 10338, February 26, 2008.
65 For additional information, you may request a copy of a Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act National Youth in Transition Database, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
66 The data files are maintained at the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) at Cornell
University. As HHS has explained, NYTD data files are reported semiannually, and because states have a window of
time to collect baseline outcomes data from youth, surveying a cohort of 17-year-olds in care (the baseline youth) takes
18 months.
Congressional Research Service
19
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
selected in September 2008. The contractor created the system that is used to receive and process
states’ NYTD data and provide technical assistance to states around data reporting. The
Children’s Bureau has annually convened national technical assistance meetings for states in each
year since 2008. At the conferences, federal staff and staff from NCWRCYD and NRCCWDT
have assisted states in understanding the NYTD regulation and implementation requirements. In
coordination with ICF, NCWRCYD, and NRCCWDT, HHS has developed a technical assistance
strategy in preparing for NYTD implementation, including a technical assistance toolkit and a
series of regional and national conference calls.67
Evaluation of Innovative Independent Living Programs68
The CFCIP provides that HHS is to conduct evaluations of independent living programs funded
by the CFCIP deemed to be innovative or of national significance. The law reserves 1.5% of total
CFCIP funding annually for these evaluations, as well as CFCIP-related technical assistance,
performance measurement, and data collection.
HHS contracted with the Urban Institute and its partners to conduct an evaluation pursuant to the
CFCIP, known as the Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs. The goal of the evaluation
was to determine the effects of independent living programs funded by the CFCIP authorizing
statute in achieving key outcomes, including increased educational attainment, higher
employment rates and stability, greater interpersonal and relationship skills, reduced non-marital
pregnancy and births, and reduced delinquency and crime rates. HHS and the evaluation team
initially conducted an assessment to identify programs that could be evaluated rigorously, through
random assignment to treatment and control groups, as required under the law.
The evaluation team determined that it could use random assignment at four innovative programs
in California and Massachusetts—an employment services program in Kern County, CA; a one-
on-one intensive, individualized life skills program in Massachusetts; and a classroom-based life
skills training program and tutoring/mentoring program, both in Los Angeles County, CA.69 The
evaluation of the Los Angeles and Kern County programs found no statistically significant
impacts as a result of the interventions; however, the life skills program in Massachusetts showed
impacts for some of the education outcomes that were measured.
The Massachusetts program is known as the Massachusetts Adolescent Outreach Program for
Youth in Intensive Foster Care, or Outreach.70 Outreach assists youth who enroll voluntarily in
preparing to live independently and in having permanent connections to caring adults upon
67 This information was provided to the Congressional Research Service by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of the Secretary in July 2008, December 2008, and January 2010.
68 The body of research about the efficacy of independent living and related programs for youth in and aging out of
foster care is scarce. A 2006 literature review examined studies of such programs from the 1990s through October
2005, and identified eight evaluations that had promising, but limited, findings. Paul Montgomery, Charles Donkoh,
and Kristen Underhill, “Independent Living Programs for Young People Leaving the Care System: The State of the
Evidence,” Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 28, no. 12 (2006), pp. 1435-48.
69 Additional information regarding the Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs is available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/chafee/.
70 Mark E. Courtney et al., Evaluation of the Massachusetts Adolescent Outreach Program for Youths in Intensive
Foster Care: Final Report, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, OPRE Report
#2011-14, July 2011, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/chafee/reports/eval_mass/eval_mass.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
20
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
exiting care. Outreach is intended to help youth achieve a range of outcomes, including receiving
a high school diploma, continuing their education, avoiding non-marital childbirth and high-risk
behaviors, and gaining employment, among other outcomes. A core feature of the Outreach model
is that the social workers in the program oversee a small caseload (approximately 15 youth each)
and have regular (approximately once a week) interactions with the youth. The workers seek to
develop a close relationship with the youth, with the goal of the youth viewing the worker as his
or her advocate.
The baseline characteristics of youth in both the treatment and control groups were similar, except
that Outreach youth were more likely to have had prior placement in foster care and to have run
away from home.71 The impact evaluation examined educational, employment, and other
outcomes that can reflect how well a young person is transitioning to adulthood. Outreach youth
were more likely than their counterparts in the control group to report having ever enrolled in
college and they were more likely to stay enrolled. Outreach youth were also more likely to
experience outcomes that were not a focus of the evaluation: youth were more likely to remain in
foster care and to report receiving more help in some areas of educational assistance, employment
assistance, money management, and financial assistance for housing. According to the study,
remaining in care and enrolling and persisting in college appear to be strongly interrelated. In
short, the Outreach youth may have been less successful on the educational front if they had not
stayed in care. Youth in the program reported similar outcomes as the control group for multiple
other measures. For example, Outreach youth did not report better outcomes in employment,
economic well-being, housing, delinquency, pregnancy, or preparedness for various tasks
associated with living on one’s own.
Other Federal Support for Older Current and
Former Foster Youth
In addition to the federal programs under Title IV-E, other federal laws authorize some funding
for service or assistance to older current and former foster youth. This section describes a
Medicaid pathway for certain former foster youth; educational, workforce, and housing supports;
and a grant to fund training for child welfare practitioners working with older foster youth and
youth emancipating from care.
Medicaid72
In the Foster Care Independence Act that established the Chafee Foster Care Independence
program, Congress encouraged states to provide Medicaid coverage to children who were aging
out of the foster care system. The law created a new optional Medicaid eligibility pathway for
“independent foster care adolescents”; this pathway is often called the “Chafee option.”73 The law
further defined these adolescents as individuals under the age of 21 who were in foster care under
the responsibility of the state on their 18th birthday. Within this broadest category of independent
71 These differences were taken into account in the impact analyses.
72 For further information about the health care of children in foster care, see CRS Report R42378, Child Welfare:
Health Care Needs of Children in Foster Care and Related Federal Issues, by Evelyne P. Baumrucker et al.
73 42 U.S.C. 1396d(w)(1).
Congressional Research Service
21
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
foster care adolescents, the law permits states to restrict eligibility based on the youth’s income or
resources, and whether or not the youth had received Title IV-E funding.
In all states, youth age 19 or younger with family incomes at or below 100% of the federal
poverty limit (or up to 250% in some states) are eligible for Medicaid or the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Youth ages 18 to 21 in foster care who do not qualify for
Medicaid or SCHIP may be eligible for Medicaid coverage through the “Ribicoff” pathway,
named for the late former senator, Abraham Ribicoff. Ribicoff youth must meet the income and
resource requirements for the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program
but do not meet other categorical requirements for AFDC. Older foster youth may also be eligible
under a pathway for children under age 21 who are taken into state custody. This pathway allows
the state to extend Medicaid eligibility to youth under age 21 in foster care regardless of the
income or resources of their biological or foster parents.74
Former foster youth may also qualify for Medicaid through other eligibility pathways available to
certain groups of adults, such as for pregnant women with family income equal to or less than
133% of the federal poverty limit (FPL), some low-income adults with children, and some adults
with high medical expenses (i.e., “medically needy”).75 These youth may also be eligible for
Medicaid or SCHIP coverage through waivers, known as Section 1115 waivers, that provide
comprehensive coverage to categorically ineligible adults with incomes up to at least 100% of the
FPL.
According to the 2008 survey by Chapin Hall of 45 states, 29 states (64.4%) have extended the
Chafee option to eligible youth.76 Of the 28 states that responded to a follow-up question about
eligibility requirements, 25 states reported that to be eligible, youth must have been in foster care
on their 18th birthday; 15 states reported that youth must complete an application to be eligible;
one state said that youth are automatically eligible; and nine states reported other eligibility
criteria. Another 14 states reported that former foster youth are eligible for SCHIP (six of the
states) or Medicaid through other pathways (13 of the states). Youth are eligible for Medicaid by
meeting the “medically needy” criteria (seven states); through a 100% state funded program
(three states); and through other, unspecified pathways (three states). One state reported that
former foster youth are not categorically eligible for Medicaid.
The Chafee option will become a moot pathway in the next few years. As part of the health care
reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148), youth who were in
foster care on their 18th birthday (or an older age allowed by the state) will be eligible under a
new mandatory Medicaid pathway specifically for former foster youth until age 26 regardless of
74 Sonja Schwartz and Melanie Glascock, Improving Access to Health Coverage for Transitional Youth, National
Academy for State Healthy Policy, p. 5, July 2008, at http://www.nashp.org/sites/default/files/transitional_youth.pdf.
75 For information about Medicaid eligibility pathways, see CRS Report RL33019, Medicaid Eligibility for Adults and
Children, by Jean Hearne.
76 Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, p. 11. A 2006 survey of state human service officials by the American Public Human Services
Association (APHSA) found that 17 states reported extending Medicaid coverage to eligible youth through the Chafee
option. See Sonali Patel and Martha A. Roherty, Medicaid Access for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care, American
Public Human Services Association, 2007, at http://www.aphsa.org/Home/Doc/Medicaid-Access-for-Youth-Aging-
Out-of-Foster-Care-Rpt.pdf. Puerto Rico was not included in this analysis.
Congressional Research Service
22
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
their annual income.77 This provision is effective January 1, 2014. HHS has not issued guidance
about this pathway.78
Educational Support79
Independent Student Status
For purposes of applying for federal financial aid, a student’s expected family contribution (EFC)
is the amount, according to the federal need analysis methodology, that can be expected to be
contributed by a student and the student’s family toward his or her cost of education. Certain
groups of students are considered “independent,” meaning that only the income and assets of the
student are counted.80 Individuals who are or were orphans, in foster care, or wards of the court at
age 13 or older are eligible to apply for independent student status.81 The law does not specify the
length of time that the youth must have been in foster care or the reason for exiting as factors for
eligibility to claim independent status; however, the federal financial aid form, known as the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), instructs current and former foster youth that the
financial aid administrator at their school may require the student to provide proof that they were
in foster care.
TRIO Programs
The Higher Education Act (HEA) authorizes services, including housing services, among other
related supports, specifically for youth in foster care or recently emancipated youth.82 The act
provides that youth in foster care, including youth who have left foster care after reaching age 16,
and homeless children and youth are eligible for what are collectively called the federal TRIO
programs. The programs are known individually as Talent Search, Upward Bound, Student
77 42 U.S.C. 1396A. Youth will be eligible if they are not eligible or enrolled under existing (at the time P.L. 110-351
was passed) Medicaid mandatory eligibility groups (or described in any of the existing Medicaid mandatory eligibility
groups), regardless of whether they have income that exceeds the upper income eligibility limit established under any
such group. Children in foster care who are not Title IV-E eligible generally still qualify for Medicaid coverage
because all states have implemented one or more mandatory or optional Medicaid eligibility categories that allow them
to cover children in care regardless of their IV-E eligibility status.
78 For further information, see CRS Report R42378, Child Welfare: Health Care Needs of Children in Foster Care and
Related Federal Issues, by Evelyne P. Baumrucker et al.
79 Though not discussed here, a small part of the allocation formula population factor for the Title I-A program of
Education for the Disadvantaged (authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended)
accounts for the number of children ages 5 to 17 who are in institutions for delinquent children or foster homes when
making grants to local education agencies (LEAs). For additional information, see CRS Report RL33731, Education
for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Rebecca R.
Skinner.
80 29 U.S.C. 1087vv(d). Other groups of eligible students include those age 24 or older; students of any age in graduate
or professional school; and students under age 24 who are married, have legal dependents other than a spouse (i.e.,
children), are in the armed services, or are veterans of the armed services. Students may also be considered independent
by a financial aid administrator who “makes a documented determination of independence by reason of other unusual
circumstance.”
81 This category was revised by the College Cost Reduction Act (P.L. 110-84), enacted in 2009. The previous definition
included an individual who is an orphan or ward of the state (or was such until age 18).
82 In 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA, P.L. 110-315) amended HEA to add foster youth as an
eligible population for these services.
Congressional Research Service
23
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Support Services, Educational Opportunity Centers, and McNair Postbaccalaureate. The TRIO
programs are designed to identify potential postsecondary students from disadvantaged
backgrounds, prepare these students for higher education, provide certain support services to
them while they are in college, and train individuals who provide these services. HEA directs the
Department of Education (ED), which administers the programs, to (as appropriate) require
applicants seeking TRIO funds to identify and make available services, including mentoring,
tutoring, and other services, to these youth.83 In addition, HEA authorizes services for current and
former foster youth (and homeless youth) through Student Support Services—a program intended
to improve the retention and graduation rates of disadvantaged college students—that include
temporary housing during breaks in the academic year.84 TRIO funds are awarded by ED on a
competitive basis. In FY2012, Congress appropriated $839.9 million to TRIO programs.85
Separately, HEA allows additional uses of funds through the Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education (FIPE) to establish demonstration projects that provide comprehensive
support services for students who were in foster care (or homeless) at age 13 or older. FIPE is a
grant program that seeks to support the implementation of innovative educational reform ideas
and evaluate how well they work. As specified in the law, the projects can provide housing to the
youth when housing at an educational institution is closed or unavailable to other students. In
FY2012, Congress appropriated $3.5 million to FIPE.86
Workforce Support
Workforce Investment Act Programs
The Workforce Investment Act authorizes job training programs to unemployed and
underemployed individuals through the Department of Labor (DOL). Two of these programs—
Youth Activities and Job Corps—provide job training and related services to targeted low-income
vulnerable populations, including foster youth.87 The WIA Youth Activities program focuses on
preventative strategies to help in-school youth stay in school and receive occupational skills, as
83 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11(6)(c)—general provisions; 20 U.S.C. 1070a-12(c)(7)—Talent Search; 20 U.S.C. 1070a-
13(d)(7)—Upward Bound; 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14(a)(3), (c)(5), and (c)(6)—Student Support Services. Notably, the
section of HEA that authorizes the McNair Postbaccalaurete program does not specify that current and former foster
youth are eligible for services under the program. Another section of the law (pertaining to documentation of status as a
low-income individual) specifies that notwithstanding that section of the law, foster youth and certain former foster
youth are eligible for all of the programs except the McNair Postbaccalaurete program.
84 These changes were made by the Higher Education Opportunity Act (P.L. 110-315) in 2008. The Department of
Education issued regulations to provide further clarification about the changes. See, U.S. Department of Education,
“High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program, The Federal TRIO Programs, and
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program,” 75 Federal Register 65712-65803, October 26,
2010.
85 U.S. Department of Education, FY 2013 Department of Education Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the
Congress, Higher Education, p. S-119, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget13/justifications/s-
highered.pdf. (Hereinafter referenced as U.S. Department of Education, FY 2013 Department of Education
Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress, Higher Education.)
86 U.S. Department of Education, FY 2013 Department of Education Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the
Congress, Higher Education, p. S-95.
87 Authorization of appropriations under WIA expired in FY2003 but is annually extended through appropriations acts.
Youth in foster care are also eligible for WIA’s Youth Opportunity program, however, Congress has not appropriated
funding for the program since FY2003.
Congressional Research Service
24
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
well as on providing training and supportive services, such as assistance with child care, for out-
of-school youth. Job Corps is an educational and vocational training program that helps students
learn a trade, complete their GED, and secure employment. To be eligible, foster youth must meet
age and income criteria as defined under the act. Young people current or formerly in foster care
may participate in Youth Activities if they are ages 14 to 21, and in Job Corps if they are ages 16
to 24 (20% of participants must be ages 22 to 24).88 In FY2012, Congress appropriated $824
million to Youth Activities and $1.7 billion to Job Corps.
Housing Support
Family Unification Vouchers Program
Current and former foster youth may be eligible for housing subsidies provided through programs
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Family
Unification Vouchers program (FUP vouchers). The FUP vouchers were initially created in 1990
under P.L. 101-625 for families that qualify for Section 8 tenant-based assistance and for whom
the lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in the separation, or threat of imminent
separation, of children from their families or in preventing the reunification of the children with
their families.89 Amendments to the program in 2000 under P.L. 106-377 made youth ages 18 to
21 who left foster care at age 16 or older eligible for the vouchers. These youth are eligible for the
vouchers for up to 18 months.
FUP vouchers were initially awarded from 1992 to 2001. Over that period, approximately 39,000
vouchers were distributed.90 Each award included five years of funding per voucher and the
voucher’s use was restricted to voucher-eligible families for those five years. At the end of those
five years, public housing authorities (PHAs), which administer the vouchers, were eligible to
convert FUP vouchers to regular Section 8 housing vouchers for low-income families. While the
five-year use restrictions have expired for all family unification vouchers, some PHAs may have
continued to use their original family unification vouchers for FUP-eligible families and some
may have chosen to use some regular-purpose vouchers for FUP families. Congress appropriated
$20 million for new FUP vouchers in each of FY2008 and FY2009 and $15 million in FY2010.91
Congress has specified that amounts made available under Section 8 tenant-based rental
assistance and used for the FUP are to remain available for these purposes.92
88 29 U.S.C. 2801(13) and 29 U.S.C. 2884(1).
89 42 U.S.C. 1437(f)(x).
90 This information is based on correspondence with the National Center for Housing and Child Welfare, a child
welfare organization, in August 2008.
91 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Joint Explanatory Statement, Division K, report to accompany
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment to H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161, 110th Cong., 1st sess., p. 2396; U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Division I, committee print of the
House Committee on Appropriations on H.R. 1105/P.L. 111-8, 111th Cong., 1st sess., p. 1987; and U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Transportation and Housing and Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, report to accompany H.R. 3288/P.L. 111-117, 111th Cong., 1st sess., December 8,
2009, H.Rept. 111-366, p. 46.
92 For a list of FUP sites by state, see National Center for Housing and Child Welfare, “Cumulative List of FUP Sites,”
http://www.nchcw.org/fup/sites.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
25
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
A survey of states in 2008 by Chapin Hall found that 12 states provided housing assistance
through FUP vouchers, and another nine states gave youth priority access to Section 8 vouchers.93
Finally, 18 states reported providing housing assistance through other housing programs, such as
transitional living programs with a housing component.
Other Support
Older current and former foster youth may be eligible for housing services and related supports
through the Runaway and Homeless Youth program, administered by HHS.94 The program is
comprised of three subprograms: the Basic Center program (BCP), which provides short-term
housing and counseling to youth up to the age of 18; the Transitional Living program (TLP),
which provides longer-term housing and counseling to youth ages 16 through 22; and the Street
Outreach program (SOP), which provides outreach and referrals to youth who live on the streets.
Youth transitioning out of foster care may also be eligible for select transitional living programs
administered by HUD, though the programs do not specifically target these youth.95
The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-289) was signed into law on July 30, 2008, and
enables owners of properties financed in part with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) to
claim as low-income units those occupied by low-income students who were in foster care.
Owners of LIHTC properties are required to maintain a certain percentage of their units for
occupancy by low-income households; students (with some exceptions) are not generally
considered low-income households for this purpose. The law does not specify the length of time
these students must have spent in foster care nor require that youth are eligible only if they
emancipated.
93 Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, p. 13.
94 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs,
by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
95 National Alliance to End Homelessness, “Federal Funding for Youth Housing Programs,” information presented at
National Alliance to End Audio Conference, March 9, 2006, available at http://naeh.org/content/article/browse/?type=
24&topic=Youth.
Congressional Research Service
26
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Appendix A. Characteristics and Outcomes of Youth
in or Formerly in Foster Care
This appendix provides a detailed overview of the characteristics and outcomes of youth who
have had contact with the child welfare system and did not necessarily enter foster care; teenagers
in foster care; and those who have exited care and are transitioning to adulthood.
Characteristics of Youth Who Have Had Contact with the Child
Welfare System
The National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW), a national random-sample
study of maltreated children or those at risk of maltreatment, was authorized by legislation (the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193) to
reform welfare.96 NSCAW is gathering information associated with 5,501 children from public
child welfare agencies in 92 localities across the nation. It is the first national longitudinal study
of its kind and the first to relate child well-being to family characteristics, experience with the
child welfare system, community environment, and other factors. The study has gathered this
information at five intervals since an investigation of maltreatment was closed, even for those
children who did not enter out-of-home foster care. For the fifth interval, information was
collected by age cohort. One of these cohorts included 620 youth ages 18 to 21 in the sample who
were ages 12 to 15 when baseline data were collected.97 The purpose of collecting data on this age
cohort was to learn about the extent of their contact with the child welfare system, how they are
developing during their transition to adulthood, and which services they need and/or have
received to support this transition. Overall, the study demonstrates that youth who have been the
subject of a child welfare investigation, regardless of whether they were removed from their
homes, were more likely to have challenges in making the transition to adulthood than their same-
age peers, and that many youth in need of certain services were not receiving those services. The
study did not evaluate whether the shares of youth in the sample, compared to shares of youth in
the general population, are statistically significant.
History of Child Welfare Involvement
Almost a third (31.9%) of the youth in the sample were involved in a child welfare services
investigation due to physical abuse. A caregiver’s failure to supervise was reported for 29.1% of
youth, sexual abuse for 14.5%, a caregiver’s failure to provide for 9.5%, emotional abuse for
7.2%, moral/legal or educational abuse for 6.3%, and abandonment for 1.6% (figures add to
100.1% because of rounding). Slightly more than a quarter of these investigations were
substantiated, meaning that child welfare services decided that the allegations of maltreatment
were valid, and nearly one out of five (17.2%) of the youth were placed in out-of-home foster
care during their adolescence. Nearly 60% (57.6%) of the families with youth in the sample were
96 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, Overview,
available, along with the NSCAW reports, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/nscaw/index.html.
97 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, Adolescents
Involved with Child Welfare: A Transition to Adulthood, April 2008, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/
abuse_neglect/nscaw/reports/transition_adult/transition_adult.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
27
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
involved with a previous child welfare investigation. Of those families, two-thirds of the abuse
and neglect incidents were substantiated.
Living Situation
At Wave 5, more than half (55.5%) of the youth in the sample were living with a caregiver. The
balance of the sample were either married and living with their spouse (9.5%), cohabiting with a
boyfriend or girlfriend (17.5%), living alone (11.8%), or living with non-relatives (6.3%). The
share of youth living with caretakers is consistent with that of their peers in the general
population. And like their peers generally, many of the youth in the study were currently
employed full or part time (58.1%). Despite these similarities, youth involved in a child welfare
services investigation (even if they did not enter out-of-home care) tended to face negative
outcomes across several domains relative to their peers generally as they made the transition
to adulthood.
Health
Across several health indicators, youth in the sample were more likely to report negative
outcomes. For example, about one-fifth (21.6%) of young adult females reported being in fair or
poor health, compared to females in the general U.S. population ages 18 and older (12.9%).
Further, the sample youth were also far more likely to report being depressed in the year prior to
the interview (9.5% compared to 27.5%). While the share of youth in the sample having reported
being sexual active was about the same as it is for the general population ages 20 to 24, a larger
proportion of sample youth had been sexual activity at an earlier age. Youth in the sample were
more likely to be in an intimate relationship involving physical violence. More than one-third
(34.3%) of young adult females had been in such a relationship. This is higher than the 22.1%
lifetime prevalence for intimate-partner violence among adult females.
Education
In education, young adults in the sample scored, on average, substantially below the normative
mean of 100 in all categories of a cognitive test. The proportion who scored significantly lower
than the mean was 15.0% for applied problems, 25.3% for passage comprehension, 29.7% for
word-letter identification, and 43.6% for calculation. The sample youth were also more likely to
report living in poverty. About 4 out of 10 (41.8%) sample youth were living in households with
incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level, compared to an estimated 30% of all 18-to-24
year olds living below the poverty level.
Unmet Needs
Finally, the study suggests that the needs of youth in the sample are not being met. Many young
adults in the study who reported having emotional, behavioral, learning, or attention problems did
not receive services to address these problems. For example, among youth with clinically
significant mental health scores and considered to be in need of mental health services, just over
one-quarter (27.6%) received outpatient mental health services and 13.3% received inpatient
mental health services (some received both services). In addition, only half of the youth with
symptoms consistent with alcohol or drug dependence were receiving substance abuse services.
Congressional Research Service
28
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Characteristics of Youth in Foster Care
Other studies provide data on youth who were removed from their homes and placed in a foster
care setting. The Foster Care Dynamics report, a longitudinal study of children in 11 state child
welfare systems from 2000 through 2005, provides detailed information about older youth who
have been placed in out-of-home care.98
Demographics
From 2000 through 2005, about 350,000 children entered care in the 11 states; 27% were
teenagers ages 13 through 17. Youth in the 13 through 17 age category comprised the second
largest share of children in care (n=94,965), after only children ages 6 through 12 (n= 95,676).
The incidence rate for entering care for youth ages 13 through 17 was about 2.5 per 1,000 over
the five-year period; this is compared to about 9.0 per 1,000 infants under age 1; about 2.5 per
1,000 children ages 1 through 5; and about 1.8 per 1,000 children ages 6 through 12. In three
cohort years (2000-2001, 2002-2003, and 2004-2005), 15-year-olds comprised the second largest
share of children in care by single-year age category (approximately 7%), after only infants under
the age of 1, who comprised 18% to 20% of the caseload.
Placement Setting
Of those youth ages 13 through 17 who entered care from 2000 to 2005, 49% lived in congregate
care (e.g., a residential school), 37% in foster family homes, and 13% in kinship care. The
remaining 2% lived in an independent living arrangement or other arrangement. Across all age
categories, 41% to 43% of children were moved within their first six months in foster care;
however, a greater share of teenagers experienced multiple placements within their first six
months of entering care. About 18% of youth ages 13 through 17 had two or more placements,
compared with 12% to 16% of children in other age categories. Teenagers were also more likely
to move to new living arrangements in the six to 12 months after entering care. While older youth
in care had a shorter median length of stay than younger children in care, this median length of
stay increased over the five-year period. The median lengths of stay for infants decreased from
18.7 months in 2000 to 17.6 months in 2004 (data were not available for 2005), and increased for
youth ages 13 through 17 from 6.6 months in 2000 to 7.8 months in 2005.
Exit Outcomes and Reentry
Generally, teenagers were less likely to be adopted or placed with relatives as they got older and
were more likely to run away and exit by reaching the age of majority or some other pathway
such as independent living. With the exception of 17-year-olds, about the same share of teenagers
were reunified as children ages 3 to 12. One-third to 46% of youth ages 13 through 17 exited to
reunification. The balance of youth lived in an independent living arrangement or some other
arrangement (12.4% to 15.1% for each age from 13 through 17), ran away (6.7% to 11.7%), lived
with a relative (5.1% to 8.4%), or reached the age of majority (0.9% to 23.9%). About 2% or less
of the teenagers were adopted.
98 Fred Wulczyn, Lijun Chen, Kristen Brunner Hislop, Foster Care Dynamics 2000-2005: A Report from the Multistate
Foster Care Data Archive, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
29
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Although older youth tend to have shorter spells in foster care, they are more likely to re-enter
care after their first exit. About 28% of youth who were discharged at ages 13 through 17 during
2000 to 2002 re-entered care within one year, followed by infants, at 26%. Children ages 1 to 5
were least likely to re-enter care, at 15%.
Outcomes for Young Adults Formerly in Foster Care
Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study
Researchers with the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study interviewed and reviewed the case
files of 479 foster care youth who were in public or private foster care any time from 1988 to
1998 in Oregon or Washington.99 On average, they interviewed youth who were 24.2 years old,
with a range of 20 to 33 years old. The youth tended to be females (60% versus the 48% of
females in foster care nationally in FY2011);100 to have entered care as adolescents (11.1 years
versus 8.1 years for children entering care in FY2006; nearly 60% of the youth in the study were
age 12 and older at the time they entered care); and to have exited care at age 15 or older (the
mean age at exit was 18.5 years versus 9.6 years in FY2008 for foster youth nationwide).101
Surveyed young adults experienced these outcomes even though most (83.6%) reported having
access to “a lot” of child welfare services and supports, and about 8 out of 10 (81.5%) said that
they felt loved while in care. These findings suggest that a confluence of factors, including the
reasons they entered care, family dynamics, and access to services and supports before and after
care, among many other variables, have likely influenced how well they function as adults.
The study compared the mental health status, educational attainment, and employment and
finances for the foster care alumni to those of the general population.
• Mental health: Over 54% of foster care alumni had at least one mental health
problem (depression, social phobia, panic disorder, and post-traumatic stress
disorder, among others), compared to 22.1% of the general population.102 About
one-quarter of the alumni experienced post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
This figure is greater than the prevalence of PTSD among Vietnam or Iraq War
veterans—about 15%. Alumni tended to have similar recovery rates as their
counterparts in the general population for major depression, panic syndrome, and
alcohol dependency, but lower rates of recovery for other disorders such as
generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, social phobia, and bulimia.
99 Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study, Casey
Family Programs, 2005, at http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/ImprovingFamilyFosterCare_FR.pdf.
100 U.S. Department of Health and Human, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for
Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Children’s Bureau. The AFCARS Report #19: Preliminary FY2011
Estimates, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/afcars.
101 These youth were placed in care prior to the enactment of the Foster Care Independence Act (P.L. 106-169) and
most entered care because of sexual abuse and other type of maltreatment, which is not a primary reason for most
children entering care (though the definition of sexual abuse in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’
data collection system for children in foster care is not identical to the definition in this study). For additional
information about the sample of youth, see pages 18 to 21 and 25 to 31 of the study.
102 In a nationally representative study of children ages 11 to 14 entering foster care, 56.1% had a clinical/borderline
score on the total problem behaviors checklist. Researchers often use this list as a proxy for mental health issues.
Wulczyn et al., Beyond Common Sense, p. 108.
Congressional Research Service
30
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
• Education: While alumni have obtained a high school diploma or passed the
general education development (GED) test at the same rates as 25-to-34 year olds
generally (84.5% versus 87.3%), they are much less likely to have a bachelor’s
degree—1.8% versus 22.5% of all young people.
• Employment and finances: One-third of alumni reported living below the poverty
line, which is three times the national poverty rate. Further, almost 17% were
dependent on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), compared to
3% of the general population (although the high rate of participation in Oregon
and Washington could have been due, in part, to TANF rules in those states). The
alumni employment rate was 80%, while the general employment rate was 95%.
Other indicators show that alumni were not financially secure. One-third lacked
health insurance (versus 18% of the general population) and 22% were homeless
at least one day during the year after they left foster care (versus 1% of the
general population who were homeless within the last year).
Midwest Evaluation on the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth
Few foster care alumni studies are prospective, meaning that they follow youth while in care
through the time they leave care and beyond. The Midwest Evaluation is an ongoing study that
tracks 600 or more (depending on the data collection wave) current and former foster youth in
three states—Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. All of the surveyed youth entered care prior to their
16th birthday.103 Surveyed youth responded to researcher questions about outcomes in three data
collection waves: at wave 1, when they were ages 17 and 18, at which time most were in care; at
wave 2 when most were age 19, at which time some remained in care; at wave 3, when most were
age 21 and no longer in care; wave 4, when they were ages 23 and 24; and wave 5, when most
were age 26. Of those who remained in care beyond age 18, all were in Illinois, the only state of
the three that retains court jurisdiction of foster youth (with the youth’s permission) until
age 21.104
The mean age of young people in the wave 5 interview was 26.1 years old and just over half
(53.5%) were female.105 The majority of youth (55.0%) identified as African American, followed
by white (29.8%), multiracial (8.7%), and other races. Approximately 4% identified as Hispanic.
At age 26, most youth reported strong family ties, with 94% having said that they felt somewhat
or very close to at least one biological family member. The greatest shares of youth reported
feeling very close to their siblings, followed by another relative (aunt, uncle, or cousin),
grandparent, biological mother, and biological father. The surveyed youth were most likely to be
in daily contact with (in this order) their aunt, uncle, cousin, or other relative; or their siblings,
biological mother, grandparent, or biological father. Overall, most youth reported that they had
social support, based on a 5-point scale with 1 meaning that they had support none of the time
and 5 meaning they had support most of the time. The youth had a mean score of a 3.8.
103 Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation at Age 21.
104 Iowa amended its child welfare statute in 2006 to create a program that provides continuing support to foster youth
ages 18 to 21. The Iowa youth in the Midwest study were already too old to benefit from the program when it was
implemented.
105 Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Ages
23 and 24, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, 2010, http://www.chapinhall.org/research/report/
midwest-evaluation-adult-functioning-former-foster-youth.
Congressional Research Service
31
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
For each of the four data collection waves, wherever possible, researchers asked the same
questions that were taken directly from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health
(“Add Health”), a nationally representative survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time.106
Table A-1, below, presents the outcomes for youth surveyed in wave 4 and Add Health
participants surveyed at ages 23 and 24 across 10 domains—living arrangements, educational
attainment, employment and income, economic hardships, health, sexual behavior and pregnancy,
relationships and family formation, involvement with the criminal justice system, transition to
adulthood, orientation to the future, and mentoring. Table A-1 indicates that at age 26, former
foster youth and youth generally shared some common characteristics, but that the former foster
youth experienced more negative educational and employment outcomes, among other outcomes.
For example, the former foster youth surveyed at wave 5 in the Midwest Evaluation were less
likely to have attained a four-year college degree compared to the Add Health youth (2.5% versus
23.5%). Youth in the Midwest Evaluation who were not currently in school reported barriers to
enrolling or staying in school, including that they could not pay, became employed, needed to
care for a child, or had no transportation, among other reasons. While youth formerly in care were
almost as likely to report ever holding a job as Add Health youth (93.6% versus 98.2%), a smaller
share were currently employed (48.3% versus 79.9%). Their mean annual income was about
$13,000, compared to about $32,000 for their peers generally.
Table A-1. Comparison of Outcome Domains Between Young Adults in the
Midwest Study and Young Adults in the Add Health Study
Midwest
Evaluation
(Wave 5)—
Add Health—
Former Foster
Youth
Youth at
Surveyed at
Outcome
Age 26
Age 25 and 26
Current Living Arrangement
Lives in own place
31.1%
48.4%
Lives with biological parent(s)
3.9%
17.2%
Lives with other relative
13.8%
N/A
Lives with non-relative foster parent(s)
1.8%
N/A
Lives with spouse/partner
35.7%
26.1%
Lives with a friend
4.4%
N/A
Lives in group quarters (e.g., dormitories, barracks)
1.3%
.7%
In jail or prison
5.2%
.5%
Homeless
1.3%
0%
Other living arrangement
1.5%
0.6%
Highest Educational Attainment
No high school diploma or GED
19.9%
6.1%
106 The Add Health sampled young adults from across the country, the majority (about 75%) of whom were white. Data
from the Add Health survey were collected six to seven years before wave 4 of the Midwest Evaluation. As a result,
data on earnings and income have been adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for comparison purposes.
Congressional Research Service
32
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Midwest
Evaluation
(Wave 5)—
Add Health—
Former Foster
Youth
Youth at
Surveyed at
Outcome
Age 26
Age 25 and 26
High school diploma only
30.7%
18.1%
GED only
9.4%
3.8%
One or more years of col ege, but no degree
31.7%
26.0%
Two-year col ege degree
4.4%
9.8%
Four-year col ege degree
2.5%
23.5%
One or more years of graduate school
0.7%
12.8%
Employment, Income, and Assets
Ever held a job
93.6%
98.2%
Currently employeda (nonincarcerated youth only)
48.3%
79.6%
Mean hours worked per week at current joba
36.2
41.5
Paid vacation daysa
52.0%
76.7
Paid sick days
40.7%
76.7%
Retirement
plan
38.8%
71.8%
Mean incomea
$13,989
$32,312
Owns a residencea
9.4%
30.4%
Economic Hardships
Not enough to pay renta
27.9%
5.9%
Not enough money to pay utility billa
31.4%
13.1%
Gas or electricity shut off
13.4%
4.2%
Evicteda
10.3%
0.8%
Receipt of food stampsa (based on survey at ages 23 and 24)
61.5% - females
8.3% - females
19.9% - males
1.2% - males
Receipt of TANF (based on survey at ages 23 and 24)
6.6% - femalesa
6.5% - femalesa
2.0% - males
1.5% - males
Health and Access to Health Care Services
Description of general health as faira
15.6%
7.5%
Description of general health as poora
2.2%
1.1%
Health conditions or disability limits daily activitiesa
14.8%
8.1%
Has health insurancea
58.7%
78.0%
Did not receive needed medical carea
12.8%
25.3%
Sexual Behaviors and Pregnancy
Ever diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infectiona
18.4%
11.0%
Ever paid by someone or paid someone to have sexa
2.6%
1.4%
Ever pregnant (females only) a
79.2%
55.0%
Received prenatal care (females only)a
87.3%
97.4%
Congressional Research Service
33
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Midwest
Evaluation
(Wave 5)—
Add Health—
Former Foster
Youth
Youth at
Surveyed at
Outcome
Age 26
Age 25 and 26
Relationships and Parenting
Ever married
22.0% - femalesa
35.6% - femalesa
18.6% - males
28.3% - males
Currently married
18.1% - femalesa
30.9% - femalesa
15.9% - males
23.8% - males
Currently cohabiting
20.2% - femalesa
26.6% - femalesa
21.6% - males
24.0% - males
At least one living childa
71.7% - females
40.7% - females
52.7% - males
22.7%- males
Living with any childrena
91.2% - females
98.6% - females
44.6% - males
68.9% - males
Criminal Justice
Ever arresteda
59.0% - females
14.8% - females
81.8% - males
41.0% - males
Arrested since age 18a
41.6% - females
4.9% - females
68.2% - males
22.1% - males
Ever incarcerateda
42.8% - females
5.7% - females
74.2% - males
23.1% - males
Incarcerated since age 18a
32.4% - females
3.0% - females
64.0% - males
8.5% - males
Orientation Toward the Future (based on survey at ages 23 and 24)
Will live to 35 (mean score based on 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being almost no chance to 5
4.49
4.66
being almost certain) a
Will be married within next 10 years (mean score based on 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being
3.40
3.96
almost no chance to 5 being almost certain)a
Will have a middle-class income by age 30 (mean score based on 1 to 5 scale, with 1
3.66
4.17
being almost no chance to 5 being almost certain) a
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data in Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of
the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 26, 2011; and Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest
Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Ages 23 and 24, Chapin Hall Center for
Children, University of Chicago, 2010.
Note: The Midwest Evaluation has tracked the outcomes of foster youth at ages 17 and 18, age 19, age 21, ages
23 and 24, and age 26. For each of the four data col ection waves, wherever possible, researchers asked the
same questions that were taken directly from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add
Health”), a nationally representative survey that tracks a cohort of youth over time. Comparable data were not
reported in Add Health at age 26 for some measures and therefore outcomes are used for ages 23 and 24.
a. Indicates that the difference between the youth in the Midwest Evaluation and youth in the Adolescent
Heath Survey is statistically significant.
Congressional Research Service
34
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
Appendix B. Funding for the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP) and Education and
Training Voucher (ETV) Program
Table B-1. FY2011 and FY2012 CFCIP General and
ETV Allotments by State
Excludes funding for CFCIF technical assistance and ETV set asides
FY2011
FY2012
State CFCIP
ETV
Total
CFCIP
ETV
Total
Alabama
$2,174,877 $725,247 $2,900,124 1,749,078 $583,215 $2,332,293
Alaska
683,316 227,862 911,178 588,801 196,331 785,132
Arizona
3,209,948 1,070,406 4,280,354 3,246,419 1,082,492 4,328,911
Arkansas
1,153,688 384,715 1,538,403
1,232,528 410,976 1,643,504
California
18,990,900 6,332,808 25,323,708 18,866,508 6,290,879 25,157,387
Colorado
2,500,762 833,917 3,334,679
2,281,975 760,906 3,042,881
Connecticut
1,501,971 500,855 2,002,826
1,458,764 486,413 1,945,177
Delaware
500,000 85,633 585,633 500,000 95,168 595,168
District of Columbia
1,091,992
222,076
1,314,068
1,091,992
225,219
1,317,211
Florida
6,045,111 2,015,835 8,060,946 6,130,927 2,044,307 8,175,234
Georgia
2,530,101 843,701 3,373,802
2,254,185 751,640 3,005,825
Hawai
500,000 153,065 653,065 500,000 132,450 632,450
Idaho
500,000 152,119 652,119 500,000 159,376 659,376
Illinois
5,388,295 1,796,810 7,185,105 5,796,477 1,932,787 7,729,264
Indiana
3,923,550 1,308,368 5,231,918 4,013,399 1,338,235 5,351,634
Iowa
2,070,771 690,530 2,761,301
2,135,837 712,177 2,848,014
Kansas
1,785,308 595,338 2,380,646
1,944,943 648,525 2,593,468
Kentucky
2,167,937 722,932 2,890,869
2,282,955 761,233 3,044,188
Louisiana
1,509,859 503,485 2,013,344
1,455,821 485,432 1,941,253
Maine
565,888 173,159 739,047 565,888 168,533 734,421
Maryland
2,224,722 741,868 2,966,590
1,993,622 664,757 2,658,379
Massachusetts
3,044,324 1,015,176 4,059,500 2,928,643 976,532 3,905,175
Michigan
5,591,145 1,864,453 7,455,598 5,365,583 1,789,109 7,154,692
Minnesota
1,706,714 569,130 2,275,844
1,650,999 550,512 2,201,511
Mississippi
1,047,373 349,263 1,396,636
1,171,065 390,482 1,561,547
Missouri
3,126,978 1,042,739 4,169,717 3,230,073 1,077,041 4,307,114
Montana
517,062 172,422 689,484 563,301 187,828 751,129
Nebraska
1,661,642 562,082 2,223,724
1,726,819 584,088 2,310,907
Congressional Research Service
35
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
FY2011
FY2012
State CFCIP
ETV
Total
CFCIP
ETV
Total
Nevada
1,507,650 502,749 2,010,399
1,571,229 523,913 2,095,142
New Hampshire
500,000
97,836
597,836
500,000
91,461
591,461
New Jersey
2,463,536
821,504
3,285,040
2,297,848
751,313
3,049,161
New Mexico
633,788
211,346
845,134
611,034
203,744
814,778
New
York
11,585,958 2,944,748 14,530,706 11,585,958 2,919,675 14,505,633
North Carolina
3,011,830
1,004,341
4,016,171
2,886,142
962,360
3,848,502
North Dakota
500,000
128,764
628,764
500,000
117,515
617,515
Ohio
3,847,835 1,283,120 5,130,955 3,903,550 1,301,606 5,205,156
Oklahoma
2,748,409 916,499 3,664,908
2,568,693 856,509 3,425,202
Oregon
2,667,723 889,594 3,557,317
2,879,433 960,123 3,839,556
Pennsylvania
5,324,569 1,775,559 7,100,128 5,017,075 1,672,902 6,689,977
Puerto Rico
1,688,101
562,923
2,251,024
1,463,341
487,939
1,951,280
Rhode Island
666,281
222,182
888,463
681,977
227,400
909,377
South Carolina
1,557,810
519,476
2,077,286
1,466,937
489,138
1,956,075
South Dakota
500,000
156,116
656,116
500,000
161,883
661,883
Tennessee
2,120,931 707,257 2,828,188
2,188,799 729,837 2,918,636
Texas
8,418,737 2,807,357 11,226,094 9,465,945 3,156,341 12,622,286
Utah
870,393 290,246 1,160,639 943,521 314,609 1,258,130
Vermont
500,000 111,722 611,722 500,000 101,708 601,708
Virginia
1,869,814 623,518 2,493,332
1,741,231 580,599 2,321,830
Washington
3,122,620 1,041,286 4,163,906 3,305,814 1,102,296 4,408,110
West Virginia
1,336,663
445,731
1,782,394
1,339,434
446,623
1,786,057
Wisconsin
2,140,491 713,779 2,854,270
2,149,568 716,756 2,866,324
Wyoming
500,000 121,506 621,506 500,000 106,941 606,941
Total for States
137,797,373 44,555,153 182,352,526 137,794,131 44,469,834 182,263,965
Tribes
102,627 26,241 128,868 105,869 27,007 132,876
Total for States and Tribes $137,900,000 44,581,394 182,481,394 137,900,000 44,496,841 182,396,841
Sources: Congressional Research Service, based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration on Children Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, FY 2013 ACF
Congressional Justification, Children and Family Services Programs, http://transition.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/fy2013-
congressional-justification; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children
Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Program Instruction: Guidance to
States on Actions They Are Required to Take for the June 30, 2012 Submission of the Annual Progress and Services
Report (APSR), ACYF-CB-PI-12-05, April 11, 2012, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/
pi00index.htm#2012.
Note: The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351) permits, as of
FY2010, an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium that receives direct funding from HHS to
provide child welfare services or enters into a cooperative agreement or contract with the state to provide
foster care to apply for and receive an allotment of CFCIP and ETV funds directly from HHS. To be eligible, a
tribal entity must be receiving Title IV-E funds to operate a foster care program (under a Title IV-E plan
Congressional Research Service
36
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs
approved by HHS or via a cooperative agreement or contract with the state). For FY2011 and FY2012, the
following tribes received CFCIP funding: Prairie Band of Potawatomi (Kansas), Santee Sioux Nation (Nebraska),
Confederated Tribe of Warm Springs (Oregon), and Port Gamble S’Klal am Tribe (Washington). For FY2011 and
FY2012, the fol owing tribes received ETV funding: Prairie Band of Potawatomi (Kansas), Confederated Tribe of
Warm Springs (Oregon), and Port Gamble S’Klal am Tribe (Washington).
Congressional Research Service
37