Youth Transitioning from Foster Care:
Background and Federal Programs
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
October 8, 2014
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 2014 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

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
program, 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 (age 14
and older as of late 2015). 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. Other
protections will go into effect in late 2015 that will require states to ensure that youth age 14 and
older are consulted about the development and revisions to their case plan and permanency plan,
and that the case plan includes a document listing certain rights for these 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 and have regular, ongoing 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 on January 1, 2014, eligible young people who were in foster care at age 18
are 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 and other services.
Congressional Research Service

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

Congressional Research Service

link to page 37 link to page 45 link to page 48 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 federal
support 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, approximately 21 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 and
Appendix C include 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 FY2012, approximately 133,000 youth ages 13 through 20 comprised 34% 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, 23,396 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 remained at
11% in FY2010 and FY2011. It then declined to 10% in FY2012.2 Youth who spend their teenage
years in foster care and those who are likely to age out of care face challenges as they move to
early adulthood. While in care, they may forego opportunities to develop strong support networks
and independent living skills that their counterparts in the general population might more
naturally acquire. Even older foster youth who return to their parents or guardians can still face

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, #20, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/
afcarsreport20.pdf.
2 Ibid., The AFCARS Report #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, and #19. From FY2006 through FY2011, the number and share
of emancipating youth were 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 projected that the number of youth who were expected to leave foster
care upon turning age 18 would 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

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.
Research on 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; have low
response rates, non-representative samples, and small sample sizes; and do not follow youth prior
to exit from foster care.4 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 Study5 and the Midwest
Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth6—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 as they entered adulthood and beyond.7 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.

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 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, 2005.
5 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.
6 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,
7 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. For further information, see Fred
Wulczyn et al. Beyond Common Sense: Child Welfare, Child Well-Being, and the Evidence for Policy Reform (New
Brunswick: Aldine Transaction, 2005), p. 116. (Hereinafter referenced as Wulczyn et al., Beyond Common Sense.)
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 37 Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

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.
Separately, states have reported to HHS since FY2010 on the characteristics and experiences of
certain current and former foster youth through the National Youth in Transition Database
(NYTD). Among other data, states must report data on a cohort of foster youth beginning when
they are age 17, and later at ages 19 and 21. Information is to be collected on a new group of
foster youth at age 17 every three years. In FY2013, the first cohort of youth who were surveyed
(at age 17, in FY2011) were age 19. In total, 27,101 youth participated in the survey. About one-
third of youth were working full time and/or part time. Just over half (54%) were enrolled in
school. Almost all of the youth had a positive connection with an adult who could serve in a
mentoring role. Most youth had not experienced homelessness or incarceration in their lifetimes.
The majority of youth had Medicaid or some other health insurance. However, youth who were
no longer in foster care tended to have more negative outcomes on certain indicators. For
example, youth in foster care were much less likely to report ever having been homeless
compared to youth who left care (11% versus 24%). Likewise, they were less likely to report
having ever been incarcerated compared to these same peers (14% versus 29%).8
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 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 or 24 to report being hopeful about their future.9
Current and former foster youth are also working to make improvements to the child welfare
system. At hearings in recent Congresses that focused on older youth in foster care, these young
people highlighted their struggles, successes, and their advocacy work on behalf of foster
children. For example, at a February 27, 2008, hearing before the Ways and Means’
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, a foster care alumnae 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

8 CRS Report R43752, Child Welfare: Profiles of Current and Former Older Foster Youth Based on the National
Youth in Transition Database (NYTD), by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
9 The survey of youth at age 26 also asked about future expectations; however, it did not compare the outcomes of these
youth to the general population. Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former
Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 23 or 24, http://www.chapinhall.org/research/report/midwest-evaluation-adult-
functioning-former-foster-youth.
Congressional Research Service
3

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

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.10
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
program, 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, among other provisions. 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.
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.11 In most cases, the state relies

10 U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, “Hearing
on Improving the Child Welfare System,” February 27, 2008.
11 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.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

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.12
Federal support for foster care preceded, by several decades, the creation of the foster care
program under Title IV-E of 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.
Title IV-E Reimbursement for Foster Care13
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.”14 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 (discussed in the next section), states must
certify that they will use Title IV-E foster care 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.15 Although case
planning and review procedures (described previously) 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,16 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.

(...continued)
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.
12 For further information, see CRS Report R42794, Child Welfare: State Plan Requirements under the Title IV-E
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program , by Emilie Stoltzfus.
13 For further information, see CRS Report R42792, Child Welfare: A Detailed Overview of Program Eligibility and
Funding for Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship Guardianship Assistance under Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
14 Section 475(4) of the Social Security Act.
15 Training funds for adoption assistance must also be used for this same purpose. Section 477(b)(3)(D) of the Social
Security Act.
16 Section 477 of the Social Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
5

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

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.17 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.18 This definition specifies that a state may seek
reimbursement for a “child” age 18 or older who is (1) completing high school or a program
leading to an equivalent credential; (2) enrolled in an institution that provides post-secondary or
vocational education; (3) participating in a program or activity designed to promote, or remove
barriers to, employment; or (4) employed at least 80 hours per month. 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.19 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.” In other guidance, HHS has advised that
youth can remain in foster care if they are married or enlisted in the military.20
As of May 2014, nearly half (21) of jurisdictions had 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.21 HHS had approved plans for 18 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota,
Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia, and was
reviewing plan amendments for two other states (Connecticut and Pennsylvania). All states with

17 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.)
18 Section 675(8) of the Social Security Act.
19 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.)
20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration
for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.3A, Question 4.
21 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, May
2014.
Congressional Research Service
6

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

approved plan amendments, except for Nebraska, extend care until age 21; Nebraska extends care
until age 19.
Except for three states—Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia—jurisdictions with approved
plan amendments allow youth to remain in care under the four conditions listed previously 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 and West Virginia limit 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 age 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.22
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 previously. This change was also
made by adding a definition of “child” as it relates to these youth. Notably, HHS has advised that
states can extend care to youth age 18 to 21 even if they were not in foster care prior to 18; and
that young people can leave care and later return before they reach the maximum age of eligibility
in the state (with certain requirements pertaining to how long youth can leave and remain eligible
for foster care maintenance payments). In addition, state child welfare agencies can choose to
close the original child abuse and neglect case and reopen the case as a “voluntary placement
agreement” when the young person turns age 18 or if they reenter foster care between ages 18 and
21. The income eligibility for Title IV-E would be based on only the young adult’s income.23
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, which is
defined in federal law as a private institution, or a public institution that accommodates no more
than 25 children, and is approved or licensed by the state.24 As mentioned previously, 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.”25 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

22 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Program Instruction: Guidance on Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.
23 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration
for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.3A, Question 5.
24 Section 472(c) of the Social Security Act.
25 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
7

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

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
advised 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, and 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.26 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.”27
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;28 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;29 and procedures ensuring a case review is
conducted not less often than every 6 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 of returning home or certain other outcomes specified in the law.30 Further, the
court or administrative body conducting the hearings is to consult, in an age-appropriate manner,
with the child regarding the proposed permanency plan or transition plan for the child.31 These
case planning requirements apply to older youth in care, including those age 18 and older.
Specific case plan and case review procedures pertain to older youth in care, some of which go
into effect one year after enactment of the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families
Act (P.L. 113-183), which was signed into law on September 30, 2014. For youth age 14 and
older, the written case plan must include a description of the programs and services that will help
the child prepare for a successful transition to adulthood.32 Permanency plan hearings, which are

26 Fostering Connections Resource Center, State Approaches to Providing Foster Youth with Options for Supervised
Independent Living, webinar, April 12, 2012.
27 Section 472(c) of the Social Security Act.
28 Section 422(b)(17) of the Social Security Act.
29 Section 475(1) of the Social Security Act..
30 Section 475(5) of the Social Security Act..
31 Ibid.
32 Section 475(1)(D), Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. The Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families
Act (P.L. 113-183), enacted on September 30, 2014, changed this requirement from age 16 to age 14. It also struck
language that this provision would apply “where appropriate” and changed the text from “independent living” to “a
successful transition to adulthood.” The effective date for the changes is one year after the law’s enactment.
Congressional Research Service
8

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

to be conducted at least once a year after a child enters care, must consider for children age 14
and older the services needed to help them transition to a successful adulthood.33 In addition, any
child in foster care who is age 14 or older must be consulted in the development of, and about any
revisions to, his/her case plan34 and permanency plan.35 These children are allowed to choose up
to two members of the case and permanency planning teams (subject to state disapproval of any
individual that it has good cause to believe would not act in the child’s best interest). One of the
child-selected individuals would be permitted to be the child’s advisor and advocate for application of
the reasonable and prudent parenting standard.36
Additionally, for any child in foster care at age 14 or older, the state child welfare agency is
required to include in the child’s case plan a document listing certain rights with respect to (1)
education, health, visitation, and court participation; (2) provision of certain identification
documents and information, if leaving foster care at age 18 or older; and (3) the right to be safe
and avoid exploitation. The case plan also needs to include a signed acknowledgement by the
child that he/she was given a copy of the list of rights and that they were explained.37 Further, the
state must annually obtain the credit report of each child in care who is age 14 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.38 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 for requesting credit reports for adults. States must request
reports individually from the reporting agencies, each of which has established 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.39

33 Section 475(5)(C) of the Social Security Act. P.L. 113-183 changed this requirement from age 16 to 14. It also
changed the text from “independent living” to “a successful transition to adulthood.” The effective date for the changes
is one year after the law’s enactment.
34 Section 475(1)(B). This provision was added by P.L. 113-183. The effective date is one year after the law’s
enactment.
35 Section 475(5)(C)(iv). This provision was added by P.L. 113-183. The effective date is one year after the law’s
enactment.
36 “Reasonable and prudent parenting” means “the standard characterized by careful and sensible parental decisions
that maintain the health, safety, and best interests of a child while at the same time encouraging the emotional and
developmental growth of the child,” and, further, as the standard that a caregiver—the child’s foster parent or a
designated official at the child care institution where a child is placed—must use “when determining whether to allow a
child in foster care under the responsibility of the state to participate in extracurricular, enrichment, cultural, and social
activities.” Section 475(10)(A) of the Social Security Act. This provision was added by P.L. 113-183. The effective
date for the change is one year after enactment.
37 Section 475A(b) of the Social Security Act. This provision was added by P.L. 113-183. The effective date for the
change is one year after enactment.
38 Section 475(5)(I)) of the Social Security Act. P.L. 113-183 changed this requirement from age 16 to 14. The
effective date for the change is one year after enactment.
39 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.
Congressional Research Service
9

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

The law stipulates that no child under the age of 16 may have a permanency plan of another
planned permanent living arrangement (APPLA).40 In addition, if a child is assigned a
permanency plan of APPLA, the state must meet additional requirements for the child as part of
the child’s annual permanency hearing and, separately, as part of the periodic review (every six
months) of a child’s status in foster care.41 These requirements are designed to ensure that the
state child welfare agency continues to look for a permanent family for children with an APPLA
designation, that the court continues to revisit whether APPLA is an appropriate permanency plan
for the child, and that the child is consulted about his/her desired permanency outcome and ability
to participate in age- or developmentally appropriate activities.
States must also assist youth with developing what is known as a transition plan.42 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.43 Child welfare agencies are encouraged to begin
engaging youth in the transition plan process “well in advance” of the 90-day period. For any
child who is being discharged from foster care due to his or her age (i.e., at age 18, or at age 19,
20, or 21, if the state elects to provide Title IV-E assistance to that older age), the state is required
to provide the following documents or information: (1) an official or certified copy of the child’s
U.S. birth certificate; (2) a social security card issued by the Commissioner of Social Security; (3)
a driver’s license or state-issued identification card (meeting the requirements of the REAL ID
Act); (4) health insurance information; and (5) a copy of the child’s medical records. (The law
requires provision of a given document if the child is eligible to receive it.)44

40 Section 475(5)(C)(i) of the Social Security Act. This provision was added by P.L. 113-183. The effective date for the
provision is one year after enactment, although for children in foster care who are under the responsibility of an Indian
tribe the effective date is three years after the law’s enactment.
41 Section 475A of the Social Security Act. This provision was added by P.L. 113-183. The effective date for the
change is one year after enactment.
42 Section 475(5)(H) of the Social Security Act.
43 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Program Instruction: Guidance on Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.
44 Section 475(5)(I) of the Social Security Act. This provision was added by P.L. 113-183. The effective date for the
change is one year after enactment.
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 17 Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

These requirements and related programs pertaining to older youth in care are summarized in
Figure 1.
Congressional Research Service
11

Figure 1. Federal Requirements and Programs for Older Youth in
Foster Care and Leaving Care

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.
Note: Some of these provisions go into effect one year after enactment of the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (P.L. 113-183), which was signed
into law on September 30, 2014.
CRS-12

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP), authorized under Section 477 of the
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, provides services to older youth in foster care and youth
transitioning out of care.45 This section provides an overview of the program, as well as
information about program eligibility, youth participation, program administration, funding, data
collection, and training and technical assistance.
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.46 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;
 provide services to youth who, after attaining 16 years of age, have left foster
care for kinship guardianship or adoption; and
 ensure that youth who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age
have regular, ongoing opportunities to engage in age- or developmentally
appropriate activities.
States may use CFCIP funding to provide services listed in the authorizing statute. 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

45 Section 477 of the Social Security Act.
46 P.L. 113-183, signed into law on September 30, 2014, increases the annual mandatory funding authorization for the
program to $143 million beginning with FY2020.
Congressional Research Service
13

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

care to youth until ages 19, 20, or 21.47 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.48 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.49
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.50 (The juvenile corrections facility is responsible for all services for foster youth
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 (discussed in a subsequent section) 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 collected by HHS via states through a database known
as the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD, discussed further in a following section). In
FY2013, the third year for which data are available, states reported that almost 100,000 youth in
foster care or who recently aged out of foster care received at least one independent living service
such as academic support, career preparation, and information about housing and managing a
household.51 Separately, states reported to HHS that they provided ETV vouchers to 16,400 youth

47 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1G, Questions 1 and 4. In a
study of how 30 states use Chafee room and board funds, states reported that they generally use the funds to provide
rental start-up costs, ongoing support, and emergency uses. For further information, see Michael R. Pergamit, Marla
McDaniel, and Amelia Hawkins, Housing Assistance for Youth Who Have Aged Out of Foster Care: The Role of the
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, Urban Institute, prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, May 2012, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/12/
chafeefostercare/rpt.shtml.
48 Ibid., Section 3.1G, Questions 1 and 3.
49 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.3E, Question 1.
50 Ibid., Section 3.4, Question 5.
51 CRS Report R43752, Child Welfare: Profiles of Current and Former Older Foster Youth Based on the National
Youth in Transition Database (NYTD), by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara. See also, U.S. Department of Health and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

in PY2007; 16,650 youth in FY2008; 17,400 youth in FY2009; 17,400 youth in PY2010; and
17,100 youth in FY2011.52
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.53
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.54 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
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

(...continued)
Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families,
Children’s Bureau, Data Brief #3, “Highlights From the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD), Federal Fiscal
Year 2013,” July 2014, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/nytd_data_brief_3_071514.pdf.
52 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, May 2012; and U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for
Children and Families, FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees. PY
refers to program year, which is July 1 of one year through June 30 of the next.
53 Ibid., Section 3.1F, Question 2.
54 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
15

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

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.”55
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.56 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.57
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.58
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.59 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.60
As of FY2010, the law permits an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium to apply
to HHS and receive a direct federal allotment of CFCIP and/or ETV funds. 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

55 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Question 3.4.
56 Ibid., Section 3.1B, Question 2.
57 Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care.
58 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1F, Question 3.
59 Ibid., Section 3.1I, Question 5.
60 U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, June 25, 1999, p. H4969.
Congressional Research Service
16

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

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 funds. Except for the Santee Sioux Nation, these tribes also
receive 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.61 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.62 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.63 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.64

61 For additional information about positive youth development, see CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable Youth:
Background and Policies, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
62 National Foster Care Coalition, Frequently Asked Questions II About the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 and
the John H. Chafe Foster Care Independence Program, December 2000, pp. 30-31.
63 For a list of jurisdictions with youth advisory boards, see https://www.fosterclub.com/groups.
64 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.1A, Question 1.
Congressional Research Service
17

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 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.65
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 are 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.66 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).67
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.68 In addition, a current fiscal

65 For further information about the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, see http://jimcaseyyouth.org/our-work-
states.
66 Section 132(a)(2) of the Higher Education Act.
67 Section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act.
68 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 3.5B, Question 1.
Congressional Research Service
18

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.69
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.70
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 Foster Care to Success 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.71 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.72 Several states have scholarship
programs, tuition waivers, and grants for current and former foster youth that are funded through
other sources.73
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.74

69 Ibid. Section 3.5C, Question 5.
70 Ibid. Section 3.5, Question 1.
71 Ibid., Section 3.5C, Question 5.
72 Ibid., Section 3.5C, Question 6.
73 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.
74 Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, p. 14.
Congressional Research Service
19

link to page 45 Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

Of the 31 states, 22 reported that they used funds to provide services for which CFCIP dollars
cannot be used.75
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 following text box 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.
CFCIP and ETV funds are distributed to each state based on its proportion of the nation’s children
in foster care. Appendix B provides the CFCIP and voucher allotments for each state (and for a
small number of tribes) in FY2013 and FY2014.
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).

75 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.
Congressional Research Service
20

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
wil 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
federally supported programs does not exceed the total cost of attendance and (2) it does not duplicate benefits
under the CFCIP or other federal or federally 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 (42 U.S.C. 677).

Congressional Research Service
21

link to page 48 link to page 48 Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

Unused Funds
States have two years to spend their CFCIP and voucher funds. For instance, funds allotted for
FY2014 may be spent in FY2014 or FY2015. 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 FY2011 (the most recent year data
are available), the 50 states, Puerto Rico, Washington, DC, and four tribes were allocated a
combined total of $137.9 million in general CFCIP funds, of which $1,561,295 (1.1%) was
returned to the Treasury by 13 jurisdictions. Also in FY2011, the 50 states, Puerto Rico,
Washington, DC, and three tribes received $44.6 million in funds for the vouchers, of which 21
jurisdictions collectively returned $1.1 million (2.5 %).76 Table C-1 in Appendix C shows the
percentage and share of funds returned for both programs from FY2005 through FY2011, as well
as a list of states that have returned these funds.
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.77 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.78 Assistance is
provided through national conferences and meetings, on-site technical assistance, and information
made available on the NCWRCYD website and through publications.
National Youth in Transition Database (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

76 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.
77 For more information about the type of assistance that is provided, see http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/about.html.
78 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
22

link to page 28 Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

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 FY2011.79 HHS uses
NYTD to engage in two data collection and reporting activities.80 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. States began reporting data for FY2011. Table 1 summarizes the reporting schedule
over an eight-year period (FY2011 through FY2018).
Table 1. National Youth in Transition Database Reporting Schedule
Federal Fiscal
Tracked Youth at
Tracked Youth at
Tracked Youth at
Year
Served Youth
Age 17
Age 19
Age 21
FY2011
Y
Y Group 1)

FY2012
Y

FY2013
Y

Y (Group 1)

FY2014
Y
Y (Group 2)

FY2015
Y

Y (Group 1)
FY2016
Y

Y (Group 2)

FY2017
Y
Y (Group 3)

FY2018

Y (Group 2)
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Note: The regulation establishing NYTD does not specify age parameters for the served youth population.
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

79 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Chafee National Youth in Transition Database,” 73 Federal
Register 10338, February 26, 2008.
80 For additional information, you may request a copy of a Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act National Youth in Transition Database, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
Congressional Research Service
23

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

evaluate a state’s data file against data compliance standards, provided by statute. However, states
will have the opportunity to submit corrected data.81
Evaluation of Innovative Independent Living Programs82
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.83 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.84 Outreach assists youth who enroll voluntarily in
preparing to live independently and in having permanent connections to caring adults upon
exiting care. Outreach is intended to help youth achieve a range of outcomes, including receiving
a high school diploma, continuing their education, avoiding non-marital childbirth and high-risk
behaviors, and gaining employment, among other outcomes. A core feature of the Outreach model
is that the social workers in the program oversee a small caseload (approximately 15 youth each)

81 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.
82 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.
83 Additional information regarding the Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs is available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/chafee/.
84 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
24

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

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.85 The impact evaluation examined educational, employment, and other
outcomes that can reflect how well a young person is transitioning to adulthood. Outreach youth
were more likely than their counterparts in the control group to report having ever enrolled in
college and they were more likely to stay enrolled. Outreach youth were also more likely to
experience outcomes that were not a focus of the evaluation: youth were more likely to remain in
foster care and to report receiving more help in some areas of educational assistance, employment
assistance, money management, and financial assistance for housing. According to the study,
remaining in care and enrolling and persisting in college appear to be strongly interrelated. In
short, the Outreach youth may have been less successful on the educational front if they had not
stayed in care. Youth in the program reported similar outcomes as the control group for multiple
other measures, including in employment, economic well-being, housing, delinquency,
pregnancy, or preparedness for various tasks associated with living on one’s own.
Promoting Normalcy
The Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (P.L. 113-183), enacted in
September 2014, seeks to ensure that children in foster care have the opportunity to participate in
activities that are appropriate to their age and stage of development. The law added a purpose area
to the CFCIP specifying that any child who is expected to remain in foster care until age 18 has
the opportunity to participate in such activities.86 Beginning with FY2020, the law increases the
annual mandatory funding authorization for the CFCIP program from $140 million to $143
million annually.
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.

85 These differences were taken into account in the impact analyses.
86 The change to the purpose area and other provisions on promoting normalcy go into effect one year after the law’s
enactment.
Congressional Research Service
25

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

Medicaid87
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.”88 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
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 (CHIP). Youth ages 18 to 21 in foster care who do not qualify for
Medicaid or CHIP 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.89
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”). These youth may also be eligible for
Medicaid or CHIP 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.
As of January 2011, more than half (30) of all states had extended the Chafee option to eligible
youth.90 Of these states, five reported requiring youth to have income less than a certain level of
poverty (180% to 400%). Four states permitted youth who were in foster care at age 18 in another
state to be eligible under the pathway. States also reported whether the youth is involved in the
process for enrolling under the Chafee option. In 15 states, youth are not directly involved in the
enrollment process. For example, some states automatically enroll youth. In the other 15 states,
youth are involved in enrollment with assistance from their caseworker or they enroll on their
own. Most states that have implemented the Chafee option require an annual review to verify that
youth continue to be eligible for Medicaid. States generally have a hierarchy to determine under
which pathway youth qualify. For example, in most states, youth who qualify for the Chafee

87 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.
88 Section 1902(A)(10)(ii)(XVII) of the Social Security Act.
89 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.
90 Amy Dworsky and Judy Havlicek, Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning
Out of Foster Care, p. 11.
Congressional Research Service
26

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

option and receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) would be eligible for Medicaid under the
SSI Medicaid pathway.91
As of January 1, 2014, a broader group of former foster youth are eligible for Medicaid under a
separate mandatory pathway that was enacted as part of the health care reform law, the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148). Former foster youth are eligible if they were
in foster care at age 18 (or older age, if the state elects) and were enrolled in Medicaid. These
youth remain eligible until age 26. Notably, this pathway does not require youth to meet income
or asset requirements.92
HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) issued proposed and final rules in January
2013 and July 2013, respectively, about the pathway. The proposed rule addressed that the law
does not appear to require a state to cover former foster youth who moved from another state. The
final rule did not address this issue; however, it addressed whether youth covered under the
pathway are subject to certain requirements in the Medicaid program. For example, it specifies
that youth under the age of 21 who are covered under the pathway can continue to receive Early,
Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) services.93 In December 2013, CMS
issued additional guidance on the pathway. CMS explained that youth are considered to be in
foster care if they are under the placement and care responsibility of the state or tribal child
welfare agency, regardless of whether the foster care facility is licensed or foster care
maintenance payments are made to support the youth in their placements (the pathway does not
extend to youth receiving federal guardianship payments). HHS advised that the new Medicaid
option does not completely supersede the Chafee pathway. For example, states may continue to
use this pathway to cover any youth who turned age 18 in foster care and were not enrolled in
Medicaid. The guidance further advised that states are not required to cover eligible foster youth
who aged out of care in another state; however, CMS signaled that it would approve state plan
amendments to cover these youth. In addition, youth are eligible if they were in foster care at age
18 prior to January 2014, and meet the other eligibility criteria. The guidance also states that
states have flexibility in determining the process for verifying that these youth were in foster care
receiving Medicaid at age 26, such as through self-attestation by these youth. Further, this
pathway takes precedence over eligibility under a new pathway for low-income adults.94

91 Michael R. Pergmait et al., Providing Medicaid to Youth Formerly in Foster Care Under the Chafee Option:
Informing Implementation of the Affordable Care Act, Urban Institute, for the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, November 2012, http://www.urban.org/
publications/412786.html.
92 Section 1902(10)(A)(i)(VII) of the Social Security Act. 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.
93 The EPSDT program is a required benefit for all children under age 21 who are covered by Medicaid. The program
covers health screenings and services, including assessments of each child’s physical and mental health development;
laboratory tests (including lead blood level assessment); appropriate immunizations; health education; and vision,
dental, and hearing services.
94 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “Medicaid and CHIP
FAQs: Funding for the New Adult Group, Coverage of Former Foster Care Children and CHIP Financing,” December
2013, http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/downloads/FAQ-12-27-13-FMAP-Foster-Care-CHIP.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
27

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

Educational Support95
Federal Financial Aid
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.96 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.97 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.
The FY2014 appropriations law (2014, P.L. 113-76) amended the Higher Education Act to direct
the Department of Education (ED) to modify the FAFSA form so that it includes a box for
applicants to identify whether they are or were in foster care, and to require ED to provide these
applicants with information about federal educational resources that may be available to them.98
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.99 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
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

95 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.
96 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.”
97 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).
98 20 U.S.C. 1090 note.
99 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
28

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

applicants seeking TRIO funds to identify and make available services, including mentoring,
tutoring, and other services, to these youth.100 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.101 TRIO funds are awarded by ED
on a competitive basis. In FY2014, Congress appropriated $838 million to TRIO programs.102
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
FY2014, Congress appropriated $75.0 million to FIPE.103
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.104 The WIA Youth Activities program focuses on
preventative strategies to help in-school youth stay in school and receive occupational skills, as
well as on providing training and supportive services, such as assistance with child care, for out-
of-school youth.105 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

100 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.
101 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.
102 U.S. Department of Education, FY 2015 Department of Education Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the
Congress, Higher Education, p. 60, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget15/summary/15summary.pdf
103 Ibid., p. 59.
104 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.
105 In 2014, DOL issued guidance to encourage coordination between the Youth Activities program and Chafee
program, and cited examples of communities where such collaboration is underway. U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, Training and Employment Notice No. 32-13, “Supporting Successful
Transition to Adulthood for Current and Former Youth in Foster Care Through Coordination with the John H. Chafee
Foster Care Independence Program,” May 28, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
29

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

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).106 In FY2014, Congress
appropriated $820 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’s) 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.107 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. The law requires that to be eligible for funding, a public housing
authority (PHA), which administers the vouchers, must submit a written proposal that contains a
report from the public child welfare agency in the same jurisdiction describing how a lack of
adequate housing is resulting in the initial or prolonged separation of children from their families.
In addition, the PHA must describe how it will coordinate with the child welfare agency to
identify eligible families and provide these families with assistance.
FUP vouchers were initially awarded from 1992 to 2001. Over that period, approximately 39,000
vouchers were distributed.108 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, PHAs 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 FY2010.109 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.110

106 29 U.S.C. 2801(13) and 29 U.S.C. 2884(1).
107 42 U.S.C. 1437(f)(x).
108 This information is based on correspondence with the National Center for Housing and Child Welfare, a child
welfare organization, in August 2008.
109 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.
110 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
30

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

A 2014 report on the FUP program examined the use of FUP vouchers for foster youth. The study
was based on a survey of PHAs, a survey of child welfare agencies that partnered with PHAs that
served youth, and site visits to four areas that use FUP to serve youth. The survey of PHAs
showed that slightly less than half of PHAs operating FUP had awarded vouchers to former foster
youth in the 18 months prior to the survey. PHAs reported that youth were able to obtain a lease
within the allotted time, and many kept their leases for the full 18-month period they were
eligible for the vouchers. In addition, 14% of total FUP program participants qualified because of
their foster care status. According to the study, this relatively small share was due to the fact that
less than half of PHAs were serving youth, and these PHAs tended to allocate less than one-third
of their vouchers to youth. PHAs that provide FUP vouchers indicated that they most often did
not provide them to youth due to a lack of referrals. In addition, about half of child welfare
agencies working with PHAs reported that they do not refer all FUP-eligible youth they identify.
This may be due to the financial burden of providing youth with supportive services, as required
under the law. Of the child welfare agencies working with PHAs, 40% indicated that cost was
somewhat a challenge or a major challenge in referring youth. Child welfare agencies also
reported concerns that the FUP vouchers do not necessarily lead to permanency for these youth
and that the 18-month time limit is too short.111
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.112 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.113
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.

111 M. Robin Dion et al., The Family Unification Program: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care,
Mathematica Policy Research and Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, for U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, May 2014, http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/homeless/
family_unification.html.
112 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and
Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
113 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
31

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 Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193) to
reform welfare.114 In the first NSCAW, HHS gathered information associated with 5,501 children
from public child welfare agencies across the country 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.115
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
involved with a previous child welfare investigation. Of those families, two-thirds of the abuse
and neglect incidents were substantiated.

114 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.
115 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
32

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

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
33

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.116
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 6 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.

116 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
34

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.117 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);118 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).119
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.120 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.

117 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.
118 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.
119 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.
120 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
35

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.121 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 21.122
The mean age of young people in the wave 5 interview was 26.1 years old and just over half
(53.5%) were female.123 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.

121 Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation at Age 21.
122 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.
123 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
36

link to page 42 link to page 42 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.124
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%

124 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
37

link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 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 (non-incarcerated 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 bil a

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
38

link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 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% -

35.6% - femalesa
femalesa18.6% -
28.3% - males
males
Currently married

18.1% -

30.9% - femalesa
femalesa15.9% -
23.8% - males
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)
Wil 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
Wil 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
Wil 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 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. 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
39

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. FY2013 and FY2014 CFCIP General and ETV Allotments by State
Excludes funding for CFCIP technical assistance and ETV set asides

FY2013
FY2014
Chafee
ETV
Chafee
ETV
States

Alabama
$1,762,924
$553,377
$1,520,830
$489,398
Alaska
$608,949
$191,147
$629,873
$202,691
Arizona
$3,623,401
$1,137,374
$4,488,464
$1,444,375
Arkansas
$1,242,537
$390,029
$1,237,405
$398,193
California
$18,193,913
$5,711,015
$18,101,906
$5,825,141
Colorado
$2,160,123
$678,056
$2,001,653
$644,126
Connecticut
$1,640,069
$514,813
$1,521,496
$489,613
Delaware
$500,000
$88,310
$500,000
$85,733
District of Columbia
$1,091,992
$187,803
$1,091,992
$166,423
Florida
$6,578,921
$2,065,103
$6,514,125
$2,096,227
Georgia
$2,527,357
$793,330
$2,557,835
$823,104
Hawaii
$500,000
$117,259
$500,000
$115,777
Idaho
$500,000
$141,506
$500,000
$132,409
Il inois
$5,873,418
$1,843,648
$5,547,477
$1,785,162
Indiana
$3,588,775
$1,126,505
$3,779,233
$1,216,146
Iowa
$2,112,180
$663,007
$2,088,015
$671,917
Kansas
$1,931,227
$606,206
$1,979,506
$636,999
Kentucky
$2,217,056
$695,927
$2,327,093
$748,852
Louisiana
$1,508,557
$473,531
$1,358,131
$433,924
Maine
$565,888
$135,444
$565,888
$162,239
Maryland
$1,899,097
$596,121
$1,628,531
$524,057
Massachusetts
$2,869,622
$900,765
$2,841,594
$914,417
Michigan
$5,024,418
$1,577,149
$4,842,248
$1,558,221
Minnesota
$1,663,042
$522,024
$1,812,591
$583,287
Mississippi
$1,197,590
$375,920
$1,219,731
$392,506
Congressional Research Service
40

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

FY2013
FY2014
Chafee
ETV
Chafee
ETV
Missouri

$3,090,028
$969,950
$3,327,087
$1,070,646
Montana
$597,297
$187,490
$645,878
$207,841
Nebraska
$1,691,395
$534,774
$1,697,019
$548,950
Nevada
$1,543,516
$484,505
$1,582,516
$509,249
New Hampshire
$500,000
$77,546
$500,000
$82,407
New Jersey
$2,297,848
$673,040
$2,297,848
$734,795
New Mexico
$618,938
$194,283
$639,542
$205,803
New York
$11,585,958
$2,608,760
$11,585,958
$2,567,062
North Carolina
$2,863,629
$898,884
$2,821,255
$907,871
North Dakota
$500,000
$111,407
$500,000
$118,996
Ohio
$4,018,269
$1,261,322
$3,960,293
$1,274,410
Oklahoma
$2,756,754
$865,337
$3,045,661
$980,085
Oregon
$2,908,628
$913,010
$2,856,890
$919,339
Pennsylvania
$4,719,444
$1,481,419
$4,833,578
$1,555,431
Puerto Rico
$1,452,623
$455,974
$1,437,136
$462,466
Rhode Island
$601,292
$188,744
$569,185
$183,162
South Carolina
$1,272,169
$399,330
$1,038,005
$334,027
South Dakota
$500,000
$147,045
$500,000
$150,114
Tennessee
$2,546,002
$799,182
$2,660,201
$856,045
Texas
$10,024,531
$3,146,670
$9,874,222
$3,177,496
Utah
$899,274
$282,280
$922,301
$296,794
Vermont
$500,000
$105,554
$500,000
$104,618
Virginia
$1,613,434
$506,452
$1,526,832
$491,330
Washington
$3,161,552
$992,401
$3,188,311
$1,025,990
West Virginia
$1,489,912
$467,679
$1,521,163
$489,506
Wisconsin
$2,179,767
$684,222
$2,128,694
$685,008
Wyoming
$500,000
$92,595
$500,000
$103,331
State Total
$137,813,316
$41,615,224
$137,815,192
$42,583,709
Tribal Entities

Prairie Band of Potawatomi
$17,146
$5,382
$21,814
$7,020
(Kansas)
Santee Sioux Nation
$12,266
$0
$8,871
$0
(Nebraska)
Congressional Research Service
41

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

FY2013
FY2014
Chafee
ETV
Chafee
ETV
OR Conf

ederated Tribe of
Warm Springs (Oregon)
$44,894
$14,092
$39,389
$12,675
WA Port Gamble S'Klallam
Tribe (Washington)
$12,378
$3,886
$14,734
$4,741
Total for Tribal Entities
$86,684
$23,360
$84,808
$24,436
Total States and Tribal
$137,900,000
$41,638,584
$137,900,000
$42,608,145
Entities
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration on Children Youth and Families, Administration for Children, May 2014.
Notes: The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351) permits, as of
FY2010, an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium that receives direct funding from HHS to
provide child welfare services or enters into a cooperative agreement or contract with the state to provide
foster care to apply for and receive an allotment of CFCIP and ETV funds directly from HHS. To be eligible, a
tribal entity must be receiving Title IV-E funds to operate a foster care program (under a Title IV-E plan
approved by HHS or via a cooperative agreement or contract with the state).

Congressional Research Service
42

Appendix C. Funding Returned to the Treasury for the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP) and Education and Training Voucher (ETV)
Program
Table C-1. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) and Education and Training Voucher (ETV) Program Funds
Returned By States to the Treasury, FY2005-FY2011
“Jurisdiction” refers to each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and tribal entities

FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Total amount
$1,452,960
$2,131,044
$230,136
$352,337
$662,419
$1,635,560
$1,561,295
and share of
(1.3%)
(1.5%)
(0.2%)
(0.3%)
(0.5%)
(1.2%)
(1.1%)
CFCIP funds
awarded to
jurisdictions
that were
returned
Jurisdictions
13 jurisdictions:
6 jurisdictions:
5 jurisdictions:
4 jurisdictions:
7 jurisdictions:
7 jurisdictions:
13 jurisdictions:
returning
Delaware, Indiana,
Indiana, Kentucky,
Kentucky,
District of Columbia,
Alaska, Louisiana,
Alaska, District of
Arizona, District
CFCIP funds
Kentucky,
Missouri, Texas,
Massachusetts,
Kentucky, Puerto Rico,
Massachusetts,
Columbia,
of Columbia,
Massachusetts,
Virginia, Wyoming
Montana, North
Wyoming
Montana, Puerto
Michigan,
Kentucky,
Minnesota,
Carolina, Wyoming
Rico, West
Nebraska,
Massachusetts,
Mississippi,
Virginia, Wyoming
Confederated
Michigan,
Missouri, Nebraska,
Tribe of Warm
Mississippi,
North Carolina,
Springs (Oregon),
Nebraska, New
North Dakota,
West Virginia,
Mexico, New
Texas, Virginia,
Wyoming
York,
Wyoming
Confederated
Tribe of Warm
Springs (Oregon),
Puerto Rico, West
Virginia, Wyoming
CRS-43

FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Total amount
$5,332,637
$2,098,492
$1,482,704
$1,416,195
$1,747,853
$599,842
$1,109.495
and share of
(11.6%)
(4.6%)
(3.4%)
(3.2%)
(3.9%)
(1.3%)
(2.5%)
ETV Funds
awarded to
jurisdictions
that were
returned
Jurisdictions
27 jurisdictions:
16 jurisdictions Alaska,
17 jurisdictions:
12 jurisdictions: Alaska,
18 jurisdictions:
14 jurisdictions:
21 jurisdictions:
returning ETV
Alaska, Arkansas,
California, Idaho,
Alabama,
Arkansas, Kentucky,
Alaska, California,
Alabama, Alaska,
Alabama, District
funds
California,
Kentucky, Michigan,
California, Idaho,
Louisiana, Maine,
Colorado,
Georgia,
of Columbia,
Colorado, Florida,
Missouri, New Mexico,
Kentucky,
Maryland, Michigan,
Georgia, Hawaii,
Massachusetts,
Georgia, Idaho,
Idaho, Kansas,
North Dakota,
Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina,
Kentucky, Maine,
Michigan,
Indiana, Kentucky,
Kentucky,
Oklahoma, South
Mississippi, New
Oklahoma, South
Michigan, Montana, Mississippi, New
Louisiana, Maine,
Louisiana, Maine,
Dakota, Texas,
Mexico, North
Dakota, Texas,
Nebraska, New
Mexico, North
Massachusetts,
Maryland, Michigan,
Vermont, Virginia,
Carolina, North
Wyoming
Mexico, New
Dakota,
Michigan, New
Minnesota,
Washington, West
Dakota, Oklahoma,
York, North
Oklahoma,
Hampshire, New
Mississippi,
Virginia, Wyoming
Pennsylvania, South
Carolina,
Confederated
Mexico, North
Missouri, New
Carolina, South
Oklahoma, Puerto
Tribe of Warm
Carolina, North
Mexico, North
Dakota, Texas,
Rico, South
Springs (Oregon),
Dakota,
Carolina, North
West Virginia,
Carolina, Texas,
Puerto Rico, South Confederated
Dakota, Ohio,
Wyoming
Wyoming
Carolina, West
Tribe of Warm
Pennsylvania,
Virginia, Wyoming
Springs (Oregon),
Puerto Rico, South
Puerto Rico, South
Dakota, Texas,
Carolina, South
Utah, Virginia,
Dakota, Vermont,
West Virginia,
West Virginia,
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on information provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration on Children,
Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, 2008-2014.
Notes: The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) receives annual mandatory funding of $140 mil ion (Section 477(h)(1) of the Social Security Act (SSA).
Of this amount, HHS is required to reserve 1.5% ($2.1 mil ion) for evaluation, technical assistance, performance measurement, and data col ection activities (Section
477(g)(2) of the SSA). The remaining $137.9 mil ion is generally allotted to states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (Section 477(c) of the SSA). Effective with
FY2010, eligible tribes may receive direct CFCIP funding out of the CFCIP allotment otherwise slated for the state(s) in which they are located (Section 477(j) of the
SSA). Some states returned negligible amounts (e.g., $1) under each of the programs.
CRS-44

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs

Congressional Research Service
45