Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs

Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics and Programs
Updated October 14, 2008
Adrienne L. Fernandes
Analyst in Social Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division



Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics and Programs
Summary
There is no single definition of the term “runaway youth” or “homeless youth.”
However, both groups of youth share the risk of not having adequate shelter and
other provisions, and may engage in harmful behaviors while away from a permanent
home. These two groups also include “thrownaway” youth who are asked to leave
their homes, and may include other vulnerable youth populations, such as current and
former foster youth and youth with mental health or other issues.
The precise number of homeless and runaway youth is unknown due to their
residential mobility and overlap among the populations. Determining the number of
these youth is further complicated by the lack of a standardized methodology for
counting the population and inconsistent definitions of what it means to be homeless
or a runaway. Estimates of the homeless youth exceed one million. Estimates of
runaway youth — including “thrownaway” youth (youth asked to leave their homes)
— are between one million and 1.7 million.
From the early 20th century through the 1960s, the needs of a generally
unspecified problem of runaway and homeless youth were handled locally through
the child welfare agency, juvenile justice courts, or both. The 1970s marked a shift
toward federal oversight of programs that help youth who had run afoul of the law,
including those who committed status offenses (i.e., running away). In 1974,
Congress passed the Runaway Youth Act of 1974 as Title III of the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act (P.L. 93-415) to assist runaways outside of the
juvenile justice and child welfare systems. The scope of the act was expanded in

1977 to include homeless youth through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (P.L.


93-415). The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program (RHYP) has since been
reauthorized approximately every five years since the 1970s, most recently by the
Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act (P.L. 110-378). The law currently authorizes
federal funding for three programs — the Basic Center Program, Transitional Living
Program, and Street Outreach Program.
The Basic Center Program provides temporary shelter, counseling, and after care
services to runaway and homeless youth under age 18 and their families, while the
Transitional Living Program is targeted to older youth ages 16 to 21. Youth who use
the TLP receive longer-term housing with supportive services. The Street Outreach
Program provides education, treatment, counseling, and referrals for runaway,
homeless, and street youth who have been subjected to or are at risk of being
subjected to sexual abuse and exploitation. Related services authorized by the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act include a national communication system to
facilitate communication between service providers, runaway youth, and their
families; training and technical support for grantees; and evaluations of the programs;
among other activities.
This report will be updated as relevant funding and legislative activities occur.



Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Reauthorization Activities...........................................2
Appropriations ....................................................3
FY2009 Budget Request and Appropriations....................3
FY2008 Appropriations Finalized.............................3
Who Are Homeless and Runaway Youth?..............................5
Defining the Population.........................................5
Demographics ................................................7
Homeless Youth...........................................7
Runaway and Thrownaway Youth.............................8
Factors Influencing Homelessness and Leaving Home.................9
Youth in Foster Care......................................10
Risks Associated with Running Away and Homelessness.............11
Evolution of Federal Policy.........................................11
Early Years: 1930s-1960s......................................12
Federal Legislation on Homeless Youth.......................12
Federal Legislation on Runaway Youth........................14
The Runaway Youth Act of 1974................................15
Expanding the Scope of the Act..................................15
Funding and Description of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program.....16
Federal Administration and Funding..............................16
Basic Center Program.........................................17
Overview ...............................................17
Funding ................................................18
Youth in the Program......................................19
Transitional Living Program....................................21
Overview ...............................................21
Funding ................................................22
Youth in the Program......................................22
Outcomes of Youth in the TLP..............................23
Maternity Group Homes...................................24
Street Outreach Program.......................................24
Overview ...............................................24
Funding ................................................25
Youth in the Program......................................25
Incidence and Prevalence Studies................................25
Training and Technical Assistance...............................26
National Communication System............................27
Oversight ...................................................28
Oversight of Grantees.....................................28
Congressional Oversight...................................28
PART Evaluation.........................................29



Additional Federal Support for Runaway and Homeless Youth.............29
Educational Assistance........................................29
Shared Youth Vision Initiative..................................31
Discretionary Grants for Family Violence Prevention.................31
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program.........................32
Appendix .......................................................33
List of Figures
Figure 1. Evolution of Federal Runaway and Homeless Youth Policy,
1912-2008 ..................................................13
Figure 2: Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Funding,
FY1986 through FY2008.......................................17
Figure 3. Age of Youth Served by the Basic Center Program, FY2007.......20
Figure 4. Race of Youth Served by the Basic Center Program, FY2007.......21
List of Tables
Table 1. Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Funding, FY2002-FY2008..5
Table A-1. Basic Center Funding by State and Territory, FY2007-FY2008...33



Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics and Programs
Introduction
Running away from home is not a recent phenomenon. Folkloric heroes
Huckleberry Finn and Davey Crockett fled their abusive fathers to find adventure and
employment. Although some youth today also leave home due to abuse and neglect,
they often endure far more negative outcomes than their romanticized counterparts
from an earlier era. Without adequate and safe shelter, runaway and homeless youth
are vulnerable to engaging in high-risk behaviors and further victimization. Youth
who live away from home for extended periods may become removed from school
and systems of support that promote positive development. They might also resort
to illicit activities, including selling drugs and prostitution, for survival.
Congress began to hear concerns about the vulnerabilities of the runaway
population in the 1970s due to increased awareness about these youth and the
establishment of runaway shelters to assist them in returning home. Since that time,
Congress has authorized services to provide support for runaway and homeless youth
outside of the juvenile justice, mental health, and child welfare systems. The
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA), as currently amended, authorizes
federal funding for three programs to assist runaway and homeless youth — the Basic
Center Program (BCP), Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach1
Program (SOP) — through FY2013. These programs make up the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS).
!Basic Center Program: To provide outreach, crisis intervention,
temporary shelter, counseling, family unification, and after care
services to runaway and homeless youth under age 18 and their
families. In some cases, BCP-funded programs may serve older
youth.
!Transitional Living Program: To support projects that provide
homeless youth ages 16 through 22 with stable, safe longer-term
residential services up to 18 months (or longer under certain
circumstances), including counseling in basic life skills,


1 RHYA was most recently reauthorized by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection
Act (P.L. 110-3783). 42 U.S.C. §4701 et seq. For additional information about the 2008
reauthorization law, see CRS Report RL34483, Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Reauthorization Legislation and Issues in the 110th Congress, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.

interpersonal skills building, educational advancement, job
attainment skills, and physical and mental health care.
!Street Outreach Program: To provide street-based outreach and
education, including treatment, counseling, provision of information,
and referrals for runaway, homeless, and street youth who have been
subjected to or are at risk of being subjected to sexual abuse and
ex ploitation. 2
This report begins with a brief discussion of the reauthorization of and
appropriations for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, followed by an
overview of the runaway and homeless youth population. The report describes the
challenges in defining and counting the runaway and homeless youth population, as
well as the factors that influence homelessness and leaving home. In particular,
youth who experience foster care are vulnerable to running away or becoming
homeless while in care or after having been emancipated from the system. The report
also provides background on the evolution of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act
from the 1970s until it was last amended in 2008. Finally, it describes the
administration and funding of the Basic Center, Transitional Living, and Street
Outreach programs that were created from the act, as well as the functions of their
ancillary components. (Table A-1 in the Appendix provides BCP funding by state
for FY2007 and FY2008.)
Reauthorization Activities
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-378)
reauthorized funding for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, established
new requirements for grantees, and expanded oversight of the program.
!Funding: P.L. 110-378 authorized FY2009 appropriation levels for
the BCP, TLP, and related activities that exceed the levels
authorized for FY2004 by $35 million (these are the only recent
years for which Congress has specified authorized appropriation
levels). The law also increased the authorized annual minimum
levels of BCP funding available for states and territories. The law
requires HHS to reallocate unused BCP funds from one state to
another and specified that the amount allocated to states for FY2009
and FY2010 may not be lower than the amount appropriated to the
states in FY2008.
!Requirements: P.L. 110-378 allows youth to remain in a program
funded under the BCP and TLP longer they were able to under the
prior law, although the law imposes additional criteria for youth who
stay longer at TLP-funded programs. Further, the law changed the
definition of “homeless youth” to permit youth older than age 18 and


2 In 42 U.S.C. §4701 et seq., this program is referred to as the Education and Prevention
Services to Reduce Abuse of Runaway, Homeless, and Street Youth Program.

22 to stay at BCP- and TLP-funded programs, respectively, but only
under certain circumstances. Another change made by the law
specifies that in funding grants for research and other projects
related to runaway and homeless youth, HHS is to give priority to
applicants that serve diverse youth and represent diverse geographic
regions of the U.S. (The term “diverse” is not defined.) Other
requirements pertain to BCP and TLP plans submitted by grant
applicants.
!Accountability: P.L. 110-378 requires HHS to promulgate
regulations that specify performance standards for public and non-
profit entities that receive BCP, TLP, and SOP grants. The law
further requires HHS to periodically submit to Congress an
incidence and prevalence study of runaway and homeless youth ages
13 to 26, as well as the characteristics of a representative sample of
these youth. HHS must consult with the U.S. Interagency Council
on Homelessness in developing the study. The law also directs the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate the process by
which organizations apply for BCP, TLP, and SOP, including HHS’s
response to these applicants. GAO is to submit a report on its
findings to Congress.
Appropriations
FY2009 Budget Request and Appropriations. The FY2009 budget
request for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program is identical to the level of
funding appropriated for the program in FY2008.3 Funding for FY2009 is not yet
final. Congress has passed, and the President has signed into law, a continuing
resolution for FY2009 (P.L. 110-329), which provides the same level of funding as
in FY2008 for many federal programs. The resolution extends until March 9, 2009,
and does not reflect final funding decisions.
FY2008 Appropriations Finalized. On June 21, 2007, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations reported the FY2008 appropriations bill (S. 1710) for
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related4
agencies (LHE). The committee recommended $102.9 million for the BCP and TLP,
an increase of $15 million over the current level. It also recommended $20 million
for the SOP, an increase of $5 million over the current level. The House Committee
on Appropriations reported its version of the bill (H.R. 3043) on July 13.5 The


3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2009, p. D-36.
4 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY2008, Report tothst
accompany S. 1710, 110 Cong., 1 sess., S.Rept. 110-107 (Washington, GPO: 2007).
5 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Labor, Health and
(continued...)

committee recommended $97.8 million for the BCP and TLP, an increase of $10
million, and no change in funding for the SOP from its FY2007 level.
The House and Senate Labor-Health and Human Services-Education FY2008
appropriations bill (H.R. 3043), was consolidated with other appropriation bills into
H.R. 2764 (the original State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2008)
as the vehicle for omnibus appropriations for FY2008. H.R. 2764 was signed into
law as P.L. 110-161 and provides $52.9 million for the BCP, $43.3 million for the
TLP, and $17.2 million for the SOP. The total FY2008 appropriation for the RHY
program is $113.3 million, an increase of $10.5 million from the FY2007 level and
the largest appropriation for the program to date.
Table 1 shows funding levels for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program
from FY2001 to FY2008. Since FY2002, funding has generally remained stable for
the Basic Center and Street Outreach Programs. Funding for the Transitional Living
Program nearly doubled from FY2001 to FY2002 (as shown below), but remained
at about $40 million from FY2002 to FY2007. Although the TLP authorized services
for pregnant and parenting teens, the Administration sought funds specifically to
serve this population and Congress provided the increased funds to enable these
youth to access TLP services. In FY2003, amendments to the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Act (P.L. 108-96) specifically authorized TLP funds to be used for
services targeted at pregnant and parenting teens at TLP centers known as Maternity
Group Homes. The FY2004 through FY2008 appropriations reflect funding for the
Maternity Group Homes as part of the TLP.


5 (...continued)
Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY2008, Report tothst
accompany H.R. 3043, 110 Cong., 1 sess., H.Rept. 110-231 (Washington, GPO: 2007).

Table 1. Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Funding,
FY2002-FY2008
($ in thousands)
Program FY2001Ena c t e d FY2002Ena c t e d FY2003Ena c t e d FY2004Ena c t e d FY2005Ena c t e d FY2006Ena c t e d b FY2007Ena c t e d b FY2008Ena c t e d c
BCP 48,338 48,288 48,298 49,171 48,786 48,265 48,298 52,860
T LP 20,740 39,736 40,505 40,260a 39,938 a 39,511 a 39,539 a 43,268 a
SOP 14,999 14,999 15,399 15,302 15,178 15,017 15,027 17,221
T o tal 84,127 103,023 104,202 104,733 103,902 102,793 102,864 113,349
Source: U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Justification
of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2003, p. H-48; Administration for Children and Families
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2004, p. H-45; Administration for Children and
Families Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2005, p. H-89; Administration for
Children and Families Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2006, p. D-41;
Administration for Children and Families Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2007,
p. D-41; and Administration for Children and Families Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,
FY2008, pp. 92, 98; Administration for Children and Families Justification of Estimates for Appropriations
Committees, FY2009, p. D-42.
Note: BCP and TLP funding are distributed under the Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program.
SOP funds are distributed separately.
a. Includes funding for the Maternity Group Home component.
b. The fourth Continuing Resolution for the FY2007 budget (P.L. 110-5) generally funded programs at their
FY2006 levels. However, the FY2006 funding total for the RHYP was slightly lower than the FY2007
total because of an additional transfer of funds from the RHYP accounts to an HHS sub-agency.
c. The FY2008 appropriations includes a 1.7% across-the-board recession on Labor-HHS-Education programs.
See page 346 of [http://www.rules.house.gov/110_fy08_omni.htm].
Who Are Homeless and Runaway Youth?
Defining the Population
There is no single federal definition of the terms “homeless youth” or “runaway
youth.” However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services relies on the
definitions from the program’s authorizing legislation and its accompanying6
regulations. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act defines homeless youth for
purposes of the BCP as individuals under age 18 (or some older age if permitted by
state or local law) who are unable to live in a safe environment with a relative and
lack safe alternative living arrangements. For purposes of the TLP, homeless youth
are individuals ages 16 through 22 who are unable to live in a safe environment with
a relative and lack safe alternative living arrangements. Youth older than age 22 may


6 The U.S. Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development use definitions
of homelessness that are different than those used by HHS. The U.S. Department of Justice
uses a different definition for runaway youth. For some of these definitions, see CRS
Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs and Recent Legislation,
coordinated by Libby Perl.

participate if they entered the program before age 22 and meet other requirements.7
The accompanying regulations further define homeless youth as being in need of
services and shelter that provide supervision and care.8 The act and regulations
describe runaway youth as individuals under age 18 who absent themselves from
their home or legal residence at least overnight without the permission of their
parents or legal guardians.9
Although these current policy definitions are distinct, youth can be homeless
and runaways. The American Medical Association’s Council on Scientific Affairs
argues that the distinctions between the two groups are artificial and may be
counterproductive. Their report on this population concludes that most youth on the
streets are both runaways and homeless because they have no home to which they are
willing or able to return.10
Some definitions of runaway and homeless youth may include a sub-population
known as “thrownaway” youth (or “push outs”) who have been abandoned by their
parents or have been told to leave their households. These youth may be considered
part of the homeless population if they lack alternative living arrangements.
However, the most recent federal study of runaway youth — the National Incidence
Study of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children-2 (NISMART-2)
conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice — includes thrownaway youth in its
estimates.11 The study de-emphasizes distinctions between runaway and thrownaway
populations because many youth experience both circumstances, and the
categorization of a runaway or thrownaway episode frequently depends on whether
information was gathered from the youth (who tend to emphasize the thrownaway
aspects of the episode) or their care takers (who tend to emphasize the runaway
aspects). Some definitions of runaway and homeless youth, including those used by
HHS, include “street youth” because they lack shelter and live on the street and in
other areas that increase the risk of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, drug abuse, and
prostitution. 12


7 Prior to the enactment of the 2008 reauthorization law (P.L. 110-378), the law did not
authorize an older age for youth to stay at a BCP- or TLP-funded site. Further, the law
specified that youth ages 16 through 21 were eligible for the TLP program.
8 45 C.F.R. §1351.
9 Ibid. The regulations reference “family” rather than “parent” or “legal guardian.”
10 American Medical Association Council of Scientific Affairs, “Health Care Needs of
Homeless and Runaway Youths,” Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 262, no.

10 (September 1989).


11 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
“Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics,” by Heather
Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, OJJDP NISMART Bulletin, October 2002.
At [http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_runaway.pdf]. (Hereafter
U.S. Department of Justice, “Runaway/Thrownaway Children.”)
12 §42 U.S.C. 5732a.

Demographics
The precise number of homeless and runaway youth is unknown due to their
residential mobility. These youth often eschew the shelter system for locations or
areas that are not easily accessible to shelter workers and others who count the
homeless and runaways.13 Youth who come into contact with census takers may also
be reluctant to report that they have left home or are homeless. Determining the
number of homeless and runaway youth is further complicated by the lack of a
standardized methodology for counting the population and inconsistent definitions
of what it means to be homeless or a runaway.14
Differences in methodology for collecting data on homeless populations may
also influence how the characteristics of the runaway and homeless youth population
are reported. Some studies have relied on point prevalence estimates that report
whether youth have experienced homelessness at a given point in time, such as on a
particular day.15 According to researchers that study the characteristics of runaway
and homeless youth, these studies appear to be biased toward describing individuals
who experience longer periods of homelessness.16 The sample location may also
misrepresent the characteristics of the population generally.17 Surveying youth who
live on the streets may lend to the perception that all runaway and homeless youth are
especially deviant. Youth surveyed in locations with high rates of drug use and sex
work, known as “cruise areas,” tend to be older, to have been away from home
longer, to have recently visited community-based agencies, and to be less likely to
attend school than youth in “non-cruise areas.”18
As discussed later in the report, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection
Act (P.L. 110-378), which renewed the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program
through FY2013, authorizes funding for HHS to conduct periodic studies of the
incidence and prevalence of youth who have run away or are homeless.
Homeless Youth. A 1998 study in the American Journal of Public Health
used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 1992 National Health
Interview Survey of youth ages 12 to 17 to determine the number of those who were19
homeless. In the survey, youth were asked whether, in the past 12 months, they had
spent one or more nights in a specific type of shelter not intended to be a dwelling


13 Christopher L. Ringwalt et al., “The Prevalence of Homelessness Among Adolescents in
the United States,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 88, no. 9 (September 1998), p.

1325. (Hereafter Ringwalt, “The Prevalence of Homelessness Among Adolescents.”)


14 Ibid.
15 Ibid, pp. 1325-1326.
16 Ibid.
17 Andrea L. Witkin et al., “Finding Homeless Youth: Patterns Based on Geographical Area
and Number of Homeless Episodes,” Youth & Society, vol. 37, no. 1 (September 2005), pp.

62-63.


18 Ibid.
19 Ringwalt, “The Prevalence of Homelessness Among Adolescents,” pp. 1326-1327.

place (i.e., in an abandoned building, public place, outside, underground, or in a
stranger’s home) or a youth or adult shelter. Based on their responses, researchers
calculated that 5% of the population ages 12 to 17 — more than 1 million youth in
a given year — experienced homelessness. The researchers concluded that the
prevalence of staying at a particular dwelling place while homeless was constant
across racial groups, socioeconomic status, youth who lived with both parents and
those who did not, and youth who lived in cities of varying sizes. However, boys
were more likely to experience homeless episodes, especially as these episodes
related to sleeping in a shelter or outside.20
Measured characteristics of homeless youth vary depending on the source of the
sample and methodology. Some evaluations of homeless youth indicate that gender
representation varies across sample locations. Surveys from family shelters suggest
either even numbers of females and males, or more females (see below for a
discussion of the gender of youth using federally-funded Basic Center shelters).21
Although studies tend to document that homeless youth generally reflect the ethnic
makeup of their local areas, some studies show overrepresentation of racial or ethnic
minorities relative to the community (black youth are overrepresented at the Basic
Center shelters).22 The history of homelessness among youth also varies by the
sample location. Youth in shelters tend to have short periods of homelessness and
have not experienced prior homeless episodes while youth living on the streets are
more likely to demonstrate patterns of episodic (i.e., multiple episodes adding up to
less than one year) or chronic homelessness (i.e., being homeless for one year or
longer). 23
Runaway and Thrownaway Youth. According to HHS’s Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), approximately 1.6 million
youth (7 %) ages 12 to 17 had run away from home and slept on the street in a 12-
month period (in 2002). These youth were more likely to be male (55%) than female,
and nearly half (46%) were ages 16 or 17.24 The NISMART-2, a study sponsored by
the U.S. Department of Justice, estimates that 1.7 million youth under age 18 left
home or were asked to leave home in 1999.25 Of these youth, 68% were between the
ages of 15 and 17. Males and females were equally represented in the population.


20 Ibid., p 1327.
21 Marjorie J. Robertson and Paul A. Toro, “Homeless Youth: Research, Intervention, and
Policy,” The 1998 National Symposium on Homeless Research, (1998), pp. 1-2. At
[http://aspe.hhs.gov/progsys/homeless/symposium/3-Youth.htm]. (Hereafter Robertson and
Toro, “Homeless Youth: Research, Intervention, and Policy.”)
22 Ibid., p. 4.
23 Ibid.
24 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, Office of Applied Statistics, National Survey on Drug Use and
Health, Substance Abuse Among Youth Who Had Run Away From Home, 2002. At
[http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/runAways/runAways.htm]. (Hereafter U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse Among Youth Who Had Run Away From
Home.)
25 U.S. Department of Justice, “Runaway/Thrownaway Children,” p. 7.

White youth made up the largest share of runaways (57%), followed by black youth
(17%) and Hispanic youth (15%). Over half of all youth left home for one to six
days, and 30% traveled more than one to 10 miles. An additional 30% traveled more
than 10 to 50 miles. Nearly all (99%) runaway and thrownaway youth were returned
to their homes. Another study estimates a somewhat smaller number of runaway
youth — 1 million to 1.3 million.26
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) provides
assistance to children believed to be missing, including runaways.27 From 1990 to
December 2007, case managers at NCMEC handled 114,679 cases (i.e., individual
children), of which just under three quarters (82,810) involved endangered
runaways . 28
Factors Influencing Homelessness and Leaving Home
Youth most often cite family conflict as the major reason for their homelessness
or episodes of running away. A literature review of homeless youth found that a
youth’s relationship with a step-parent, sexual activity, sexual orientation, pregnancy,
school problems, and alcohol and drug use were strong predictors of family discord.29
Of those callers who used the National Runaway Switchboard (a federally-sponsored
call center for youth and their relatives involved in runaway incidents) nearly one
third attributed family conflict as the reason for their call.30 Runaway and homeless
youth also describe abuse and neglect as common experiences. Over 20% of youth
in the NISMART-2 reported being physically or sexually abused at home in the prior
year or feared abuse upon returning home.31 Gay and lesbian youth appear to be
overrepresented in the homeless population, due often to experiencing negative
reactions from their parents when they came out about their sexuality. In five studies
of unaccompanied youth in mid-size and large cities, between 20% and 40% of
respondents identified as gay or lesbian.32


26 Jan Moore, Unaccompanied and Homeless Youth Review of Literature (1995-2005),
National Center for Homeless Education, 2005, p. 6. At [http://www.cde.state.co.us/
cdepreve ntion/download/pdf/Homeless% 20Youth%20Review%20of%20Literature.pdf].
27 NCMEC is funded by the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program, administered by the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the U.S. Department of Justice.
For a discussion of the program, see CRS Report RL34050, Missing and Exploited
Children: Background, Policies and Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
28 National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC Quarterly Progress Report:
October 1-December 31, 2007, Submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice, January 23,

2008.


29 Robertson and Toro, “Homeless Youth: Research, Intervention, and Policy,” p. 5.
30 National Runaway Switchboard, “NRS Call Statistics,” at [http://www.nrscrisisline.org/
news_events/call_stats.html ].
31 U.S. Department of Justice, “Runaway/Thrownaway Children,” p. 8.
32 Nicholas Ray, Lesbian, Gay, and Transgender Youth: An Epidemic of Homelessness,
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Coalition for the Homeless, 2006, pp.
(continued...)

Youth in Foster Care. Youth who run away often have a history of
involvement in the foster care system. On the last day of FY2006, states reported33
over 12,000 (just over 2%) foster children as “runaways.” A study of youth who
ran away from foster care between 1993 and 2003 by the Chapin Hall Center for
Children (University of Chicago) found that the average likelihood of an individual
running away from foster care placements increased over this time period.34 Youth
questioned about their runaway experiences cited three primary reasons why they ran
from foster care. First, they wanted to reconnect or stay connected to their biological
families even if they recognized that their families were neither healthy nor safe.
Second, youth wanted to express their autonomy and find normalcy among
sometimes chaotic events. Many youth explained that they already felt independent
because they had taken on adult responsibilities beginning at a young age. Third,
youth wanted to maintain surrogate family relationships with non-family members.
Youth in the study were more likely than their foster care peers to abuse drugs and
to have certain mental health disorders.
Youth who experience foster care are also vulnerable to homelessness after
emancipating from the child welfare system. Each year about 26,500 youth “age out”
of foster care, many of whom lack the proper supports to successfully transition to
adulthood.35 Only about two-fifths of eligible foster youth receive independent living36
services. Of those youth who do receive services, few have adequate housing
assistance. Research on youth who emancipate from foster care suggests a nexus
between foster care involvement and later episodes of homelessness. In a study of

21-year-olds who had emancipated from foster care in three states, approximately37


18% had experienced homelessness since leaving care. A national study of former
foster youth found the percentage of the population who experienced homelessness38


to be much higher — 25%.
32 (...continued)

12-14. At [http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/HomelessYouth.pdf].


33 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #14 (Preliminary
Estimates for FY2005). January 2008. At [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_
research/afcars/tar/report14.htm]. (Hereafter U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, AFCARS Report #14.)
34 Mark E. Courtney et al., “Youth Who Run Away from Out-of-Home Care,” Chapin Hall
Center for Children Issue Brief, no. 103 (March 2005), p. 2. At [http://www.chapinhall.
org/ article_abstract.aspx?ar=1382].
35 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #14.
36 Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring. “The Transition to Adulthood for Youth
‘Aging Out’ of the Foster Care System” in Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own
Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp. 27-32. (Hereafter Courtney and Huering, “Youth
‘Aging Out’ of the Foster Care System.”)
37 Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth: Outcomes at Age 21, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago,
December 2007, p. 16. At [http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355].
38 Ronna Cook, Esther Fleischman, and Virginia Grimes, A National Evaluation of Title IV-
(continued...)

Risks Associated with Running Away and Homelessness
Runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to multiple problems while they
are away from a permanent home, including untreated mental health disorders, drug
use, and sexual exploitation. In a 1996 evaluation of street youth (ages 13 to 17) in
a Hollywood cruise area, about one quarter met clinical criteria for major depression
compared to 10% or less of their peers in the general population.39 However, youth
who live on the streets in cruise areas may experience greater challenges than other
homeless and runaway youth who stay in other locations. Another study that
compared rates for many mental disorders between homeless youth and the general
youth population concluded that they were similar, although homeless youth had
significantly higher rates of disruptive behavior disorders.40
Drug use also appears prevalent among the runaway and homeless youth
population. The SAMHSA study found that nearly 30% had used marijuana and
almost one quarter used any illicit drug other than marijuana.41 NISMART-2 reported
that 17% of runaway youth used hard drugs (not defined) and 18% were in the
company of someone known to be abusing drugs when they were away from home.42
Runaway and homeless youth are also vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation,
and are at high risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Some youth resort
to illegal activity including stealing, prostitution, and selling drugs for survival.
Runaway and homeless youth report other challenges including poor health and the
lack of basic provisions such as food.43
Evolution of Federal Policy
Prior to the passage of the 1974 Runaway Youth Act (Title III, Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, P.L. 93-415), federal policy was limited
in the area of runaway and homeless youth. If they received any services, most such
youth were served through the local child welfare agency, juvenile justice court
system, or both. The 1970s marked a shift to a more rehabilitative model for assisting
youth who had run afoul of the law, including those who committed status offenses
(i.e., running away). During this period, Congress focused increasing attention on


38 (...continued)
E Foster Care Independent Living Programs for Youth, Phase 2 Final Report, vol. 1 (1991),
Westat, pp. 4-11.
39 Robertson and Toro, “Homeless Youth: Research, Intervention, and Policy,” p. 7. The
clinical criteria are found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd
Revision, published by the American Psychiatric Association, a handbook used most often
to diagnose mental disorders in the United States.
40 Ibid.
41 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, Substance Abuse Among Youth Who Had Run Away From Home.
42 U.S. Department of Justice, “Runaway/Thrownaway Children,” p. 8.
43 Robertson and Toro, “Homeless Youth: Research, Intervention, and Policy,” p. 10.

runaways and other vulnerable youth due, in part, to emerging sociological models
to explain why youth engaged in deviant behavior. The first runaway shelters were
created in the late 1960s and 1970s to assist them in returning home. The landmark
Runway Youth Act of 1974 decriminalized runaway youth and authorized funding
for programs to provide shelter, counseling, and other services. Since 1974,
Congress has expanded the services available to both runaway youth and homeless
youth. Figure 1 traces the evolution of federal runaway and homeless youth policy.
Early Years: 1930s-1960s
Federal Legislation on Homeless Youth. The federal government first
addressed the problem of youth homelessness during the Great Depression when it
established programs to provide relief services for children and youth, often
accompanied by their families, who left home to find work and became homeless.
The estimated number of homeless individuals in 1933 was two million to five44
million, of whom 20% to 30% were boys. Mayors at this time reported that the
transient and homeless populations in their cities were sometimes fed, pushed on to
other cities, or placed in jail.
In response to the influx of homeless adults and youth to the nation’s cities, the
Federal Transient Relief Act of 1933 established a Transient Division within the
Federal Transient Relief Administration to provide relief services through state
grants. Also in 1933, the Civilian Conservation Corps opened camps and shelters for
more than one million low-income older youth. In 1935, President Franklin
Roosevelt created the National Youth Administration by executive order to open
employment bureaus and provide cash assistance to poor college and high school
students. Together, these programs helped to reduce the number of homeless and
transient youth. According to the July 1935 Federal Transient Relief Act’s Monthly
Report, 50,000 young people were homeless and/or transient at that time.45 The
Transient Division was disbanded shortly thereafter.


44 Eric Beecroft and Seymour Janow, “Toward a National Policy for Migration,” Social
Forces, vol. 16, no. 4 (May 1938), p. 477. (Hereafter Beecroft and Janow, “Migration.”)
45 Ibid., 477.

CRS-13
Figure 1. Evolution of Federal Runaway and Homeless Youth Policy, 1912-2008


iki/CRS-RL33785
g/w
s.or
leak
://wiki
http
Source: Created by the Congressional Research Service.

Federal Legislation on Runaway Youth. Homeless youth were generally
considered a problem that had ended after the Great Depression, but youth running
away from home was emerging as a more serious issue. At about the same time the
federal government withdrew funding for homeless and transient youth services
provided during the Great Depression, it enacted, for the first time, separate and
unrelated legislation to assist vulnerable youth — including runaways — through
state grants. As originally enacted, the Social Security Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-231)
authorized indefinite annual funding of $1.5 million for states to establish, extend,
and strengthen public child welfare services in “predominately rural” or “special
needs” areas. For purposes of this program (now at Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the
Social Security Act), these were described as services “for the protection and care of
homeless, dependent, and neglected children, and children in danger of becoming46
delinquent.” In 1950 (P.L. 81-734), Title IV-B was amended to allow state grants
to be used to pay the cost of returning a runaway child under the age of 16 to his or
her home state from another state. In 1958, the program was again amended (P.L.
85-840) to increase the age of runaways who could receive this aid to 18 and to
include 15 days of maintenance (i.e., room and board) for each child in cases where
the costs could not be met by his or her parents or the agency institution legally
responsible for the care of that child.
The passage of the 1961 Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act
(P.L. 87-274) focused on the environmental and underlying sociological factors of
deviant behavior among youth. Unaccompanied minors on the street fit the image
of troubled, and potentially delinquent youth. This image was further entrenched as47
some runaway youth joined the Counterculture Movement of the 1960s. The first
runaway centers (Huckleberry House in San Francisco, the Runaway House in
Washington, D.C., and branch offices of the Young Women’s Christian Association
and Traveler’s Aid Society) opened during the late 1960s to provide shelter,
counseling, and other services to youth and their families. The centers received little,
if any, federal funds, and relied primarily on the donations of churches and other non-
governmental organizations.


46 In 1962 (P.L. 87-543), child welfare services were formally defined under Title IV-B as
“public social services which supplement, or substitute for parental care and supervision for
the purpose of (1) remedying or assisting in the solution of problems which may result in,
the neglect abuse, exploitation, or delinquency of children, (2) protecting and caring for
homeless, dependent, or neglected children, (3) protecting and promoting the welfare of
children, including the strengthening of their own homes where possible or, where needed,
the provision of adequate care of children away from their homes in foster family homes or
day-care or other child-care facilities.” P.L. 109-288 (2006) removes reference to homeless
youth.
47 Karen M. Staller, “Constructing the Runaway and Homeless Youth Problem: Boy
Adventurers to Girl Prostitutes, 1960-1978,” Journal of Communication, vol. 53, no. 2
(2003), p. 331.

The Runaway Youth Act of 1974
Concerned that an increasing number of runaway youth were entering the
juvenile justice system, the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the
Senate Judiciary Committee conducted hearings on runaway youth in 1972 to explore
the problems facing this population.48 Testimony from government officials, youth
workers, and community leaders focused on the lifestyles of youth, as well as their
interaction with police and increasing reliance on runaway centers. Runaway youth
were concentrated in areas like the Haight District in San Francisco and New York
City’s Greenwich Village, often staying in filthy, overcrowded houses (known as
“pads”) with other youth and adults. Police officers routinely sent unaccompanied
youth to juvenile detention centers. The few runaway centers operating in the early
1970s were underfunded, understaffed, and unable to help youth cope with the
reasons they ran away. A fractured home life and problems with school were most
often cited as motivation for leaving home. Youth who ran away because they were
abused or neglected were not always placed under the protection of the state. These
youth, like most runaways, had to secure permission from their parents to stay
overnight at a runaway center.
The subcommittee also heard testimony regarding the need to establish and
federally fund programs to assist runaway youth. At the time, states could only use
Social Security Title IV-B funds for runaway youth to return them to their state of
origin (not for intrastate transfer). Other federal funding streams that targeted
runaway youth were also limited. The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control
Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-445) authorized funding for approximately four runaway centers
from 1968 to 1972. The primary purpose of the legislation was to provide assistance
to courts, correctional systems, schools, and community agencies for research and
training on juvenile justice issues.
Although the Senate reacted to the hearings by passing legislation to assist
runaway youth, the House did not act. However, two years later, in 1974, Congress
passed the Runaway Youth Act as Title III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDPA, P.L. 93-415). A total of $10 million for each fiscal year,
FY1975 through FY1977, was authorized to provide temporary shelter, family
counseling, and after-care services to runaway youth and their families through what
is now referred to as the Basic Center Program. To receive funding under Title III,
states had to decriminalize runaway youth and provide services outside of the
juvenile justice system. The legislation also included a provision requiring a
comprehensive statistical survey of runaway youth.
Expanding the Scope of the Act
Through the Juvenile Justice Amendments to the JJDPA in 1977 (P.L. 95-115),
Congress reauthorized the Runaway Youth Act for FY1978 and expanded its scope
to include homeless youth. Such youth became eligible for services provided through


48 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile
Delinquency, Juvenile Delinquency, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., January 13-14, 1972 (Washington:
GPO, 1972).

the Basic Center Program. Two other programs were later added that targeted
specific sub-populations of runaway and homeless youth. Congress established the
Transitional Living Program through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-
690) to meet the needs of older youth ages 16 to 21. The impetus for passing the
legislation was the success of demonstration transitional living projects in the 1980s.
The other major program, the Street Outreach Program, was created in 1994 by the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). The
purpose of the program is to serve homeless youth living on the streets. The
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act was most recently reauthorized by the
Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-78), which extended the
program’s funding authorization through FY2013.
Funding and Description of the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Program
Federal Administration and Funding
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program is administered by the Family and
Youth Services (FYSB) Bureau within HHS’s Administration for Children and
Families (ACF). The funding streams for the Basic Center Program and Transitional
Living Program were separate until Congress consolidated them in 1999 when
RHYA was reauthorized by the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children
Protection Act (P.L. 106-71). Under current law, 90% of the federal funds
appropriated under the authorization must be used for the Basic Center Program and
Transitional Living Program. Of this amount, 45% is reserved for the BCP and no
more than 55% is reserved for the TLP. The remaining share of federal funding is
allocated for (1) a national communication system to facilitate communication
between service providers, runaway youth, and their families; (2) training and
technical support for grantees; (3) evaluations of the programs; and (4) HHS efforts
to coordinate with other federal agencies on matters relating to the health, education,
employment, and housing of these youth. Together, these programs — along with
other program activities, except the Street Outreach Program — are known as the
Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program. Although the Street Outreach
Program is a separately funded component, SOP services are coordinated with those
provided under the BCP and TLP.
The 2008 reauthorization law (P.L. 110-378) authorized $140 million for
FY2009 and such sums as may be necessary for the Consolidated Runaway and
Homeless Youth Program for FY2010 through FY2013. P.L. 110-378 authorized the
Street Outreach Program to receive $25 million for FY2009 and such sums as may
be necessary for FY2010 through FY2013. P.L. 110-378 also authorized funding for
HHS to periodically conduct incidence and prevalence studies of runaway and
homeless youth. The studies are authorized to receive such sums as may be necessary
for FY2009 through FY2013.
Figure 2 provides the program funding levels from FY1986 through FY2008
for the BCP and from FY1990 and FY1996, for the TLP and SOP, respectively,



through FY2008. No final action has been taken to appropriate FY2009 funding for
the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program.
Figure 2: Runaway and Homeless Youth Program
Funding, FY1986 through FY2008


$250
$200
s)
$150n
illio
$100 M
in
($
$50
$0
86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 0 02 04 06 08
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 2 20 20 20
BCPTLPSOPTotal Funding
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Basic Center Program
Overview. The Basic Center Program is intended to provide short-term shelter
and services for youth and their families through public and private community-based
centers. Youth eligible to receive BCP services include those youth who are at risk
of running away or becoming homeless (and may live at home with their parents), or
have already left home, either voluntarily or involuntarily. To stay at the shelter,
youth must be under age 18, or, as added by the 2008 reauthorization act (P.L. 110-
378), an older age if the BCP center is located in a state or locality that permits this
higher age. Some centers may serve homeless youth older than 18 through street-
based services, home-based services, and drug abuse education and prevention
services.
BCP centers were designed to provide these services outside of the law
enforcement, juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental health systems. For FY2007,
the program supported approximately 336 BCP shelters in all 50 states, America
Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico.49 These centers, which generally shelter as many as
49 U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2009, p. D-38. According to
(continued...)

20 youth are located in areas that are frequented or easily reached by runaway and
homeless youth. The shelters seeks to reunite youth with their families, whenever
possible, or to locate appropriate alternative placements. They also provide food,
clothing, individual or group and family counseling, and health care referrals. Youth
may stay in a center continuously up to 21 days and may re-enter the program
multiple times.50
BCP grantees — community-based public and private organizations — must
make efforts to contact the parents and relatives of runaway and homeless youth.
Grantees are also required to establish relationship with law enforcement, health and
mental health care, social service, welfare, and school district systems to coordinate
services. Centers maintain confidential statistical records of youth (including youth
who are not referred to out-of-home shelter services) and the family members. The
centers are required to submit an annual report to HHS detailing the program
activities and the number of youth participating in such activities, as well as
information about the operation of the centers.
HHS evaluates BCP organizations using the Basic Center Program Performance
Standards, which relate to how well the needs of runaway and homeless youth and
their families are being met. Nine of these standards address service components
(i.e., outreach, individual intake process, and recreational programs) and six focus on
administrative functions or activities (i.e., staffing and staff development, reporting,
and individual client files).
Funding. BCP grants are allocated by formula to each state, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico and are then distributed (by HHS) on a competitive basis
to community-based organizations. The amount of BCP funding available is based
on the jurisdiction’s proportion of the nation’s youth under age 18, and under the law,
these jurisdictions receive a minimum of $200,000. Pursuant to the 2008
reauthorization act (P.L. 110-378), HHS is to reallot any funds from one state to other
states that will not be obligated before the end of a fiscal year. Separately, each of the
territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, America Samoa, and the Northern Mariana
Islands) receive a minimum of $70,000 of the total appropriations. (Prior to the
enactment of P.L. 110-378, the states were to receive a minimum of $100,000 and
territories received a minimum of $45,000.) Congress appropriated $48.3 million for
the BCP in FY2006. See Appendix Table A-1 for the amount of funding allocated
for each state in FY2007 and FY2008.
The costs of the Basic Center Program are shared by the federal government
(90%) and grantees (10%). Community-based organizations apply directly to the
federal government for the BCP grants. Grants may be awarded for up to three years.


49 (...continued)
the ACF budget justification, the Northern Mariana Islands and Virgin Islands do not have
Basic Center Program grantees, although FY2008 funds are available for new awards to the
territory, if desired.
50 Prior to the enactment of the 2008 reauthorization law (P.L. 110-378), youth could stay
at a BCP center for up to 15 days, as authorized under rules promulgated by HHS. See 45
C.F.R. 1351.1(a).

Funding priority is given to organizations that have demonstrated experience in
providing services to runaway and homeless youth, and to those who apply for less
than $200,000 in funding per fiscal year. Funding for the second and third year,
however, depends on the availability of funds and the grantee’s satisfactory
performance.
Youth in the Program. BCP grantees serve only a fraction of the more than
one million youth who run away or are homeless. According to the FY2007 NEO-
RHYMIS report of all grantees, 43,857 youth used BCP services (about 48,400 youth
used BCP services in FY2006).51 Of these youth, 23,618 (53.9%) were female and

20,239 (46.1%) were male (nearly the same percentages as in FY2005 and FY2006).


As Figure 3 shows, the greatest percentage of youth served were ages 15 and 16.
The centers also served youth younger than 12 and older than 18. The proportions
of youth in each age category were nearly the same as they were in FY2005 and
FY2006.
Youth who visited the centers represented a variety of ethnic and racial
backgrounds (see Figure 4). Although white youth made up the majority of the
youth served, black and American Indian youth were overrepresented compared to52
their share of the general population. Black youth comprised more than one-third
of the BCP population in FY2007, but made up 15% of the 10-to-19-year-old
population. Similarly, Native American youth comprised about 4% of the BCP
population, but are about 1% of the American population ages 10 to 19. Notably,
however, not all minorities are overrepresented. The share of Asian youth who used
RHY services (1%) in FY2007 is well below their share in the population (3.5%).
Hispanic youth are also underrepresented in the population. Hispanic youth of any
race comprised just over 16% of the BCP population (not shown in the figure), but
are approximately 18% of the general population. The percentages of youth in each
racial and ethnic group are almost identical to those reported in the previous two
fiscal years.
According to NEO-RHYMIS, at the time of their entrance to the BCP shelters
in FY2007, about 70% of youth had lived with their parents. About 60% attended
school regularly; however, nearly 20% attended irregularly. Approximately 7.7% had
dropped out and the balance of youth had graduated, obtained a GED, were
suspended or expelled, or did not know their school status. The greatest share of
youth were referred to the shelters by their parents, followed by referrals from law
enforcement agencies, self-referrals, referrals by schools, and referrals by child


51 Data on youth served by the BCP, TLP, and SOP are provided in HHS’s NEO-RHYMIS
reporting system. See [https://extranet.acf.hhs.gov/rhymis/custom_reports.html]. The NEO-
RHYMIS (that is, National Extranet Optimized Runaway and Homeless Youth Management
Information System) is explained in the section below on Congressional Oversight.
According to the NEO-RHMIS administrator, all BCP, TLP, and SOP grantees reported data
for FY2007 (based on December 5, 2007, correspondence with the administrator).
52 Based on Congressional Research Service analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000
Summary File 1, Table 1: Total Population by Age, Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin
for the United States: 2000. At [http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t9/
tab01.xls].

protective services. Nearly all (85.4%) youth received counseling. Youth also
received basic support (not defined), life skills training, education, and substance
abuse prevention treatment, among other services at the shelters. Upon exiting, most
youth (65.2%) planned to live with their parents. However, youth were also exiting
to a relative or friend’s home (7.8%), the street (5.9%), and foster care (3.6%).
Approximately 4% of youth did not know where they would live upon exiting. These
proportions are about the same as they were for FY2005 and FY2006. The remaining
youth exited to a shelter, another private residence, or a residential program, among
other arrangements.
As in FY2005 and FY2006, the issues of concern most cited by youth at the
time of exiting, in order of frequency, were family dynamics, education, housing,
mental health, and alcohol and drug abuse. Almost nine out of 10 youth cited family
dynamics as the major issue. Finally, in FY2007, BCP shelters reported turning away

4,039 youth by phone and 331 youth in person due to a lack of bed space.


Figure 3. Age of Youth
Served by the Basic Center Program, FY2007


Over 18

1%


17 to 18Under 12

21%6%


12 to 14

32%


15 to 16

40%


Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of NEO-RHYMIS data.
Note: Based on data from 43,857 youth.

Figure 4. Race of Youth
Served by the Basic Center Program, FY2007


American
Mult irac ial In di an/ A l a s k a
3%Native
Asian4%

1%


Black or
African
AmericanWhite

34%57%


Native
American/
Pacific
Islander

1%


Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of NEO-RHYMIS data.
Note: Based on data from 40,210 youth. More than 3,600 youth did not
provide information about their race. Consistent with the Census Bureau
classification of ethnicity and race, Hispanic youth can be of any race.
Transitional Living Program
Overview. Recognizing the difficulty that youth face in becoming self-
sufficient adults, the Transitional Living Program provides longer-term shelter and
assistance for youth ages 16 through 22 (including pregnant and/or parenting youth)
who may leave their biological homes due to family conflict, or have left and are not
expected to return home. In FY2007, 190 organizations received TLP grants.53 All
but five states (Idaho, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming),
Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands appear to have at least one TLP54
grantee.
Each TLP grantee may shelter up to 20 youth at host family homes, supervised
apartments owned by a social service agency, or scattered-site apartments, and single-
occupancy apartments rented directly with the assistance of the agency. The 2008
appropriations law (P.L. 110-278) continues to allow youth to remain at TLP projects
for up to 540 days (18 months) or longer for youth under age 18 and adds that a youth
ages 16 through 22 may remain in the program for a continuous period of 635 days
53 U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2009, pp. D-38.
54 See “Locate a TLP Program” on the Family and Youth Services website at [http://www.
acf.hhs.gov/progr ams/fysb/content/youthdivi sion/programs /locate.htm] .

(approximately 21 months) under “exceptional circumstances.” This term means
circumstances in which a youth would benefit to an unusual extent from additional
time in the program. The new law further authorizes that a youth in a TLP who has
not reached age 18 on the last day of the 635-day period may, in exceptional
circumstances and if otherwise qualified for the program, remain in the program until
his or her 18th birthday.
Youth receive several types of services at TLP-funded programs:
!basic life-skills training, including consumer education and
instruction in budgeting and housekeeping;
!interpersonal skill building;
!educational preparation, such as GED courses and post-secondary
training;
!assistance in job preparation and attainment;
!education and counseling on substance abuse; and
!mental and physical health care services.
TLP centers develop a written plan designed to help transition youth to
independent living or another appropriate living arrangement, and they refer youth
to other systems that can coordinate to meet their educational, health care, and social
service needs. The grantees must also submit an annual report to HHS that includes
information regarding the activities carried out with funds and the number and
characteristics of the homeless youth.
Funding. TLP grants are distributed competitively by HHS to community-
based public and private organizations for five-year periods. Congress appropriated
$39.5 million in FY2007 for the program. Grantees must provide at least 10% of the
total cost of the program.
Youth in the Program. For FY2007, NEO-RHYMIS reported that the
Transitional Living Program served 3,662 youth (compared to 3,637 youth in
FY2006). Of these youth, about 60% were female and 40% were male.
Approximately 59% were ages 18 or younger and 41% were ages 19 to 21. About
half of the youth were white, 40% were black, and the remaining youth identified as
American Indian (4.0%), Asian (9.0%), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (0.7%),
or multi-racial (3.8%). Black, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander youth were overrepresented, compared to their share of the general
population ages 15 to 24.55 These demographics are consistent with data from
FY2005 and FY2006.
Also in FY2007, about one-third of youth in the TLP attended school regularly;
almost 23% had dropped out; 22% had graduated from high school; and nearly 8%
obtained a GED. The remaining youth either were suspended or expelled, or did not


55 Based on Congressional Research Service analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000
Summary File 1, Table 1: Total Population by Age, Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin
for the United States: 2000. At [http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t9/
tab01.xls].

know their school status. According to the FY2007 NEO-RHYMIS report, prior to
living at the TLP shelter, youth lived in a variety of locations: the homes of their
friends and relatives (25.0%) or parents (19.0%), on the street as a runaway or
homeless youth (7.5%), and a BCP shelter (6.6%), among other locations. Youth
most often self-referred or were referred to the TLP by a relative or friend. While at
the TLP shelter, over three-quarters of youth received counseling, basic support (not
defined), life skills training, and employment services, including other services.56 As
in FY2005 and FY2006, youth identified housing, family dynamics, unemployment,
education, mental health, and alcohol or drug abuse most frequently as issues of
concern upon exiting. Youth reported that at exit, they would live with friends or
relatives (26.9%), independently (25.5%), and with their parents (16.1%), among
other situations. About 9% did not know where they would live.
In FY2007, about 1,900 youth were turned away from the TLP by telephone and

55 were turned away in person due to a lack of bed space.


Outcomes of Youth in the TLP. Efforts are currently underway at HHS to
learn more about the youth who are served by the Transitional Living Program. In
August 2007, HHS approved a sub-contract to Abt Associates to conduct an
evaluation of the TLP at select grantee sites.57 The study seeks to describe the
outcomes of youth who participate in the program and to isolate and describe factors
that may have contributed to their successes or challenges, including service delivery
approaches, personal characteristics, and local circumstances. HHS (through the
Family and Youth Services Bureau) and Abt researchers have conducted three site
visits to TLP grantees (in Dallas, Texas; Portland, Oregon; and Wichita, Kansas) and
a series of consultations with HHS and outside experts to inform the design of the
study.
FYSB has not yet selected the TLP survey sites for the study itself; however, the
sites will likely have extensive experience working with runaway and homeless youth
and have been awarded continuous TLP funding for at least three years after the
survey commences. These sites will work to ensure that after receiving training, staff
will be sufficiently capable of administering the survey instruments. The sites will
also need to be large enough to capture an adequate sample size.
Youth participants will complete surveys at entry and while receiving services
through a survey administered by their TLP programs. They will also complete
surveys for up to one year after leaving the program. Youth will self-report the data
to a website six months and twelve months after exiting. Evaluators will compare the
individual outcomes of each youth to his or her benchmark data. The youth surveys
are pending executive branch review, and FYSB expects to begin collecting the data
by the end of calendar year 2008. FYSB anticipates making preliminary information
available before the last surveys are completed. Further, FYSB expects to maintain
the self-reporting website indefinitely as a means of tracking TLP graduates after the
formal study is complete.


56 The average length of youth’s stay in the TLP is not available.
57 Based on correspondence with the Department Health and Human Services on March 28,

2008.



HHS issued a proposed information collection request for public comment about
the evaluation in the Federal Register on August 25, 2008.58
Maternity Group Homes. For FY2002, the Administration proposed a $33
million initiative to fund Maternity Group Homes — or centers that provide shelter
to pregnant and parenting teens who are vulnerable to abuse and neglect — as a
component of the TLP. Congress did not fund the initiative as part of its FY2002
appropriation. However, that year Congress provided additional funding to the TLP
to ensure that pregnant and parenting teens could access services (H.Rept. 107-372).
A total of $39.7 million was appropriated for the TLP, which included an additional
$19.2 million over the FY2001 TLP appropriation to ensure that funds would be
available to assist pregnant and parenting teens.
The 2003 amendments to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (P.L. 108-96)
provided statutory authority to use TLP funds for Maternity Group Homes. For
FY2003 through FY2006, the President requested annual funding of $10 million for
such homes, separate from the funding for the TLP grants. Congress again did not
appropriate separate funds for the program, though funding remained stable at
approximately $40 million for the TLP. The Administration’s FY2007 budget
request sought to implement a $4 million voucher program for 100 pregnant and
parenting youth, but no legislation to implement this was proposed or considered
during the 109th Congress, and the Administration’s FY2008 and FY2009 budgets59
do not request funding for such a proposal.
Since FY2002, funding for adult-supervised transitional living arrangements
that serve pregnant or parenting women ages 16 to 21 and their children has been
awarded to organizations that receive TLP grants. Currently, an estimated one-third
of TLP grants fund Maternity Group Homes.60 These organizations provide youth
with parenting skills, including child development education; family budgeting;
health and nutrition, and other skills to promote their well-being and the well-being
of their children.
Street Outreach Program
Overview. Runaway and homeless youth living on the streets or in areas that
increase their risk of using drugs or being subjected to sexual abuse, prostitution, or
sexual exploitation are eligible to receive services through the Street Outreach
Program. The program’s goal is to assist youth in transitioning to safe and
appropriate living arrangements. SOP services include the following:


58 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, “Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request,” 73 Federal
Register 50022, August 25, 2008. Comments are due October 25, 2008.
59 ACF staff stated in correspondence with the Congressional Research Service on March
9, 2007, that HHS does not plan to create a voucher program for pregnant and parenting
youth.
60 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Runaway, Homeless,
and Missing Children Protection Act, report to accompany H.R. 1925, 108th Cong., 1st sess.,
H.Rept. 108-118 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 9.

!treatment and counseling;
!crisis intervention;
!drug abuse and exploitation prevention and education activities;
!survival aid;
!street-based education and outreach;
!information and referrals; and
!follow-up support.
Funding. The SOP is funded separately from the BCP and TLP and is
authorized to receive such sums as may be necessary. Since FY1996, when funding
for the Street Outreach Program was first provided, community-based public and
private organizations have been eligible to apply for SOP grants. Grants are
generally awarded for a three-year period, and grantees must provide 10% of the
funds to cover the cost of the program. Applicants may apply for a $100,000 grant
each year for a maximum of $200,000 over that period. Approximately $15 million
was appropriated to fund 136 grantees in FY2007, many of which operate in61
coordination with BCPs and TLPs. HHS anticipates that 156 projects will be
funded in FY2008.
Youth in the Program. According to FY2007 NEO-RHYMIS data, street
workers with the grantee organizations made 661,286 contacts with street youth
(down from 696,146 contacts in FY2006). Of those youth, most received written
materials about referral services, health and hygiene products, and food and drink
items.
Incidence and Prevalence Studies
The 2008 reauthorization law (P.L. 110-378) seeks to determine the number of
youth who have run away or are homeless by requiring HHS to estimate at five year
intervals — beginning within two years of the enactment of the law (October 8,
2010) — the incidence and prevalence of the runaway and homeless youth population
ages 13 to 26. The law also directs HHS to assess the characteristics of these youth.
HHS is required to conduct a survey of and direct interviews with a representative
sample of the youth to determine past and current socioeconomic characteristics,
barriers to obtaining housing and other services, and other information HHS
determines useful, in consultation with states and other entities concerned with youth
homelessness. HHS is to consult with the federal Interagency Council on
Homelessness regarding the study overall. The study must be submitted to the House
Education and Labor Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee and made available
to the public.
The new law does not specify the methodology for carrying out the studies,
except to say that HHS should make the estimate on the basis of the best quantitative
and qualitative social science research methods available. Further, if HHS enters into
an agreement with a non-federal entity to carry out the assessment, the entity is to be


61 U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2009, p. D-44.

a non-governmental organization or individual determined by HHS to have expertise
in this type of research.
Training and Technical Assistance
In FY2007, HHS allocated approximately $3.6 million of BCP funds and
approximately $1.6 million of TLP funds for training and technical assistance, which
included funding for a national communications system and the administration of the
management information system (known as RHYMIS, discussed in the
Congressional Oversight section below).62
HHS provides training and technical assistance to RHY grantees through its
Runaway and Homeless Youth Training and Technical Assistance Program. Until
FY2007, HHS awarded funds to multiple non-profit organizations to provide this
assistance in each of the Administration for Children and Families’ 10 regions.63 As
of FY2008, training and technical assistance is being provided by one entity. On
September 30, 2007, HHS competitively awarded two cooperative agreements to the
University of Oklahoma’s National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth
Services (NRCYS) to provide training and technical assistance. NRCYS has
operated for over 30 years serving public, private, tribal child welfare, and youth
services professionals through training and conference events annually.64
The two cooperative agreements have distinct assignments.65 The NRCYS
Technical Assistance Center (with an award of $1 million) will provide either
one-on-one or in small group settings, specialized attention to specific areas of
concern raised by federal staff or RHY grantees to improve grantee performance
and/or comply with federal legislation or regulations for the Runaway and Homeless
Youth program. The Training Center (with an award of $1.1 million) is designed to
provide training and conference services to RHY grantees that will enhance and
promote continuous quality improvement of services provided by RHY grantees.


62 U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2009, p. D-40.
63 Technical support providers offered assistance through the Regional Training and
Technical Assistance Provider System. The providers worked closely with ACF regional
office staff to identify grantee needs and review the results of evaluations conducted by
HHS staff. Based on these analyses, the provider needs assessments, and grantee requests,
the providers offered several types of services, including regional and state-level
conferences that address topics of interest to grantees, on-site and telephone consultations,
workshops and training on issues of concern, and resource materials.
64 For additional information, see NCRYS website, [http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/yd/].
65 This information was provided in correspondence by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services on October 25, 2007.

National Communication System.66 A portion of the Consolidated
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program funds are allocated for a national
communications system (that is, the National Runaway Switchboard) to help
homeless and runaway youth (or youth who are contemplating running away) through
counseling and referrals and communicating with their families. Beginning with
FY1974 and every year after, the National Runaway Switchboard has been funded
through the Basic Center Program grant or the Consolidated Runaway and Homeless
Youth Program grant. The Switchboard is located in Chicago and operates each day
to provide services to youth and their families in the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Services include 1) a
channel through which runaway and homeless youth or their parents may leave
messages; 2) 24-hour referrals to community resources, including shelter, community
food banks, legal assistance, and social services agencies; and 3) crisis intervention
counseling to youth. In calendar year 2006, the Switchboard handled almost 114,00067
calls, 43% of which were from youth and 35% of which were from parents.
Other services are also provided through the Switchboard. Since 1995, the
“HomeFree” family reunification program has provided bus tickets for youth ages 12
to 21 to return home. In FY2002, the Switchboard offered family reunification
services to 4,872 youth, of whom 1,170 received free bus tickets to return home or
to an alternative placement near their home (such as an independent living program)
through HomeFree.68
In addition to the National Runaway Switchboard, HHS conducts outreach
efforts to the public in three ways.


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

2004, p. 17. At [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/0203_report.pdf].


(Hereafter U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress.)

Oversight
Oversight of Grantees. ACF evaluates each Runaway and Homeless Youth
Program grant recipient through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Monitoring
System. Staff from regional ACF offices and other grant recipients (known as peer
reviewers) inspect the program site, conduct interviews, review case files and other
agency documents, and conduct entry and exit conferences. The monitoring team
then prepares a written report that identifies the strengths of the program and areas
that require corrective action.
Congressional Oversight. The Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions and the House Committee on Education and Workforce have
exercised jurisdiction over the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program. HHS must
submit reports biennially to the committees on the status, activities, and
accomplishments of program grant recipients and evaluations of the programs69
performed by HHS. These reports generally include data on the youth served by the
programs which are generated by RHYMIS. The information system is designed to
collect information twice during the fiscal year from program grantees on the basic
demographics of the youth, the services they received, and the status of the youth
(i.e., expected living situation, physical and mental health, and family dynamics)
upon exiting the programs. RHYMIS was updated in 2004 to reduce the burden of
reporting the data. Known as NEO-RHYMIS, the new system has received routine
data submissions from nearly all (99%) Runaway and Homeless Youth Program70
grantees, including those in FY2006. In prior years, fewer than half of grantees
reported on the number of youth served.71
The 2003 reauthorization law (P.L. 108-96) of the Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act required that HHS, in consultation with the U.S. Interagency Council on
Homelessness, submit a report to Congress on the promising strategies to end youth
homelessness within two years of the reauthorization, in October 2005. The report
was submitted to Congress in June 2007.72
As mentioned above, the 2008 reauthorization law (P.L. 110-378) requires HHS
to periodically submit to Congress an incidence and prevalence study of runaway and
homeless youth ages 13 to 26, as well as the characteristics of a representative sample
of these youth. The law also directs the Government Accountability Office to
evaluate the process by which organizations apply for BCP, TLP, and SOP, including


69 NEO-RHYMIS data are available online by state, region, and grantee organization at
[https://extranet.acf.hhs.gov/rhymi s/custom_reports.html ].
70 This information was provided in correspondence by NEO-RHYMIS technical support
staff March 2, 2007. See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to
Congress, p. 2.
71 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress, p. 2.
72 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Promising Strategies to End Youth
Homelessness, Report to Congress, 2007. At [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/
content/docs/reporttocongress_youthhomelessness.pdf]. This report was required under P.L.

108-96. See 42 U.S.C. 5701.



HHS’s response to these applicants. GAO is to submit a report on its findings to
Congress.
PART Evaluation. In calendar years 2003 and 2006, the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Program was reviewed through the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process.73 The 2003 evaluation
concluded that program results were not demonstrated because the RHYP lacked
long-term performance measures and time frames for these measures, as well as
adequate progress in achieving its annual and long-term performance goals. The
PART review also found that no independent evaluations of the program were
routinely conducted. However, in 2006 the program was rated effective because it
made improvements to its long-term measures for evaluating youth outcomes.
According to the PART evaluation, the re-engineering of NEO-RHYMIS has
enhanced HHS staff’s ability to evaluate these outcomes (see below for more
information about changes to NEO-RHYMIS). The 2006 PART also explains that
the program has ambitious targets and time frames for its long term measures. For
example, the program plans to increase the proportion of youth living in safe and
appropriate settings after exiting TLP services to 85% for FY2008, from its initial
benchmark of 79%. More accurate NEO-RHYMIS data has enabled HHS to more
effectively evaluate the program internally and through contracts. An analysis by the
National Opinion Research Center of FY2002 through FY2004 NEO-RHYMIS data
on youth using BCPs, identified factors associated with unsafe exits and ranked high74
and poor RHYP programs by risk levels of youth in their programs. HHS
evaluations have affirmed these findings.
Additional Federal Support
for Runaway and Homeless Youth
Since the creation of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, other federal
initiatives have also established services for such youth. Four of these initiatives —
Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program, Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program, Shared Vision for Youth initiative, and Discretionary Grants
for Family Violence Prevention Program — are discussed below.
Educational Assistance
The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-77), as
amended, established the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program in the


73 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Detailed Assessment on the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Assessment, 2003 and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Detailed
Assessment on the Runaway and Homeless Youth Assessment, 2007. At [http://www.white
house.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10001064.2006.html]. (Hereafter U.S. Office of
Management and Budget, PART 2003 or PART 2007.)
74 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, PART 2007, p. 11.

U.S. Department of Education.75 This program assists state education agencies
(SEAs) to ensure that all homeless children and youth have equal access to the same,
appropriate education, including public preschool education, that is provided to other
children and youth. Grants made by SEAs to local education agencies (LEAs) under
this program must be used to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in
school of homeless children and youth. Program funds may be appropriated for
activities such as tutoring, supplemental instruction, and referral services for
homeless children and youth, as well as providing them with medical, dental, mental,
and other health services. Liaison staff for homeless children and youth in each LEA
are responsible for coordinating activities for these youth with other entities and
agencies, including local Basic Center and Transitional Living Program grantees.
To receive funding, each state must submit a plan to the U.S. Department of
Education that indicates how the state will identify and assess the needs of eligible
children and youth; ensure that they have access to the federal, state, and local food
programs and the same educational programs available to other youth; and resolve
problems concerning delays in and barriers to enrollment and transportation.
Education for Homeless Children and Youth grants are allotted to SEAs in
proportion to grants made under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, which allocates funds to all states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico based on the percentage of low-income children enrolled in a school
or living in the nearby residential area. However, no state can receive less than the
greater of $150,000, 0.25% of the total annual appropriation, or the amount it
received in FY2001 under this program. The Department of Education must reserve
0.1% of the total appropriation for grants to the Virgin Islands, Guam, America
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The agency must
also transfer 1.0% of the total appropriation to the Department of the Interior for
services to homeless children and youth provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Amendments to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 authorized
funding for the program through FY2007. In FY2008, program appropriations total
$64.1 million.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110) reauthorized and
amended the program explicitly to prohibit states that receive McKinney-Vento funds
from segregating homeless students from non-homeless students, except for short
periods of time for health and safety emergencies or to provide temporary, special,
supplemental services. Prior to the reauthorization, homeless children in some
districts attended class in separate buildings or schools. Advocates raised concerns
that these children, including those enrolled in classes that were equal in quality to
the classes attended by their non-homeless peers, were receiving an inferior education
because they were physically separated. The act exempted four counties (San
Joaquin, Orange, and San Diego counties in California and Maricopa County in
Arizona) from these requirements because they operated separate school districts for


75 Other programs assist homeless youth and their families through the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act, although none are targeted exclusively to runaway and homeless
youth. For additional information about these programs, see CRS Report RL30442,
Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs and Recent Legislation, coordinated by Libby
Perl.

homeless students in FY2000, as long as: (1) those separate schools offer services
that are comparable to local schools; and (2) homeless children are not required to
attend them. The Department of Education must certify annually that the school
districts meet these requirements.76
Shared Youth Vision Initiative
In 2003, the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth, comprised of
the heads of executive branch agencies and their designees, issued a report calling for
increased federal coordination to improve service delivery to and outcomes for
vulnerable youth. In response to the report, the U.S. Departments of Education,
Health and Human Services, Justice, and Labor, and the Social Security
Administration, partnered to improve communication, coordination, and
collaboration across programs that target at-risk youth groups under a initiative called
the “Shared Youth Vision.” One of these groups includes runaway and homeless
youth.
Together, the agencies have convened an Interagency Work Group and regional
forums to develop and coordinate policies and research on the vulnerable youth
population. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has led efforts to promote
collaboration between the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program and the agency’s
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs. The DOL has encouraged local and
state workforce investment boards to implement the strategies of the Shared Youth
Vision initiative based, in part, on models already implemented through three WIA
programs in California, Oregon, and Washington that provide employment and
educational resources targeted for runaway and homeless youth.77
Discretionary Grants for Family Violence Prevention
The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), Title III of the
Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-457), authorized funds for Family
Violence Prevention and Service grants that work to prevent family violence,
improve service delivery to address family violence, and increase knowledge and
understanding of family violence. Some of these projects focus on runaway and
homeless youth in dating violence situations, through HHS’s Domestic
Violence/Runaway and Homeless Youth Collaboration on the Prevention of
Adolescent Dating Violence initiative. The initiative was created because many
runaway and homeless youth come from homes where domestic violence occurs and


76 The Individual with Disabilities Education Act, last amended in 2004 (P.L. 108-446),
includes provisions aimed at ensuring special education and related services for children
with disabilities who are homeless or otherwise members of highly mobile populations. For
additional information, see CRS Report RL32716, Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA): Analysis of Changes Made by P.L. 108-446, by Richard N. Apling and Nancy
Lee Jones.
77 See notice from Department of Labor to state workforce agencies, available on the DOL
website, available at [http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2176].

may be at risk of abusing their partners or becoming victims of abuse.78 The
initiative funds projects carried by faith-based and charitable organizations who
advocate or provide direct services to runaway and homeless youth or victims of
domestic violence. The grants fund training for staff at these organizations to enable
them to assist youth in preventing dating violence. Eight projects are funded at
$75,000 annually, for FY2008 through FY2010, the most recent funding cycle.
Grantees funded at least 25% of the total approved cost of the project.
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program79
Recently emancipated foster youth are vulnerable to becoming homeless. In
FY2006, approximately 26,500 youth “aged out” of the foster care system.80 The
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP), created under the Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-169), provides states with funding to
support youth who are expected to emancipate from foster care and former foster
youth ages 18 to 21.81 States are authorized to receive funds based on their share of
the total number of children in foster care nationwide. However, the law’s “hold
harmless” clause precludes any state from receiving less than the amount of funds it
received in FY1998 or $500,000, whichever is greater.82 The program authorizes
funding for transitional living services, and as much as 30% of the funds may be
dedicated to room and board. For FY2008, Congress appropriated $140 million for
the program. Child welfare advocates have argued that the housing needs of youth
“aging out” of foster care have not been met despite the additional funds for
independent living that are provided through the CFCIP.83


78 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Domestic Violence/Runaway and
Homeless Youth Collaboration on the Prevention of Adolescent Dating Violence Grant
Announcement, April 24, 2007. At [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2007-ACF-
ACYF-EV -0103.html ].
79 For additional information about the program, see CRS Report RL3449, Youth
Transitioning From Foster Care: Background, Federal Programs, and Issues for Congress,
by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
80 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #14.
81 For additional information on the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act, see CRS Report
RS22501, Child Welfare: The Chafee Foster Care Independence Act, by Adrienne
Fernandes.
82 Prior to the passage of P.L. 106-169, states were awarded a share of independent living
funds - $70 million - based on the number of children receiving federal foster care payments
in FY1984 under the Independent Living Program.
83 Courtney and Huering, “Youth ‘Aging Out’ of the Foster Care System,” p. 54.

Appendix
Table A-1. Basic Center Funding by State and Territory,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
StateFY2007 ActualFY2008 Allotted
Alabama500725
Alaska194124
Arizona806965
Arkansas336452
California 5,185 5,546
Colorado560749
Connecticut 401 558
Delaware120133
District of Columbia50100
Florida 2,500 2,766
Georgi a 1,304 1,454
Hawaii162219
Idaho202246
Illinois 1,764 1,934
Indiana916987
Iowa477478
Kansas325445
Kentucky573665
Louisiana789680
Maine188224
Maryland600881
Massachusetts 921 1,006
Michigan 2,030 1,565
Minnesota 1,059 830
Mississippi 447 467
Missouri773915
Montana132166
Nebraska454381
Nevada368404
New Hampshire185223
New Jersey1,0461,398
New Mexico579421
New York3,0351,376
North Carolina1,2031,376
North Dakota100100



StateFY2007 ActualFY2008 Allotted
Ohio1,6171,727
Oklahoma504569
Oregon631588
Pennsyl va nia 1,750 1,924
Rhode Island136185
South Carolina472683
South Dakota111142
Tennessee763945
Texas3,1643,548
Utah315412
Vermont100100
V i rginia 1,190 1,191
Washington 937 1,000
West Virginia260300
Wisconsin686872
Wyoming100100
Subtotal 43,024 46,788
America Samoa4545
Guam4545
N. Mariana Islands045
Puerto Rico200603
U.S. Virgin Islands045
Subtotal290783
Total 43,314 43,571
Source: U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families Justification of Estimates for Appropriations
Committees, FY2009, p. D-42.