Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Congressional research reportDec 10, 2020
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Updated December 10, 2020
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RL33975
SUMMARY
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
RL33975
December 10, 2020
The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in their communities.
Most of those of school age live with parents who provide for their well-being, and they attend
Adrienne L. Fernandesschools that prepare them for advanced education or vocational training and, ultimately, selfAlcantara
sufficiency. Many youth also receive assistance from their families during the transition to
Specialist in Social Policy
adulthood. During this period, young adults may often cycle between attending school, living
independently, and staying with their families. A study from 2019 found that about 60% of young
people ages 18 to 22 receive financial support from their parents, including help with paying bills
(60%), paying for education (40%), and paying rent or mortgage (40%). Even with this
assistance, the move from adolescence to adulthood has become longer and increasingly more complex than it was for
previous generations.
For vulnerable (or at-risk) youth populations, the transition to adulthood may be further complicated by a number of
challenges, including family conflict or abandonment and obstacles to securing employment that provides adequate wages
and health insurance. These youth may be prone to outcomes that have negative consequences for their future development as
responsible, self-sufficient adults. Risk outcomes include teenage parenthood; homelessness; drug abuse; delinquency;
physical and sexual abuse; and school dropout. Detachment from the labor market and school—or disconnectedness—may be
the single strongest indicator that the transition to adulthood has not been made successfully.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or legislative vehicle that addresses the
challenges vulnerable youth experience in adolescence or while making the transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth
policy today has evolved from multiple programs established in the early 20th century and expanded in the years following
the 1964 announcement of the War on Poverty. These programs are concentrated in six areas: workforce development,
education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and community service.
They are intended to provide vulnerable youth with opportunities to develop skills to assist them in adulthood.
Despite the range of federal services and activities to assist disadvantaged youth, many of these programs have not developed
into a coherent system of support. This is due in part to the administration of programs being within several agenc ies and the
lack of mechanisms to coordinate their activities. In response to concerns about the complex federal structure developed to
assist vulnerable youth, Congress passed the Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365) in 2006. Though
activities under the act were never funded, the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs was formed in 2008 under
Executive Order 13459 to carry out coordinating activities across multiple agencies that oversee youth programs. Separately,
Congress has considered other legislation to improve the delivery of services to vulnerable youth and provide opportunities to
these youth through policies with a “positive youth development” focus. The Interagency Working Group on Youth
Programs characterizes positive youth development as a process that engages young people in positive pursuits that help
them acquire and practice the skills, attitudes, and behaviors that they will need to become successful adults.
In addition to the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, the executive branch has established working groups and
initiatives to coordinate supports for youth. The Department of Justice has carried out the Coordinating Coun cil on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention since the 1970s to coordinate federal policies on youth involved in the juvenile justice
system. More recently, the Obama and Trump Administrations have carried out the Performance Partnership Pilots (P3)
initiative to coordinate funding across selected agencies to support local communities in serving vulnerable youth.
Congressional Research Service
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 2
Age of Youth and the Transition to Adulthood ................................................................ 2
Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population ..................................................................... 4
Groups of Vulnerable Youth ................................................................................... 5
Risk Factors ................................................................................................................... 6
Disconnectedness ...................................................................................................... 7
Positive Youth Development: The Importance of Resiliency and Opportunity ..................... 7
What is Youth Development? ................................................................................. 8
The Youth Development Movement ........................................................................ 9
Evolution of the Federal Role in Assisting Vulnerable Youth ................................................ 10
1912-1950s: Children’s Bureau Programs and Workforce Programs ................................ 10
1960s-1970s: War on Poverty Initiatives and Expansion of Programs............................... 12
White House Conferences on Children and Youth: 1960s and 1970s........................... 14
Family and Youth Services Bureau........................................................................ 14
1980s-Present: Current Youth Programs ...................................................................... 14
Job Training and Workforce Development.............................................................. 15
Education.......................................................................................................... 16
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention .......................................................... 19
Social Services................................................................................................... 19
Public Health ..................................................................................................... 21
National and Community Service.......................................................................... 22
Federal Efforts to Improve Coordination Among Programs for Vulnerable Youth .................... 23
Overview ............................................................................................................... 23
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501).......................................... 24
Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families ................................................... 24
Grants for States and Community Programs ........................................................... 25
Other Concerns about Coordination of Youth Programs ................................................. 25
Youth Build Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281) ..................................................................... 26
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365)......................................... 26
Executive Order 13459............................................................................................. 27
Comparison of the Federal Youth Development Council and the Interagency
Working Group ............................................................................................... 28
Federal Initiatives to Improve Coordination ................................................................. 29
The White House Council for Community Solutions................................................ 29
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ....................... 30
My Brother’s Keeper .......................................................................................... 30
Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3)..................................... 31
Child Welfare Partnerships................................................................................... 31
Shared Youth Vision Initiative .............................................................................. 32
Drug-Free Communities Support Program ............................................................. 33
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 33
Congressional Research Service
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Tables
Table A-1. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth ............................................................. 35
Appendixes
Appendix. Federal Youth Programs .................................................................................. 35
Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 60
Congressional Research Service
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Introduction
Congress has long been concerned about the well-being of youth. The nation’s future depends on
young people today to leave school prepared for college or the workplace and to begin to make
positive contributions to society. Some youth, however, face barriers to becoming contributing
taxpayers, workers, and participants in civic life. These youth may have characteristics or
experiences that put them at risk of developing problem behaviors and outcomes that have the
potential to harm their community, themselves, or both. Poor outcomes often develop in home
and neighborhood environments that do not provide youth with adequate economic and emotional
supports. Groups of vulnerable (or “at-risk”) youth include emancipating foster youth, runaway
and homeless youth, and youth involved in the juvenile justice system, among others. Like all
youth, vulnerable youth face a difficult transition to adulthood; however, their transition is further
complicated by a number of challenges, including family conflict and obstacles to securing
employment that provides adequate wages, health insurance, and potential for upward mobility.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or legislative vehicle
that addresses the challenges at-risk youth experience in adolescence or while making the
transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy today has evolved from multiple programs
established in the early 20th century and expanded through War on Poverty and Great Society
initiatives. These programs, concentrated in six areas—workforce development, education,
juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and
community service—provide vulnerable youth with opportunities to develop skills that will assist
them in adulthood.
Despite the range of federal services and activities for vulnerable youth, many of the programs
have not been developed into a coordinated system of support. In response, federal policymakers
have periodically undertaken efforts to develop a comprehensive federal policy around youth.
Congress has passed legislation (the Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act, P.L. 109-365)
that authorizes the federal government to establish a youth council to improve coordination of
federal programs serving youth. The youth council has not been established, but in 2008, the
Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs was convened. The Working Group is made up
of multiple federal departments and agencies, and has worked to address common goals for
youth. In the past three decades, Congress has also considered other legislation (the Youth
Community Development Block Grant of 1995 and the Younger Americans Act of 2000) to
improve the delivery of services to vulnerable youth and provide opportunities to these youth
through policies with a “positive youth development” focus.
This report first provides an overview of the youth population and the increasing complexity of
transitioning to adulthood for all adolescents. It also provides a separate discussion of the concept
of “disconnectedness,” as well as the protective factors youth can develop during childhood and
adolescence that can mitigate poor outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal
youth policy, focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of the major federal
programs targeted at vulnerable youth. 1 (Table A-1, at the end of the report, enumerates the
objectives and funding levels of such programs. Note that the table does not discuss all programs
that target vulnerable youth.) The report then discusses the challenges of coordinating federal
1
T he Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136) was enacted on March 27,
2020, to address income, health, and economic security in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. T he CARES Act
established new and temporary funding streams to serve vulnerable youth, which are not discussed in this report. For
examples, see CRS In Focus IF11509, CARES Act Elementary and Secondary Education Provisions.
Congressional Research Service
1
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
programs for youth, as well as federal legislation and initiatives that promote coordination among
federal agencies and support programs with a positive youth development focus.
Overview
Age of Youth and the Transition to Adulthood
For the purposes of this report, “youth” refers to adolescents and young adults between the ages
of 10 and 24. Under this definition, there are approximately 64 million youth (or nearly 20% of
the population) in the United States. 2 Although traditional definitions of youth include
adolescents ages 12 to 18, cultural and economic shifts have protracted the period of adolescence.
Children as young as 10 are included because puberty begins at this age for some youth, and
experiences in early adolescence often shape enduring patterns of behavior. 3 Older youth, up to
age 24, are in the process of fully transitioning to adulthood. Many young people in their mid-20s
attend school or begin to work, and some live with their parents or other relatives.
The current move from adolescence to adulthood has become longer and more complex,
particularly since the postwar period. 4 Youth of the 1950s were more likely to follow an orderly
path to adulthood. They generally completed their education and/or secured employment (for
males), including military service, which was followed by marriage and parenthood in their early
20s. (This was not true for every young person; for example, African Americans and immigrants
in certain parts of the country faced barriers to employment.) Unlike their postwar counterparts
who had access to plentiful jobs in the industrial sector, youth today must compete in a global,
information-driven economy that favors highly skilled, educated workers. 5 The ability for young
people to secure well-paid employment is contingent on higher levels of education. From the
1970s to the 2000s, real wages and hours worked rose most significantly for those with some
college or who had a college degree. 6 A higher proportion of youth now receive vocational
training or enroll in colleges and universities after leaving high school compared to earlier
generations. 7
During the period of transition to adulthood, young adults cycle between attending school, living
independently, and staying with their parents. They also use this time to explore career options
and relationships with potential long-term partners. 8 The median age of first marriage has risen
U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin , “Annual Estimates of the
Resident Population by Sex, Single Year of Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: April 1, 2010 to July
1, 2018.”
3 T he federal Int eragency Working Group on Youth Programs also focuses its efforts on youth ages 10 to 24. See,
Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, Pathways for Youth: Strategic Plan for Federal Collaboration ,
December 2016, p. 5. (Hereinafter, Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, Pathways for Youth: Strategic
Plan for Federal Collaboration.)
2
4 Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations.
(Chicago: T he University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp . 4-6. (Hereinafter, Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own
Without a Net.)
5 Sheldon Danziger and David Ratner, “Labor Market Outcomes and the T ransition to Adulthood,” The Future of
Children, Transition to Adulthood, vol. 20, no. 1 (Spring 2010), p. 133.
6 Ibid, pp. 136-138.
7 Maria D. Fitzpatrick and Sarah E. T urner, “Blurring the Boundary: Changes in Collegiate Participation and the
T ransition to Adulthood,” in The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood , Sheldon Danziger and
Cecilia Elena Rouse, eds., (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007), pp. 110 -111.
8 Sheldon Danziger and Cecilia Elena Rouse, eds., The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood
Congressional Research Service
2
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
each decade since the 1950s, to 28.0 years for women and 29.8 years for men as of 2019. 9 The
extended transition to adulthood for some youth may delay becoming financially independent,
which can create a burden for their families. A study of support to 19- to 22-year-olds (who have
graduated from high school) and 23- to 28-year olds, based on data from the early 1980s through
2011, found that the level of financial support from parents has increased over time for both
groups of young adults. Among the young adults ages 19 through 22, both the share receiving any
support and the share receiving a high level of support have increased since the early 1980s. In
addition, support for young adults has been concentrated in the period since 2003. 10 Other
research has shown that parents’ income loss was associated with a decline in transfers to their
young adult children during the Great Recession, which extended from December 2007 through
June 2009, and then further into 2011. 11 The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic
resulted in more young adults, ages 18 to 29, living with their parents. Just over one-half of these
young adults lived with their parents in July 2020, compared to 40% in January 2020 just before
the start of the pandemic (and 43% during the Great Recession and 48% during the Great
Depression). 12
Programs that assist youth making the transition to adulthood also reflect a recognition that
adolescence is no longer a finite period ending at age 18. For example, the Patient Protec tion and
Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148), the health reform law, requires health insurance
companies to provide coverage to the children of parents who are enrolled in their health care
plans up to their 26th birthday. Since January 2014, it also has provided a new Medicaid pathway
for children who age out of foster care up to their 26 th birthday. Since FY2003, the federal Chafee
Foster Care Education and Training Vouchers program has provided education funds (vouchers)
worth up to $5,000 annually per youth who is aging out of foster care or was adopted from foster
care after 16 years of age. 13 The funds are available to be applied toward the cost of attendance at
an institution of higher education, as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965. Youth
receiving these education funds may continue to participate in the voucher program for up to five
years, whether consecutive or not, until the age of 26.
Further, the changing concept of the age of adulthood has gained currency among organizations
and foundations that support and study youth development projects. The Youth Transition
Funders Group is a network of grant makers whose mission is to help all adolescents make the
successful transition to adulthood by age 25. Similarly, the Network on Transitions to Adulthood,
(New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007), pp. 3, 11. (Hereinafter, Sh eldon Danziger and Cecilia Elena Rouse, eds.,
The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood .)
9 U.S. Census Bureau, “ Historical T ime Series, Marital Status (MS-2), Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by
Sex: 1890 to the Present.”
10 Patrick Wightman et al., Historical Trends in Parental Financial Support of Young Adults, University of Michigan
Institute for Research, Population Studies Center, Report 13 -801, Ann Arbor, MI, September 2013. See also, Amanda
Barroso, Kim Parker, and Richard Fry, Majority of Americans Say Parents Are Doing Too Much for Their Young Adult
Children, Pew Research Center, November 23, 2019.
11 Julie Zissimopoulos, Johanna T hunell, and Stipica Mudrazija, “ Parental Income and Wealth Loss and T ransfers to
T heir Young Adult Children,” Journal of Family and Economic Issues, September 2019.
12 Richard Fry, Jeffrey S. Passel, and D'vera Cohn, A Majority of Young Adults in the U.S. Live with Their Parents for
the First Time Since the Great Depression, Pew Research Center, September 4, 2020. Related to these trends,
approximately 22% of adults ages 25 to 34 lived with their parents in 2017. Jung Choi et al., Young Adults Living in
Parents’ Basements, T he Urban Institute, January 2019.
13 See CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs.
Congressional Research Service
3
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
a consortium of researchers from around the country, was created in 2000 to study the changing
nature of early adulthood. 14
Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population
The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in their communities.
Those of primary and secondary school age mostly live with parents who provide for their
emotional and economic well-being and they attend schools that prepare them for continuing
education or the workforce, and ultimately, self-sufficiency. Nearly 3 out of 10 adults have
graduated from a four-year college or university by the time they reach age 35. 15 Nonetheless,
some young people do not grow up in a secure environment or with parents that provide a
comprehensive system of support. 16 These youth often live in impoverished neighborhoods,
where they may be exposed to violence, and come to school unprepared to learn. Their
communities and schools often lack resources. Even youth who have adequate academic and
emotional support may experience greater challenges as they transition to adulthood.
There is no universal definition of the terms vulnerable or at-risk youth,17 and some believe that
these labels should not be used because of their potentially stigmatizing effects.18 The terms have
been used to denote individuals who experience emotional and adjustment problems, are at risk of
dropping out of school, or lack the skills to succeed after graduation. 19 They have also been used
to describe youth who grow up in unstable family or community environments. 20 Many
researchers, policymakers, and youth advocates, however, might agree to this definition:
vulnerable youth have characteristics and experiences that put them at risk of developing problem
behaviors and outcomes that have the potential to hurt their community, themselves, or both. 21 At
risk does not necessarily mean a youth has already experienced negative outcomes but it suggests
that negative outcomes are more likely. At-risk youth may also experience different levels of risk,
14 T he Network has published three books on this topic. See Richard A. Settersten Jr., Frank F. Furstenburg Jr., and
Rubén Rumbaut, eds., On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2005); Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net; and Sheldon Danziger and Cecilia Elena
Rouse, eds., The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood.
15
T his is based on 25-to-34 year olds who have received a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2019 (defined as having
completed four or more years of college). U.S. Census Bureau, “T able A-1. Years of School Completed by People 25
Years and Over, by Age and Sex: Selected Years 1940 to 2019.”
16
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of
Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth: ACF
Youth Demonstration Development Project, OPRE Report 2011-22, June 21, 2011. (Hereinafter HHS, ACF, OPRE,
Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth.)
17 Ibid.
Kristin Anderson Moore, “Defining the T erm ‘At Risk,’” Child T rends Research -to-Results Brief, Publication
#2006-12, October 2006. (Hereinafter, Kristin Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At -Risk.’”) In fact, the White House
Council for Community Solutions identified at-risk youth as opportunity youth because they display positive attributes
and do not want to be disconnected from work and school. See Corporation for National and Community Service,
White House Council for Community Solutions, Final Report: Community Solutions for Opportunity Youth, June 2012.
(Hereinafter, White House Council for Community Solutions, Final Report: Community Solutions for Opportunity
Youth.)
19 J. Jeffries McWhirter et al., At-Risk Youth: A Comprehensive Response. California: T homson Brooks/Cole, 2004, p.
6. (Hereinafter, J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth.)
18
20
Kristin Moore, “Defining the T erm ‘At -Risk.’”
21 Martha R. Burt, Gary Resnick, and Nancy Matheson, Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk
Youth, T he Urban Instit ute, 1992, pp. 13-22.
Congressional Research Service
4
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
from low risk to high risk, and some may have multiple risk factors. 22 Still, these youth may also
display resiliency that mitigates negative outcomes.
Groups of Vulnerable Youth
Researchers on vulnerable youth have identified multiple groups at risk of experiencing poor
outcomes as they enter adulthood. 23 These groups include, but are not limited to the following:
youth emancipating from foster care;
runaway and homeless youth;
youth involved in the juvenile justice system;
immigrant youth and youth with limited English proficiency;
youth with physical and mental disabilities;
youth with mental disorders; and
youth receiving special education.
Some researchers have also classified other groups of vulnerable youth on the basis of risk
outcomes: young unmarried mothers, high school dropouts, and disconnected (e.g., not in school
nor working) youth.
Among the seven groups listed above, some lack financial assistance and emotional support from
their families. Former foster youth, for example, often do not have parents who can provide
financial assistance while they attend college or vocational schools. Other vulnerable youth have
difficulty securing employment because of their disabilities, mental illness, juvenile justice
history, or other challenges. Vulnerable youth who have depended on public systems of support
often lose needed assistance at the age of majority. 24 Many will lose health insurance coverage,
vocational services, and supplementary income.25 They will also face challenges in accessing
adult public systems, where professionals are not always trained to address the special needs of
young adults under age 25. Regardless of their specific risk factor(s), groups of vulnerable youth
share many of the same barriers to successfully transitioning into their 20s.
Even within these groups, the population is highly diverse. For example, among youth with
disabilities, individuals experience visual or hearing impairments, emotional disturbances,
congenital heart disease, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, diabetes, cancer, and spina bifida. Youth in these
seven groups also represent diverse socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. However, youth of
color and low-income youth tend to be overrepresented in vulnerable populations. This is due, in
22
J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 7-9.
23 See, for example, HHS, ACF, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Synthesis of Research and Resources to
Support at-Risk Youth; Wayne Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net; and Michael Wald and T ia Martinez,
Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country’s Most Vulnerable 14 -24 Year Olds, William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation Working Paper, November 2003. Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth
includes youth who are the focus of programs administered by HHS/ACF, including youth aging out of foster care,
runaway and homeless youth, youth receiving T emporary Assistance for Needy Families (T ANF), teenage parents, and
juvenile offenders. On Your Own Without a Net focuses on the seven groups listed above, in addition to youth
reentering the community from the juvenile justice system. “Connected by 25” focuses on four groups: high school
dropouts, young unmarried mothers, juvenile justice-involved youth, and foster youth.
24 Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, p. 10.
25 Ibid., pp. 10-12.
Congressional Research Service
5
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
part, to their exposure to poverty, and crime, racism, and lack of access to systems of care, such
as health care and vocational assistance. 26
Youth may also be members of multiple vulnerable populations. For instance, former foster youth
are particularly at risk of becoming homeless. In recent years, approximately 20,000 youth have
aged out of foster care. 27 Emancipated youth may have inadequate housing supports.28 Recently
emancipated foster youth also tend to be less economically secure than their counterparts in the
general youth population because they earn lower wages and are more likely to forego college
and vocational training. 29 Their economic vulnerability can place them at risk of losing their
housing.
Risk Factors
Not all vulnerable youth experience negative outcomes. However, reviews of social science
literature have identified multiple factors that can influence whether youth face negative
outcomes in adolescence and as they transition to adulthood. 30 Such factors include the following:
Poverty. Poverty is linked to a number of potential future problems among
youth, including chronic health conditions, low educational attainment, and
engagement in delinquent behaviors.
Family Instability. Children who grow up in two-parent families tend to have
better health outcomes and more positive behaviors than those who grow up in a
household headed by one parent.
Family Dysfunction. Two types of family dysfunction are particularly
detrimental to the future well-being of children: witnessing violence against their
mothers and criminal activity among their family members.
Child Maltreatment. Abuse and neglect by their parents or other caretakers puts
children at risk for many negative outcomes, including poor physical and mental
health, lower cognitive functioning and educational attainment, and poor social
development and behavior.
Exposure to Violence in the Community. Witnessing violence in a community
is linked to several negative outcomes such as depression, aggressive behavior,
anxiety, posttraumatic stress, psychological trauma, and antisocial behavior.
School Resources and Environment. Schools with fewer resources are
associated with poor academic outcomes, and such schools can create
environments with problematic social issues such as bullying and behavioral
problems.
26 J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 9, 13, and 14.
27
HHS, ACF, AFCARS Report #27, Preliminary FY 2019 Estimates as of June 23, 2020.
Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring. “T he T ransition to Adulthood for Youth “Aging Out” of the Foster
Care System” in Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, pp. 27-32.
28
29 For further information, see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal
Programs.
30 T his discussion is based on HHS, ACF, OPRE, Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth. T he
report draws from two reports that synthesize the research literature on risk factors for children: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, “Major Findings;” and Institute of
Medicine (IOM), Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and
Possibilities, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
6
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Community Resources. Children who live in high-poverty neighborhoods might
be less likely than their peers who live in low-poverty neighborhoods to perceive
work as a common activity, and therefore may be less likely to succeed in school.
Residential Mobility. Children who move frequently may experience negative
outcomes, such as lower academic performance, high rates of school dropout,
emotional and behavioral problems, and higher rates of engaging in premarital
sex.
Racial and Ethnic Background. Children of color are more likely to live in
high-poverty neighborhoods and to attend lower-performing schools, compared
to white youth. Further, racial discrimination can hinder job opportunities for
youth.
The research literature points out that children are particularly vulnerable if they experience two
or more of these risk factors.
Disconnectedness
Over the past several years, youth advocates and researchers have focused on vulnerable youth
who experience negative outcomes in both employment and educational attainment. 31 Generally
characterized as disconnected, these youth are not working or attending school. However, there is
no uniform definition of this term. Measure of America (MOA), a project of the nonprofit Social
Science Research Council, defines disconnected youth as people “between the ages of 16 and 24
who are neither in school nor working.”32 Their study found that the disconnection rate among
young people ages 16 to 24 was 11.2% in 2018, which is about one out of nine youth. The study
further estimates that this could increase to one out of four or five youth due to the COVID-19
pandemic. 33 Other studies differ with regard to the definition of disconnected. A CRS review of
studies on the population found that differences in definitions varied by ages of the youth and the
length of time that youth are not in school or working. Some studies count as youth individuals as
young as age 16 and as old as age 24; others use different age ranges (e.g., 16 to 19, 18 to 24). 34
Positive Youth Development: The Importance of Resiliency
and Opportunity
Although vulnerable youth experience more negative outcomes than their counterparts who are
not considered to be at risk, some of these youth go on to attend college and/or secure
employment. Advocates for youth argue that vulnerable youth can reach their goals if given
adequate opportunities to develop positive behaviors during adolescence. The federal Interagency
31 For further information, see archived CRS Report R40535, Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who
Are Not Working or In School.
32
Kristin Lewis, A Decade Undone: Youth Disconnection in the Age of Coronavirus, Measure of America of the Social
Science Research Council, 2020.
33
Ibid.
34 See CRS Report R40535, Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School.
Youth are generally considered disconnected if they were not working or in school at the time they were surveyed, or
over a period of time prior to the survey. Some of the definitions, however, incorporate other characteristics, such as
marital status and educational attainment. Further, several studies used definitions that included only
noninstitutionalized youth. This means that these studies do not count youth in prisons, college dorms, mental health
facilities, and other institutions.
Congressional Research Service
7
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Working Group on Youth Programs characterizes positive youth development as a process that
engages young people in positive pursuits that help them acquire and practice the skills, attitudes,
and behaviors that they will need to become effective and successful adults in their work, family,
and civic lives. Further, positive youth development emphasizes that youth can be engaged in
their communities, schools, organizations, peer groups, and families in a productive and
constructive manner. 35
What is Youth Development?
Youth development refers to the processes—physical, cognitive, and emotional—that youth
undergo during adolescence. The competencies that youth begin to gain during adolescence can
assist them as they transition to adulthood. Youth who master competencies across several
domains are more likely to achieve desirable outcomes, including educational and professional
success, self-confidence, connections to family and the community, and contributions to society.
These areas of competency include the following:
Cognitive. Knowledge of essential life skills, problem solving skills, academic
adeptness;
Social. Connectedness with others, perceived good relationships with peers,
parents, and other adults;
Physical. Good health habits, good health risk management skills;
Emotional. Good mental health, including positive self-regard; good coping
skills;
Personal. Sense of personal autonomy and identity, sense of safety, spirituality,
planning for the future and future life events, strong moral character;
Civic. Commitment to community engagement, volunteering, knowledge of how
to interface with government systems; and
Vocational. Knowledge of essential vocational skills, perception of future in
terms of jobs or careers.36
A primary factor that influences how well youth develop these competencies is the interaction
among individual characteristics, social environment, and home environment. Individual
characteristics refer to traits influenced by genetic inheritance and prenatal environment.
Individual-level characteristics that can promote resilience include social skills, coping strategies,
a positive sense of self, and high expectations. The social environment, which encompasses
societal conditions, communities, and schools that can serve to reinforce positive behaviors and
promote positive outcomes for vulnerable youth. Societal conditions—economic conditions, the
prevalence of discrimination, and educational institutions—affect the development of youth
competencies and connectedness to others. Adolescents who perceive their future in terms of jobs
or careers often achieve desirable outcomes. For vulnerable youth, poor economic conditions and
fewer opportunities to work can affect how they perceive their future. Youths’ interaction with the
community is another variable that shapes their development. Community culture, or the values
35 Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, Pathways for Youth: Strategic Plan for Federal Collaboration ,
December 2016.
36 Jacquelynne Eccles and Jennifer Appleton Gootman, eds. Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences,
2002, pp. 6-7, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED465844.pdf. See also Youth T ransitions Funders Group, Investing to
Improve the Well-Being of Vulnerable Youth and Young Adults: Recommendations for Policy and Practice, October
2015.
Congressional Research Service
8
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
and beliefs of a particular community, may support the positive development of youth by
reinforcing cultural norms that favor academic achievement and professional success.
Communities can play a role in fostering youth development by providing multiple pathways to
help youth strengthen their competencies through schools and other institutions. Youth advocates
argue that these pathways should involve services and long-term programs that provide
opportunities for youth during the school day and in nonschool hours when youth may be more
susceptible to risky behaviors. 37 Within schools, the availability of resources for youth and their
parents, such as programs that monitor and supervise youth, and quality youth-serving institutions
and organizations can buffer youth from negative community cultures. Outside of schools, youth
development programs—such as mentoring and leadership programs—emphasize the positive
elements of growing up and engage young people in alternatives to counteract negative pressures.
Finally, the home environment, including the level of harmony discord among parents and
monitoring of children by their parents, plays a role in youths’ development. 38 The oversight
youth receive from their parents, as well as their family structure, can affect how well they
transition to adulthood. Positive adolescent development is facilitated when youth express
independence from their parents, yet rely on their parents for emotional support, empathy, and
advice. Parenting styles and family structure play important roles in the lives of youth. Parents
who discipline in a moderate and caring manner, and provide positive sanctions for prosocial
behaviors can assist youth to develop a sense of control over their future. Family structures that
promote positive parent-child relationships, even after divorce or times of stress (such as
separation or loss of a parent), can provide youth with emotional and other support during
adolescence and beyond.
The Youth Development Movement
The youth development movement began in the 1980s in response to youth policies and programs
that attempted to curb the specific problems facing youth (e.g., pregnancy, drug use) without
necessarily focusing on how to holistically improve their outcomes and ease their transition to
adulthood. A range of institutions have focused on meeting the needs of the whole child/youth
through literature and programming: policy organizations (Forum for Youth Investment and
National Network for Youth); national direct service organizations for youth (4-H and the Boys
and Girls Clubs of America); public and private research and philanthropic entities (National
Research Council, Carnegie Corporation of New York, MacArthur Foundation Research Network
on Transitions to Adulthood, Youth Transitions Funders Group); and government sub-agencies
with a youth focus (the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Family and Youth
Services Bureau and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
37 Karen Pittman, Merita Irby, and T haddeus Ferber, Unfinished Business: Further Reflections on a Decade of
Promoting Youth Development, T he Forum for Youth Investment, 2002, (Hereinafter Karen Pittman, Merita Irby, and
T haddeus Ferber, Unfinished Business.)
38 T his discussion is based on HHS, ACF, Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), Understanding Youth
Development: Promoting Positive Pathways of Growth, 1997; and HHS, ACF, OPRE, Synthesis of Research and
Resources to Support at-Risk Youth.
Congressional Research Service
9
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Prevention). 39 The youth development movement focuses on the assets—the attitudes, skills,
knowledge, and behaviors—that young people need to develop for adulthood. 40
Evolution of the Federal Role in Assisting
Vulnerable Youth
The remainder of this report describes the evolution of federal youth policy and provides an
overview of current programs and initiatives that focus on vulnerable youth. Many of these
initiatives promote coordination of federal youth programs and positive youth development.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or legislative vehicle
that addresses the challenges that young people experience in adolescence or while making the
transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy today evolved from multiple programs and
initiatives that began in the early 1900s to assist children and youth. From the turn of the 20 th
century through the 1950s, youth policy was generally subsumed under a broad framework of
child welfare issues. The Children’s Bureau, established in 1912, focused attention on child labor
and the protection of children with special needs. The age boundaries of youth were not clearly
delineated, but on the basis of proposed child labor reform legislation at that time, child referred
to those individuals age 16 and under. Also during this period, work and education support
programs were created to ease the financial pressures of the Great Depression for older youth
(ages 16 to 23), and increasingly, federal attention focused on addressing the growing number of
youth classified as delinquent.
The subsequent period, spanning the 1960s and 1970s, was marked by the creation of programs
that targeted youth in six policy areas: workforce development and job training, education,
juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and
community service. Finally, from the 1980s until the present, many of these programs have been
expanded; others like them have been eliminated. The federal government has also recently
adopted strategies to better serve the youth population through targeted legislation and initiatives.
1912-1950s: Children’s Bureau Programs and Workforce Programs
At the turn of the 20th century, psychologists first formally defined the concept of adolescence.
American psychologist G. Stanley Hall characterized the period between childhood and
adulthood as a time of “storm and stress,” with youth vulnerable to risky behavior, conflict with
parents, and perversion. 41 The well-being of adolescents was emerging as an area of concern
during this time, albeit as part of a greater focus on child welfare by states and localities. States
began to recognize the distinct legal rights of children, generally defined as age 16 and younger,
39 See, for example, Karen Pittman, “Some T hings Do Make a Difference and We Can Prove It: Key T ake -Aways”
from Finding Out What Matters for Youth: Testing Key Links in a Community Action Framework for Youth
Development, T he Forum for Youth Investment, April 2003. See also, National 4 -H Council, The National
Conversation on Youth Development in the 21 st Century: Final Report, 2002, https://ia601302.us.archive.org/34/items/
ERIC_ED467902/ERIC_ED467902.pdf; and National Research Council, Community Programs to Promote Youth
Development, 2002.
40 Karen Pittman, Merita Irby, and T haddeus Ferber, Unfinished Business, pp. 20-22.
41 G. Stanley Hall, “Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex,
Crime, Religion, and Education,” (1904) in John H. Bremner, T amara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds.,
Children & Youth in America, Vol. II: 1866-1932, Parts 1-6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, pp.
81-85.
Congressional Research Service
10
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
and to establish laws for protecting children against physical abuse, cruelty, and neglect. Children
who were abused or neglected were increasingly removed from their homes and placed in
almshouses and foster homes by the state. Juvenile courts and reform schools, first created in the
late 1800s, were also expanding during this period. By 1912, 22 states had passed legislation to
establish juvenile courts. 42
The year 1912 also marked the federal government’s initial involvement in matters relating to
child welfare with the creation of the Children’s Bureau in the U.S. Department of Labor. 43 The
bureau emerged out of the Progressive Movement, which emphasized that the stresses on family
life due to industrial and urban society were having a disproportionately negative effect on
children. Though not a Cabinet-level agency, the purpose of the bureau was to investigate and
report upon all “matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life” for the federal
government; however, the legislation creating the bureau named for special consideration: “infant
mortality, the birth rate, orphanages, juvenile court, desertion, dangerous occupations, accidents
and diseases of children, employment, and legislation affecting children in the several States and
Territories.”
The concept of a youth policy in those early years was virtually nonexistent. However, the
bureau’s efforts in combating child labor and investigating juvenile delinquency from 1912
through the early 1950s targeted youth ages 10 to 16. Bureau Chief Julia Lathrop and Progressive
Era advocates pushed for laws that would prohibit the employment of children under age 16. The
bureau also tracked the rising number of juvenile delinquents in the 1930s and evaluated the
causes of delinquency, citing unhappy home conditions and other factors as a predictor of gang
activity. In 1955, the bureau established a division on juvenile delinquency prevention.
Perhaps the most well-known policies the Children’s Bureau implemented that affected youth
were through the child health and welfare programs established by the Social Security Act (P.L.
74-231) of 1935. As originally enacted, the law authorized indefinite annual funding of $1.5
million for states to establish, extend, and strengthen public child welfare services in
“predominately rural” or “special needs” areas. For purposes of this program (now at Title IV-B,
Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act), these were described as services “for the protection and
care of homeless, dependent, and neglected children, and children in danger of becoming
delinquent.”44 The Aid to Dependent Children Program (now Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families [TANF] Block Grant) was also created under the act to provide financial assistance to
impoverished children. “Dependent” children were defined as children under age 16 who had
been deprived of parental support or care due to a parent’s death, continued absence from the
42 John H. Bremner, T amara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth in America, Vol. II: 1866-
1932, Parts 1-6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 440.
43 T he Children’s Bureau was also established within the Department of Commerce, but within one year was
transferred completely to the Department of Labor. T he discussion of the Children’s Bureau in this section is based on
two publications: (1) HHS, ACF, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, The Children’s
Bureau Legacy: Ensuring the Right to Childhood , no date (published in 2013), pp. 20-21 (Hereinafter HHS, ACF, The
Children’s Bureau Legacy: Ensuring the Right to Childhood ); and (2) Kriste Lindenmeyer, “A Right to Childhood:”
The U.S. Children’s Bureau and Child Welfare, 1912 -46 (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1997). (Hereinafter
Kriste Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood.)
44 In 1962 (P.L. 87-543), child welfare services were formally defined under T itle 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, and (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.”
Congressional Research Service
11
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
home, or physical or mental incapacity, and was living with a relative. Amendments to the
program extended the age of children to 18. 45
Separately in the 1930s, the federal government addressed youth poverty triggered by the Great
Depression. The Federal Transient Relief Act of 1933 established a Transient Division within the
Federal Transient Relief Administration to provide relief services through state grants. Also in
1933, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) opened camps and shelters for more than 1 million
low-income older youth. Two years later, in 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt created the
National Youth Administration (NYA) by executive order to open employment bureaus and
provide cash assistance to poor college and high school students. The Transient Division was
disbanded shortly thereafter.
From 1936 to 1940, legislation was proposed to provide for comprehensive educational and
vocational support for older youth. As introduced in 1938, the American Youth Act (S. 1463), if
passed, would have established a federal National Youth Administration to administer a system of
public-works projects that would employ young persons who were not employed or full-time
students. The act would have also provided unemployed youth with vocational advisors to assist
them in securing apprentice training. Further, young people enrolled in school and unable to
continue their studies without financial support would have been eligible to receive financial
assistance to pay school fees and school materials, and personal expenses. 46 The act, however,
was never brought to a full vote by the House or Senate. The Roosevelt Administration raised
concerns in hearings on the bill that it was too expensive and would have provided some of the
same services already administered through the CCC and NYA. 47 (The two programs were
eliminated in the early 1940s.)
By the late 1940s, the Children’s Bureau no longer had jurisdiction to address “all matters”
concerning children and youth because of federal government reorganizations that prioritized
agency function over a particular constituency (e.g., children, poor families, etc.). The bureau was
moved in 1949 from DOL to the Federal Security Agency (FSA), and child health policy issues
were transferred to the Public Health Service. The bureau’s philosophy of the “whole child”
diminished further when the FSA was moved to the newly organized Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare (HEW) in 1953, which was renamed the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) in 1979.
1960s-1970s: War on Poverty Initiatives and Expansion of Programs
The 1960s and 1970s marked a period of federal efforts to assist poor and disadvantaged children
and their families. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty initiatives and subsequent
social legislation established youth-targeted programs in the areas of workforce development and
job training, education, delinquency prevention, social services, and health. The major legislation
during this period included the following:
45
Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) of 1964 (P.L. 88-452). As the centerpiece of
the War on Poverty, the EOA established the Office of Economic Opportunity.
The office administered programs to promote the well-being of poor youth and
other low-income individuals, including Job Corps, Upward Bound, Volunteers
in Service to America (VISTA), Head Start, and Neighborhood Youth Corps,
Kriste Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood, p. 193.
46 John H. Bremner, T amara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth in America, Vol. III: 1933-
1973, Parts 1-4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, pp. 91 -96.
47 Ibid., pp. 99-104.
Congressional Research Service
12
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
among others. The mission of the Job Corps was (and still is) to promote the
vocational and educational opportunities of older, low -income youth. Similarly,
Upward Bound was created to assist disadvantaged high school students who
went on to attend college.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (P.L. 89-10). The
purpose of the ESEA was to provide federal funding to low -income schools.
Amendments to the act in 1966 (P.L 89-750) created the Migrant Education
Program and Migrant High School Equivalency Program to assist states in
providing education to children of migrant workers.
Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 (P.L. 89-329). The HEA increased
federal funding to universities and created scholarships and low interest loans for
students. The act also created the Talent Search Program to identify older, lowincome youth with potential for postsecondary education. The act was amended
in 1968 (P.L. 90-575) to include two programs: Student Support Services and
Upward Bound (which was transferred from the Office of Economic Opportunity
to the Office of Education, and later to the U.S. Department of Education).
Student Support Services was created to improve disadvantaged (defined as
disabled, low-income, or first in their family to attend college) college students’
retention and graduation rates.
Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-378). The legislation
permanently established the Youth Conservation Pilot Program to employ youth
of all backgrounds to perform work on federal lands.
Comprehensive Employment and Training Activities Act (CETA) of 1973
(P.L. 93-203). The program established federal funding for the Youth
Employment and Training Program and the Summer Youth Employment
Program. The programs financed employment training activities and on-the-job
training.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 (P.L. 93415). The act extended federal support to states and local governments for
rehabilitative and preventive juvenile justice delinquency projects, as established
under the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 90-445). The
major provisions of the JJDPA funded preventive programs in local communities
outside of the juvenile justice system. Title III of the act established the Runaway
Youth Program to provide temporary shelter, counseling, and after-care services
to runaway youth and their families. Congress later amended (P.L. 95-115) Title
III to include homeless youth (and the law is now known as the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Act).
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142).The act
required all public schools accepting federal funds to provide equal access to
education for children with physical and mental disabilities. Public schools were
also required to create an educational plan for these students, with parental input,
that would emulate as closely as possible the educational experiences of ablebodied children. (This legislation is now known as the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.)
Congressional Research Service
13
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
White House Conferences on Children and Youth: 1960s and 1970s
Since 1909, the executive branch has organized a White House Conference on Children (and
youth, in later decades). The White House conferences of 1960 and 1971 focused on efforts to
promote opportunities for youth. The recommendations from the 1960 conference’s forum on
adolescents discussed the need for community agencies to assist parents in addressing the
concerns of youth, as well as improved social services to adolescents and young adults. 48 The
recommendations called for the federal government to establish a unit devoted to youth and to
support public and private research regarding the issues facing this population, including their
employment, education, military service, marriage, mobility, and community involvement. The
1971 conference had a broader focus on issues that were important to youth at the time.
Recommendations from the conference included a suspension of the draft, less punitive measures
for drug possession, and income guarantees for poor families. 49
Family and Youth Services Bureau
In the 1960s, the Children’s Bureau began focusing more attention on the needs of adolescents.
For example, a Youth Services Unit was established in 1966 and focused on assisting youth in the
transition to adulthood by “identifying the problems and needs of adolescents and young adults in
today’s changing society, exploring existing resources for meeting these needs, and stimulating
new approaches for dealing with them.” An early focus of the unit was a program on the needs of
young parents ages 14 to 19. 50
The separate Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) was created outside of the Children’s
Bureau (in what was then the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare [HEW] in 1967 to
provide leadership on youth issues in the federal government. At that time, some believed that
young people were inappropriately placed in the juvenile justice system or did not receive needed
social services. Known then as the Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention
Administration, the sub-agency proposed a new service delivery strategy (similar to the
contemporary positive youth development approach) that emphasized youth’s competence,
usefulness, and belonging. 51 The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of
1974 emphasized that youth committing status offenses (behaviors considered offenses only if
carried out by a juvenile, such as truancy or running away) were more in need of care and
guidance than they were of punishment. Enactment of the JJDPA laid the foundation for much of
FYSB’s work today with runaway and homeless youth and other vulnerable youth groups.
1980s-Present: Current Youth Programs
Current federal youth policy has resulted from the piecemeal creation of programs across several
areas of social policy. Many of the youth-focused programs that trace their history to the War on
Poverty continue today, and several new programs, spread across several agencies, have been
created. (While the Family and Youth Services Bureau, FYSB, was created to provide leadership
on youth issues, it administers a small number of youth programs, including the Runaway and
48 Executive Office of the President, Conference Proceedings from the Golden Anniversary White House Conference
on Children and Youth, March 27-April 2, 1960 (Washington: GPO, 1960), p. 212.
49
Executive Office of the President, Conference Proceedings from the White House Conference on Youth, 1 971.
Washington: GPO, 1971.
50 HHS, ACF, The Children’s Bureau Legacy: Ensuring the Right to Childhood , pp. 121-122.
51 American Youth Policy Forum, A Youth Development Approach to Services for Young People: The Work of the
Family and Youth Services Bureau, Forum Brief, June 11, 1999.
Congressional Research Service
14
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Homeless Youth program and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program, among others.) Federal
youth policy today also includes recent initiatives to promote positive youth development and
increase coordination between federal agencies that administer youth-focused programs. Table A1 provides a description of over 50 major federal programs for youth in six policy areas discussed
previously—job training and workforce development, education, juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention, social services, public health, and national and community service. The table includes
the programs’ authorizing legislation and U.S. code section; objectives; FY2006 through FY2020
funding levels; agency with jurisdiction; and targeted at-risk youth population. The programs
were selected based upon their objectives to serve vulnerable youth primarily between the ages of
10 to 24, or to research this population.
As enacted, the programs are intended to provide vulnerable youth with the opportunities to
develop skills and abilities that will assist them in adolescence and during the transition to
adulthood. Congress has allocated funding to these programs for a number of services and
activities, including conflict resolution; counseling; crime/violence prevention; gang intervention;
job training assistance; mentoring; parental/family intervention; planning and program
development; and research and evaluation. The programs differ in size, scope, and funding
authorization levels and type (mandatory vs. discretionary).
The list is not exhaustive and may omit programs that serve the targeted youth population. Two
major block grant programs—the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (TANF) and
the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)—are not included because they do not provide dedicated
funding for youth activities. However, states can choose to use TANF and SSBG funds for such
purposes. TANF law permits states to use block grant funds to provide services to recipient
families and other needy families (defined by the state) so long as the services are expected to
help lead to independence from government services or enable needy families to care for children
at home. 52 States may also provide services to non-needy families if they are directed at the goals
of preventing and reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies or encouraging the formation of twoparent families. SSBG provides funding to assist states to provide a range of social services to
adults and children, and each state determines what services are provided and who is eligible.
Youth-focused categories of services that can be funded through the SSBG include education and
training services to improve knowledge or daily living skills and to enhance cultural
opportunities; foster care services for children and older youth; independent and transitional
living services; pregnancy and parenting services for young parents; and special services for
youth involved in or at risk of involvement with criminal activity. 53
The following sections briefly discuss selected programs under six policy areas—job training and
workforce development, education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services,
public health, and national and community service
Job Training and Workforce Development54
The federal government funds four major job training and workforce development programs for
youth: Youth Activities, Job Corps, YouthBuild, and Youth Conservation Corps. These programs
(except for the Youth Conservation Corps) are administered by the Department of Labor (DOL)
52
For further information, see CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block
Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions.
53 For further information, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding.
54 For additional information, see CRS Report R40929, Vulnerable Youth: Employment and Job Training Programs.
Congressional Research Service
15
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
and target low-income youth ages 14 (or 16) to 24 who require additional assistance in meeting
their vocational goals.
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA, P.L. 113-128) authorizes the DOL
programs through FY2020. The Youth Activities programs fund employment training and
academic support services for both in-school youth ages 14 to 21 and out-of-school youth ages 16
to 24. In-school youth includes those who are attending school, low -income, and have a specified
barrier to employment. Out-of-school youth includes those who meet certain criteria such as
being a high school dropout or being low-income. No less than 75% of funds may be used to
serve out-of-school youth.
Job Corps has centers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico where youth live
and receive training. Program training consists of career preparation, development, and transition;
academic initiatives; and character building. The program is targeted to youth ages 16 to 24 who
are low income and have other barriers to education and employment.
Created by the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1992 (P.L. 101-625) and
currently authorized under WIOA, YouthBuild has many of the same educational and vocational
objectives as those established under the Job Corps and Youth Activities programs. YouthBuild
participants ages 16 to 24 work toward their GED or high school diploma while learning job
skills by building affordable housing. Finally, the Youth Conservation Corps, established in 1970
by the Youth Conservation Corps Act (P.L. 91-378) and administered by the Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior, targets youth ages 15 to 18 of all backgrounds to work on projects
that conserve natural resources.
Education
Most federal education programs for vulnerable youth are authorized by the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965,
administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The ESEA provides the primary source
of federal funds to K-12 education programs, with the largest program being Title I-A. The
purpose of the Title I-A program, from its original enactment in 1965 to the present, is, in part, to
provide supplementary educational and related services to educationally disadvantaged children
who attend schools serving relatively low-income areas. The Higher Education Act is the source
of grant, loan, and work-study assistance to help meet the costs of postsecondary education. The
act also supports programs by providing incentives and services to disadvantaged youth to help
increase their secondary or postsecondary educational attainment. Separate legislation authorizes
additional education programs serving youth with disabilities and homeless youth.
Programs Authorized by Title I of the ESEA
Title I of ESEA provides most of the funding for programs that serve disadvantaged youth, and
was most recently reauthorized and amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (P.L. 114-95).
Title I-A (Local Educational Agency Grants) is the largest federal elementary and secondary
education program. 55 Title I-A grants fund supplementary educational and related services to low achieving and other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively
high concentrations of students from low-income families. Title I-A also directs state education
agencies (SEAs) and local education agencies (LEAs) to support the enrollment, attendance, and
success of homeless children and youth. Title I-C (Education of Migratory Children) provides
55 For additional information, see CRS Report R44297, Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act: Highlights of the Every Student Succeeds Act.
Congressional Research Service
16
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
formula grants to state education agencies (SEAs) for the development of programs targeted to
migrant students, and Title I-D (Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk Children and Youth) gives
funding to LEAs and SEAs to meet the special educational needs of youth in institutions and
correctional facilities for neglected and delinquent youth, as well as youth at risk of dropping out.
Other ESEA Programs
Titles III and IV of the ESEA also target disadvantaged youth. Title III (Language Instruction for
English Learners and Immigrant Students) provides grant funding to states to ensure that limited
English proficient (LEP) children and youth, including immigrant children and youth, attain
English proficiency. Title IV-B (21st Century Community Learning Centers) provides funding to
LEAs for academic and other after-school programs. The purpose of the program is to provide
opportunities for academic enrichment, offer students a broad array of additional services, and
offer families of served students opportunities for active and meaningful engagement with their
children’s education.
Programs Authorized Under HEA
The Higher Education Act (P.L. 89-329, as amended) authorizes a few programs targeted to
vulnerable youth. The primary programs are TRIO, GEAR UP, and the Migrant High School
Equivalency program.
TRIO Programs.56 The five programs that make up TRIO are designed to assist students from
disadvantaged backgrounds to pursue higher education and to complete their postsecondary
studies. 57 These programs are Talent Search, Upward Bound, Educational Opportunity Centers,
Student Support Services, and Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement. 58 Each of these
programs is designed to intervene at various points along the education continuum.
Talent Search, authorized under the original HEA legislation, encourages youth who have
completed at least five years of elementary education to complete high school and enter
postsecondary education; to encourage dropouts to reenter school; and to disseminate information
about available postsecondary educational assistance. Upward Bound projects seek to motivate
middle school and high school students and veterans to complete secondary education and
succeed in postsecondary education through instruction and counseling, among other activities.
Educational Opportunity Centers provide information to prospective postsecondary students
regarding available financial aid and academic assistance, and help them apply to college. Student
Support Services projects are intended to improve college students’ retention and graduation
rates, and improve transfer rates from two-year to four-year colleges through instruction;
exposure to career options; mentoring; and assistance in graduate admissions and financial aid
processes. Finally, the Robert E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement program prepares
disadvantaged students for postdoctoral study through seminars, research opportunities, summer
internships, tutoring, mentoring, and exposure to cultural events and academic programs.
56 For additional information, see CRS Report R42724, The TRIO Programs: A Primer.
57
T he precise definition of disadvantaged varies between the programs. It generally refers to individuals who are lowincome, first-generation college students, or disabled.
58
One other T RIO program, the Staff Development program, provides indirect services. T he Staff Development
program supports training of current and prospective T RIO staff. T he Dissemination Partnership Grants program funds
partnerships with institutions of higher education or community organizations not receiving T RIO funds but that serv e
first-generation and low-income college students.
Congressional Research Service
17
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
GEAR UP. Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program (GEAR UP), a
program not part of the TRIO array of programs, was added to the HEA by the Higher Education
Act Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244). GEAR UP seeks to increase disadvantaged students’
secondary school completion and postsecondary enrollment by providing support services. GEAR
UP differs from TRIO in two key aspects: the program (1) may serve a cohort of students from
seventh grade to their first year of college and (2) may assure students of the availability of
financial aid to meet college costs.
Special Programs for Students Whose Families Are Engaged in Migrant and Seasonal
Farmwork. This program, authorized under HEA, funds institutions of higher education (or
private nonprofits in cooperation with institutions of higher education) to recruit and provide
academic and support services to individuals who lack a high school diploma and who are or
whose parents are engaged in migrant and other seasonal farm work. The purpose of the program
is to assist students to obtain a high school equivalency diploma and gain employment, or to
attend college or another postsecondary education or training program.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the major statute that provides federal
funding for the education of children and youth with disabilities. 59 Part B of the act includes
provisions for the education of school-aged children. As a condition for the receipt of funds states
must provide “free appropriate public education” to youth as old as 21 (age may vary depending
on state law). This term refers to the right of all children with disabilities to receive an education
and related services that meet state curriculum requirements, at no costs to parents.
Appropriateness is defined according to the child’s individualized education program (IEP) which
delineates the special instruction the child should receive and his or her educational goals.
Education of Homeless Children and Youths Program
The McKinney-Vento Act (P.L. 100-77), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (P.L.
114-95), authorizes the Department of Education to fund local education agencies (LEAs) to
provide homeless children and youth comparable education services. LEAs must assist in
determining the school that is in the best interest for a child or youth to attend, and implement
policies that remove barriers from these students in attending school.
Youth ChalleNGe Program
The Youth ChalleNGe Program is a quasi-military training program administered by the Army
National Guard to improve outcomes for youth who have dropped out of school or have been
expelled. The program was established as a pilot program under the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY1993 (P.L. 102-484), and Congress permanently authorized the program
under the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998 (P.L. 105-85). Currently, 35 programs
operate in 28 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Youth are eligible for the program
if they are ages 16 to 18 and enroll prior to their 19th birthday; have dropped out of school or been
expelled; are unemployed; are not currently on parole or probation for anything other than
juvenile status offenses and not serving time or awaiting sentencing; and are drug free. The
program consists of three phases: a two-week pre-program residential phase where applicants are
assessed to determine their potential for completing the program; a 20-week residential phase;
59 For additional information, see CRS Report R41833, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part
B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions.
Congressional Research Service
18
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
and a 12-month post-residential phase. During the residential phase, youth—known as cadets—
work toward their high school diploma or GED and develop life-coping, job, and leadership
skills. They also participate in activities to improve their physical well-being, and they engage in
community service. 60
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Department of Justice
(DOJ) coordinates federal activities and administers programs relating to the treatment of juvenile
offenders and the prevention of juvenile delinquency. These programs include those enacted
under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 61
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was first enacted in 1974 (P.L. 90415) and was most recently reauthorized in 2002 by the 21 st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273). Its provisions were authorized through FY2007
and FY2008. The JJDPA as originally enacted had three main components: it created a set of
institutions within the federal government that were dedicated to coordinating and administering
federal juvenile justice efforts; it established grant programs to assist the states with setting up
and running their juvenile justice systems; and it promulgated core mandates that states had to
adhere to in order to be eligible to receive grant funding. While the JJDPA has been amended
several times since 1974, it continues to feature the same three components. While the JJDPA
contains a number of major grants, those currently funded include State Formula Grants, the
Juvenile Mentoring Program, and Title V Community Prevention Block Grants.
The JJDPA authorizes OJJDP to make State Formula Grants to states that can be used to fund the
planning, establishment, operation, coordination, and evaluation of projects for the development
of more effective juvenile delinquency programs and improved juvenile justice systems. The
Juvenile Mentoring Program was repealed in 2002 by the 21 st Century Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 107-273); however, it has continued to receive appropriations each
subsequent fiscal year. 62 These grants could be awarded to local educational agencies (in
partnership with public or private agencies) to establish and support mentoring programs. The
Title V Community Prevention Block Grant program authorizes OJJDP to make grants to states,
which are then transmitted to units of local government, in order to carry out delinquency
prevention programs for juveniles who have, or are likely to, come into contact with the juvenile
justice system.
Social Services
The major social service programs to assist at-risk youth are authorized under the Social Security
Act, as amended, and are administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 63
60 For further information, see CRS Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues.
61 For additional information, see CRS Report R44879, Juvenile Justice Funding Trends.
62
For additional information, see CRS Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues.
63 T wo additional child welfare programs, Court Appointed Special Advocates and Children’s Advocacy Centers, are
discussed in Table A-1. T he programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Congressional Research Service
19
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Foster Care Program and Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP)
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act authorizes the federal foster care program.64 Under this
program, a state, territory, or tribe may seek federal funds for partial reimbursement of the room
and board costs needed to support eligible children who are neglected, abused, or who, for some
other reason, cannot remain in their own homes. To be eligible for Title IV-E, a child must be in
the care and responsibility of the state and (1) the child must meet income/assets tests and family
structure rules in the home he/she was removed from; 65 (2) have specific judicial determinations
made related to reasons for the removal and other aspects of his/her removal and placement; and
(3) be placed in an eligible licensed setting with an eligible provider(s).
Foster youth who reach the age of majority (18 years in most states) and who have not been
reunited with their parents or placed with adoptive parents or guardians are said to emancipate or
age out of foster care. The John H. Chafee Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood
Program was created in 1999 (P.L. 106-169) under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. States,
territories, and tribes with approved plans receive Chafee funds to provide services for youth who
experienced foster care at age 14 or older, those who aged out of foster care, and those who left
foster care for adoption or guardianship at age 16 or older to make a successful transition to
adulthood. 66 Separately, formula funds are authorized for states, territories, and tribes to provide
Education and Training Vouchers (ETVs) for Chafee-eligible youth. ETVs are intended to cover
the cost of attending institutions of higher education (e.g., colleges, universities, and job training
programs). Youth are eligible to participate for five years, whether consecutive or not, until the
age of 26.
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, established in 1974 under Title III of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, contains three components: the Basic Center Program
(BCP), Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach Program (SOP). 67 These
programs are designed to provide services to runaway and homeless youth outside of the law
enforcement, juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental health systems. Services include
temporary and long-term shelter, counseling services, and referrals to social service agencies,
among other supports. 68
64 For additional information, see CRS Report R42794, Child Welfare: State Plan Requirements under the Title IV-E
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program .
65 With an exception, discussed below, the income and asset tests, as well as family structure/living arrangement rules
are identical to the federal /state rules that applied to the now-defunct cash aid program, Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC), as they existed on July 16, 1996. Under the prior law AFDC program, states established
specific AFDC income rules (within some federal parameters). T he federal AFDC asset limit was $1,000, however,
P.L. 106-169 raised the allowable counted asset limit to $10,000 for purposes of determining T itle IV-E eligibility. In
addition to meeting the income/asset criteria in the home from which he/she was removed, a child must meet the AF DC
family structure/living arrangement rules. T hose rules granted eligibility primarily to children in single -parent families
(parents are divorced, separated, or never-married and one spouse is not living with the child; or the parent is dead). In
some cases a child in a two-parent family may be eligible (if one parent meets certain unemployment criteria).
66 Youth who are likely to remain in foster care until age 18 are eligible to participate in services that are intended to
provide regular, ongoing opportunities to engage in age- or developmentally appropriate activities.
67
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs.
68 Other program activities include a national communications system for runaway youth and their families, HHS’s
National Clearinghouse on Families and Youth, research, evaluations, and training and technical assistance to grantees.
Congressional Research Service
20
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Public Health
Public health programs for vulnerable youth are concentrated in the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). These programs address youth mental
health, substance abuse, teen pregnancy prevention, and support for pregnant and parenting teens.
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services
Public health programs for vulnerable youth are concentrated in the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). 69 These programs address youth
mental health, substance abuse, teen pregnancy prevention, and support for pregnant and
parenting teens.
SAMHSA is organized into four centers: the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), the
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
(CSAP), and the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Collectively,
three of the centers administer approximately 13 programs (not all discussed here or in Table A1) for youth ages 10 to 21 (and up to 25 for some programs). The programs primarily target youth
with serious emotional disturbances (SED) and youth at risk of abusing drugs and alcohol.
CMHS. Youth-focused suicide prevention activities are funded by SAMHSA’s
Garrett Lee Smith (GLS) Campus Suicide Prevention Grant Program and GLS
State/Tribal Youth Suicide Prevention and Early Intervention Grant Program. The
campus grant program funds services for all students (including those with
mental health problems and substance abuse that makes them vulnerable to
suicide), while the state/tribal program supports statewide and tribal activities to
develop and implement youth suicide prevention and intervention strategies. 70
The Children’s Mental Health Services program supports community-based
systems of care for children and adolescents with serious emotional disturbances
and their families. The program aims to ensure that services are provided
collaboratively across youth-serving systems (such as schools and foster care
placements) and that each youth receives an individual service plan developed
with the participation of the family (and, where appropriate, the youth) to meet
the mental health needs of that youth. A second program, the National Child
Traumatic Stress Network, was created to establish a national network that
provides services and referrals for children and adolescents who have
experienced traumatic events.
CSAT. The Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts provide treatment for youth who are
drug dependent. This program targets juvenile offenders (preadjudicated or
adjudicated status, or postdetention), and provides substance abuse treatment,
wrap-around services supporting substance abuse treatment, and case
management. A judge oversees the drug treatment program and may allow the
youth to avoid (further) penalties for their delinquent behavior.
69 For additional information, see CRS Report R46426, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA): Overview of the Agency and Major Programs.
70 SAMSHA also funds other suicide prevention programs such as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and the
Suicide Prevention Resource Center.
Congressional Research Service
21
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
CSAP. The Strategic Prevention Framework grants address underage drinking
(among those aged 12 to 20) and prescription drug misuse and abuse (among
those aged 12 to 25). These grants are intended to prevent the onset and reduce
the progression of substance abuse by incorporating SAMSHA’s Strategic
Prevention Framework, which emphasizes strategic planning and the
implementation of evidence-based prevention. The grants support
implementation of a five-step process: (1) conduct a community needs
assessment; (2) mobilize and/or build capacity; (3) develop a comprehensive
strategic plan; (4) implement evidence-based prevention programs and
infrastructure development activities; and (5) monitor process and evaluate
effectiveness. CSAP also administers, in cooperation with the White House
Office of National Drug Control Policy, the “Drug-Free Communities Support
Program” (see subsequent section).
Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Support Programs
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administers research and education
programs to reduce adolescent pregnancy or to provide care services for pregnant and parenting
adolescents. 71 The Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education program, authorized under Title V of
the Social Security Act, provides competitive grants for teaching about abstaining from sex
outside of marriage. States may request funding under the program when they solicit Maternal
and Child Health block grant funds (used for a variety of health services for women and children,
including adolescent pregnancy prevention activities).
P.L. 111-148 (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ACA) established a state formula
grant program to enable states to operate the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP),
which is a comprehensive approach to teen pregnancy prevention that educates adolescents on
both abstinence and contraception to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. It is
intended to provide youth with information on several adulthood preparation subjects (i.e.,
healthy relationships, adolescent development, financial literacy, parent-child communication,
educational and career success, and healthy life skills). The program is mandated to provide
programs that are evidence-based, medically accurate, and age-appropriate.
Two additional programs have been created under recent appropriation laws. The FY2010
omnibus appropriations law (P.L. 111-117) established the authority and funding for HHS to
create the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) program. Subsequent appropriation laws have
provided funding as well. As required in appropriations law, the majority of TPP program grants
must use evidence-based models that have been shown to be effective in reducing teen pregnancy
and related outcomes. Separately, the Sexual Risk Avoidance Education program was established
and funded by the FY2016 omnibus appropriations law (P.L. 114-113), and has been funded in
subsequent appropriation laws. These laws have specified that funding is available for education
in sexual risk avoidance, defined as “voluntarily refraining from non-marital sexual activity.”
National and Community Service
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) is an independent federal agency
that administers programs authorized by two statutes: the National and Community Service Act of
1990 (NCSA, P.L. 101-610, as amended), and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973
71 For further information, see CRS Report R45183, Teen Pregnancy: Federal Prevention Programs.
Congressional Research Service
22
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
(DVSA, P.L. 93-113, as amended). 72 The focus of these programs is to provide public service to
communities in need through multiple service activities. Although CNCS works to involve a
diverse range of individuals in their programs, the agency makes particular efforts to engage
disadvantaged youth, either because they enroll these youth to help to carry out the programs (i.e.,
members or volunteers) or provide services to them through the programs (i.e., beneficiaries).
The major CNCS programs are organized into two service streams, AmeriCorps and Senior
Corps.
AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps identifies and addresses critical community needs by
tutoring and mentoring disadvantaged youth, managing or operating after-school
programs, helping communities respond to disasters, improving health services,
building affordable housing, and cleaning parks and streams, among other
services. There are three AmeriCorps programs: AmeriCorps State and National,
Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), and National Civilian Community
Corps (NCCC). Some of the projects funded under the program support youth
who are disadvantaged, and a certain share of participants in the NCCC program
must be disadvantaged. For example, grantees under the AmeriCorps State and
National program place members in organizations and schools to serve
disadvantaged youth in grades K through 12 in after-school, before school, and
enrichment programs. For providing services full-time for a term of service (up
to one year), AmeriCorps members earn an education award equal to the
maximum amount of a Pell Grant in the year in which service is rendered (and
proportionally less if they provide services for half-time, reduced half-time, etc.).
Senior Corps. Senior Corps is composed of volunteers age 55 or older who help
to meet a wide range of community challenges through three programs: Foster
Grandparents Program (FGP), Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP),
and Senior Companion program. The first two provide assistance in the
community by working with children and youth with a variety of needs, among
other populations and activities. The FGP provides aid to children and youth with
exceptional needs, including children who have been abused or neglected or are
otherwise at risk; mentors troubled teenagers and young mothers; cares for
premature infants and children with physical disabilities; and teaches reading
instruction to children who are falling behind their grade level. RSVP provides a
variety of services to communities. These services include tutoring children and
teenagers, renovating homes, and serving as museum docents.
Federal Efforts to Improve Coordination Among
Programs for Vulnerable Youth
Overview
Despite the range of services and activities programs for vulnerable youth, many of these
programs appear to have developed with little attempt to coordinate them in a policy area or
across policy areas. Policymakers and youth advocates argue that federal agencies must develop
mechanisms to improve coordination—defined, at minimum, as communication and consultation.
72 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33931, The Corporation for National and Community Service:
Overview of Programs and Funding.
Congressional Research Service
23
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
They argue that coordination is necessary because of the expansion of programs that serve youth,
the increasing complexity and interrelated nature of public policies that affect youth, the
fragmentation of policy-making among agencies, and the establishment of new policy priorities
that cross older institutional boundaries. 73
The following section discusses federal efforts to improve coordination of youth programs. The
section first addresses laws and an executive order that have sought to spur coordination across
multiple government agencies. These laws include the Claude Pepper Young Americans Act (P.L.
101-501), YouthBuild Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281), and Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination
Act (P.L. 109-365). Of the three, only the YouthBuild Transfer Act has been funded. In 2008,
President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13459 to establish an Interagency Working
Group on Youth Programs. Following this discussion is a description of efforts to coordinate
programs around specific youth topic areas and youth populations, such as through coordinating
councils and grant programs carried out by two or more agencies.
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501)
The Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (Title IX of the August F. Hawkins Human
Services Reauthorization Act, P.L. 101-501) was the first law in recent history to address youth
coordination issues; however, the law was never funded. P.L. 101-501 sought to increase federal
coordination among agencies that administer programs for children and youth, while also
enhancing the delivery of social services to children, youth, and their families through improved
coordination at the state and local levels. 74 In its report supporting the act’s coordinating
provisions, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee noted:75
The Committee is concerned that the current system of service is fragmented and
disjointed, making it difficult, if not impossible for children and families who are being
served in one system to access needed services from another. This creates a situation in
which problems of children and families not only go unmet but undetected and unresolved.
Through the inclusion of these proposals, the Committee hopes to articulate a national
commitment to our nation’s children, youth, and families and to encourage greater
cooperation at federal, state, and local levels.
Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families
The Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families was authorized by the Young Americans
Act to address concerns about the fragmentation and duplication of services for youth at the
federal and local levels. The act provided that the council comprise representatives from federal
agencies and state or local agencies that serve youth, rural and urban populations; and national
organizations with an interest in young individuals, families, and early childhood. The duties of
the council were to include (1) advising and assisting the President on matters relating to the
special needs of young individuals (and submitting a report to the President in FY1992 through
73
For additional information about rationales for coordination, see archived CRS Report RL31357, Federal
Interagency Coordinative Mechanisms: Varied Types and Numerous Devices (available to congressional clinets upon
request). For a discussion of federal efforts to coordinate and integrate various social service programs, see archived
CRS Report RL32859, The “Superwaiver” Proposal and Service Integration: A History of Federal Initiatives, by
Cheryl Vincent .
74 For further discussion of concerns with coordination at the state and local levels and local initiatives to improve
coordination in the early 1990s, see CRS Report 96-369, Linking Human Services: An Overview of Coordination and
Integration Efforts (available to congressional clients upon request to CRS).
75 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Human Services Reauthorization Act, report to
accompany P.L. 101-501, 101 st Cong., 2 nd sess., S.Rept. 101-421 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1990), p. 1963.
Congressional Research Service
24
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
FY1998); (2) reviewing and evaluating federal policies, programs, or other activities affecting
youth and identifying duplication of services for these youth; and (3) making recommendations to
the President and Congress to streamline services, reduce duplication of services, and encourage
coordination of services for youth and their families at the state and local levels. The act was
amended in 1994 (P.L. 103-252) to require that the council also identify program regulations,
practices, and eligibility requirements that impede coordination and collaboration and make
recommendations for their modifications or elimination. Though the council was to be funded
through FY1998, funding was never appropriated.
Grants for States and Community Programs
The Young Americans Act also established grant funding for coordinating resources and
providing comprehensive services to children, youth, and families at the state and local levels.
For states to receive funding, the act required each state to submit a plan discussing how state and
local entities would coordinate developmental, preventive, and remedial services, among other
provisions. This grant program was never funded.
Other Concerns about Coordination of Youth Programs
In addition to the programs described in Table A-1, dozens of other programs in multiple federal
agencies target, even in small part, vulnerable youth. The U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) cataloged 131 programs for at-risk or delinquent youth across 16 agencies in FY1996.
GAO defined these youth as individuals age 5 to 24 who, due to certain characteristics or
experiences, were statistically more likely than other youth to encounter certain problems —legal,
social, financial, educational, emotional, and health—in the future. 76 The White House Task Force
for Disadvantaged Youth, convened in 2002 under President George W. Bush, compiled a similar
list of over 300 programs for disadvantaged youth (using nearly the same definition as GAO) in
12 agencies for FY2003 targeting vulnerable youth and youth generally. 77 (Some of these
programs do not necessarily target the most disadvantaged youth or have a singular focus on
youth populations.) The task force’s final report identified concerns with coordinating these
programs. One concern raised was that the federal government does not coordinate services for
specific groups of youth (e.g., abused/neglected youth, current or former foster youth, immigrant
youth, minority youth, obese youth, urban youth, and youth with disabilities, among others).
Congress has also examined challenges to coordinating programs targeted to certain groups of
youth. For example, the House Committee on Government Reform held a hearing to examine the
federal agencies and programs responsible for responding to abused and neglected children. The
committee sought to determine the extent to which overlap and duplication among federal child
abuse and neglect programs creates inefficiencies that hinder overall effectiveness. 78 In addition,
the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support (now known as the
76 U.S. General Accounting Office, At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise Efficiency
Questions, GAO/HEHS-96-34, March 1996. (GAO is now known as the U.S. Government Accountability Office.)
77
T he programs provide services such as academic support; support for adults who work with youth; after-school
programs; AIDS prevention activities; counseling; mental health services; mentoring; self -sufficiency skills; tutoring;
and violence and crime prevention. See Executive Office of the P resident, White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth Final Report, October 2003, pp. 165-179. (Hereinafter White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final
Report.)
78 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Redundancy and Duplication in
Federal Child Welfare Programs: A Case Study on the Need for Executive Reorganization Authority , hearing, 108 th
Cong., 2 nd sess., May 20, 2004 (Washington: GPO, 2004).
Congressional Research Service
25
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Subcommittee on Human Resources) held a hearing on disconnected and homeless youth, and the
programs that can assist this population. The hearing examined the ways some of these programs
are coordinated or otherwise collaborate. 79
Youth Build Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281)
The Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth identified several programs, including YouthBuild, that
were located in a federal department whose mission does not provide a clear and compelling
reason for locating them within that agency. As such, the task force recommended that
YouthBuild be transferred from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
to the U.S. Department of Labor because of DOL’s mission of administering workforce and
training programs. 80 As discussed previously, the YouthBuild program provides educational
services and job training in construction for low-income youth ages 16 to 24 who are not enrolled
in school. On September 22, 2006, the YouthBuild Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281), authorizing the
transfer of the program from HUD to DOL, was signed into law. The program is authorized under
the Workforce Investment Act, which will be superseded by the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act as of July 1, 2015.
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365)
In response to the concerns generally raised by the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth, Congress passed the Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (Title VIII of the Older
Americans Act, P.L. 109-365), which created the Federal Youth Development Council (“council”)
and specified that it would be chaired by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. The council was authorized for FY2007 and FY2008, but was not ultimately
established. Funds were not appropriated for these years (or subsequent years). However, on
February 7, 2008, President Bush signed Executive Order 13459 to establish an Interagency
Working Group on Youth Programs, discussed in the next section, to improve coordination of
youth policy. 81 Although not explicitly stated in P.L. 109-365, the purpose of the legislation
appeared to be twofold: to improve coordination across federal agencies that administer programs
for vulnerable youth and to assist federal agencies with evaluating these programs.
Prior to the law’s enactment, policymakers and advocates asserted that the council could help to
improve policy effectiveness by reducing duplication of effort and working at cross-purposes,
while integrating distinct, but reinforcing, responsibilities among relatively autonomous
agencies. 82 They argued that the council could improve accountability of various federal
components by consolidating review and reporting requirements. Other duties of the council that
were listed in the law include providing technical assistance to states to support a state-funded
council for coordinating state youth efforts, at a state’s request, and coordinating with other
federal, state, and local coordinating efforts to carry out its duties.
The law specified that the council coordinate with three existing interagency bodies: the Federal
Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, the Interagency Council on Homelessness, and
79 U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, “Hearing
on Disconnected and Disadvantaged Youth,” June 19, 2007 (Washington: GPO, 2007).
80 White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final Report, pp. 33-34.
81 Executive Order 13459. “Improving the Coordination and Effectiveness of Youth Programs.” Federal Register, vol.
73 (February 7, 2008), pp. 8003-8005.
82 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Select Education,
Coordination Among Federal Youth Development Programs, hearing 109 th Cong., 1 st sess., July 12, 2005, statements of
Rep. T om Osborne and Marguerite W. Sallee, Alliance for Youth (Washington: GPO, 2005).
Congressional Research Service
26
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (The legislation did
not describe how the council should coordinate with these other bodies. For further information
on the Coordinating Council, see below.) Further, the law required that the council provide
Congress with an interim report within one year after its first meeting, as well as a final report not
later than two years after its first meeting. The final report was to include (1) a comprehensive list
of recent research and statistical reporting by various federal agencies on the overall well-being of
youth; (2) the assessment of the needs of youth and those who serve youth; (3) a summary of the
plan in coordinating to achieve the goals and objectives for federal youth programs; (4)
recommendations to coordinate and improve federal training and technical assistance,
information sharing, and communication among federal programs and agencies; (5)
recommendations to better integrate and coordinate policies across federal, state, and local levels
of government, including any recommendations the chair determines appropriate for legislation
and administrative actions; (6) a summary of the actions taken by the council at the request of
federal agencies to facilitate collaboration and coordination on youth serving programs and the
results of those collaborations, if available; (7) a summary of the action the council has taken at
the request of states to provide technical assistance; and (8) a summary of the input and
recommendations by disadvantaged youth, community-based organizations, among others.
Executive Order 13459
On February 7, 2008, President Bush signed Executive Order 13459 to establish an Interagency
Working Group on Youth Programs (hereinafter, IWGYP). In the order, President Bush cited the
success of the interagency collaboration that resulted from the Helping America’s Youth (HAY)
initiative as the impetus for creating an Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs. HAY
was a national initiative, led by First Lady Laura Bush, to promote positive youth development by
raising awareness about the challenges facing youth and motivating caring adults to connect with
youth through forums and an online resource. 83 This online resource was known as the
Community Action Guide, and sought to help communities assess their needs and resources and
link them to effective programs to help youth. This tool was created in partnership with nine
federal agencies.
The IWGYP was convened in 2008. Pursuant to the executive order, the working group consists
of multiple federal departments and federal agencies. 84 The primary functions of the working
group, as specified in the executive order, include (1) identifying and engaging key government
and private or nonprofit organizations that can play a role in improving the coordination and
effectiveness of programs serving and engaging youth, such as faith-based and other community
organizations; (2) developing a new federal website on youth, built upon HAY’s Community
Guide, (3) encouraging all youth-serving federal and state agencies, communities, grantees, and
organizations to adopt high standards for assessing program results, including through the use of
rigorous impact evaluations, as appropriate; and (4) reporting to the President on its work and on
the implementation of any recommendations arising from its work.
83
T he website is now http://www.youth.gov. It was previously http://helpingamericasyouth.org and
http://www.findyouthinfo.gov.
84 T hese include the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, and T ransportation; and the
U.S. Agency for International Development, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Corporation for National and
Community Service, National Science Foundation, Office of National Drug Control Policy, U.S. Social Security
Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Small Business Association. See
http://www.youth.gov, “Federal Collaboration.”
Congressional Research Service
27
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Congress has appropriated funds for the IWGYP in one year since the group was established. The
IWGYP received a one-time appropriation of $1 million in FY2009 to HHS to be used for
soliciting input from young people, state children’s cabinet directors, and nonprofit organizations
on youth programs; developing an “overarching strategic plan for federal youth policy,” and
“recommendation to improve the coordination, effectiveness, and efficiency of programs
affecting youth.”85 The IWGYP developed a framework to guide development of the plan, which
focuses on three overarching outcomes for youth up to the age of 24: health, safety, and wellness;
school, family, and community engagement and connections; and education, training,
employment, transitions, and readiness for careers and adulthood. 86 From May to December
2010, the Working Group convened listening sessions in 10 communities throughout the United
States to solicit input from stakeholders, including state leaders and youth, about the plan. 87 In
August and October 2010, the Working Group held meetings, at HHS, to solicit information from
the public on the strategic plan. 88 In December 2010, the Working Group published an outline of
the strategic plan in the Federal Register and asked for public comments. 89 In February 2013, the
IWGYP released a draft report of the strategic plan based on these public comments. A final
report was issued in December 2016. 90 The plan describes three overarching goals to improve
outcomes for youth:
Collaboration and coordination. This refers to promoting coordinated
strategies to improve youth outcomes across a number of youth-serving programs
at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels.
Evidence-based and innovative strategies. This refers to disseminating and
encouraging evidence-based programs that have been studied with rigorous
evaluation designs and have shown positive effects on intended outcomes.
Youth engagement and partnership. This refers to promoting youth
engagement and partnership to strengthen programs and benefit youth and their
families, and can involve strategies such as information sharing and shared
decisionmaking.
Comparison of the Federal Youth Development Council and the Interagency
Working Group
Major differences between the Federal Youth Development Council and the Interagency Working
Group, as outlined in the law and executive order, appear to be their leadership structures,
membership, and some of their duties. Under both the council and IWGYP, the HHS Secretary is
to serve as chair. As part of the IWGYP, the Secretary has the discretion to designate other agency
heads as the chair and vice chair after two years, and biennially thereafter. Although the council
was authorized for a two-year period (FY2007 and FY2008), the executive order does not specify
85
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Division F of committee print to accompany the Omnibus
Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105), 111 th Cong., 2 nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2009).
86 For further information, see Interagency Working Group on Youth Program Pathways for Youth: Strategic Plan for
Federal Collaboration.
87 Ibid.
88 HHS, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Public Meeting T o Solicit Input for a Strategic
Plan for Federal Youth Policy,” 75 Federal Register 154, August 11, 2010; and HHS, Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation, “Public Meeting T o Solicit Input for a Strategic Plan for Federal Youth Policy,” 75
Federal Register 190, October 1, 2010.
89 HHS, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Input for a Strategic Plan for Federal Youth
Policy,” 75 Federal Register 244, December 21, 2010.
90 Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, Pathways for Youth: Strategic Plan for Federal Collaboration .
Congressional Research Service
28
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
a date that the IWGYP should be terminated. The authorization for the two entities identified
different, but overlapping, memberships. The Council was authorized to include representatives
from outside organizations and groups, and the President would have been required to consult
with Congress about these appointments. In contrast, the IWGYP consists exclusively of federal
staff.
The functions of the Council and the IWGYP, as described in law and executive order,
respectively, are similar. Both bodies were directed to improve coordination and collaboration
among federal agencies. For example, the law specifies that the duties of the Council would have
been to ensure communication among the agencies; to assist federal agencies in collaborating on
model programs, such as those involving special populations and projects to promote parental
involvement; and to coordinate with federal interagency entities, including the Coordinating
Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Likewise, the IWGYP is charged with
identifying and promoting initiatives and activities that merit strong interagency collaboration
because of their potential to offer cost-effective solutions.
The law and executive order also directed the two bodies to identify and disseminate information
about promising youth programs. The law specified that the Council should work with federal
agencies to “promote high-quality research and evaluation, identify and replicate model programs
and promising practices, and provide technical assistance relating to the needs of youth.”
Similarly, the executive order directs the IWGYP to encourage various levels of government and
organizations to adopt “high standards for assessing program results ... so that effective practices
can be identified and replicated.” The role of the Working Group’s website is to disseminate
promising practices and to provide technical assistance to youth-serving organizations and
partnerships.
The executive order appears broad enough to permit the IWGYP to take on some of the functions
that were specified for the Council, such as identifying target populations of youth who are
disproportionately at risk for negative outcomes; supporting initiatives that target certain
populations of youth, such as migrant youth or youth in foster care; and soliciting and
documenting ongoing input and recommendations from youth, national youth development
experts, researchers, community-based organizations, state and local governments, and other
stakeholders.
The two bodies have some distinct duties, as specified in the law and executive order. Unlike the
IWGYP, the council would have been charged with assessing the needs of youth and those who
work with youth to promote positive youth development, recommending quantifiable goals and
objectives for youth-serving programs, and advising on the allocation of resources in support of
these goals and objectives. Unlike the council, the IWGYP was directed to create a new federal
website on youth that provides training to youth-serving entities and to develop and disseminate
strategies to reduce the factors that put youth at risk.
Federal Initiatives to Improve Coordination
The White House Council for Community Solutions
The White House Council for Community Solutions was created by President Obama under
Executive Order 13560. 91 The order directed leaders from public, private, and other sectors to
identify areas in which the federal government can contribute to cross-sector collaboration,
91 Executive Order 13560. “White House Council for Community Solutions.” Federal Register, vol. 75 (December 17,
2010), pp. 78875-78876.
Congressional Research Service
29
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
among other responsibilities. The council focused its efforts on disconnected youth, or those
youth ages 16 to 24 who are not working or in school. The council engaged in outreach and
listening sessions with youth and other stakeholders, and determined that it would refer to
disconnected youth as “opportunity youth” because they found that young people have “energy
and aspirations and do not view themselves as disconnected.”92 The council also developed a final
report of its findings and recommendations for creating these collaborative initiatives. 93 The
report discusses types of collaborations, identifies the characteristics of successful collaborations,
and addresses the resources these collaborations need to be sustained.
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
The Coordinating Council (Council) on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was
established by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) and is
administered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. The Council’s primary functions are to coordinate federal programs and policies
concerning juvenile delinquency prevention, unaccompanied juveniles, and missing and exploited
children; however, the Council has convened meetings on other groups of vulnerable youth. 94 The
Council is led by the Attorney General and the Administrator of OJJDP and includes the heads of
all the federal agencies that touch on these broad areas, including the Secretary of Health and
Human Services; the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary of Education; the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development; the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; the Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service; and the Secretary of
Homeland Security.
My Brother’s Keeper
In February 2014, President Obama established the My Brother’s Keeper Task Force (MBK Task
Force) to determine the public and private efforts needed to enhance positive outcomes for boys
and young men of color. The MBK Task Force was made up of representatives from various
federal agencies. In a June 2014 report, the MBK Task Force developed a set of recommendations
that identify roles for government, business, nonprofit, philanthropic, faith-based, and community
partners. The recommendations focused on ensuring that boys and young men of color are ready
for school, achieve in school, complete postsecondary education or training, and successfully
enter the workforce. In addition, the report discusses the need for partnerships between the public
and private sector, such as recruiting mentors for youth.95 In its April 2016 report, the MBK Task
Force described selected federal, state, and local initiatives aimed at improving the educational
and employment outcomes for young men of color under the auspices of the MBK initiative. The
report noted that the private sector has committed more than $600 million in grants and in-kind
resources (and $1 billion in low-interest financing) to support activities that are aligned with the
priorities outlined in the initiative. 96 It continues as an initiative of the Obama Foundation. 97
92 Corporation for National and Community Service, White House Council for Community Solutions, Final Report:
Community Solutions for Opportunity Youth.
93
White House Council for Community Solutions, Final Report: Community Solutions for Opportunity Youth.
94 U.S. Department of Justice, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Meetings.”
95 White House, Fact Sheet & Report: Opportunity for All: My Brother’s Keeper Blueprint for Action, May 30, 2014.
White House, My Brother’s Keeper T ask Force, My Brother’s Keeper 2016 Progress Report, Two Years of
Expanding Opportunity and Creating Pathways to Success, April 2016.
96
97 Obama Foundation, “End of Year Reflection” https://www.obama.org/mbka/mbk-stories/end-of-year-reflection/.
Congressional Research Service
30
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3)
President Obama’s FY2013 budget request proposed using existing funds to support Performance
Partnership Pilots (P3) for disconnected youth. Specifically, the proposal sought to identify,
through a demonstration, strategies for providing services to assist youth ages 14 to 24 with
specified barriers (homeless, in foster care, involved in the juvenile justice system, or neither
employed nor enrolled in an educational institution) in achieving educational, employment, and
other goals. Such strategies would be carried out at the local, regional, or state level and would
involve two or more federal programs with related goals. 98 This proposal was not funded in
FY2013; however, the appropriations laws for FY2014 through FY2020 provided authority for
the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services (along with the
Corporation for National and Community Service and related agencies) to carry out up to 10
Performance Partnership Pilot projects. In addition, the appropriation laws for FY2020 specified
that selected appropriations for DOJ can be used to support the P3 initiative. 99
Generally, these federal agencies may use discretionary funding to carry out pilots that involve
federal education, training, employment, social services, juvenile justice, and housing assistance
programs targeted to disconnected youth, or are designed to prevent youth from disconnecting
from school or work. The law enables the agencies to enter into agreements with states, regions,
localities, or tribal communities that give them flexibility in using discretionary funds across
these programs. The pilots must identify the populations to be served, outcomes to be achieved,
and methodology for measuring outcomes, among other items. Federal agencies must ensure that
their participation does not result in restricting eligibility of any individual for any of the services
funded by the agency or will not otherwise adversely affect vulnerable populations that receive
such services under the pilot. The law also specifies that federal agencies that use discretionary
funds may seek to waive certain program requirements necessary for achieving the outcomes of
the pilots, provided that the agencies deliver written notice to Congress (and subject to limitations
on waivers related to nondiscrimination, wage and labor standards, or allocation of funds to states
or other jurisdictions). In addition, appropriation laws for FY2016 through FY2020 have
specified that the pilot communities must include those that have experienced civil unrest.
The Department of Education, on behalf of the agencies involved, has invited eligible entities to
apply for funding. 100 Eligible applicants could include partnerships that involve public and private
(nonprofit, business, industry, and labor) organizations, with a lead entity being a state, local, or
tribal government entity head.
Child Welfare Partnerships
HHS’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the agency that carries out most federal
child welfare programs, has partnered with other agencies to focus on the mental health and
educational needs of children in foster care. ACF is coordinating with the Centers on Medicare
98 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2013 Appendix, Budget of the U.S.
Government, p. 14, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/appendix.pdf.
T he budget also proposed Performance Partnership Pilots to help with revitalizing distr essed neighborhoods. See also
consultation paper by multiple federal agencies, Changing the Odds for Disconnected Youth: Initial Design
Consideration for Performance Partnership Pilots, April 28, 2014.
99
T he P3 initiative extends through September 30, 2024 , under the FY2020 appropriation laws for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development, and selected other agencies (P.L.
116-94); and the Department of Justice and selected other agencies (P.L. 116-93).
100 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, T echnical and Adult Education, “ Applications for Selection as a
Performance Partnership Pilot; Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth, ” 84 Federal Register 412-420,
January 28, 2019.
Congressional Research Service
31
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
and Medicaid (CMS) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), both agencies at HHS, to “support effective management” of prescription
medication for children in foster care, and they have called on their state counterparts to do the
same. Further, CMS, ACF, and SAMHSA convened state directors of child welfare, Medicaid,
and mental health agencies in August 2012 to address use of psychotropic medications for
children in foster care as well as the mental health needs of children who have experienced
maltreatment. In a letter to states about their joint work, the three federal agencies said that “State
Medicaid/CHIP agencies and mental health authorities play a significant role in providing
continuous access to and receipt of quality mental health services for children in out-of-home
care. Therefore it is essential that State child welfare, Medicaid, and mental health authorities
collaborate in any efforts to improve health, including medication use and prescription
monitoring structures in particular.”101
Separately, HHS has partnered with the Department of Education (ED) in an effort to improve the
educational outcomes of youth in foster care. HHS and ED convened a meeting in 2011 with state
child welfare, education, and juvenile court officials for every state, Washington, DC, and Puerto
Rico. The purpose of the meeting was to encourage collaboration across these different systems
as a way to ensure that youth are continuously enrolled in school and that schools are meeting the
needs of these youth. The jurisdictions worked on action plans to implement strategies for
collaboration, and they continue to implement these plans. Since this time, the two departments
have published guidance on educational support for children in foster care. In June 2014, ED and
HHS issued a joint letter to education authorities about the provisions in the Fostering
Connections Act (P.L. 110-351, enacted in 2008) that seek to increase educational stability for
children in foster care. In June 2016, the two departments released guidance on the provisions in
the Every Student Succeeds Act (P.L. 114-95, enacted in 2015) for supporting children in foster
care. 102
Shared Youth Vision Initiative
In response to the recommendations made by the Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, the U.S.
Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Labor partnered in 2004
with the Social Security Administration to improve communication and collaboration across
programs that target at-risk youth groups under an initiative called the “Shared Youth Vision.”
The agencies convened an Interagency Work Group and conducted regional forums in 16 states to
develop and coordinate policies and research on the vulnerable youth population. Representatives
from federal and state agencies in workforce development, education, social services, and
juvenile justice participated in the forums. The purpose of these forums was to create and
implement plans for improving communication and collaboration between local organizations
that serve at-risk youth. DOL competitively awarded grants to these states (totaling $1.6 million)
for assisting them in developing strategic plans to link their systems that serve youth. For
example, Arizona created an initiative to bring together state and county agencies that can help
youth exiting foster care or the juvenile justice system in two counties in connecting to education
and employment services and supports. 103
101 George Sheldon, Acting Assistant Secretary, ACF; Donald Berwick, Administrator, CMS; an d Pamela Hyde,
Administrator, SAMHSA, to “State Director,” November 23, 2011.
102
For further information, see U.S. Department of Education, “Students in Foster Care .”
103 For additional information about the programs in each state, see U.S. Department of Labor, Common Sense,
Uncommon Commitment: A Progress Report on the Shared Youth Vision Partnership , January 2009.
Congressional Research Service
32
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Drug-Free Communities Support Program104
The Drug-Free Communities Support Program, which began in 1997, is administered by
SAMSHA and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (which has entered into
an agreement with OJJDP to manage the program on behalf of the agency). The program awards
grants to community coalitions through a competitive grant award process. The program is
intended to strengthen the capacity of the coalitions to reduce substance abuse among youth (and
adults) and to disseminate timely information on best practices for reducing substance abuse.
Conclusion
This report provided an overview of the vulnerable youth population and examined the federal
role in supporting these youth. Although a precise number of vulnerable youth cannot be
aggregated (and should not be, due to data constraints), these youth are generally concentrated
among seven groups: youth “aging out” of foster care, runaways and homeless youth, juvenile
justice-involved youth, immigrant youth and youth with limited English proficiency (LEP), youth
with physical and mental disabilities, youth with mental disorders, and youth receiving special
education. Each of these categories is comprised of youth with distinct challenges and
backgrounds; however, many of these youth share common experiences, such as unstable home
and neighborhood environments, coupled with challenges in school. Without protective factors in
place, vulnerable youth may have difficulty transitioning to adulthood. Detachment from the
labor market and school—or disconnectedness—is perhaps the single strongest indicator that the
transition has not been made adequately. Despite the negative forecast for the employment and
education prospects of vulnerable youth, some youth experience positive outcomes in adulthood.
Youth who develop strong cognitive, emotional, and vocational skills, among other types of
competencies, have greater opportunities to reach their goals. Advocates for youth promote the
belief that all youth have assets and can make valuable contributions to their c ommunities despite
their challenges.
The federal government has not developed a single overarching policy or program to assist
vulnerable youth, like the Older Americans Act program for the elderly. Since the 1960s, a
number of programs, many operating in isolation from others, have worked to address the specific
needs (i.e., vocational, educational, social services, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention,
and health) of these youth. More recently, policymakers have taken steps toward a more
comprehensive federal response to the population. The YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2006 moved
the YouthBuild program from HUD to DOL because the program is more aligned with DOL’s
mission of administering workforce and training programs. Also in 2006, the Tom Osborne Youth
Coordination Act was passed to improve coordination across federal agencies that administer
programs for vulnerable youth and to assist federal agencies with evaluating these programs. In
February 2008, President Bush signed an executive order establishing a federal Interagency
Working Group on Youth Programs. Other coordinating efforts, such as the Coordinating Council
on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Shared Youth Vision initiative, may have the
resources and leadership to create a more unified federal youth policy, albeit the Council has a
primary focus on juvenile justice-involved youth.
In addition to the Federal Youth Coordination Act, the few youth-targeted acts over the over the
past several years have not passed or have passed without full implementation. The unfunded
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 sought to increase coordination among federal
104 For additional information, see Executive Office of the President, “Office of National Drug Control Policy ,”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/.
Congressional Research Service
33
Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
children and youth agencies by creating a Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families that
would have streamlined federal youth programs and advised the President on youth issues.
Federal legislation targeted at vulnerable young people has not been passed or implemented in
recent years; however, Executive Order 13459 and ongoing collaborations (e.g., the Coordinating
Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) are beginning to address the needs of
this population to some degree.
Congressional Research Service
34
Appendix. Federal Youth Programs
Table A-1. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006-FY2020
Appropriations
(including funding under
the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act
[ARRA] and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security
[CARES] Act)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
Job Training and Workforce Development
Job Corps
Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act
29 U.S.C. §3191 et seq.
Youth Activities
CRS-35
Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act
29 U.S.C. §3161 et seq.
To assist eligible youth
who need and can
benefit from an
intensive workforce
development program,
operated in a group
setting in residential
and nonresidential
centers, to become
more responsible,
employable, and
productive citizens.
FY2006: $1.6 billion
FY2007: $1.6 billion
FY2008: $1.6 billion
FY2009: $1.7 billion (plus
$250,000 under ARRA)
FY2010: $1.7 billion
FY2011: $1.7 billion
FY2012: $1.7 billion
FY2013: $1.6 billion
FY2014: $1.7 billion
FY2015: $1.7 billion
FY2016: $1.7 billion
FY2017: $1.7 billion
FY2018: $1.7 billion
FY2019: $1.7 billion
FY2020: $1.7 billion
U.S. Department
of Labor
Youth ages 16 through 24 who
are low-income and meet one
or more of the following criteria:
(1) basic skills deficient; (2)
homeless, a runaway, a foster
child, or aged out of foster care;
(3) a parent; (4) an individual
who requires additional
education, career and technical
education or training, or
workforce preparation skills to
be able to obtain and retain
employment that leads to
economic self-sufficiency; or (5)
a victim of a severe form of
trafficking in persons.
To provide services to
eligible youth seeking
assistance in achieving
academic and
employment success,
including the provision
of mentoring, support
FY2006: $941 million
FY2007: $941 million
FY2008: $924 million
FY2009: $924 million (plus
$1.2 billion under ARRA)
FY2010: $924 million
FY2011: $824 million
FY2012: $824 million
U.S. Department
of Labor
In-school and out-of-school
youth are eligible. In-school
youth are those ages 14 to 21,
low-income, and either deficient
in basic literacy skills, homeless,
a runaway, a foster child or aged
out of foster care, pregnant, a
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006-FY2020
Appropriations
(including funding under
the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act
[ARRA] and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security
[CARES] Act)
services, training, and
incentives.
FY2013: $781 million
FY2014: $820 million
FY2015: $832 million
FY2016: $873 million
FY2017: $873 million
FY2018: $903 million
FY2019: $903 million
FY2020: $913 million
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
parent, an offender, an English
language learner, or an individual
who requires additional
assistance to complete an
educational program, or to
secure and hold employment.
Out-of-school youth are those
who meet certain criteria such
as being a high school dropout
or being low-income.
YouthBuild
Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act
29 U.S.C. §3226
To enable
disadvantaged youth to
obtain the education
and employment skills
while expanding the
supply of permanent
affordable housing for
homeless individuals
and low-income
families.
FY2006: $62 million
FY2007: $62 million
FY2008: $59 million
FY2009: $70 million (plus
$50 million under ARRA)
FY2010: $103 million
FY2011: $80 million
FY2012: $80 million
FY2013: $76 million
FY2014: $78 million
FY2015: $80 million
FY2016: $85 million
FY2017: $85 million
FY2018: $90 million
FY2019: $90 million
FY2020: $95 million
U.S. Department
of Labor
Youth ages 16 through 24 who
are (1) members of low-income
families, in foster care, offenders,
disabled, the children of
incarcerated parents, or
migrants; and (2) are school
dropouts or were school
dropouts and subsequently
reenrolled in school.
Youth Conservation Corps
Youth Conservation
Corps Act of 1970, as
amended
To further the
development and
maintenance of the
natural resources by
No specific amount
appropriated or requested.
The Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior,
U.S. Department
of the Interior
(Bureau of Land
Management,
All youth 15 to 18 years of age
(targets economically
disadvantaged, at-risk).
16 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.
CRS-36
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006-FY2020
Appropriations
(including funding under
the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act
[ARRA] and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security
[CARES] Act)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
America’s youth, and
in so doing to prepare
them for the ultimate
responsibility of
maintaining and
managing these
resources for the
American people.
Environment, and Related
Agencies generally directs
the four agencies to allocate
no less than a particular
amount to Youth
Conservation Corps
activities (funding generally
ranges from $1.5 million to
$2 million per agency).
Fish and Wildlife
Agency, and the
National Park
Service) and U.S.
Department of
Agriculture
(Forest Service)
FY2006: $12.7 billion
FY2007: $12.8 billion
FY2008: $13.9 billion
FY2009: $14.5 billion (Plus
$10.0 billion under
ARRA)
FY2010: $14.5 billion
FY2011: $14.5 billion
FY2012: $14.5 billion
FY2013: $13.8 billion
FY2014: $14.4 billion
FY2015: $14.4 billion
FY2016: $14.9 billion
FY2017: $15.5 billion
FY2018: $15.8 billion
FY2019: $15.9 billion
FY2020: $16.3 billion
FY2006: $387 million
FY2007: $387 million
FY2008: $380 million
U.S. Department
of Education
Educationally disadvantaged
children and youth, in areas with
concentrations of children and
youth in low-income families.
U.S. Department
of Education
Migrant children and youth.
Education
Title I-A: Local Education
Agency Grants
Elementary and
Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as
amended
20 U.S.C. §6301 et. seq.
To improve the
educational
achievement of
educationally
disadvantaged children
and youth, and to
reduce achievement
gaps between such
pupils and their more
advantaged peers.
Title I-C: Migrant Education
Elementary and
Secondary Education
To support high quality
and comprehensive
educational programs
CRS-37
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Act of 1965, as
amended
Objective(s) of
Program
for migrant children
and youth.
20 U.S.C. §6391
Title I-D: Prevention and
Intervention Programs for
Children and Youth Who
Are Neglected, Delinquent,
or At Risk
Elementary and
Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as
amended
Title III: English Language
Acquisition
Elementary and
Secondary Education
CRS-38
20 U.S.C. §6421-6472
et seq.
To meet the special
educational needs of
children in institutions
and community day
school programs for
neglected and
delinquent children
and children in adult
correctional
institutions.
To ensure that limited
English proficient
children (LEP) and
youth, including
FY2006-FY2020
Appropriations
(including funding under
the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act
[ARRA] and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security
[CARES] Act)
FY2009: $395 million
FY2010: $395 million
FY2011: $394 million
FY2012: $393 million
FY2013: $373 million
FY2014: $375 million
FY2015: $375 million
FY2016: $375 million
FY2017: $375 million
FY2018: $375 million
FY2019: $375 million
FY2020: $375 million
FY2006: $50 million
FY2007: $50 million
FY2008: $49 million
FY2009: $50 million
FY2010: $50 million
FY2011: $50 million
FY2012: $50 million
FY2013: $48 million
FY2014: $48 million
FY2015: $48 million
FY2016: $48 million
FY2017: $48 million
FY2018: $48 million
FY2019: $48 million
FY2020: $48 million
FY2006: $669 million
FY2007: $669 million
FY2008: $671 million
FY2009: $730 million
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department
of Education
Abused/neglected youth,
delinquent youth, and juvenile
offenders.
U.S. Department
of Education
Children and youth with limited
English proficiency.
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Act of 1965, as
amended
20 U.S.C. §6801 et seq.
Title IV-B: 21 st Century
Community Learning
Centers
Elementary and
Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as
amended
20 U.S.C. §8241 et seq.
Title IV: Promise
Neighborhoods Program
CRS-39
Elementary and
Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as
amended
Objective(s) of
Program
immigrant children and
youth, attain English
proficiency.
To create community
learning centers that
help students meet
state and local
educational standards,
provide supplementary
educational assistance,
and offer families
meaningful
opportunities for
active and meaningful
engagement in their
students’ education.
To improve the
academic and
developmental
outcomes for children,
youth, and their
FY2006-FY2020
Appropriations
(including funding under
the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act
[ARRA] and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security
[CARES] Act)
FY2010: $730 million
FY2011: $800 million
FY2012: $750 million
FY2013: $732 million
FY2014: $732 million
FY2015: $737 million
FY2016: $737 million
FY2017: $737 million
FY2018: $737 million
FY2019: $737 million
FY2020: $787 million
FY2006: $981 million
FY2007: $981 million
FY2008: $1.1 billion
FY2009: $1.1 billion
FY2010: $1.2 billion
FY2011: $1.2 billion
FY2012: $1.2 billion
FY2013: $1.1 billion
FY2014: $1.1 billion
FY2015: $1.2 billion
FY2016: $1.2 billion
FY2017: $1.2 billion
FY2018: $1.2 billion
FY2019: $1.2 billion
FY2020: $1.2 billion
FY2010: $10 billion
FY2011: $30 billion
FY2012: $60 billion
FY2013: $57 billion
FY2014: $57 billion
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department
of Education
Children and youth who attend
high-poverty and low-performing
schools.
U.S. Department
of Education
Children and youth in
neighborhoods with high rates of
poverty, childhood obesity,
academic failure, and
Program
Title IV: Full-Service
Community Schools
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
CRS-40
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
20 U.S.C. §7274
families living in the
most distressed
communities in the
United States. To
design and implement
a comprehensive,
effective continuum of
coordinated services
from birth through
college.
FY2015: $57 million
FY2016: $73 million
FY2017: $73 million
FY2018: $78 million
FY2019: $78 million
FY2020: $80 million
Elementary and
Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as
amended
To support full-service
community schools in
providing academic,
social, and health
services in school
settings to improve
coordination in
neighborhoods with
high rates of poverty,
childhood obesity,
academic failure, and
involvement of
community members
in the justice system.
FY2008: $5 billion
FY2009: $5 billion
FY2010: $10 billion
FY2011: $10 billion
FY2012: $11 billion
FY2013: $5 billion
FY2014: $11 billion
FY2015: $10 billion
FY2016: $10 million
FY2017: $10 million
FY2018: $18 million
FY2019: $18 million
FY2020: $25 million
U.S. Department
of Education
Children and youth in
neighborhoods with high rates of
poverty, childhood obesity,
academic failure, and
involvement of community
members in the justice system.
To provide activities
for and services to
ensure that homeless
children enroll in,
FY2006: $62 million (plus $5
million for hurricane
supplemental)
FY2007: $62 million
FY2008: $64 million
(plus $15 million for disaster
U.S. Department
of Education
Homeless children and youth in
elementary and secondary
schools, homeless preschool
children, and the parents of
homeless children.
20 U.S.C. §7275
Education for Homeless
Children and Youths
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006-FY2020
Appropriations
(including funding under
the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act
[ARRA] and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security
[CARES] Act)
McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance
Act of 1987, as
amended
involvement of community
members in the justice system.
Program
Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, Part B Grant
to States
CRS-41
FY2006-FY2020
Appropriations
(including funding under
the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act
[ARRA] and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security
[CARES] Act)
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
42 U.S.C. §§1143111435
attend, and achieve
success in school.
supplemental)
FY2009: $65 million (plus
$70 million under
ARRA)
FY2010: $65 million
FY2011: $65 million
FY2012: $65 million
FY2013: $62 million
FY2014: $65 million
FY2015: $65 million
FY2016: $70 million
FY2017: $77 million
FY2018: $85 million
FY2019: $94 million
FY2020: $102 million
Education for All
Handicapped Children
Act of 1975, as
amended (currently
known as the
Individuals with
Disabilities Education
Act)
20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
To provide a free
appropriate education
to all children with
disabilities.
FY2006: $10.6 billion
FY2007: $10.8 billion
FY2008: $11.0 billion
FY2009: $11.5 billion
(plus $11.3 billion under
ARRA)
FY2010: $11.5 billion
FY2011: $11.5 billion
FY2012: $11.6 billion
FY2013: $11.0 billion
FY2014: $11.5 billion
FY2015: $11.5 billion
FY2016: $11.9 billion
FY2017: $12.0 billion
FY2018: $12.3 billion
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
U.S. Department
of Education
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
School-aged children and youth
with disabilities, up to age 21
(pursuant to state law).
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006-FY2020
Appropriations
(including funding under
the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act
[ARRA] and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security
[CARES] Act)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
FY2019: $12.4 billion
FY2020: $12.8 billion
Special Programs for
Students Whose Families
Are Engaged in Migrant and
Seasonal Farmwork
Higher Education Act,
as amended
20 U.S.C. §1070d-2
To provide academic
and support services
to help eligible migrant
youth obtain their high
school equivalency
certificate and move
on to employment or
enrollment in higher
education and to help
eligible migrant youth
enroll in and succeed
in higher education.
FY2006: $34 million
FY2007: $34 million
FY2008: $33 million
FY2009: $34 million
FY2010: $37 million
FY2011: $37 million
FY2012: $37 million
FY2013: $35 million
FY2014: $35 million
FY2015: $38 million
FY2016: $45 million
FY2017: $45 million
FY2018: $45 million
FY2019: $45 million
FY2020: $46 million
U.S. Department
of Education
Migrant youth or youth engaged
in seasonal farmwork ages 16
and older.
Upward Bound (includes
Regular Upward Bound and
Upward Bound Math and
Science and excludes
Veterans Upward Bound,
which serves veterans)
(TRIO program)
Higher Education Act
of 1965, as amended
To increase the
academic performance
of eligible enrollees so
that such persons may
complete secondary
school and pursue
postsecondary
educational programs.
FY2006: $299 million
FY2007: $301 million
FY2008: $290 million
FY2009: $292 million
FY2010: $292 million
FY2011: $283 million
FY2012: $312 million
FY2013: $291 million
FY2014: $308 million
FY2015: $306 million
FY2016: $314 million
FY2017: $370 million
FY2018: $423 million
U.S. Department
of Education
Low-income individuals and
potential first generation college
students between ages 13 and
19, and have completed the 8 th
grade but have not entered the
12 th grade (with exceptions).
CRS-42
20 U.S.C. §1070a-13
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006-FY2020
Appropriations
(including funding under
the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act
[ARRA] and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security
[CARES] Act)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
FY2019: $408 million
FY2020: $419 million
Educational Opportunity
Centers (TRIO program)
Higher Education Act
of 1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §1070a-16
Ronald E. McNair
Postbaccalaurete
Achievement (TRIO
program)
CRS-43
Higher Education Act
of 1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §1070a-15
To provide
information to
prospective
postsecondary
students regarding
available financial aid
and academic
assistance, and help
them apply for
admission and financial
aid.
To provide grants to
institutions of higher
education to prepare
participants for
doctoral studies
through involvement in
research and other
scholarly activities.
FY2006: $48 million
FY2007: $47 million
FY2008: $47 million
FY2009: $47 million
FY2010: $47 million
FY2011: $48 million
FY2012: $46 million
FY2013: $44 million
FY2014: $47 million
FY2015: $47 million
FY2016: $56 million
FY2017: $51 million
FY2018: $52 million
FY2019: $54 million
FY2020: $56 million
FY2006: $42 million
FY2007: $45 million
FY2008: $45 million
FY2009: $47 million
FY2010: $48 million
FY2011: $46 million
FY2012: $37 million
FY2013: $34 million
FY2014: $46 million
FY2015: $33 million
FY2016: $29 million
FY2017: $46 million
FY2018: $48 million
U.S. Department
of Education
At least two-thirds of
participants in any project must
be low-income students who
would be first-generation college
goers. They must also be at least
19 years old.
U.S. Department
of Education
Low-income college students or
underrepresented students
enrolled in an institution of
higher education.
Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
Student Support Services
(TRIO program)
Higher Education Act
of 1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §1070a-14
To improve college
students’ retention and
graduation rates, and
improve the transfer
rates of students from
two-year to four-year
colleges.
Talent Search (TRIO
program)
Higher Education Act
of 1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §1070a-12
To identify
disadvantaged youth
with potential for
postsecondary
education; to
encourage them in
continuing in and
graduating from
secondary school and
in enrolling in
programs of
postsecondary
education; to publicize
the availability of
CRS-44
FY2006-FY2020
Appropriations
(including funding under
the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act
[ARRA] and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security
[CARES] Act)
FY2019: $59 million
FY2020: $42 million
FY2006: $271 million
FY2007: $272 million
FY2008: $284 million
FY2009: $302 million
FY2010: $302 million
FY2011: $291 million
FY2012: $290 million
FY2013: $282 million
FY2014: $282 million
FY2015: $297 million
FY2016: $328 million
FY2017: $304 million
FY2018: $304 million
FY2019: $335 million
FY2020: $374 million
FY2006: $150 million
FY2007: $143 million
FY2008: $143 million
FY2009: $142 million
FY2010: $142 million
FY2011: $139 million
FY2012: $136 million
FY2013: $128 million
FY2014: $135 million
FY2015: $135 million
FY2016: $150 million
FY2017: $152 million
FY2018: $158 million
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
U.S. Department
of Education
At least two-thirds of
participants in any project must
be either disabled individuals or
low-income, first-generation
college goers. The remaining
participants must be lowincome, or first-generation
college goers, or disabled. Not
less than one-third of the
disabled participants must be
low-income as well.
U.S. Department
of Education
Project participants must be
between 11 and 27 years old
(exceptions allowed), and twothirds must be low-income
individuals who are also
potential first-generation college
students.
Program
Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs
(GEAR-UP)
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006-FY2020
Appropriations
(including funding under
the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act
[ARRA] and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security
[CARES] Act)
Agency
with
Jurisdiction
Target At-Risk Youth
Population
student financial aid;
and to increase the
number of secondary
and postsecondary
school dropouts who
reenter an educational
program.
FY2019: $180 million
FY2020: $170 million
Higher Education Act
of 1965, as amended
20 U.S.C. §1070a-211070a-28
To provide financial
assistance to lowincome individuals,
including students with
disabilities, to attend
an institution of higher
education and support
eligible entities in
providing counseling,
mentoring, academic
support, outreach, and
supportive services to
students at risk of
dropping out of
school.
FY2006: $303 million
FY2007: $303 million
FY2008: $303 million
FY2009: $313 million
FY2010: $323 million
FY2011: $303 million
FY2012: $302 million
FY2013: $286 million
FY2014: $302 million
FY2015: $302 million
FY2016: $323 million
FY2017: $340 million
FY2018: $350 million
FY2019: $360 million
FY2020: $365 million
U.S. Department
of Education
Low-income students and
students in high-poverty schools.
Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974, as
amended
To increase the
capacity of state and
local governments to
support the
development of more
effective education,
FY2006: $80 million
FY2007: $79 million
FY2008: $74 million
FY2009: $75 million
FY2010: $75 million
FY2011: $62 million
U.S.
Department of
Justice
Delinquent youth, juvenile
offenders, and at-risk youth.
Juvenile Justice
State Formula Grants
42 U.S.C. §5631-33
CRS-45
Program
Title V Incentive Grants for
Local Delinquency
Prevention Program
Authorizing
Legislation
and U.S. Code
Citation
Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974, as
amended
42 U.S.C. §4781-85
CRS-46
Objective(s) of
Program
FY2006-FY2020
Appropriations
(including funding under
the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act
[ARRA] and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security
[CARES] Act)
training, research, and
other programs in the
area of juvenile
delinquency and
programs to improve
the juvenile justice
system (e.g.,
community-based
services for the
prevention and control
of juvenile delinquency,
group homes, and
halfway houses).
FY2012: $40 million
FY2013: $41 million
FY2014: $56 million
FY2015: $55 million
FY2016: $58 million
FY2017: $55 million
FY2018: $60 million
FY2019: $60 million
FY2020: $63 million
To fund delinquency
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.