Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies

Vulnerable Youth:
Background and Policies
Updated September 3, 2008
Adrienne L. Fernandes
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Summary
The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in
their communities. Most of those of school age live with parents who provide for
their well-being, and they attend schools that prepare them for advanced education
or vocational training and, ultimately, self-sufficiency. Many youth also receive
assistance from their families during the transition to adulthood. During this period,
young adults cycle between attending school, living independently, and staying with
their families. On average, parents give their children an estimated $38,000, or about
$2,200 a year, while they are between the ages of 18 and 34 to supplement wages,
pay for college tuition, and assist with down payments on a house, among other types
of financial help. Even with this assistance, the current move from adolescence to
adulthood has become longer and increasingly complex.
For vulnerable (or “at-risk”) youth populations, the transition to adulthood is
further complicated by a number of challenges, including family conflict or
abandonment and obstacles to securing employment that provides adequate wages
and health insurance. These youth may be prone to outcomes that have negative
consequences for their future development as responsible, self-sufficient adults. Risk
outcomes include teenage parenthood; homelessness; drug abuse; delinquency;
physical and sexual abuse; and school dropout. Detachment from the labor market
and school — or disconnectedness — may be the single strongest indicator that the
transition to adulthood has not been made successfully. Approximately 1.8 million
noninstitutionalized civilian youth are not working or in school.
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 20^th century and
expanded in the years following the 1964 announcement of the War on Poverty.
These programs are concentrated in six areas: workforce development, education,
juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and
national and community service. They are intended to provide vulnerable youth with
opportunities to develop skills to assist them in adulthood.
Despite the range of federal services and activities to assist disadvantaged youth,
many of these programs have not developed into a coherent system of support. This
is due in part to the administration of programs within several agencies and the lack
of mechanisms to coordinate their activities. In response to concerns about the
complex federal structure developed to assist vulnerable youth, Congress passed the
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365) in 2006. This
legislation, like predecessor legislation that was never fully implemented — the
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501) — establishes a federal
council to improve coordination of federal programs serving youth. Congress has
also considered other legislation (the Younger Americans Act of 2000 and the Youth
Community Development Block Grant of 1995) to improve the delivery of services
to vulnerable youth and provide opportunities to these youth through policies with
a “positive youth development” focus. This report will be updated periodically.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Overview ........................................................2
Age of Youth and the Transition to Adulthood.......................2
Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population..........................4
Groups of Vulnerable Youth.................................5
Framework for Risk................................................8
Disconnectedness .............................................10
Positive Youth Development: The Importance of Resiliency
and Opportunity..........................................12
What is Youth Development?...............................12
The Youth Development Movement..........................14
Evolution of the Federal Role in Assisting Vulnerable Youth..............15
1912-1950s: Children’s Bureau Programs and Workforce Programs.....16
1960s-1970s: War on Poverty Initiatives and Expansion of Programs ...18
White House Conferences on Children and Youth:
1960s and 1970s......................................20
Family and Youth Services Bureau...........................20
1980s-Present: Current Youth Programs..........................21
Job Training and Workforce Development.....................22
Education ...............................................23
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention...................26
Social Services...........................................27
Public Health............................................29
National and Community Service............................31
Federal Efforts to Improve Coordination Among Programs for
Vulnerable Youth.............................................33
Overview ...................................................33
Concerns about Coordination of Youth Programs....................34
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365).........36
Executive Order 13459........................................38
Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L 101-501)..........39
Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families...............39
Grants for States and Community Programs....................40
Youth Build Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281)..........................40
Federal Initiatives to Improve Coordination........................40
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention................................40
Shared Youth Vision Initiative..............................41
Partnerships for Youth Transition............................41
Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative................42
Drug-Free Communities Support Program.....................42
Coordination Around Specific Youth Populations...............42

Policies to Promote Positive Youth Development........................43
Overview ...................................................43
Youth Development Community Block Grant of 1995
(H.R. 2807/S. 673)........................................43
Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005)..................44
Helping America’s Youth......................................45
Alliance for Youth: America’s Promise...........................46
Positive Youth Development State and Local Collaboration
Demonstration Projects ....................................47
Conclusion ......................................................47
Appendix: Federal Youth Programs and Relevant CRS Reports
and Experts..................................................49
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vulnerable Youth Groups and Overlap Among Groups............7
Figure 2. Risk Framework for Vulnerable Youth.........................8
List of Tables
Table 1. Disconnected Civilian, Noninstitutional Youth
by Race and Hispanic Origin, Ages 16 Through 24 (2007).............11
Table 2. Duties of the Federal Youth Council, by Goal...................37
Table A-1. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth......................49
Table A-2. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information........66

Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies
Introduction
Congress has long been concerned about the well-being of youth. The nation’s
future depends on young people today to leave school prepared for college or the
workplace and to begin to make positive contributions to society. Some youth,
however, face barriers to becoming contributing taxpayers, workers, and participants
in civic life. These youth have characteristics or experiences that put them at risk of
developing problem behaviors and outcomes that have the potential to harm their
community, themselves, or both. Poor outcomes often develop in home and
neighborhood environments that do not provide youth with adequate economic and
emotional supports. Groups of vulnerable (or “at-risk”) youth include emancipating
foster youth, runaway and homeless youth, and youth involved in the juvenile justice
system, among others. Like all youth, vulnerable youth face a difficult transition to
adulthood; however, their transition is further complicated by a number of
challenges, including family conflict and obstacles to securing employment that
provides adequate wages, health insurance, and potential for upward mobility.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or
legislative vehicle that addresses the challenges at-risk youth experience in
adolescence or while making the transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy
today has evolved from multiple programs established in the early 20^th century and
expanded through Great Society initiatives. These programs, concentrated in six
areas — workforce development, education, juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention, social services, public health, and national and community service —
provide vulnerable youth with opportunities to develop skills that will assist them in
adulthood.
Despite the range of federal services and activities for vulnerable youth, many
of the programs have not been developed into a coordinated system of support. In
response, federal policymakers have periodically undertaken efforts to develop a
comprehensive federal policy around youth. Congress has passed legislation (the
Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act, P.L. 109-365) that authorizes the
federal government to establish a youth council to improve coordination of federal
programs serving youth. Congress has also considered other legislation in recent
years (the Younger Americans Act of 2000 and the Youth Community Development
Block Grant of 1995) to improve the delivery of services to vulnerable youth and
provide opportunities to these youth through policies with a “positive youth
development” focus.
This report first provides an overview of the youth population and the increasing
complexity of transitioning to adulthood for all adolescents. It also provides a
separate discussion of the concept of “disconnectedness,” as well as the protective

factors youth can develop during childhood and adolescence that can mitigate poor
outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal youth policy,
focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of current federal
programs targeted at vulnerable youth. (Appendix Table A-1, toward the end of the
report, enumerates the objectives and funding levels of 51 such programs. Note that
the table does not enumerate all programs that target, even in small part, vulnerable
or disconnected youth.) The report then discusses the challenges of coordinating
federal programs for youth, as well as federal legislation and initiatives that promote
coordination among federal agencies and support programs with a positive youth
development focus.
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 60¹
million youth (or 21% of the population) in the United States. Although traditional
definitions of youth include adolescents ages 12 to 18, cultural and economic shifts
have protracted the period of adolescence. Children as young as 10 are included in
this range because puberty begins at this age for some youth, and experiences in early²
adolescence often shape enduring patterns of behavior. Older youth, up to age 24,
are in the process of transitioning to adulthood. Many young people in their mid-20s
attend school or begin to work, and some live with their parents or other relatives.
The current move from adolescence to adulthood has become longer and more
complex.³ Youth of the 1950s were more likely to follow an orderly path to
adulthood. They generally completed their education and/or secured employment
(for males), including military service, which was followed by marriage and
parenthood in their early 20s. (This was not true for every young person; for
example, African Americans and immigrants in certain parts of the country faced
barriers to employment.) Unlike their postwar counterparts who had access to
plentiful jobs in the industrial sector, youth today must compete in a global,
information-driven economy. Many more youth now receive vocational training or
enroll in colleges and universities after leaving high school. Changed expectations⁴
for women mean they attend college in greater numbers than men. During the

¹ U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Age Groups and Sex: 2000, available at
[http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US & -q r _ n a me = D
EC_2000_SF1_U_QT P1&-d s_name =DEC_2000_SF1_U].
² Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, Great
Transitions: Preparing Adolescents for a New Century (October 1995), pp. 20-21.
³ Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood
for Vulnerable Populations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005, pp. 4-6.
(Hereinafter Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net.)
⁴ Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz, and Ilyana Kuziemko, “The Homecoming of American
(continued...)

period of transition, young adults cycle between attending school, living
independently, and staying with their parents. They also use this time to explore
career options and relationships with potential long-term partners. The median age
of first marriage has risen each decade since the 1950s, with 27 now being the
median age for men and 25 the median age for women.⁵ These choices enable youth
to delay becoming financially independent, which can create a financial burden for
their families. On average, parents give their children an estimated $38,000 — or
about $2,200 a year — between the ages of 18 and 34 to supplement wages, pay for
college tuition, and help with housing costs, among other types of financial
assistance.⁶ Parents also provide support by allowing their adult children to live with
them or providing child care for their grandchildren. Approximately 23% of adults
ages 23 to 27 lived with one or both of their parents in 2003.⁷
Programs that assist youth making the transition to adulthood also recognize that
adolescence is no longer a finite period ending at age 18. Since FY2003, the Chafee
Foster Care Education and Training Vouchers program has provided vouchers worth
up to $5,000 annually per youth who is “aging out” of foster care or was adopted
from foster care after 16 years of age.⁸ The vouchers are available for the cost of
attendance at an institution of higher education, as defined by the Higher Education
Act of 1965. Youth receiving a voucher at age 21 may continue to participate in the
voucher program until age 23.
Further, the changing concept of the age of adulthood is gaining currency among
organizations and foundations that support and study youth development projects.
The Youth Transition Funders Group is a network of grant makers whose mission is
to help all adolescents make the successful transition to adulthood by age 25.
Similarly, the Network on Transitions to Adulthood, a consortium of approximately
20 researchers from around the country, was created in 2000 to study the changing
nature of early adulthood. The network recently published two books on this

⁴ (...continued)
College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap,” Journal of Economic
Perspectives, vol. 20, no. 4, Fall 2006.
⁵ U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Median Age for First Marriage for Men and
Median Age of First Marriage for Women: 2000-2003, available at [http://www.census.gov/
population/socdemo/hh-fam/ ms 2.pdf].
⁶ Bob Schoeni and Karen Ross, “Material Assistance Received from Families During the
Transition to Adulthood.” In Richard A. Settersten, Jr., Frank F. Furstenburg, Jr., and Rubén
Rumbaut, eds., On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy, pp. 404-

405. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

⁷ Brett Brown, Kristin Moore, and Sharon Bzostek, A Portrait of Well-Being in Early
Adulthood: A Report to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Child Trends, October

2007, available at [http://www.hewlett.org/NR/rdonlyres/B0DB0AF1-02A4-455A-849A-

AD582B767AF3/0/FINALCOMPLETEPDF.pdf]. The data are based on the authors’
analysis of data from the Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau.
⁸ See CRS Report RS22501, Child Welfare: The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
(CFCIP), by Adrienne Fernandes.

population which highlight the difficulties for youth today in becoming self-
sufficient, independent adults even into their mid-20s.⁹
Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population
The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in
their communities. Those of primary and secondary school age live with parents
who provide for their emotional and economic well-being and they attend schools
that prepare them for continuing education or the workforce, and ultimately, self-
sufficiency . Approximately one-quarter of today’s youth will graduate from a four-
year college or university.¹⁰ Nonetheless, some young people do not grow up in a
secure environment or with parents that provide a comprehensive system of support.
These youth often live in impoverished neighborhoods and come to school
unprepared to learn. 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, and
some believe that these labels should not be used because of their potentially
stigmatizing effects.¹¹ The terms have been used to denote individuals who
experience emotional and adjustment problems, are at risk of dropping out, or lack
the skills to succeed after graduation.¹² They have also been used to suggest that
youth grow up in unstable family or community environments.¹³ 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.¹⁴ “At risk” does not necessarily mean a youth has
already experienced negative outcomes but it suggests that negative outcomes are
more likely. Youth may also experience different levels of risk. On a risk
continuum, they might have remote risk (less positive family, school, and social
interaction and some stressors) to imminent risk (high-risk behaviors and many

⁹ 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. See also Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net.
¹⁰ Based on calculation of the percentage of adults ages 25 to 34 who have received a
bachelor’s degree. Current Population Survey, Educational Attainment of Employed
Civilians 18 to 64, by Industry, Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 2007, available at
[ h t t p : / / www.census.go v/ popul at i on/ www/ socdemo/ educat i on/ cps2007.ht ml ] .
¹¹ Kristin Anderson Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At Risk,’” Child Trends Research-to-
Results Brief, Publication #2006-12, October 2006. (Hereinafter Kristin Moore, “Defining
the Term ‘At-Risk.’”)
¹² J. Jeffries McWhirter et al., At-Risk Youth: A Comprehensive Response. California:
Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2004, p. 6. (Hereinafter J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth.)
¹³ Kristin Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At-Risk.’”
¹⁴ Martha R. Burt, Gary Resnick, and Nancy Matheson, Comprehensive Service Integration
Programs for At-Risk Youth, The Urban Institute, 1992, pp. 13-22.

stressors).¹⁵ Vulnerable 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.¹⁶ These groups include, but are not limited to the following:
^!youth emancipating from foster care;
^!runaway and homeless youth;
^!youth involved in the juvenile justice system;
^! immigrant youth and youth with limited English proficiency (LEP);
^!youth with physical and mental disabilities;
^!youth with mental disorders; and
^!youth receiving special education.
Some researchers have also classified other groups of vulnerable youth based on 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 records, or other
challenges. Vulnerable youth who have depended on public systems of support often
lose needed assistance at the age of majority.¹⁷ Many will lose health insurance¹⁸
coverage, vocational services, and supplementary income. They will also face
challenges in accessing adult public systems, where professionals are not always
trained to address the special needs of young adults. Regardless of their specific risk
factor(s), groups of vulnerable youth share many of the same barriers to successfully
transitioning into their 20s.
Figure 1 (below) shows the approximate number or percentage of youth who
belong to each group and their basic characteristics. Even within these groups, the
population is highly diverse. For example, among youth with disabilities, individuals
experience asthma, visual or hearing impairments, emotional disturbances, congenital
heart disease, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, diabetes, cancer, and spina bifida. Youth in

¹⁵ J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 7-9.
¹⁶ See, for example, Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, and Michael Wald and
Tia Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country’s Most
Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Working Paper,
November 2003. On Your Own Without a Net focuses on the seven groups, 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.
¹⁷ Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, p. 10.
¹⁸ Ibid., pp. 10-12.

these seven groups also represent diverse socioeconomic and racial backgrounds.
However, youth of color and the poor tend to be overrepresented in vulnerable
populations. This is due, in part, to their exposure to poverty, and crime, racism, and
lack of access to systems of care, such as health care and vocational assistance.¹⁹
Youth may also be members of multiple vulnerable populations. For instance,
former foster youth are particularly at risk of becoming homeless. Each year about
20,000 youth “age out” of foster care, and of these youth, about two-fifths receive
independent living services.²⁰ Emancipated youth may have inadequate housing
supports.²¹ Even if states made available all federal funds under the Chafee Foster
Care Independence Program for housing, each emancipated youth would receive less
than $800 per year.²² 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.²³
Their economic vulnerability can place them at risk of losing their housing. Figure

1 shows the overlap that exists among some of the seven groups of youth. (Note:

Figure 1 does not include all possible vulnerable youth groups nor does it show all
possible overlap(s) among multiple groups. The number of youth across groups
should not be aggregated.)

¹⁹ J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 9, 13, and 14.
²⁰ Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring. “The Transition to Adulthood for Youth
“Aging Out” of the Foster Care System” in Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net,
pp. 27-32.
²¹ Ibid.
²² Section 497(b)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act requires that no more than 30% of federal
independent living funds administered through the Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program may be spent on housing for youth between the ages of 18 to 21. The act
authorizes $140 million each year for the program. The estimate of less than $800 for each
youth is based on the author’s calculations that as many as 60,000 youth ages 18, 19, and

20 are eligible to receive housing assistance totaling $47 million (or 30% of $140 million).

²³ Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care: Findings from the Northwest Foster
Care Alumni Study, Casey Family Programs, 2005, pp. 1-2, available at [http://www.casey.
org/Resources/Publications/NorthwestAlumniStudy.htm]. (Hereinafter Peter J. Pecora et al.,
Improving Foster Family Care.)

Figure 1. Vulnerable Youth Groups and Overlap Among Groups

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp
^Source:^C^r^{eated by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice (C}^R^S^).

Framework for Risk
Not all vulnerable youth experience negative outcomes. However, three broad
categories of factors influence whether youth face challenges in adolescence and as
they transition to adulthood.²⁴ These categories include antecedents of risk, markers
of risk, and problem behaviors. Figure 2 summarizes the three categories and the
risk outcomes vulnerable youth may experience.
Figure 2. Risk Framework for Vulnerable Youth

^Source:^Fig^u^r^e^{created by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^ear^ch^S^e^rvⁱ^ce^(C^R^S⁾^bas^e^{d on}^Mart^h^a^Bu^rt^{, Gary}
^Re^sni^c^k,^aⁿ^d^N^aⁿ^c^y^M^a^t^h^e^s^oⁿ^,^“Co^m^p^r^e^h^eⁿ^si^ve^Se^r^vⁱ^c^e^Iⁿ^t^e^gr^a^tⁱ^o^{n P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^fo^r^A^t^-Ri^s^{k Y}^o^ut^h:
^Fin^a^{l R}^e^{port,” T}^h^{e Urban}^In^s^titu^{te, 1992, Ex}^hⁱ^{bit 2.2.}
²⁴ This discussion is based on Martha R. Burt, Gary Resnick, and Nancy Matheson,
Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk Youth, The Urban Institute, 1992,
pp. 13-22.

Antecedents of risk are the social environmental conditions that influence
outcomes; these factors significantly predict the overall well-being of youth. Poverty,
community conditions, and family structure are three primary antecedents of risk.
Poverty is linked to a number of potential future problems among youth, including
low professional attainment, and meager future earnings. An analysis that utilized
data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and U.S. census tract
information for 1980 to 1990 estimated that adolescents ages 14 to 22 who grew up
in relatively high poverty metropolitan neighborhoods had a lesser likelihood as
adults of being employed.²⁵ Other macro-level forces — the location of employers
and the erosion of the manufacturing sector — can also limit the jobs available to
poor youth who live in urban areas.²⁶ Some analyses have found that youths’ place
of residence in proximity to jobs affects their labor market involvement independent
of other factors.²⁷ Jobs in the manufacturing sector have been replaced by the growth
of the service and high-technology sectors, jobs requiring technical and managerial
skills.²⁸ Youth who drop out of school or do not pursue postsecondary education
cannot easily compete for available jobs.
Markers of risk also suggest that youth will experience negative outcomes in
adolescence and beyond. Markers of risk are tangible indicators that can be
measured or documented in public records; low school performance and involvement
in the child welfare system are two such markers. Low academic performance, based
on scores from a basic cognitive skills test as part of the 1994 National Longitudinal
Education Survey, is associated with low employment rates. Among16-to-24 year
olds who scored below the 20^th percentile on the test, 74% of white youth, 47.7% of
black youth, and 57.4% of Hispanic youth were employed.²⁹ Youth involved in the
child welfare system, including out-of-home placement in the foster care system, are
at-risk because of their history of abuse or neglect. Over 111,000 children and youth
ages 10 to 17 (38.8% of all those in care) were in foster care and approximately 9%
of foster youth emancipated from care on the last day of FY2005.³⁰ Studies show that

²⁵ Steven R. Holloway and Stephen Mullherin, “The Effects of Adolescent Neighborhood
Poverty on Adult Employment,” Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 26, no. 4, 2004.
²⁶ Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young
Men. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 2006, pp. 19-21. (Hereafter Peter Edelman,
Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men.)
²⁷ See for example, Weinberg, Reagan, and Yankow, Do Neigborhoods Matter?; Katherine
M. O’Regan and John M. Quiley, “Where Youth Live: Economic Effects of Urban Space
on Employment Propsects,” Urban Studies, vol. 35, no.7, 1998 and Stephen Raphael, “Inter-
and Intra-Ethnic Comparisons of the Central City-Suburban Youth Employment
Differential,” Industrial & Labor Relationship Review, vol. 51, no. 3, April 1998.
²⁸ William Julius Wilson, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New
York: Vintage Books, 1996, pp. 25-29.
²⁹ Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young
Men, p. 21.
³⁰ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
AFCARS Report #13: Preliminary Estimates for FY2005, September 2006, at
[ ht t p: / / www.acf .hhs.gov/ pr ogr ams/ cb/ s t a t s _r esear c h/ af car s / t a r / r e por t 13.ht m] .

youth who have “aged out” of foster care fare poorly relative to their counterparts in
the general population on several outcome measures.³¹
Problem behaviors further define a youth’s level of risk for incurring serious
consequences during the transition to adulthood. Problem behaviors are activities that
have the potential to hurt youth, the community, or both. Youth with these behaviors
likely live under risk antecedent conditions and have displayed risk markers.
Behaviors include early sexual experimentation; truancy; use of tobacco, alcohol, or
other drugs; running away from home or foster care; and association with delinquent
peers. Problem behaviors, coupled with poor socioeconomic and social
environmental factors, can precipitate more long-term negative outcomes, described
in Figure 2 as risk outcomes. Risk outcomes include school dropout, low
employment prospects, teen pregnancy, and alcohol and substance abuse.
Disconnectedness
Youth advocates and researchers have begun to focus on vulnerable youth who³²
experience negative outcomes in employment and the workforce. Generally
characterized as “disconnected,” these youth are not working or attending school.
They are also not embedded in strong social networks of family, friends, and
communities that provide assistance in the form of employment connections, health
insurance coverage, tuition and other supports such as housing and financial
assistance. However, there is no uniform definition of this term.
On the basis of the varying definitions of disconnectedness, low educational
attainment and detachment from the labor market appear to be signature
characteristics of the population. An analysis by the Congressional Research Service
of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) data used a definition
of disconnectedness to include noninstitutionalized youth ages 16 through 24 who
did not work anytime during a previous year due primarily to a reason other than
school and were presently (usually March or April of the current year) not working
or in school. The definition excludes youth who are married to a connected partner
and are parenting, on the assumption that these young people work in the home and
rely on financial and social support from their spouses. Thus, young people who are
married without children (to a connected or disconnected partner) or are cohabiting
with or without children meet the definition of being disconnected. According to this
definition, 1.8 million youth — or 4.9 percent of the general youth population ages³³
through 24 — were disconnected in 2007. Table 1 shows that of the
noninstitutionalized male population, 3.0% of whites, 9.0% of blacks, and 3.2% of

³¹ Peter J. Pecora et al., Improving Foster Family Care.
³² See, for example, Campaign for Youth, “Memo on Reconnecting our Youth From a
Coalition of Voices,” January 2005, available at [http://www.clasp.org/CampaignFor
Youth/].
³³ This analysis was conducted with the assistance of Thomas Gabe, CRS Specialist in
Social Legislation.

Hispanics were disconnected.³⁴ Although black and white women had nearly the
same rate of disconnection as their male counterparts (9.5% and 4.2%, respectively),
Hispanic females were almost twice as likely than their male counterparts to
experience disconnection.
Table 1. Disconnected Civilian, Noninstitutional Youth by Race
and Hispanic Origin, Ages 16 Through 24 (2007)
^To^ta^l^Nu^m^b^{er of M}^eⁿ^N^u^mb^e^r^o^f^W^o^meⁿ
^(%^o^f^to^ta^l⁽^%^of¹⁶^t^o²⁴^popul^atⁱ^oⁿ⁾⁽^%^of¹⁶^t^o²⁴^popul^atⁱ^oⁿ⁾
^16-²⁴^Non^-^Non^-^Non^-^Non^-^Non^-^Non^-
^popul^atⁱ^oⁿ⁾^Hi^spani^c^Hi^spani^c^Hi^spani^c^Hi^spani^c^Hi^spani^c^Hi^spani^c^Hi^spani^c^Hi^spani^c
^Whi^t^e^Bl^a^c^k^Other^Whi^t^e^Bl^a^c^k^Other
^1,827,536^355,545^231,604^111,551^54,473^478,708^258,394^269,632^67,628
⁽⁴^.9⁾⁽³^.0⁾⁽⁹^.0⁾⁽³^.2⁾⁽⁴^.2⁾⁽⁴^.2⁾⁽⁹^.5⁾⁽⁸^.6⁾⁽⁵^.2⁾
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice (C}^R^S^{) an}^aly^s^is^of^{U.S. C}^eⁿ^s^u^s^B^u^reau^,^C^u^rren^t^P^opu^lation
^S^u^rv^ey^(March^2007).
^No^te:^Begⁱⁿⁿⁱⁿ^g^wⁱ^t^h^t^h^{e March}^{2003 C}^P^S^,^t^h^e^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^Bu^reau^al^l^o^w^s^s^u^rv^ey^res^pon^den^t^s^t^oⁱ^d^en^tⁱ^f^y
^th^em^s^e^lv^es^as^belon^gⁱⁿ^g^{to on}^{e or m}^o^{re racial g}^r^ou^ps^.^T^h^e^term^s^black^an^d^w^h^{ite ref}^e^{r to pers}^on^s^w^h^o
^id^en^tif^ied^w^ith^oⁿ^ly^{a sin}^g^l^{e r}^acial^g^r^o^u^p⁽ⁱ^.e.,ⁿ^oⁿ^-^Hisp^an^{ic b}^l^ack^o^rⁿ^oⁿ^-^Hisp^an^{ic w}^h^ite)^.^T^h^{e ter}^m
^Hⁱ^sp^aⁿⁱ^c^r^e^fe^r^s^t^oⁱⁿ^di^vⁱ^du^al^s^’^et^hⁿⁱ^{c, as}^oppos^{ed t}^o^raci^al^{, i}^d^en^tⁱ^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^.^Hⁱ^s^p^anⁱ^c^s^can^{be of}^an^y
^race.
Incarcerated Youth.³⁵ The definitions of disconnectedness discussed above
include only the civilian noninstitutional population. They therefore omit such
persons as inmates of prisons and jails, the majority of whom are minority males
(non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics).³⁶ An analysis of 16-to-24-year olds examined
the disconnectedness (defined as out of work and school for at least one year) of both
the civilian noninstitutional and incarcerated population, based on data from the 1999
CPS supplemented with summary statistics of youth incarceration rates from the
Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. When incorporating the
incarcerated population, the rates of disconnection increased for white males from

3% to 4.2%; for black males from 10.5% to 17.1%; and for Hispanic males from 9%

to 11.9%.³⁷ Another study that added residents of institutions and active-duty
personnel in the Armed Forces to October 2000 CPS data found the rate of
disconnection among 16 to 19 year old males rose from 8% to 10% and among 20
to 24 year old males, from 11% to 13%.³⁸ In contrast, inclusion of these population

³⁴ These rates do not appear to be comparable to the Edelman, Holzer, and Offner analysis
of March 2000 CPS data. Edelman, Holzer, and Offman examined rates of disconnection
in the previous year only — 1999.
³⁵ This discussion based in part on CRS Report RL32871, Youth: From Classroom to
Workplace?, by Linda Levine.
³⁶ U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at
Midyear 2006, p. 1, available at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim06.pdf].
³⁷ Disadvantaged Young Men, p. 13.
³⁸ U.S. Congressional Budget Office, What Is Happening to Youth Employment Rates, Table
(continued...)

groups had no effect on the incidence of disconnection among females, which
remained at 9% for teenagers and 18% for young adults.
A third study of incarcerated youth included those ages 18 to 24 in local jails
and state or federal prisons after being convicted of a crime, as well as unmarried
youth this same age with a high school degree or less who had been unemployed for
one or more years. At any point during the 1997 to 2001 period, the researchers
estimated that almost 1.8 million young adults (or 7% of the population ages 18 to
24) experienced long spells of unemployment (1.7 million) or were incarcerated
(420,000).³⁹ A majority (59% or 1 million) in this group were male, who accounted
for 8% of the 18-to-24 year old male population. The 728,000 disconnected females
accounted for 6% of the 18-to-24 year old female population. Over one-third of the
disconnected males were incarcerated compared to just 3% of females. Nearly all the
disconnected mothers had their first child between 14 and 20, and half of them
reported welfare receipt.
Positive Youth Development:
The Importance of Resiliency and Opportunity
Although vulnerable youth overall experience more negative outcomes than
their counterparts who are not considered to be at risk, some of these youth have
accomplished their goals of attending college and/or securing permanent
employment. Youth advocates argue that vulnerable youth can reach their goals if
given adequate opportunities to develop positive behaviors during adolescence.
Emphasizing that youth are in control of their future and can make contributions to
their communities and society, these advocates view vulnerable youth as resources⁴⁰
rather than victims or perpetrators.
What is Youth Development? Youth development refers to the processes
— physical, cognitive, and emotional — that youth undergo during adolescence. The
competencies that youth begin to gain during adolescence can assist them as they
transition to adulthood. Youth who master competencies across several domains will
likely achieve desirable outcomes, including educational and professional success,
self-confidence, connections to family and the community, and contributions to
society. These areas of competency include the following:

³⁸ (...continued)

6, November 2004, at [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6017&sequence=0].

³⁹ Michael Wald and Tia Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the
Country’s Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Working Paper, November 2003, pp. 14-17, available at [http://www.hewlett.org/
N R / r donlyr es/60C17B69-8A76-4F99-BB3B-84251E4E5A19/0/Fina lV ersionofDisconne
ctedYouthPaper.pdf].
⁴⁰ National Youth Development Information Center, What is Youth Development?, available
at [http://www.nydic.org/nydic/programming/definition.htm].

^!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.⁴¹
A primary factor that influences how well youth develop these competencies is
the interaction between individual characteristics, or traits influenced by genetic
inheritance and prenatal environment, and the social environment — societal
conditions, community, and the family can serve to reinforce positive behaviors and
promote positive outcomes for vulnerable youth.⁴²
Societal conditions — economic conditions, the prevalence of discrimination,
and educational institutions — affect the development of youth competencies and
connectedness to others. Adolescents who perceive their future in terms of jobs or
careers often achieve desirable outcomes. For vulnerable youth, poor economic
conditions and fewer opportunities to work can affect how they perceive their future.
Youth’s interaction with the community is another variable that shapes their
development. Community culture, or the values and beliefs of a particular
community, may support the positive development of youth by reinforcing cultural
norms that favor academic achievement and professional success. Communities can
play a role in fostering youth development by providing multiple pathways to help
youth strengthen their competencies through schools and other institutions. Youth
advocates argue that these pathways should involve services and long-term programs
that provide opportunities for youth during the school day and in non-school hours
when youth may be more susceptible to risky behaviors.⁴³ 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

⁴¹ National Research Council, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002, pp. 6-7.
⁴² Discussion based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Family and Youth
Services Bureau, Understanding Youth Development: Promoting Positive Pathways of
Growth, 1997.
⁴³ Karen Pittman, Merita Irby, and Thaddeus Ferber, Unfinished Business: Further
Reflections on a Decade of Promoting Youth Development, The Forum for Youth
Investment, 2000, p. 9, available at [http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/74_sup/
ydv_1.pdf]. (Hereafter Karen Pittman, Merita Irby, and Thaddeus Ferber, Unfinished
Business.)

buffer youth from negative community cultures. Outside of schools, youth
development programs emphasize the positive elements of growing up and engage
young people in alternatives to counteract negative pressures. Approximately 17,000
organizations offer youth programs, some of which are well-known with many
decades of experience (such as the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. and 4-H), and others
that are local, grassroots entities.⁴⁴ These organizations offer a variety of services
that focus on the development of personal skills and critical life skills, and
opportunities for youth to participate in the decisions of the organization.⁴⁵
Finally, the family context plays a pivotal role in youth development. Parental
monitoring and family structure affect how well youth transition to adulthood.
Positive adolescent development is facilitated when youth express independence
from their parents, yet rely on their parents for emotional support, empathy, and
advice. Parenting styles and family structure play important roles in the lives of
youth. Parents who discipline in a moderate and caring manner, and provide positive
sanctions for prosocial behaviors can assist youth to develop a sense of control over
their future. Family structures that promote positive parent-child relationships, even
after divorce or times of stress (such as separation or loss of a parent), can provide
youth with emotional and other support during adolescence and beyond.
The Youth Development Movement. The belief that all youth are assets
has formed the basis of the youth development movement that began in the 1980s in
response to youth policies and programs that attempted to curb the specific problems
facing youth (i.e., pregnancy, drug use) without focusing on how to holistically
improve outcomes for youth and ease their transition to adulthood. A range of
institutions have promoted this approach through their literature and programming:
policy organizations (Forum for Youth Investment and National Network for Youth);
national direct service organizations for youth (4-H and the Boys and Girls Clubs of
America); public and private research institutions (National Research Council and
Carnegie Corporation of New York), and government sub-agencies with a youth
focus (the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Family and Youth
Services Bureau and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention).⁴⁶ The youth development movement has attempted to shift
from an approach to youth that emphasizes problem prevention to one that addressed

⁴⁴ Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, A
Matter of Time: Risk and Opportunity in the Nonschool Hours (December 1992), p. 11.
⁴⁵ 4-H, The National Conversation on Youth Development in the 21^st Century: Final Report.

2002, p. 4.

⁴⁶ See for example, Karen Pittman, “Some Things Do Make a Difference and We Can Prove
It: Key Take-Aways” from Finding Out What Matters for Youth: Testing Key Links in a
Community Action Framework for Youth Development, The Forum for Youth Investment,
April 2003, available at [http://www.ydsi.org/ydsi/pdf/WhatMatters.pdf]; 4-H, The National^st
Conversation on Youth Development in the 21 Century: Final Report, 2002; National
Research Council, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development, 2002; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Publications on Positive Youth Devlopment, available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
fysb/content/positiveyouth/publications.htm] .

the types of attitudes, skills, knowledge, and behaviors young people need to develop
for adulthood.⁴⁷
Despite the endorsement of the positive youth development approach by
prominent organizations, the movement has faced challenges.⁴⁸ Youth advocates
within the movement point to insufficient guidance for program planners and
policymakers about prioritizing which youth to serve, given the limited resources
available to communities for youth programs. They have also criticized the lack of
sufficient evaluation of programs and organizations using a positive development
approach. According to these advocates, some youth development efforts have been
built on insufficient data about demand for or supply of programs and were started
without baseline data on reasonable youth indicators. Further, they argue that youth
development messages have, at times, failed to generate excitement among
policymakers because they did not convey how positive youth development policy
and programs could respond to the challenges young people face and lead to better
outcomes for youth and society at large. In turn, the movement has failed to
adequately link to local and regional infrastructures that assist with funding, training,
and network development.
To address these challenges, youth advocates (the same groups that have raised
criticisms about the movement) have proposed a number of recommendations. For
example, the Forum for Youth has urged advocates to clarify a youth development
message that specifies concrete deliverables and to connect the movement to
sustainable public and private resources and other youth advocacy efforts.⁴⁹ The
recommendations have also called for evaluations of youth programs with a positive
youth approach and improved monitoring and assessment of programs.
Evolution of the Federal Role
in Assisting Vulnerable Youth
The remainder of this report describes the evolution of federal youth policy and
provides an overview of current programs and initiatives that focus on vulnerable
youth. Many of these initiatives promote coordination of federal youth programs and
positive youth development.
The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or
legislative vehicle that addresses the challenges that young people experience in
adolescence or while making the transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy
today evolved from multiple programs and initiatives that began in the early 1900s
to assist children and youth. From the turn of the twentieth century through the
1950s, youth policy was generally subsumed under a broad framework of child
welfare issues. The Children’s Bureau, established in 1912, focused attention on
child labor and the protection of children with special needs. The age boundaries of

⁴⁷ Karen Pittman, Merita Irby, and Thaddeus Ferber, Unfinished Business, pp. 20-22.
⁴⁸ Ibid., pp. 30-31.
⁴⁹ Ibid., pp. 14-27.

“youth” were not clearly delineated, but based on proposed child labor reform
legislation at that time, “child” referred to those individuals age 16 and under. Also
during this period, work and education support programs were created to ease the
financial pressures of the Great Depression for older youth (ages 16 to 23), and
increasingly, federal attention focused on addressing the growing number of youth
classified as delinquent. The subsequent period, spanning the 1960s and 1970s, was
marked by the creation of programs that targeted youth in six policy areas: workforce
development and job training, education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention,
social services, public health, and national and community service. Finally, from the
1980s until the present, many of these programs have been expanded; others have
been eliminated. The federal government has also recently adopted strategies to
better serve the youth population through targeted legislation and initiatives.
1912-1950s: Children’s Bureau Programs
and Workforce Programs
At the turn of the twentieth century, psychologists first formally defined the
concept of adolescence. American psychologist G. Stanley Hall characterized the
period between childhood and adulthood as a time of “storm and stress,” with youth
vulnerable to risky behavior, conflict with parents, and perversion.⁵⁰ The well-being
of adolescents was emerging as an area of concern during this time, albeit as part of
a greater focus on child welfare by states and localities. States began to recognize the
distinct legal rights of children, generally defined as age 16 and younger, and to
establish laws for protecting children against physical abuse, cruelty, and neglect.
Children who were abused or neglected were increasingly removed from their homes
and placed in almshouses and foster homes by the state. Juvenile courts and reform
schools, first created in the late 1800s, were also expanding during this period. By

1912, 22 states had passed legislation to establish juvenile courts.⁵¹

The year 1912 also marked the federal government’s initial involvement in
matters relating to child welfare with the creation of the Children’s Bureau in the
U.S. Department of Labor. The Bureau emerged out of the Progressive Movement,
which emphasized that the stresses on family life due to industrial and urban society
were having a disproportionately negative effect on children.⁵² Though not a cabinet-
level agency, the purpose of the Bureau was to investigate and report upon all
“matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life” for the federal
government. The Bureau adopted a “whole child” philosophy, meaning that the
agency was devoted to researching every aspect of the child’s life throughout all

⁵⁰ G. Stanley Hall, “Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology,
Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and Education,” (1904) in John H.
Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth in America,
Vol. II: 1866-1932, Parts 1-6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, pp. 81-85.
⁵¹ John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth
in America, Vol. II: 1866-1932, Parts 1-6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1971, p. 440.

⁵² Kriste Lindenmeyer, “A Right to Childhood:” The U.S. Children’s Bureau and Child
Welfare, 1912-46. Urbana: University of Illinois Press), pp. 10-11. (Hereafter Kriste
Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood.)

stages of his or her development. In particular, the Bureau focused on infant and
maternal health, child labor, and the protection of children with special needs (e.g.,
those who were poor, homeless, without proper guardianship, and mentally
handicapped).
The concept of a “youth policy” in those early years was virtually nonexistent.
However, the Bureau’s efforts in combating child labor and investigating juvenile
delinquency from 1912 through the early 1950s targeted youth ages 10 to 16. Bureau
Chief Julia Lathrop and Progressive Era advocates pushed for laws that would
prohibit the employment of children under age 16.⁵³ The Bureau also tracked the
rising number of juvenile delinquents in the 1930s and evaluated the causes of
delinquency, citing unhappy home conditions and gang membership as a predictor
of gang activity.⁵⁴ In 1954, the Bureau established a division on juvenile delinquency
prevention.
Perhaps the most well known policies the Children’s Bureau implemented that
affected youth were through the child health and welfare programs established by the
Social Security Act (P.L. 74-231) of 1935. As originally enacted, the law authorized
indefinite annual funding of $1.5 million for states to establish, extend, and
strengthen public child welfare services in “predominately rural” or “special needs”
areas. For purposes of this program (now at Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social
Security Act), these were described as services “for the protection and care of
homeless, dependent, and neglected children, and children in danger of becoming
delinquent.”⁵⁵ The Aid to Dependent Children Program (now Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families Block Grant) was also created under the act to provide financial
assistance to impoverished children. “Dependent” children were defined as children
under age 16 who had been deprived of parental support or care due to a parent’s
death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity, and was
living with a relative. Amendments to the program extended the age of children to

18.⁵⁶

Separately in the 1930s, the federal government addressed youth poverty
triggered by the Great Depression. The Federal Transient Relief Act of 1933
established a Transient Division within the Federal Transient Relief Administration
to provide relief services through state grants. Also in 1933, the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC) opened camps and shelters for more than one million
low-income older youth. Two years later, in 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt

⁵³ Ibid., pp. 127, 137-138.
⁵⁴ Ibid., pp. 148-153.
⁵⁵ In 1962 (P.L. 87-543), child welfare services were formally defined under Title IV-B as
“public social services which supplement, or substitute for parental care and supervision for
the purpose of (1) remedying or assisting in the solution of problems which may result in,
the neglect, abuse, exploitation, or delinquency of children, (2) protecting and caring for
homeless, dependent, or neglected children, (3) protecting and promoting the welfare of
children, including the strengthening of their own homes where possible or, where needed,
the provision of adequate care of children away from their homes in foster family homes or
day-care or other child-care facilities.”
⁵⁶ Kriste Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood, p. 193.

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.⁵⁷ 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.⁵⁸ (The two programs were eliminated in the early 1940s.)
By the late 1940s, the Children’s Bureau no longer had jurisdiction to address
“all matters” concerning children and youth because of federal government
reorganizations that prioritized agency function over a particular constituency (i.e.,
children, poor families, etc.). The bureau was moved in 1949 from the U.S.
Department of Labor 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 1953.⁵⁹
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, adolescents, 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:
^!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

⁵⁷ John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth
in America, Vol. III: 1933-1973, Parts 1-4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1971, pp. 91-96.

⁵⁸ Ibid., pp. 99-104.
⁵⁹ For additional information about the creation of HEW, see CRS Report RL31497,
Creation of Executive Departments: Highlights from the History of Modern Precedents, by
Thomas P. Carr.

Service to America (VISTA), Head Start, and Neighborhood Youth
Corps, among others. The mission of the Job Corps was (and still
is) to promote the vocational and educational opportunities of older,
low-income youth. Similarly, Upward Bound was created to assist
disadvantaged high school students who went on to attend college.
^!Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (P.L. 89-
10): The purpose of the ESEA was to provide federal funding to
low-income schools. Amendments to the act in1966 (P.L 89-750)
created the Migrant Education Program and Migrant High School
Equivalency Program to assist states in providing education to
children of migrant workers.
^!Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 (P.L. 89-329): The HEA
increased federal funding to universities and created scholarships
and low interest loans for students. The act also created the Talent
Search Program to identify older, low-income youth with potential
for postsecondary education. The act was amended in 1968 (P.L.
90-575) to include two programs: Student Support Services and
Upward Bound (which was transferred from the Office of Economic
Opportunity to the Office of Education, and later to the U.S.
Department of Education). Student Support Services was created to
improve disadvantaged (defined as disabled, low-income, or first in
their family to attend college) college students’ retention and
graduation rates.
^!Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-378): The
legislation permanently established the Youth Conservation Pilot
Program to employ youth of all backgrounds to perform work on
federal lands.
^!Comprehensive Employment and Training Activities Act (CETA)
of 1973 (P.L. 93-203): The program established federal funding for
the Youth Employment and Training Program and the Summer
Youth Employment Program. The programs financed employment
training activities and on-the-job training.
^!Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974
(P.L. 93-415): The act extended federal support to states and local
governments for rehabilitative and preventative juvenile justice
delinquency projects, as established under the Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 90-445). The major provisions of
the JJDPA funded preventative programs in local communities
outside of the juvenile justice system. The act’s Title III established
the Runaway Youth Program to provide temporary shelter,
counseling, and after-care services to runaway youth and their
families. Congress later amended (P.L. 95-115) Title III to include
homeless youth.

^!Education for All Handicapped Children of 1975 (P.L. 94-142): The
act required all public schools accepting federal funds to provide
equal access to education for children with physical and mental
disabilities. Public schools were also required to create an
educational plan for these students, with parental input, that would
emulate as closely as possible the educational experiences of able-
bodied children. (This legislation is now known as the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act.)
White House Conferences on Children and Youth: 1960s and 1970s.
Since 1909, the executive branch has organized a White House Conference on
Children (and youth, in later decades). The White House conferences of 1960 and
1971 focused on efforts to promote opportunities for youth. The recommendations
from the 1960 conference’s forum on adolescents discussed the need for community
agencies to assist parents in addressing the concerns of youth, as well as improved⁶⁰
social services to adolescents and young adults. 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.⁶¹
Family and Youth Services Bureau. The Family and Youth Services
Bureau (FYSB) was created in 1970 to provide leadership on youth issues in the
federal government.⁶² At that time, it was held that young people were placed
inappropriately in the juvenile justice system, while others were not receiving needed
social services. Known then as the Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention
Administration, the sub-agency proposed a new service delivery strategy (similar to
the contemporary positive youth development approach) that emphasized youth’s
competence, usefulness, and belonging.⁶³ The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 emphasized that youth committing status offenses
(behaviors considered offenses only if carried out by a juvenile, such as truancy or
running away) were more in need of care and guidance than they were of punishment.
Passage of the JJDPA laid the foundation for much of FYSB’s work today with
runaway and homeless youth and other vulnerable youth groups.

⁶⁰ 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.
⁶¹ Executive Office of the President, Conference Proceedings from the White House
Conference on Youth, 1971. Washington: GPO, 1971.
⁶² This discussion is based on correspondence with U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, April 2007.
⁶³ 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.

1980s-Present: Current Youth Programs
Current federal youth policy has resulted from the piecemeal creation of
programs across several areas of social policy. Many of the youth-focused programs
that trace their history to the War on Poverty continue today, and several new
programs, spread across several agencies, have been created. (While the Family and
Youth Services Bureau was created to provide leadership on youth issues, it
administers a small number of youth programs: the Runaway and Homeless Youth
program, the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, and the Abstinence
Education program.) Federal youth policy today also includes recent initiatives to
promote positive youth development and increase coordination between federal
agencies that administer youth-focused programs.
Appendix Table A-1 provides an overview of 51 major federal programs for
youth in six policy areas discussed above — job training and workforce development,
education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health,
and national and community service. The table includes the programs’ authorizing
legislation and US code section; objectives; FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008 funding
levels and the requested FY2009 funding levels; agency with jurisdiction; and
targeted at-risk youth population.⁶⁴ The 45 programs were selected based upon their
objectives to serve vulnerable youth primarily between the ages of 10 to 24, or to
research this population. The CRS contributors to Table A-1, their contact
information, and CRS reports on some of the programs are listed in Table A-2.
As enacted, the programs are intended to provide vulnerable youth with the
opportunities to develop skills and abilities that will assist them in adolescence and
during the transition to adulthood. Congress has allocated funding to these programs
for a number of services and activities, including conflict resolution; counseling;
crime/violence prevention; gang intervention; job training assistance; mentoring;
parental/family intervention; planning and program development; and research and
evaluation. The programs differ in size, scope, and funding authorization levels and
type (mandatory vs. discretionary).
The list is not exhaustive and may omit programs that serve the targeted youth
population. Two major block grant programs — the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families Program (TANF) and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) —
are not included because they do not provide dedicated funding for youth activities.
However, states can choose to use TANF and SSBG funds for such purposes. TANF
law permits states to use block grant fund to provide services to recipient families
and other “needy” families (defined by the state) so long as the services are expected
to help lead to independence from government services or enable needy families to
care for children at home. States may also provide services to non-needy families if
they are directed at the goals of preventing and reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies
or encouraging the formation of two-parent families. SSBG provides funding to
assist states to provide a range of social services to adults and children, and each state
determines what services are provided and who is eligible. Youth-focused categories
of services that can be funded through the SSBG include education and training

⁶⁴ The FY2009 funding levels will be updated when the final figures become available.

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.⁶⁵
Job Training and Workforce Development. The federal government
funds four major job training and workforce development programs for youth: Job
Corps, Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth Activities, YouthBuild, and Youth⁶⁶
Conservation Corps. These programs (except for the Youth Conservation Corps)
are administered by the Department of Labor and target low-income youth ages 16
to 24 who require additional assistance in meeting their vocational goals. Job Corps
is the largest of these programs, with centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.
Program training consists of career preparation, development, and transition;
academic initiatives; and character building. Job Corps has been evaluated positively⁶⁷
by Mathematica, in 1982 and 2001. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998
(P.L. 105-220) reauthorized the program through FY2003, although annual
appropriations have continued funding through FY2008.
The Workforce Investment Act also established WIA Youth Activities to fund
employment training and academic support services for both youth in school and
school dropouts ages 14 to 21. Eligible youth must be low-income and either
deficient in basic literacy skills, a school dropout, homeless, a runaway, foster child,
a parent, an offender, or an individual who needs additional assistance to complete
an educational program or secure employment. Youth councils of local Workforce
Investment Boards (WIBs) advise the boards about youth activities. WIBs are
certified by the state to coordinate the workforce development activities of a⁶⁸
particular area through a local workforce investment system.
Created by the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990
(P.L. 101-625), YouthBuild has many of the same educational and vocational
objectives as those established under Job Corps and WIA Youth Activities.
YouthBuild participants ages 16 to 24 work toward their GED or high school
diploma while learning job skills by building affordable housing. The program,
formerly in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, was made part
of WIA, administered by DOL, under the YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2006 (P.L.

⁶⁵ A state-by-state expenditure data report for these and other categories of services is
available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/annrpt/2005/index.html].
⁶⁶ For additional information on Job Corps and WIA Youth Activities, see CRS Report
RL33687, The Workforce Investment Act (WIA): Program-by-Program Overview and
FY2007 Funding of Title I Training Programs, by Blake Alan Naughton and Ann Lordeman.
⁶⁷ Peter Z. Schochet, John Burghardt, and Steven Glazerman, Does Job Corps Work?:
Summary of the National Job Corps Study, Mathematica, June 2001, available at
[http://wdr.doleta.gov/ opr/fulltext/01-j csummary.pdf].
⁶⁸ The 109^th Congress considered legislation (H.R. 27) to make the Youth Councils optional.
For additional information, see CRS Report RL32778, The Workforce Investment Act of^th
1998 (WIA): Reauthorization of Job Training Programs in the 109 Congress, by Blake
Alan Naughton and Ann Lordeman.

109-281). Finally, the Youth Conservation Corps, established in 1970 by the Youth
Conservation Corps Act (P.L. 91-378) and administered by the Departments of
Agriculture and Interior, targets youth ages 15 to 18 of all backgrounds to work on
projects that conserve natural resources.
Education. Most federal education programs for vulnerable youth are
authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and the
Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, administered by the U.S. Department of
Education. The ESEA provides the primary source of federal funds to K-12
education programs. The legislation’s purpose, from its original enactment in 1965
to the present, is, in part, to provide supplementary educational and related services
to educationally disadvantaged children who attend schools serving relatively low-
income areas. The Higher Education Act is the source of grant, loan, and work-study
assistance to help meet the costs of postsecondary education. The act also supports
programs by providing incentives and services to disadvantaged youth to help
increase their secondary or postsecondary educational attainment. Separate legislation
authorizes additional education programs serving youth with disabilities and
homeless youth.
Programs Authorized by Title I of the ESEA. Title I of ESEA provides
most of the funding for programs that serve disadvantaged youth, and was most
recently reauthorized and amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of

2001 (P.L. 107-110).

Title I-A (Education for the Disadvantaged Program) is the largest federal
elementary and secondary education program, with funds provided to approximately
15.8 million (34% of all) pupils.⁶⁹ Title I-A grants fund supplementary educational
and related services to low-achieving and other pupils attending schools with
relatively high concentrations of pupils from low-income families. The NCLBA
expanded Title I-A provisions requiring participating states to adopt content and
pupil performance standards, and assessments linked to these; and to take specified
actions with respect to low-performing schools and local education agencies (LEAs).
Title I-C (Migrant Education Program) provides formula grants to state education
agencies (SEAs) for the development of programs targeted to migrant students and
Title I-D (Neglected, Delinquent, or at Risk of Dropping Out Program) gives funding
to LEAs and SEAs to meet the special educational needs of youth in institutions and
correctional facilities for neglected and delinquent youth, as well as youth at risk of
dropping out. Finally, Title I-H (High School Dropout Program) targets grants to
schools that serve grades 6 to 12 and have annual dropout rates that are above the
state average as well as middle schools that feed students into such schools.
Other ESEA Programs. Titles III and IV of the ESEA also target
disadvantaged youth. Title III (English Language Acquisition Program) provides
grant funding to states to ensure that limited English proficient (LEP) children and
youth, including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency. The

⁶⁹ For additional information, see CRS Report RL31284, K-12 Education: Highlights of the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), coordinated by Wayne C. Riddle and CRS
Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended: A Primer,
by Wayne C. Riddle and Rebecca R. Skinner.

NCLBA has given SEAs and LEAs great flexibility in designing and administering
instructional programs, while at the same time foocusing greater attention on the
achievement of English proficiency. Title IV-A (Safe and Drug-Free Schools
Program) supports the efforts of SEAs and LEAs to prevent student violence in and
around schools and the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Program activities
include education and counseling; training of school personnel; and family,
community, and emergency activities.
Title IV-B (21^st Century Community Learning Centers program) provides
competitive grants to LEAs for academic and other after-school programs. The
purpose of the program is to provide opportunities for academic enrichment to help
students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds, meet local and state
academic achievement standards and reinforce their regular academic instruction.
Programs Authorized Under HEA. Foremost among Higher Education Act⁷⁰
programs targeted to low-income, college-bound youth are Trio and GEAR UP.
The Migrant High School Equivalency program is another key component of the
HEA.
Trio Programs. Trio programs are designed to assist students from
disadvantaged backgrounds to pursue higher education and to complete their post-⁷¹
secondary studies. Five Trio programs provide direct services to students and two
provide indirect services.⁷² The five primary programs are: Talent Search, Upward
Bound, Educational Opportunity Centers, Student Support Services, Ronald E.
McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement, and. Each of these programs is designed
to intervene at various points along the education continuum.
Talent Search, authorized under the original HEA legislation, encourages youth
who have completed at least five years of elementary education with college potential
to complete high school and enter postsecondary education; to encourage dropouts
to reenter school; and to disseminate information about available postsecondary
educational assistance. Upward Bound projects seek to motivate middle school and
high school students to succeed in postsecondary education through instruction and
counseling, among other activities.
Educational Opportunity Centers provide information to prospective
postsecondary students regarding available financial aid and academic assistance, and
help them apply to college. Student Support Services projects are intended to
improve college students’ retention and graduation rates, and improve transfer rates

⁷⁰ For additional information, see CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR-UP Programs:
Status and Issues, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
⁷¹ The precise definition of disadvantaged varies between the programs. It generally refers
to individuals who are low-income, first-generation college students, or disabled.
⁷² These two programs are the Staff Development program and Dissemination Partnership
Grants program. The Staff Development program supports training of current and
prospective Trio staff. The Dissemination Partnership Grants funds partnerships with
institutions of higher education or community organizations not receiving Trio funds but
that serve first-generation and low-income college students.

from two-year to four-year colleges through instruction; exposure to career options;
mentoring; and assistance in graduate admissions and financial aid processes. In
selecting grantees, the Secretary of Education considers an institution’s efforts to
provide participants with aid sufficient to meet full financial needs and to constrain
student debt. Finally, the Robert E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement program
prepares disadvantaged students for post-doctoral study through seminars, research
opportunities, summer internships, tutoring, mentoring, and exposure to cultural
events and academic programs.
GEAR UP. Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate
Program (GEAR UP), a program not part of the TRIO array of programs, was added
to the HEA by the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244).
GEAR UP seeks to increase disadvantaged students’ secondary school completion
and postsecondary enrollment by providing support services. GEAR UP differs from
Trio in two key aspects: the program (1) serves a cohort of students from seventh
grade to their first year of college and (2) assures students of the availability of
financial aid to meet college costs. States or partnerships (schools and at least two
other entities, such as community organizations and state agencies) are eligible for
funding. Any funded state or partnership must provide comprehensive mentoring,
tutoring, counseling, outreach, and support services to participating students.
Participating states are also required to establish or maintain a postsecondary college
scholarship for participants; partnerships are permitted to include a scholarship
component.
Migrant High School Equivalency Program. The Migrant High School
Equivalency Program, authorized under HEA, funds institutions of higher education
(or private nonprofits in cooperation with institutions of higher education) to recruit
and provide academic and support services to students who lack a high school
diploma and whose parents are engaged in migrant and other seasonal farmwork.
The purpose of the program is to assist students to obtain a high school equivalency
diploma and gain employment, or to attend college or another postsecondary
education or training program.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, is
the major statute that provides federal funding for the education of children and youth
with disabilities.⁷³ Part B of the act includes provisions for the education of school-
aged children. As a condition for the receipt of funds states must provide “free
appropriate public education” to youth as old as 21 (age may vary depending on state
law). This term refers to the right of all children with disabilities to receive an
education and related services that meet state curriculum requirements, at no costs
to parents. Appropriateness is defined according to the child’s individualized
education plan (IEP) which delineates the special instruction the child should receive
and his or her educational goals.

⁷³ For additional information, see CRS Report RS22138, Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA): Overview of P.L. 108-446, by Nancy Lee Jones and Richard N.
Apling.

Education of Homeless Children. The McKinney-Vento Act (P.L 100-
77), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, authorizes the Department of
Education to fund LEAs to provide homeless children and youth comparable
educational services. With certain exceptions for health and safety emergencies (and
for schools permitted under a “grandfather” clause), states are prohibited from using
funds for either a separate school or separate program within the school.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Department of Justice
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.⁷⁴ The Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was first enacted in 1974 (P.L. 90-
415) and was most recently reauthorized in 2002 by the 21^st Century Department of
Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273). Its provisions were
authorized through FY2007. The JJDPA as originally enacted had three main
components: it created a set of institutions within the federal government that were
dedicated to coordinating and administering federal juvenile justice efforts; it
established grant programs to assist the states with setting up and running their
juvenile justice systems; and it promulgated core mandates that states had to adhere
to in order to be eligible to receive grant funding. While the JJDPA has been
amended several times over the past thirty years, it continues to feature the same
three components. The major components of the JJDPA are discussed below.
State Formula Grants.The JJDPA authorizes OJJDP to make formula grants
to states which can be used to fund the planning, establishment, operation,
coordination, and evaluation of projects for the development of more effective
juvenile delinquency programs and improved juvenile justice systems. Funds are
allocated annually among the states on the basis of relative population of people
under the age of eighteen, and states must adhere to certain core mandates in order
to be eligible for funding.
Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grants. This is a discretionary
grant program and funding can be used to carry out projects designed to prevent
juvenile delinquency. Grant funding is allocated to eligible states based on the
proportion of their population that is under the age of 18. Funding for this grant
program has not been appropriated to date.
Juvenile Mentoring Program. This grant program was repealed in 2002 by
the 21^st Century Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (P.L. 107-273); however,

⁷⁴ This section was prepared by CRS Analyst Blas Nuñez-Neto. For an expanded discussion
of juvenile justice legislation and issues, please see CRS Report RL33947, Juvenile Justice:
Legislative History and Current Legislative Issues, by Blas Nuñez-Neto.

it has continued to receive appropriations each subsequent fiscal year.⁷⁵ These grants
could be awarded to local educational agencies (in partnership with public or private
agencies) to establish and support mentoring programs.
Part E: Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New
Initiatives and Programs (Challenge Grants). The Challenge Grants program
authorizes OJJDP to make grants to state, local, and Indian governments and private
entities in order to carry out programs that will develop, test, or demonstrate
promising new initiatives that may prevent, control, or reduce juvenile delinquency.
Title V Community Prevention Block Grants. The Community Prevention
Block Grant program authorizes OJJDP to make grants to states, that are then
transmitted to units of local government, in order to carry out delinquency prevention
programs for juveniles who have come into contact with, or are likely to come into
contact with, the juvenile justice system.
Social Services. The major social service programs to assist at-risk youth are
authorized under the Social Security Act, as amended, and are administered by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.⁷⁶
Foster Care Program and Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program (CFCIP). Title IV-E of the Social Security Act authorizes the federal
foster care program.⁷⁷ Under this program, a state may seek federal funds for partial
reimbursement of the room and board costs needed to support eligible children who
are neglected, abused, or who, for some other reason, cannot remain in their own
homes. More than half a million children are in foster care in the United States on
any given day of the year and a little less than half of these (roughly 46% of the daily
caseload) are estimated as eligible for federal or Title IV-E foster care support. 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;⁷⁸ 2) have specific judicial determinations made related to

⁷⁵ For additional information, see CRS Report RL34306 Vulnerable Youth: Federal
Mentoring Programs and Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
⁷⁶ Two additional child welfare programs, Court Appointed Special Advocates and
Children’s Advocacy Centers, are discussed in the chart below. The programs are
administered by the U.S. Department of Justice.
⁷⁷ For additional information, see CRS Report RL31242, Child Welfare: Federal Program
Requirements for States, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
⁷⁸ With an exception, discussed below, the income and asset tests, as well as family
structure/living arrangement rules are identical to the federal /state rules that applied to the
now-defunct cash aid program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), as they
existed on July 16, 1996. Under the prior law AFDC program, states established specific
AFDC income rules (within some federal parameters). The federal AFDC asset limit was
$1,000, however, P.L. 106-169 raised the allowable counted asset limit to $10,000 for
purposes of determining Title IV-E eligibility. In addition to meeting the income/asset
criteria in the home from which he/she was removed, a child must meet the AFDC family
structure/living arrangement rules. Those rules granted eligibility primarily to children in
(continued...)

reasons for the removal and other aspects of his/her removal and placement; and 3)
be placed in an eligible licensed setting with an eligible provider(s).
The federal government has established certain requirements related to state
provision of foster care that are applicable to all children and youth in foster care.
These include that a state has a written case plan detailing, among other things, where
the child is placed and what services are to be provided to ensure that a permanent
home is re-established for the child. Further, for each child in foster care, this plan
must be reviewed on a regular basis, including a review by a judge no less often than
every 12 months. For many youth who enter foster care, returning to their parents is
the way permanence is re-established. For some youth, however, it is not safe or
possible to reunite with their parents. In those cases states must work to find adoptive
parents or legal guardians who can provide a permanent home for these youth.
Foster youth who reach the “age of majority” (18 years in most states) and who
have not been reunited with their parents or placed with adoptive parents or guardians
are said to “emancipate” or “age out” of foster care. The Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program, created in 1999 (P.L. 106-169), required states to provide
independent living services for youth until their 21^st birthday and those of any age in
foster care who are expected to leave care without placement in a permanent family.⁷⁹
Services may consist of educational assistance, vocational training, mentoring,
preventive health activities, and counseling. States may dedicate as much as 30% of
their program funding toward room and board for youth ages 18 through 20. A
separate component of the CFCIP — the Education and Training Vouchers program
— was established in 2002 (P.L. 107-133) to provide vouchers to youth eligible for
the CFCIP and youth adopted from foster care after 16 years of age. The vouchers
are available for the cost of attendance at an institution of higher education, as
defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.⁸⁰ Only youth receiving a voucher at
age 21 may continue to participate in the voucher program until age 23.
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program. The Mentoring Children of
Prisoners Program was authorized in 2002 (P.L. 107-133) to provide children and
youth whose parents are imprisoned with free mentoring and support services.⁸¹ The
purpose of the program is to give guidance to youth and to help youth reconnect with
their parents after they are released. Public and private entities (including state or
local governments, tribal governments, and community and faith-based groups) are
eligible to apply for three-year grants to establish or expand and operate mentoring
programs. The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288)
also authorized HHS to enter into an agreement with a national mentoring support

⁷⁸ (...continued)
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).
⁷⁹ For additional information, see CRS Report RS22501, Child Welfare: Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP), by Adrienne Fernandes.
⁸⁰ See Sections 102 and 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
⁸¹ For additional information, see CRS Report RL34306 Vulnerable Youth: Federal
Mentoring Programs and Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.

organization to operate a demonstration project that will test the efficacy of vouchers
as a method for delivering mentoring services.
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).⁸²
These programs are designed to provide services to runaway and homeless youth
outside of the law enforcement, juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental health
systems. Services include temporary and long-term shelter, counseling services, and
referrals to social service agencies, among other supports. The funding streams for
the Basic Center Program and Transitional Living Program were separate until
Congress consolidated them in 1999 (P.L. 106-71). Together, the two programs,
along with other program activities, are known as the Consolidated Runaway and
Homeless Youth Program.⁸³ Although the Street Outreach Program is a separately
funded component, SOP services are coordinated with those provided by the BCP
and TLP.
Public Health. Public health programs for vulnerable youth are concentrated
in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families (ACF) and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA).⁸⁴ These programs address youth mental health,
substance abuse, teen pregnancy prevention, and support for pregnant and parenting
teens.
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. SAMSHA is organized
into three units: the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), the Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
(CSAP). Collectively, the centers administer approximately 13 programs (not all
discussed here or in Table A-1) for youth ages 10 to 21 (and up to 25 for some
programs). The programs primarily target youth with serious emotional disturbances
(SED) and youth at-risk of abusing drugs and alcohol.
CMHS. Suicide prevention activities are funded by SAMHSA’s Campus
Suicide Prevention Grant Program and State-Sponsored Youth Suicide Prevention
and Early Intervention Program (collectively known as the Garrett Lee Smith
Memorial Act Suicide Prevention Program). The campus grant program funds
services for all students (including those with mental health problems and substance
abuse that makes them vulnerable to suicide), while the state-sponsored program

⁸² For additional information, see CRS Report RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth:
Demographics, Programs, and Emerging Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
⁸³ Other program activities include a national communications system for runaway youth and
their families, logistical support for grantee organizations, HHS’s National Clearinghouse
on Families and Youth, demonstrations, and the administration of the management
information system that tracks data on runaway and homeless youth, known as NEO-
RHYMIS.
⁸⁴ For additional information, see CRS Report RL33997 Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA): Reauthorization Issues, by Ramya Sundararaman.

supports statewide and tribal activities to develop and implement youth suicide
prevention and intervention strategies.⁸⁵
The Comprehensive Mental Health Services for Children with SED program
provides community-based systems of care for children and adolescents with serious
emotional disturbances and their families. The program aims to ensure that services
are provided collaboratively across youth-serving systems (such as schools and foster
care placements) and that each youth receives an individual service plan developed
with the participation of the family (and, where appropriate, the youth) to meet the
mental health needs of that youth. A second program, the National Child Traumatic
Stress Initiative, was created to establish a national network that provides services
and referrals for children and adolescents who have experienced traumatic events.
CSAT. The Assertive Adolescent and Family Treatment Program provides
grants to states to address gaps in substance abuse services for youth. The purpose
of the program is to use proven family-centered practices to treat drug addicted
youth. This treatment model focuses on making families and primary caregivers part
of the treatment process based on the belief that their inclusion increases the
likelihood of successful treatment and reintegration of adolescents into their
communities. Another program that provides treatment for youth who are drug
dependent is the Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts. This program targets juvenile
offenders (pre-adjudicated or adjudicated status, or post-detention), and provides
substance abuse treatment, wrap-around services supporting substance abuse
treatment, and case management. A judge oversees the drug treatment program and
may allow the youth to avoid (further) penalties for their delinquent behavior.
CSAP. The Strategic Prevention Framework State Infrastructure Grant
provides funding to states to implement strategies for preventing substance and
alcohol abuse among adolescents and adults. The grant implements a five-step
process: 1) conduct a community needs assessment; 2) mobilize and/or build
capacity; 3) develop a comprehensive strategic plan; 4) implement evidence-based
prevention programs and infrastructure development activities; and 5) monitor
process and evaluate effectiveness. CSAP also administers, in cooperation with the
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Drug-Free Communities
Support program (see below).
Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Support Programs. The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services administers research and education
programs to reduce teen pregnancy or to provide care services for pregnant and⁸⁶
parenting adolescents. Two education programs — Abstinence Education Grants
and Community-Based Abstinence Education — promote abstinence until marriage
in schools. States may request funding for the Abstinence Education Grants program
when they solicit Maternal and Child Health block grant funds (used for a variety of

⁸⁵ Other SAMSHA funds are made available for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
and training to organizations and individuals developing suicide prevention programs.
⁸⁶ For additional information, see CRS Report RS20873, Reducing Teen Pregnancy:
Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Programs and CRS Report RS20301,
Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Statistics and Programs, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.

health services for women and children, including adolescent pregnancy prevention
activities); this funding must be used exclusively for the teaching of abstinence. Since
FY2000, abstinence-only education for youth ages 12 to 18 has also been funded
through HHS’s Community-Based Abstinence Education program (formerly known
as Special Programs of Regional and National Significance, SPRANS).
In addition to the education programs, HHS sponsors projects to increase
awareness about teen pregnancy and abstinence. The Adolescent Family Life
Demonstration Projects and Research Grants were designed to promote family
involvement in the delivery of services, adolescent premarital sexual abstinence,
adoption as an alternative to early parenting, parenting and child development
education, and comprehensive health, education, and social services geared toward
the healthy development for mother and child. The project program provides
services to youth and the research and evaluation program evaluates the delivery of
those services.
National and Community Service.⁸⁷ The Corporation for National and
Community Service (CNCS) is an independent federal agency that administers
programs authorized by two statutes: the National and Community Service Act
(NCSA, P.L. 101-610) of 1990, as amended, and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act
(DVSA, P.L. 93-113) of 1973, as amended.⁸⁸ 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). CNCS’s
strategic plan for 2006 through 2010 emphasizes the agency’s focus on improving the
lives of disadvantaged and other youth by leveraging national service programs to
meet their most pressing academic, health related, environmental, and social needs.⁸⁹
The strategic plan also lays out the agency’s commitment to involving disadvantaged
youth in their communities through service, citing that these youth are less likely to
participate in volunteer activities than their counterparts who are not disadvantaged.
CNCS defines disadvantaged children and youth are those up to age 25 with
exceptional or special needs (as defined in part 2552.81 of the DVSA regulations),
or who are economically disadvantaged and for whom one or more of the following
apply: 1) out-of-school, including out-of-school youth who are unemployed; 2) in
or aging out of foster care; 3) limited English proficiency; 4) homeless or have run
away from home; 5) at risk of leaving school without a diploma; and 6) former
juvenile offenders or at risk of delinquency.

⁸⁷ This information was provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service
in correspondence in March and April 2008.
⁸⁸ For additional information, see CRS Report RL33931, The Corporation for National and
Community Service: Overview of Programs and FY2009 Funding, by Ann Lordeman and
Abigail B. Rudman.
⁸⁹ For further information, see [http://www.cns.gov/about/focus_areas/index.asp].

The major CNCS programs are organized into three service streams:
AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, and Senior Corps.
AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps identifies and address 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.
For providing these types of services full-time for a term of service (up to one year),
AmeriCorps members earn an education award of $4,725 (and proportionally less if
they provide services for half-time, reduced half-time, etc.). CNCS classifies
programs as AmeriCorps programs if members are eligible to earn the education
award. Three CNCS programs meet this criteria: AmeriCorps State and National,
Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), and National Civilian Community Corps
(NCCC).
AmeriCorps State and National program⁹⁰ provides state formula and
competitive grant funding to governor-appointed state service commissions, which
award grants to non-profit groups that recruit AmeriCorps members to respond to
local needs (AmeriCorps State). The balance of grant funding is distributed
competitively by CNCS to multi-state and national organizations (AmeriCorps
National), such as Teach for America, and to Indian tribes and territories. Some
grantees enroll members who are disadvantaged, such as YouthBuild USA, which
recruits at-risk youth ages 17 to 24 as members, to meet the housing and technology
needs of their communities. Other grantees place members in organizations and
schools to serve disadvantaged youth in grades K through 12 in after-school, before
school, and enrichment programs.
The focus of VISTA⁹¹ is to strengthen efforts to eliminate poverty through
volunteer service. VISTA provides full-time members to non-profit community
organizations and public agencies through a non-competitive application process
managed locally by CNCS State Offices. VISTA supports projects that focus on
serving disadvantaged youth beneficiaries, some of whom are younger than age 12.
These projects include mentoring, as well as after school, tutoring, and job skills
development programs. Although VISTA does not target any one population of
youth, the program has recently placed an emphasis on serving children of prisoners
and youth aging out of foster care.
Finally, NCCC⁹² is a residential program for youth 18 through 24. Members
live and train at five campuses⁹³ and are deployed to serve communities in every
state. Like the other two AmeriCorps programs, members work closely with
non-profit organizations and public agencies to meet community needs.

⁹⁰ The programs are also called AmeriCorps*State and National Direct by CNCS, and is
titled National Service Trust Programs in Title I-C of the NCSA.
⁹¹ This program is called AmeriCorps*VISTA by CNCS, and VISTA in Title I-A of DVSA.
⁹² This program is called AmeriCorps*NCCC by CNCS, and the Civilian Community Corps
in Title I-E of NCSA.
⁹³ This number includes campuses that are scheduled to open in 2008 and 2009.

Learn and Serve America. Learn and Serve America emphasizes
service-learning, which is intended to engage students in using what they learn in the
classroom to solve real-life problems. Learn and Serve America makes formula
grants to state education agencies (SEAs) and makes competitive grants to SEAs,
Indian tribes, and non-profit organizations to support service by students, including
youth from disadvantaged circumstances, during school as well as after school and
in the summer months.⁹⁴ The program also provides grants to support community
service projects by students, faculty, and staff on college campuses. Learn and Serve
projects provided assistance to youth beneficiaries from disadvantaged circumstances
through mentoring and tutoring. Several of the projects also focused on substance
abuse prevention, special education, and dropout prevention, among other activities
targeted to youth generally.
Senior Corps. Senior Corps is composed of volunteers over the age of 55
who help to meet a wide range of community challenges through three programs:
Foster Grandparents Program (FGP), Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP),
and Senior Companion program. The first two provide assistance in the community
by working with children and youth with a variety of needs, among other populations
and activities. The FGP provides aid to children and youth with exceptional needs,
including children who have been abused or neglected or are otherwise at risk;
mentors troubled teenagers and young mothers; cares for premature infants and
children with physical disabilities; and teaches reading instruction to children who
are falling behind their grade level. RSVP provides a variety of services to
communities. These services include tutoring children and teenagers, renovating
homes, and serving as museum docents. Grants for Senior Corps program are
awarded to non-profit organizations and public agencies. Upon successful
completion of a three-year grant cycle, the organization or agency is eligible to renew
the grant for another cycle without competition from other entities.
Federal Efforts to Improve Coordination Among
Programs for Vulnerable Youth
Overview
Despite the range of services and activities programs for vulnerable youth, many
of these programs appear to have developed with little attempt to coordinate them in
a policy area or across policy areas. Policymakers and youth advocates argue that
federal agencies must develop mechanisms to improve coordination — defined, at
minimum, as communication and consultation. They argue that coordination is
necessary because of the expansion of programs that serve youth, the increasing
complexity and interrelated nature of public policies that affect youth, the
fragmentation of policy-making among agencies, and the establishment of new policy

⁹⁴ In its definition of disadvantaged, the program also include students who are enrolled in
schools where 50% or more of students receive free or reduced-priced meals.

priorities that cross older institutional boundaries.⁹⁵ To address concerns about the
coordination of federal programs, Congress has passed the Tom Osborne Federal
Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365), the YouthBuild Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281),
and the Claude Pepper Young Americans Act (P.L. 101-501); however, of the three,
only the YouthBuild Transfer Act has been funded. The Administration has also
undertaken efforts to coordinate programs around youth topic areas and youth
populations.
Concerns about Coordination of Youth Programs
In addition to the 51 programs described in Table A-1, dozens of other
programs in multiple federal agencies target, even in small part, vulnerable youth.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cataloged 131 programs for at-
risk or delinquent youth across 16 agencies in FY1996. GAO defined these youth as
individuals age five to 24 who, due to certain characteristics or experiences, were
statistically more likely than other youth to encounter certain problems — legal,⁹⁶
social, financial, educational, emotional, and health — in the future. The White
House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, convened in 2002, 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.⁹⁷
In its October 2003 final report, the task force identified concerns with coordinating
youth programs:
^!Mission Fragmentation: The federal response to disadvantaged
youth is an example of “mission fragmentation” because dozens of
youth programs appear to provide many of the same services and
share similar goals. For example, academic support was identified
as a service provided by 92 programs and mentoring was identified
as a service provided by 123 such programs, in FY2003.
^!Poor Coordination for Sub-Groups of Youth: According to the task
force, the federal government does not coordinate services for

⁹⁵ For additional information about rationales for coordination, see CRS Report RL31357,
Federal Interagency Coordinative Mechanisms: Varied Types and Numerous Devices, by
Frederick M. Kaiser. For a discussion of federal efforts to coordinate and integrate various
social service programs, see CRS Report RL32859, The “Superwaiver” Proposal and
Service Integration: A History of Federal Initiatives, by Cheryl Vincent.
⁹⁶ U.S. General Accounting Office, At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal
Programs Raise Efficiency Questions, GAO/HEHS-96-34, March 1996, at [http://www.gao.
gov/archive/1996/he96034.pdf]. (GAO is now known as the U.S. Government
Accountability Office.)
⁹⁷ The programs provide services such as: academic support; support for adults who work
with youth; after-school programs; AIDS prevention activities; counseling; mental health
services; mentoring; self-sufficiency skills; tutoring; and violence and crime prevention. See
Executive Office of the President, White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final
Report, October 2003, pp. 165-179, at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/
docs/white_house_task_force.pdf]. (Hereafter White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth Final Report.)

specific groups of youth (i.e., abused/neglected youth, current or
former foster youth, immigrant youth, minority youth, obese youth,
urban youth, and youth with disabilities, among others). The task
force report listed 30 sub-groups of vulnerable youth, with each sub-
group receiving services through at least 50 programs administered
by 12 agencies. The report cited that each agency operates their
programs autonomously and is not required to coordinate services
with other agencies.
^!Mission Creep: Known as “mission creep,” multiple agencies are
authorized by broadly-written statute to provide similar services to
the same groups of youth despite having distinct agency goals and
missions. Though youth programs are concentrated in the U.S.
Departments of Education, Health and Human Service, and Justice,
nine other agencies administer at least two youth-focused programs:
Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor,
Transportation, Corporation for National and Community Service,
Defense, Office of Drug Control Policy, and Environmental
Protection Agency.
^!Limited Program Accountability: The extent of overlap among youth
programs and the efficacy of these programs are difficult to
determine because some of them have not been recently assessed
through the Office of Management and Budget’s Program
Assessment and Rating Tool (PART) or by an independent program
evaluation. As of FY2003, more than half of the 339 youth-related
programs identified by the task force had not been evaluated within
the last five years. Of those programs that were evaluated, 75%
were evaluated independently and the remaining programs were self-
evaluated by the grantees. According to the task force, the quality
of the evaluations was low because most did not randomly assign
some youth to the programs and track their progress against
similarly-situated youth not in the program.
^!Funding Streams that Reduce Accountability: The funding streams
for youth programs affect their oversight. More than 300 youth
projects received earmarked appropriations (not necessarily from an
account in a federal youth program) in FY2003, totaling $206.2
million. According to the report, earmarked projects do not have the
same level of accountability as discretionary and mandatory
programs. The report also raised concerns that programs in needy
communities may be overlooked through the earmark process.
Congress has also examined challenges to coordinating programs targeted to
certain groups of youth. In a May 2004 hearing, the Government Reform Committee
examined redundancy and duplication in federal child welfare programs.⁹⁸

⁹⁸ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Redundancy and Duplication
in Federal Child Welfare Programs: A Case Study on the Need for Executive
(continued...)

Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109-365)
In response to the concerns 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) creating the
Federal Youth Coordination Council, to be chaired by the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Although not explicitly stated in P.L.
109-365, the purpose of the council is twofold: to improve coordination across
federal agencies that administer programs for vulnerable youth and to assist federal
agencies with evaluating these programs. Table 2 describes the duties established
by the council to meet these two goals. Policymakers and advocates assert that the
council can help to improve policy effectiveness by reducing the duplication of effort
and working at cross-purposes, while integrating distinct but reinforcing
responsibilities among relatively autonomous agencies.⁹⁹ They argue that the council
can improve accountability of various federal components by consolidating review
and reporting requirements.
Other duties of the council 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 specifies that the council coordinate with three existing interagency
bodies: the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, the
Interagency Council on Homelessness, and the Coordinating Council on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (The legislation does not describe how the
council should coordinate with these other bodies.) Further, the law requires that the
council provide Congress with an interim report within one year after the council’s
first meeting, as well as a final report not later than two years after the council’s first
meeting. The final report must 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

⁹⁸ (...continued)
Reorganization Authority, hearing, 108^th Cong., 2^nd sess., May 20, 2004 (Washington: GPO,

2004), available at [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/chearings/108hcat1.html].

⁹⁹ U.S. Congress, House Commitee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on
Select Education, Coordination Among Federal Youth Development Programs, hearing 109^th^st
Cong., 1 sess., July 12, 2005, statements of Rep. Tom Osborne and Marguerite W. Sallee,
Alliance for Youth (Washington: GPO, 2005), available at [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
chearings /109hcat1.html ].

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.
Funds were not appropriated for the council for FY2007 or FY2008, and the
President’s FY2009 budget does not request funding for the council. However, on
February 7, 2008, President Bush signed Executive Order 13459 to establish an
Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, discussed below.¹⁰⁰
Table 2. Duties of the Federal Youth Council, by Goal
^G^oal^{: T}^o^I^m^p^r^{ove C}^oordⁱⁿ^a^ti^on^G^oal^{: T}^o^A^s^s^e^s^s^Y^o^u^t^h^Program^s
^{— En}^s^u^{re com}^m^uⁿⁱ^cation^am^on^g^ag^en^cies^{— I}ⁿ^co^o^r^dⁱⁿ^a^tioⁿ^w^ith^th^{e Fed}^e^r^a^l
^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^eriⁿ^g^prog^ram^s^f^o^{r di}^s^a^dv^an^t^a^g^e^d^Iⁿ^ter^a^g^eⁿ^c^y^Fo^r^u^m^oⁿ^Ch^ild^an^d^Fam^ily
^y^o^ut^h;^Sta^tistic^s,^a^sse^{ss a}⁾^the^ne^e^d^{s o}^f^y^o^uth,
^—^Iden^tⁱ^f^y^pos^sⁱ^bl^{e areas}^of^ov^erl^a^{p or}^esp^ecially^th^o^s^{e in}^dⁱ^sad^v^an^tag^e^d^situ^atioⁿ^s^,^an^{d t}^h^os^{e w}^h^{o w}^o^rk^wⁱ^t^h^y^o^u^t^h^;^an^{d b) t}^h^e
^du^plⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^t^h^{e pu}^rpos^{e an}^{d operat}ⁱ^oⁿ^of^q^u^ality^an^d^q^u^an^tity^o^f^f^e^d^e^r^a^{l p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^s
^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^se^r^vⁱ^{ng y}^o^ut^{h a}ⁿ^d^r^e^c^o^m^m^e^ndⁱⁿ^g^of^f^e^rin^g^s^e^rv^ices^{, s}^u^pports^{, an}^{d opportu}ⁿ^ities
^w^a^y^s^to^b^e^tter^f^{acilitate th}^{e co}^o^r^dⁱⁿ^a^tioⁿ^an^d^to^h^e^lp^y^o^u^t^hⁱⁿ^th^eir^d^e^v^e^lo^p^m^en^t;
^c^o^nsul^t^a^tⁱ^o^{n a}^m^o^{ng suc}^h^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^;
^—^Iden^tⁱ^f^y^t^a^rg^et^popu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^of^y^o^u^t^h^w^h^o^{— R}^ecom^m^eⁿ^d^qu^an^tif^{iable g}^o^als^an^d^obj^ectⁱ^v^es^f^o^{r f}^e^deral^prog^ram^s^t^o^as^sⁱ^s^t
^{are di}^s^p^roportⁱ^oⁿ^a^t^e^l^y^at^ri^s^k^an^{d as}^sⁱ^s^t^di^s^a^dv^an^t^a^g^e^{d y}^o^u^t^h^;
^ag^en^{cies in}^f^o^cu^sin^g^ad^d^itioⁿ^a^{l r}^e^so^u^r^{ces o}ⁿ
^suc^h^y^o^ut^h;^{— Mak}^e^r^eco^m^m^eⁿ^d^atioⁿ^s^f^o^r^th^{e allo}^catioⁿ
^{— A}^s^sⁱ^s^t^f^e^{deral ag}^en^cies^{, at th}^{e requ}^es^{t of}^of^res^o^u^r^cesⁱⁿ^s^u^pport^of^s^u^ch^g^o^al^s^an^d^obj^ectiv^es^;
^on^{e or m}^o^{re ag}^en^cies^{, in}^collaboratin^g^on^a)
^m^odel^prog^ram^s^an^{d dem}^oⁿ^s^t^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^proj^ect^s^{— Dev}^e^lo^p^{a p}^l^an⁽^t^h^a^{t is co}ⁿ^s^isten^t^w^ith^th^e
^f^o^cu^sⁱⁿ^g^on^s^p^eci^al^popu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, i}ⁿ^cl^u^dⁱⁿ^g^com^m^oⁿⁱⁿ^di^cat^ors^of^y^o^u^t^h^w^e^l^l^-^beiⁿ^g
^y^o^u^t^hⁱⁿ^f^o^s^t^{er care an}^{d m}ⁱ^g^r^an^{t y}^o^u^t^h^;^b)^tr^ack^ed^b^y^th^{e Fed}^e^r^a^{l I}ⁿ^ter^a^g^eⁿ^c^y^Fo^r^u^m^oⁿ
^proj^ects^{to prom}^{ote paren}^t^{al in}^v^o^lv^em^en^{t; an}^d^Ch^ild^an^d^Fam^ily^Statistics)^to^{assist f}^e^d^e^r^a^l
^c⁾^p^r^o^j^e^c^t^{s t}^h^a^t^w^o^r^k^t^oⁱ^nvo^l^v^e^y^o^{ung p}^e^o^p^l^e^ag^en^cies^{(at th}^{e requ}^es^{t of}^on^{e or m}^o^{re s}^u^ch
ⁱⁿ^s^e^rvⁱ^{ce prog}^ram^s^;^ag^en^cies^{) coordin}^a^{te to ach}^iev^e^qu^an^tif^iable
^{— So}^{licit an}^d^d^o^c^u^m^en^{t o}ⁿ^g^oⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^p^u^{t an}^d^g^o^als^an^{d obj}^ectiv^es^;
^recom^m^eⁿ^d^ation^s^f^r^om^{a) y}^o^u^t^h^,^es^pecially^{— W}^o^rk^w^ith^f^e^{deral ag}^en^cies^{a) to prom}^ote
^y^o^u^t^hⁱⁿ^dⁱ^sad^v^an^tag^e^d^situ^atioⁿ^s^{; b}⁾ⁿ^a^tioⁿ^a^l^hⁱ^g^h^-^q^u^ality^r^e^sear^ch^an^d^ev^alu^a^tioⁿ^,^id^en^tif^y
^y^o^u^t^h^dev^e^lopm^en^{t ex}^perts^,^res^earch^ers^,^an^{d repl}ⁱ^cat^{e m}^odel^prog^ram^s^an^{d prom}ⁱ^sⁱⁿ^g
^p^a^r^e^nt^s,^c^o^m^m^uni^t^y^-b^a^s^e^d^o^r^gaⁿⁱ^z^a^tⁱ^o^ns,^practices^{, an}^{d prov}^{ide tech}ⁿⁱ^{cal as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce
^fo^und^a^tⁱ^o^ns,^b^u^si^ne^{ss l}^e^a^d^e^r^s,^y^o^ut^{h se}^r^vⁱ^c^e^r^e^latin^g^to^th^{e n}^eed^{s o}^f^y^o^u^t^h^;^an^d^b⁾^to
^prov^iders^,^an^{d teach}^ers^;^an^{d c) s}^t^{ate an}^{d local}^co^o^r^dⁱⁿ^a^{te th}^{e co}^llectioⁿ^an^d^dⁱ^ssemⁱⁿ^a^tioⁿ^o^f
^g^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^ag^en^cies^.^y^o^u^t^h^s^e^rv^ices^-^r^{elated data an}^{d res}^earch^.
^Source:^Cr^e^a^t^e^d^b^y^t^h^e^Co^ngr^e^ssi^oⁿ^a^l^Re^se^a^r^c^h^Se^r^vⁱ^c^e⁽^CRS)^,^oⁿ^t^h^e^b^a^si^{s o}^f^l^a^ngua^geⁱⁿ^P^.^L.^109-
^365.

¹⁰⁰ Executive Order 13459. “Improving the Coordination and Effectiveness of Youth
Programs.” Federal Register, vol. 73 (February 7, 2008), pp. 8003-8005.

Executive Order 13459
In Executive Order 13459, 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. See below
for additional information on HAY. The working group is to consist of the
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human
Services, Housing and Urban Development Justice, and Labor; the Office of National
Drug Control Policy; and the Corporation for National and Community Service. The
HHS Secretary is to serve as chair and the Attorney General as vice chair for the two
years following the date of the executive order. Subsequent chairs and vice chairs
will be designated by the HHS Secretary on a biennial basis. The primary functions
of the working group are as follows:
^!identify and engage 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, businesses, volunteers,
and other key constituencies;
^!develop a new federal website on youth, built upon the Community
Guide to Helping America’s Youth, with the first phase of the
website to be launched within 10 months of the date of the executive
order; develop strategies to ensure that the website is routinely
updated, improved, and publicized; provide for training to
youth-serving entities to enable effective use of the website; and
identify and assess the strengths and weaknesses of existing federal
websites focusing on youth-serving entities in order to improve
access to the most useful content;
^!encourage 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, so that the most effective practices can
be identified and replicated, and ineffective or duplicative programs
can be eliminated or reformed;
^!identify and promote initiatives and activities that merit strong
interagency collaboration because of their potential to offer cost-
effective solutions to achieve better results for at-risk youth,
including volunteer service in concern with the USA Freedom Corps
and mentoring in concert with the Federal Mentoring Council; and
^!annually report to the President on its work and on the
implementation of any recommendations arising from its work, with
the first report submitted no later than six months after the date of
the executive order.
The website is to be funded by contributions from executive departments and
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) shares some of the
same objectives as the Youth Coordination Act, and like that legislation, it was not
funded. The act 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.¹⁰¹ In its report supporting the act’s coordinating
provisions, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee noted:¹⁰²
The Committee is concerned that the current system of service is fragmented and
disjointed, making it difficult, if not impossible for children and families who are
being served in one system to access needed services from another. This creates
a situation in which problems of children and families not only go unmet but
undetected and unresolved. Through the inclusion of these proposals, the
Committee hopes to articulate a national commitment to our nation’s children,
youth, and families and to encourage greater cooperation at federal, state, and
local levels.
Federal Council on Children, Youth, and Families. The Federal
Council on Children, Youth, and Families was authorized by the Young Americans
Act to address concerns about the fragmentation and duplication of services for youth
at the federal and local levels. The act provided that the council comprise
representatives from federal agencies and state or local agencies that serve youth,
rural and urban populations; and national organizations with an interest in young
individuals, families, and early childhood. The duties of the council were to include
1) advising and assisting the president on matters relating to the special needs of
young individuals (and submitting a report to the president in FY1992 through
FY1998); 2) reviewing and evaluating federal policies, programs, or other activities
affecting youth and identifying duplication of services for these youth; and 3) making
recommendations to the President and Congress to streamline services, reduce
duplication of services, and encourage coordination of services for youth and their
families at the state and local levels. The act was amended in 1994 (P.L. 103-252)
to require that the council also identify program regulations, practices, and eligibility
requirements that impede coordination and collaboration and make recommendations
for their modifications or elimination.
Though the council was to be funded through FY1998, funding was never
appropriated.

¹⁰¹ For further discussion of concerns with coordination at the state and local levels and local
initiatives to improve coordination in the early 1990s, see CRS Report 96-369, Linking
Human Services: An Overview of Coordination and Integration Efforts, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem (out of print). The report is available upon request at x7-5700.
¹⁰² U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Human Services
Reauthorization Act, report to accompany P.L. 101-501, 101^st Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 101-

421 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1990), p. 1963.

Grants for States and Community Programs. The Young Americans
Act also established grant funding for coordinating resources and providing
comprehensive services to children, youth, and families at the state and local levels.
For states to receive funding, the act required each state to submit a plan discussing
how state and local entities would coordinate developmental, preventative, and
remedial services, among other provisions.
This grant program was never funded.
Youth Build Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281)
The Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth identified several programs, including
YouthBuild, that were located in a federal department whose mission does not
provide a clear and compelling reason for locating them within that agency. As such,
the task force recommended that YouthBuild be transferred from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development to the U.S. Department of Labor
because of DOL’s mission of administering workforce and training programs.¹⁰³ As
discussed above, the YouthBuild program provides educational services and job
training in construction for low-income youth ages 16 to 24 who are not enrolled in
school. On September 22, 2006 the YouthBuild Transfer Act (P.L. 109-281),
authorizing the transfer of the program from HUD to DOL, was signed into law. The
program is now funded as part of the WIA Youth Activities program.
Federal Initiatives to Improve Coordination
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. The Coordinating Council (Council) on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention was established by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) and is administered by the Department of
Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Council’s
primary functions are to coordinate federal programs and policies concerning juvenile
delinquency prevention, unaccompanied juveniles, and missing and exploited
children. The Council is led by the Attorney General and the Administrator of
OJJDP and includes the heads of all the federal agencies that touch on these broad
areas, including the Secretary of Health and Human Services; the Secretary of Labor;
the Secretary of Education; the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; the
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; the Chief Executive Officer
of the Corporation for National and Community Service; and the Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization (now the Commissioner of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement).
In recent years, the Council has broadened its focus to other at-risk youth. The
Council is seeking to implement some of the recommendations made by the Task
Force for Disadvantaged Youth, including (1) improve coordination of mentoring
programs; (2) develop a unified protocol for federal best practices clearinghouses; (3)
build a rigorous and unified disadvantaged youth research agenda; (4) improve data
collection on the well-being of families; (5) increase parents’ involvement in federal

¹⁰³ White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final Report, pp. 33-34.

youth programs; (6) target youth in public care; (7) target youth with many risk
factors; and (8) expand mentoring programs to special target groups, among other
recommendations.¹⁰⁴ The Council has formed the Federal Mentoring Council around
the issue of mentoring to best determine how agencies can combine resources to
provide training and technical assistance to federally administered mentoring
programs.¹⁰⁵ Chaired by the Corporation for National and Community Service and
Commissioner of FYSB, the Federal Mentoring Council has held a public forum on
mentoring and is now developing a mentoring initiative for young people aging out
of foster care.¹⁰⁶
Shared Youth Vision Initiative. In response to the recommendations made
by the Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, the U.S. Departments of Education
(ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice (DOJ), and Labor (DOL), and the
Social Security Administration partnered to improve communication and
collaboration across programs that target at-risk youth groups under an initiative
called the “Shared Youth Vision.”
Together, the agencies have convened an Interagency Work Group and
conducted regional forums in 16 states to develop and coordinate policies and
research on the vulnerable youth population. Representatives from federal and state
agencies in workforce development, education, social services, and juvenile justice
have participated in the forums. The purpose of these forums was to create and
implement plans to improve communication and collaboration between local
organizations that serve at-risk youth. The department competitively awarded grants
totaling $1.6 million to these states to assist them in developing strategic plans to link
their systems that serve youth. For example, Arizona is using this initiative to bring
together state and county agencies that can assist youth exiting foster care or the
juvenile justice system in two counties connect to education and employment
services and supports.¹⁰⁷ The Department of Health and Human Services has funded
a solutions desk, administered by the National Child Welfare Resource Center for
Youth Development, to provide the 16 states a single point of access to information
on federal resources available to assist them in implementing Shared Youth Vision
activities.
Partnerships for Youth Transition. HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental
Healthy Services Administration (SAMHSA) and ED’s Office of Special Education
are cosponsoring a four-year program, that began in FY2003, to offer long-term
support to young people between the ages of 14 and 25 with serious emotional
disorders and emerging serious mental illnesses. The program is intended to assist
youth transitioning to the adult system of medical care, while continuing to receive

¹⁰⁴ U.S. Department of Justice, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, Minutes from the Quarterly Meeting on November 30, 2006, p. 10, available at
[ h t t p : / / www.j u ve ni l ecounci l . go v/ me et i n gs .ht ml ] .
¹⁰⁵ Ibid., pp. 8-9.
¹⁰⁶ Based on correspondence with staff from the National Corporation for National and
Community Service, December 2007.
¹⁰⁷ For additional information about the programs in each state, see [http://www.doleta.gov/
ryf/Resources/T echnicalAssistanceForum.cfm] .

educational services. One of the program’s goals is to develop models of
comprehensive youth transition services that can be evaluated for their
effect i v eness.¹⁰⁸
Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative. From FY1999 to
FY2006, HHS, ED, and DOJ have provided joint grant funding for the Safe
Schools/Healthy Students Initiative to reduce violence and drug abuse at schools (K-
12) and in communities. Local education agencies — in partnership with local law
enforcement, public mental health, and juvenile justice entities — apply for SS/HS
funding. The initiative sponsors projects in schools and communities that 1) provide
a safe school environment; 2) offer alcohol-, other drug -, and violence-prevention
activities and early intervention for troubled students; 3) offer school and community
mental health preventative and treatment intervention programs; 4) offer early
childhood psychosocial and emotional development programs; 5) support and
connect schools and communities; and 6) support safe-school policies.
Examples of programs for youth K through 12^th grade include after-school and
summer tutoring programs; recreational activities such as chess club; volunteering;
and coordinated social service and academic activities for youth at risk of engaging
in delinquent behavior, including mental health care services, peer mentoring, and
parent workshops.
Drug-Free Communities Support Program. The Drug-Free Communities
Support Program is administered by SAMSHA and the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy (which has entered into an agreement with OJJDP to
manage the program on behalf of the sub-agency).¹⁰⁹ 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.
Coordination Around Specific Youth Populations. Federal agencies
have partnered to address the concerns raised in the Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth report about the uncoordinated response to assisting certain sub-groups of¹¹⁰
youth. According to congressional testimony in 2005 by the HHS Secretary, the
U.S. Departments of Education and Labor are working together to assist youth who
have dropped out of school. The agencies work to coordinate alternative education,
adolescent literacy and numeracy, and enhanced GED programs funded through WIA
to ensure that they comply with the No Child Left Behind requirements.

¹⁰⁸ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Transition to Adulthood:
SAMHSA Helps Vulnerable Youth, SAMHSA News, vol. XI, no. 1 (2003).
¹⁰⁹ For additional information, see [http://samhsa.gov/grants/2008/sp_08_002.aspx].
¹¹⁰ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on
Select Education, Coordination Among Federal Youth Development Programs, hearing,^th^st
109 Cong., 1 sess., July 12, 2005, statement of Dr. Michael O’Grady, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, (Washington, DC: GPO), available at [http://www.gpoaccess.
gov/ chearings /109hcat1.html ].

The Secretary also stated that ED and DOL, along with HHS and the USDA,
have formed an interagency team to address the educational needs of migrant youth.
The team has developed a proposal for a demonstration project that would provide
educational assistance for migrant youth at various locations along the migrant
stream (The migrant stream refers to the locations migrants frequent during particular
seasons. For instance, migrants along the east coast might work in Florida and North
Carolina in the winter, and Pennsylvania in the summer.) ED, HHS, DOJ, and DOL
have also partnered to improve education and employment outcomes for youth
offenders.
Policies to Promote Positive Youth Development
Overview
Some youth advocates argue that expanding programs for youth and providing
mechanisms to coordinate these programs should be part of a larger effort to improve
youth outcomes. This effort builds on the positive youth development approach
(discussed above) that views youth as assets, in contrast to deficit-based models
which focus primarily on specific youth problems.
Federal legislation and initiatives have been framed through the youth
development philosophy with the goal of providing resources and guidance to
communities and youth-focused programs that engage young people in roles as full
participants in the work place, community, and society at large. Major legislation
with a positive youth approach has included the Youth Development Community
Block Grant of 1995 (H.R. 2807/S. 673) and the Younger Americans Act of 2001
(H.R. 17/S. 1005), both of which did not pass out of committee. The Administration
has promoted the Helping America’s Youth (HAY) initiative to raise awareness
about issues affecting youth and to address these challenges through current federal
programs and an online community action guide. Finally, America’s Promise, a
federally-sponsored program operated by the nonprofit Alliance for Youth, conducts
and commissions research around positive youth development and recognizes
communities and organizations that promote this philosophy.
Youth Development Community Block Grant
of 1995 (H.R. 2807/S. 673)
The Youth Development Community Block Grant (YDCBG) of 1995 (H.R.
2807/S. 673) proposed to consolidate nearly two dozen federal youth programs
administered by the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and
Justice. The purpose of the legislation was to shift from a system of categorical
programs that targeted the problems of certain sub-populations of youth (i.e.,
pregnant youth, youth abusing drugs) to one that promoted all aspects of youth
development. At hearings on the legislation in the House and Senate, Members of
Congress, community leaders, and youth advocates discussed the need to support
comprehensive community services for youth. J.C. Watts, a co-sponsor of the
legislation, testified:

Because high risk behaviors are often interrelated, programs must consider the
overall development of individual youngsters rather than focusing on one
problem in isolation. Our current system of narrowly defined, categorical
programs is rather like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle scattered over a card table.¹¹¹
The YDCBG puts these pieces together.
The YDBCG Act did not prescribe specific activities or program types for which
the funds were to be used. Rather, the legislation would have required states to
submit a plan to HHS that outlined their youth development priorities. Funding
would have flowed to local community boards, which would have tailored local
YDCBG programs to community needs, consistent with the goals of these plans.
Funding from the block grant could only supplement, and not supplant, existing
funds for youth development programs and activities.
The block grant was to be based on three equally weighted formula factors: the
proportion of the nation’s total youth (defined as ages 6 to 17) that reside in each
state; proportion of the nation’s poor youth (defined as youth from low-income
families) that reside in each state; and the average incidence of juvenile crime during
the most recent four-year period. This $900 million proposed grant would have been
funded through the programs that were be eliminated, with a 10% overall reduction.
The legislation was referred out of committee in both the House and Senate, but
was not taken up again.
Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005)
The goal of the Younger Americans Act of 2001 (H.R. 17/S. 1005) was to create
a national youth policy that would have funded a network of youth programs through
a central funding source, based loosely on the framework of the Older Americans
Act.¹¹² Similar to its predecessor, the YDCBGA, the Younger Americans Act sought
to provide resources to youth consisting of (1) ongoing relationships with caring
adults; (2) safe places with structured activities; (3) access to services that promote
healthy lifestyles, including those designed to improve physical and mental health;
(4) opportunities to acquire marketable skills and competencies; and (5) opportunities
for community service and civic participation.
If passed, HHS would have distributed block grant funds to states based on a
formula that accounted for their proportion of the nation’s youth ages 10 to 19 and
the proportion of youth receiving a free or reduced-price school lunch. States would
have then distributed funds to local area agencies on youth, which were to be
supervised by community boards comprised of youth, representatives of youth-
serving organizations, representatives of local elected officials, parents, and leaders
of social and educational institutions in the community. Local youth organizations
could apply to the community service board for funding to carry out program

¹¹¹ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families, Youth Development, hearing, 104^th^st
Cong., 1 sess., September 19, 1996.
¹¹² The Older Americans Act is the major vehicle for the delivery of social and nutritional
services for older persons.

activities such as character development and ethical enrichment activities; mentoring
activities; provision and support of community youth centers; and nonschool hours,
weekend, and summer programs and camps, among other activities. HHS would
have also set aside funding for evaluations of these programs.
The Younger Americans Act proposed to fund the program at $500 million the
first year, increasing to $2 billion in its fifth year. The legislation did not pass
committee in the House or Senate.
Helping America’s Youth
Helping America’s Youth is a national initiative, led by Laura Bush, that grew
from four National Youth Summits that were coordinated and facilitated by HHS’s
Family and Youth Services Bureau. These summits were designed to convene
policymakers, program operators, and youth in disadvantaged situations to explore
national activities across ten federal agencies.
The mission of HAY is to promote positive youth development by raising
awareness about the challenges facing youth and motivating caring adults to connect
with youth.¹¹³ The Administration has promoted the initiative through national and
regional forums and online resources. The 2005 White House Conference on
Helping America’s Youth convened researchers, federal youth-serving agencies, and
community and state leaders to discuss challenges facing youth and promote
successful youth programs. Regional forums in six states and the District of
Columbia have also brought together local civic leaders, researchers, and youth to
discuss the goals of the initiative. (Laura Bush has also promoted the initiative
through site visits to successful youth programs, such as Father Flanagan’s Boys and
Girls Town in Nebraska and Colonie Youth Court in New York.) In addition to these
forums, HAY provides online assistance to communities. The Community Action
Guide is an online resource to help communities assess their needs and resources and
link them to effective programs to help youth.¹¹⁴ Guide users can input their
community locations and learn about federal resources (i.e., HUD-funded housing
units or SAMSHA-funded programs), local resources (i.e., Boys and Girls Clubs),
and the presence of businesses that sell tobacco and alcohol. The Guide also
provides a primer on tenets of positive youth development (including guidance on
how adult mentors can get involved in the lives of youth) and building community
partnerships between government agencies and community organizations. This tool
was created in partnership with nine federal agencies (HHS, Justice, ED, USDA,
Interior, HUD, Labor, Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Corporation
for National and Community Service).
As part of HAY, the Administration’s Communities Empowering Youth (CEY)
program works to reduce youth violence and to promote positive youth development.
Created in 2005, CEY is administered through HHS’s Compassion Capital Fund. The
Compassion Capital Fund is the key element of the Administration’s faith-based
initiative, announced in January 2001, to expand the use of faith-based and

¹¹³ For additional information, see [http://www.helpingamericasyouth.gov/].
¹¹⁴ See [http://guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/].

community group as providers of social services.¹¹⁵ It was created as a discretionary
program in 2002 appropriations law (P.L. 107-116). CEY and other Compassion
Capital Fund initiatives increase the service capacity and skills among faith-based
and community-organizations, and encourage replication of effective service
approaches. These organizations have a record of addressing youth violence and
directing youth to resources that promote positive youth development. As CEY
recipients, they assist other faith-based and community organizations that do not
receive CEY funding, in four areas: (1) leadership development, (2) organizational
development, (3) program development, and (4) community engagement.
In response to the federal coordination that HAY has promoted, President Bush
signed an executive order to create an interagency working group on youth programs,
discussed above.
Alliance for Youth: America’s Promise
America’s Promise is the national program established by the nonprofit
organization, Alliance for Youth, to promote the Five Promises that attendees at the
Presidents’ Summit for America’s Future (held in Philadelphia in 1997)¹¹⁶
determined to be essential for the success of young people:
^!Caring adults who are actively involved in their lives (i.e.,
parents, mentors, teachers, coaches);
^!Safe places in which to learn and grow;
^!Healthy start toward adulthood;
^!Effective education that builds marketable skills; and
^!Opportunities to help others.¹¹⁷
America’s Promise is funded through a combination of federal and private
funds. The Corporation for National and Community Service, the agency that
administers federal community service programs, provides the federal portion of the
funds. In FY2006, the organization received $4.5 million from CNCS. Congress did
not appropriate funds for America’s Promise for FY2007 and FY2008.¹¹⁸
The focus of the Alliance for Youth is to fund research that tracks youth
outcomes, recognize communities that implement best practices in youth
development, and provide financial and other resources to organizations that serve
young people. The organization’s 2006 report, “Every Child, Every Promise: a

¹¹⁵ For additional information, see CRS Report RS21844, The Compassion Capital Fund:
Brief Facts and Current Development, by Joe Richardson.
¹¹⁶ The five surviving presidents (at that time) convened the summit to mobilize Americans
in all sectors to ensure that all youth have adequate resources that will assist them in leading
healthy, productive lives.
¹¹⁷ The organization’s website provides additional information about the Five Promises:
[ h t t p : / / www.a me r i c a s pr omi s e .or g/ ] .
¹¹⁸ For funding in FY2008, the appropriations committees expect that America’s Promise
will be eligible to compete for merit-based grants under the AmeriCorps program. See U.S.
House, Congressional Record, H16282, December 17, 2007.

Report on America’s Young People,” correlated the presence of the Five Promises
in young people’s lives with success in adolescence and adulthood. The report
concludes that children who have at least four of the Five Promises are more likely
to be academically successful, civically engaged, and socially competent, regardless
of their race or family income.¹¹⁹
Positive Youth Development State and
Local Collaboration Demonstration Projects
The Family and Youth Services Bureau administers demonstration projects that
promote its mission of providing positive youth development programming. From
FY1998 to FY2003, 13 states received demonstration grants to assess how positive
youth development principles could be integrated into state policies and procedures;
provide training on the positive youth development approach; and identify data to
measure positive youth outcomes. The Bureau has since awarded $3 million in
grants to nine (Iowa, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
New York, and Oregon) of the original 13 states in FY2005 to fund collaborative
projects between those states and local jurisdictions and Indian tribes. The purpose
of the projects is to facilitate communication and cooperation among different levels
of government and the nonprofit sector that provide services to young people and to
energize local constituencies around the issue of youth development. For example,
one of the projects — in Chicago, Illinois — has forged a community partnership
between the Illinois Department of Social Service, a local youth council, community
center, a local park district, and other community service groups around the issues¹²⁰
of quality education and youth employment. The project has planned, raised funds
for, and marketed a career day and a forum for youth and police.
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

¹¹⁹ America’s Promise: The Alliance for Youth, Every Child, Every Promise: Turning
Failure to Action, p. 4, 2006, available at [http://www.americaspromise.org/uploaded
Files/AmericasPromise/Our_Work/Strategic_Initiatives/Every_Child_Every_
Promise/EC-EP_Docume nts/MAIN%20REPORT % 20DRAFT %2011.1.pdf].
¹²⁰ For more information, see the Family and Youth Services Bureau page on grantees
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/progr ams/fysb/content/youthdivi sion/initiatives/highlights.htm] .

disconnectedness — is perhaps the single strongest indicator that the transition has
not been made adequately. Despite the negative forecast for the employment and
education prospects of vulnerable youth, some youth experience positive outcomes
in adulthood. Youth who develop strong cognitive, emotional, and vocational skills,
among other types of competencies, have greater opportunities to reach their goals.
Advocates for youth promote the belief that all youth have assets and can make
valuable contributions to their communities despite their challenges.
The federal government has not developed a single overarching policy or
program to assist vulnerable youth, like the Older Americans Act program for the
elderly. Since the 1960s, a number of programs, many operating in isolation from
others, have worked to address the specific needs (i.e., vocational, educational, social
services, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, and health) of these youth.
More recently, policymakers have taken steps toward a more comprehensive federal
response to the population. The YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2006 moved the
YouthBuild program from HUD to DOL because the program is more aligned with
DOL’s mission of administering workforce and training programs. Also in 2006, the
Tom Obsborne Youth Coordination Act was passed to improve coordination across
federal agencies that administer programs for vulnerable youth and to assist federal
agencies with evaluating these programs. In February 2008, President Bush signed
an executive order establishing a federal Interagency Working Group on Youth
Programs. Other coordinating efforts, such as the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Council and Shared Youth Vision initiative, may have the resources and
leadership to create a more unified federal youth policy, albeit the JJDPC has a
primary focus on juvenile justice involved youth.
In addition to the Federal Youth Coordination Act, the few youth-targeted acts
over the past ten years have not passed or have passed without full implementation.
The unfunded Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 sought to increase
coordination among federal children and youth agencies by creating a Federal
Council on Children, Youth, and Families that would have streamlined federal youth
programs and advised the president on youth issues. Similarly, federal legislation
reflecting a youth development philosophy, with the goal of providing resources to
youth and engaging young people in their communities, has not been reported out of
committee. The 1995 Youth Development Community Block Grant and 2001
Younger Americans Act would have provided grant funding to the states with the
greatest concentrations of low-income youth to provide resources, such as mentors
and opportunities for community service and civic participation.
Though federal legislation targeted at vulnerable young people has not been
passed or implemented in recent years, current initiatives (Shared Youth Vision,
Helping America’s Youth, and America’s Promise) and collaborations (Safe
Schools/Healthy Students Initiative and the JJDPC) appear to have begun addressing,
even in small measure, the needs of this population.

CRS-49
Appendix: Federal Youth Programs
and Relevant CRS Reports and Experts
Table A-1. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY²⁰⁰⁹^R^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^r^{aining and Wo}^rk^{force Developm}^ent
^o^rps^W^ork^f^{orce In}^v^e^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^A^c^t^T^o^{assist elig}^ib^{le y}^o^u^t^h^w^h^o^{FY2006: $1.6}^billion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Y^o^u^t^h^ag^es^{16 t}^o^{21 (w}ⁱ^t^h
^of^{1998, as}^am^en^dedⁿ^{eed an}^{d can}^ben^e^f^{it f}^r^om^an^{FY2007: $1.}^{6 billion}^of^L^a^bor^ex^ception^s^{) w}^h^{o are eith}^er
ⁱⁿ^ten^s^iv^{e w}^o^r^k^f^o^r^c^e^{FY2008: $1.}^{6 billion}^lo^w^-ⁱⁿ^co^m^e^{, b}^a^{sic sk}^ills
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^{29 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§2881 et}^s^e^q.^dev^e^l^opm^en^t^prog^ram^,^operat^e^d^{FY2009: $1.}^{5 billion}^defⁱ^ci^en^t^,^{a s}^c^h^ool^dropou^t^,
^g/wⁱⁿ^{a g}^r^o^u^p^settin^gⁱⁿ^r^e^sid^eⁿ^tial^ho^m^e^l^e^ss,^a^r^una^w^a^y^,^o^r^a
^s^.or^an^dⁿ^oⁿ^r^esid^en^{tial cen}^ter^s^{, to}^f^o^s^t^{er ch}^{ild, a paren}^t^{or an}
^le^ak^becom^e^m^o^{re res}^pon^sⁱ^bl^e,ⁱⁿ^di^vⁱ^du^al^w^h^{o requ}ⁱ^r^es
^em^pl^oy^abl^e^{, an}^{d produ}^ctⁱ^v^e^ad^d^itioⁿ^a^{l ed}^u^catioⁿ^,^v^o^catioⁿ^a^l
^://wiki^citizen^s^.^tr^ainⁱⁿ^g^,^o^rⁱⁿ^ten^s^iv^e^c^o^unse^lⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^r^e^l^a^t^e^d
^h^ttp^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce to participate}
^suc^c^e^ssfully^{in r}^e^gula^r
^s^c^h^ool^w^o^rk^{or t}^o^s^ecu^{re an}^d
^h^o^l^d^em^pl^oy^m^eⁿ^t^.
^I^A^Yo^u^t^h^A^c^tiv^ities^W^o^r^k^f^o^r^{ce I}ⁿ^v^e^stm^eⁿ^t^A^c^t^T^o^p^r^o^v^id^{e ser}^v^{ices to}^elig^ib^le^{FY2006: $941}^m^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Y^o^u^t^h^ag^es^{14 t}^o^{21 w}^h^{o are}
^of^{1998, as}^am^en^ded^y^o^u^t^h^s^eekⁱⁿ^g^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce in}^{FY2007: $941}^m^illion^of^L^a^bor^low^-ⁱⁿ^com^e^an^{d eith}^{er def}ⁱ^cien^t
^ach^ievⁱⁿ^g^academ^{ic an}^d^{FY2008: $924}^m^illionⁱⁿ^b^a^{sic liter}^acy^sk^{ills, a sch}^o^o^l
^{29 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§2851 et}^s^e^q.^em^ploy^m^eⁿ^t^s^u^cces^s^,ⁱⁿ^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^{FY2009: $821}^m^illion^dropou^t^,^h^o^m^e^l^e^s^s^{, a ru}ⁿ^a^w^a^y^,
^t^h^{e prov}ⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^of^m^eⁿ^t^oriⁿ^g^,^{a f}^o^s^t^{er ch}^{ild, preg}ⁿ^aⁿ^t^{, a}
^s^u^pport^s^e^rvⁱ^ces^{, t}^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g^,^an^d^paren^t^{, an}^of^f^eⁿ^d^{er, or an}
ⁱⁿ^cen^tiv^es.ⁱⁿ^di^vⁱ^du^al^w^h^{o requ}ⁱ^r^es
^ad^d^itioⁿ^a^{l assistan}^{ce to}
^com^p^{lete an}^edu^cation^a^l
^prog^ram^,^{or t}^o^s^ecu^{re an}^{d h}^o^l^d
^em^pl^oy^m^eⁿ^t^.

CRS-50
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^t^h^B^u^ild^C^r^an^s^t^on^-^G^on^zalez^T^o^en^{able dis}^a^dv^an^tag^e^{d y}^o^u^t^h^{FY2006: $50 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Y^o^u^t^h^ag^es^{16 t}^o^{24 w}^h^{o are a}
^Natioⁿ^a^{l A}^f^f^o^r^d^ab^le^{to obtain}^th^{e edu}^cation^an^d^{FY2007: $50 m}^illion^of^L^a^bor^m^e^m^b^{er of}^{a low}^-ⁱⁿ^com^e
^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^A^c^t^of^{1990, as}^em^p^l^o^y^m^eⁿ^t^sk^{ills w}^h^ile^{FY2008: $59 m}^illion^f^a^m^ily^{, in}^f^o^s^t^{er care, a y}^o^u^t^h
^am^en^ded^ex^pan^dⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e s}^u^ppl^y^of^{FY2009: $50 m}^illion^o^f^f^eⁿ^d^er^{, h}^a^v^e^{a d}ⁱ^sab^ility^{, ar}^e
^perm^an^en^{t af}^f^o^{rdable h}^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^{a ch}^{ild of}ⁱⁿ^{carcerated paren}^t^s^,
^{29 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§2918a^fo^r^ho^m^e^le^{ss ind}ⁱ^vid^u^a^l^{s a}ⁿ^d^o^r^a^mⁱ^gr^aⁿ^t^y^o^ut^{h o}^r^a^sc^ho^o^l
^lo^w^-ⁱⁿ^co^m^e^f^a^m^ilies.^dropou^t^(wⁱ^t^h^ex^ceptⁱ^oⁿ^s^).
^ut^{h Co}^nse^r^va^tⁱ^oⁿ^Y^o^ut^{h Co}^nse^r^va^tⁱ^o^{n Co}^r^p^s^T^o^f^u^rth^e^{r th}^{e dev}^e^lopm^en^{t an}^d^{No s}^p^ecifⁱ^{c am}^ouⁿ^t^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^A^l^l^y^o^u^t^h^{15 t}^o^{18 y}^ears^of^ag^e
^r^p^s^A^c^t^of^{1970, as}^am^en^ded^m^aⁱⁿ^ten^aⁿ^{ce o}^f^th^{e n}^a^tu^r^a^l^appropri^a^t^e^{d or requ}^es^t^e^d.^o^f^th^{e I}ⁿ^terⁱ^o^r^(targ^e^ts^econ^o^mⁱ^cally
^res^o^u^r^ces^by^A^m^erica’^s^y^o^u^t^h^,^T^h^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s⁽^B^ur^e^a^u^o^f^La^nd^di^s^a^dv^an^t^a^g^e^{d, at}^-^rⁱ^s^k⁾^.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^{16 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§1701 et}^s^e^q.^an^{d in}^s^o^doin^g^{to prepare th}^em^S^u^bcom^mⁱ^t^t^{ee on}^In^t^e^ri^or,^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^,^Fi^sh
^g/w^f^o^r^th^{e u}^ltim^{ate r}^e^sp^oⁿ^sib^ility^o^f^En^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^en^{t, an}^d^Related^an^d^W^ild^lif^e
^s^.or^m^aⁱⁿ^t^aⁱⁿⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^m^a^na^gi^{ng t}^h^e^s^e^A^g^en^cies^g^eⁿ^e^rally^directs^th^e^A^g^en^cy^{, an}^{d th}^e
^le^ak^res^o^u^r^ces^f^o^{r th}^{e A}^m^erican^peopl^e.^f^o^u^r^ag^en^cies^{to allocate n}^o^les^s^th^an^{a particu}^l^{ar am}^ouⁿ^t^Natioⁿ^a^{l P}^a^r^k^Serv^{ice) an}^{d U.S.}
^://wiki^t^o^Y^o^ut^{h Co}^nse^r^va^tⁱ^o^{n Co}^r^p^s^activ^{ities (}^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^lly^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^A^g^ri^cu^l^t^u^{re (F}^ores^t
^h^ttp^r^aⁿ^g^e^{s f}^r^o^m^$¹^.⁵^m^illioⁿ^to^$²^Serv^ice)
^m^illioⁿ^p^e^r^ag^en^cy⁾^.
^t^ioⁿ
^-^A^:^Ed^u^catioⁿ^Elem^en^tary^an^{d Secon}^d^ary^T^o^im^prov^{e th}^{e edu}^cation^a^l^{FY2006: $13}^billion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Ed^u^catioⁿ^a^lly^dⁱ^sad^v^an^tag^e^d
^{r th}^{e Dis}^a^dv^an^tag^e^d^Edu^catⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of^{1965, as}^ach^iev^e^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^ed^u^catioⁿ^a^lly^{FY2007: $13}^billion^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^ch^ildren^an^{d y}^o^u^t^h^,ⁱⁿ^areas
^am^en^ded^di^s^a^dv^an^t^a^g^e^{d ch}ⁱ^l^d^ren^an^d^{FY2008: $14}^billion^w^ith^coⁿ^cen^tr^atioⁿ^s^o^f^ch^ild^r^eⁿ
^y^o^ut^h,^aⁿ^d^t^o^r^e^d^u^c^e^{FY2009: $14}^billion^an^d^y^o^u^t^hⁱⁿ^lo^w^-ⁱⁿ^co^m^e
^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§6301 et}^{. s}^e^q.^ach^iev^e^m^eⁿ^t^g^a^ps^betw^een^s^u^ch^f^a^m^ilies.

^pu^pils^an^{d th}^{eir m}^o^{re adv}^aⁿ^t^ag^ed
^peers^.

CRS-51
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^-^{C: Mig}^r^an^t^Elem^en^tary^an^{d Secon}^d^ary^T^o^s^u^{pport h}ⁱ^g^h^qu^ality^an^d^{FY2006: $387}^m^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Mⁱ^gr^aⁿ^t^c^hⁱ^l^d^r^e^{n a}ⁿ^d^y^o^ut^h.
^u^catioⁿ^Edu^catⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of^{1965, as}^com^p^reh^eⁿ^s^iv^{e edu}^cation^a^l^{FY2007: $387}^m^illion^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ
^am^en^ded^prog^ram^s^f^o^{r m}ⁱ^g^r^an^t^chⁱ^l^d^ren^{FY2008: $380}^m^illion
^aⁿ^d^y^o^ut^h.^{FY2009: $400}^m^illion
^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§6391
^-^{D: P}^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^Elem^en^tary^an^{d Secon}^d^ary^T^o^m^{eet th}^{e s}^p^{ecial edu}^cation^a^l^{FY2006: $50 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^A^b^u^s^ed/n^eg^{lected y}^o^u^t^h^,
^d^Iⁿ^ter^v^en^tioⁿ^Edu^catⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of^{1965, as}ⁿ^eed^{s o}^f^ch^ild^r^eⁿⁱⁿⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^{FY2007: $50 m}^illion^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^d^e^lⁱⁿ^q^u^eⁿ^t^y^o^ut^h,^aⁿ^d^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e
^og^ram^s^f^o^{r C}^hⁱ^l^d^ren^am^en^ded^an^{d com}^m^uⁿⁱ^t^y^day^s^c^h^ool^{FY2008: $49 m}^illion^FY2009:^o^ffe^nd^e^r^s.
^d^Y^o^ut^{hs W}^h^o^A^r^e^prog^ram^s^f^o^{r n}^e^g^l^{ected an}^d^{$52 m}^illion
^l^{ected, Delin}^qu^en^t,^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§6421-^{6472 et}^d^e^lin^q^u^en^{t ch}^ild^r^eⁿ^an^d^ch^ild^r^eⁿ
^t^Rⁱ^s^k^se^q^.ⁱⁿ^ad^u^{lt co}^r^r^ectioⁿ^a^{l in}^stitu^tioⁿ^s^.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}
^g/w
^s^.or^-^{H: Sch}^o^o^l^Elem^en^tary^an^{d Secon}^d^ary^T^o^provⁱ^d^{e f}^o^{r s}^c^h^ool^dropou^t^{FY2006: $5 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Y^o^u^t^h^at^ri^s^k^of^droppiⁿ^g^ou^t^of
^le^ak^opou^t^Prev^en^tⁱ^oⁿ^Edu^catⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of^{1965, as}^prev^en^tion^an^{d reen}^try^an^{d to}^F^Y^2007:^$0^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^s^c^h^ool^di^s^t^ri^ct^s^wⁱ^t^h^dropou^t
^am^en^ded^rais^{e academ}^{ic ach}^iev^e^m^eⁿ^t^F^Y^2008:^$0^rates^hⁱ^g^h^e^{r th}^an^th^{eir s}^t^ate’^s
^://wiki^lev^e^ls.^F^Y^2009:^$0^av^erag^e.
^h^ttp^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§6551 et}^s^e^q.
^I^I^:^En^g^lish^Elem^en^tary^an^{d Secon}^d^ary^T^o^en^su^r^e^th^{at lim}^ited^En^g^lish^{FY2006: $669}^m^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Ch^ild^r^eⁿ^an^d^y^o^u^t^h^w^ith^lim^ited
^ngua^ge^A^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^Edu^catⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of^{1965, as}^p^r^o^f^icien^t^ch^ild^r^eⁿ⁽^L^EP⁾^an^d^{FY2007: $669}^m^illion^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^En^g^lish^p^r^o^f^icien^c^y^.
^am^en^ded^y^o^ut^h,ⁱⁿ^c^l^udⁱ^{ng i}^m^mⁱ^gr^aⁿ^t^{FY2008: $700}^m^illion
^ch^ild^r^eⁿ^an^d^y^o^u^t^h^,^attain^{FY2009: $730}^m^illion
^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§6801 et}^s^e^q.^En^g^lish^p^r^o^f^icien^c^y^.
^V^-^A^{: Saf}^e^an^d^Elem^en^tary^an^{d Secon}^d^ary^T^o^prev^en^{t v}ⁱ^olen^{ce in}^an^d^{FY2006: $347}^m^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^A^l^l^y^o^ut^h;^a^t^-rⁱ^s^{k y}^o^ut^h;^sc^ho^o^l
^{ug Fr}^{ee Scho}^o^l^s,^Edu^catⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of^{1965, as}^a^r^o^und^sc^ho^o^l^{s a}ⁿ^d^t^o^st^r^e^ngt^heⁿ^{FY2007: $347}^m^illion^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^dropou^t^s^.

^A^,^S^u^bpart^{1, S}^t^at^e^am^en^ded^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^th^{at p}^r^ev^en^{t th}^{e illeg}^a^l^{FY2008: $295}^m^illion
^{ts f}^o^{r Dru}^g^an^d^u^s^{e of}^alcoh^o^{l, tobacco, an}^d^{FY2009: $100}^m^illion
^{ce P}^r^ev^en^tion^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§§7111-⁷¹¹⁸^d^r^ugs,ⁱ^nvo^l^v^e^p^a^r^e^nt^s,^aⁿ^d^a^r^e
^coordiⁿ^a^t^e^{d w}ⁱ^t^h^rel^a^t^e^{d f}^e^deral^,
^s^t^{ate, an}^{d com}^m^uⁿ^ity^ef^f^o^rts^an^d
^res^o^u^r^ces^.

CRS-52
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^V^-^B^{: 2}¹^st^Elem^en^tary^an^{d Secon}^d^ary^T^o^{create com}^m^uⁿ^ity^learnⁱⁿ^g^{FY2006: $981}^m^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^St^ud^eⁿ^t^s^w^h^o^a^t^t^e^nd^hi^gh-
^nt^ur^y^Le^a^rⁿⁱ^ng^Edu^catⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of^{1965, as}^cen^ters^th^{at h}^e^{lp s}^t^u^d^en^ts^m^eet^{FY2007: $981}^m^illion^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^pov^ert^y^an^{d l}^o^w^-^perf^ormⁱⁿ^g
^nte^r^s^am^en^ded^s^t^{ate an}^{d local edu}^cation^a^l^{FY2008: $1.}^{1 billion}^sc^ho^o^l^s.
^s^t^an^dards^,^t^o^provⁱ^d^e^{FY2009: $800}^m^illion
^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§8241 et}^s^e^q.^s^u^pplem^en^tary^edu^cation^a^l
^assistan^{ce, an}^d^to^o^f^f^e^r^liter^acy
^an^d^o^t^h^e^r^ser^v^{ices to}^th^{e f}^a^m^ilies
^o^f^p^a^r^ticip^atin^g^y^o^u^t^h^.
^I^:^Ed^u^catioⁿ^o^f^McKinⁿ^e^y^-^Ven^t^o^Ho^m^e^less^T^o^p^r^o^v^id^{e activ}^{ities f}^o^r^an^d^{FY2006: $62 m}^illion^(plu^s^$5^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Ho^m^e^{less ch}^ild^r^eⁿ^an^d^y^o^u^t^hⁱⁿ
^m^e^{less Ch}^ild^r^eⁿ^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce A}^c^t^of^{1987, as}^s^e^rv^ices^{to en}^s^u^{re th}^{at h}^o^m^e^les^s^m^illioⁿ^f^o^r^h^u^r^rⁱ^can^e^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^elem^en^tary^an^{d s}^econ^d^ary
^am^en^ded^ch^ild^r^eⁿ^en^r^o^{ll in}^{, atten}^d^{, an}^d^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l⁾^F^Y^2007:^$62^s^c^h^ool^s^,^h^o^m^e^l^e^s^s^pres^ch^ool
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^a^c^h^ie^ve^suc^c^e^{ss in sc}^ho^o^l^.^m^illioⁿ^ch^ildren^,^an^{d th}^{e paren}^t^s^of
^g/w^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§§11431-¹¹⁴³⁵^{FY2008: $64 m}^illion^h^o^m^e^{less ch}^ild^r^eⁿ^.
^s^.or^{FY2009: $64 m}^illion
^le^akⁱ^gr^aⁿ^t^Hⁱ^{gh Sc}^ho^o^l^Hⁱ^ghe^r^E^d^uc^a^tⁱ^o^{n A}^c^t^,^a^s^T^o^prov^{ide academ}^{ic an}^d^{FY2006: $34 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Mⁱ^gr^aⁿ^t^y^o^ut^{h a}^g^e^s¹⁶^t^o²¹^.
^ui^va^l^e^nc^y^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^am^en^ded^s^u^pport^s^e^rvⁱ^ces^t^o^h^e^l^p^elⁱ^gⁱ^b^l^e^{FY2007: $34 m}^illion^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ
^://wiki^{d C}^o^lleg^e^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce^mⁱ^gr^aⁿ^t^y^o^ut^{h o}^b^t^aⁱ^{n t}^h^eⁱ^r^hi^gh^{FY2008: $34 m}^illion
^h^ttp^og^r^a^m^s^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§1070d-²^s^c^h^{ool equ}ⁱ^v^a^len^c^y^certif^icate^{FY2009: $34 m}^illion
^an^{d m}^o^v^e^on^t^o^em^pl^oy^m^eⁿ^t^or
^en^r^o^llm^en^{t in}^hⁱ^g^h^e^r^ed^u^catioⁿ^.
^w^a^r^d^B^o^und^Hⁱ^ghe^r^E^d^uc^a^tⁱ^o^{n A}^c^t^o^f^T^oⁱⁿ^creas^{e th}^{e academ}^ic^{FY2006: $310}^m^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^L^o^w^-ⁱⁿ^com^eⁱⁿ^divⁱ^du^als^an^d
^{1965, as}^am^en^ded^p^e^r^f^o^r^m^aⁿ^{ce o}^f^elig^ib^{le en}^r^o^llees^{FY2007: $314}^m^illion^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^p^o^t^en^{tial f}ⁱ^r^s^{t g}^eⁿ^e^r^a^tioⁿ
^so^tha^t^suc^h^p^e^r^s^oⁿ^{s m}^a^y^{FY2008: $361}^m^illion^colleg^e^s^t^u^d^en^ts^betw^een^ag^es
^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§1070a-¹³^com^p^{lete s}^econ^d^ary^s^c^h^{ool an}^d^{FY2009: $360}^m^illion^{13 an}^{d 19, an}^{d h}^a^v^e^com^p^l^e^t^e^d^th
^pu^rs^u^e^pos^t^s^econ^d^ary^th^{e 8}^gr^a^d^e^b^u^t^ha^ve^no^t^th
^ed^u^catioⁿ^a^{l p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^.^en^ter^e^d^th^{e 1}²^g^r^{ade (w}^ith
^ex^ception^s^).

CRS-53
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^u^catioⁿ^a^l^Hⁱ^ghe^r^E^d^uc^a^tⁱ^o^{n A}^c^t^o^f^T^o^p^r^o^v^id^{e in}^f^o^r^m^atioⁿ^to^{FY2006: $48 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^A^t^{least tw}^o^-^th^ir^d^s^o^f
^uⁿⁱ^t^y^C^eⁿ^t^ers^{1965, as}^am^en^ded^pros^pectiv^{e pos}^ts^econ^d^ary^{FY2007: $47 m}^illion^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^p^a^r^ticip^an^{ts in}^an^y^p^r^o^j^{ect m}^u^st
^st^ud^eⁿ^t^s^r^e^ga^r^dⁱ^{ng a}^v^aⁱ^l^a^b^l^e^{FY2008: $47 m}^illion^b^e^lo^w^-ⁱⁿ^co^m^e^stu^d^en^{ts w}^h^o
^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§1070a-¹⁶^fⁱⁿ^aⁿ^c^{ial aid an}^{d academ}^ic^{FY2009: $47 m}^illion^w^o^ul^d^b^e^fi^r^s^t^-^ge^ne^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce, an}^{d h}^e^{lp th}^em^apply^colleg^e^g^o^ers^.^T^h^ey^m^u^s^t^als^o
^f^o^{r adm}ⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^an^{d f}ⁱⁿ^aⁿ^c^{ial aid.}^{be at}^l^eas^t^{19 y}^ears^ol^d.
ⁿ^a^ld^{E. McNair}^Hⁱ^ghe^r^E^d^uc^a^tⁱ^o^{n A}^c^t^o^f^T^o^p^r^o^v^id^{e g}^r^an^{ts to}ⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^{FY2006: $42 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^L^o^w^-ⁱⁿ^co^m^e^co^lleg^e^stu^d^en^ts
^s^t^baccalau^rete^{1965, as}^am^en^ded^o^f^hi^ghe^r^e^d^uc^a^tⁱ^o^{n t}^o^p^r^e^p^a^r^e^{FY2007: $45 m}^illion^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^{or u}ⁿ^d^errepres^en^{ted s}^t^u^d^en^ts
^hⁱ^ev^em^en^t^p^a^r^ticip^an^{ts f}^o^r^d^o^c^to^r^a^{l stu}^d^ies^{FY2008: $44 m}^illion^en^r^o^lledⁱⁿ^anⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^o^f
^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§1070a-¹⁵^t^h^r^o^{ugh i}^nvo^l^v^e^m^eⁿ^tⁱⁿ^r^e^se^a^r^c^h^{FY2009: $44 m}^illion^hi^ghe^r^e^d^uc^a^tⁱ^o^n.
^an^d^o^t^h^e^r^sch^o^lar^l^y^activ^ities.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^u^d^en^t^S^u^pport^Hⁱ^ghe^r^E^d^uc^a^tⁱ^o^{n A}^c^t^o^f^T^o^im^p^r^o^v^{e co}^lleg^e^stu^d^en^ts’^{FY2006: $271}^m^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^A^t^{least tw}^o^-^th^ir^d^s^o^f
^g/w^ices^{1965, as}^am^en^ded^r^e^ten^tioⁿ^an^d^g^r^ad^u^a^tioⁿ^r^a^tes,^{FY2007: $272}^m^illion^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^p^a^r^ticip^an^{ts in}^an^y^p^r^o^j^{ect m}^u^st
^s^.or^an^{d im}^prov^{e th}^{e tran}^s^f^{er rates}^of^{FY2008: $281}^m^illion^{be ei}^t^h^{er di}^s^a^bl^{ed i}ⁿ^di^vⁱ^du^al^s^or
^le^ak^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§1070a-¹⁴^stu^d^en^{ts f}^r^o^m^tw^o^-^y^ear^to^{FY2009: $282}^m^illion^lo^w^-ⁱⁿ^co^m^e^{, f}ⁱ^r^s^t-^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^tioⁿ
^f^o^u^r^-^y^{ear colleg}^e^s^.^co^lleg^e^g^o^er^{s. T}^h^{e r}^e^m^aⁱⁿⁱⁿ^g
^://wiki^p^a^r^ticip^an^{ts m}^u^{st b}^e
^h^ttp^lo^w^-ⁱⁿ^co^m^e^{, o}^r^fⁱ^r^s^t-^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^tioⁿ
^col^l^e^g^e^g^o^ers^,^{or di}^s^a^bl^{ed. N}^o^t
^{less th}^an^oⁿ^e-^th^ir^d^o^f^th^e
^di^s^a^bl^{ed part}ⁱ^cⁱ^p^an^t^s^m^u^s^t^be
^lo^w^-ⁱⁿ^co^m^e^{as w}^e^ll.

CRS-54
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^l^e^nt^Se^a^r^c^h^Hⁱ^ghe^r^E^d^uc^a^tⁱ^o^{n A}^c^t^o^f^T^o^id^en^tif^y^dⁱ^sad^v^an^tag^e^d^y^o^u^t^h^{FY2006: $150}^m^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^P^r^o^j^{ect p}^a^r^ticip^an^{ts m}^u^{st b}^e
^{1965, as}^am^en^ded^w^ith^p^o^t^en^{tial f}^o^r^p^o^s^tsecoⁿ^d^ar^y^{FY2007: $143}^m^illion^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^bet^w^een^{11 an}^{d 27 y}^ears^ol^d
^edu^cation^;^{to en}^cou^r^ag^{e th}^emⁱⁿ^{FY2008: $143}^m^illion⁽^e^x^cep^tioⁿ^s^allo^w^e^d⁾^{, an}^d
^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§1070a-¹²^c^o^ntⁱ^nui^{ng i}ⁿ^aⁿ^d^gr^a^d^ua^tⁱⁿ^g^{FY2009: $143}^m^illion^tw^o^-^th^ir^d^s^m^u^{st b}^e^lo^w^-ⁱⁿ^co^m^e
^f^r^om^s^econ^d^ary^s^c^h^{ool an}^{d in}ⁱⁿ^divⁱ^du^als^w^h^{o are als}^o
^en^rol^lⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^prog^ram^s^of^p^o^t^en^{tial f}ⁱ^r^s^t-^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^tioⁿ
^pos^ts^econ^d^ary^edu^cation^;^to^co^lleg^e^stu^d^en^ts.
^p^u^b^{licize th}^{e av}^ailab^ility^o^f
^stu^d^en^{t f}ⁱⁿ^aⁿ^c^{ial aid}^;^an^d^to
ⁱⁿ^creas^{e th}^{e n}^u^m^{ber of}
^s^econ^d^ary^an^{d pos}^ts^econ^d^ary
^s^c^h^ool^dropou^t^s^w^h^{o reen}^t^e^{r an}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^ed^u^catioⁿ^a^{l p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^.
^g/w
^s^.orⁱⁿ^g^Ear^l^y^Hⁱ^ghe^r^E^d^uc^a^tⁱ^o^{n A}^c^t^o^f^T^o^prov^{ide f}ⁱⁿ^aⁿ^c^{ial as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce^{FY2006: $303}^m^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^L^o^w^-ⁱⁿ^com^e^s^t^u^d^en^ts^an^d
^le^ak^aren^es^s^an^d^es^s^f^o^r^{1965, as}^am^en^ded^to^lo^w^-ⁱⁿ^co^m^eⁱⁿ^dⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^{als to}^atten^d^anⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^o^f^hⁱ^g^h^e^r^{FY2007: $303}^m^illion^{FY2008: $303}^m^illion^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^st^ud^eⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^hi^gh-p^o^v^e^r^t^y^sc^ho^o^l^s.
^://wiki^derg^radu^at^e^og^ram^s^(GEA^R^-^UP⁾^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§1070a-^21-^1070a-²⁸^edu^catⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d s}^u^pport^elⁱ^gⁱ^b^l^e^en^{tities in}^p^r^o^v^idⁱⁿ^g^co^uⁿ^s^elin^g^,^{FY2009: $303}^m^illion
^h^ttp^m^eⁿ^t^orin^g^,^academ^{ic s}^u^pport,
^ou^treach^{, an}^{d s}^u^pportiv^{e s}^e^rv^ices
^t^o^s^t^u^d^en^t^s^at^ri^s^k^of^droppiⁿ^g
^ou^t^of^s^c^h^ool^.
^di^vⁱ^du^al^s^wⁱ^t^h^Ed^u^catioⁿ^f^o^r^A^l^l^T^o^provⁱ^d^{e a f}^r^{ee appropri}^a^t^e^{FY2006: $10.}^{6 billion}^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^S^c^h^ool^-^a^g^e^{d ch}ⁱ^l^d^ren^an^{d y}^o^u^t^h
^{ilities Ed}^u^catioⁿ^H^aⁿ^dⁱ^{capped C}^hⁱ^l^d^ren^A^c^t^ed^u^catioⁿ^to^{all ch}^ild^r^eⁿ^w^ith^{FY2007: $10.}^{8 billion}^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^w^ith^dⁱ^sab^{ilities, u}^p^to^ag^{e 2}¹
^{t, P}^a^r^t^B^Gr^an^{t to}^of^{1975, as}^am^en^ded^dⁱ^sab^ilities.^{FY2008: $11.}^{0 billion}^(pu^r^s^u^an^{t to s}^t^{ate law}⁾^.

⁽^c^ur^r^e^nt^l^y^kno^wⁿ^a^s^t^h^e^{FY2009: $11.}^{3 billion}
^Iⁿ^dⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^{als w}^ith^Disab^ilities
^Ed^u^catioⁿ^A^c^t)
^{20 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§1400 et}^s^e^q.

CRS-55
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^venⁱ^l^e^Ju^s^tⁱ^c^e
^u^l^{a Gran}^ts^J^u^v^eⁿ^{ile J}^u^s^{tice an}^d^T^oⁱⁿ^creas^{e th}^{e capacity}^of^s^t^ate^{FY2006: $80 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^D^e^lⁱⁿ^q^u^eⁿ^t^y^o^ut^h,^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e
^Delin^qu^en^cy^P^r^ev^en^tion^an^{d l}^o^cal^g^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^s^t^o^s^u^pport^{FY2007: $79 m}^illion^o^f^J^u^stice^o^ffe^nd^e^r^s,^aⁿ^d^a^t^-rⁱ^s^{k y}^o^ut^h.
^A^c^t^of^{1974, as}^am^en^ded^t^h^{e dev}^e^l^opm^en^t^of^m^o^re^{FY2008: $74 m}^illion
^ef^f^ectiv^{e edu}^cation^,^trainⁱⁿ^g^,^F^Y^2009:^T^h^{e U}^.^S^.^D^O^J
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§5631-³³^res^earch^{, an}^{d ot}^h^e^{r prog}^ram^sⁱⁿ^F^Y^{2009 Perf}^orm^aⁿ^{ce Bu}^dg^et
^th^{e area of}^j^u^v^eⁿ^{ile delin}^qu^en^cy^propos^es^t^o^con^s^olⁱ^d^at^{e t}^hⁱ^s
^an^{d prog}^ram^s^t^oⁱ^m^prov^{e t}^h^e^prog^ram^wⁱ^t^h^ot^h^e^{r j}^u^v^eⁿⁱ^l^e
^j^u^v^eⁿ^{ile j}^u^s^{tice s}^y^s^t^em^(e.g^.,^j^u^s^{tice an}^{d ch}^{ild abu}^s^e
^com^m^uⁿ^ity^-^b^as^{ed s}^e^rv^ices^f^o^r^prog^ram^sⁱⁿ^t^o^{a s}ⁱⁿ^g^l^e
^th^{e prev}^en^tion^an^{d con}^t^{rol of}^di^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^bl^ock^g^r^an^t
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^j^u^v^eⁿ^{ile d}^e^lin^q^u^en^cy^{, g}^r^o^u^p^und^e^r^a^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^kno^wⁿ^a^s^t^h^e
^g/w^ho^m^e^s,^aⁿ^d^ha^l^f^w^a^y^ho^use^s⁾^.^Ch^ild^Saf^e^ty^an^d^J^u^v^eⁿ^ile
^s^.or^J^u^s^{tice P}^r^og^ram^.⁾
^le^ak^v^eⁿ^{ile Delin}^q^u^en^cy²¹^st^Ce^nt^ur^y^D^e^p^a^r^t^m^e^nt^o^f^T^o^provⁱ^d^{e f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r prog}^ram^s^F^Y^2006:^$0^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^D^e^lⁱⁿ^q^u^eⁿ^t^y^o^ut^h,^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e
^ev^en^tion^B^l^ock^J^u^s^{tice R}^eau^th^orization^A^c^t^th^{at p}^r^ev^en^{t j}^u^v^eⁿ^ile^F^Y^2007:^$0^o^f^J^u^stice^o^ffe^nd^e^r^s,^ga^{ng m}^e^m^b^e^r^s,^aⁿ^d
^://wiki^{t P}^r^o^g^ram^of²⁰⁰²^d^e^lin^q^u^en^cy^{, in}^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^,^b^u^{t n}^o^t^F^Y^2008:^$0^a^t^-rⁱ^s^{k y}^o^ut^h.
^h^ttp^lim^ited^to^{: tr}^eatm^eⁿ^t^f^o^r^at-^r^isk^F^Y^2009:^T^h^{e U}^.^S^.^D^O^J
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^5651-⁵⁶⁵⁶^y^o^u^t^h^;^edu^cation^a^{l proj}^ects^an^d^F^Y^{2008 Perf}^orm^aⁿ^{ce Bu}^dg^et
^s^u^pportⁱ^v^{e s}^e^rvⁱ^ces^;^couⁿ^s^elⁱⁿ^g^,^propos^es^t^o^con^s^olⁱ^d^at^{e t}^hⁱ^s
^t^r^aⁱⁿⁱ^ng,^aⁿ^d^m^e^nt^o^rⁱ^{ng p}^r^o^j^e^c^t^s;^prog^ram^wⁱ^t^h^ot^h^e^{r j}^u^v^eⁿⁱ^l^e
^com^m^uⁿ^ity^-^b^as^{ed prog}^ram^s^{; an}^d^j^u^s^{tice an}^{d ch}^{ild abu}^s^e
^depen^d^en^cy^t^r^eat^m^eⁿ^t^prog^ram^s^.^prog^ram^sⁱⁿ^t^o^{a s}ⁱⁿ^g^l^e
^di^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^bl^ock^g^r^an^t
^und^e^r^a^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^kno^wⁿ^a^s^t^h^e
^Ch^ild^Saf^e^ty^an^d^J^u^v^eⁿ^ile
^J^u^s^{tice P}^r^og^ram^.
^g^{Free Sch}^ools^an^d^C^u^r^r^e^nt^l^y^U^naut^horⁱ^z^ed.^T^o^prev^en^{t an}^{d redu}^{ce th}^e^{FY2006: $25 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^A^t^-rⁱ^s^{k y}^o^ut^h,^d^e^lⁱⁿ^q^u^eⁿ^t
^m^m^uⁿ^{ities -}^T^hⁱ^s^prog^ram^w^a^s^repeal^ed^p^a^r^ticip^atioⁿ^o^f^j^u^v^eⁿ^{iles in}^th^e^{FY2007: $25 m}^illion^o^f^J^u^stice^y^o^ut^h,^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e^o^ffe^nd^e^r^s,^ga^ng
^m^m^uⁿ^ity^B^a^sed^by^P.L^.^107-^{273 bu}^t^activ^{ities o}^f^g^aⁿ^g^s^th^{at co}^m^mⁱ^t^{FY2008: $19 m}^illion^m^e^m^b^ers^,^an^{d y}^o^u^t^h^uⁿ^d^{er ag}^e
^g^Iⁿ^ter^v^en^tioⁿ^c^o^ntⁱ^nue^{s t}^o^b^e^crim^es^(e.g^{., prog}^ram^s^{to prev}^en^t^F^Y^2009:^T^h^{e U}^.^S^.^D^O^J^22.

^appropri^a^t^e^d.^y^o^ut^{h fr}^o^m^eⁿ^t^e^rⁱ^{ng ga}^{ngs a}ⁿ^d^t^o^F^Y^{2008 Perf}^orm^aⁿ^{ce Bu}^dg^et
^p^r^e^v^eⁿ^t^hi^{gh sc}^ho^o^l^st^ud^eⁿ^t^s^propos^es^t^o^con^s^olⁱ^d^at^{e t}^hⁱ^s

CRS-56
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^f^r^om^droppiⁿ^g^ou^t^of^s^c^h^ool^an^d^prog^ram^wⁱ^t^h^ot^h^e^{r j}^u^v^eⁿⁱ^l^e
^j^oⁱⁿⁱ^{ng ga}^ngs)^.^j^u^s^{tice an}^{d ch}^{ild abu}^s^e
^prog^ram^sⁱⁿ^t^o^{a s}ⁱⁿ^g^l^e
^di^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^bl^ock^g^r^an^t
^und^e^r^a^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^kno^wⁿ^a^s^t^h^e
^Ch^ild^Saf^e^ty^an^d^J^u^v^eⁿ^ile
^J^u^s^{tice P}^r^og^ram^.
ⁿⁱ^l^e^M^e^nt^o^rⁱⁿ^g^C^u^r^r^e^nt^l^y^U^naut^horⁱ^z^ed^.^T^o^dev^e^l^{op, i}^m^pl^em^en^t^,^an^{d pi}^l^o^t^{FY2006: $10 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^D^e^lⁱⁿ^q^u^eⁿ^t^y^o^ut^h,^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e
^og^r^a^m⁽^J^U^M^P)^T^hⁱ^s^prog^ram^w^a^s^repeal^ed^t^e^st^m^e^nt^o^rⁱ^{ng st}^r^a^t^e^gi^e^s^aⁿ^d^/^o^r^{FY2007: $10 m}^illion^o^f^J^u^stice^of^f^eⁿ^d^ers^,^an^{d f}^o^s^t^{er y}^o^u^t^h^.
^by^P.L^.^107-^{273 bu}^t^prog^ram^s^t^a^rg^et^{ed f}^o^{r y}^o^u^t^hⁱⁿ^{FY2008: $70 m}^illion
^fundⁱ^{ng c}^o^ntⁱ^nue^{s t}^o^b^e^th^{e j}^u^v^eⁿ^{ile j}^u^s^{tice s}^y^s^t^em^an^{d in}^F^Y^2009:^T^h^{e U}^.^S^.^D^O^J
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^appropri^a^t^e^d.^f^o^s^t^{er care, an}^{d y}^o^u^t^h^w^h^{o h}^a^v^e^F^Y^{2009 Perf}^orm^aⁿ^{ce Bu}^dg^et
^g/w^r^een^ter^e^d^th^{e j}^u^v^eⁿ^{ile j}^u^stice^propos^es^t^o^con^s^olⁱ^d^at^{e t}^hⁱ^s
^s^.or^s^y^s^t^em^(e.g^{., Big}^Broth^e^rs^/Big^Siste^r^{s p}^r^o^g^r^a^m⁾^.^prog^ram^wⁱ^t^h^ot^h^e^{r j}^u^v^eⁿⁱ^l^e^j^u^s^{tice an}^{d ch}^{ild abu}^s^e
^le^ak^prog^ram^sⁱⁿ^t^o^{a s}ⁱⁿ^g^l^e
^://wiki^di^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^bl^ock^g^r^an^t^und^e^r^a^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^kno^wⁿ^a^s^t^h^e
^h^ttp^Ch^ild^Saf^e^ty^an^d^J^u^v^eⁿ^ile
^J^u^s^{tice P}^r^og^ram^.
^h^allen^g^e^J^u^v^eⁿ^{ile J}^u^{stice an}^d^T^o^p^r^o^v^id^{e states w}^ith^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^to^{FY2006: $106}^m^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^A^t^-rⁱ^s^{k y}^o^ut^h,^d^e^lⁱⁿ^q^u^eⁿ^t
^tiv^{ities, P}^a^r^t^E^Delin^qu^en^cy^P^r^ev^en^tion^car^r^y^o^u^{t p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^th^{at w}^ill^{FY2007: $105}^m^illion^o^f^J^u^stice^y^o^ut^h,^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e^o^ffe^nd^e^r^s,^ga^ng
^A^c^t^of^{1974, as}^am^en^ded^dev^e^l^{op, t}^e^s^t^{, or dem}^oⁿ^s^t^r^at^e^{FY2008: $94 m}^illion^m^e^m^b^ers^,^an^{d at-}^r^is^k^y^o^u^t^h^.

^p^r^o^m^isin^gⁿ^e^wⁱⁿ^itiativ^{es th}^at^F^Y^2009:^T^h^{e U}^.^S^.^D^O^J
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§5665^m^a^y^prev^en^{t, con}^t^{rol, or redu}^ce^F^Y^{2009 Perf}^orm^aⁿ^{ce Bu}^dg^et
^j^u^v^eⁿ^{ile d}^e^lin^q^u^en^cy^.^propos^es^t^o^con^s^olⁱ^d^at^{e t}^hⁱ^s
^prog^ram^wⁱ^t^h^ot^h^e^{r j}^u^v^eⁿⁱ^l^e
^j^u^s^{tice an}^{d ch}^{ild abu}^s^e
^prog^ram^sⁱⁿ^t^o^{a s}ⁱⁿ^g^l^e
^di^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^bl^ock^g^r^an^t
^und^e^r^a^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^kno^wⁿ^a^s^t^h^e
^Ch^ild^Saf^e^ty^an^d^J^u^v^eⁿ^ile
^J^u^s^{tice P}^r^og^ram^.⁾

CRS-57
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
ⁿ^cen^tiv^e^J^u^v^eⁿ^{ile J}^u^{stice an}^d^T^o^f^uⁿ^d^delin^qu^en^cy^prev^en^tion^{FY2006: $65 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^D^e^lⁱⁿ^q^u^eⁿ^t^y^o^ut^h,^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e
^ts^f^o^{r L}^o^cal^Delin^qu^en^cy^P^r^ev^en^tion^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^an^d^activ^{ities f}^o^r^at-^{FY2007: $64 m}^illion^o^f^J^u^stice^o^ffe^nd^e^r^s,^a^t^-rⁱ^s^{k y}^o^ut^h.
^qu^en^cy^A^c^t^of^{1974, as}^am^en^ded^rⁱ^{sk y}^o^ut^{h a}ⁿ^d^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e^{FY2008: $61 m}^illion
^ev^en^tion^P^r^og^ram^d^e^lin^q^u^en^{ts, in}^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^,^am^oⁿ^g^F^Y^2009:^T^h^{e U}^.^S^.^D^O^J
^o^t^he^r^t^hⁱ^ngs:^sub^s^t^a^nc^e^a^b^use^F^Y^{2009 Perf}^orm^aⁿ^{ce Bu}^dg^et
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§4781-⁸⁵^prev^en^tion^s^e^rv^ices^{; ch}^{ild an}^d^propos^es^t^o^con^s^olⁱ^d^at^{e t}^hⁱ^s
^adoles^cen^{t h}^ealth^an^{d m}^eⁿ^t^al^prog^ram^wⁱ^t^h^ot^h^e^{r j}^u^v^eⁿⁱ^l^e
^h^ealth^s^e^rv^ices^{; leaders}^h^{ip an}^d^j^u^s^{tice an}^{d ch}^{ild abu}^s^e
^y^o^u^t^h^dev^e^lopm^en^{t s}^e^rv^ices^{; an}^d^prog^ram^sⁱⁿ^t^o^{a s}ⁱⁿ^g^l^e
^j^o^b^sk^{ills tr}^ainⁱⁿ^g^.^di^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^bl^ock^g^r^an^t
^und^e^r^a^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^kno^wⁿ^a^s^t^h^e
^Ch^ild^Saf^e^ty^an^d^J^u^v^eⁿ^ile
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^J^u^s^{tice P}^r^og^ram^.⁾
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak^s^t^{er C}^a^re^S^o^ci^al^S^ecu^ri^t^y^A^c^t^of¹⁹³⁵^T^o^a^{ssist sta}^t^e^s^{in p}^r^o^v^id^ing^{FY2006: $4.}^{7 billion}^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^F^e^deral^s^u^pport^av^ai^l^a^bl^{e f}^o^r
^://wiki^(S^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^{471 an}^{d 472), as}^am^en^ded^f^o^s^t^{er care f}^o^{r elig}^{ible ch}^ildren^,ⁱⁿ^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^m^aⁱⁿ^ten^aⁿ^{ce p}^a^y^m^en^ts^{FY2007: $4.8 billion}^(B^as^ed^oⁿ^{HHS, A}^C^{F J}^u^stif^icatioⁿ^o^f^of^Health^an^d^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^c^hⁱ^l^d^r^e^{n a}ⁿ^d^y^o^ut^{h w}^h^o^a^r^e^rem^o^v^e^{d f}^r^om^l^o^w^-ⁱⁿ^com^e
^h^ttp⁽ⁱ^{.e. room}^an^{d board) an}^{d cas}^e^Es^tⁱ^m^at^es^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2008, an}^d^f^a^m^{ilies (}^m^eetin^g^sp^ecifⁱ^c
^{42 U}^S^C^{§§671, 672}^p^l^aⁿⁿⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^m^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^fo^r^ref^l^ects^ex^{pected “}^l^aps^{e” of}^{criteria) f}^o^{r th}^{eir ow}ⁿ
^ch^ild^r^eⁿ^an^d^y^o^u^t^hⁱⁿ^o^u^t-^o^f^-^f^uⁿ^d^s^w^h^ich^w^e^{re ex}^{pected to}^prot^ectⁱ^oⁿ^.^(H^ow^ev^{er, f}^e^deral
^h^o^m^e^placem^en^ts^.^{be n}^eces^s^a^ryⁱⁿ^t^h^{e F}^Y²⁰⁰⁷^p^r^o^t^ectioⁿ^s^r^e^lated^to^case
^b^u^d^g^{et j}^u^stif^icatioⁿ^s⁾^.^p^l^aⁿⁿⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^m^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^a^r^e
^{FY2008: $4.6 m}^illion^av^ailab^l^{e to}^{all ch}^ild^r^eⁿ^/^y^o^u^t^h
^{FY2009: $4.5 m}^illion^w^h^{o are in}^f^o^s^t^{er care.)}
^af^{ee Fos}^t^{er C}^a^re^S^o^ci^al^S^ecu^ri^t^y^A^c^t^of¹⁹³⁵^T^o^{assist states an}^d^lo^{calities in}^FY2006:^{$140 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^C^u^rren^t^{or f}^o^rm^{er f}^o^s^t^{er care}
^depen^d^en^{ce Prog}^ram^(S^ectⁱ^oⁿ^{477), as}^am^en^ded^e^s^t^a^b^lⁱ^s^hi^{ng a}ⁿ^d^c^a^r^r^yⁱ^{ng o}^u^t^FY2007:^{$140 m}^illion^of^Health^an^d^y^o^ut^{h und}^e^r^a^g^e²¹^.

^prog^ram^s^desⁱ^gⁿ^e^{d t}^o^as^sⁱ^s^t^FY2008:^{$140 m}^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§677^f^o^ster^y^o^u^t^h^lik^ely^to^r^e^m^aⁱⁿⁱⁿ^FY2009:^{$140 m}^illion
^f^o^ster^car^{e u}ⁿ^{til ag}^{e 1}⁸^an^d
^y^o^u^t^h^ag^es^{18 -}^{21 w}^h^{o h}^a^v^e^l^e^f^t
^th^{e f}^o^s^t^{er care s}^y^s^t^emⁱⁿ^m^a^kⁱⁿ^g
^th^{e tr}^an^sitioⁿ^to^self^-^s^u^f^fⁱ^cien^cy^.

CRS-58
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^af^{ee Fos}^t^{er C}^a^re^{Social Secu}^rity^A^c^{t of}^T^o^m^a^ke^e^d^uc^a^tⁱ^o^{n a}ⁿ^d^t^r^aⁱⁿⁱ^ng^{FY2006: $46 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^{Older f}^o^s^t^{er care y}^o^u^t^h^an^d
^depen^d^en^{ce Prog}^ram^{1935, (S}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^{477), as}^vo^uc^he^r^s^a^v^aⁱ^l^a^b^l^e^fo^r^y^o^ut^h^{FY2007: $46 m}^illion^of^Health^an^d^y^o^u^t^h^adopt^{ed f}^r^om^f^o^s^t^{er care}
^uc^a^tⁱ^o^{n a}ⁿ^d^T^r^aⁱⁿⁱ^ng^am^en^ded^w^h^{o h}^a^v^e^ag^{ed ou}^{t of}^f^o^s^t^{er care}^{FY2008: $45 m}^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^at^ag^{e 16 or ol}^der.
^uc^he^r^s^{or w}^h^{o h}^a^v^e^been^adopt^{ed f}^r^om^{FY2009: $45 m}^illion
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§677^th^{e pu}^{blic f}^o^s^t^{er care s}^y^s^t^em
^af^{ter ag}^{e 16.}
^sⁱ^{c C}^eⁿ^t^{er P}^r^og^ram^R^uⁿ^a^w^a^y^an^{d Hom}^e^les^s^T^o^estab^lish^o^r^str^eⁿ^g^t^h^eⁿ^lo^cally^{FY2006: $48 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Runa^w^a^y^aⁿ^d^ho^m^e^l^e^{ss y}^o^ut^h
^Y^o^u^t^h^A^c^t^of^{1974, as}^con^t^{rolled com}^m^uⁿ^ity^-^b^as^ed^{FY2007: $48 m}^illion^of^Health^an^d^an^d^th^eir^f^a^m^ilies.
^am^en^ded^prog^ram^s^ou^t^sⁱ^d^{e of}^t^h^{e l}^a^w^{FY2008: $53 m}^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices
^en^f^o^rcem^en^{t, ch}^{ild w}^e^lf^are,^{FY2009: $53 m}^illion
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§5701 et}^s^e^q.^m^e^nt^a^l^he^a^l^t^h^,^aⁿ^d^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^j^u^stic^e^sy^ste^m^{s tha}^t^a^d^d^r^e^{ss the}
^g/w^im^m^e^{diate n}^eeds^of^ruⁿ^a^w^a^y^an^d
^s^.or^ho^m^e^l^e^{ss y}^o^ut^{h a}ⁿ^d^t^h^eⁱ^r
^le^ak^f^a^m^ilies.
^an^sitioⁿ^a^{l L}ⁱ^vⁱⁿ^g^Runa^w^a^y^aⁿ^d^H^o^m^e^l^e^ss^T^o^estab^lish^an^d^o^p^e^r^a^te^{FY2006: $40 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Runa^w^a^y^aⁿ^d^ho^m^e^l^e^{ss y}^o^ut^h
^://wiki^og^ram^f^o^{r Ol}^der^Y^o^u^t^h^A^c^t^of^{1974, as}^tr^an^sitioⁿ^a^{l liv}ⁱⁿ^g^p^r^o^j^{ects f}^o^r^{FY2007: $40 m}^illion^of^Health^an^d^ag^es^16-^21.
^h^ttp^m^e^{less Yo}^u^t^h^am^en^ded^ho^m^e^l^e^{ss y}^o^ut^h,ⁱⁿ^c^l^udⁱⁿ^g^{FY2008: $43 m}^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices
^p^r^e^gna^nt^aⁿ^d^p^a^r^e^ntⁱ^{ng y}^o^ut^h.^{FY2009: $43 m}^illion
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§5701 et}^s^e^q.
^treach^Runa^w^a^y^aⁿ^d^H^o^m^e^l^e^ss^T^o^p^r^o^v^id^{e g}^r^an^{ts to}ⁿ^oⁿ^p^r^o^fⁱ^t^{FY2006: $15 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Runa^w^a^y^aⁿ^d^ho^m^e^l^e^{ss y}^o^ut^h
^og^r^a^m^Y^o^u^t^h^A^c^t^of^{1974, as}^ag^en^cies^{to prov}^{ide s}^t^reet-^b^as^ed^{FY2007: $15 m}^illion^of^Health^an^d^w^h^{o l}ⁱ^v^{e on}^{or f}^r^equ^eⁿ^t^t^h^e
^am^en^ded^se^r^vⁱ^c^e^s^t^o^r^una^w^a^y^,^ho^m^e^l^e^ss,^{FY2008: $17 m}^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^str^e^e^t^s.

^aⁿ^d^st^r^e^e^t^y^o^ut^h,^w^h^o^ha^ve^b^e^eⁿ^F72009:^{$17 m}^illion
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§5701 et}^s^e^q.^s^u^bj^{ected to, or are at ris}^k^of
^bein^g^s^u^bj^{ected to s}^e^x^u^a^{l abu}^s^e,
^p^r^o^s^titu^tioⁿ^,^o^r^sex^u^a^l
^ex^p^l^o^itatioⁿ^.

CRS-59
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^e^nt^o^rⁱ^{ng Chi}^l^d^r^e^{n o}^f^S^o^ci^al^S^ecu^ri^t^y^A^c^t^of¹⁹³⁵^T^o^m^a^k^e^co^m^p^etitiv^{e g}^r^an^{ts to}^{FY2006: $50 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Y^o^u^t^h^ofⁱ^m^pri^s^on^{ed paren}^t^s^.
ⁱ^s^on^e^r^s^(S^ectⁱ^oⁿ^{439), as}^am^en^ded^applican^tsⁱⁿ^areas^w^ith^{FY2007: $50 m}^illion^of^Health^an^d
^si^gni^fi^c^aⁿ^t^num^b^e^r^s^o^f^c^hⁱ^l^d^r^eⁿ^{FY2008: $49 m}^illion^FY2009:^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§629i^of^pri^s^on^ers^t^o^s^u^pport^t^h^e^{$50 m}^illion
^estab^lish^m^en^{t an}^d^o^p^e^r^a^tioⁿ^o^f
^prog^ram^s^t^h^at^provⁱ^d^{e m}^eⁿ^t^oriⁿ^g
^s^e^rv^ices^f^o^{r th}^es^{e ch}^ildren^,^an^d
^to^d^e^m^oⁿ^s^tr^{ate th}^{e p}^o^t^en^tial
^ef^f^ectiv^en^es^s^of^v^o^u^c^h^e^rs^as
^deliv^ery^m^ech^an^is^m^s^f^o^{r th}^es^e
^m^e^nt^o^rⁱ^{ng se}^r^vⁱ^c^e^s^.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^u^r^t^A^ppoiⁿ^t^ed^Victim^{s o}^f^Ch^ild^A^b^u^s^{e A}^c^t^T^o^en^s^u^{re ev}^ery^vⁱ^ctim^of^ch^ild^{FY2006: $12 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^A^b^u^s^{ed an}^{d n}^e^g^l^{ected ch}^ildren
^g/w^d^v^o^cates^of^{1990, as}^am^en^ded^abu^s^{e an}^{d n}^e^g^l^{ect receiv}^e^s^th^e^{FY2007: $12 m}^illion^o^f^J^u^stice^aⁿ^d^y^o^ut^h.

^s^.or^s^e^rvⁱ^ces^of^{a cou}^r^t^appoiⁿ^t^ed^{FY2008: $13 m}^illion
^le^ak^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§13011-¹³⁰¹⁴^adv^o^cate.^F^Y^2009:^T^h^{e U}^.^S^.^D^O^J^F^Y^{2009 Perf}^orm^aⁿ^{ce Bu}^dg^et
^://wiki^propos^es^t^o^con^s^olⁱ^d^at^{e t}^hⁱ^s^prog^ram^wⁱ^t^h^ot^h^e^{r j}^u^v^eⁿⁱ^l^e
^h^ttp^j^u^s^{tice an}^{d ch}^{ild abu}^s^e
^prog^ram^sⁱⁿ^t^o^{a s}ⁱⁿ^g^l^e
^di^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^bl^ock^g^r^an^t
^und^e^r^a^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^kno^wⁿ^a^s^t^h^e
^Ch^ild^Saf^e^ty^an^d^J^u^v^eⁿ^ile
^J^u^s^{tice P}^r^og^ram^.

CRS-60
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^ildren^’^s^A^d^v^o^cacy^Victim^{s o}^f^Ch^ild^A^b^u^s^{e A}^c^t^T^o^es^tablis^h^adv^o^cacy^cen^ters^to^{FY2006: $15 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^A^b^use^d^aⁿ^d^ne^gl^e^c^t^e^d^y^o^ut^h.
^nte^r^s^of^{1990, as}^am^en^ded^co^o^r^dⁱⁿ^a^{te m}^u^lti-^dⁱ^scip^lin^ar^y^{FY2007: $15 m}^illion^o^f^J^u^stice
^res^pon^s^e^s^{to ch}^{ild abu}^s^{e an}^{d to}^{FY2008: $17 m}^illion
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§13001-¹³⁰⁰⁴^prov^{ide train}ⁱⁿ^g^an^{d tech}ⁿⁱ^cal^F^72009:^T^h^{e U}^.^S^.^D^O^J
^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce to prof}^es^sⁱ^on^als^F^Y^2009:^T^h^{e F}^Y²⁰⁰⁹
ⁱⁿ^v^o^lv^edⁱⁿⁱⁿ^v^e^stig^atin^g^,^Perf^orm^aⁿ^{ce Bu}^dg^et^propos^es
^pros^ecu^tin^g^,^an^{d train}ⁱⁿ^g^ch^ild^to^coⁿ^s^o^lid^{ate th}^{is p}^r^o^g^r^a^m
^abu^s^{e, an}^{d t}^o^s^u^pport^t^h^e^w^ith^o^t^h^e^r^j^u^v^eⁿ^{ile j}^u^{stice an}^d
^dev^e^l^opm^en^t^of^C^hⁱ^l^d^ren^’^s^ch^ild^ab^u^s^{e p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^sⁱⁿ^to^a
^A^d^v^o^cacy^Cen^t^{ers o}ⁿ^m^u^lti-^sⁱⁿ^g^l^{e di}^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^bl^ock
^dⁱ^scip^lin^ar^y^team^s.^gr^aⁿ^t^und^e^r^a^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^kno^wⁿ
^{as th}^{e Ch}^ild^Saf^e^ty^an^d
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^J^u^v^eⁿ^{ile J}^u^{stice P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^.
^g/w
^s^.or^e^a^l^t^h
^le^ak^r^{ett L}^{ee Sm}^ith^P^u^b^{lic Health}^Ser^v^{ice A}^c^t^T^o^prov^{ide g}^r^an^ts^{to s}^t^ates^an^d^{FY2006: $23 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Y^o^ut^{h und}^e^r^a^g^e²⁵^.
^://wiki^o^{rial A}^c^{t You}^t^h^icid^{e P}^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^of^{1974, as}^am^en^ded^colleg^e^cam^pu^s^e^s^f^o^{r y}^o^u^t^h^su^icid^{e p}^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^activ^ities.^{FY2007: $23 m}^illion^{FY2008: $34 m}^illion^of^Health^an^d^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices
^h^ttp^og^r^a^m^{42 U}^S^C^{§ §290aa et}^s^e^q.,^{FY2009: $23 m}^illion
^{290bb et}^s^e^q.
^m^p^r^e^he^nsi^v^e^P^u^b^{lic Health}^Ser^v^{ice A}^c^t^T^o^prov^{ide com}^m^uⁿ^ity^-^b^as^ed^{FY2006: $104}^m^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Y^o^ut^{h und}^e^r^a^g^e²²^wⁱ^t^h^a
^m^m^uni^t^y^M^e^nt^a^l^of^{1974, as}^am^en^ded^s^y^s^t^em^s^of^{care f}^o^{r ch}^ildren^an^d^{FY2007: $104}^m^illion^of^Health^an^d^se^rⁱ^o^u^{s e}^m^o^tio^na^{l d}ⁱ^so^r^d^e^r^s.
^Serv^ices^f^o^r^adoles^cen^ts^w^ith^{a s}^e^riou^s^{FY2008: $102}^m^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices
^ild^r^eⁿ^w^ith^Serⁱ^o^u^s^{42 U}^S^C^§290f^f^em^otion^a^{l dis}^t^u^r^ban^{ce an}^{d th}^eir^{FY2009: $114}^m^illion
^o^tioⁿ^a^l^f^a^m^ily^.
^st^ur^b^a^nc^e^s
ⁿ^a^{l Ch}^ild^Ch^ild^r^eⁿ^’^{s Health}^A^c^{t o}^f^T^o^{create a n}^a^tion^a^{l n}^e^tw^ork^th^at^{FY2006: $29 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Chi^l^d^r^e^{n a}ⁿ^d^y^o^ut^{h w}^h^o^ha^ve
^au^m^a^{tic Str}^e^ss^{2000 (S}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^582(d))^dev^e^l^ops^{, prom}^ot^es^{, an}^d^{FY2007: $29 m}^illion^of^Health^an^d^ex^perien^{ced trau}^m^a^{tic ev}^en^ts^.
^itiativ^e^dⁱ^ssemⁱⁿ^a^{tes in}^f^o^r^m^atioⁿ^r^e^lated^{FY2008: $33 m}^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices
^{42 U}^S^C^§290aa^to^{a w}ⁱ^d^e^v^a^rⁱ^ety^o^f^tr^au^m^a^tic^{FY2009: $16 m}^illion
^ev^en^ts^.
ⁱ^{c P}^r^ev^en^tion^P^u^b^{lic Health}^Ser^v^{ice A}^c^t^T^o^p^r^o^vⁱ^d^e^fundⁱ^{ng t}^o^st^a^t^e^s^fo^r^{FY2006: $106}^m^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Y^o^ut^{h a}^t^rⁱ^{sk o}^f^usi^{ng a}ⁿ^d
^ew^ork^State^of^{1974, as}^am^en^dedⁱⁿ^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e^an^d^ser^v^{ices th}^at^{FY2007: $106}^m^illion^of^Health^an^d^a^b^usi^{ng d}^r^ugs.

CRS-61
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^f^r^as^t^r^u^c^t^u^{re G}^r^an^t^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^290bbⁱ^m^pl^em^en^t^{a f}ⁱ^v^e^-^s^t^e^{p s}^t^rat^e^g^y^{FY2008: $105}^m^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices
^f^o^{r prev}^en^tin^g^s^u^bs^tan^{ce an}^d^{FY2009: $95 m}^illion
^a^l^c^o^ho^l^a^b^use^a^m^o^{ng y}^o^ut^h.
^s^e^rtiv^{e A}^doles^cen^t^P^u^b^{lic Health}^Ser^v^{ice A}^c^t^T^o^prov^{ide s}^u^bs^tan^{ce abu}^s^e^{FY2006: $5 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Y^o^ut^{h usi}^{ng d}^r^ugs.
^{d Fam}^ily^T^r^eatm^eⁿ^t^of^{1974, as}^am^en^ded^treatm^eⁿ^t^practices^to^{FY2007: $10 m}^illion^of^Health^an^d
^o^g^r^a^m⁽^F^am^ily^ad^o^l^escen^{ts an}^d^th^eir^f^a^m^ilies^{FY2008: $10 m}^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices
ⁿ^t^{ered Su}^bs^tan^c^e^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^290bb-²^usi^{ng p}^r^e^vⁱ^o^usl^y^p^r^o^v^eⁿ^F^Y^2009:^$0
^u^s^{e T}^r^eatm^eⁿ^t^ef^f^ectiv^{e f}^a^m^ily^-^cen^tered
^ts^f^o^{r A}^doles^cen^ts^m^e^t^h^ods^.
^d^th^eir^Fam^ilies)
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}ⁿⁱ^l^e^T^r^e^a^t^m^e^nt^{ug Co}^ur^t^P^u^b^{lic Health}^Ser^v^{ice A}^c^t^of^{1974, as}^am^en^ded^T^o^prov^{ide ef}^f^ectiv^{e s}^u^bs^tan^c^e^treatm^eⁿ^t^an^{d redu}^{ce delin}^qu^en^t^{FY2006: $10 m}^illion^{FY2007: $10 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^d^Y^o^ut^{h usi}^{ng d}^r^{ugs w}^h^o^a^r^e^f^o^uⁿ^d^d^e^lin^q^u^en^t.
^g/w^activ^ity^.^{FY2008: $3 m}^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices
^s^.or^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^290bb-²^F^Y^2009:^{$38 (f}^{or adu}^l^t^,
^le^ak^j^u^v^eⁿ^{ile, an}^d^f^a^m^ily^tr^eatm^eⁿ^t
^dru^g^cou^r^t^prog^ram^s⁾
^://wiki
^h^ttp^m^m^uⁿ^ity^-^B^as^ed^s^tin^en^{ce Edu}^cation^S^o^ci^al^S^ecu^ri^t^y^A^c^t^of¹⁹³⁵^(S^ectⁱ^oⁿ^{1110 u}^sⁱⁿ^g^t^h^e^T^o^provⁱ^d^{e proj}^ect^g^r^an^t^s^t^o^p^u^b^{lic an}^d^p^r^iv^{ate in}^stitu^tioⁿ^s^f^o^r^{FY2006: $109}^m^illion^{FY2007: $109}^m^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^of^Health^an^d^Y^o^u^t^h^ag^es^{12 t}^o^18.
^d^e^fⁱⁿ^itioⁿ^s^coⁿ^t^ain^e^dⁱⁿ^com^m^uⁿ^ity^-^b^as^{ed abs}^tin^en^ce^{FY2008: $109}^m^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices
^S^ectⁱ^oⁿ^{510(b)(2)), as}^edu^cation^proj^{ect g}^r^an^ts^.^{FY2009: $137}^m^illion
^am^en^ded
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§710
^s^tin^en^{ce Edu}^cation^S^o^ci^al^S^ecu^ri^t^y^A^c^t^of¹⁹³⁵^T^o^prov^{ide f}^o^rm^u^l^{a g}^r^an^t^{FY2006: $50 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^Yo^u^t^h^lik^ely^to^b^ear^ch^ild^r^eⁿ
^og^r^a^m^(S^ectⁱ^oⁿ^{510), as}^am^en^ded^fundⁱ^{ng fo}^r^st^a^t^e^s^t^o^p^r^o^vⁱ^d^e^{FY2007: $50 m}^illion^of^Health^an^d^ou^ts^{ide of}^m^a^rriag^e.

^abs^tin^en^{ce edu}^cation^an^{d, at th}^e^{FY2008: $50 m}^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§710^option^of^th^{e s}^t^{ate, w}^h^ere^{FY2009: $50 m}^illion
^appropri^a^t^e^{, m}^eⁿ^t^oriⁿ^g^,
^c^o^unse^lⁱ^ng,^aⁿ^d^a^d^ul^t
^s^u^pervⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^t^o^prom^ot^e
^ab^stin^en^{ce f}^r^o^m^sex^u^a^{l activ}^ity^.

CRS-62
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^cen^{t Fam}^ily^P^u^b^{lic Health}^Ser^v^{ices A}^c^t^T^o^provⁱ^d^{e proj}^ect^g^r^an^t^s^t^o^{FY2006: $30 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^P^r^e^gna^nt^aⁿ^d^p^a^r^e^ntⁱ^{ng y}^o^ut^h,
^f^e^Dem^oⁿ^s^tr^atioⁿ^of^{1974, as}^am^en^ded^estab^lishⁱⁿⁿ^o^v^a^tiv^e,^{FY2007: $30 m}^illion^of^Health^an^d^no^n-p^r^e^gna^nt^y^o^ut^{h a}ⁿ^d^t^h^eⁱ^r
^oj^ects^com^p^reh^eⁿ^s^iv^{e, an}^{d in}^teg^r^ated^{FY2008: $30 m}^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^f^a^m^ilies.
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§3002^approach^es^{to th}^{e deliv}^ery^of^{FY2009: $30 m}^illion
^{care s}^e^rv^ices^f^o^{r preg}ⁿ^aⁿ^t^an^d
^p^a^r^eⁿ^tin^g^ad^o^l^escen^{ts w}^ith^(Fuⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r th}^{e A}^doles^cen^t
^prim^ary^em^ph^as^is^on^adoles^cen^ts^Fam^ily^Lⁱ^f^e^Dem^oⁿ^s^tr^atioⁿ
^w^h^{o are u}ⁿ^d^{er ag}^{e 17.}^P^r^oj^ects^an^{d R}^e^s^earch^Gran^ts
^{is co}^m^bⁱⁿ^ed^.)
^cen^{t Fam}^ily^P^u^b^{lic Health}^Ser^v^{ices A}^c^t^T^o^provⁱ^d^{e proj}^ect^g^r^an^t^s^t^o^{FY2006: $30 m}^illion^{U.S. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^P^r^e^gna^nt^aⁿ^d^p^a^r^e^ntⁱ^{ng y}^o^ut^h,
^f^e^R^e^s^earch^Gran^ts^of^{1974, as}^am^en^ded^en^cou^r^ag^{e an}^{d s}^u^pport^res^earch^{FY2007: $30 m}^illion^of^Health^an^d^no^n-p^r^e^gna^nt^y^o^ut^{h a}ⁿ^d^t^h^eⁱ^r
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^proj^ect^s^an^{d di}^s^s^e^mⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^{FY2008: $30 m}^illion^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^f^a^m^ilies.

^g/w^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§3002^activ^{ities co}ⁿ^cerⁿⁱⁿ^g^th^{e so}^cietal^{FY2009: $30 m}^illion
^s^.or^cau^s^e^s^an^{d con}^s^equ^eⁿ^{ce of}
^le^ak^ad^o^l^escen^{t sex}^u^a^{l activ}^ity^,^con^t^raceptiv^{e u}^s^{e, preg}ⁿ^aⁿ^c^y^,^(Fuⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r th}^{e A}^doles^cen^t^Fam^ily^Lⁱ^f^e^Dem^oⁿ^s^tr^atioⁿ
^://wiki^an^{d ch}^{ild rearin}^g^.^P^r^oj^ects^an^{d R}^e^s^earch^Gran^ts^{is co}^m^bⁱⁿ^ed^.)
^h^ttp

CRS-63
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^a^{nd Co}^m^m^unit^y^Serv^ice
^eriC^orps^{State an}^d^Natioⁿ^a^{l Co}^m^m^uⁿ^ity^T^o^addres^s^th^{e edu}^cation^a^l,^{FY2006: $265}^m^illion^C^o^rporatⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r^Y^o^ut^{h up}^t^o^a^g^e²⁵^wⁱ^t^h
ⁿ^a^l^Serv^{ice A}^c^{t, as}^am^en^ded^p^u^b^{lic saf}^e^ty^{, h}^u^m^an^{, o}^r^{FY2007: $265}^m^illion^Natioⁿ^a^{l an}^d^ex^ception^a^{l or s}^p^{ecial n}^eeds^,^or
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§12571 et}^s^e^q.,^e^nvi^r^o^nm^eⁿ^t^a^l^ne^e^d^{s t}^h^r^o^ugh^s^e^rv^ices^th^{at prov}^{ide a direct}^{FY2008: $257}^m^illion^{FY2009: $274}^m^illion^Co^m^m^uⁿ^ity^Ser^v^ice^w^h^{o are econ}^o^mⁱ^cally^di^s^a^dv^an^t^a^g^e^{d an}^{d f}^o^{r w}^h^om
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§12061 et}^s^e^q.^b^eⁿ^e^f^{it to}^th^{e co}^m^m^uⁿ^ity^.^on^{e or m}^o^{re of}^t^h^{e f}^o^l^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g
^appl^y^:^{1) ou}^t^-^of^-^s^ch^ool^,
ⁱⁿ^c^l^udⁱ^{ng o}^u^t^-^o^f-sc^h^o^o^l^y^o^ut^h
^w^h^{o are u}ⁿ^e^m^p^l^o^y^e^d;^{2) i}ⁿ^or
^agⁱⁿ^g^ou^{t of}^f^o^s^t^{er care; 3)}
^lim^ited^En^g^lish^p^r^o^f^icien^c^y^;⁴⁾
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^ho^m^e^l^e^{ss o}^r^ha^ve^r^{un a}^w^a^y
^g/w^f^r^om^h^o^m^e^;^{5) at}^-^rⁱ^s^k^of
^s^.or^leavⁱⁿ^g^sch^o^o^l^w^ith^o^u^{t a}
^le^ak^di^pl^om^a;^an^{d 6) f}^o^rm^{er j}^u^v^eⁿⁱ^l^e^of^f^eⁿ^d^ers^{or at}^ri^s^k^of
^://wiki^delⁱⁿ^qu^en^cy^.
^h^ttp^eriC^orps^VIST^A^D^om^es^{tic Volu}ⁿ^t^eer^T^o^b^rⁱⁿ^g^lo^w^-ⁱⁿ^co^m^eⁱⁿ^dⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^als^{FY2006: $95 m}^illion^C^o^rporatⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r^Y^o^ut^{h up}^t^o^a^g^e²⁵^wⁱ^t^h
^Serv^{ice A}^c^{t, as}^am^en^ded^an^d^co^m^m^uⁿ^{ities o}^u^{t o}^f^p^o^v^er^ty^{FY2007: $95 m}^illion^Natioⁿ^a^{l an}^d^ex^ception^a^{l or s}^p^{ecial n}^eeds^,^or
^t^h^r^o^{ugh p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^sⁱⁿ^c^o^m^m^uni^t^y^{FY2008: $94 m}^illion^Co^m^m^uⁿ^ity^w^h^{o are econ}^o^mⁱ^cally
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§ 4951, 42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^org^aⁿⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ^s^an^{d pu}^blⁱ^c^{FY2009: $92 m}^illion^Ser^v^ice^di^s^a^dv^an^t^a^g^e^{d an}^{d f}^o^{r w}^h^om
^{§12061 et}^s^e^q.^ag^en^cies^.^on^{e or m}^o^{re of}^t^h^{e f}^o^l^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g
^appl^y^:^{1) ou}^t^-^of^-^s^ch^ool^,
ⁱⁿ^c^l^udⁱ^{ng o}^u^t^-^o^f-sc^h^o^o^l^y^o^ut^h
^w^h^{o are u}ⁿ^e^m^p^l^o^y^e^d;^{2) i}ⁿ^or
^agⁱⁿ^g^ou^{t of}^f^o^s^t^{er care; 3)}
^lim^ited^En^g^lish^p^r^o^f^icien^c^y^;⁴⁾
^ho^m^e^l^e^{ss o}^r^ha^ve^r^{un a}^w^a^y
^f^r^o^m^h^o^m^e^{; 5}⁾^at-^r^isk^to^leav^e
^s^c^h^ool^wⁱ^t^h^ou^t^{a di}^pl^om^a;^an^d
⁶⁾^fo^r^m^e^r^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e^o^ffe^nd^e^r^{s o}^r
^at^ri^s^k^of^delⁱⁿ^qu^en^cy^.

CRS-64
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^er^iCo^r^p^s^Natioⁿ^a^l^Natioⁿ^a^{l Co}^m^m^uⁿ^ity^T^o^addres^s^th^{e edu}^cation^a^l,^{FY2006: $37 m}^illion^C^o^rporatⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r^Y^o^ut^{h up}^t^o^a^g^e²⁵^wⁱ^t^h
^ilian^Co^m^m^uⁿ^ity^Serv^{ice A}^c^{t, as}^am^en^ded^p^u^b^{lic saf}^e^ty^{, en}^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^en^tal,^{FY2007: $27 m}^illion^Natioⁿ^a^{l an}^d^ex^ception^a^{l or s}^p^{ecial n}^eeds^,^or
^r^p^s^h^u^m^anⁿ^eeds^,^an^{d dis}^a^s^t^{er relief}^{FY2008: $24 m}^illion^Co^m^m^uⁿ^ity^w^h^{o are econ}^o^mⁱ^cally
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§12611 et}^s^e^q.,^t^h^r^o^{ugh se}^r^vⁱ^c^e^s^t^h^a^t^p^r^o^vⁱ^d^e^a^{FY2009: $9 m}^illion^Ser^v^ice^di^s^a^dv^an^t^a^g^e^{d an}^{d f}^o^{r w}^h^om
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§12061 et}^s^e^q.^dⁱ^r^{ect b}^eⁿ^e^f^{it to}^th^{e co}^m^m^uⁿ^ity^.^on^{e or m}^o^{re of}^t^h^{e f}^o^l^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g
^appl^y^:^{1) ou}^t^-^of^-^s^ch^ool^,
ⁱⁿ^c^l^udⁱ^{ng o}^u^t^-^o^f-sc^h^o^o^l^y^o^ut^h
^w^h^{o are u}ⁿ^e^m^p^l^o^y^e^d;^{2) i}ⁿ^or
^agⁱⁿ^g^ou^{t of}^f^o^s^t^{er care; 3)}
^lim^ited^En^g^lish^p^r^o^f^icien^c^y^;⁴⁾
^ho^m^e^l^e^{ss o}^r^ha^ve^r^{un a}^w^a^y
^f^r^om^h^o^m^e^;^{5) at}^ri^s^k^of^l^eavⁱⁿ^g
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^s^c^h^ool^wⁱ^t^h^ou^t^{a di}^pl^om^a;^an^d
^g/w⁶⁾^fo^r^m^e^r^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e^o^ffe^nd^e^r^{s o}^r
^s^.or^at^ri^s^k^of^delⁱⁿ^qu^en^cy^.
^le^ak^an^{d Serv}^e^Natioⁿ^a^{l Co}^m^m^uⁿ^ity^T^oⁱⁿ^v^o^lv^{e stu}^d^en^{ts in}^{FY2006: $37 m}^illion^C^o^rporatⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r^Y^o^ut^{h up}^t^o^a^g^e²⁵^wⁱ^t^h
^://wiki^e^rⁱ^c^a^Serv^{ice A}^c^{t, as}^am^en^ded^com^m^uⁿ^ity^s^e^rv^{ice proj}^ects^th^at^ad^d^r^{ess th}^{e ed}^u^catioⁿ^a^{l, p}^u^b^lic^{FY2007: $37 m}^illion^{FY2008: $37 m}^illion^Natioⁿ^a^{l an}^d^Co^m^m^uⁿ^ity^ex^ception^a^{l or s}^p^{ecial n}^eeds^,^or^w^h^{o are econ}^o^mⁱ^cally
^h^ttp^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^§12521-^12547,^sa^fe^t^y^,^hum^aⁿ^,^o^r^e^nvi^r^o^nm^eⁿ^t^a^l^{FY2009: $32 m}^illion^Ser^v^ice^di^s^a^dv^an^t^a^g^e^{d an}^{d f}^o^{r w}^h^om
^{42 §U}^.S^.C^{. 121561 et}^s^e^q.ⁿ^eed^{s in}^w^a^y^s^th^{at b}^eⁿ^e^f^{it b}^o^t^h^on^{e or m}^o^{re of}^t^h^{e f}^o^l^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g
^th^{e s}^t^u^d^en^{t an}^{d com}^m^uⁿ^ity^.^appl^y^:^{1) ou}^t^-^of^-^s^ch^ool^,
ⁱⁿ^c^l^udⁱ^{ng o}^u^t^-^o^f-sc^h^o^o^l^y^o^ut^h
^w^h^{o are u}ⁿ^e^m^p^l^o^y^e^d;^{2) i}ⁿ^or
^agⁱⁿ^g^ou^{t of}^f^o^s^t^{er care; 3)}
^lim^ited^En^g^lish^p^r^o^f^icien^c^y^;⁴⁾
^ho^m^e^l^e^{ss o}^r^ha^ve^r^{un a}^w^a^y
^f^r^om^h^o^m^e^;^{5) at}^ri^s^k^of^l^eavⁱⁿ^g
^s^c^h^ool^wⁱ^t^h^ou^t^{a di}^pl^om^a;^an^d
⁶⁾^fo^r^m^e^r^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e^o^ffe^nd^e^r^{s o}^r
^at^ri^s^k^of^delⁱⁿ^qu^en^cy^.

CRS-65
^FY^{2006 -FY}²⁰⁰⁸
^Program^A^u^th^ori^zⁱⁿ^{g L}^e^gi^s^l^ati^oⁿ^a^{nd U.S. Co}^{de Cit}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Objective(s⁾^of^Program^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^an^d^Presⁱ^d^en^t’s^FY^{2009 R}^e^q^u^e^s^t^Agency^wⁱ^th^Ju^ri^s^dⁱ^c^ti^on^T^a^{rget At-Ris}^k^Youth^P^o^pula^t^ioⁿ
⁽^r^o^unded)
^r^Co^r^p^{s Fo}^ster^Do^m^e^{stic Vo}^luⁿ^t^eer^T^o^p^r^o^v^id^{e ser}^v^{ice to}^ch^ild^r^eⁿ^{FY2006: $111}^m^illion^C^o^rporatⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r^Y^o^ut^{h up}^t^o^a^g^e²⁵^wⁱ^t^h
^an^dparen^t^s^Serv^{ice A}^c^{t, as}^am^en^ded^w^ith^s^p^{ecial or ex}^ception^a^l^{FY2007: $111}^m^illion^Natioⁿ^a^{l an}^d^ex^ception^a^{l or s}^p^{ecial n}^eeds^,^or
ⁿ^eeds^.^{FY2008: $109}^m^illion^Co^m^m^uⁿ^ity^w^h^{o are econ}^o^mⁱ^cally
^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§5011 et}^s^e^q.^{FY2009: $68 m}^illion^Ser^v^ice^di^s^a^dv^an^t^a^g^e^{d an}^{d f}^o^{r w}^h^om
^on^{e or m}^o^{re of}^t^h^{e f}^o^l^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g
^appl^y^:^{1) ou}^t^-^of^-^s^ch^ool^,
ⁱⁿ^c^l^udⁱ^{ng o}^u^t^-^o^f-sc^h^o^o^l^y^o^ut^h
^w^h^{o are u}ⁿ^e^m^p^l^o^y^e^d;^{2) i}ⁿ^or
^agⁱⁿ^g^ou^{t of}^f^o^s^t^{er care; 3)}
^lim^ited^En^g^lish^p^r^o^f^icien^c^y^;⁴⁾
^ho^m^e^l^e^{ss o}^r^ha^ve^r^{un a}^w^a^y
^f^r^om^h^o^m^e^;^{5) at}^ri^s^k^of^l^eavⁱⁿ^g
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^s^c^h^ool^wⁱ^t^h^ou^t^{a di}^pl^om^a;^an^d
^g/w⁶⁾^fo^r^m^e^r^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e^o^ffe^nd^e^r^{s o}^r
^s^.or^at^ri^s^k^of^delⁱⁿ^qu^en^cy^.
^le^akⁱ^o^r^C^o^rp^{s R}^S^VP^Do^m^e^{stic Vo}^luⁿ^t^eer^T^oⁱⁿ^v^o^lv^{e sen}ⁱ^o^r^{s in}^co^m^m^uⁿ^ity^{FY2006: $60 m}^illion^C^o^rporatⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r^Y^o^ut^{h up}^t^o^a^g^e²⁵^wⁱ^t^h
^://wiki^Serv^{ice A}^c^{t, as}^am^en^ded^s^e^rv^{ice proj}^ects^th^{at addres}^s^th^e^ed^u^catioⁿ^a^{l, p}^u^b^{lic saf}^e^ty^,^{FY2007: $60 m}^illion^{FY2008: $58 m}^illion^Natioⁿ^a^{l an}^d^Co^m^m^uⁿ^ity^ex^ception^a^{l or s}^p^{ecial n}^eeds^,^or^w^h^{o are econ}^o^mⁱ^cally
^h^ttp^{42 U}^.^S^.^C^.⁵⁰⁰¹^hum^aⁿ^,^o^r^e^nvi^r^o^nm^eⁿ^t^a^l^ne^e^d^s^{FY2009: $60 m}^illion^Ser^v^ice^di^s^a^dv^an^t^a^g^e^{d an}^{d f}^o^{r w}^h^om
ⁱⁿ^w^a^y^s^th^{at b}^eⁿ^e^f^{it b}^o^t^h^th^e^on^{e or m}^o^{re of}^t^h^{e f}^o^l^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g
^s^eⁿⁱ^{or an}^{d com}^m^uⁿⁱ^t^y^.^appl^y^:^{1) ou}^t^-^of^-^s^ch^ool^,
ⁱⁿ^c^l^udⁱ^{ng o}^u^t^-^o^f-sc^h^o^o^l^y^o^ut^h
^w^h^{o are u}ⁿ^e^m^p^l^o^y^e^d;^{2) i}ⁿ^or
^agⁱⁿ^g^ou^{t of}^f^o^s^t^{er care; 3)}
^lim^ited^En^g^lish^p^r^o^f^icien^c^y^;⁴⁾
^ho^m^e^l^e^{ss o}^r^ha^ve^r^{un a}^w^a^y
^f^r^om^h^o^m^e^;^{5) at}^ri^s^k^of^l^eavⁱⁿ^g
^s^c^h^ool^wⁱ^t^h^ou^t^{a di}^pl^om^a;^an^d
⁶⁾^fo^r^m^e^r^j^uveⁿⁱ^l^e^o^ffe^nd^e^r^{s o}^r
^at^ri^s^k^of^delⁱⁿ^qu^en^cy^.
^T^a^{ble created by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^ice.

CRS-66
Table A-2. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information
^{Issue Area}⁽^s⁾^C^o^rrespo^nding^{CRS Repo}^rt⁽^s⁾^A^na^ly^st^Co^nt^a^c^t^Inf^o^rm^a^t^ioⁿ
ⁿ^dⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^{als w}^ith^Disab^{ilities Ed}^u^catioⁿ^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^32913,^{The Individuals}^w^{ith Dis}^abilities^{Education Act (}^I^DEA)^:^Anⁿ^alordem^aⁿ^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^{t, P}^a^r^t^B^Gr^an^{ts to}^States^Iⁿ^tera^ctioⁿ^s^with^S^e^lected^Pro^v^isioⁿ^s^o^f^th^{e No}^Ch^ild^{Left Beh}ⁱⁿ^d^{Act (}^N^CLB)^{, by}^L^o^rdem^an^x⁷^-²³²³
ⁿ^a^{l an}^d^Co^m^m^uⁿ^ity^Ser^v^ice^Rⁱ^ch^{ard N. A}^p^lin^g^an^{d Nan}^c^y^L^{ee J}^oⁿ^e^s
^og^r^a^m^s^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^33931,^T^h^{e C}^o^r^por^atⁱ^{on f}^o^r^N^a^tⁱ^onal^{and C}^o^m^m^uni^t^y^Ser^vⁱ^ce:
^O^ver^vi^ew^of^Pr^ogr^am^s^{and FY}^{2009 Fundi}^ng^{, by}^Aⁿⁿ^L^o^rdem^an^an^{d A}^b^ig^{ail B}^.
^Rud^m^aⁿ
^{itle IV: Saf}^e^an^{d Dru}^g^Fr^{ee Sch}^ools^{— C}^R^{S R}^e^{port R}^L^33980,^School^{and C}^a^m^pus^Saf^et^{y Pr}^ogr^am^s^{and Requi}^r^e^m^e^nt^sⁱⁿ^Gail^g^m^ccallioⁿ^@^cr^s.lo^c.g^o^v
^t^h^{e El}^em^ent^a^r^y^{and Secondar}^{y Educat}ⁱ^{on Act}^{and H}ⁱ^gher^Educatⁱ^{on Act}^{, by}^R^e^becca^McCallioⁿ^x⁷^-⁷⁷⁵⁸
^{R. Sk}ⁱⁿⁿ^e^r^an^d^{Gail McCallio}ⁿ
^V^u^lⁿ^e^r^a^b^l^e^Y^o^ut^{h a}ⁿ^d^Y^o^ut^{h P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^34499,^Y^out^{h T}^r^ansⁱ^tⁱ^oni^{ng Fr}^om^Fos^t^er^C^a^r^e^{: Backgr}^ound,^A^d^rⁱ^e^nne^L.^af^ern^aⁿ^d^es^@^c^rs^.loc.g^ov
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^en^erally⁾^Feder^a^l^Pr^ogr^am^s^,^{and Is}^s^u^es^f^o^r^C^ongr^es^s^{, by}^A^d^rienⁿ^e^Fern^an^des^Ferⁿ^and^e^s^x⁷^-⁹⁰⁰⁵
^g/w^h^af^{ee Fos}^t^{er C}^a^{re In}^depen^d^en^ce^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^33785,^Runaw^{ay and H}^o^m^e^l^e^s^s^Y^out^{h: D}^e^m^ogr^aphi^cs^and
^s^.or^og^ram^an^{d Edu}^cation^an^{d T}^r^ainⁱⁿ^g^Pr^ogr^am^s^{, by}^A^d^rienⁿ^e^L^.^Fern^an^des
^le^ak^uc^he^r^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^34050,^Mⁱ^s^sⁱ^{ng and Expl}^oi^t^e^{d C}^hⁱ^l^d^r^e^{n: Backgr}^{ound, Pol}ⁱ^cⁱ^e^s^,
^Runa^w^a^y^aⁿ^d^H^o^m^e^l^e^{ss Y}^o^ut^{h P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^{and Is}^s^u^es^,^by^A^d^rienⁿ^e^L^.^Fern^an^des
^://wiki^{asic Cen}^t^er^{, T}^r^an^sitioⁿ^a^{l L}ⁱ^vⁱⁿ^g^,^an^d^Str^eet^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^34306,^Vulⁿ^er^abl^{e Y}^out^{h: Feder}^a^l^M^e^nt^orⁱ^{ng Pr}^ogr^am^s^and
^h^ttp^treach^P^r^og^ram^s⁾^Mi^s^sⁱⁿ^g^an^{d Ex}^pl^oi^t^e^{d C}^hⁱ^l^d^ren^’^s^I^ssu^e^s^{, by}^A^d^rienⁿ^e^L^.^Fern^an^des
^og^r^a^m
^M^e^nt^o^rⁱ^{ng Chi}^l^d^r^e^{n o}^f^P^rⁱ^s^oⁿ^e^r^s
^{itle VI}^I^:^Ed^u^catioⁿ^o^f^Ho^m^e^less^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^30442,^Homeles^sⁿ^es^s^:^T^a^r^g^{eted Feder}^a^{l Pr}^ogr^ams^{and Recent}^Gail^g^m^ccallioⁿ^@^cr^s.lo^c.g^o^v
^ild^r^eⁿ^L^e^gi^s^l^atⁱ^oⁿ^{, coordi}ⁿ^a^t^e^{d by}^Lⁱ^bby^Perl^McCallioⁿ^x⁷^-⁷⁷⁵⁸
^U^p^w^a^r^d^B^o^und^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^31622,^T^rⁱ^o^{and GEAR UP Pr}^ogr^ams^:^St^at^us^{and Is}^s^u^es^{, by}^Je^f^f^r^e^y^J.^j^kue^nzⁱ^@^c^r^s.^l^o^c^.^go^v
^Edu^catⁱ^oⁿ^O^pport^uⁿⁱ^t^y^C^eⁿ^t^ers^J^e^f^f^r^ey^J^.^Ku^en^zi^Ku^en^zi^x⁷^-⁸⁶⁴⁵

^S^t^u^d^en^t^S^u^pport^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^33963,^Hⁱ^{gh School}^G^r^aduatⁱ^{on, C}^o^m^p^l^e^tⁱ^{on, and D}^r^opout^s^:
^a^len^t^Search^Feder^a^l^Polⁱ^{cy, Pr}^ogr^am^s^,^{and Is}^s^u^es^{, by}^J^e^f^f^r^ey^J^.^Ku^en^zi
ⁱⁿ^g^Early^A^w^aren^es^s^an^{d R}^eadin^es^s
^{r Un}^derg^radu^at^{e P}^r^og^ram^s
^S^c^h^ool^D^r^opou^t^Prev^en^tⁱ^oⁿ^Prog^ram

CRS-67
^{Issue Area}⁽^s⁾^C^o^rrespo^nding^{CRS Repo}^rt⁽^s⁾^A^na^ly^st^Co^nt^a^c^t^Inf^o^rm^a^t^ioⁿ
^o^rk^f^o^{rce Dev}^e^lopm^en^{t (g}^en^erally⁾^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^33687,^{The W}^o^r^k^for^{ce Inves}^{tment Act (}^W^IA)^:^Pr^ogr^am-by-^B^l^ak^{e A}^l^an^bⁿ^a^ught^oⁿ^@c^r^s^.^l^o^c^.^g^o^v
^Y^o^ut^hB^ui^l^d^Pr^ogr^{am Over}^view^and^{FY2007 Funding of}^{Title I Tr}^{aining Pr}^ogr^ams^{, by}^B^l^ak^{e A}^l^an^N^a^ught^oⁿ^x⁷^-⁰³⁷⁶
^{Job C}^o^rps^N^a^ught^oⁿ^aⁿ^d^A^{nn Lo}^r^d^e^m^aⁿ
^v^eⁿⁱ^l^e^Ju^s^tⁱ^{ce (g}^en^eral^l^y⁾^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^S^22070,^{Juvenile Jus}^{tice: Over}^view^of^L^e^gi^s^l^atⁱ^{ve H}ⁱ^s^t^or^{y and}^B^l^as^Nu^ñ^ez-^bn^uⁿ^ezn^eto@^crs^.^loc.g^o
^Fundi^{ng T}^r^ends^{, by}^B^l^as^Nu^ñ^ez-^Neto^Neto^v
^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^33947,^Juveni^l^e^Jus^tⁱ^{ce: L}^e^gi^s^l^atⁱ^{ve H}ⁱ^s^t^or^{y and C}^u^r^r^e^nt^x⁷^-⁰⁶²²
^Le^gⁱ^sla^tiv^e^I^ssu^e^s^{, by}^B^l^as^Nu^ñ^ez-^Neto
^{itle I}^:^Ed^u^catioⁿ^f^o^r^th^{e Disad}^v^an^tag^e^d^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^31487,^Ed^u^c^a^tioⁿ^fo^{r th}^{e Disa}^d^v^aⁿ^t^a^g^e^d^:^{Overview o}^f^ES^{EA Title}^Wa^yⁿ^e^C^.^w^r^iddle@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^{itle I}^-^{D: P}^r^ev^en^tioⁿ^an^d^Iⁿ^ter^v^en^tioⁿ^{I-A Am}^endm^ent^s^U^nder^t^h^{e N}^o^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^e^f^t^Behi^{nd Act}^{, by}^Wayⁿ^{e C}^.^Rⁱ^ddl^e^Rⁱ^ddl^e^x⁷^-⁷³⁸²
^og^ram^s^f^o^{r C}^hⁱ^l^d^ren^an^{d You}^t^h^s^Wh^{o A}^r^e
^l^{ected, Delin}^qu^en^{t, or A}^t^Rⁱ^s^k
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33975}^r^an^{t Ed}^u^catioⁿ^Mⁱ^gr^aⁿ^t^Hⁱ^{gh Sc}^ho^o^l^E^q^ui^va^l^e^nc^y^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^31325,^T^h^{e Feder}^a^l^Mⁱ^gr^ant^Educatⁱ^{on Pr}^ogr^am^as^Am^{ended by}^t^h^{e N}^o^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^e^f^t^Behi^{nd Act}^of²⁰⁰¹^{, by}^J^e^f^f^r^ey^J^.^Ku^en^zi^R^e^{becca R}^.^Ski^nne^r^r^s^ki^nne^r^@^c^r^s.^l^o^c^.^go^v^x⁷^-⁶⁶⁰⁰
^g/w^og^r^a^m^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^31315,^{Education of L}ⁱ^{mited Englis}^{h Pr}^{oficient and Recent}
^s^.or^itle^I^I^I^:^E^{nglish L}^a^ngua^ge^A^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^Im^mⁱ^gr^ant^St^udent^s^:^Pr^ovi^sⁱ^ons^of^t^h^{e N}^o^C^hⁱ^l^d^L^e^f^t^Behi^{nd Act}^of²⁰⁰¹^{, by}^J^e^f^f^r^ey^J^.
^le^ak^Ku^en^zi
^://wiki^o^m^m^uⁿ^ity^-^B^as^{ed A}^b^s^tin^en^{ce Edu}^cation^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^S^20873,^Reduci^{ng T}^{een Pr}^{egnancy: Fam}ⁱ^l^y^Lⁱ^f^e^{and Abs}^tⁱⁿ^ence^Ca^r^m^eⁿ^cs^olom^on^f^ears^@^crs^.^loc.
^h^ttp^b^s^tin^en^{ce Edu}^cation^P^r^og^ram^Educatⁱ^{on Pr}^ogr^am^s^{, by}^C^a^rm^en^Solom^oⁿ^-^Fears^So^lo^m^o^n-^go^v
^d^o^l^escen^{t Fam}^ily^Lⁱ^f^e^Dem^oⁿ^s^tr^atioⁿ^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^S^20301,^T^{eenage Pr}^{egnancy Pr}^{evention: Statis}^tics^{and Pr}^ogr^ams^,^Fears^x⁷^-⁷³⁰⁶
^oj^ects^by^C^a^rm^en^Solom^oⁿ^-^Fears
^doles^cen^{t Fam}^ily^Lⁱ^f^e^R^e^s^earch^Gran^ts
^{ster Care}^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^32976,^Ch^ild^W^e^lfa^re:^Pro^g^r^a^m^{s Au}^th^o^r^ized^b^y^th^{e Victims o}^f^Em^ilie^esto^ltzf^u^s@cr^s.lo^c.g^o^v
^C^o^u^r^t^A^ppoiⁿ^t^{ed S}^p^eci^al^A^d^v^o^cat^es^C^hⁱ^l^d^Abus^{e Act}^of¹⁹⁹⁰^{, b}^y^Em^{ilie Sto}^ltzf^u^s^Sto^ltzf^u^s^x⁷^-²³²⁴
^og^r^a^m^—^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L³¹²⁴²^C^hⁱ^l^d^W^e^l^f^a^r^e^{: Feder}^a^l^Pr^ogr^am^Requi^r^e^m^e^nt^s^f^o^r^St^at^es^,
^h^ildren^’^s^A^d^v^o^cacy^C^eⁿ^t^ers^b^y^Em^{ilie Sto}^ltzf^u^s
^T^a^{ble created by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^ice.