Foster Youth
HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and Monitoring of States' Independent Living Programs Gao ID: GAO-05-25 November 18, 2004To improve outcomes for youth leaving foster care, Congress passed the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA), which increased the allocation of federal funds for independent living programs from $70 million to $140 million. This report reviews (1) how states' funding allocations changed to serve youth after FCIA, (2) the extent to which states have expanded services and age groups of foster youth served since the passage of FCIA and what challenges remain, (3) the extent to which states have used other federal and state programs to coordinate the delivery of services to foster youth, and (4) how the states and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have fulfilled the program accountability provisions of the law and assessed the effectiveness of independent living services.
The doubling of federal funding for independent living programs has resulted in most states receiving an increase in funds. Although some states had difficulty expanding their program infrastructure in the first 2 years of increased funding, the amount of funds states returned to HHS declined the second year. Differences in funding also appeared in the amounts available per eligible foster care youth. Following the passage of FCIA, 40 states reported in our survey expanding independent living services to younger youth, and 36 states expanded services to older youth, but gaps remain in providing some key services to youth. State differences in serving youth may have been caused by gaps in the availability of critical services, such as mental health services, mentoring, and housing, as well as challenges engaging youth and foster parents to participate in the program. Almost all states that we surveyed reported increased levels of coordination under FCIA, but linkages with other federal and state youth-serving programs were not always in place to increase services available across local areas. Despite some coordination efforts, states may not make full use of available resources. One of the barriers in linking program services reported by the 4 states we visited included the inconsistent availability of information on the array of programs that were operating in each state and local area. States and HHS have taken action to fulfill the accountability provisions of FCIA, but little information is available to assess the effectiveness of independent living services. All states submitted required plans and reports, but the absence of a uniform reporting format and lack of standard monitoring practices among HHS regional offices hindered assessments of state performance. HHS is developing an information system that may improve program accountability and reported that it expects to issue a proposed regulation in 2005.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-25, Foster Youth: HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and Monitoring of States' Independent Living Programs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-25
entitled 'Foster Youth: HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of
Services and Monitoring of States' Independent Living Programs' which
was released on December 20, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
November 2004:
Foster Youth:
HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and Monitoring of
States' Independent Living Programs:
GAO-05-25:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-25, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
To improve outcomes for youth leaving foster care, Congress passed the
Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA), which increased the
allocation of federal funds for independent living programs from $70
million to $140 million. This report reviews (1) how states‘ funding
allocations changed to serve youth after FCIA, (2) the extent to which
states have expanded services and age groups of foster youth served
since the passage of FCIA and what challenges remain, (3) the extent to
which states have used other federal and state programs to coordinate
the delivery of services to foster youth, and (4) how the states and
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have fulfilled the
program accountability provisions of the law and assessed the
effectiveness of independent living services.
What GAO Found:
The doubling of federal funding for independent living programs has
resulted in most states receiving an increase in funds. Although some
states had difficulty expanding their program infrastructure in the
first 2 years of increased funding, the amount of funds states returned
to HHS declined the second year. Differences in funding also appeared
in the amounts available per eligible foster care youth.
Following the passage of FCIA, 40 states reported in our survey
expanding independent living services to younger youth, and 36 states
expanded services to older youth, but gaps remain in providing some key
services to youth. State differences in serving youth may have been
caused by gaps in the availability of critical services, such as mental
health services, mentoring, and housing, as well as challenges engaging
youth and foster parents to participate in the program.
Almost all states that we surveyed reported increased levels of
coordination under FCIA, but linkages with other federal and state
youth-serving programs were not always in place to increase services
available across local areas. Despite some coordination efforts, states
may not make full use of available resources. One of the barriers in
linking program services reported by the 4 states we visited included
the inconsistent availability of information on the array of programs
that were operating in each state and local area.
States and HHS have taken action to fulfill the accountability
provisions of FCIA, but little information is available to assess the
effectiveness of independent living services. All states submitted
required plans and reports, but the absence of a uniform reporting
format and lack of standard monitoring practices among HHS regional
offices hindered assessments of state performance. HHS is developing an
information system that may improve program accountability and reported
that it expects to issue a proposed regulation in 2005.
Number of States Providing Key Independent Living Services to Youth
Younger than 16 and Emancipated Youth after FCIA:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
We are making recommendations to the Secretary of HHS to improve the
availability of information on the array of federal programs that could
be used to assist youth transitioning out of foster care at the state
and local levels and to improve existing processes for monitoring
states‘ progress in meeting the needs of current and former foster care
youth. HHS disagreed with our latter recommendation, which included
standardizing the reporting format for plans and reports, stating that
it would impose an unnecessary burden on states.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-25.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact David D. Bellis, (415)
904-2272, BellisD@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
FCIA Increased Independent Living Allocations for Most States, but Some
States Had Difficulty Absorbing Large Increases in Funds:
States Expanded and Improved Services for Youth after FCIA, but Gaps in
Critical Services Remain:
States Reported Increased Coordination with Federal and State Programs
to Provide Independent Living Services to Youth, but Barriers Hinder
Linkages across Programs:
States' and HHS's Actions in Response to FCIA Requirements Have Not Yet
Established Accountability for Independent Living Programs:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Selected Federal Youth Programs and Services That Target
Current and Former Foster Youth:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Bibliography:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Key Purposes of the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program by Target Populations:
Table 2: Changes in Funding Allocations across States since the Passage
of FCIA:
Table 3: Key Independent Living Services and the Most Prevalent Service
Providers:
Table 4: Proposed NYTD Data Elements as of April 2003 and the Number of
States Currently Collecting These Data:
Table 5: Programs Included in the Multisite Evaluation of Foster Youth
Programs:
Figures:
Figure 1: Funding per Eligible Youth in Foster Care for Independent
Living Services across States in 2004:
Figure 2: Increase in the Number of States Offering Selected
Independent Living Services to Youth Younger than 16 and Emancipated
Youth:
Figure 3: States Offering Medicaid to Emancipated Foster Care Youth as
of May 2004:
Figure 4: Proportion of Youth in Foster Care Receiving Independent
Living Services from States in 2003:
Abbreviations:
ACF: Administration for Children and Families:
AFCARS: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System:
CFSP: Child and Family Services Plan:
CFSR: Child and Family Services Review:
DCI: data collection instrument:
ETV: Education and Training Voucher:
FCIA: Foster Care Independence Act of 1999:
GED: general equivalency diploma:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
ILP: Independent Living Program:
NYTD: National Youth in Transition Database:
NRCYD: National Resource Center for Youth Development:
PIP: program improvement plan:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 18, 2004:
The Honorable Tom DeLay:
Majority Leader:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Chairman:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Wally Herger:
Chairman:
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Human Resources:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
Almost 40 percent of the more than 530,000 youth in foster care are
adolescents age 13 or older, and approximately 19,000 youth leave the
foster care system each year without being adopted or having a
permanent living arrangement. Research studies have shown that many of
these young people face serious problems once on their own, including
homelessness, a lack of education and stable employment, and
difficulties obtaining medical and mental health services. In response
to concerns that youth leave foster care poorly prepared to live self-
sufficiently, in 1986 Congress created the Independent Living Program,
which provided states with funding to prepare foster care adolescents
for adulthood. To strengthen this program, Congress later passed the
Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA) and created the John H.
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (Chafee Program), which doubled
overall federal funding for independent living programs from $70
million to $140 million. The Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has
responsibility for overseeing and evaluating the Chafee Program, which
comprises about 2 percent of the approximately $6 billion obligated to
foster care and adoption programs under Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act.[Footnote 1]
In addition to providing increased funding, FCIA resulted in other
significant changes for the independent living program. The law
expanded state flexibility to offer independent living services to
youth younger than 16 and to assist youth 18 to 21 years old who are no
longer in the foster care system with room and board, Medicaid health
insurance, and other support services. Further, FCIA called for states
to make every effort to coordinate their independent living programs
with other federal and state programs that provide services to youth,
such as housing and school-to-work programs. All states were required
to submit a multiyear plan describing how they planned to use the
Chafee Program funds, and HHS required states to submit annual reports
on the progress made to implement their programs. In addition, states
were required to submit certifications that they would comply with
various aspects of the law. Finally, FCIA directed HHS to develop
outcome measures to be used to assess state performance in operating
independent living programs and to conduct evaluations of state
programs deemed to be innovative or of potential national significance.
We previously reported on HHS's and states' efforts to implement
independent living programs prior to changes under FCIA.[Footnote 2]
Because of your interest in how HHS and states have implemented FCIA
and progress made to assist foster youth achieve self-sufficiency, you
asked us to determine (1) how states' funding allocation changed to
serve youth after FCIA, (2) the extent to which states have expanded
independent living services and age groups of foster youth served since
the passage of FCIA and what challenges remain, (3) the extent to which
states have used other federal and state programs to coordinate the
delivery of independent living services to foster youth, and (4) how
the states and HHS have fulfilled the program accountability provisions
of the law and assessed the effectiveness of independent living
services.
To conduct our work, we surveyed the independent living coordinators in
all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico regarding
their experiences in developing and implementing their Chafee Programs
in federal fiscal year 2003. We received responses from 50 states and
the District of Columbia.[Footnote 3] We compared results with those of
a similar survey we administered to state independent living
coordinators that gathered information on state independent living
programs operating in federal fiscal year 1998. We checked for obvious
errors and conducted some follow-up with states, but we did not
independently verify states' responses. We analyzed federal funding
amounts to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico for
independent living programs before and after the passage of FCIA, using
federal financial and foster care population data, as well as data
reported by states in our 2004 survey. We analyzed Chafee Program plans
from 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico for federal
fiscal years 2001-2004 to determine states' program strategies for
meeting the goals of FCIA. We also analyzed a total of 90 annual
progress and services reports (annual reports) that states submitted
regarding the progress made in implementing their Chafee Program plans
for federal fiscal years 2001 and 2002.[Footnote 4] In addition, we
visited 4 states--Connecticut, Florida, Texas, and Washington--and 2
local areas within each state to obtain information on their
experiences developing and implementing their independent living
programs. We spoke with state and local officials, caseworkers, several
groups of youth, foster parents, and contract provider staff. We
selected states that represented a variety of approaches to
implementing independent living services and geographic diversity.
Finally, we interviewed HHS officials, federal contractors, and child
welfare experts, and reviewed relevant documents and literature. We
conducted our work between August 2003 and August 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed
discussion of our scope and methodology appears in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
The doubling of the federal funding for independent living programs
with the passage of FCIA resulted in most states receiving an increase
in funds, including 31 states receiving more than double the amount of
funds in 2001--the first year of full funding. Some states had
difficulty spending all of their federal allocations in the first year,
but the amount of funds returned declined the second year. In 2001, 20
states returned nearly $10 million in federal funding to HHS, and in
2002, 13 states returned more than $4 million. The differences in
funding among states appeared not only in overall amounts allocated to
states, but also in the amounts available per eligible foster care
youth. Because of differences in states' eligibility requirements and
the funding formula used to allocate funds, available data indicate
that states received from approximately $500 to $2,300 for each youth
in foster care that is eligible for independent living services.
Following the passage of FCIA, 40 states reported in our survey
expanding existing services to younger youth, and 36 states reported
serving youth older than they had previously served, but gaps remain in
providing some key services. Many states also began to offer the new
services under FCIA that would allow them to meet the unique needs of
youth that have been emancipated from foster care. For example, 31
states now provide Medicaid health insurance coverage to at least some
former foster care youth. However, states varied in the percentage of
eligible youth served. For example, 40 states providing these data in
our survey reported serving between 10 and 100 percent of foster care
youth eligible for independent living services in 2003, and officials
in the states we visited reported that most services continued to be
directed at youth age 16 and older. States we visited reported
difficulties serving youth, such as gaps in the availability of
critical services and challenges engaging youth and foster parents to
participate in the program, which may have contributed to the
difference among states in the proportion of youth served.
Almost all states that we surveyed reported increased levels of
coordination with other federal, state, and local programs under FCIA,
but linkages with other federal and state youth-serving programs were
not always in place to increase services available across local areas.
Many programs exist at the federal, state, or local level that can be
used to provide or supplement independent living services, and each
state reported in our survey using some of these programs to provide
services such as education, employment, health, and housing. In
Connecticut, for example, the child welfare agency collaborated with
business entrepreneurs, other state agencies, and nonprofit
organizations to provide youth with opportunities to develop employment
skills and apply independent living skills training through
participation in community-based youth employment projects. Despite
these coordination efforts, some states may not make full use of the
available resources. Officials from less than half of states responding
to our survey, for example, reported using housing services provided by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and state
housing authorities. One of the barriers in linking program services
included the inconsistent availability of information on the array of
programs that were operating in each state and local area, according to
state and local officials from the 4 states we visited:
States and HHS have taken action to fulfill the accountability
provisions of FCIA, but little information is available to assess the
effectiveness of independent living services. All states have developed
multiyear plans for their programs in compliance with FCIA and
submitted annual reports to ACF, but using these plans and the reports
to assess state performance is hindered by inconsistencies between the
plans and reports, an absence of goals and baseline information to use
in measuring progress, and incomplete information on outcomes for all
youth who received services. Hawaii's plan, for example, lists
employment services the state planned to provide youth. However, the
subsequent annual reports do not mention offering or providing
employment-related services, making it unclear whether the differences
were due to service changes for youth or missing information. ACF
officials recognize the limitations of states' plans and reports as
federal monitoring tools but stated that they rely on states to self-
certify program compliance. ACF is developing an information system
that will allow it to capture data on the characteristics, services,
and outcomes of youth in independent living programs, which may allow
it to more effectively monitor and measure states' program performance.
ACF reported that it expects to issue guidance about this system in the
form of a proposed regulation in 2005. ACF also has begun to evaluate
selected independent living programs, and officials reported that the
results of this evaluation should be available in 2007.
We are making recommendations to the Secretary of HHS to improve the
availability of information on the array of federal programs that could
be used to assist youth transitioning out of foster care at the state
and local levels and to improve existing processes for monitoring
states' progress in meeting the needs of current and former foster care
youth. HHS disagreed with our latter recommendation that included
standardizing the reporting format for state plans and annual reports,
stating that taking such action would be overly prescriptive and impose
an unnecessary burden on states.
Background:
In 1986, Congress amended Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to
authorize federal funds targeted to assist youth aged 16 and over in
making the transition from foster care to living independent of the
child welfare system and created the Independent Living Program
(ILP).[Footnote 5] This program was designed to prepare adolescents in
foster care to live self-sufficiently once they exited the child
welfare system. As with many adolescents, foster care youth face a time
of uncertainty and change as they approach age 18. However, research
suggests that they may be at greater risk of experiencing negative
consequences in adulthood, such as unemployment, incarceration, or poor
health outcomes. For example, research indicates that 30 to 40 percent
of youth in foster care are affected by chronic medical problems, but
barriers exist to meeting those needs, such as prolonged delays in
getting referrals to specialists. In addition, research shows that
children and youth in foster care have poorer academic experiences than
do their peers not in care. For example, twice as many youth in foster
care than those not in foster care had repeated a grade, changed
schools during the year, or enrolled in a special education program.
Foster Care Independence Act and the Chafee Program:
Several amendments were made to the Independent Living Program over the
years, but the passage of FCIA and the creation of the Chafee Program
represented the most significant changes in the federal independent
living program since its creation. FCIA doubled the federal funds
available for independent living programs to $140 million each
year.[Footnote 6] These funds are allocated to states based on their
share of the nation's foster care population.[Footnote 7]
In addition to providing increased funding, FCIA eliminated the minimum
age limit of 16 years and provided states with the flexibility to
define the age at which children in foster care are eligible for
services to help them prepare for independent living, as long as
services are provided to youth who are likely to remain in foster care
until 18 years of age. The law provided states the flexibility to
develop programs that met the needs of the adolescents in their care,
as long as states designed and conducted their programs based on the
five key purposes outlined in the law (see table 1).
Table 1: Key Purposes of the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program by Target Populations:
Support for youth likely to remain in foster care until age 18:
Identify children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18
years of age and help these children make the transition to self-
sufficiency by providing services such as assistance in obtaining a
high school diploma, career exploration, vocational training, job
placement and retention, training in daily living skills, training in
budgeting and financial management skills, substance abuse prevention,
and preventive health activities.
Support for youth likely to remain in foster care until age 18:
Help children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of
age receive the education, training, and services necessary to obtain
employment.
Support for youth likely to remain in foster care until age 18:
Help children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of
age prepare for and enter postsecondary training and education
institutions.
Support for youth transitioning out of foster care:
Provide personal and emotional support to children aging out of foster
care, through mentors and the promotion of interactions with dedicated
adults.
Support for youth formerly in foster care:
Provide financial, housing, counseling, employment, education, and
other appropriate support and services to former foster care recipients
between 18 and 21 years of age to complement their own efforts to
achieve self-sufficiency and to ensure that program participants
recognize and accept their personal responsibility for preparing for
and then making the transition from adolescence to adulthood.
Source: Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-169).
[End of table]
The law also provided several new services to help youth make the
transition to adulthood. First, it allowed states to use up to 30
percent of their state allotment for room and board for former foster
care youth up to age 21. Second, it allowed states the option to expand
Medicaid coverage to former foster care adolescents between 18 and 21.
Title IV-E was amended again in 2002 to provide foster youth vouchers
for postsecondary education and training under the Education and
Training Vouchers (ETV) program and authorized an additional $60
million for states to provide postsecondary education and training
vouchers up to $5,000 per year per youth. Eligible participants include
youth otherwise eligible for services under the states' Chafee
Programs, youth adopted from foster care after attaining the age of 16,
and youth participating in the voucher program on their 21st birthday
(until they turn 23 years old) as long as they are enrolled in a
postsecondary education or training program and are making satisfactory
progress toward completion of that program. In federal fiscal year
2003, approximately $41 million in federal funds was available for
states' ETV programs.[Footnote 8] The amount increased slightly in
federal fiscal year 2004 to approximately $44 million.[Footnote 9]
In addition, the law required that states make every effort to
coordinate their Chafee Programs with other federal and state programs
for youth, such as the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, abstinence
education programs, local housing programs, programs for disabled
youth, and school-to-work programs offered by high schools or local
workforce agencies. Further, states were required to coordinate their
programs with each Indian tribe in the state and offer the state's
independent living services to Indian children.
State Responsibilities under FCIA:
To receive funds under the Chafee Program, states were required to
develop multiyear plans describing how they would design and deliver
programs in accordance with FCIA and to submit program certifications.
The multiyear Chafee plans must include a description of the state's
program design, including its goals, strategies, and its implementation
plan for achieving the five key purposes detailed in the law.[Footnote
10] States were also required to certify that they would operate a
statewide independent living program that complied with the specific
aspects of the law, such as providing training to help foster parents,
adoptive parents, workers in group homes, and case managers understand
and address the issues confronting adolescents preparing for
independent living. Further, to receive annual funds, ACF required
states to submit annual reports that described the services provided
and activities conducted under their Chafee Programs, including
information on any program modifications and their current status of
implementation; provide a record of how funds were expended; and
include a description of the extent to which the funds assisted youth
age 18 to 21 in making the transition to self-sufficiency.
Federal Oversight:
FCIA required that HHS develop and implement a plan to collect
information needed to effectively monitor and measure a state's
performance, including the characteristics of youth served by
independent living programs, the services delivered, and the outcomes
achieved. Further, FCIA required HHS to conduct evaluations of
independent living programs deemed to be innovative or of potential
national significance using rigorous scientific standards to the
maximum extent practicable, such as random assignment to treatment and
control groups.
Currently, ACF's 10 regional offices conduct much of the federal
oversight for the Chafee Program. They hold the responsibility for
reviewing and approving the state plans, certifications, and annual
reports. In addition, the regional offices provide assistance and
guidance to the states on implementing and operating their programs.
Technical assistance is also available to states from 10 national
resource centers. In particular, the National Resource Center for Youth
Development (NRCYD) provides states and tribes assistance with helping
youth in care establish permanent connections and achieve successful
transitions to adulthood. Upon request from the states and approval
from the regional offices, the NRCYD has facilitated stakeholder
meetings to bring together officials from various state and federal
programs within a state to facilitate communication, awareness, and
information sharing, and provide strategies to promote long-term
collaborative efforts around independent living.[Footnote 11]
In 2001, ACF implemented an outcome-oriented process, known as the
Child and Family Services Review (CFSR), in part, to determine states'
substantial conformity with Title IV-E provisions and hold states
accountable for improving child welfare outcomes.[Footnote 12] The CFSR
measures state performance on 45 performance items, which correspond to
7 outcomes and 7 systemic factors.[Footnote 13] States that were
reviewed during the first year of the CFSR were rated on the provision
of independent living services to youth in their care 16 years or
older. This item was removed from the CFSR in subsequent reviews when
ACF redesigned the review instrument to focus more on setting and
achieving appropriate permanency goals for children and less on service
delivery. With the redesigned instrument, reviewers were instructed to
consider the provision of independent living services in other
measures, such as when determining if the youths' needs were assessed
and if appropriate services were provided.
FCIA Increased Independent Living Allocations for Most States, but Some
States Had Difficulty Absorbing Large Increases in Funds:
While overall federal funding for state independent living programs
doubled with the passage of FCIA, there were significant variations in
the changes to state allocations, and some states had difficulty
expanding their programs quickly enough to spend all of the new funds.
Prior to the passage of FCIA, states were awarded independent living
funds based on the number of children receiving federal foster care
payments in 1984.[Footnote 14] The new law updated the formula, which
generally allocates funds to each state based on the state's proportion
of the nation's population of children in foster care--regardless if
the child is receiving federal or state funded foster care
payments.[Footnote 15] In addition, the new formula includes a hold-
harmless provision to ensure that each state will receive at least the
amount it received in federal fiscal year 1998 or $500,000, whichever
is greater. Once the states subject to the hold-harmless provision are
funded, the remaining funds within the cap of $140 million are allotted
to the other states. Under the previous independent living program,
states received funds ranging from $13,000 in Alaska to more than $12
million in California. In the first year of funding under FCIA, Alaska
and eight other states received the minimum of $500,000, while
California received more than $27 million (see table 2). In most cases,
states received an increase of funds. However, the District of
Columbia, Louisiana, and New Jersey received no additional funds the
first year because their allocations under the new formula were
initially lower than the amounts they received in 1998. Therefore,
because of the hold-harmless clause, they received the same amount
awarded in 1998.
Table 2: Changes in Funding Allocations across States since the Passage
of FCIA:
State: District of Columbia;
1998 allocation: $1,091,992;
2001 allocation: $1,091,992;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 0%.
State: Louisiana;
1998 allocation: $1,358,131;
2001 allocation: $1,358,131;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 0%.
State: New Jersey;
1998 allocation: $2,297,848;
2001 allocation: $2,297,848;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 0%.
State: New York;
1998 allocation: $11,585,958;
2001 allocation: $12,313,109;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 6%.
State: Pennsylvania;
1998 allocation: $4,638,225;
2001 allocation: $5,304,231;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 14%.
State: Alabama;
1998 allocation: $1,038,490;
2001 allocation: $1,288,304;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 24%.
State: Virginia;
1998 allocation: $1,361,561;
2001 allocation: $1,698,102;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 25%.
State: Maine;
1998 allocation: $565,888;
2001 allocation: $737,309;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 30%.
State: West Virginia;
1998 allocation: $521,302;
2001 allocation: $740,816;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 42%.
State: Mississippi;
1998 allocation: $514,444;
2001 allocation: $747,127;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 45%.
State: Wisconsin;
1998 allocation: $1,554,305;
2001 allocation: $2,252,837;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 45%.
State: Michigan;
1998 allocation: $4,171,796;
2001 allocation: $6,109,567;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 46%.
State: New Hampshire;
1998 allocation: $320,326;
2001 allocation: $500,000;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 56%.
State: Ohio;
1998 allocation: $2,860,992;
2001 allocation: $4,693,625;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 64%.
State: Kentucky;
1998 allocation: $791,557;
2001 allocation: $1,332,019;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 68%.
State: Vermont;
1998 allocation: $295,633;
2001 allocation: $500,000;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 69%.
State: Minnesota;
1998 allocation: $1,142,066;
2001 allocation: $2,102,991;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 84%.
State: Oregon;
1998 allocation: $930,799;
2001 allocation: $1,723,115;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 85%.
State: South Carolina;
1998 allocation: $579,606;
2001 allocation: $1,085,860;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 87%.
State: Rhode Island;
1998 allocation: $314,840;
2001 allocation: $612,710;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 95%.
State: Indiana;
1998 allocation: $1,019,970;
2001 allocation: $2,088,263;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 105%.
State: Montana;
1998 allocation: $244,190;
2001 allocation: $504,007;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 106%.
State: Connecticut;
1998 allocation: $754,518;
2001 allocation: $1,567,892;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 108%.
State: Colorado;
1998 allocation: $825,854;
2001 allocation: $1,785,766;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 116%.
State: California;
1998 allocation: $12,481,777;
2001 allocation: $27,570,079;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 121%.
State: Kansas;
1998 allocation: $717,477;
2001 allocation: $1,583,555;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 121%.
State: Missouri;
1998 allocation: $1,295,026;
2001 allocation: $2,940,120;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 127%.
State: New Mexico;
1998 allocation: $207,149;
2001 allocation: $500,000;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 141%.
State: Delaware;
1998 allocation: $203,034;
2001 allocation: $500,000;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 146%.
State: Washington;
1998 allocation: $825,168;
2001 allocation: $2,030,990;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 146%.
State: Texas;
1998 allocation: $1,841,708;
2001 allocation: $4,600,585;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 150%.
State: Arkansas;
1998 allocation: $270,940;
2001 allocation: $682,373;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 152%.
State: Iowa;
1998 allocation: $449,966;
2001 allocation: $1,134,717;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 152%.
State: Maryland;
1998 allocation: $1,238,095;
2001 allocation: $3,143,032;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 154%.
State: North Carolina;
1998 allocation: $1,045,349;
2001 allocation: $2,650,713;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 154%.
State: Georgia;
1998 allocation: $1,098,852;
2001 allocation: $2,803,131;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 155%.
State: South Dakota;
1998 allocation: $193,430;
2001 allocation: $500,000;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 158%.
State: North Dakota;
1998 allocation: $192,058;
2001 allocation: $500,000;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 160%.
State: Utah;
1998 allocation: $202,348;
2001 allocation: $531,358;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 163%.
State: Nebraska;
1998 allocation: $435,562;
2001 allocation: $1,293,213;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 197%.
State: Oklahoma;
1998 allocation: $620,076;
2001 allocation: $1,910,598;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 208%.
State: Tennessee;
1998 allocation: $777,838;
2001 allocation: $2,523,776;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 224%.
State: Illinois;
1998 allocation: $2,817,094;
2001 allocation: $9,413,899;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 234%.
State: Nevada;
1998 allocation: $153,647;
2001 allocation: $517,800;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 237%.
State: Massachusetts;
1998 allocation: $635,852;
2001 allocation: $2,610,972;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 311%.
State: Idaho;
1998 allocation: $107,004;
2001 allocation: $500,000;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 367%.
State: Arizona;
1998 allocation: $347,763;
2001 allocation: $1,677,998;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 383%.
State: Florida;
1998 allocation: $987,045;
2001 allocation: $8,016,425;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 712%.
State: Wyoming;
1998 allocation: $44,585;
2001 allocation: $500,000;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 1,021%.
State: Hawaii;
1998 allocation: $17,834;
2001 allocation: $514,994;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 2,788%.
State: Alaska;
1998 allocation: $13,032;
2001 allocation: $500,000;
Percentage change over 1998 allocation: 3,737%.
Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
Notes: As required by FCIA, no state received less than its federal
fiscal year 1998 allotment under the Title IV-E Independent Living
Program. Federal fiscal year 2001 was the first year states received
full funding under FCIA.
Allocations do not account for unobligated or unliquidated funds.
Puerto Rico is not included in this analysis because the territory did
not receive independent living funds in 1998. The 2001 allocation to
Puerto Rico totaled $1,814,052.
[End of table]
Some states were unable to spend all of their federal allocations in
the first 2 years of increased funding under the program. In 2001, 20
states returned nearly $10 million in federal funding to HHS, and in
2002, 13 states returned more than $4 million.[Footnote 16] ACF
regional officials reported that one reason for these unspent funds was
that some states did not initially have the infrastructure in place to
quickly absorb the influx of funds. Texas, for example, planned to use
some of its $2.75 million in additional funds to develop services for
youth in rural areas, but state officials said that the process of
identifying and issuing contracts to service providers was lengthy and
initially hampered by the need to identify service providers who were
able to provide matching contributions required to receive federal
funds under FCIA. As a result, over $500,000 of the state's total $4.6
million allocation went unspent in federal fiscal year 2001.
We could not determine the amount of FCIA funding states had available
to spend on each youth eligible for independent living services because
of the lack of data on eligible youth emancipated from foster care.
However, available data on youth in foster care suggest that states may
have different amounts of funds available for services to youth in
foster care. We compared each state's 2004 FCIA allocation with its
2002 population of eligible youth in foster care.[Footnote 17] This
comparison showed that funding for independent living services ranged
from $476 per foster youth in West Virginia to almost $2,300 per youth
in Montana, as shown in figure 1.[Footnote 18] These differences were
due in part to the new provision in FCIA that allowed states to define
the age ranges within which youth were eligible for independent living
services. For example, 4 states reported in our survey offering
independent living services to youth at age 12, while 27 states
reported offering services at age 14.[Footnote 19] In addition, the
funding formula is based on the total number of all children in foster
care. However, some states have a larger share of youth eligible for
independent living services than other states. For example, of the 15
states reporting in our survey that youth are eligible for services
between the ages of 14 and 21, 3 states had 25 percent or less of their
foster care population within this age range, while in 3 other states,
this age range accounted for over 40 percent of the total foster care
population.[Footnote 20]
Figure 1: Funding per Eligible Youth in Foster Care for Independent
Living Services across States in 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The number of eligible youth were determined by using state-
reported data on the ages of youth served and data from HHS's AFCARS on
the number of youth within the specified age ranges in foster care in
each state. The funding calculations also include state 20 percent
match requirements.
[End of figure]
States Expanded and Improved Services for Youth after FCIA, but Gaps in
Critical Services Remain:
Following the passage of FCIA, many states reported expanding
eligibility for independent living services to younger and older youth
and to provide new services, such as Medicaid health insurance, to
youth who had already left the foster care system. Further, the states
we visited reported using the new funds to improve the quality of
existing independent living services, refocus the attention of their
programs, or develop new services to assist youth of all ages in
independent living programs. However, states varied in the proportion
of eligible youth served. For example, 40 states providing these data
in our survey reported serving between 10 and 100 percent of foster
care youth eligible for independent living services in 2003. A number
of factors may have contributed to these differences, including gaps in
the availability of critical services, such as mental health services,
mentoring, and housing, as well as challenges in engaging youth and
foster parents to participate in the program.
FCIA Allowed States to Serve Younger and Emancipated Youth and to
Improve Services for All Youth in Independent Living Programs:
After the passage of FCIA, 40 states reported in our survey expanding
services to youth younger than they had previously served, and 36
states reported serving older youth, and the states we visited reported
improving service quality. While some states had been using nonfederal
funds to provide services to youth in these broader age groups, the
number of states that reported providing core independent living
services, such as independent living skills assessments, daily living
skills training, and counseling, to youth younger than 16 more than
doubled after FCIA. Similarly, more states reported offering these
supports and services to youth who were emancipated from foster care
after the passage of FCIA (see fig. 2).
Figure 2: Increase in the Number of States Offering Selected
Independent Living Services to Youth Younger than 16 and Emancipated
Youth:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Many states also began to offer the new services under FCIA that would
allow them to meet the unique needs of youth that emancipated from
foster care. These services include the Education and Training
Vouchers, Medicaid health insurance, and assistance with room and
board.
Education and Training Vouchers:
All states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico were allocated
funds under the ETV program to assist youth seeking postsecondary
education. The 4 states we visited had started to implement their ETV
programs at the time of our site visits and had plans to use the funds
in different ways.
* Texas officials said that youth would be able to use ETV funds for
educational expenses, housing, food, clothing, or day care, so that the
funds would provide relief for youth who want to continue their
education but are concerned about paying bills while attending
postsecondary school full-time.
* Connecticut officials said they would use ETV funds to provide
computers to youth in postsecondary education and training programs and
to establish an additional liaison between the independent living
program and the Job Corps program.[Footnote 21]
* Florida officials said they would use ETV funds for educational
expenses for youth receiving the state's independent living
scholarship.
* Washington plans to use ETV funds to expand and enhance service
delivery for education and training, and service providers will be
evaluated on their success in helping youth reach desired educational
outcomes.
Medicaid Health Insurance:
Of the 50 states responding to our 2004 survey, 31 reported offering
Medicaid benefits to at least some emancipated youth to help them
maintain access to health care benefits while they transitioned to
independence (see fig. 3). Some states may limit coverage to specific
subpopulations of emancipated youth. For example, according to
officials in Florida, the state limits Medicaid access to emancipated
youth who meet minimum academic requirements to qualify for the state's
independent living scholarship program.
Figure 3: States Offering Medicaid to Emancipated Foster Care Youth as
of May 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Room and Board Services:
In our 2004 survey, 46 states reported that they offered assistance
with room and board to youth that had been emancipated from foster
care, and the states we visited reported offering a range of housing
supports to assist youth. Connecticut provided several housing options
to meet the needs of youth at varying levels of independence, including
group homes, supervised apartment sites, and unsupervised apartment
sites with periodic visits from case managers. While other states we
visited offered a more limited supply of housing options, all provided
some type of housing subsidy or placement. For example, Texas and
Washington provided youth with a monthly stipend for rent as well as a
onetime stipend for household supplies.
Improving Existing Services:
Chafee Program funds were also used to improve the quality of existing
independent living services, refocus the attention of their programs,
or develop new services to assist youth of all ages in independent
living programs, according to state officials we visited.
* Local officials in Florida said that prior to FCIA, training in daily
living skills was provided haphazardly, and in many cases unqualified
staff taught classes even though such training was considered a core
component of their independent living program. After FCIA, Florida
officials said that the state redesigned staff training, improved
instructor quality, and was better prepared to provide youth with the
skills necessary to live independently outside of the foster care
system.
* In Texas, a service provider reported that FCIA encouraged the state
to incorporate more experiential learning opportunities in the daily
living skills curriculum. For example, the curriculum in one locality
included taking the youth on a shopping trip to the grocery store while
working within a set budget. Similarly, in one local area in Florida,
youth in the independent living program described a scavenger hunt in
which they were required to take public transportation around the city
and conduct certain activities that emphasized their daily living
skills training, such as going to the bank and opening a checking
account.
* Washington officials reported that FCIA was instrumental in shifting
the emphasis of the state's independent living program to focus on
educational achievement, and some regions in the state developed summer
enrichment programs to provide youth with year-round opportunities to
keep up with their peers academically or to further their educational
development.
* Officials in Connecticut reported using additional funds to develop
mentoring programs and to establish adolescent specialist positions in
each local child welfare office.
Serving Youth Remains Challenging because of Gaps in Services and
Difficulties Engaging Youth and Foster Parents:
States differed in the proportion of eligible youth served under their
respective independent living programs, and officials in the 4 states
we visited reported gaps in providing critical services, as well as
challenges in engaging youth and parents in the services offered.
Complete data that show how many youth states are serving through the
independent living programs are not available, and while these programs
serve both youth in foster care and emancipated youth, data we were
able to collect from some states were limited to youth in care. Data
from our 2004 state survey showed that 40 states responding to our
survey reported serving about 56,000 youth--or approximately 44 percent
of youth in foster care who were eligible for independent living
services in these states.[Footnote 22] However, there were substantial
differences among states in the proportion of youth served, ranging
from a low of 10 percent up to 100 percent of the state's eligible
foster care population. As shown in figure 4, about one-third of
reporting states were serving less than half of their eligible foster
care youth population, while an equal percentage of states were serving
three-fourths or more. The extent to which these differences were
related to whether the states served higher or lower numbers of youth
who emancipated from foster care is unknown.
Figure 4: Proportion of Youth in Foster Care Receiving Independent
Living Services from States in 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Data are based on responses from 40 states and exclude services
provided to emancipated youth.
[End of figure]
While states expanded eligibility to younger youth, most services
continued to be directed at youth age 16 and older in most of the
states we visited. For example, Texas officials told us that although
the state lowered the age that youth are eligible for independent
living services to 14 years, serving youth age 16 years and older is
the highest priority, and serving younger youth within the various
regions is dependent on available funding. In addition, while
Washington expanded eligibility to serve youth as young as 13 years,
state officials reported that the state has yet to develop a contract
for providers to offer services to youth 13 to 15 years old and few
regions have developed services for youth in this age range.
As we found in 1999, state and local officials in the states we visited
reported gaps in the availability of critical services, which may have
contributed to the challenge of serving higher numbers of eligible
youth.[Footnote 23] States also reported that these challenges were
more prominent in rural areas. Service gaps included the following:
Mental Health Services:
Youth in foster care often require mental health services continuing
beyond emancipation, but 3 states we visited cited challenges in
providing youth with a smooth transition between the youth and adult
mental health systems. Officials in Connecticut reported that it is
critical for youth to receive mental health services because mental
well-being affects every aspect of the youths' lives, including
learning life skills, locating and maintaining employment, succeeding
in school, and the ability to transition to a more independent setting.
However, state officials reported that youth who did not qualify for
the adult mental health system were left without critical services. In
Florida, many individuals who had been served by the youth mental
health system did not qualify for adult services because of more
stringent eligibility requirements, possibly losing access to important
treatments and therapies. In Washington, caseworkers reported that the
adult mental health system did not provide the same level of services
as the youth system, and long waiting lists sometimes prevented youth
from accessing critical services.
Mentoring Services:
Research studies indicate that the presence of positive adult role
models is critical for youth in foster care because family separations
and placement disruptions have been found to hinder the development of
enduring bonds, but officials in the states we visited cited challenges
in providing all youth with access to mentoring programs to establish
and maintain such relationships. Although the majority of states
reported in our 2004 survey that they offered mentoring programs to
youth, officials in Texas and Florida reported that formal mentoring
programs were not available throughout the state.[Footnote 24]
Connecticut officials said they used FCIA funding to develop a
statewide mentoring program, but the state is still working to expand
program availability to youth in all regions. In addition, one program
director reported challenges recruiting adults to serve as mentors,
especially men willing to make a 1-year commitment to an adolescent
boy. Some state and local officials and service providers seemed
unclear on what should be included in a quality mentoring program and
how to identify qualified service providers. For example, a nonprofit
service provider delivering independent living services in an urban
county in Washington reported being unfamiliar with how a mentoring
program should be run and said that guidance on how to identify and
train mentors would be helpful.
Securing Safe and Suitable Housing:
Youth we spoke with across the 4 states we visited said that locating
safe and stable housing after leaving foster care was one of their
primary concerns in their transition to independence, but state
officials reported challenges meeting youths' housing needs. Youth
reported difficulties renting housing because of a lack of an
employment history, a credit history, or a co-signer. State and local
officials in the states we visited said the availability of housing
resources for foster youth during their initial transition from foster
care depended on where they lived, and in some cases the benefits
provided did not completely meet the needs of youth, or were available
only to certain youth. For example, in Washington, local officials
reported that housing subsidies may not completely offset expenses for
youth in expensive urban areas like Seattle and that rental housing in
some rural areas is scarce. In Florida, youth must be full-time
students to receive full housing benefits.[Footnote 25]
In addition to reporting these service gaps, youth said during our site
visits that living in rural areas made it difficult to access
independent living services, and state and local officials concurred
that services for youth in rural areas were sometimes limited.
Difficulties are often related to a lack of transportation or providers
willing to provide services in remote areas. In large states such as
Texas and Florida, the long distances separating some youth from
available service providers made it difficult for youth to access
services on a regular basis. Additional challenges include the lack of
employment opportunities and transitional housing for youth living in
some regions.
Finally, state and local officials, as well as service providers in the
4 states we visited said that it was difficult to get some youth to
participate in the independent living programs and that foster parents
were sometimes reluctant partners. While youth were generally offered
incentives, such as cash stipends, to participate in daily living
skills training or other activities, officials emphasized that
participation is voluntary and it is critical for foster parents to
support and encourage youth participation in the program. Florida and
Washington officials said that some foster parents were reluctant to
transport youth to classes or meetings because of scheduling conflicts
or long distances from training locations and did not always reinforce
classroom training in daily living skills by allowing youth to practice
skills such as cooking or financial management. FCIA emphasized the
need to provide training to help foster parents understand and address
the issues confronting adolescents preparing for independence, and
nearly all states reported in our 2004 survey that they provided some
training to foster parents in this regard. However, the number of
parents trained differed across 34 states reporting data--while some
states reported training 1,100 or more, others reported training as few
as 24.
States Reported Increased Coordination with Federal and State Programs
to Provide Independent Living Services to Youth, but Barriers Hinder
Linkages across Programs:
After FCIA, 49 states reported increased coordination with a number of
federal, state, and local programs that can provide or supplement
independent living services, but officials from the 4 states we visited
reported several barriers in developing the linkages necessary to
access services under these programs across local areas. These barriers
include a lack of information on the array of programs available in
each state and in local areas, as well as differences in performance
measures between programs. Many child welfare caseworkers, foster
parents, and youth we spoke with during our site visits were unaware of
the full array of youth and adult support services available to youth
while in foster care and after emancipation.
States Reported Accessing Federal and State Programs More after FCIA to
Provide Independent Living Services:
Federal, state, and local agencies oversee a wide range of programs
providing services that may assist youth in their transition to adult
life and that include current and former foster youth among their
target populations.[Footnote 26] In our 2004 survey, 49 states reported
increased coordination with federal, state, and local agencies and
private organizations that provide services to youth since the passage
of FCIA to provide a wide variety of services. Table 3 displays
selected key independent living services and the most prevalent service
providers.
Table 3: Key Independent Living Services and the Most Prevalent Service
Providers:
Services and most prevalent providers: Education services: High school
completion assistance;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 51.
Services and most prevalent providers: Education services: High school
completion assistance: Job Corps;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 43.
Services and most prevalent providers: Education services: High school
completion assistance: Local education agencies or schools;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 38.
Services and most prevalent providers: Education services: High school
completion assistance: State Department of Education;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 30.
Services and most prevalent providers: Education services: College or
vocational training enrollment;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 49.
Services and most prevalent providers: Education services: College or
vocational training enrollment: Colleges or universities;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 41.
Services and most prevalent providers: Education services: College or
vocational training enrollment: Technical or vocational schools;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 39.
Services and most prevalent providers: Education services: College or
vocational training enrollment: Local education agencies or schools;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 31.
Services and most prevalent providers: Employment services: Assistance
to prepare for, locate, or maintain employment;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 50.
Services and most prevalent providers: Employment services: Assistance
to prepare for, locate, or maintain employment: Workforce board;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 32.
Services and most prevalent providers: Employment services: Assistance
to prepare for, locate, or maintain employment: State Department of
Labor;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 25.
Services and most prevalent providers: Employment services: Assistance
to prepare for, locate, or maintain employment: Foundations;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 16.
Services and most prevalent providers: Housing services: Services
related to locating and establishing a household;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 49.
Services and most prevalent providers: Housing services: Services
related to locating and establishing a household: Local housing
agencies;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 31.
Services and most prevalent providers: Housing services: Services
related to locating and establishing a household: U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 20.
Services and most prevalent providers: Housing services: Services
related to locating and establishing a household: State Department of
Housing;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 19.
Services and most prevalent providers: Daily living skills: Daily
living skills such as first aid, health and nutrition, and money
management;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 48.
Services and most prevalent providers: Daily living skills: Daily
living skills such as first aid, health and nutrition, and money
management: State Department of Social/Human Services;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 28.
Services and most prevalent providers: Daily living skills: Daily
living skills such as first aid, health and nutrition, and money
management: Local education agencies;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 25.
Services and most prevalent providers: Daily living skills: Daily
living skills such as first aid, health and nutrition, and money
management: Tribes;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 18.
Services and most prevalent providers: Daily living skills: Daily
living skills such as first aid, health and nutrition, and money
management: Workforce board;
Number of states in which entities provide services to youth in care or
emancipated youth: 18.
Source: GAO 2004 survey of state independent living coordinators.
Note: The list of most prevalent providers does not include providers
that contract with the child welfare agency.
[End of table]
States we visited used different strategies to develop linkages among
state youth programs. Three of the states we visited reported
establishing state-level work groups that included representatives from
the independent living program and other state agencies to bring agency
officials together to discuss the needs of youth in foster care and
possible strategies for improving service delivery. For example,
Florida's legislature mandated a state-level work group to facilitate
information sharing at the state level among various agencies, such as
the State Departments of Children and Families and Education, the
Agency for Workforce Innovation, and the Agency for Health Care
Administration. Texas was developing a strategy to redesign the
provision of social services in the state, including services to youth
in the independent living program. The goals of this effort included
establishing a local, cross-system network composed of youth in foster
care, emancipated youth, caregivers, and professionals to facilitate
linkages between stakeholders and improve the delivery of services to
youth transitioning out of foster care.
Additional strategies states developed to establish linkages with other
federal, state, or local programs included establishing liaisons
between agencies or programs or through less formal collaborative
arrangements.
* In Connecticut, the child welfare agency established a liaison
position with the Job Corps program to meet with foster care youth to
determine whether they were appropriate candidates for the program, and
to monitor their progress, address any obstacles or concerns, and help
youth plan for the future. In addition, a liaison between the
independent living program and Connecticut's mental health agency
assists youth in their transition to the adult mental health system to
ensure that youth who need the continued support maintain access to
medication and services after youth leave the foster care system.
* In local areas in Texas and Florida, child welfare officials worked
with local housing authorities to assist youth in accessing federal
housing vouchers provided by HUD. For example, in Tallahassee, Florida,
the local housing authority secured 30 of 100 available housing
vouchers for youth emancipating from foster care and established a case
manager position especially for the youth in the program.
* In Florida, the independent living program officials worked with the
state's youth mental health department to access the Assertive
Community Treatment for Teens Program. The program consisted of
community-based teams--nurses, job developers, housing and education
officials, and other relevant stakeholders--who worked together to
develop integrated service plans for youth with serious and persistent
mental illness.
In addition, officials reported developing linkages with other private
resources in their communities, such as business owners, to provide
services to youth in the independent living program.
* Connecticut independent living officials collaborated with business
owners, nonprofit organizations, and other state agencies to develop an
experiential employment training program that gave youth 16 and older
the opportunity to learn skills through participation in workshops
covering all aspects of a local business. For example, some youth
worked in a boat-building business and learned skills ranging from
carpentry and construction to sales and financial management.
* In one Florida county, independent living staff utilized a community
resource know as the speakers' bureau--a service that links members of
the community with youth to talk about a wide range of professions and
activities. Caseworkers said as youth moved through their daily living
skills curriculum they were asked to decide whom they wanted as guest
speakers.
* In Texas, the child welfare agency worked with the Orphan Foundation
of America--a nonprofit organization--so youth could access a Web-based
mentoring program. Youth participating in the program were matched with
online mentors based on mutual interests, and they communicated
regularly via e-mail or by phone.
States Reported Barriers to Establishing Linkages between the
Independent Living Programs and Other Youth-Serving Programs:
While table 3 shows that states are using a wide variety of programs to
provide independent living services, officials in the 4 states we
visited reported several barriers that hinder their ability to
establish linkages with other agencies and programs, including the lack
of information on the array of programs available in each state or
local area and differences in program priorities. Officials from 3
states we visited said that they relied on local officials to identify
potential partners and initiate and maintain coordination efforts; and
while individuals in some local areas may have developed successful
collaborations with service providers in their area, these
relationships have not always been expanded statewide. To some extent,
this has been due to the fact that state and local child welfare
officials differ in their awareness of resources available from various
federal and state agencies.
* Local officials in one area of Florida were working with a U.S.
Department of Labor workforce program, while officials in another local
area of the state were not familiar with this program to train and find
employment for youth.
* In one local area in Washington, independent living coordinators and
caseworkers expressed concern about access to affordable health care
for youth emancipating from foster care and were not aware of a federal
health center located nearby that was required to provide medical and
mental health services on a sliding fee scale.
These gaps in awareness may be partly due to turnover rates for
caseworkers reported by the states we visited.[Footnote 27]
Caseworkers' lack of knowledge about available programs may have
contributed to foster parents and youth reporting that they were
unaware of the array of services available from other federal, state,
or local programs.
Officials in the independent living programs in the states we visited
also cited barriers to establishing linkages with other federal and
state programs because of different program priorities.
* Difference in performance goals among programs can affect the ability
of independent living staff to obtain services for foster youth from
other agencies. For example, child welfare and workforce officials in
Florida reported that performance goals for workforce programs may act
as barriers to serving youth in the child welfare system who may be
more difficult to place in employment and might not maintain the jobs
once placed, potentially bringing down workforce program performance
measures.[Footnote 28] As a result, the officials reported that local
workforce programs may target those individuals with whom they can most
easily achieve successful outcomes and foster youth may be unable to
access services they need to achieve positive employment outcomes.
* According to independent living service providers in one local area
in Washington, privacy concerns were a barrier to developing linkages
with education programs. For example, schools in one area we visited
would not allow anyone besides biological parents--including
caseworkers and foster parents--access to youths' individualized
education programs.[Footnote 29] Yet according to caseworkers, foster
parents, and service providers, lack of access to these plans made it
difficult to align the individualized education programs with the
youths' independent living plans.
States' and HHS's Actions in Response to FCIA Requirements Have Not Yet
Established Accountability for Independent Living Programs:
All states developed multiyear plans as required under FCIA and
submitted annual progress reports to ACF for their independent living
programs, but the absence of standard comprehensive information within
and across state plans and reports precludes using them at the state
and federal level to monitor how well the programs are working to serve
foster youth. HHS has not yet implemented its plan to collect
information to measure states' program performance, and while some
states reported collecting some data, states have experienced
difficulties in contacting youth to determine their outcomes. HHS has
begun to evaluate selected independent living programs, and officials
reported that the results of this evaluation should be available in
2007.
States Submitted Plans and Annual Reports to Comply with Federal
Requirements, but the Documents Do Not Provide Information Necessary to
Assess Progress:
All states developed state plans as required by FCIA that described
independent living services they planned to provide to foster youth and
submitted annual reports to ACF, but for several reasons, these plans
and reports cannot be used to assess states' independent living
programs. To assist states in preparing these documents, ACF developed
guidance that set out broad expectations for the plans and reports that
would meet the FCIA requirements. However, while ACF officials stated
that the plans and annual reports served as the primary method the
agency used to monitor states' use of the Chafee Program funds, ACF did
not require states to use a uniform reporting format, set specific
baselines for measuring progress, or report on youths' outcomes. As a
result, each state developed plans and reports that varied in their
scope and level of detail, making it difficult to determine whether
states had made progress in preparing foster youth to live self-
sufficiently.[Footnote 30] Our review of plans from 51 states covering
federal fiscal years 2001 through 2004, and annual reports for 45
states from federal fiscal years 2001 and 2002 showed that:
* Few states both organized the information in their plans to address
the purposes of FCIA and presented specific strategies they would use
to meet these purposes. For example, Nebraska's plan was aligned
according to the five purposes of FCIA, but when describing how the
state would help youth receive the education, training, and services
necessary to obtain employment, the plan provided only a broad
statement about the collaborative efforts between state agencies
without mention of specific strategies to deliver the services. In
contrast, New Hampshire submitted a comprehensive state plan that
described the state's holistic approach to providing services to youth
transitioning out of care, such as specialized trainings for youth,
foster parents, and independent living staff; programs offered through
community resources; and resources available for youth with emotional
and physical challenges, but these services were not attached to any
one purpose of FCIA.
* The plans vary in their usefulness in establishing outcomes the
states intended to achieve for youth. For example, the District of
Columbia indicated that it will use Chafee Program funds to establish a
computer lab where current and former foster care youth can search for
jobs, but the plan does not establish any outcomes the District hoped
to achieve with this service, such as the percentage of youth that find
employment over a period of time. In contrast, the Nevada plan
identified 2001 and 2002 as the baseline years for the number of foster
youth who graduate or receive a general equivalency diploma (GED) and
planned to increase by 3 percent each year the number of youth who
receive a high school diploma or GED until the youth are within the
overall state average.
* Annual reports for all 45 states contained information that did not
directly relate to information in their state plan making it unclear
whether the differences were due to service changes or missing
information. For example, in Hawaii's plan, the state listed several
services and supports provided to youth, including employment services,
such as career exploration and job placement and retention. However, in
each of the annual reports, the state does not mention offering or
providing any employment-related services.
* Of the 90 annual progress reports we reviewed, 52 reports did not
include clear data that could be used to determine progress toward
meeting the goals of the states' independent living program. For
example, Arkansas' report for federal fiscal year 2002 listed several
workshops provided to youth, such as money management and college
preparation, and a count of the number of youth who participated in the
workshops. In contrast, Nevada consistently reported data on youths'
participation in different independent living activities, including the
changes between each year, progress towards meeting the goals
established in their plan, and reasons for not yet meeting the goals.
ACF officials said that they recognize the limitations of these
documents as tools to monitor states' use of independent living program
funds, but explained that they rely on states' to self-certify that
their independent living programs adhere to FCIA requirements. Staff in
ACF's 10 regional offices conduct direct oversight of the program by
reviewing the multiyear plans and annual reports, interpreting program
guidance, and communicating with states when clarification about their
plans or reports is needed. However, officials in three offices said
that their review of the documents was cursory and that the plans and
annual reports do not serve as effective monitoring tools. Only three
regions reported that they conducted site visits to observe independent
living programs in at least some states in their regions. The other
regions reported that they do not have the funds to travel or when they
do, the review is focused on other programs or planning efforts. One
region commented that even if it had funds, ACF had not developed a
standard mechanism for regional offices to use in monitoring states'
use of FCIA funds.
Alternatively, ACF officials reported that the Child and Family
Services Review used to evaluate the states' overall child welfare
systems could serve as a tool to monitor independent living programs,
but the CFSR is limited in the type and amount of data collected on
youth receiving independent living services. While states evaluated
under the first year of the CFSR were rated on the provision of
independent living services to youth in care, this item was removed in
subsequent reviews.[Footnote 31] ACF redesigned its review instrument
with the intent of focusing on setting and achieving appropriate
permanency goals for children rather than evaluating specific services.
Despite the fact that independent living services are no longer a
specific focus of the CFSR, ACF officials believe that two broader
measures used in the review will provide opportunities to evaluate
states' performance in assisting youth: the measurement of the
stability of foster care placements and the review of permanency goals
of other planned permanent living arrangements, such as the goal of
emancipation. However, some regional officials performing these reviews
reported that the on-site portion of the CFSR is limited in scope and
does not present an opportunity to determine if states are delivering
independent living services to youth and if youth receiving such
services are achieving better outcomes than their peers. Further, the
CFSR includes a review of a small number of foster care case files and
does not include a review of emancipated youth.[Footnote 32]
HHS Has Not Yet Complied with Requirements to Collect Program Data to
Assess States' Programs, and Some States Collecting Information on
Youth Are Experiencing Difficulties:
ACF has not completed efforts to develop a plan to collect data on
youths' characteristics, services, and outcomes in response to the FCIA
requirement, and some states that are attempting to collect information
on youths' outcomes are experiencing difficulties. In 2000, ACF started
to develop the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) to collect
information needed to effectively monitor and measure states'
performance in operating independent living programs. However, HHS
officials stated that as of August 2004, implementation had not yet
occurred. The agency has completed many of the steps laid out in its
original plan dated September 2001, including consulting with child
welfare and information technology professionals, developing a set of
preliminary data elements and outcomes measures, and pilot testing the
data collection instruments with 7 states.[Footnote 33] However, HHS
reported that it had not taken the next step of publishing the notice
for proposed rule making because the agency decided to develop
regulations for the data collection system in order to fulfill a
statutory requirement to assess penalties on states for noncompliance.
As a result, the proposal has been under internal review since the
conclusion of the pilot test process in November 2001. HHS reported
that it expects to issue guidance in the form of a proposed regulation
in 2005.
Officials in all the states we visited supported the idea of having
data on former foster youth, and 26 states reported in our 2004 survey
that they have begun to plan for the impending data reporting
requirements despite the federal delays. Many states reported in our
2004 survey that they already collect many of the data elements HHS had
developed as part of the consultation and pilot testing process (see
table 4).
Table 4: Proposed NYTD Data Elements as of April 2003 and the Number of
States Currently Collecting These Data:
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Youth characteristics: Tribal
membership;
Number of states collecting data: 22.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Youth characteristics: Point of entry
into foster care;
Number of states collecting data: 37.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Youth characteristics: Last grade
completed;
Number of states collecting data: 32.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Youth characteristics: Special
education status;
Number of states collecting data: 34.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Independent living needs
assessment;
Number of states collecting data: 35.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Academic support;
Number of states collecting data: 24.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Postsecondary educational
support;
Number of states collecting data: 32.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Career preparation;
Number of states collecting data: 23.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Employment programs or
vocational training;
Number of states collecting data: 32.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Budget and financial
management;
Number of states collecting data: 26.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Housing education and home
management;
Number of states collecting data: 26.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Planned supervised
independent living;
Number of states collecting data: 23.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Health education;
Number of states collecting data: 24.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Risk prevention;
Number of states collecting data: 18.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Mentoring;
Number of states collecting data: 25.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Room and board financial
assistance;
Number of states collecting data: 36.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Financial assistance for
education/ educational support;
Number of states collecting data: 34.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Services: Other financial assistance;
Number of states collecting data: 21.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Current full-time employment;
Number of states collecting data: 22.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Current part-time employment;
Number of states collecting data: 22.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Employment experience;
Number of states collecting data: 22.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Social Security;
Number of states collecting data: 21.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Scholarship;
Number of states collecting data: 22.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Public assistance;
Number of states collecting data: 21.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Food stamps;
Number of states collecting data: 19.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Housing assistance;
Number of states collecting data: 24.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Medicaid;
Number of states collecting data: 22.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Other support;
Number of states collecting data: 10.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Homelessness;
Number of states collecting data: 23.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Highest educational
certification received;
Number of states collecting data: 31.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Current enrollment and
attendance;
Number of states collecting data: 26.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Connection to adult;
Number of states collecting data: 18.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Substance abuse referral;
Number of states collecting data: 16.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Incarceration;
Number of states collecting data: 19.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Number of children;
Number of states collecting data: 31.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Martial status;
Number of states collecting data: 29.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Health insurance;
Number of states collecting data: 19.
Proposed NYTD data elements[A]: Outcomes: Reason for nonreporting;
Number of states collecting data: 3.
Source: HHS and 2004 GAO survey.
[A] This list does not include the data elements HHS will use that
states report to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System.
[End of table]
In addition, some states are attempting to collect outcome information
on former foster care youth but have experienced difficulties.
According to results from our survey, in federal fiscal year 2003, 30
states attempted to contact youth who had been emancipated from foster
care for initial information to determine their status, including
education and employment outcomes. Of those states, most reported that
they were unsuccessful in contacting more than half of the youth.
Further, 21 states reported attempting to follow up with emancipated
youth after a longer period of time had elapsed but had trouble
reaching all the youth.
Officials in the states we visited reported that collecting outcome
data is especially challenging since there is little they can do to
find youth unless the youth themselves initiate the contact. Further,
some officials were concerned about the value of the outcome data since
they believe that youth who are doing well are more likely to
participate in the follow-up interviews, thus skewing the results.
Similarly, an ACF regional official reported that the value of the NYTD
would be determined by the resources available to states to support the
follow-up component. Some state officials, caseworkers, and youth we
interviewed suggested strategies states may need to develop to maintain
contact with former foster care youth, including offering incentives to
the youth to stay in touch; establishing a toll-free telephone line
that will make the process of staying in touch as easy as possible; or
using other resources that may help locate the youth or provide the
necessary data, such as other service providers or other social
services information systems.
HHS Has Begun Multiyear Evaluation of Four Approaches to Delivering
Independent Living Services:
By December 2007, ACF expects to complete the evaluations of four
approaches to delivering independent living services. As required by
FCIA, these evaluations will use rigorous scientific standards, such as
an experimental research design that randomly assigns youth in
independent living programs to different groups: one that is
administered the experimental treatment and one that is not. HHS
initiated this effort in 2001 with a nationwide review of potentially
promising approaches to delivering independent living services. HHS
contracted with a research institute to conduct a nationwide search to
identify independent living programs that meet the criteria of the
evaluation[Footnote 34] and to conduct 5-year evaluations of the
selected programs.[Footnote 35] On the basis of the search and the
established criteria, HHS selected four programs for the evaluation
(see table 7).
Table 5: Programs Included in the Multisite Evaluation of Foster Youth
Programs:
Site: Los Angeles County, California;
Program: Community College Life Skills (LST) Training;
Type of service: Classroom-based and experiential life skills training,
teen support group, and exposure to community college opportunities;
Age of focus: 17;
Number of youth (control and experimental): 450;
Length of service provision: 5 weeks (10 workshops);
Key outcome of interest: Education, employment, housing stability,
avoidance of risk behaviors.
Site: Los Angeles County, California;
Program: Early Start to Emancipation Preparation (ESTEP);
Type of service: Structured tutoring and mentoring curriculum for youth
1-3 years behind grade level in reading and math skills;
Age of focus: 14-15;
Number of youth (control and experimental): 450;
Length of service provision: 6 months of tutoring on average, mentoring
continues less intensively after tutoring ends for 3 months on average;
Key outcome of interest: Education, employment, interpersonal and
relationship skills.
Site: Kern County, California;
Program: Employment program;
Type of service: Employment skills training, job referral, and
employment support provided through county Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families agency;
Age of focus: 16;
Number of youth (control and experimental): 250;
Length of service provision: Ongoing through age 21;
Key outcome of interest: Employment and economic self-sufficiency.
Site: Massachusetts;
Program: Adolescent Outreach Program;
Type of service: Intensive, individualized life skills mentoring and
casework;
Age of focus: 17;
Number of youth (control and experimental): 250;
Length of service provision: Mean of 1 year;
Key outcome of interest: Employment, housing stability, service
linkages.
Source: HHS.
[End of table]
The study is designed to answer the following questions: (1) How do the
outcomes of youth randomly assigned to the identified interventions
compare with those of youth who are assigned to "services as usual"?
(2) For the identified programs, what are the features of these
programs that are likely to influence their impact on youth clients?
(3) How are these services implemented? (4) To what extent might these
programs be adapted to other locales? (5) What are the barriers to
implementation? Each program will be evaluated using similar
techniques: in-person structured interviews to establish a baseline and
to follow up with youth in the treatment and control groups; a Web-
based survey of caseworkers; and program site visits including
semistructured interviews with administrators, staff, and youth. All
youth will be interviewed shortly following referral and random
assignment, and 1 year and 2 years later. As of August 2004, all
evaluation studies were in the early stages. Baseline interviews with
the youth had begun or were completed in three sites and the process
was starting in the fourth site.
Conclusions:
Many youth in the foster care system need additional services and
support throughout and beyond their adolescence to make the transition
to self-sufficiency. States have generally expanded their independent
living programs to provide new and enhanced services to a wider age
range of youth, but some states have been slower to implement the
program, and foster youth across the nation may not have access to the
full array of services they may need to lead independent and successful
lives. While many other federal, state, and private resources exist to
cover some shortfalls in service, the absence of information on
resources available in local areas may continue to hinder efforts to
establish needed linkages among programs. Similarly, while ACF provides
some assistance to states, there is still a lack of awareness about
available resources among caseworkers, foster parents, and youth that
may further limit youths' ability to access needed services once
emancipated from the foster care system.
While the Chafee Program funding is small compared with that of other
child welfare programs, effective federal oversight requires reliable
information on states' implementation efforts and results. At a
minimum, information from state plans and annual reports could be
useful in federal oversight and monitoring. However, the ability of ACF
to monitor state performance continues to be hindered by an absence of
standard, comprehensive information within and across state plans on
each state's goals, services, and youth outcomes as measured against
baselines of past achievement. Oversight is similarly hindered by a
lack of standard monitoring practices across ACF regional offices.
While ACF is developing an information system that may address some of
these limitations, it may be unavailable for several years. In the
meantime, additional actions to strengthen federal monitoring of state
programs may serve to provide greater assurance of program
accountability at the state and federal level.
Recommendations:
To improve access to the array of services available to youth
transitioning out of foster care and assist states in leveraging
available resources, HHS should make information available to states
and local areas about other federal programs that may assist youth in
their transition to self-sufficiency and provide guidance on how to
access services under these programs.
To improve HHS's ability to monitor implementation of the Chafee
Program, HHS should develop a standard reporting format for state plans
and progress reports and implement a uniform process regional offices
can use to assess states' progress in meeting the needs of youth in
foster care and those recently emancipated from care.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft copy of this report to the following agencies for
comment: the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education,
Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice, and the Social
Security Administration. We obtained comments from the Department of
Health and Human Services, which are reproduced in appendix III. HHS
also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
All other agencies did not have any comments on this report.
HHS did not comment on our recommendation to make information available
to states and local areas about other federal programs that may assist
youth in their transition to self-sufficiency and to provide guidance
on how to access services under these programs. HHS listed several
efforts that they had undertaken to collaborate with other related
federal agencies, such as Labor, Justice, and Education, to expand
services to youth. While these efforts will help strengthen the
relationships among federal agencies and better inform the states, we
believe that implementing our recommendation to develop ways to better
disseminate such information to state and local child welfare agencies
and to provide assistance on ways to leverage these resources can
improve services to youth both in and recently emancipated from foster
care.
HHS disagreed with our recommendation to develop a standard reporting
format for state plans and progress reports but said it was taking
action to implement a uniform process that its regional offices can use
to assess states' progress in meeting the needs of youth in foster care
and those recently emancipated from care. HHS stated that taking action
to standardize the reporting format for state plans and annual reports
would be overly prescriptive and impose an unnecessary burden on
states. HHS added that a significant change under the law was to
require states to self-certify their compliance with statutory
requirements in their state plan, and that rather than report on
performance outcomes, the plan was intended to be a narrative to ensure
state adherence to plan requirements and assurances. In addition, HHS
reported that when standard data are available through the National
Youth in Transition Database, the agency would be better positioned to
determine how best to assess state performance. HHS further reported
that ACF did provide regional office staff with a checklist to review
and approve the first state plan and that in fiscal year 2005, ACF will
develop and provide a review protocol to be used in regional office
desk reviews of states' annual progress reports.
We continue to believe that strengthening the state reporting process
is needed to provide assurance of program accountability at the state
and federal level. HHS officials stated that they consider their review
of the state plans and annual reports as the primary method the agency
uses to monitor states' use of Chafee Program funds. However, comments
by ACF regional officials conducting the oversight reviews--as well as
our own review--have shown that the diverse format and content of these
documents are insufficient for this purpose. Developing a standard
reporting format that states can use for their plans and annual reports
would help HHS improve the efficiency of the reporting process by
clarifying the broad guidance ACF provides to the states, allowing ACF
reviewers to quickly identify states' progress toward meeting program
goals, and thereby reduce the burden of the reporting process currently
in place. As we reported, some states have already taken action to
establish baselines and goals as well as strategies for action in their
state plan that can be linked with information in the annual progress
reports to identify areas of strength and needed improvement. HHS
should consider these efforts undertaken by states and take a
cooperative approach in working with them and cognizant national
organizations in developing a standard report format to garner support
and reduce perceptions of burden. HHS could, for example, continue its
partnership with the workgroup that contributed to the NYTD proposal or
convene a session at the annual conference with state independent
living coordinators. HHS action to implement our recommendation may
also serve to strengthen the usefulness of uniform review protocols
that ACF plans to develop for use by regional staff in evaluating state
progress during their annual desk reviews of state performance.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
or authorize its release earlier, we plan no further distribution of
this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we will
send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Health and Human
Services, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Justice;
relevant congressional committees; and other interested parties. Copies
will be made available to others upon request. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (415) 904-2272 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Other major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
David D. Bellis:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine how states' funding allocations changed to serve youth
after the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA), we analyzed
federal funding to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico for independent living programs before and after the passage of
FCIA. We compared state allocations after the passage of FCIA with the
numbers of eligible youth in foster care in each state to determine
available funding per eligible youth across states. To perform this
comparison, we used data reported by states to the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) in the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and
Reporting System (AFCARS) on the numbers of eligible youth in foster
care within each state in federal fiscal year 2002. Since states'
funding allocation are based on AFCARS data, we determined that these
data were the best available information for the purposes of this
analysis. The procedures the agency uses to assess data quality, which
includes identifying out-of-range or missing data, were sufficient for
our purposes. To determine the age ranges of youth in foster care
eligible for independent living services within each state, we used
data reported by states in our 2004 survey of state independent living
coordinators. In addition to reviewing these data, we interviewed HHS
staff in headquarters and each of the 10 regional offices.
To determine the extent to which states expanded independent living
services and age groups of foster youth served since the passage of
FCIA, as well as what challenges remain, we surveyed all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico through a Web-based
questionnaire. We pretested the survey instrument with administrators
of the independent living program in Texas, Florida, Washington,
Maryland, and Connecticut. On the basis of the feedback from the
pretests, we modified the questions as appropriate. Information about
accessing the questionnaire was provided via e-mail. To ensure security
and data integrity, we provided each official with a password that
allowed him or her to access and complete the questionnaire for his or
her state. We received responses from all 50 states and the District of
Columbia for a response rate of about 98 percent. Our survey collected
a variety of state data, including information on services provided to
youth, numbers of youth eligible and served with independent living
services, funding for independent living programs, and changes since
the passage of FCIA. We designed the survey to parallel several
questions from a 1999 GAO survey of states regarding their independent
living programs prior to the passage of FCIA in fiscal year 1998. We
compared responses between the surveys to identify changes with state
independent living programs since the passage of FCIA.
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce
errors, known as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a
particular question is interpreted, the sources of information
available to respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can
introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included
steps in both the data collection and data analysis stages for the
purpose of minimizing such nonsampling errors.
In addition to conducting the survey, we visited independent living
programs in 4 states (Texas, Florida, Washington, and Connecticut) to
obtain more detailed information regarding the provision of independent
living services and changes to state independent living programs since
the passage of FCIA in 1999. We selected these states to represent a
range in size of foster care populations, approaches to the provision
of independent living services, federal allocations of independent
living funds, and geographic locations. During our state visits, we
interviewed state and local child welfare officials, caseworkers,
contracted service providers, foster parents, and youth. We also spoke
with HHS staff in the central office and each of the 10 regional
offices; National Resource Center for Youth Development officials; and
child welfare experts from various organizations including the National
Independent Living Association, the Chapin Hall Center for Children,
and the Casey organizations.
To determine to what extent states used other federal and state
programs to coordinate the delivery of independent living services to
foster youth, we surveyed states using the above-mentioned survey
instrument. In addition, during our site visits we interviewed state
and local child welfare officials; officials from other state agencies
that provide services that may assist youth in their transition to
self-sufficiency; as well as contracted service providers, caseworkers,
foster parents, and youth. We also spoke with HHS officials in the
central and regional offices and officials at a number of federal
agencies that are responsible for programs that may benefit
transitioning youth. These included the U.S. Departments of Education,
Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice; the Social Security
Administration; and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration.
To determine how states and HHS fulfilled the accountability provisions
of FCIA, we analyzed Chafee Foster Care Independence Program state
plans for 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico for
fiscal years 2001-2004 to determine each state's program goals and
strategies. We also analyzed 90 annual progress and services reports
(annual reports) that states submitted regarding the progress made in
implementing their Chafee plans for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. We
obtained the plans and progress reports from the Administration of
Children and Families (ACF) regional offices after consulting with
ACF's central office and the National Resource Center for Youth
Development. One regional office could not provide us with the state
plan for Wyoming and the annual reports for Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming in the time requested.
Therefore, these states are not included in our analysis. In addition,
we received only one report for Tennessee (federal fiscal year 2001)
and Puerto Rico (federal fiscal year 2002). We developed a data
collection instrument (DCI) based on the federal guidance provided that
described how states were expected to develop their plans and reports.
A DCI was completed for each state plan and annual report, and another
staff person reviewed each record for clarity and accuracy. We
supplemented this analysis with discussions with state officials and
ACF central and regional office officials. In addition, we reviewed
ACF's draft proposals for the National Youth in Transition Database
(NYTD) and talked with the contractor staff responsible for development
of this system and the multisite evaluation of promising independent
living programs. We were not able to obtain the most current
information on the NYTD proposals. Therefore, we only have information
as recent as August 2003, and our description of NYTD may not
accurately describe the final proposal when it becomes available.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Selected Federal Youth Programs and Services That Target
Current and Former Foster Youth:
Agency: Department of Education;
Program: 21st Century Community Learning Centers;
Types of services funded: Academic services: Yes;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: No;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: No;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Education;
Program: Migrant Education Even Start;
Types of services funded: Academic services: Yes;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No.
Agency: Department of Education;
Program: Parent Assistance and Local Family Information Centers;
Types of services funded: Academic services: Yes;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Education;
Program: Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program;
Types of services funded: Academic services: No;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: No;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No.
Agency: Department of Education;
Program: Safe Schools/Healthy Students;
Types of services funded: Academic services: Yes;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Program: Social Economic Development Strategies (SEDS);
Types of services funded: Academic services: No;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Program: Community-Based Family Resource and Support Program;
Types of services funded: Academic services: No;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: No;
Types of services funded: Employment training: No;
Types of services funded: Self- sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: No;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Program: Promoting Safe and Stable Families;
Types of services funded: Academic services: No;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: No;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: No;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Program: Runaway and Homeless Youth--Transitional Living Program and
Maternity Group Homes;
Types of services funded: Academic services: No;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF);
Types of services funded: Academic services: Yes;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Program: Healthy Schools Healthy Communities;
Types of services funded: Academic services: No;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: No;
Types of services funded: Employment training: No;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: No;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: No;
Types of services funded: Counseling: No;
Types of services funded: Mental health: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Program: Family and Community Violence Prevention Program;
Types of services funded: Academic services: Yes;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: No;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: No;
Types of services funded: Mental health: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Program: Community Development Block Grant;
Types of services funded: Academic services: Yes;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Program: Indian Housing Block Grant;
Types of services funded: Academic services: No;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: No;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: No;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Justice;
Program: Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T);
Types of services funded: Academic services: No;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: No;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Justice;
Program: Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America;
Types of services funded: Academic services: No;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: No;
Types of services funded: Employment training: No;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: No;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: No;
Types of services funded: Mental health: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No.
Agency: Department of Justice;
Program: Safe Kids/Safe Streets;
Types of services funded: Academic services: No;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: No;
Types of services funded: Employment training: No;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: No;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: No;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Justice;
Program: State Challenge Activities Program;
Types of services funded: Academic services: Yes;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: No;
Types of services funded: Employment training: No;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: No;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: No;
Types of services funded: Counseling: No;
Types of services funded: Mental health: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No.
Agency: Department of Justice;
Program: Tribal Youth Program;
Types of services funded: Academic services: No;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Labor;
Program: Job Corps;
Types of services funded: Academic services: Yes;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Labor;
Program: Rewarding Youth Achievement Grants;
Types of services funded: Academic services: Yes;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No.
Agency: Department of Labor;
Program: Workforce Investment Act Formula Youth;
Types of services funded: Academic services: Yes;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: Yes.
Agency: Department of Labor;
Program: Youth Offender Demonstration Initiative;
Types of services funded: Academic services: Yes;
Types of services funded: Tutoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Employment training: Yes;
Types of services funded: Self-sufficiency/ skills development: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mentoring: Yes;
Types of services funded: Counseling: Yes;
Types of services funded: Mental health: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No;
Types of services funded: Pregnancy prevention: No.
Source: White House Task Force For Disadvantaged Youth, October 2003.
Note: An "X" indicates that the service is funded by the agency or
program.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:
Office of Inspector General:
OCT 22 2004:
Mr. David D. Bellis:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Bellis:
Enclosed are the Department's comments on your draft report entitled,
"Foster Youth-HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and
Monitoring of States' Independent Living" (GAO-05-25). The comments
represent the tentative position of the Department and are subject to
reevaluation when the final version of this report is received.
The Department provided several technical comments directly to your
staff.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
report before its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Daniel R. Levinson:
Acting Inspector General:
Enclosure:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's
response to this report in our capacity as the Department's designated
focal point and coordinator for Government Accountability Office
reports. OIG has not conducted an independent assessment of these
comments and therefore expresses no opinion on them.
COMMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) ON THE
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S (GAO'S) DRAFT REPORT: "FOSTER
YOUTH-HHS ACTIONS COULD IMPROVE COORDINATION OF SERVICES AND MONITORING
OF STATES' INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAMS" (GAO-05-25):
The HHS appreciates the opportunity to comment on the GAO draft report.
GAO Recommendation 1:
To improve access to services available to youth transitioning out of
foster care and assist states in leveraging available resources, HHS
should make information available to States and local areas about other
federal programs that may assist youth in their transition to self-
sufficiency and provide guidance on how to access services under these
programs.
HHS Comments:
Since the enactment of the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program (JHCFCIP), the HHS's Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) has undertaken a variety of activities to fulfill the statutory
requirement to collaborate with other related Federal programs in order
to expand the services and resources available for the target
population. These activities include:
* Developing and distributing information memoranda to State child
welfare directors responsible for administering the JHCFCIP concerning
public and private sector programs such as Department of Labor's
(DOL's) Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Department of Housing and Urban
Development's Family Unification Program (Section 8 Rental Vouchers),
Orphan Foundation, and the Community College Foundation (post-secondary
educational assistance and scholarships).
* Providing technical assistance and training to States and Tribes
through our Bureau agent, National Resource Center for Youth
Development (NRCYD). Since the expansion of the JHCFCIP, the NRCYD
works with every State Independent Living Coordinator (ILC), answering
their questions, sharing best practice information, providing sample
policies and procedures, and ensuring that they have the most current
information about the Federal laws and policies that impact their
youth. The NRCYD meets with new ILCs to assist them in developing their
program plans, completing reports, designing requests for proposals,
and identifying possible collaborators at the State and local levels.
Information is shared with all the ILCs on a regular basis both through
the e-mailing list and the e-bulletin board. The NRCYD web site
contains a comprehensive collection of electronic documents pertaining
to the JHCFCP Independence and Education and Training Vouchers Programs
(IETVP), as well as the implementation plans for each State, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
The technical assistance work with States and tribes very often leads
to training for staff, primary caregivers, and youth. The NRCYD
provides training in both organizational development and skill
building.
* Serving as subject matter experts to National Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) addressing the developmental and service needs of
foster youth.
* Co-sponsoring, for more than 10 years with the Family and Youth
Services Bureau (runway and homeless youth), a yearly national
conference focusing on services to both system and non-system youth and
young adults.
In addition, we have recently begun working with the DOL, and the
Departments of Justice and Education on joint initiatives, including a
set of national WIA service demonstrations, to improve and expand the
employment, and training and educational opportunities available for
foster youth in five of the ten cities with the largest foster care
populations.
GAO Recommendation 2:
To improve HHS's ability to monitor implementation of the Chafee
Program, HHS should develop a standard reporting format for State plans
and progress reports and implement a uniform process regional offices
can use to assess States' progress in meeting the needs of youth in
foster care and those recently emancipated from care.
HHS Comments:
The HHS disagrees with the GAO recommendation to develop a standard
reporting format for State plans and progress reports. When Congress
enacted the JHCFCIP in 1999, it made significant changes in the
program. One change was to require that the States develop plans that
contain assurances that their program is operating according to certain
statutory requirements.
There are important differences between the purposes of the State plan
and the purposes of data collection and performance measurement
requirements. The GAO believes the agency is negligent in fulfilling
its oversight requirements by not having a standard plan format or
requiring outcomes in the State plan. This is intentional, as it is not
the goal or purpose of the plan to address outcomes. The law does not
require that the State plan include outcomes; that is the purpose of
the data collection and performance measurement requirements in
477(f)(1) of the Social Security Act. The plan is intended to be a
narrative used to ensure that the State is adhering to the plan
requirements and assurances in 477(b)(2). A standard format would be
overly prescriptive and would serve no purpose other than creating an
unnecessary extra burden on States. When we have more standard data
through the National Youth in Transition Database, rather than just
narrative information available in the State plan documents, we will be
better positioned to determine how best to establish outcomes and
assess State performance.
Additionally, States have been required to provide specific information
on progress and accomplishments in the JHCFCIP to ACF for monitoring
purposes. The ACYF-CB-PI-03-05 includes instructions on the June 2003
submission of the Annual Progress and Services Report. Included in
these instructions were specific JHCFCIP reporting requirements
including a report on the specific accomplishments and progress made in
the past fiscal year toward meeting each of the program purposes.
Furthermore, in the development of the new five-year Child and Family
Services Plan, States received guidance on the inclusion of the JHCFCIP
and the ETVPs. In ACYF-CB-PI-04, States were provided guidance on
discussing how they will design, conduct and/or strengthen their
programs to achieve the purposes of section 477(b)(2)(A) and section
477(a)(1-6) of the Act.
It should be noted that in fiscal year (FY) 2001, the ACF developed a
checklist that was used by the ACF Regional Office staff to review and
approve the first multi-year JHCFCIP plan submitted by States. In FY
05, the ACF will develop and provide a review protocol to be used by
regional staff in the desk review of the JHCFCIP portion of the States'
Annual Progress and Services Report.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Lacinda Ayers, (206) 654-5591;
Sara L. Schibanoff, (202) 512-4176:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Adam Roye, Catherine Roark, and R.
Jerry Aiken made key contributions to this report. Diana Pietrowiak,
Luann Moy, Catherine M. Hurley, and Amy Buck also provided key
technical assistance.
[End of section]
Bibliography:
Casey Family Programs. Providing Education Related Supports and
Services under the Chafee Independence Act of 1999: Selected State
Activities, and Postsecondary Education and Training Voucher
Information. Seattle, Washington, May 2003.
-----. Assessing the Effects of Foster Care: Early Results from the
Casey National Alumni Study. Seattle, Washington, October 2003.
Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago. Midwest
Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Conditions
of Youth Preparing to Leave State Care. February 2004.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families; Administration on Children, Youth, and Families;
Children's Bureau. Title IV-E Independent Living Programs: A Decade in
Review. Washington, D.C., November 1999.
Wald, M., and T. 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. Menlo Park, CA: William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation, November, 2003.
White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth Final Report.
Washington, D.C., October 2003.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
D.C. Child and Family Services Agency: More Focus Needed on Human
Capital Management Issues for Caseworkers and Foster Parent Recruitment
and Retention. GAO-04-1017. Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2004.
Child and Family Services Reviews: Better Use of Data and Improved
Guidance Could Enhance HHS's Oversight of State Performance. GAO-04-333
Washington, D.C.: April 20, 2004.
Child Welfare: Enhanced Federal Oversight of Title IV-B Could Provide
States Additional Information to Improve Services. GAO-03-956.
Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2003.
Child Welfare: Most States Are Developing Statewide Information
Systems, but the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could Be Improved.
GAO-03-809. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2003.
Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a
Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed
Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services. GAO-03-397. Washington, D.C.:
April 21, 2003.
Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare
Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff. GAO-03-357. Washington, D.C.: March
31, 2003.
Foster Care: Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding Permanent
Homes for Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain. GAO-02-585.
Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness. GAO-02-275.
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Child Welfare: New Financing and Service Strategies Hold Promise, but
Effects Unknown. GAO/T-HEHS-00-158. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2000.
Foster Care: States' Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and
Safe Families Act. GAO/HEHS-00-1. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 1999.
Foster Care: HHS Could Better Facilitate the Interjurisdictional
Adoption Process. GAO/HEHS-00-12. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 1999.
Foster Care: Effectiveness of Independent Living Services Unknown. GAO/
HEHS-00-13. Washington, D.C.: November 10, 1999.
Foster Care: Kinship Care Quality and Permanency Issues. GAO/HEHS-99-
32. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 1999.
Juvenile Courts: Reforms Aim to Better Serve Maltreated Children. GAO/
HEHS-99-13. Washington, D.C.: January 11, 1999.
Child Welfare: Early Experiences Implementing a Managed Care Approach.
GAO/HEHS-99-8. Washington, D.C.: October 21, 1998.
Foster Care: Agencies Face Challenges Securing Stable Homes for
Children of Substance Abusers. GAO/HEHS-98-182. Washington, D.C.:
September 30, 1998.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Chafee Program receives funding under Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act. Title IV-E authorizes the appropriation of federal funds
to states for the purpose of developing and operating foster care and
transitional independent living programs and providing payments to
adoptive parents of eligible foster children with special needs. In
2003, adoption programs received approximately $1.6 billion, and foster
care programs received approximately $4.9 billion.
[2] See GAO, Foster Care: Effectiveness of Independent Living Services
Unknown, HEHS-00-13 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 5, 1999).
[3] Throughout this report, references to state survey responses
include the District of Columbia.
[4] We obtained the plans and annual reports from the ACF regional
offices after consulting with ACF's central office and the National
Resource Center for Youth Development--a technical assistance center
under contract with ACF. One regional office could not provide us with
the state plan for Wyoming and the annual reports for Colorado,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming in the time
requested. Therefore, these states are not included in our analysis. In
addition, we received only one report for Tennessee (federal fiscal
year 2001) and Puerto Rico (federal fiscal year 2002). Throughout this
report, references to states plans and annual reports include the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, where appropriate.
[5] In 1999, we issued a report that reviewed the Title IV-E
Independent Living Program before FCIA amended the program. In that
report, we found that states were using federal, state, local, and
private dollars to assist youth in attaining their educational goals,
finding and maintaining employment, developing daily living skills, and
transitioning to independence with supervised living arrangements and
after-care services. However, the state and local administrators
struggled with providing youth with all the assistance needed to learn
to live on their own. In addition, we found that while HHS was tasked
with overseeing the implementation of ILP, it had done little to
determine program effectiveness and had not established a method to
review the states' progress in helping youth in the transition from
foster care. See GAO-HEHS-00-13.
[6] The actual amount divided among the states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico totaled $137.9 million. Under the law, 1.5
percent of the $140 million is reserved for evaluation, technical
assistance, performance measurement, and data collection activities
conducted by HHS. States must provide matching contributions of 20
percent to receive Chafee Program funds. The matching contribution may
be in cash or in-kind contributions of services, equipment, or
property.
[7] A hold-harmless clause in FCIA ensures that states with smaller
populations received either $500,000 or the amount of independent
living funds they received in federal fiscal year 1998, whichever
amount is greater.
[8] The actual appropriation for the ETV program was $42 million.
However, available funds in federal fiscal year 2003 totaled
$41,101,095, which accounts for a 0.65 percent funding rescission and a
1.5 percent set-aside for federal evaluation, technical assistance,
performance measurement, and data collection. States must provide
matching contributions of 20 percent to receive ETV funds. The matching
contribution may be in cash or in-kind contributions of services,
equipment, or property.
[9] The actual appropriation for the ETV program was $45 million.
However, available funds in federal fiscal year 2004 totaled
$44,062,503, which accounts for a 0.59 percent funding rescission and a
1.5 percent set-aside for federal evaluation, technical assistance,
performance measurement, and data collection.
[10] Following passage of the act, ACF decided to integrate independent
living services into the Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP)--a 5-
year plan states are required to submit that addresses how states will
develop and implement services for multiple child welfare programs and
requires states to submit annual progress and services reports to
report updates and changes in goals and services under the plan.
[11] Resource centers may provide unlimited assistance to states by
phone or e-mail, but on-site training and technical assistance are
restricted to 10 days each year. States must first obtain regional
office approval before on-site training and technical assistance can
occur.
[12] The CFSR also reviews states' conformity with Title IV-B of the
Social Security Act. Under IV-B, states receive federal funds for
services to help families address problems that lead to child abuse and
neglect and to prevent the unnecessary separation of children from
their families.
[13] The outcomes relate to children's safety, permanency, and well-
being, and the systemic factors address state agency management and
responsiveness to the community. In addition, states must meet 6
national standards, as reported in the Adoption and Foster Care
Analysis and Reporting System and the National Child Abuse and Neglect
Data System. The CFSR process combines statewide assessments, which the
states complete using a profile of their recent child welfare data; on-
site reviews of child welfare case files; and interviews with
stakeholders. Further, states are required to develop and implement
program improvement plans (PIP) to improve their child welfare practice
and capacity when they are found to be deficient. We recently issued a
report on the CFSR process. See GAO, Child and Family Services Reviews:
Better Use of Data and Improved Guidance Could Enhance HHS's Oversight
of State Performance. GAO-04-333 (Washington, D.C.: April 20, 2004).
[14] Under the Independent Living Program, a portion of the federal
funds available at that time--$45 million--was distributed to states as
an entitlement based on each state's proportion of all children
receiving foster care maintenance payments in federal fiscal year 1984.
States were also eligible to receive a proportional share of the
remaining $25 million in federal funds to match the funds they
provided.
[15] Under the new formula, the count of children in foster care is
recalculated each year based on the most recently available data, which
HHS established as 2 years prior to the funding year.
[16] Financial information for federal fiscal year 2003 will not be
available until July 2005.
[17] We calculated this figure using financial data from HHS on the
FCIA funding allocations in federal fiscal year 2004 and Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) data from federal
fiscal year 2002 because funding allocations are calculated using
foster care population data from AFCARS 2 years prior to the funding
year. These calculations also included states' 20 percent match
requirement. However, states may use other funds to pay for services
and these calculations do not reflect any additional funding. To
determine the eligible population for each state, we used the age
ranges that states reported in our 2004 survey and AFCARS data on the
numbers of youth in each age group. For example, Alabama reported in
our survey serving youth between 14 and 21 with independent living
services. According to data the state reported to AFCARS, 2,081 youth
in this age range were in care in Alabama in federal fiscal year 2002.
However, this calculation excludes youth emancipated from foster care
since AFCARS does not capture this information.
[18] Nationwide, the average funding for independent living services
available per eligible youth in foster care was about $1,090 in federal
fiscal year 2004.
[19] According to results from our 2004 survey, 4 states began services
at age 12, 7 states began services at age 13, 27 states began services
at age 14, 9 states began services at age 15, and 4 states began
services at age 16.
[20] These calculations are based on AFCARS data, which does not
include emancipated youth.
[21] Job Corps is an education and vocational training program
administered by the U.S. Department of Labor serving youth ages 16
through 24 years.
[22] We were unable to identify comparable data on the proportion of
eligible youth in foster care that received independent living services
prior to the passage of FCIA.
[23] In our 1999 report, state and local administrators reported that
their independent living programs fell short in key areas, including
gaps in employment, daily living skills, and housing services (see GAO/
HEHS-00-13).
[24] Forty-five states reported having mentoring services for youth in
foster care, and 39 states reported having mentoring services for
emancipated youth.
[25] Florida officials report that some housing funds are available to
youth not receiving the scholarship but that these funds are limited
and insufficient to meet the demand for housing services.
[26] Appendix II summarizes selected federal agencies and their
programs that include current and former foster youth as a target
population, and displays the types of services offered by those
programs that may assist youth in their transition from foster care to
adult life.
[27] In a recent report, we reviewed how caseworker turnover and
staffing shortages remain challenges for child welfare agencies. See
GAO, Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child
Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff, GAO-03-357 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 31, 2003).
[28] See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in
Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's
Effectiveness, GAO-02-275 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2002), for a
review of the Workforce Investment Act's performance measures and GAO's
recommendation to the Department of Labor to more clearly define its
policies and measures.
[29] An individualized education program is a written statement that is
developed for each student with a disability that specifies, among
other components, the goals and objectives for the student, describes
the services that a student will receive, and specifies the extent to
which the student will participate in the regular education setting
with nondisabled peers and or in the general curriculum adopted for all
students.
[30] We previously reported similar problems using state reports for
federal monitoring of independent living programs prior to FCIA and had
recommended that HHS establish a uniform set of data elements and a
standard reporting format for state reporting on independent living
programs. See GAO-HEHS-00-13.
[31] Items reviewed included the services youth received to prepare for
independent living and the extent to which service being provided
matched the youth's needs.
[32] The total number of foster care cases reviewed across the 52
states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) was 1,462.
Of that number, 23 percent of the youth in the sample were between 13
and 18 (13-15: 17 percent, 16-18: 6 percent). According to recent data
from ACF, approximately 37 percent of the youth in foster care are
between 13 and 18 years old (13-15: 19.5 percent, 16-18: 17.4 percent).
[33] Colorado, Indiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, and Texas participated in the pilot tests that were held in
August 2001. The pilot test process concluded in November 2001 when the
contractors that conducted the tests held a briefing with the pilot
states and HHS officials.
[34] In the nationwide search, HHS contractors sought programs that met
four criteria for a rigorous research study: Programs should be
directed, at least in part, at youth leaving foster care or expected to
remain in foster care until adulthood; be innovative, of national
significance, and capable of expanding into new geographic areas; be
willing and capable of participating in experiments involving random
assignment of youth to treatment services or the alternative services;
and have an adequate sample size and should have a need for the
services greater than what is currently available so an experiment
would not reduce the total number of youth serviced by the program.
Many programs could not support a randomized study because their youth
population was not large enough to ensure youth did not go without
services.
[35] HHS contracted with the Urban Institute and its partners--the
Chapin Hall Center for Children and the National Opinion Research
Center.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
