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: