prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: Running away from home is not a recent phenomenon  Folkloric heroes Huckleberry Finn and Davy Crockett fled their abusive fathers to find adventure and employment  Although some youth today also leave home due to abuse and neglect, they often endure far more negative outcomes than their romanticized counterparts from an earlier era  Without adequate and safe shelter, runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to engaging in high-risk behaviors and further victimization  Youth who live away from home for extended periods may become removed from school and systems of support  Runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to multiple problems while they are away from a permanent home, including untreated mental health disorders, drug use, and sexual exploitation  They also report other challenges including poor health and the lack of basic provisions  Congress began to hear concerns about the vulnerabilities of the runaway population in the 1970s due to increased awareness about these youth and the establishment of runaway shelters to assist them in returning home  Congress and the President went on to enact the Runaway Youth Act of 1974 as Title III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act ( P L  93-415 ) to assist runaways through services specifically for this population  Since that time, the law has been updated to authorize services to provide support for runaway and homeless youth outside of the juvenile justice, mental health, and child welfare systems  The Runaway Youth Act—now known as the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act—authorized federal funding to be provided through annual appropriations for three programs that assist runaway and homeless youth: the Basic Center Program (BCP), Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach Program (SOP)  Together, the programs make up the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program (RHYP), administered by the Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) in the U S  Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Administration for Children and Families (ACF)  Basic Center Program: Provides funding to community-based organizations for crisis intervention, temporary shelter, counseling, family unification, and after care services to runaway and homeless youth under age 18 and their families  In some cases, BCP-funded programs may serve older youth  Over 31,000 youth participated in FY2016, the most recent year for which data are available  Transitional Living Program: Supports community-based organizations that provide homeless youth ages 16 through 22 with stable, safe, longer-term residential services up to 18 months (or longer under certain circumstances), including counseling in basic life skills, building interpersonal skills, educational advancement, job attainment skills, and physical and mental health care  Over 6,000 youth participated in FY2016  Street Outreach Program: Provides funding to community-based organizations for street-based outreach and education, including treatment, counseling, provision of information, and referrals for runaway, homeless, and street youth who have been subjected to, or are at risk of being subjected to, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, prostitution, and trafficking  SOP grantees made contact with more than 36,000 youth in FY2016  This report begins with an overview of the runaway and homeless youth population  It then describes the challenges in defining and counting this population, as well as the factors that influence homelessness and leaving home  The report also provides background on federal efforts to support runaway and homeless youth, including the evolution of federal policies to respond to these youth, with a focus on the period from the Runaway Youth Act of 1974 to the present time  The report then describes the administration and funding of the Basic Center, Transitional Living, and Street Outreach programs that were created from authorizations in the act  The appendixes include funding information for the BCP program and discuss other federal programs that may be used to assist runaway and homeless youth  There is no single federal definition of the terms "homeless youth" or "runaway youth " However, HHS relies on definitions from the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act in administering the Runaway and Homeless Youth program: The act includes the following definitions: "Homeless youth," for purposes of the BCP, includes individuals under age 18 (or some older age if permitted by state or local law) for whom it is not possible to live in a safe environment with a relative and who lack safe alternative living arrangements  "Homeless youth," for purposes of the TLP, includes individuals ages 16 through 22 for whom it is not possible to live in a safe environment with a relative and who lack safe alternative living arrangements  Youth older than age 22 may participate if they entered the program before age 22 and meet other requirements  "Runaway youth" includes individuals under age 18 who absent themselves from their home or legal residence at least overnight without the permission of their parents or legal guardians  Separately, the McKinney-Vento Act authorizes several federal programs for homeless individuals that are administered by the U S  Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)  The definition of "homeless individual" in McKinney-Vento refers to "unaccompanied youth," which applies to selected homelessness programs  HUD's related regulation defines an "unaccompanied youth" as someone under age 25 who meets the definition of "homeless" in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act or other specified federal laws  The regulation also provides additional criteria, including that they have lived independently without permanent housing for at least 60 days  The research literature discusses definitions of runaway and homeless youth  While studies have often categorized young people based on their status as runaways , homeless, or street youth , a 2011 report suggests that overlap exists between these categories  The authors of the study note that these "typologies," or classifications, are too narrowly defined by the youth's housing status and reasons for homelessness, among other factors  The authors explain that typologies based on mental health status or age cohort are promising, but they suggest further research in this area to ensure that the typologies are accurate  The precise number of homeless and runaway youth is unknown due to their residential mobility  These youth often eschew the shelter system for locations or areas that are not easily accessible to shelter workers and others who count the homeless and runaways  Youth who come into contact with census takers may also be reluctant to report that they have left home or are homeless  Determining the number of homeless and runaway youth is further complicated by the lack of a standardized methodology for counting the population and inconsistent definitions of what it means to be homeless or a runaway  Differences in methodology for collecting data on homeless populations may also influence how the characteristics of the runaway and homeless youth population are reported  Some studies have relied on point prevalence estimates that report whether youth have experienced homelessness at a given point in time, such as on a particular day  According to researchers that study the characteristics of runaway and homeless youth, these studies appear to be biased toward describing individuals who experience longer periods of homelessness  HUD requires communities receiving certain HUD funding to conduct annual point-in-time (PIT) counts of people experiencing homelessness, including homeless youth  The PIT counts include people living in emergency shelter, transitional housing, and on the street or other places not meant for human habitation  It does not include people who are temporarily living with family or friends  In the 2018 PIT count, communities identified 36,361 unaccompanied youth under age 25 (versus 40,799 in 2017) and another 8,724 under age 25 who were homeless parents (versus 9,434 in 2017)  While PIT counts do not provide a confident estimate of youth experiencing homelessness across the country, they provide some information to communities about the potential scope of youth homelessness  The Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act ( P L  110-378 ), which renewed authorization of appropriations for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program through FY2013, also authorized funding for HHS to conduct periodic studies of the incidence and prevalence of youth who have run away or are homeless  Separately, the accompanying conference report to the FY2016 appropriations law ( P L  114-113 ) directed HUD to use $2 million to conduct a national incidence and prevalence study of homeless youth as authorized under the Runaway and Homeless Youth program  HUD provided these funds to Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago to carry out the study  The study, known as Voices of Youth Count , used a nationally representative phone survey to derive national estimates and conducted brief surveys of youth and in-depth interviews of youth who had experiences of homelessness  The phone survey involved interviews with adults whose households had youth and young adults ages 13 to 25 and with adults ages 18 to 25  Voices of Youth Count estimated that approximately 700,000 youth ages 13 to 17 and 3 5 million young adults ages 18 to 25 had experienced homelessness within a one-year period, meaning they were sleeping in places not meant for human habitation, staying in shelters, or temporarily staying with others while lacking a safe and stable alternative living arrangement  This differs from the PIT counts because it includes individuals who are staying with others  The study also found that youth homelessness affected youth in rural and urban areas at similar levels  A 2010 study on the lifetime prevalence of running away used longitudinal survey data of young people who were 12 to 18 years old when they were first interviewed about whether they had run away—defined as staying away at least one night without their parents' prior knowledge or permission—along with other behaviors  In subsequent years, youth who were under age 17 at their previous interview were asked if they had run away since their last interview  Youth who had ever run away were asked how many times they had done so and the age at which they first did  The study found that 19% of those who ran away did so before turning 18; females were more likely than males to run away; and among white, black, and Hispanic youth, black youth have the highest rate of ever running away  Youth who ran away reported that they did so about three times on average; however, about half of runaways had only run away once  Approximately half of the youth had run away before age 14  A subset of runaway youth is those in foster care  In FY2017, over 500 children in the United States had run away from their foster care home or other placement  While this represents less than 1% of all children in foster care, running away is more prevalent among older youth in care  A study of over 50,000 youth ages 13 through 17 in 21 states indicated that 17% ran away at least once during their first time in foster care  The study found that female, black, and Hispanic youth were more likely to run away than male and white youth in care  The study further found that youth were more likely to run away from congregate care (i e , group care) settings compared to other settings, such as living with a relative or in a foster family home  Youth were also more likely to run away from care if they lived in the most socioeconomically disadvantaged counties or lived in a state that lacked a process to screen youth on the risk of running away  States report on the characteristics and experiences of certain current and former foster youth through the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD)  Among other information, states must report data on cohorts of foster youth beginning when they are age 17, and later at ages 19 and 21  Among youth surveyed in FY2015 at age 21, about 43% reported having experienced homelessness  Youth most often cite family conflict as the major reason for their homelessness or episodes of running away  According to the research literature, a youth's poor family dynamics, sexual activity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, school problems, and alcohol and drug use are strong predictors of family discord  One-third of callers who used the National Runaway Safeline in 2017—a crisis call center funded under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program for youth and their relatives involved in runaway incidents—gave family dynamics (not defined) as the reason for their call  Further, a longitudinal survey of middle school and high school youth examined the effects of family instability (e g , child maltreatment, lack of parental warmth, and parent rejection) and other factors on the likelihood of running away from home approximately two to six years after youth were initially surveyed  Researchers found that youth with family instability were more likely to run away  Family instability also influenced problem behaviors, such as illicit drug use, which, in turn, were associated with running away  Researchers further determined that certain other effects (e g , school engagement, neighborhood cohesiveness, physical victimization, and friends' support) were not strong predicators of whether youth in the sample ran away  In a study of youth who ran away from foster care between 1993 and 2003, the youth cited three primary reasons why they ran from foster care: to connect with their biological families, express their autonomy and find normalcy, and maintain relationships with nonfamily members  The Voices of Youth Count study found that certain youth ages 18 to 25 were at heightened risk of experiencing homelessness  This included youth with less than a high school diploma or GED; who were Hispanic or black; who were parenting and unmarried; or identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning (LGBTQ)  Gay and lesbian youth appear to be at greater risk for homelessness and are overrepresented in the homeless population, due often to experiencing negative reactions from their parents when they come out about their sexuality  The Voices of Youth Count study found that LGBTQ young adults ages 18 to 25 had more than twice the risk of being homeless than their heterosexual peers  LGBTQ youth made up about 20% of young adults who reported homelessness  In addition, a study involving LGBTQ young adults in seven cities found that the most common reason youth became homeless was due to being kicked out or asked to leave the home of a parent, relative, foster home, or group home  Under an HHS grant, Youth with Child Welfare Involvement at Risk of Homelessness , the 18 grantees (state, local, and tribal child welfare agencies or community-based organizations) evaluated multiple risk factors for homelessness among child welfare-involved populations: which include those who have had numerous foster care placements, run away from foster care, been placed in a group home, had a history of mental health or behavioral health diagnoses, had juvenile justice involvement, had a history of substance abuse, been emancipated from foster care, and been parenting or fathered a child  Runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to multiple problems while they are away from a permanent home, including untreated mental health disorders, drug use, and sexual exploitation  Studies of homeless youth indicate that they are more likely to experience mental health and substance abuse disorders than their counterparts in the general population  A literature review of studies on psychiatric disorders among homeless youth found high prevalence of conduct disorders, major depression, psychosis, and other disorders  A study of participants in the Street Outreach Program found that about 6 out of 10 reported symptoms associated with depression and almost three-fourths reported that they had experienced major trauma, such as physical or sexual abuse or witnessing or being a victim of violence  Substance abuse is more prevalent among youth who live on the street, compared to homeless youth who are in shelters  Still, both groups of youth use alcohol or drugs at higher rates than their peers who live in family households, even after researchers control for demographic differences  While away from a permanent home, runaway and homeless youth are also vulnerable to sexual exploitation; sex and labor trafficking; and other victimization such as being beaten up, robbed, or otherwise assaulted  Some youth resort to illegal activity including stealing, exchanging sex for food or a place to stay, and selling drugs for survival  Runaway and homeless youth report other challenges including poor health and a lack of basic provisions  Prior to the enactment of the Runaway Youth Act of 1974 (Title III, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, P L  93-415 ), federal policy provided limited services to runaway and homeless youth  If they received any services, most of these youth were served through the local child welfare agency, juvenile justice court system, or both  The 1970s marked a shift to a more rehabilitative model for assisting youth who had run afoul of the law, including those who committed status offenses such as running away  During this period, Congress focused increasing attention on runaways and other vulnerable youth due, in part, to emerging sociological models to explain why youth engaged in deviant behavior  The first runaway shelters were created in the late 1960s and 1970s to assist them in returning home  The landmark Runaway Youth Act of 1974 decriminalized runaway youth and authorized funding for programs to provide shelter, counseling, and other services  Since the law's enactment, Congress and the President have expanded the services available to both runaway youth and homeless youth under what is now referred to as the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program  In more recent years, other federal entities have been involved in responding to the challenges facing runaway and homeless youth  These efforts are coordinated through the U S  Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH)  Figure 1 traces the evolution of federal policy in this area  The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program is a major part of recent federal efforts to end youth homelessness through the U S  Interagency Council on Homelessness  The USICH, established under the 1987 Stewart B  McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, is made up of several federal agencies, including HHS and HUD  The HEARTH Act, enacted in 2009 as part of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act ( P L  111-22 ), charged USICH with developing a National Strategic Plan to End Homelessness  In June 2010, USICH released this plan, entitled Opening Doors   The plan set out goals for ending homelessness, including (1) ending chronic homelessness by 2015; (2) preventing and ending homelessness among veterans by 2015; (3) preventing and ending homelessness for families, youth, and children by 2020; and (4) setting a path to ending all types of homelessness  In 2012, USICH amended Opening Doors to specifically address strategies for improving the educational outcomes for children and youth and assisting unaccompanied homeless youth  USICH outlined its intention to improve outcomes for youth in four areas: stable housing, permanent connections, education or employment options, and socio-emotional well-being  In 2013, a USICH working group developed a guiding document for ending youth homelessness by 2020  Known as the Framework to End Youth Homelessness , the document outlines a data strategy to collect better data on the number and characteristics of youth experiencing homelessness  This data strategy includes coordinating the former data collection system for the Runaway and Homeless Youth program—referred to as RHYMIS—with HUD's Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS)  RHYMIS was a data system administered by HHS for previous RHYP grantees to upload demographic and other data for the youth they served  HMIS is a locally administered data system used to record and analyze client, service, and housing data for individuals and families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness in a given community  As of FY2015, RHYP grantees stopped reporting to RHYMIS and instead report to HMIS  Grantees reported to RHYMIS on the basic demographics of the youth, the services they received, and the status of the youth upon exiting the programs  RHY grantees are now required to report this same (and new information) to HMIS  According to HHS, some grantees have had have encountered inaccurate software programming for their data standards or have had issues with successfully extracting their data to submit to HHS  The data strategy outlined in the framework also involves, if funding is available, designing and implementing a national study to estimate the number, needs, and characteristics of youth experiencing homelessness  This is consistent with the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act's directive for HHS to conduct a study of youth homelessness  As noted, this study— Voices of Youth Count —received funding from FY2016 HUD appropriations  In addition, HHS has supported other research on homeless youth, including factors associated with prolonged homelessness and risk factors for homelessness among children and youth with involvement in child welfare  In 2018, the USICH issued a brief that outlines continued gaps in data on the homeless youth population, citing the need for greater understanding about the causes of youth homelessness and how youth enter and exit homelessness  Separately, the framework also outlined a strategy to strengthen and coordinate the capacity of federal, state, and local systems to work toward ending youth homelessness  USICH has provided guidance to communities, including by establishing community-level criteria for ending homelessness and accompanying benchmarks to assess whether they have achieved an end to youth homelessness  Still, the 2018 USICH brief called for greater evidence regarding the impact of housing and service interventions in helping youth exit homelessness  As mentioned, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program is administered by the Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) within HHS's Administration for Children and Families (ACF)  The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act includes three authorizations of appropriations  The authorization of appropriations for the Basic Center Program and Transitional Living program is $127 4 million for each of FY2019 and FY2020  Under the law, 90% of the federal funds appropriated under the two programs must be used for the BCP and TLP (together, the programs and their related activities are known as the Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth program)  Of this amount, 45% is reserved for the BCP and no more than 55% is reserved for the TLP  The remaining share of consolidated funding is allocated for (1) a national communication system to facilitate communication between service providers, runaway youth, and their families (National Safeline); (2) training and technical support for grantees; (3) evaluations of the programs; (4) federal coordination efforts on matters relating to the health, education, employment, and housing of these youth; and (5) studies of runaway and homeless youth  The authorization of appropriations for the Street Outreach program is $25 million for each of FY2019 and FY2020  Although the SOP is a separately funded component, SOP services are coordinated with those provided under the BCP and TLP  The authorization of appropriations for the periodic estimate of incidence and prevalence of youth homelessness is such sums as may be necessary for FY2019 and FY2020  Funding has not been provided by HHS under this authority, and as noted, funds appropriated to HUD for this purpose have been used to support Voices of Youth Count  Table 1 shows funding levels for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program from FY2006 through FY2019  Over this period, funding has increased notably for the program three times, most recently from FY2017 to FY2018  Congress has provided some guidance on how the additional funds are to be spent  In the conference report to accompany the FY2019 consolidated appropriations act, Congress stated that the increase should be provided to current TLP grantees whose awards end on March 31, 2019  The funding is to be used to continue services until new awards are made to those grantees, or for those grantees that did not receive a new grant, to provide services until the end of FY2019  Funding may then be used for additional new awards  The Basic Center Program is intended to provide short-term shelter and services for youth and their families at centers operated by BCP grantees, which are public and private community-based organizations  Youth eligible to receive BCP services include those youth who are at risk of running away or becoming homeless (and may live at home with their parents), or have already left home, either voluntarily or involuntarily  To stay at the shelter, youth must be under age 18, or an older age if the BCP center is located in a state or locality that permits this higher age  Some centers may serve homeless youth through street-based services, home-based services, and drug abuse education and prevention services  Grantees seek to connect youth with their families, whenever possible, or to locate appropriate alternative placements  They also provide individual or group and family counseling, health care, education, and employment assistance  As specified in the law, BCP grantees or centers are intended to provide services as an alternative to involving runaway and homeless youth in the law enforcement, juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental health systems  Youth may stay in a center continuously up to 21 days  In FY2017, the program served 23,288 youth, and in FY2018 it funded 280 BCP shelters (most recent figures available)
Report 2: 8%) more than projected for FY2018, again setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations  H R  6776 would have provided $2 59 billion (6 7%) more than S  3019 , largely due to the House Appropriations Committee recommending $3 35 billion more than its Senate counterpart for CBP's Border Security Assets and Infrastructure activity  P L  116-6 included $40 00 billion in net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  The enacted annual appropriations were $1 59 billion (4 1%) more than requested, and $486 million (1 2%) more than the amount provided in FY2018  Setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding, FY2019 enacted net discretionary funding exceeded FY2018 levels by $1 55 billion (4 0%)  The total budgetary resources projected for components funded in this title were $47 82 billion, $704 million (1 5%) more than was formally requested by the Administration, and $1 75 billion (3 8%) more than was provided in FY2018, setting aside the FY2018 supplemental funding  Table 2 shows these comparisons in greater detail  Title III, Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, contains appropriations for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Office of Health Affairs (OHA), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)  It is the second largest of the component-specific titles  For FY2018, these components received $7 22 billion in net discretionary appropriations and $7 37 billion in specially designated funding for disaster relief through the annual appropriations process  In addition to that annual funding, $58 23 billion was provided for FEMA in emergency supplemental appropriations in FY2018  Incorporating all these elements, the total net discretionary funding level for all Title III components was $72 61 billion for FY2018  The Trump Administration requested $6 19 billion in FY2019 net discretionary appropriations for components included in this title, and $6 65 billion in specially designated funding for disaster relief as part of a total net discretionary funding level for these components of $12 84 billion for FY2019  Setting aside the $58 23 billion in FY2018 supplemental appropriations, the appropriations request was $1 54 billion (10 7%) less than the amount provided for FY2018 in net discretionary funding  Senate Appropriations Committee-reported S  3109 included $13 54 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  This was $694 million (5 4%) more than requested by the Trump Administration and $847 million (5 9%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  The total budgetary resources projected would be $718 million (3 8%) more than the Administration's request, but $1 29 billion (6 2%) less than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  The Senate committee-reported bill included within these totals the requested disaster relief funding of $6 65 billion, and offset $228 million in its Federal Assistance appropriation from unobligated DRF balances  House Appropriations Committee-reported H R  6776 included $13 70 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  This was $861 million (6 7%) more than requested by the Trump Administration and $681 million (4 7%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  The total budgetary resources projected would be $885 million (4 7%) more than the Administration's request, but $1 13 billion (5 4%) less than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  The House committee-reported bill included within these totals the requested disaster relief funding of $6 65 billion  P L  116-6 included $18 27 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  The enacted discretionary funding level was $5 43 billion (42 3%) more than requested, and $3 89 billion (27 1%) more than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside the historically high level of supplemental appropriations  The total budgetary resources projected for FY2019 was $5 46 billion (29 0%) more than was requested, and $3 44 billion (16 5%) more than was projected for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding  Table 3 shows these comparisons in greater detail  As some annually appropriated resources were provided for FEMA from outside Title III in FY2018, a separate line is included for FEMA showing a total for what is provided solely within Title III, then the non-Title III appropriation, followed by the total annual appropriation for FEMA  Title IV, Research and Development, Training, and Services, the second smallest of the component-specific titles, contains appropriations for the U S  Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO)  In FY2018, these components received $1 57 billion in net discretionary funding, as part of a projected total budget of $5 92 billion  This included $10 million in supplemental appropriations for FLETC  The Trump Administration requested $1 53 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a total budget for these components of $6 11 billion for FY2018  The funding request was $36 million (2 3%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside supplemental appropriations, although the overall budget request was $201 million (3 3%) higher than the annual budget projected for FY2018 (again, setting aside supplemental funding)  This is due to changes in anticipated fee collections for USCIS and reorganization of most of the Office of Health Affairs and DNDO into the new CWMD component reflected in the request  Senate Appropriations Committee-reported S  3109 included $1 53 billion in net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a projected total budget of $6 23 billion  This was $115 million (7 5%) more than requested, and $79 million (5 0%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, not including supplemental funding  The total budgetary resources projected under S  3109 would have been $115 million (1 9%) more than the Administration's request, and $316 million (5 3%) more than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  House Appropriations Committee-reported H R  6776 included $1 64 billion in net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a projected total budget of $6 21 billion  This was $97 million (6 3%) more than requested, and $60 million (3 9%) more than the amount provided for FY2018, not including supplemental funding  The total budgetary resources projected under H R  6776 would have been $97 million (1 6%) more than the Administration's request, and $297 million (5 0%) more than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  P L  116-6 included $1 62 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  Enacted FY2019 appropriations were $199 million (3 3%) more than was requested by the Administration, and $163 million (10 4%) more than was provided in FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding  Total budgetary resources projected for FY2019 are $199 million (3 3%) more than were requested by the Administration, and $400 million (6 8%) more than was projected for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding  Table 4 shows these comparisons in greater detail  As noted above, the fifth title of the FY2019 DHS appropriations act contains general provisions, the impact of which may reach across the entire department, affect multiple components, or focus on a single activity  Rescissions of prior-year appropriations—cancellations of budget authority that reduce the net funding level in the bill—are found in this title  For FY2018, Division F of P L  115-141 included $489 million in rescissions  For FY2019, the Administration proposed rescinding $300 million in prior-year funding from the DRF  S  3109 included $137 million in rescissions from other appropriations, but specifically directed the $300 million the Administration had proposed rescinding from the DRF to other activities within DHS  H R  6776 did not include any rescissions, although an amendment from Representative Palazzo was passed in full committee markup on a voice vote redirecting unobligated balances from the Science and Technology Directorate to the Coast Guard  Division A of P L  116-6 included $303 million in rescissions, and a provision directing that $300 million of DRF unobligated balances be used to offset new DRF appropriations  In FY2018, funding was also included in Title V for the Financial Systems Modernization initiative and a grant program for Presidential Residence Protection costs, which are reflected in the tables for Title I and Title III, respectively, as those titles fund the components that manage these resources  For FY2019, Title V of S  3109 only funded the Financial Systems Modernization initiative, and Title V of H R  6776 only funded Presidential Residence Protection costs  Title V of P L  116-6 , Division A, included funding for both the Financial Systems Modernization initiative and Presidential Residence Protection costs  The detail table in the back of H Rept  115-948 also notes the discretionary cost of several policy changes in H R  6776   Four amendments adopted in House Appropriations Committee markup resulted in a net $13 million increase in the score of the bill, which is reflected in the detail table, but not in the tables of this report  No such costs are reflected in the detail table of H Rept  116-9   For additional perspectives on FY2019 DHS appropriations, see the following: CRS Report R44604, Trends in the Timing and Size of DHS Appropriations: In Brief ; CRS Report R44052, DHS Budget v  DHS Appropriations: Fact Sheet ; and CRS Report R45262, Comparing DHS Component Funding, FY2019: In Brief   Congressional clients also may wish to consult CRS's experts directly  The following table lists CRS analysts and specialists who have expertise in policy areas linked to DHS appropriations  Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays Federal government spending involves a multistep process that begins with the enactment of budget authority by Congress  Federal agencies then obligate funds from enacted budget authority to pay for their activities  Finally, payments are made to liquidate those obligations; the actual payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays  Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending legislation and determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to spend  The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from obligating more funds than the budget authority enacted by Congress  Budget authority also may be indefinite in amount, as when Congress enacts language providing "such sums as may be necessary" to complete a project or purpose  Budget authority may be available on a one-year, multiyear, or no-year basis  One-year budget authority is available for obligation only during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end of that year are no longer available for spending  Multiyear budget authority specifies a range of time during which funds may be obligated for spending, and no-year budget authority is available for obligation for an indefinite period of time  Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into contracts, receive services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year—which create a legal requirement for the government to pay  Outlays are the funds that are actually spent during the fiscal year  Because multiyear and no-year budget authorities may be obligated over a number of years, outlays do not always match the budget authority enacted in a given year  Additionally, budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future fiscal year, especially with certain contracts  In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and authorizes payments, or outlays, to be made from the Treasury  Discretionary funded agencies and programs, and appropriated entitlement programs, are funded each year in appropriations acts  Discretionary and Mandatory Spending Gross budget authority , or the total funds available for spending by a federal agency, may be composed of discretionary and mandatory spending  Discretionary spending is not mandated by existing law and is thus appropriated yearly by Congress through appropriations acts  The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 defines discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in annual appropriations acts and the outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes appropriations for entitlements  Mandatory spending , also known as direct spending , consists of budget authority and resulting outlays provided in laws other than appropriations acts and is typically not appropriated each year  Some mandatory entitlement programs, however, must be appropriated each year and are included in appropriations acts  Within DHS, Coast Guard retirement pay is an example of appropriated mandatory spending  Offsetting Collections Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from government accounts or the public, as part of a business-type transaction such as collection of a fee  These funds are not considered federal revenue  Instead, they are counted as negative outlays  DHS net discretionary budget authority , or the total funds appropriated by Congress each year, is composed of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset discretionary spending  Some collections offset a portion of an agency's discretionary budget authority  Other collections offset an agency's mandatory spending  These mandatory spending elements are typically entitlement programs under which individuals, businesses, or units of government that meet the requirements or qualifications established by law are entitled to receive certain payments if they establish eligibility  The DHS budget features two mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and the Coast Guard retired pay accounts (pensions)  Some entitlements are funded by permanent appropriations, and others are funded by annual appropriations  Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent appropriation and, as such, is not annually appropriated  In contrast, Coast Guard retirement pay is annually appropriated  In addition to these entitlements, the DHS budget contains offsetting Trust and Public Enterprise Funds  These funds are not appropriated by Congress  They are available for obligation and included in the President's budget to calculate the gross budget authority  302(a) and 302(b) Allocations In general practice, the maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is determined through a two-stage congressional budget process  In the first stage, Congress sets overall spending totals in the annual concurrent resolution on the budget  Subsequently, these totals are allocated among the appropriations committees, usually through the statement of managers for the conference report on the budget resolution  These amounts are known as the 302(a) allocations   They include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the subcommittees responsible for the development of the bills  In the second stage of the process, the appropriations committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees for each of the appropriations bills  These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations   These allocations must add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for enforcing budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a point of order  The 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year by the respective appropriations committee issuing a report delineating the revised suballocations as the various appropriations bills progress toward final enactment  No subcommittee allocations are developed for conference reports or enacted appropriations bills  Table A-1 shows comparable figures for the 302(b) allocation for FY2018, based on the adjusted net discretionary budget authority included in Division F of P L  115-141 , the President's request for FY2019, and the House and Senate subcommittee allocations for the Homeland Security appropriations bills for FY2019  The Budget Control Act, Discretionary Spending Caps, and Adjustments The Budget Control Act established enforceable discretionary limits, or caps, for defense and nondefense spending for each fiscal year from FY2012 through FY2021  Subsequent legislation, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, amended those caps  Most of the budget for DHS is considered nondefense spending  In addition, the Budget Control Act allows for adjustments that would raise the statutory caps to cover funding for overseas contingency operations/Global War on Terror, emergency spending, and, to a limited extent, disaster relief and appropriations for continuing disability reviews and control of health care fraud and abuse  Three of the four justifications outlined in the Budget Control Act for adjusting the caps on discretionary budget authority have played a role in DHS's appropriations process  Two of these—emergency spending and overseas contingency operations/Global War on Terror—are not limited  The third justification—disaster relief—is limited  Under the Budget Control Act, the allowable adjustment for disaster relief was determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), using the following formula until FY2019: Limit on disaster relief cap adjustment for the fiscal year = Rolling average of the disaster relief spending over the last ten fiscal years (throwing out the high and low years) + the unused amount of the potential adjustment for disaster relief from the previous fiscal year  The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 amended the above formula, increasing the allowable size of the adjustment by adding 5% of the amount of emergency-designated funding for major disasters under the Stafford Act, calculated by OMB as $6 296 billion  The act also extended the availability of unused adjustment capacity  In August 2018, OMB released a sequestration update report for FY2019 that provided a preview estimate of the allowable adjustment for FY2019 of $14 965 billion —the second-largest allowable adjustment for disaster relief in the history of the mechanism  $12 billion of that adjustment was exercised in P L  116-6 , Division A, in appropriations for the Disaster Relief Fund  No other annual appropriations used the disaster relief adjustment for FY2019  

ground_truth: In February 2017, components of California's Oroville Dam failed, leading to the evacuation of nearly 200,000 nearby residents. FERC is the federal regulator of the Oroville Dam and over 2,500 other dams associated with nonfederal hydropower projects nationwide. FERC issues and renews licenses—which can last up to 50 years—to dam operators and promotes safe dam operation by conducting safety inspections and reviewing technical engineering studies, among other actions. GAO was asked to review FERC's approach to overseeing dam safety. This report examines: (1) how FERC collects information from its dam safety inspections and the extent of its analysis, and (2) how FERC evaluates engineering studies of dam performance to analyze safety, among other objectives. GAO analyzed documentation on a non-generalizable sample of 42 dams associated with projects relicensed from fiscal years 2014 through 2017, selected based on geography and hazard classifications, among other factors. GAO also reviewed FERC regulations and documents; and interviewed FERC staff associated with the selected projects and technical consultants, selected based on the frequency and timing of their reviews. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) staff generally followed established guidance in collecting safety information from dam inspections for the dams GAO reviewed, but FERC has not used this information to analyze dam safety portfolio-wide. For these 42 dams, GAO found that FERC staff generally followed guidance in collecting safety information during inspections of individual dams and key structures associated with those dams. (See figure.) However, FERC lacks standard procedures that specify how and where staff should record safety deficiencies identified. As a result, FERC staff use multiple systems to record inspection findings, thereby creating information that cannot be easily analyzed. Further, while FERC officials said inspections help oversee individual dam's safety, FERC has not analyzed this information to identify any safety risks across its portfolio. GAO's prior work has highlighted the importance of evaluating risks across a portfolio. FERC officials stated that they have not conducted portfolio-wide analyses because officials prioritize the individual dam inspections and response to urgent dam safety incidents. However, following the Oroville incident, a FERC-led initiative to examine dam structures comparable to those at Oroville identified 27 dam spillways with varying degrees of safety concerns, on which FERC officials stated they are working with dam licensees to address. A similar and proactive portfolio-wide approach, based on analysis of common inspection deficiencies across the portfolio of dams under FERC's authority, could help FERC identify safety risks prior to a safety incident. Guidelines recognize that each dam is unique and allow for flexibility and exemptions in its use. FERC staff use the studies to inform other components of their safety approach, including the analysis of dam failure scenarios and their review of safety to determine whether to renew a license. GAO recommends that FERC: (1) develop standard procedures for recording information collected as part of its inspections, and (2) use inspection information to assess safety risks across FERC's portfolio of dams. FERC agreed with GAO's recommendations.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: According to the National Inventory of Dams, as of January 2016 there are approximately 90,500 dams in the United States and about 2 5 percent of these (approximately 2,100 dams) are associated with hydropower projects  Hydropower projects are owned and operated by both non-federal entities—such as private utility companies, municipalities, and state government agencies—or federal government agencies—primarily the U S  Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation  Collectively, these dams associated with hydropower projects account for about 8 percent of the total electric generating capacity in the United States  Hydropower projects generally consist of one or more dams and other key components associated with hydroelectric power generation and water storage, and are uniquely designed to accommodate watersheds, geology, and other natural conditions present at the time of construction  These components include both those that allow operators to adjust reservoir water levels, such as spillways and gates, as well as those that produce and distribute electricity, such as transmission lines and powerhouses, among others  (See fig  1 ) The Federal Power Act provides for FERC’s regulatory jurisdiction over a portfolio of about 1,000 non-federal hydropower projects comprising over 2,500 dams  While FERC does not construct, own, or operate dams, it licenses and provides oversight of non-federal hydropower projects to promote their safe operation  Licensees are responsible for the safety and liability of dams, pursuant to the Federal Power Act, and for their continuous upkeep and repair using sound and prudent engineering practices  FERC officials in each of the agency’s five regional offices work directly with licensees to help ensure these projects comply with licenses and meet federal guidelines for dam safety  In addition, stakeholder groups such as the Association of State Dam Safety Officials can assist licensees in staying current on federal and state dam laws and regulations, dam operations and maintenance practices, and emergency action planning, among other things  FERC’s regulations, supplemented by its Operating Manual and Engineering Guidelines, establish a framework for its dam safety oversight approach  FERC’s Operating Manual provides guidelines for the FERC staff performing inspections that are aimed at ensuring that structures are safe, are being properly maintained, and are being operated safely  FERC’s Engineering Guidelines provides FERC staff and licensees with procedures and criteria for the review and analysis of license applications, project modification proposals, technical studies, and dam designs  For example, one chapter presents guidelines for FERC staff to use to determine the appropriateness and level of geotechnical investigations and studies for dams  The Engineering Guidelines states that every dam is unique and that safety analysis of each dam require that engineers apply technical judgement based on their professional experience  As part of FERC’s safety oversight approach, it assigns a hazard classification to each dam in accordance with federal guidelines that consider the potential human or economic consequences of the dam’s failure  The hazard classification does not indicate the structural integrity of the dam itself, but rather the probable effects if a failure should occur  Depending on the hazard classification, the extent of and the frequency of safety oversight activities can vary  Low hazard dams are those where failure —an uncontrolled release of water from a water-retaining structure—would result in no probable loss of human life but could cause low economic and/or environmental losses  Significant hazard dams are those dams where failure would result in no probable loss of human life, but could cause economic loss, environmental damage, or other losses  High hazard dams are those dams where failure would probably cause loss of human life  FERC has designed a multi-layered oversight approach that involves both independent and coordinated actions with dam owners and independent consultants  Key elements of this approach include ensuring licensees have a safety program in place, conducting regular safety inspections, reviewing technical analyses, and analyzing safety as a part of project relicensing  (See fig  2 ) Licensee’s dam safety program  According to FERC guidance, licensees have the most important role in ensuring dam safety through continuous visual surveillance and ongoing monitoring to evaluate the health of the structure  Beyond this expectation for continuous oversight, FERC requires licensees of high and significant hazard dams to have an Owner’s Dam Safety Program  FERC dam safety inspection  The dam safety inspection, also called operation inspection, is a regularly-scheduled inspection conducted by a FERC regional office project engineer primarily addressing dam and public safety  FERC’s Operating Manual establishes the frequency that a FERC engineer conducts dam safety inspections  Independent consultant inspection and potential failure mode analysis  FERC requires licensees to hire a FERC-approved independent consulting engineer to inspect and evaluate high hazard dams and certain types of dams above a certain height or size and submit a report detailing the findings  Additionally, FERC requires the licensee of a high or significant hazard dam to conduct a potential failure mode analysis  A potential failure mode analysis is an exercise to identify and assess all potential failure modes under normal operating water levels and under extreme conditions caused by floods, earthquakes, and other events  FERC relicensing of projects  FERC issues hydropower licenses for the construction of new hydropower projects, and reissues licenses for existing projects when licenses expire  Licensees may submit applications for a new license for the continued operation of existing projects as part of a process known as relicensing  During relicensing, in addition to the power and development purposes for which FERC issues licenses, FERC must evaluate safety, environmental, recreational, cultural, and resource development among other factors when evaluating projects, according to its guidance  In addition, FERC requires licensees to conduct various engineering studies related to dam performance in accordance with FERC safety requirements  Required engineering studies focus on dam performance as affected by hydrology, seismicity, and dam stability  Licensees may also produce engineering studies, such as a focused spillway assessment, for their own operations or at the request of FERC  We found, based on our analysis of the 42 dam safety inspections we reviewed, that FERC staff generally conducted and collected information from these inspections consistent with guidance in its Operating Manual  According to FERC’s Operating Manual, staff’s approach to conducting these inspections and collecting information is to include preparing for the inspection by reviewing documents, conducting a field inspection of the dam and associated project components, and discussing inspection findings with licensees and with FERC supervisors  Preparation for inspection: We found that FERC staff generally met document review requirements in preparation for safety inspections of the 42 dams we reviewed  (See table 1 ) According to the Operating Manual, FERC staff are to review safety-related information contained in documents such as potential failure mode analyses and hazard potential classifications  For example, we found that staff documented their review of the most recent independent consultant inspection report and potential failure mode analysis for each of the 16 high hazard dams we reviewed  FERC staff told us that they generally used checklists when preparing for these inspections  For example, some of the staff told us they tailor the checklist included in the Operating Manual, based on the dam’s type, characteristics, and hazard classification  Additionally, for each of the dams in our sample, staff stated that they prepared for the inspection by reviewing prior inspection reports and recommendations  Field inspection: We found that FERC staff generally met requirements for reviewing project components and documenting their findings from field inspections of the 42 dams we reviewed  (See table 2 ) According to the Operating Manual, FERC staff are to conduct visual inspections of the dam, typically alongside the licensee, to assess the dam and project components by observing their condition and identifying any safety deficiency or maintenance requirement  Also during the inspection, FERC staff are to compare current conditions of the dam and project components to those described in prior inspection reports, and as applicable, collect information on the licensee’s progress towards resolving deficiencies and maintenance issues that can affect safety  To assess safety, FERC staff we interviewed stated that they primarily rely on their engineering judgment  Inspection findings: According to our interviews with FERC staff from selected projects, we found that staff generally followed FERC guidance in discussing inspection findings with licensees and supervisors prior to preparing inspection reports to document their findings  According to the Operating Manual, following the dam safety inspection, FERC staff are to discuss the inspection with the licensee, giving direction on how to address any findings  Additionally, upon returning to the office, staff are to discuss inspection findings with their supervisors who may suggest additional actions  FERC staff are then to develop a dam safety inspection report that documents observations and conclusions from their pre-inspection preparation and their field inspection and identifies follow-up actions for the licensee  We found that FERC staff prepared inspection reports to document findings from the 42 dam safety inspections we reviewed  In response to inspection findings, FERC requires licensees to submit a plan and schedule to remediate any deficiency, actions that FERC staff then reviews, approves, and monitors until the licensees have addressed the deficiency  While we found that FERC staff conducted inspections and collected inspection findings consistently in the files we reviewed, FERC’s approach to recording information varies across its regions, thus limiting the usefulness of the information  FERC’s approach to recording inspection information relies on multiple systems to record inspection information and affords broad discretion to its staff on how to characterize findings, such as whether to track inspection findings as maintenance issues or as safety deficiencies  As related to systems for recording inspection information, FERC staff use the Data and Management System (DAMS), the Office of Energy Projects-IT (OEP-IT) system, as well as spreadsheets  In particular, according to FERC staff: Four out of FERC’s five regional offices use DAMS—which is primarily a workload tracking tool—to track plans and schedules associated with safety investigations and modifications as well as inspection follow-up items  FERC staff stated that since the inspection information in DAMS is recorded as narrative text in a data field instead of as discrete categories, sorting or analysis of the information is difficult  One regional office uses OEP-IT to track safety deficiencies while the system is more widely used across FERC to track licensees’ compliance with the terms and conditions of their licenses  Three out of FERC’s five regional offices also use spreadsheets and other tools that are not integrated with DAMS or OEP-IT to track inspection information and licensee progress toward resolving safety deficiencies  FERC staff said that use of these different systems to record deficiencies identified during inspections limits their ability to analyze safety information  For example, according to FERC officials, OEP-IT was not designed to track safety deficiency information and is not compatible with DAMS for use in tracking information on a national level  Furthermore, because spreadsheets and other tools are specific to the regional office in which they are used, FERC staff does not use the information they contain for agency-wide analysis  Concerning decisions on how to characterize inspection findings, FERC staff relies on professional judgment, informed by their experience and the Engineering Guidelines, to determine whether to track inspection findings as a safety deficiency or as a maintenance item, according to FERC officials  With input from their supervisors, FERC staff also determines what information to record and how to track the status of the inspection finding  For example, staff assigned to a dam at a FERC- licensed project in New Hampshire observed concrete deterioration on several parts of the dam and its spillway and asked the licensee to monitor all concrete surfaces, making repairs as necessary  According to staff we interviewed, regional staff and supervisors decided not to identify this as a deficiency to be tracked in DAMS because concrete deterioration is normal and to be expected in consideration of the area’s harsh winter weather  In contrast, staff assigned to a dam at a FERC- licensed project in Minnesota observed concrete deterioration on several parts of the project, including the piers and the powerhouse walls, and entered the safety item in DAMS as requiring repair by the licensee  FERC officials stated they are comfortable with the use of professional judgement to classify and address inspection findings because it is important to allow for consideration of the characteristics unique to each situation and how they affect safety  FERC’s approach to recording inspection information is inconsistent because FERC has not provided standard language and procedures about how staff should record and track deficiencies including which system to use  Federal standards for internal control state that agencies should design an entity’s information system and related control activities to achieve objectives and control risks  In practice, this means that an agency would design control activities—such as policies and procedures—over the information technology infrastructure to support the completeness, accuracy, and validity of information processing by information technology  FERC officials acknowledged that there are inconsistent approaches in where and how staff record safety deficiency information, approaches that limit the information’s usefulness as an input to its oversight  While the agency has not developed guidance, officials stated that FERC plans to take steps to improve the consistency of recorded information by replacing the OEP-IT system with a new system, tentatively scheduled for September 2018, that will have a specific function to track dam safety requirements  However, this new system will not replace the functions of DAMS, which FERC will continue to use to store inspection information  The two will exist as parallel systems with the eventual goal of the two systems’ sharing information  By developing standard language and procedures to standardize the recording of information collected during inspections, FERC officials could help ensure that the information shared across these systems is comparable, steps that would allow FERC to identify the extent of and characteristics associated with common safety deficiencies across its entire portfolio of regulated dams  Moreover, with a consistent approach to recording information from individual dam safety inspections, FERC will be positioned to proactively identify comparable safety deficiencies across its portfolio and to tailor its inspections towards evaluating them  While FERC uses inspection information to monitor a licensee’s efforts to address a safety deficiency for an individual dam, FERC has not analyzed information collected from its dam safety inspections to evaluate safety risks across the entire regulated portfolio of dams  For example, FERC has not reviewed inspection information to identify common deficiencies among certain types of dams  Federal standards for internal control state that agencies should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to their objectives  These standards note that one method for management to identify risks is the consideration of deficiencies identified through audits and other assessments  Dam safety inspections are an example of such an assessment  As part of such an approach, the agency analyzes risks to estimate their significance, which provides a basis for responding to the risk through specific actions  Furthermore, in our previous work on federal facilities, we have identified that an advanced use of risk management involving the ability to gauge risk across a portfolio of facilities could allow stakeholders to comprehensively identify and prioritize risks at a national level and direct resources toward alleviating them  FERC officials stated that they have not conducted a portfolio-wide analysis in part due to the inconsistency of recorded inspection data and because such an evaluation has not been a priority compared to inspecting individual dams  According to officials, the FERC headquarters office collects and reviews information semi-annually from each of its five regional offices on the progress of outstanding dam investigations and modifications in those regions  FERC’s review is designed to monitor the status of investigations on each individual dam but does not analyze risks across the portfolio of dams at the regional or national level  For example, officials from the New York Regional Office stated they do not perform trend analysis across the regional portfolio of dams under their authority, but they compile year-to-year data for each separate dam to show any progression or changes from previous data collected from individual dams  A portfolio-wide analysis could help FERC proactively identify safety risks and prioritize them at a national level  FERC officials stated that a proactive analysis of its portfolio could be useful to determining how to focus its inspections to alleviate safety risks, but it was not an action that FERC had taken to date  The benefits of a proactive analysis, for example, could be similar to those FERC derived from the analysis it conducted in reaction to the Oroville Dam incident  To conduct this analysis, FERC required 184 project licensees, identified by FERC regional offices as having spillways similar to the failed spillway at the Oroville Dam, to assess the spillways’ safety and capacity  According to FERC officials, these assessments identified 27 dam spillways with varying degrees of safety concerns  They stated that FERC’s spillway assessment initiative was a success because they were able to target a specific subgroup of dams within the portfolio and identify these safety concerns at 27 dam spillways  FERC officials stated that they are working with the dam licensees to address these safety concerns  A similar and proactive approach based on analysis of common deficiencies across the portfolio of dams under FERC’s authority could also help to identify any safety risks that may not have been targeted during the inspections of individual dams and prior to a safety incident  As directed by FERC, licensees and their consultants develop and review, or update, various engineering studies related to dam performance to help ensure their dams meet FERC requirements and remain safe  FERC regulations and guidelines describe the types and frequency of studies and analyses required based on dams’ hazard classifications  For all high hazard and some significant hazard dams, existing studies are to be reviewed by each licensee’s consultants every 5 years, as part of the independent consultant inspection and accompanying potential failure mode analysis  According to FERC officials, for those significant hazard dams that do not require an independent consultant inspection and for low hazard dams, FERC’s regulations and guidelines do not require any studies, but in practice FERC directs many licensees to conduct them  FERC also may request engineering studies in response to dam safety incidents at other projects, or engage a board of consultants to oversee the completion of a study  For example, as previously noted, following the Oroville Dam incident in 2017, FERC requested a special assessment of all dams with spillways similar to the failed spillway at the Oroville Dam  To develop these studies, all six of the consultants we interviewed stated that they follow guidelines provided by FERC and other dam safety agencies  Specifically, they stated that they use FERC’s Engineering Guidelines, which provide engineering principles to guide the development and review of engineering studies  In recognition of the unique characteristics of each dam, including its construction, geography, and applicable loading conditions, the Guidelines provides consultants with flexibility to apply engineering judgment, and as a result, the approach that licensees and their consultants use and the focus of their reviews of engineering studies may vary across regions or projects  For example, one independent consultant we interviewed noted that seismicity studies are not highlighted during the independent consultant inspections for projects in the Upper Midwest in comparison to projects in other areas of the country because the region is not seismically active, but that inspections do look closely at ice loads during the winter months  To create these studies, we found that licensees and their consultants generally use data from other federal agencies and rely on available modeling tools developed by federal agencies and the private sector to evaluate dam performance  For example, many of the engineering studies we reviewed rely on data from the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to estimate precipitation patterns and the U S  Geological Survey to estimate seismic activity  In addition, licensees and their consultants use modeling tools and simulations, such as those developed by the Corps to estimate hydrology, to develop engineering studies  FERC staff noted that the engineering studies developed by licensees and their consultants generally focus on the analysis of extreme events, such as earthquakes and floods  In reference to extreme events, FERC staff said that both actual past events and likely future events are considered in determining their magnitude  FERC staff noted the probable maximum flood—the flood that would be expected to result from the most extreme combination of reasonably possible meteorological and hydrological conditions—as an example of a dam design criterion that is based on application of analysis of extreme events  In describing the efficacy of probable maximum flood calculations, FERC officials stated that they had not observed a flood that exceeded the probable maximum flood calculated for any dam and noted that their Engineering Guidelines provides a conservative approach to estimating the probable maximum flood and other extreme events  FERC officials stated that requiring a conservative approach to estimating extreme events helps to mitigate the substantial uncertainty associated with these events, including in consideration of emerging data estimating the effects of climate change on extreme weather events  Once developed, engineering studies we reviewed often remained in effect for a number of years, until FERC or the licensee and its consultant determined an update was required  For example, we found that the hydrology studies were 20 years or older for 17 of the 42 dams in our review, including for 9 of the 16 high hazard dams in our sample  FERC’s Engineering Guidelines states that studies should be updated as appropriate  For example, FERC’s Engineering Guidelines on hydrology studies state that previously accepted flood studies are not required to be reevaluated unless it is determined that a re-analysis is warranted  The Guidelines notes that FERC or the consultant may consider reanalyzing the study for several reasons, including if they identify (1) significant errors in the original study; (2) new data that may significantly alter previous study results; or (3) significant changes in the conditions of the drainage basin  FERC staff and consultants we interviewed stated that age alone is not a primary criterion to update or replace studies and that studies should be updated as needed depending on several factors including age, new or additional data, and professional judgment  Consultants we interviewed identified some limitations that can affect their ability to develop engineering studies for a dam  For example, they noted that some dams may lack original design information, used prior to construction of the dam, which includes the assumptions and calculations used to determine the type and size of dam, the amount of water storage capacity, and information on the pre-construction site geology and earthquake potential  FERC officials estimated that for a large percentage of the dams they relicense, the original information is no longer available  For example, according to the report from the independent forensic team investigating the Oroville Dam incident and as previously noted, some design drawings and construction records for the dam’s spillway could not be located and some other documents that were available were not included in the most recent independent consultant inspection report submitted to FERC  To overcome the lack of original design information, FERC told us that licensees and their consultants may use teams of experts, advanced data collection techniques, and other modern methods, where feasible, to assess the dam’s ability to perform given current environmental conditions  In cases where design or other engineering information is incomplete, consultants stated that they generally recommend the licensee conduct additional studies based on the risk presented by the missing information but also noted that the financial resources of a licensee may affect its willingness and ability to conduct additional studies  However, FERC officials stated that FERC staff are ultimately responsible for making decisions on whether additional engineering studies are needed to evaluate a dam’s performance  FERC has established policies and procedures that use formal guidance, and permit the use of professional judgment, to evaluate and review engineering studies of dam performance submitted by licensees and their consultants  FERC officials in both the headquarters and regional offices emphasized that their role as the regulator is to review and validate engineering studies developed by the licensee and their consultants  FERC generally does not develop engineering studies as officials noted that dam safety, including the development of engineering studies, is primarily the licensee’s responsibility  To carry out their responsibility to ensure public safety, FERC staff stated they use procedures and criteria in the FERC Engineering Guidelines to review engineering studies and apply professional judgment to leverage their specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities to support their determinations of dam safety  FERC’s Engineering Guidelines provides a framework for the review of engineering studies, though the Guidelines recognizes that each dam is unique and allows for flexibility and exemptions in their use  Moreover, the Guidelines notes that analysis of data is useful when evaluating a dam’s performance, but should not be used as a substitute for judgment based on experience and common sense  Because FERC’s Engineering Guidelines allows for the application of professional judgment, the methods used to review these studies vary depending on the staff, the region, and individual dam characteristics  For example, FERC staff said that when they review consultants’ assumptions, methods, calculations and conclusions, in some cases they may decide to conduct a sensitivity analysis if—based on the staff’s judgment—they need to take additional steps to validate or confirm factors of safety for the project  FERC officials also stated that staff may conduct their own independent analyses, as appropriate, such as evaluating a major structural change to the dam or validating submitted studies  For example, as part of its 2016 review of the Union Valley Dam in California, FERC staff validated the submitted hydrology study by independently calculating key inputs, such as precipitation rates and peak floods, to evaluate the dam’s performance and verify the spillway’s reported capacity  In addition, FERC has established various controls to help ensure the quality of its review, including using a risk-based review process, assigning multiple staff to review the studies, and rotating staff responsibilities over time  We have previously found in our reporting on other regulatory agencies that practices such as rotating staff in key decision-making roles, and including at least two supervisory staff when conducting oversight reviews help reduce threats to independence and regulatory capture  Risk-based review process  FERC’s review approach is risk-based, as the frequency of staff’s review of these studies is based on the hazard classification of the dam as well as professional judgment  FERC relies on three primary engineering studies (hydrology, seismicity, and stability), and others as appropriate, which form the basis for determining if a dam is safe  In addition, FERC requires licensees to hire a FERC-approved independent consulting engineer at least every 5 years to inspect and evaluate high hazard and other applicable dams and submit a report detailing the findings as part of the independent consultant inspection process  In general, for the dams we reviewed, we found that FERC staff reviewed engineering studies for dams subject to independent consultant inspections (which are typically high or significant hazard dams) more frequently than those engineering studies associated with dams for which FERC does not require an independent consultant inspection (typically low hazard dams)  For example, we found FERC staff had reviewed the most recent hydrology studies for all 22 high and significant hazard dams in our sample subject to independent consultant inspections within the last 6 years and documented their analysis  According to FERC officials, for dams not subject to an independent consultant inspection, FERC staff review engineering studies on an as needed basis, depending on whether the underlying assumptions and information from the previous studies are still relevant  For example, for the 20 dams in our study not subject to an independent consultant inspection, we found that most (15) of these studies were reviewed by FERC within the past 10 years, usually during the project’s relicensing  Multiple levels of supervisory review  As part of FERC’s quality control and internal oversight process, multiple FERC staff are to review the studies produced by the licensee and its consultant, with the number of successive reviews proportional to the complexity or importance of the study, according to FERC officials  FERC’s Operating Manual establishes the general procedure for the review of engineering studies  To begin the review process, the staff assigned to a dam is to review the engineering study and prepares an internal memo on its findings; that memo is then to be reviewed for accuracy and completeness by both a regional office Branch Chief, and the Regional Engineer  If necessary, Washington, D C , headquarters office staff are to review and approve the final memo  Upon completion of review, FERC staff are to provide a letter to the licensee indicating any particular areas where additional information is needed or where more studies are needed to evaluate the dam’s performance  According to FERC officials, each level of review adds successive quality control steps performed by experienced staff  We have previously found in reporting on other regulatory agencies that additional levels of review increases transparency and accountability and diminishes the risk of regulatory capture  Rotation of FERC staff responsibilities  As part of an internal quality control program to help minimize the risk of missing important safety- related items, FERC officials told us they rotate staff assignments and responsibilities approximately every 3 to 4 years  According to FERC officials, this practice decreases the chance that a deficiency would be missed over time due to differences in areas of engineering expertise between or among staff  We have previously found in our reporting on other regulatory agencies that strategies such as more frequently rotating staff in key roles can help reduce the risk to supervisory independence and regulatory capture  Some FERC regional offices have developed practices to further enhance their review of these studies  For example, the New York Regional Office established a subject matter expert team that helps review dams with unusually complex hydrology issues  This team was created, in part, because FERC staff noted that some of the hydrology studies conducted in the 1990s and 2000s were not as thorough as they would have wanted, and warranted a re-examination  Currently, the New York Regional Office is reviewing the hydrology analysis associated with 12 dam break studies to determine if the hydrology data used in developing these studies were as rigorously developed and validated  According to the FERC staff in this office, utilizing a team of subject matter experts has reduced Regional Office review time and improved the hydrology studies’ accuracy  FERC staff in the New York Regional Office also told us that they are working with other regional offices on setting up similar technical teams  For example, FERC staff in the New York Regional Office have been working with the Portland Regional Office to set up a similar team  FERC procedures require the use of engineering studies at key points over the dam’s licensing period to inform components of its safety oversight approach, including during the potential failure mode analyses of individual dams as well as during relicensing  Potential failure mode analysis  The potential failure mode analysis is to occur during the recurring independent consultant inspection and is conducted by the licensee’s independent consultant along with other key dam safety stakeholders  As previously explained, the analysis incorporates the engineering studies and identifies events that could cause a dam to potentially fail  During the potential failure mode analysis, FERC, the licensee, the consultant, and other key dam safety stakeholders are to refer to the engineering studies to establish environmental conditions that inform dam failure scenarios, the risks associated with these failures, and their consequences for an individual dam  Further, according to a FERC white paper on risk analysis, FERC is beginning to use information related to potential failure modes as inputs to an analysis tool that quantifies risks at each dam  With this information, FERC expects to make relative risk estimates of dams within its inventory and establish priorities for further study or remediation of risks at individual dams, according to the white paper  Relicensing  During relicensing, FERC staff are to review the engineering studies as well as information such as historical hydrological data and extreme weather events, which also inform their safety evaluation of the licensee’s application  FERC officials also stated that as a result of their relicensing review, they might alter the articles of the new license before it is issued should their reviews indicate that environmental conditions affecting the dam’s safety have changed  We found that FERC generally met its requirement to evaluate dam safety during the relicensing process for the 42 dams we reviewed  During the relicensing process, we found that for the dams we reviewed, FERC staff review safety information such as the past reports, inspections, and studies conducted by FERC, the licensee, and independent consultants and determine whether or not a dam owner operated and maintained its dam safely  According to FERC staff, the safety review for relicensing is generally a summary of prior safety and inspection information, rather than an analysis of new safety information, unless the licensee proposes a change to the operation or structure  FERC’s review during relicensing for the high hazard and significant hazard dams we reviewed was generally consistent with its guidance and safety memo template, though the extent of its review of low hazard dams varied  (See fig  3 ) For example, for the 22 high and significant hazard dams we reviewed, the safety relicensing memos followed the template and nearly all included summaries of hydrology studies, stability analyses, prior FERC inspections, and applicable independent consultant reports  For the 20 low hazard dams, FERC staff noted that some requirements in the template are not applicable or have been exempted and therefore were not reviewed during relicensing  While low hazard dams were more inconsistently reviewed during relicensing, FERC staff also noted that there has been a recent emphasis to more closely review, replace, or conduct engineering studies, such as the stability study, for low hazard dams during relicensing  Moreover, FERC staff told us that the safety risks associated with these dams are minimal, as the failure of a low hazard dam, by definition, does not pose a threat to human life or economic activity  According to FERC staff, if a licensee proposed altering the dam or its operations in any way as part of its application for a new license, FERC staff would review the proposed change and may recommend adding articles to the new license prior to its issuance to ensure dam safety  FERC officials noted that, as part of their review, any structural or operational changes proposed by the licensee during relicensing are reviewed by FERC  These officials also noted that FERC generally recommends modifications to the licensees’ proposed changes prior to their approval and inclusion in the new license  However, FERC officials noted that, in some cases, additional information is needed prior to approving the structural or operational change to ensure there are no risks posed by the changes  In those instances, FERC may recommend that articles be added to the new license, that require the licensee to conduct additional engineering studies of the issue and submit them to FERC for review and approval  For example, during the relicensing of the Otter Creek project in Vermont in 2014, the licensee proposed changes to the project’s operation resulting from construction  As a result, FERC’s staff recommended adding a number of articles to the license, including that the licensee conduct studies to evaluate the effect of the change on safety and to ensure safety during construction  During relicensing, third parties—such as environmental organizations, nearby residents and communities, and other federal agencies, such as the U S  Fish and Wildlife Service—may provide input on various topics related to the project, including safety  However, FERC officials said that very few third parties file studies or comments related to dam safety during relicensing  FERC’s template and guidance do not specifically require the consideration of such analyses as part of its safety review, and we did not identify any safety studies submitted by third parties for dams or reviewed by FERC in our sample  According to FERC officials, when stakeholders submit comments during relicensing, the comments tend to focus on environmental aspects of the project, such as adding passages for fish migration  Further, FERC is not required under the Federal Power Act to respond to any comments, including those related to dam safety, from third parties, according to FERC officials  However, according to FERC officials, courts have held that the Administrative Procedure Act precludes an agency from arbitrarily and capriciously ignoring issues raised in comments  Furthermore, these officials stated that if a court determines that FERC did not sufficiently address issues raised during the relicensing process, its orders are subject to being reversed and remanded by applicable United States courts of appeals  Moreover, FERC officials noted that the information needed to develop third party safety studies, such as the dam design drawings and engineering studies, are property of the licensee, rather than FERC  In addition, this information may not be readily available to third parties or the public if FERC designates it as critical energy infrastructure information, which would preclude its release to the general public  FERC staff we interviewed stated that there have been no instances where the Commission denied a new license to a licensee as a result of its safety review during relicensing  FERC staff stated that given the frequency of other inspections, including the FERC staff inspections, and independent consultant inspections, it is unlikely staff would find a previously unknown major safety issue during relicensing  FERC staff told us that rather than deny a license for safety deficiencies, FERC will keep a dam owner under the terms of a FERC license to better ensure the licensee remedies existing safety deficiencies  Specifically, FERC staff noted that under a license, FERC can ensure dam safety by (1) closely monitoring the deficiency’s remediation progress through its inspection program, (2) adding license terms in the new license tailored to the specific safety deficiency, and (3), as necessary, pursuing compliance and enforcement actions, such as civil penalties or stop work orders, to enforce the terms and conditions of the license  For example, prior to and during the relicensing of a FERC-licensed project in Wisconsin in 2014, FERC’s review identified that the spillway capacity was inadequate  While the project was relicensed in 2017 without changes to the spillway, FERC officials stated that they have been overseeing the plans and studies of the remediation of the spillway through their ongoing inspection program  However, if an imminent safety threat is identified during the relicensing review, FERC officials stated that they will order that the licensee take actions to remedy the issue immediately  Moreover, FERC officials noted that, if necessary, a license can be revoked for failure to comply with the terms of its license  FERC designed a multi-layered safety approach—which uses inspections, studies, and other assessments of individual dams—to reduce exposure to safety risks  However, as the spillway failure at the Oroville Dam project in 2017 demonstrated, it is not possible to eliminate all uncertainties and risks  As part of a continuing effort to ensure dam safety at licensed projects, FERC could complement its approach to evaluating the safety of individual dams by enhancing its capability to assess and identify the risks across its portfolio of licensed dams  Specifically, while FERC has collected and stored a substantial amount of information from its individual dam safety inspections, FERC’s approach to recording this information is inconsistent due to a lack of standard language and procedures  By clarifying its approach to the recording of information collected during inspections, FERC officials could help ensure that the information recorded is comparable when shared across its regions  Moreover, the absence of standard language and procedures to consistently record inspection information impedes a broader, portfolio- wide analysis of the extent of and characteristics associated with common safety deficiencies identified during FERC inspections  While FERC has not yet conducted such an analysis, a proactive assessment of common safety inspection deficiencies across FERC’s portfolio of licensed dams— similar to its identification of dam spillways with safety concerns following the Oroville Dam incident—could help FERC and its licensees identify safety risks prior to a safety incident and to develop approaches to mitigate those risks  We are making the following two recommendations to FERC: FERC should provide standard language and procedures to its staff on how to record information collected during inspections, including how and where to record information about safety deficiencies, in order to facilitate analysis of safety deficiencies across FERC’s portfolio of regulated dams  (Recommendation 1) FERC should use information from its inspections to assess safety risks across its portfolio of regulated dams to identify and prioritize safety risks at a national level  (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to FERC for review and comment  In its comments on the draft report, FERC said it generally agreed with the draft report’s findings and found the recommendations to be constructive  FERC said that it would direct staff to develop appropriate next steps to implement GAO’s recommendations  These comments are reproduced in appendix IV  In addition, FERC provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to the Chairman of FERC and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at 202-512-2834 or vonaha@gao gov  Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V  FERC seeks to ensure licensees’ compliance with FERC regulations and license requirements, including remediating safety deficiencies, by using a mix of preventative strategies to help identify situations before they become problems and reactive strategies such as issuing penalties  As part of its efforts, FERC published a compliance handbook in 2015 that provides an overall guide to compliance and enforcement of a variety of license requirements, including dam safety  The handbook includes instructions for implementing FERC rules, regulations, policies, and programs designed to ensure effective compliance with license conditions, which include dam safety, to protect and enhance beneficial public uses of waterways  FERC developed a range of enforcement actions, that include holding workshops to encourage compliance and issuing guidance, that increase in severity depending on the non- compliance issue  (See fig  4 ) More broadly, FERC’s guidance directs officials to determine enforcement actions and time frames for those actions on a case-by-case basis, depending on the characteristics of the specific compliance issue  According to FERC officials, many of these safety compliance discussions are handled informally  In addition, their compliance approach emphasizes activities that assist, rather than force, licensees to achieve compliance, according to its guidance  These activities include facilitating open lines of communication with licensees, participating in technical workshops, and publishing brochures and guidance documents, among other efforts  Also, according to these officials, FERC works with licensees to provide guidance and warnings of possible non-compliance matters, in order to avoid usage of any enforcement tools, if possible  According to FERC officials, any safety issues that endanger the public will result in immediate penalty or removal of the dam from power generation, but this action is not lightly taken  Additionally, the length of time between when a safety deficiency is identified and is resolved varies substantially depending on the specific project  As stated earlier in this report, FERC works with licensees to determine a plan and schedule for investigating safety issues and making any needed modifications  However, FERC officials stated that the majority of safety compliance issues are resolved within a month  However, FERC officials stated that if a licensee repeatedly does not take steps to address a compliance issue, FERC will explore enforcement actions through a formal process  According to officials, FERC’s enforcement options are based on authorities provided under the Federal Power Act and such options are flexible because of the variation in hazards, consequences, and dams  According to FERC officials, to ensure compliance with safety regulations, if a settlement cannot be reached, FERC may, among other things, issue an order to show cause, issue civil penalties in the form of fines to licensees, impose stop work or cease power generation orders, revoke licenses, and seek injunctions in federal court  Nevertheless, FERC officials stated that there is no specific requirement for how quickly the compliance issues or deficiencies should be resolved and that some issues can take years to resolve  For example, in 2004, the current licensee of a hydroelectric project operating in Edenville, Michigan, acquired the project, which was found by FERC to be in a state of non-compliance at that time  FERC staff made numerous attempts to work with the licensee to resolve the compliance issues  However, they were unable to resolve these issues and as a result issued a cease generation order in 2017, followed in 2018 by a license revocation order  In practice, FERC’s use of these enforcement tools to resolve safety issues has been fairly limited, particularly in comparison to other license compliance issues, according to FERC officials  Since 2013, FERC has issued one civil penalty for a safety-related hydropower violation and has issued compliance orders on eight other projects for safety-related reasons, including orders to cease generation on three projects  For the 14 projects and 42 dams we reviewed, FERC licensees and their consultants used a variety of tools to develop engineering studies of dam performance (see table 3)  These tools included programs and modeling tools developed by government agencies, such as the U S  Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), as well as commercially available modeling tools  FERC officials stated that they also used a number of the same tools used by its licensees and consultants  Similarly, for the 14 projects and 42 dams we reviewed, FERC licensees and their consultants used a variety of datasets to develop engineering studies of dam performance (see table 4)  These datasets included data maintained and updated by various government agencies, including the United States Geological Survey and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  FERC officials stated that they also used a number of the same datasets used by its licensees and consultants  This report assesses: (1) how FERC collects information from its dam safety inspections and the extent to which FERC analyzes it; (2) how FERC evaluates engineering studies of dam performance to analyze safety, and (3) the extent to which FERC reviews dam safety information during relicensing and the information FERC considers  This report also includes information on FERC actions to ensure licensee compliance with license requirements related to dam safety (app  I) and selected models and data sets used to develop and evaluate engineering studies of dam performance (app  II)  For each of the objectives, we reviewed laws, regulations, FERC guidance, templates, and other documentation pertaining to FERC’s evaluation of dam safety  In addition, we reviewed an independent forensic team’s assessment of the causes of the Oroville Dam incident, including the report’s analysis of FERC’s approach to ensuring safety at the project, to understand any limitations of FERC’s approach identified by the report  We also reviewed dam safety documentation, including dam performance studies, FERC memorandums, the most recent completed inspection report, and other information, from a non-probability sample of 14 projects encompassing 42 dams relicensed from fiscal years 2014 through 2017  (See table 5 ) We selected these projects and dams to include ones that were geographically dispersed, had varying potential risks associated with their potential failure, and had differences in the length of their relicensing process  We developed a data collection instrument to collect information from the dam safety documentation and analyzed data from the sample to evaluate the extent to which FERC followed its dam safety guidance across the selected projects  To develop the data collection instrument, we reviewed and incorporated FERC oversight requirements from its regulations, guidance, and templates  We conducted three pre-tests of the instrument, and revised the instrument after each pre-test  To ensure consistency and accuracy in the collection of this information, for each dam in the sample, one analyst conducted an initial review of the dam safety documentation; a second analyst reviewed the information independently; and the two analysts reconciled any differences  Following our review of the information from the dam safety documentation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with FERC engineering staff associated with each of the 14 projects and 42 dams to obtain information about FERC’s inspections, review of dam performance studies, and analysis of safety during the relicensing of these projects  Our interviews with these FERC staff provided insight into FERC’s dam safety oversight approach and are not generalizable to all projects  We also interviewed FERC officials responsible for dam safety about dam safety practices  In addition, to review how FERC collects information from its dam safety inspections and the extent to which FERC analyzes it, we also reviewed inspection data from FERC’s information management systems from fiscal years 2014 through 2017  To assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed guidance and interviewed FERC officials  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes  We compared FERC’s approach to collecting, recording and using safety information to federal internal control standards for the design of information systems and related control activities  We also reviewed our prior work on portfolio- level risk management  To evaluate how FERC evaluates engineering studies of dam performance to analyze dam safety, we reviewed FERC policies and guidance  We interviewed six independent consultants having experience inspecting and analyzing FERC-regulated dams to understand how engineering studies of dam performance are developed  We selected consultants who had submitted an inspection report to FERC recently (between December 2017 and February 2018) based on the geographic location of the project they reviewed and experience conducting these inspections, and the number of reports submitted to FERC over this time period  (See table 6 ) Our interviews with these consultants provided insight into FERC’s approach to conducting and reviewing studies and are not generalizable to all projects or consultants  To evaluate the extent to which FERC reviews dam safety information during relicensing and the information it considers, we reviewed templates developed by FERC to assess safety during the relicensing and analyzed the extent to which staff followed guidance in these templates for the 14 projects and 42 dams in our sample  We also interviewed stakeholders, including the National Hydropower Association and Friends of the River to obtain general perspectives on FERC’s relicensing approach  Our interviews with these stakeholders provided insight into FERC’s approach to relicensing, and these views are not generalizable across all stakeholders  To review actions to ensure licensee compliance with license requirements related to dam safety, we reviewed FERC’s guidance related to compliance and enforcement and interviewed FERC officials responsible for implementation of the guidance  To review information on models and datasets used to develop and evaluate engineering studies of dam performance, we reviewed dam safety documentation associated with the projects in our sample (described previously), reviewed FERC documentation, and interviewed FERC officials  We conducted this performance audit from July 2017 to October 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  Andrew Von Ah, (202) 512-2834 or vonaha@gao gov  In addition to the contact named above, Mike Armes (Assistant Director); Matt Voit (Analyst-in-Charge); David Blanding; Brian Chung; Geoff Hamilton; Vondalee Hunt; Rich Johnson; Jon Melhus; Monique Nasrallah; Madhav Panwar; Malika Rice; Sandra Sokol; and Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report 


Report 2:  These centers, which can shelter as many as 20 youth, are generally supposed to be located in areas that are frequented or easily reached by runaway and homeless youth  BCP grantees must make efforts to contact the parents and relatives of runaway and homeless youth  Grantees are also required to establish relationships with law enforcement, health and mental health care, social service, welfare, and school district systems to coordinate services  Grantees maintain confidential statistical records of youth, including youth who are not referred to out-of-home shelter services  Further, grantees are required to submit an annual report to HHS detailing the program activities and the number of youth participating in such activities, as well as information about the operation of the centers  BCP grants are allocated directly to grantees for a three-year period  Funding is generally distributed to entities based on the proportion of the nation's youth under age 18 in the jurisdiction where the entities are located  The 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico each receive a minimum allotment of $200,000  Separately, the territories (currently, this includes American Samoa and Guam) each receive a minimum of $70,000  The amount of funding for each state or territory can further depend on whether grant applicants in that jurisdiction applied for funding, and if so, whether the applicant fulfilled the requirements in the authorizing law and grant application  For example, the authorizing law directs HHS to give priority to applicants who have demonstrated experience in providing services to runaway and homeless youth  HHS is to re-allot any funds designated for grantees in one state to grantees in other states that will not be obligated before the end of a fiscal year  See Table A-1 for the amount of funding allocated for each state in FY2017 and FY2018  The costs of the BCP are shared by the federal government (90%) and grantees (10%)  In FY2008, HHS began funding a three-year Rural Host Homes Demonstration Project , which was initiated to expand BCP shelter and support services to runaway and homeless youth who live in rural areas not served by shelter facilities  The project supported grantees that provided youth with shelter (via host home families who were recruited, screened, and trained) and preventive services, including transportation, counseling, educational assistance, and aftercare planning, among others  Over the course of the three years, the project served 781 youth, 411 of whom received shelter and 370 of whom received preventive services without shelter  Recognizing the difficulty that youth face in becoming self-sufficient adults, the Transitional Living Program provides longer-term shelter and assistance for youth ages 16 through 22 (or older if the youth entered the TLP prior to reaching age 22) who may leave their biological homes due to family conflict, or have left and are not expected to return home  Pregnant and/or parenting youth are eligible for TLP services  In FY2017, the TLP provided services to 3,517 youth  In FY2018, the program funded 229 organizations  Each TLP grantee may shelter up to 20 youth at various sites, such as host family homes, supervised apartments owned by a social service agency, scattered-site apartments, or single-occupancy apartments rented directly with the assistance of the grantee  Youth may remain at TLP sites for up to 540 days (18 months), or longer for youth under age 18  Youth ages 16 through 22 may remain in the program for a continuous period of 635 days (approximately 21 months) under "exceptional circumstances " This term means circumstances in which a youth would benefit to an unusual extent from additional time in the program  A youth in a TLP who has not reached age 18 on the last day of the 635-day period may, in exceptional circumstances and if otherwise qualified for the program, remain in the program until his or her 18 th birthday  Youth receive several types of services at TLP-funded programs: basic life-skills training, including consumer education and instruction in budgeting and the use of credit; parenting support and child care (as appropriate); building interpersonal skills; educational opportunities, such as GED courses and postsecondary training; assistance in job preparation and attainment; and mental and physical health care services  TLP grantees are required to develop a written plan designed to help youth transition to living independently or another appropriate living arrangement, and they are to refer youth to other systems that can help to meet their educational, health care, and social service needs  The grantees must also submit an annual report to HHS that includes information regarding the activities carried out with funds and the number and characteristics of the homeless youth  As part of the FY2002 budget request, the George W  Bush Administration proposed a $33 million initiative to fund maternity group homes—or centers that provide shelter to pregnant and parenting teens who are vulnerable to abuse and neglect—as a component of the TLP  Although the TLP authorized services for pregnant and parenting teens prior to FY2002, the Bush Administration sought funds specifically to serve this population  Increased funds were ultimately provided to enable these youth to access TLP services  The 2003 amendments to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act ( P L  108-96 ) provided explicit authority to use TLP funds for this purpose  Since FY2004, funding for adult-supervised transitional living arrangements that serve pregnant or parenting women ages 16 to 21 and their children has been awarded to organizations that receive TLP grants  These organizations provide youth with parenting skills, including child development education, family budgeting, health and nutrition, and other skills to promote family well-being  TLP grants are distributed competitively by HHS to community-based public and private organizations throughout the country for a five-year period  Grantees must provide at least 10% of the total cost of the program  HHS is carrying out a study to learn more about the long-term outcomes of 1,250 youth who have used TLP services  The study seeks to describe the outcomes and to isolate and describe promising practices and other factors that may contribute to their successes or challenges  Of particular interest for the study is how services are delivered, the demographics of youth, and their socio-emotional wellness and life experiences  It involves both a process evaluation and impact evaluation, with youth randomly assigned to the treatment (i e , participation in the TLP) and control groups  The study seeks to address the following questions: (1) How do TLP programs operate, what types of program models are used to deliver services, and what services are delivered to homeless youth? (2) What are the long-term housing outcomes and protective factors for youth who participate in the TLP program immediately, six months, 12 months, and 18 months after exiting the program? (3) What interventions can be attributed to any positive outcomes experienced by youth who participate in the TLP? According to HHS, the pilot study revealed challenges "in collecting data from a large enough sample size of youth to detect any effects so that conclusions could be drawn about the impact of homeless youth served by TLPs " HHS is not certain how it will move forward with the study  In FY2016, HHS began the Transitional Living Program Special Population Demonstration project  The project funded nine grantees over a two-year period that tested approaches for serving populations that need additional support: LGBTQ runaway and homeless youth ages 16 to 21; and young adults who have left foster care because of emancipation  Grantees were expected to provide strategies that help youth build protective factors, such as connections with schools, employment, and appropriate family members and other caring adults  According to HHS, a process evaluation will assess how grantees are implementing the demonstration project  HHS separately funded a project from FY2012 through FY2014 to build the capacity of TLPs in serving LGBTQ youth  Known as the 3/40 Blueprint: Creating the Blueprint to Reduce LGBTQ Youth Homelessness , the purpose of the grant was develop information about serving the LGBTQ youth population experiencing homelessness, such as through efforts to identify innovative intervention strategies, determine culturally appropriate screening and assessment tools, and better understand the needs of LGBTQ youth served by RHY providers  The website developed by the grantee, the University of Illinois at Chicago, identifies promising practices that serve LGBTQ youth who are experiencing homelessness and publishes information about their challenges  In FY2009, HHS began the Support Systems for Rural Homeless Youth Demonstration Project   Six states received grants to support TLPs in rural communities in serving young adults who have few or no connections to a supportive family structure or community resources  The five-year project sought to provide services across three main areas: survival support, which includes housing, health care (including mental health), and substance abuse treatment and prevention; community, which includes community service, youth and adult partnerships, mentoring, and peer support groups; and education and employment, which includes high school or GED completion, postsecondary education, and job training and employment  The six states—Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Vermont—each received annual grants of $200,000  According to HHS, all of the sites engaged youth in positive youth development activities that included safe places for youth to go  In addition, they raised awareness about homelessness in rural areas and addressed some of the unique needs around employment, housing, and transportation  However, the sites also confirmed that there is a general lack of available housing for homeless youth and that transportation was the most critical impediment to serving these youth  The Street Outreach Program provides runaway and homeless youth living on the streets or in areas that increase their risk of using drugs or being subjected to sexual abuse, prostitution, sexual exploitation, and trafficking are eligible to receive services  The program's goal is to assist youth in transitioning to safe and appropriate living arrangements  SOP services include the following: treatment and counseling; crisis intervention; drug abuse and exploitation prevention and education activities; survival aid; street-based education and outreach; information and referrals; and follow-up support  Grants are awarded for a three-year period, and grantees must provide 10% of the funds to cover the cost of the program  In FY2018, 96 grantees were funded  In FY2017 grantees made contact with 24,366 youth  The Family and Youth Services Bureau initiated the Street Outreach Program Data Collection Project in 2012 to learn more about the lives and needs of homeless and runaway youth served by SOP grantees  The purpose of the project was to design services to better meet the needs of these youth  FYSB collected information through focus groups and computer-assisted personal interviews with 656 youth (ages 14 to 21 years) served by grantees in 11 cities  The project found that participants were homeless on average for nearly two years and had challenges with substance abuse, mental health, and exposure to trauma  Youth most identified that they were in need of job training or help finding a job, transportation assistance, and clothing  The top barriers to obtaining shelter were shelters being full, not knowing where to go for shelter, and lacking transportation to get to a shelter  The study researchers concluded that more emergency shelters could help prevent youth from sleeping on the street  Further, they noted that youth on the streets need more intensive case management (e g , careful assessment and treatment planning, linkages to community resources, etc ) and more intensive interventions  HHS funds the Runaway and Homeless Youth Training and Technical Assistance Center (RHYTTAC) to provide technical assistance to RHYP grantees  HHS awarded a five-year cooperative agreement, from September 30, 2017, through September 29, 2020, to National Safe Place to operate RHYTTAC  National Safe Place is a national youth outreach program that aims to educate young people about the dangers of running away or trying to resolve difficult, threatening situations on their own  RHYTTAC is designed to provide training and conference services to RHYP grantees that enhance and promote continuous quality improvement to services provided by RHYP grantees  Further, RHYTTAC offers resources and information through its website, tip sheets, a quarterly newsletter, toolkits, sample policies and procedures, and other resources  RHYTTAC also provides assistance to individual grantees in response to their questions or concerns, as well as concerns raised by HHS as part of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Monitoring System (see subsequent section)  A portion of the funds for the BCP, TLP, and related activities are allocated for a national communications system known as the National Runaway Safeline ("Safeline")  The Safeline is intended to help homeless and runaway youth (or youth who are contemplating running away) through counseling, referrals, and communicating with their families  Beginning with FY1974 and every year after, the Safeline, which until 2013 was called the National Runaway Switchboard, has been funded through the Basic Center Program grant or the Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grant  The Safeline is located in Chicago and operates each day to provide services to youth and their families across the country  Services include (1) a channel through which runaway and homeless youth or their parents may leave messages; (2) 24-hour referrals to community resources, including shelter, community food banks, legal assistance, and social services agencies; and (3) crisis intervention counseling to youth  In calendar year 2017, the Safeline handled nearly 30,000 contacts with youth (via phone, computer, emails, and postings), of which nearly three-quarters were from youth and 9% were from parents; the other callers were relatives, friends, and others  Other services are also provided through the Safeline  Since 1995, the "Home Free" family reunification program has provided bus tickets for youth ages 12 to 21 to return home or to an alternative placement near their home through Home Free  HHS evaluates each RHYP grantee through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Monitoring System  Staff from regional ACF offices and other grant recipients (known as peer reviewers) inspect the program site, conduct interviews, review case files and other agency documents, and conduct entry and exit conferences  The monitoring team then prepares a written report that identifies the strengths of the program and areas that require corrective action  The Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act of 2008 required that within one year of its enactment (October 8, 2009), HHS was to issue rules that specified performance standards for public and nonprofit entities that receive BCP, TLP, and SOP grants  On April 14, 2014, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the new performance standards and other requirements for the Runaway and Homeless youth program grantees  On December 20, 2016, HHS implemented a final rule that was similar to the provisions in the NPRM  These standards are used to monitor individual grantee performance  The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) and the House Committee on Education and Labor have exercised jurisdiction over the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program  HHS must submit reports biennially to the committees on the status, activities, and accomplishments of program grant recipients and evaluations of the programs performed by HHS  The most recent report was submitted in January 2018, and covered FY2014 and FY2015  The 2003 reauthorization law ( P L  108-96 ) of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act required that HHS, in consultation with the U S  Interagency Council on Homelessness, submit a report to Congress on the promising strategies to end youth homelessness within two years of the reauthorization, in October 2005  The report was submitted to Congress in June 2007  As mentioned above, the 2008 reauthorization law ( P L  110-378 ) required HHS, as of FY2010, to periodically submit to Congress an incidence and prevalence study of runaway and homeless youth ages 13 to 26, as well as the characteristics of a representative sample of these youth  As discussed, Congress appropriated funding to HUD for this purpose and the study, known as Voices of Youth Count , includes multiple publications about its findings  The 2008 law also directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate the process by which organizations apply for BCP, TLP, and SOP, including HHS's response to these applicants  GAO submitted a report to Congress in May 2010 on its findings  GAO found weaknesses in several of the procedures for reviewing grants, such as that peer reviewers for the grant did not always have expertise in runaway and homeless youth issues and feedback on grants was not provided in a permanent record  In addition, GAO found that HHS delayed telling successful grantees that the grant had been awarded to them  HHS has implemented the recommendations made in the report  Appendix A  Basic Center Program (BCP) Funding Appendix B  Additional Federal Support for Runaway and Homeless Youth Since the creation of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, other federal initiatives have also established services for such youth  Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program (YHDP): The omnibus appropriations laws for FY2016 through FY2018 enabled HUD to set aside up to $33 million (FY2016), $43 million (FY2017), and $80 million (FY2018) from the Homeless Assistance Grants account to implement projects that demonstrate how a "comprehensive approach" can "dramatically reduce" homelessness for youth through age 24  The appropriations laws each fiscal year direct this funding to up to 10 communities with the FY2016 funding; up to 11 communities with the FY2017 funding, including at least five rural communities; and up to 25 communities with the FY2018 funding, including at least eight rural communities  HUD has allocated $33 million to 10 communities for FY2016 and $43 million for FY2017  In addition, HUD is taking steps to evaluate the YHDP grantee communities in developing and carrying out a coordinated community approach to preventing and ending youth homelessness  100-Day Challenges to End Youth Homelessness : Since 2016, cities have partnered with public and private entities to accelerate efforts to prevent and end youth homelessness  A Way Home America and Rapid Results Institute, organizations that focus on pressing social problems, have provided support to the organizations  HHS provided training and technical assistance through RHYTTAC to the first three cities involved in the challenge: Los Angeles, CA; Cleveland, OH; and Austin, TX  In general, participating communities have housed homeless youth and have identified new housing options for this population  Youth with Child Welfare Involvement At-Risk of Homelessness (YAHR): HHS has funded grants to build evidence on what works to prevent homelessness among youth and young adults who have child welfare involvement  HHS awarded funds to 18 grantees for a two-year planning period (2013-2015)  Six of the grantees received additional funding to refine and test their service models during a second phase (2015-2018)  A subset of those grantees will then be selected to conduct a rigorous evaluation of their impact on homelessness  In school year 2016-2017, more than 1 3 million children and youth were homeless  Of these students, over 118,000 were homeless youth unaccompanied by their families  The Department of Education administers the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program, which was established under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 ( P L  100-77 ), as amended  This program assists state education agencies (SEAs) to ensure that all homeless children and youth have equal access to the same, appropriate education, including public preschool education, that is provided to other children and youth  Grants made by SEAs to local education agencies (LEAs) under this program must be used to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of homeless children and youth  Program funds may be appropriated for activities such as tutoring, supplemental instruction, and referral services for homeless children and youth, as well as providing them with medical, dental, mental, and other health services  McKinney-Vento liaisons for homeless children and youth in each LEA is responsible for coordinating activities for these youth with other entities and agencies, including local Basic Center and Transitional Living Program grantees  States that receive McKinney-Vento funds are prohibited from segregating homeless students from non-homeless students, except for short periods of time for health and safety emergencies or to provide temporary, special, supplemental services  FY2019 funding for the program is $93 5 million  According to a 2017 survey of 43,000 college students at selected colleges and universities, 9% of those attending four-year universities and 12% of those attending community college had been homeless in the last year  In addition, 37% of university students and 46% of community college students were housing insecure in the past year, meaning that they had difficulty paying rent or lived with others beyond the expected capacity of the housing, among other scenarios  The Higher Education Act (HEA) authorizes financial aid and support programs that target homeless students and other vulnerable populations  For purposes of applying for federal financial aid, a student's expected family contribution (EFC) is the amount that can be expected to be contributed by a student and the student's family toward his or her cost of education  Certain groups of students are considered "independent," meaning that only the income and assets of the student (and not their parents or guardians) are counted  Individuals under age 24 who have been verified during the school year as either (1) unaccompanied and homeless or (2) unaccompanied, self-supporting, and risk of homelessness  This verification can come from a McKinney-Vento liaison for homeless children and youth in the local education agency; the director (or designee) of a program funded under the Runaway and Homeless Youth program; the director (or designee) of an emergency shelter or transitional housing program funded by HUD; or a financial aid administrator  Separately, HEA provides that homeless children and youth are eligible for what are collectively called the federal TRIO programs  This includes the following TRIO programs: Talent Search, Upward Bound, Student Support Services, and Educational Opportunity Centers  The TRIO programs are designed to identify potential postsecondary students from disadvantaged backgrounds, prepare these students for higher education, provide certain support services to them while they are in college, and train individuals who provide these services  HEA directs the Department of Education (ED), which administers the programs, to (as appropriate) require applicants seeking TRIO funds to identify and make services available, including mentoring, tutoring, and other services, to these youth  TRIO funds are awarded by ED on a competitive basis  In addition, HEA authorizes services for homeless youth through TRIO Student Support Services—a program intended to improve the retention and graduation rates of disadvantaged college students—that include temporary housing during breaks in the academic year  In FY2019, TRIO appropriations are $1 1 billion  Separately, HEA allows additional uses of funds through the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) to establish demonstration projects that provide comprehensive support services for students who are or were homeless at age 13 or older  FIPSE is a grant program that seeks to support the implementation of innovative educational reform ideas and evaluate how well they work  As specified in the law, the projects can provide housing to the youth when housing at an educational institution is closed or unavailable to other students  FY2019 appropriations for FIPSE are $5 million  Recently emancipated foster youth are vulnerable to becoming homeless  In FY2017, nearly 20,000 youth "aged out" of foster care  The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP), created under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 ( P L  106-169 ), provides states with funding to support children and youth ages 14 to 21 who are in foster care and former foster youth ages 18 to 21 (and up to age 23 in states that extend foster care to age 21)  States are authorized to receive funds based on their share of the total number of children in foster care nationwide  However, the law's "hold harmless" clause precludes any state from receiving less than the amount of funds it received in FY1998 or $500,000, whichever is greater  The program specifies funding for transitional living services, and as much as 30% of the funds may be dedicated to room and board  The program is funded through mandatory spending, and as such $140 million ($143 million as of FY2020) is provided for the program each year through the annual appropriations process  The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), Title III of the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 ( P L  98-457 ), authorized funds for Family Violence Prevention and Service grants that work to prevent family violence, improve service delivery to address family violence, and increase knowledge and understanding of family violence  From FY2007 to FY2009, one of these projects focused on runaway and homeless youth in dating violence situations through HHS's Domestic Violence/Runaway and Homeless Youth Collaboration on the Prevention of Adolescent Dating Violence initiative  The initiative was created because many runaway and homeless youth come from homes where domestic violence occurs and may be at risk of abusing their partners or becoming victims of abuse  The initiative funded eight states and community-based organizations to address the issue of teen dating violence among runaway and homeless youth  The grants funded activities such as curriculum on dating violence, small groups for teens, and a sexual assault/dating violence reduction program  The initiative resulted in an online toolkit for advocates in the runaway and homeless youth and domestic and sexual assault fields to help programs better address relationship violence with runaway and homeless youth 

ground_truth: This report discusses runaway and homeless youth, and the federal response to support this population. There is no single definition of the terms "runaway youth" or "homeless youth." However, both groups of youth share the risk of not having adequate shelter and other provisions, and may engage in harmful behaviors while away from a permanent home. Youth most often cite family conflict as the major reason for their homelessness or episodes of running away. A youth's sexual orientation, sexual activity, school problems, and substance abuse are associated with family discord. The precise number of homeless and runaway youth is unknown due to their residential mobility and overlap among the populations. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is supporting data collection efforts, known as Voices of Youth Count, to better determine the number of homeless youth. The 2017 study found that approximately 700,000 youth ages 13 to 17 and 3.5 million young adults ages 18 to 25 experienced homelessness within a 12-month period because they were sleeping in places not meant for habitation, in shelters, or with others while lacking alternative living arrangements. From the early 20th century through the 1960s, the needs of runaway and homeless youth were handled locally through the child welfare agency, juvenile justice courts, or both. The 1970s marked a shift toward federal oversight of programs that help youth who had run afoul of the law, including those who committed status offenses (i.e., a noncriminal act that is considered a violation of the law because of the youth's age). The Runaway Youth Act of 1974 was enacted as Title III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (P.L. 93-415) to assist runaways through services specifically for this population. The act was amended over time to include homeless youth. It authorizes funding for services carried out under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program (RHYP), which is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The program was most recently authorized through FY2020 by the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-385). This law did not make other changes to the RHYP statute. Funding is discretionary, meaning provided through the appropriations process. FY2019 appropriations are $127.4 million. The RHYP program is made up of three components: the Basic Center Program (BCP), Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach Program (SOP). The BCP provides temporary shelter, counseling, and after care services to runaway and homeless youth under age 18 and their families. In FY2017, the program served 23,288 youth, and in FY2018 it funded 280 BCP shelters (most recent figures available). The TLP is targeted to older youth ages 16 through 22 (and sometimes an older age). In FY2017, the TLP program served 3,517 youth, and in FY2018 it funded 299 grantees (most recent figures available). Youth who use the TLP receive longer-term housing with supportive services. The SOP provides education, treatment, counseling, and referrals for runaway, homeless, and street youth who have been subjected to, or are at risk of being subjected to, sexual abuse, sex exploitation, and trafficking. In FY2017, the SOP grantees made contact with 24,366 youth. The RHYP is a part of larger federal efforts to end youth homelessness through the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). The USICH is a coordinating body made up of multiple federal agencies committed to addressing homelessness. The USICH's Opening Doors plan to end homelessness includes strategies for ending youth homelessness by 2020, including through collecting better data and supporting evidence-based practices to improve youth outcomes. Voices of Youth Count is continuing to report on characteristics of homeless youth. In addition to the RHYP, there are other federal supports to address youth homelessness. HUD's Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program is funding a range of housing options for youth, in selected urban and rural communities. Other federal programs have enabled homeless youth to access services, including those related to education and family violence.