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:  Post staff noted, for example, that security officers at overseas posts should conduct regular training and drilling exercises to evaluate their local guard force’s effectiveness in searching a vehicle entering the post compound for explosive devices  According to post staff, when these important security oversight activities are not properly and regularly conducted, the level of security risk at these overseas posts may increase  According to State officials in headquarters and staff at overseas posts, as well as reporting by State’s OIG, vacancies in information management positions at overseas posts have increased the vulnerability of posts’ computer networks to potential cybersecurity attacks and other malicious threats  State officials told us that the Foreign Service had faced chronic shortages of information management staff available to fill these positions worldwide  According to State officials, because of ongoing information management vacancies, some required tasks—such as conducting planned network maintenance—were performed infrequently or not at all  In another example, staff at overseas posts said that because of vacancies, information management staff had been unable to regularly check their computer system logs to ensure that security breaches had not taken place  Post staff added that, if a breach did occur, vacancies could increase the amount of time needed to identify an attack and deploy countermeasures, further increasing the risks to posts’ computer networks  Inspections conducted by State’s OIG from fall 2014 to spring 2016 found that information management staff at 33 percent of overseas posts had not performed various required information management duties  According to State’s OIG, neglect of these duties may leave the department vulnerable to increased cybersecurity attacks  According to staff at overseas posts, the office management specialist position at overseas posts has evolved considerably over time; these specialists increasingly play a critical role in ensuring that the work of overseas posts is effectively completed  Post staff said that office management specialists provide administrative and other support services to other Foreign Service employees and are assigned to various sections of post  For example, staff at one post noted that office management specialists assigned to the Security Officer sections at overseas posts reduce the workload of security officers by completing more routine security tasks and allowing the security officers to focus on more challenging or involved tasks necessary to secure overseas posts  Post staff told us that vacancies in office management specialist positions reduce the amount of work that can be completed by other Foreign Service employees at overseas posts  For example, when office management specialist positions assigned to the Security Officer or Information Management sections of posts are vacant, these vacancies further exacerbate the higher number of vacancies that already exist in these sections  According to staff at overseas posts, higher numbers of office management specialist vacancies require other Foreign Service employees to spend a significant amount of time on administrative tasks, reducing the amount of time these staff can spend on mission-critical activities  Officials in headquarters and at overseas posts described various State efforts to help address overseas Foreign Service vacancies  According to State officials, Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts are a complex problem that multiple offices within State address on an individual basis  State’s various efforts to address overseas Foreign Service vacancies are not guided by an integrated action plan to reduce persistent vacancies  Our 2017 High-Risk Series report calls for agencies to, among other things, design and implement action plan strategies for closing skills gaps  The action plan should (1) define the root cause of all skills gaps within an agency and (2) provide suggested corrective measures, including steps necessary to implement solutions  This report also emphasizes the high risk that mission-critical skills gaps in the federal workforce pose to the nation  While various State offices have implemented the efforts we identified, State lacks an action plan that is integrated—or consolidated—across its relevant offices to guide its efforts to address persistent overseas Foreign Service vacancies  Moreover, some staff at overseas posts acknowledged that the efforts State has taken to help address vacancies have not reduced persistent Foreign Service vacancies, notably in specialist positions  In response to our inquiry about an action plan, State officials said that the agency does not have a single document that addresses Foreign Service staffing gaps at overseas posts  Instead, State officials directed us to State’s Five Year Workforce Plan: Fiscal Years 2016-2020, stating that it was the most comprehensive document that outlines State’s efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts  The workforce plan notes that it provides a framework to address State’s human capital requirements and highlights State’s challenges and achievements in recruiting, hiring, staffing, and training Foreign Service staff  However, in reviewing the portions of the workforce plan that State indicated were most relevant, we found that the workforce plan does not include an integrated action plan that defines the root causes of the persistent overseas Foreign Service vacancies we identified or suggest corrective measures to reduce vacancies in these positions, including steps necessary to implement solutions  State officials also noted that they frequently meet to discuss and address workforce issues  For example, they said they convene a multi-bureau planning group that meets biweekly to discuss strategic workforce issues such as hiring needs based on attrition and other issues  However, according to State officials, this group has not developed an action plan to reduce persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts  State lacks an integrated action plan to guide its efforts to address persistent Foreign Service vacancies that includes corrective measures to address the root causes of the vacancies  Without defining the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and identifying appropriate corrective measures, overseas vacancies may persist and continue to adversely affect State’s ability to achieve U S  foreign policy goals  Foreign Service generalists and specialists at overseas posts are critical to advancing U S  foreign policy and economic interests abroad  However, for at least a decade, the Foreign Service has had persistent vacancies in both generalist and specialist positions at overseas posts  In particular, large numbers of vacant positions have persisted over time in certain overseas Foreign Service positions, such as information management and security officer positions  These vacancies in critical positions at overseas posts have adversely affected State’s ability to carry out its mission effectively and threaten State’s ability to ensure the security and safety of its employees, their families, and post facilities  While State has made some efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies, addressing chronic vacancies in critical positions at overseas posts requires a thoughtful, coherent, and integrated action plan that defines the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts along with suggested corrective measures to reduce such vacancies, following what was called for in our 2017 High-Risk Series report  Developing such an action plan would help State address its persistent staffing gaps, improve its ability to achieve U S  foreign policy goals, and help ensure secure and efficient operations  The Secretary of State should develop an integrated action plan that defines the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and provides suggested corrective measures to reduce such vacancies, including steps necessary to implement solutions  (Recommendation 1) We provided a draft of this report to State for review and comment  In its comments, reproduced in appendix III, State concurred with our recommendation  State also noted that it has taken actions and identified some causes of vacancies, but acknowledged that it lacks an integrated action plan and will take steps to develop such a plan  State also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of State, and other interested parties  In addition, the report is 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) 512-6881 or bairj@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  This report examines (1) vacancies in the Department of State’s (State) Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts, (2) reported effects of Foreign Service vacancies on diplomatic readiness, and (3) State’s efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies  To address these three objectives, we interviewed State officials from the department’s Bureau of Human Resources and Bureau of Consular Affairs as well as State officials representing the Offices of the Executive Director for State’s six regional bureaus  We also interviewed staff at 10 overseas posts  We conducted in-person interviews with staff at 3 of these posts—the U S  Embassy in Beijing and the U S  Consulate in Shanghai, China, and the U S  Embassy in New Delhi, India  We conducted telephone interviews with staff at the other 7 posts—the U S  Embassies in Abuja, Nigeria; Bogota, Colombia; Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo; Kabul, Afghanistan; Mexico City, Mexico; and N’Djamena, Chad; and the U S  Consulate in Frankfurt, Germany  We used the following criteria to select overseas posts for interviews: (1) posts with larger numbers of Foreign Service vacancies; (2) posts with diversity in the types of Foreign Service positions that were vacant; (3) posts with higher relative importance to U S  economic, national security, and other foreign policy interests; and (4) posts in a range of geographic locations by State region  To examine vacancies in State’s Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts, we analyzed State’s personnel data on Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts from the department’s Global Employment Management System (GEMS), as of March 2018  Our analysis of the GEMS data includes Foreign Service positions filled by permanent Foreign Service employees as well as positions filled by nonpermanent Foreign Service employees, such as Consular Fellows  This analysis does not include the number of staffed and vacant positions at overseas posts in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, which, at the time of our review, were in suspended operations status, as well as U S  Mission Somalia, which was operating under special circumstances at a different location  To calculate vacancy rates, we divided the total number of positions by the number of positions listed as vacant in GEMS  For example, a post with 10 positions and 2 vacancies would have a vacancy rate of 20 percent  We calculated vacancy rates for each of the following categories: type (i e , generalist or specialist), function (e g , consular or information management), regional bureau (i e , Bureau of African Affairs or Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs), and embassy and nonembassy rankings from State’s Overseas Staffing Model (i e , Embassy 3+ or 5)  According to State officials, the data in GEMS have a number of limitations: The number of vacant positions at overseas posts listed in GEMS may be overstated, because State has not yet decided to remove some of these positions from its database  Some of the vacancies in GEMS are short-term or temporary  Foreign Service employees periodically rotate out of their positions at their overseas posts, sometimes creating temporary vacancies until the positions are filled by incoming Foreign Service employees  The GEMS data show larger numbers of vacant Foreign Service positions at posts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan than actually were unstaffed at these posts  According to State officials, this discrepancy results from State’s relying heavily on shorter-term assignments to fill Foreign Service positions at these locations  These shorter-term assignments are not reflected in GEMS, and the positions therefore appear vacant  The GEMS data may not reflect Foreign Service employees who have been temporarily reassigned from one overseas post to another  The GEMS data may show positions as filled although the Foreign Service employee filling the position has not yet arrived at post  To assess the reliability of the GEMS database, we asked State officials whether State had made any major changes to the database since our 2012 report, when we assessed the GEMS data to be sufficiently reliable  State officials indicated that no major changes had been made  We also tested the data for completeness, confirmed the general accuracy of the data with officials at selected overseas posts, and interviewed knowledgeable officials from State’s Office of Resource Management and Organizational Analysis concerning the data’s reliability  We found the GEMS data to be reliable for the purpose of determining the numbers and percentages of vacant Foreign Service positions at overseas posts  We did not validate whether the total number of authorized overseas Foreign Service positions was appropriate or met State’s needs  We also reviewed State workforce planning documents and budget documents, such as State’s Five Year Workforce and Leadership Succession Plan: Fiscal Years 2016-2020 and Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review  In addition, we reviewed State Office of Inspector General reports as well as our previous reports on human capital challenges at State and effective strategic human capital management across the federal government  In particular, our report High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others notes that strategic human capital management is a high-risk issue across the federal government and lists five key elements as a road map for agency efforts to improve and ultimately address such issues  For our third objective, we assessed whether State’s efforts to address vacancies were guided by a corrective action plan that identifies the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and suggests corrective measures to reduce such vacancies, including steps necessary to implement solutions  We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to March 2019 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  The “Economic” generalist career track includes positions from the “Science Officer” staffing skill group in the GEMS data  170 Foreign Service employees were not staffed to one of the six regional bureaus  In addition to the contact named above, Godwin Agbara (Assistant Director), Ian Ferguson (Analyst-in-Charge), Anthony Costulas, Natalia Pena, Debbie Chung, Chris Keblitis, Reid Lowe, Justin Fisher, and Alexander Welsh made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: GSA, which manages federal real property on behalf of other federal agencies, faces challenges in funding new construction projects due to budget constraints—including obtaining upfront funding—among other reasons. One type of transaction, called a swap exchange, enables GSA to apply the value of federal property to finance construction without relying on appropriated funds. Under such an exchange, GSA transfers the title of the unneeded property to a private investor after receiving the agreed upon construction services at another location. GSA proposed a swap exchange procurement for construction of a new FBI headquarters building in exchange for the Hoover Building and appropriations to compensate for the difference in value between the Hoover Building and the new building. GSA cancelled this procurement in July 2017 due to lack of funding. This statement addresses (1) GSA's and FBI's assessments of the Hoover Building, (2) GSA efforts to implement swap exchanges, and (3) alternative approaches to funding real property projects. It is based on GAO's body of reports on real property from 2011 to 2017, and selected updates from GSA. In November 2011, GAO reported that, according to General Services Administration (GSA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) assessments, the FBI's headquarters building (Hoover Building) and its accompanying facilities in Washington, D.C., did not fully support the FBI's long-term security, space, and building condition requirements. Since GAO's report, the assessments have not materially changed, for example: Security: GAO's prior work noted that the dispersion of staff in annexes creates security challenges, including where some space was leased by the FBI and other space was leased by nonfederal tenants. Earlier this year, GAO reported the FBI is leasing space in D.C. from foreign owners. Space : In 2011, GAO reported that FBI and GSA studies showed that much of the Hoover Building is unusable. GSA noted in its fiscal year 2017 project prospectus for the FBI headquarters consolidation that the Hoover Building cannot be redeveloped to meet the FBI's current needs. Building Condition: In GAO's 2011 report, GAO noted that the condition of the Hoover Building was deteriorating, and GSA assessments identified significant recapitalization needs. Since GAO's report and in response to GAO's recommendation, GSA has evaluated its approach to maintaining the building and completed some repairs to ensure safety. GSA has limited experience in successfully completing swap exchange transactions and chose not to pursue several proposed swap exchanges, most recently the planned swap exchange for the Hoover Building. GSA has developed criteria for determining when to solicit market interest in a swap exchange, in response to recommendations in GAO's 2014 report. In addition, GSA officials told GAO that they planned to improve the swap exchange process, including the property appraisal process, outreach to stakeholders to identify potential risks associated with future projects, and to the extent possible, mitigate such risks. Nevertheless, several factors may continue to limit use of swap exchanges, including market factors, such as the availability of alternative properties and an investor's approach for valuing properties. For example, in reviewing a proposed swap exchange in Washington, D.C., GAO found in a 2016 report that the proposals from two firms valued the two federal buildings involved in the proposed swap substantially less than GSA's appraised property value. In a 2014 report, GAO identified a number of alternative approaches to funding real property projects. Congress has provided some agencies with specific authorities to use alternative funding mechanisms—including the use of private sector funds or land swaps—for the acquisition, renovation, or disposal of federal real property without full, upfront funding, though GAO has previously reported that upfront funding is the best way to ensure recognition of commitments made in budgeting decisions and maintain fiscal controls. GAO has reported that projects with alternative funding mechanisms present multiple forms of risk that are shared between the agency and any partner or stakeholder. In addition, alternative budgetary structures could be established, such as changing existing or introducing new account structures to fund real property projects. GAO has made recommendations in the past to GSA on various real property issues, including to develop additional guidance for swap exchanges and to evaluate its approach to maintaining the Hoover Building. GSA agreed with these two recommendations and addressed them.

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



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

Report 1: In November 2011, we reported that over the previous decade, the FBI and GSA conducted a number of studies to assess the Hoover Building and its other headquarters facilities’ strategic and mission needs  Through these studies, they determined the condition of the FBI’s current assets and identified gaps between current and needed capabilities, as well as studied a range of alternatives to meet the FBI’s requirements  According to these assessments, the FBI’s headquarters facilities did not fully support the FBI’s long-term security, space, and building condition requirements  Since our report, the assessment of the Hoover Building has not materially changed  For example: Security: Since September 11, 2001, the FBI mission and workforce have expanded, and the FBI has outgrown the Hoover Building  As a result, the FBI also operates in annexes, including some located in the National Capital Region  During our 2011 review, FBI security officials told us that they have some security concerns—to varying degrees— about the Hoover Building and some of the headquarters annexes  In our report, we noted that the dispersion of staff in annexes created security challenges, particularly for at least nine annexes that were located in multitenant buildings, where some space was leased by the FBI and other space was leased by nonfederal tenants  While this arrangement did not automatically put FBI operations at risk, it heightened security concerns  In addition, in January 2017, we found that the FBI occupies space leased from foreign owners in at least six different locations, including one in Washington, D C  Further, federal officials who assess foreign investments told us at that time that leasing space in foreign-owned buildings could present security risks, such as espionage and unauthorized cyber and physical access  Space: In 2011, we reported that FBI and GSA studies showed that much of the Hoover building’s approximately 2 4 million gross square feet of space is unusable, and the remaining usable space is not designed to meet the needs of today’s FBI  Moreover, the Hoover Building’s original design is inefficient, according to GSA assessments, making it difficult to reconfigure space to promote staff collaboration  For example, in its fiscal year 2017 prospectus for the proposed FBI headquarters consolidation project, GSA noted that the Hoover Building was designed at a time when FBI operated differently, and it cannot be redeveloped to provide the necessary space to consolidate the FBI Headquarters components or to meet the agency’s current and projected operational requirements  As a result, the FBI reported facing several operational and logistical challenges  We similarly noted in our prior work in 2011 that space constraints at the Hoover Building and the resulting dispersion of staff sometimes prevented the FBI from physically locating certain types of analysts and specialists together, which in turn hampered collaboration and the performance of some classified work  Building condition: In our 2011 report, we noted that the condition of the Hoover Building was deteriorating, and GSA assessments had identified significant recapitalization needs  At that time, we found that GSA had decided to limit investments in the Hoover Building to those necessary to protect health and safety and keep building systems functioning while GSA assessed the FBI’s facility needs  We found that this decision increased the potential for building system failures and disruption to the FBI’s operations  Given that the FBI would likely remain in the building for at least several more years, we recommended that GSA evaluate its strategy to minimize major repair and recapitalization investments and take action to address any facility condition issues that could put FBI operations at risk and lead to further deterioration of the building  In 2014, in response to our recommendation, GSA evaluated its strategy for the Hoover Building and determined it needed to complete some repairs to ensure safety and maintain tenancy in the building  For example, in 2014, GSA funded contracts to waterproof portions of the building’s mezzanine level to prevent water intrusion into the building and repair the concrete facade, small sections of which had cracked and fallen from the building  In July 2017, GSA and FBI officials stated that they cancelled the procurement for the new FBI headquarters consolidation project, noting that the there was a lack of funding necessary to complete the procurement  GSA added that the cancellation of the procurement did not lessen the need for a new FBI headquarters, and that GSA and the FBI would continue to work together to address the space requirements of the FBI  In July 2014, we reported that the swap exchange approach can help GSA address the challenges of disposing of unneeded property and modernizing or replacing federal buildings  GSA officials told us that swap exchanges can help GSA facilitate construction projects given a growing need to modernize and replace federal properties, shrinking federal budgets, and challenges obtaining funding  Specifically, GSA officials noted that swap exchanges allow GSA to immediately apply the value of a federal property to be used in the exchange to construction needs, rather than attempting to obtain funds through the appropriations process  In our 2014 report, GSA officials stated that the exchanges can be attractive because the agency can get construction projects accomplished without having to request full upfront funding for them from Congress  In addition, because swap exchanges require developers or other property recipients to complete the agreed-upon GSA construction projects prior to the transfer of the title to the current property GSA is exchanging, federal agencies can continue to occupy the property during the construction process for the new project, eliminating the need for agencies to lease or acquire other space to occupy during the construction process  GSA has limited experience in successfully completing swap exchange transactions and has cancelled several recently proposed swap exchanges  More specifically, in 2016 we reported that GSA had only completed transactions using the swap exchange authority for two small (under $10-million each) swap exchanges completed in Atlanta, Georgia, in 2001 and in San Antonio, Texas, in 2012  Furthermore, GSA has faced a number of obstacles in its use of this authority  For example, for our 2014 report, we reviewed five projects identified since August 2012 in which GSA solicited market interest in exchanging almost 8-million square feet in federal property for construction services or newly constructed assets  However, GSA chose not to pursue swap-exchanges in all five of these projects, including the proposed FBI headquarters consolidation project  For example, GSA officials told us that there was little or no market interest in potential swap exchanges in Baltimore, Maryland, and Miami, Florida, and that GSA chose to pursue different approaches  Respondents to the solicitations for these two GSA swap exchanges noted that GSA did not provide important details, including the amount of investment needed in the federal properties and GSA’s specific construction needs  In addition, from 2012 to 2015, GSA pursued a larger swap exchange potentially involving up to 5 federal properties located in the Federal Triangle South area of Washington, D C , to finance construction at GSA headquarters and other federal properties  In 2013, GSA decided to focus on exchanging two buildings, the GSA Regional Office Building and the Cotton Annex, based on input from potential investors  On February 18, 2016, GSA decided to end its pursuit of the exchange, saying in a memorandum supporting this decision that private investor valuations for the two buildings fell short of the government’s estimated values  After the discontinuation of the Federal Triangle swap exchange project, we reported in 2016 that GSA officials noted they planned to improve the swap exchange process, including the property appraisal process, outreach to stakeholders to identify potential project risks for future projects, and to the extent possible, mitigate such risks  However, we also reported that several factors may continue to limit the applicability of the agency’s approach  Specifically, the viability of swap exchanges may be affected by specific market factors, such as the availability of alternative properties  In addition, the specific valuation approach used by appraisers or potential investors may reduce the viability of the swap exchange  For example, in reviewing the proposed Federal Triangle project, we found in 2016 that the proposals from two of the investment firms valued the two federal buildings involved in the proposed swap substantially less than GSA’s appraised property value  In addition, swap exchanges can require developers to spend large sums on GSA’s construction needs before receiving title to the federal property used in the exchanges  We found in 2014 that GSA’s solicitations have not always specified these construction needs in sufficient detail  Consequently, developers may be unable to provide meaningful input, and GSA could miss swap exchange opportunities  In 2014, we recommended that GSA develop criteria for determining when to solicit market interest in a swap exchange  GSA agreed with the recommendation and has since updated its guidance to include these criteria  In January 2017, GSA agreed to a swap exchange for the U S  Department of Transportation Volpe Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts  After a competitive process, GSA selected the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) as its exchange partner for the existing Department of Transportation (DOT) facility  Per the agreement, MIT will construct a new DOT facility on a portion of a 14 acre site to which DOT has title and, in exchange, will receive title to the remaining portion of the site that will not be used by DOT, which is located near its main campus  GSA indicated that, once completed, the project will provide $750 million in value to the federal government in the form of the design and construction services and value-equalization funds from MIT  Our prior work has identified a number of alternative approaches to funding real property projects  In March 2014, we reported that upfront funding is the best way to ensure recognition of commitments made in budgeting decisions and to maintain fiscal controls  However, obtaining upfront funding for large acquisitions such as the Hoover Building replacement can be challenging  Congress has provided some agencies with specific authorities to use alternative funding mechanisms for the acquisition, renovation, or disposal of federal real property without full, upfront funding  Table 1 outlines selected funding mechanisms, and considerations for each mechanism we identified in our 2014 report  Some of these alternative mechanisms allow selected agencies to meet their real property needs by leveraging other authorized resources, such as retained fees or land swaps with a private sector partner  Funding mechanisms leverage both monetary resources, such as retained fees, and non-monetary resources, such as property exchanged in a land swap or space offered in an enhanced use lease  In some cases, the funding mechanism may function as a public-private partnership intended to further an agency’s mission by working with a partner to leverage resources  Some of these mechanisms allow the private sector to provide the project’s capital—at their cost of borrowing  The U S  federal government’s cost of borrowing is lower than the private sector’s  When the private sector provides the project capital, the federal government later repays these higher private sector borrowing costs (e g , in the form of lease payments)  In some cases, factors such as lower labor costs or fewer requirements could potentially help balance the higher cost of borrowing, making partner financing less expensive  Our 2014 report also identifies budgetary options—within the bounds of the current unified budget—to meet real property needs while helping Congress and agencies make more prudent long-term decisions  In 2014, we reported that projects with alternative funding mechanisms present multiple forms of risk that are shared between the agency and any partner or stakeholder  Further, we noted project decisions should reflect both the likely risk and the organization’s tolerance for risk  Incorporating risk assessment and management practices into decisions can help organizations recognize and prepare to manage explicit risks (e g  financial and physical) and implicit risks (e g  reputational)  For example, clearly defined lease terms may help agencies manage risks of costs for unexpected building repairs  Further considerations we noted in our 2014 report include the availability of an appropriate partner—and that partners should bring complementary resources, skills, and financial capacities to the relationship—and management of the relationship with that partner  While different funding mechanisms have been used as an alternative to obtaining upfront funding for federal real property projects, changes to the budgetary structure itself—within the bounds of the unified budget that encompasses the full scope of federal programs and transactions—may also help agencies meet their real property needs  Such alternatives may include changing existing or introducing new account structures to fund real property projects  Our previous work identified options for changes within the current discretionary budget structure and options on the mandatory side of the budget  Alternative budgetary structures may change budgetary incentives for agencies and therefore help Congress and agencies make more prudent long-term fiscal decisions  Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared statement  I am happy to answer any questions you may have at this time  If you or your staff members have any questions concerning this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao gov  In addition, contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement  Individuals who made key contributions to this testimony are Mike Armes (Assistant Director), Colin Ashwood, Matt Cook, Joseph Cruz, Keith Cunningham, Alexandra Edwards, Carol Henn, Susan Irving, Hannah Laufe, Diana Maurer, John Mortin, Monique Nasrallah, Matt Voit, Michelle Weathers, and Elizabeth Wood  This is a work of the U S  government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States  The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO  However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately 


Report 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.