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



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

Report 1: 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)  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 


Report 2: T he unemployment insurance (UI) system has two primary objectives: (1) to provide temporary, partial wage replacement for involuntarily unemployed workers and (2) to stabilize the economy during recessions  In support of these goals, several UI programs provide benefits for eligible unemployed workers  In general, when eligible workers lose their jobs, the joint federal-state Unemployment Compensation (UC) program may provide up to 26 weeks of income support through regular UC benefit payments  UC benefits may be extended for up to 13 weeks or 20 weeks by the Extended Benefit (EB) program if certain economic situations exist within the state  As of the date of this publication, although both the UC and EB programs are authorized, no state is in an active EB period  For an overview of EB, see the Appendix   The Social Security Act of 1935 (P L  74-271) authorizes the joint federal-state UC program to provide unemployment benefits  Most states provide up to a maximum of 26 weeks of UC benefits  Former federal workers may be eligible for unemployment benefits through the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program  Former U S  military servicemembers may be eligible for unemployment benefits through the Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX) program  The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 ( P L  102-164 ) provides that ex-servicemembers be treated the same as other unemployed workers with respect to benefit levels, the waiting period for benefits, and benefit duration  Although federal laws and regulations provide broad guidelines on UC benefit coverage, eligibility, and determination, the specifics regarding UC benefits are determined by each state  This results in essentially 53 different programs  Generally, UC eligibility is based on attaining qualified wages and employment in covered work over a 12-month period (called a base period) prior to unemployment  All states require a worker to have earned a certain amount of wages or to have worked for a certain period of time (or both) within the base period to be eligible to receive any UC benefits  The methods states use to determine eligibility vary greatly  Most state benefit formulas replace approximately half of a claimant's average weekly wage up to a weekly maximum  Additionally, each state's UC law requires individuals to have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and recipients must be able to work, available for work, and actively seeking work  These eligibility requirements help ensure that UC benefits are directed toward workers with significant labor market experience and who are unemployed because of economic conditions  The UC program is financed by federal taxes under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and by state payroll taxes under each state's State Unemployment Tax Act (SUTA)  The 0 6% effective net FUTA tax paid by employers on the first $7,000 of each employee's earnings (equaling no more than $42 per worker per year) funds federal and state administrative costs, loans to insolvent state UC accounts, the federal share (50%) of EB payments, and state employment services  SUTA taxes on employers are limited by federal law to funding regular UC benefits and the state share (50%) of EB payments  Federal law requires that the state tax be on at least the first $7,000 of each employee's earnings and that the maximum state tax rate be at least 5 4%  Federal law also requires each employer's state tax rate to be based on the amount of UC paid to former employees (known as "experience rating")  Within these broad requirements, each state has great flexibility in determining its SUTA structure  Generally, the more UC benefits paid out to its former employees, the higher the tax rate of the employer, up to a maximum established by state law  Funds from FUTA and SUTA are deposited in the appropriate accounts within the Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF)  The sequester order required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P L  112-25 ) and implemented on March 1, 2013 (after being delayed by P L  112-240 ), affected some but not all types of UI expenditures  Regular UC, UCX, and UCFE payments are not subject to the sequester reductions  EB and most forms of administrative funding are subject to the sequester reductions  The FY2019 sequestration order requires a 6 2% reduction in all nonexempt nondefense mandatory expenditures, but no sequestration reductions are applicable to discretionary programs, projects, and activities  As a result, EB expenditures are required to be reduced 6 2% (only on the federal share of EB benefits) for weeks of unemployment during FY2019  As of January 22, 2019, EB has not been activated in any state during FY2019  The lapse in federal appropriations that occurred from December 22, 2018, until January 25, 2019, caused a partial government shutdown  As a result, during this lapse in appropriations, agencies without funding furloughed federal employees, and many federal employees excepted from furlough were working without pay  Furloughed federal employees may be eligible for UCFE benefits  States are required to operate the UCFE program under the same terms and conditions that apply to regular state UC  Therefore, UCFE eligibility is determined under the laws of the state in which an individual's official duty station in federal civilian service is located  Federal employees who are in furlough status on account of a government shutdown are generally treated by state law as laid off with an expectation of recall  Depending on state laws and regulations, the state may have an option to not require federal employees to search for work given an expected recall  However, according to guidance from U S  Department of Labor (DOL), excepted federal employees who are performing services (but working without pay) would generally be ineligible for UCFE benefits based on states' definitions of "unemployment " Private-sector workers who are furloughed or laid off due to the partial government shutdown because they were employed by government contractors or other businesses may be eligible for regular UC benefits  UC eligibility for these workers would be based on the requirements set out under the state laws in the state where they had worked  In this climate, there has been congressional interest in assisting furloughed and excepted federal employees through the UI system  For example, as described below in the section on " Unemployment Compensation for Excepted Federal Employees During a Government Shutdown ," there are proposals to provide new authority to pay UCFE benefits to excepted federal workers who are working without pay  The most recent lapse in federal appropriations began December 22, 2018, and ended on January 25, 2019, with the enactment of H J Res  28   Because retroactive pay for furloughed and excepted federal employees was authorized under S  24 , the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 (enacted January 16, 2019), UCFE payments made to federal employee claimants during this lapse in appropriations may be deemed an overpayment, subject to state UC laws regarding overpayment recovery  According to guidance from the Office of Personnel Management on this issue The state UI agency will determine whether or not an overpayment exists and, generally, the recovery of the UCFE overpayment is a matter for state action under its law; however, some state UI laws require the employer to recover such overpayment by collecting the overpayment amount from the employee  The Federal and state agencies will need to coordinate to determine the required action in accordance with the individual state UI law  Federal agencies are encouraged to develop lists or spreadsheets that can be provided to the state(s) containing the employees' names, social security numbers, and the amounts and periods of time covered by the retroactive payment  If a recession is deep enough and if state unemployment tax (SUTA) revenue is inadequate for long periods of time, states may have insufficient funds to pay for UC benefits  Federal law, which requires states to pay these benefits, provides a loan mechanism within the UTF framework that an insolvent state may use to meet its UC benefit payment obligations  States must pay back these loans  If the loans are not paid back quickly (depending on the timing of the beginning of the loan period), states may face interest charges, and states' employers may face increased net FUTA rates until the loans are repaid  The U S  Virgin Islands is the only jurisdiction with an outstanding loan  As of January 18, 2019, it had an outstanding loan of $68 4 million from the federal accounts within the UTF  At the end of 2017, fewer than half of states (24) had accrued enough funds in their accounts to meet or exceed the minimally solvent standard of an average high cost multiple (AHCM) of 1 0 in order to be prepared for a recession  Beginning in FY2015, DOL funded state efforts "addressing individual reemployment needs of UI claimants, and working to prevent and detect UI overpayments" through the voluntary Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) program  RESEA provides funding to states to conduct in-person interviews with selected UI claimants to (1) assure that claimants are complying with the eligibility rules, (2) determine if reemployment services are needed for the claimant to secure future employment, (3) refer the individual to reemployment services as necessary, and (4) provide labor market information that addresses the claimant's specific needs  Section 30206 of P L  115-123 codified the authority for DOL to administer a RESEA program  It also set out various requirements for states to use certain types of evidence-based interventions for UI claimants under RESEA and allocated discretionary funding for RESEA across three categories (base funding, outcome payments, and research and technical assistance)  State RESEA programs must include reasonable notice and accommodations to participating UI beneficiaries  On April 4, 2019, DOL published a proposed methodology to allocate base RESEA funds and outcome payments  DOL requested state and public comments on this proposal by May 6, 2019  The President's budget for FY2020 proposes changes to several aspects of the UI system  It would create a new required standard for state account balances within the UTF and a new benefit entitlement for paid parental leave financed through state unemployment taxes  The President's FY2020 budget also proposes a set of additional integrity measures, including the required use of certain databases to confirm UC eligibility and requiring Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits offset UI benefits  The President's budget proposal for FY2020 would require states to maintain a minimum level of solvency in their UTF account balances to be at least half (0 5) of the state's AHCM  The proposal would alter the rules for calculating the net FUTA rate, requiring a higher net FUTA rate on a state's employers if that state maintained an AHCM of less than 0 5 on January 1 of two or more consecutive years  The additional FUTA revenue would be deposited into the state UTF account and would be terminated once the state met the 0 5 AHCM criteria  The President's budget proposal for FY2020 would require states to establish a paid parental leave benefit by 2020, using the UC program as its base for an administrative framework  States would be required to provide six weeks of benefits to a worker on leave or otherwise absent from work for the birth or adoption of the worker's child  States would have discretion to determine the parameters of eligibility and financing for this new paid parental leave benefit  The President's 2020 budget would require states to use three specific data sources to confirm an individual's eligibility for UC benefits: the State Information Data Exchange System (SIDES, administered by Information Technology Support Center [ITSC] and DOL); the National Directory for New Hires (NDNH, administered by the Department of Health and Human Services); and the Prisoner Update Processing System (PUPS, administered by the Social Security Administration)  The proposal would create several additional integrity measures, including giving the Secretary of Labor the authority to implement new corrective action measures in response to poor state administrative performance within the program; allowing states to retain a percentage of UC overpayments for program integrity use; requiring states to deposit all UC penalty and interest payments into a special state fund, with these funds required to be used for improving state UI administration as well as providing reemployment services for UI claimants; and offsetting SSDI benefits to account for concurrent receipt of UI benefits  Section 2105 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 ( P L  112-96 ; February 22, 2012) amended federal law to allow states to conduct two types of drug testing  First, it expanded the long-standing state option to disqualify UC applicants who were discharged from employment with their most recent employer (as defined under state law) for unlawful drug use by allowing states to drug test these applicants to determine UC benefit eligibility or disqualification

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.

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



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



Report 2:  Second, it allowed states to drug test UC applicants for whom suitable work (as defined under state law) is available only in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing, to be determined under new regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor  As required by  P L  112-96 , on August 1, 2016, DOL promulgated  20 C F R  Part 620 ,  a new rule to implement the provisions of the law relating to the drug testing of UC applicants for whom suitable work (as defined under state law) is available only in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing  Amid concerns voiced by stakeholders about the 2016 DOL rule, Congress repealed this UC drug testing rule using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) via H J Res  42 / P L  115-17   On November 5, 2018, DOL published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to reissue the rule identifying occupations that regularly conduct drug testing for purposes of Section 2105 of  P L  112-96   The CRA prohibits an agency from reissuing the rule in "substantially the same form" or issuing a "new rule that is substantially the same" as the disapproved rule, "unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule " Notably, this is the first time an agency has proposed to reissue a rule after the original version was disapproved under the CRA  According to the 2018 NPRM, DOL has addressed the reissue requirements of the CRA by proposing a substantially different and more flexible approach to the statutory requirements than the 2016 Rule, enabling states to enact legislation to require drug testing for a far larger group of UC applicants than the previous rule permitted  This flexibility is intended to respect the diversity of states' economies and the different roles played by employment drug testing in those economies  Comments on the proposed 2018 rule were required to be submitted by January 4, 2019  On January 16, 2019, Senator Richard Blumenthal introduced S  165 , the Federal Unemployment Compensation Equity Act of 2019  This proposal would amend UCFE law and create a new permanent UCFE eligibility category for excepted federal employees who are unpaid but required to work during a government shutdown due to a lapse in appropriations  During any shutdown beginning on or after December 22, 2018, all excepted federal workers would be deemed eligible for UCFE benefits  Additionally, these employees would not be subject to a one-week waiting period (otherwise often required under state laws) before UCFE benefits were to be paid  On January 23, 2019, Representative Debbie Dingell introduced H R  725 , the Pay Federal Workers Act  This proposal would also provide UCFE benefits in a similar manner to S  165 , including permanently amending 5 U S C  Chapter 85 to provide federal authority for these benefits  On January 23, 2019, Representative Anthony Brown introduced H R  720   This proposal would deem excepted federal employees during a government shutdown to be eligible for UCFE during FY2019  The authority to provide UCFE to these excepted workers would expire at the end of FY2019  On February 8, 2019, Representative Katie Hill introduced H R  1117 , the Shutdown Fairness Act of 2019  This proposal would deem excepted federal employees and unpaid military servicemembers during a government shutdown to be eligible for UCFE or UCX during FY2019  The authority to provide UCFE to these excepted workers would expire at the end of FY2019  On January 15, 2019, Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Danny Davis introduced S  136 and H R  556 , the Economic Ladders to End Volatility and Advance Training and Employment Act of 2019 (the ELEVATE Act)   Among other provisions, this proposal would establish new self-employment and relocation assistance benefits for unemployed workers to be administered by the Social Security Administration, in consultation with DOL  The self-employment assistance benefits would provide weekly income replacement (half of prior earnings up to the maximum weekly benefit amount in the state) for up to of 26 weeks to individuals  They would be available to individuals who are (1) eligible for any type of UI benefit; or ineligible for any type of UI benefit, but became involuntarily unemployed over the previous 12 weeks; or were previously self-employed, but lost a hiring contract, and (2) have a viable business plan approved by their state department of labor, workforce board, or the Small Business Administration  Additionally, Section 3 of S  136 and H R  556 would provide up to $2,000 (or more, depending on family size) to fund to up to 90% of certain relocation expenses for eligible individuals and their families  In order to be eligible for this relocation assistance, an individual must be a (1) dislocated worker, (2) long-term unemployed individual, or (3) underemployed individual and also have filed a claim for relocation assistance and obtained suitable work with an expectation of obtaining such work in a new geographic region  On March 7, 2019, Representative Karen Bass introduced H R  1585 , the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019  Among many other provisions, Section 703 of H R  1585 would require states to consider an individual who quit employment because of sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to be eligible for UC benefits  The House passed H R  1585 on April 4, 2019  On March 14, 2019, Representative Stephanie Murphy introduced H R  1759 , the Building on Reemployment Improvements to Deliver Good Employment (BRIDGE) for Workers Act  This proposal would extend eligibility to any claimant of unemployment benefits, including those profiled as likely to exhaust benefits (rather than limiting eligibility to those who were profiled as likely to exhaust benefits)  The House passed H R  1759 on April 9, 2019  The Extended Benefit (EB) program was established by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (EUCA; P L  91-373) (26 U S C  §3304, note)  EUCA may extend receipt of unemployment benefits (extended benefits) at the state level if certain economic conditions exist within the state  As of the date of this publication, EB is not active in any state  Extended Benefit Triggers The EB program is triggered when a state's insured unemployment rate (IUR) or total unemployment rate (TUR) reaches certain levels  All states must pay up to 13 weeks of EB if the IUR for the previous 13 weeks is at least 5% and is 120% of the average of the rates for the same 13-week period in each of the two previous years  States may choose to enact two other optional thresholds  (States may choose one, two, or none ) If the state has chosen one or more of the EB trigger options, it would provide the following: Option 1—up to an additional 13 weeks of benefits if the state's IUR is at least 6%, regardless of previous years' averages  Option 2—up to an additional 13 weeks of benefits if the state's TUR is at least 6 5% and is at least 110% of the state's average TUR for the same 13 weeks in either of the previous two years; up to an additional 20 weeks of benefits if the state's TUR is at least 8% and is at least 110% of the state's average TUR for the same 13 weeks in either of the previous two years  EB benefits are not "grandfathered" (phased out) when a state triggers "off" the program  When a state triggers "off" of an EB period, all EB benefit payments in the state cease immediately regardless of individual entitlement  The EB benefit amount is equal to the eligible individual's weekly regular UC benefits  Under permanent law, FUTA finances half (50%) of the EB payments and 100% of EB administrative costs  States fund the other half (50%) of EB benefit costs through their SUTA  On March 7, 2019, Representative Karen Bass introduced H R  1585 , the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019  Among many other provisions, Section 703 of H R  1585 would require states to consider an individual who quit employment because of sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to be eligible for UC benefits  The House passed H R  1585 on April 4, 2019  On March 14, 2019, Representative Stephanie Murphy introduced H R  1759 , the Building on Reemployment Improvements to Deliver Good Employment (BRIDGE) for Workers Act  This proposal would extend eligibility to any claimant of unemployment benefits, including those profiled as likely to exhaust benefits (rather than limiting eligibility to those who were profiled as likely to exhaust benefits)  The House passed H R  1759 on April 9, 2019 
Report 2:  During an inspection of a mine in Tennessee, a nonprimacy state, OSMRE determined that the operator had not correctly reclaimed a portion of the mine because the slope of the regraded area was too steep, according to an OSMRE official  For the reclamation work that would be needed to regrade that area, OSMRE determined that the operator needed to provide an additional financial assurance of $272,000  Under SMCRA, OSMRE is required to evaluate each primacy state’s coal program annually to ensure that it complies with SMCRA  SMCRA includes a requirement that the regulatory authority secure necessary financial assurances to assure the reclamation of each permitted mine site  While OSMRE’s directive on oversight of state and tribal regulatory programs does not instruct the agency to review state regulatory authority calculations of financial assurance amounts, it instructs OSMRE to focus on the state programs’ success in achieving the overall purposes of SMCRA  For example, OSMRE, in conducting its oversight, is to evaluate the states’ effectiveness in successfully reclaiming lands affected by mining and in avoiding negative effects outside of areas authorized for mining activities  If OSMRE’s review of a state program identifies an issue that could result in the state not effectively implementing, administering, enforcing, or maintaining all or any portion of its approved coal program, OSMRE can work with the state regulatory authority to develop an action plan to correct the issue  If a state regulatory authority does not take the necessary corrective action, OSMRE may begin the process of withdrawing approval for a part or all of the state’s primacy  In addition to annually evaluating state programs, OSMRE can conduct national or regional reviews on specific topics  For example, OSMRE conducted a national review in 2010 that examined how state regulatory authorities calculated the required amount of financial assurances for coal mine reclamation  The review examined financial assurance practices in 23 states and reported that on the basis of the sample of mining permits reviewed, OSMRE was unable to determine if the amount of financial assurances was adequate for at least one of the permits it reviewed in 10 of the 23 states  Among the potential issues OSMRE identified were errors in the methods state regulatory authorities used to calculate financial assurance amounts and insufficient information in the reclamation plan upon which to calculate reclamation costs  OSMRE has worked with the 10 state regulatory authorities to address the financial assurance issues identified in the 2010 review  For example, OSMRE’s review found that the regulatory authority in Pennsylvania did not secure sufficient financial assurances to complete reclamation plans, in part because amounts were not calculated based on the actual sizes of the areas excavated for mining  In August 2014, OSMRE and Pennsylvania’s regulatory authority agreed to an action plan to ensure that the financial assurances for all active and new permits would be calculated using the actual sizes of the excavated areas  According to an OSMRE official, as of February 2017, the state regulatory authority had recalculated the financial assurance amount for all mines and had secured the additional financial assurances needed from operators of all but two of the mines  State officials said in October 2017 that they were continuing to work to obtain the assurances required for the two mines  OSMRE’s 2010 review also found that financial assurances in Kentucky were not always sufficient to cover required reclamation costs, in part because the method Kentucky’s regulatory authority used to calculate financial assurance amounts did not factor in all costs, such as the cost of moving equipment to and from the reclamation site  In February 2011, OSMRE and Kentucky’s regulatory authority signed an action plan identifying steps needed to address the issues OSMRE had identified  However, in May 2012, OSMRE determined that the state regulatory authority’s proposed changes to its method for calculating financial assurance amounts was an improvement but would not result in the authority obtaining sufficient funds to cover required reclamation  As a result, OSMRE initiated the process of revoking Kentucky’s primacy for this aspect of its program  In response, Kentucky implemented regulations to increase the minimum financial assurance required  The regulations also required the state regulatory authority to evaluate financial assurance amounts every 2 years to determine whether they need to be increased, among other things  The state regulatory authority sent a set of program amendments to OSMRE designed to address the identified deficiencies, some of which OSMRE is currently reviewing  OSMRE and state regulatory authorities face a number of challenges in managing financial assurances for coal mine reclamation—including those related to self-bonding, unanticipated reclamation costs, and the financial stability of surety companies—according to federal and selected state regulatory authority officials, representatives from organizations associated with the mining and financial assurance industries, and representatives from environmental nongovernmental organizations whom we interviewed  Challenges facing OSMRE and state regulatory authorities related to self- bonding include the following: Not knowing the complete financial health of an operator  The information federal regulations require operators to provide to regulatory authorities may provide an incomplete picture of the financial health of an operator, according to some parties we interviewed  For example, the financial information that operators provide reflects their past financial health, which may not reflect the operators’ current financial position, according to OSMRE’s response to the 2016 petition seeking revisions to its self-bonding regulations  In addition, if an operator applying for a self-bond is a subsidiary of another company, the operator is not required by regulation to submit information on the financial health of its parent company  While the operator applying may have sufficient financial assets to qualify for self-bonding, if its parent company experiences financial difficulties, the operator’s assets may be drawn on to meet the parent’s obligations, which could worsen the financial health of the self-bonded operator  In addition, according to OSMRE officials, even if OSMRE or a state regulatory authority were to become aware that an operator’s parent company was at financial risk, it would be difficult for the agency to deny the operator’s request for a self-bond because eligibility is specific to the entity applying for the self-bond, according to regulations  OSMRE could change its self-bonding regulations to require more information, according to OSMRE officials  However, the financial relationships between parent and subsidiary companies have become increasingly complex, making it difficult to ascertain an operator’s financial health on the basis of information reported in company financial and accounting documents, according to officials  When OSMRE first approved its self-bonding regulations in 1983, it noted that it was attempting to provide rules that would allow self-bonding without necessitating regulatory authorities to employ financial experts to determine which companies should be allowed to self-bond  However, according to OSMRE officials, financial expertise is now often needed to evaluate the current complex financial structures of large coal companies, which was not envisioned when the regulations were developed  Difficulty in determining whether an operator qualifies for self- bonding  The regulatory authority in a given state may not be aware that an operator had self-bonded in other states, making it difficult for the agency to determine whether the operator qualifies for self- bonding, according to some parties we interviewed  Operators are only allowed to self-bond for up to 25 percent of their net worth in the United States, according to regulations  Regulatory authority decisions on accepting self-bonds generally focus on assessing activities occurring in a specific state, not nationwide, according to the Interstate Mining Compact Commission  As a result, the state regulatory authority or OSMRE may know whether an operator has applied for self-bonds in other states that if approved would exceed 25 percent of its net worth in total  Difficulty in replacing existing self-bonds with other assurances if needed  OSMRE and state regulatory authorities may find it difficult to get operators to replace existing self-bonds with another type of financial assurance when needed, according to some parties we interviewed  If an operator no longer qualifies for self-bonding (e g , if it has declared bankruptcy), federal regulations require it to either replace self-bonds with other types of financial assurances or stop mining and reclaim the site  In either case, however, some parties noted that such actions could lead to a worsening of the operator’s financial condition, which could make it less likely that the operator will successfully reclaim the site  Some parties we interviewed have noted that regulatory authorities may be reluctant to direct the operator to replace a self-bond with another type of financial assurance and may instead allow the operator to keep mining so that any generated revenue could help the operator reclaim the site  For example, in 2015 the Wyoming regulatory authority determined that an operator no longer qualified for self-bonding and ordered it to replace a $411 million self-bond  However, the operator entered into bankruptcy without having replaced the self-bond  In this case, the state regulatory authority determined that reclamation was more likely to occur if the operator continued mining and allowed the operator to do so without a valid financial assurance  The operator replaced its self-bond as a part of its bankruptcy settlement approximately 17 months after the state regulatory authority’s order to replace the self-bond, according to OSMRE officials  However, if a self-bonded operator were to enter bankruptcy and did not secure a financial assurance to replace the self-bond or complete the required reclamation, the state regulatory authority would have to work through the bankruptcy proceedings to obtain funds for reclamation, according to OSMRE’s preamble to its 1983 self-bonding regulations  As a result, the state may recover only some, or possibly none, of the funds promised through the self- bond, and the cost of reclamation could fall on taxpayers  Difficulty in managing the risk associated with self-bonding  The risk associated with self-bonding is greater now than when the practice was first authorized under SMCRA, according to some parties we interviewed  According to SMCRA, the purpose of financial assurances is to ensure that regulatory authorities have sufficient funds to complete required reclamation if the operator does not do so  While SMCRA allows self-bonding in certain circumstances, when OSMRE first approved its self-bonding regulations, the agency did so noting that at the time there were companies financially sound enough that the probability of bankruptcy was small  Furthermore, the regulations stated that the intent was to avoid, to the extent reasonably possible, the acceptance of a self-bond from a company that would enter bankruptcy  However, as previously mentioned, three of the largest coal companies in the United States declared bankruptcy in 2015 and 2016, and these companies held approximately $2 billion in self-bonds at the time, according to an OSMRE August 2016 policy advisory, making it a very different risk landscape than originally envisioned  Following these bankruptcies—and recognizing that the coal industry was likely to continue to face economic challenges for several more years— OSMRE initiated steps in 2016 to reexamine the role of self-bonding for coal mine reclamation  Specifically, as previously mentioned, OSMRE issued a policy advisory in August 2016 noting that given these circumstances, state regulatory authorities should exercise their discretion under SMCRA and not accept new or additional self-bonds for any permit until coal production and consumption market conditions reach equilibrium  OSMRE has reported that it is not likely for that to occur until at least 2021  OSMRE also announced in September 2016 that the agency planned to examine changes to its bonding regulations that would, among other things, help ensure that reclamation is completed if a self-bonded operator does not do so  However, following a review of department actions that could affect domestic energy production, Interior announced in October 2017 that it was reconsidering the need for and scope of potential changes to its bonding regulations  OSMRE officials said that they did not have a timeline for finalizing a decision on potential changes in its bonding regulations  In addition, OSMRE rescinded its August 2016 policy advisory that states take steps to assess whether operators currently using self-bonds can still quality to do so and that states not accept any new self-bonds  Similar issues involving bankruptcies of hardrock mining operators led the Bureau of Land Management to implement regulations in 2001 eliminating the use of self-bonding for hardrock mining  In doing so, the Bureau of Land Management determined that a self-bond is less secure than other types of financial assurances, especially in cases where commodity prices fluctuate  The agency also noted that operators that would otherwise be eligible to self-bond should not have a significant problem obtaining another type of financial assurance  In our previous work examining other types of environmental cleanup, we found that the financial risk to the government and the amount of oversight needed for self-bonds are relatively high compared to other forms of financial assurances  Furthermore, we also previously reviewed federal financial assurance requirements for coal mining, hardrock mining, onshore oil and gas extraction, and wind and solar energy production and found that of these activities coal mining is the only one where self-bonding was allowed  Because SMCRA explicitly allows states to decide whether to accept self-bonds, eliminating the risk that self-bonding poses to the federal government and states would require that SMCRA be amended  Unanticipated reclamation costs, such as those related to long-term treatment for water pollution, may arise late in a mine’s projected lifespan, and the operator may not have the financial means to cover the additional costs, according to OSMRE officials  Under SMCRA, OSMRE and state regulatory authorities are not to approve a permit for a coal mine if the regulatory authority expects the mine to result in long-term water pollution  As a result, since long-term water pollution is not anticipated to occur, the cost of addressing it would not be included in the initial financial assurance that the operator provides  If the regulatory authority later determines that long-term water treatment is needed, the regulatory authority must adjust the amount of financial assurance that the operator is required to provide  Some parties we interviewed have also noted that the costs and duration of long-term water treatment are not well defined and that surety bonds are not well-suited to provide assurance for such indefinite long-term costs  For example, according to the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, surety bonds are designed for shorter-term, defined obligations that have a high certainty for bond release following the completion of reclamation  To help address this challenge, some states have established, or allowed operators to establish, trust funds to help cover such unanticipated reclamation costs  For example, West Virginia established a fund, primarily supported through a tax on the amount of coal mined, to operate water treatment systems on forfeited sites  West Virginia’s regulatory authority is also working to evaluate permits for sites with water pollution to estimate water treatment costs within the state more precisely  Similarly, Pennsylvania allows operators to establish trust funds that are maintained by foundations and monitored by the state regulatory authority and are intended to ensure that there are sufficient funds to cover the costs of long-term water treatment, according to state regulatory authority officials  In addition, the OSMRE-run coal program in Tennessee allows trust funds for water treatment, in part because an assurance system that provides an income stream may be better suited to ensuring the treatment of long-term water pollution than conventional financial assurances, according to an OSMRE notice in the Federal Register  The utility of surety bonds in providing a financial assurance depends on the surety company’s ability to pay the amount pledged if the operator forfeits  OSMRE regulations require that a surety company be licensed to do business in the state where a mine is located  Some parties we interviewed noted that surety companies have declared bankruptcy or experienced financial difficulties in the past and could experience similar difficulties in the future  In addition, two states reported recent issues related to surety companies  For example, state regulatory authority officials in Alabama said that a surety company that had provided surety bonds totaling $760,000 for four mines in that state had gone bankrupt or was insolvent  As of May 2017, the state had collected only $127,000  Similarly, state regulatory authority officials in Alaska said that as of August 2017, the state had not collected any part of a forfeited $150,000 surety bond because the surety company had gone bankrupt  In our previous work examining other types of environmental cleanup, we have found that the financial risk to the government and the amount of oversight needed for surety bonds are relatively low to moderate compared to other forms of financial assurances  Billions have been spent to reclaim mines abandoned prior to the financial assurance requirements SMCRA put in place, and billions more remain  Under SMCRA, self-bonding is allowed for coal mine operators with a history of financial solvency and continuous operation—the only type of energy production or mineral extraction activity we have reviewed for which this is allowed  Bankruptcies of coal mine operators in 2015 and 2016 have highlighted risks that OSMRE and state regulatory authorities face in managing self-bonding—a risk that may be greater today than when self-bonding was first authorized under SMCRA  If a self-bonded operator were to enter bankruptcy and does not provide a different type of financial assurance or complete the required reclamation, the regulatory authority and the taxpayer potentially assume the risk of paying for the reclamation  Although OSMRE said it would examine changes to its self- bonding regulations following recent bankruptcies, Interior recently said that it is reconsidering the need to do so  Because SMCRA explicitly allows states to decide whether to accept self-bonds, eliminating the risk that self-bonding poses would require amending SMCRA  Until such a change is made, the government will remain potentially at financial risk for future reclamation costs resulting from coal mines with unsecured financial assurances  Congress should consider amending SMCRA to eliminate the use of self- bonding as a type of financial assurance for coal mine reclamation  (Matter for Consideration 1) We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior for review and comment  Interior did not provide written comments on our findings and matter for congressional consideration  OSMRE provided technical comments in an e-mail, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Interior, the Acting Director of OSMRE, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II  We selected a nonprobability sample of states to examine the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s (OSMRE) oversight activities in more detail  We generally selected states that produced the most coal in 2015 but also selected states in order to achieve some variation in factors such as geographic location, the dominant type of coal mining conducted (e g , surface or underground mining), whether the state had primacy, and whether the state allowed self-bonding (see table 2)  In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Erdmann (Assistant Director), Antoinette Capaccio, Jonathan Dent, Cynthia Grant, Marya Link, Anne Rhodes-Kline, Sheryl Stein, Guiovany Venegas, and Jack Wang made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: The 116th Congress has begun to consider several issues related to two programs in the unemployment insurance (UI) system: Unemployment Compensation (UC) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE). The lapse in federal appropriations that occurred from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019, created a partial government shutdown. As a result, agencies without funding furloughed many federal employees, and many federal employees excepted from furlough were working without pay during the lapse in appropriations. Furloughed federal employees may be eligible for UCFE benefits. Private-sector workers who are furloughed or laid off due to the partial government shutdown because they were employed by government contractors may be eligible for regular UC benefits. But, according to guidance from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), excepted federal employees who are performing services (without pay) would generally be ineligible for UCFE benefits based on states' definitions of "unemployment." In this climate, there has been congressional interest in assisting furloughed and excepted federal employees through the UI system. UI legislative issues currently facing the 116th Congress include the following: the effects of the FY2019 sequester order on UI programs and benefits, the role of UI in providing temporary income replacement during a government shutdown, state fiscal concerns related to financing UC benefits, reemployment services and eligibility assessments (RESEA), potential consideration of the UI proposals included in the President's FY2020 budget, and congressional oversight related to a proposed UC drug testing rule reissued by DOL after previously being disapproved using the Congressional Review Act. In the 116th Congress, policymakers have introduced legislation related to UCFE benefits in response to the recent partial government shutdown (S. 165, H.R. 720, H.R. 725, and H.R. 1117), legislation to provide self-employment and relocation assistance benefits (S. 136 and H.R. 556), legislation to require that states consider an individual who quit employment because of sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to be eligible for UC benefits (H.R. 1585), and legislation to amend Title III of the Social Security Act to extend RESEA to all UC claimants (H.R. 1759). For a brief overview of UC, see CRS In Focus IF10336, The Fundamentals of Unemployment Compensation.