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



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

Report 1: Article I, Section 6, of the U S  Constitution, states that the compensation of Members of Congress shall be "ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States " Additionally, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution states, "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened " This amendment was submitted to the states on September 25, 1789, along with 11 other proposed amendments, 10 of which were ratified and became the Bill of Rights  It was not ratified until May 7, 1992  Since FY1983, Member salaries have been funded in a permanent appropriations account  The most recent pay adjustment for Members of Congress was in January 2009  Since then, the compensation for most Senators, Representatives, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico has been $174,000  The only exceptions include the Speaker of the House ($223,500) and the President pro tempore of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate ($193,400)  This report provides historical tables on the rate of pay for Members of Congress since 1789; details on enacted legislation with language prohibiting the automatic annual pay adjustment since the most recent adjustment; the adjustments projected by the Ethics Reform Act as compared with actual adjustments in Member pay; and Member pay in constant and current dollars since 1992  Additional CRS products also address pay and benefits for Members of Congress: For information on actions taken each year since the establishment of the Ethics Reform Act adjustment procedure, see CRS Report 97-615, Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2018 , by Ida A  Brudnick  Members of Congress only receive salaries during the terms for which they are elected  Following their service, former Members of Congress may be eligible for retirement benefits, which are discussed in CRS Report RL30631, Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress , by Katelin P  Isaacs  For information on health insurance options available to Members, see CRS Report R43194, Health Benefits for Members of Congress and Designated Congressional Staff: In Brief , by Ada S  Cornell  For an overview of compensation, benefits, allowances, and selected limitations, see CRS Report RL30064, Congressional Salaries and Allowances: In Brief , by Ida A  Brudnick  There are three basic ways to adjust Member pay  Specific legislation was enacted to adjust Member pay prior to 1968  It has been used periodically since, most recently affecting pay for 1991  The second method by which Member pay can be increased is pursuant to recommendations from the President, based on those made by a quadrennial salary commission  In 1967, Congress established the Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries to recommend salary increases for top-level federal officials (P L  90-206)  Three times (in 1969, 1977, and 1987) Congress received pay increases made under this procedure; on three occasions it did not  Effective with passage of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 ( P L  101-194 ), the commission ceased to exist  Its authority was assumed by the Citizens' Commission on Public Service and Compensation  Although the first commission under the 1989 act was to have convened in 1993, it did not meet  The third method by which the salary of Members can be changed is by annual adjustments  Prior to 1990, the pay of Members, and other top-level federal officials, was tied to the annual comparability increases provided to General Schedule (GS) federal employees  This procedure was established in 1975 ( P L  94-82 )  Such increases were recommended by the President, subject to congressional acceptance, disapproval, or modification  Congress accepted 5 such increases for itself—in 1975, 1979 (partial), 1984, 1985, and 1987—and declined 10 (1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1988, and 1989)  The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 changed the method by which the annual adjustment is determined for Members and other senior officials  This procedure employs a formula based on changes in private sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI)  The annual adjustment automatically goes into effect unless 1  Congress statutorily prohibits the adjustment; 2  Congress statutorily revises the adjustment; or 3  The annual base pay adjustment of GS employees is established at a rate less than the scheduled adjustment for Members, in which case Members would be paid the lower rate  Under this revised method, annual adjustments were accepted 13 times (adjustments scheduled for January 1991, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009) and denied 16 times (adjustments scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019)  Although discussion of the Member pay adjustment sometimes occurs during consideration of annual appropriations bills, these bills do not contain funds for the annual salaries or pay adjustment for Members  Nor do they contain language authorizing an increase  The use of appropriations bills as vehicles for provisions prohibiting the automatic annual pay adjustments for Members developed by custom  A provision prohibiting an adjustment to Member pay could be offered to any bill, or be introduced as a separate bill  The maximum potential January 2020 Member pay adjustment of 2 6%, or $4,500, was known when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released data for the change in the Employment Cost Index (ECI) during the 12-month period from December 2017 to December 2018 on January 31, 2019  Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified statutorily by Congress, or limited by the General Schedule (GS) base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase  The maximum potential January 2019 Member pay adjustment of 2 3%, or $4,000, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2016 to December 2017 on January 31, 2018  Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase  The 2019 GS base pay adjustment was 1 4%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $2,400  The House-passed ( H R  5894 ) and Senate-reported versions ( S  3071 ) of the FY2019 legislative branch appropriations bill both contained provisions to prevent this adjustment  The Member pay provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this provision  Division B of P L  115-244 , enacted September 21, 2018, included the pay freeze provision  The maximum potential January 2018 member pay adjustment of 1 8%, or $3,100, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2015 to December 2016 on January 31, 2017  Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied or modified statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase  The 2018 GS base pay adjustment was 1 4%, automatically limiting any Member pay adjustment to $2,400  The House-passed ( H R  3162 ) and Senate-reported versions ( S  1648 ) of the FY2018 legislative branch appropriations bill both contained provisions to prevent this adjustment  The Member pay provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this provision  Neither bill was enacted prior to the start of FY2018, and legislative branch activities were initially funded through a series of continuing appropriations resolutions (CRs) ( P L  115-56 , through December 8, 2017; P L  115-90 , through December 22, 2017; P L  115-96 , through January 19, 2018; P L  115-120 , through February 8, 2018; P L  115-123 , through March 23, 2018)  P L  115-56 contained a provision, extended in the subsequent CRs, continuing "section 175 of P L  114-223 , as amended by division A of P L  114-254  " This provision prohibited a Member pay adjustment in FY2017  Section 7 of the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P L  115-141 ) prohibited the adjustment for the remainder of the year  The maximum potential January 2017 Member pay adjustment of 1 6%, or $2,800, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2014 to December 2015 on January 30, 2016  Both the House-passed ( H R  5325 ) and Senate-reported ( S  2955 ) versions of the FY2017 legislative branch appropriations bill—which would provide approximately $4 4 billion in funding for the activities of the House of Representatives, Senate, and legislative branch support agencies —contained a provision that would prohibit this adjustment  The Member pay provision was included in the bills as introduced and no separate votes were held on this provision  No further action was taken on H R  5325 or S  2955 , but the pay prohibition language was included in the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P L  114-254 )  Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have automatically been limited to a 1 0% ($1,700) salary increase to match the increase in base salaries for GS employees  The maximum potential January 2016 Member pay adjustment of 1 7%, or $3,000, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2013 to December 2014 on January 30, 2015  The House-passed and Senate-reported versions of the FY2016 legislative branch appropriations bill ( H R  2250 ) both contained a provision prohibiting this adjustment  The pay adjustment prohibition was subsequently included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P L  114-113 )  Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have automatically been limited to a 1 0% ($1,700) salary increase to match the increase in base salaries for GS employees  The maximum potential January 2015 pay adjustment of 1 6%, or $2,800, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2012 to December 2013 on January 31, 2014  Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase  The FY2015 legislative branch appropriations bill ( H R  4487 ), as reported by the Committee on Appropriations and passed by the House on May 1, 2014, contained a provision prohibiting this adjustment  This provision was continued in the House-passed and Senate-reported versions of this bill, with no separate vote on the Member pay provision  No further action on this bill was taken, but the provision was subsequently included in Section 8 of Division Q of the FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, which was enacted on December 16, 2014  On August 29, 2014, President Obama issued an "alternative pay plan for federal civilian employees," which called for a 1 0% increase in base salaries for General Schedule employees  Absent the statutory prohibition on a Member pay adjustment, Members of Congress would have automatically been limited to a 1 0% ($1,700) salary increase  The maximum potential 2014 pay adjustment of 1 2%, or $2,100, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2011 to December 2012 on January 31, 2013  The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 ( P L  113-46 , enacted October 17, 2013), however, prohibited the scheduled 2014 pay adjustment for Members of Congress  Each year, the adjustment takes effect automatically unless it is either denied statutorily by Congress, or limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase  The scheduled January 2014 across-the-board increase in the base pay of GS employees under the annual adjustment formula was 1 3%  A scheduled GS annual pay increase may be altered only if the President issues an alternative plan or if a different increase, or freeze, is enacted  The President issued an alternate pay plan for civilian federal employees on August 30, 2013  This plan called for a January 2014 across-the-board pay increase of 1 0% for federal civilian employees, the same percentage as proposed in the President's FY2014 budget  Legislation was not enacted to prohibit or alter the GS adjustment, and Executive Order 13655, issued on December 23, 2013, implemented a 1 0% increase for GS employees  Had the Member pay adjustment not been prohibited by law, the GS base pay adjustment would have automatically limited a salary adjustment for Members of Congress to 1 0% ($1,700)  The maximum potential 2013 pay adjustment of 1 1%, or $1,900, was known when the BLS released data for the change in the ECI during the 12-month period from December 2010 to December 2011 on January 31, 2012  The adjustment takes effect automatically unless (1) denied statutorily by Congress or (2) limited by the GS base pay adjustment, since the percentage increase in Member pay is limited by law to the GS base pay percentage increase  The President's budget, submitted on February 13, 2012, proposed an average (i e , base and locality) 0 5% adjustment for GS employees  President Obama later stated in a letter to congressional leadership on August 21, 2012, that the current federal pay freeze should extend until FY2013 budget negotiations are finalized  Section 114 of H J Res  117 , the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, which was introduced on September 10, 2012, extended the freeze enacted by P L  111-322 through the duration of this continuing resolution  H J Res  117 was passed by the House on September 13 and the Senate on September 22  It was signed by the President on September 28, 2012 ( P L  112-175 )  A delay in the implementation of pay adjustments for GS employees automatically delays any scheduled Member pay adjustment  On December 27, 2012, President Obama issued Executive Order 13635, which listed the rates of pay for various categories of officers and employees that would be effective after the expiration of the freeze extended by P L  112-175   The executive order included a 0 5% increase for GS base pay, which automatically lowered the maximum potential Member pay adjustment from 1 1% to 0 5%  As in prior years, schedule 6 of the 2012 executive order listed the pay rate for Members of Congress for the upcoming year  This executive order indicated that an annual adjustment would take effect after the expiration of the freeze included in P L  112-175   As stated above, the annual adjustments take effect automatically if legislation is not enacted preventing them  The executive order, however, by establishing the GS pay adjustment at a lower rate than the scheduled Member pay adjustment, automatically lowered the Member pay adjustment rate since by law Member pay adjustments cannot be higher than GS pay adjustments  Subsequently, a provision in H R  8 , the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which was enacted on January 2, 2013 ( P L  112-240 ), froze Member pay at the 2009 level for 2013  The language was included in S Amdt  3448 , a substitute amendment agreed to by unanimous consent  The bill, as amended, passed the Senate (89-8, vote #251) and the House (257-167, roll call #659) on January 1, 2013  This freeze was subsequently reflected in Executive Order 13641, which was signed April 5, 2013  This represented the second time, the first being in 2006, that Member pay was statutorily frozen for only a portion of the following year at the time of the issuance of the executive order  In both instances, the executive order listed new pay rates and indicated an effective date following the expiration of the statutory freeze  Pay adjustments in both years were further frozen pursuant to subsequent laws  As stated above, projected Member pay adjustments are calculated based on changes in the ECI  The projected 2011 adjustment of 0 9% was known when the BLS released data for the ECI change during the 12-month period from December 2008 to December 2009 on January 29, 2010  This adjustment would have equaled a $1,600 increase, resulting in a salary of $175,600  The 2011 pay adjustment was prohibited by the enactment of H R  5146 ( P L  111-165 ) on May 14, 2010  H R  5146 was introduced in the House on April 27 and was agreed to the same day (Roll no  226)  It was agreed to in the Senate the following day by unanimous consent  Other legislation was also introduced to prevent the scheduled 2011 pay adjustment  Additionally, P L  111-322 , which was enacted on December 22, 2010, prevents any adjustment in GS base pay before December 31, 2012  Since the percentage adjustment in Member pay may not exceed the percentage adjustment in the base pay of GS employees, Member pay is also frozen during this period  If not limited by GS pay, Members could have received a salary adjustment of 1 3% in January 2012 under the ECI formula  Pay for Members of Congress remained $174,000  Under the formula established in the Ethics Reform Act, Members were originally scheduled to receive a pay adjustment in January 2010 of 2 1%  This adjustment was denied by Congress through a provision included in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act  Section 103 of Division J of the act states, "Notwithstanding any provision of section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U S C  31(2)), the percentage adjustment scheduled to take effect under any such provision in calendar year 2010 shall not take effect " Had this provision not been enacted, the 2 1% projected adjustment would have been automatically reduced to 1 5% to match the 2010 GS base pay adjustment  As in previous Congresses, legislation was introduced in the 116 th Congress to repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H R  751 and H R  1466 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including passage of a budget resolution, passage of appropriations, or reaching the debt limit (for example, S  39 , S  44 , S  949 , H R  86 , H R  102 , H R  129 , H R  236 , H R  298 , H R  834 , H R  1172 , H R  1178 , H R  1466 , H R  1612 , H J Res  10 , and H J Res  51 ); and prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting in a government shutdown (for example, S  74 , S  949 , H R  26 , H R  211 , H R  845 , and H R  1612 )  Legislation was introduced in the 115 th Congress to prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H R  342 ); repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H R  668 and H R  5946 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including passage of a budget resolution or reaching the debt limit (for example, H R  429 , H R  536 , H R  646 , H R  1779 , H R  1951 , H R  2153 , H R  2665 , H R  3675 , H R  4512 , and H R  5946 , and S  14 ); reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H R  1786 and H R  5539 ); and prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting in a government shutdown (for example, H R  1789 , H R  1794 , H R  2214 , H R  4852 , H R  4870 , and S  2327 )  Legislation was introduced in the 114 th Congress to prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H R  109 and H R  302 ); repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H R  179 , H R  513 , H R  688 , H R  1585 , and S  17 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including the passage of a budget resolution or existence of a deficit (for example, H Con Res  27 , S Con Res  11 , H R  92 , H R  110 , H R  174 , H R  187 , H R  3757 , H R  4814 , H R  4476 , and S  39 ); reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H R  179 and H R  688 ); and prohibit or reduce pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting in a government shutdown (for example, S  2074 , H R  3562 , H R  2023 , and H R  1032 )  The House budget resolution for FY2016, H Con Res  27 , included a policy statement that Congress should agree to a concurrent budget resolution each year by April 15, and if not, congressional salaries should be held in escrow (Section 819)  The statement proposed that salaries would be released from the escrow account either when a chamber agrees to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the last day of the Congress, whichever is earlier  The House agreed to this resolution on March 25, 2015, and no further action was taken  The Senate agreed to its resolution on the FY2016 budget, S Con Res  11 , on March 27, 2015, without this language  The conference report for S Con Res  11 —agreed to in the House on April 30 and in the Senate on May 5, 2015—contains a "Policy Statement on 'No Budget, No Pay'" (Section 6216), which refers to actions by the House  Legislation was introduced in the 113 th Congress to prohibit adjustments in pay (for example, H R  54 , H R  243 , H R  636 , S  18 , S  30 ); repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, H R  134 , H R  150 , H R  196 , S  65 , and H R  398 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to congressional actions or economic indicators, including passage of a budget resolution or reaching the debt limit (for example, H R  108 , H R  167 , H R  284 , H R  308 , H R  310 , H R  325 , H R  372 , H R  397 , H R  396 , H R  522 , H R  593 , H R  1884 , H R  2335 , H R  3234 , S  18 , S  30 , and S  263 ); reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H R  37 , H R  150 , H R  391 , H R  396 , H R  398 , and H R  1467 ); prohibit pay for Members of Congress during a lapse in appropriations resulting in a government shutdown (for example, H R  3160 , H R  3215 , H R  3224 , H R  3234 , and H R  3236 ); and apply any sequester to Member pay (for example, S  436 , H R  1181 , H R  1478 , and H R  2677 )  H R  325 , which (1) included language holding congressional salaries in escrow if a concurrent resolution on the budget was not agreed to by April 15, 2013, and (2) provided for a temporary extension of the debt ceiling through May 18, 2013, was introduced on January 21, 2013  Salaries would have been held in escrow for Members in a chamber if that chamber had not agreed to a concurrent resolution by that date  Salaries would have been released from the escrow account either when that chamber agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the last day of the 113 th Congress, whichever was earlier  H R  325 was agreed to in the House on January 23, 2013, and the Senate on January 31, 2013  It was enacted on February 4, 2013 ( P L  113-3 )  Both the House and Senate agreed to a budget resolution prior to that date, however, and salaries were not held in escrow  H R  807 , the Full Faith and Credit Act, was introduced in the House on February 25, 2013  The bill would have prioritized certain payments in the event the debt reaches the statutory limit  An amendment, H Amdt  61 , was offered on May 9, 2013, that would clarify that these obligations would not include compensation for Members of Congress  It was agreed to the same day  The bill passed the House on May 13, 2013  No further action was taken in the 113 th Congress  The House-passed version of H J Res  59 , the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014, also contained a provision addressing actions by the Secretary of the Treasury in the event that the debt limit is reached and not raised  The provision (Section 138) would, in part, prohibit borrowing to provide pay for Members of Congress in the event that the debt reaches the statutory limit prior to December 15, 2014  The bill passed the House on September 20, 2013  It was enacted on December 26, 2013, without this section  Legislation was introduced in the 112 th Congress to repeal the automatic pay adjustment provision (for example, S  133 , S  148 , H R  187 , H R  235 , H R  246 , H R  343 , H R  431 , H R  3673 ); change the procedure by which pay for Members of Congress is adjusted or disbursed by linking it to other action or economic indicators (for example, H R  124 , H R  172 , H R  236 , H R  994 , H R  1454 , H R  3136 , H R  3565 , H R  3774 , H R  3799 , H R  3883 , H R  4036 , H R  6438 , S  1442 ); reduce the pay of Members of Congress (for example, H R  204 , H R  270 , H R  335 , H R  1012 , H R  4399 ); otherwise alter or restrict pay for Members under certain conditions (for example, H R  6108 ); and freeze Member pay (for example, S  1931 , S  1936 , S  2065 , S  2079 , S  2210 , H R  3858 , H R  6474 , H R  6720 , H R  6721 , H R  6722 )  Legislation was also introduced in the 112 th Congress that would have affected Member pay in the event of a lapse of appropriations resulting in a government shutdown  These included H R  819 , H R  1255 , H R  1305 , H Con Res  56 , and S  388   The Senate passed S  388 on March 1, 2011  The bill would have prohibited Members of the House and Senate from receiving pay, including retroactive pay, for each day that there is a lapse in appropriations or the federal government is unable to make payments or meet obligations because of the public debt limit  The House passed H R  1255 on April 1, 2011  The bill would have prohibited the disbursement of pay to Members of the House and Senate during either of these situations  No further action was taken on either bill  On April 8, 2011, the Speaker of the House issued a "Dear Colleague" letter indicating that in the event of a shutdown, Members of Congress would continue to be paid pursuant to the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, which as stated above, states: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened"—although Members could elect to return any compensation to the Treasury  Additional legislation to prohibit any Member pay adjustment in 2013 was introduced but not enacted in the 112 th Congress, including the following: Section 5421(b)(1) of H R  3630 , as introduced in the House, would have prohibited any adjustment for Members of Congress prior to December 31, 2013  Section 706 of the motion to recommit also contained language freezing Member pay  On December 13, 2011, the motion to recommit failed (183-244, roll call #922), and the bill passed the House (234-193, roll call #923)  The House-passed version of the bill was titled the "Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011 " The Senate substitute amendment, which did not address pay adjustments, passed on December 17  It was titled the "Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 " The bill was enacted on February 22, 2012 ( P L  112-96 ), without the pay freeze language  H R  3835 , introduced on January 27, 2012, also would have extended the pay freeze for federal employees, including Members of Congress, to December 31, 2013  This bill passed the House on February 1, 2012  H R  6726 , introduced on January 1, 2013, would have extended the pay freeze for federal employees, including Members of Congress, to December 31, 2013  This bill passed the House on January 2, 2013  Table 1 provides a history of the salaries of Members of Congress since 1789  For each salary rate, both the effective date and the statutory authority are provided  Table 2 provides information on pay adjustments for Members since 1992, which was the first full year after the Ethics Reform Act that Representatives and Senators received the same salary  The table provides the projected percentage changes under the formula based on the Employment Cost Index and the actual percentage adjustment  The differences between the projected and actual Member pay adjustments resulted from the enactment of legislation preventing the increase (adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019); limits on the percentage increase of Member pay because of the percentage increase in GS base pay (adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019); and a combination of the above  In some years, the percentage adjustment for Member pay would have been lowered to match the percentage adjustment in GS base pay if Congress had not passed legislation denying the adjustment (adjustments for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019)  If Members of Congress had received every adjustment prescribed by the ECI formula since 1992, and the 2 U S C  §4501 limitation regarding the percentage base pay increase for GS employees remained unchanged, the 2019 salary would be $210,900  Table 3 lists the laws which have previously delayed or prohibited Member pay adjustments, the dates these laws were enacted, and the text of the provision  While many of the bills in this list are appropriations bills, a prohibition on Member pay adjustments could be included in any bill, or be introduced as a separate bill  Figure 1 , which follows, shows the salary of Members of Congress in current and constant (inflation adjusted) dollars since 1992  It shows that Member salaries, when adjusted for inflation, decreased 15% from 2009 until 2019 


Report 2: Running away from home is not a recent phenomenon  Folkloric heroes Huckleberry Finn and Davy Crockett fled their abusive fathers to find adventure and employment  Although some youth today also leave home due to abuse and neglect, they often endure far more negative outcomes than their romanticized counterparts from an earlier era  Without adequate and safe shelter, runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to engaging in high-risk behaviors and further victimization  Youth who live away from home for extended periods may become removed from school and systems of support  Runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to multiple problems while they are away from a permanent home, including untreated mental health disorders, drug use, and sexual exploitation  They also report other challenges including poor health and the lack of basic provisions  Congress began to hear concerns about the vulnerabilities of the runaway population in the 1970s due to increased awareness about these youth and the establishment of runaway shelters to assist them in returning home  Congress and the President went on to enact the Runaway Youth Act of 1974 as Title III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act ( P L  93-415 ) to assist runaways through services specifically for this population  Since that time, the law has been updated to authorize services to provide support for runaway and homeless youth outside of the juvenile justice, mental health, and child welfare systems  The Runaway Youth Act—now known as the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act—authorized federal funding to be provided through annual appropriations for three programs that assist runaway and homeless youth: the Basic Center Program (BCP), Transitional Living Program (TLP), and Street Outreach Program (SOP)  Together, the programs make up the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program (RHYP), administered by the Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) in the U S  Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Administration for Children and Families (ACF)  Basic Center Program: Provides funding to community-based organizations for crisis intervention, temporary shelter, counseling, family unification, and after care services to runaway and homeless youth under age 18 and their families  In some cases, BCP-funded programs may serve older youth  Over 31,000 youth participated in FY2016, the most recent year for which data are available  Transitional Living Program: Supports community-based organizations that provide homeless youth ages 16 through 22 with stable, safe, longer-term residential services up to 18 months (or longer under certain circumstances), including counseling in basic life skills, building interpersonal skills, educational advancement, job attainment skills, and physical and mental health care  Over 6,000 youth participated in FY2016  Street Outreach Program: Provides funding to community-based organizations for street-based outreach and education, including treatment, counseling, provision of information, and referrals for runaway, homeless, and street youth who have been subjected to, or are at risk of being subjected to, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, prostitution, and trafficking  SOP grantees made contact with more than 36,000 youth in FY2016  This report begins with an overview of the runaway and homeless youth population  It then describes the challenges in defining and counting this population, as well as the factors that influence homelessness and leaving home  The report also provides background on federal efforts to support runaway and homeless youth, including the evolution of federal policies to respond to these youth, with a focus on the period from the Runaway Youth Act of 1974 to the present time  The report then describes the administration and funding of the Basic Center, Transitional Living, and Street Outreach programs that were created from authorizations in the act  The appendixes include funding information for the BCP program and discuss other federal programs that may be used to assist runaway and homeless youth  There is no single federal definition of the terms "homeless youth" or "runaway youth " However, HHS relies on definitions from the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act in administering the Runaway and Homeless Youth program: The act includes the following definitions: "Homeless youth," for purposes of the BCP, includes individuals under age 18 (or some older age if permitted by state or local law) for whom it is not possible to live in a safe environment with a relative and who lack safe alternative living arrangements  "Homeless youth," for purposes of the TLP, includes individuals ages 16 through 22 for whom it is not possible to live in a safe environment with a relative and who lack safe alternative living arrangements  Youth older than age 22 may participate if they entered the program before age 22 and meet other requirements  "Runaway youth" includes individuals under age 18 who absent themselves from their home or legal residence at least overnight without the permission of their parents or legal guardians  Separately, the McKinney-Vento Act authorizes several federal programs for homeless individuals that are administered by the U S  Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)  The definition of "homeless individual" in McKinney-Vento refers to "unaccompanied youth," which applies to selected homelessness programs  HUD's related regulation defines an "unaccompanied youth" as someone under age 25 who meets the definition of "homeless" in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act or other specified federal laws  The regulation also provides additional criteria, including that they have lived independently without permanent housing for at least 60 days  The research literature discusses definitions of runaway and homeless youth  While studies have often categorized young people based on their status as runaways , homeless, or street youth , a 2011 report suggests that overlap exists between these categories  The authors of the study note that these "typologies," or classifications, are too narrowly defined by the youth's housing status and reasons for homelessness, among other factors  The authors explain that typologies based on mental health status or age cohort are promising, but they suggest further research in this area to ensure that the typologies are accurate  The precise number of homeless and runaway youth is unknown due to their residential mobility  These youth often eschew the shelter system for locations or areas that are not easily accessible to shelter workers and others who count the homeless and runaways  Youth who come into contact with census takers may also be reluctant to report that they have left home or are homeless  Determining the number of homeless and runaway youth is further complicated by the lack of a standardized methodology for counting the population and inconsistent definitions of what it means to be homeless or a runaway  Differences in methodology for collecting data on homeless populations may also influence how the characteristics of the runaway and homeless youth population are reported  Some studies have relied on point prevalence estimates that report whether youth have experienced homelessness at a given point in time, such as on a particular day  According to researchers that study the characteristics of runaway and homeless youth, these studies appear to be biased toward describing individuals who experience longer periods of homelessness  HUD requires communities receiving certain HUD funding to conduct annual point-in-time (PIT) counts of people experiencing homelessness, including homeless youth  The PIT counts include people living in emergency shelter, transitional housing, and on the street or other places not meant for human habitation  It does not include people who are temporarily living with family or friends  In the 2018 PIT count, communities identified 36,361 unaccompanied youth under age 25 (versus 40,799 in 2017) and another 8,724 under age 25 who were homeless parents (versus 9,434 in 2017)  While PIT counts do not provide a confident estimate of youth experiencing homelessness across the country, they provide some information to communities about the potential scope of youth homelessness  The Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act ( P L  110-378 ), which renewed authorization of appropriations for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program through FY2013, also authorized funding for HHS to conduct periodic studies of the incidence and prevalence of youth who have run away or are homeless  Separately, the accompanying conference report to the FY2016 appropriations law ( P L  114-113 ) directed HUD to use $2 million to conduct a national incidence and prevalence study of homeless youth as authorized under the Runaway and Homeless Youth program  HUD provided these funds to Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago to carry out the study  The study, known as Voices of Youth Count , used a nationally representative phone survey to derive national estimates and conducted brief surveys of youth and in-depth interviews of youth who had experiences of homelessness  The phone survey involved interviews with adults whose households had youth and young adults ages 13 to 25 and with adults ages 18 to 25  Voices of Youth Count estimated that approximately 700,000 youth ages 13 to 17 and 3 5 million young adults ages 18 to 25 had experienced homelessness within a one-year period, meaning they were sleeping in places not meant for human habitation, staying in shelters, or temporarily staying with others while lacking a safe and stable alternative living arrangement  This differs from the PIT counts because it includes individuals who are staying with others  The study also found that youth homelessness affected youth in rural and urban areas at similar levels  A 2010 study on the lifetime prevalence of running away used longitudinal survey data of young people who were 12 to 18 years old when they were first interviewed about whether they had run away—defined as staying away at least one night without their parents' prior knowledge or permission—along with other behaviors  In subsequent years, youth who were under age 17 at their previous interview were asked if they had run away since their last interview  Youth who had ever run away were asked how many times they had done so and the age at which they first did  The study found that 19% of those who ran away did so before turning 18; females were more likely than males to run away; and among white, black, and Hispanic youth, black youth have the highest rate of ever running away  Youth who ran away reported that they did so about three times on average; however, about half of runaways had only run away once  Approximately half of the youth had run away before age 14  A subset of runaway youth is those in foster care  In FY2017, over 500 children in the United States had run away from their foster care home or other placement  While this represents less than 1% of all children in foster care, running away is more prevalent among older youth in care  A study of over 50,000 youth ages 13 through 17 in 21 states indicated that 17% ran away at least once during their first time in foster care  The study found that female, black, and Hispanic youth were more likely to run away than male and white youth in care  The study further found that youth were more likely to run away from congregate care (i e , group care) settings compared to other settings, such as living with a relative or in a foster family home  Youth were also more likely to run away from care if they lived in the most socioeconomically disadvantaged counties or lived in a state that lacked a process to screen youth on the risk of running away  States report on the characteristics and experiences of certain current and former foster youth through the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD)  Among other information, states must report data on cohorts of foster youth beginning when they are age 17, and later at ages 19 and 21  Among youth surveyed in FY2015 at age 21, about 43% reported having experienced homelessness  Youth most often cite family conflict as the major reason for their homelessness or episodes of running away  According to the research literature, a youth's poor family dynamics, sexual activity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, school problems, and alcohol and drug use are strong predictors of family discord  One-third of callers who used the National Runaway Safeline in 2017—a crisis call center funded under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program for youth and their relatives involved in runaway incidents—gave family dynamics (not defined) as the reason for their call  Further, a longitudinal survey of middle school and high school youth examined the effects of family instability (e g , child maltreatment, lack of parental warmth, and parent rejection) and other factors on the likelihood of running away from home approximately two to six years after youth were initially surveyed  Researchers found that youth with family instability were more likely to run away  Family instability also influenced problem behaviors, such as illicit drug use, which, in turn, were associated with running away  Researchers further determined that certain other effects (e g , school engagement, neighborhood cohesiveness, physical victimization, and friends' support) were not strong predicators of whether youth in the sample ran away  In a study of youth who ran away from foster care between 1993 and 2003, the youth cited three primary reasons why they ran from foster care: to connect with their biological families, express their autonomy and find normalcy, and maintain relationships with nonfamily members  The Voices of Youth Count study found that certain youth ages 18 to 25 were at heightened risk of experiencing homelessness  This included youth with less than a high school diploma or GED; who were Hispanic or black; who were parenting and unmarried; or identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning (LGBTQ)  Gay and lesbian youth appear to be at greater risk for homelessness and are overrepresented in the homeless population, due often to experiencing negative reactions from their parents when they come out about their sexuality  The Voices of Youth Count study found that LGBTQ young adults ages 18 to 25 had more than twice the risk of being homeless than their heterosexual peers  LGBTQ youth made up about 20% of young adults who reported homelessness  In addition, a study involving LGBTQ young adults in seven cities found that the most common reason youth became homeless was due to being kicked out or asked to leave the home of a parent, relative, foster home, or group home  Under an HHS grant, Youth with Child Welfare Involvement at Risk of Homelessness , the 18 grantees (state, local, and tribal child welfare agencies or community-based organizations) evaluated multiple risk factors for homelessness among child welfare-involved populations: which include those who have had numerous foster care placements, run away from foster care, been placed in a group home, had a history of mental health or behavioral health diagnoses, had juvenile justice involvement, had a history of substance abuse, been emancipated from foster care, and been parenting or fathered a child  Runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to multiple problems while they are away from a permanent home, including untreated mental health disorders, drug use, and sexual exploitation  Studies of homeless youth indicate that they are more likely to experience mental health and substance abuse disorders than their counterparts in the general population  A literature review of studies on psychiatric disorders among homeless youth found high prevalence of conduct disorders, major depression, psychosis, and other disorders  A study of participants in the Street Outreach Program found that about 6 out of 10 reported symptoms associated with depression and almost three-fourths reported that they had experienced major trauma, such as physical or sexual abuse or witnessing or being a victim of violence  Substance abuse is more prevalent among youth who live on the street, compared to homeless youth who are in shelters  Still, both groups of youth use alcohol or drugs at higher rates than their peers who live in family households, even after researchers control for demographic differences  While away from a permanent home, runaway and homeless youth are also vulnerable to sexual exploitation; sex and labor trafficking; and other victimization such as being beaten up, robbed, or otherwise assaulted  Some youth resort to illegal activity including stealing, exchanging sex for food or a place to stay, and selling drugs for survival  Runaway and homeless youth report other challenges including poor health and a lack of basic provisions  Prior to the enactment of the Runaway Youth Act of 1974 (Title III, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, P L  93-415 ), federal policy provided limited services to runaway and homeless youth  If they received any services, most of these youth were served through the local child welfare agency, juvenile justice court system, or both  The 1970s marked a shift to a more rehabilitative model for assisting youth who had run afoul of the law, including those who committed status offenses such as running away  During this period, Congress focused increasing attention on runaways and other vulnerable youth due, in part, to emerging sociological models to explain why youth engaged in deviant behavior  The first runaway shelters were created in the late 1960s and 1970s to assist them in returning home  The landmark Runaway Youth Act of 1974 decriminalized runaway youth and authorized funding for programs to provide shelter, counseling, and other services  Since the law's enactment, Congress and the President have expanded the services available to both runaway youth and homeless youth under what is now referred to as the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program  In more recent years, other federal entities have been involved in responding to the challenges facing runaway and homeless youth  These efforts are coordinated through the U S  Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH)  Figure 1 traces the evolution of federal policy in this area  The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program is a major part of recent federal efforts to end youth homelessness through the U S  Interagency Council on Homelessness  The USICH, established under the 1987 Stewart B  McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, is made up of several federal agencies, including HHS and HUD  The HEARTH Act, enacted in 2009 as part of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act ( P L  111-22 ), charged USICH with developing a National Strategic Plan to End Homelessness  In June 2010, USICH released this plan, entitled Opening Doors   The plan set out goals for ending homelessness, including (1) ending chronic homelessness by 2015; (2) preventing and ending homelessness among veterans by 2015; (3) preventing and ending homelessness for families, youth, and children by 2020; and (4) setting a path to ending all types of homelessness  In 2012, USICH amended Opening Doors to specifically address strategies for improving the educational outcomes for children and youth and assisting unaccompanied homeless youth  USICH outlined its intention to improve outcomes for youth in four areas: stable housing, permanent connections, education or employment options, and socio-emotional well-being  In 2013, a USICH working group developed a guiding document for ending youth homelessness by 2020  Known as the Framework to End Youth Homelessness , the document outlines a data strategy to collect better data on the number and characteristics of youth experiencing homelessness  This data strategy includes coordinating the former data collection system for the Runaway and Homeless Youth program—referred to as RHYMIS—with HUD's Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS)  RHYMIS was a data system administered by HHS for previous RHYP grantees to upload demographic and other data for the youth they served  HMIS is a locally administered data system used to record and analyze client, service, and housing data for individuals and families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness in a given community  As of FY2015, RHYP grantees stopped reporting to RHYMIS and instead report to HMIS  Grantees reported to RHYMIS on the basic demographics of the youth, the services they received, and the status of the youth upon exiting the programs  RHY grantees are now required to report this same (and new information) to HMIS  According to HHS, some grantees have had have encountered inaccurate software programming for their data standards or have had issues with successfully extracting their data to submit to HHS  The data strategy outlined in the framework also involves, if funding is available, designing and implementing a national study to estimate the number, needs, and characteristics of youth experiencing homelessness  This is consistent with the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act's directive for HHS to conduct a study of youth homelessness  As noted, this study— Voices of Youth Count —received funding from FY2016 HUD appropriations  In addition, HHS has supported other research on homeless youth, including factors associated with prolonged homelessness and risk factors for homelessness among children and youth with involvement in child welfare  In 2018, the USICH issued a brief that outlines continued gaps in data on the homeless youth population, citing the need for greater understanding about the causes of youth homelessness and how youth enter and exit homelessness  Separately, the framework also outlined a strategy to strengthen and coordinate the capacity of federal, state, and local systems to work toward ending youth homelessness  USICH has provided guidance to communities, including by establishing community-level criteria for ending homelessness and accompanying benchmarks to assess whether they have achieved an end to youth homelessness  Still, the 2018 USICH brief called for greater evidence regarding the impact of housing and service interventions in helping youth exit homelessness  As mentioned, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program is administered by the Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) within HHS's Administration for Children and Families (ACF)  The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act includes three authorizations of appropriations  The authorization of appropriations for the Basic Center Program and Transitional Living program is $127 4 million for each of FY2019 and FY2020  Under the law, 90% of the federal funds appropriated under the two programs must be used for the BCP and TLP (together, the programs and their related activities are known as the Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth program)  Of this amount, 45% is reserved for the BCP and no more than 55% is reserved for the TLP  The remaining share of consolidated funding is allocated for (1) a national communication system to facilitate communication between service providers, runaway youth, and their families (National Safeline); (2) training and technical support for grantees; (3) evaluations of the programs; (4) federal coordination efforts on matters relating to the health, education, employment, and housing of these youth; and (5) studies of runaway and homeless youth  The authorization of appropriations for the Street Outreach program is $25 million for each of FY2019 and FY2020  Although the SOP is a separately funded component, SOP services are coordinated with those provided under the BCP and TLP  The authorization of appropriations for the periodic estimate of incidence and prevalence of youth homelessness is such sums as may be necessary for FY2019 and FY2020  Funding has not been provided by HHS under this authority, and as noted, funds appropriated to HUD for this purpose have been used to support Voices of Youth Count  Table 1 shows funding levels for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program from FY2006 through FY2019  Over this period, funding has increased notably for the program three times, most recently from FY2017 to FY2018  Congress has provided some guidance on how the additional funds are to be spent  In the conference report to accompany the FY2019 consolidated appropriations act, Congress stated that the increase should be provided to current TLP grantees whose awards end on March 31, 2019  The funding is to be used to continue services until new awards are made to those grantees, or for those grantees that did not receive a new grant, to provide services until the end of FY2019  Funding may then be used for additional new awards  The Basic Center Program is intended to provide short-term shelter and services for youth and their families at centers operated by BCP grantees, which are public and private community-based organizations  Youth eligible to receive BCP services include those youth who are at risk of running away or becoming homeless (and may live at home with their parents), or have already left home, either voluntarily or involuntarily  To stay at the shelter, youth must be under age 18, or an older age if the BCP center is located in a state or locality that permits this higher age  Some centers may serve homeless youth through street-based services, home-based services, and drug abuse education and prevention services  Grantees seek to connect youth with their families, whenever possible, or to locate appropriate alternative placements  They also provide individual or group and family counseling, health care, education, and employment assistance  As specified in the law, BCP grantees or centers are intended to provide services as an alternative to involving runaway and homeless youth in the law enforcement, juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental health systems  Youth may stay in a center continuously up to 21 days  In FY2017, the program served 23,288 youth, and in FY2018 it funded 280 BCP shelters (most recent figures available)

ground_truth: Congress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine its own pay. In the past, Congress periodically enacted specific legislation to alter its pay; the last time this occurred affected pay in 1991. More recently, pay has been determined pursuant to laws establishing formulas for automatic adjustments. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 established the current automatic annual adjustment formula, which is based on changes in private sector wages as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The adjustment is automatic unless denied statutorily, although the percentage may not exceed the percentage base pay increase for General Schedule (GS) employees. Member pay has since been frozen in two ways: (1) directly, through legislation that freezes salaries for Members but not for other federal employees, and (2) indirectly, through broader pay freeze legislation that covers Members and other specified categories of federal employees. Members of Congress last received a pay adjustment in January 2009. At that time, their salary was increased 2.8%, to $174,000. A provision in P.L. 111-8 prohibited any pay adjustment for 2010. Under the pay adjustment formula, Members were originally scheduled to receive an adjustment in January 2010 of 2.1%, although this would have been revised downward automatically to 1.5% to match the GS base pay adjustment. Members next were scheduled to receive a 0.9% pay adjustment in 2011. The pay adjustment was prohibited by P.L. 111-165. Additionally, P.L. 111-322 prevented any adjustment in GS base pay before December 31, 2012. Since the percentage adjustment in Member pay may not exceed the percentage adjustment in the base pay of GS employees, Member pay was also frozen during this period. If not limited by GS pay, Member pay could have been adjusted by 1.3% in 2012. The ECI formula established a maximum potential pay adjustment in January 2013 of 1.1%. P.L. 112-175 extended the freeze on GS pay rates for the duration of this continuing resolution, which also extended the Member freeze since the percentage adjustment in Member pay may not exceed the percentage adjustment in GS base pay. Subsequently, Member pay for 2013 was further frozen in P.L. 112-240. The maximum potential 2014 pay adjustment of 1.2%, or $2,100, was denied by P.L. 113-46. The maximum potential January 2015 Member pay adjustment was 1.6%, or $2,800. President Obama proposed a 1.0% increase in the base pay of GS employees, which would automatically have limited any Member pay adjustment to 1.0%. P.L. 113-235 contained a provision prohibiting any Member pay adjustment. The maximum potential January 2016 pay adjustment of 1.7%, or $3,000, would have been limited to 1.0%, or $1,700, due to the GS base pay increase. Member pay for 2016 was frozen by P.L. 114-113. The maximum potential January 2017 pay adjustment of 1.6%, or $2,800, would have been limited to 1.0%, or $1,700, due to the GS base pay increase. Member pay for 2017 was frozen by P.L. 114-254. The maximum potential January 2018 pay adjustment of 1.8%, or $3,100, was automatically limited to 1.4%, or $2,400, before being frozen by P.L. 115-141. The maximum potential January 2019 pay adjustment of 2.3%, or $4,000, was automatically limited to 1.4%, or $2,400, before being frozen at the 2009 level by P.L. 115-244. The maximum potential January 2020 pay adjustment is 2.6%, or $4,500. If Members of Congress had received every adjustment prescribed by the ECI formula since 1992, and the 2 U.S.C. §4501 limitation regarding the percentage base pay increase for GS employees remained unchanged, the 2019 salary would be $210,900. When adjusted for inflation, Member salaries have decreased 15% since the last pay adjustment in 2009. Both the automatic annual adjustments and funding for Members' salaries are provided pursuant to other laws (2 U.S.C. §4501)—not the annual appropriations bills—and a provision prohibiting a scheduled adjustment could be included in any bill, or introduced as a separate bill.

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



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



Report 2:  These centers, which can shelter as many as 20 youth, are generally supposed to be located in areas that are frequented or easily reached by runaway and homeless youth  BCP grantees must make efforts to contact the parents and relatives of runaway and homeless youth  Grantees are also required to establish relationships with law enforcement, health and mental health care, social service, welfare, and school district systems to coordinate services  Grantees maintain confidential statistical records of youth, including youth who are not referred to out-of-home shelter services  Further, grantees are required to submit an annual report to HHS detailing the program activities and the number of youth participating in such activities, as well as information about the operation of the centers  BCP grants are allocated directly to grantees for a three-year period  Funding is generally distributed to entities based on the proportion of the nation's youth under age 18 in the jurisdiction where the entities are located  The 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico each receive a minimum allotment of $200,000  Separately, the territories (currently, this includes American Samoa and Guam) each receive a minimum of $70,000  The amount of funding for each state or territory can further depend on whether grant applicants in that jurisdiction applied for funding, and if so, whether the applicant fulfilled the requirements in the authorizing law and grant application  For example, the authorizing law directs HHS to give priority to applicants who have demonstrated experience in providing services to runaway and homeless youth  HHS is to re-allot any funds designated for grantees in one state to grantees in other states that will not be obligated before the end of a fiscal year  See Table A-1 for the amount of funding allocated for each state in FY2017 and FY2018  The costs of the BCP are shared by the federal government (90%) and grantees (10%)  In FY2008, HHS began funding a three-year Rural Host Homes Demonstration Project , which was initiated to expand BCP shelter and support services to runaway and homeless youth who live in rural areas not served by shelter facilities  The project supported grantees that provided youth with shelter (via host home families who were recruited, screened, and trained) and preventive services, including transportation, counseling, educational assistance, and aftercare planning, among others  Over the course of the three years, the project served 781 youth, 411 of whom received shelter and 370 of whom received preventive services without shelter  Recognizing the difficulty that youth face in becoming self-sufficient adults, the Transitional Living Program provides longer-term shelter and assistance for youth ages 16 through 22 (or older if the youth entered the TLP prior to reaching age 22) who may leave their biological homes due to family conflict, or have left and are not expected to return home  Pregnant and/or parenting youth are eligible for TLP services  In FY2017, the TLP provided services to 3,517 youth  In FY2018, the program funded 229 organizations  Each TLP grantee may shelter up to 20 youth at various sites, such as host family homes, supervised apartments owned by a social service agency, scattered-site apartments, or single-occupancy apartments rented directly with the assistance of the grantee  Youth may remain at TLP sites for up to 540 days (18 months), or longer for youth under age 18  Youth ages 16 through 22 may remain in the program for a continuous period of 635 days (approximately 21 months) under "exceptional circumstances " This term means circumstances in which a youth would benefit to an unusual extent from additional time in the program  A youth in a TLP who has not reached age 18 on the last day of the 635-day period may, in exceptional circumstances and if otherwise qualified for the program, remain in the program until his or her 18 th birthday  Youth receive several types of services at TLP-funded programs: basic life-skills training, including consumer education and instruction in budgeting and the use of credit; parenting support and child care (as appropriate); building interpersonal skills; educational opportunities, such as GED courses and postsecondary training; assistance in job preparation and attainment; and mental and physical health care services  TLP grantees are required to develop a written plan designed to help youth transition to living independently or another appropriate living arrangement, and they are to refer youth to other systems that can help to meet their educational, health care, and social service needs  The grantees must also submit an annual report to HHS that includes information regarding the activities carried out with funds and the number and characteristics of the homeless youth  As part of the FY2002 budget request, the George W  Bush Administration proposed a $33 million initiative to fund maternity group homes—or centers that provide shelter to pregnant and parenting teens who are vulnerable to abuse and neglect—as a component of the TLP  Although the TLP authorized services for pregnant and parenting teens prior to FY2002, the Bush Administration sought funds specifically to serve this population  Increased funds were ultimately provided to enable these youth to access TLP services  The 2003 amendments to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act ( P L  108-96 ) provided explicit authority to use TLP funds for this purpose  Since FY2004, funding for adult-supervised transitional living arrangements that serve pregnant or parenting women ages 16 to 21 and their children has been awarded to organizations that receive TLP grants  These organizations provide youth with parenting skills, including child development education, family budgeting, health and nutrition, and other skills to promote family well-being  TLP grants are distributed competitively by HHS to community-based public and private organizations throughout the country for a five-year period  Grantees must provide at least 10% of the total cost of the program  HHS is carrying out a study to learn more about the long-term outcomes of 1,250 youth who have used TLP services  The study seeks to describe the outcomes and to isolate and describe promising practices and other factors that may contribute to their successes or challenges  Of particular interest for the study is how services are delivered, the demographics of youth, and their socio-emotional wellness and life experiences  It involves both a process evaluation and impact evaluation, with youth randomly assigned to the treatment (i e , participation in the TLP) and control groups  The study seeks to address the following questions: (1) How do TLP programs operate, what types of program models are used to deliver services, and what services are delivered to homeless youth? (2) What are the long-term housing outcomes and protective factors for youth who participate in the TLP program immediately, six months, 12 months, and 18 months after exiting the program? (3) What interventions can be attributed to any positive outcomes experienced by youth who participate in the TLP? According to HHS, the pilot study revealed challenges "in collecting data from a large enough sample size of youth to detect any effects so that conclusions could be drawn about the impact of homeless youth served by TLPs " HHS is not certain how it will move forward with the study  In FY2016, HHS began the Transitional Living Program Special Population Demonstration project  The project funded nine grantees over a two-year period that tested approaches for serving populations that need additional support: LGBTQ runaway and homeless youth ages 16 to 21; and young adults who have left foster care because of emancipation  Grantees were expected to provide strategies that help youth build protective factors, such as connections with schools, employment, and appropriate family members and other caring adults  According to HHS, a process evaluation will assess how grantees are implementing the demonstration project  HHS separately funded a project from FY2012 through FY2014 to build the capacity of TLPs in serving LGBTQ youth  Known as the 3/40 Blueprint: Creating the Blueprint to Reduce LGBTQ Youth Homelessness , the purpose of the grant was develop information about serving the LGBTQ youth population experiencing homelessness, such as through efforts to identify innovative intervention strategies, determine culturally appropriate screening and assessment tools, and better understand the needs of LGBTQ youth served by RHY providers  The website developed by the grantee, the University of Illinois at Chicago, identifies promising practices that serve LGBTQ youth who are experiencing homelessness and publishes information about their challenges  In FY2009, HHS began the Support Systems for Rural Homeless Youth Demonstration Project   Six states received grants to support TLPs in rural communities in serving young adults who have few or no connections to a supportive family structure or community resources  The five-year project sought to provide services across three main areas: survival support, which includes housing, health care (including mental health), and substance abuse treatment and prevention; community, which includes community service, youth and adult partnerships, mentoring, and peer support groups; and education and employment, which includes high school or GED completion, postsecondary education, and job training and employment  The six states—Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Vermont—each received annual grants of $200,000  According to HHS, all of the sites engaged youth in positive youth development activities that included safe places for youth to go  In addition, they raised awareness about homelessness in rural areas and addressed some of the unique needs around employment, housing, and transportation  However, the sites also confirmed that there is a general lack of available housing for homeless youth and that transportation was the most critical impediment to serving these youth  The Street Outreach Program provides runaway and homeless youth living on the streets or in areas that increase their risk of using drugs or being subjected to sexual abuse, prostitution, sexual exploitation, and trafficking are eligible to receive services  The program's goal is to assist youth in transitioning to safe and appropriate living arrangements  SOP services include the following: treatment and counseling; crisis intervention; drug abuse and exploitation prevention and education activities; survival aid; street-based education and outreach; information and referrals; and follow-up support  Grants are awarded for a three-year period, and grantees must provide 10% of the funds to cover the cost of the program  In FY2018, 96 grantees were funded  In FY2017 grantees made contact with 24,366 youth  The Family and Youth Services Bureau initiated the Street Outreach Program Data Collection Project in 2012 to learn more about the lives and needs of homeless and runaway youth served by SOP grantees  The purpose of the project was to design services to better meet the needs of these youth  FYSB collected information through focus groups and computer-assisted personal interviews with 656 youth (ages 14 to 21 years) served by grantees in 11 cities  The project found that participants were homeless on average for nearly two years and had challenges with substance abuse, mental health, and exposure to trauma  Youth most identified that they were in need of job training or help finding a job, transportation assistance, and clothing  The top barriers to obtaining shelter were shelters being full, not knowing where to go for shelter, and lacking transportation to get to a shelter  The study researchers concluded that more emergency shelters could help prevent youth from sleeping on the street  Further, they noted that youth on the streets need more intensive case management (e g , careful assessment and treatment planning, linkages to community resources, etc ) and more intensive interventions  HHS funds the Runaway and Homeless Youth Training and Technical Assistance Center (RHYTTAC) to provide technical assistance to RHYP grantees  HHS awarded a five-year cooperative agreement, from September 30, 2017, through September 29, 2020, to National Safe Place to operate RHYTTAC  National Safe Place is a national youth outreach program that aims to educate young people about the dangers of running away or trying to resolve difficult, threatening situations on their own  RHYTTAC is designed to provide training and conference services to RHYP grantees that enhance and promote continuous quality improvement to services provided by RHYP grantees  Further, RHYTTAC offers resources and information through its website, tip sheets, a quarterly newsletter, toolkits, sample policies and procedures, and other resources  RHYTTAC also provides assistance to individual grantees in response to their questions or concerns, as well as concerns raised by HHS as part of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Monitoring System (see subsequent section)  A portion of the funds for the BCP, TLP, and related activities are allocated for a national communications system known as the National Runaway Safeline ("Safeline")  The Safeline is intended to help homeless and runaway youth (or youth who are contemplating running away) through counseling, referrals, and communicating with their families  Beginning with FY1974 and every year after, the Safeline, which until 2013 was called the National Runaway Switchboard, has been funded through the Basic Center Program grant or the Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grant  The Safeline is located in Chicago and operates each day to provide services to youth and their families across the country  Services include (1) a channel through which runaway and homeless youth or their parents may leave messages; (2) 24-hour referrals to community resources, including shelter, community food banks, legal assistance, and social services agencies; and (3) crisis intervention counseling to youth  In calendar year 2017, the Safeline handled nearly 30,000 contacts with youth (via phone, computer, emails, and postings), of which nearly three-quarters were from youth and 9% were from parents; the other callers were relatives, friends, and others  Other services are also provided through the Safeline  Since 1995, the "Home Free" family reunification program has provided bus tickets for youth ages 12 to 21 to return home or to an alternative placement near their home through Home Free  HHS evaluates each RHYP grantee through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Monitoring System  Staff from regional ACF offices and other grant recipients (known as peer reviewers) inspect the program site, conduct interviews, review case files and other agency documents, and conduct entry and exit conferences  The monitoring team then prepares a written report that identifies the strengths of the program and areas that require corrective action  The Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act of 2008 required that within one year of its enactment (October 8, 2009), HHS was to issue rules that specified performance standards for public and nonprofit entities that receive BCP, TLP, and SOP grants  On April 14, 2014, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the new performance standards and other requirements for the Runaway and Homeless youth program grantees  On December 20, 2016, HHS implemented a final rule that was similar to the provisions in the NPRM  These standards are used to monitor individual grantee performance  The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) and the House Committee on Education and Labor have exercised jurisdiction over the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program  HHS must submit reports biennially to the committees on the status, activities, and accomplishments of program grant recipients and evaluations of the programs performed by HHS  The most recent report was submitted in January 2018, and covered FY2014 and FY2015  The 2003 reauthorization law ( P L  108-96 ) of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act required that HHS, in consultation with the U S  Interagency Council on Homelessness, submit a report to Congress on the promising strategies to end youth homelessness within two years of the reauthorization, in October 2005  The report was submitted to Congress in June 2007  As mentioned above, the 2008 reauthorization law ( P L  110-378 ) required HHS, as of FY2010, to periodically submit to Congress an incidence and prevalence study of runaway and homeless youth ages 13 to 26, as well as the characteristics of a representative sample of these youth  As discussed, Congress appropriated funding to HUD for this purpose and the study, known as Voices of Youth Count , includes multiple publications about its findings  The 2008 law also directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate the process by which organizations apply for BCP, TLP, and SOP, including HHS's response to these applicants  GAO submitted a report to Congress in May 2010 on its findings  GAO found weaknesses in several of the procedures for reviewing grants, such as that peer reviewers for the grant did not always have expertise in runaway and homeless youth issues and feedback on grants was not provided in a permanent record  In addition, GAO found that HHS delayed telling successful grantees that the grant had been awarded to them  HHS has implemented the recommendations made in the report  Appendix A  Basic Center Program (BCP) Funding Appendix B  Additional Federal Support for Runaway and Homeless Youth Since the creation of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, other federal initiatives have also established services for such youth  Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program (YHDP): The omnibus appropriations laws for FY2016 through FY2018 enabled HUD to set aside up to $33 million (FY2016), $43 million (FY2017), and $80 million (FY2018) from the Homeless Assistance Grants account to implement projects that demonstrate how a "comprehensive approach" can "dramatically reduce" homelessness for youth through age 24  The appropriations laws each fiscal year direct this funding to up to 10 communities with the FY2016 funding; up to 11 communities with the FY2017 funding, including at least five rural communities; and up to 25 communities with the FY2018 funding, including at least eight rural communities  HUD has allocated $33 million to 10 communities for FY2016 and $43 million for FY2017  In addition, HUD is taking steps to evaluate the YHDP grantee communities in developing and carrying out a coordinated community approach to preventing and ending youth homelessness  100-Day Challenges to End Youth Homelessness : Since 2016, cities have partnered with public and private entities to accelerate efforts to prevent and end youth homelessness  A Way Home America and Rapid Results Institute, organizations that focus on pressing social problems, have provided support to the organizations  HHS provided training and technical assistance through RHYTTAC to the first three cities involved in the challenge: Los Angeles, CA; Cleveland, OH; and Austin, TX  In general, participating communities have housed homeless youth and have identified new housing options for this population  Youth with Child Welfare Involvement At-Risk of Homelessness (YAHR): HHS has funded grants to build evidence on what works to prevent homelessness among youth and young adults who have child welfare involvement  HHS awarded funds to 18 grantees for a two-year planning period (2013-2015)  Six of the grantees received additional funding to refine and test their service models during a second phase (2015-2018)  A subset of those grantees will then be selected to conduct a rigorous evaluation of their impact on homelessness  In school year 2016-2017, more than 1 3 million children and youth were homeless  Of these students, over 118,000 were homeless youth unaccompanied by their families  The Department of Education administers the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program, which was established under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 ( P L  100-77 ), as amended  This program assists state education agencies (SEAs) to ensure that all homeless children and youth have equal access to the same, appropriate education, including public preschool education, that is provided to other children and youth  Grants made by SEAs to local education agencies (LEAs) under this program must be used to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of homeless children and youth  Program funds may be appropriated for activities such as tutoring, supplemental instruction, and referral services for homeless children and youth, as well as providing them with medical, dental, mental, and other health services  McKinney-Vento liaisons for homeless children and youth in each LEA is responsible for coordinating activities for these youth with other entities and agencies, including local Basic Center and Transitional Living Program grantees  States that receive McKinney-Vento funds are prohibited from segregating homeless students from non-homeless students, except for short periods of time for health and safety emergencies or to provide temporary, special, supplemental services  FY2019 funding for the program is $93 5 million  According to a 2017 survey of 43,000 college students at selected colleges and universities, 9% of those attending four-year universities and 12% of those attending community college had been homeless in the last year  In addition, 37% of university students and 46% of community college students were housing insecure in the past year, meaning that they had difficulty paying rent or lived with others beyond the expected capacity of the housing, among other scenarios  The Higher Education Act (HEA) authorizes financial aid and support programs that target homeless students and other vulnerable populations  For purposes of applying for federal financial aid, a student's expected family contribution (EFC) is the amount that can be expected to be contributed by a student and the student's family toward his or her cost of education  Certain groups of students are considered "independent," meaning that only the income and assets of the student (and not their parents or guardians) are counted  Individuals under age 24 who have been verified during the school year as either (1) unaccompanied and homeless or (2) unaccompanied, self-supporting, and risk of homelessness  This verification can come from a McKinney-Vento liaison for homeless children and youth in the local education agency; the director (or designee) of a program funded under the Runaway and Homeless Youth program; the director (or designee) of an emergency shelter or transitional housing program funded by HUD; or a financial aid administrator  Separately, HEA provides that homeless children and youth are eligible for what are collectively called the federal TRIO programs  This includes the following TRIO programs: Talent Search, Upward Bound, Student Support Services, and Educational Opportunity Centers  The TRIO programs are designed to identify potential postsecondary students from disadvantaged backgrounds, prepare these students for higher education, provide certain support services to them while they are in college, and train individuals who provide these services  HEA directs the Department of Education (ED), which administers the programs, to (as appropriate) require applicants seeking TRIO funds to identify and make services available, including mentoring, tutoring, and other services, to these youth  TRIO funds are awarded by ED on a competitive basis  In addition, HEA authorizes services for homeless youth through TRIO Student Support Services—a program intended to improve the retention and graduation rates of disadvantaged college students—that include temporary housing during breaks in the academic year  In FY2019, TRIO appropriations are $1 1 billion  Separately, HEA allows additional uses of funds through the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) to establish demonstration projects that provide comprehensive support services for students who are or were homeless at age 13 or older  FIPSE is a grant program that seeks to support the implementation of innovative educational reform ideas and evaluate how well they work  As specified in the law, the projects can provide housing to the youth when housing at an educational institution is closed or unavailable to other students  FY2019 appropriations for FIPSE are $5 million  Recently emancipated foster youth are vulnerable to becoming homeless  In FY2017, nearly 20,000 youth "aged out" of foster care  The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP), created under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 ( P L  106-169 ), provides states with funding to support children and youth ages 14 to 21 who are in foster care and former foster youth ages 18 to 21 (and up to age 23 in states that extend foster care to age 21)  States are authorized to receive funds based on their share of the total number of children in foster care nationwide  However, the law's "hold harmless" clause precludes any state from receiving less than the amount of funds it received in FY1998 or $500,000, whichever is greater  The program specifies funding for transitional living services, and as much as 30% of the funds may be dedicated to room and board  The program is funded through mandatory spending, and as such $140 million ($143 million as of FY2020) is provided for the program each year through the annual appropriations process  The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), Title III of the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 ( P L  98-457 ), authorized funds for Family Violence Prevention and Service grants that work to prevent family violence, improve service delivery to address family violence, and increase knowledge and understanding of family violence  From FY2007 to FY2009, one of these projects focused on runaway and homeless youth in dating violence situations through HHS's Domestic Violence/Runaway and Homeless Youth Collaboration on the Prevention of Adolescent Dating Violence initiative  The initiative was created because many runaway and homeless youth come from homes where domestic violence occurs and may be at risk of abusing their partners or becoming victims of abuse  The initiative funded eight states and community-based organizations to address the issue of teen dating violence among runaway and homeless youth  The grants funded activities such as curriculum on dating violence, small groups for teens, and a sexual assault/dating violence reduction program  The initiative resulted in an online toolkit for advocates in the runaway and homeless youth and domestic and sexual assault fields to help programs better address relationship violence with runaway and homeless youth 
Report 2: gov for disbursements use the 3-day advanced rate exclusively and one uses the 5-day advanced rate  The official noted that a technical issue within ITS gov has restricted the disbursing office currently using the 5-day advanced rate from choosing any other rate, but that the service was further assessing options to correct the issue  In our conversations with an official in OUSD(C) about why the other services had not reviewed the foreign currency rates used for disbursements to determine what was being paid through ITS gov and whether there was an opportunity for savings, the official commented that OUSD(C) had not directed the services to conduct any reviews in this area  This official was unaware that different foreign currency rates were used to make disbursements, and assumed that the military services all make disbursements in the same way  However, as discussed above, the services are using different rates resulting in inconsistency across the department  The official further indicated that DOD could perform a review to determine the cost differences of using one disbursement rate over another  Absent a review of the rates the services are using in making disbursements and whether cost savings could be achieved by more consistently selecting the most cost-effective foreign currency rates available for use at disbursement, DOD is at risk for paying more to convert U S  Dollars for overseas expenditures than would otherwise be required  In fiscal years 2009 through 2016, DOD used the FCFD account to cover losses that the services experienced due to foreign currency fluctuations in 6 of the 8 years we reviewed  However, DOD does not effectively manage the FCFD account balance based on projected gains or losses  Transfers of expired unobligated balances from MILPERS and O&M accounts into the FCFD account have been made to replenish the account balance to the statutory limit of $970 million, without consideration of projected losses due to foreign currency fluctuations  Furthermore, DOD’s financial reporting on foreign currency fluctuations for fiscal years 2009 through 2016 contains incomplete and inaccurate information  In fiscal years 2009 through 2016, DOD transferred approximately $1 92 billion out of the FCFD account to cover losses that the services experienced due to foreign currency fluctuations in 6 of the 8 years we reviewed  For these years, DOD transferred funds from the FCFD account to the services’ MILPERS and O&M accounts during the fiscal year in which the funds were obligated for overseas expenses  The transfer amounts were based on both losses realized from actual disbursements and projected losses for any remaining obligations to be liquidated  The projected losses were calculated based on the current foreign currency market rates as of the time of the calculation  Based on the service-level data we reviewed, all of the services reported that they experienced losses in at least 5 of the fiscal years we reviewed  For example, the Army reported that it experienced losses in its MILPERS account for 5 of 8 years, while the Marine Corps reported that it experienced losses in its O&M and MILPERS accounts in each of the 8 years  In addition to the transfers to cover losses within the services’ MILPERS and O&M accounts, in fiscal year 2013 DOD transferred an additional $969 million to the Defense Working Capital Fund to offset fuel cost losses  Since fiscal year 2012, DOD has maintained the FCFD end-of-year account balance at $970 million—the maximum allowed by statute  To replenish the funds that were transferred out of the FCFD account, DOD transferred unobligated balances to the FCFD account from the services’ O&M and MILPERS accounts  While DOD can also replenish the FCFD account or absorb foreign currency losses in certain currencies by transferring to the FCFD account any gains experienced by the services, our analysis found that DOD did not transfer any gains into the FCFD account for fiscal years 2009 through 2016  Figure 3 shows the transfers into and out of the FCFD account and the end-of-year FCFD account balance for fiscal years 2009 through 2016  Our analysis also shows that DOD transferred funds to maintain the FCFD account at its maximum balance since 2012, despite experiencing fewer losses due to foreign currency fluctuations than it had experienced in fiscal years 2009 to 2011  Of the $1 92 billion transferred from the FCFD account to the services’ MILPERS and O&M accounts to cover losses, $464 5 million was transferred since fiscal year 2012, when DOD began maintaining its FCFD account at the maximum level  During that time, some of the services experienced foreign currency gains, while others experienced losses  For example, at the end of fiscal year 2013 the Navy reported a total realized and projected cumulative gain for its O&M and MILPERS accounts of about $98 6 million  In that same year, the Marine Corps reported a cumulative realized and projected loss for its O&M and MILPERS accounts of approximately $12 7 million  Had DOD not transferred unobligated funds back into the FCFD account, it would have retained a positive balance of approximately $505 5 million  However, DOD maintained the account balance at $970 million by transferring approximately $495 3 million in unobligated balances into the account  As part of its management of the FCFD account balance, DOD analyzes data on realized and projected losses as the basis for transferring funds from the FCFD account to the services’ MILPERS and O&M accounts to cover losses  However, DOD does not consider projected losses when making transfers of unobligated O&M and MILPERS balances into the FCFD account  Figure 4 below shows the FCFD account balance that DOD has maintained in relation to the transfers out of the account to cover losses  Specifically, according to the OUSD(C) official responsible for managing the FCFD account, DOD maintains the FCFD account balance at $970 million to maximize unobligated balances within the military services’ O&M and MILPERS accounts before they are canceled and are no longer available to DOD  In addition, this official stated that DOD prefers to maintain the maximum balance in case it is needed due to sudden, unfavorable swings in foreign currency exchange rates  Our review of the documentation used to make transfers into and out of the FCFD account corroborates that DOD maintains the FCFD account balance to maximize the retention of unobligated balances  Specifically, we found instances in which the documentation states that the transfers of unobligated balances into the FCFD account were made for the purpose of replenishing the account balance to the statutory limit  For example, DOD transferred $89 million from the FCFD account to the Army for losses it had realized and projected in fiscal year 2014, and later transferred unobligated balances of the same amount back into the account  DOD’s documentation states that this transfer of unobligated balances was made for the purpose of replenishing the account to $970 million in order to finance estimated foreign currency losses resulting from the decline in value of the U S  Dollar  However, the transfer to the Army already covered the realized losses and projected losses for any remaining disbursements  In other words, estimated foreign currency losses had already been accounted for at the time of the transfer to the Army  In addition, based on data reported by the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy, DOD had an estimated cumulative gain of about $30 million for fiscal year 2014 based on the other services’ gains and losses, which could have been transferred to the FCFD account to absorb any additional foreign currency losses elsewhere  However, DOD did not transfer those gains to the FCFD account  Similarly, based on data reported by these services, DOD experienced cumulative realized and projected gains of more than $200 million in fiscal year 2013 and about $92 6 million in fiscal year 2015, but it did not transfer any gains to the FCFD account because the account balance had already reached its maximum using transferred unobligated balances  Despite replenishing the account balance to the maximum amount for the purpose of covering additional losses, the FCFD transfers have not been made to fully offset losses in some years, further raising questions about the need to maintain the balance at the statutory cap of $970 million annually  Specifically, in 3 of the 6 years in which DOD transferred funds from the FCFD account to the services’ MILPERS and O&M accounts, DOD did not use the FCFD account to fully cover the losses that the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy experienced  In fiscal year 2011, for example, DOD’s transfers out of the FCFD account to these services covered about 88 percent of the reported MILPERS and O&M losses that these services had realized and projected to lose by the end of the fiscal year  In fiscal year 2012, FCFD transfers covered almost 72 percent of the MILPERS and O&M realized and projected losses reported by the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy, as of the end of the fiscal year  In fiscal year 2016, DOD FCFD transfers to these services covered approximately 55 percent of their reported MILPERS and O&M realized and projected losses by the end of the fiscal year  The OUSD(C) official we spoke with stated that FCFD transfers to cover losses begin with a request from the services, and the OUSD(C) office and the services then coordinate on the final transfer amount  In addition, some service officials told us that they try to cover their losses using each service’s available funding before reaching out for assistance from the FCFD account  Therefore, based on a service’s ability to cover the loss, it may not always request an FCFD transfer to cover the full amount of realized and projected losses  Further, according to an OUSD(C) official, the timing of a service’s request for an FCFD transfer may also affect any differences between the amount transferred and the actual losses experienced  Specifically, if a service requests a transfer early in the fiscal year based on realized and projected losses, actual losses experienced as of the end of the fiscal year may be greater than or less than the transfer amount due to foreign currency fluctuations  Using transfers of unobligated balances, DOD has maintained its FCFD account balance at the maximum level allowed by statute because it has not analyzed realized and projected losses to determine what size account balance is necessary to meet the intended purpose of the account  In our prior work, we have developed key questions for evaluating federal account balances that agencies may use to identify the amount of the balance necessary to maintain agency or program operations  Through examination of carryover balances, oversight of agencies’ management of federal funds may be enhanced  Specifically, we reported that understanding an agency’s processes for estimating and managing carryover balances provides information to assess how effectively agencies anticipate program needs, and ensure the most efficient use of resources  To estimate and manage carryover balances, agencies may consider such factors as future needs of the account, economic indicators, and historical data  If an agency does not have a robust strategy in place to manage carryover balances or is unable to adequately explain or support the reported carryover balance, then a more in-depth review is warranted  In those cases, balances may either fall too low to efficiently manage operations or rise to unnecessarily high levels, producing potential opportunities for those funds to be used more efficiently elsewhere  When asked about maintaining the balance at a level necessary to cover losses, rather than at the maximum level allowed by statute, the OUSD(C) official indicated that the OUSD(C) takes a cautious approach and prefers to have the additional flexibility allowed by the higher balance  Further, the official stated that it would be difficult for DOD to attempt to base its unobligated balance transfers and the FCFD account balance on analysis and evaluation, given the unpredictable nature and constant volatility of foreign currency rates  Our guidelines on evaluating carryover balances acknowledge that external events beyond an agency’s control can dramatically affect carryover balances  However, the challenges that are inherent in predicting foreign currency rates do not preclude DOD from conducting analysis to glean insight as to the appropriate size for the balance of the account and what potential opportunities for savings might exist  Specifically, our guidelines suggest that agencies would benefit from considering the sources and fiscal characteristics of an account with carryover balances  In this case, the FCFD account can receive funds from transfers of unobligated balances and realized foreign currency gains  In addition, DOD can make multiple transfers throughout a fiscal year and can transfer funds from the FCFD to and from the services’ O&M and MILPERS accounts simultaneously, if necessary  These characteristics of the FCFD account already provide the department with flexibility, indicating that DOD may be positioned to manage the FCFD balance in a more analytical manner based on any projected losses  Without analyzing any realized or projected losses to determine what balance may be needed to meet the FCFD account’s intended purpose, the account balance may be kept at a higher level than is necessary  As a result, although an exact amount is unknown, DOD may be maintaining balances in the FCFD account that are hundreds of millions of dollars higher than needed to cover any losses it has experienced, and these funds may have been more efficiently used in supporting other defense activities or returned to Treasury after the account is canceled by law  DOD prepares financial reports to monitor the status of its foreign currency funds, but some of DOD’s financial reporting on foreign currency fluctuations for fiscal years 2009 through 2016 is incomplete and inaccurate  DOD’s Financial Management Regulation establishes reporting requirements specifically for tracking all transactions that increase or decrease the FCFD  In accordance with that guidance, the services provide data from their accounting systems to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to generate reports that are used as a tool with which the services and OUSD(C) can monitor how they are expending funds appropriated for overseas expenditures  For O&M appropriations, the Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense (O&M) report provides data on foreign currency gains and losses for each service, by currency, including data on projected gains or losses for any remaining obligations that have not yet been disbursed at the time of the report  The Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense Report (MILPERS) provides similar information for the MILPERS appropriation  We reviewed end-of-year Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense (O&M) and (MILPERS) reports for fiscal years 2009 through 2016 and found that some of the reporting for O&M was incomplete and inaccurate, which hampers the quality of information available to manage the FCFD account  For instance, we found the following: Incomplete data in the Foreign Currency Fluctuations Defense (O&M) reports: In our review of the end-of-year Foreign Currency Fluctuations Defense (O&M) and (MILPERS) reports we observed several instances of incomplete data in the O&M reports, and these affect managers’ ability to make sound decisions to manage foreign currency gains and losses  First, for the Navy, we found that the report data showed, for multiple currencies across fiscal years 2011 through 2016, values in the realized variance column, indicating that the service had experienced a gain or loss in a particular currency; however, the reports showed values of zero in other columns that are necessary for calculating the gain or loss  Second, the Air Force data for the Turkey Lira, in fiscal year 2012, showed a gain or loss without any data indicating what would have driven the gain or loss  Third, in one instance, Marine Corps data on obligations for fiscal year 2011 were missing from the end-of-year reports until 2014  Missing obligation data for these end-of-year reports indicate a limitation in using these reports for tracking actual gains and losses  Inaccurate data in the Army’s Foreign Currency Fluctuations Defense (O&M) reports: The Army’s Foreign Currency Fluctuation Defense (O&M) reports are inaccurate and cannot be used to reliably track gains or losses, and this hinders managers from making sound decisions regarding the Army’s foreign currency gains and losses  The reports are inaccurate in that the Army’s accounting system charges disbursements to the current fiscal year appropriation rather than to the fiscal year appropriation that incurred the obligation, as required by the Financial Management Regulation  According to officials from the Army Budget Office, the Army designed its General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) to record disbursements to the current fiscal year based on differing interpretations of a previous version of the Regulation  Because the Army is not recording its disbursements to the fiscal year appropriation as the other services are, Army data are inaccurate and cannot be used by the OUSD(C) official responsible for overseeing DOD’s foreign currency program to track the Army’s foreign currency transactions and maintain full visibility of DOD’s overall gains and losses in a given fiscal year  Army Budget Office officials acknowledged that the Army will need to modify its system to record disbursements consistent with Financial Management Regulation guidance, but it has not developed a plan or timeline for doing so  Without accurate reporting of the Army’s foreign currency transactions, DOD lacks information for tracking and helping to manage the Army’s foreign currency gain and losses  DOD’s Financial Management Regulation specifies the data that must be included in the Foreign Currency Fluctuations Defense (O&M) and (MILPERS) reports and the roles and responsibilities of the services as well as the Defense Finance and Accounting Service for ensuring the quality of those data  However, we identified data issues in our analysis that indicate that quality is inconsistent  For example, officials from the Navy stated that they had observed the incomplete data for some currencies and speculated that the incompleteness was attributable to data entry errors  Similarly, according to an OUSD(C) official, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service is notified when discrepancies are found in the reports and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service officials coordinate with the services to correct the data  However, neither Navy nor the Defense Finance and Accounting Service officials have corrected the data  Although DOD’s Financial Management Regulation specifies the data that are to be included, as well as roles and responsibilities of the services and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, it does not identify who is responsible for correcting erroneous or missing data  According to an OUSD(C) official, correcting reporting issues is an area that OUSD(C), the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and the services can improve on, and they would benefit from guidance in the Financial Management Regulation that establishes the steps that should be taken for making such corrections  Further, GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government and the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board’s Handbook of Federal Accounting Standards and Other Pronouncements, as Amended, both establish the importance of using reliable and complete information for making decisions  In addition, DOD’s Financial Management Regulation establishes responsibilities for both the DOD components and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to establish appropriate internal controls to ensure that financial reporting data are complete, accurate, and supportable, in order for managers to make sound decisions and exercise proper stewardship over these resources  Effectively managing foreign currency gains and losses as well as any projected gains or losses for any remaining obligations that have not yet been liquidated through disbursement requires complete and accurate data  OUSD(C) and service officials recognize the importance of reliable data, as well as the need to take steps to improve the quality of the foreign currency gains and losses data  Without OUSD(C) establishing guidance to ensure that the Foreign Currency Fluctuation Defense (O&M) report data that tracks foreign currency gains and losses are complete, DOD and Congress do not have information to make sound decisions and exercise proper stewardship over resources due to foreign currency fluctuations  Furthermore, until the Army establishes a plan and timeline for modifying its system to record foreign currency disbursements in an accurate manner, the Army and DOD will lack quality information for tracking and helping to manage the Army’s and DOD’s foreign currency gain and losses  Congress provides DOD with a significant amount of funding each year to purchase goods and services overseas and to pay service-members stationed abroad  DOD develops and can revise foreign currency budget rates to determine its funding needs and calculate any gains or losses that result from DOD’s overseas expenditures  The Army has estimated potential cost savings that would result from more consistently selecting a more cost-effective foreign currency rate for making disbursements to liquidate its overseas O&M obligations  However, DOD has not fully determined whether additional cost-saving opportunities exist because the services have not reviewed the rates used for foreign currency disbursements  Absent a review of the foreign currency rates the services are using at disbursement, including whether cost-saving opportunities exist, by more consistently selecting cost-effective foreign currency rates, DOD risks paying more than would be required otherwise  Further, while DOD has used the FCFD account to cover losses that resulted from foreign currency fluctuations, it has not managed the FCFD account balance by basing the transfers of unobligated balances into the FCFD account on an analysis of realized and projected losses  Without basing its FCFD account balance on such analyses, DOD may be maintaining balances in the FCFD account that are hundreds of millions of dollars higher than needed to cover any losses it has experienced, and these amounts may have been more efficiently used supporting other defense activities or ultimately returned to Treasury, once expired  Moreover, DOD has not established guidance and other procedures to ensure that complete and accurate data are included in financial reporting on foreign currency funds, and this limits the quality of information available to effectively manage the FCFD account  We are making the following four recommendations to DOD  The Secretary of Defense ensures that: The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the U S  Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, should conduct a review of the foreign currency rates used at disbursement to determine whether cost-saving opportunities exist by more consistently selecting cost- effective rates at disbursement  (Recommendation 1) The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should analyze realized and projected losses to determine the necessary size of the FCFD account balance and use the results of this analysis as the basis for transfers of unobligated balances to the account  (Recommendation 2) The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should revise the Financial Management Regulation to include guidance on ensuring that data are complete and accurate, including assignment of responsibility for correcting erroneous data in its Foreign Currency Fluctuations Defense (O&M) reports  (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of the Army should develop a plan with timelines for implementing changes to its General Fund Enterprise Business System to accurately record its disbursements, consistent with DOD Financial Management Regulation guidance  (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment  In its written comments, reproduced in appendix II, DOD concurred with our first, third, and fourth recommendations and outlined its plan to address them  DOD partially concurred with our second recommendation that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) analyze realized and projected losses to determine the necessary size of the FCFD account balance and use the results of the analysis as the basis for transfers of unobligated balances to the account  DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated in the report, where appropriate  In partially concurring with our second recommendation, DOD stated that projecting foreign currency gains or losses can be difficult given that foreign currency rates can be volatile due to various factors, such as trade balances, money supply, and national income, as well as arbitrary disturbances that affect foreign currency rates that cannot be predicted or forecasted, such as the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union  DOD noted that because of the risk and volatility associated with foreign currency rates, the Congress established the FCFD account  We agree that forecasting foreign currency rates is challenging due to market volatility and include examples in our report of the effect of foreign currency rate fluctuations on DOD’s planned foreign currency obligations  Our report also describes the relationship between gains and losses and foreign currency fluctuations, and the movement of funds from the FCFD account to offset any losses  As our report also discusses, DOD calculates actual and projected losses due to foreign currency fluctuations and uses those projections as the basis, at least in part, for any transfers out of the FCFD account to cover losses experienced in the military services’ O&M and MILPERS appropriations  However, our report also notes that DOD does not consider its calculations of actual and future projected losses when making transfers of unobligated O&M and MILPERS balances to replenish the FCFD account  Instead, since fiscal year 2012, DOD has kept the FCFD account balance at the maximum level allowed by statute by using unobligated balances before they are canceled and are no longer available to DOD, regardless of whether the funds were needed in the account to offset any projected losses  DOD’s comments also stated that projecting gains or losses for foreign currency to determine the size of the FCFD account opens the door to greater uncertainty and risk at a time when the department is working to rebuild readiness and implement the National Defense Strategy  Our report describes the characteristics of the FCFD account that provide DOD with flexibility to manage market volatility, thereby helping to address uncertainty and reduce risk  For example, DOD can make multiple transfers of funds to the FCFD account throughout a fiscal year in response to unforeseen foreign currency fluctuations  The FCFD account can also receive funds from transfers of actual foreign currency gains and/or unobligated balances  As we also noted, DOD made use of its authority to transfer expired unobligated MILPERS and O&M amounts into the FCFD account in the event that actual losses exceeded the projected amounts and additional transfers were deemed necessary  We continue to believe that by analyzing actual and projected losses and basing the transfer of any unobligated balances on these losses, DOD would be better positioned to determine the size of the FCFD account balance that is necessary to meet its intended purpose  Further, such analyses would provide opportunities to more efficiently use unobligated balances for other defense activities or return the balances to Treasury  We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and appropriate congressional committees  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III  To describe the Department of Defense’s (DOD) revised foreign currency budget rates since 2009 and the relationship between the revised budget rates and DOD’s projected Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and Military Personnel (MILPERS) funding needs, we reviewed DOD’s foreign currency budget rates for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2017, and we identified any years during which DOD revised the initial budget rates  We compared DOD’s initial foreign currency budget rates and revised foreign currency budget rates with rates published by the U S  Treasury Department (Treasury) for fiscal years 2009 through 2017  This period corresponded with data available to us on DOD’s initial and revised rates and allowed for use of the most current data available, since DOD had not yet decided whether or not to revise the fiscal year 2018 budget rates, while we were conducting our audit work  We chose rates published by Treasury for this comparison because Treasury has the sole authority to establish for all foreign currencies or credits the exchange rates at which such currencies are to be reported by all agencies of the government  Because Treasury rates are issued quarterly, we averaged Treasury’s first and second quarter rates for each currency and compared the Treasury average with DOD’s initial budget rates  Similarly, we computed an average of the third and fourth quarter Treasury rates for each currency and compared them with the DOD initial or revised budget rates, where applicable  These comparisons are meant to show the difference between DOD’s budget rates and Treasury rates for the first 6 months of the fiscal year, and the difference between DOD’s revised exchange rates and Treasury rates for the last 6 months of the fiscal year  Further, we analyzed the extent to which DOD’s budget rates were within 10 percent of Treasury rates during these same years  We chose 10 percent as the basis for our analysis because Treasury’s guidance states that amendments to the quarterly rates will be published during the quarter to reflect significant changes in the quarterly data, such as rate changes of 10 percent or more  Additionally, to understand the effect that revising the budget rates had on DOD’s O&M and MILPERS funding estimates and on potential gains or losses due to foreign currency fluctuations, we used a three-step approach  First, we identified the amount of O&M and MILPERS funds DOD requested for each currency  We converted the U S  Dollars requested to the total amount of foreign currency needed by multiplying the U S  Dollars requested by DOD’s initial budget rate  Second, we determined the total amount of U S  Dollars required using the revised rates by dividing the total amount of foreign currency needed using DOD’s initial budget rate by DOD’s revised budget rate  We used this same approach to determine the total amount of U S  Dollars required using the average Treasury rates  Third, we computed the differences in DOD’s O&M and MILPERS foreign currency funding needs by subtracting the U S  Dollars required to meet its foreign currency needs based on the average Treasury rates from the amounts required based on DOD’s initial budget rates and DOD’s revised budget rates, respectively  We discussed further with officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller (OUSD(C)) the factors considered in revising the rates and whether those factors are communicated within and outside of the department  To evaluate the extent to which DOD has taken steps to reduce costs in selecting foreign currency rates at which to make disbursements and determine whether opportunities exist to gain additional savings, we reviewed accounting standards and any guidelines that exist regarding disbursements and calculations of foreign currency gains and losses, such as DOD’s Financial Management Regulation 7000 14-R, which calls for the use of prevailing foreign currency rates to make disbursements  We also discussed with agency officials how those guidelines are being carried out, and whether DOD or the services have developed guidance that instructs the services in selecting rates used for disbursements in foreign currencies  Additionally, we examined a non-generalizable selection of data for DOD disbursements made during the months June and July 2017 from Treasury’s International Treasury Service (ITS gov) system to determine which rates DOD used during this period and what savings might be achievable from using alternate rates  We chose data from those 2 months because it was the most recent data available on disbursements at the time Treasury provided the data for our review  Additionally, we discussed with officials from OUSD(C) and the services any analysis and ongoing efforts to transition to more cost-effective rates, including savings that may result  To assess the extent to which DOD has effectively managed the Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense (FCFD) account to cover losses, and maintained quality information to manage these funds, we analyzed DOD data for fiscal years 2009 through 2016 on foreign currency gains and losses reported by each of the services as reported in their Foreign Currency Fluctuation, Defense (O&M) and (MILPERS) reports; movements of funds between the FCFD account and the services’ O&M and MILPERS accounts; and the end-of-year FCFD account balances  We chose this time period in order to capture years in which both gains and losses were experienced, and for which DOD had complete data on gains and losses, fund transfers, and end-of-year balances for the FCFD account  Because the Army charges disbursements to the current fiscal year appropriation instead of the fiscal year appropriation that incurred the obligation, we requested that the Army adjust its reported data on foreign currency gains and losses and provide information consistent with how the other services report them, and with DOD’s Financial Management Regulation  However, the Army was unable to provide us with data that were consistent with what was provided by the other services at the time of our review  We, therefore, were unable to use Army data for purposes of comparison with data provided by the other services  We compared the end-of-year FCFD account balances and the use of the account with guidelines established in our prior work on the importance of examining unobligated balances  Additionally, we reviewed and analyzed DOD financial reports on foreign currency gains or losses and compared the reports, including any identified discrepancies, against best practices and standards on accurate reporting and maintaining quality information, such as those in GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, and the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board’s Handbook of Federal Accounting Standards and Other Pronouncements, as Amended  To determine the reliability of the data used in addressing these objectives, we analyzed DOD and Treasury foreign currency rates, data on DOD foreign currency disbursements, and DOD financial reporting data on foreign currency gains and losses to identify any missing or inaccurate information, and we discussed with agency officials any identified abnormalities and how the information was extracted from systems, when appropriate  We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives, with the exception of the financial reporting on financial gains and losses  Specifically, based on problems with the completeness and accuracy of DOD’s financial reporting on foreign currency gains and losses, we found that these data were not sufficiently reliable for the purpose of computing exact totals for the gains and losses DOD experienced  However, because DOD uses these data as the basis for decisions related to management of the FCFD account, we included the data in our analysis to provide insight into the scope of gains and losses experienced  We also spoke with OUSD(C), military service, and Treasury officials regarding the process and systems used to input the reviewed data and generate the foreign currency reports we reviewed  We conducted this performance audit from February 2017 to April 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  In addition to the contact named above, Matt Ullengren, Assistant Director; and Tulsi Bhojwani, Justin Bolivar, Carol Bray, Amie Lesser, Kelly Liptan, Felicia Lopez, Leah Nash, Randy Neice, Jacqueline McColl, Mike Silver, Roger Stoltz, Susan Tindall, John Trubey, Elaine Vaurio, and Cheryl Weissman made key contributions to this report 

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.