United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Income 

Security and Family Support, Committee 

on Ways and Means, U.S. House of 

Representatives

CHILD WELFARE 

HHS Actions Would Help 

States Prepare Youth in the 

Foster Care System for 

Independent Living 

Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, July 12, 2007

 

GAO-07-1097T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

July 12, 2007

CHILD WELFARE

HHS Actions Would Help States Prepare 

Youth in the Foster Care System for 

Independent Living 

Highlights of GAO-07-1097T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Income 

Security and Family Support, Committee 

on Ways and Means, House of 

Representatives 

Congress passed the Foster Care 

Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA), 

which doubled annual federal 

funds for independent living

programs to $140 million. This 

testimony discusses (1) states’ 

FCIA funding allocations, 

(2) services provided and 

remaining challenges, (3) state 

coordination of programs to deliver 

services, and (4) the states and the

Department of Health and Human

Services’ (HHS) Administration for

Children and Families’ (ACF) 

progress toward meeting program 

accountability requirements. This 

testimony is primarily based on our 

2004 report on FCIA (05-25), with 

updated information from our 2007 

testimony on state child welfare

challenges (07-850T). To conduct 

the 2004 work, we surveyed state

independent living coordinators, 

conducted 4 state site visits, and 

reviewed states’ plans and annual

reports. Updated information from

our 2007 testimony was taken 

primarily from a 2006 survey of

state child welfare directors.

What GAO Recommends

We recommended that HHS 

improve access to federal program 

information. HHS did not comment 

on this recommendation in 2004, 

but disagreed with a similar 

recommendation in our 2007 

testimony. We also recommended 

that HHS improve its state 

monitoring processes. HHS agreed

to develop uniform monitoring 

tools, but disagrees that standard 

state reports are necessary.

States’ funding allocations for independent living programs effectively 

ranged from a maximum of approximately $500 to $2,300 for each foster care

youth who was eligible for independent living services, according to data 

available at the time of our 2004 report. Funding varied because of 

differences in states’ eligibility requirements and the funding formula used to 

allocate funds. 

Although our 2004 survey of state independent living coordinators showed 

that 40 states reported expanding existing independent living services to 

younger youth and 36 states reported serving youth older than they had 

previously served, states varied in their ability to engage youth and to 

provide key services. About one-third of reporting states were serving less 

than half of their eligible foster care youth population, while an equal

percentage of states were serving three-fourths or more. Our 2006 survey of 

state child welfare directors showed that critical gaps remain in providing 

services such as mental health and housing for youth transitioning to 

independence. Mental health barriers included differences in eligibility 

requirements and level of services between the youth and adult systems, and 

long waiting lists. Housing barriers included limited affordable housing in 

costly urban areas, scarce rental housing in rural areas, and problems 

obtaining a rental lease due to the lack of youth employment and credit 

history or a co-signer to guarantee payment. 

Almost all states that we surveyed in 2004 reported an increase in

coordination with some federal, state, and local programs, but linkages with 

other federal and state youth-serving programs were not always in place to 

increase services available across local areas. Many programs exist at the 

federal, state, or local level that can be used to provide or supplement 

independent living services, and each state reported in our survey using 

some of these programs to provide services. Despite these coordination 

efforts, some states may not make full use of the available resources.

Inconsistent availability of information on the array of programs that were 

operating in each state and local area was cited as a challenge in promoting 

coordination in both our prior and more current work. 

States and HHS have taken action to fulfill the accountability provisions of 

FCIA, but 8 years later, little information is available to assess program 

outcomes. All states developed multiyear plans for their programs and 

submitted annual reports, but using these documents to assess state 

performance was hindered by inconsistencies between the plans and 

reports, an absence of goals and baseline information to measure progress, 

and incomplete information on outcomes for the youth serviced. ACF started 

developing an information system in 2000 to monitor state performance, but 

final regulations directing states to begin collecting data and tracking 

outcomes are still pending. ACF is also conducting evaluations of selected 

independent living programs, but results are not yet available. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1097T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Cornela M. 

Ashby at (202) 512-7215 or

ashbyc@gao.gov. 
July 12, 2007

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the needs of youth who 

leave the foster care system each year without the support of an adoptive 

or other permanent home. As you are aware, almost 40 percent of the 

estimated 513,000 children in foster care are age 13 or older, and over 

24,000 youth left the foster care system in 2005 as emancipated youth 

without a permanent living arrangement. Research studies have shown 

that many of these young people face serious problems once on their own, 

including homelessness, a lack of education and stable employment, and

difficulties obtaining medical and mental health services. In response to 

concerns that youth leave foster care poorly prepared to live selfsufficiently, in 1986 Congress created the Independent Living Program, 

which was further strengthened with the passage of the Foster Care 

Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA) and creation of the John H. Chafee 

Foster Care Independence Program (Chafee Program). Under the new 

program, overall federal funding doubled for independent living programs 

from $70 million to $140 million.1

 In addition to providing increased 

funding, FCIA resulted in other significant changes for the independent 

living program. 

My testimony today will focus on four key issues as they relate to the 

implementation of the Chafee Program: 

1. how states’ funding allocations for independent living programs 

compare when considering the number of youth eligible for services, 

2. the extent to which states have expanded independent living services 

and age groups for youth in foster care after the passage of FCIA and 

what challenges remain, 

3. the extent to which states have used other federal and state programs 

to coordinate the delivery of independent living services to foster care 

youth, and 

 1

The Chafee Program receives funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Title IV-E 

authorizes the appropriation of federal funds to states for the purpose of developing and 

operating foster care and transitional independent living programs and providing payments

to adoptive parents of eligible foster children with special needs. In 2006, the adoption 

program received approximately $1.8 billion, and the foster care program received 

approximately $4.6 billion. 

Page 2 GAO-07-1097T 
4. how the states and the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) have fulfilled the program accountability provisions of the law 

and assessed the effectiveness of independent living services. 

My comments are based on the findings of a report GAO issued in 2004,2

with updated information from a May 2007 testimony on challenges facing 

state child welfare systems.3

 The information reported in the 2004 report 

was based on survey responses from independent living coordinators in all 

50 states and the District of Columbia regarding their experiences in 

developing and implementing their Chafee Programs in federal fiscal year

2003. Where appropriate, we compared those responses to information we 

gathered on state independent living programs operating in federal fiscal 

year 1998. We analyzed federal financial and foster care data. We also 

analyzed Chafee Program plans from 49 states, the District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico for 2001-2004, and 90 annual progress and services 

reports for 2001 and 2002. We visited 4 states—Connecticut, Florida, 

Texas, and Washington—and two local areas within each state, where we 

spoke with state and local officials, caseworkers, youth, foster parents, 

and contract providers. Finally, we interviewed HHS officials, federal 

contractors, and child welfare experts, and reviewed relevant documents 

and literature. We included updated information—taken primarily from 

our 2006 survey of state child welfare directors—from our 2007 testimony 

on challenges states face in improving outcomes for children. In addition, 

we included additional information from reports issued by the American 

Public Human Services Association, the Congressional Research Service, 

and the National Resource Center for Youth Services. We conducted our 

work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

In summary, 

• States’ funding allocations for independent living programs effectively 

ranged from a maximum of approximately $500 to $2,300 for each 

foster care youth who was eligible for independent living services, 

according to data available at the time of our 2004 report. Funding 

 2

See GAO, Foster Youth: HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and

Monitoring of States’ Independent Living Programs, GAO-05-25 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov.18, 2004). 

3

See GAO, Child Welfare: Additional Federal Action Could Help States Address 

Challenges in Providing Services to Children and Families, GAO-07-850T (Washington,

D.C.: May 15, 2007). 

Page 3 GAO-07-1097T 
varied because of differences in states’ eligibility requirements and the 

funding formula used to allocate funds. 

• Although our 2004 survey of state independent living coordinators 

showed that 40 states reported expanding existing independent living 

services to younger youth and 36 states reported serving youth older 

than they had previously served, states varied in their ability to engage 

youth and to provide key services. About one-third of reporting states 

were serving less than half of their eligible foster care youth 

population, while an equal percentage of states were serving threefourths or more, and states we visited reported that gaps in the 

availability of critical services contributed to the differences in

proportion of youth served. For example, securing safe and secure 

housing was identified as a challenge by youth and program officials in 

the 4 states we visited, including limited affordable housing in costly 

urban areas and scarce rental housing in rural areas. In addition, our 

more recent survey of state child welfare directors in 2006 showed that 

31 states remained dissatisfied with housing for youth transitioning to 

independence, and similar numbers of states were dissatisfied with the 

availability of mental health, substance abuse, and dental health 

services. 

• Almost all states that we surveyed in 2004 reported an increase in 

coordination with some federal, state, and local programs, but linkages 

with other federal and state youth-serving programs were not always in 

place to increase services available across local areas. Many programs 

exist at the federal, state, or local level that can be used to provide or 

supplement independent living services, and each state reported in our 

survey using some of these programs to provide services. Despite these 

coordination efforts, some states may not make full use of the available 

resources. Inconsistent availability of information on the array of 

programs that were operating in each state and local area was cited as 

a challenge in promoting coordination in both our prior and more 

current work. 

• States and HHS have taken action to fulfill the accountability 

provisions of FCIA, but little information is available to assess the 

effectiveness of independent living services. At the time of our review 

in 2004, all states had developed their initial multiyear plans for their 

programs and submitted annual reports to the Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF), but using these plans and the reports to 

assess state performance was hindered by inconsistencies between the 

plans and reports, an absence of goals and baseline information to use 

in measuring progress, and incomplete information on outcomes for all 

Page 4 GAO-07-1097T 
youth who received services. Although in 2000 ACF began taking steps 

to develop an information system that will allow it to capture data on 

the characteristics, services, and outcomes of youth in independent 

living programs, it has not yet implemented the final regulations 

directing states to begin collecting data and tracking outcomes. ACF is 

also conducting an evaluation of selected independent living programs. 

In our 2004 report, we recommended that the Secretary of HHS improve 

the availability of information on the array of federal programs that could 

be used to assist youth transitioning out of foster care. HHS did not 

comment on this recommendation. Our 2007 testimony cites a similar 

recommendation that HHS take action to improve awareness of and 

access to federal social services by such means as modifying the Catalog 

of Federal Domestic Assistance. HHS disagreed with this 

recommendation, stating that it was insufficient to address the problem 

and incorrectly implied that caseworkers were not already aware of 

existing resources. We continue to support the recommendation based on 

the results of our work. 

Our 2004 report also recommended that HHS improve existing processes 

for monitoring states’ progress in meeting the needs of current and former 

foster care youth by developing a standard reporting format for state plans 

and progress reports, and implementing a uniform process regional offices 

can use to assess states’ progress in meeting the needs of youth in foster 

care and those recently emancipated from care. HHS continues to disagree

with our recommendation to provide a standard reporting format in that it

would be overly prescriptive and impose an unnecessary burden on states. 

In addition, HHS reported that when standard data are available through 

the National Youth in Transition Database, the agency would be better 

positioned to determine how best to assess state performance. In the 

continued absence of implementation of such a database, we continue to 

support our recommendation to monitor state performance through 

modification of existing state reporting requirements. HHS agreed with our 

recommendation to implement a uniform process that regional offices can

use to assess states’ progress, but has not yet done so. 

In 1986, Congress amended Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to 

authorize federal funds targeted to assist youth aged 16 and over in making

the transition from foster care to living independent of the child welfare 

system and created the Independent Living Program. This program was 

designed to prepare adolescents in foster care to live self-sufficiently once 

they exited the child welfare system. Several amendments were made to 

Background 

Page 5 GAO-07-1097T 
the Independent Living Program over the years, but the passage of FCIA 

and the creation of the Chafee Program represented the most significant 

changes in the federal Independent Living Program since its creation. 

FCIA doubled the federal funds available for independent living programs 

to $140 million each year.4

 These funds are allocated to states based on 

their share of the nation’s foster care population.5

In addition to providing increased funding, FCIA eliminated the minimum 

age limit of 16 years and provided states with the flexibility to define the 

age at which children in foster care are eligible for services to help them 

prepare for independent living, as long as services are provided to youth 

who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age. 

The law also provided several new services to help youth make the 

transition to adulthood. 

• It allowed states to use up to 30 percent of their state allotment for 

room and board for former foster care youth up to age 21. 

• It allowed states the option to expand Medicaid coverage to former 

foster care adolescents between 18 and 21. 

• Title IV-E was amended again in 2002 to provide foster care youth 

vouchers for postsecondary education and training under the 

Education and Training Vouchers (ETV) program and authorized an 

additional $60 million for states to provide postsecondary education 

and training vouchers up to $5,000 per year per youth. Eligible 

participants include youth otherwise eligible for services under the 

states’ Chafee Programs, youth adopted from foster care after attaining 

the age of 16, and youth participating in the voucher program on their 

21st birthday (until they turn 23 years old) as long as they are enrolled 

in a postsecondary education or training program and are making 

satisfactory progress toward completion of that program. 

 4

The actual amount divided among the states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

totaled $137.9 million. Under the law, 1.5 percent of the $140 million is reserved for 

evaluation, technical assistance, performance measurement, and data collection activities 

conducted by HHS. States must provide matching contributions of 20 percent to receive 

Chafee Program funds. The matching contribution may be in cash or in-kind contributions

of services, equipment, or property. 

5

A hold-harmless clause in FCIA ensures that states with smaller populations received 

either $500,000 or the amount of independent living funds they received in federal fiscal 

year 1998, whichever amount is greater. 

Page 6 GAO-07-1097T 
In addition, the law required that states make every effort to coordinate 

their Chafee Programs with other federal and state programs for youth, 

such as the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, abstinence education 

programs, local housing programs, programs for disabled youth, and 

school-to-work programs offered by high schools or local workforce 

agencies. Further, states were required to coordinate their programs with 

each Indian tribe in the state and offer the state’s independent living 

services to Indian children. 

To receive funds under the Chafee Program, states were required to 

develop multiyear plans describing how they would design and deliver 

programs and to submit program certifications. The multiyear Chafee 

plans must include a description of the state’s program design, including 

its goals, strategies, and its implementation plan for achieving the 

purposes of the law. States were also required to certify that they would 

operate a statewide independent living program that complied with the 

specific aspects of the law, such as providing training to foster parents, 

adoptive parents, workers in group homes, and case managers on issues 

confronting adolescents preparing for independent living. Further, to 

receive annual funds, ACF required states to submit annual reports that 

described the services provided and activities conducted under their 

Chafee Programs, including information on any program modifications 

and their current status of implementation; provide a record of how funds 

were expended; and include a description of the extent to which the funds 

assisted youth age 18 to 21 in making the transition to self-sufficiency. 

FCIA also required that HHS develop and implement a plan to collect 

information needed to effectively monitor and measure a state’s 

performance, including the characteristics of youth served by independent 

living programs, the services delivered, and the outcomes achieved. 

Further, FCIA required HHS to conduct evaluations of independent living 

programs deemed to be innovative or of potential national significance 

using rigorous scientific standards to the maximum extent practicable, 

such as random assignment to treatment and control groups. 

Page 7 GAO-07-1097T 
While overall federal funding for state independent living programs 

doubled with the passage of FCIA, there were significant variations in the 

changes to state allocations, and the maximum amount of funds available 

at the time of our 2004 report for each eligible foster care youth ranged 

between $476 and $2,300. Under the previous independent living program, 

states received funds ranging from $13,000 in Alaska to more than 

$12 million in California. In the first year of funding under FCIA, Alaska 

and 8 other states received the guaranteed minimum of $500,000, while 

California received more than $27 million (see table 1). Some states were 

unable to spend all of their federal allocations in the first 2 years of 

increased funding under the program. For example, in 2001, 20 states 

returned nearly $10 million in federal funding to HHS, and in 2002, 

13 states returned more than $4 million. ACF regional officials reported 

that one reason for these unspent funds was that some states did not 

initially have the infrastructure in place to quickly absorb the influx of 

funds. Data provided in a July 2007 Congressional Research Service memo 

to Congress showed that 9 states returned less than 1 percent of total 

Chafee funding in 2004 (see app. I). 

FCIA Increased 

Independent Living 

Allocations for Most 

States and Allocations 

per Youth Vary by 

State 

Page 8 GAO-07-1097T 
Table 1: Changes in Funding Allocations across States since the Passage of FCIA 

State 1998 allocation 2001 allocation

Percentage

change over 

1998 allocation

District of Columbia $1,091,992 $1,091,992 0

Louisiana 1,358,131 1,358,131 0

New Jersey 2,297,848 2,297,848 0

New York 11,585,958 12,313,109 6

Pennsylvania 4,638,225 5,304,231 14

Alabama 1,038,490 1,288,304 24

Virginia 1,361,561 1,698,102 25

Maine 565,888 737,309 30

West Virginia 521,302 740,816 42

Mississippi 514,444 747,127 45

Wisconsin 1,554,305 2,252,837 45

Michigan 4,171,796 6,109,567 46

New Hampshire 320,326 500,000 56

Ohio 2,860,992 4,693,625 64

Kentucky 791,557 1,332,019 68

Vermont 295,633 500,000 69

Minnesota 1,142,066 2,102,991 84

Oregon 930,799 1,723,115 85

South Carolina 579,606 1,085,860 87

Rhode Island 314,840 612,710 95

Indiana 1,019,970 2,088,263 105

Montana 244,190 504,007 106

Connecticut 754,518 1,567,892 108

Colorado 825,854 1,785,766 116

California 12,481,777 27,570,079 121

Kansas 717,477 1,583,555 121

Missouri 1,295,026 2,940,120 127

New Mexico 207,149 500,000 141

Delaware 203,034 500,000 146

Washington 825,168 2,030,990 146

Texas 1,841,708 4,600,585 150

Arkansas 270,940 682,373 152

Iowa 449,966 1,134,717 152

Maryland 1,238,095 3,143,032 154

Page 9 GAO-07-1097T 
State 1998 allocation 2001 allocation

Percentage

change over 

1998 allocation

North Carolina 1,045,349 2,650,713 154

Georgia 1,098,852 2,803,131 155

South Dakota 193,430 500,000 158

North Dakota 192,058 500,000 160

Utah 202,348 531,358 163

Nebraska 435,562 1,293,213 197

Oklahoma 620,076 1,910,598 208

Tennessee 777,838 2,523,776 224

Illinois 2,817,094 9,413,899 234

Nevada 153,647 517,800 237

Massachusetts 635,852 2,610,972 311

Idaho 107,004 500,000 367

Arizona 347,763 1,677,998 383

Florida 987,045 8,016,425 712

Wyoming 44,585 500,000 1,021

Hawaii 17,834 514,994 2,788

Alaska 13,032 500,000 3,737

Source: GAO analysis of HHS data. 

Notes: As required by FCIA, no state received less than its federal fiscal year 1998 allotment under 

the Title IV-E Independent Living Program. Federal fiscal year 2001 was the first year states received 

full funding under FCIA. 

Allocations do not account for unobligated or unliquidated funds. 

Puerto Rico is not included in this analysis because the territory did not receive independent living 

funds in 1998. The 2001 allocation to Puerto Rico totaled $1,814,052. 

At the time of our 2004 report, we could not determine the exact amount 

of funding states had available to spend on each youth eligible for 

independent living services because of the lack of data on eligible youth 

emancipated from foster care. However, available data at that time on 

youth in foster care suggest that states may have different amounts of 

funds available for services to youth in foster care. We compared each 

state’s 2004 FCIA allocation with its 2002 population of eligible youth in 

Page 10 GAO-07-1097T 
foster care.6

 This comparison showed that maximum funding for 

independent living services ranged from $476 per foster care youth in West 

Virginia to almost $2,300 per foster care youth in Montana.7

 These 

differences were due in part to the new provision that allowed states to 

define the age ranges within which youth were eligible for independent 

living services. For example, 4 states reported in our survey offering 

independent living services to youth at age 12, while 27 states reported 

offering services at age 14.

8

 In addition, the funding formula is based on 

the total number of all children in foster care. However, some states have 

a larger share of youth eligible for independent living services than other 

states, even when their eligibility age range is the same. For example, of 

the 15 states reporting in our survey that youth are eligible for services 

between the ages of 14 and 21, 3 states had 25 percent or less of their 

foster care population within this age range, while in 3 other states, this 

age range accounted for over 40 percent of the total foster care 

population.9

 6

We calculated this figure using financial data from HHS on the FCIA funding allocations in 

federal fiscal year 2004 and Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 

(AFCARS) data from federal fiscal year 2002 because funding allocations are calculated 

using foster care population data from AFCARS 2 years prior to the funding year. These 

calculations also included states’ 20 percent match requirement. However, states may use 

other funds to pay for services, and these calculations do not reflect any additional funding. 

To determine the eligible population for each state, we used the age ranges that states 

reported in our 2004 survey and AFCARS data on the numbers of youth in each age group. 

For example, Alabama reported in our survey serving youth between 14 and 21 with 

independent living services. According to data the state reported to AFCARS, 2,081 youth

in this age range were in care in Alabama in federal fiscal year 2002. However, this 

calculation excludes youth emancipated from foster care, since AFCARS does not capture

this information. 

7

Nationwide, the average funding for independent living services available per eligible 

youth in foster care was about $1,090 in federal fiscal year 2004. 

8

According to results from our 2004 survey, 4 states began services at age 12, 7 states began

services at age 13, 27 states began services at age 14, 9 states began services at age 15, and 

4 states began services at age 16. 

9

These calculations are based on AFCARS data, which do not include emancipated youth. 

Page 11 GAO-07-1097T 
In our 2004 survey, 40 states reported expanding services to youth younger 

than they had previously served, and 36 states reported serving older 

youth, but states reported service gaps in critical areas, such as mental 

health and housing. The number of states that reported providing core 

independent living services, such as independent living skills assessments, 

daily living skills training, and counseling to youth younger than 16 more 

than doubled after FCIA. Similarly, more states reported offering these 

supports and services to youth who were emancipated from foster care. 

States Expanded and 

Improved Services for 

Youth after FCIA, but 

Reported That Gaps 

in Critical Services 

Remain 

Many states also began to offer the new services to support youth that 

emancipated from foster care. These services include the Education and 

Training Vouchers, Medicaid health insurance, and assistance with room 

and board. 

• ETV: All states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico began 

receiving funds under the ETV program to assist youth seeking 

postsecondary education, but 26 states did not spend all of the funding 

received (see app. II). A report from the National Resource Center for 

Youth Development showed that states provide a range of benefits to 

youth eligible for ETVs.10 Over 90 percent of 38 state independent living

coordinators responding to a survey reported offering financial support 

to youth for room and board, school supplies, equipment and uniforms, 

school-related fees, and transportation costs. Eighty-four percent of 

states made payments for child care for the dependents of youth, and 

60 percent of state reported making payments for college or university 

health plans on behalf of youth.11 States were challenged to spend all of 

their funding allotment. Mississippi returned almost all of its 2004 ETV 

funds, and 14 other states returned over 20 percent of their funding 

allotment.12

• Medicaid: Recent information from the American Public Human 

Services Association shows that all states are now using or planning to 

 10See Michelle L. Kessler, Educating Youth in Care: The First Year of Education and

Training Vouchers (Tulsa, Oklahoma: 2004).

11Of the 38 responding states, 54 percent also indicated that they pay for other tangible 

benefits such as tutoring, Internet access, computers, books, medications required to allow

youth to be successful with their studies, payment for housing over the holidays and 

vacations when dorms are closed, preparatory tests, and study materials. 

12Overall, more than 14 percent of 2004 ETV funding was returned to the U.S. Treasury. 

As states have 2 years to spend these funds, information on later years is not currently 

available. 

Page 12 GAO-07-1097T 
use the Chafee option or other means to extend Medicaid coverage to 

youth. In our 2004 survey, 31 of 50 state independent living

coordinators had reported offering Medicaid benefits to at least some 

emancipated youth to help them maintain access to health care 

benefits while they transitioned to independence. In 2007, the 

American Public Human Services Association reported that 22 states 

planned or have already started using the Chafee option to offer 

Medicaid coverage to youth who age out of foster care.13 The study also 

found that the remaining 28 states and the District of Columbia were 

reported to be using other methods, such as the State Children’s Health 

Insurance Program or the Medicaid waiver demonstration program, to 

extend coverage to youth. 

• Housing assistance: In our 2004 survey, 46 states reported that they 

offered assistance with room and board to youth who had been 

emancipated from foster care, and the 4 states we visited reported 

offering a range of housing supports to assist youth. At the time of our 

visit, Connecticut provided several housing options to meet the needs 

of youth at varying levels of independence, including group homes, 

supervised apartment sites, and unsupervised apartment sites with 

periodic visits from case managers. While 3 other states we visited 

offered a more limited supply of housing options, all provided some 

type of housing subsidy or placement. 

• Existing services: Chafee Program funds were also used to improve 

the quality of existing independent living services and refocus the 

attention of their programs, according to state officials we visited. For 

example, local officials in Florida said that prior to FCIA, training in 

daily living skills was provided haphazardly, and in many cases 

unqualified staff taught classes even though such training was 

considered a core component of their independent living program. At 

the time of our visit, Florida officials said that the state redesigned staff 

training, improved instructor quality, and was better prepared to 

provide youth with the skills necessary to live independently outside of 

the foster care system. 

 13Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, 

New Jersey, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and

Wyoming reported enacting the Chafee Medicaid option. Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, 

North Carolina, and Wisconsin reported planning to pursue the use of the Chafee Medicaid

option. See American Public Human Services Association, Medicaid Access for Youth 

Aging Out of Foster Care (Washington, D.C.: 2007). 

Page 13 GAO-07-1097T 
States differed in the proportion of eligible youth served under their 

respective independent living programs. In our 2004 survey, 40 states 

reported serving about 56,000 youth—or approximately 44 percent of 

youth in foster care who were eligible for independent living services in 

these states.14 About one-third of reporting states were serving less than 

half of their eligible foster care youth population, while an equal 

percentage of states were serving three-fourths or more. While states 

expanded eligibility to younger youth, most services continued to be 

directed at youth age 16 and older in most of the states we visited. 

Certain gaps in the availability of critical services were reported, which 

may have contributed to the challenge of serving higher numbers of 

eligible youth.15 States also reported that these challenges were more 

prominent in rural areas. Service gaps included the following: 

• Mental health services: Youth in foster care often require mental health 

services continuing beyond emancipation. However, states continue to 

be challenged in providing youth with a smooth transition between the 

youth and adult mental health systems. Of the 4 states we visited in 

2004, 3 cited difficulties due to more stringent eligibility requirements 

in the adult system, different levels of services, and long waiting lists 

for services. Challenges with mental health services remained in 2006, 

when 32 state child welfare directors responding to our survey 

reported dissatisfaction with the level of mental health services.16

• Mentoring services: Research studies indicate that the presence of 

positive adult role models is critical for youth in foster care because 

family separations and placement disruptions have been found to 

hinder the development of enduring bonds. Although the majority of 

states reported in our 2004 survey that they offered mentoring 

programs to youth, officials in the states we visited cited challenges in 

providing all youth with access to mentoring programs to establish and 

 14We were unable to identify comparable data on the proportion of eligible youth in foster 

care that received independent living services prior to the passage of FCIA. 

15State and local administrators reported some similar gaps in our 1999 report. They noted

that their independent living programs fell short in key areas, including gaps in 

employment, daily living skills, and housing services. See GAO, Foster Care: Effectiveness 

of Independent Living Services Unknown, HEHS-00-13 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 5, 1999). 

16Child welfare directors in many states were also dissatisfied with the level of substance 

abuse services (31) and dental care services (29). Dissatisfaction with physical health 

services and access to Medicaid was cited by 10 states. 

Page 14 GAO-07-1097T 
maintain such relationships.17 For example, in Connecticut, one 

program director reported challenges recruiting adults to serve as 

mentors, especially men willing to make a 1-year commitment to an 

adolescent boy. In addition, some state and local officials and service 

providers seemed unclear on what should be included in a high-quality 

mentoring program and how to identify qualified service providers. 

• Securing safe and suitable housing: Providing appropriate housing 

also remains a critical service gap. Youth we spoke with across the 

4 states we visited in 2004 said that locating safe and stable housing 

after leaving foster care was one of their primary concerns in their 

transition to independence, and state officials reported challenges 

meeting youths’ housing needs. Youth reported difficulties renting 

housing because of a lack of an employment history, a credit history, or 

a cosigner. State and local officials in the states we visited said the 

availability of housing resources for foster youth during their initial 

transition from foster care depended on where they lived, and in some 

cases the benefits provided did not completely meet the needs of 

youth, or were available only to certain youth. For example, at the time 

of our visit, local officials in Washington reported that housing 

subsidies may not completely offset expenses for youth in expensive 

urban areas, like Seattle, and that rental housing in some rural areas 

was scarce. This service gap was identified by states again in our 2006 

survey, as 31 state child welfare directors reported dissatisfaction with 

the level of housing for foster youth transitioning to independence. 

• Youth and foster family engagement: State and local officials, as well 

as service providers in the 4 states we visited said that it was difficult 

to get some youth to participate in the independent living programs and 

that foster parents were sometimes reluctant partners. While youth 

were generally offered incentives, such as cash stipends, to participate 

in daily living skills training or other activities, officials emphasized 

that participation is voluntary and it is critical for foster parents to 

support and encourage youth participation in the program.18

 17Forty-five states reported having mentoring services for youth in foster care, and 39 states 

reported having mentoring services for emancipated youth.

18The National Resource Center for Youth Services—under contract with HHS—reported in 

2004 on a study conducted by the Casey Family Services, which found that not all young 

adults accepted supports extended to them. In a sample of 115 alumni of foster care, only 

41 percent incurred expenses for services after age 19. Some youth are simply ready to end 

their relationship with the child welfare system when they are legally able. Others, 

however, may not incur expenses for services because they are not aware of the benefits 

that are available. See Kessler, Educating Youth in Care. 

Page 15 GAO-07-1097T 
After FCIA, 49 states reported increased coordination with a number of 

federal, state, and local programs that can provide or supplement 

independent living services, but officials from the 4 states we visited 

reported several barriers in developing the linkages necessary to access 

services under these programs across local areas. States we surveyed 

reported working with a range of service provides, such as Job Corps, 

workforce boards, and local housing agencies.19

States we visited used different strategies to develop linkages among state 

youth programs. Three of the states we visited reported establishing statelevel work groups that included representatives from the independent 

living program and other state agencies to bring agency officials together 

to discuss the needs of youth in foster care and possible strategies for 

improving service delivery. For example, Florida’s legislature mandated a 

state-level work group to facilitate information sharing at the state level

among various agencies, such as the State Departments of Children and 

Families and Education, the Agency for Workforce Innovation, and the 

Agency for Health Care Administration. Additional strategies states 

developed to establish linkages with other federal, state, or local programs 

included establishing liaisons between agencies or programs or through 

less formal collaborative arrangements. Officials also reported developing

linkages with other private resources in their communities, such as 

business owners, to provide services to youth in the independent living 

program. 

States Reported 

Increased 

Coordination with 

Federal and State 

Programs to Provide 

Independent Living 

Services to Youth, but 

Barriers Hinder 

Linkages across 

Programs 

Despite states’ efforts, we continued to find in our 2006 survey that states 

were least likely to address challenges in providing services such as 

mental health that are typically provided outside of the child welfare 

system by other agencies. Officials in the 4 states we visited in 2004 

reported several barriers that hinder their ability to establish linkages with 

other agencies and programs, including the lack of information on the 

array of programs available in each state or local area and differences in 

program priorities. Officials from 3 states said that they relied on local

officials to identify potential partners and initiate and maintain 

coordination efforts, and while individuals in some local areas may have

 19Job Corps is an education and vocational training program administered by the U.S. 

Department of Labor to service youth ages 16 through 24 years. The Workforce Investment 

Act established workforce investment boards. Each state workforce investment board is

responsible for developing statewide workforce policies and overseeing its local workforce

investment boards. The local workforce investment boards, in turn, are responsible for 

developing local workforce policies and overseeing operations. 

Page 16 GAO-07-1097T 
developed successful collaborations with service providers in their area, 

these relationships have not always been expanded statewide. To some 

extent, this has been due to the fact that state and local child welfare 

officials differ in their awareness of resources available from other 

agencies. Some gaps in awareness may be partly due to turnover rates for 

caseworkers reported by the states we visited.20 Caseworkers’ lack of 

knowledge about available programs may have contributed to foster 

parents and youth reporting that they were unaware of the array of 

services available from other federal, state, or local programs. In addition, 

officials cited barriers to establishing linkages with other federal and state

programs because of different program priorities. Differences in 

performance goals among programs can affect the ability of independent

living staff to obtain services for foster youth from other agencies. In 

North Carolina, state officials we visited in 2006 said that about 70 percent 

of children and families in the child welfare system received services from 

multiple public agencies, and the Catalog of Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA)—a repository of information on all federal assistance programs—

lists over 300 federal programs that provide youth and family services. In 

October 2003, the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth 

recommended that the CFDA be modified to provide a search feature that 

can be used to identify locations where federally funded programs were 

operating.21

 20See also GAO, Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare

Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff, GAO-03-357 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2003). 

21A similar model may be found on an HHS Web link, http://ask.hrsa.gov/pc/, where users 

can enter a ZIP code to find the closest community health center locations offering 

medical, mental, dental, and other health services on a sliding fee scale. 

Page 17 GAO-07-1097T 
All states developed multiyear plans as required under FCIA and 

submitted annual progress reports to ACF for their independent living 

programs, but the absence of standard comprehensive information within 

and across state plans and reports precludes using them at the state and

federal levels to monitor how well the programs are working to serve 

foster care youth. HHS has not yet implemented its plan to collect 

information to measure states’ program performance, and while some 

states reported collecting some data, states have experienced difficulties 

in contacting youth to determine their outcomes. HHS has begun to 

evaluate selected independent living programs. 

• State plans and annual reports: All states developed state plans as 

required by FCIA that described independent living services they 

planned to provide to foster care youth and submitted annual reports 

to ACF, but for several reasons, these plans and reports cannot be used 

to assess states’ independent living programs. While ACF officials 

stated that the plans and annual reports served as the primary method 

the agency used to monitor states’ use of the Chafee Program funds, 

ACF did not require states to use a uniform reporting format, set 

specific baselines for measuring progress, or report on youths’ 

outcomes. As a result, each state developed plans and reports that 

varied in their scope and level of detail, making it difficult to determine 

whether states had made progress in preparing foster youth to live selfsufficiently.22

On the basis of our review of plans from all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia covering federal fiscal years 2001 through 2004, and annual 

reports for 45 states from federal fiscal years 2001 and 2002, we found 

the following: 

States’ and HHS’s

Actions in Response 

to FCIA Requirements 

Have Not Yet 

Established 

Accountability for 

Independent Living 

Programs 

• Few states both organized the information in their plans to address 

the purposes of FCIA and presented specific strategies they would 

use to meet these purposes. 

• The plans vary in their usefulness in establishing outcomes the 

states intended to achieve for youth.

• Annual reports for all 45 states contained information that did not 

directly relate to information in their state plan, making it unclear 

 22We previously reported similar problems using state reports for federal monitoring of

independent living programs prior to FCIA and had recommended that HHS establish a 

uniform set of data elements and a standard reporting format for state reporting on

independent living programs. See GAO-HEHS-00-13. 

Page 18 GAO-07-1097T 
whether the differences were due to service changes or missing 

information. 

• Of the 90 annual progress reports we reviewed, 52 reports did not 

include clear data that could be used to determine progress toward 

meeting the goals of the states’ independent living programs. 

ACF officials said that they recognize the limitations of these 

documents as tools to monitor states’ use of independent living 

program funds, but explained that they rely on states’ to self-certify 

that their independent living programs adhere to FCIA requirements. 

Staff in ACF’s 10 regional offices conduct direct oversight of the 

program by reviewing the plans and reports, interpreting guidance, and 

communicating with the states. However, officials in three offices 

reported during our 2004 review that their review of the documents 

was cursory and that the plans and annual reports do not serve as 

effective monitoring tools. In addition, ACF officials reported that the 

Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) used to evaluate the states’ 

overall child welfare systems could serve as a tool to monitor 

independent living programs, but the CFSR is limited in the type and 

amount of data collected on youth receiving independent living 

services. 

• National Youth in Transition Database: ACF has not completed 

efforts to develop a plan to collect data on youths’ characteristics, 

services, and outcomes in response to the FCIA requirement, and some 

states that are attempting to collect information on youths’ outcomes 

are experiencing difficulties. In 2000, ACF started to develop the 

National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) to collect information 

needed to effectively monitor and measure states’ performance in 

operating independent living programs. The agency issued proposed 

rules on July 14, 2006, but as of July 2007, final rules governing the 

system have not been issued.23

The proposed rules include an approach to collect information on all 

youth who received independent living services, youth who are in 

foster care at age 17, and follow-up information on youth at ages 19 and 

21. For any youth who receives independent living services from either 

the child welfare agency or another source supported by federal Chafee 

funds, the state must report a series of data elements, including the 

 23Chafee National Youth in Transition Database, 71 Fed. Reg. 40,346 (July 14, 2006) (to be

codified at 45 C.F.R. pt. 1356). 

Page 19 GAO-07-1097T 
type of independent living services received, such as housing education

or health education and risk prevention. These data are to be collected

on an ongoing basis for as long as the youth receives services. 

In order to develop a system to identify youth outcomes, HHS proposes 

establishing information on a baseline population of youth at age 17. All

youth who turn 17 years old while in foster care would be surveyed on

a series of outcomes, such as their current employment status. States 

would be required to conduct follow-up surveys with the youth at ages 

19 and 21. HHS would allow the states to pull a sample from this 

baseline population with which to conduct these follow-up surveys. 

For example, California had over 7,500 youth in care in 2004 who were 

17 years old. On the basis of the proposed sampling methodology, the 

state would be allowed to survey a minimum of 341 19-year-olds in the 

follow-up effort. 

According to results from our survey, in federal fiscal year 2003, 

30 states attempted to contact youth who had been emancipated from 

foster care for initial information to determine their status, including 

education and employment outcomes. Of those states, most reported 

that they were unsuccessful in contacting more than half of the youth. 

Further, 21 states reported attempting to follow up with emancipated 

youth after a longer period of time had elapsed but had trouble 

reaching all the youth. Similarly, officials in the states we visited 

reported that collecting outcome data is especially challenging since 

there is little they can do to find youth unless the youth themselves 

initiate the contact. Further, some officials were concerned about the 

value of the outcome data since they believe that youth who are doing 

well are more likely to participate in the follow-up interviews, thus 

skewing the results. When HHS issued the proposed rule, it provided 

strategies states could use to conduct the follow-up component of the 

NYTD requirements. For example, the document recommends letting 

the youth know up-front that the agency will be contacting them in the 

future; suggests keeping a “case file” that tracks any activity, such as 

reasons why a letter was returned; and suggests that the agency 

establish a toll-free phone line. 

• Mutltistate evaluations: At the time of our 2004 review, ACF expected

to complete the evaluations of four approaches to delivering 

independent living services by December 2007. However, it is unclear if 

that deadline will be achieved at this point. As required by FCIA, these 

evaluations are expected to use rigorous scientific standards, such as 

an experimental research design that randomly assigns youth in 

Page 20 GAO-07-1097T 
independent living programs to different groups: one that is 

administered the experimental treatment and one that is not. HHS 

initiated this effort in 2001 with a nationwide review of potentially 

promising approaches to delivering independent living services. HHS 

contracted with a research institute to conduct a nationwide search to 

identify independent living programs that meet the criteria of the 

evaluation24 and to conduct 5-year evaluations of the selected 

programs.25 On the basis of the search and the established criteria, HHS 

selected four programs for the evaluation (see table 2). 

 24In the nationwide search, HHS contractors sought programs that met four criteria for a 

rigorous research study: Programs should be directed, at least in part, at youth leaving

foster care or expected to remain in foster care until adulthood; be innovative, of national 

significance, and capable of expanding into new geographic areas; be willing and capable 

of participating in experiments involving random assignment of youth to treatment services 

or the alternative services; and have an adequate sample size and should have a need for 

the services greater than what is currently available so an experiment would not reduce the 

total number of youth serviced by the program. Many programs could not support a 

randomized study because their youth population was not large enough to ensure youth did 

not go without services. 

25HHS contracted with the Urban Institute and its partners—the Chapin Hall Center for 

Children and the National Opinion Research Center. 

Page 21 GAO-07-1097T 
Table 2: Programs Included in the Multisite Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs 

Site Program Type of service

Age of 

focus

Number of youth 

(control and 

experimental)

Length of 

service 

provision 

Key outcome of

interest 

Los Angeles County, 

California 

Community 

College Life Skills 

(LST) Training

Classroom-based 

and experiential life 

skills training, teen 

support group, and 

exposure to 

community college 

opportunities 

17 450 5 weeks (10 

workshops) 

Education, 

employment, 

housing stability, 

avoidance of risk 

behaviors 

Los Angeles County, 

California 

Early Start to 

Emancipation 

Preparation 

(ESTEP) 

Structured tutoring 

and mentoring 

curriculum for youth 

1-3 years behind 

grade level in 

reading and math 

skills 

14-15 450 6 months of 

tutoring on

average, 

mentoring 

continues less 

intensively after 

tutoring ends, 

for 3 months on

average 

Education, 

employment, and 

interpersonal and 

relationship skills 

Kern County, 

California 

Employment 

program 

Employment skills 

training, job referral, 

and employment 

support provided 

through county

Temporary 

Assistance to 

Needy Families 

agency 

16 250 Ongoing

through age 21

Employment and 

economic selfsufficiency 

Massachusetts Adolescent

Outreach Program 

Intensive, 

individualized life 

skills mentoring and 

casework 

17 250 Mean of 1 year Employment, 

housing stability, 

service linkages

Source: HHS. 

In the report issued in 2004, we made recommendations to HHS (1) to 

make information available to states and local areas about other federal 

programs that may assist youth in their transition to self-sufficiency and 

provide guidance on how to access services under these programs and 

(2) to develop a standard reporting format for state plans and progress 

reports and implement a uniform process regional offices can use to 

assess states’ progress in meeting the needs of youth in foster care and 

those recently emancipated from care. These recommendations have not 

been implemented. 

Page 22 GAO-07-1097T 
Preparing youth to successfully transition to independence is a daunting 

task that requires coordinated and continuous services across many social 

service systems including child welfare, health, education, and housing. 

The Chafee Program has provided a single funding stream that can be used 

to meet service needs across these social systems. However, this funding 

alone is not sufficient to overcome state challenges in meeting the varied 

service needs of emancipating youth. The child welfare system must work 

with housing agencies to remove barriers faced by youth with no 

employment history or cosigner, and with health agencies, to ensure a 

smooth transition between the youth and adult mental health systems. In 

addition, states continue to have difficulty building adequate service 

capacity for housing and mental health in all locales, and child welfare 

staff still struggle to identify the myriad of public and private sector 

programs that exist to assist youth. Our November 2004 report and our 

May 2007 testimony present recommendations we made to HHS to make 

information available to states and local areas about other federal 

programs that may assist youth in their transition to self-sufficiency. 

Concluding 

Observations 

HHS did not comment on our 2004 recommendation, but disagreed with 

our recent recommendation to improve awareness of and access to 

various social services funded by the federal government. HHS stated that 

the recommendation was insufficient to address the need for additional 

services, and incorrectly implied that local child welfare agencies were not 

already aware of and using such resources. We acknowledged that 

increasing awareness of existing federal resources is not the only action

needed, but in the course of our work across the years, continue to find 

that caseworkers are sometimes unaware of the full array of federal 

resources, such as health and housing, available in their locale, or had not 

coordinated with other agencies to use them. We continue to support the 

view that federal action, such as modifying the CFDA, would allow 

caseworkers and others to more easily identify services and service 

providers funded by federal agencies in closest proximity to the youth and 

families they serve. 

How well the Chafee Program has worked to improve outcomes for 

emancipated youth among states is still unknown 8 years after the passage 

of FCIA, and HHS has not yet implemented its information system that is 

intended to meet FCIA requirements for collecting and monitoring a state’s 

performance. Given the significant variation in the number of youth served 

and services provided across states, an interim system for measuring state 

progress would seem to be warranted. However, while HHS has an 

oversight process to measure outcomes of state child welfare systems as a 

whole, this process no longer includes measures required by FCIA. 

Page 23 GAO-07-1097T 
Similarly, while ACF’s regional offices conduct much of the federal 

oversight for the Chafee Program, the oversight tools currently in place do

not provide standard information needed to measure and compare 

performance across states. Our 2004 report included a recommendation to 

develop a standard reporting format for state plans and progress reports 

and implement a uniform process regional offices can use to assess states’ 

progress in meeting the needs of youth in foster care and those recently 

emancipated from care. These recommendations have not been 

implemented. 

HHS continues to disagree with our recommendation to develop a 

standard reporting format for state plans and progress reports, stating that 

such action would be overly prescriptive and impose an unnecessary 

burden on states. However, as reflected in our 2004 report, we continue to

believe that strengthening the state reporting process is needed to provide 

some assurance of program accountability at the state and federal levels. 

HHS had agreed with our recommendation to establish a uniform process 

regional offices can use to assess states’ progress and said that in 2005, 

ACF would develop and provide a review protocol to be used in regional

office desk reviews of states’ annual progress reports. However, ACF 

officials reported that they have not yet implemented such a review 

protocol. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be pleased to respond to 

any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

For further information, please contact Cornelia Ashby or Kay Brown at 

(202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

include Lacinda Ayers and Sara L. Schibanoff. 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 24 GAO-07-1097T 
Page 25 GAO-07-1097T 

State 

Dollar amount

allocated

Dollar amount

expended

Dollar amount returned to 

the U.S. Treasury 

Percentage of allotment 

returned to the U.S. 

Treasury

Alabama $1,536,181 $1,536,181 $0 0% 

Alaska 550,782 550,782 0 0 

Arizona 1,606,959 1,606,959 0 0 

Arkansas 764,776 764,776 0 0 

California 26,112,429 26,112,429 0 0 

Colorado 2,184,770 2,184,770 0 0 

Connecticut 1,519,750 1,519,750 0 0 

Delaware 500,000 500,000 0 0 

District of Columbia 1,092,276 1,092,276 0 0 

Florida 8,265,302 8,265,302 0 0 

Georgia 3,120,798 3,120,798 0 0 

Hawaii 703,523 703,523 0 0 

Idaho 500,000 500,000 0 0 

Illinois 6,316,656 6,316,656 0 0 

Indiana 2,184,711 1,987,583 197,128 9.0

Iowa 1,336,412 1,336,412 0 0 

Kansas 1,549,330 1,549,330 0 0 

Kentucky 1,741,339 1,741,339 0 0 

Louisiana 1,358,484 1,358,484 0 0 

Maine 771,350 771,350 0 0 

Maryland 3,048,143 2,635,510 412,633 13.5

Massachusetts 3,242,220 2,859,297 62,350 1.9

Michigan 5,235,404 5,235,404 0 0 

Minnesota 2,063,393 2,063,393 0 0 

Mississippi 758,148 758,148 0 0 

Missouri 3,303,069 3,303,069 0 0 

Montana 500,000 500,000 0 0 

Nebraska 1,586,304 1,586,304 0 0 

Nevada 500,000 498,650 1,350 0.3 

New Hampshire 500,000 500,000 0 0 

New Jersey 2,844,433 2,844,433 0 0 

New Mexico 500,000 500,000 0 0 

New York 11,588,972 11,588,972 0 0 

North Carolina 2,405,731 2,249,851 155,880 6.5

Appendix I: Fiscal Year 2004 Chafee Foster 

Care Independence Program: Final Funds 

Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal 

Treasury, by State
State 

Dollar amount

allocated

Dollar amount

expended

Dollar amount returned to 

the U.S. Treasury 

Percentage of allotment 

returned to the U.S. 

Treasury

North Dakota 500,000 457,425 42,575 8.5 

Ohio 5,310,180 5,310,180 0 0 

Oklahoma 2,230,667 2,230,667 0 0 

Oregon 2,216,643 2,216,643 0 0 

Pennsylvania 5,341,822 5,279,535 62,287 1.2

Puerto Rico 2,124,039 2,124,039 0 0 

Rhode Island 611,725 611,725 0 0 

South Carolina 1,238,495 1,238,495 0 0 

South Dakota 500,000 500,000 0 0 

Tennessee 2,353,574 2,353,574 0 0 

Texas 5,413,220 5,412,566 654 0 (0.01) 

Utah 500,000 500,000 0 0 

Vermont 500,000 500,000 0 0 

Virginia 1,710,740 1,710,740 0 0 

Washington 2,332,664 2,332,664 0 0 

West Virginia 769,310 769,310 0 0 

Wisconsin 1,955,276 1,955,276 0 0 

Wyoming 500,000 498,996 1,004 0.2 

Total $137,900,000 a. $136,643,566 $935,861 0% (.001%) 

Source: Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives via the

Congressional Research Service presentation of HHS data, July 2007. 

a

The total mandatory funds for this program are $140 million. However, the statute provides that a 

certain percentage of those funds be set aside for HHS to conduct (or fund) research, evaluation, and 

technical assistance. 

Page 26 GAO-07-1097T 
Page 27 GAO-07-1097T 

State 

Dollar 

amount allocated

Dollar 

amount expended

Dollar amount returned 

to the U.S. Treasury 

Percentage of allotment 

returned to the

U.S. Treasury

Alabama $501,312 $501,312 $0 0% 

Alaska 179,694 158,938 20,756 11.6 

Arizona 524,273 524,273 0 0 

Arkansas 249,575 249,575 0 0 

California 8,519,233 8,452,447 66,786 0.8

Colorado 712,785 712,785 0 0 

Connecticut 495,822 495,822 0 0 

Delaware 73,625 73,625 0 0 

District of Columbia 270,123 270,123 0 0 

Florida 2,696,572 2,106,077 590,495 21.9

Georgia 1,018,431 1,018,431 0 0 

Hawaii 229,526 228,762 764 0.3 

Idaho 103,074 71,429 31,645 30.7 

Illinois 2,060,822 2,060,822 0 0 

Indiana 712,952 712,952 0 0

Iowa 436,007 436,007 0 0 

Kansas 505,472 232,828 272,644 53.9 

Kentucky 568,115 383,562 184,553 32.5 

Louisiana 400,401 400,401 0 0 

Maine 251,655 224,651 27,004 10.7

Maryland 994,722 546,876 447,846 45.0 

Massachusetts 1,057,781 1,057,781 0 0 

Michigan 1,708,505 841,705 866,800 50.7 

Minnesota 673,186 633,908 39,278 5.7 

Mississippi 247,412 1,795 245,617 99.3 

Missouri 1,077,913 304,222 773,691 71.8 

Montana 157,066 157,066 0 0 

Nebraska 517,535 517,535 0 0 

Nevada 138,764 138,764 0 0 

New Hampshire 103,241 103,241 0 0 

New Jersey 928,002 928,002 0 0 

New Mexico 159,478 133,294 26,184 16.4 

New York 3,454,364 3,317,873 136,491 4.0 

North Carolina 785,079 785,079 0 0 

Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2004 Chafee 

Education and Training Vouchers: Funds 

Allotted, Expended, and Returned to Federal 

Treasury, by State
State 

Dollar 

amount allocated

Dollar 

amount expended

Dollar amount returned 

to the U.S. Treasury 

Percentage of allotment 

returned to the

U.S. Treasury

North Dakota 100,579 44,943 55,636 55.3 

Ohio 1,741,616 1,282,013 459,603 26.4

Oklahoma 727,760 692,465 35,295 4.9 

Oregon 723,184 424,309 298,875 41.3 

Pennsylvania 1,742,780 1,640,714 102,066 5.9

Puerto Rico 693,152 497,325 195,827 28.3 

Rhode Island 199,577 199,577 0 0 

South Carolina 404,061 404,061 0 0 

South Dakota 115,969 72,411 43,558 37.6 

Tennessee 767,858 637,334 130,524 17.0 

Texas 1,766,074 803,113 962,961 54.5 

Utah 150,993 150,993 0 0 

Vermont 120,794 120,794 0 0 

Virginia 558,132 312,991 245,141 43.9 

Washington 761,037 761,037 0 0 

West Virginia 250,989 250,989 0 0 

Wisconsin 637,913 554,677 83,236 13.1 

Wyoming 87,518 87,518 0 0 

Total $44,062,503 $37,719,227 $6,343,276 14.4%

Source: Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives via the

Congressional Research Service presentation of HHS data, July 2007. 

Page 28 GAO-07-1097T 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER