Expand the Safety Net for Homeless and Human Trafficked Youth

Increase Youth-Appropriate Housing and Services

  1. Invest in Incremental Increases in Runaway and Homeless Youth Act Programs

    Even assuming the lowest estimate available of 46,000 homeless youth found under HUD’s 2013 point-in-time survey or the 58,000 unaccompanied homeless youth documented by the U.S. Department of Education, we currently have less than 4,200 bed spaces available for homeless youth in the entire nation. The federal government must address this critical shortage of shelter and housing for vulnerable youth. Without housing stability, youth will continue to face violence, sexual assault and exploitation, health degradation, and recruitment to crime. The federal investment through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) has proven to be a cost-effective safety net for young people who run away, are thrown out, or are exiting other systems of care and become disconnected from families.

    The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) (P.L. 110-378) provides foundational support to address youth and young adult homelessness across the country. RHYA funds three key pillars of intervention to help homeless youth: street outreach, emergency shelters for minors and transitional living programs for youth between the ages of 16 and 22. Additionally, a national communications system (National Runaway Safeline) and national training and technical assistant enter (Runaway and Homeless Youth Training and Technical Assistance Center) are created by this act.

Triple RHYA’s Investment to $345 Million by 2020

ACTUAL to meet 2020 goal: Invest $38.5 million every year
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
$114 M $152.5 M $191 M $229.5 M $268 M $306.5 M $345 M
  1. HUD Should Implement New Strategies to Increase Youth-Appropriate Housing Opportunities for Homeless Youth

    While the focus on chronic and veteran homelessness is vital, and working to meet the goal to end chronic and veteran homelessness by 2015 is laudable, HUD has not yet offered housing opportunities to youth facing a future of chronic homelessness. Less than 1% of all federal funding for affordable housing is targeted to vulnerable, homeless youth ($44 million out of $38 billion). In 2012, 633,782 people were counted as homeless by HUD. Over 46,000 youth were counted in 2013–which represents over 7 percent of the homeless population captured in the count. HUD must begin to ensure that its grants are appropriately distributed to all populations experiencing homelessness. Programs offering youth-focused shelter, services, and supportive housing are the last barrier standing between a youth in crisis and homelessness, human trafficking, sexual exploitation, victimization, criminal justice involvement, chronic homelessness, and death.Through the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), HUD incentivizes funding particular housing interventions and services. While it is up to each Continuum of Care (CoC) to identify the funding priorities in its community, HUD’s NOFA establishes the funding criteria for a two-year period and creates funding priorities based on the points assigned (or not given) to the various housing models included in the application. To date, homeless youth providers have not been assigned an elevated point value in a NOFA; this leaves CoCs with no incentive to include youth providers in their application.

    The most recent NOFA, for 2013 and 2014, continued its trend to both reward good performance and prioritize achieving goals of ending homelessness among varied populations. Based on this method, two factors have a significant impact on what funding requests are included in the NOFA to HUD: 1) what HUD considers to be “good performance” and 2) the staggered goals to end the four categories of homelessness enumerated in Opening Doors, the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness.

    Given their vulnerability and incidence, HUD should incentivize funding youth-appropriate housing and services for homeless youth (both minors and 18 to 24 year olds) through the NOFA. Also, to increase youth programs integration into local CoCs, youth programs performance should be based on youth specific outcome measures.

    Outcome measures should be tailored to account for the uniqueness of an unaccompanied homeless youth who: (1) are still developing—they are adults-in-progress; (2) enter into homeless with little or no work experience; (3) are limited in their educational attainment due to homelessness; (4) experience high levels of criminal victimization, including human trafficking and sexual exploitation; (5) often enter into homelessness without life skills such as cooking, money management and job searching; and (6) face many challenges as a minor when trying to access support and services because they have limited rights.

Increase Education and Employment Success

  1. Invest in Incremental Increases in the McKinney-Vento Act’s Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) Act Program

    The McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Act requires school districts to remove barriers to the enrollment, attendance, and opportunity to succeed in school for homeless children and youth. All school districts are required to designate a homeless liaison, pro-actively identify homeless children and youth, and provide transportation to stabilize the educational experiences of homeless students.

    Homelessness is associated with a higher likelihood of multiple school transfers, missing school, dropping out, and/or lower standardized test scores. Many education initiatives fail to reach homeless students because they assume youth are in school, stable, and regularly attending. Homeless students often require additional supports if they are to be able to participate in any educational program. Indeed, the most promising instructional strategy or academic program will be of little benefit to youth who have not been identified, cannot get to school, or who are constantly changing schools due to the instability of their homeless situation.

    In addressing the unique needs of homeless youth, the McKinney-Vento Act’s EHCY program is unique among federal education programs. It is the only program to focus on the identification of children and youth experiencing homelessness, who would otherwise remain invisible. It is also the only program charged to remove barriers to homeless children and youth’s school enrollment, attendance, and success. Lack of funding to meet the growing number of homeless students has undermined the law, leading to under-identification of homeless students, increased school mobility, and gaps in enrollment.

    Due to the low funding levels fewer only 22% of school districts in the United States are touched by EHCY money in spite of the 85% increase in homeless children and youth since the 2006-2007 school-year. A significant funding increase would bolster implementation and services to homeless youth across the country.

Triple EHCY’s Investment to $195 Million by 2020

ACTUAL to meet 2020 goal: $21.6 million investment every year
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
$65 M $86.6 M $108.3 M $130 M $151.6 M $173.3 M $195 M
  1. Re-engage Homeless Youth with Education

    Research shows that approximately half of homeless youth do not finish high school.1 Deliberate efforts are needed to re-engage these youth with education. High school reform and dropout prevention and recovery activities at the federal and state levels should be required to implement strategies specifically targeted at homeless youth. Such strategies should include resources to provide youth with housing, mentorship and other intensive services to support their educational success. In addition, dropout prevention and recovery staff should receive specific training on homelessness and conduct specific outreach to unaccompanied youth.

    Homeless youth must be afforded opportunities to recover credits lost during periods of homelessness. Access to credit recovery programs must be facilitated. Most of these programs share certain key features, including a high degree of individualized support, flexible scheduling, an emphasis on career education and employment, rolling enrollment, the ability for students to work at their own pace. By allowing youth to work at their own pace and outside typical school hours, credit recovery programs can greatly accelerate students’ graduation. Particularly for older unaccompanied youth, this flexibility can be the key to their success. Further investment in credit recovery and other alternative education programs will provide many unaccompanied youth the opportunity to meet their educational and professional goals.

    Finally, schools and homeless youth providers must collaborate in engaging homeless youth in school. McKinney-Vento State Coordinators and local liaisons should be required to collaborate with runaway and homeless youth providers specifically. Formal collaborative agreements between local school districts and runaway and homeless youth providers should be encouraged in every community with an RHY provider. Such agreements, including Memoranda of Understanding, intake and enrollment cooperation, joint trainings and outreach, and collaborative efforts to facilitate access to shelter and housing, should be part of the scoring of McKinney-Vento EHCY grants and RHY grants.

  1. Enable Unaccompanied Homeless Youth to Access Higher Education and Succeed

    • Amend Regulatory FAFSA Definition of Homeless Youth:
      The U.S. Department of Education has imposed a definition of “youth” for the FAFSA that creates barriers to financial aid for unaccompanied homeless youth who are 22 and 23 years old. The Application and Verification Guide (AVG), and the notes for FAFSA questions 55-57, define “youth” as being 21 years of age or younger or currently enrolled in high school. However, youth must be 24 years old in order to be considered an independent student. Thus, according to the FAFSA, unaccompanied homeless youth who are 22 or 23 years old are not considered independent students. The statutory language of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act does not support such a limitation. In fact, the Act does not include any age limits for this population, nor do the other statutory definitions of “homelessness” or “unaccompanied youth” that are referenced in the Act.In order to fulfill the statutory language and to ensure that all unaccompanied homeless youth under 24 can benefit from the new independent student definition and are therefore able to pursue postsecondary education, we recommend either deleting the definition of “youth” from the FAFSA guidelines, or defining youth as 23 years of age or younger, aligning it with the statute’s clear intention to ensure access to financial aid for all unaccompanied homeless youth and those who are self-supporting and at risk of homelessness.
    • House homeless youth and former foster youth while they are attending colleges and universities-even during breaks in the school year:
      RHYA programs regularly assist youth in attaining higher education, including attending 4-year colleges and universities. An issue faced by many of these young coeds is the lack of housing options during breaks and holidays. Returning to a shelter for a winter break is disruptive for the student and there is no guarantee of bed availability. Summer breaks pose an even greater obstacle and many homeless youth find themselves with few options.Colleges and Universities should prioritize allowing homeless and foster youth to remain in campus housing during all breaks.2 For example, colleges and universities can use Student Support Services dollars for housing during breaks. The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 allows Student Support Services programs to secure temporary housing during breaks in the academic year for homeless students and students from foster care. Colleges and universities should work with Student Support Services programs on their campuses to find the best way to utilize these dollars for housing for homeless and foster youth. If there are no Student Support Services programs on campus, colleges and universities should work with agencies that can supplement the cost of housing during school breaks.Additionally, many homeless and foster youth attend higher education institutions that do not offer on-campus housing. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Education should collaborate to provide housing for youth who are attending higher education institutions and have nowhere safe to live and no resources to pay for housing.

Increase Prevention and Early Intervention

Intervening early after a runaway episode or after a youth has been homeless for a short period of time minimizes the negative impacts from living on the streets. Provision of early intervention services is crucial not only for reunification of youth with their families, but to decrease the chance of later crises that could result in additional homelessness episodes.

  1. Family Intervention

    With family conflict being the number one cause of youth homelessness, providing relevant and appropriate family intervention services for youth and their families is vital. Working with families to reduce conflict by giving them the tools to communicate more effectively and address the root of their issues appropriately keeps youth in their homes, out of child welfare, and off the streets. Additionally, preventing family homelessness can help reduce the number of children and youth who become homeless. Programs in schools targeting families who are at-risk or already homeless with case management services is critical. Keeping families together through family preservation services can prevent the generational cycle of homelessness.

  2. Increase Residential Mental Health Beds

    Many communities across the country have seen a drastic reduction in the number of residential mental health beds for adolescents. While the movement to increase supports in the home and in the community are important and a blessing for families that can keep their child in the home, the loss of residential beds has meant that youth with significant mental health needs who are unable to remain in their homes are now accessing runaway and homeless youth programs and when those beds are unavailable, or the program cannot safely serve them, spend more time on the streets while their mental health needs remain unmet.

  3. Basic Center Program- Emergency Shelter for Minors as Prevention and Early Intervention

    Runaway and homeless youth shelters for minors are, by definition, short term and emergency-based. Much like a domestic violence shelter, the unstable housing is often due to safety concerns. When a minor accesses a runaway and homeless youth Basic Center Program (BCP), it may be the first time the youth has stepped forward to say something is wrong in the home. BCPs seek to find immediate counseling and support services for the entire family in order for the minor to return home or to live with other trusted family members. This intervention signals a need for increased services within the family, and when responded to appropriately, can prevent future episodes of running away or being kicked out by parents. These supports and family interventions can also prevent a youth from entering the more costly foster care or juvenile justice systems.

Increase Support for Homeless Young Families

Homeless youth are at particularly high risk for teen pregnancy; research indicates as many as 20% of homeless youth become pregnant and many of these youth go on to become parents.3 In addition, many young parents become homeless when the additional financial responsibilities of caring for a child are too much to bear. Homeless parents tend to be young and have very low incomes, with average household incomes at 41 percent of the poverty level. Additional supports for this group early can help break the cycle of intergenerational homelessness.

  1. Prevent Homeless Young Families from Entering the Child Welfare System

    The inherent instability in their living situations can lead to child welfare involvement. However, research shows that involvement in the child welfare system often leads to dismal outcomes and homelessness later in life. Nationally, 26% of homeless adults and 34% of homeless young people aged 20-24 spent time in the care of the child welfare system. Among homeless teenagers aged 18-19, the figure jumps to 61%: six of every ten homeless 18- and 19-year olds were in the care of the child welfare system.4

    In addition, two related studies found that youth placed in foster care had higher rates of teen pregnancy, juvenile arrests, young adult crime and youth unemployment than those experiencing similar levels of neglect or abuse but left with their parents (with standard family preservation services).5 Another study comparing children left in their own homes with comparably-maltreated children placed in foster care found that the children left in their own homes did better, even when the birth families received little or no help.6

    Rather than bring young homeless families into the child welfare system, resources should be targeted at helping them find housing, employment, child care and early education, and other supports needed to keep the family safe and together.

  2. Ensure Homeless Young Families Have Access to Child Care and Early Childhood Education.

    Parenting young people have increased difficulty attending school or work regularly. Without access to child care and early childhood education, it is extremely difficult for homeless parenting youth to secure stable housing. Researchers examining welfare recipients’ entrance into the workforce have found that access to child care facilitates this transition and that regular child care arrangements are associated with greater job stability and retention.7

    Early childhood education can also prevent homelessness among the children of homeless teens. High quality preschool education and early learning have been shown to increase high school graduation rates, lead to greater employment and wages as adults, and lower rates of teen pregnancy. Eliminating barriers to childcare and early childhood education, and prioritizing young homeless families for access to these programs, helps prevent homelessness.

Increase State Capacity to Implement Intervention Models to End Youth Homelessness

The USICH found that, “There is currently no definitive way to predict which youth will need intensive services to avoid chronic or recurring homelessness. This preliminary intervention model is proposed based on risk and protective factors that can help communities manage limited resources in a more strategic and effective way. Data collected will also be used to build an evidence base of the most effective interventions for different subsets of homeless youth.”

  1. $50 million in new funding to develop and evaluate “research-informed intervention models”

    Based upon the Framework to End Youth Homelessness developed by the 19 federal agencies comprising the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, we call upon a national initiative to develop and implement homeless youth intervention models in all 50 states. The USICH has called upon the federal government to support the following:

    • Development of research-informed intervention models for homeless youth;
    • Identification of screening and assessment tools to identify each youth’s strengths and needs;
    • Dissemination of intervention models;
    • Development and evaluation of innovations in service delivery for homeless youth; and
    • Creating strategies to build and coordinate service capacity for scaling up screening, assessment, and interventions.8

    The USICH proposes to “use Federal demonstration funds and other public and private investments to put the intervention model into practice and evaluate promising practices for youth experiencing homelessness . . . These models should be evaluated, and lessons from evaluations should be used to inform better practices for ending youth homelessness.” The intervention models will give our nation better data on “what works well and for whom.” However, significant costs will be incurred to plan, implement, coordinate, and evaluate the intervention models across the United States. Local communities and small nonprofit agencies lack the capital, service funding, and research capacity to design and start research-informed intervention models.

    The National Network estimates that at least $50 million should be appropriated by U.S. Congress each year for five years to seed and implement research-driven intervention models in every state to offer adequate development and allow for longitudinal research efforts. Results from these preliminary projects will inform national policy and allow the U.S. to “go to scale” to get to better outcomes for homeless youth in the areas of stable housing, permanent connections, education or employment, and individual health and well-being. These demonstration projects are not intended to result in creating state-administered runaway and homeless youth programs, but for states to serve as the coordinator of developing “research-informed intervention models.”

Invest in Better Data and Research

  1. Periodic National Studies on the Prevalence, Needs, and Characteristics of Runaway and Homeless Youth

    A national study has never been conducted to accurately estimate the number of runaway and homeless youth in America. 2013 was the first year that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development endeavored to count homeless youth. The definition of “homelessness” used in the HUD PIT count is not the same definition of homeless youth in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and other federal programs. The HUD definition is narrower and excludes youth who are “couch surfing” which describes young people who are staying in the home of someone that is not a parent or guardian, they could be a stranger, acquaintance or friend.

    The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act first authorized periodic estimates of the incidence and prevalence of youth homelessness in America in 2008 and calls for a periodic estimate to be conducted every five years. This study has never been conducted because U.S. Congress has never appropriated any money towards this research.

    U.S. Congress should appropriate $3 million dollars to HHS every five years so that this periodic study can be conducted to determine the scale of the need and the most effective interventions, housing models, and services to direct to America’s homeless youth population.

  1. Compilation of Annual Numbers Collected from Multiple Sources

    Because homeless youth touch or fall through the cracks of so many different public systems and programs, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness or another federal agency should prepare an annual report that includes the following data points. This compilation of data will aid policymakers in identifying what systems are improving their outcomes and where more resources need to be targeted.

    1. U.S. Department of Education (ED)

      The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED’s) Office of Elementary and Secondary Education requires all State Educational Agencies (SEAs) and Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) to submit information about children and youth experiencing homelessness. This information enables ED, under the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Act (EHCY) Program, to determine the extent to which States ensure that children and youth experiencing homelessness have access to a free and appropriate public education. The purpose of the EHCY Program, authorized under Title VII, Subtitle B, of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.), is to improve educational outcomes for children and youth in homeless situations. The data reported to ED from SEAs and LEAs parses out the children and youth who are homeless in families and unaccompanied homeless youth (youth who are homeless and on their own). The number of unaccompanied homeless youth recorded by LEAs is extremely helping in informing HUD where minor-appropriate housing and services should be targeted for unaccompanied homeless youth.

    2. Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)

      In addition to a periodic national study of the incidence, prevalence, and characteristics of homeless youth in America, additional mandatory questions on the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)9 would capture more data about the number of children and youth experiencing homelessness every year who are still attending school. The YRBS specifically targets youth in grades 9–12 enrolled in high school. It was developed by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to assess categories of health risk behaviors among youth. We recommend that the CDC adds at least two mandatory questions to the YRBS to gather more comprehensive information than ED currently captures from unaccompanied homeless youth attending public schools.

    3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Point-in-Time (PIT) Count Should Implement Promising Practices for Counting Homeless Youth

      2013 was the first year that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) endeavored to count homeless youth. The homeless youth counted in HUD’s Point-in-Time (PIT) count and those eligible for HUD homelessness assistance are different. This is problematic because the purpose of the count is to determine what resources each community needs to serve their homeless population. If a population is eligible for HUD homelessness assistance and are not included in the PIT count, it sends a message that the homeless population excluded from the count is: 1) not a priority; and/or 2) not eligible for HUD homelessness assistance. Additionally, neither the criteria for who is counted in the PIT count nor the criteria for who is eligible for HUD homelessness assistance is the same as the definition of homeless youth in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and other federal programs. The HUD definition is narrower and largely excludes youth who are “couch surfing.” Also, if a homeless youth is staying in a motel that isn’t being paid for by a government or public agency, that young person is not eligible for HUD homelessness assistance, nor is the young person counted as homeless.

      HUD’s PIT count has yielded an under-count for homeless youth populations. Implementing the promising practices identified in the Youth Count! Process Study conducted by the Urban Institute is likely to expand the number of youth who are surveyed to go beyond just youth found on the street.10 Some of the promising practices include engaging youth service providers and LGBT partners, involving youth in counts, conducting magnet events, conducting counts during warm weather, and using social media to raise awareness. Also, including homeless youth who are not living on the streets or in shelters would allow for increased accuracy in counting the number of homeless youth in America.

    4. Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA)

      Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) grantees are required to collect and report certain information and data about both the clients (youth and families) that contact their program and the clients that the program serves. This information is important national data about the currently available youth-appropriate services in comparison to the need. Of course, this data is limited based on the amount of funding the program receives, which determines the number of RHYA-funded programs that exist in communities across America.11 In spite of this limitation, the program-level data collected is informative and can tell us:

      • How many youth and/or parents contact the RHYA program for housing, services, referrals, etc.
      • The number and demographics of the clients served in each program
      • The length of stay of each client in the program
      • Where the client lives upon exiting the program
      • The number of clients placed on the waitlist and length of time on this list
      • How many RHYA grant applications FYSB receives versus the number of awards granted
    5. Foster Care System Child Welfare Agency Runaway, Missing and Exit Data

      Because of the well-documented link between the foster care system and runaway and homeless youth in America, data from the foster care system is relevant to indicating need and location for interventions, services, and housing. In particular, the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) collects case-level information on all children in foster care and those who have been adopted with Title IV-E agency involvement. The annual data that is the most relevant to homeless includes: the number of youth who run away from foster care placements, the number of youth that exit or emancipate from the foster care system, and the number of youth ages 13 to 17 that enter the foster care system.

    6. Juvenile Justice System

      The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), administered by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), is conducted biennially and provides the nation with the most detailed picture of juveniles in custody ever produced. The CJRP asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the U.S. to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on the last Wednesday in October. This census should add questions to capture the following information:

      • Where did the youth live prior to entry in juvenile detention?
      • Where does the youth plan to reside upon leaving detention?
      • Where does the youth live while on probation?
  1. More Cross-Agency Evaluations of Different Services and Housing Interventions for Runaway and Homeless Youth

    Crucial to a comprehensive strategy for ending youth homelessness is ongoing evaluation of existing programs to expand on the effectiveness of existing housing models, interventions, and services that help homeless youth reach long-term stability. Among homeless youth service providers there are several commonly accepted best practices for moving youth from homelessness to long-term self-sufficiency. This combination of practice-informed knowledge and evidence-based approaches needs to be bolstered with cross-agency evaluations. The USICH Framework to End Youth Homelessness calls for a capacity strategy that scales up effective interventions at the national level through the development of shared outcomes, evaluation, and capacity building.12 Flexible federal investment is needed to fund collaborative efforts to evaluate, refine, and scale up effective intervention models. U.S. Congress should appropriate money to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) to administer, conduct, and oversee the development of shared outcomes and evaluation of existing programs serving homeless youth across multiple federal agencies.

  1. National Household Survey

    This survey would be similar to NISMART-1 and NISMART-2, which captured household data estimating the number of: nonfamily abduction; family abduction; runaway/throwaway; missing involuntary, lost, or injured; and missing benign explanation. The methodology was household surveys. A similar household survey could be conducted to get a national estimate of the number of youth who experience homelessness each year. One limitation that would likely exist is how willing survey participants will be to honestly admit to allowing a stranger or known young person sleep at their home. They may be dishonest because they violated their lease agreement by allowing the young person stay at their home or are fearful of law enforcement. Also, in some instances, parents in households are not always aware that youth are temporarily staying at their home at night. However, the methodology can likely improve over time and would be helpful to conduct periodically to assess our progress on preventing and ending youth homelessness in America.


1. Burt, M. R. (2007). Understanding homeless youth, characteristics, multisystem involvement, and intervention options. Testimony Before the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
2. National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, National Center for Housing & Child Welfare and National Network for Youth. (November 2013). A Home for the Holidays: Five Things Your Campus Can Do To Help Homeless and Foster Youth. Retrieved from: nn4youth.orgs/network-news/2013/12/06/nn4y-partners-launch-campaign-home-holidays
3. Thompson, S., Bender, K., Watkins, R. (2008). Runaway and Pregnant: Risk Factors Associate with Pregnancy in a National Sample of Runaway/Homeless Female Adolescent, The Journal of adolescent health: official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, Retrieved from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2742657
4. J.M. Firdion. (2004). Homelessness, Poverty and Foster Care. Encyclopedia of Homelessness. Retrieved from: brown.edu/Departments/Sociology/faculty/silver/sirs/papers/firdion.pdf
5. Doyle, J. (2007). Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effects of Foster Care. American Economic Review, 97(5): 1583-1610; Doyle, J (2008). Child Protection and Adult Crime: Using Investigator Assignment to Estimate Causal Effects of Foster Care. Journal of Political Economy, 116(4).
6. Egeland, B., et. al. (2006). The impact of foster care on development. Development and Psychopathology, 18: 57–76.
7. Lee S, Wu L. (2004). Work supports, job retention, and job mobility among low-income mothers. WPR Publication No. B247P.
8. United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2013). Framework to end youth homelessness: A resource text for dialogue and action. Retrieved from: usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/USICH_Youth_Framework__FINAL_02_13_131.pdf.
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). Retrieved from cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/
10. Pergamit, M., Cunningham, M., But, M., Lee, P., Howell, B., & Bertumen, K. (2013). Youth Count! Process Report. Washingotn, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved from urban.org/UploadedPDF/412872-youth-count-process-study.pdf
11. Since 2009, Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) (P.L.110-378) programs have been flat-funded at $114 to $115 million per fiscal year. This funding is far from meeting the urgent needs of all runaway and homeless youth in America. See Fernandes-Alcantara, A. (October 23, 2014). Runaway and Homeless Youth Act: Current Issues for Reauthorization. Page 20.
12. U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2010). Opening Doors – Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness.