In most cases, states received an increase of  funds. Some states were unable to spend all of their federal allocations in the first  2 years of increased funding under the program. A number of factors may have contributed to these differences,  including gaps in the availability of critical services, such as mental health  services, mentoring, and housing, as well as challenges in engaging youth  and foster parents to participate in the program. FCIA Allowed States to Serve Younger and Emancipated Youth and to Improve Services for All Youth in Independent Living Programs

After the passage of FCIA, 40 states reported in our survey expanding  services to youth younger than they had previously served, and 36 states  reported serving older youth, and the states we visited reported improving  service quality. States Reported Barriers to Establishing Linkages between the Independent Living Programs and Other Youth-Serving Programs

While table 3 shows that states are using a wide variety of programs to  provide independent living services, officials in the 4 states we visited  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. States’ and HHS’s Actions in Response to FCIA Requirements Have Not Yet Established Accountability for Independent Living Programs

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 level to monitor how well the programs are working to serve foster  youth. HHS reported that it expects to issue guidance in the form  of a proposed regulation in 2005. Oversight is similarly hindered by a lack of standard  monitoring practices across ACF regional offices. While ACF is developing  an information system that may address some of these limitations, it may  be unavailable for several years. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To determine how states’ funding allocations changed to serve youth after  the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA), we analyzed federal  funding to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico for  independent living programs before and after the passage of FCIA. To perform this comparison, we used data  reported by states to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)  in the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)  on the numbers of eligible youth in foster care within each state in federal  fiscal year 2002. To determine the extent to which states expanded independent living  services and age groups of foster youth served since the passage of FCIA,  as well as what challenges remain, we surveyed all 50 states, the District of  Columbia, and Puerto Rico through a Web-based questionnaire. To determine to what extent states used other federal and state programs  to coordinate the delivery of independent living services to foster youth,  we surveyed states using the above-mentioned survey instrument. Assessing the Effects of Foster Care: Early Results from the Casey  National Alumni Study.
Why GAO Did This Study

To improve outcomes for youth leaving foster care, Congress passed the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA), which increased the allocation of federal funds for independent living programs from $70 million to $140 million. This report reviews (1) how states' funding allocations changed to serve youth after FCIA, (2) the extent to which states have expanded services and age groups of foster youth served since 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 services to foster youth, and (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.

What GAO Found

The doubling of federal funding for independent living programs has resulted in most states receiving an increase in funds. Although some states had difficulty expanding their program infrastructure in the first 2 years of increased funding, the amount of funds states returned to HHS declined the second year. Differences in funding also appeared in the amounts available per eligible foster care youth. Following the passage of FCIA, 40 states reported in our survey expanding independent living services to younger youth, and 36 states expanded services to older youth, but gaps remain in providing some key services to youth. State differences in serving youth may have been caused by gaps in the availability of critical services, such as mental health services, mentoring, and housing, as well as challenges engaging youth and foster parents to participate in the program. Almost all states that we surveyed reported increased levels of coordination under FCIA, but linkages with other federal and state youth-serving programs were not always in place to increase services available across local areas. Despite some coordination efforts, states may not make full use of available resources. One of the barriers in linking program services reported by the 4 states we visited included the inconsistent availability of information on the array of programs that were operating in each state and local area. 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. All states submitted required plans and reports, but the absence of a uniform reporting format and lack of standard monitoring practices among HHS regional offices hindered assessments of state performance. HHS is developing an information system that may improve program accountability and reported that it expects to issue a proposed regulation in 2005.